Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube
Home Blog Page 9669

Passports for sale

A distressing piece of news, so early in the brand new year, that yet more corruption of our sovereignty and a bastardization of our institutions is happening. As the title states — our Philippine passports are reportedly being sold at P300,000 each and sometimes bought for P500,000.

What’s with the Philippine passport? For a country with poor visa access to other countries and with users associated with overseas labor, why bother spending half a million pesos for it?

A passport is primary evidence of citizenship. By holding Philippine passports, foreigners are now vested with all the rights (and obligations) of citizens. Given that our Constitution prohibits the ownership of land by foreign nationals, aliens who are issued Philippine passports can legally buy and sell property without any restrictions.

Breaching the condominium ownership limit of 40% for foreigners is one immediate effect. Industries and businesses that are closed to foreigners or have restrictions on their percentage ownership are made open to these “Filipinos.”

In the provisions of government services, these “Filipinos” enjoy the same privileges as any other Filipino. Their children will be entitled to Philippine citizenship.

While we Filipinos are generally welcoming to foreigners and we even grant citizenship to deserving ones who have served our communities, it is entirely different when a foreigner buys a passport this way. There is no process to determine if indeed such foreigners merit the benefits of citizenship and the protection of the State, no matter how weak, without the prerequisite contribution or responsibility.

At present, a qualified foreigner may apply administratively or judicially to acquire Philippine citizenship. It is a tedious but necessary procedure. Without this safeguard, citizenship is for sale like any other product or service — when the demand for it is met by the supply at the price point.

The related problem is that the seller of the passports is invariably an agent of the State. The Department of Foreign Affairs issues passports in the name of the Republic to its citizens. It is not to be granted to aliens unless decreed. It is straight-up corruption and, at worst, treason to be selling out our national identity. Our witty and hardworking Secretary of Foreign Affairs can quickly see the ramifications.

Our institution is then corrupted. Instead of being the enabler for Filipinos to be recognized and respected globally, other countries will now have to doubly scrutinize holders of Philippine passports. As it is, it is not fun to travel with our brownish maroon passports.

It is the worst kind of foreigners who will resort to this scheme — they are moneyed, in a rush, and violate the law with impunity in cahoots with locals with no sense of morals. They are a predictable sort, these aliens — we know who they are. These are the aliens that our laws label as “undesirable” and “deportable” after service of prison terms.

How do we approach this issue? First is to find out the gravity of the problem. There must be a recognition or acknowledgement that these arrangements are taking place. An audit of the passports issued within the last five years from 2015 need to be made with a composite task force from the offices of the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs, Justice, and Interior and Local Government.

It will not be a difficult task. What is the test of citizenship? Or, how can one tell one is a Filipino? A quick five minute interview with questions in the vernacular, on Filipino customs and traditions, on beauty contestants will do the trick and ferret out the truth.

Does it require a congressional investigation? Perhaps, but the objective ought to be the same — the preservation of our national honor and dignity, the protection of our institutions and compliance with the rule of law, and the punishment of the guilty and the greedy.

On a different note, perhaps the country should adhere to a stricter reciprocity agreement. As of today, a Filipino is made to jump through a ring of fire, to wait 45 days while his passport is held by the Korean Embassy for a visa to be issued or denied. To think the Koreans are the number one visitors — visa free of course — to the Philippines, besting Americans and Chinese for the past many years running. Surely, one week is more than enough for an ally with a long history of friendship.

At the very least, our Foreign Affairs department should act to streamline and lessen the burden for Filipinos. This is a small step to demonstrate that we are protecting our overseas workers from being abused or killed. It is also small step to make passport issuance faster, easier, and cheaper for Filipinos instead of selling passports to undesirable aliens.

Media 2020

As if to remind the Philippine press and media of the challenges they face during his troubling watch, President Rodrigo Duterte began the new year by urging the owners of ABS-CBN to sell the network. He had earlier threatened to make sure that the House of Representatives majority he controls doesn’t renew its franchise, which expires on March 30 this year. One of his accomplices in that House of ill-repute has in so many words assured him that they will do exactly that.

