Nicole's Recantation Manifests How Unjust The Philippine Justice System Is

I CANNOT JUDGE NICOLE. . . TOO MUCH.

It has been more than three years that the crime occurred and more than two years that Daniel Smith was sentenced to 40 years of imprisonment. Nicole wanted him to suffer the consequences (She even wanted him in death.). After the verdict was out Nicole and her family were happy that justice was fulfilled.

This success was troubled by the existing Visiting Forces Agreement(VFA) which allows US Military Forces to 'visit' the Philippines for the desire in strengthening international and regional security. There were appeals and confusions to where Smith should be detained. After few days of detainment in the Philippines Prison, he was then transferred to the custody of the US Embassy.

Nicole was not caressed by the government. Shame. The government even favored the alien alleged of committing rape to a citizen of this country for the Regime's and USA's Interests.

Sad. Provocative. Et al.

Nicole's recantation manifests how unjust the Philippine justice system is. This is true. We are not surprised of this prejudice. We know this is wrong that is why there is a movement for social change.

Nicole, perhaps, doesn't know about this and did not have enough courage to fight for her right. This is the other angle of the story. Napakaraming lumalaban para sa kanya at sa iba pang dumanas ng karahasan. Nicole loses hope and some courage. She expected that everything will be fine after winning the case against the alleged rapist. BUT it was not.

If I were in here in position, I would also feel despair and disappointment.

However, in this circumstance that the state proved its being unjust, Filipinos should be more militant. Nicole was not. She had given up the fight for justice for her personal interest. She had wanted justice and escape then from this predicament. She is weak. She is egocentric. She is conceited. [Hope this isn't much.]

Also, here comes another angle of the issue - bribery. Well, perhaps, this is true. Why recant now amidst VFA debate? The Arroyo Regime doesn't want to get embarrassed to their 'BRO'. That is why they let Daniel Smith be in the custody of the US and was given special treatment [See how Daniel Smith grow and gain a lot of weight. Haha.] and assert the legitimacy of the VFA.

And shame to Nicole, if bribery is indeed true, that she accepted it. [I am not pertaining to the 100k that her family received because as what I've read, it was legal and court-mandated.]

What is also more confusing is that the counsel of Daniel Smith processed the affidavit that Nicole filed [I smell something.] and not her own counsel. There was really an 'outside-court' transactions since Atty. Ursua did not have any communication for almost/more than a month and she received a letter of terminati0n from Nicole's mother days after. Why didn't Nicole, if she really wanted to recant her first pledged statements, consulted and let her counsel process it? And what the hell that among the thousands of lawyers in the Philippines, why under the counsel of the alleged rapist?

She already flew outside the Philippines.

"Nicole’s departure for the United States was announced on March 17, by her now ex-lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, who said she had no prior knowledge of the move. Nicole’s mother confirmed Ursua’s announcement.

Based on records of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and the Bureau of Immigration office made available to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nicole flew to Japan on Mar. 16 on board Flight 746 of Japan Airlines.

Flight 746, a Boeing 747 plane with 400 passengers, left NAIA 1 at 9:06 a.m. and arrived at Tokyo’s Narita Airport at 1:55 p.m.

Nicole was listed among the passengers, but the records did not indicate her connecting flight to United States."-Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Wherever she is now, she should have not left. She should be here now. Questions uttered in the air need answers. I know NICOLE WILL GO BACK TO THE PHILIPPINES. She still has to face the court regarding her affidavit which is, not really contrary but, putting uncertainties to her statements.

Her recantation even affirms the intervention of outside forces, who ,perhaps, are those people who wanted to clear the name of USA and those who wanted to protect the interests gained from it. [Remember US pulled out Balikatan after the guilty verdict of Daniel Smith.]

MANY ARE DISAPPOINTED.

MANY ARE ANGRY.
MANY CONDEMN 'NICOLE'.

BUT her recantation will not stop the struggle for justice and truth. This will even trigger people's movement. The struggle continues and will continue. As long as there are still abused, as long as there is still discrimination, people will not remain quite. Voices will become louder and louder.

