She can thank Filipinos outside the United States for their prayers. But she should thank Filipinos in America for their votes.
During the last three Wednesday nights, ever since Jessica Sanchez was “saved” by American Idol judges Jennifer Lopez, Steven Tyler and Randy Jackson after being nearly eliminated for having the fewest number of votes from the audience, some Filipino Americans, who normally do not watch, this search for a singing superstar, have suddenly warmed up to this top-rated prime-time TV talent contest every Wednesday night.
And when the program is over, that’s the only time that these Fil Ams would start to pull up their sleeves and let their fingers do the work.
Depending on what is convenient for viewers, they can vote by using their landline/cell phones, by dialing a toll free number that would only be made known during the program, or AT &T Text voting thru SMS (short messaging service) text or online voting by accessing their respective Facebook accounts.
They can only do the voting two hours after the American Idol was shown within the showing’s time zone.
They can vote as many times as they want, using toll-free voting and AT & T text voting but they will be limited to 50 votes when voting online.
Voting is a little bit tricky. If someone is voting by landline/cell phone, his area code should match the time zone and area code where the American Idol TV program was shown.
 
GET UP AND VOTE!

For instance, if someone is in Chicago, Illinois, he can only call a certain toll free number to dial if the area code of the phone number belongs to Chicago area. This will disallow the vote of a caller from a different time zone who votes shortly after the American Idol was shown in the Chicago area.
This means that callers from San Francisco, California, Canada or the Philippines will not be able to vote for two hours shortly after the Idol program was shown in Chicago area.
Two of my friends, Marlon L. Pecson of Chicago and Fernando “Ronnie” M. Estrada of San Jose, California, would drop everything they are doing shortly before the end of the program to prep themselves to vote.
They would remind me or sometimes I would remind them to vote. Usually, I vote 50 times online and 100 times by landline. Marlon and Ronnie would vote more than I do as they have more fun maximizing their votes during the two-hour window that would allow them to vote.
If only about 10,000 out of the estimated 4 million Filipinos and Filipino Americans in the U.S. would vote the same way that we do, it should generate at least 1.5-million votes. If there are 100,000, who would vote, there should be around 15 million votes that could make a dent, if not a difference, from the more than 50-million votes that turn up every Wednesday night.
 
FILIPINOS WILL ALWAYS LOVE YOU

I am sure the relatives of Jessica, if they do the voting by themselves, would not be able to generate the massive number of votes needed to be safe from elimination.
Even a start-up Jessica Sanchez Fans Club would struggle to deliver the respectable votes needed to get her up to the higher level.
With the remaining contestants whittled down to final four – Jessica Sanchez, 16, of San Diego, California; Hollie Cavanagh, 18, McKinney, Texas; Joshua Ledet, 19, Westlake, Louisiana; and Phillip Phillips, 21, Leesburg, Georgia – there is clarion call for Filipino Americans to push the envelope, by making their sentiments felt by voting for Jessica during the next couple or so Wednesday nights.
I am rooting for Jessica Sanchez, the eldest of three siblings, not only because she is a daughter of Filipino American mother Editha Sanchez of Bataan province in the Philippines and a Mexican American father Gilbert Sanchez but because she is gifted with a natural talent of a great singer.
I first came to notice her talent when I first heard Jessica interpret Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You,” hitting a high note that Season 3 American Idol finalist Jennifer Hudson could not reach when Ms. Hudson sang the same song as tribute to Houston during the Grammy Awards ceremony last February.
Since then, I was hooked on the Jessica Sanchez Fans Club phone bank!
But whatever happens at the finals, win or loss, Filipinos will always love the unassuming Jessica Sanchez.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

The Chinese dragon’s hunger for black gold relates to its continuous growth as an economic powerhouse. China imports seventy percent of its oil needs – supplied mostly by Russia. Fearing the prospect of disruption of oil supplies and being hostage to the demands of supplier countries, China is recklessly embarking on grabbing the rich oil resources of the Philippines and it’s neighboring countries.
To justify its intrusion into the territories of neighboring countries, the dragon has engaged in spinning a fictitious tale on why it supposedly owns everything in the area. The fairy tale goes this way: “About 2000 years ago, an ancient Han Dynasty map showed the limits of Chinese territory
which included us owning all of the territory in the South China Sea (also known as West Philippine Sea). Therefore, all of these areas are ours. Never mind that they were designated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea as belonging to other countries.”
Does China actually have a Han Dynasty map indicating ownership of everything in the South China Sea in this area?  So far, it has not shown this map to the public. It may be that some kind of ancient map exists. There are hundreds of old maps. Do any of these say China owns territory belonging to the Philippines and other countries?
While the Chinese have been coming to the Philippines since ancient times as traders selling their stuff or as pirates like Limahong robbing and pillaging the locals – there is no historical proof that the Philippines was ever a colony of China or that China ruled the Philippines or even some parts of it.
Even if we assume that such a map exists indicating a claim by some dreaming Chinese officials that it owned Philippine territories, was that then actual or legal ownership? Not so if in fact no such ownership ever happened except maybe in the imagination of some ancient Han dynasty megalomaniacs.
To illustrate the absurdity of China’s claim: Let’s say Italy found an ancient map that shows that the Roman Empire owned most of Europe and some parts of Africa and Asia, can the Italian government now claim these countries and territories
belong to them? Governments and national territorial lines keep changing. That’s a reality every nation has to live with.

The Chinese position is so ridiculous that I doubt that even the Chinese government seriously believes that they have a legitimate claim which can properly be defended in the United Nations International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

China’s refusal to bring her claim to ITLOS by itself indicates an admission of the absurdity of her position.  Any fool can see that the Chinese government is just using a convenient fairy tale to justify her intrusion into neighbors’ territories in an attempt to grab their oil and other resources.

Recently, Chinese fishing boats and research vessels have been intruding deep into Philippine territory and into waters known as Scarborough Shoals which are just off Zambales.

Pursuant to the United Nations Law of the Sea, a country owns all of that territory within 200 miles from it’s baseline.  The Scarborough Shoals are just about 125 miles off the coast of Zambales.

