Thinking Pinoy

Miss Pia Rañada-Robles, let me explain why you got bashed.

At 9:16 PM last night, Duterte Today (DT) posted a status update claiming that the Roxas Night Market, the site of the fateful bombing incident, has resumed business on the evening of 04 Sept 2016.

Two hours later in the comments section, Rappler reporter Pia Rañada-Robles asked:

Hi Duterte Today! May I know what date and time these photos were taken? I just came from Roxas Avenue and I didn't see this. It was an empty street, save for the shrine and a few vendors. (see my photo below taken around 11 pm on Sept 4, 2016)

Duterte Today readers took offense on your post and you got bashed as a result, with some commenters even going as far as calling you “bugo”, which is Bisaya for idiot.

Then this morning, Rañada-Robles replied on that same comment thread with:

“Hello! The Roxas Night Market, from what I remember, ends at 12 am. That is why I asked what time the photos were taken because normally it would have still been open by the time I had arrived. I don't understand where the malice is in my question as some of the commenters have been imputing. I asked the question in order to obtain more answers and clarifications about the situation. Asking questions is what reporters do. What's the problem?”

I am not really sure if understanding context clues, or even the ability to read previous comments is part of, as Rañada-Robles puts it, “what reporters do”. However, if she actually bothered to read the comments, the answers are already there.
Let me spell this out for Rañada-Robles not only for her benefit but also for the benefit of every member of the national mainstream media who may have probably experienced the same.

So, Ms. Pia Rañada-Robles, let me spell this out for you.

Major Trust Issues

I think Rappler’s general reputation is hardly debatable from the point of view of the Duterte crowd, and you know what I mean. Just look at how your organization tried to irresponsibly stir up the anti-Duterte noise just a few days before the elections with your poorly-researched Duterte P. Guevarra Property article [TP: P Guevarra].

You commented on Duterte Today, a Duterte-leaning page, so you can expect a Duterte-leaning crowd to read your comment. And that’s exactly what happened. The Duterte crowd isn't very fond of Rappler, then add the fact that the Duterte crowd generally doesn’t like you in particular.
Let me cite two examples.

In June 2016, you disrespected Duterte in front of his face [TP: Big Ego]. Yes, you can argue the justifications for your actions, but the fact remains that Duterte supporters will see it at an act of condescension against the president. They will obviously not like you for that.

You say that you are a reporter.

Now, a reporter’s job is to relay the news, and not pretend to be a part of the morality police. Reserve that for opinion-editorial (Op-Ed) columnists, and you weren’t in that press conference in that capacity.

In August 2016, in another Rappler article, you reported what you perceived to be Duterte’s threat to Chief Justice Sereno [TP: Martial Law]. Instead of just reporting what happened like what’s expected from news reporters, you editorialized that article. To make matters worse, your “insights” leave much to be desired.

Stated simply, Rappler’s reputation, plus your recent history, makes Duterte supporters distrust you. That’s why Duterte supporters will interpret your words with greater suspicion, words that would have been innocuous if asked by someone from, say, Mindanation or SunStar Davao.

I am not saying that Duterte supporters are justified in their decision to distrust you. Instead, I am saying that you should stop asking why they act that way because you should already know why.

Duterte supporters see you as a reporter with a questionable agenda.

Trust can be rebuilt and you had the opportunity to do that in the comment, but you didn't take advantage of it.

Callousness versus Empathy

Communication is a two-way street. Quid pro quo. Give something before you ask someone to give something in return. When a crowd doesn’t trust you, the least you can do is to empathize with them before you ask them to do your bidding.Instead of prefacing your original comment with, “I am really sorry for what happened and I sincerely want to understand the situation,” you decided to go down to business right away. What message does that send? For a crowd who distrusts you, that translates to “I do not care about your grief but I need this information.”

Kyle Harland of the University of Wisconsin Center for Journalism Ethics wrote [UWisc]:

In the 1880s, Joseph Pulitzer hung a sign in the newsroom of his paper, the New York World, which read: “The World has no friends.” But this view of traditional objectivity in journalism is outdated.

A major reason for this is that the journalist’s ability to understand and connect with people is essential for learning about stories, and compassion allows journalists to do this more fully. In our current media environment that so often deals with victims of tragedy, a sense of compassion undoubtedly plays a part in journalists’ ability to understand people in the news.

You failed to show empathy. You failed to show compassion. Hence the readers’ animosity towards you.

Yes, I have chosen to use pointed language in my articles against mainstream journalists in the past several months, and I think your organization is well aware of that. The problem, however, is that journalists are expected to be thicker-skinned. Regular citizens, on the other hand, are not expected to be such.

Pia, set aside your spoiled brat mentality, be more sensitive of the plight of the tragedy’s victims, and you will be pleasantly surprised at how the crowd will react to you.

Prudence, or the lack of it

Your original Duterte Today comment can be broken into these bits:

First, you asked DT the exact time they took the Roxas Avenue pictures.
Second, you said it isn’t consistent with a photo you took that showed a practically deserted Roxas Avenue.
Third, you showed the photo you took.

Your comment, in general, wants to verify the authenticity of DT’s post. Fair enough.

The first bullet mentioned above is more than enough to elicit the information you needed. That is, you could have just said, “Hi Duterte Today! May I know what date and time these photos were taken?”

It would’ve saved you a lot of trouble if you just stopped right there. But that wasn’t enough for you. You felt (and heeded the) need to say it’s already practically deserted by 11 pm, with the photos to show for it, even if it was neither the right time nor the right place to say such a thing.

Your naivete or worse, your need to prove yourself right, got the better of you. While the second and third points were valid, they only served to put the DT sympathizers on the defensive, as you tacitly imputed that DT is an unreliable news site.

DT’s actual credibility is not the issue here. Instead, it’s the amalgamation of DT being one of the most vocal supporters of the tumultuous Duterte Campaign, and the trust that DT followers feel because of that.

Stated simply, your comment, aside from lacking compassion, also lacked prudence.

“What is the Problem?”

To wrap this article up, let me answer your follow up comment in the nicest possible way.

You said, “Hello! The Roxas Night Market, from what I remember, ends at 12 am. That is why I asked what time the photos were taken because normally it would have still been open by the time I had arrived.”

I say,” Fair point, but you lacked empathy.”

You said, “I don't understand where the malice is in my question as some of the commenters have been imputing.”

I say, “The malice stems from their collective distrust on you and Rappler, your organization.”

You said, “I asked the question in order to obtain more answers and clarifications about the situation.”

I say, "That is also correct, but you also asked for bashing when you gave too much information."

You said, “Asking questions is what reporters do. What's the problem?”

I say, “Because you basically acted like a self-entitled, self-absorbed prick. That’s the problem.”

Miss Rañada, a reporter is not just a reporter, she's expected to be human too. That's the problem. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

I support the Duterte Administration, but I criticize it when criticism is due, so here I go.

Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Assistant Secretary (ASec.) Ana Marie Banaag held a conference earlier today to explain President Rodrigo Duterte’s memorandum realting to the declaration of a State of Lawless Violence in the country.

Banaag read a memorandum signed by Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea.

Among other things, the memorandum stated:

No civil or political rights are suspended during the existence of a state of lawless violence. In particular, no warrantless arrests shall be effected unless the situation falls under any of the following circumstances among others:

(1) when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.

(2) when an offense has just been committed and an arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed the offense.

(3) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined where his case is pending.

(4) when the person arrested, or to be arrested, has voluntarily waived his right against warrantless arrest.

After reading the entire statement, Banaag accepted follow-up questions from the media corps. The first question was from Leila Salaveria from the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

PCO cites wrong law for warrantless arrests
Presidential Communications (Government of the Philippines) ASec. Ana Marie Banaag, the Revised Penal Code is not the actual basis for warrantless arrests.
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Salaveria asked, “ The rules on frisking, checkpoints, instances of warrantless arrests… are these actually newly crafted rules or already existing in laws and rules?”

Banaag answered, “They’re already existing. In fact, they are based on the constitution and based on the Revised Penal Code. So whether the proclamation (of the State of Lawless Violence) was issued or not, they still take effect. It (warrantless arrests) is still part of the law of the land.”

Therein lies the problem.

Citing the Constitution

What Banaag said was mostly true, however…

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but it’s incorrect to cite the constitution out of the blue. Why? Because many provisions in the constitution include the phrase “as defined by law” or “as provided by law”. This means that the provision require the enactment of an addition “enabling law” before it takes real-life effect.

For example, Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution specifically states:

The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

The constitution prohibits political dynasties but political dynasties abound. Why? Because there is yet to be an enabling law for this constitutional provision.
Banaag should have simply skipped citing the constitution and went straight to citing a specific Republic Act or Court Rule.

And she actually did, but there’s another problem.

Revised Penal Code? Not exactly

Aside from citing the constitution, Banaag also said warrantless arrests are based on the Revised Penal Code, otherwise known as Republic Act 3815.

There's a problem with this statement: the Revised Penal Code, while allowing for warrantless arrests, does NOT provide the specific exceptions to the prohibition on warrantless arrests.

The only most relevant provision on warrantless arrests in the Revised Penal Code is Article 269 which states:

Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.chanrobles virtual law library [RPC Art. 269].

Art. 269 states there may be exceptions to the requirement of arrest warrants, but it does not actually say what those provisions are.

RPC is correct, but it's not the best answer.

Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure? Yes.

Is there really a law or rule that allows warrantless arrests?

Yes, it’s the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Section 5, which states:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)

Sounds familiar?

Yes. This is pretty much the same words included in the memorandum, except that Sec. Medialdea’s memo didn’t mention the name of the law upon which the statements were based.

In short, it’s not the Revised Penal Code. Instead, it’s the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 133, Section 5.

Why does it matter?

So Banaag cited the wrong law, but does this issue really matter?
First, members of the opposition love to point out even the most trivial flaws in the Duterte Administration, so it’s essential to not give them additional ammunition.

Second, policemen and other law enforcement authorities may use Banaag’s inaccurate statement to justify warrantless arrests. We do not want these brave men to look stupid, of course.

Third, public confidence in the government’s competence is essential in any successful state. In the case of the Presidential Communications Office, it’s their job to be as accurate as possible when conveying the president’s messages.

With these said, I suggest that the PCO issue a notice on its Facebook Page to clarify this issue as soon as possible.[ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Duterte shifted geopolitical tides during the 2016 ASEAN Summit.

But before I go into that, it's important to get a little bit of context.

On July 21st and barely over a week after the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) decided on the South China Sea (SCS) issue, President Rodrigo Duterte asked US Ambassador Philip Goldberg, “Are you with us or are you not with us?”, to which Goldberg answered, “Only if you are attacked.”

Goldberg’s answer is technically correct: that’s how the 1951 PH-US Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) is worded.

But there’s a problem.

How the 1951 PH-US MDT works

Judging from the official text of the MDT [GovPH] and from the point of view of the Philippines, the “MDT algorithm” basically works like this:

First: try to settle international disputes through peaceful means.
Second: Filipinos will develop, with US help, its capacity to resist armed attack.
Third: Filipinos and American will talk regularly regarding threats.
Fourth: If an armed attack happens, United States will respond.
Fifth: If an armed attack happens, refer the issue to the UN Security Council.

The operative word here is “armed attack”, which the MDT defines as an [GovPH]:

…an armed attack on either of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or on the Island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific…

“Public vessel” means a non-commercial vessel owned or bareboat chartered and operated by the Republic of the Philippines, and political subdivision thereof [P.D. 600].
With this definition, attacks on Filipino commercial fishing vessels, which has become quite common, will not trigger MDT.

Triggering the MDT

Duterte’s question, however, less about whether the US will go to war with us and more about whether will take a stronger, pro-Philippines stance in as far as our South China Sea assertions.

That is, it appears that in that question to Goldberg, Duterte, in between the lines, asked, “Will the US help us enforce the PCA ruling?”

The answer, clearly, is no. But how did Goldberg’s seemingly favorable answer become a “no”?

The South China Sea issue is a sea dispute and the nearest undisputed Philippine terrestrial territory is the shore of Palawan Island over 100 kilometers away. Going by terms of the MDT, the only way to trigger it is through sending a Filipino public vessel (coast guard, navy, whatever). Given the dismal state of Philippine naval forces, we will be basically sending that public vessel to its doom.

Yes, Duterte may have to sacrifice Filipino lives just to trigger MDT.
I personally doubt that it will go that far. A full scale war between the United States and China is unlikely because of terribly complex and potentially apocalyptic geopolitical and economic ramifications on both sides. Besides, just imagine the prospective consternation of China’s massive and rising middle class. It’s just too complicated.

But just because war is unlikely doesn’t mean we’re already okay: Goldberg’s tacit “no” means a lot more than that.

SCS Resource Exploitation

Ambassador Goldberg’s answer “Only if you are attacked.” has at least one more important and more practical implication: SCS resource exploitation rights.

Fish is an important resource and competition over dwindling fish stocks [NatGeo] has been pointed out as one of the triggers of the dispute [TheDiplomat], where Chinese fishermen are forced to venture further south to find more fish. Yes, fewer fish might have triggered Chinese aggression, but I highly doubt that China will risk going to the brink of war just because of fish.

Aggression? Yes. War? No.

So what is it? Hydrocarbons, i.e. oil and natural gas. Energy Security, of course.Philex Petroleum’s 2011 attempt to exploit Reed Bank, which is a part of the contested area, is the open secret that catalyzed the PCA case [TP: Trillanes DFA and MVP], and everything that’s happening right now revolves around the PCA decision.

Now, suppose Philex Petroleum unilaterally asserts our sovereign rights over the 200-mile EEZ by starting to drill for oil or natural gas on Reed Bank and it sends ships there. The Chinese Navy can simply blow up those ships without fear of triggering the 1951 PH-US MDT.

Oil exploration ships are commercial in nature so they do not qualify as “public vessels” per MDT.

There is no viable way for the Philippines to defend ourselves by ourselves. We all know that, so MDT is crucial.

How about navy escorts?

Some camps may argue that we can send navy or coast guard ships to escort Philex Petroleum’s oil exploration ships. However, China can simply blow up oil exploration ships and leave the navy or coast guard ships unscathed. Technically, that won’t trigger MDT either, because the Chinese would have attacked only commercial ships.

Actually, China doesn’t even have to be that dramatic. All they need to do is park is their vessels in the area to be explored (or drilled). That would be more than enough to prevent Philex Petroleum from doing anything. What can Philex do? Nothing.

Yes, there will be a confrontation but no, there won’t be any “armed attacks”, because all China need to do is sit still, and I am pretty confident that China has enough ships to cover a sufficiently large area.

The bottom line: Without being friendlier to China, Filipinos will never be able to exploit South China Sea oil.

Put*ng Ina and the ASEAN Summit

Duterte is prone to emotional outbursts: everybody knows that. That’s why at first, I felt that the recent “son of a b*tch” incident [CBS] was one of those. However, Duterte’s subsequent actions appear to show a deeper, underlying reason.

Let’s recount key events after that incident:

1: Postponement of US-PH meeting

The United States wanting to postpone the meeting is a given [WSJ]. What’s more interesting however, is the Philippines’ agreement with this decision to postpone. Instead of appealing to the US for consideration, the Philippines suddenly found the proverbial balls to stand its ground.

Duterte, however, pushed through with a meeting with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang [CNN] and another meeting with Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev [PCO] That is, Duterte didn’t meet with the US, but he still met with China and Russia, the US’s two fiercest rivals.

2: Duterte skips ASEAN-India summit

Citing migraine, Duterte then decided to skip the ASEAN-US and ASEAN-India summits, where ASEAN leaders met with the US and Indian governments, respectively [NDTV].

Duterte skipping the ASEAN-US summit wouldn't have been that much of an issue if the cursing incident is considered. That's kind of expected, you know. However, the fact that he also skipped the ASEAN-India summit reinforces my suspicions that he really wants friendlier relations with China.

While China-India relations saw an upswing when Chinese President Xi Jinping visited India in 2014 [TheDiplomat], the relations between two countries are historically problematic, with border disputes being first on the list [IndiaExpress]. Moreover, India supports the Philippines on the South China Sea dispute [InToday].

Duterte was expected to meet with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi [Star], but the meeting didn’t push through.

3: Duterte’s “apology” to Obama, sort of

Duterte said in a statement that he “regrets that his remarks… have caused much controversy,” but he also said that the Philippines wants to assert “the intent to chart an independent foreign policy and promote closer ties with all nations [DFA handout].”

Despite Duterte and Obama shaking hands later on [PTV], the written “apology”, while still a de facto apology, is measuredly half-assed.

Duterte’s written statement states the Philippines’ intent to take a neutral stance on the US-China tug-o-war, as opposed to a generally pro-US policy that is has adopted since time immemorial.

4: Duterte on the ASEAN-East Asia Summit

The ASEAN-East Asia Summit, more commonly called the ASEAN Plus Three (10+3) Summit, is a meeting between ASEAN and the East Asian countries China, Japan, and South Korea [MB].

Despite Duterte raising the issue of Rule of Law over the South China Sea, he decided not to mention the controversial PCA ruling at any point in the entire summit. This should, at least slightly, please China.

Some may argue that any mention of the South China Sea will strain PH-CN ties. However, judging from how Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua positively reacted to Duterte’s borderline offensive jokes during the latter’s National Heroes’ Day speech [Video], it seems that China and Duterte have built a certain level of trust that affords the latter more rhetorical leeway.

To top it all off, Duterte had the gall to stray from a prepared speech as he reportedly cited – in front of ASEAN and East Asian leaders – US atrocities in the Philippines from 1898 to 1946. One delegate described the atmosphere in the room as "quiet and shocked" [TV5].

Essentially, Duterte’s message is akin to “The Philippines will not be a US lapdog anymore, but we will not turn into China’s lapdog either.”

Duterte’s Geopolitical Risk-taking

Anti-Duterte camps may simply dismiss these actions as disturbing evidences of Duterte’s excessive testosterone levels or worse, sheer ignorance of international policy. However, if the probable consequences of his actions in the past several days are to be considered, it appears that Duterte is playing his cards effectively.

I spoke with International Relations scholar Sass Rogando Sasot of The Hague’s Leiden University about this issue.

Sasot explained that Duterte is trying to assert ASEAN leadership. ASEAN members are all aware of the Americans’ lack of moral ascendancy over ASEAN. ASEAN knows that the US economy is sputtering so it’s better to look for opportunities somewhere else, such as China. They see the Americans as an obstacle towards partnering with China, with the Philippines as the American lap dogs.

Among the ASEAN members, the Philippines and Thailand are, historically, staunch allies of the United States. Thailand, while still a US ally, is not as close to the US as it once was. That is, the Philippines is the only ASEAN member who believes in American Supremacy.

“Everyone is already orbiting China and the only thing that the US can dangle to the ASEAN countries is a security guarantee against China. But if the Philippines and China can patch things up, what would that US military bargaining chip be useful for?,” Sasot said.

That is, if we are friendly with China, then there’s no need for security anymore.

PH economy hurting?

Some camps say the Philippine stock market suggests at least a minor stock market crash because of the Duterte gaffe [Indep]. Recently, however, markets across Asia have been generally weak, and the PSEi has even experienced a modest 0.63 percent uptick yesterday [BW].

Moreover, only 25% of Filipinos are financially literate [MT], so such downturns in the stock market should not affect the average Filipino family as much as, say, an American household, if the same thing were to happen to Dow Jones.

Sasot said, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is dead. The US cannot even persuade the European Union to impose sanctions against China after the latter’s alleged cybercrimes.”

On the cybercrime issue, the US settled for a rather underwhelming truce with China [BBC].

“Duterte opened a new era in ASEAN politics,” Sasot said.

As to whether this new era is good or bad for the Philippines, Sasot and I agreed that while Duterte is on a very manageable track, it’s best to wait for things to unfold. [ThinkingPinoy]

NOTE: Sass and I will be talking about this in the September 10th episode of KanTalk so she can correct me if necessary.

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

I made it! (Yehey!)

The Facebook block will be until 5:30 PM Wednesday 14 September 2016.

Reason for the block: I posted the Umagang Kay Ganda video clip where ABS-CBN news filmed a street fight from start to finish. On that same post, I asked ABS-CBN why their news crew apparently neglected to help the stab victim and allowed him to die on the pavement.

For the meantime, I am brewing something. See you guys on Wednesday! [ThinkingPinoy]

UPDATE: ABS-CBN, in fact, owned the copyright on that video clip. What's bothersome, however, is their seemingly unapologetic stance on thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of ethics complaints arising from that video clip. All they did was a to take that video down, but the fact remains that they have already aired it on free TV so it has been presumably seen by millions of Filipinos.

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Yes, that's Adolf Hitler in the middle. You'll learn why.
Note: mamaya ko na to ipu-proofread. Antok na ako e.

The plausibility of a scientific theory relies on how good it fits data. That’s how science works. When a theory starts to fail at explaining new data, it’s time to reject it.

For example, Newton’s Laws were the best there is for over 200 years. They’re simple, straightforward, and they don’t require advanced math. However, the discovery of exotic behavior of subatomic particles and the constancy of the speed of light, physicists discovered that Newton’s Laws don’t hold at very small scales or very high speeds.

As a result, Max Planck’s Quantum Theory and Albert Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity were born to takeover Newton’s Laws at very small scales and at very high speeds, respectively [History, History].

Human rights groups have been accusing Duterte of sanctioning extrajudicial killings since god-knows-when, but they have ramped up their rhetoric since Duterte’s June 30th oath of office.

I am against extrajudicial killings myself, and the fact remains that at this point in the article, the Duterte-killed-them-all Theory still holds.

So why don't we put it under the microscope?

Specifically, the opposition’s theory explaining the numerous deaths can be stated as:

“Duterte’s words have the force and effect of law, so that his exceptionally harsh words against criminals led to a staggering number of casualties over past two-and-a-half months.”

Now, it’s time to break down this theory and see how well it explains known data.

1: “Force and effect of law”

Senator Risa Hontiveros argued that the president’s words have the force and effect of policy [SunStar]. That is, whatever Duterte says becomes official policy. Now, let’s recall what Duterte said this year:

“Feel free to call the police, or do it yourself if you have a gun… In an arrest, you must overcome the resistance of the criminal. And if he fights… (if) he fights to (the) death, you can kill him. Just follow that. Only if your life is in danger and the criminal is armed and hostile, shoot him, and I will give you a medal [TP: 400 Deaths].”

Going by Hontiveros’ logic, does it mean that Duterte is actually against extrajudicial killings?

He has repeated these instructions numerous times, including last week during one of his speeches. But then, these instructions fits perfectly to established jurisprudence enabling legal warrantless arrests [TP: Warrantless].
Besides, let’s take a look at former President Aquino whom Sen. Hontiveros is arguably a fan of.

A Taclobanon who almost died from a shooting incident amidst the post-Yolanda looting and violence told Aquino his story.

Aquino scoffed, “Eh buhay ka pa naman, di ba (You’re still alive, anyway)?” [Star]

Senator Hontiveros, are you also implying that Aquino’s indifferent words have the force and effect of law too? That Aquino's apathy for the plight of the common man was actually part of state policy? Does Roxas' statement that Aquino was best president ever imply that Roxas also believes in an apathetic government?

Sen. Hontiveros' axiom contradicts itself. That is, the president’s words having the force and effect of law is wishful thinking on Sen. Hontiveros’part.

2: “Exceptionally harsh words”

Now, let’s take a closer look at Duterte’s diabolic threats to criminals, such as when he said he’ll dump the bodies of criminals into Manila Bay, or the downright scary, “I will kill you.” Is this legal, or is Duterte breaking the law by uttering these lines?

