Department of Fisheries now!

By Bencyrus Ellorin / September 6, 2006

LAST week, fisherfolk groups in Northern Mindanao gathered here to discuss pressing fishery issues, among them the move to relegate the status of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources from a line bureau into a staff bureau of the Department of Agriculture (DA).

The Regional Fisherfolk Forum organized by the Kahugpungan sa Gagmay’ng Mangingisda sa Macajalar Bay (Kasamma Bay), an affiliate of the environmental coalition the Task Force Macajalar, also tackled other issues and concerns like their planned coastal resource enhancement projects and issues like the Guimaras oil spill.

On the issue of relegation of the BFAR from a staff bureau to a line bureau, we have invited Director Joel Rudinas of the DA and Director Arlene Pantanosas of the BFAR as resource persons.

From my understanding of the bureaucracy rationalization program of the GMA administration, the bureaucracy will be trimmed down in order cut on unnecessary cost in government operation and personal services expenses. It is, so to speak, meant to use more of government funds for services to the people than to maintaining itself and its fat bureaucracy. No problem with that.

Under this proposed "rationalization" plan, the BFAR which had enjoyed the status of a line bureau after the promulgation of the Fisheries Code of 1998 will be relegated back as a staff bureau of the DA. This relegation is actually a reversion of the BFAR status circa 1985-1998.

I tried to scrutinize the new organizational chart of the DA under the said "rationalization" and it became disturbingly obvious that the plan is not actually one that is designed to trim down the DA bureaucracy but it actually makes it fatter. While reverting back the Finance and Administration functions of the BFAR to the DA, it also creates news offices like the office on regulatory services, extension, research and many more new offices under a separate administrator or bureau.

I was asked to comment on the presentations of both the DA and BFAR directors in that forum and I made three main points on why the DA rationalization plan should be opposed.

One, with the relegation of the BFAR into a line bureau of the DA, it will be déjà vu, wherein fishery development will have to compete with the other main sectors in the DA which are Crops and Livestock. And if recent history is to be the basis, when the fishery sector was under one roof with the crops and livestock sectors, it was not given much attention.

Statistics are the best witness to this. In the 1985-1998 period, the fishery production nationwide was in the 2.6-million tons level. The 2.6-million level was broken in 1999 and finally surpassed the three-million tons mark in 2000 and reached the four-million tons mark in 2004.

This is because focus on fishery was made. And make no mistake about it, the focus was not just in production but in the establishment of resource enhancement projects like fish sanctuaries, mangrove reforestation and in enhancing the law enforcement capabilities of the fishing communities and local government units. Fishery extension was also enhanced along with the promotion of sustainable aquaculture projects for poor municipal fisherfolk.

Second, the government rationalization plan is meant to let the axe fall on non-performing assets of government. As the statistics would show, BFAR is not a non-performing asset. In fact, fisheries have contributed a great deal to the over-all growth in the country’s agriculture output. As they say, if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.

Third, the motive of the so-called DA rationalization plan is suspect. Why in the name of trimming down the DA bureaucracy new offices are created? Is this not another proof of the present administration’s penchant to create new offices to accommodate people with whom the President has political debt? This was done during the days of the Marcos dictatorship. It pains me that it is being done again.

And for these reasons, I was not surprised that there was an overwhelming expression of opposition from the fisherfolk leaders of Northern Mindanao to the DA rationalization, which means a relegation of the BFAR into line bureau from staff bureau.

Personally, I would have been contented with saying no to the said rationalization plan. But in the afternoon’s plenary session, the fisherfolk leaders of the region did not just say no to it, but called for the creation of a separate Department of Fisheries. And I think we better listen to them, they ought to know what they are talking about and what they are asking for.

I do not have any quarrel with our friends from the DA, much less Director Rudinas whom we may work more closely now in promoting sustainable agriculture in the countryside.

Are political killings a part of national security policy?

By Bencyrus Ellorin / August 16, 2006

EVER wondered why activists and members of the media, especially the critics of the present administration, are being killed?

There are allegations that these are actually part of the present national security policy. We will try to analyze the events and available literature and try to correlate them using circumstantial evidence and try to understand this chilling political reality of our time.

