Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080401-127637/Murder-at-Home
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Murder at Home
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: April 01, 2008
It was never a factual issue that William Corpuz murdered his wife Marissa in their San Francisco home in September of 2004. Corpuz turned himself in to the police and confessed that he had slashed his wife’s throat with his fishing knife. The legal question was whether he was guilty of murder in the first degree (with a mandatory sentence of 26 years to life) or the second degree (16 years to life).
After a four-week trial in May 2007, a San Francisco jury deliberated for 1 ½ days and unanimously agreed that Corpuz was guilty of murder 1. But on March 14, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Jerome Benson overruled the jury and reduced the charge to murder 2. Because he confessed to the crime, the facts were never in dispute. Corpuz, a caregiver in a home for the elderly, had been previously arrested in September of 2003 for domestic violence (DV) – having choked his wife then slammed her head face-first into the headboard of their bed.
Despite a long history as a victim of her husband’s violence, Marissa stood by her man and minimized her injury to get the District Attorney to reduce the DV felony charge to a misdemeanor. He was released on probation on condition that he attended a 52-week domestic abuse program. Corpuz enrolled in a year of weekly two-hour sessions at AVACA, the Abuse, Violence and Anger Cessation Alliance, a program stressing “a new technique that focuses on abusers' thought patterns and cultural conditioning, in hopes of changing the way they deal with stress.”
Among the 150 people who have gone through this program, Corpuz was considered a model student – always on time for his sessions, he paid his fees, actively engaged in class discussions, bought and read books on domestic violence. He attended 39 weekly sessions, the last one just four days before he killed his wife.
In his police confession, Corpuz admitted that he had originally intended to shoot his wife that morning and prepared a gun with a single bullet two hours before the murder, but decided instead to get two knives from the kitchen. After two hours watching TV together in their bedroom, Corpuz said Marissa’s laughs and insults caused him to “explode” and slash his wife's throat. "I don't know. It just happened," he told police.
Corpuz’s attorney, Randall Martin, said his client was "extremely remorseful" and that he had suffered long-standing emotional abuse during the marriage. "He was emasculated, depressed, ashamed and suicidal," Martin said in asking the judge to reduce the charge to murder 2.
In announcing his decision, Judge Benson said that while the killing was an "outrageous and savage domestic violence murder... (he) found that under state law, deliberation had been absent from Corpuz's acts." According to California Penal Code § 189, however, murder in the first degree includes “lying in wait” or “any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.” Judge Benson did not believe Corpuz had deliberated enough for a murder 1 conviction and instead blamed state law for not including domestic violence as a “special circumstance” that would mandate a murder 1 conviction.
"Now why should a person who beats and kills his wife or girlfriend be treated differently from a stranger who kills someone during a robbery?" asked Marily Mondejar, President of the Filipina Women's Network (FWN). Mondejar’s group had attended the trial and the March 14 sentencing hearing of Corpuz and was outraged at the sentence reduction. At a press conference on March 26, FWN members denounced the Benson decision and called for legislation that would include domestic violence as a “special circumstance” that would mandate a murder 1 conviction like a murder committed during a robbery attempt.
But this would be a double-edged sword. Wives who kill their abusive husbands, though in self-defense, may be charged with this special circumstance allegation as well. The solution, according to Beverly Upton for the Domestic Violence Consortium, may be found in “encouraging judges to look at how they can interpret the law to do more justice for women and communities in domestic violence and sexual assault."
At the FWN press conference, Upton disclosed that in the year she first assumed her post in San Francisco in 1998, there were 10 women who were murdered in the city as a result of domestic violence and four of the victims were Filipino women. On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in the US every day.
In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. According to the Domestic Violence Prevention Fund (endabuse.org), as many as three million women in America are physically abused by their husbands or boyfriends per year. Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. According to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey, nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report physical or sexual abuse by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
What accounts for this violence against women? A clue may be found in a new 2004 Spanish law which redefined domestic violence as "violence originating from the position of power of men over women.” The rationale for the law is that as long as men grow up in a culture which emphasizes male superiority over women and views women as the property of men, there will be male violence against women.
"Marisa Corpuz is at peace now, but this murder really heightened awareness of domestic violence in the Filipino community," Mondejar noted.
Heighten your awareness of domestic violence by watching the premier performance of “A Memory, A Monologue, A Rant and A Prayer” at the Herbst Theatre at 401 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco. This production of the Filipina Women’s Network includes men for the first time (I’m in it and so is Filipinas magazine publisher Greg Macabenta). Please call (415) 278-9410 or log on to www.ffwn.org for more information.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com. You can also log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis: 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
English Psychosis
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080325-126283/English-Psychosis
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : English Psychosis
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 25, 2008
Though I had never been to a boxing fight before, curiosity drove me to Las Vegas to watch the hyped-up rematch of Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao and Juan Manuel “Dinamita” Marquez for the Super Featherweight Championship of the World last March 15.
As it turned out, “Super” in the billing was no hype; it was the real deal as the two evenly-matched gladiators fought toe-to-toe for 12 rounds, fighting with all the power and heart they could muster. In the end, the Pacman won in a controversial split-decision but by barely one razor-thin point.
In the post-fight press conference, Pacquiao commented on the fight in English, without using an interpreter: “The first knockdown, I was very happy," he said. "I think I controlled the fight already. In the next rounds, I had a bad cut on my eye and I didn’t see his punches. It was hard to punch back to him.”
With a Spanish interpreter, Marquez said: “Yes, I thought I won this fight and I still think I won this fight. Maybe the judges were thinking I was the challenger, but I connected with the most powerful punches and the most accurate punches.”
In previous press interviews where the Pacman spoke, always without an interpreter, he would often find himself grammatically challenged (though he is getting better) and his fight assessments always appeared simple-minded as though the English words that would articulate his actual insights were beyond his reach. In contrast, whenever the Mexican fighters spoke, with interpreters, they seemed to express more depth in their analysis.
I always wondered why the Pacman didn’t just speak in Tagalog and have an interpreter translate his words so that he could also appear to be articulate and intelligent. Is it pride?