As a regular citizen, if this is the price to pay for an unprecedented mass surrender of criminals [ATimes], I do not really mind. We’ve used pretty words since 2010, and look where it got us. Do words kill? No. They scare, but they do not kill. I couldn’t care less.

Duterte said last week, “I have every right to threaten criminals (but) how it develops to the endgame is another problem [Video].”
I do not know if the reader needs further spoon-feeding but I think it’s quite clear that he says his threats end in threats. Unless somebody can provide me evidence that he indeed ordered the killing of a suspected criminal, this issue about his “exceptionally harsh words” do not really mean anything to me.

Now, has the opposition cited even one instance where Duterte ordered a successful extra-legal killing?

No.

Dear Opposition, toughen up a bit. Life is not rainbows and butterflies. Spare me from the bullsh*t.

3: “Staggering number of casualties”

If we’re just going to look at the absolute figures then yes, the numbers are staggering. The problem, however, is that this observation means little if we will not take into consideration the magnitude of the problem.

Think of it this way:

Using general anesthesia before a tooth extraction is just stupid. But if you’re getting a multi-organ transplant, using local anesthesia would be stupider.

PDEA estimated in June 2016 that there are at least three million drug addicts in the Philippines [Inq]. Of this figure, a total of 709,527 surrendered as of 11 September 2016, where 52,568 are drug pushers and 656,959 are drug users.

Most of these people surrendered voluntarily, while 16,025 were arrested during anti-drug operations. These anti-drug operations resulted in 1,466 deaths, or roughly half of about 3,000 who died since 30 June 2016 [TV5].

The figures above show that law enforcement operations resulted in 16,025 arrests and 1,466 deaths, translating to roughly 1 death per 11 successful arrests. For a regular citizen like me who’s not used to seeing violence first-hand, and given our perennially under-equipped and under-funded police force, that death-to-arrest rate doesn’t look that bad.If the Philippine drug problem was a surgery, it would be a multi-organ transplant that requires a powerful anesthetic, and figures suggest that we have a pretty good anesthesiologist on duty.

Given the magnitude of the drug problem, I even find it interesting that only 3,000 were killed, which pales in comparison to Mexico’s war on drugs [PBS].

Imagine you’re getting a facial treatment and the last facial you had was a decade ago, would you complain if the facialist gets a bucketful of whiteheads and blackheads?

If you answered yes, then please come over here and I will smack some sense into you.

Super-duper Liberal Party

Super-duper is not really part of my vocabulary, but I was inspired to use it after learning that the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office seemingly watched too many reruns of Lindsay Lohan’s “Mean Girls”.

If Duterte indeed sanctions extrajudicial killings, why would the police bother to arrests that many? Why won’t the police just shoot them all? It doesn’t add up.

I think it goes without saying the Liberal Party has more than enough financial, logistic, and political muscle, to do its bidding, even up to this day.
With such as “staggering number of casualties”, I cannot help but wonder why it has so far failed to get enough evidence to prove that Duterte indeed perpetrated these assassinations.

Has the Liberal Party lost its steam? I do not think so, because a large number of Liberal Party members are implicated in the drug trade. Just look at LP attack dog PNP General Garbo and and LP attack b*tch Senator Leila de Lima.

It is in LP’s interest to find enough evidence to bring Duterte down. Besides, Vice-president Leni Robredo is from the Liberal Party too. Why hasn’t LP gone the extra mile to find enough evidence that would catapult them back to Malacañang?

So far, there can only be one explanation: they can’t find any.

ThinkingPinoy's Takeaways

The Liberal Party-controlled Commission on Human Rights has hounded Duterte with allegations since 2009, it has been aggressively looking for evidence since then. So far, not a single case was filed against Duterte, for the sheer reason that there's no evidence linking him to these extrajudicial, extralegal killings [TP: PLeni].

The Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party-controlled mainstream media, loves mentioning the "Rule of Law". But isn't it true that the rule of law dictates that one is innocent until proven guilty? LP can't even find a single piece of evidence pinning Duterte, yet here they are telling the entire world that Duterte is a megalomaniac butcher. What's worse, they have been using that same fallacious allegation over, and over, and over.

Basically, despite their inability to find even probable cause, let alone a court conviction, LP is trying to convince the world that Duterte is a mass murderer simply by repeating the same allegation across every conceivable mass communication platform on the planet.

This reminds me of Adolf Hitler's "Big Lie" propaganda technique, as explained in Mein Kampf, involves using a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. This concept eventually evolved into the statement, "A lie, when repeated often enough, becomes the truth."[JVL]

Now, I sincerely wonder: Did Hitler inspire the Liberal Party? [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

The Senate Hearing on Extrajudicial Killings is probably the cause of the recent rise in social media vitriol. I watched both camps insult each other while I munch on freshly-microwaved popcorn. I thought, “Hmm, if that’s what floats your boat, I’ll leave you be.”

I initially joined the mudslinging, until I realized that there are too many players in it already. Ain’t that fun anymore. Then I realized that I actually am interested in something else.

Instead of engaging in mindless arguments, I figured that I actually want to understand the status quo from a bird’s eye view. I am no political scientist so that bird won’t fly very high, but I’ll make it soar as high as my pedestrian brain can manage.

Why bother? Because I want to understand if this parade will last until 2022, or if it's the Liberal Party's last hurrah. Note, however, that is not an analysis that uses morality as metric: we already have too many self-proclaimed moralists (*cough* Rappler *cough*) to do that. Instead, I will be providing an article written with competing political interests in mind.

Let’s go.

(DISCLAIMER: Para sa Grammar Nazi, mamaya na ako magpu-proofread dahil antok na antok na ako at pagod na pagod.)

Duterte’s First 80 Days

Historically, Philippine presidents are given 100 days from the start of their term before the opposition or the mainstream media hits really hard. Interestingly, however, Duterte has not even reached his 100th day in office but the atmosphere feels like the heavens are about to spew brimstone and fire. If this were a sexual encounter, it’s as if everyone skipped foreplay and went right down to you-know-what.

I can’t really blame the opposition for suddenly shifting from neutral to fifth gear, especially since Duterte himself instituted radical reforms as soon as he stepped into Malacañan.
In fewer than 100 days, Duterte has started turning the national political power structure upside down. Needless to say, many long-entrenched political players are not pleased. Particularly, the Liberal Party (LP) has suffered, is suffering, and will suffer the greatest casualties in Duterte’s crusade against, well, pretty much everything.

The Liberal Party’s Losses

A few days the May 2016 landslide win, Duterte said, “Maybe when I sit as President, I am not going to prosecute. I am not up to it actually, going after political enemies [GMA].” Many Filipinos, including me, interpreted this as a declaration that he will not torment his predecessor as much as his predecessor tormented Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo [TP: PGMA freed].

Of course, LP didn’t take Duterte’s word for it. LP hoped to impeach him at the soonest possible time and have controversial VP winner [TP: Smartmatic] Leni Robredo, one of LP’s own, installed in the Palace [TP: Leni]. Duterte extinguished this plan with the masterstroke that is Mark Villar’s appointment [TP: Plan B].
Well, I forgot that Duterte is a lawyer. Yes, there are no indications that Duterte will prosecute Aquino in the sense that no anti-Aquino court cases are in the works. But Duterte can hurt Aquino and the Liberal Party in so many other more creative and novel ways.

Let’s list some of them, starting with Duterte’s pre-inauguration offensive in the Lower House.

Some not-so-loyal LP members, realizing that impeachment has become impossible, started to jump ship. LP started feeling real pain as Duterte’s PDP-Laban took advantage of the historically weak Philippine political party system. PDP-Laban rapidly whittled away LP’s members, transforming what was formerly a congressional behemoth into a miniscule opposition bloc [Star].

Today, LP in the lower house is as toothless as a newborn baby. Yes, this hurt LP real bad.

Duterte hurting LP is like him serving LP a multi-course meal with appetizers, an entrée, a main course, and a dessert.

Let’s start with the appetizers.

Appetizer 1: LP and Mining

Duterte then gave Gina Lopez the DENR portfolio [MS], to the horror of the LP-leaning mining clique. Gina Lopez, a staunch anti-mining advocate, shut down four mines in her first week in office [Star]. This is bad news for many LP members who are deeply involved in the mining industry, such as its losing presidential bet Manuel “Mar” Roxas, who owns mining stocks in at least seven mining firms [TP: Roxas and Corruption].

About a week later, Lopez padlocked Palawan’s Berong Nickel [Bloomberg]. Nickel. Yes, nickel is another cause for alarm for LP as one of its major campaign donors, the illegal miner SR Metals, is a nickel miner [TP: Roxas’ Friend]. And yes, Lopez’s anti-mining eyes are on SR Metals too [TV5], and Duterte will not stop her if she decides to tear up SR Metals’ license on National TV [TP: Miner Crony].

The mining clique is fuming, with Roxas ally Prospero Pichay [ABS] even going as far as calling Lopez “crazy” for her anti-mining stance [TV5].

Appetizer 2: LP and Hacienda Luisita

Duterte then gave Rafael Mariano the DAR portfolio [PIA], to the horror of LP’s Cojuangco’s who own the bloodstained Hacienda Luisita [TP: Luisita]. Mariano, head of a militant farmer’s group who was part of the Lower House, is known for authoring HB 155 which sought to repeal the Hacienda’s stock distribution option (SDO) [Star]. The SDO was what allowed the Cojuangcos to evade land reform laws.

A week into his post, Mariano swiftly ordered Hacienda Luisita Inc. to stop harassing its farmers [MS]. A month later, he vowed to “destroy Haciendas” [MS]. True to his word, he ordered the much-delayed redistribution of 358 hectares of Hacienda Luisita Land [MB]. This is still a miniscule section of Hacienda Luisita that covers thousands of hectares [Stuart-Santiago 2012]. Note, however, that Mariano still has six more years in DAR so he can still do a lot more damage.

Appetizer 3: LP appointees go bye-bye

After Duterte took his oath of office, he appointed Eddie Monreal [TV5] to replace the much-reviled Airport Chief and Aquino relative Jose Honrado [MT]. Honrado was widely blamed for the Laglag-Bala airport scam [CNN].

Nicanor Faeldon as Bureau of Customs (BoC) chief [CNN] to replaced Aquino appointee Alberto Lina [PC]. Faeldon is intent on cleaning up the Customs Bureau, a milking cow of corrupt public officials. He earlier said, “If I have to kill one of your officials, every opportunity I get, I will do that if that is the only way you want to reform this Bureau [MB].”

True to his word, Faeldon installed CCTVs on every nook and cranny of BoC. He even set up a live stream of the CCTV cameras in his own BOC office for the public to see [GMA]. So far, at least one BoC employee has been arrested after being caught on CCTV accepting bribes [GMA].

These are just a few of Duterte’s hard-hitters. But to top it all off, Duterte recently issued Memorandum Circular No. 4 s. 2016, which demands the courtesy resignations of all Aquino appointees. He prefaced the memo with “In view of the President’s desire to rid the bureaucracy of corruption,” so you know what he means [Gov].

Enough of the Appetizers!

The preceding sections are just some of the appetizers, the radical reforms happening under the Duterte Administration. There are many others that I cannot mention anymore because I am writing an article, and not a booklet. Regardless, the previous sections demonstrate that Duterte’s crusade against corruption is hitting LP, and it is hitting real hard. The Liberal Party is hurting. With a Duterte-led Malacañan, LP can look forward to grimmer days ahead. Reducing LP membership, angering LP financiers, infuriating LP’s Cojuangcos, enraging LP’s appointees… these are just appetizers.

Enough of the appetizers: it’s time for the entrée and the main course!

For the entrée, Duterte offers the international policy realignment.

For the main course, Duterte offers the War on Drugs.

Let’s talk about it in greater detail.

Entrée: International Policy and the South China Sea

One of former President Aquino’s would-have-been legacies is his much-publicized crusade against what he believes is Chinese bullying in the South China Sea [Inq]. Using China’s harassment of poor Filipino fishermen, Aquino initiated arbitral proceedings against China, massively straining China-Philippines ties [TP: Davila].

Little did we know that he was against China primarily because his staunch ally, First Pacific Director and Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, wanted to drill for South China Sea hydrocarbons [TP: MVP]. Del Rosario business partner Manny V. Pangilinan controls most of mainstream media [TP: Reed Bank], so I am not really surprised at how such an enormous conflict of interest issue has never been covered by mainstream media [TP: Worse than Karen].

Duterte, however, never bothered to control mass media. Instead, he hit LP where it hurts the most.

The recent favorable decision from the Permanent Court of Arbitration would have been the Aquino administration’s crowning glory, it would have been their legacy. However, Duterte chose not to go hardline with it [TP:Yasay], choosing a more practical and independent diplomatic strategy [TP:ASEAN], to China’s delight and to America’s chagrin.

Yes, the Philippines decided to take a different trajectory in international affairs. What was once an American lapdog during the Aquino Era is now a country that has finally started asserting its sovereignty.

Unfortunately for LP, Duterte’s neutral stance on the China-US geopolitical tug-o-war means Philex Petroleum will never get to drill Northwest of Palawan. MVP’s struggling Philex Petroleum appears to have realized this even before Duterte sat in Malacañan, after the company announced its plans to venture in renewable energy [Star].

Years’ worth of Aquino’s (un)diplomatic efforts translated to nothing.

And now, it’s time for the main course.

Main Course: The War on Drugs

Not even 40 days into office, Duterte did the unprecedented: he named public officials with suspected drug links PUBLICLY. He started with five PNP Generals [TP: Robredo], then followed it up with over a hundred mayors, judges, et Al [TP: List]. The generals he named are connected with the Liberal Party. Meanwhile, many of the names he mentioned from the list are big ticket LP members, such as Ilo-ilos Jed Mabilog, a cousin of LP stalwart Senator Franklin Drilon [Politiko].

Suspicions of LP’s complicity in the illegal drug trade first arose in May 2010 when its treasurer, Quezon Governor Rafael Nantes was suspected of drug links [Balita]. Luckily for LP, he conveniently died in a chopper crash a couple of weeks later [Star].

Aquino never raised the drug issue in any of his six State of the Nation Addresses [TP: Narcopolitics], and for good reason. Illegal drugs flourished in the Philippines under the Aquino Administration [TP: China to the Streets]. Bilibid, the country’s maximum-security prison, became the shabu (meth) capital of the country [TP: 400 deaths].

Oh! And did I mention the “itchy” LP Senator Leila de Lima [TP: Oooh, Ronnie!]?

Yes, Philippine Narcopolitics is real, and reports suggest that LP is largely behind it. The war on drugs will be LP’s biggest headache. In a meal that Chef Duterte prepared, this is the main course.

Yummy!

LP counter-attacks

LP is doing the best it can to survive by trying to pin on Duterte the vigilante killings of the past couple of months. LP Senator Leila de Lima, who tag-teamed with former LP Secretary-General and now Human Rights chair Chito Gascon [TP: CHR], initiated a Senate Investigation that’s purportedly intends to aid legislation.

The first couple of hearings turned out to be a dud [TP: Destroy Duterte], reinforcing my suspicion that this is more of an anti-Duterte publicity stunt. However, there still was a small part of me that wanted to believe that these two LP peeps may just be suckers for unconditional human rights.

But my doubts vanished after de Lima introduced Edgar Matobato. Matobato’s testimony was shockingly riveting. As part of the “Davao Death Squad”, Matobato suggested that Duterte terrorizes his political rivals after he testified that he kidnapped and murdered four of Duterte rival Prospero Nograles’s bodyguards [GMA]. This is just one of the many horrid things that Matobato described.

But there’s something that doesn’t add up.

The Nograles camp denied the occurrences of such kidnappings [GMA], let alone the murders. Moreover, Matobato’s testimony is inconsistent with a previous interview. He told the Senate he kidnapped four Nograles bodyguards, but he said he kidnapped five in an earlier interview with The Telegraph UK [Video]. Moreover, it appears that Matobato is not even a Davao City native as he claims [SunStar].

Matobato and WPP

Yes, Matobato is a liar.

What’s worse, Matobato was under the Department of Justice (DoJ) Witness Protection Program (WPP) in 2014 [CNN], where de Lima was still its Secretary, only to leave in January 2016 [Straits]. Matobato said he left WPP in fear of the Duterte Presidency, but Aquino was still president in January and Duterte was trailing the electoral surveys at the time [CNN].

And it appears that de Lima is lying too. Yup, a classic LP strategy.

Last month, de Lima admitted that the CHR failed to file cases against Duterte or his aides for lack of evidence. De Lima said, ““We don’t have enough evidence against them. There [was] no one to execute a sworn affidavit to prove the existence of the death squad [MT].”

Hold on one sec! Matobato has been under WPP, under DoJ Sec. de Lima’s custody, since 2014. He stayed in there for almost two years, consuming precious public resources. Two years in WPP yet he did not even execute a sworn testimony? When the fact of the matter is that he got into the WPP because of his revelations on Duterte to begin with?

Yup. This senate investigation is not really a quest for the truth, but one of the last kicks of the dying political horse that is that Liberal Party.

And now... the end is near... and so I face... the final curtain...

Why did I say that LP is dying? Watch this:

Duterte asks AFP help on Drug Problem
Rody Duterte asks help from the Armed Forces of the Philippines in dealing with the drug problem, suggesting that the Philippine National Police may be unable to deal with it on its own.

Duterte: The police is there but if the situation gets out of hand, it becomes yours. Do not allow the country to disintegrate.

Standing behind him were General Ricardo R. Visaya AFP and Labor Sec. Silvestre Bello III.
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Saturday, September 17, 2016

Duterte may finish serving the main course soon. So I wonder, what's for dessert? [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

A former Davao City employee claiming to be Matobato’s relative denies the latter’s links with the Davao City Government.

Renante Matobato said, “I can recall a distant relative from father's side by the name of Edgar Matobato. I refer to Edgar Matobato who recently testified before the Senate hearing on EJK.”
Edgar Matobato is a witness in the ongoing senate investigations on extrajudicial killings headed by Sen. Leila de Lima. He claims to having been a part of the vigilante group Davao Death Squad, allegedly headed by President and former Davao City Mayor Rody Duterte.

“In my entire government service with city government of Davao I cannot recall Edgar Matobato had worked there in any capacity or be it as member of the DDS which he claimed he is or was,” Renante said.

In his senate testimony, Edgar Matobato claimed to be "ghost employee" of the Davao City Government [Star].
A "ghost employee" is someone on the city's payroll who doesn't actually perform work as defined by the employee's job description. This means, however, that Edgar Matobato's name should still be on the employee roster.

Renante was Legal Aide to Chiefs of the Barangay and Cultural Communities Affairs [PIA] and Traffic Management Center until he resigned in July 2005 to join the Public Attorneys' Office.

Edgar Matobato, a real estate agent?

Renante has met Edgar before.

"What I can recall though was at the time he worked in the LGU in Samal, Davao del Norte. I can also recall he was engaged in buy-and-sell of land in Samal because he approached me once to notarize a deed of sale which I cannot recall if I did," Renante said.

Samal is one of Davao's neighboring cities. It is not managed by the Davao City government.

Renante now lives in Australia, where he earned a graduate certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice from the Australian National University [SydneyHerald].

A copy of the message he sent to the ThinkingPinoy Facebook page is shown below. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

This new post completes the article “Duterte 'admitted complicity' in Davao killings – WikiLeaks”, written by Rappler reporter and part-time cyberbully Paterno Esmaquel II.

"Complete" the article? Yes, because Esmaquel all-too-conveniently forgot to include several important details, details that will make his article fall apart.

Esmaquel reported about a 08 May 2009 US Embassy diplomatic cable, which suggests Duterte’s complicity to the legendary vigilante group Davao Death Squad (DDS).

The embassy cable, written by then-US Ambassador to Manila Kristie Kenney, states:

"Commission on Human Rights regional director Alberto Sipaco (strictly protect) at a private meeting affirmed that Mayor Duterte knows about the killings and permits them. Recounting a conversation he once had with Duterte, who is his close friend and former fraternity brother, Sipaco said he pleaded with the Mayor to stop vigilante killings and support other methods to reduce crime, like rehabilitation programs for offenders."

ThinkingPinoy looked for the diplomatic cable that Esmaquel quoted. It was entitled “DAVAO OFFICIALS DENY VIGILANTE KILLINGS, BUT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BLAMES MAYOR”. The quoted paragraph above was taken from the fifth point in the cable.

The Top Comments

At first glance, the article’s premise already sounds problematic because it basically states Esmaquel allegedly heard it from Wikileaks who allegedly heard it from Kenney who allegedly heard it from Sipaco who allegedly heard it from Duterte.
Basically, Esmaquel gave us double hearsay evidence at best, quadruple hearsay at worst. In as far as the validity of evidence, this situation is no different from the “Sampalan sa BPI Julia Vargas” incident, where disgraced Senator Antonio Trillanes allegedly heard something from a Joseph de Mesa who heard something from an alleged AMLC insider.

These claims will not be admissible in court.

One of the Rappler article commenters already pointed this out. In reply to that comment, another person suggested that a proper investigating body should verify this information from Wikileaks.

Fair enough, so ThinkingPinoy asks, “Has this lead been investigated, or is this a totally new lead?”

Paterno’s all-too-convenient omission

The same leaked US diplomatic cable [Wikileaks] also stated:

“Sipaco… acknowledged that the CHR was taking its mission in Davao very seriously. On the margins of the public hearings, the CHR was working to locate witnesses, retrieve them in private unmarked cars, collect their testimony in undisclosed and protected locations, and seek their agreement to testify.”

Moreover, on the section indicating the Ambassador’s comments, Kenney wrote:

“With the police failing to make any progress on investigations, the CHR and civil society groups have become the primary advocates on the issue.”

Given these additional quotes, the reader will surely ask, “So what?”

The diplomatic cable shows it was prepared in May 2009, and it said it was being written during CHR’s ongoing investigation on DDS. Sipaco, the “witness”, is actually CHR Region XI Director.

Now, who was CHR Chairperson during those times?

Senator Leila de Lima [GMA].

De Lima’s Investigation

Sipaco’s allegations in the leaked diplomatic cables is actually part of set of claims that led to CHR’s 2009 investigation into Duterte’s alleged involved with the Davao Death Squad. Yes, Sipaco’s claims were already investigated by no less than Senator Leila de Lima herself, while the latter was still headed by the Commission on Human Rights.
De Lima actually spearheaded this investigation, so actively that she even broke our country’s laws in a desperate bid to prove her point.

On 16 July 2009, two months after the publication of the diplomatic cable, Panabo City inmate Jonathan Balo sued De Lima, House Speaker Prospero Nograles and six other people for allegedly taking him out of his detention cell without a court order [Star].

Balo didn’t want to leave his cell in fear of being summarily executed.

Nevertheless, Balo was illegally taken out of his cell and told he’ll be taken to a police station to identify a suspect. Upon reaching the police station, he was transferred to another vehicle and brought to the Laud quarry site in Ma-a, Davao City. There, he was forced to admit being a DDS member.

Balo was brought to the Laud quarry site at a time when a CHR-led team was searching the area for the supposed remains of victims of the DDS, a vigilante group.

The Investigation’s Aftermath

The 2009 CHR investigation headed by de Lima and of which Sipaco was part ended some time in 2012, as page 16 of CHR’s 2012 Annual Report states [CHR]:

The Commission recommended that the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) investigate the possible administrative and criminal liability of Mayor Duterte… for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) [to investigate]… for… [the] Department of Justice (DOJ) to duly prosecute the persons responsible…

This recommendation basically instructs three government agencies – Ombudsman, NBI, and DOJ – to take action.

