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).

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).
 

The week of April 23rd was a proud week for Pinay mamas in the world of American pop entertainment. In the three highest-rated American network TV talent shows, four of their Filipino-American offspring survived another round of increasingly tough competition.
Perhaps the most famous of the survivors is 16-year old Jessica Sanchez who rebounded in one week from being eliminated and then saved by the judges of American Idol to receiving the highest number of votes in the show the following week. The eldest of three siblings from Chula Vista, California, Jessica is the daughter of Gilbert Sanchez, a Mexican American Iraq War navy veteran from Texas, and Edita Bugay, the Pinay daughter of a retired U.S. Navy sailor from San Diego, California.
Another FilAm contestant who almost got the boot from TV viewers until she was saved by the judges, also unanimously, is 20-year old Cheesa Laureta, a transplant from Honolulu to Los Angeles who graduated from Hollywood High School. Unlike the other FilAm finalists, Cheesa’s parents are both from the Philippines, the mother from Cebu and the father from Manila.
Cheesa’s brother, Troy, worked with Charice Pempengco whose fans are eagerly voting for Cheesa. She and Troy form a singing duet called A2C. They previously auditioned for American Idol but didn’t make the cut as a duo.
 Perhaps the least known as a FilAm contender is 21-year old Roshon Fegan, a finalist in Dancing with the Stars (DWTS) where he is paired with professional dancer Chelsie Hightower. Roshon is the son of a Pinay mama, Cion, and Roy, an African American actor producer. Roshon, like Cheesa also a graduate of Hollywood High School, hopes to succeed another FilAm DWTS former champion, Nicole Scherzinger.   
 
The fourth FilAm also still in contention is the most famous of all of them, Cheryl Burke, a two-time champion of Dancing with the Stars. Paired with Latin heartthrob William Levy, Cheryl hopes to be a 3-time DWTS champion. ABC’s 20/20 already proclaimed her this week as “Best Dancer Ever” on Dancing with the Stars.
Cheryl’s father, Steve, was an immigration attorney of Irish and Russian descent. Her mother, Sherry Bautista, was a Registered Nurse who set up her own successful nurse registry in the San Francisco Bay Area. Cheryl and DWTS champion Mark Ballast performed together at a San Francisco fund-raiser for victims of Typhoon Ondoy in December of 2009.
It was not only a glorious week for proud Pinay mamas of pop entertainers but also for proud Pinay mamas of classical performers.
On April 20 last week, the Oakland East Bay Symphony featured three FilAms in its program: cellist David Requiro, Pianist-Composer Victor Noriega, and Composer Art Khu.
Performing to a near sell-out audience at the 200 seat Paramount Theater in Oakland, the three FilAms each receiving standing ovations for their works.
David Requiro is already being touted as the next Yoyo Ma. The First Prize Winner of the Naumberg International Violoncello Competition, he has placed first in other prestigious string competitions. His performance in Antonin Dvorak’s Cello Concerto in B minor, Op. 104
brought the orchestra to its feet and the audience to call him back three times to receive their resounding applause.  
Victor Noriega is an award-winning pianist, composer and arranger whose compositions have been characterized as “layered, complex, interesting and rhythmic”. The April 20 symphony concert marked the world premiere of his original composition “Generations, Directions” which featured 8 movements – Harana, Arrival, the Bond, New Harana, Kuya, Children’s March and Harana Revisited.
Art Khu is a prolific jazz pianist, composer, arranger and producer based in San Francisco. Art studied at Yale School of Music and earned a Bachelor’s of Music in Piano Performance at Oberlin Conservatory and is considered one of the top musicians in the jazz scene today. The April 20 concert also marked the world premiere of his original composition, “The Symphony of Souls”.
In remarks before the concert began, Victor and Art described attending a party in the San Francisco Bay Area home of Vangie Buell, president of the Filipino American National Historical Society, where they met Oakland Symphony Conductor Michael Morgan.
In the program notes provided at the concert, Morgan describes the meeting: “Two years ago, I met the organizers of San Francisco’s Filipino Jazz Festival in the home of community leader Vangie Buell. Until then, I had no idea of its existence, but was very impressed by what I learned about the history of jazz within our large Bay Area Filipino community. Through them, I met tonight’s composers Art Khu and Victor Noriega, both of whom have written extensively but never for an orchestra.”   
Whether in pop or classical music, FilAms are making their mark and their mamas could not be any prouder.
(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).