Mr. Duterte has been as obsessed with ABS-CBN as he has been with the online news site Rappler and the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper. He has accused the TV and radio network of defrauding him for not airing his campaign ads in 2016. He has also described it as a partisan of the opposition, and alleged that it has been spreading false information.

ABS-CBN sources say they didn’t air his ads in 2016 because they were not submitted on time and therefore didn’t meet their programming deadline, and that they returned his money. He nevertheless wants the network “out,” in what had seemed to be part of his by now well-established anti-press freedom agenda of harassing any media organization with any semblance of independence and adherence to the professional and ethical standards of journalism. But his latest diatribe validates the suspicion that his intention is not to shut it down, but to turn it over from its present owners to another group that is acceptable to him.

Make that a group that is the closest and most loyal to him, his interests, and his de facto dictatorship. What he very likely has in mind is led by one of his Chinese cronies, who has been buying up and taking over companies as if he were made of money. His conglomerate has recently gone into the media and mass communication business in addition to power and water utilities. His acquisition of ABS-CBN could be the beginning of a regime plot to create, in tandem with the government media system, its own news monopoly. With his support and all the money in the world, there is little to prevent Mr. Duterte’s oligarchs from taking over any privately owned media organization and even the entire system. But it would only be part of the Marcos-era crony capitalism that the regime is reprising.

The by now likely possibility that ABS-CBN’s franchise will not be renewed and that it will either cease operations or fall into the grubby hands of Mr. Duterte’s China-backed cronies is a blow to press freedom that is paradoxically occurring in the context of two positive developments on the media front. These are, first, the conviction of the principals and their accomplices in the 2009 Ampatuan Massacre of 58 men and women including 32 journalists and media workers; and second, the launch of the UNESCO-supported Philippine Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists (PPASJ) crafted by several media advocacy and journalists’ groups.

Both were glimmers of light in the dark pit of attacks, harassments, and threats against press freedom and free expression into which the country has fallen under the foul watch of the Duterte despotism.

The list is long and lengthening. Mr. Duterte, his online trolls, and the clueless bureaucrats of the government media system and its print and broadcast hacks have been threatening the Philippine Daily Inquirer at every opportunity. As the rest of the world but few Filipinos know or care about, the regime and its agents have filed a total of 11 complaints and court suits against Rappler, banned its Malacañang reporter from the Palace, and even denied its correspondents access to public events in which Mr. Duterte is present.

Under regime orders, a purveyor of manipulative information has been taking down the sites of several alternative media organizations through Distributed Denial of Service. The Duterte police and military are also red-baiting and further endangering the lives of journalists for being true to the fundamental journalistic principle of multi-sourcing as part of the imperative of getting at and reporting the truth. Journalists are still being killed for their work despite the Presidential Task Force on Media Safety (PTFoMS). The death toll during the past three years of the Duterte regime is currently at 14 — and counting.

The conviction on Dec. 19 of several members of the powerful Ampatuan clan and the police and military thugs under their pay did not end impunity overnight, and neither is it likely to stop the killing of journalists. It did not disband the private armies of the warlords in the regions, mostly in Mindanao, that over the last 20 years have proven to be the most dangerous places for journalists, human rights defenders, and social and political activists. Neither did it abolish the paramilitaries that have been involved in the harassment and murder of journalists, or stop the collusion between the police, the military, and local government officials in that brutal enterprise. But it has at least planted a seed of doubt in those who would silence journalists that they can always get away with murder, which an acquittal would have otherwise declared in the clearest and most incontrovertible terms.

On the other hand, by addressing the multiple factors that over the years have made journalism in the Philippines its most dangerous profession, the PPASJ has the potential to make the practice of journalism safer. Among those factors are the lack of public awareness of the problem, which the Plan would correct by encouraging the inclusion of a subject on journalists’ safety in the curricula of journalism schools. A companion to this solution is a campaign to encourage public understanding and appreciation of the role and value of a free press in society.

The Plan has five “Flagship Areas”: assuring integrity and professionalism in the journalism community; creating conducive working conditions for journalists; developing safety and protection mechanisms; engaging the criminal justice system in the defense and security of journalists; and putting in place a public information campaign, raising the quality of journalism education, and encouraging research.