Interestingly, by the time the CHR issued its recommendations, De Lima was already Justice Secretary, after having been appointed as such as soon as President Aquino took his 2010 oath of office [GMA].

Thus, de Lima actually had control over both the Department of Justice and all its agencies, including the National Bureau of Investigation. That is, de Lima’s DOJ appointment after her CHR chairmanship placed her in the best position to see the DDS issue resolved once and for all.

After six years at the DOJ’s helm, De Lima admitted on 20 August 2016 that the CHR failed to file cases against Duterte or his aides for lack of evidence when she said, “We don’t have enough evidence against them [MT].”

NBI and DOJ’s effort reached a dead end so there’s only one agency left to talk about: the Ombudsman.

Sipaco and the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman ordered the investigation of the DDS issue closed and terminated for lack of evidence, the same reason cited by De Lima herself.

On 15 January 2016, the Ombudsman’s Field Investigation Office issued a final disposition addressed to CHR Chair Gascon, part of which reads [OMB]:

“…no evidence was gathered to support ‘killings attributed or attributable to DDS’… It is respectfully recommended that the investigation of this case be CLOSED AND TERMINATED. ”

Yes, the Ombudsman cited insufficient evidence too.

What’s more interesting, however, is that Sipaco was quoted in the document.

Sipaco said, “It would be unbecoming of the Commission if through chismis and other gossips, we would be relying on it as fact already when there are no supporting justification.”

Yes, Sipaco said that himself. Yes, the same Sipaco who allegedly told Ambassador Kenney that Duterte admitted involvement in DDS. Yes, the same Sipaco cited in Wikileaks.

Sipaco said DDS was “chismis” (gossip), the same Sipaco who released the statement that was the central premise of Paterno Esmaquel’s piece.

Esmaquel’s Self-contradictory Article

With that, Esmaquel’s Rappler article falls apart, just like most of what he has written before.

Let’s go back to the article’s title:

“Duterte 'admitted complicity' in Davao killings – WikiLeaks”

Esmaquel basically tells us that Wikileaks suggest Duterte’s complicity with DDS. However, Wikileaks’ ultimate source was Sipaco, who dismissed DDS claims as gossip AFTER the publication of the leaked cable.

Now, some camps will argue that Sipaco could’ve been pressured by Duterte, but remember that Sipaco was under the protection of Liberal Party-led Malacañang from mid-2010 to mid-2016, and that the Liberal Party has repeatedly tried (and failed) to destroy Duterte during the campaign period [TP: Destroy Duterte].

A lowly city mayor can scare off someone fully backed by the Office of the President?

No, that claim shall not fly.

Matobato’s Credibility

Paterno tried to resuscitate his article when he wrote:

Still, self-confessed killer Edgar Matobato, who was presented by De Lima, recently testified before the Senate that Duterte instructed the DDS to execute people.

The problem, however, is that Matobato has been proven to be a pathological liar.

Matobato has given several conflicting statements, three of which are cited here:

FIRST: Matobato confessed to killing certain Sali Makdum, whom Matobato claimed was an international terrorist targeted by DDS [GMA]. As it turns out, Makdum is Matobato’s relative by marriage who wanted to buy land from Matobato [CNN]. Matobato was previously engaged in buying and selling of land.

SECOND: Matobato said DDS killed billionaire Richard King inside a McDonald’s restaurant. The problem, however, is that King’s own family knows he was killed in an office building [Star].

THIRD: Matobato previously claimed to have not executed a sworn affidavit in 2014. As it turns out, he actually did, and the claims in that 2014 affidavit thoroughly contradict Matobato’s claims in the Senate hearings [Star].

On 23 September 2016, Senate Justice Committee Chair Richard Gordon said, "You have to test his credibility, you have to test his memory, you have to test events. And he was changing stories [ABS]."

Matobato’s consistencies have also been pointed out by Senators Panfilo Lacson [Star], Manny Pacquiao [GMA], Alan Peter Cayetano [CNN], and Sonny Angara [Inq].

Meanwhile, the only ones who stand by Matobato’s credibility are Senators Leila de Lima [CNN] and Antonio Trillanes [AJ].

De Lima backing Matobato is not a surprise: it was her who sneaked Matobato into the senate hearings to begin with. Her “faith” in Matobato was expected.

Trillanes, on the other hand, is the same senator who believed in hearsay when he accused Duterte of corruption during the last weeks of the campaign period, an accusation that he sorely failed to substantiate [TP: BangkoSerye].

So the only two senators backing Matobato is one who harbors a clear conflict of interest, and one who has cried “Wolf!” too many times.

Rappler’s Paterno Esmaquel II

In the Rappler article, all Esmaquel did was add to the noise without adding value into the conversation. Esmaquel seriously lacks research skills, a basic skill that’s expected from him, especially since he has a master’s in Journalism and a bachelor’s in Communication, both from the Ateneo.

Mr. Esmaquel, Ateneo is a really good school. Thus, I will give the Ateneo the benefit of the doubt by saying that you just happen to be a statistical outlier. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Dear President Duterte, you need to apologize for the Hitler analogy, but...
*****
So there I was, peacefully doing my laundry, when a friend told me that The Guardian UK reported that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte vowed to kill 3 million drug addicts and likened himself to Hitler [Guardian]. There’s even a 40-second video clip embedded in the Guardian article to support the claim.

My initial reaction was, “Okay, what did he do this time?” After all, he’s not a stranger to controversial statements, like when he cursed Pope Francis in November [TP: Tatang] or when he unleashed a rape-related joke in April [TP: Jalosjos].

The Guardian’s Bangkok-based Southeast Asian correspondent Oliver Holmes quoted Duterte’s statement, ”If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have [Duterte points to himself]… Hitler massacred three million Jews ... there’s three million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them.
Taken at face value, this statement is absolutely controversial, if not absolutely offensive. As expected, Duterte critics were quick to capitalize on this newest pronouncement. Duterte supporters, on the other hand, were quick to defend the old man.

That Duterte said those words is not a matter of debate. The issue, however, is what those words really meant.

Duterte’s (more comprehensive) statement

Upon his September 30th arrival from his Vietnam state visit, Duterte delivered a speech and answered questions from local media. Part of the event is shown below:

Duterte's Hitler Statement
Rody Duterte sarcastically alludes to Hitler as he rebukes the European Union for the latter's 13 September 2016 resolution regarding the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines.
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Friday, September 30, 2016

Duterte, in a mix of English, Tagalog, and Cebuano, said:

“[EU lawyers said] that this official... even when he was (still) a mayor, he was threatening to kill the criminals. What… (a) group of idiots in the purest form! You know, if you want to charge me, you have to find out if the penal laws of this land would make a mayor liable if he threatens criminals, or intimidate the wrongdoers.

To imagine that I would be facing even the International Court [of Justice] for genocide. Such tomfoolery!

Imagine you're in my situation. You're a president and they do the same to you. I'm okay with it, I am used to politics. I've experienced all the filth in my life.
US, EU, you can call me anything, but I was never into, or I am never into hypocrisy, (un)like you. (You) closed your doors, it's winter time, there are migrants escaping from the Middle East. You allow them to rot, and then you worry about the death of, about, 1000, 2000, 3000 (criminals)?

Hitler massacred 3 million Jews. Now, there (are) 3 million drug addicts (in the Philippines). I'd be happy to slaughter them. At least, if Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have, you know…

My victims... I would like to be... all criminals… to finish this problem of my country and save the next generation from perdition. Thank you.”

Duterte has a nasty habit of not finishing his sentences [TP: Media Guide], hence the prodigious use of parenthesized words in the quoted text.

Duterte’s statement 2 days prior

After watching his speech for the first time a few hours ago, my initial impression was that he stated the words with sarcasm, in light of his 28 September 2016 statement, or two days prior to the “Hitler” incident, directed at EU, among others:

"I have a serious problem in my country. If I fail, I know that it will destroy my country… Who’s involved in the (illegal drug trade)? 11 generals, (35% of all) barangay (village) captains, mayors, (about 14,000) policemen… So what am I supposed to do?

Obama… EU, and EU lawyers who passed a resolution calling my attention…even threatening me to face the International Court of Justice (for allegedly committing) Genocide.

Genocide is when you kill the Jews, or one tribe, one sect, (or those) belonging to the same religion. How can they charge me for genocide if I kill these (drug addicts) who do nothing but destroy my motherland?”

Duterte: The war on drugs is not genocide.
Rody Duterte to the Leila de Lima, US, EU, and UN: "Genocide is when you kill the Jews, or one tribe, one sect, (or those) belonging to the same religion. How can they charge me for genocide if I kill these (drug addicts) who do nothing but destroy my motherland?

Barack Obama Martin Schulz Ban Ki-moon

#DuterteVIETNAM2016 #PartnerforChange
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Wednesday, September 28, 2016

What did the EU do?

Judging from this lengthy quote, I think it’s clear that Duterte is displeased with the EU’s 13 September 2016 statement [Europa], part of which states:

“…Whereas, during his election campaign and first days in office, President Duterte repeatedly urged law enforcement agencies and the public to kill suspected drug traffickers who did not surrender, as well as drug users.

[The European Parliament] urges the authorities to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with international human rights standards and international instruments ratified by the Philippines.”

At first glance, the European Parliament resolution appears to simply be stating the obvious. A closer look, however, shows that it is more than that. Much more than that.

The EU Resolution’s Implications

The EU dangerously oversimplified Duterte’s statement. Yes, he did urge law enforcement and the public to kill suspected drug traffickers and drug addicts, but only on the condition that the arresting party life’s is put in grave danger when a suspect violently resists arrest.

Duterte specifically said [TP: 400 Deaths]:

“Feel free to call the police, or do it yourself if you have a gun… In an arrest, you must overcome the resistance of the criminal. And if he fights… (if) he fights to (the) death, you can kill him. Just follow that. Only if your life is in danger and the criminal is armed and hostile, shoot him, and I will give you a medal.”

Duterte is not most eloquent world leader, but I think that his instructions, while gruesomely worded, is actually the standard operating procedure for law enforcement throughout the world. If it weren’t, then all policemen on the planet should not be carrying guns in the first place.

What’s more disturbing about the EU resolution, however, is the part that “urges the authorities to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with… international instruments ratified by the Philippines."

International instruments ratified by the Philippines? In the context of the EU’s statement, this phrase likely refers to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Criminal Court (ICC), both of which include the Philippines as a signatory.

And in the context of the extrajudicial killings issue, what other crime would Duterte or his government be most likely to be charged with but genocide?

Essentially, the EU Parliament threatens Duterte or the Philippine government with a potential ICC or ICJ genocide case.

Putting things into perspective

Aside from the deliberate misrepresentation of, or the EU’s uncanny ignorance regarding, Duterte’s words regarding killing criminals, a more disturbing reality is that the EU appears to blame the government for the extrajudicial killings issue, despite the lack of convincing evidence linking the Duterte Administration with such [TP: How to Destroy Duterte].

Duterte speaks up on Vigilante Killings
Pres. Rody Duterte: When I said, "(Senator Leila) de Lima, you better hang yourself," I already knew.
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Friday, September 23, 2016

Duterte said the EU did all of these without consulting their Philippine envoys, without investigating the issue themselves.

Duterte points out hypocrisy of the West
Rody Duterte to US, EU, Australia, and UK: "You have a representative here. Ask him first before you insult the President. I am I, but I am not the Republic of the Philippines. When you criticize me (as a head of state), you humiliate the Philippines too."

Barack Obama Theresa May Martin Schulz Malcolm Turnbull
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Monday, September 26, 2016

And to top it all off, they even had the gall to threaten the Duterte Administration with international court proceedings akin to The Nuremberg Trials against Nazi officials.

So let’s go back to the Hitler statement. The grossly misinformed EU resolution visibly irritated Duterte, as Duterte clearly stated repeatedly, beforehand, that his war on drugs is in no way similar to Hitler-type genocide. Why would Duterte be irritated? Because the EU tacitly called him a mass murderer, if not a genocidal maniac.

To get back at the EU parliament, Duterte sarcastically used the Hitler analogy, something that inevitably struck a raw nerve in Germany, the de facto leader of the EU that carries with it the eternal shame of its Nazi past. True enough, Germany said his Hitler analogy was “unacceptable” [ABS]. However, as far as my common sense allows me to see, this serves the EU Parliament just right.

Should Duterte apologize to the EU? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t really mind if he doesn’t.

Spare the Jews

But there’s a catch: Mr. President, please spare the Jews from the word war.

Jews got entangled in Duterte’s rhetoric as any Hitler analogy inevitably includes the Jews, the people that Hitler’s Nazis slaughtered by the millions during the Holocaust from 1933 to 1945.

This is where you, Mr. President, got it wrong.

My best friend is a Jew, and we’ve had many conversations about historical anti-Semitism, conversations that usually culminate into a discussion of the Holocaust.

Mr. President, you were carried away by his emotions again, so carried away that the Jews got involved in your craving to get back at the self-proclaimed moralist that is the EU parliament.

Here is where an apology is in order. Yes, there are bad Jews and there also are good Jews, in the same way that there are bad Filipinos and there are also good Filipinos. However, just because some are bad doesn’t mean all of them are bad.

My best friend is a good Jew.

Dear Mr. President, I can understand if you won’t apologize to Germany and the rest of the European Union. Actually, I think they deserve the sh*t you threw at them.

But please, apologize to the good Jews. They did not deserve to hear what you said.

Note, however, that I still support you, because I believe that while this issue is disconcerting, there are bigger fish (or pigs) to fry. [ThinkingPinoy]

Duterte: Sen. de Lima was in(to) Narcopolitics
Pres. Rody Duterte on Sen. Leila de Lima: "Who brought in Narcopolitics? It is here already! You elected a senator who was in(to) Narcopolitics!"

Senyora
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Monday, September 26, 2016

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. - Friedrich Nietszche.

I, ThinkingPinoy, support political dissent directed towards the administration. Despite my support for the Duterte, I still promoted dissenters like ABS-CBN Inday Espina-Varona [TP], and praised CNN Philippines in the Kantalk Podcast [TP: KanTalk E11]. Despite my support, I have even criticized the Duterte administration several times [TP: Rape Joke; TP: Malacanang; TP: Hitler], and this:

Dear Presidential Communications (Government of the Philippines),

Alam niyo, binabatikos na sa kaliwa't kanan si...
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Tuesday, August 30, 2016

However, I can't help but notice the disproportionate representation of political beliefs in mainstream media, where the minority political opinion overwhelmingly drowns the political opinion of most.

Ninety-one percent of Filipinos trust Duterte [GMA]. Meanwhile, seventy-four percent approve of his performance [CBS]. Despite this, I find it disturbing that the vast majority of news bits Filipinos have been reading daily since the old man took his oath have been overwhelmingly critical of the president. That is, it appears to me that a vast majority of media men belong to the 0.2 percent of the population who distrust Duterte [Star], or the 11 percent who are dissatisfied in his performance [BW].
Mainstream discourse on Philippine Politics today is dominated, if not monopolized, by the minority, with the Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) leading the pack.

PDI started it with the Kill List, which blamed upon the administration virtually all vigilante killings. Using the list, PDI claimed “a dramatic and unmistakable” rise in extrajudicial killings since Duterte took office. Despite its extremely problematic, irresponsible, and unscientific methodology [TP: Kill List], PDI continued peddling this list to international news outlets, alienating Western Media from the Philippine Government.

To top it all off, no less than Inquirer Editor-in-Chief John Nery, who’s supposed to be impartial on the issue, actively influences international publications to be negative of Duterte, despite of his lack of evidence, despite his lack of first-hand knowledge on the EJK issue [LATimes].

I repeat: three in four Filipinos approve of Duterte, but a vast majority of news bits today do not.

The Emergence of Social Media

I examined Strategic and Consumer Media Insights (SCMI)’s 2016 Philippine Media Overview [PANA].

SCMI reported that in its 2014 survey, free-to-air TV dominated daily media reach at 91 percent of the general population. Mobile phones were 2nd at 79 percent, and internet 3rd with 38 percent. Only 8 percent regularly access newspapers. The story is different for millennials, or those who came of age after the turn of the millennium, where mobile phone was at 95 percent, TV at 86, and Internet at 54.life.
Basically, mobile phones and the internet are over traditional media (TV, Radio, Newspaper) as the primary platform for information dissemination. It is not unreasonable to conclude that in the near future, social media will become the primary political battleground.

Truth be told, this may have already happened, as evidenced by Duterte’s May 2016 win. Duterte won because of Free Facebook that allowed him to reach 46 percent of the electorate [CampaignAsia].

Yes, evidence suggests that social media is “it”, and mainstream media is feeling the heat as it faces serious challenges from a new mosquito press: the Millennial Mosquito Press.

Inquirer and the Mosquito Press

In “i-Witness: Ang Kagat ng Mosquito Press” (The Sting of the Mosquito Press), journalist Howie Severino [GMA] said in Filipino, “I still remember a time when news can be obtained from just a few sources. And now, we all know that many were lies, and a lot was hidden from the people.”

The “Mosquito Press” refers to small and independent publications that continued to criticize the Martial Law government despite the dangers that it entailed. These publications were likened to mosquitos, small creatures that carry a stinging bite.

The Marcos-era mosquito press served as alternative sources of information at a time when state-controlled mainstream media provided limited information. It was the mosquito press that “exposed” then-budding intellectuals like UP Mass Communication Professor Danny Arao “to both the truths and the lies about martial law and the so-called New Society [Arao 2006].”“Mr. and Mrs. Special Edition” tabloid editor Letty Jimenez-Magsanoc (LJM) was one of the icons of the Marcos-era mosquito press. Before Mr. and Mrs., LJM worked for the Manila Bulettin’s Panorama Magazine, where she was fired for writing articles that poked fun on Pres. Marcos [Inq]. Mr. and Mrs. is the predecessor of today’s Philippine Daily Inquirer [Inq].

Yes, the mosquito press of old has become the mainstream of the past three decades. But with the emergence of social media, this new mainstream is challenged by a new, social media-based, mosquito press: the Millennial Mosquito Press.

The Regular Citizen's Voice

I could have easily dismissed these suspicions if not for the fact that mainstream media has started reacting to reactions from the public, something that it rarely did before social media became en vogue.

Ten years ago, public reactions were usually confined to “Letters to the Editor” sections of newspapers, a section that even I, during my newspaper-reading days, did not give a damn about. Today, however, mainstream outlets have started complaining about netizen behavior, suggesting that the former is starting to feel the heat.

Many mainstream media people, led by the National Union of Journalists (NUJP) in the Philippines, recently decried the supposed silencing of political dissent as they accuse Duterte supporters of threatening some mainstream journalists for criticizing the President [Inq]. Ironically, NUJP’s president is a veteran reporter of the Philippine Daily Inquirer [Inq].

I categorically condemn threats of violence, and I respect NUJP’s right to pursue legal action against abusive netizens. However, this NUJP reaction suggests a shifting of the tides, a redistribution of power over the shaping of political discourse.

But Inquirer-NUJP isn’t the only one.

Ressa's Rants

Last month, several camps, including a university professor “SC”, who actively contributes for Rappler, accused ThinkingPinoy of receiving millions of pesos in exchange for supporting the Duterte Administration. SC, in particular, could not believe that ThinkingPinoy is a one-man operation, even going as far as saying that it should be operated by a team of people.

A few days before that incident, I published “Mainstream vs Indie: Who’s winning the Social Media Wars?, where I discovered that in terms of Facebook user engagement, ThinkingPinoy is starting to rival Rappler’s Facebook performance. Moreover, on an engagement-per-post basis, ThinkingPinoy exceeds Rappler by over 10%.

Fast forward to a few days ago, veteran journalist and Rappler founder Maria Ressa, using the all-too-convenient “undisclosed sources” strategy, went ahead and accused several Duterte-aligned social media entities as part of a large-scale, well-funded online propaganda machine. Ressa also accused these Duterte-aligned pages of “gaming” Facebook’s algorithm, suggesting that Rappler should’ve been on top of the rankings instead.

Interestingly, Ressa was on a meeting with Rappler investor Omidyar Network on the same day the article was published. As a side note, I think it’s quite ironic that Ressa makes major funding for Duterte supporters appear like it’s necessarily evil, when the fact of the matter is that Rappler, a social media entity in itself, receives major funding. But I am digressing.

Given this, it appears that Ressa’s “undisclosed source” may actually the same person who made that accusation last month.

Regardless, these recent developments suggest that traditional media companies such as the Philippine Daily Inquirer and Rappler, characterized by large-scale funding and large workforces, have started to feel threatened, and for good reason.

The Rise of the Millennial Mosquito Press

Facebook is the undisputed leader in social media platforms in the country: with Free Data promos, I think's that's pretty obvious. Add the fact that Filipinos being second only to Brazilians in terms of time spent online [WeAreSocial].

Facebook, plus the lack of diversity in political opinion in mainstream media, is what helped fuel the rise of the new Mosquito Press. The Millenial Mosquito Press.

Now, I can try to analyze how mainstream media companies perform with respect to other social media players, but that will take too long and I doubt that I can say everything in just 2000 words. Instead, I will focus on two major mainstream players: Inquirer and Rappler.

If there's something that Inquirer and Rappler shares, it's their disdain for Duterte and their reverence for everything Liberal Party. Thus, I felt its best to compare their social media presence to those of Duterte-aligned pages. In particular, I will use my own page, ThinkingPinoy.

Note, however, that are other Duterte-aligned Facebook pages that are far more influential than ThinkingPinoy, such as TNP – Trending News Portal and Mocha Uson Blog.

Mocha Uson's social media influence is particularly undeniable. When I checked Facebook Page insights on 25 August 2016, data showed that she has engagement that's greater than Inquirer and Rappler combined, and just a little below GMA Network's figures [TP: Indie vs Mainstream]:

But I am digressing.

Inquirer-Rappler vs ThinkingPinoy

I discovered Facebook Page Insights in late August, and I was shocked to discover the the performance stats of Rappler, Inquirer, Thinking Pinoy, and other related pages.

This is what what I got on 29 August 2016:

Now. this is what I got a month later on 24 September 2016:

Here are the stats for 26 September 2016:

And this is for 03 October 2016:

And this is for 04 October 2016:

The data from the past couple of months suggest that ThinkingPinoy may actually challenging both Rappler and the Inquirer in terms of influence on public opinion.

What's more alarming is the fact that ThinkingPinoy is NOT the most influential member of the Millennial Mosquito Press. Mocha Uson and TNP- Trending News Portal enjoy far higher engagement figures than TP.

At face value, Rappler's and Inquirer's main problem is ego, but in reality, they may be facing something more alarming that just losing bragging rights.

They may not be making enough money.

Rappler and Inquirer's Revenue Figures

Mainstream media companies require profits to survive, and they derive this mainly from advertising in their respective websites. Thus, driving web traffic into their sites is key.

Let's estimate monthly revenues based on August 2016 traffic statistics, starting with a few figures:

Rappler.com received 14.3 million visitors [SimilarWeb]
Inquirer.net received 21.4 million visitors [SimilarWeb]
ThinkingPinoy.net, my blog, received 490,000 visitors [SimilarWeb]

The best-paying advertisement network today is Google Adsense, and all three sites have Adsense ads embedded in their pages. For August 2016, ThinkingPinoy (my site) received approximate Php 18,000 pesos. Now, Rappler has about 30 times, while Inquirer has about 44 times, my site traffic. That is for August 2016, Rappler should have received around Php 540,000, while Inquirer received Php 792,000.