WE DO NOT DESERVE A FASCIST, SEMI-COLONIAL, SEMI-FEUDAL AND BUREAUCRAT CAPITALIST SOCIETY!

PATULOY ANG LABAN PARA SA ISANG TUNAY AT PURONG KALAYAAN!!!

MABUHAY KABATAANG PILIPINO!

Isn't it strange? Why recant now, Nicole?

By Michael Lim Ubac, Christian V. Esguerra
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:05:00 03/20/2009

MANILA, Philippines— Was her convicted rapist, if not the US government itself, behind change of heart of " Nicole", the Filipino woman wh briefly served as a symbol of the purported inequity of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA)?

At least three senators are nursing suspicions in the wake of Nicole’s submission of a sworn statement raising doubt about her rape by Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith, and her flight to the United States, apparently for good.

According to Sen. Loren Legarda, Nicole’s case has implications on the VFA, which governs the conduct of US troops in the Philippines and which is now the subject of calls for review or outright termination.

“There’s more than meets the eye in this issue,” she said, noting that the agreement that became effective in 1999 was very important with respect to the United States’ war on terror and its strategic and security interests in the Asian region.

“It cannot be discounted that extreme pressures may have been applied on Nicole for her to recant her [court testimony] at the risk of inviting perjury and other charges against her,” said Legarda, who had voted against the ratification of the agreement.

“Nicole’s leaving for the US also raises questions because if it is true that she may have wrongfully accused Smith of raping her, why would she choose to live in the native land of the man she may have wronged?” Legarda said.

Form and timing

In a statement, Sen. Francis Pangilinan raised “serious questions about the form and timing” of Nicole’s sworn statement dated March 12.

“What boggles my mind right now is why the new affidavit came from the lawyer of Daniel Smith and not her own lawyer,” Pangilinan said.

“Isn’t that strange?” he said, calling attention to “the timing of events” that included the “scuffle over Smith’s custody,” US President Barack Obama’s telephone call to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo stating his commitment to the VFA, and Nicole’s affidavit.

“Why just now?” said Pangilinan, who filed in February Senate Resolution No. 892 calling for the termination of the VFA.

He added: “We do not wish to question Nicole’s integrity, but we wonder if there’s a higher hand behind all this.”

On the phone, Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said that if not the US government, “others operating to acquit Smith” were behind Nicole’s affidavit.

Pimentel declared, however, that Nicole’s moves would have no bearing on the planned review of the VFA.

Japan Airlines

Nicole’s departure for the United States was announced on March 17, by her now ex-lawyer, Evalyn Ursua, who said she had no prior knowledge of the move. Nicole’s mother confirmed Ursua’s announcement.

Based on records of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport and the Bureau of Immigration office made available to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Nicole flew to Japan on Mar. 16 on board Flight 746 of Japan Airlines.

Flight 746, a Boeing 747 plane with 400 passengers, left NAIA 1 at 9:06 a.m. and arrived at Tokyo’s Narita Airport at 1:55 p.m.

Nicole was listed among the passengers, but the records did not indicate her connecting flight to United States.

The US Embassy in Manila Thursday maintained a tight lip on the matter, saying it had no knowledge of Nicole’s whereabouts.

Spokesperson Rebecca Thompson told the Inquirer that the embassy was aware of media reports stating that Nicole had flown to the United States.

“We don’t have further information suggesting her whereabouts,” Thompson said.

“Every day, people come here for visa applications and for privacy reasons, we don’t divulge details about them or their applications,” she said.

Palace to the defense

Malacañang defended Nicole against criticisms over her decision to all but clear her convicted rapist.

Anthony Golez, deputy spokesperson of Ms Arroyo, said Ursua should respect her former client’s decision.

“The lawyers know that they cannot be very emotional on a case. They should be objective. They must also respect the client’s right to reach her decision. The reason is very personal to Nicole, whatever that is,” Golez told reporters in a chance interview.

“We should all respect [the decision] and we should move on,” he said, adding: “We cannot do anything about it because Nicole is the key player in this and it’s her right to [do] what she has done. [Let’s] respect that. Lawyers, most especially, should also.”