The Philippines issued a diplomatic protest to China but instead of respecting the Philippine position – the Chinese sent more fishing boats into the area including armed patrol boats – together with a response from China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Fu Ying that the Scarborough Shoals are theirs and that it is the Philippines intruding into Chinese territory. Adding the insult to the injury is like saying: “So? What can you do to me if I slap you in the face?”

What does this aggressive Chinese position mean?

Here’s my take on this: It means that China is testing the Philippines’ resolve and reaction to Chinese intrusion – as well as observing American response to the situation. China is not worried about the Philippines’ military capability. It practically has none compared to China’s mighty naval armada and air force. But the American military is no paper tiger. If America gets involved, China will likely reconsider its options.

The United States has a legitimate interest in preventing China from using bully tactics to take over the energy and marine resources of the countries in the area.  It can enter into partnerships with the Philippines and other countries in the area for its own energy needs. Political stability and peace in the region are also preserved with the United States using its military might in maintaining the balance of power and keeping the sea lanes open.

Last year, on June 11, 2011, the US Senate passed a resolution condemning China’s increasing use of force against smaller countries in the area and affirmed the US’ willingness to use its military might against Chinese aggression.

For diplomatic and other reasons, the US has to announce that it cannot take sides in the conflict between the Philippines and China. However, American policy makers are aware that U.S. interests compel its continued alliance and goodwill with countries in the region. Standing by doing nothing while China gobbles up the resources of neighboring countries sets a bad precedent and encourages China to be bolder in carrying on more bullying military adventurisms.

It is unfortunate that the Chinese government is resorting to these gorilla tactics to rob  smaller nations of their valuable energy and marine resources. While the global community should rightfully be  happy for the people of China who went through so much suffering before the  present prosperity – China should not pursue continuous economic well-being at the expense of weaker nations.

What should Filipinos do against the onslaught of China’s threat and use of military might?

It would not be prudent to confront China militarily. That would be like David confronting Goliath without his slingshot or like a poodle confronting a tiger. But there are other ways to fight.

Everyone knows that China’s intrusion into Philippine territory is motivated by its thirst for oil. Any decent human being knows that it is immoral to steal property that belongs to another especially when the use of force is involved. It is immoral when individuals do it. It is likewise immoral when nations do it.

What the Philippines needs to do is seek the support of other nations and press the United Nations to seek a resolution of this trespassing and stealing of resources  issue.  Alone, the Philippines is weak. But together with other nations in condemning China’s immoral attempts at territorial grab, the Philippines can be strong.

The world  must be made aware of China’s immoral adventurism and of her attempt to steal the patrimony of other nations through threats or actual use of its military might. The Philippines must wage a relentless campaign with the global community in condemning China’s disrespect of other nations’ property rights. China must also realize that it gains more respect and friends by respecting other nations.

In line with this important objective of defending Philippine territory and resources, the US Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG) and supporters have organized a worldwide protest against Chinese intrusion into Philippine waters. On May 11, 2012, at 11:30 A.M., protest demonstrations will be held in front of different Chinese Embassies and Consulates around the world.

Now is the time for all good Filipinos to show genuine concern for the Philippines. Preserving the country’s energy and marine resources can mean a brighter future for millions of Filipinos.

Note: Atty. Laguatan is honored by the California State Bar as one of only 29 lawyers officially certified continuously for more than 20 years as an Expert-Specialist in Immigration Law. He also does accident, injury, wrongful death and complex litigation cases. Email laguatanlaw@gmail.comTel 650 991-1154 Address (San Francisco area): 455 Hickey Blvd. Suite 516, Daly City, Ca 94015

California State University Board of Trustees has proposed an executive compensation policy to benefit their top administrators, with the use of foundation dollars, instead of public funds.
This new compensation policy rings hollow. Once again, the CSU administration has put lining the pockets of their six-figure executives before the needs of students. This latest masquerade demonstrates that the Board of Trustees will raise the salaries of executives by any means necessary. Foundations are meant to assist students and not to ensure campus presidents are living the life of the rich and famous. As a legislator and an alumnus of the CSU, I am highly disappointed that this abhorrent trend continues.
Despite overwhelming bipartisan support and endorsements from taxpayer groups, faculty, students and labor unions, a bill which I introduced earlier this year, Senate Bill 967, to prohibit executive pay hikes (using state or foundation funds) during bad budget years or when student fees increase recently fell one vote short of passage last month in the Senate Education Committee.
A couple weeks ago, the committee approved a competing bill (SB 952, as introduced by Senator Elaine Alquist) that only prohibits hikes for the next two years and then allows double digit pay hikes indefinitely, regardless of the economy or student tuition.  In addition, SB 952 would allow CSU to give exorbitant increases using foundation dollars – which are generally used for student scholarships and other student services – whereas SB 967 prohibits hikes regardless of the source.
By killing SB 967, the committee is condoning CSU’s bad behavior. CSU students and California taxpayers deserve better than the status quo.
In an effort to demonstrate against the decisions of the Trustees, the California Faculty Association made an announcement that nearly 95 percent of their California State University members voted to strike.
The strike vote is yet another indictment of the CSU administration and further demonstrates the misplaced priorities of the chancellor. While the university’s top brass get pay hike after pay hike and the Trustees find new and creative ways to give excessive raises to campus presidents, the students and workers suffer. The faculty deserves – and students need – Chancellor Reed to immediately reach a fair settlement. Absent real leadership and a change in focus, he will be responsible for the largest university strike in US history, which will hurt students and California’s economy.
In 2009, I passed a nearly identical bill to SB 967 to stop executive pay hikes – SB 86 – but the bill was vetoed by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
This past year, the Trustees raised fall tuition twice – by 9.6 percent and then again by 12 more percent. Recently, the CSU Board of Trustees approved 10 percent pay hikes for two of their six-figure executives – $324,500 plus housing and a $12,000 per year car allowance for the next CSU Fullerton President and $303,660 plus $60,000 per year housing and $12,000 per year car allowance for the new CSU East Bay President.
At the same trustee meeting, CSU Trustee Roberta Achtenberg said, “I’m just sorry we can’t pay them more.”
It is only a matter of time before CSU gives yet another executive pay hike and another scandal plagues our great university. I will not give up this fight for our students, faculty, and California taxpayers.