If the Chinese Navy invaded the Kalayaan municipality in the Spratly Islands over the Scarborough Shoal incident and captured all of its 223 Filipino inhabitants, the resulting campaign by the global Filipino community to save them would not come close to the current massive united effort being mounted to save Jessica Sanchez from elimination in the American Idol finals.
 I have never seen anything like it. For the last several days, I have been bombarded by emails from everyone I know- and even from those I don’t know – asking me to please, pretty please, remember to vote on Wednesday night, April 18, from 10PM to 12 midnight (Pacific Time) for Jessica Sanchez. And to vote not just once, but as many times as possible. And not just by phone, land line or cell, but also by Facebook or Twitter.
 Even though I have voted for Jessica Sanchez in my Facebook page for the past several weeks, I was initially annoyed that the same global concern for saving a fellow Filipino was not expressed for Dondon Lanuza, an overseas Filipino worker in death row in Saudi Arabia for accidentally killing a Saudi. Lanuza  has been pleading on the Internet for 12 years for Filipinos to save him by raising funds to pay the “diyya” blood money demanded by the aggrieved Saudi family to secure his release. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXiEnquIHnM&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
 Somehow “Saving Dondon Lanuza” just does not have the same ring of “Saving Private Ryan” urgency that “Saving Jessica Sanchez” possesses even though, in Lanuza’s case, the effort would be literally saving a life. Fortunately, with the help of Loida Nicolas-Lewis, national chair of US Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG), funds are being raised to hopefully prevent Lanuza’s head from being permanently separated from his body.
The push for Filipinos to vote for Jessica eclipses all past support for Fil-Ams who have made it to the American Idol finals including Jasmine Trias, Camille Velasco, Thia Megia, Ramielle Manubay, Sway Penala or Melinda Lira. She is clearly the best of all of them.
Filipino Idol fans agreed with the vocal assessment of the three AI judges – Jennifer Lopez, Randy Jackson and Steve Tyler – that Jessica is one of the best singers to perform in American Idol ever. They were confident that Jessica would make it to the top three finalists and that her most serious competition would come from Joshua Ledet, an African American male, and Elise Testone, an Italian American female. So confident, in fact, that many forgot to vote.
So when the millions of votes were counted and announced on Thursday night, April 12, the results came as a total shock. Rather than showing Sanchez, Ledet and Testone at the very top, they were all bunched together at the very bottom, with only young, less talented white singers remaining in the top 4. “Expect the Unexpected!” was flashed on the screen and it was right on the money.
Host Ryan Seacrest then announced, as tension mounted, that Ledet was safe. When Seacrest announced that Testone was also safe, it meant that Sanchez was the week’s lowest vote-getter and was out. WTF! I screamed.
As the audience whistled its disapproval, Sanchez tearfully sang her swan song, the standard routine for the eliminated singer. Less than a minute after she started singing, the AI judges walked up to the stage as Jennifer Lopez took the mike from Jessica and announced that they had unanimously voted to use their one and only save of the season on her. “We are saving Jessica without any doubt,” Jackson declared. “This girl is one of the best singers in America ever!”
Before the evening was over, I received dozens of angry emails condemning the white American teen viewers who only voted for their favorite white singers, singers they could relate to and they could not relate to a 16 year old Fil-Am. Others thoughtfully analyzed why Jessica received the lowest number of votes. 
Former Miss International Aurora Pijuan wrote that American Idol is not a talent contest but one based on popularity where the voters are American teens. “Jessica comes across as demure and conservative, not exactly someone they will hoot for,” she wrote. “Packaging has to appeal to this profile.  Not all songs are equal. Though judges appreciate her performance, this contest is decided by mainstream audience who may not care much about nuances. She may have to choose a more ”baduy” song and be a bit outrageous to appeal to the voters. Entertainment, like politics, is after all a buyers’ market.”
The Washington DC-based Migrant Heritage Commission (MHC) called on Filipinos all over the world to vote for Jessica Sanchez. In her email, Grace Valera, MHC Executive Director, wrote:  “Dear Kababayan, family, friends, friends of friends. . . Our dear JESSICA SANCHEZ almost got eliminated from AMERICAN IDOL tonight had the Judges not saved her… Kababayans, please vote for her every Wednesday night…right after the show…all of your cell phones, landline, online Facebook.”
Nony E. Abrajano of the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA) emailed everyone he has ever known in every organization he has ever joined to “please take time to give this girl our votes.  It is all right to VOTE as many times as you can.  She needs all our votes.”  
I must confess that I have voted in the past for some Filipino contestants simply because of their ethnicity to provide America with visible Filipino role models. But I am proudly voting for Jessica this time because she is a deserving, supremely talented singer who happens to be a Filipino-American. I agree with the judges – she’s the best.
If tens of millions of Filipinos all over the world vote for Jessica Sanchez this week, and every week until she is proclaimed this year’s American Idol, it will disprove a canard that Filipinos can never unite on any issue. If we can show the power of our unity on this pop culture issue, perhaps it can inspire us to unify on larger, more significant issues.
If that happens, watch out world. 
(Send comments to Rodel50@gmail.com or mail them to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).

Terror Alert! A group of 16 Fili pino suicide bombers are poised to infiltrate the US border in Mexico wearing deadly explosive vests to be detonated in heavy metropolitan areas to kill Americans. A crack team of US Navy SEALs have been dispatched to intercept them.
That is the surprising plot of the new Hollywood film “Act of Valor” which premiered as the top box office draw of the weekend it opened in theatres all over the US last month and which remained in the top 5 for a month.
 The film features real-life active duty US Navy SEALs playing themselves in a plot the movie publicizes is “based on actual events.”
 Imagine what image of Filipinos is being formed in the minds of millions of Americans who have viewed or will view this film in movie theatres, on HBO and in DVDs. Why Filipnos?     
 The opening scene of the movie is set in Manila with Filipino terrorists killing the American ambassador and his son along with dozens of children by detonating an improvised explosive device (IED) inside an ice cream van. The Filipinos are directed by a terrorist mastermind named Abu Shabal from Chechnya who escapes and returns to Russia after the mass murder.
 The scene shifts to Costa Rica where a Jewish drug smuggler terrorist named Mikhail “Christo” Troykovich and his henchmen capture a CIA agent and torture her to obtain information.What she knows is that Christo and Shabal are partners in terror. They meet in the Ukraine to plot their attack on the US by visiting a factory where special vests are being assembled that use plastic explosives that can evade metal detectors, and are thin enough to be worn under any clothing without notice.
 Abu Shabal brings his 16 Filipino terrorists to Baja California in Mexico to prepare them to enter the US through tunnels built under a milk factory that are used by drug cartels. When the Navy SEALs using their binoculars spot the terrorists, one of them immediately identifies the men as “Filipinos”. Why weren’t they identified as possibly Indonesians or Malaysians? How did the SEALs immediately know their identities?