The Plan is the responsible journalism community’s own version of a “whole of nation” approach that recognizes the need for, and seeks the implementation of multiple reforms not only in the environment in which journalists have to function, but within the press and media community itself. It does not preclude government participation in the effort to assure the safety of journalists, stop the killings, and end the culture of impunity. On the contrary. It wants such government agencies as the Department of Justice, the police, and the military to be involved in that campaign. Government is, after all, implicitly charged with the defense of press freedom and free expression by Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution, which explicitly declares that no law may be passed abridging those freedoms.

But the present regime’s sustained assaults on the independent press and media have made it clear that it is unlikely to lift a finger to help achieve the Plan’s goals. In the face of government indifference and even hostility, the challenge to the journalism community in 2020 is to mobilize its own human and material resources as well as those of academia, civil society, and the public in defending the independent and critical press as an essential power in understanding, democratizing, and reforming Philippine society. That will admittedly be difficult; meeting a challenge always is.

 

Luis V. Teodoro is on Facebook and Twitter (@luisteodoro).

www.luisteodoro.com

Siya nga: Reflections with art

“Words are windows that open us to mystery. Visual art that accompanies those words deepens the colors we see and brings us even closer to the wonder of it all,” remarked Father Jose Ramon “Jett” Villarin, SJ, on his new book, Siya Nga! This is a Filipino expression of wonder, of openness to possibilities. It is an epiphany and eureka!

The book is a collection of short reflections by the author on 52 terms in the Christian faith. It is unique “crossover” collaboration between the Ateneo de Manila University president and De La Salle University Publishing House’s editor David Jonathan Y. Bayot.

“The book design of mobilizing images to elucidate — that is — to bring the light out of the reflection pieces… I envisioned the book to be one that contains images of art work by a broad range of Filipino artists.”

The canonical ones include the National Artists such as Federico Aguilar Alcuaz, Benedicto “BenCab” Cabrera, Arturo Luz, with Elmer Borlongan, Justin “Tiny” Nuyda, Betsy Westendorp (whose painting is featured on the book cover) to the younger voices in the Philippine art scene.

“As curator in charge of pairing the artworks with the reflections in the book, the ‘match-making’ process is not as straightforward as I thought it would be when we began the book,” Mr. Bayot revealed.

“Firstly, I already had a good idea of the contents of the reflection pieces. Fr. Jett and I had earlier agreed on the 52 terms for the reflections.

“Secondly, I had a list of artists that I wanted to include in the book. On that list, I noted two or three of my favorite artworks from each artist — works that I thought could go very well with the reflections.

“Thirdly, as I was matching the art and the writing, I began to realize that there’s not just one way of matching the two genres, because another art piece could go as well of not better with a particular reflection. And here’s the tricky part: one time I tried to alter the original match and substitute a different art piece, the whole configuration would change,” he remarked.

“The alternation has a domino effect,” Mr. Bayot said.

“The basis of the matching is a lot subjective. I would say that the pairing is based on my interpretation of the artwork vis-à-vis the refection. It’s an interpretation that I can surely justify or defend.

“My matching of Erwin Mallari’s Offline with ‘Incarnation’ is based on my understanding of what Fr. Jett is trying to explain about the incarnation of Christ. Erwin’s work has indeed captured the excruciating pain suffered by God as He incarnated himself to be one of us… Its about time readers get a more thoughtful and ‘unusual’ image of incarnation: It’s in essence a Godhead giving up His divinity and undergoing that the Jesuit philosopher and paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called an ‘involution’ — a reduction of essence on God’s part, to the point that He became like the other boy in the painting, as they float together through the murky waters of life, on an improvised boat made of Styrofoam… The Styrofoam is obviously a piece of garbage… God dwelling in garbage among more garbage — that should compel the readers to have a more defamilarizing view of the incarnation.

“The painting In Solitude and the reflection on ‘Weight’ — the two pieces are a good match because while the painting shows through its color, texture, and subject of depiction of the human experience of the heaviness of life with life, the art piece also highlights the graceful buoyancy exemplified by the boats — a spiritual buoyancy once could capture through a certain mindfulness of God’s grace and love in one’s life,” Mr. Bayot said.

There’s more that one way of pairing the reflection and the art. The book features 49 artists and 74 artworks. There is a portion of 15 images that allows the reader to match reflections with art.