Golez said the government would continue negotiating with US authorities on the Philippine-run facility that should hold Smith. “The process still continues,” he said.

But US Ambassador Kristie Kenney has yet to sit with Foreign Secretary Albert Romulo for a formal negotiation.

Smith has been detained at the US Embassy since his midnight transfer there from the Makati City Jail in December 2006.

In a ruling issued last month, the Supreme Court said Smith should be held in a Philippine-run facility while he awaits the resolution of his appeal.

The ruling also upheld the constitutionality of the VFA.

Golez said Malacañang was also awaiting the high court’s word on its motion for clarification regarding Smith’s custody.

Asked if Malacañang was open to the review of the VFA, he said: “Anything for the betterment of anything in our government, the Palace is for it.”

But he said the government could not just rush into the review of the agreement: “There is a process in reviewing the VFA. It must not be unilaterally done.”

Dismayed

Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, said he too was dismayed by the contents of Nicole’s affidavit.

He said it had put the Philippines’ criminal justice system “in an embarrassing situation.”

“Because of the involvement of money in her recantation, people will somehow doubt the credibility of her recent statement,” Lagdameo said, referring to the admission of Nicole’s mother that the family had received P100,000 from Smith as payment for “damages.”

He said other rape victims whose cases were still in court and who probably found some inspiration in Nicole’s legal victory in 2006 “would somehow be confused” by her current stance. With reports from Jerome Aning, Cynthia D. Balana and Dona Z. Pazzibugan.

SOLON SAYS ‘Nicole’ more truthful in latest affidavit

By Leila Salaverria, Lira Dalangin-Fernandez
Philippine Daily Inquirer, INQUIRER.net
First Posted 15:21:00 03/19/2009

Filed Under: Crime and Law and Justice, Subic rape case

MANILA, Philippines—(UPDATE) “Nicole”, the Filipino woman who accused an American Marine of raping her in 2005, told more of the truth in her latest affidavit, according to a lawmaker who was among the first to talk to her following the incident.

Zambales Representative Milagros Magsaysay said the March 12 affidavit that virtually cleared American serviceman Daniel Smith of rape is more credible than the first one that she had filed along with her criminal complaint.

Speaking at the Serye Forum in Quezon City, Magsaysay said Nicole's first affidavit was actually not the complete version of the truth that Nicole had narrated to her.

Based on the circumstances surrounding the case, she said it seems that no rape took place.

“If you would look at the circumstances surrounding it, it would appear that she was not raped,” Magsaysay said.

Three years after Lance Corporal Daniel Smith was convicted of rape and sentenced to 40 years in jail, Nicolas submitted a five-page affidavit to an appeals court Tuesday saying she now doubts her own version of events.

"My conscience continues to bother me realizing that I may have in fact been so friendly and intimate with Daniel Smith ... that he was led to believe that I was amenable to having sex or that we simply just got carried away," the woman said in the statement.

She described the two were drinking, kissing and dancing at a bar at the former US Naval base at Subic Bay before moving to a van, where she originally told the court she was raped while she passed out on November 1, 2005. Smith had insisted the sex was consensual.

Magsaysay said: “Whatever she said in this affidavit that came out is more or less sticking to the facts.”

Magsaysay was among the first persons who had spoken to Nicole and several witnesses, including Nicole’s cousin, sister and the driver of the van, shortly after the incident.

The incident happened in Subic, which is part of Magsaysay’s congressional district.

Magsaysay said that the details mentioned by Nicole in her second affidavit were consistent with what the victim told her in 2005.

“All of them were correct— that she was mixing her drinks, that she didn’t want to return to her room, that she went with the American, she rode on the van, all those are correct,” Magsaysay said.

Asked how the first affidavit differed from the latest one, the lawmaker replied: “All I can remember is it was not a factual [account] of the truth as she told me. Parang medyo [It's as if] there were some information left out … of her affidavit and the driver's affidavit.”

Magsaysay said that Nicole “might have invited (Smith) and gave him the wrong signals.”