When Abu Shabal instructs the Filipinos on their mission to wear the suicide bomb vests and to blow themselves up all over America, the Pinoys express reluctance but are somehow compelled to do so. There is a scene of the Filipinos praying on the ground of a Mexican desert crying and looking scared as they ponder their suicide mission.
 
The movie ends with all the Filipino terrorists killed by the US Navy SEALs who suffer only one casualty. 
 
After San Franciscan Rudy Asercion, the head of the local Bataan Post of the American Legion, viewed the movie, he was so incensed at its racial profiling of Filipinos that he emailed everyone on his email list to denounce it. He then launched a global petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-stop-stereotyping-filipinos-as-terrorist-in-american-movies) that stated: 

“On April 9, 2012, as the nation commemorate the 70th anniversary of the Fall of Bataan, please join us in a world-wide conversation to stop the Motion Picture Association of America from stereotyping Filipinos as evil fanatics and anti American terrorists.”
Rudy organized a group to watch “Act of Valor” at a local Daly City theatre on March 31 and to discuss the movie afterwards. After dozens signed up, Rudy called on the day of the screening to inform everyone that the movie was no longer showing.
“We haven’t even organized a boycott campaign to demand that it be pulled yet and it’s no longer showing? Wow!” one asked in awe of Pinoy Power.
While the movie was patently offensive to Filipinos, it was also insulting to another ethnic group that has considerably more clout in Hollywood.
Debbie Schlussel, a journalist who regularly writes for the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, wrote Amanda Greenberg, the Navy press person handling press inquiries regarding “Act of Valor” and posed these questions:
“Who at the Pentagon, US Navy or Navy SEALs was in charge of approving “Act of Valor”? Was the final product vetted? Was the script vetted? Was there no problem expressed or objections to the fact that the script makes a Jewish billionaire the bad guy and the smuggler and financier behind the major terrorism plot?”
“What is the position of whomever vetted and approved the final script, regarding anti-Semitism? Can that person name a single major terrorist plot against America in which Jews were involved? I note your name is Greenberg. Does it not offend you that the major players in the “jihadist” plot in this movie are not really Muslims, but a Jew and a Russian who “converted”?”
“Are there any Jewish Navy SEALs? How do you think it will affect Jewish Naval officers and enlisted men, knowing that their branch of the U.S. Armed Forces believes that Jews will be behind a major terrorist plot against America?”
In her Jewish community blog, Schlussel denounced this glorified US Navy recruiting film as “an anti-Semitic tripe wrapped in the American flag with a Navy SEAL cherry on top.” 
She warns her community: “Don’t give money to blood libel movies like this that seek to turn America against the Jews using patriotism, the flag, and the Navy SEALs.”
If you change the words “Jewish” or “Jews” above with “Filipinos”, we would express the exact same sentiments.
(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)