“The newness of God will never grow old and the bigness of his love… never grow small,” Fr. Villarin stated.

The book enlightens the mind and inspires the spirit. The artworks are visually stunning.

The book launch for Siya Nga! will be held on Jan. 28, 4 p.m., at the Verdure, Henry Sy, Sr. Hall, De La Salle University, Manila. For more information, contact Joanne Castanares at 8523-4281 or via e-mail at joanne.castanares@dlsu.edu.ph.

 

Maria Victoria Rufino is an artist, writer and businesswoman. She is president and executive producer of Maverick Productions.

mavrufino@gmail.com

A legal killing

It was the shot heard around the world. Declared more significant than the deaths of Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. So — perhaps predictably — questions were raised regarding the legality of Qasem Soleimani’s killing.

In exploring this issue, we avoid touching on the strategic, political, or military merits of the killing. Nor do we dwell on media’s proffered motivations: be it about oil or Donald Trump’s impeachment proceedings. This article’s focus is on the legal, and, even then, is admittedly hampered by a shortage of facts that may take years before such is rectified. The discussion here therefore should be treated merely as that: a discussion.

Firstly, though General Soleimani was Iranian, the attack was not necessarily against Iran. This is crucial because the US has no overt armed conflict with Iran (at least at the time Soleimani was killed).

But Soleimani led the Qud’s Force, a unit within Iran’s Revolutionary Guards whose purpose is to extend Iran’s will to militias abroad. These include, amongst others, Hezbollah and Shiite groups. This was enough to tag Soleimani a terrorist, which the US had indeed declared war against.

Before Soleimani’s death, he was credited with causing substantial damage to US assets (including attacks on US ships and embassy) and deaths of US military servicemen. At the time of the attack, he was in Baghdad reportedly planning further mayhem against the US and was indeed killed in the company of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the group that stormed the US embassy in Iraq just a few days before. Finally, complicating the situation, Iraq was not informed of the US plans to kill Soleimani. Neither was the US Congress.

Taking this as framework, can it be argued that the killing was legal? The answer still remains yes, both from the perspective of US law and of international law.

The US Constitution itself, under Article II, provides that “executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” and that such “President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”

Famously, there is Executive Order 122333, which (as amended) reads: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” This has always been understood as the killing of a person in peacetime. Soleimani, it could be argued, was thus not assassinated but rather killed as an enemy combatant. Same with Bin Laden, same with al-Baghdadi, and like Admiral Yamamoto (whose plane was shot down by the US) back in WWII.

This arguably puts the matter under the ambit of the 2002 US’ Authorization to Use Military Force Act (designated as Public Law 107 — 243), which covers “the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” William Castle, the US Defense Department’s acting general counsel in 2017, stated that such a provision is “understood to authorize the use of force for the related dual purposes of helping to establish a stable, democratic Iraq and of responding, including through the use of force, to terrorist threats emanating from Iraq.” Soleimani’s past and future efforts could thus be considered covered.

Finally, there is the 1973 War Powers Resolution (50 USC Ch. 33), which requires the president requesting Congressional authorization within 60-90 days for “hostilities.” But the ambiguity of the term poses significant doubts as to whether such covers a single killing. It may be applicable if the troubles in Iran escalate, but until then the Article II’s wide ambit may provide cover for President Trump.

Under international law, legality could be demonstrated through two lines of argument: that there is an ongoing war against terrorism and that Soleimani is an enemy combatant in that war. Or that the inherent right to self-defense (seen in Article 51 of the UN Charter), as well as the US’ consistent reliance on the doctrine of “anticipatory self-defense” (and the Bethlehem Doctrine), permits such a killing. Either way, the principles of proportionality, humanity, military necessity, and distinction should be satisfied.

One problem is Iraq’s claim of territorial violation but this could be countermanded by a conservative reading of the UN Charter’s Article 2.4, done by Israel, for example, in the Eichmann and Entebbe cases. A 2008 Agreement between the US and Iraq indeed prohibited US forces from using Iraqi territory as launch pads for attacks on other countries, but then it can be argued that this hardly should defeat the US’ inherent right to self-defense, particularly if Iraq itself is unwilling or unable to help.