Of course, there are many other variables that affect ad revenue, so let's just give Rappler and Inquirer the benefit of the doubt by assuming that, for August 2016, they earned Php 1 million and Php 1.5 million, respectively.

Facebook is a powerful tool to gain influence and thus, drive traffic to one's website. However, it does not make money in the strictest sense of the word. Facebook has monetization platforms, but its more of a joke than anything else. For one, it announced plans of allowing publishers to monetize videos [Forbes], but it has yet to implement this feature.

In short, Facebook content does not make real money.

Revenue vs Expenses

Now, my 18,000 plus donations amounting to about P5,000 a month is just about enough to pay for my internet bill (Php 4,000), electricity (Php 5,000), and my living expenses (food, clothing, rent). I focused full-time on TP so I don't have a day job right now. And when I fall short, I borrow money from real-life friends. That hasn't happened yet, though. I know how to live within my means.

SIDE NOTE: Well, I’m sorry to burst Ressa’s bubble but behind TP is me, a one-man team. Behind Sass Sasot is her, a one-woman team. Behind Mocha is Mocha, a one-woman team. Contrary to what you'd like believe, Rappler is not the most social media savvy entity on the planet. Yeah, masakit sa dibdib para iyo na tanggapin 'yan, lalo na kung totoong palugi ka na.

Basically, even if it's difficult, ThinkingPinoy is managing to survive. The same goes for other non-profit "millennial mosquito press" outfits like Sass Rogando Sasot (who does everything for free), MindaNation (which is run by a very lean team of less than 10 people).

But Rappler and Inquirer are not as lucky. For example, Rappler should be employing at least 50 people, judging from the photo of the " Rappler Team" shown below:

The Rappler Team, image courtesy of Rappler

Now, 1 million pesos divided by 50 heads amount to only 20,000 pesos per person. That's not a living wage for journalists in Manila. Add maintenance and other operating expenses, I find it hard to imagine how Rappler can survive with monthly revenues of just Php 1million. We can even assume a monthly revenue of Php 2 million, and it still won't be enough.

The same goes for the Inquirer, although it can be argued that they sell print newspapers, which also help boost revenue, though arguably by a relatively minimal amount. But then, the Inquirer is a much larger organization, most probably employing over twice the number of Rappler's employees.

Simply put, it's very likely that their operating costs grossly exceed their revenues. In business, that's called "heading towards bankruptcy."

Contrast that to small and independent Millennial Mosquito Press players who are essentially non-profit and thus are willing to work on pennies and peanuts, who do what they do for love of country.

So I cannot help but ask:

If this is true, where do Rappler and Inquirer get the extra money to balance their books?

ThinkingPinoy's Takeaways

In terms of social media influence, the poorly-funded Millenial Mosquito Press is rivalling heavily-funded mainstream media players like the Inquirer and Rappler. That fact in itself is shocking, but what's more shocking is the fact that non-TV mainstream media players are starting to feel the financial impact, as they appear to be losing the profitability that they too easily enjoyed in the past.

Times are changing, my friend: the Millennial Mosquito Press is rising, and Maria Ressa can't accept that fact. [ThinkingPinoy.net]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

In an earlier Facebook post, I used the “Love Triangle” analogy to explain the Philippines' foreign policy realignment. The original post, written in Filipino, goes something like this:

I think you'd agree with me that your boyfriend was better during the courtship phase.
Now imagine you're the Philippines.

The United States is like the your boyfriend. Over the past 70 years, the boyfriend started to take you for granted. You eventually got so fed up that you unilaterally demanded for a “cool off”.

The US could've just left you right then and there, but he he can't. You live right across the street to China, America's archnemesis. While the you were still dating the US, he gets to drop by your house to check on what China's doing. With the cool off, however, he can't do that anymore.

And worse, China wants to be your rebound boyfriend! As soon as he caught wind of the cool-off, he started being nice to you. He stopped harassing your fishermen-neighbours, he built rehab facilities, he even promised a massive railway system! He even offers to fix your slow internet! Who are you to refuse free gifts anyway?

That doesn't mean you and China are like, “together-together”. You're not that cheap. Despite China's advances, you still like the US, so you're still waiting for his next move. Unfortunately, what he managed to do so far is remind you of every miniscule thing he did for you. As if that works, right?

But still, you wait. But your patience is wearing thin, and you have to take action. Will you wait forever for the US to redeem himself, or is it time to move on?

Now THAT is the question.

From Words to Action

It's one thing to have a plan, but it's another thing to implement it, and what got the ball rolling was the South China Sea dispute.

On 12 July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration released its decision on the Philippines-China South China Sea Case, triggering an unwelcome increase in tensions between both sides [TP: Yasay's Face]. A couple of days later, to cool things down a bit, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte announced that former President Fidel V. Ramos would "go to China to start the talks", albeit without a time frame [TSHK].

Duterte said back then, “"I have to consult many people, including president Ramos. I would like to respectfully ask him to go to China and start the talks."
Ramos announced in mid-August that Beijing welcomed him to visit Beijing for diplomatic discussions. Ramos, however, told reporters that the ruling was not directly discussed and that another negotiator might take his place [AP].

In a confusing turn of events, Ramos' camp announced mid-September that he has cancelled his Beijing trip, although “the source” Ramos would still go to Beijing when the time was right [Straits] which, in diplomatic terms, means, “I do not really know but most probably, never.”

War and Peace

This writer believes that war is not clearly not an option, as explained in a previous ThinkingPinoy article “Duterte's Philippines breaking away from the United States?”, so that peace is the only option. Duterte also explained this several times during his speeches.

Duterte's choice of Ramos, I believe, was based on a mix of political gravitas and the lack of any other choices. At the time of the announcement, Duterte cannot possibly go on a state visit to China because he was still gauging how the Americans would react to the arbitral decision.
Duterte couldn't have sent Vice-president Leni Robredo because she's too closely linked to former President Aquino, whose administration brought us to the brink of war, thanks to his cronies' interests in South China Sea hydrocarbons [TP: Karen Davila].

With Leni out of the picture, he had to send the next-next-best thing in terms of political clout: a former Philippine President. Cory Aquino has passed away, Joseph Estrada is a convicted plunderer [GMA], Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is bad PR through-and-through [TP: Arroyo], while Pnoy is a moron [TP: SCS 101]. Thus, he's left with no one else but Fidel Ramos.

Yes, Ramos was entangled in the PEA-Amari Scam, or what the PCIJ called “the grandmother of all scams”, but it was never proven and largely forgotten by the public, so that won't drastically affect Ramos' legitimacy in the eyes of the Filipino public.

But he cancelled right when he's about to fly to Beijing, right? What happened?

Ramos assesses Duterte' 1st 100 days

In “DU30s’ first 100 days – Team Philippines losing”, Ramos wrote (in all caps),”WE FIND OUR TEAM PHILIPPINES LOSING IN THE FIRST 100 DAYS OF DU30’S ADMINISTRATION – AND LOSING BADLY.“

My first reaction was, “Okay, fair enough. So tell me why you said so.”

NOTE: We'll assume that this Manila Bulletin op-ed article, whether written by Ramos or not, actually has Ramos' imprimatur. Why? Because it's been two days and he hasn't disowned it.

Ramos (or his writer, because the article uses third-person pronouns a tad too often), cited two specific issues: the Hitler Statement and the anti-American tirades. Yes, the extrajudicial killings issue is also worrisome in some respects but it does not directly affect foreign policy, and Philippine foreign policy is my focus in this piece.I think the Hitler issue, in as far as the Jews are concerned, while deplorable [TP: Dissecting Duterte] has been largely taken care of after his profuse apology to the Philippine Jewish Community [Video]. I have reason to believe that and should not be much of an issue in the long-term.

What's more telling, however, is Ramos' statement regarding the uncertainty of PH-US relations, wher he wrote, “SO, WHAT GIVES?? ARE WE THROWING AWAY DECADES OF MILITARY PARTNERSHIP, TACTICAL PROFICIENCY, COMPATIBLE WEAPONRY, PREDICTABLE LOGISTICS, AND SOLDIER-TO-SOLDIER CAMARADERIE JUST LIKE THAT?? ON P. DU30’S SAY-SO???”

I have been looking for an answer for Ramos' September cancellation announcement, and I think I got it in this piece of his.

Ramos' Stance: Prudence vs Outright Aversion?

That last statement regarding PH-US relations, in itself, can be easily interpreted as prudence that stems from Ramos' presidential wisdom. However, after examining the rest of the article, I discovered several easter eggs that clearly suggest where Ramos wants the country to stand.

In the section “Filipino Hospitality and Humanitarianism”, Ramos detailed our history of accepting refugees from all around the world. That's great to hear, really, but he mentioned two things that will surely ruffle more than a few northern feathers:

The “White Russians” when they fled from Shanghai in 1949 as the Communist Red Army was about to lay siege.
In 1949, when some 30,000 Chinese mainlanders belonging to the Kuomintang also sought sanctuary in the Philippines to avoid capture by Communist Chinese forces

Let's put this back into perspective.

First, Ramos was supposed to be the envoy to China, and China is currently governed by the Communist Party, the same organization that was portrayed as oppressors in those two bullet points. Ramos is a very intelligent guy: he will not mention those two things without intending these conclusions.

Second, Ramos' portrayal of the Kuomintang as being oppressed by Communist China is bad enough, but what makes this worse is the fact that the Kuomintang is actually the core of Taiwan's political history [Britannica]. And as we all know, Taiwan is China's breakaway sister. In short, Ramos basically implied that China bullies Taiwan. That's bad for a would-be diplomat.

We can argue all day about what's the truth and what's not, but we're talking about Ramos, the potential diplomat. Surely, a would-be diplomat, who's supposed to be smarter than Duterte, will not publish these anti-Chinese phrases unless he really intends to offend the Chinese.

In short, I think Ramos cancelled his Beijing Trip because his viewpoints do not align with the Duterte Administrations' stance.

So no, he cannot be the envoy.

Ramos' Skepticism

At face value, I think Ramos' skepticism against Mainland China is understandable given his experience with China when he was still the president.

Claiming storm damage in 1995, seven Chinese Navy vessels entered the area to repair "fishing shelters" in Panganiban Reef (Mischief Reef). The Ramos Government tried internationalize this issue through several means, including the call for invocation of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty [Dzurek 1995].

And being the inferior US ally that we have always been, the Ramos-era legislators' calls for the invocation of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty fell onto deaf American ears, as American Ambassador Negroponte called on both parties to settle the dispute peacefully.

Yes, America basically told Ramos that they do not want to fight for us, a sentiment that they reiterated 21 years later in 2016, when the US State Department said the same thing to us just hours after arbitral ruling [FocusTaiwan]

Yes, déjà vu. But the “déjà vu” doesn't end there.

Another déjà vu

At first glance, it appears that the Philippines was bullied in 1995, only to be neglected by the United States soon after. But that isn't the entire story, because the Chinese Navy isn't stupid enough to send seven ships just to fix “fishing shelters”.

A year prior to the 1995 incident, the Philippines' announced that the American company, Alcorn Petroleum, would be exploring the Kalayaan Area [Dzurek 1995], directly violating the 1992 ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea, of which both China and the Philippines are signatories [NUS].

Thus, on the question of “Who did it first?”, it's sad to say that the answer is us, the Philippines. That's something that Filipino mainstream media failed to mention in recent memory, either because of incompetence, or because they're in the payroll of rich men with vested interests.

But like I've said, there's another déjà vu.

China re-occupied the Spratlys some time after 2012, right? And we all complained that China is a bully, right? What no mainstream media man tried to point out is that in 2011, Aquino's Foreign Secretary allowed Manny Pangilinan's Philex Petroleum to explore Reed Bank, which is, again, in contravention of the 1992 Declaration of Conduct [TP: Reed Bank].

We basically did in 2011 the same thing we did in 1994.

Let's cut the long story short

Ramos basically does not believe in Duterte's Foreign Policy. That's why he wrote that piece.

Ramos statement regarding US-Philippines military relations gives us a pretty good glimpse of where he stands on the US-PH-China love triangle. That is, while he wants us to make peace with China, he is unwilling to distance ourselves from the United States.

Ramos' stance on China, as laid out by history and his recent Manila Bullettin article, is actually the reason why he's ineligible the country's post-arbitration chief negotiator, chiefly because “uncompromising diplomat” is an oxymoron. Moreover, wouldn't it be the irony of ironies if we let him talk to the Chinese when he basically committed the same mistake that Aquino-MVP-Del Rosario-Trillanes committed [TP: SCS Trillanes]?

But most importantly, after having been jilted twice vis-a-vis the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, why haven't we learned yet?

By the way, Ambassador Negroponte has strong links with Loida Nicolas-Lewis [TV5] and by extension, Vice-President Leni Robredo [Inq].

But let's save that story for another day.

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

It all started with Rappler founder Maria Ressa’s October 3rd rant “Propaganda war: Weaponizing the internet”, where she accused Duterte supporters of cheating the Facebook’s algorithm to boost social media performance statistics. Ressa went on to publish three sequels, while the rest of her Rapplerettes published follow-up articles that follow the same theme.

By far, Ressa’s biggest accusation is that Duterte pages use bots, something that does not correspond to reality because Facebook has an automated system that periodically detects fake accounts and subsequently deactivates them [FB].

For example, see the image below:

The image above shows daily likes/unlikes for the ThinkingPinoy Facebook Page. From August to October 2016, you can see that likes (blue) and unlikes (red) are generally proportional, except for September 13th, where ThinkingPinoy received a deluge of 1,595 unlikes.

A closer look shows that 21 of those 1,595 unlikes were on my page and posts, so that’s probably because I posted something that irritated those users. However, a whopping 1,574, or 98.65% of the unlikes are due to “Suspicious Account Removal”, which basically means that Facebook’s regular purge of fake accounts actually work. That is, 1,595 of my 200,000 likers were fake accounts, and they have since been deleted.

If that’s the case, then how can such fake profiles have major impact? Will a bunch of fake profiles with only 100 friends each change the general trajectory of online discourse?

I do not think so.
Rappler’s Ressa, through her four-part rant, basically tries to tell us that, “Rappler is falling because Duterte supporters cheat.”

That’s just too lazy, Miss Ressa. But by singling out Duterte supporters, you tacitly admitted that Rappler is an anti-Duterte organization. That’s not social news, Miss Ressa. That’s the propaganda you’ve been decrying all along.

But of course, Ressa will probably say this as another lie, another glitch, another thingamajig that only Her Highness can fully comprehend.

So let me ask:

We can argue all day about analytics data and whatnot, but has Ressa and her Rapplerettes even bothered to cover social media basics before they started crying like babies?

Kasi ang problem sa iyo Marya e ang dami-dami mong sinisisi, pero ni minsan e di ka man lang tumingin sa salamin.

Social Media Influence

Throughout her four-part article series, Ressa ranted, and ranted, and ranted. Yes, she tried to provide sources for her claims. Yes, she tried to reason. Yes, she tried.

Yes, in a Ressa-centric world, people would have listened to her and her Rapplerettes. The problem, however, is that the world does not revolve around Rappler and Maria Ressa.

Miss Ressa, you are complaining about the symptoms of Rappler’s problem, but you totally fail to acknowledge the underlying disease.

NOTE: Maria Ressa and Rappler are basically one and the same. Rappler could not have gained as much traction as it did when it launched if not for Ressa’s street cred.

Lithium's chief analytics scientist Michael Wu gave six factors that determine the effectiveness of social media influence [Lithium]:

Timing, or the ability of the influencer to deliver his expert knowledge to the target at the time when the target needed it.
Bandwidth, or the influencer's ability to transmit his expert knowledge through a social media channel.
Alignment, or the amount of channel overlap between the target and the influencer.
Relevance, or how closely the target's information needs coincide with the influencer's expertise.
Credibility, or the influencer's expertise in a specific domain of knowledge.
Confidence, or how much the target trusts the influencer with respect to his information needs.

Even though I am tempted to argue about Rappler’s lack of timing, bandwidth, relevance and alignment, I’ll just concede that Rappler has that, because Rappler's social media competitors also possess the four anyway. That is, aside from the number of Rappler's followers, Rappler possesses no other competitive advantages in as far as these four factors.

Hence, let’s focus on the last two: Credibility and Confidence.

Rappler’s Credibility

Relevance refers to Rappler’s expertise in what it wants to talk about. Note that I’ll just pretend that Ressa’s Princeton double major in molecular biology and theater are relevant to what she’s doing right now.

On paper, Ressa and most of her Rapplerettes will pass. However, I think it’s pretty clear that her organization has been receiving – and ignoring – negative feedback for quite some time now.

First, Pia Rañada’s Neuron Count
Look at Rañada’s article about Duterte’s first week in office, an article that’s so shallow that it was no match to the insight provided by the fashion magazine Cosmopolitan [TP: 1st week]. To make matters worse, instead of respecting customer feedback, you chose to defend the article by saying it’s just a blog post [TP: Pia’s Blog].

Second, Paterno Esmaquel’s Incompetence (and Agenda)
Esmaquel attempted to sow further intrigue in the EJK issue by conveniently failing to mention that the issue he’s raising has already been comprehensively addressed [TP: Wikileaks]. Actually to say that it’s “amateur research work” is an understatement.

Third, oh! Dear Lord.
Look at the excruciating stupidity of your reporter who checked Leila de Lima’s SOCE for campaign donations from drug lords [TP: de Lima SOCE]. He is a newbie, I understand that. But for that article to pass the standards of “veteran journalists” and get published? That’s a totally different story.

We think you don’t know what you’re talking about. So where’s the expertise? We do not care about what you think about yourselves. We care about what we think about you.

Public Confidence

Confidence? The public has lost whatever it had for Rappler.

First, Rappler’s ethics issues.

During the last couple of weeks of the campaign period, Rappler released a one-sided investigation on Duterte’s alleged P. Guevarra Property [TP: 386 Guevarra]. Citing unidentified sources, Rappler went on and on about how the P2-million San Juan Property could be ill-gotten wealth. I punched gaping holes on Rappler’s article, something that should not have happened if Rappler only bothered to ask the Duterte camp about it.

I guess Rappler finds due diligence too difficult to do. So why would the public trust you?

Second, Pia Rañada’s (Personal) Bullsh!t:
When a reader wants to know what Duterte said about Martial Law, the reader wants to know what Duterte said, not what the reporter thinks. This is something that Rapplerette Pia Rañada-Robles conveniently forgot when she editorialized Duterte’s dare to declare Martial Law [TP: Martial Law] by offering her insipid legal opinion.

When I write articles, I aim to educate. I do not aim to validate my existence. But that’s something that Pia is seemingly so obsessed about [TP: Big Ego]. Oh, and did I mention the time when Pia showed patent callousness amids the devastating tragedy that was the Davao Bombing [TP: Why Pia]?

Third, the condescension.
Rappler allowed Prof. Claudio’s to de facto call Duterte supporters illiterates, among other things[TP: Claudio]. In another incident, Paterno Esmaquel brazenly cyber-bullied and publicly shamed a dissenting commenter [TP: Esmaquel]. But this is not limited to those two: you page moderators themselves exhibit the same behavior.
Rappler, the Sorority Blog

Personally, I think Rappler is just a college sorority blog and little else. Of course, my opinion doesn’t matter. But many other facebook users share my opinion, then that becomes the problem, and that’s one of the main reasons why Rappler’s recent Facebook posts rarely exceed 100 likes.

Because people think Rapplerettes don’t know what they’re doing.

And the irony? Rappler even has the balls to teach “the secret behind a successful social media campaign”. Jesus H Christ. If Rappler knew the secret, Ressa wouldn’t be whining right now. That’s just like Sen. Trillanes trying to teach law.

SAVAGE: Witness schools Trillanes twice
#SenateHearing witness SPO3 Lascañas, who has Law credits, savagely schools Sen. Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV TWICE in a row. This is why you should never argue with witnesses, especially if witness is smarter than you.
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Monday, October 3, 2016

Seventy-five million Duterte supporters have basically started to see Rappler as an external threat to their political interests. And because of social media, those Filipinos have found a way to air their grievances.

But instead of listening, Rappler simply fueled the flames. Remember the term “Dutertard”? Rappler published full-length Celdran-centric article about it [Rap].

Did any of Rappler’s over-opinionated Rapplerettes call out the slur? No. You even used that term when you tried to school Duterte supporters in what appears to be another condescending article [Rap].

Duterte supporters distrust Rappler. Unfortunately for Ressa and her Rapplerettes, 76% of Filipinos approve of Duterte’s performance [VoA], and about the same proportion have much trust in him [BW].

Facebook user Gideon Lasco once said:

“Your first mistake was to call us stupid. Your second was to underestimate how many of us there are...”

Unfortunately for Rappler, external conflict increases internal cohesion [Stein 1976], and "Dutertards" are starting to kick Rappler's ass. There's at least 75 million of us, so what will you, Rappler, do now?

Let me state this very simply, in case Pia Rañada's brain can't handle it:

Rappler is dying because it's full of assholes spewing bullshit nonstop. And on social media, assholes get ignored, just like in real life, just like what's happening to Rappler right now.

NOW SUFFER.

P.S. I didn't proofread this article anymore. It's not worth the time.

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Just when I felt that Bongbong Marcos’ political relevance has started to fade away after the May 2016 loss, I suddenly realized that that the late dictator’s son has a crucial role to play in today’s Political Game of Thrones.

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying that this actually is LP's plan. What I am saying is that this is the model of future events that best fits my current understanding of the situation. Nothing more, nothing less.

It’s 3:00 AM of October 17th and Duterte is still in Brunei. He will be arriving here in China on the 18th, so I do not expect anything to happen today. I’m in my Beijing hotel room, restlessly trying to figure out how to pass the time. Then I remembered the Reuters’ news article featuring ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda.

International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda [Reuters] recently, warned the newly-installed Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte of possible ICC action, as she explained that ICC may have the jurisdiction to prosecute perpetrators of thousands of alleged extrajudicial killings in the Philippines' crackdown on drugs.

The Senate Hearings

The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) has been hounding President Rody Duterte with allegations of extrajudicial killings since 2009 [TP: Ooh, Ronnie]. Seven years later in 2016, they still haven’t managed to file a case with probable cause [TP: Wikileaks]. Even de Lima admitted in August that they have not been able to file cases against Duterte since 2009 because of lack of evidence [TP: Ronnie].
In a bid to resurrect the issue, Sen. Leila De Lima brought witness Edgar Matobato into the limelight, and we all know how big of a dud Matobato turned out to be. Just look at how de Lima lost her sh*t when someone blew Matobato’s cover:

De Lima Meltdown Phase 3: Temper Tantrum and Dramatic Walkout
The finale of the three-part De Lima Meltdown series doesn't need a lot of intro. Dick Gordon's fierce rebuke turned Leila de Lima batsh!t crazy as Antonio "Sonny" Trillanes IV defends her like a coup-plotting knight in low-IQ armor. And as usual, Manny Pacquiao was furious too.

ENJOY! <3

Part 1: https://www.facebook.com/TheThinkingPinoy/videos/701731916640581/

Part 2: https://www.facebook.com/TheThinkingPinoy/videos/701773966636376/
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Monday, October 3, 2016

Matobato turned out to be a dud. And with Matobato being central to de Lima’s “case” against Duterte, the senate investigation of extrajudicial killings, corollarily, also turned out be a dud. At least, in as far as pinning the killings to the mayor-turned-president.