The resolve by the US Pinoys for Good Governance (USP4GG) to petition the International Criminal Court (ICC) to reconsider and reject the election of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago as an ICC judge was not made on a spur or on a whim but only after careful deliberation. Although members had already been dismayed by the repeated contemptuous conduct of Sen. Santiago towards the House prosecutors, the decibel levels went through the roof on February 29 when Sen. Santiago screamed and twice called the prosecutors “gago” (morons) at the court hearing.
The Internet chatter rooms lit up. “How can a judge say that in a courtroom?”
The collective outrage led to calls to petition the ICC to review the conduct of Sen. Santiago to determine if “a person who is emotionally or psychologically unstable, prone to fits of uncontrollable rage, lacking in patience and empathy, ruthless with the feelings of fellow human beings, bereft of civility and uncaring about decorum” deserves to be an ICC judge.
A draft of the proposed petition was prepared by Greg Macabenta and circulated to more than 100 USP4GG members scattered throughout the US. At a March 6 national telephone conference call to discuss the petition, members offered their opinions on the draft petition.
One member from Washington DC, who participated in the teleconference, previously sent an email where he asked: “How can we maintain our credibility when we question someone’s election only after multiple rounds of nominations and voting? Senator Miriam Santiago’s selection was confirmed after 15 rounds of ICC voting. I don’t think questioning the process at the back end speaks highly of our intentions and deliberations. For one, she has very impressive judiciary credentials. While she is well known for her exaggerated bombastic pronouncements and at times eccentric actions, no one can question her intellectual capabilities.”
But Greg noted in his draft petition that “mastery of international jurisprudence and forensic skills” was not enough, as “a sound mind, emotional and psychological stability, unsullied integrity and incorruptibility, as well as patience, civility and impeccable decorum” were also required.
Another member pointed out that although Sen. Santiago was nominated by no less than President Benigno Aquino III in 2011, it was made before she exhibited her unprofessional behavior at the Senate Impeachment Trial. It was compared to the local case of Ross Mirkarimi who was elected Sheriff of San Francisco in the November 2011 elections two months before he was charged with committing domestic violence against his wife. After Mirkarimi pled guilty to the lesser charge of misdemeanor false imprisonment, calls came for him to resign even as his supporters pointed to his impressive credentials and his 2011 election as the reasons for him to hang on.
Many expressed doubts that the ICC would even consider the petition. But USP4GG chair Loida Nicolas-Lewis, who served with Sen. Santiago and Sen. Franklin Drilon in the Student Council of the University of the Philippines (UP) in the 60s, explained: “We do not have the illusion of being successful in removing Senator Miriam but we are giving her notice that her continued antics are not acceptable to Global Filipinos now that she is in the Global arena. Something said is something heard. She thinks that she can do and say whatever she wants with impunity. Our petition will show that Filipinos Overseas will not tolerate her disrespectful, uncouth behavior.”
One member suggested that the group wait for those in the Philippines to initiate this move and we can then join them as has been the practice of overseas Filipinos in the past to follow the lead of the homeland Filipinos.
But that was before. As former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban noted recently: “Overseas Filipinos, without having to reside here physically, have the means to inform themselves of our country’s needs and of the suitability of candidates for national offices. Interactive news websites, cable TV programs, social networks like Facebook and Twitter, cell phones,  Skype, Magic Jack, e-mails, teleconferencing and other electronic wonders no longer require actual physical presence to acquire thorough knowledge of Philippine political life,” he wrote in his Inquirer column (“Enfranchising duals and greens”).
Just as Filipinos in Cagayan de Oro should not defer their initiatives to the folks in Manila, overseas Filipinos should not likewise defer to Filipinos in the Philippines. An initiative will rise or fall on its merits and not on its source.
When the Internet was googled to find out if any individual or group in the Philippines was embarking on a similar initiative, none was found. There was outrage certainly as expressed in the letter to the editor of thePhilippine Daily Inquirer from UP Prof. Gemino Abad who wrote: “Anyone, especially a senator, who has no respect for the innate dignity of every human being, loses his or her personal worth and dignity. The lady senator no longer entertains, she disgusts with her shrill, outrageous harangues and self-congratulatory displays of superior knowledge and experience in judicial proceedings; in fine, she dishonors the impeachment court.”
“Does the impeachment court condone such insufferable behavior? What sanction has it for contemptuous disregard of basic human dignity? Why is she not herself detained to stop her from committing more dishonorable acts? If her fits of rage and displays of self-satisfaction should continue at the International Criminal Court, she would inevitably become our country’s disgrace and a world-wide object of ridicule.”
The answer to Prof. Abad’s question is yes. The Philippine senate has repeatedly condoned the “insufferable behavior” of Sen. Santiago as they did when she railed on the senate floor after her nomination as Chief Justice was rejected by the Supreme Court: “I spit in the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court…a Supreme Court of idiots.”
Sen. Santiago has never been reprimanded nor chided for her “dishonorable acts”. Perhaps because her colleagues, a few of whom barely graduated from high school, are intimidated by her impressive academic accomplishments or because they fear being on the receiving end of her tongue-lashing.
But what made the February 29 “gago” harangue at the House prosecutors memorable was not the outrageousness of Sen. Santiago’s conduct but the quiet courage of private prosecutor Vitaliano Aguirre who covered his ears while she was berating the prosecutors. Although he was cited by the Senate for contempt, his simple act of defiance, captured on national television, inspired a global protest of her conduct the likes of which Sen. Santiago has never faced before.
It was as if people resolved that if Atty. Aguirre can stand up to her, so can they, so can we, so should we.
At the end of the lengthy March 6 teleconference, the vote was called on the resolution to petition the ICC to reconsider and reject Sen. Santiago as an ICC judge. The vote was unanimous with no abstentions. The petition was posted online and is set to be personally handed over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
While the petition to the ICC is virtually dead on arrival, it nevertheless sends a powerful message. Just like the time when the Roman bullies asked the captured slave rebels to point out Spartacus and each stood up to say they were Spartacus, we are all Vitaliano Aguirre now. We’re mad as hell and we won’t take it anymore.
(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).