This Friday, May 11, Filipinos in the Philippines will rally in front of the China Consulate in Makati to protest China’s “creeping invasion” of the Philippines in the Scarborough Shoal. There will be similar simultaneous protest actions in front of all the consular offices of China in the United States and in Canada as well as in other cities around the world.
Will the total attendance of Filipinos in all these global protest rallies exceed the 80,000 Hong Kong residents who attended the city’s rally on August 28, 2010, which was called to protest the Philippine government for its handling of the August 21, 2010 bus siege in Manila that ended in the shooting deaths of eight Hong Kong residents?
According to The New York Times (“Anger in Hong Kong over Manila Siege”), it was “the largest protest march against events overseas” in China’s history. The rally united both pro-Beijing and pro-democracy political parties – “a rare occasion for them to unite,” wrote BBC’s Annemarie Evans in Hong Kong.
“Wearing black and white, with yellow ribbons tied around their upper arms in remembrance of the dead,” the New York Timesreported,  “the crowd gathered in sweltering heat in Victoria Park and then marched peacefully more than a mile to the downtown business district before dispersing quietly.”
Times reporter Keith Bradsher noted that “many marchers seemed to be fairly apolitical, soft-spoken members of the middle class who said they had never attended a demonstration before but were offended that the Philippine government had failed to protect the Hong Kong residents aboard the bus.”
Hong Kong newspapers reflected the sentiment of its Chinese residents who pinned responsibility for the massacre on the Philippine government more than on the deranged killer, Rolando Mendoza.
As a survivor of the massacre told the Hong Kong press, “The gunman did not want to kill us. He only shot us after the negotiations failed,” she said, sobbing.
To punish the Philippines, the Hong Kong government raised a “black” travel alert for the Philippines, advising HK residents not to travel to Manila. All HK tour groups in the Philippines were also urged to return home immediately.

President Benigno S. Aquino III conveyed his apologies to the families of the victims and the Filipino people’s sorrow to the people of Hong Kong. The Philippine Congress launched a full scale public investigation of the Luneta incident and Philippine National Police (PNP) officials even acknowledged their mistakes in botching the rescue of the HK tourists.

Five years almost to the day of Mendoza’s murderous rampage, on August 19, 2005, a Filipino family of five – Emmanuel and Vivian Madrigal, and their three daughters – rode a tourist bus to Tienanmen Square in the capital of Beijing. When they stepped down from their bus to do some sightseeing, they were attacked by Wang Gongzuo, a Chinese farmer from Jiangsu province who, newspaper reports later noted, “wanted to affect society using extreme actions.”

Wang attacked Madrigal with a farmer’s scythe, hacking him across the torso killing him instantly. Wang then slashed Madrigal’s wife, Vivian, and daughter, Regina. Both later died from their wounds.

Unlike what happened in Hongkong, there were no demonstrations against China in the Philippines in 2005 to protest the Madrigal murders. There were no calls to boycott travel to China or China-made goods.

Admittedly, the liability of the Philippine police authorities for the Luneta Massacre was greater, especially because of its botched rescue attempt, than that of the police authorities in Beijing for the Tienanmen Massacre of the Madrigal family.

But there were also no protests because the government and the Filipino people understood that the homicidal acts of Wang Gongzuo were his own doing and did not reflect China’s policy towards the Philippines  or the Filipino people.

It would be an entirely different matter if the Chinese government had committed criminal acts against the Philippines or against Filipinos. If that ever happened, then there would surely be demonstrations against China and calls by Filipinos for boycotts of China-made goods.
 
Or would it?

China committed a criminal act against the Philippines when it invaded Philippine territory on August 8, 2012 when eight Chinese fishing vessels set anchor in Scarborough Shoal – which is just 124 nautical miles from Masinloc, Zambales – and engaged in illegal fishing in Philippine waters.  A Philippine Navy frigate boarded the trespassing vessels and discovered large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams, and live sharks.

China immediately dispatched government vessels to rescue the Chinese fishermen. When the Philippine Navy frigate fired a warning shot to halt the escape of the Chinese fisherman, the cannons malfunctioned and fired duds allowing the Chinese vessels to escape with their illegal cargo. When the frigate attempted to pursue, they were blocked by China’s navy ships,
 
Since that time, China’s naval vessels have remained  in the Scarborough Shoal asserting ownership of what they refer to as “Huangyan Island” based on a map drafted in the 12th century. In the last month, the number of China vessels in the Shoal has increased from 4 to  8 to 14, as of the latest count. 

On May 7, 2012, China’s Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying summoned the Philippine Consular officer in Beijing to demand that the Philippines “withdraw its vessels in the sea area around Huangyan Island, and to never again impede the operations of Chinese fishing vessels or Chinese government vessels performing their duties in accordance with Chinese law,” Fu said.

Once before, in 1994, China occupied the Philippines’ Panganiban Reef which is a shoal only 87 nautical miles from Palawan asserting that it was part of China.  After some sabre-rattling by China, the Philippines backed down and China thereafter erected a four-story military garrison on what is called the Mischief Reef.

There were no demonstrations against China in 1994 for its invasion and annexation of Philippine territory. Now, there will be on May 11.

Will Filipinos attend in large numbers on May 11 to defend Philippine sovereignty as they promise very time they sing the national anthem and pledge “sa manlulupig, di ka pasisiil” (“Ne’er shall invaders trample thy sacred shore.”)

Or will China’s extremely low assessment of the Philippines and the Filipino people be proven accurate once again?

(For information on the protest actions against China on May 11, please log on to USPGG.org. Send comments to Rodel50@gmail.comor mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415334.7800).