That same question popped up at the 2008 Bb. Pilipinas beauty pageant at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon City on March 9. Janina San Miguel, a 17 year old freshman student at the University of the East, made it to the finals after winning awards for Best in Swimsuit and Best in Long Gown. And then came the interview:
One of the judges, Vivian Tan, asked her “what role did your family play to you as candidate to Binibining Pilipinas?” Janina’s answer on www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKwmseoKFCo has already drawn more than two million hits (combining all versions). Here it is:
Janina: “Well, my family’s role for me is so important b’coz there was the wa- they’re, they was the one who’s… very… hahahaha… Oh I’m so sorry, ahhmm… My pamily… My family… Oh my god… I’m… Ok, I’m so sorry… I… I told you that I’m so confident… Eto, ahhmm, Wait… hahahaha, ahmmm. Sorry, guys because this was really my first pageant ever b’coz I’m only 17 years old and hahaha I, I did not expect that I came from, I came from one of the tuff ten. Hmmm, so… but I said that my family is the most important persons in my life. Thank you.”
In the YouTube video, the sounds of audience guffaws were as audible as the looks of consternation and bemusement by the judges. Despite this gaffe, however, Janina won the contest and will represent the Philippines in the Miss World competition to be held in the Ukraine.
But overnight, dozens, if not hundreds, of Filipino blogs, commented on Janina’s selection with most making fun of her accent and poor grammar. Many questioned how she could possibly hope to win the world title when she can’t speak English properly.
But if anyone of these blog commentators ever watched any of those international beauty pageants, they would note that the questions were always posed to the Spanish-speaking contestants in English, translated by interpreters into Spanish, and the Spanish answers then translated into English. The translated answers showed the candidates' poise and articulation which accounts for why so many South American beauty queens have won these contests.
Why couldn’t the question to Janina have been posed to her in Tagalog and her answer delivered in Tagalog and then translated into English for US Ambassador Kristie Kenney who was a judge? The contest that used to be “Miss Philippines” is now called “Binibing Pilipinas” to emphasize its nationalist character. Hello?
The online web portal, philnews.com, observed that “the use of English is not an issue for some contestants who can speak it fluently. There are a few young girls however, who did not have the luxury of attending an expensive private school where English is taught, or who do not belong to that social strata of Philippine society where proficiency in English is the norm.”
Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo asked his readers to “Give the young girl a break! If she speaks ungrammatical English, blame it on the country’s educational system…You expect Janina to speak fluent English when our former president, Joseph “Erap” Estrada, speaks carabao English? C’mon, guys, you expect too much from a 17-year-old girl!”
The best insight about this “national psychosis with regards to the English language” came from the Philnews.com editorial which provided this observation “Tune in to most radio stations in Metro Manila and you'll hear Filipino DJ's straining to sound like Americans; sit-in on corporate meetings in boardrooms along Ayala Avenue and you will notice that greater deference is given to those who can say what they have to say in English. Say the same thing in Tagalog and it somehow carries a lot less weight or importance.
“While proficiency in a foreign language is commendable, especially in this era of globalization," Philnews.com noted further, "the value of a foreign language should not be gained by denigrating our national language. Tagalog or Pilipino should be given the respect it deserves and be allowed to co-exist alongside all other languages...only then will we begin to appreciate and respect who we really are as a people.”
Psychosis is a psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality." People suffering from it are said to have delusional beliefs. What is our delusional belief about ourselves and our ability to speak English?
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080325-126283/English-Psychosis
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : English Psychosis
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 25, 2008
Though I had never been to a boxing fight before, curiosity drove me to Las Vegas to watch the hyped-up rematch of Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao and Juan Manuel “Dinamita” Marquez for the Super Featherweight Championship of the World last March 15.
As it turned out, “Super” in the billing was no hype; it was the real deal as the two evenly-matched gladiators fought toe-to-toe for 12 rounds, fighting with all the power and heart they could muster. In the end, the Pacman won in a controversial split-decision but by barely one razor-thin point.
In the post-fight press conference, Pacquiao commented on the fight in English, without using an interpreter: “The first knockdown, I was very happy," he said. "I think I controlled the fight already. In the next rounds, I had a bad cut on my eye and I didn’t see his punches. It was hard to punch back to him.”
With a Spanish interpreter, Marquez said: “Yes, I thought I won this fight and I still think I won this fight. Maybe the judges were thinking I was the challenger, but I connected with the most powerful punches and the most accurate punches.”
In previous press interviews where the Pacman spoke, always without an interpreter, he would often find himself grammatically challenged (though he is getting better) and his fight assessments always appeared simple-minded as though the English words that would articulate his actual insights were beyond his reach. In contrast, whenever the Mexican fighters spoke, with interpreters, they seemed to express more depth in their analysis.
I always wondered why the Pacman didn’t just speak in Tagalog and have an interpreter translate his words so that he could also appear to be articulate and intelligent. Is it pride?
That same question popped up at the 2008 Bb. Pilipinas beauty pageant at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon City on March 9. Janina San Miguel, a 17 year old freshman student at the University of the East, made it to the finals after winning awards for Best in Swimsuit and Best in Long Gown. And then came the interview:
One of the judges, Vivian Tan, asked her “what role did your family play to you as candidate to Binibining Pilipinas?” Janina’s answer on www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKwmseoKFCo has already drawn more than two million hits (combining all versions). Here it is:
Janina: “Well, my family’s role for me is so important b’coz there was the wa- they’re, they was the one who’s… very… hahahaha… Oh I’m so sorry, ahhmm… My pamily… My family… Oh my god… I’m… Ok, I’m so sorry… I… I told you that I’m so confident… Eto, ahhmm, Wait… hahahaha, ahmmm. Sorry, guys because this was really my first pageant ever b’coz I’m only 17 years old and hahaha I, I did not expect that I came from, I came from one of the tuff ten. Hmmm, so… but I said that my family is the most important persons in my life. Thank you.”