On the last day of the senate hearing, Senator Gordon mentioned that former Liberal Party Director-General and current CHR Chairman Chito Gascon called him. The topic of the call isn’t important for this article, but a particular detail is:

Gascon told Gordon he was in Amsterdam [DZRH], the primary port-of-entry to the Netherlands. Amsterdam and it’s just an hour’s drive away from The Hague, the city where ICC sits, the city where Bensouda is based.

Yes, it appears that Gascon has internationalized the Liberal Party’s Plan B [TP: PLeni], despite the fact that CHR’s inability to prosecute Duterte not because of state negligence or pressure, but due to the fact that no evidence exists.

The Sense of Urgency

Despite being in office for barely four months and despite enjoying overwhelming support from 86% of Filipinos [Balita], he has been facing what could probably be the most vicious minority opposition since the fall of President Marcos in 1986. And not-so-coincidentally, the minority opposition at the time was also the Liberal Party.
Instead of listing down the how and the what, I will, instead, tackle the question of “the why”. Specifically, why is the opposition so vicious? What are the circumstances that made LP decide to accelerate what would otherwise have been a six-year plan? Is there something that pressured LP to go on overdrive?

That’s we will attempt to answer in this article. That is, let’s ask: What is LP’s endgame?

2019, the Magic Year

Late 2019 will probably the turning point of contemporary Philippine Politics.

By late 2019, a majority of today’s Supreme Court justices will have reached the mandatory retirement age of 70, so that the majority of end-of-2019 justices will be Duterte appointees [TP: SC Math]. A new set of senators will also have replaced the senators elected in 2013. Assuming Duterte retains the same level of local popularity up to then, it’s pretty certain that anyone he endorses will almost surely win. Add the fact that Duterte enjoys the support of the Lower House, the Police, and the Military.By late 2019, if things are allowed to progress as they do, Chief Executive Duterte will enjoy support from the Legislature, the Judiciary, the PNP, and the Armed Forces. In short, Duterte will de facto become the most powerful president this country ever had. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party will become trivial, to say the least.

Naturally, the Liberal Party will do everything it can to prevent this from happening.

Mode of Ouster

The Liberal Party fears 2019, and it wants Duterte out of Malacañang before that. There were originally three ways to go about this: impeachment, natural death, and assassination. However, I have already explained in a previous article that Villar’s DPWH appointment made impeachment impossible [TP: Villar] so we’re left with natural death and assassination.

Duterte is already 71, and that’s already three years past the average Filipino’s life expectancy. The problem, however, is that despite the chronic ailments Duterte deals with on an everyday basis, the old man probably won’t die anytime soon. While it’s true that Duterte health may be precarious, blindly relying on natural causes is not the most reliable course of action for LP. After all, the Enrile has been around since the age of the dinosaurs yet he still breathes as of press time.

Thus, we are left with one last option: assassination.

Of course, you may argue that assassination need not be implemented before 2019. However, that argument makes sense only if LP still has a suitable replacement if and when that happens.

What exactly am I trying to say here? It’s simple.
There are two preliminary conditions necessary to ensure LP’s resurgence:

Duterte's death
Leni’s eligibility

The first one is obvious: as long as Daddy D breathes, he’s president, so LP needs that to stop. The second one, however, is a little more complicated.

A President Leni

Rules of succession dictate that VP Leni Robredo should replace Duterte should the need arise.

As we’ve explained, that “need” arises only if Duterte dies through assassination (or through more creative ways, such as a “plane crash”). Of course, Duterte is a walking target and LP (or the LP ally US Government) can have him assassinated right away. However, this will not work if done too soon given Duterte’s immense local popularity [Indep].

I think it’s safe to say that Leni’s installation after a Duterte assassination will likely trigger another People Power Revolution. The LP doesn’t want that, especially since that may translate to a dela Rosa, Inday Sara, Cayetano, or Marcos presidency. LP needs an LP-aligned president, and Leni is the only one with some semblance of moral ascendancy among LP’s ranks.

Now, LP can wait for Duterte’s popularity to fade. LP can just kill him off in, say, 2019 or 2020. But there’s a catch: Bongbong Marcos’ electoral protest.

Leni vs BBM

I have explained how BBM could have been cheated in the previous elections. First, I explained that the vote counting system hash code anomaly [TP: Hash Code]. Second, I explained how Comelec chose to use obsolete cheating-prone technology from Smartmatic [TP: Obsolete].

I am not totally certain about the parameters of Bongbong Marcos’ (BBM) electoral protest, but several of high profile lawyers I have spoken to suggest that BBM’s case is quite strong. Now, LP would have simply dismissed my claim as hogwash, but their subsequent actions after the case filing suggest otherwise.

Leni wanted in August to have the BBM electoral protest dismissed [Star], arguing that Marcos showed no evidence suggesting her direct or indirect participation in the cheating. This is a very weak argument, as it does not categorically refute the BBM’s fraud accusation against the vote counting system per se. Leni again asked the SC in September to dismiss the protest, citing basically the same reasons she gave in August, plus the accusation that BBM forged evidence [SunStar].

Regardless of the veracity of Leni’s points, what’s clear is that both the August and September motions are dilatory tactics, something that the BBM camp itself pointed out this month [Tribune].
Yes, Leni and LP are delaying the progress of the case.

This is further emphasized by the fact that PNoy appointee and PNoy ex-classmate Caguioa handles the pol case [ABS] so Caguioa can choose to delay the progress of case for as long as he can. PNoy appointee Sereno, in her capacity as Chief Justice, also handles scheduling so she can choose not to include this issue in the weekly en banc sessions.

This isn’t a party that’s confident in Leni’s May 2016 win.

Odds stacked vs LP

Despite its claims of being an impartial body, we all know that politics still plays a major role in the Supreme Court, so that the political alliances of each justice somehow affects his or her decisions on certain issues.

The catch here is this: the affirmation of BBM’s case only requires a simply SC-PET majority, i.e. 8 votes out of 15. It’s worthy to note that in the event of abstentions, it would be so ironic if SC adopts Sereno bastardized definition of “a majority” per Grace Poe decision [TP: Poe DQ].

With this in mind, there are several things that makes BBM likelier unseat Leni. These are:

First: SC’s Current Roster
Unfortunately for LP, Aquino got to appoint only six justices (Sereno, Reyes, Perlas, Leonen, Jardeleza and Caguioa), so that the other nine are Arroyo appointees. Add the fact that Reyes is Duterte’s fraternity brother, along with Arroyo appointee Mendoza [Star].

If justices were to vote along partisan lines, this would be an easy BBM win.

Second: LP-SC Bitter History
We all know that this is generally an anti-PNoy court, and Robredo, being a political neophyte, wouldn’t elicit political loyalty from any of the Arroyo-appointed justices. What further exacerbates the situation are:

LPs persecution of Arroyo from 2010 to 2016 as LP filed weak case after weak case to keep her in detention [TP:PGMA Acquit].
LP’s barrage against former Chief Justice Renato Corona in retaliation to a then-impending unfavorable Hacienda Luisita decision [TP: Gascon].

Third: Persuadability of swing votes
If PNoy-appointees (five without Reyes) all vote pro-Leni, and there are only two who would vote pro-BBM, BBM still has to persuade six more justices to join his cause. Given the previous point, this shouldn’t be very difficult. However, should BBM fail to muster enough support from the swing justices, he can always ask for help from Malacañang.

Duterte is aware of of the entire situation so he’s also probably awre of the BBM-Leni issue with respect to his predicament. This may be why he mentioned Imee’s support for his campaign in a recent speech [GMA]. That is, Duterte subtly sent LP the message that if push comes to shove, he’ll do what needs to be done.

Fourth: Consecutive retirements
If BBM, even with Duterte’s help, fails to muster enough support from the current roster, they can just wait for Duterte to appoint a few more justices to fill the gap. There are 10 justices retiring from today until 2019.

That is, if voting on the BBM protest were to be done today, we will have a President Marcos.

The Plan

Yes, it appears that Leni is most likely unable to hold on to her post for long, so they have to act fast. But before we go further, let me give you a quick recap of the situation from LP’s point of view:

First, assassination is required because impeachment is impossible while natural death is unreliable.
Second, regime change has to be before 2019 because BBM will most likely win electoral protest.
Third, Caguioa and Sereno can work hand-in-hand to delay progress of the electoral protest to give LP time to do what needs to be done.

The only thing that probably keeps LP from assassinating Duterte (Read: Plane Crash) is Leni’s lack of legitimacy, i.e. she’s unlikely to get local support. If Duterte dies today and Leni takes over, we can expect a People Power Revolution in just a few minutes.

To remedy this issue, an international campaign to destroy Duterte’s international reputation was put in place. The most recent development – Bensouda’s statements – only serve to underline that claim.

Now, if ICC’s Bensouda eventually decides to investigate Duterte, then that’s pretty much the end of Duterte’ international legitimacy. An announcement of an ICC investigation will make Duterte look like a madman in the eyes of the world, and we’re not even talking about an ICC conviction.

Forget the ICC conviction: all LP needs is for Duterte to lose all international credibility, as they could settle with a Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo type president. That is, a President Leni Robredo with no local support, but with international recognition.

With international recognition of her presidency, Robredo crushing a People Power Revolution like Edsa Tres, she will be seen as simply "enforcing the law" instead of "acting like a tyrant".

From the LP’s upper management’s point of view, that’s a lot better than a toothless post-2019 LP, right?

These series of scenarios actually fit Duterte's pronouncements during his speeches in various military camps in the past couple of months. In those speeches, Duterte told the military to take care of the drug problem should the problem "outlive" him, with the preface being his claim that no other presidentiable can solve the drug problem except him.

Let me state this more simply.

If the ICC decides to investigate Duterte, then Duterte will most likely die. Maybe through a bullet, or maybe through a plane crash. A plane crash, perhaps. Because it’s something that a certain political party tends to be historically good at.

Besides, Duterte himself said [Inq], "'If my plane crashes, don't worry, Leni is there to replace me" [TP]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

A Change.org petition initiated by a certain Paul Quilet is calling for the suspension of the Mocha Uson Blog Facebook Page.
The petition’s description reads:

“Mocha Uson, a Filipino entertainer-turned-Duterte die-hard supporter uses her Facebook page to spread fictitious and false information about pressing issues in the Philippines, from the role the USAID plays in the country to circulating malicious and false news concerning other government officials, eliciting unwarranted hate from the public. These Facebook posts widens the rift between those who support the current administration and those who are critical of it.”

The said petition has garnered 19,819 supporters as of 9:11 AM GMT+8, 24 October 2016.

I categorically refuse to sign the petition because I think it’s hilarious. Let me tell you why.

First, ain’t it hypocritical?

Whether Quilet wants to admit it or not, “The Mocha Uson Issue” is about Duterte supporters led by Mocha Uson versus Liberal Party supporters led by who-gives-a-shit. Now, suppose this petition succeeds in getting Mocha suspended, where will her 4 million Facebook followers go? Surely, it won’t be to any of those “Yellow Pages” like Juan Nationalist, Cynthia Patag, etc.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer even joined the let’s-suspend-mocha fray when its editor allowed the publication of Olivia Estrada’s “The days of the Mocha Uson Blog are now numbered”, where Estrada wrote, ”Uh-oh. Our best to Mocha (well, no, not really) but it looks like people are going in for the jugular on this one.”

It’s quite ironic that the people who decried Marcos era suppression of free speech, which includes the Inquirer’s founders, are the same ones who want to suppress free speech today. Freedom of Speech applies to everyone, and not just those whose opinions you agree with.

I used to be appalled by Yellows and their hypocrisy. Now, I am just amazed at their futile tenacity.

Second, what rule did Mocha break?

Free speech is guaranteed in the constitution. Sans a court conviction, the presumption of innocence allows Mocha to exercise this right whenever she pleases. For a group that loves rubbing “Rule of Law” onto everyone’s faces, I find their members’ selective memory.

Furthermore, a closer look at Facebook’s Community Standards show that Mocha did not violate anything either. The community standards are grouped into four: Helping to Keep you Safe, Encouraging Respectful Behavior, Keeping your account and personal information secure, and Protecting your intellectual property. Of these four categories, “Encouraging Respectful Behavior” is the nearest thing that Mocha could’ve violated.
The section covering “Encouraging Respectful Behavior” states, “please keep in mind that something that may be disagreeable or disturbing to you may not violate our Community Standards.” That is, this section “outlaws” only Nudity, Hate Speech, and Violance & Graphic Content [FCS].

As far as I know, it’s the yellows who constantly slut-shame Mocha by posting her nude pics online. So, if someone violates the community standards, it’d be the same people who are petitioning for her suspension.

Ah! The Irony.

Third, it’ll backfire.

Suppose that these idiots somehow manage to get Mocha’s page suspended or deleted, do they seriously think that that’s a win for them? I think not, because it will backfire big time. For one, Mocha can just create a new page and her 4 million followers will simply follow it.

Now, suppose Mocha gets banished from Facebook. Do these lamebrains seriously believe that that’s it? No. Mocha’s followers will instead go to other Duterte-aligned pages, making these pages more formidable and visible. I am telling you this right now: you will not want MindaNation, Sass Rogando Sasot, or Thinking Pinoy get as much engagement as Mocha’s Page. Trust me, it is in your best interest to keep Mocha afloat.

Moreover, if Change.org petitions can be used to get Facebook Pages suspended, what made these jaundiced assholes think that only they can use Change.org? If Change.org can actually influence Facebook moderators to disable accounts, then a post-Mocha scenario would be more disastrous for the Yellow sympathizers than for Duterte supporters.

There are far more Duterte supporters online than LP sympathizers. With our heavily-engaged followers, It wouldn’t be very difficult to muster a few hundred thousand signatures to eliminate every single anti-Duterte page or Facebook profile out there.

Let me cut this long story short: if Mocha gets banned because of the petition, you can expect every anti-Duterte page to get banned too. That would be interesting, because it will cost you guys a lot of money to regain your followers [TP: Internet Army], as opposed to us (especially Mocha Uson) who can just create new pages and wait for likes to quickly come in.

Social Media: New battleground

Social Media has become the primary political battleground today. It has democratized information on a scale that has never been seen before. Case in point: Facebook made Duterte win.

The Duterte social media phenomenon was no short-term fad: I’ve been constantly checking Facebook Page Insights Data since August 2016 and I have seen how independent Social Media Pages are outperforming mainstream media organizations in terms of user engagement.

Let’s just take a look at Facebook Page Insights stats from 11:00 PM of 24 October 2016, as shown in the image below:

The image above lists all the major Philippine news agencies and independent Political Facebook pages, along with their respective likes, number of posts, and user engagement.

Mocha’s nigh-indomitable influence

In terms of Facebook likes, Mocha Uson pales in comparison to news giants ABS-CBN and GMA. But likes are not the end of the story. What’s more important is engagement, which is the number of times people gave a damn about posts on a page.

In terms of user engagement, Mocha equals that of ABS-CBN and GMA combined, and she easily surpasses everyone else by over 100%. Needless to say, with her 4 million super-engaged followers, Mocha Uson has become more politically influential than ANYONE else in Philippine media today.

Truth be told, Mocha can even easily win THREE congressional party-list seats – the maximum number – if she decides to form a party for the 2019 elections, as three seats will require a lot fewer than four million votes. She probably won't run (I hope not), but the fact remains that this is how influential she has become.

And this is what mainstream media, the petite bourgeoisie, and their oligarchic benefactors are so scared of. And no amount of assholery will get them out of this rut. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

GMA News recently introduced the #HindTama project, which purportedly "aims to put in check some of the viral hoaxes that spread on social media [GMA]." However, I cannot help but wonder they needlessly limited their scope when they could have covered mainstream media itself, especially those cases when mainstream media men engage in unethical practices,

I am not sure of GMA knows how to do this, so let me teach them how.

In “An Analysis of Rappler’s ‘Rodrigo Duterte’s 386 P. Guevarra Property”, I showed how failing to get the other side of the story results in cataclysmic levels of misinformation. In this article, I explained how the sorority blog Rappler came up with a conspiracy theory based solely on a document from an unidentified source, when it could’ve easily been counter-checked with a simple phone call to the Duterte camp. But that’s Rappler: my expectations are not very high.

But I did not expect the three-decade-old Philippine Daily Inquirer to do the same thing.

Nikko Dizon and the Chinese Companies

On 25 October 2016, the Inquirer’s Nikko Dizon published the controversial article “Chinese company banned by World Bank bags PH infrastructure project [Inq]”, where it accused the government of two things:

The Duterte Government awarded contracts to companies blacklisted by the World Bank
The Duterte Government awarded contracts without following procurement laws.

The article, at face value, is pretty damning for the Duterte-led National Government. Why would someone who won on an anti-corruption platform award contracts to companies with dubious reputations and in contravention with procurement laws?

But there’s a catch: the Inquirer did not contact the government before they published this article. That is, the Inquirer did not bother to ask anyone from the government about this prior to the article’s publication. This is confusing for regular Filipinos like me, considering that they have correspondents in the Malacañang Press Corps.

The Inquirer even has direct access to Presidential Communication Operations Office Secretary Martin Andanar, who writes a column for them.

That’s really odd.

Government Rebuttal

As it turns out, the article fell flat on its face after the government commented about the issues.

Two days later on 27 October 2016, Inquirer’s Dizon published a follow-up article entitled “Just memos, contract, with Chinese firm, says BCDA [Inq]”, where BCDA said the documents signed in Beijing were just MoU’s, or Memorandums of Understanding between the Chinese Companies and their Philippine counterparts.

BCDA Chief Vince Dizon (no relation to the Inquirer reporter) even castigated the Inquirer for neglecting to counter-check its October 25 story. He also said that MoUs are by no means an award of contract.
According to the The Law Society of Singapore, “an MoU is generally considered ‘an agreement to agree’ or an agreement to enter into a more specific and comprehensive contract or agreement at a later time after further negotiations”. Furthermore, “MOUs are expressed to be not contractually binding. This is because the courts will generally not recognize agreements to enter into contracts, as contracts in their own right [LSSG]”.

In short, MoU do not violate procurement laws because they simply are generic agreements to cooperate. MoU’s do not set up the specific terms of a project contract (e.g. specific project cost), terms that are necessary for the government to award project contract.

Nikko Dizon’s article would have had a drastically less accusatory tone had the reporter bothered to ask the government about it... but she didn’t.

In short, iyong sinulat ni Nikko na October 25 article ay pambalot lang ng tinapa and nothing more.

The BCDA chief threw a sarcasm bomb at Nikko Dizon when the former said he admired the “diligence of the Philippine Daily Inquirer” then suggested that “the same diligence should have been exercised in simply reading the MOU that was signed.”

Fair enough, I think. But then, if Nikko Dizon was so good at research, why did she miss reading the actual MoU’s? Surely, an organization as well-funded as hers should be able to get hold of such.

It appears that her secret may be Facebook.

Luis Abad on October 23

On 23 October 2016 or two days prior to Dizon’s first article, a certain “Luis Abad” published three consecutive publicly-visible Facebook status posts [FB1, FB2, FB3] that listed issues regarding the Chinese companies involved in the $24 billion worth of investment pledges that the Duterte Government helped snag in its recent State Visit to Beijing China.

One of Abad's Facebook posts

Starting with the statement “And the wheeling and dealing begins? The China List raises more concerns,” Abad asked several rhetorical questions that can be summed up into the following points:

Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority (SBMA) may have awarded a contract to China Harbour Engineering Co (CHEC) despite the latter’s involvement in bribery and corruption controversies in 10 countries, and its being blacklisted by the World Bank.
Romero-owned Manila Harbour may have been allowed to do further reclamation work on Manila Bay despite lack of NEDA and DENR approval.
Romero-owned Mega Harbour Port and Development Inc may have flouted procurement laws when it was allowed to develop the Davao and Cebu ports.
Cavitex and ICTSI may have been illegally allowed to develop Sangley Point, which is still AFP property.
Two Chinese companies – China Road and Bridge Corp (CRBC) and Yangtse Motor Group – may have been awarded transportation-related contracts without proper bidding, and that CRBC was involved in bribery and corruption controversies in four countries.
Sinotech has also been involved in bribery and corruption issues.
Zonar Systems was also cited, but only in light of the absence of readily-available information regarding the bidding processes.

This is pretty long list. But to sum it all up, Abad’s questions revolve around two things: (1) regulatory compliance on the bidding process and (2) dubious company reputations.

This sounds awfully similar to the Dizons’s article, which revolves around the same two core issues.

Res ipsa loquitur

Nikko Dizon’s failure to ask for BCDA’s position might be a classic case of journalistic incompetence, i.e. it was an honest accident. However, Dizon is an experienced reporter who must be very aware of allegations of bias against the Inquirer so she should’ve taken every step to dispel that notion.

But she didn’t.

Was the issue an accident, or is Nikko Dizon biased herself?A closer look at the Inquirer’s article’s content shows that it raised EVERY point that Abad raised. Let’s list down items in the October 25 Inquirer article that correspond to the Abad’s seven points:

CHEC’s partnership with the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA)
The Manila Harbour Center reclamation
CCCC Dredging’s contract with Cebu’s Mega Harbour Port
Cavitex in Sangley Point
CRBC’s contract with BCDA
SinoHydro’s bribery and corruption issues (SinoHydro is a SinoTech subsidiary [Sino])
For a Pasig River Project, Zonar Systems was mentioned along with Sinohydro.

CAMC engineering was the only company mentioned in the Inquirer article that did not appear in any of Abad’s three posts.

Such a detailed Inquirer article could not have matched those posts by pure coincidence.

I am not accusing Dizon of plagiarism but I am confused as to why Dizon would pick up such leads without counter-checking when her likely source is a Liberal Party Stalwart.

Luis Abad’s father is former Aquino Budget Secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, his mother is Liberal Party Vice President for Policy Henedina Abad, and he also was the former chief of staff of Aquino’s Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima [OGP].

But there’s something more confusing here: The Philippine Daily Inquirer is a member of the Philippine Press Institute, whose Code of Ethics states [PPI]:

“All efforts must be exerted to make stories fair, accurate and balanced. Getting the other side is a must, especially for the most sensitive and critical stories. The other side must run on the first take of the story and not any day later.”

So why didn’t the Inquirer’s Dizon get the other side? Is she a Liberal Party loyalist herself?

Inquirer’s Editorial Team

Truth be told, I am disturbed about how such a story can get past the lower-tier Inquirer editors, but I am not surprised that it got past Inquirer.net Editor-in-Chief John Nery [Nery].

Why? Because Nery appears to have actively defended Senator Leila de Lima of the Liberal Party [LATimes], and because he allowed the creation, publication, and the continuous expansion of the journalistic travesty that is the Inquirer’s “Kill List”[TP: Kill List].

The PPI’s Code of Ethics also advises against conflicts of interests, which “ occur when individuals face competing loyalties: to a source or to their own self-interest, or to their organization’s economic needs, as opposed to the information needs of the public [PPI].”

I think the conflict of interest here is economic in nature, as the Inquirer’s owners have a score to settle with President Duterte.

First, Benjamin Philip Romualdez, husband of Inquirer heiress Sandy Prieto [TV5], is the president of the Chamber of Mines [CoM], and we all know Duterte’s crackdown on illegal mining operators [Inq].

Second, Dennis Valdes, husband of another Inquirer heiress Tessa Prieto [Pep], was the president of PhilWeb when Duterte’s refusal to renew Philweb’s contract resulted into its closure [Star].

Yes, we are talking about billions of pesos' worth of potential (or realized) economic losses for the Rufino-Prietos as a result of Duterte's pro-people policies.