It is simply unrealistic to expect the Philippine Senate to remove Chief Justice Renato Corona. The whole televised spectacle, while educational and entertaining at times, has been an exercise in futility as the end result was known right from the get go.
It was unrealistic then to have expected the 2001 Senate to remove Pres. Joseph Estrada at his impeachment trial even had the senate majority voted to open the envelope that would have revealed the amount (P3.2 billion pesos) that Estrada (aka “Jose Velarde”) kept in his Equitable Bank accounts. It is not realistic now in the trial of Corona even had the senate majority voted to ignore the TRO of the Supreme Court and subpoenaed Corona’s dollar accounts in the Philippine Savings Bank.
It would be unrealistic even if the House prosecutors were composed of experienced litigators in the vein (or vain) of Juan Ponce-Enrile, Miriam Defensor-Santiago or even Joker Arroyo when he headed the House prosecutors against Estrada.
It would be unrealistic even if the Senate were to accept all the evidence of Renato Corona’s ownership of 24 pieces of real property, including the luxurious Bellagio penthouse condo, as well as tens of millions of Philippine pesos (and at least 700,000 in US dollars) in his bank accounts and even if it was established that Corona, a tax law specialist, evaded paying taxes on all his unreported income and assets. 
The ugly reality is that facts don’t matter in a system where 16 senators are needed to vote in favor of removing the impeached public official, which is twice the burden of the defense which needs only to convince 8 senators to vote against removal for whatever expedient reason they may choose.
Since there are only 23 senators (after Sen. Aquino was elected president in 2010), 8 senators voting against removing Corona would mean only 15 left to vote for his removal, which would not be sufficient, as a 2/3rds super majority of 16 is needed to remove an impeached official.   
The basic problem with the whole senate impeachment process is not just the arithmetic but the composition
of the jury. The senator-jurors are all politicians, who are naturally motivated by political considerations, not by lofty notions of truth and justice. These senate-jurors don’t even have a set of jury instructions to ignore.
Besides, if truth be told, many of these senators are guilty of the same charges that have been leveled against Corona. Who among them has not received unreported sums – some of which may also have been deposited in dollar accounts – from benefactors who seek favors from them? Who among them has truthfully listed all their assets in their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs)? If they vote to remove Corona on charges that they themselves are also guilty of, then they would be just knotting their own nooses.
While some of them may nevertheless vote against their own self-interests and according to the dictates of their conscience, most will surely not.
Some may vote to remove Corona, not because his removal would advance good governance, but because they may expect favors from the President, perhaps support when they run for re-election in 2013 or appointment to a cabinet post.
But most will likely succumb to the influence of the major forces actively lobbying for the political acquittal of Corona.
Foremost among them is former Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) who sees Corona as her main hope to avoid incarceration for corruption. Corona proved his loyalty to her when he abruptly cut short his vacation in San Francisco last November to rush back to mobilize a majority of Arroyo-appointed  Supreme Court (SC) justices to grant a TRO that would have allowed GMA to leave the Philippines and avoid incarceration. This same SC majority can be counted on in the future to dismiss the charges against GMA and to allow her to leave the Philippines.
At a recent cabinet meeting, Pres. Aquino said that a Supreme Court without Corona ensures a conviction and a long jail term for GMA. And GMA knows this to be true. If the former First Couple accumulated billions of pesos/dollars while in office as the government alleges, then surely dispensing a few million pesos/dollars to a few grateful senators will be well worth the cost. After all, how can GMA enjoy her billions in Bilibid Prison?
The second force lobbying for Corona is the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) which is scheduling a “Grand Rally” on February 28 at the Quirino Grandstand in Luneta, expected to draw two million INC members, to respect the “rule of law” which has become code for calling for the dismissal of all the charges against the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
While the INC endorsed Aquino in the 2010 presidential elections, the INC was greatly disappointed when Aquino sacked former National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Magtanggol Gatdula, an INC member, for his involvement in the abduction of a Japanese tourist wanted by the Yakuza. The INC wants Aquino to apologize to Gatdula and reinstate him in his post.
The INC’s top lawyer is former Supreme Court justice Serafin Cuevas, the chief defense counsel of Corona.
Other INC lawyers are active in representing cases brought by the government. GMA is being represented by former GMA Justice Secretary Artemio Toquero, an INC member, while former First Gentleman Miguel Arroyo is being represented by noted Hitler fan, Ferdinand Topacio, also an INC member.
It should also be noted that many of the senator-jurors won their seats because they were endorsed by the unified voting bloc of the INC and they can ignore the INC’s wishes only at their political peril.
While the INC has endorsed the Reproductive Health (RH) bill backed by Pres. Aquino, the other force supporting Corona is the Philippine Catholic Church which is staunchly opposed to the RH bill and whose bishops have threatened Aquino and RH backers with excommunication.
Bishop Ramon Arguelles of Lipa, Southern Luzon, recently asked the Senate to stop Corona’s impeachment trial while Archbishop Oscar Cruz of Pangasinan openly expressed support for Corona. Retired Novaliches Bishop Teodoro Bacani, the adviser of Mike Velarde’s El Shaddai group, and Malolos Bishop Jose Oliveros charged that the impeachment complaint was politically-motivated and should be dismissed.
The other group furiously lobbying for Corona’s acquittal is the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) headed by Roan Libarios. Even though five former IBP presidents have endorsed the impeachment of Corona, Libarios has called the impeachment of Corona “improper and inappropriate.” The IBP recently lauded Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile for his support of “the rule of law”. Many of these IBP lawyers have cases pending in the Supreme Court and believe that expressing support for the CJ will benefit them and their clients.
An IBP stalwart, Atty. Judd “The Dean” Roy, is one of the lawyers defending Corona. On February 2, he tweeted that “Honasan and Estrada stick the dagger into Tupas throat. Nicely done, guys.” On February 13, he tweeted about the head of the House prosecution panel: “Idiot Tupas, just one of those guys you love to keep f—ing over and over again.” 
Probably the most influential of the “interest groups” lobbying the senators to acquit Corona is the group of unnamed beneficiaries of Corona’s Supreme Court decisions. Likely included in this group is Lucio Tan, owner of the Philippine Airlines (PAL), who gave Corona free Platinum Card tickets to fly with his wife to various cities while the case of PAL flight attendants against PAL was pending in the Supreme Court.
Also likely included is Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco, the beneficiary of a Corona Supreme Court decision that declared that he was not a crony of Ferdinand Marcos, a decision then Supreme Court Justice (now Ombudsman) Conchita Carpio-Morales dissented from and called the “biggest joke of the century”. It was a decision that allowed Cojuangco to maintain his majority control of San Miguel Corporation, a decision worth billions for Cojuangco.
Many members of this interest group have invested heavily in Corona and would not wish to see their investments go down the drain. Since many of them also fund the election campaigns of many of the senators, they exert considerable influence over the votes of their senators.
The final scorecard.
The eight senators who are reliable votes against the removal of Corona, regardless of the evidence, are:  Joker Arroyo, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr., Manuel “Manny”Villar, Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, and Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan. 
Also joining them will be: Francis “Chiz” Escudero, Loren Legarda, Ralph Recto and if his vote is needed, the trial’s presiding officer, Juan Ponce-Enrile. And there may even be four more senators.
In the end, the final vote tally will be: Corruption 1, Good Governance 0.
(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.)

