The COMELEC has ultimately earned the title of being among the biggest thieves in Philippine history. Coming only some clicks behind Gloria Arroyo (who has robbed the Filipino masses of their liberties, lives and properties), the Philippine Commission on Elections this time has cut down what is left of the supposed democracy in the country. By defying the order of the Supreme Court to extend voters' registration until January 9, 2010, and instead imposing their own deadline (December 29, 2009), hundreds of thousands of qualified citizens have been deprived of their right to vote.

In a unanimous decision promulgated on December 15, 2009, the country's highest tribunal reiterated the law on voter registration, ruling out that "[t]he clear text of the law thus decrees that voters be allowed to register daily during regular offices hours, except during the period starting 120 days before a regular election and 90 days before a special election." Tersely put it, voters' registration should close on January 10, 2010, 120 days before the May 10, 2010 election.

What is preposterously ironic is that Chairman Jose Melo who heads the COMELEC once served as an Associate Justice in the Supreme Court. With that, one would expect him to know the law. However, in a sudden turnabout, Comelec Resolution no. 8585 earlier shortened the registration period to October 31, 2009, prompting Kabataan Partylist Representative Raymond Palatino et. al. to file an Urgent Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to the Supreme Court. Said petition led to the High Court's order to nullify Comelec Resolution 8585 and to reopen the registration until January 9, 2009. The decision was immediately-executory.

Yet again, Chairman Melo and his Commissioners issued Resolution no. 8719, allotting only five days (December 21 to 23 and December 28 to 29) for the actual registration in defiance of the Supreme Court decision.

It is more than clear that the COMELEC, headed by Jose Melo, has not only violated the law twice on this regard but has in fact shut the door to a legal venue by which the people who are more than sick of Arroyo's rule can hope to bring change to this country come May 10 election.

But this is not at all something to be surprised about. Lest we forget, the COMELEC was home to Garci who helped the present occupant in Malacañang rig the 2004 election, and Abalos who brokered the ZTE deal in exchange for hefty commissions. Something, again, seems to be cooking: the COMELEC is lenient with Smartmatic's delays in delivering poll machines for automated elections, it has not done efforts to encourage mass registration of voters on a nationwide scale, and has the temerity to by itself amend Philippine law and defy the Supreme Court.

We have had enough of brazen displays of arrogance from COMELEC and its commissioners but to witness a grandscale deprivation of the people's right of suffrage in a fashion that downright mocks the fundamental law of the land more than infuriates—it agitates one's spirit to seek justice and obtain it at all cost.

We will not be unnerved and we will keep watch as every responsible, freedom-loving citizen should.

There is no arguing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one great achievement of the human race. Grievously, though, beyond the declaration signed by noble men and women 61 years ago, the peoples of the world have yet to attain their rights in its truest sense.
 

By peoples of the world we mean those among us who toil and whose lives have always remained bonded to wage-slavery, and those who for all their lives have fed the world with their produce but had never had enough on their tables to feed their own. These are the same people, who have incessantly been robbed of their fundamental human rights—politically, economically, socially, and culturally—by the same people who are supposed to be protecting their rights and those that have nothing more in mind but to be at the top.
 

It is lamentable enough that while the Philippines is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the country right now holds a staggering record of human rights violations in all of its history. And to treat it with nonchalance is more than just lamentable—it is downright abominable!
     

The Commission on Human Rights is commendable in being consistent to its mandate. However, the people have more than just political rights to claim. The most rampant in all violations of human rights in the country today are not the summary killings and political suppressions but the deprivation of the people of their economic rights.
     

A survey in October 2009 by IBON Foundation revealed that more than half (71.4%) of Filipino families consider themselves poor and that 57% does not have an income enough to meet daily needs. Amid threats to food security, more than 1.5 million hectares of land have been developed for agri-business since 2005, and the government has also approved another 3 million hectares for foreign agricultural corporations. The indigenous peoples’ ancestral lands are probably next.
 

It may all sound quite good for the country’s progress but the public must know the fact that these corporations will not be producing high value crops to feed the Filipino people.
 