In the YouTube video, the sounds of audience guffaws were as audible as the looks of consternation and bemusement by the judges. Despite this gaffe, however, Janina won the contest and will represent the Philippines in the Miss World competition to be held in the Ukraine.
But overnight, dozens, if not hundreds, of Filipino blogs, commented on Janina’s selection with most making fun of her accent and poor grammar. Many questioned how she could possibly hope to win the world title when she can’t speak English properly.
But if anyone of these blog commentators ever watched any of those international beauty pageants, they would note that the questions were always posed to the Spanish-speaking contestants in English, translated by interpreters into Spanish, and the Spanish answers then translated into English. The translated answers showed the candidates' poise and articulation which accounts for why so many South American beauty queens have won these contests.
Why couldn’t the question to Janina have been posed to her in Tagalog and her answer delivered in Tagalog and then translated into English for US Ambassador Kristie Kenney who was a judge? The contest that used to be “Miss Philippines” is now called “Binibing Pilipinas” to emphasize its nationalist character. Hello?
The online web portal, philnews.com, observed that “the use of English is not an issue for some contestants who can speak it fluently. There are a few young girls however, who did not have the luxury of attending an expensive private school where English is taught, or who do not belong to that social strata of Philippine society where proficiency in English is the norm.”
Philippine Daily Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo asked his readers to “Give the young girl a break! If she speaks ungrammatical English, blame it on the country’s educational system…You expect Janina to speak fluent English when our former president, Joseph “Erap” Estrada, speaks carabao English? C’mon, guys, you expect too much from a 17-year-old girl!”
The best insight about this “national psychosis with regards to the English language” came from the Philnews.com editorial which provided this observation “Tune in to most radio stations in Metro Manila and you'll hear Filipino DJ's straining to sound like Americans; sit-in on corporate meetings in boardrooms along Ayala Avenue and you will notice that greater deference is given to those who can say what they have to say in English. Say the same thing in Tagalog and it somehow carries a lot less weight or importance.
“While proficiency in a foreign language is commendable, especially in this era of globalization," Philnews.com noted further, "the value of a foreign language should not be gained by denigrating our national language. Tagalog or Pilipino should be given the respect it deserves and be allowed to co-exist alongside all other languages...only then will we begin to appreciate and respect who we really are as a people.”
Psychosis is a psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality." People suffering from it are said to have delusional beliefs. What is our delusional belief about ourselves and our ability to speak English?
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Global Networking :
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Global Networking :
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080318-125411/The-Saga-of-Flor-and-Jennifer
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : The Saga of Flor and Jennifer
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 18, 2008
March 17, 1995 will be mournfully remembered as the day Singapore executed Filipino domestic worker Flor Contemplacion for allegedly murdering Filipina domestic worker Delia Maga. Filipinos recall that just before the date of her execution, two witnesses came forward with evidence that Contemplacion was innocent and that it was Maga’s employer who strangled her in a fit of rage after finding his 4-year old epileptic son accidentally drowned in the bath tub because Maga had left him alone, unaware of his condition.
Although Contemplacion, a 42-year old mother of four, had neither the motive, means nor opportunity to kill Maga, Singapore police nonetheless made her the sole murder suspect and convicted her, based on her torture-induced confession. The authorities refused to consider any new evidence that might contradict their convenient wrap-up of the case.
When Contemplacion’s coffin arrived in Manila, thousands of Filipinos waited at the airport to honor her as a symbol of injustice and of the hardships and sacrifices of overseas Filipino workers.
At the time of Contemplacion’s execution, Jennifer Drake Larsen, a granddaughter of an American serviceman, was living in Cavite province with her American husband James Larsen and their 3-year old son James Jr. She could not have imagined how Contemplacion’s death would affect her.
Jennifer Larsen had been a victim of domestic violence in the US when she decided to leave her businessman husband and their home in Walnut Creek, California to return to the Philippines with their son. After arriving in Manila, however, she called her husband. “You can join us here if you want because I know you can’t hurt me here.” She gave him the phone number where he could reach her if he accepted the invitation.
After Jennifer and her son had been living in Cavite for a few months, her husband accepted her invitation, flew to Manila and joined them. What Jennifer did not know was that James Larsen had filed a criminal complaint of child abduction against her in Walnut Creek and that a warrant of arrest had been issued for her.
Larsen lived with Jennifer and their son in Cavite for several months until he succeeded in convincing her to return to their Walnut Creek home, promising that he would never hit her again. Jennifer made plans to return to California with her son but, at the last minute, decided to leave her son in Cavite with relatives, just in case. Larsen brought Jennifer to the airport and assured her he would join her in California in a few days. After Jennifer’s plane took off, however, Larsen went straight to the US Embassy to inform the FBI that a wanted fugitive would be stopping over in Honolulu on a PAL flight bound for San Francisco.
When Jennifer landed in Honolulu, two FBI agents were waiting to arrest her for felony child abduction. She was handcuffed and brought to the Honolulu city jail to await extradition to California.
In the aftermath of Flor Contemplacion’s execution, there was widespread condemnation of the Philippine government’s failure to do more to help Contemplacion and overseas Filipinos. Responding to the popular outrage, President Ramos directed Philippine consuls all over the world to check the jails of their jurisdictions to find Philippine citizens in need of government assistance.
Following the directive, the Philippine Consul General in Hawaii visited the Honolulu prison and personally learned of Jennifer's plight. She had been in jail a few weeks by then, awaiting extradition to California, with bail set at $500,000. Jennifer recounted to the Consul how she had been brought before a magistrate in prison garb, with chains on both her ankles and wrists.
The Hawaii Consul contacted her counterpart in San Francisco, who then asked me to represent Jennifer pro bono after she had been extradited to Walnut Creek. In an April 24, 1995 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, which reported on the case, Jennifer defiantly declared: “They could tell me that I could spend the rest of my life in jail, but I don't care, I am not going to let him have custody of my child.”