Though straight talk got US Ambassador to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas Jr. in hot water last September when he volunteered his estimate of the number of foreign male tourists who visit the Philippines for sex (“40%”), straight talk to a packed audience of 250 Filipino Americans at the Intramuros Restaurant on February 4 drew nothing but adulation and a standing ovation.
The event was a dinner sponsored by the US Pinoys for Good Governance (usp4gg.org) which was formed when over 200 Filipino Americans attended the inauguration of Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III in Manila on June 30, 2010 and were welcomed at a Makati reception for them by US Ambassador Thomas.
“Don’t be trapped by history”, Amb. Thomas said in response to a question about past US support for the Marcos dictatorship. “Yes, the US engaged in shameful acts in the past,” he acknowledged.
“We cannot excuse what the US government did to the Filipino WW II veterans after the war. When Sen. Inouye talked about the plight of the Filipino veterans, there was not a dry tear in the room…But this is 2012. We have to live in the present and deal with present realities.”
The first African-American to be appointed ambassador the Philippines, Thomas shared that he grew up in South Carolina at a time when there were separate fountains for whites and blacks. “We’re all victims one way or another but we can’t go around acting like one. We have to deal with the present and not allow ourselves to be trapped in the past and by the past,” he counseled.
A question about how US aid to the Philippines could be increased received a mild rebuke from Thomas. “The Philippines is the 5th largest recipient of US aid amounting to more than $500 million a year which includes more than $200 million in Veterans Administration (VA) payments a year that is outside of the $200 million allocated in 2009 by Pres. Obama for WW II veterans. There are more than 8000 Peace Corps volunteers in the Philippines, the largest in the world.”
“But aid is just band-aid. You shouldn’t
rely on it,” he said.
When asked his opinion about a bill in the US Congress that would discourage the outsourcing of call center jobs to India and the Philippines, Thomas replied that as a US ambassador he has no opinion on the subject.
“Don’t blame Pres. Obama for that bill. As president of the United States, it’s his job to keep jobs in the US,” he said.
But Thomas said he understands the attraction of call center jobs that pay better than average wages. “I just can’t understand why a college degree is required just to pour latte at the Dusit Hotel in Makati. I can’t understand why “umbrella girls” at the Intramuros Golf Club are fired when they turn 30,” he said.
“How can the Philippines produce a Jonas Salk when graduates of medical schools in the Philippines can’t get jobs in local hospitals unless their parents have enough money to buy ownership shares in those hospitals?”
“Graduates of law schools from the provinces can’t get jobs in the top law firms of Manila which pick only the crème of the top six Manila universities.”
Thomas expressed a concern that if all the focus is concentrated on just increasing the number of call centers in the Philippines, “what would happen if the call center industry falls like the Philippine textile industry did?”
The Philippines needs to diversify its industrial base and also move away from being “Manila-centric”, he said. Industries that create jobs should be set up all over the Philippines, not just around Manila and Cebu.
But industries can’t create jobs without capital and local capital is insufficient to meet the national demand.  While Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) remit about $2B a month through official bank channels, these funds are generally used to pay for the consumption needs of their relatives and not to invest in infrastructure projects that create jobs.
Without specifically mentioning the Foreign Investments Act of 1991 more commonly known as “the 60-40 law” – which limits the amount of ownership of a Philippine business that foreign companies can own – Thomas asked how it is possible that a war-ravaged country like Vietnam could develop its economy ahead of the Philippines.
In one study about the competitiveness of South East Asian countries in attracting foreign investments, the Philippines ranked 7th out of the ASEAN-7 – with Singapore and Vietnam at the top and the Philippines at the bottom far below  its nearest competitor, Indonesia.
Simply put, foreign investors are not willing to invest in countries which require that majority control be in the hands of locals which would not allow them to determine the fate of their funds. They are also not willing to invest in countries with legal systems that are corrupt, Thomas said although couched in a more diplomatic way.
Thomas was asked about the progress of his campaign against human trafficking in the Philippines and he replied that it was frustrating. “We bust prostitution establishments that prey on young girls in Angeles City and the next day, they’re operating again because the owners obtained court orders allowing them to reopen.”
We know parents who sell their young daughters into prostitution because they have no other means to feed their families, he said. You can’t get rid of human trafficking without getting rid of poverty and you can’t get rid of poverty without providing good-paying jobs in the Philippines, he said.
“The Philippines is projecting a 4% annual growth of its economy but the problem is that it needs to grow annually at 9% at least to sustain a population that is nearing 100 million,” he said.
At the end of the open forum, when Amb. Thomas had completed answering more than a dozen questions, the audience stood up spontaneously to give the ambassador a standing ovation to express appreciation for his love and concern for the Filipino people. 