Needless to say, the rice fields and coconut farms that have been converted to banana and palm oil plantations have not only reduced our staple crop production but have also reduced our land-owning small farmers into being mere farm-laborers—again, bonded to wage-slavery.
 

The general trend is that while farmlands are being turned into commercial and industrial zones, more and more of our peasants lose their lands and become workers. And just how much will they be earning? As 57% of Filipino families said: not enough to feed a family of five not to mention the children’s education.

Now let us ponder upon Article 25 (Sec.1) of the UDHR: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

And so we come to the issue of attaining peace in our society. As may well be obvious, not too many in our country have the opportunity to get an education let alone secure a job. With 4.2 million Filipinos unemployed and about 17.4 million underemployed or working under subhuman conditions, we can very well expect a high probability of anti-social activities that range from petty crimes to major felonies. And how did this government deal with the matter? Creating 1.5 million poor and even non-earning, insecure, part-time works (not jobs since a job by definition has with it a security of tenure), and further contractualization (read: lay-off policy).

It is beyond the understanding of a normal person why this government would spend billions in arms and munitions to suppress its own people who have risen up in arms when it can opt to spend the same in resolving two of the fundamental reasons for the uprisings: job security and landlessness.
 

As long as these two basic human rights are not addressed and upheld, peace is something which this land might not see. The people may have failed in some of their responsibilities to the society. But that is exactly one of the main reasons why societies need their governments for.

It is of no doubt that the entire Filipino nation momentarily took a pause to witness the anticipated fight of Manny Pacquiao against Miguel Cotto. The most revered "pambansang kamao" sent Cotto staggering down to the twelfth round of their match prompting referee Kenny Bayless to halt the fight :55 into the round, stripping Miguel Cotto of his WBO welterweight championship belt and granting the Pacman his 7th world title. Once again, Manny emerged as a victor and the Filipino nation rose in galactic fervor, feeling a sense of national pride.

Indeed it is amazing to see how a single person's victory (and a sportsman at that) can send an entire nation in a state of euphoria. There is, however, something that is amiss in the middle of what seems to be a national celebration. 

To have a hero is something worthwhile especially for a country that has constantly been placed in the worst of conditions—politically and economically. But in our country's case, the need for a hero stems from a deeply-rooted insecurity of the past and present, and the uncertainty of the future. As Galileo says in  Bertolt Brecht's "Life of Galileo," unhappy is the land that needs a hero. Surely the Philippines needs a hero as sure as it is an unhappy country.

Pacquiao's victory is one respite for the Filipino nation, a momentary halt to the everyday struggles against political and economic odds. The Filipino people needs more than a victory in the sporting arena, much less in the boxing event. We need to find our strength to move the nation forward in attaining the elusive genuine comprehensive progress, not by relegating it to a single person, but by working for it as a people.

The Comelec chairman and his commissioners are more becoming like the president who appointed them in their current positions.

A Comelec official announced today that they will be extending the voters' registration until Tuesday , but only to areas affected by the power outage caused by typhoon Santi. That is, to say, had Santi not wrecked havoc, the Comelec would not have ordered an extension. This only illustrates Comelec's brazen nonrecognition of the appeals of many individuals and groups that have questioned the shortened period of voters' registration.

Comelec also reasoned that they had to order the extension as against their initial plan because they could not use their data-processing machines due to the power outage. This now goes in contrast with their claims of preparedness for the 2010 poll automation. It is quite unthinkable what might transpire should there be a massive power outage during the canvassing of votes come election 2010.

CHRISTIAN LLOYD M. ESPINOZA
October|2009

Kartilya associate editor and LLP chancellor on organization, Ronnie C. Clarion was seen on a local TV news this afternoon airing out his frustration over Comelec's inefficiency with the voters registration. Clarion along with hundreds of other supposedly first-time voters waited since day-break to register, and to no avail. The same case is true in many other localities nationwide.

It may seem bizarre but the Comelec seems to have already ran out of registration forms! It is quite unthinkable that while Comelec officials have for too many times assured the public that they are all set for the 2010 poll automation, the most basic process of registering voters was overlooked. Whether it was a miscalculation or downright irresponsibility, it all seems apparent that many will have to wait for the next election to get themselves registered.