The congresswoman said that when she talked to Nicole, she latter did not say she was raped.

“She was more afraid that her mother would get mad at her for what happened,” Magsaysay said.

The turnabout has shocked Nicole’s supporters, including lawyer Evalyn Ursua, who said her client terminated her services this week then moved to the US to start a new life and was no longer willing to talk.

Smith, 23, from St. Louis, Missouri, has been detained at the US Embassy while his case is on appeal. Last month, the Philippine Supreme Court ruled he should be serving his sentence in a Philippine jail but left it to the government to negotiate his transfer with Washington. Smith is appealing his conviction.

The case has strained US-Philippine military relations amid calls for the scrapping of a pact allowing US troops to train Filipino soldiers, and has become a rallying point for anti-American protests. With The Associated Press

REPOST- Bakit Puro Na Lang Rally? (Why not?)

REPOST- Bakit Puro Na Lang Rally? (Why not?)
By Karl Castro*

Upon hearing the phrase "the July 10 walkout," your immediate reaction may be a wrinkling of the nose, or a doubtful frown. Perhaps you immediately think, Rali ng rali, wala namang nangyayari. Or even, There are other ways to settle the issue. There are other ways to participate.

But you're wrong. At the very least, you've been misled.

Mass demonstrations remain to be the strongest statement of solidarity among citizens. Yes, it is difficult to gather people, organize a program, and reach a broad unity for a particular stand on today's issues. Yes, it is tiring and seemingly impossible--but that is what makes mass actions all the more effective. Its difficulty is precisely the reason why it is the best means of registering dissent.

It is a fallacy to expect that a mass demonstration will bring about immediate and tangible change. If one holds that opinion, one is either heavily brainwashed (by parents/administrators/backward student political formations) or overly and wrongly utopian (read: ultra-left). As John Berger said in his brilliant essay (a must-read for the newbie rallyist), the value of a mass demonstration is symbolic. It is a demonstration of the power of the people, a "rehearsal of revolutionary awareness." It is for the participants, more than anyone else, for it heightens their sense of solidarity. As members of an oppressed class fighting for their basic rights, the demonstrators also "dramatize the the power they still lack."

Though largely symbolic in value, mass demonstrations are far from futile. Berger explains the state dilemma which a huge mobilization poses:

Either authority must abdicate and allow the crowd to do as it wishes: in which case the symbolic suddenly becomes real, and, even if the crowd’s lack of organisation and preparedness prevents it from consolidating its victory, the event demonstrates the weakness of authority. Or else authority must constrain and disperse the crowd with violence: in which case the undemocratic character of such authority is publicly displayed. The imposed dilemma is between displayed weakness and displayed authoritarianism.

Why all the friction, then? one may ask. Isn't there a safer, more quiet means to achieve social change more concretely?

That depends on the kind of change you want to achieve. For example, hindi ba pwedeng mag-donate na lang sa charity ng pera or relief goods? Or magtayo ng mga bahay through Gawad Kalinga? Yes, that's helpful to some extent, but it in no way changes the unjust social relations which brought about the need for charity organizations in the first place. Though the feeling of "unselfish" hard work (in the form of old-school carpentry and other menial jobs generally alien to the bourgeoisie) must do wonders for one's heart and conscience, well, that's the problem. It's done to placate oneself, to make one feel less guilty of being "privileged" in society.

That is the problem with (oxymorons like) corporate social responsibility. In the 2008 World Economic Forum, obscenely-rich Microsoft person Bill Gates extols corporate responsibility (or what he likes to call "creative capitalism"):

The challenge here is to design a system where market incentives, including profits and recognition, drive those principles to do more for the poor. I like to call this idea creative capitalism, an approach where governments, businesses, and nonprofits work together to stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or gain recognition, doing work that eases the world's inequities.