In May of 1995 Jennifer had been confined for nearly two months in jail when I worked out a deal with the court for Jennifer to be released on her own recognizance if her son was returned back to his father in Walnut Creek within seven days. Jennifer reluctantly agreed to the deal and asked her sister to fly to Manila to pick up her son and turn him over to his father, which she did on the 7th day, just a few hours before the deal would have expired. As agreed, Jennifer was released from custody without bail. But the District Attorney refused to dismiss the charge or to even offer a plea bargain to reduce the felony charge to a misdemeanor with no jail time. The D.A. wanted Jennifer to go to state prison.
In the course of the 10-day jury trial in September of 1995, Jennifer recounted how she had been brought to live with her then 34-year old husband when she was 17 and how he had began beating her after they were married and she had given birth to James Jr. Her husband stoutly denied her accusations of domestic violence.
An element of the crime of child abduction (California Penal Code Sec. 278), I reminded the jury in closing argument, is the intent to “detain or conceal the child from a lawful custodian.” Jennifer contacted James Larsen as soon as she landed in Manila and invited him to join them and he, in fact, joined them. The jury deliberated for a few hours and returned a unanimous verdict of not guilty.
Jennifer regained custody of her son after the trial.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Arab view of Pinoy People Power
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080312-124223/Arab-view-of-Pinoy-People-Power
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Arab view of Pinoy People Power
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 12, 2008
The 22nd anniversary of People Power came and went on February 25 without commemoration by a single US newspaper editorial. I googled the Internet and found none. But while googling, I stumbled on a March 9, 2008 editorial in the Arab News, the “Middle East's Leading English Language Daily,” commenting on People Power in an editorial entitled “What’s Best for the Philippines.”
The 30-year old publication based in Saudi Arabia commented that “the million-strong people power demonstrations that drove Philippine’s dictator Ferdinand Marcos from office and into exile in 1986 was another epic demonstration of what a public fed up with a corrupt and inept regime can achieve. Indeed, what the Filipinos achieved may well have inspired the mass demonstrations in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and finally Romania that brought about the collapse of state communism.”
I was completely surprised by this observation coming from a country that is an absolute monarchy, with a Sharia religious court system administered by Muslim clerics and faithfully based on the Koran. In its website, however, Arab News presented itself as a much more democratic institution priding itself as “the most frequently read and quoted source of information about Saudi Arabia, while in the Kingdom, Arab News has become a forum for ideas — a place for voices to be heard and controversies debated, a place for the common man to consider uncommon ideas and gain understanding about a variety of issues in an increasingly interconnected world.”
In that editorial on the Philippines, it observed a “big difference” between People Power experiences in Eastern Europe and the Philippines. “While the countries of the former Soviet bloc have settled down to democracy,” the paper remarked, “the mass protest has become dangerously embedded in Philippine politics. It was used a second time in 2001 to bring half a million people onto the streets demanding the ouster of the blatantly corrupt and woefully disappointing President Joseph Estrada.”
“Now public protest is being used a third time against his then deputy and successor President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who in the last seven years has survived four attempted coups and three motions to impeach her,” the Arab News noted.
President Arroyo, the paper reported, is accused “of covering up a payola scandal involving her husband and senior aides and at worst of being involved herself. She has used her executive powers to try and stop officials from giving evidence to a commission of enquiry. Some who have challenged her have been subjected to harassment, for instance by the tax authorities. The aide who blew the whistle faces prosecution for violating state confidentiality rules. All in all, it is not an edifying spectacle nor unfortunately is it out of the ordinary for Philippine politics, so deeply stained with a tradition of graft, made worse by a consistent failure to drive through social and welfare reforms.”
There are close to four million Filipinos in the US and yet not one US publication has made a similar observation or has even commented on the current crisis in the Philippines. There are only about a million Filipinos living and working in Saudi Arabia, but they constitute a larger percentage of the Saudi population than we do in the US. That may explain the Arab News interest in the Philippines.
It appears well-informed about the Philippines, especially when it observes that “Arroyo seems determined to face down the popular protest and complete her term. She doubtless takes comfort from the smaller numbers of people who have been bothered to take to the streets yet again to protest. Her attitude is, however, as wrong as is the idea that unpopular governments should be driven from power by mass demonstrations.”
So "what's best for the Philippines" according to Arab News?
It doesn't endorse another People Power - “The problem with crowds that topple governments is they leave a leadership vacuum that can be filled by rogues. If Filipinos value democracy, they must use the ballot box, not the streets to register their opinions,” the paper concluded.
In a throwback to the Marcos era, its suggestion is for President Arroyo to call for a “snap election” to “give Filipinos a chance to consider who should best be leading them.”
Arab News may not understand that there is no constitutional basis for President Arroyo to hold “snap elections” even if she agreed to do so. Marcos was able to do it because, as a dictator, he was the Constitution.
But even if it were constitutionally viable, it would be highly impractical. To set up the machinery for snap elections would take at least six months and cost several billion pesos. And then what? Will the winner serve only until May of 2010 when the Constitution calls for the next presidential elections?
May 2010 is just around the corner. Already the list of presidential wannabes is growing longer with the following mentioned as possible candidates: Vice President Noli De Castro, Senate President Manny Villar, Sen. Mar Roxas, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Sen. Richard Gordon, Sen. Loren Legarda, Sen. Antonio V. Trillanes IV, former Pres. Joseph Estrada, Metro Manila Gov. Bayani Fernando, Makati Mayor Jojo Binay, Quezon City Mayor Sonny Belmonte, Manila Mayor Fred Lim, billionaire industrialist Jaime Zobel, Jesus is Lord chief Brother Eddie Villanueva, and El Shaddai leader Mike Velarde. Who else, Jun Lozada?
Thanks for the suggestion, Arab News, but snap elections ain't it. Been there, done that.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080312-124223/Arab-view-of-Pinoy-People-Power
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Arab view of Pinoy People Power
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 12, 2008
The 22nd anniversary of People Power came and went on February 25 without commemoration by a single US newspaper editorial. I googled the Internet and found none. But while googling, I stumbled on a March 9, 2008 editorial in the Arab News, the “Middle East's Leading English Language Daily,” commenting on People Power in an editorial entitled “What’s Best for the Philippines.”