While delegates to the Asian Development Bank annual meeting discussed ways to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor in the region last week, the Aquino administration tried to insulate the rich from the poor by putting up walls that hid the squatter shanties along the esteros near the site of the ADB.
Probably thinking the ADB delegates didn’t see the sorry sight beyond those walls, President Benigno S. Aquino III went on to boast what he described as economic gains made by his administration. He talked about the “27 times in 22 months” during his two-year-old term that the stock market index rose to record levels while forgetting to mention that the Philippine economy grew by a measly 3.7 percent last year and would be lucky to reach a 5-percent growth this year. He pointed to the continued appreciation of the peso when in fact it has only made matters worse for poor families, many of them dependent on money remitted by their OFW family member. The peso appreciation depreciated the value of their money remittance.
And even as he boasted of his administration’s alleged economic strides, the Social Weather Station reported that the number of Filipinos who rated themselves as poor increased by two million from the last such survey in December last year. The survey found that 55 percent of the respondents or 11.1 million considered themselves poor.
Aquino’ drumbeaters can claim that the poverty level is well below the record highs of 74 percent for self-rated poverty recorded in July 1985 in the last year of the Marcos regime and the 59 percent for self-rated food poverty in April 1994 during the Ramos administration that was repeated in September 2002 during the Arroyo administration. But in 2009, poverty incidence was only 26.5 percent, 26.4 percent in 2006, and 24.9 percent in 2003. Poverty incidence surveys are done once every three years.
These figures show that the Aquino administration has miserably failed in its poverty alleviation program. Instead of reducing poverty incidence by 2 percentage points every year as targeted under its Millennium Development Goal (MDG)
of reducing poverty by half in 2015, the administration has, in fact, increased the poverty incidence level by 10 percentage points in just three months!
The pace of economic growth dropped from 7.6 percent to 3.7 percent since he took over, and the number of poor Filipinos has grown to its highest level since his first day in office, and yet he felt confident to report that his administration has made economic strides in two years before a group of economic managers?
 
Nobody among the economic managers obviously cared to listen to the speech that tried to hide the failure of his administration to minimize poverty by even just a bit, just as nobody among the ADB delegates perhaps cared to look behind the wall that tried to hide the stark reality of the Philippine economy.
 
With the Philippine population growing yearly by more than 2 percent and economic growth crawling at about 4 percent, the unemployment rate remaining at 7.2 percent and underemployment rate at 18.8 percent, the chances of reducing poverty in the country look very dim, indeed.
 
Amid all these, Aquino refuses to push the Reproduction Health Bill that would hopefully slow down the rapid population growth that has, without a doubt, contributed largely to the increasing poverty in the country. His poverty alleviation program, on the other hand, relies heavily on the Conditional Cash Transfer program that cost P29.2 billion in 2011 and P39.4 billion in 2012 which could have been spent better in massive vocational training and livelihood programs.
 
Under the CCT program in the Philippines, each household receives a P500 monthly allowance to subsidize its basic food needs plus P300 for every child that goes to school. A maximum of three children can get the allowance. While the World Bank described it as a “prudent safety net” for poor families during tough economic times, the danger here is that like the overseas workers program, the CCT program is boosting the mendicant mentality among Filipinos and that like the OFW program, which was launched as a temporary program during the oil crisis in the 70s, the CCT program might become a permanent policy that would instill dependency and complacency among the poor Filipinos.
 
During his ADB speech, Aquino again put the blame on the past administration’s corruption for the poor performance of the Philippine economy. While we agree with him that the Arroyo administration was corrupt, he cannot continue making that fact an excuse for the failure of his administration to improve the lives of the people.
 
For two years, Aquino put to a virtual stop all public works projects on the excuse that his administration had to review all the government contracts that he said were tainted with corruption. The construction standstill has contributed to the unemployment problem, slowed down the economy, and scared foreign investors who became even more wary of the government’s ability to honor contracts.
 
After two years of this supposed sustained campaign against corruption, the Daily Tribune points out that the Philippines remains at the bottom of the world’s corruption perceptions index (CPI) at 129th place with an index score of 2.6 out of a perfect 10, “a mere 0.2 point improvement from the latter part of Gloria’s term when the accusations against her were at their worst.”
 
And for all the distractions and the adverse effects on the economy brought by its supposed intensified drive against corruption, the Aquino administration still has nothing to show for it. The corrupt officials of the previous administration remain free, except for Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who seems to be enjoying her hospital rest; only two contracts have been scrapped (the French ro-ro project and the Belgian Laguna Lake project), smuggling remains rampant, and corruption in all government agencies continue as the CPI index shows.
 
“Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap,” Aquino stressed during his 2010 campaign. Two years later, “marami pa ring corrupt at lalo pang maraming mahirap.”
 
Aquino cannot go on building walls to isolate the rich from the poor, and illusions from the reality. Instead, he should start removing the walls of corruption, injustice and insensitivity that have prevented the poor from wading out of the murky waters of poverty.
 
(valabelgas@aol.com)