[Insert collective smirks and giggles here.] Gates' speech is an example of the inherent problem of capitalism, namely, it needs inequality to survive. In spite of all the corporations' pseudo-activist rhetoric, one cannot eradicate poverty in a capitalist society simply because it is its lifeline. The mere concept of private property and drive for profit is enough to illustrate this. In fact, these corporate social responsibility spectacles are merely grand PR stunts which help give companies a more humane and acceptable image, an endeavor ultimately undertaken not to uplift people from poverty, but to increase profit.

Capitalist incursion into education, in particular, also banks on this humane face. Scholarships, donations, buildings and facilities bearing the companies'/donors' names--these are the marks of education in a capitalist society. These "acts of kindness" are a smokescreen for the blunt reality that education has been commercialized and is out of reach for the majority. At the very least, recipients of corporate kindness (both students and educational institutions) are compelled to feel indebted to the companies which support them. More often than not, scholars are drawn to work for them (like, say, SM scholars).

Fine, you say. Charity work may not be the best option. What about lobbying? Or table battles with the administration?

It is a false dilemma, the choice between mass demonstrations and table battles. This is a line pseudo-progressive political formations are wont to toe. In reality, however, one must do both. The outcome of table battles without accompanying mass demonstrations are insufficient. Take for example the 2003-04 fight against Senate Bill 2587 (which is pretty much the new UP Charter). Despite the massive lobbying efforts on the part of the students, the bill's main proponent, Senator Francis Pangilinan, still challenged them to show their numbers. They did, and thanks to simultaneous mobilizing and lobbying, the bill was not passed.

Table battles, even with mass demonstrations, are generally weak. Administration officials, after all, have the densest conscience. The 2006 passage of the 300 percent tuition hike in UP is a prime example, where the repeated assertion of dissent in various fora, consultations and even Board of Regents meetings led the administration to evade table battles altogether, just to pass the damn thing.

This is where we come in. This is where our current interventions, in the form of the July walkouts, are necessary. We were strong in the past, and we have only achieved moderate success. We need not be afraid nor reluctant to participate in mass demonstrations; the current national crisis, especially in education, cannot be any more concrete and compelling. History tells us that we need to be stronger, and mass actions give us that.

*Karl Castro is the former Editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian, the official paper of the students of the University of the Philippines, Diliman.

On my Multiply

Leave ‘Nicole’ alone—Palace

By Joel Guinto
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 16:17:00 03/19/2009

Filed Under: Treaties & International Organisations, Congress, Justice & Rights, Migration, Protest, Subic rape case

MANILA, Philippines—The Palace urged critics of “Nicole” to leave her alone and respect her decision to leave the country.

Nicole has recanted her case against an American marine who was convicted of raping her.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Anthony Golez said Nicole’s lawyers and supporters “cannot be very emotional” because it was their client’s “right” to make such a move.

“That’s very personal to Nicole, whatever her reasons are, and I think we should all respect that and we should move on,” Golez told a news conference at the Palace.

“We cannot do anything about it because Nicole is they key player in this and that’s her right to do what she has done,” he said.

Asked if Nicole should be left alone, Golez said: “She should be left, because yun ang gusto niya, kagustuhan niya e [that’s what she wants].”

But despite Nicole’s move, Golez said Manila would still continue with negotiations with Washington to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that ordered the transfer of Lance Corporal Daniel Smith from the US Embassy to a Philippine facility.

“Tuloy pa din ang proseso [the process continues] in view of improving systems,” he said.

The Solicitor General has sought clarification from the High Tribunal since it maintained that the agreement between Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo and US Ambassador Kristie Kenney did not violate the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

Kenney, meanwhile, has said that the US embassy would wait for word from the US State Department in Washington.

On Wednesday, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said the Palace remained keen on a review of the VFA, which governs the conduct of American troops in the Philippines.

In December 2006, the Makati regional trial court found Smith guilty of raping Nicole at the back of a van, as three other US Marines cheered him on after a drunken night out at the former Subic Naval Base in Olongapo City on November 1, 2005.

The American soldiers left Nicole’s half-naked body by the roadside.

In her latest affidavit, Nicole claimed that she was too drunk to remember whether or not Smith forced her to have sex.