Recently, I came across a newly "declassified" document entitled "Highlights of the National Situation, Possible Scenarios and Some Significant Details" dated July 21, 2006. It is a document formulated by the Ateneo de Manila-based Center for Strategic Studies. The document is available in the CSS website (www.css.org.ph).

It contained several items like Natural Environment, Economic Condition, Social Condition and Political Condition. What struck me most in the 72-slide Powerpoint presentation was slide no. 38 which was on the Political Condition.

Slide no. 38 of that document dangerously lumped under the item "opposition"

1) "parliamentary" political opposition; 2) CPP-NPA-NDF; and 3) Some police and military elements into one classification as "opposition."

This could not have been inadvertent.

Without that distinction of the legal, non-violent and parliamentary opposition to that of armed struggle, those in the legal and parliamentary struggle are exposed to the coercive forces of the State.

GMA in her statements and behavior has presumptuously bestowed or arrogated upon her administration the "State" that she treats every individual or group that speaks or does legally protected acts against her administration as "distabilizers" or "enemies of the state." It is as if the Philippine State will crumble if she is removed legally or extra-legally from office.

If we analyze this critically, it is actually an act of a dictator. Genuine democracy requires that the systems of checks and balance be protected. Among the checks and balance mechanisms are the oversight function of Congress, the power of review of the Supreme Court and the veto power of the President. In the wider society, the right to free expression is the people’s biggest weapon against excesses of the State or its instrumentality, the Government. The 1987 Constitution is unequivocal on this. But the GMA administration does mind running roughshod these constitutional edicts.

Any student of Political Science 101 will know the difference between political opposition and social movements.

Wikipedia defines political opposition, among others, as "A recognized party that is present in Parliamentary or some other legislative party and does not control the floor (usually due to being in the minority); actions by one political group against another political group, either by using governmental power or by popular actions such as protests; or a general case of disagreement in politics."

Social movement, on the other hand, is defined as "collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interaction with elites, opponents and authorities." (Tarrow, 1994). Social movements are characterized by their being radical, liberal or being conservative. Their objectives may vary from reforms to radical social change.

Political opposition and Social Movements should have been differentiated and distinguished. Although there are always biases and ideological foundations to formulations like this, there are principles that should never be negated in our political analysis and these are the principles of democracy and the interest of public welfare.

The impact of such erroneous political analysis and subsequent policy manifested in the persecution of the Bayan Muna, Gabriela and Anakpawis party-list representatives, the unabated killings of legal activists and the violation of the people’s right to free expression.

If true that radical ideology which intends to overthrow government has seeped into mainstream politics, the use of the State’s coercive force on them is not within the purview of genuine democracy. It may be political reality that has to be addressed by our political leaders or other groups that think of this as anathema to our national existence within the ambit of our legal system.

Modern democracies have long considered unacceptable and political taboo MacCarthyist paranoia (communist witchhunt). Only authoritarian and severely insecure regimes resort to such measures for the preservation of the status quo or literally a dictator’s skin.

Valid and legal dissent should be viewed as the working of a dynamic political system and a robust democracy. And if to preserve a dominant political bloc or a certain questionable leader, the legal and parliamentary opposition is silenced by draconian measures, our democracy is destroyed.

It does not do us any good if government abuse the use of its coercive power and resort to half-baked reconciliatory calls and "I’m sorry" for pogi points when harmony can still be pursued along the lines of genuine reforms, accountability and profound respect to constitutional processes like the impeachment.

I do have respect for the CSS as an institution for its lofty objectives of translating academic, grassroots and field research into policy options for government. It is however very unsettling that some important personalities in the institution have close association with people in Macalanang particularly National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzalez whose enmity with the progressives or the left is no secret.

Spam from 'Joke-joke'

By Bencyrus Ellorin / August 11, 2006

A COMMON irritant in the e-mail world is the spam or unwanted e-mails. They could deluge your inbox with Viagra or Cialis sale or from supposed crooks or politically persecuted families from African nations like the Ivory Coast and lately from the Philippines.

There was a spam lately claiming to be from the wife of former vice president Maning Pelaez and another queer one claiming to be from the wife of Sen. Ping Lacson. In these e-mail hoaxes that usually come in crooked English, the letter sender claims to be in asylum because of political persecution and looking for a partner in a foreign country where he or she can launder money left by their late relatives who have either died in exile or have been assassinated by rival politicians.