Philippine Consul in San Francisco Jaime Ramon Ascalon counted hugging among “small steps to make a big impact” in nurturing relationships and prompted a chain of hugs that connected the speakers of a recent seminar on building healthier family relationships.
“Scientific studies show that the average person needs at least four hugs a day to survive, eight to maintain and 12 to grow,” said the first keynote speaker at the 6th annual Our Family, Our Future April 28 in St. Robert Church in San Bruno.” Hugging is just my example of how a conscious parental act within the family can do wonders for our society, including the welfare of the elderly.”
Ascalon’s remarks heightened the community spirit at the two-hour seminar and resource fair staged by the all-volunteer community education nonprofit ALLICE Kumares & Kumpares in collaboration Seton Medical Center, Thomasians USA and the Fil-Am Group of St. Robert’s Church.
KTVU Channel 2 news South Bay bureau chief and event co-emcee Lloyd LaCuesta opened his arms to the next speaker, Albert Reyes, president of the Fil-Am Group. KGO Channel 7 news reporter Frances Dinglasan wrapped her arms around keynote speaker San Mateo County Supervisor Adrienne Tissier, who returned the greeting before launching a sobering presentation on elder abuse in the county.   
“Everyone always assumes abuse happens to someone else,” Tissier acknowledged the pervasiveness of the event subject.
The problem will continue to rise and peak in 2030 with one of every four residents of the county being 65 years or older, she quoted from a study by the county Aging and Adult Services.
“We are living longer and the potential to be preyed upon increases with age,” said Tissier.
Recognizing that the perpetrator of elder abuse often is a family member, she singled out elder financial abuse as commonplace and victimizes strangers.
“What can we do to prevent it? We could have more than one person looking over our elder’s finances, visit regularly, learn the signs for abuse, and prosecute those who prey on the elderly,” she said.
The seminar-resource fair program called the community to action on an issue that crosses cultural boundaries.
“In the Filipino community our biggest challenge is that no one will cooperate, understandably,” said Rowland Valladares, a social worker with the county Adult Protective Services. “Maybe because they don’t want that relative to go to jail.”
Valladares cautioned those who suffer in silence hoping situations will right themselves.
“If we think it will get better it will not,” he warned. “The situation will change only if we take action and that’s to call APS and ask for help and support. Because in a situation where there’s abuse, the person who can end it is you (the survivor).”

SERIOUS SUBJECT
In four acts, the Kumares and Kumpares portrayed the most common forms of abuse or actions that injure elders emotionally, psychologically, financially, and physically. Rarely are the forms isolated and often these intersect. The complex effects worsen over time.
The roleplay generated a few chuckles for the seeming hilarity of a situation such as a U.S.-raised daughter’s disdain for the ways of her new immigrant mother who brought her favorite food as a child – dried fish. The reality is that continued insults and references to “backward” or “third-world” taste rankle and shatter the self-esteem of the object of the remarks. Such, explained the annotators, constitutes “psychological abuse.”

In one scenario, a mother unburdens herself to a friend, saying her children for whom she had worked two jobs to petition as permanent residents cleaned out her credit card, started buying luxury goods and now ask that she give them power of attorney over her finances in case she “got sick and died suddenly.” The woman cannot believe what is happening and has lost trust in her own children.
Another scene showed a daughter-caregiver spending a whole day shopping with a friend far from her physically disabled father thinking she has done right to leave him by the phone and television. That, said the annotators, “is neglect,” often unseen abuse.
A skit focused on a woman’s palpable anxiety over making her son wait while she picked up a prescription from her doctor. That was a “red flag” for the attending physician, who noted a bruise on the woman’s arm. The woman minimized the injury and made up an excuse for what might have been unintentional abuse.
“We need to remember that as humans age, their physical and mental needs change as well,” said APS manager Chris Rodriguez. Elder abuse may be unintentional – such as grabbing hard thus leaving a mark – and is never justified.
Rodriguez, who said he drives to Watsonville in Monterey County to see his 93-year-old mother, explained that the elderly tend to “feel guilty” and sensitive about their dependence on their children. For this reason caregivers should watch how they behave toward their elders.  He urged the 150 attendees to call the toll-free helpline for information on resources to help manage attending to an elderly parent.
“The population increases but the number of police officers decreases,” said FALEO president and retired SFPD Sgt. Glenn Sylvester Sylvester. “We need your help to prevent and prosecute the crime.”
The free event opened with 21 resource providers consulting about their products and services. Guests were treated to refreshments from Lucky Chances and other donors. Raffle prizes were drawn compliments of Forex Cargo of Northern California, San Mateo County Behavioral Health and Recovery Services, Lucky Chances and Vallombrosa Center, Renee Salud and Philippine Association of University Women.
Drawing what else? More hugs.
For information and to report elder abuse, call: 1-800-675-TIES. PT columnist Cherie M. Querol Moreno is executive director of ALLICE Kumares & Kumpares and member of the San Mateo County Commission on Aging.

Chinese fishermen were being credited for allegedly discovering the Scarborough (Panatag or Bajo Masinloc or Huangyan) Shoal back during the Yuan Dynasty in 1279.
And the Shoal is 126 nautical miles west of Philippines’ Subic Port or about 600 nautical miles south of Guangzhou.
Granting without admitting that the Chinese fishermen made the discovery, did it grant these poachers ownership of this Shoal, described as a triangle-shaped chain of reefs and islands of mostly rocks that is 55 kilometers (34 miles) around with an area of 150 kilometers with a lagoon of 130 square kilometers and depth of 15 meters or 49 feet?
Because of its proximity to the Philippines, the Scarborough shoal could have been visited by native Filipino fishermen, who were known to be great seafarers but they had nobody to make the report of their find.
During those Medieval Ages, discovering a new shoal did not necessarily mean ownership of shoal. The discoverers had to follow some protocol, like notifying its owner and fighting for it and winning the fight to assert ownership.
That was how Spain colonized the Philippines: the Filipino chieftain Lapulapu killed Magellan, a European explorer, and Magellan’s aides. And the Europeans came back to subdue the natives, using the sword and the cross.?And the natives did not just give up their lands to the Spaniards in a silver platter either.
Seven hundred years prior to the Yuan Dynasty, ownership of uninhabited rocky lands and landmasses were asserted, using the Roman law, the cornerstone of Western civilization.
 