The 30-year old publication based in Saudi Arabia commented that “the million-strong people power demonstrations that drove Philippine’s dictator Ferdinand Marcos from office and into exile in 1986 was another epic demonstration of what a public fed up with a corrupt and inept regime can achieve. Indeed, what the Filipinos achieved may well have inspired the mass demonstrations in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and finally Romania that brought about the collapse of state communism.”
I was completely surprised by this observation coming from a country that is an absolute monarchy, with a Sharia religious court system administered by Muslim clerics and faithfully based on the Koran. In its website, however, Arab News presented itself as a much more democratic institution priding itself as “the most frequently read and quoted source of information about Saudi Arabia, while in the Kingdom, Arab News has become a forum for ideas — a place for voices to be heard and controversies debated, a place for the common man to consider uncommon ideas and gain understanding about a variety of issues in an increasingly interconnected world.”
In that editorial on the Philippines, it observed a “big difference” between People Power experiences in Eastern Europe and the Philippines. “While the countries of the former Soviet bloc have settled down to democracy,” the paper remarked, “the mass protest has become dangerously embedded in Philippine politics. It was used a second time in 2001 to bring half a million people onto the streets demanding the ouster of the blatantly corrupt and woefully disappointing President Joseph Estrada.”
“Now public protest is being used a third time against his then deputy and successor President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who in the last seven years has survived four attempted coups and three motions to impeach her,” the Arab News noted.
President Arroyo, the paper reported, is accused “of covering up a payola scandal involving her husband and senior aides and at worst of being involved herself. She has used her executive powers to try and stop officials from giving evidence to a commission of enquiry. Some who have challenged her have been subjected to harassment, for instance by the tax authorities. The aide who blew the whistle faces prosecution for violating state confidentiality rules. All in all, it is not an edifying spectacle nor unfortunately is it out of the ordinary for Philippine politics, so deeply stained with a tradition of graft, made worse by a consistent failure to drive through social and welfare reforms.”
There are close to four million Filipinos in the US and yet not one US publication has made a similar observation or has even commented on the current crisis in the Philippines. There are only about a million Filipinos living and working in Saudi Arabia, but they constitute a larger percentage of the Saudi population than we do in the US. That may explain the Arab News interest in the Philippines.
It appears well-informed about the Philippines, especially when it observes that “Arroyo seems determined to face down the popular protest and complete her term. She doubtless takes comfort from the smaller numbers of people who have been bothered to take to the streets yet again to protest. Her attitude is, however, as wrong as is the idea that unpopular governments should be driven from power by mass demonstrations.”
So "what's best for the Philippines" according to Arab News?
It doesn't endorse another People Power - “The problem with crowds that topple governments is they leave a leadership vacuum that can be filled by rogues. If Filipinos value democracy, they must use the ballot box, not the streets to register their opinions,” the paper concluded.
In a throwback to the Marcos era, its suggestion is for President Arroyo to call for a “snap election” to “give Filipinos a chance to consider who should best be leading them.”
Arab News may not understand that there is no constitutional basis for President Arroyo to hold “snap elections” even if she agreed to do so. Marcos was able to do it because, as a dictator, he was the Constitution.
But even if it were constitutionally viable, it would be highly impractical. To set up the machinery for snap elections would take at least six months and cost several billion pesos. And then what? Will the winner serve only until May of 2010 when the Constitution calls for the next presidential elections?
May 2010 is just around the corner. Already the list of presidential wannabes is growing longer with the following mentioned as possible candidates: Vice President Noli De Castro, Senate President Manny Villar, Sen. Mar Roxas, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Sen. Richard Gordon, Sen. Loren Legarda, Sen. Antonio V. Trillanes IV, former Pres. Joseph Estrada, Metro Manila Gov. Bayani Fernando, Makati Mayor Jojo Binay, Quezon City Mayor Sonny Belmonte, Manila Mayor Fred Lim, billionaire industrialist Jaime Zobel, Jesus is Lord chief Brother Eddie Villanueva, and El Shaddai leader Mike Velarde. Who else, Jun Lozada?
Thanks for the suggestion, Arab News, but snap elections ain't it. Been there, done that.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Monday, March 10, 2008
In Crisis, a Primer from A to ZTE
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080305-122920/In-Crisis-a-Primer-from-A-to-ZTE
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : In Crisis, a Primer from A to ZTE
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 05, 2008
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) was considered a loyal ally of the United States until July of 2004 when she “caved in” to Iraqi hostage takers’ demands to withdraw the Philippine government’s 51 soldiers and police officers from Iraq a month early, in exchange for the release of the Filipino hostage Angelo De La Cruz.
In directing the Philippines to be the 5th country (after Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras) to withdraw from the US-led “Coalition of the Willing” in 2004, GMA incurred the wrath of the US government. It retaliated by reducing US military and economic aid and limiting loan assistance from US financial institutions.
Prior to that date, the Philippines had shown its loyalty to the US by rallying the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to deal as one bloc to push China out of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, where four ASEAN allies and China hold competing claims. The Philippines was hailed by the US for standing up to China when it successfully prodded ASEAN and China to sign a “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” to stop China’s growing military presence in the area.
After the US punished the Philippines by imposing de facto sanctions on and refusing any face-to-face meetings of GMA with President George Bush, the Philippines changed course.
As Barry Wain wrote recently in the Far Eastern Economic Review, “President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s hurried trip to China in late 2004 produced a major surprise. Among the raft of agreements ceremoniously signed by the two countries was one providing for their national oil companies to conduct a joint seismic study in the contentious South China Sea, a prospect that caused consternation in parts of Southeast Asia…The Philippines also made breathtaking concessions in agreeing to the area for study, including parts of its own continental shelf not even claimed by China.”
According to Philippine Star columnist Jarius Bondoc, “There might be a hint of the real reason there. For, soon after RP capitulated, China offered to lend $2 billion a year till 2010 for government projects. China wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of its heart, though. It was bursting at the seams with $2 trillion in reserves, and was to collect 4-percent interest, hardly concessional in a period of much lower rates. China was only too willing to look like it was accommodating a new ally.”