Airah Cadiogan Nominated as UP Student Regent

Outgoing University Student Council Vice Chair and the Current STAND-UP (Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP) Chairperson Airah Cadiogan has been nominated to succeed Ms. Shahana Abdulwahid as UP’s next Student Regent.

Her name was forwarded by UP Sining at Lipunan, a CMC based organization, during last week’s League of College Council meeting (which Ms Cadiogan herself presided).

On March 17, there would be a CMC college assembly to deliberate Cadiogan’s nomination. By March 20, the University Search Committee should be able to file its recommendations for the unit nominee to the Office of the Student Regent.

Aside from Cadiogan, Mark Titus Cebreros from the College of Law has also been nominated. Asked about having another Titus as her ‘co-nominee’ (she said she prefers this term over ‘opponent’), Cadiogan said: “Oo nga. God really has a sense of humor.”

The Student Regent is the lone student representative to the UP Board of Regent (BOR).The BOR is the highest policy making body of the UP system. The UP system-wide Student Regent selection would be on April 14-15 at UP Visayas – Miag-ao. The Katipunan ng Mga Sangguniang Mag-aaral sa UP (KASAMA sa UP would be facilitating the selection process. #

Collective Action for Social Change

Those who profess the futility of collective action know nothing of their history. For the tide and ebb of world events are determined precisely by collective action.

As one revolutionary put it, “The history of the world is the history of class struggle.” Throughout the world, regimes and tyrants have been toppled down, and democracies established by the strength of collective action. The wheels of history from feudalism, capitalism to socialism, from monarchies to parliaments to peoples’ governments, were concrete conclusions of class struggle. Examples of which are the anti-colonization movement in Africa and Latin Amercia, the Liberation movement in Southeast Asia and Indo-China, the Religious Tolerance and Women’s Rights Movement in most parts of the world, the anti-apartheid movement in Africa, and the establishment of the International League of People’s Struggle against Imperialism. And even individual heroes are propelled by the thousands of men and women who clamor, hand in hand, for a common aspiration.

History itself reveals that there is no stronger mark of popular sentiment than mass actions, making collective demonstrations indispensable in the realization of our common goals. In the Philippine setting, the stirrings of collective dissent began in the aftermath of the Spanish conquest. For instance, the Katipunan was borne out of the unity of the peasants and artisans against the colonizers. From the Spanish to the American regime, a common sentiment for national sovereignty fueled radical movements for freedom. Corrupt and authoritarian regimes were crushed when confronted by the ferocity of widespread mass demonstrations. In fact, the mere existence of repression attests to the potency of collective action – why suppress mass demonstrations if it does not instigate fear in the most hardened of dictators?

Thus, our stance remains – collective action is still our most potent weapon for social change. For only by participating in a coordinated action of thousands of people can individuals pursue both their personal and social liberties. As long as there are forces and establishments that conspire against the democratic rights of the people, individuals have to unite to register their shared will.

The sharpest position is to stand for collective action, which is comprised of all arenas of struggle, whether in the parliamentary or in the streets.

Indeed, claiming that collective action is “passé” succeeds only in exposing the crass ignorance of the groups doing the claiming. The history of UP alone is rich with instances that illustrate the potency of concerted action. During the 1950 witch hunts, when calls for nationalism were vilified as communism, our shared efforts were crucial in the struggle for academic and press freedom. In the 1970s, at the height of political repression during Martial Law, our united dissent contributed to the struggle for democracy, with hundreds of student leaders heeding the call of history, whether in cities or in the countryside. The social ferment generated by the Diliman Commune and the First Quarter Storm pierced the core of national affairs.

Student institutions, publications, and formations were reestablished in the 1980s through adamant and tireless collective action. The list goes on, from the closure of US military bases in the country, the ouster of Erap in 2001, the retraction of the largest budget cut in 2000, and the removal of Provision 444 of the University Code, which unduly prohibits religious and provincial organizations. Despite the machinations of the state and administration, the student movement persists because it has forged an inextricable link with all sectors in the call for social change. After all, the aims of collective action are collective victories – a gain enjoyed by the broadest and the most democratic.