Poll surveys taken in the United States and in the Philippines are remarkably accurate even though they are based on different models.
In the US, polls are based on personal interviews conducted by phone of individuals whose phone numbers were obtained from directory-assisted random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone samples using a proportionate, stratified sampling design. It is a computer that randomly generates the phone numbers that the poll takers call. Whether voodoo science or not, the polling data obtained from those random calls to adults living in the US mirror the actual election results.
According to George Gallup, the statistician who pioneered the industry, sampling public opinion is like sampling soup; just one spoonful can reflect the taste of the whole pot if the soup is well-stirred. The key is finding a sample of the soup that reflects the entire soup.
Polling is based on the laws of probability to make it unnecessary to sample the opinions of all 300 million Americans when a smaller group of about 1500 people can reflect the larger population. Necessarily, this sample group would have to include a proportionate number of men and women, Republicans, Democrats and independents, rural and urban dwellers and taken from a wide geographic pool. 
The Philippine model represents a challenge because much of the poor do not have landlines or cell phones so their opinions cannot be obtained by phone as is done by US poll takers.
The polls taken in the Philippines, whether by PulseAsia or the Social Weather Station (SWS), use the ABCDE system which is based on the dwelling of the people, not their direct income and status. Under this system, A and AB constitute the upper class, B refers to the middle class, and D and E make up the lower classes with D representing the poor who somehow own the lot on which their houses are built on and E being the squatters of the land their makeshift shanties are strewn together on in the slum districts.
When she was Metro Manila Governor during the Marcos Dictatorship, Imelda Marcos would erect walls to block the view of the squatter areas so that her visiting dignitaries
would never see the squalor of the slums. Her example has been followed by succeeding administrations, the “solution” to widespread poverty in the slums.
The people living in the margins of Philippine society are not just covered by walls; they are also ignored by the media and by network television programmers who do not depict the lives of the marginal poor in any of the popular “teleserya” soap opera.
The only place you can obtain a glimpse of the misery of the living conditions of the people in the E class of Philippine society is to watch the documentary produced by the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) called the “Toughest Place to be a Bus Driver” which is available on youtube:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_Ht_19N8Uw.
The documentary follows the life of Josh West, a London double deck bus driver who spent a week in Manila living in a San Andres Bukid home with the family of Rogelio Castro, a jeepney driver, who needs to pull in at least 200 passengers a day to earn P1600 ($38) from which he can then pay P600 to the bank for the jeepney, and another P400 for gas and other expenses related to the maintenance of his jeep.
From the remaining P600 pesos, he needs P200 pesos for the prescription medicine for his wife who suffered a stroke. The remaining P400 pesos is used to buy food for his three kids, one daughter with a child and a son with a wife and two kids all of whom live in the extremely modest dwelling that Josh lived in for a week.
Rogelio’s life is better than that of his young neighbor whom Rogelio and Josh bring to the hospital during the week that Josh was there.  Josh could barely fit into the slum home of the neighbor which houses her 13 children and the family of her sister. About 20 people living in a virtual cardboard box.  The neighbor has an appointment at the hospital to learn about family planning even, she says, if it’s a sin against the Catholic Church. She says she wishes she knew about family planning before because she has no money to feed her children or take care of their basic needs.
Josh visits a place in the Tondo District of Manila where he sees people scavenging the food thrown away in the garbage dumps by the restaurants. They take the bones with whatever meat still clings to them and boil them. The food is then cooked and made into a delicacy called “Pagpag” which is eaten by the poor. The lady who spends her day foraging for food, then cooks them and sells them for a small pittance earns about P70 pesos a day (less than $2) from which she feeds her family of 8.
After I saw this BBC documentary, I couldn’t sleep as I felt like Josh did, about the unfairness of life in the Philippines. No matter how hard they work, these people in the E class of Philippine society will never see any progress.
Cry, my beloved country.
(Send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or mail them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 415.334.7800).

The families of Bubby Dacer and Emmanuel Corbito have been waiting for justice for more than 11 years since November 24, 2000 when operatives of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF), then under the command of Gen.  Panfilo “Ping” Lacson, abducted, tortured and executed Dacer and Corbito. Their families may take comfort in the news this past week that a family that has waited even longer for some measure of justice finally found it when the new Ombudsman reversed the actions of her predecessors and filed charges against 10 Philippine Navy officers for the murder of Navy Ensign Philip Andrew Pestaño on September 27, 1995.

I first wrote about this case on December 10, 2007 (“Death of an Ensign”) after reading an account of it by Jesuit educator Fr. James Reuter (“Justice at 3 A.M.”). Pestano, an idealistic graduate of the Ateneo de Manila High School in 1989, entered the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), and graduated as an Ensign in the Philippine Navy in 1993, when he was then assigned as a cargo master on a Navy ship.

Sometime in 1995, Fr. Reuter wrote, Pestaño discovered that “the cargo being loaded onto his vessel included logs that were cut down illegally, were carried to the ship illegally, and were destined to be sold, illegally… Then there were 50 sacks of flour, which were not flour, but shabu (methamphetamine) – worth billions. Literally, billions … And there were military weapons which were destined for sale to the Abu Sayyaf.” As cargo master of the ship, Pestaño refused to approve the illegal cargo despite orders from his superior officers that he do so.

According to Fr. Reuter, “Pestaño’s parents received two phone calls, saying: “Get your son off that ship! He is going to be killed!” When Phillip was given leave at home, his family begged him not to go back. Their efforts at persuasion continued until his last night at home, when Phillip was already in bed.”