These generous Chinese loans may have helped the Philippines reach an unprecedented 7.3% growth in 2007, the highest in 30 years. But they laid the ground for the present crisis which may yet topple the Arroyo government.
In 2007 alone, the Philippines signed 33 new projects for financing by the China Export-Import Bank. One of the projects was the NBN-ZTE deal which the Philippine government signed in April of 2007, where Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), the Chinese telecommunications giant, was awarded a contract worth US$ 329.5 million to set up the National Broadband Network (NBN) to improve government communications capabilities nationwide.
On August 29, 2007, Rep. Carlos Padilla in a privileged speech in the Philippine House charged that Philippine COMELEC Chair Benjamin Abalos brokered for the ZTE deal. A week later, the Philippine Senate called for hearings on the ZTE-NBN deal.
On September 10, 2007, Joey De Venecia, son of Joe De Venecia, then Philippine Speaker of the House, testified before the Senate and claimed that he was with Abalos in China when he heard Abalos “demand money” from ZTE officials.
Although Joey De Venecia was barred by Philippine law as the son of a high official from participating in and obtaining Philippine government contracts, he nevertheless submitted a losing bid for the NBN project as president of Amsterdam Holdings. He told the Senate that the president’s husband, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, had counseled him to back off” from pursuing the project and offered to compensate him.
On September 22, 2007, GMA announced that she was suspending the ZTE-NBN contract. On September 26, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Chair Romulo Neri and COMELEC Chair Abalos appeared at a Senate hearing. There Neri claimed that in a golf game earlier in the year, Abalos offered him $4-M (P200-M) for signing off on the ZTE deal. Abalos denied the charge.
On October 1, 2007, Abalos resigned his post as COMELEC chair. On October 2, GMA traveled to China to tell Chinese President Hu Jintao of her “difficult decision” to cancel the ZTE contract for the NBN project.
On January 30, 2008, the Philippine Senate issued warrants of arrest for Neri and NEDA consultant Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, Jr. Neri went into hiding to avoid being served the warrant and Lozada flew to Hongkong. When he returned from Hong Kong On February 5, 2008, a Senate team was waiting to arrest him to take him to the Senate to testify on the ZTE-NBN deal. Before he could be served the warrant, however, he was whisked away by unidentified military personnel, only to be later dropped off under media pressure to join his family at La Salle Greenhills.
The day after his return, Lozada testified that Abalos and Mike Arroyo were behind the “kickbacks” in the deal, charging that they stood to make about $200-M from the $329.5-M contract. He said he warned them that the overcharge was too high and wouldn’t fly, but they ignored his warnings.
For allowing his son to testify against the GMA and the FG (First Gentleman), Speaker De Venecia would be voted out as Speaker of the House. On Friday, February 29, approximately 50,000 people gathered at the Ninoy Aquino monument in Makati in an Inter-Faith Rally that called for the resignation of GMA. The next day, Jose Maria Sison, leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), called for 100,000 Filipinos to gather in a street protest in Manila to unseat President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This should be enough, he said, “to ignite the withdrawal of support from the regime by the bureaucracy and the military."
That’s the A to Z of this saga, from Angelo De La Cruz to the ZTE telecom giant, all in less than four years.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080305-122920/In-Crisis-a-Primer-from-A-to-ZTE
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : In Crisis, a Primer from A to ZTE
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: March 05, 2008
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) was considered a loyal ally of the United States until July of 2004 when she “caved in” to Iraqi hostage takers’ demands to withdraw the Philippine government’s 51 soldiers and police officers from Iraq a month early, in exchange for the release of the Filipino hostage Angelo De La Cruz.
In directing the Philippines to be the 5th country (after Spain, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Honduras) to withdraw from the US-led “Coalition of the Willing” in 2004, GMA incurred the wrath of the US government. It retaliated by reducing US military and economic aid and limiting loan assistance from US financial institutions.
Prior to that date, the Philippines had shown its loyalty to the US by rallying the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to deal as one bloc to push China out of the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, where four ASEAN allies and China hold competing claims. The Philippines was hailed by the US for standing up to China when it successfully prodded ASEAN and China to sign a “Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea,” to stop China’s growing military presence in the area.
After the US punished the Philippines by imposing de facto sanctions on and refusing any face-to-face meetings of GMA with President George Bush, the Philippines changed course.
As Barry Wain wrote recently in the Far Eastern Economic Review, “President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s hurried trip to China in late 2004 produced a major surprise. Among the raft of agreements ceremoniously signed by the two countries was one providing for their national oil companies to conduct a joint seismic study in the contentious South China Sea, a prospect that caused consternation in parts of Southeast Asia…The Philippines also made breathtaking concessions in agreeing to the area for study, including parts of its own continental shelf not even claimed by China.”
According to Philippine Star columnist Jarius Bondoc, “There might be a hint of the real reason there. For, soon after RP capitulated, China offered to lend $2 billion a year till 2010 for government projects. China wasn’t doing it out of the goodness of its heart, though. It was bursting at the seams with $2 trillion in reserves, and was to collect 4-percent interest, hardly concessional in a period of much lower rates. China was only too willing to look like it was accommodating a new ally.”
These generous Chinese loans may have helped the Philippines reach an unprecedented 7.3% growth in 2007, the highest in 30 years. But they laid the ground for the present crisis which may yet topple the Arroyo government.
In 2007 alone, the Philippines signed 33 new projects for financing by the China Export-Import Bank. One of the projects was the NBN-ZTE deal which the Philippine government signed in April of 2007, where Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE), the Chinese telecommunications giant, was awarded a contract worth US$ 329.5 million to set up the National Broadband Network (NBN) to improve government communications capabilities nationwide.
On August 29, 2007, Rep. Carlos Padilla in a privileged speech in the Philippine House charged that Philippine COMELEC Chair Benjamin Abalos brokered for the ZTE deal. A week later, the Philippine Senate called for hearings on the ZTE-NBN deal.