 It is not just amusing but sad that aside from African countries these e-mail hoaxers have included the Philippines. Have we gone this low?

 Below is an e-mail spam from ‘‘Joke-joke.’’

"Dear Friend,

 "This letter should come as a surprise to you. I got your e-mail from friendster. But allow me to introduce myself. I come from the Philippines , am one of the best buddies of the husband of the president of the Philippines and a former undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture.

"I come to write you in confidence to ask for your assistance regarding about $10,000,000.00 deposited in a bank in Cayman Islands. This is my share of the proceeds from a rigged fertilizer deal for the poor Filipino farmers whose savings was diverted to the campaign fund of the wife of my beer buddy who ran for the president and is now the president. As an undersecretary, I do under the table deals with my secretary.

"This money I am talking about is my share for facilitating that fertilizer scandal where a liquid fertilizer that costs P500 was purchased by government from dummy suppliers for P1,500. The over-price we divided among ourselves, with the biggest bulk going to the campaing funds of the wife of my friend.

‘‘In our country, there are many good politicians who always claim they lost because they were cheated by their opponents. The wife of my friend is now facing her second impeachment in three years after a wiretapped telephone call to an official of the Commission on Election was exposed. In that wiretapped telephone call, she ask that official of the Commission on Election to make sure that she lead by 1-million votes against her closest opponent who is now rest in peace.

 "I am now in the United States of America applying for asylum because of political persecution. The Senate of the Philippines has issued a subpoena for me to attend the senate investigation on the fertilizer scam. Earlier they have found out that about P800-million of the P2-billion fertilizer funds were disbursed questionably. And chances are if I come back, I will be arrested because of graft and corruption charges.

 "This is why, I want to transfer my money to your account because I am afraid the Phil. Government will have it frozen just like the ill-gotten wealth of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Once the transfer is finished I’ll give you 30% of the money, 20% we will invest in charity and the 50% will go to me so that I can pay my lawyers here in the United States as I ask them to grant me asylum.

 "In our country, it is different, the ones persecuted are not the opposition but those in the administration. I hope you understand. Please consider this e-mail confidential. E-mail me privately in joke_joke@gyahoo.com your bank account details, telephone and fax and my agent will contact you.

 "More power!

 ‘‘Joke-joke Botante

 "PS. Please forward to 10 of your friends if you love your country if not you are a traitor and deserve to die like our national hero, by firing squad.-ditto.

GMA, CBCP, split hairs...

By BenCyrus Ellorin / July 20, 2006

To be inclined or not to be inclined? That is the question? (apologies to Shakespeare)

THIS column sees to it that reactions to it see print. This is just but fair considering that there are people or parties or groups that would disagree with my thoughts.

Below is one I got in my e-mail from John Dee. A reaction to Fastlanes’ Whereto? Anarchy?

"I am not sure if you are a Catholic or a Christian because, you are talking of cynicism and apathy towards the non-endorsement of the CBCP on the impeachment process. You also made mention that our’s is a Catholic country but look at what we are doing. Our countrymen are prejudicial in almost everything and there’s lot of mistrust among ourselves. Most, I think, are only Catholic by name.

‘‘That decision of the CBCP is in line with Jesus Christ’s teaching of love, compassion and forgiveness. Or perhaps you are familiar with his phrase, ‘He who is without sin cast the first stone.’ That’s exactly what the CBCP is saying.

‘‘Look at the proponents of this impeachment––the Marcoses, Estradas, the leftists, Aquinos which I think were even worst than PGMA. What they are doing is simply a power grab by filing a rehashed impeachment complaint. PGMA already allowed herself to undergo the impeachment process last year and since this is a political exercise, the charges didn’t push through. That’s how it works. Even President Clinton was acquitted simply because of strictly party line votes. Were the Americans able to ferret the truth? Definitely not, but the Americans moved on.

‘‘I hope this enlightened you a little bit on this issue…"

I do respect your views but I disagree with you that PGMA allowed herself to undergo the impeachment process last year. PGMA’s allies in the House of Representatives––and I won’t be surprised if they do this again this year––moved hell on earth to block the impeachment from proceeding to trial in the Senate by invoking technicalities.