Kabataan Partylist representative, Raymond Palatino, who has incessantly pleaded for the Comelec to extend the registration of first-time voters and has even filed a resolution in the Congress to grant workers a one-day break (with pay) to register, has now taken this cause to the high courts. 

Youth solon, 1^st-time-voters file petition
As youths and new registrants endure long lines to register for the 2010 polls, Kabataan Party-list Rep. Mong Palatino today questioned the legality of the Commission on Election’s shortening of the period of continuing registration up to tomorrow October 31.
Palatino today filed a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus with Application for Preliminary Mandatory Injunction before the Supreme Court.

See also: SC asked to extend voters' registration

CHRISTIAN LLOYD M. ESPINOZA
February|2009

The pilot issue of Kartilya garnered positive response from both students and some faculty members, and even from other student writers of various publications in different schools. There have been enthusiastic encouragements to publish a regular issue and to widen the circulation. Financial impediments and day-to-day academic life have unfortunately caused some delays for the release of this second issue.

Kartilya has been founded under the basic guiding principles of La Liga Politica in advocating liberty, integrity, fraternity, and equality. It pursues the visions of the framers of our organization to create a venue for intellectual discussions that serves as a vehicle to elevate the political consciousness of students and in inculcating nationalist and patriotic ideals.

As such, we have devised a method to encourage LLP and non-LLP members, and students from other disciplines to write so as to ensure that a wide range of articles can be collected for publication. So far, as it turned out, just about enough articles have been submitted that the editorial board has not had to go through the much arduous phase of debating over which articles to discard for later publication. We have also enlarged the editorial board in our efforts to ensure a pluralist body representative of different political tendencies. Admittedly, though, we have not yet been successful in composing a board that is broad enough to fully represent different political beliefs.

However, Kartilya should not only serve as a spot for Political Science majors and students from other fields of disciplines to express their political views. It should foremost promote social awareness and critical thinking across the entire UM community, extending to the larger society outside of the university.

We have thus resolutely pursued in publishing this issue despite the aforementioned limitations on the firm belief that this shall further pave way for discussions on issues that confront our society.

We believe that the articles on this issue of Kartilya are enough collection of embers to ignite the nationalist spirit among our constituents. Indeed, our task is a daunting one, but if sustained, will further enflame into a burning passion for us to collectively act in changing the course of history towards a genuinely democratic and progressive society.

This is our commitment, this is our firm resolve.

Some notes on CHEd Memoranda Nos. 13, 14, & 21
CHRISTIAN LLOYD M. ESPINOZA
February|2009


“The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” [Art. XIV Sec.1, 1987 Philippine Constitution]


Education as an important, all-encompassing element for the progress of any given society, is guaranteed as one of our basic birth rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory. Our very own Constitution emphasizes this, as well, in recognizance of the youth’s indispensable role in nation-building. But in a country where the economy is encumbered with foreign monopoly, education has become an extension for further political-economic domination and cultural aggression. Not only has education in our country been tailored to fit to foreign labor demands, it has also become highly commercialized as a commodity, market-driven, and profit-oriented in utter contempt of the Constitutional provisions.

In the last two years there has been an average of 15% tuition fee increase nationwide excluding increases on miscellaneous and other fees. With this rate, it is not surprising that many schools are among the top-listed corporations in terms of income generation. The government claims to be moving mountains to regulate this widespread trend and has commissioned its agencies to address the issue. Yet just as in the case of the phony CARP, the government’s sincerity to address this problem is seemingly dubious.

The Commission on Higher Education, in accordance with the Higher Education Act of 1994, promulgated and adopted several measures to “regulate” the rampant fees increases in the tertiary level. In its Memorandum Order No.13 series of 1998 concerning the guidelines and procedures to be followed by Higher Education Institutions (HEI) intending to increase their tuition fees, CHEd mandates: “…to conduct consultations with the student councils/government, faculty, alumni, and non-teaching personnel associations...”