LAND CAUSED BY ALLUVIUM THAT ATTACHES TO STATE
Under the Roman law, when land areas in the neighborhood of the boundary of a state are changed, territory may be acquired by accretion. The land formed by alluvium (sediment deposited by flowing water) or in other case near the coast of a state, such land mass belongs to that state, where that land mass attaches.
Under the general principle of maritime and fluvial jurisdiction, “things of which the use is inexhaustible, such as the sea and running water, cannot be so appropriated as to exclude others from using these elements in any manner, which does not occasion a loss or inconvenience to the proprietor.” For instance, state can allow the use of sea lanes for innocent passage.
But jurisdiction of state initially extending the “open sea to a distance of three miles from the low-water mark” (in Van Bynkershoek’s “De Dominio Maris, 1702) under the principle that “territorial jurisdiction ends where effective force of arms ends (canon shot)” has been later extended to six-mile limit in 1914 by Italy and extended farther by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982 at most to 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi).
Under UNCLOS, a state also has an exclusive economic zone (EEZ), or has special rights over the exploration and use of marine resources, including production of energy from water and wind. EEZ stretches from the seaward edge of the state’s territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles from its coast. It may include the territorial sea and even the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile limit but not to exceed 350 nautical miles.
For this reason, it is ridiculous for China to even claim the Spratly Islands (Nansha), which are 163 miles away but within 200 nautical miles of the Philippines’ EEZ. China is 1,000 miles away from Spratlys while Vietnam, which is also claiming the same, is more than 200 miles while Malaysia, which annexed Sabah although Malaysia is still paying its rent to the Sabah’s Philippine Sultan’s heirs, Brunei and Indonesia are said to be within their 200 EEZ.
 
RUTHLESS MIGHT IS RIGHT FOR CHINA
And China has refused to join the Philippines to settle their dispute before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Germany. It instead bullies the Philippines and other claiming countries into using its military might to come to bilateral meetings because China would be treading on a quicksand in ITLOS.
I don’t understand why China, which like the Philippines, are both signatories to the UNCLOS, does not want to avail of the ITLOS, the tribunal that hears the complaints of UNCLOS members.
Maybe China knows that the United States is not going to come to the aid of the Philippines when it opens fire on the under armed and ill-equipped Filipinos protecting Scarborough Shoal because it knows Article V. of the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) between the Philippines and the United States provides, “For purposes of ARTICLE IV, an armed attack on either of the Parties (U.S. and the Philippines) 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 (emphasis supplied), its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the PACIFIC.”
If I were Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, who would be holding a bilateral meeting on Monday (April 30) in Washington, D.C. with their counterparts, U.S. Department of State Sec. Hillary Clinton and Defense Sec. Leon Panetta, they should propose that the (MDT) be amended in such a way that the definition of Pacific Ocean should extend to the Western Philippine Sea.
I think, the U.S. is not going to abandon the Philippines not only because it will be a complete reversal of President Barack Obama’s plan to focus U.S.’s resources to Asia and the Pacific following the drawdown of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is also in the national interest of the U.S. to keep the international shipping lanes open that would surely be affected in case China repeats its murderous attack on the Filipinos, like what the over armed Chinese Navy did to helpless, under armed and under-equipped Vietnamese, who were massacred in 1988, while protecting a Paracel island. Sixty-four Vietnamese were killed and 61 more were missing and believed dead and some Vietnamese vessels were destroyed as shown in this video footage taken by the Chinese Navy. (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)

The Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee moved one step closer to strict online privacy protections by unanimously approving legislation that would stop employers from formally requesting or demanding employees or job applicants provide their social media usernames and passwords. Last week, the Senate Education Committee also unanimously approved Senate Bill 1349.
More importantly, this bill will prohibit public and private colleges and universities from requiring such information of current and prospective students.
The bill comes after a growing number of businesses, public agencies, and colleges around the country have asked job seekers, workers, and students for their Facebook and Twitter account information. Some employers have even demanded applicants and employees to sit down with managers to review the content of their accounts or even fully print out their social media pages. 
This is another big step forward in ending this unacceptable invasion of personal privacy. The practice of employers and colleges demanding social media passwords is entirely unnecessary and completely unrelated to someone’s performance or abilities.
In addition to the privacy of students and workers, accessing social media accounts may also invade the privacy of family members and friends who thought they only were sharing information with their own social media network. These outlets are often for the purpose of individuals to share private information with their closest friends and family. Family photos and non-work social calendars have no bearing on a person’s ability to do their job and therefore employers have no right to demand to review it.
These social media outlets are often for the purpose of individuals to share private information – including age, marital status, religion, sexual orientation and personal photos – with their closest friends and family. This information is illegal for employers and colleges to use in making employment and admission decisions and has absolutely no bearing on a person’s ability to do their job or be successful in the classroom.
IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law professor Lori Andrews, who specializes in Internet privacy,
told the Associated Press that these practices even when given voluntarily should not be allowed.
“Volunteering is coercion if you need a job,” Andrews told the AP.
Earlier this year, Johnny Veloz, an unemployed photographer, told KCRA Sacramento that he was asked for his Facebook password during a recent job interview. Veloz was denied the job after refusing to provide the information.
“For me, that’s rude and it’s not respectful,” Veloz told KCRA. “Someone has privacy and you expect them to respect that.”
Shortly after I had made the announcement of this legislation in our State, the United States House of Representatives blocked a federal bill addressing the same issue.
In light of Congress failing to act on this important issue, it is imperative that the California Legislature approve Senate Bill 1349. There is absolutely no justification for a company or university to invade someone’s personal social media accounts.
Individuals have a fundament right of privacy and the personal information – including age, religion, sexual orientation, and family photos – often included on Facebook and other social media is completely unrelated to performance and abilities.
Absent SB 1349, Californians could be subject to egregious intrusions into their personal lives or unfairly risk unemployment and denial into their desired university.