“His father came to him and said: “Please, son, resign your commission. Give up your military career. Don’t go back. We want you alive. If you go back to that ship, it will be the end of you!” But Phillip said to his father: “Kawawa ang bayan!
(Pity the country)” And he went back to the ship.”
“The scheduled trip was very brief – from Cavite to Roxas Boulevard – it usually took only 45 minutes. But on September 27, 1995, it took one hour and a half. When the ship arrived at Roxas Boulevard, Ensign Pestaño was dead.”
Within a day, the Navy investigators determined that Pestaño had committed suicide because a “suicide note” was found in his cabin. Phillip’s family objected to this finding as they pointed out that the note was not in his handwriting and he was an honor student at Ateneo and engaged to be married in a few months.
After two years of prodding by Pestaño’s family the Philippine Senate conducted an investigation on the Pestaño death in 1997. In the course of the Senate investigation, witnesses testified that before he died, Pestaño refused to authorize the loading of 14,000 board feet of illegal hardwood logs in Tawi-Tawi even though its governor, Gerry Matba, had a gift for his good friend, Admiral Pio Carranza.
Over Pestaño’s objections, the illegal logs were loaded in Tawi-Tawi and off-loaded in Cavite just before the ship sailed for its home port in Manila in what would normally be a 45 minute trip. The trip lasted more two hours in what was later described as an “unusual dogleg route”.
After hearing from numerous witnesses, the Senate Report (#800) concluded: “Pestaño did not kill himself aboard the BRP Bacolod City… He was bludgeoned unconscious and then shot to death somewhere else in the vessel. His body was moved and laid on the bed where it was found.”
“The clear absence of blood spatters, bone fragments or other human tissues is physical evidence more eloquent than a hundred witnesses,” the Senate report observed. “It is impossible for a person who has just sustained a fatal head injury to walk from some other place in his room, lie on his bed and drop dead…”
“He was killed by an assailant, necessarily aboard the BRP Bacolod City”, before it docked at the Navy HQ on Roxas Boulevard. The attempt to make it appear Pestano killed himself inside his stateroom was so deliberate and elaborate that one person could not have accomplished it by himself.”
The Senate Committee also found it suspicious that without conducting an investigation, the Navy ruled within 24 hours that it was suicide. Naval intelligence commander Tirso Danga insisted on the suicide claim when he testified before the Senate committees on human rights and national defense hearings on May 5 to Sept. 3, 1997.
Murder, concluded the committees led by Sen. Marcelo Fernan. Pestaño was bludgeoned, shot and his body rigged to appear as a suicide.
The cover-up of the murder of Pestano exacted other victims. Among them was Petty 0fficer (PO2) Zosimo Villanueva who was the officer who tipped Pestaño on the presence of illegal cargo on the ship, specifically about “the concealed bulk of illegal drugs (hidden) in the more than 20 sacks of rice cargoes aboard the ship.” A week after Pestaño’s murder, Villanueva was dispatched by his superiors on mission where he mysteriously “washed away in a sea mishap”.
Another casualty was Ensign Alvin Parone who was the officer who called Pestaño’s parents to warn them of plans to kill their son. He was also killed, then Sen. Alfredo Lim said, “a victim of another unsolved murder.”
Also missing and presumed dead is Petty Officer (PO3) Fidel Tagaytay who was the duty officer on board Pestaño’s ship. When he was summoned to testify before the senate, he disappeared. His wife, Leonila, has been desperately searching for him, begging the authorities to investigate his disappearance. He is “absent without leave” is all the Navy brass will tell her. 
The Senate directed the Office of the Ombudsman, then headed by Aniano Diserto, to “identify the persons who participated in the deliberate attempt to make it appear that Pestaño killed himself.”
Desierto ignored the Senate’s directions. After he was replaced by Merceditas Gutierrez, the Pestano investigation met with the same indifference as Gutierrez refused to even meet with the parents of Pestano.
When the parents of Pestano signed an impeachment complaint against Gutierrez, she finally acted.  As Raul Pangalangan wrote in his Inquirer column, “She dismissed it. To add sting to the injury, she served her dismissal order on Pestaño’s parents the day after they signed the impeachment complaint against her.”
The Pestano family filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the case dismissal by Gutierrez and this motion was acted upon by Conchita Carpio-Morales, the Ombudsman recently appointed by Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III
On January 10, 2012, Morales reversed the decision of her predecessor and filed murder charges against Capt. Ricardo Ordoñez; Cmdr. Reynaldo Lopez, Hospital Man 2 Welmenio Aquino, Lt. Cmdr. Luidegar Casis, Lt. Cmdr. Alfrederick Alba, Machinery Repairman 2 Sandy Miranda, Lt. Cmdr. Joselito Colico, Lt. Cmdr. Ruben Roque, PO1 Carlito Amoroso and PO2 Leonor Igcasan.
More Navy officers are culpable not just for the crime of murder but for the cover-up and for the murders of those gallant officers who refused to participate in the conspiracy.
Fr. Reuter wrote: “Some military men are killed in battle. They are given a hero’s burial. But Phillip died for a much deeper cause – he was trying to preserve the integrity of our Armed Forces. He died out of loyalty to the Philippines, in an effort to keep the oath that he made when he graduated from the Philippine Military Academy.”
Justice was delayed for more than 15 years for the Pestano family but it finally came. The Dacer and Corbito families are hoping that they too will see justice some day.
(Send comments to Rodel50@gmail.com or send them to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call (415) 334-7800).