Conflicts of interest: this is what GMA News can call #HindiTama. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Sun Tzu’s Art of War states, “Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt [UCSD].”

At a point where much of the dust has settled, I think it’s time to explain the method to Duterte’s international policy madness in the past several months.

WARNING: THIS IS A VERY LENGTHY ARTICLE. I HAVEN'T PROOFREAD IT SO PLEASE BEAR WITH THE TYPOS. NAPAGOD NA AKO SA PAGSUSULAT E, KAYA BUKAS KO NA LANG ITATAMA.

Many political commentators, both foreign and local, have described Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s foreign policy as “uncertain” [Reuters]. Even former Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario, a sell out, has described the maverick mayor’s foreign policy as “difficult to comprehend” [GMA]. And I think I agree with the Philippine Star’s Edith Regalado when she said that “Duterte keeps people guessing on foreign policy” [Star].

I think the best way to understand Duterte’s foreign policy is by taking the term “foreign policy realignment” to heart. Instead of thinking about Duterte’s policy as a series of tweaks to a mostly a pro-American Philippines, we need to examine his actions as an emancipation from American control.

No, we cannot possibly be free from American influence, but yes, we can be free from American control.

Duterte on America

Duterte has made it very clear to everyone that he feels that the Philippines has historically received the shorter end of the stick in its relations with the United States, and this not without justification.

Right after we gained independence after the Second World War, the Americans, with the support of Pres. Manuel Roxas and the Liberal Party-controlled Philippine Congress, passed the Bell Trade Act, which basically gave Americans economic rights equal to that of local citizens [Shalom 1980]. Roxas suddenly died and Quirino, also from the Liberal Party (LP) took over, but he simply continued whatever Roxas’ Pro-American policy was.

Through the Bell Trade Act, the US enjoyed zero tariffs for its exports to the Philippines in exchange for war reparations [Schermer 1987, p.94]. It greatly damaged the local economy as our imports exceeded our exports, making us heavily dependent on loans and foreign aid to finance the gap [SONA 1959].
The 1950s was the height of the Second Red Scare in mainland US. Fearing a communist takeover by Central Luzon’s Hukbalahap, an insurgency that the Liberal Party-led national government failed to quell, the United States decided to actively catapult populist leader Ramon Magsaysay to the presidency, shielding him from the dangers associated with antagonizing reelectionist Quirino.

Magsaysay really had a heart for the people, and he instituted reforms that would have otherwise been impossible under any other president at the time. The US, however, was concerned only about the Huks rebellion. US support for Magsaysay since 1950 “virtually evaporated overnight” in 1954 after Magsaysay’s successful suppression of the communist Huks [Lembke 2001, p. 87].

And we all know how Magsaysay died shortly thereafter.

If I were to enumerate and elaborate every single lopsided deal that the Philippines got, it’d take a book, so let’s fast forward to the 2010s, where we heard yet another remix of the same old tune.

The South China Sea Arbitration

In 2011 and prior to the filing of the arbitral case, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed to Foreign Secretary Albert F. del Rosario during their meeting in Washington, D.C., that the US “will honor its treaty obligations to the Philippines [Inq].”

Clinton was referring to the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty.

When asked in 2012 whether the US will aid us if we were attacked at Scarborough Shoal, Foreign Sec.. del Rosario responded, “They have expressed that they will honor their obligations under the mutual defense treaty.”

In 2013, the US State Sec. Chuck Hagel emphazised the importance of the Philippines as a treaty ally and reaffirmed the United States commitment to the Mutual Defense Treaty [Inq].

In a 2014 press statement, US State Department spokesperson Marie Haff reiterated America’s support for the Philippines in the latter’s arbitration case against China [DoS].

In 2015, US President Barack Obama said, “[T]he United States supports the Philippines’ decision to use arbitration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to peacefully and lawfully address differences [FSI].”

The July 2016 Arbitral Award

Alright, I believe it’s clear that the US affirmed military support for us for all of the five years preceding 2016, when the time came for the Americans to keep true to their word.

On 05 July 2016, Chinese state-run broadsheet Global Times’ editorial entitled “Power game decides post-arbitration order” warned of military conflict in the South China Sea should the United States intervene in the South China Sea after the arbitral award [GT].
The arbitral award, which favored the Philippines, was released on July 12. A few hours later, the US State Department Deputy Spokesperson said “this decision can and should serve as a new opportunity to renew efforts to address maritime disputes peacefully [DoS].”

The Americans chickened out, so Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was stuck between a rock and a hard place. In response, Duterte pursued a solution along the lines of the old adage, “If you can’t beat them, join them.”

Realignment Step 1: Talk to the Chinese Government

Every political analyst worth his or her salt expected this scenario. There’s just no way the US will risk Pax Americana for the Philippines’ sake. Duterte and his people knew this too long before that fateful day.

On 17 May 2016 or just a few days the elections, Duterte met with Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua in Davao City, where the latter said, “We had a very good conversation… The Chinese side is looking forward [to work with] him and his team to further enhance our bilateral relationship [MS].”

The operative word here is “bilateral”, which means involving two parties, which means direct PH-China talks. This is in stark contrast with the Aquino Administration’s call for “multilateral” talks, which includes ASEAN countries, something that China blatantly rejected the whole while [WSJ].

On that same day, Duterte managed to gain a certain level of trust from the Chinese Government, something that absent during the Aquino Regime. But that’s just step one. Even if China is a communist-authoritarian country, the fact remains that public opinion is still a factor in government decision making.

Civil unrest, you know, so Duterte proceeded with step two.

Realignment Step 2: Hedge to the last minute

Duterte was still chose to hedge his bets up to late June. He wanted to make sure that he fully understands the United States’ real stance on the South China Sea issue before he crosses the point of no return. Or in his own words, before he “crosses the Rubicon”.

And being the brutally frank leader that he is, Duterte met with US Ambassador Goldberg and he asked the latter, “Are you with us or are you not with us?,” and Goldberg responded that the U.S. would only support the Philippines if it was “attacked” [AC]. Well, that’s the problem. Duterte didn’t want bloodshed, despite the calls of the opposition for a bloodier stance. Goldberg’s reply, while reassuring at first glance, actually implies that the US will not help enforce the arbitral decision, because enforcing it means the Philippines has yet to be attacked.

Yes, the US chickened out. The ambassador showed that the US definitively chickened out. Duterte, along with Foreign Sec. Yasay and Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, probably knew about how Goldberg will respond: they wanted to catch the fish by the mouth.

Now that Duterte has made it clear to him and to the Filipino public that the US won’t be there to help, he proceeded to step three.

Realignment Step 3: Say “Hello” to the Chinese Public

Duterte was generally silent from the meeting with Goldberg up to his inauguration but…

While all these were happening, Chinese state-owned media has started to soften its anti-Filipino rhetoric. In as early as 25 May 2016, the Global Times published an surprisingly optimistically-worded report saying that some local Filipino journalists are trying to bridge the PH-China gap [GT]. Several days later, Chinese state-owned Xinhua News reported “Duterte government may reopen door to China-Philippines dialogue [GT]”.

Then came 23 June 2016, or two days after the Duterte-Goldberg meeting, where the Global Times editorial stated, “Although overshadowed by a political standoff, both countries are actually becoming increasingly complementary in economic terms [GT].”

Yes, the Chinese Government is starting to condition its public to be more receptive of the incoming Duterte Administration’s foreign policy efforts.

At this point, Duterte has already gained some trust from the Chinese Government. However, having the Chinese Government’s ear and having Chinese Public’s are two different things. Anti-Filipino rhetoric flooded Chinese media for years as a result of the arbitration case and despite the recent barrage of pro-Filipino news on the mainland, it’s still safe to say that anti-Filipino sentiment in the mainland runs high.

Duterte had to find a way to quickly and effectively tell the Chinese Public that he’s really serious about striking a truce, and hopefully before July 12th decision, the time when the angry Chinese Public may start asking for his head.

What did Duterte do? A series of calculated actions.

On 30 June 2016, after an eerie foreign policy silence since Goldberg meeting, RTV Malacañang “accidentally” aired a sensitive portion of Duterte’s first cabinet meeting, where Duterte said on live TV he doesn’t want to “put the country in an awkward position [Xinhua].” A day later, Duterte reportedly said, “If we can have peace (with China) by just talking I'll be really happy [Xinhua].” Another day later, China Daily reported that “(Duterte) told a Cabinet meeting not to flaunt a ruling if it is favorable, and said there should be a soft landing in disputes with China [NJU].“

Chinese media was basically building up Duterte’s image as a peacemaker.

Realignment Step 4: A more definitive “Hello”

You may notice that all the references I used in the previous paragraph are Chinese websites. That’s because I want to point out that it’s clear that both the Chinese and Philippines governments are trying their best to make the latter’s image more palatable for the mainland. But that isn’t enough, Duterte has to make sure that the Chinese People get the impression that he’s sincere about his intentions and that he is not hedging anymore.

On 09 July 2016, Duterte said the US “imported terrorism” [Xinhua-GT], and it send shockwaves not only throughout China, but also to the rest of the world. We can debate that claim, but what’s clear is that Duterte is sending a message to the Chinese public that he will burn bridges with America.

As to whether he’ll actually burn bridges is another story: all he needs right now is to make the Chinese public like him more.

Then came arbitral decision on 12 July 2016, and Duterte kept true to his word [TP: Yasay’s Face].

So far, so good. For better or for worse, Duterte is a 21st century populist Machiavelli.
Realignment Step 4: Tirades and more tirades

After the arbitral award, Duterte had to visit China to mend ties: there’s no question about it. But he cannot visit just yet because the decision is still a hot topic on both Chinese and Philippine Media. It had to die down first.

To accelerate the process, Duterte capitalized on his massive political capital – a 91 percent July trust rating– to condition the minds of Filipino, to make them more receptive to China.

On the Chinese front, Duterte “endeared” himself to the Chinese public by launching more tirades against the United States. This includes the “son of a b*tch” comment against Obama, which led to the cancellation of their meeting [DailyMail]. This includes Duterte’s reminder of the Bud Dajo Massacre [Sun.Star]. And he even told Obama to “go to hell” [AP].

Realignment Step 5: A nuanced realignment

While at it, Duterte understands that he cannot be too pro-China because:

it will surely alienate us from Japan and the West and that's realllllllly bad.
such a relationship puts at risk of leaving a master (Americans) for another master (Chinese)
it may alienate us from some of our ASEAN neighbors like Vietnam (which has territorial disputes with China [Forbes]) and Singapore (who’s trying to balance its relations with China and the United States [Time]).

So how did Duterte solve this?

In early September, Duterte spoke with Singaporean PM Lee Hsien Loong during the ASEAN Summit in Vientiane [ST]. I think it’s safe to say that he basically told Lee what Lee needed to hear so that Lee won’t freak out over the China visit.

After the ASEAN summit, Duterte then visited Indonesia [CNN], and he must have done the same thing he did with the Singaporean PM, especially since Indonesia is neutral-to-negative per the Natuna Islands issue [Guardian].

In late September, Duterte visited Vietnam, who’s at odds with China over the Paracel Islands, i.e. our neighbor with a problem that’s similar to ours [Reuters]. It’s safe to say that he must have assured Vietnam that he will be taking a path that’s similar to Vietnam, and not totally sell his country out to the Chinese. That should assuage any fears that Vietnam may be holding up to that point.

Before the China, Duterte also visited Brunei, which is arguably the most neutral ASEAN member in as far as US-China rivalry.

Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand are mostly pro-China, so there’s little to explain to them.

So there’s only two countries left to explain to: Brunei and Malaysia.

Duterte wanted to visit Malaysia in August [GMA] but Malaysian PM Najib’s vow to defend Sabah’s sovereignty [Diplomat] probably forced both parties to postpone the meeting. Duterte announced recently that he will visit Malaysia this month, calling the visit as part of a tour of “countries that matter” [AsiaOne].

And there’s Brunei, which Duterte was supposed to be on 04 September but was postponed to mid-October because of the Davao Blast [Star].

Anyhow, Duterte basically managed to reassured his ASEAN neighbors that everything’s gonna be fine.

Off to China!

Realignment Step 6: Duterte flies to Middle Kingdom

This part won’t be very lengthy. You're probably already very familiar with this.

I think Duterte’s late October State Visit delighted the Chinese public, as the Philippine delegation treated in the warmest, friendliest way possible.

I was there, watching the meetings and monitoring Chinese social media. I saw it myself.

And to top it off, the Chinese pledged $24 billion in investments to the Philippines, which is arguably the most generous offer ever given to the Philippines in any single state visit since 1896.

Oh, and did I mention that a week after the visit, Chinese ships are nowhere to be seen in Scarborough Shoal [ABC]? Yes, Filipino fishermen can finally go there!

But there’s one more “nagtatampo” country that we haven’t dealt with: Japan.

Realignment Step 7: Ohayo Nippon!

The overwhelmingly successful Chinese State visit probably made the Japanese very jittery, so the timing of State Visit to Japan, which is just a few days after his China visit, is just about right.

Duterte reassured Japanese PM Shinzo Abe that his deals with China are purely economic, and that no military deals were struck [Philstar], which is what Japan basically wanted to hear. The Wall Street Journal even reported that he spoke “soothingly” [WSJ], an adjective that, in my recollection, has never been used to describe Duterte’s rhetoric.

You probably got the point by now. Suffice it to say, Japan was reasonably pleased, and “reasonably”, given the situation at large, is good enough.

Realignment far from over

These are just the first several steps in Duterte’s foreign policy realignment. The State Visit to China, while a resounding success, is just the first stage towards rebuilding PH-China ties. There are still many more things to do, things that I still do not know of.

Nevertheless, one thing is clear: Duterte, using only his acid tongue, managed to turn the tables against the United States. The US is now on the defensive, and Goldberg’s recent interview with Karen Davila is a testament to that.

In that interview, the ambassador said, “I know, that Senator Cayetano, President Duterte’s running mate, made an unpublicized trip to China in June along with Secretary Tugade [ABS].”

In fairness, Goldberg did not explicitly insinuate any wrongdoing on the part of Senator Cayetano or Tugade. However, such a comment is in direct defiance of diplomatic protocol, where foreign diplomats are not supposed to publicly comment on such issues. I think this is plenty clear as Senator Cayetano has consequently requested the DFA to protest Goldberg’s actions [Star].

The conformity of Goldberg’s actions to established diplomatic protocol is not my concern. Instead, it is the underlying reasoning behind his words.

Obama, to be replaced by either Clinton or Trump, is on the way out of the White House. Goldberg, to be replaced by Sung Kim, is on the way out of Manila [Star]. What tactical or strategic benefit is there for the United States if Goldberg manages to piss off the Duterte Administration when the former is about to leave Manila anyway?

There are two possible explanations: Goldberg is frustrated at how things turned out, i.e. he failed on his mission; or the United States is hedging its best in anticipation of the November US Elections.

One on hand, we have a lame duck president Obama who has pretty much lost his foreign influence as the international community await the results of the November 2016 US Elections. On the other hand, we have an incoming US President who will get to dictate American foreign policy for the next four (or even eight) years.

The Goldberg Rationale

I think Golberg’s belligerence towards that Duterte administration serves as a counterweight to the potentially hyper-diplomatic approach of his successor, Ambassador to the Philippines-Designate Sung Kim, who most probably knows how to massage egos given his stint as special representative for North Korea policy [CNN].

With the Goldberg controversy, the new US president can try to provide the Philippines a counter-offer without looking too weak and submissive, two adjectives that hegemon should be allergic to.

Now, Duterte said a Russia visit is “possible”, and “possible” means it’s not certain. Duterte basically dropped a clue for the Americans to pick up. That is, he is saying that his State Visit to Russia depends on how the new US president – may it be Clinton or Trump – will respond.

I never knew that Duterte and his cabinet can be this shrewd, that they can be this smart.

Some camps may argue that I am giving them too much credit, but remember: this is the same government that managed to avoid a Third World War without spilling a single drop of blood.

Surely, Noynoy and Mar, in all their collective glory, failed at that. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Throughout the course of my work at ThinkingPinoy, I had opportunities to learn more about what goes on behind the scenes in the mainstream news media world. A number of journalists have been reading my blogs or following me on Facebook, Twitter, and some of them somehow decided to come slightly out of the shadows and contact through Facebook messages, Twitter DMs, emails, or even face-to-face conversations when I met a few in Beijing.

They all have their rants about this journalist and that, but if there’s one thing many of them share in common, it’s an antipathy for Maria Ressa and her brainchild Rappler.

NOTE: I didn't proofread the article anymore. It's not worth the extra time.

I asked them, “What with Rappler that makes your blood boil?”

Surprisingly, their answers were the same: the arrogance of the Rapplerettes.

Actually, it wasn’t that surprising because:

Media people love inventing award giving bodies so they can reward themselves with the same awards they created. With that said, I can’t recall any instance where Rappler received any, which kind of suggests how Rappler is viewed by its peers.
I have the same opinion of that organization. More on this later.

Bam Aquino meets Maria Ressa

And just when I thought Ressa cannot possibly spew bullshit at a rate faster than how she (and Rappler) does right now, I heard that her Majesty graced the Senate Session Hall where she served as a resource speaker on a Senate hearing headed by Sen. Bam Aquino [Sun.Star].

I shed tears of laughter as I watched the hearing, mainly because the irony of the entire situation and the hypocrisy of the two persons involved.
First, Bam Aquino himself supported (losing) 2016 presidential candidate Mar Araneta Roxas, who has his own army of trolls that attempted (but sorely failed) to artificially sway public opinion. Roxas even had them trained in an office building within Araneta Center [TP: Internet Army].

Second, here’s Ressa decrying the proliferation of online trolls, when her Rappler staff trolls its own readers. Take, for example, how Rappler reporter Paterno Esmaquel mercilessly singled out and publicly humiliated a Rappler reader for a misinformed comment [TP: Cyber Libel]. Another example would be when Rappler’s social media moderators reported trolled Anonymous Incorporated just because the latter asked about Rappler’s finances (see image below).

Oh, and here’s Ressa calling for more ethical behavior when Rappler itself reportedly plagiarized content from Radyo Inquirer [Varsitarian] and TV5 [SpinBusters] before!

But instead of giving more examples (there are lots) of how hypocritical Rappler overlord Maria Ressa is, I think it’s better if we ask the more important questions:

Ressa has been waging a war against “online trolls” since her first article-slash-rant about the “Weaponization of the Internet” debuted on October 04th, so why the sudden passion for the issue?
Trolls have existed even before social media was invented, so why the sudden interest
Is there an extremely pressing problem that Ressa (or Rappler) is dealing with right now?

Here’s a quick background

In “Who’s winning the PH social media wars?”, I showed a trend where independent social media players are outperforming mainstream news outlets (incl. Rappler) in terms of Facebook user engagement. With Facebook being the social network of choice for Filipinos, and the declining popularity of TV, radio, and print, I inferred that Rappler and its peers are losing their monopoly in shaping public opinion, as more and more readers gravitate towards Mocha Uson, Sass Rogando Sasot, ThinkingPinoy, and other indie pages.

In “The Rise of the Millenial Mosquito Press”, I wrote briefly about Rappler’s potential revenue figures by estimating the website’s ad network revenues. In that article, I showed that Rappler should be well on its way to bankruptcy if it relies on Google Adsense revenues alone, for the reason that Google Adsense, while being the best-paying ad network on the planet, doesn’t really pay that much.

And to top it off, I wrote, “Rappler is dying because it’s full of assholes spewing bullshit nonstop [TP: Ressa’s Pride].”
There, I said it: Rappler is dying. But what, exactly, do I mean by “dying”? After all, when you come to think of it, everyone dies: it’s just a question of when. And that’s what we’re going to talk about.
Rappler and Maria Ressa

Miguel Miranda of the Southeast Asia Globe interviewed Ressa in 2013. Miranda started the ensuing article with these lines:

Even today, many Filipino journalists are subsumed and consumed by a pervasive sense of irrelevance under social media’s shadow. They are often poorly paid and there are constant murmurs of corruption among their ranks [SEA-G].

Miranda then wrote, “Rappler’s headquarters is neither a cubicle-farm nor a stuffy studio-cum-office. Its staffers and interns attired in business casual are crowded in even rows, typing away at glowing MacBooks.”

Let me get this straight: journos in general are paid peanuts but Rapplerettes use ultra-expensive MacBooks, so that means they’re paid well, which also implies that Rappler’s operating costs are higher than those of their peers.

And then it gets more interesting, as Ressa details Rappler’s revenue streams.

Rappler’s Revenue Streams

FIRST, Google ads. Google ads are simple: Rappler is paid a certain amount every time some clicks a google ad and every time 1000 visitors drop by their site. Rappler may use other ad networks, but Google is the one that offers the best returns.

SECOND, Sponsored banners. Companies directly pay Rappler to serve banner ads on their site.

THIRD, Native advertising aka Sponsored Posts. Companies directly pay Rappler to write articles that either directly promote the company or mention the company in a post (i.e. product placement).

FOURTH, Reach. Here’s where it gets a bit spooky.
Speaking about Rappler’s profitability, Ressa said, “With Reach, Rappler can go farther…”

Rappler’s sister, the data science company Reach Social, does a lot of things. However, what’s important right now is how Reach Social can make use of the data derived from Rappler’s website and its social media accounts.

The usual web analytics data from free-to-use Google and social media Analytics should be part of the stuff that Reach tinkers with, but this kind of data does not provide them much strategic advantage over their competitors because it’s available to everyone. Thus, Reach Social should have a data source that its competitors have no access to.

What is it? I can think of only two things: [1] Personal data from social (FB, Twitter, G+) logins and [2] Rappler’s mood meter.

PERSONAL DATA
To comment on Rappler articles or to vote in its mood meter, Rappler asks readers to log in using their Facebook, Twitter, or Google+ account. Rappler gets a user’s friends list, email address, birthday, and city. I am uncertain as to whether Rappler sells user information to third parties or not, but let’s just assume that they don’t. After all, it’s illegal and even if they actually do it, there’s no way to find out sans a search warrant.

Check the list of personal info Rappler gets when you authorize social logins.

MOOD METER
The mood meter is far more useful than you think. If Reach Social’s data scientists are worth their salt, they can categorize users based on the city they stated on Facebook, which would enable Reach Social to gauge the “general mood” of a given geographic location in response to a given Rappler article. This is particularly useful for gauging public sentiment on divisive issues, as it allows parties to pinpoint areas where they can focus PR campaigns.

Now, let's ask...

Is Rappler making money?

In its debut year 2012, Rappler incurred a Php 33.8 million loss against its Php 50 million paid-in capital, and that was incurred in just eight months of operations as Rappler opened only in May 2012 [TV5]. By end of 2012, Rappler badly needed a capital infusion.

Is this why Manny V. Pangilinan was keen in buying a stake in Rappler [Rap]?

With the infusion of new capital Rappler would’ve gone bankrupt by the end of 2013, but it didn’t, so I guess someone must have injected the sorority blog with additional seed money.

Now, some camps may argue that it has been a while since 2012, and Rappler should’ve turned a profit by now. That is a very reasonable argument.

But something doesn’t add up. Rappler took in two major investors in 2015, the Omidyar Network [TiA] and North Base Media [TiA]. Although I think most Rappler readers will agree that Rappler hasn’t really offered anything new.

So what did they use the additional funds for? Just to stay alive?

These pieces of information suggest that Rappler, on its fourth year of operations, has yet to turn a profit.

Hence, Rappler may need to boost its revenue streams as soon as possible so Maria Ressa won’t appear to be running a Ponzi Scheme.