Ultimately, it is the facts — which we don’t know presently — that matter. While it would be fun to play peacenik crusading lawyer before the public, yet what we have right now on the matter supports either argument as to the legality of Soleimani’s killing.

 

Jemy Gatdula is a Senior Fellow of the Philippine Council for Foreign Relations and a Philippine Judicial Academy law lecturer for constitutional philosophy and jurisprudence.

https://www.facebook.com/jigatdula/

Twitter @jemygatdula

Carlos Ghosn strikes back, and Nissan should beware

By Joe Nocera

THE CARLOS GHOSN circus opened in Lebanon on Wednesday morning, with the ringmaster demanding rapt attention. Some 120 journalists from around the world, armed with cameras and cellphones, crammed in a room to hear Ghosn defend himself for the first time since he escaped from Japan last week. Ghosn, the former chairman of Nissan Motor Co. — and the creator of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance — spoke nonstop for an hour, his tone emotional, angry, aggrieved, sarcastic, sometimes all at once. Reporters asked Ghosn questions during the ensuing Q&A by shouting over everyone else.

Obviously, Ghosn’s stunning escape — as you’ve no doubt read, he reportedly hid in a large black box to evade Japanese custom officials at the Osaka airport — was the main reason the world’s business media was in attendance. The Ghosn drama, which began with his surprise arrest in November 2018, has become irresistible. And perhaps just as obviously, it was the one topic Ghosn had no intention of discussing, presumably to protect those who helped him. He made that clear at the start of his press conference.

But the catnip of the escape meant that he was going to have an audience that hung on his every word. Here, finally, was his opportunity to describe what it was like to be a prisoner in Japan — in solitary confinement, with the lights always on, and prosecutors interrogating him eight hours a day for days on end. “It will get worse for you if you don’t confess,” he says they told him. “And if you don’t, we’ll go after your family.” After he was finally granted bail, he tried to hold a press conference in Japan; the prosecutors responded by filing new charges and tossing him back in jail. He was not allowed to speak to his wife. Important documents he needed for his defense were kept from him. Concluding that there was no possible way he could receive a fair trial in Japan — where, he continually pointed out, the conviction rate is 99.4% — he told himself, “You are going to die in Japan if you don’t get out.”

His fury at the Japanese prosecutors — and the executives at Nissan whom he said colluded with them — was palpable. He named those he felt had betrayed him. He mocked Nissan’s performance since he was removed: “I read in Bloomberg that Nissan spent $200 million to get me. How rational is that?” Meanwhile, he added, Nissan’s market cap had fallen by $10 billion; the company had been hurt by spending so much time going after him at the expense of shareholders. He accused prosecutors of breaking the law by spreading false information about him to reporters. The press conference was in no small part an act of revenge, and Ghosn made no effort to hide his enjoyment in finally hitting back at Nissan and the prosecutors.

The least effective part of his presentation was his effort to refute the accusations that have been brought against him, starting with the charge that he had underreported some of his compensation. He had internal Nissan documents, signed by various executives and board members, that seemed to show that the company had approved everything he did financially. He projected a handful of them on a wall behind him, but it was hard to fully understand them in the brief time they were up, and in any case this was not the right venue to make a complicated argument. Indeed, if you hadn’t followed the case closely, you were unlikely to understand what he was arguing. (Later, during the Q&A, virtually none of the reporters asked him about the details of his defense.)

I have contended since Ghosn was first arrested that conspiring with prosecutors to have Ghosn arrested was an insane way for Nissan to be rid of him. In most countries, chairmen or chief executive officers are let go by a vote of the board; if they’ve done wrong, the company might try to claw back money or void stock options. L’affaire Ghosn has been an awful distraction for Nissan, which has cost it dearly. With Ghosn now free to defend himself — and to hurl his own allegations at the company — it is only going to get worse. At this point, Nissan couldn’t call a truce even if it wanted to. And it can’t win, either. Nissan has to decide whether it is more interested in pursuing Ghosn or fixing what’s wrong with the company. It has already proved that it can’t do both.

When you get right down to it, Nissan and the Japanese prosecutors put a rich, powerful man — a man unaccustomed to being defied — through hell. Now that he has escaped, it’s his turn to put them through hell. And hell hath no fury like a CEO scorned.