If the Filipino people could only unite to defend the Scarborough Shoal as Filipinos did to save Jessica Sanchez from being eliminated in American Idol, perhaps China will think twice about invading the disputed shoal. But just as Sanchez cannot rely on the Idol celebrity judges to save her anymore, the Philippines also cannot rely on the United States to back its erstwhile ally in the dispute with China.
In a high level “2 Plus 2” meeting held in Washington DC on April 30 between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert Del Rosario and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, Clinton made it clear that the US will not take sides in the dispute but will encourage both countries to seek a peaceful solution to the standoff at the Shoal, now in its third week.
“The US supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all those involved for resolving the various disputes that they encounter. We oppose the threat or use of force by any party to advance its claims. And we will remain in close contact with our ally, the Philippines,” Clinton further added.
The most recent “stand off” with China began on April 8, 2012 when a Philippine Navy surveillance aircraft monitored eight Chinese fishing vessels anchored inside the Bajo de Masinloc (Panatag Shoal) known internationally as the Scarborough Shoal. On April 10, 2012, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, obtained last year from the US, boarded the Chinese vessels and reported that large amounts of illegally collected corals, giant clams, and live sharks were found in the compartments of these fishing vessels.
China then dispatched its naval vessels to free the detained Chinese fishing boats. While the fishermen were allowed to leave, the Philippine Navy confiscated their catch after determining that the “poaching of endangered marine resources is in violation of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).”
The Chinese Navy has remained in the Shoal, with 9 ships and Chinese jets patrolling the skies as it maintains that the Shoal is part of China as the “Huangyan Islands”.
The Philippines asserts that the shoal (Panatag Shoal) is part of the territorial sovereignty of the Philippines, being only 124 nautical miles off the nearest base point in Masinloc, Zambales province within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) while China is more than 500 nautical miles away.
Major-Gen. Luo Yuan of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army explained the continuing presence of China’s navy in the Shoal by asserting that “it is the Philippines that violated China’s sovereignty over Huangyan Island by forcing an inspection of a Chinese fishing vessel. Therefore, action was required in order to respond to this unnecessary provocation to let both the Philippines and any potential future provocateur know that such actions will not be tolerated.”
In its April 25 editorial, the Global Times, published by China’s official People’s Daily, announced that, “China should select the most arrogant provocateur, conduct comprehensive strikes, and exert pressure economically, politically and militarily. If the water overwhelms China’s knees, other countries will find their necks in the water.” 
According to the assessment of China’s Gen. Luo Yuan, the Philippines cannot count on the US to support its claim to the Shoal as it is “debatable if the U.S. would be willing to force a showdown with the world’s second largest economy on the Philippines’ account.”
At the Washington DC press conference with Secretary Clinton, Foreign Secretary Del Rosario announced that the Philippines is pursuing a “three-track approach” to resolve the dispute with China: seek support of other ASEAN member-nations, file a dispute settlement case before the UNCLOS, and continuing diplomatic consultations with China to defuse the situation.
Singapore-based Philippine scholar Eduardo Araral does not believe the first two tracks will work. “On matters of core interest such as sovereignty in the South China Sea, Taiwan and Tibet, China has weak incentives to play by international rules and bind itself. Instead, bilateralism will be China’s dominant strategy. Divide and conquer will be China’s dominant strategy in dealing with its Southeast Asian neighbors and China has been playing this card on the issue of the South China Sea.”
What the future will have in store for the Scarborough Shoal may be found in the past. In 1994, China illegally occupied what the Philippines called the Panganiban Reef which is located about 130 miles from Palawan. China calls it the Meiji Reef, otherwise known as the Mischief Reef. The Chinese occupation occurred during the monsoon season when Philippine Navy ships were not patrolling the area.
China asserted that the Reef belongs to China and that it was merely building shelters for its fishermen. In 1999, China added a four-story military garrison on the reef.
Although the Philippines dubbed the occupation of the Reef as China’s “creeping invasion,” the government chose not to do anything to dismantle the garrison within its 200 mile exclusive economic zone as any act would have led the two countries into war.
China has calculated that the Philippines will respond similarly. Without the means or the appetite for any military conflict with China, the Philippines will back down and allow China to build another garrison on the Scarborough Shoal.
But perhaps not.
On April 27, Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile called on the Filipino people to rally behind President Aquino in asserting the country’s sovereignty in the West Philippine Sea (South China Sea).
Even the Philippines top Maoist, Jose Maria Sison, founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines, agreed that China’s historical claims over what it calls the South China Sea amount to an absurdity, “as this would be like Italy claiming … all areas previously occupied by the Roman Empire.”
“China must not violate Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Code of Conduct it agreed to with the ASEAN,” Sison said.
The global Filipino community, which was not as large or as organized in 1994 during the first Mischief Reef crisis, is now asserting itself in the dispute by asking the 12 million Filipinos in the Diaspora to rally in front of China’s embassies and consulates throughout the world on May 11 to show China that it cannot behave like a bully towards the Philippines as it has citizens scattered throughout the world who can mobilize and galvanize world public opinion against China. For more information, log on to USPGG.org.
The Scarborough Shoal may not suffer the same fate as Mischief Reef after all.
(Send comments to Rodel50@gmail.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).
 

First things first. I need to address the situation of Gus Lagman first. Among the Comelec Commisioners, Lagman is the only non-lawyer and IT expert. He knows how computers can be used to steal elections. He understands how computers can be rigged by bribed Comelec operatives where the real winners lose and the real losers win.  He has been involved in the campaign for cleaner more transparent elections since the martial law years.
A former IBM executive, Lagman is not only well respected by his IT peers for his technical expertise but also has a reputation for integrity and honesty.
In a third world country striving to be a true democracy, having clean credible efficient elections is an absolute priority.  The Comelec has the reputation of being one of the most corrupt agencies in the country. Commissioners and other Comelec officials are known to be susceptible to bribes or else be used as tools for dishonest “bawas-dagdag” operations.
The “Hello Garci” scandal is still fresh in the public’s mind. Here,  a dishonest seated president is caught red handed on tape directing a Comelec Commissioner to rig the elections in a certain area of the country in her favor.
Amidst accusations of kickbacks and lack of bidding transparency, billions of pesos of the people’s money were spent by the Comelec during the last administration to purchase computer hardware and software from Smartmatic-TIM Corporation  - which could not persuasively demonstrate proper safeguards against using their system to cheat candidates.
The national interest compels the presence of a Comelec Commissioner like Lagman – who can  provide technical expertise as well as be a watchdog in keeping  elections honest.
But a few days ago, Malacanang announced that President Simeon Benigno Aquino will not be renewing the appointment of Lagman. The reason given: A senior Senator who heads the Committee on Appointments is against Lagman’s appointment. The senior Senator has been identified as Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.
A well known columnist  states that Enrile  may be against Lagman’s appointment because in the Senatorial election in 1987 – 25 years ago –   NAMFREL (and Lagman who was then with NAMFREL) purportedly caused Enrile to be in the last place among the winning candidate. NAMFREL’s  trending forecasts – among other things, supposedly caused this result.
However, it must be recalled that President Corazon Aquino was at the height of her popularity at that time and her candidates practically swept the elections. Enrile was not among her candidates.
Whether this is the real reason for Enrile’s opposition or not, I honestly do not know.  This would be quite petty of Enrile if it were so – as the blame appears to be unjustified. Some analysts including Lagman himself speculate that it might also have something to do with Lagman’s opposition to the purchase of the Smartmatic-TIM’s Corporation PCOS machines.
Lagman has been openly vocal against the purchase of these machines. As an IT expert, he proposed an alternative system that would be cheaper, more reliable and more transparent. Several glitches were apparent in the PCOS machines.