On September 10, 2007, Joey De Venecia, son of Joe De Venecia, then Philippine Speaker of the House, testified before the Senate and claimed that he was with Abalos in China when he heard Abalos “demand money” from ZTE officials.
Although Joey De Venecia was barred by Philippine law as the son of a high official from participating in and obtaining Philippine government contracts, he nevertheless submitted a losing bid for the NBN project as president of Amsterdam Holdings. He told the Senate that the president’s husband, First Gentleman Mike Arroyo, had counseled him to back off” from pursuing the project and offered to compensate him.
On September 22, 2007, GMA announced that she was suspending the ZTE-NBN contract. On September 26, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Chair Romulo Neri and COMELEC Chair Abalos appeared at a Senate hearing. There Neri claimed that in a golf game earlier in the year, Abalos offered him $4-M (P200-M) for signing off on the ZTE deal. Abalos denied the charge.
On October 1, 2007, Abalos resigned his post as COMELEC chair. On October 2, GMA traveled to China to tell Chinese President Hu Jintao of her “difficult decision” to cancel the ZTE contract for the NBN project.
On January 30, 2008, the Philippine Senate issued warrants of arrest for Neri and NEDA consultant Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada, Jr. Neri went into hiding to avoid being served the warrant and Lozada flew to Hongkong. When he returned from Hong Kong On February 5, 2008, a Senate team was waiting to arrest him to take him to the Senate to testify on the ZTE-NBN deal. Before he could be served the warrant, however, he was whisked away by unidentified military personnel, only to be later dropped off under media pressure to join his family at La Salle Greenhills.
The day after his return, Lozada testified that Abalos and Mike Arroyo were behind the “kickbacks” in the deal, charging that they stood to make about $200-M from the $329.5-M contract. He said he warned them that the overcharge was too high and wouldn’t fly, but they ignored his warnings.
For allowing his son to testify against the GMA and the FG (First Gentleman), Speaker De Venecia would be voted out as Speaker of the House. On Friday, February 29, approximately 50,000 people gathered at the Ninoy Aquino monument in Makati in an Inter-Faith Rally that called for the resignation of GMA. The next day, Jose Maria Sison, leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), called for 100,000 Filipinos to gather in a street protest in Manila to unseat President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This should be enough, he said, “to ignite the withdrawal of support from the regime by the bureaucracy and the military."
That’s the A to Z of this saga, from Angelo De La Cruz to the ZTE telecom giant, all in less than four years.
Please send comments to _Rodel50@aol.com_ (mailto:Rodel50@aol.com) or log on to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Fatigue or indifference?
Mind Feeds / Mind Feeds
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080226-121292/Fatigue-or-indifference
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Fatigue or indifference?
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 26, 2008
Two months ago, I proposed to the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), which advocates for the Filipino WW II veterans, to direct each of its 12 regional chapters to sponsor local activities to mark the 62nd anniversary of the infamous Rescission Act of February 19, 1946.
The purpose: to highlight the law that stripped Filipino veterans of the USAFFE of their US military benefits and mobilize support for the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill pending in the US Congress. I also suggested that we distribute 500,000 armbands inscribed with “2/18/46 – Rescission Act” to supporters all over the US.
My proposal was tabled for future discussion. February 18, 2007 came and went with only a march-forum in Los Angeles and a wreath-laying ceremony in Washington DC to commemorate it. When I went to Washington DC two weeks ago to lobby the US Congress to support the bill, I wrote about my concern that the Filipino veterans were getting caught in the crosshairs of the anti-foreigner anti-immigrant sentiment of Republican lawmakers. Unlike columns on other subjects, I received no feedback from readers about this issue.
Was this an indication that the Filipino community has lost interest in the fight of our Filipino WW II veterans to regain the benefits denied them 62 years ago?
Was the level of interest in the community always a mile wide but only an inch deep? In other words, was the Filipino community leadership’s professed interest in the issue not actually shared by the Filipino community at large?
Is there a Filipino veterans "compassion fatigue" with the community somehow developing numbness to due to constant media stories on the plight of suffering Filipino WW II veterans?
These are questions our community should raise and grapple with. Honest answers to them should guide us in our campaign for the veterans.
It may be an indication not just of community-wide indifference to the veterans issue but simply of an indifference to all issues. For instance, this week marks the 22nd anniversary of People Power, perhaps the most shining moment in Philippine history, the spark that ignited similar People Power uprisings in South Korea, Taiwan and all of Eastern Europe. But there are no celebrations of this glorious moment anywhere in the Filipino community this week. Why?
Five months ago, the Filipino community expressed outrage at the veiled attack on Philippine-educated physicians in the premiere episode of “Desperate Housewives” on September 30, 2007. There were demonstrations, on-line petitions (signed by 150,000 people), a barrage of protest letters and e-mails to ABC and a national conference in Las Vegas in November to mobilize the community to demand a meaningful on-air apology from ABC.
But three months after the November conference, the issue has been forgotten. ABC dangled the carrot of a collaborative partnership with NaFFAA to accept Filipino interns into ABC, a carrot apparently sufficient to prompt NaFFAA to discourage any lawsuits or protest actions against the network.
With all the Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative, pro-GMA/anti-GMA divides in the Filipino community, it was believed that support for the Filipino WW II veterans was the one issue that all sides could agree on and rally behind.
But there are divisions even on this issue. There are supporters of the veterans who believe that the community should not compromise on full equity, that Filipino veterans in the Philippines should receive the same benefits as those in the US.
But even that formerly inflexible position has given way to support for the proposal of Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), chair of the House Veterans Committee, whose bill would provide $900 a month to the 6,000 US-based veterans, and $500 a month to Philippine-based veterans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this would amount to $1-B over 10 years or about $100-M a year.
There are those who believe that the veterans should get whatever they can get. As the ranks of the surviving veterans dwindle at an exponential rate, what good would it do them if the US Congress passes a bill giving all the veterans full equity several years from now and no one is left alive to receive it?