 

BLOOMBERG OPINION

Facebook’s laudable deepfake ban doesn’t go far enough

By Cass R. Sunstein

FACEBOOK SAYS that it is banning “deepfakes,” those high-tech doctored videos and audios that are essentially indistinguishable from the real thing.

That’s excellent news — an important step in the right direction. But the company didn’t go quite far enough, and important questions remain.

Policing deepfakes isn’t simple. As Facebook pointed out in its announcement this week, media can be manipulated for benign reasons, for example to make video sharper and audio clearer. Some forms of manipulation are clearly meant as jokes, satires, parodies, or political statements — as, for example, when a rock star or politician is depicted as a giant. That’s not Facebook’s concern.

Facebook says that it will remove “misleading manipulative media” only if two conditions are met:

“It has been edited or synthesized — beyond adjustments for clarity or quality — in ways that aren’t apparent to an average person and would likely mislead someone into thinking that a subject of the video said words that they did not actually say.”

“It is the product of artificial intelligence or machine learning that merges, replaces or superimposes content onto a video, making it appear to be authentic.”

Those conditions are meant to be precisely tailored to Facebook’s concern: Use of new or emerging technologies to mislead the average person into thinking that someone said something that they never said.

Facebook’s announcement also makes it clear that even if a video is not removed under the new policy, other safeguards might be triggered. If, for example, a video contains graphic violence or nudity, it will be taken down. And if it is determined to be false by independent third-party fact-checkers, those who see it or share it will see a warning informing them that it is false. Its distribution will also be greatly reduced in Facebook’s News Feed.

The new approach is a major step in the right direction, but two problems remain.

The first is that even if a deepfake is involved, the policy does not apply if it depicts deeds rather than words. Suppose that artificial intelligence is used to show a political candidate working with terrorists, engaging in sexual harassment, beating up a small child, or using heroin.

Nothing in the new policy would address those depictions. That’s a serious gap.

The second problem is that the prohibition is limited to products of artificial intelligence or machine learning. But why?

Suppose that videos are altered in other ways — for example, by slowing down them down so as to make someone appear drunk or drugged, as in the case of an infamous doctored video of Nancy Pelosi.

Or suppose that a series of videos, directed against a candidate for governor, are produced not with artificial intelligence or machine learning, but nonetheless in such a way as to run afoul of the first condition; that is, they have been edited or synthesized so as to make the average person think that the candidate said words that she did not actually say. What matters is not the particular technology used to deceive people, but whether unacceptable deception has occurred.

Facebook must fear that a broader prohibition would create a tough line-drawing problem. In its public explanation, it also noted that if it “simply removed all manipulated videos flagged by fact-checkers as false,” the videos would remain available elsewhere online. By labeling them as false, the company said, “We’re providing people with important information and context.” Facebook seems to think that removal does less good, on balance, than a clear warning: “False.”

Maybe so, but in the context of deepfakes, Facebook has now concluded that removal is better than a warning. In terms of human psychology, that’s almost certainly the right conclusion. If you actually see someone saying or doing something, some part of your brain will think that they said or did it, even if you’ve been explicitly told that they didn’t.

There’s room for improvement, then, in Facebook’s new policy; the prohibition ought to be expanded. But steps in the right direction should be applauded. Better is good.

Disclosure: Over the past five years, I have served on several occasions as an informal adviser to Facebook.

 

BLOOMBERG OPINION

Iraq evacuation won’t be forced as tensions ease

“THAT’S GOOD news for everyone,” presidential spokesman Salvador S. Panelo said at a briefing. — PCOO.GOV.PH

THE Philippines will continue evacuating Filipinos from Iraq, which hosts several American military bases, even if the US and Iran seem to have pulled back from war, the presidential palace said on Thursday.

“That’s good news for everyone,” presidential spokesman Salvador S. Panelo said at a briefing, referring to reports that tensions appear to be simmering down.

“Nevertheless, the move to evacuate and repatriate is still going on,” he said, even as he noted that workers won’t be forced to come home.

Mr. Panelo said Filipinos there need not come home to the Philippines and may wish to be transferred to a safer area in the region instead.