Last March, he and Christian Lim, another Aquino appointee  - were outvoted by the other Commissioners who voted to exercise the Comelec’s option to purchase some 80,000 PCOS machines for 1.9 billion pesos. The Smartmatic officials claimed they had fixed the glitches.
Without mincing words, Lagman publicly announced on TV: “They are lying if they say they have fixed the glitches.”
Lagman supporters claim that Smartmatic has been campaigning against his confirmation.
Given Enrile’s opposition, the word among the know-it-alls in coffee shops and self proclaimed pundits  is that Malacanang will throw Lagman to the dogs in exchange for Enrile’s support in Corona’s impeachment trial. Enrile’s support supposedly  automatically includes the support of his allies Senator Gringo Honasan and Senator Jinggoy Estrada.
Depending on one’s perspective, such a viewpoint on Enrile is a sword that cuts both ways. On the one hand, it’s a recognition of the influence and power that he wields.  On the other hand, it is also a tacit suggestion that he is a dishonest man – that his judgement on the Corona trial  will not be based on the merits of the case but on whether or not his favor can be purchased for the right price. In this case, the head of Lagman.
To be fair, all of the above explanations regarding Enrile’s opposition to Lagman’s  are mere speculations which could be true or not true.
There’s no question that Enrile himself is a puzzle. He made his way to the top by being a top henchman for the dictator Marcos for years. He admitted after Marcos fell that the  supposed assasination  attempt on his life by the communists was staged – to use it as an  excuse for the declaration of martial law.
But then he was also one of the key figures in the downfall of Marcos. Did he go against Marcos because he sensed that the dictator was about to fall and he wanted to avoid falling with his boss? Was it a matter of personal survival? Or did he finally go against Marcos out of conscience – where he could no longer tolerate the strongman’s excesses?  Even the people whom I know who have worked with him have mixed opinions. Some say he is a good man. Some say they don’t know. He certainly sends mixed signals. 
What is certain is that Enrile is one savvy street wise wealthy lawyer who understands the mechanics and dynamics of power politics. Like his colleague Danding Cojuangco,  not only has he survived politically, he has outsmarted other younger competitors, outlived boss Marcos and wound up on top of the heap. Both have retained their power and become even wealthier after the Marcos years. 
In time, powerful and wealthy men are soon forgotten – unless they have done much good for others – or much evil. But ultimately, beyond the honor or dishonor we get from men, only God can judge us and who knows the various hidden meanings of our lives which even to us – are often unknown. Who can fathom the far reaching consequences of one good or evil act on the lives of others?
As I am often inclined to do when I need to put my mind and spirit in order, I drive by myself for a few days for miles and go through  backroads and small towns, sample the local delicacies, talk to the locals  and stay in quaint inns and places. I bring with me a good book or two, a bottle of fine scotch and some pad paper to write my thoughts. I have done these for years and just love it. So relaxing; so spiritually enriching. I discover so much about myself, other people and  the world when I go about this driveabouts.
I have happily driven through mountains,  valleys, forests and by the ocean, lakes and rivers – through snow, heavy rain, the heat of summer or the pleasantness of spring when the flowers and leaves with various colors are shouting out in all their glory.
When I was living in Chicago, at one time, I drove through the beautiful dairyland back roads of adjoining Wisconsin. After miles of driving through fields loaded with golden wheat and expanses of green cattle ranches, I came across a large beautiful beige colored monastery on the side of a large lake -  looking like a fairy tale castle from afar.  I knocked at the gate and asked the monk who opened it if I can stay for two nights. I told him I wanted to go on a private retreat. Most monasteries usually have rooms for guests who wish to go on retreats. The monk welcomed me.
I found out later from one of the monks that the monastery and the wide tract of land on which it stood was donated by a big time “operator” from Chicago in the twenties. “Operator” was a euphemism for a mob boss. I suspected it may have been Al Capone who was a Catholic  but the monks were mum on his identity. Who knows what good is hidden in the hearts of men? 
Let’s get back to where I started. People like Lagman are good for the country and Malacanang should fight for people like him – not abandon them. Understandably, it’s often not easy for the President to do this as he will encounter strong opposition. But it’s the right thing to do. 
Palace sources  state that Aquino will not reappoint Lagman to spare him the embarrassment of not being confirmed by the Senators and Congressmen. I think Malacanang has it wrong. It will not be Lagman who should be embarrassed if he is not appointed. It should be the Senators and Congressmen.
Aquino should reappoint him and have him face the Senators and Congressmen. If they will not confirm him, the President should do the right thing and just keep reappointing him annually.
This weekend, I hit the hidden back roads underneath  giant redwoods and besides the roaring waves of the Pacific Ocean along the Northern California coastline. Perhaps I’ll run into some Indian tribes, have some of their smoked salmon and venison jerky and share some good scotch with them. I must be the luckiest person on earth. I was born and raised in the Philippines but can feel completely at home anywhere in the world. 
Note: Honored by the State Bar of California as one of the top immigration lawyers in the country, Attorney Laguatan also  does complex litigation, accident injuries and wrongful death cases. Contact info:  Tel  650 991-1154. Email laguatanlaw@gmail.com Address: 455 Hickey Suite 516, Daly City, Ca 94015