At present, we are facing the blatant implementation of neoliberal policies, which direct the state to fully abandon state universities and colleges. The manifestations of commercialization are increasing, from corporatization to the endless proposals to increase tuition and other fees. As students reject this overall scheme through protest actions and other peaceful activities, the state and administration have responded with crushing repression, through direct attacks against student formations and institutions.

All over the nation, there is a systemic effort to entrench an education that is colonial, commercialized and fascist. Meanwhile, in the political arena, the state continues to commit grave sins against the people – intensified suppression and repression, political killings, the neglect of social services, high unemployment, lack of genuine land reform, increasing hunger, and continuing plunder – while aiming to extend its term through Cha-Cha. Now, more than ever, we need the force of collective action.

The fact of the matter is, those who say that collective action is “illusory” are themselves in delusion – they do not understand history nor do they know their place in history.

The challenge for us, iskolars ng bayan, is to participate in the struggle for social change. We must fight for an education that is nationalist, scientific, and mass-oriented. Because we cannot spur change in isolation, we must therefore link arms with the broadest masses in our struggle for a better society, where there is genuine land reform, national industrialization, genuine freedom, and social justice. For the broadest collective is also the strongest. Ultimately, we must recognize that our collective is our people and our nation.

LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS-DILIMAN

http://vvillanueva.multiply.com

Para sa Estudyanteng Nakikibaka

Hindi ito sermon mula sa nakatatanda kundi isang munting paalala.

Alam mo na ang iskedyul ng mga kilos-protesta mula ngayon hanggang sa pagtatapos ng semestre ngayong Marso. Malamang na magpapatuloy pa ang mga ito hangga’t ang Pangulo ay hindi pa bumababa sa puwesto.

Inaasahan kang makiisa sa mga ito para ipakita sa mga nasa kapangyarihan ang malawakang pagtutol ng mamamayan sa katiwalian ng pamahalaan at pangkalahatang kabulukan ng sistema.

Nasa iyo ang desisyon kung hanggang saan mo gustong dalhin ang iyong pagkilos. Sa isang lipunang “normal,” tungkulin ko bilang guro na sabihan kang unahin ang pag-aaral dahil ito ang pundasyon ng iyong magandang bukas.

Pero alam mong malayo sa “normal” ang ating kalagayan, at wala akong karapatang sabihing magkakaroon ka ng magandang bukas dahil lang sa nakapagtapos ka ng pag-aaral. Bilang estudyanteng may mataas na antas ng kamulatan, alam mong ang pagtatapos ng pinili mong kurso sa kolehiyo ay hindi awtomatikong magpapaunlad sa iyong buhay.

Sa katunayan, mula sa pagiging kasama sa mga kilos-protesta, baka magiging kasama ka na lang sa lumalaking bilang ng mga walang trabaho. O mas malala pa, baka magiging kasama ka na lang sa nabigyan ng trabaho kapalit ng iyong prinsipyo.

Ito ang dapat mong iwasan – ang pagkawala ng pakikibaka sa iyong pagtanda.

Marami na akong kakilalang seryosong kasapi ng parlamento ng lansangan na naging seryosong empleyado ng tubo. Tuluyan na nilang kinalimutan ang kahalagahan ng pagkilos, at kasama na sila sa kumokondena sa mga nangyayaring protesta bilang “simpleng pinagdaraanan lang ng kabataan.”

Napapailing na lang ako sa kanilang katwiran: “Dati rin kaming aktibista, pero namulat kami sa katotohanang mahirap baguhin ang sistema. Kailan din naming kumita para sa pamilya, kaya mas mabuti pang isipin na lang ang sariling pag-unlad kaysa mapaos sa kasisigaw sa mga problemang mas matanda pa sa atin.”

Sigurado kong may mga kakilala kang may ganitong aktitud na kumukumbinsi sa iyong kalimutan na ang pagmamartsa dahil ang iyong pagsigaw ay pansamantala lang ang alingawngaw. Kahit sabay-sabay kayo, lulunurin lang ng ingay ng tao’t sasakyan sa lansangan ang anumang mensaheng nais ipahatid. Ang nakararami diumano ay may praktikal na pangangailangang kumita para gumanda ang buhay ng pamilya.