It also provided for the creation of a Multi-Sectoral Committee on Tuition Fee (composed of CHEd, DepEd, DSWD, SRC-Youth Sectoral Representative, COCOPEA, PASUC, National Faculty Associations, and National Student Organizations), and outlined the consultation requirements, consultation process, and its procedures. Consultations as defined in the memorandum are “actual meetings and/or discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed tuition fee increase wherein the participants will have an opportunity to air their objections, sentiments and the like, without fear, and under a free and candid atmosphere.”

These, however, have all but remained rhetoric. The National Union of Students of the Philippines reports that many of their complaints and petitions on violations of school administrators with regards to the consultation process netted a cynical response from CHEd officials that “quality education is expensive.”

Still to the advantage of business interests, CHEd released its Memorandum No.14 series of 2005 which gave further leeway for schools to impose tuition fee increases without having to consult the students, provided that the increases would not exceed the prevailing national inflation rate as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority. This covered fee increases for incoming freshmen. Under this clause, schools can raise their fees virtually every year! Instead of making an allowance for the consumers who directly take the impacts of inflation and are already suffering from low wages and salaries, the program evidently serves to the interest of school owners, insulating them from inflation setbacks.

In 2006, CHEd memo 14 was withdrawn, resurrecting the memorandum no.13 which all the more gives school owners the legal right to raise the fees as high as they want although they are still required to “consult” the students––a process that is most often violated. This was reinforced by CHEd memorandum no.21 which gives freedom to the Office of Student Affairs to impose jurisdiction over student governments and student publications. The school administration may and can also establish a student council and/or publication, hence, jeopardizing the autonomy and independence of these two major student institutions, and depriving genuine student representation in the school’s highest policy-making body.

Fee increases can then practically be imposed hassle-free. During the last five years, Higher Education Institutions have continued to grow in number parallel to the growing rate of increases on tuition and other fees. Miscellaneous fee increase and other unexplained “fixed charges” have also added to this perennial burden. Students, therefore, have been shouldering the capitalization, expansion, and financing of new projects! Education commercialization is undoubtedly profiteering at its best.

Beyond declarations to provide accessible and quality education, we have yet to see a program that truly advances the protection of this basic right. Although there have been efforts in this regard, policies such as the Higher Education Modernization Act ironically undermine the very essence of this principle. Token actions and government intervention such as the student tuition moratorium does not also provide real and long-term solutions.

We thus call on our educators and the government to review their educational policies and sincerely address this issue. Concrete and serious actions must also be taken to address other issues concerning the education sector such as state subsidy and budget alloca-We thus call on our educators and the government to review their educational policies and sincerely address this issue. Concrete and serious actions must also be taken to address other issues concerning the education sector such as state subsidy and budget allocation, lack of classrooms and instruction materials, and teachers’ salaries among others.

Unless the government adopts an educational program and policy that is prostudents and nationalist-oriented, the Filipino youth will remain a reserved army of docile labor force, waiting in line to serve under foreign lordship.

CHRISTIAN LLOYD M. ESPINOZA
February|2009

The American conquest of the Filipino mind

The history of Philippine education entered a new paradigm upon the arrival of the ‘Thomasites’ (a shipload of American teachers composed mostly of ex-military personnel) in 1901, when the public school system was institutionalized, with a curriculum patterned after the US model of education (Viola, 2006). In his essay, “The Miseducation of the Filipino,” historian Renato Constantino writes:

“Under the guise of preparing and teaching us in self-government, the American imposition of public education was designed for the Filipinos to be Americanized in their outlook; and this was greatly attained by the use of English as the only medium of instruction (all part of subtle but extremely effective “cultural” imperialism).”

So much emphasis and interest did the United States employ for the “education” of their “little brown brothers” that publiceducation “…[sic] was run as part of the US Department of Defense to ensure compliance” (Constantino, 1970). American military authority knew well that military victory does not necessarily signify conquest. Education had to be consistent with the broad purposes of American colonial policy and no measure could quickly promote the pacificationof the islands as education.