Granting without admitting that those who are proposing the impeachment are worse than PGMA, that doesn’t diminish a bit the sitting president’s culpability to the Constitution and our laws or her accountability to the people. This is basically why we have Constitutional processes like the impeachment otherwise we will no longer be a rule of law but of men.

An impeachment is not a guilty verdict but just a complaint that has to be proven by evidence or controverted by a heavier counter-evidence. With that, it is very difficult to move on unless we play ostrich and bury our heads in the sand so that we won’t hear and see evil anymore.

Partisan lines have been drawn in this impeachment process, but we should transcend it and allow the constitutional process give the verdict.

The case of Bill Clinton is different from PGMA because in Clinton’s case there was an independent scrutiny of evidence by the Starr Commission and that Clinton’s stay in the White House was not questioned, only his inappropriate actions. And that his performance was not lackluster. This cannot be said of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and I need not explain it here for it is very obvious unless one is so damn filthy rich to be insulated from the powerful economic crunch or so powerful not to be intimidated by the killing of activists and journalists.

The problem with the CBCP’s stand on the impeachment is that it was done in a hairsplitting manner. It said that it is not inclined to support such move as of the moment. When will be the moment that will make it feel inclined to support impeachment? What will make them feel inclined to support the impeachment?

Hairsplitting is not uncommon. And those who resort to it often got away with it. We had PGMA saying "It was my voice, but it was not me," referring to the Garci tapes or Clinton’s "I did not have sexual relationship with that woman, Monica Lewinski…" because he considered oral sex to be not sex.

Hairsplitting has become a convenient way of getting away with stealing cookies in the jar. It has also become a way of staying comfortably in the sidelines without making it that obvious. It also leaves us to debate some more and move on, yes, move on farther from finding the truth.

Mr. Dee was trying to make an issue of my religiosity. It really doesn’t matter to me. Most of the time taking so much attention to these labels brings out the bigotry in people.

I do disagree with the CBCP’s stand on the impeachment but that doesn’t diminish my respect to the bishops, nor has it shaken my faith.

Where to? Anarchy?

By Bencyrus Ellorin / July 13, 2006

IN a mostly Catholic country like ours, what the bishops say certainly matters. Which is why there were lots of adverse reactions to the effective shunning of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to the new impeachment charges against Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Well, as I understand, the bishops are feeling the pulse of the people from the grassroots. In fact, I learned that some sort of consultation with the laity was done on certain issues like Charter change.

There were expectations that the Church through the CBCP would make a stand on the impeachment issue this time. Last year, amid all the political noise, the Church called on the people to pray and continue seeking for the truth. It did not however do what the late Cardinal Sin was wont to do, that is call on the flock to go to the streets.

An impeachment is nothing but a complaint against a constitutional official like the President, Comelec commisioners and the members of the Supreme Court. It is like a complaint you file before the Office of the Prosecutor against your neighborhood’s troublemaker.

Impeachment is a completely legal, non-violent means at exacting accountability from no less than the highest official of government.

Why the bishops were inclined in not supporting the impeachment move this time is not just hard to fathom but confusing. A part of the Pastoral Letter reads: "…In the light of previous circumstances, we are not inclined at present to favor the impeachment process as the means of establishing the truth."

It could send the signal that the Church does not support outright any move to oust the sitting president despite all her glaring sins against the nation. Or it may, in a sarcastic manner, signal that even the Church has lost its faith in the rule of law or the processes of our democratic institutions.

That cited portion of the CBCP Statement expresses some cynicism and may even be clothed with convenient hairsplitting that really means indifference to the search for truth or for the preservation of the status quo.

If the impeachment is not at the present a means to ferret out the truth, what is?

Yes, with the present atmosphere in the House of Representatives, there is no 100-percent assurance that the truth about GMA will be ferreted but at least it is worth trying if we have to put some sense to our democratic processes.

If GMA indeed has nothing to hide and is truly comfortable from where she is, she should let the impeachment process proceed. But her moving hell to stop the impeachment complaint from proceeding even to first base adds to more suspicion.

With this development, expectedly Malacanang is wildly cheering, the opposition dismayed and the people confused.

Where does the Shepherd of the people want to lead us? I hope not to further cynicism and apathy and certainly not towards anarchy. Enlighten us please.