US President Donald Trump on Thursday said Iran “appears to be standing down” after it attacked two American bases in Iraq with more than a dozen missiles a day earlier.

The attacks were in retaliation for a US strike that killed top Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad’s international airport on Friday.

In a televised address to the nation from the White House, Mr. Trump said there were no Americans harmed in the ballistic missile salvo aimed at two bases, according to AFP.

While he promised to immediately impose “punishing” new economic sanctions on Tehran, Mr. Trump welcomed signs the Islamic republic “appears to be standing down.”

The Foreign Affairs department in a statement clarified that Filipinos in Iraq would no longer be forced to leave the Middle Eastern country even as the highest alert level there remained.

The repatriation will push through “for those willing to return,” Foreign Affairs Assistant Secretary Eduardo Martin R. Meñez said.

“Alert level 4 is mandatory, but experience has shown otherwise,” Mr. Meñez said. “Alert levels are constantly reviewed and adjusted.”

The Labor department in a separate statement said the alert level in Iran had been lifted and the one for Lebanon was lowered to 2.

The deployment ban in these two countries stay, Labor Secretary Silvestre H. Bello III said.

“The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration will not be processing any applications for the two countries in the meantime,” he added.

The government of President Rodrigo R. Duterte earlier said it would send two battalions of soldiers to help evacuate more than 1,000 Filipinos from Iraq. — Charmaine A. Tadalan, Gillian M. Cortez

US Senate condemns de Lima detention, drug war killings

THE US Senate has passed a resolution condemning the government of President Rodrigo R. Duterte for the wrongful detention of one of his staunchest critics, according to the US Congress website.

The chamber approved Resolution 142, sponsored by Senator Edward J. Markey, on Jan. 9 urging the Philippines to release Senator Leila M. de Lima and drop charges against Maria A. Ressa, founder of news website Rappler.

“Extrajudicial killings perpetrated by the government of the Philippines as part of a government-directed antidrug campaign present the foremost human rights challenge in the Philippines,” according to the resolution.

Drug-trafficking charges against Ms. de Lima “followed a history of criticizing extrajudicial killings in the Philippines and the Duterte administration’s anti-drug campaign,” it said.

The resolution also called on US President Donald J. Trump to impose sanctions against Philippine government officials behind extrajudicial killings in the drug war and people behind Ms. de Lima’s detention.

Meanwhile, US Senator Richard J. Durbin asked the Philippine government to stop threatening American travelers seeking to enter the Southeast Asian nation. He also renewed his call for Ms. de Lima’s release.

“There is an easy and honorable way forward — the Duterte regime should stop threatening the travel of Americans and so many others who travel between our nations,” he said in a privilege speech posted on the US Congress website.

Mr. Duterte last year ordered authorities to ban Mr. Durbin and Mr. Markey as well as Senator Patrick J. Leahy from the Philippines.

The US lawmakers were behind the US Senate resolution and an amendment to the US budget bill that denies US visas to Philippine government officials who supported Ms. de Lima’s detention.

“It was our little measure in that appropriation bill that led President Duterte to ban us from ever traveling to the Philippines,” Mr. Durbin said. — Charmaine A. Tadalan

Catholics parade Black Nazarene in celebration of Christ

HUNDREDS of thousands of Roman Catholics in the Philippines walked barefoot on Thursday around a centuries-old black wooden statue of Jesus Christ believed to have healing powers, praying for good health and economic success in the new year.

Devotees clad in yellow and maroon thronged the life-sized statue known as the “Black Nazarene” as it was paraded through the streets of Manila aboard a rope-pulled carriage, in one of the main annual festivals in Asia’s largest Catholic nation.

“I joined the procession to wish for good fortune for my family, good health and for my future plans,” Ian Lanaria, 24, told Reuters.

Participating for the first time, Mr. Lanaria said he had decided to join after previously watching the mass ritual on television and hearing about the miracles from his friends.

People were seen jostling through the crowd of police to be near the statue as it crawled through the capital, believing that a slight touch would bless them, heal their illnesses and those of their relatives.

Thursday’s procession is expected to last for hours, and organizers expected it to draw 6 million people as the crowds swell over the day.

An early morning estimate by police put the crowd at around 400,000 people, excluding those waiting further along the procession’s six-kilometre (3.7 miles) route.