BRIEF: A Ponzi scheme is a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.

The Revenue Streams

As I have explained in a previous article, Google AdSense doesn’t pay very well, so it should not be enough to sustain Rappler’s operations if the latter were to rely entirely on it [TP: Rappler Dying?]. The second revenue stream, banner ads, have been on the decline as social media rises, according to the New York Times [NYT].

The third revenue stream seems to work terribly too, because it seems that Rappler’s sponsored posts do not generate much traffic or interest. Take, their 20 September 2016 ad for Shell Helix Ultra, which managed to gain a whopping SIX (6) facebook shares as of 03 November 2016. Surely, Shell paying (tens of) thousands of pesos for only six Facebook shares isn’t good.

Thus, for Rappler to sustain operations, they should be heavily relying on the fourth revenue stream: Reach Social.

Thus, Rappler needs to achieve two things: increase website traffic and social media engagement.

Rappler’s Site Traffic

In fairness to Rappler, their website traffic has increased relatively quickly over the years, peaking at 23 million hits in May 2016 [R2T]. That’s a seriously gigantic figure. Rappler’s traffic slightly decreased in July and August 2016 at around 21 million users per month [R2T], but that can be attributed to the reality that the public may not be as interested in the news because the May 2016 elections are over.

What’s shocking, however, is a mind-boggling 25 percent dip in traffic from September to October. More specifically, Rappler received 21 million visitors in the month preceding 16 September 2016, then it received only 15 million in the month preceding 16 October 2016 [R2T].

I tried to find a good reason why this happened, so I checked the web analytics tool Alexa for clues.

Looking at the figure above, I was shocked to see that on 25 September 2016, Rappler’s global traffic ranking fell by almost 5,000 places from 1314th to 6236th OVERNIGHT[Alexa]. Sure, a lot of people dislike Rappler, but the site’s traffic rankings cannot fall by that much overnight.

I was searching for the web and I discovered that Google rolled out “Penguin 4.0” on 23 September 2016. Penguin 4.0 is an update on its core algorithm that changes how google ranks search results. Google suggested that the impact of Penguin 4.0 could take time, as they re-crawl the entire web, especially deep links [Moz], so Rappler might have felt its full impact on 25 September 2016, when its ranking fell drastically.

SIDE NOTE: In one of her article-rants, Ressa accused Duterte supporters of gaming Facebook’s newsfeed algorithms [TP: Mosquito Press]. Now, Penguin 4.0 penalizes websites that use dubious schemes to manipulate search rankings [SEW]. Seeing that Rappler got hit very badly, did Ressa accuse Duterte supporters of something that she herself does?

From the same Alexa records, we can see that Rappler somehow recovered its rankings a week or two later, but it appears that since its recovery, Rappler’s site ranking is steadily going down again.

Now, that’s bad for Rappler’s first three revenue streams, so how about the other one?

Rappler’s Social Media Engagement

Rappler is social media engagement figures has been dropping drastically too. Screenshots of Facebook Page Insights from August, September, and October show its losing against independent social media players, while the last one, taken yesterday and shown below, shows that it has finally reached abysmal levels of user engagement:

If I were a company who wants data science services rooted on social media expertise, would I seriously get help from Rappler’s Reach Social when the fact of the matter is that they suck at social media themselves?

Of course not. And that is really, really, really bad for Rappler’s fourth and remaining revenue stream.

Rappler, the Social News Network

Rappler describes itself as a “social news network”, so it has to have a pretty good understanding of how online social interactions work, right? But why does it fail so badly in social media?

In the same 2013 interview with SEA Global, Ressa said, “So many studies show that 80% of the decisions people make in their lives are based on what they feel, on their emotions,” Ressa said, “It’s true in real life. The internet only magnifies it.”

Ressa apparently failed to tell this to her Rapplerettes because just several weeks ago, a petite bourgeoisie Rappler moderator lashed out on a reader with: “Ngayon, kung gutom ka, huwag ka dito mag-alburoto (Now, if you’re starving, don’t vent your frustration here.)”

Now, let’s ask: How did Ressa’s Rapplerettes make their readers feel?

But no! Ressa believes they did no wrong. She even went as far as launching its #NoPlaceForHate campaign, a campaign that sorely failed because [1] it’s hypocritical so people generally dismissed it as hogwash, and [2] Rappler’s weakening social media presence failed to provide it traction.

Simply put, Rappler is the anti-social social news network, and I guess you know what happens to things like that.

Yes, Rappler can “change for the better”, but while Ressa is busy practicing her time-tested assholery, independent social players are lapping up their subscriber base, assuming that Rappler still has any left.

At this point, I feel that it’s too late for Rappler, but who knows? Miracles do happen.

Quoting Her Loveliness Alma Moreno, “Dasal. Dasal lang talaga.” [ThinkingPinoy]

NOTE: I didn't proofread the article anymore. It's not worth the extra time.

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

CONTROVERSIAL PHOTO Sen. Leila de Lima is shown with suspected drug lord Kerwin Espinosa in this photo taken in March in Baguio City. The senator denies knowing Espinosa and his father. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO / INQUIRER.NET

When Senator Richard Gordon said, "[Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr.] was already incarcerated and nonetheless [it's] still not safe. It’s a slap in the face of the criminal justice system of our country," he wasn’t wrong. This bears repeating: Gordon is right. Espinosa’s death is indeed a slap in the face of our country’s criminal justice system.

But before I join the mob condemning this party and that, I feel it’s just right to evaluate the situation given what we know, so let me do that.

This is how I will do it: I will list down all the major events leading to the Espinosa’s death. Paragraphs in red contain my observations.

Early August: Duterte vs Espinosa

The wealthy Rolando Espinosa was on his first term as mayor of Albuera Leyte. The Philippine National Police says his son Kerwin is the biggest drug lord in Eastern Visayas.

Late July: Two of Mayor Espinosa’s bodyguards were arrested in a buy-bust operation after they were found to have 237g of shabu (meth) worth P1.9-million (US$ 39,000) [ABS].

01 August 2016: President Rodrigo Duterte gave Mayor Espinosa 24 hours to surrender. Should Espinosa fail to surrender, a ‘shoot on sight’ order would be given if he resists and endangers the lives of arresting police officers [GMA].

02 August 2016: PNP Chief Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa presented Espinosa Sr to the media and announced that Espinosa admitted to his son’s involved in the illegal drug trade. Contrary to an Inquirer report, Espinosa Sr did not admit criminal involvement [Philstar], so Dela Rosa cannot arrest Espinosa Sr yet because the outstanding warrant of arrest is for Kerwin instead.
03 August 2016: Albuera Police Chief Jovie Espinido said he has already spoken to Espinosa in July, suggesting that the mayor [1] donate all his property to charity, [2] surrender all his firearms and shabu, [3] resign, and [4] surrender his son Kerwin [ABS]. Six hired men of arrested Espinosa Sr. were killed during a police operation against illegal drugs in the family compound early in the morning [Inq].

04 August 2016: The PNP was informed that Kerwin Espinosa sent surrender feelers, although no timeline has been set for his surrender. Dela Rosa promised to give Kerwin "humane treatment" and that he is even willing to fetch him at the airport once the latter returns to the country. [GMA].

05 August 2016: Kerwin Espinosa’s alleged right hand man Julito Prak was killed in a police buy-bust operation in Cebu City [GMA]. On the same day, the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) filed drug trafficking charges at the Albuera prosecutor’s office against both Espinosas [ABS].

06 August 2016: Dela Rosa said that Espinosa Sr. left the White House (dela Rosa’s residence) after his son, Kerwin, failed to surrender on Friday 05 August. Dela Rosa said that out of pity, he allowed the Espinosas to stay in one of the rooms in the White House. He said the Espinosas wanted to stay at the White House because they do not want to return to their home due to threats and Mayor Espinosa wanted to be there when his son surrenders [GMA].

Duterte indeed ordered Espinosa Sr and son Kerwin Espinosa to surrender in Camp Crame, and Espinosa Sr indeed showed up. However, the fact remains that they cannot be put into custody unless there [1] an arrest warrant against Espinosa Sr or [2] Espinosa Sr admitted to a crime. Neither is the case, that’s why PNP Chief dela Rosa had to let Espinosa Sr go.

Due process, you know.

For safety, Espinosa Sr wanted to stay in the “White House”, the PNP Chief’s residence, but he cannot have his cake and eat it too. He didn’t turn his son in, he didn’t admit complicity to a crime, but he wants extra-special protection. That isn’t how it works. Espinosa Sr is a town mayor whose son is a drug lord that has been arrested before on similar charges [Philstar]. There’s no way he could not have known anything about it.

Mid August: Espinosa Sr is back in Leyte

10 August 2016: A police buy-bust operation in Espinosa Sr’s home yielded 11 kg of shabu worth P88-million (US$ 1.8 million). The police also discovered bomb-making components in the mayor’s home [DZRH].

You may want to argue that Espinosa should’ve been arrest right after this, but warrantless arrests can only be performed when “in (an arresting officer’s) presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense [LawPhil]”.

Neither Espinosa Sr nor Kerwin Espinosa were there during the buy-bust operation, so they cannot be arrested. Moreover, the police cannot just arrest them AFTER the operation because of this same rule on warrantless arrests, i.e. the police had to have an arrest warrant to effect an arrest against the mayor.

11 August 2016: One of Kerwin Espinosa’s alleged sources of illegal drugs, murder convict Edgar Allen Alvarez, was killed by police in an operation inside a Leyte prison, where he was transferred in 2011. Alvarez was originally detained in the New Bilibid Prison. While in detention, Alvarez allegedly lobbed a grenade that failed to explode, then fired at cops using a 0.45 caliber pistol. The police fired back, killing Alvarez [GMA].

This really sounds fishy. How can a detainee possess a grenade while in prison? But as it turns out, it appears that Alvarez is doing a Colangco-type operation in the Leyte Jail, so the search is not entirely unjustified, so far.

16 August 2016: With no formal charges against him, the Espinosa Sr has gone back to work as Albuera mayor [GMA]. He stayed at the town hall day and night for about a week before he asked for police protection [Sun.Star].
Espinosa Sr has yet to admit criminal involvement and no warrant of arrest was issued against him so what else would he do but go back to Albuera and live his wretched life? That’s exactly what happened.

23 August 2016: PNP’s Espinido met with Espinosa Sr in another closed-door meeting at 12:35 pm. Espinosa Sr said he’s now willing to cooperate with him for his son's surrender and that he will convince his son to surrender once he calls him [ABS]. At 2:00 PM, Espinosa Sr lawyer Rogelio Bato Jr. was killed in Tacloban, Leyte [ABS].

24 August 2016: Espinosa Sr voluntarily went to the Leyte Provincial Prosecutor's office to execute an affidavit naming his son Kerwin's connections and protector. The mayor admitted getting a lot of death threats [TV5].

25 August 2016: Driven by fear for his life, Espinosa Sr started to hold office in the Albuera Police Station [Sun.Star].

30 August 2016: Espinosa Sr slightly nodded when asked if his affidavit listing his son Kerwin’s coddlers includes Senator Leila de Lima [Politiko].

31 August 2016: Police said that a senator was in Kerwin Espinosa’s ledger of drug connections. Espinosa Sr. could not give the names in fear for his family’s safety [CNN]. On the same day, Kerwin Espinosa underling Tonypet Zaldivar surrendered to Albuera Police [Inq].

Espinosa Sr was probably horrified after learning about his lawyer’s murder, and this prompted him to go to the prosecutor’s office to spill the beans. His request for police protection was most probably granted because he’s still a mayor who is entitled to police protection.

Espinosa Sr and Espinido did not explicitly say who that senator is. They have, however, dropped two hints: [1] Espinosa Sr’s slight nod when asked if it’s Sen. Leila de Lima and [2] Espinido’s statement that the senator is a former Justice Secretary [CNN], which basically narrows down the list to either Sen. Drilon ( who was Justice Secretary in 1992) and yes, de Lima.

Whichever is the case, Espinosa Sr has now become a marked man. It’s a given that he’s certainly a prime target for assassination by those who want to cover their tracks, i.e. those who Espinosa implicated in that affidavit.

Early September: Espinosa as State Witness?

01 September 2016: Malacañang said it mulls turning Espinosa Sr into a state witness. However, Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II on Thursday said Espinosa has yet to apply to be included in the witness protection program of the government. Aguirre said the Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to receive a “formal request” from the mayor [Inq]. Espinosa may testify versus “a senator, 29 others” [MS].

02 September 2016: PNP Region 8 immediately relieves at least 15 Eastern Visayas cops after being implicated by Espinosa Sr in the latter’s sworn affidavit [Star].

05 September 2016: Espinosa Sr filed a counter-affidavit in the Ormoc Regional Trial Court with the aim to halt the court from issuing a warrant of arrest against the mayor [ABS].

14 September 2016: Albuera PNP Chief Espinido said at least 74 government officials and 154 civilians will face charges for allegedly protecting the illegal drug operation of Kerwin Espinosa, who has been tagged as the biggest drug lord in Eastern Visayas [CDN].

So there are over 200 more people who may want to kill Espinosa Sr before the latter incriminates them further.
19 September 2016: PNP announced that they have just acquired a new state witness who can be used in the prosecution of suspected drug lord Kerwin Espinosa, son of Albuera, Leyte Mayor Rolando Espinosa [CDN].

The Justice Department may have found some value in turning the marked man Espinosa Sr into a state witness. Aguirre has two options on this matter: [1] use Espinosa Sr to pin Sen Leila de Lima or [2] ditch the idea and rely on other witnesses so Aguirre can go after Espinosa Sr. I think this is a difficult decision for Aguirre, especially since he has yet to capture any big fish, and Espinosa Sr is a big fish.

With Jumbo’s surrender, Aguirre can now choose the second option, but Aguirre has not made any subsequent announcements.

23 September 2016: Kerwin Espinosa right hand man Max Miro surrenders to Albuera police, turns over P24 million worth of shabu (US$ 494,000) [CNN].

30 September 2016: Cebu Provincial Police Office (CPPO) Dir. Jose Macanas was relieved from his post amid Espinosa Sr’s allegations linking him to the illegal drug trade [CDN].

Here’s another person who may want to kill Espinosa Sr before the latter incriminates them further. Remember Espinosa Sr has yet to admit complicity so he cannot be arrested sans a warrant.

Early October: The Hunt for Kerwin

01 October 2016: Kerwin Espinosa ex-wife Annalou Llaguno was shot by an unidentified gunman [Sun.Star].

It appears that the “evidence cleanup” has begun. But on the flip side, Llaguno was also romantically involved with the slain drug lord Alias Jaguar, so we cannot rule out that alternative angle yet.

05 October 2016: Espinosa Sr was arrested then detained at the Leyte Sub-Provincial Jail in Baybay City. Espinosa’s son Kerwin remained at large, with a source from the Bureau of Immigration saying he flew to Malaysia in June [GMA].

07 October 2016: PNP taps Interpol in hunt for Kerwin Espinosa, who is still at large [Tempo].

12 October 2016: Espinosa pleaded not guilty to the illegal possession of firearms while his lawyer filed a motion to quash, or make the warrant of arrest invalid for his drug case [Sun.Star].

16 October 2016: Abu Dhabi police arrests Kerwin Espinosa [Gulf].

Kerwin cannot be flown back to the Philippine right away because he still has to go through extradition proceedings in the United Arab Emirates.

Late October to Espinosa Sr’s Death

18 October 2016: Espinosa Sr seeks bail and requests for transfer from the Baybay sub-provincial Jail back to Albuera police station under Chief Insp. Jovie Espenido due to threats to his security. The presiding judge warned Espinosa Sr’s lawyer Leila Villarino not to again delay proceedings [Inq].

19 October 2016: Espenido links Kerwin Espinosa to drug kingpin Peter Lim [Sun.Star].

24 October 2016: The Philippine Ambassador to the UAE said Kerwin Espinosa’s extradition proceedings may take up to a month [Abante].

27 October 2016: Whistleblower Sandra Cam said Kerwin Espinosa will name his politician protectors once he is repatriated to Manila [Gulf].

The people mentioned in the Espinosa ledger should be panicking already.

29 October 2016: Ten police officers, including the former provincial police director of Cebu and a policeman still in active service in Cebu City, are undergoing administrative investigation for their alleged links to Kerwin Espinosa [CDN].

29 October 2016: On the same day, Espinosa drug group member Fernando Balagbis was killed during an alleged shootout with policemen who raided his cell in Baybay City Jail in Leyte. A team of policemen went inside his cell early Friday to serve a search warrant[CDN].

03 November 2016: Dela Rosa said Kerwin Espinosa may be repatriated by the second week of November [Abante]. Dela Rosa also said Kerwin Espinosa is key to implicating retired PNP General and Daanbantayan Mayor Vic Loot [Abante].

04 November 2016: Espinosa Sr was killed inside the cell at the Baybay City sub-provincial jail where he was detained after he allegedly fought back against police agents seeking to serve a search warrant for "illegal firearms" on him early Saturday morning [TV5].

Let’s analyze a bit more.

Kerwin Espinosa’s Criminal History

Kerwin Espinosa was arrested during a CIDG buy-bust operation on 04 March 2010 [PhilStar], or four months prior to former President Benigno (PNoy) Aquino’s oath of office, also four months prior to Sen. Leila de Lima’s appointment as Justice Secretary.

Interestingly, this Espinosa never appeared on the news for the entire duration of the PNoy presidency. Given that he was able to flee to the UAE in June 2016, I think it’s clear that charges against him were dropped by the de Lima herself, as she was still the DoJ secretary at the time. You see, those with criminal records are put on the DOJ-Bureau of Immigration’s Hold-Departure List, and his ability to fly to the UAE means no pending criminal record exists.

Adding fuel to this theory is the story of murder convict Edgar Allen Alvarez who was originally detained in Bilibid but was then moved to Leyte in 2011, enabling him to become Espinosa’s illegal drug supplier. This transfer happened under the tutelage of de Lima’s Justice Department. Did then-Justice Secretary de Lima let go of Espinosa and even provided him with a supplier, or was this a mere coincidence?

Well, take a look at the image below:

Is Kerwin Espinosa and Leila de Lima March 2016 encounter in Baguio City also a coincidence?

Well, Espinosa Sr seems to have mentioned de Lima in the ledger, so I think we have a bit of an idea about the answers here.

So did de Lima and her cohorts have a hand in killing Espinosa Sr?

Espinosa Sr’s Miscalculations

Mayor Espinosa has been scared for his life since July 2016. He was so scared that he even insisted on staying in the PNP Chief’s residence when he “surrendered” in early August. The problem, however, is that Mayor Espinosa wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

He wanted extra-special police protection, but he didn’t want to turn himself in. Yes, he implicated his son, but he did not implicate himself. Basically, he wanted to stay alive AND evade criminal liability at the same time, even if everybody agrees that he’s most likely involved in his son’s life of crime.

Espinosa Sr knows his son was arrested on drug charges in 2010. Second, he pleaded not guilty on illegal possession of firearms BUT he simply asked for a quashal on the drug charges, i.e. he wanted the drug charges dropped based on technicality. Why didn’t he just say he’s not guilty on the drug charges too?

Now, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Espinosa Sr really has nothing to do with drugs even if it’s very unlikely.

August reports show his fear is real, so why didn’t he just pretend he’s guilty and offer to surrender ON THE CONDITION that he will be detained in the Camp Crame or in the NBI detention facility, where he will most likely be out of reach from corrupt policemen who want to silence him before he talks in length? But he did not.

And when he was arrested in early October, why didn’t he even attempt to ask for a transfer to Crame or NBI? He was detained in Baybay City in Leyte, well within the reach of the cops he implicated. Has he given up on his life or those of his daughters? Or was he simply not very smart?

Espinosa Sr is a politician, but his inexperience in politics reared its ugly head, with fatal results.

PNP Chief Bato's negligence

I do not blame PNP Chief dela Rosa for his August 2016 decision to evict Espinosa Sr from the “White House” given the circumstances at the time. I also do not blame him for the delayed arrest of Espinosa Sr, as Bato was just following the rule of law which mandates that he cannot order arrests without a warrant. Yada yada yada.

Heck, I do not even suspect that national government had Espinosa Sr killed. We all know that Justice Sec. Aguirre is fixated on putting Sen. de Lima behind bars, and eliminating Espinosa Sr, who should know a lot about de Lima's involvement, is a bad idea.

However, what’s confusing for me were the events that happened recently.

Espinosa drug group member Fernando Balagbis has been in detention since his January 2016 [PDEA]. He was killed during an October 29 shootout with policemen who raided his cell in Baybay City Jail after the police allegedly received information that he was selling drugs inside the facility [GMA].

At this point, PNP Chief Bato should have rung the alarm bells and see that nothing like this happens again. Given the sensitivity of this case and given that the extrajudicial killings issue has been hounding the Duterte Administration since Day One...

But why the hell did PNP Chief dela Rosa take a vacation at such a critical juncture?

PNP Chief dela Rosa arrived in Las Vegas on November 5 local time, so that’s November 4 in the Philippines, i.e. he must have left the Philippines for Las Vegas on or before November 3 [GMA], a couple of days after Balagbis' death and a day before Espinosa Sr's.

Why is he in Vegas? To watch Manny Pacquiao fight later today at 10:00 AM. Yes, PNP Chief Bato took an official leave to watch Manny fight.

Asked to comment about Espinosa Sr’s death, dela Rosa said he ordered an investigation – while he was still in Las Vegas.

For an issue this critical to the political survival of the Duterte Administration, PNP Chief Bato opted to watch the Manny Pacquiao fight instead of flying back home right away to see what happened.

PNP Chief Bato, I like you, I really do, but our President is already killing himself with his schedule while you, his subordinate, took a vacation.

Think about it. what will the international community say about this?

Let’s wait for a few agonizing hours and see. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Donald Trump won the US elections. I admit that I was thoroughly shocked, given that electoral surveys historically predicted a Clinton win. I guess the scandalous Podesta emails [NBC], which gave the American public invaluable insight on the corruption pervading the political establishment, did her in.

The reactions to Trump’s win have been mixed. We can expect jubilation at the Trump camp, that’s a given. However, what surprised me was the magnitude of the reaction from the other side: passionate Clinton supporters crying in disbelief, the crash of Canada’s immigration website, etc.

Even my Jewish best friend, who's been in New York his entire life, told me, “I'm depressed and scared.”

There shall be a truckload of articles that will attempt to predict what Trump’s win entails for America, that’s a given: I will not be writing another article just to add to that noise.

Instead, I will explain what Trump’s win means for the Philippines, and let me start it off by saying:

A Trump win may be good for the Philippines, and let me tell you why.

If Duterte is removed

We all know that the Liberal Party wants Duterte out of Malacañang as soon as possible [TP: Assassinate]. However, if the massively popular Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte gets deposed, we can expect at least three things:
First, massive civil unrest
What’s clear is that Duterte’s campaign woke up the anger of the populace of decades of post-Marcos government incompetence. If the population will simply hold a peaceful anti-Robredo EDSA Revolution, that would be relatively bearable. But who can serve as a tolerable replacement? And will the people be able to temper their anger and frustration while at it? If neither condition is fulfilled, this civil unrest may likely lead to widespread civil disobedience and even bloody riots.

Second, anti-American retaliation
I sincerely pray this won’t happen, but we can never discount this possibility. If the public finds out that the US helped LP depose Duterte, there’s a real possibility of potentially violent retaliation against about 30,000 [PSA] Americans in the country. We know that isn’t good.