Malamang na may mga panahong nagdududa ka kung tama ba ang pinili mong tahakin. Habang ang mga kaklase mo’y pinoproblema lang ang kasiyahang gagawin sa pagsapit ng gabi, nakikipagpulong ka sa iba pang kasama para sa mga susunod na pagkilos. Sa halip na malasing sa alak at basta na lang tumumba sa tindi ng tama, pinipilit mong magising sa tapang ng kapeng iniinom para labanan ang antok.

Mula sa iilang nakatatandang alam ang iyong pinagdaraanan, maniwala kang may dahilan para ipagpatuloy mo ang ganitong buhay. Sana’y huwag kang magpadala sa pambubuyo ng mga walang pakialam. Sana’y huwag kang matukso sa kinang ng salapi sa oras ng iyong pagtatapos sa kolehiyo. Patuloy mong tingnan ang pag-aaral hindi lang sa loob ng klasrum kundi maging sa labas nito.

Sa panahong katulad nito, lubhang kailangan ang mga katulad mo.


N.B. - This was published in Vol. 7, No. 10 (March 12-28, 2008) of Pinoy Weekly (p. 5).

PANATANG MAKABAYAN

Iniibig ko ang Filipinas
Aking lupang sinilangan
Bayang matagal nang nalilinlang
ng makasariling mga opisyal
Kinukupkop ako at iminumulat ngayon
na mahalin ang totoo
at itakwil ang pinunong sinungaling.

Dahil mahal ko ang Filipinas,
susuriin ko ang mga panukalang batas
ng mga mapagsamantalang pulitiko
tutuparin ako ang mga tungkulin
ng mamamayang makabayan.

Nagsusuri, nagdarasal at kumikilos
upang magtagumpay ang katotohanan
Iaalay ko ang aking buhay, pangarap, pagsisikap
sa malayang Filipinas.

Source:
http://etsapwera.multiply.com/journal/item/49/PANATANG_MAKABAYAN

Tuition increases continue amidst crisis

The following is the list of schools (in the National Capital Region) that will increase their tuition in Academic Year 2009-20010 based from the reports that the NUSP, through its Tuition Monitor Campaign, has received

Lyceum of the Philippines
+ 5% increase in tuition and another 5% increase in miscellaneous fees

University of the East (UE)
+ 5% tuition increase

Far Eastern University (FEU)
+ 6% tuition increase

San Juan de Letran College
+10% tuition increase

Philippine School of Business and Arts (PSBA)
+15% increase

San Beda College
+20% tuition increase

University of Sto. Thomas (UST)
+7% tuition increase to incoming 1st-3rd year students
+8.52% tuition increase to incoming 4th year students

Miscellaneous Fees Increase:
+ 90.5% Guidance and Counseling Fee increase
+ 7% Library fee increase
+ 5.56% registration fee increase
+ 66.7% Audio-Visual Fee increase to incoming 1st year students and 14.3% increase to incoming 2nd-4th year students
+ 7.14% drug testing fee increase
+ 9.09% energy fee increase
+ Student activity fee increase of 3.58% to 1st-3rd year students and 42% increase to incoming 4th year students
+ 7% ROTC/NSTP fee increase
+ 7% related learning experience fee increase
+ In the College of Science, 70% thesis advising fee increase
+ In the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery: 7.61% Learning Materials/ Test paper fee increase to 1st-3rd year students and 88.32% increase to 4th year students; and 46% LRU fee
+ 40- 50% Community Service Fee increase in college of commerce, Institute of Physical education and athletics, Institute of tourism and hospitality management, college of accountancy, college of fine arts and design, and faculty of arts and letters
+ In the College of Fine Arts, 8.52% increase in thesis advising fee
+ In the faculty of Arts and letters, 81.82% increase in Special lab fee- Edtech radio and TV

The following are the schools that conducted tuition consultation with students but did not inform them about the exact rate: Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), Jose Rizal University, Manila Central University.