The enactment of the Jones bill acquiesces to Constantino’s statement that the Department of Education was never entrusted to any Filipino until the establishment of the Commonwealth government. Article 23 of the Jones Act provided: “…that there shall be appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate of the United States,a vice-governor of the Philippine islands…[who] shall be the head of the executive department known as the Department of Public Instructions, which shall include the Bureau of Education…”


Malformation of Educational Curriculum:
Betraying the role of education

UP Journalism Prof. Danilo Arao contends that education is an important foundation for national development (2002). Yet, more than six decades after the so-called independence from the American colonialists, the Philippine educational policy has done so little to develop the nation and remains subservient to foreign dictates.

Dr. Edberto Villegas affirms that “the sole interest of the State in Philippine education is to ensure a curriculum that would serve to further raise the profits of imperialist Transnational Corporations and their local accomplices” (2005). He adds that DepEd’s Millennium Curriculum (Curriculum 2002) was a “streamlining” of Philippine education, collapsing subjects which imbibe social awareness, patriotic ideals and critical thinking, and abolishing subjects (and courses) not required by the imperial businesses. The Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) also concluded that Millennium Curriculum not only streamlines the school curriculum but sacrifices other aspects that would comprise wholistic education for students. Similar streamlining schemes are also observed in Higher Education Institutions, private or state-owned.

This treachery was further brandished by no less than President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Addressing a crowd of state universities and college officials, the president recognized the role of Philippine education in preparing Filipinos to become overseas contract workers. She went on with her speech encouraging the school officials to train their sights on strengthening the overseas workers base beginning with “tweaking” the school curriculum to make Filipinos the best workers in the world.


The conspiracy

The government policy of labor export which banks on international migration does not resolve the prevalent joblessness in the country (Palatino, 2004) and has contributed in the country’s chronic brain drain. By constantly slashing the budget for education, access to quality learning now becomes an even more far-cry to the Filipino youth. What then is the prime objective of the recent revisions in the educational curriculum? Who benefits from what and who plays the game?

Back in the Marcos era, prior to the enactment of The Education Act of 1982 (EA 1982), a survey called the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education (PCSPE) was conducted in 1969 funded by the Ford Foundation. This was to evaluate the performance of the Philippine education system and explore “initiatives on the part of the Department of Education to interest the World Bank in the Philippine educational improvement” (Foundation for Nationalist Studies, 1982).

The report found that the Philippine labor force was “underutilized” and the prescription was to “enhance” it by linking export-oriented economic strategies with education. Thus, upon the issuance of EA 1982, the curriculum of the first six grades was altered to serve as the “basis for the formation of trained manpower” (Ibid).

Further loans have thenceforth been granted by the World Bank to “support” the agricultural sector in teaching the farmers “the modern secrets of mechanized farming.” We have since been reliant on United States technology and other tools for agricultural production. Technical training centers and experimental agricultural schools (installed near export processing zones) were established.

Viola articulates that “the connection between educational curriculum and the needs of an export economy ensured that multinational corporations would have an abundant supply of semiskilled labor.” The kind of educational system World Bank wants to shape is to meet the manpower needs of transnationals…[and] insure the internationalization by the entire student population of values and outlooks supportive of the global capitalist system.


The need for redirection

Such is the trend in the Philippine educational system. And as such, there is an undeniable need to redirect it towards genuine national development in order to bring about social emancipation. Although there have been nationalist stirrings and efforts made by patriotic members of the intelligentsia long before (among them the nationalist Claro M. Recto), we have yet to hear a well-designed education policy that truly addresses this need (Constantino, 1970).

The transformation and reorientation of the current rotten system of education in the country is not possible without the development of a critical consciousness that reflects and acts upon the existing social (dis)order. Any meaningful change in our basic curriculum must be liberative of the docility that has long infringed our mentality, dissolving what little nationalist ideal there is left in the heart of every Filipino youth.

Philippine education, therefore, must produce Filipinos who are conscious of their country’s problems, who understand the basic necessities for a resolution, and who care enough to sacrifice for national emancipation (Constantino, 1970).