Having had his prayers answered when he was in need of money in the past, Bonny Morales, 65, was among the early worshippers.

“After making a vow to the Black Nazarene my loan immediately got approved, which is why I truly believe in its miraculous powers, especially for those who have strong faith in the Black Nazarene,” Mr. Morales said. — Reuters

Baguio council approves street parking fees on 1st reading

THE BAGUIO City council has approved on first reading a proposed ordinance to regulate the use of some roads within the central business district, including the imposition of parking fees. In a statement on its social media page, the council noted that the proposed local law is intended to help address traffic congestion in the mountain city, which are in partly due to road violations such as “disorganized parking, rampant obstruction, double parking, and lack of regulation in parking areas, among others.” Once passed, the ordinance will apply to the following areas: The whole stretch of Lower Session Road (both lanes); Leonard Wood Junction to Casa Vallejo, Kalaw Road; Junction to PFVR Gym Entry (Upper Session Road); Kalaw Street fronting the building of the Court of Appeals; corner of Session Road to the corner of General Luna (left lane of Assumption Road from Session Road), the whole stretch going to Jose Abad Santos Drive (Harrison Road), the whole stretch of Skyworld (Calderon Street), the stretch from Generika to Phoenix Café (Claudio Street), the front of Tourism (Gov. Pack Road), the front of Department of Tourism (Gov. Pack Road), from Lions Club waiting shed to Lions Club entry (Gov. Pack Road), the whole stretch of Kayang Hilltop Road (left lane from Magsaysay Avenue), and from Kiltipan Merchandize to Dian Juat Furniture (Kayang Road). Other roads may be included in the future, to be determined by the Traffic and Transportation Management Committee.

FEES
Under the ordinance, all vehicles not exceeding five meters in length are allowed to park in the identified areas subject to the following fees: P35.00 for the first two hours, and P15.00 for every succeeding hour or fraction. Motorcycles, on the other hand, will be charged P20.00 for the first two hours and P5.00 for every succeeding hour or fraction. The proposed ordinance is now up for review by the committee on public utilities, transportation and traffic legislation.

Dinagyang Festival teaser set Friday

BW FILE PHOTO

THE 14 groups that will compete in two events in this year’s Dinagyang Festival will give a sneak peak of their dance performances on Friday, Jan. 10, during the opening salvo of Iloilo’s biggest annual fiesta, to be held at the Iloilo Freedom Grandstand. Jobert A. Peñaflorida, president of the Iloilo Festivals Foundation Inc., said the teaser event is also intended as a test run for the festival’s logistics, and overall organization. Eight “tribes” will be participating in the new Dinagyang360 competition on Jan. 26, wherein performances will have to be choreographed in consideration of a 360-degree audience. The traditional Dagyang sa Calle Real street dancing competition, scheduled Jan. 25, will have 6 groups from different villages. Friday’s opening event will be capped off with a fireworks display. — Emme Rose S. Santiagudo

Ordinance proposed declaring Arroceros Park as permanent forest area

AN ORDINANCE has been proposed declaring Arroceros Forest Park , dubbed as the last lung of Manila, as a permanent forest park. Draft Ordinance No. 7981, filed in September last year and published on Jan. 9, mandates the city government “to protect and conserve the integrity of the last environmental frontier of the city.” The 2.2-hectare land located in Arroceros Street beside the Pasig River is considered significant for “scientific, educational and recreational use.” The forest park was developed in 1993, following a memorandum of agreement signed by then mayor Alfredo S. Lim and the Winner Foundation, Inc. for the creation and enhancement of an ecological environment of the nation’s capital. Republic Act No. 5752 or the Local Autonomy Act states that each municipality or city must initiate the establishment of a permanent forest tree parks in their jurisdiction equivalent to 2% of the entire area. Arroceros Park came under threat when former mayor Joseph E. Estrada planned to build a gymnasium inside it in 2017. The plan did not push through. Another ordinance, approved in November last year, already closed for public use a land near the park for future expansion. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas

1...9,6689,6699,670...13,879Page 9,669 of 13,879
© 2024 BusinessWorld Publishing.
All rights reserved.
Read our privacy guidelines
Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Youtube