A group of aging veterans supports the Senate bill of Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, which would also provide $900 a month for US-based veterans and $375 a month for Philippine-based veterans with dependents, $300 for single veterans, and $200 for widows of veterans. The CBO believes this bill would amount to $365-M over 10 years.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) proposed a more modest bill that would also grant $900 a month to US-based veterans but only $100 a month to Philippine-based veterans. He withdrew this proposal on December 13, 2007 and currently backs the bill of Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) to totally eliminate benefits to Philippine-based veterans.
Divisions on this issue within the Filipino community discourage many of our supporters in the US Congress and provide a convenient cover to those unwilling to back the bill. (“If you guys can’t agree on what bill to support, why should we?”)
I strongly suggest that the Filipino community rally behind a veterans’ bill that can pass the US Congress. If even US Pres. George W. Bush has to regularly compromise with the US Congress now, why shouldn’t we?
The final paragraph of the 4-page letter to Sen. Craig written by the veterans advocate Gen. Delfin Lorenzana reads: “As we commemorate the Anniversary of the Rescission Act of 1946 on February 18, we pray that this 62-year old claim for recognition and benefits of these remaining gallant men and women who served America with utmost loyalty and devotion during WWII be finally granted.”
Prayers have been known to work wonders.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log in to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/view/20080226-121292/Fatigue-or-indifference
GLOBAL NETWORKING
Global Networking : Fatigue or indifference?
By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net
Posted date: February 26, 2008
Two months ago, I proposed to the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), which advocates for the Filipino WW II veterans, to direct each of its 12 regional chapters to sponsor local activities to mark the 62nd anniversary of the infamous Rescission Act of February 19, 1946.
The purpose: to highlight the law that stripped Filipino veterans of the USAFFE of their US military benefits and mobilize support for the Filipino Veterans Equity Bill pending in the US Congress. I also suggested that we distribute 500,000 armbands inscribed with “2/18/46 – Rescission Act” to supporters all over the US.
My proposal was tabled for future discussion. February 18, 2007 came and went with only a march-forum in Los Angeles and a wreath-laying ceremony in Washington DC to commemorate it. When I went to Washington DC two weeks ago to lobby the US Congress to support the bill, I wrote about my concern that the Filipino veterans were getting caught in the crosshairs of the anti-foreigner anti-immigrant sentiment of Republican lawmakers. Unlike columns on other subjects, I received no feedback from readers about this issue.
Was this an indication that the Filipino community has lost interest in the fight of our Filipino WW II veterans to regain the benefits denied them 62 years ago?
Was the level of interest in the community always a mile wide but only an inch deep? In other words, was the Filipino community leadership’s professed interest in the issue not actually shared by the Filipino community at large?
Is there a Filipino veterans "compassion fatigue" with the community somehow developing numbness to due to constant media stories on the plight of suffering Filipino WW II veterans?
These are questions our community should raise and grapple with. Honest answers to them should guide us in our campaign for the veterans.
It may be an indication not just of community-wide indifference to the veterans issue but simply of an indifference to all issues. For instance, this week marks the 22nd anniversary of People Power, perhaps the most shining moment in Philippine history, the spark that ignited similar People Power uprisings in South Korea, Taiwan and all of Eastern Europe. But there are no celebrations of this glorious moment anywhere in the Filipino community this week. Why?
Five months ago, the Filipino community expressed outrage at the veiled attack on Philippine-educated physicians in the premiere episode of “Desperate Housewives” on September 30, 2007. There were demonstrations, on-line petitions (signed by 150,000 people), a barrage of protest letters and e-mails to ABC and a national conference in Las Vegas in November to mobilize the community to demand a meaningful on-air apology from ABC.
But three months after the November conference, the issue has been forgotten. ABC dangled the carrot of a collaborative partnership with NaFFAA to accept Filipino interns into ABC, a carrot apparently sufficient to prompt NaFFAA to discourage any lawsuits or protest actions against the network.
With all the Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative, pro-GMA/anti-GMA divides in the Filipino community, it was believed that support for the Filipino WW II veterans was the one issue that all sides could agree on and rally behind.
But there are divisions even on this issue. There are supporters of the veterans who believe that the community should not compromise on full equity, that Filipino veterans in the Philippines should receive the same benefits as those in the US.
But even that formerly inflexible position has given way to support for the proposal of Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), chair of the House Veterans Committee, whose bill would provide $900 a month to the 6,000 US-based veterans, and $500 a month to Philippine-based veterans. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this would amount to $1-B over 10 years or about $100-M a year.
There are those who believe that the veterans should get whatever they can get. As the ranks of the surviving veterans dwindle at an exponential rate, what good would it do them if the US Congress passes a bill giving all the veterans full equity several years from now and no one is left alive to receive it?
A group of aging veterans supports the Senate bill of Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, which would also provide $900 a month for US-based veterans and $375 a month for Philippine-based veterans with dependents, $300 for single veterans, and $200 for widows of veterans. The CBO believes this bill would amount to $365-M over 10 years.
Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) proposed a more modest bill that would also grant $900 a month to US-based veterans but only $100 a month to Philippine-based veterans. He withdrew this proposal on December 13, 2007 and currently backs the bill of Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) to totally eliminate benefits to Philippine-based veterans.
Divisions on this issue within the Filipino community discourage many of our supporters in the US Congress and provide a convenient cover to those unwilling to back the bill. (“If you guys can’t agree on what bill to support, why should we?”)
I strongly suggest that the Filipino community rally behind a veterans’ bill that can pass the US Congress. If even US Pres. George W. Bush has to regularly compromise with the US Congress now, why shouldn’t we?
The final paragraph of the 4-page letter to Sen. Craig written by the veterans advocate Gen. Delfin Lorenzana reads: “As we commemorate the Anniversary of the Rescission Act of 1946 on February 18, we pray that this 62-year old claim for recognition and benefits of these remaining gallant men and women who served America with utmost loyalty and devotion during WWII be finally granted.”
Prayers have been known to work wonders.
Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com, log in to rodel50.blogspot.com or write to Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127, or call (415) 334-7800.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