Third, a civil war
Duterte is the first president to give Muslim separatists and communist rebels a real shot at peace after decades upon decades of failed government promises, and it’s likely that the latter believe that this is their last chance at attaining it. This cannot be more true for Nur Misuari who, like Duterte, is already of advanced age.

That is, Duterte’s removal may translate into a civil war [Inq] with a prospective Robredo Government on one side and a hodgepodge alliance of Muslim rebels, communists, and extremely disgruntled citizens on the other. I may (emphasis on "may") even be one of them.

But most importantly, deposing Duterte will leave a fractured nation that provides easier entry for ISIS if and when the latter gets driven out of the Middle East.

Duterte: Federalism or ISIS?
Duterte: ISIS. When? I really do not kow. But are they coming? They will come.
Posted by Thinking Pinoy on Sunday, November 6, 2016

Yes, it’s that bad, but the oppositionist Liberal Party is at it, and it seeks to bolster its campaign by wooing American support.

It starts with Plan ICC

Duterte himself admitted that the government’s crusade against criminality, drugs, and corruption, along with his campaign to set up a Federal government and his attempt at etching an independent foreign policy, will take a considerable amount of time. Unfortunately, his political longevity is under threat as his international image continuously erodes.

Today, the global public generally views President Rodrigo Duterte as an unrelenting human rights violator, with some camps putting him in the league of fallen leaders Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and Adolf Hitler. Duterte’s negative international image would have been irrelevant if not for the risk of public clamor that may trigger an International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation, a risk made more real by Gambian ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda’s recent statements [Star].

An announcement of an ICC investigation of Duterte’s human rights record, let alone a conviction, will certainly obliterate the new president’s international legitimacy, drastically weakening his bargaining power in the international arena.

Regime Change after ICC

And what happens when Duterte loses his international legitimacy? He can more easily be deposed by the pro-US opposition led by the Liberal Party, and with help from the United States. An assassination., an ICC conviction, an accident… There are many ways to do it.

Yes, a President Leni Robredo may not be palatable for most Filipinos, but for LP, it’s better than nothing. LP can settle for someone who may not enjoy local support, but enjoys international recognition, similar to the kind of presidency Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had.
But will the US really help LP kick Duterte out?

Yes, for three reasons:

Because the United States has a history of supporting, or even effecting, regime change in other countries to suit US interests.
Because [TP: Duterte’s international policy realignment] is a humongous headache for the United States.
Because the Liberal Party, a staunch US ally, has close connections with major US policymakers.

Let’s tackle these one by one.

First, America's history with Regime Change

If US vs Nicaragua says anything, it’s that the Americans are not averse into violating the sovereignty of other countries by financially supporting candidates who are better aligned to their interests. In 1989, the US Congress passed HR 3385 “to provide assistance for free and fair elections in Nicaragua.” [Congress], although it really was aimed to support the (successful) presidential bid of unpopular but US-aligned candidate Violeta Chamorro.

But it’s not just about elections.The US has a long history of militarily intervening in other countries’ domestic politics, with the most recent one being the operations in Libya against Muammar Gaddafi [PBS], in Syria against Bashar Al-Assad, and in Iraq against Saddam Hussein [CNN].

All these three “Humanitarian Interventions” by the United States backfired. The Americans kicked out Gaddafi then the terrorists took over the Syrian Government. American operations in Syria led to the creation of ISIS [Harvard]. America’s overthrow of Saddam caused a power vacuum that eventually led to an ongoing civil war and the rise of Iraqi extremism [Time].

And Duterte has pointed out these three examples many, many times.

In short, the US has done it before, so it can still do it again. For one, Ramos’ unexpected 180-degree turn over Duterte’s foreign policy is a testament to US pressure [TP: Team PH Losing]. At first I though it was a just an internal misunderstanding between Ramos and Duterte, until the latter threw major shade at the former president last week [Video].

Second, US-PH relations

Relations between the Philippines and United States took a massive turn for the worse as soon as Duterte occupied Malacañang, with the most poignant piece of evidence being Duterte’s détente with China. In one fell swoop, Duterte managed to position the country from a staunch US ally to somewhere in the middle of the US-China power struggle. And did I mention Duterte’s frequent anti-West tirades [TP: Hitler]?

Duterte’s foreign policy realignment, in essence, is a major obstacle for America’s “Pivot to Asia”. Because of Duterte, America will find it harder to enhance its sociopolitical and military influence in Asia. I need not expound on this anymore.

Third, LP has the connections

The Liberal Party has always been known to have very closed relations with the United States. Aside from the pro-American foreign policy decisions over the past six years that hurt Philippine interests [TP: Yasay’s Face], several key people within the party are known to have close ties with key people in the US political establishment.

The Gerry Roxas Foundation, founded by LP President Mar Roxas’ father Gerry Roxas, has received a US$ 24 million grant from USAID. USAID, the American Government’s philanthropic arm, is widely considered as a covert tool for advancing US interests abroad at the expense of their host countries [QZ].

The organization has previously been expelled in Russia [BBC], Bolivia [BBC], Ecuador [NBC], Cuba, Dominica, Venezuela, and Nicaragua [VA].

That says a lot, but there’s one more thing: LP’s connection with Loida Nicolas-Lewis of the influential Washington lobby group US Philippines Society (USPS).

Loida and USPS people

USPS’ most vocal member, the billionaire Loida Nicolas Lewis, has actively campaigned for LP’s Mar Roxas and Leni Robredo [Inq]. This is the same Loida that Duterte accused of plotting to support massive demonstrations against the latter [FB].

Sitting as USPS co-chairman is Metro Pacific’s Manny V. Pangilinan [USPS], the same person who conspired with Aquino Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario to sell us out to China [TP: Spratlys].

Duterte’s May 2016 win spelled trouble for two of MVP’s major businesses. First, Duterte’s friendliness with China essentially killed Philex Petroleum [TP: Chef Duterte]. Second, Environment Secretary Gina Lopez is torturing MVP’s mining interests, and Duterte himself told MVP, “ I know you are not happy with my new DENR secretary [GMA].”

Philippine Ambassador to the US Joey Cuisia, also a USPS director, is not happy with Duterte either. He rejected Duterte’s offer to extend his ambassadorship, citing his dissatisfaction over Perfecto Yasay’s appointment as Foreign Secretary [TV5].

USPS Director Maurice Greenberg was Chairman and CEO of the insurance giant AIG [USPS]. AIG used to employ Mar Roxas, who in late 1990s tried to resuscitate the ailing insurance industry by imposing unnecessarily strict regulations on the pre-need industry, essentially killing the latter. The bankruptcy of CAP (College Assurance Plan)? Mar’s moves tremendously benefitted Greenberg’s AIG.

Those of you who had to drop out of college because CAP closed down? Blame Roxas and Greenberg. But I am digressing.

That’s just three of the links, but I’ll stop at this point because I want to limit this article to 2500 words max.

Most Fil-Am leaders backed the Clinton campaign [Inq]. But among these Fil-Am leaders, the most important and most influential are those who belong to the US-Philippines Society.

Nicolas-Lewis, arguably the most influential Fil-Am in the US, openly and financially supported the Clinton campaign [MT]. Greenberg financially backed Republican Jeb Bush’s campaign so it’s an indication that he dislikes Trump. USPS President John Maisto also openly denounced Trump [WaPo], so that’s support for Clinton.

But wait! There’s more.

USPS Chairman John Negroponte

Among the USPS members, the most important is former US Ambassador to Manila John Negroponte, he’s taken an interest in the Duterte-era Philippines when he visited the new president in July 2016 [TV5].

What is John Negroponte most (in)famous for?

Negroponte spearheaded the Iran-Contra Affair, which funded Nicaraguan rebels using profits from US arms sales to Iran, with the hope of overthrowing the anti-American Nicaraguan Government [PBS]. This scandal led to the Nicaragua vs US Case in the International Court of Justice, a case that US lost [BostonLaw].

SIDE NOTE: Nicaragua vs US is the same case that DLSU Prof. Richard “#MayMastersKaBa” Heydarian [Quartz] has been using to justify the South China Sea arbitration’s US$ 7 million (Php 328 million) price tag [ABS], whose result cannot be enforced for lack of US support [TP: Breaking Away]. There’s a reason why “face”, “brain”, and "humility" are three different words.

Sounds familiar? Yes, Negroponte can basically influence Washington to do another Iran-Contra affair, with the Philippines taking Nicaragua’s place.

But how influential is he?

He openly endorsed Clinton and Clinton even gushed over that endorsement [Esquire]. That’s how big of a deal his is, as his interventionist philosophy heavily influenced Clinton’s personal geopolitical policy as she supported US-instigated regime change operations in Libya [FP], Iraq [FP], and Syria [Telegraph]. She has suggested a “review” of US policy in Syria during the election season, but we all know that it’s just to assuage the war-weary American public.

Hillary is key to LP interests

As I have explained in the previous sections, US is capable of undertaking foreign intervention, US interests clash with Duterte’s, and LP has the necessary connections to make this possible.

But LP’s plot to oust Duterte through US support has one vital ingredient: a President Hillary Clinton.

LP knows this full well. Have you observed how LP attack pig Leila de Lima desperately frames her situation as a clash between a woman (that’s her) and a misogynistic President Duterte? Have you noticed how the LP-aligned Philippine Daily Inquirer frames the recent VP Leni Knee Joke as a another anti-woman deed by Duterte [Video]? Or how about that Agot Isidro issue [Inq], where the self-proclaimed victim happens to be a woman?

Yes, the #EveryWoman campaign is geared at aligning the Duterte Ouster Plot not only with US interests, but also with Clinton’s personal crusade for women’s rights. This makes a prospective intervention in the Philippines more palatable not only for Clinton, but also for the American Public.

Yes, a President Clinton is important in forwarding LP’s political interests.

Too bad Trump won.

But wait! There’s more.

Presidents Duterte and Trump

Duterte issued a statement as soon as news of Trump’s win broke out, with Duterte saying he doesn't “want to quarrel anymore, because Trump has won [Reuters].” This is a shocking turn of events given Duterte’s belligerence towards outgoing US President Barack Obama, best characterized by the former’s acerbic language [BBC] that made headlines throughout the world.

What does Trump’s win mean for the Duterte’s Philippines?

First, Trump’s win drastically impedes Duterte ouster plot.

Trump’s victory basically cut off the US-Philippines Society’s connection with the highest echelon of the American political establishment. USPS supported Hillary with its chairman Negroponte being a Hillary fan, and Trump knows that all too well.

Oh, and just imagine LP pushing for closer US-PH relations with a President Trump in the picture. Schadenfreude galore!

Second, we can expect a less antagonistic US policy in the Philippines.

Even he didn’t say it explicitly, Duterte might have anticipated a Trump win. Just a couple of days before the US elections, Duterte appointed Century Properties Group Chairman and CEO Jose E.B. Antonio's as special envoy to Washington for trade, investment and economic affairs [ABS]. Antonio, who owns Trump Tower Manila, is Trump’s Philippine partner.

Duterte just executed a masterstroke. Yasay, who probably advised him on the matter, did really well.

Third, warmer US-PH relations translates to a stronger bargaining chip against China.

Yes, we have achieved a détente between our country and China, but relations still remain strained, as evidenced by the presence of coast guard ships in Panatag Shoal despite the lifting of the fishing ban [Inq]. However, in its bid for global dominance, it is in China’s interest to turn this détente into a rapprochement, i.e. make this relationship warmer.

But President Trump – who is potentially far less interventionist than Clinton vis-à-vis the Philippines – will make it harder for China. Hence, China may decide to woo us a bit more that it intends to. And that’s good news for regular Filipinos. Bad news for LP, but good news for the common tao.

I am uncertain as to what a Trump presidency will mean for the United States, but I am fairly confident that a Trump Presidency bodes well for my motherland [ThinkingPinoy].

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

De Lima's interview last night has basically opened the floodways of court cases. With last night's admission, let's check the laws, rules, or regulations that LP attack pig Leila de Lima may have violated.

Background

In an interview with GMA7’s Winnie Monsod, De Lima finally categorically admitted that she had an affair with Ronnie Dayan. Evaluating that admission against what we have learned during the Congressional Hearings, let’s take a look at what the future will hold for the infamous Liberal Party attack pig.

In the show “Bawal ang Pasaway”, Monsod asked de Lima, “The question that arises from the minds of everybody, ‘Why did she fall for a driver-bodyguard?’”

De Lima answered, “Frailties of a Woman.”

Monsod asked, “How long did the affair last?”

De Lima said, “A few years? We became so close, that’s it, because I trusted him. And syempre, naano po ang loob ko.”

De Lima also admitted to giving Dayan financial privileges.

Monsod said, “The problem with Dayan is he was married daw.”

De Lima said Dayan was already legally separated from his wife.

Wait, legal separation means the two are still married. Wait, what kind of lawyer is this?

Before the show aired, de Lima has already admitted to the Manila Times that she had close ties with Dayan. However, she refused to explain the exact nature of that close relationship.

“We got close, but just how close I will no longer touch on that because it’s too personal,” de Lima said [MT].

But now that she has admitted having "privileged access" to Dayan's "masculine territory"...

Concubinage?

According to the Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27 [LawPhil]:

Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for… grossly immoral conduct…

Now, concubinage is our most probable knee-jerk reaction upon reading “grossly immoral conduct”, where concubinage is defined by the Revised Penal Code Article 334 [ChanRobles] asArt. 334. Concubinage. — Any husband who… shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife… shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

SIDE NOTE: Destierro is banishment [LawCenter].
De Lima admitted she had an affair [had sexual intercourse] with Dayan while she was Justice Secretary [under scandalous circumstances]. However, she can only be prosecuted if the case is filed by Dayan’s aggrieved wife.

Revised Penal Code Article 344 states:

Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.

If Dayan’s wife files a case against Dayan and de Lima, then de Lima will most probably be convicted and subsequently disbarred.

A concubinage lawsuit is the best option if the purpose is to have de Lima disbarred, as she herself admitted committing the crime so there aren’t many options for her as far as legal defenses go.

The problem, however, is if the wife will sue.

If she doesnt, that doesn’t mean de Lima is already off the hook.

Grave Scandal

While we cannot sue De Lima for concubinage because we are not Dayan’s wife, we can still sue her for Grave Scandal.

According to the Revised Penal Code Art. 200 [ChanRobles]:

The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.

Now, I checked the elements of Grave Scandal [Reviewer] and these are:

Offender performs an act
Act is highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs
Highly scandalous conduct does not expressly fall within any other article of the RPC
Committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view. (The public view is not required, it is sufficient if in public place. For public knowledge, it may occur even in a private place; the number of people who sees it is not material).

Now, let me explain how this can work.

First, the act in question will not be the De Lima-Dayan affair itself, as the act should have been committed publicly. Instead, it shall be de Lima’s admission of (1) the existence of an affair between Dayan and her and (2) De Lima’s provision of financial favors to Dayan while as the affair ensued.

Second, is it socially acceptable for a sitting Justice Secretary to have an affair with her married driver-bodyguard? No, that’s just wrong. Is it socially acceptable for a sitting Senator to publicly admit such an affair transpired? No, she should have kept those horrid details to herself. Is it socially acceptable for a public official, who happens to be the paramour, to grant financial favors to her driver-lover? No.

Third, concubinage falls under Article 334, but the public admission of concubinage is not.

Fourth, she committed the act, i.e. she admitted to being a concubine, on National TV.

If convicted for Grave Scandal, de Lima may be imprisoned for one to six months (Arresto Mayor) [BatasNatin]. This will also be grounds for disbarment.

But wait, there’s more!

“Grave Scandal” is probably the “kindest” option for anyone who wants to see de Lima behind bars, as it is generally considered a misdemeanor.

Yes, we may be able to sue her for something better than “Grave Scandal”.

Sexual Harassment

De Lima may also be sued for sexual harassment.

According to RA 7877, Sec.3 [UMN]:

Sexual harassment is committed by… any other person who, having authority… over another in a work… environment… requires… any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.

In a work-related… environment, sexual harassment is committed when… the sexual favor is made as a condition… in granting said individual favorable… privileges…

Now, let me break this down for you.

First, de Lima has authority over her bodyguard-driver Ronnie Dayan.

Second, de Lima clearly required sexual favors from Dayan, as shown by her admission of having a love affair with him.

Third, Dayan’s acceptance of such a requirement is immaterial.

Fourth, then-Justice Secretary de Lima clearly wouldn’t have given Dayan financial privileges if she didn’t have access to his penis. I believe the key to winning this case is through interrogating other de Lima employees and ask them if de Lima gave them the same financial favors given to Dayan. If that can be established, then there’s a good chance we can win this case. For example, we can ask Joenel if he, like Dayan, was given a house and lot package [Inq].

Oh, wait! Joenel also granted de Lima penile access, right?

Shit.

But wait, there’s more!

Graft and Corruption

De Lima could have also violated Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).

RA 3019 Section 2 includes appointive public officials and employees in the definition “Public officer”. De Lima is obviously a public official. Dayan, being a de Lima appointee, is also a public officer under this definition.

According to RA 3019 Sec. 3(a), Corrupt practices of public officers include [Gov]:

Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.

De Lima persuaded, induced, or influenced Dayan to agree to conspire in committing sexual harassment, with the sexual harassment issue explained in the previous section.

Needless to say, Republic Acts are rules and regulations promulgated by competent authority, and the Sexual Harassment Law’s applicability on both de Lima and Dayan are underscored by Aquino-era Labor Secretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz’s 2011 call on employers to help avoid sexual harassment incidents [Gov]. De Lima is basically Dayan’s immediate employer.

De Lima may also have violated RA 3019 Sec. 3(b), which states [Gov]:

Corrupt practices of public officers (include) Directly… receiving any… benefit, for himself… in connection with (a) contract… between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.

The contract here would be Dayan’s employment contract, where the employer would be Leila de Lima in behalf of the government in her capacity as Justice Secretary.

And as for the “benefit”, it’s her access to Ronnie Dayan’s penis.

Code of Ethics for Public Officials

The Code of Ethics for Public Officials (RA 6713) Section 4(b) states [Gov]:

Public officials and employees… shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.

Needless to say, having an affair with a driver-bodyguard AND giving him financial benefits in the process directly violates this section.

Moreover, Section 7(d) states:

Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any favor (or) entertainment… from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office. De Lima, the public official, accepted sexual favors (or entertainment, if you want to put it that way) in connection with Dayan’s employment which is affected by her functions as DoJ secretary.

I won’t expound on this anymore. It’s as clear as day.

Not just sex

Here’s the thing: Leila’s interview also reminded me that she also did something else that clearly violated RA’s 3019 and 3713.

De Lima said in the interview,” …advise sa akin nung dating BuCor Director Bucayu tsaka ni Gen. Villasanta na wag daw ho munang isama na ipalipat din si Jaybee Sebastian doon sa NBI detention facility dahil papatayin daw po iyang si Jaybee dahil siya po ang isa sa mga sources nung information about doon sa mga ginagawa nila Colangco. Kaya in that sense, naturingan po siyang isang asset.”

(Translation: Bureau of Corrections Director Bucayu and Gen. Villasanta advised me against transferring Jaybee Sebastian to the NBI detention facility because he will get killed. Jaybee is a source of information about Colangco’s misdeeds so in that sense, he considered an asset.)

Now, RA 3019 Sec. 3(k) states:

Corrupt practices of public officers (include) divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

The confidential information was that inmate Sebastian is an asset, information she was acquired as Justice Secretary. She then released that information to the public last month De Lima in September [GMA], a public that is clearly unauthorized to know of such a thing as it would be prejudicial to the ongoing Bilibid investigations.

She even released this information despite knowing at that time that Sebastian was incarcerated in Building 14 where the NBI detainees were relocated. Oh, and did I say Sebastian was stabbed because of it [ABS]?

Clearly, any self-respecting person, let alone a public officer, will give priority to another person’s life over saving her reputation.

De Lima isn’t that kind of person.

RA 6713 reiterates this in Section 7(c), which states:

Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public… to prejudice the public interest.

Yes, de Lima violated two birds with one stone.

Lawyer’s Code

Let’s take a look at three pertinent rules in the “Code of Professional Responsibility”:

Rule 1.01 states:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct [Chan-Robles].

Violations of RA 6713 and RA 3019 fall under unlawful conduct. Meanwhile, Concubinage, Grave Scandal, and Sexual Harassment fall under unlawful AND immoral conduct.

Rule 7.03 states:

A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession [Chan-Robles].

Surely, a well-known lawyer publicly admitting having an affair with her married driver-bodyguard AND giving him financial favors is scandalous. Now, add the fact that this driver-bodyguard collected drug payolas from prisoners.

What’s worse, the best de Lima could muster was “doubt” the allegations against Dayan. The operative word here is “doubt” and not “deny”: doubt is uncertainty of the truthfulness, while deny implies certainty of falsehood. Bar topnotcher like de Lima should be sufficiently familiar with the difference.

Now, tell me, how else can de Lima avoid disbarment or worse, prison?

Don’t tell me this is just a the “frailty of a woman”. [ThinkingPinoy.net]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!
Follow @iMthinkingPinoy

Major Trust Issues

Callousness versus Empathy

Prudence, or the lack of it

“What is the Problem?”

RELATED POSTS:

Citing the Constitution

Revised Penal Code? Not exactly

Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure? Yes.

Why does it matter?

RELATED POSTS:

How the 1951 PH-US MDT works

Triggering the MDT

SCS Resource Exploitation

How about navy escorts?

Put*ng Ina and the ASEAN Summit

1: Postponement of US-PH meeting

2: Duterte skips ASEAN-India summit

3: Duterte’s “apology” to Obama, sort of

4: Duterte on the ASEAN-East Asia Summit

Duterte’s Geopolitical Risk-taking

PH economy hurting?

RELATED POSTS:

RELATED POSTS:

1: “Force and effect of law”

2: “Exceptionally harsh words”

3: “Staggering number of casualties”

Super-duper Liberal Party

ThinkingPinoy's Takeaways

RELATED POSTS:

Duterte’s First 80 Days

The Liberal Party’s Losses

Appetizer 1: LP and Mining

Appetizer 2: LP and Hacienda Luisita

Appetizer 3: LP appointees go bye-bye

Enough of the Appetizers!

Entrée: International Policy and the South China Sea

Main Course: The War on Drugs

LP counter-attacks

Matobato and WPP

RELATED POSTS:

Edgar Matobato, a real estate agent?

RELATED POSTS:

The Top Comments

Paterno’s all-too-convenient omission

De Lima’s Investigation

The Investigation’s Aftermath

Sipaco and the Ombudsman

Esmaquel’s Self-contradictory Article

Matobato’s Credibility

Rappler’s Paterno Esmaquel II

RELATED POSTS:

Duterte’s (more comprehensive) statement

Duterte’s statement 2 days prior

What did the EU do?

The EU Resolution’s Implications

Putting things into perspective

Spare the Jews

RELATED POSTS:

The Emergence of Social Media

Inquirer and the Mosquito Press

The Regular Citizen's Voice

Ressa's Rants

The Rise of the Millennial Mosquito Press

Inquirer-Rappler vs ThinkingPinoy

Rappler and Inquirer's Revenue Figures

Revenue vs Expenses

ThinkingPinoy's Takeaways

RELATED POSTS:

From Words to Action

War and Peace

Ramos assesses Duterte' 1st 100 days

Ramos' Stance: Prudence vs Outright Aversion?

Ramos' Skepticism

Another déjà vu

Let's cut the long story short

RELATED POSTS:

Social Media Influence

Rappler’s Credibility

Public Confidence

RELATED POSTS: