We, the sovereign Filipino People

I've been working on some stuff for school lately, and after running some errands today, the subject of conversation over dinner was the plenary debates ongoing in the House of Representatives regarding House Resolution 1109. I haven't seen the resolution myself, but was rather irritated at the level of brashness during the debate. Just as I was getting settled in front of my desk, hoping to finally get more work done, I had to deal with flood of status message updates from all over that could only mean one thing: The House had adopted the resolution.

My father and I spent a few minutes talking about what happens now. There are some questions that need answering: Is there a legal controversy that the courts can consider at this point in time (we agreed that there was none)? What do we make of the proponents' disagreement about whether or not both houses of Congress should vote separately (we agreed that the only way the Constituent Assembly could be put together legally was via separate vote)? What should the Senate do (we agreed that if the resolution is transmitted to it, it should do nothing, and if not, it should not sue unless the House takes further action)?

We then went on to the subject of what the possible constitutional amendments are. Aside from the alleged amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution, we agreed that the Constituent Assembly, assuming it's convened, can actually propose anything it wants (that's imprecise, of course, but sufficient). It can propose extensions to term limits, it can change the form of government, and it can include some of the more controversial amendments from the proposals that were the subject of the moves for peoples' initiative debunked by the Supreme Court in Lambino v. COMELEC, such as textually removing the Supreme Court's power to review grave abuses of discretion by people in power.

The statements made by the opposition talk about a tyranny of numbers, about gang-raping the Constitution, about this being a farce. Well, the statements are true. It's surprising how insensitive members of the House are to what polls say about distrust in government. Of course, they claim that they have the support of the people (which might make sense because the people in the House are elected officials). Sometimes, I wish that one of the majority representatives will actually just come clean and say that they don't really give a rat's ass about polls or public opinion. Someone ought to clarify what one of the President's allies meant when they asked "what are we in power for?" and put his or her foot down: We're in power to get what we want.

When it comes to honesty like that, of course, I won't bother waiting for any.

The subject of changing the Constitution seems to be a touchy one. Cory didn't seem to bother doing it (her term saw the adoption of a new one anyway). Ramos didn't push through with it. Erap, well, was ousted in an unconstitutional manner. which was affirmed in the intellectually-questionable "constructive resignation" ruling. And after almost 10 years in power, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's administration has seen at least two attempts to change the Constitution, with the latest being this one.

But I'm glad that the subject of Constitutional change is a touchy one. The Constitution matters--and that's not just lip service. It's not just a "super law." It's the fundamental law. It is where the buck stops, legally. And more importantly, it is a contract, of sorts, between you and me and every other Filipino on the planet. The Constitution begins with the following words: "We, the sovereign Filipino people." That means one thing: Everything it says is something that we, the people, believe is in line with the task of putting up a government that will embody our ideals and aspirations, that will allow us to build the society we want. That's why it's rather basic that anytime a new constitution is proposed, the final arbiter of its acceptance is the people, who express their will in a plebiscite.

This brings me to the reasoning of the House of Representatives. Some House members think that the provisions of the Constitution on the subject of amendment will allow Congress to turn into a Constituent Assembly through a simple majority vote of all the members of Congress, taken together. They simply mean that the Constituent Assembly can be convened if we simply count the number of votes cast, because the number of votes in the House will overwhelm any House opposition and even a unanimous vote of opposition by the Senate. They say this and make reference to the language of the Constitution itself. The language is poorly worded.

But as poor as the language is, it appears that the intent of the people who wrote the document, at least if you subscribe to the view of Fr. Bernas, is for each house of Congress voting separately. This actually makes a lot of sense: Congress is bicameral, and the structure is such so as to provide an additional check to the exercise of legislative power. And because Congress is bicameral, the House of Representatives cannot simply pass a law without going through the Senate. Now, if the House can't create ordinary legislation without the Senate, what makes these congressmen think that they can actually legally achieve constitutional change without the support of the Senate? It's pretty mind-boggling, to say the least. Until members of the House understand that this is not a simple process that can function like ordinary legislation, we're doomed to go through another political circus.

It appears to me that it is becoming a political tactic to bait the opposition into filing suits before the courts. Sure, the courts hem the exercise of power in through jurisprudence, and point out boundaries when confronted with such questions. But it also means that the Supreme Court might end up defining the parameters by which a morally depraved Congress will operate. That's why the Supreme Court has to be careful.

If my reading of the American experiences is correct, the Supreme Court faces some political issues if it's forced to rule against the majority of the House. This is because the Court, in effect, is taking a legal position that seems to be contrary to the will of the people as expressed by their representatives. This is why the whole business of declaring things unconstitutional is such a big deal in the US. But what does it mean for us here, now?

I think that the Supreme Court should rule against any move by the House to convene the assembly without the Senate, even if the house votes unanimously. While legally, this can be discussed in somewhat clearer terms, as a matter of policy, it also makes sense. The whole idea of our constitutional setup, as agreed upon by us, the sovereign Filipino people, was to quell tyranny. And that means quelling even the tyranny of a congressional majority. In terms of being related to the aspirations of those in power like the President, even if the measure of the House has the support of the President, who is the principal actor, it seems, in Philippine politics, the Court should not hesitate to strike down anything illegal.

And a bit must be said about this particular bit of policy: Professors Levinson and Pildes, in one of my favorite HLR articles, argue that the Supreme Court should take a very restrictive stance in times when it appears that government is "united," that is, when the people in the executive and in the legislature are politically aligned. It makes sense in the context of quelling tyranny, because that will mean government cannot run roughshod over the people who might have made mistakes about whom they put into power, and over minorities who did not want those people in power in the first place.

We, the sovereign Filipino people, dislike the idea of tyranny, be it a tyranny of one or a tyranny of the numbers. And in the worst case, should the politicians succeed and begin the gang-rape of the Constitution, we can put a stop to it. We, the sovereign Filipino people, can muster and manifest our opposition by the millions. The machinery for achieving that, of course, is another story altogether.

[Read more]

The assault on reason

No, this post is not me paying homage to Al Gore's book (and I sincerely apologize to Mr. Gore and to any of his fans who might think that I am doing so improperly). This is a reaction to a series of e-mails I received, quoting blog posts and an article by Robin Hemley that goes by the title "The Great Book Blockade of 2009" (click here to read it) . I received those e-mails when I was checking my mail, after several days of working on my thesis. Stuff like this will screw it up.

When I was much younger, I once pissed my mom off so much that she decided to punish me. And perhaps because spanking wasn't effective, or yelling at me wasn't effective (both remain ineffective means of rebuking me for misconduct), my mom resorted to something worse: Aside from grounding me, she locked my books away, leaving only schoolbooks. I was forbidden to read anything else. And because I was not in the mood to read my schoolbooks (having perfected the exercises and having understood and mastered the lessons already), I was quite naturally, bored out of my wits. That was pretty agonizing. She only relented when she found me spending quite a lot of time in front of the fridge or in the bathroom or in the pantry, reading the packaging of stuff I found there. That was how I broke free: I learned the ingredients in ketchup, the contents of shampoo, the directions for making gravy using Campbell's cream of mushroom soup, the sources of cooking oil, and how much bacteria our bathroom soap eliminated. It was useless information (which I am full of, even until today), but it wasn't schoolwork.

But the point was quite clear: I love to read. And now, in law school, I am perhaps going through a twisted recap of that particular method of punishment.

Anyway, apparently, for the months of January until March this year, few, if any imported books made it to the Philippines because imported books are now being subjected to customs duties. As it turns out, the books in the Twilight series were such a hit here that a Customs official took notice, and asked the importer to pay duties. The importer did, if only to avoid any undesirable entanglement with Customs, an act which has been decried as "a mistake." And because the importer caved, the Bureau of Customs has gone all the way and now mandates duties on books, and even put the squeeze on the importation of books by air back in January until March.

Much of this has turned on a government official's interpretation of the law. The basic principles for interpreting a law are: (1) laws are not to be interpreted in such a way as to lead to an absurdity; and (2) as much as possible, all the provisions of the law should be interpreted in a harmonious way, such that all provisions are given effect. These principles do not even seem to demand an "intelligent" interpretation of the law, just a reasonable one.

In my opinion, the interpretation offered by the government officials concerned, such as Undersecretary Sales, is unreasonable, absurd, and pretty stupid to a large degree. It also seems to run contrary to the otherwise clear language of other laws and of the Florence Agreement that we ratified in 1952, and is also absurd in the context of, if not downright contrary to, a BIR opinion issued in September last year. I will not even bother getting into the matter of how the government plans to determine what books ought to be subjected to the imposition of duties. That won't even be absurd, it just might be grotesque.

The reactions abound. Manolo Quezon, Jessica Zafra, and several others have blogged about this (this is how I found out about this thing in the first place). I suggest reading them (they're not imported books, you won't be taxed) and thinking about what this means.

Last I checked, it was public policy to encourage the development of an enlightened citizenry. At least, that's what I think the provisions in the Constitution mean to say, for example. I think that was also the point of the treaties and legislation. Public policy seems to abhor a situation where people end up being unenlightened or stupid.

So what the hell is this supposed to be, then? It's obviously a manifestation of corruption. But more than that, it's a manifestation of the attitude of our so-called public servants, aside from their own intelligence when it comes to interpreting, applying, and pushing public policy forward. It's a clear manifestation of a recession in terms of morals and mores and of intellectual pursuits. It is a clear manifestation of what is probably an assault on reason.

Some of the reactions basically state, rather humorously, that this is government cracking down on citizens who want to be enlightened. This is supposedly because an enlightened citizenry might begin to question government. The thoughts of citizens might be seen as a threat to the interests of those in power.

Okay, so that might really just be some sort of dark humor, or this thing being blown out of proportion. But responding to the assault on reason will require people to be more proactive about things like this, which means people will have to read. It might also mean that we have to encourage the development of local materials; we really need a boom in terms of research, scholarship, and expression, right?

Central to responding to an assault on reason is recognizing the changes in our own attitude as consumers, and how we will need to grow up even as advancements in technology happen and change the way we do things. More and more, we have to encourage people to read and keep reading. Media such as TV and the internet don't really cut it (there's a reason why the TV's called the idiot box), and the internet, even with things like Wikipedia, still does not encourage learning the way a book might. Of course, one might argue that the internet's changed the game and will change pedagogy. I agree. The point isn't about ditching the internet and sticking to books. The point is to read, which means both stuff on the internet and books, together.

Please, read more about what's happened. Please, read more. Please read.

After that, we can talk about thinking, and then action.

[Read more]

Refresh, summer 2009

After quite some time of silence on the blogosphere, I'm finally back writing. I've decided to give my blog a little facelift, since the design was getting a bit old, as much as I liked it.

Some readers have been asking what I've been up to. I just got back to Manila about a week ago, after a month or so that saw me participate in the 2009 Jessup international rounds, run around a few cities, watch a few gigs, buy a bit of music, soak up some R&R in the mountains, and park my ass on a couch flipping through channels while both trying to catch up on my reading and writing a few papers. It's been pretty difficult battling those fits of laziness and total lack of productivity. After I got back, it's been pretty hectic, with work due, reading to be finished, tests to prepare for, and work on my JD thesis. Short-term karma's a bitch, but it's a price I gladly pay for the break I got.

Jessup was amazing, and I'm glad to have met all the people I did. Preparing for Jessup was long and difficult, and quite often, it wasn't even fun, but making it to Washington and being in an environment that was as exciting as what I saw made all that work worth it. More than the destination, the trip was special; it's been humbling and gratifying, and an incredible learning experience. I'm also quite happy that I met people who, at least hopefully, will buy me a drink if I find myself lucky enough to wander into their part of the world. Jessup's amazing, and everybody who can take a shot at it should. (The new header image of the blog was taken by Marck Macaraeg, one of our team administrators. This was a shot of me going over reference materials which I was trying to plug into my presentation.)

Of course, the sidetrips were also good for me. Getting away from Metro Manila and being thrust into places where I hardly know anyone, where I can fully realize how small (albeit rich) one's perspective can be if one just stays in one place, always helps me find my footing, see the bigger picture, and make out how things can be. I'm lucky to get breaks like this, which are a large-scale version of the running I like to do around in more familiar places. It helps me think. Being in the US for the spring cut me off from a lot of activity that happened with friends in Manila, who were all off to the beach or to some other thing while I was in crisp spring weather (I enjoy cold weather more than hot balmy weather, except if there's a beach involved).

It was also wonderful to run into old friends, mentors, and family, to share stories and experiences and good times. I'll probably talk about these things in future posts. There's work to be done for now.

[Read more]

Tuvok, 13 Feb 2009

I found out when I got home a few hours ago that one of my dogs, my dog of dogs, Tuvok, the mangy mutt, died yesterday. I got him when he was 2 or 3 months old, in November 2002. I hope he's happy. And it's a tragedy for Chai, who won't have him around during Valentine's day.

[Read more]

MMDA kills trees along Katipunan

On my way home tonight, I noticed that there were all sorts of MMDA vehicles along the southbound lane of Katipunan Avenue in Loyola Heights. Thinking that there might have been some sort of accident, I hit the southbound lane to see if I could drive by and satisfy my curiosity. What I saw wasn't an accident. It was more akin to murder. The MMDA was removing the trees along the southbound lane of Katipunan. The vehicles I saw were machines designed to cut up and transport the fallen tree trunks.

You might have gathered that last bit from the title of this post. And I may be entirely wrong about the fact of killing. After all, sometimes trees can be uprooted and moved somewhere else. But I don't know how that might explain broken tree branches and trunks strewn all over the street, being collected by the machines.

The MMDA's traffic schemes are supposedly meant to improve both Katipunan's traffic and overall traffic in the metropolis (Katipunan's supposed to be a major road). Traffic did improve, years ago, when they implemented the U-turn scheme that they did. Since then, traffic along Katipunan has never been really, really bad, except when it floods. Of course, to implement their little scheme then, which came along with projects for widening Katipunan, they had to destroy lots of the trees. And some people attribute the fact that Katipunan actually experiences floods now to the fact that there are less trees along the road.

But I wonder if the matter of killing trees and removing the small inner lane was really a necessary exercise. Again, traffic isn't really bad anymore. I do know, however, that feelings have been less than dandy between the MMDA (especially the insufferable Bayani Fernando) and residents of the area, who like the fact that Katipunan has trees. I also do not know if there have been proper consultations regarding this latest act of the MMDA. And like many of the other strange things that they've done, they did the tree-killing at night, very late at night, presumably to avoid scrutiny from members of the community. This is very much like the other things that they've at least been accused of doing, like destroying or vandalizing billboards and advertisements along major thoroughfares. Incidentally, to my knowledge, they've been sued and ruled against. But like cockroaches, the MMDA persists in doing what it does.

Suing Fernando and the MMDA won't bring the trees back. If they're dead, they're dead. They'll never come back. We'll have to plant new ones. Where is anybody's answer.

I don't know if the MMDA realizes that the trees have been part of the heritage of Loyola Heights. The trees are older than most people who live in the area, and have long been part of the relaxed urban and residential landscape that makes Loyola Heights such a special place.

Of course, we don't expect the MMDA to care about heritage. If they don't really care about ruining the appearance of the metropolis with their terribly indiscriminate use of pink-and-blue paint, internationally non-compliant pink road signs and markers, and those tarpaulins bearing Fernando's likeness (that's vandalism, if anything), don't expect them to care about trees and things that are actually good for the environment, and don't expect them to care about history. It's one of the tragedies characteristic of government, I think.

I can imagine that the MMDA's excuse is that it's just working to improve traffic conditions and to help "beautify"(in reality, ruin) the appearance of the city, and that the interests of the people of Loyola Heights must yield to greater concerns. We don't even know if the "greater concerns" exist, or if they warrant the MMDA's methodology. And I'd like to think that there's a process of consultation that must be complied with.

Bayani Fernando, if you're reading this, I hope you understand that the terrible things that you've done will come back to haunt you. And please, spare us all the agony of having to bear with you running for President in 2010. You will not win. You won't even be close to winning. Metro Manila will make sure of that.


UPDATE:

I may have not gotten all of my facts straight. I read in today's edition of the Inquirer that the MMDA claims that there's been a decision to resolve an earlier case for a preliminary injunction to stop them from removing the trees along Katipunan. Apparently, the petition was denied. I don't think the case was resolved definitively though.

But then again, that's the MMDA. They like pouncing on little breaks that they get (they pounce even when they have no breaks, so this is actually marginally better than their typical behavior). They also claim that they didn't really kill the trees, that they just balled them and prepped them for transport. Wasn't there some discussion a few years ago about how intensive their root systems are? If they aren't dead, but these trees depend on root systems like that then the probability that they die seems pretty high.

[Read more]

Song Survey #10

It's the end of the year, and I haven't posted any playlists lately. I realized that I was on my 10th, and wanted it to be a bit special. So here's a pretty ambitious one: I tried to look for the 10 best songs of the past 10 years. I ended up with a list of what I think are some of the 24 best songs of the past 24 years (since 1984).


1. “There is a Light That Never Goes Out” by The Smiths (1986)
2. “With Or Without You” by U2 (1987)
3. “Smells Like Teen Spirit” by Nirvana (1991)
4. “A Letter to Elise” by The Cure (1992)
5. “Linger” by The Cranberries (1993)
6. “Only Wanna Be With You” by Hootie and the Blowfish (1994)
7. “1979” by the Smashing Pumpkins (1995)
8. “You Were Meant for Me” by Jewel (1995)
9. “Follow You Down” by Gin Blossoms (1996)
10. “People of the Sun” by Rage Against the Machine (1996)
11. “Crash Into Me” by Dave Matthews Band (1996)
12. “Everlong” by the Foo Fighters (1997)
13. “Breakdown” by Mariah Carey feat. Bone Thugs-N-Harmony (1997)
14. “Doo Wop (That Thing)” by Lauryn Hill (1998)
15. “Everybody Here Wants You” by Jeff Buckley (1998)
16. “At the Stars” by Better than Ezra (1999)
17. “Once Around the Block” by Badly Drawn Boy (2000)
18. “The Scientist” by Coldplay (2001)
19. “3 Libras” by A Perfect Circle (2001)
20. “Let It Die” by Feist (2004)
21. “7/4 Shoreline” by Broken Social Scene (2005)
22. “Stoned in Love” by Chicane, feat. Tom Jones (2006)
23. “Jigsaw Falling Into Place” by Radiohead (2007)
24. “Walking on a Dream” by Empire of the Sun (2008)

It's a pretty representative and reasonably eclectic selection, I think, although the way the list came together really forced me to leave out music that I could have otherwise put in (I'm sure stuff from, say, Oasis, The Prodigy, 112, 2Pac, and Incubus should be there somewhere, for example. ). Of course, I had trouble even figuring out how to classify the songs on the list. So this is what I have, for now.

So you can listen to them, here's a thing from imeem (note that some of the that some of the tracks aren't complete) :

Song Survey #10

I'd like to thank everyone who took time out to help me put this list together, especially: Pochi, Saul, Billy, Julian, Nix, Alan, Anne, Adrian, Mika, Jill, and everybody else who might have forgotten.

Pochi's list (via e-mail):

"1. The District Sleeps Alone Tonight - The Postal Service
1. Everlong - The Foo Fighters
1. Why - Annie Lennox
1. The Scientist - Coldplay
1. Once Around the Block - Badly Drawn Boy
1. I Can't Tell You Why - The Eagles
1. Communication - The Cardigans
1. Head Over Heels - Tears for Fears
1. Homebase - Dzihan & Kamien
1. What Sarah Said - Death Cab for Cutie
1. Cayman Islands - Kings of Convenience
1. Mayonnaise - The Smashing Pumpkins
1. A Letter to Elise - The Cure
1. The Trapeze Swinger - Iron & Wine
1. Hallelujah - Jeff Buckley
1. Run - Snow Patrol
1. 9 Crimes - Damien Rice
1. Orange Sky - Alexi Murdoch
1. Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own - U2
1. Call and Answer - The Barenaked Ladies
1. Fire Eye'd Boy - Broken Social Scene
1. Boats and Birds - Gregory and the Hawk
1. Summer Romance (Anti-Gravity Love Song) - Incubus
1. Maps - The Yeah Yeah Yeahs"


Saul's list (via Yahoo):

"1. 1963 - new order
2. never is a promise -- fiona apple
3. fill me in -- craig david
4. there is a light that never goes out -- the smiths
5. nothing compares 2 u -- prince and the new revolution
6. breakdown -- mariah carey feat. bonethugs-n-harmony
7. huwag mo nang itanong -- eraserheads
8. you were meant for me -- jewel
9. 1979 -- smashing pumpkins
10. eulogy -- tool
11. hide and seek -- imogen heap
12. low sun -- chicane
13. 7/4 shoreline -- broken social scene
14. luha OR halik -- aegis (DAMN STRAIGHT, NIGGA!)
15. when one eight becomes two zeros -- glassjaw
16. deep love -- mandalay
17. ill be over you -- toto
18. interstate love song -- stone temple pilots
19. when your soul sings -- massive attack
20. 3 libras -- a perfect circle
21. digital bath -- deftones
22. where is my mind -- the pixies
23. this guy's in love with you -- faith no more
24. di mo lang alam -- indio i

in no discriminate order whatsoever, and with songs my itunes currently has. haha."


Billy's list (via e-mail):

"wake up - arcade fire
digital love - daft punk
three libras - APC
float on - modest mouse
once around the block - badly drawn boy
a lack of color - death cab for cutie
never is a promise - fiona apple
heartbeats - jose gonzalez
so here we are - bloc party
7/4 (shoreline) – BSS"


Julian's list (via Yahoo):

"Shiny Happy People By REM
Madonna (Either This Used To Be My Playground, I'll Remember, or Holiday)
Smooth Criminal
Step by Step, New Kids on the Block
I Never Loved You Anyway by the Corrs
One Week by Barenaked Ladies
Something's Always Wrong by Toad the Wet
Found Out About You by Gin Blossoms
Wishful Thinking By Duncan Sheik
Big Me by Foo Fighters
Supersonic by Oasis
Chemistry by Semisonic
Shimmer by Fuel
Changes (Tony Kenyon Mix) by 2pac vs Bruce Hornsby
Boys of Summer by Don Henley
move your feet by junior senior
upside down by jack johnson
regret by new order
ren by moonpools and caterpillars
time after time by INOJ
rock dj by robbie williams
the remedy by jason mraz
stars by the cranberries
consequence free by great big sea
winter by joshua radin"


Anne's list (via FB):

"1. Shiver by Coldplay
2. Linger by Cranberries
3. With or Without You- U2
4. All I want is you -u2
5. Crazy- Aerosmith
6. My Girl
7. #41 by Dave Matthews
8. Are You In? by Incubus
9. Always be my baby by Mariah/ David Cook
10. Let's Stay Together- Al Green"


Alan's list (via FB):

"1. you only get what you give--the new radicals
2. feel good, inc.--gorillaz
3. crazy--gnarls barkley
4. times like these--foo fighters
5. damaged--TLC
6. maroon 5--this love

and...

stupid love—salbakuta"




I wonder what these song say about us. All I know is that these choices aren't static. They can probably change. And they probably will.



If you want to add to the songs, post a comment.

[Read more]

Quibbles, qualms, and intellectual dishonesty

Migoy sent me an e-mail earlier this evening, containing two editorials by The Varsitarian, the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas. The first editorial was about the 2008 THE-QS rankings, which I wrote about a few days after the rankings were released. The second was about the position taken by some faculty members at the Ateneo regarding the Reproductive Health Bill.

I've spoken to a few people and have given quick reactions. But I'd like to to share the salient points, even if it does come off as me sounding like an Ateneo apologist. I am, admittedly, and quite obviously, a hardcore Ateneo fan, but I'd like to think that I can be pretty reasonable, especially when it comes to things like this.

(This is a long post, by the way.)

In very general terms, my main gripe with both editorials is this: Both of them share a similar theme calling for some "intellectual honesty." But in my own opinion, the authors of the editorials have failed to comply with the standard they have set for themselves.

On "Dazed and confused-at 500"

I found this reaction to the THE-QS results pretty interesting, mainly because it was the angriest one I've seen from any of the Philippine schools evaluated by the survey. UP's position has been pretty calm and clear: They did not participate in the rankings. La Salle's school paper has an even "cooler" reaction: The rankings are "no big deal," even if La Salle did make a lot of noise when it reacted to the rankings with jubilation, fanfare, advertisements, and brochures in 2006. The Ateneo didn't publish an official position unlike in 2006 and 2007, but was kind enough to publish the reaction I wrote (I do not know if that means we can take that as the de facto position of the Ateneo, though).

But this Varsitarian editorial was something else. Drawing on statements made by university officials, it makes the case that the rankings are problematic, if not flat-out wrong, and made the assertion that the best schools in the Philippines are UP and UST, not the Ateneo and UP. Their basis? Performance measures in government-mandated licensing examinations conducted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), as well as their own analysis of the survey. That much, I can accept. But what caused me to nearly spill my coffee all over my desk was the way the editorial was crafted.

They began with a disclaimer: "This is not to disparage Ateneo..." and then proceeded to bash the Ateneo while make a case for UST. That's performative contradiction. That's dishonest.

They then go on to characterize the Ateneo as "an institution that’s barely an expanded liberal arts college and with only a smattering (sic) of degree programs tested by state licensure exams." Okay, two points.

First, an expanded liberal arts college? Last I checked, most major institutions of learning not just in the Philippines but on Earth are "expanded liberal arts colleges." I'm no educational historian, but last I checked, most of the models of Western education draw heavily from an expansion of the original liberal arts disciplines. Harvard therefore is an incredibly expanded liberal arts college. So is Yale. And Oxford and Cambridge, even if they are of the tradition of the guilds coming together as universitas all crafted some sort of liberal arts program (the "Trivium" and "Quadrivium" of medieval universities) which has been expanded into what they are today. So are a whole lot of schools in the list, including the Ateneo, including UST.

So were they saying that we're really just a tiny school with a tiny milieu? Then that means the editorial's authors have failed to appreciate the fact that our approaches to education differ greatly, at least in how we craft our program offerings. And they have likewise failed to account for the fact that we are small by design, because of what we want to emphasize and because of what our declared vision and mission are. Incidentally, expanded liberal arts college Yale University is even smaller than the Ateneo in terms of undergraduate enrollment, but it's way up there.

Is it because we do not have a lot of programs tested by the PRC with some sort of post-graduation exam? Then I wonder what they think about Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, UChicago, Duke, Louvain, and all those other schools with a "smattering" (sic) of programs that are tested by some sort of PRC. And I have been pretty adamant about this whenever this topic gets brought up: Why do we place so much emphasis on "performance" (in the sense of getting the ridiculously important #1 test-taker spot) as regards such exams? Performance in licensing exams is hardly the best measure of "academic excellence," much less "comparable" academic excellence. This is probably the very simple reason why no international league table uses them as a measure.

Then they bring up centers of excellence. The number of centers of excellence/development is an unreliable benchmark. This is because some schools offer more programs than others. And this also depends on the approach each institution takes as regards the development of particular programs. The Ateneo, for example, has been pretty adamant about not offering an Accountancy program, mainly because of its emphasis on organizational leadership rather than line-level work such as accountancy (this is with all due respect to accountants, of course, although any Ateneo management major will tell you that they go through hell with 9 units of accounting and at least 3 more of finance). What these measure, rather, is the quality of individual programs as compared to other programs of the same kind. Therefore, when we say that the Ateneo is a Center of Excellence in terms of Business Administration and Entrepreneurship, it means that it satisfies the rigid criteria for "excellence" in the field vis-a-vis other business administration or entrepreneurship programs. When we say that the Ateneo is a center of excellence in Philosophy, it means that among all those schools that offer Philosophy as a program, the Ateneo has (one of?) the best.

On their quip about national artists and scientists: First, yes, this speaks about the quality of a particular school's alumni or alumnae, but this does not necessarily say anything about the quality of academic programs offered at present, especially with regard to the criteria evaluated by a particular survey. Second, among these national artists and scientists, can we really, truly, and without doubt say that their excellence is the "fault" of their matriculating in a particular school, or are they simply brilliant on their own?

Then they go on to bash the Ateneo as an institution only affordable by the wealthy, hence the good student-faculty ratio. They have not even bothered to do research as regards individual scholarship programs offered by the four THE-QS-ranked schools (and might have found that close to one in five Ateneo students is receiving some sort of financial aid).

After that, they go into some rant about who would want to study in the third world. Um, first of all, the people who actually LIVE in the third world and have no choice but to actually study here? There are also those people who want to be exposed to the perspectives of our poor little third world!

But wait, there's more! They also rant about competing with Harvard. The thing is, the question is not about competing with Harvard. Competing with Harvard, if even imagined, is something that is going to be very difficult, simply because Harvard works very hard, regardless of the rankings, to maintain its preeminence. For one, it continually works to make sure that it has the financial wherewithal to run its programs and to do what it wants to do (it has an endowment of $36.9 billion), while allowing access to those who cannot ordinarily afford to spend $40,000++ a year on tuition. The size of Harvard is also another thing that allows it to simply churn out research with impunity (its college is roughly the size of the Ateneo's, but it does have around 13,500 graduate students, in addition to thousands of faculty members) and do work with impunity. But then again, size doesn't matter: Remember Yale.

And who the hell says Harvard's perfect? Harvard isn't even the top choice of many, many, many Americans, all of whom would be far happier matriculating at either Yale, Stanford, Dartmouth, or NYU. Many Harvard students, as reported in the US News magazine a year or so ago, find that Harvard can be a very impersonal place for a student, saying that some faculty are more interested in doing research than teaching. Or consider the fact that other schools have a far more "rock-star" faculty roster: The University of Chicago, for example, has, if I remember correctly, the most number of Nobel Laureates teaching in the faculty (it also once counted Hannah Arendt, T.S. Eliot, and some other school-of-thought defining names among its faculty, as well as the next leader of the free world, Barack Obama).

I don't mind the Varsitarian taking up the cudgels for UST. Or for wanting to boost morale.

But as a paper that actually thinks it is one of the best school papers around, it has certainly failed to engage in the journalistic practice of seeking balance. The greatest failure of this editorial is that it is extremely myopic, and that it failed to account for the official positions taken by the school it bashed. The greatest failure of the authors is that they have failed to do their homework in order to examine their agenda properly. But then again, I don't think that's measured in board exams.


On "Dishonest, mediocre, anti-poor"

This editorial was bashing right from the start. Allow me to quote the entire first paragraph in full:

"BY ISSUING a statement supporting the population-control bill, Reproductive Health (RH) Bill 5043, the 14 faculty members of the other Catholic university—Ateneo de Manila– betray the canker that may eat into any Catholic institution that, while inherently holy, has tendencies toward evil. Star Wars calls it the Dark Side, St. Thomas Aquinas calls it concupiscence. We simply call it intellectual dishonesty."

Excuse me? By issuing an honest, intellectual position, presumably done with some contemplation of their own faith, these people suddenly "betray...tendecies toward evil"?

The Varsitarian's set-up is as follows: "Since they teach in a Catholic institution, the 14 should either have the readiness to defend the Catholic position or at least have the sensitivity to refrain from doing something that would divide the Church. But not only do these self-proclaimed Catholic educators break away from the Catholic position and urge Catholics to do so: they twist Catholic teachings to suit their self-serving position."

Three points: First, last I checked, even Catholic institutions of higher learning have historically encouraged some form of intellectual exchange and debate, all in the spirit of what is called "academic freedom" or some form of enlightened inquiry. Second, I have always assumed that even if one teaches in a Catholic school, or any religious institution, he or she is still free to give his or her two cents on a matter of controversy, even if he or she is reasonably expected to "tow the line" when it comes to certain things. Third, I do not think the Varsitarian understands that the position of these faculty members is NOT the Ateneo's official position, which, according to University President Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, S.J., is in line with the position of the Church hierarchy (I disagree with it to an extent, but I will concede and respect that position).

Before I continue, a "disclaimer:" I am not a model Catholic. I do not attend Mass regularly. I disagree with many men of the cloth, and have had no qualms talking about my disagreements with them. Oh, and I am a sinner—whatever God you and I believe in knows this very well. But that said, let me offer in my defense the following: I will be the first to admit that I have yet to come to terms with my faith, even if I can very easily parrot the Catechism of the Church with fanfare and aplomb (and except for the few snags in my Theology classes, I've gotten very good grades in all of my religion-related classes ever since I can remember). I also respect priests, pastors, preachers, and religious people—and I believe that talking to them is worth my time even if I do not agree with them and even if I know that I am smart enough to even poke fun at them from time to time. And I am not proud of the wrong things I've done, and I am even less cheery about the fact that I know that I have not made reparations for all of them, and that I probably never will. Heaven and karma know that I have, in one way or another, been trying to become a better person. And I will be the first to admit that I probably have to go to church more.

That said, I was pretty interested when the first news of this new reproductive health bill came out, mainly because I felt that there could be some pretty interesting debate about that. Debate. Exchange. To use a Jesuit catchphrase, "discernment." And I welcomed the position taken by those faculty members because I found it remarkable that teachers in a Catholic school were putting up a rather direct challenge to official Catholic positions. Positions which, if I am correct, are the subject of constant discussion, even within the Church itself, especially since many Catholics want to live with a "thinking" faith.

I hope to high heavens that doesn't mean I'm "evil," or that I betray some sort of evil tendencies. Of course, the sarcastic or self-righteous will quote the Genesis passage about eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and how that led to our banishment from Eden.

I will not argue with the "extensive" list of citations (however self-serving) made by the Varsitarian's editors in order to justify their Ateneo and Ateneo-professor-bashing position. Nor will I engage them on the level of what may very well be their own "intellectual mediocrity." I will, however, hazard an opinion and say that: First, I think that the Philippines is too populated for its own good, especially in the urban sprawl of Metro Manila, and that this population problem contributes to the inaccessibility to or inability or lack of adequate health services, and that the population problem is a contributing factor to the very real state of poverty. Second, I do not think that we can sustain the current trajectory of population growth, based on whatever model we choose, because I do not foresee any change in living conditions in this country that can keep up with our population growth. Third, I do think that there is some sort of validity to the assertion that our population growth is not sustainable in a manner that promotes balance with our already fragile environment and resources situation—the more our population grows, the bigger our "footprint," the more taxed our resources, the less are available for distribution.

Okay. I hope that doesn't mean I'm evil yet.

On the point on the centrality of the human person, the Varsitarian makes the assertion that the RH bill seems to treat the unborn like a disease that must be checked. I agree that the unborn should not be treated that way. But I do wish that the Varsitarian's editors gave a bit more thought to what the bill means for the living. Contrary to their assertion that the bill allows government to "compel" people to purchase contraceptives or to engage in some form of state-regulated population control measure that "compels" them to have two children per couple. The text of the bill is crystal clear: No passage demands purchase of contraceptives, but merely making them available. And the "ideal family size" of two children per couple is, very clearly stated in Sec. 16, "neither mandatory nor compulsory." It is merely "encouraged." Before engaging in hysterics or parroting some official UST position, the Varsitarian editors should have read the bill properly. And if they doubted their ability to interpret its provisions, I'm sure that there would have been many lawyers in UST's esteemed Faculty of Civil Law that could have shared an insight or two as regards proper statutory construction. Their failure to do so, whether deliberate or not, seen in the context of their going trigger-happy when it comes to bashing, is utterly telling.

What the bill offers is choice. What sort of choice? The bill offers presumably mature adults choices as regards what sort of family-planning methods they may consider appropriate given their socio-economic circumstances. And it offers solutions and alternatives to families that are sensitive to the fact that people make mistakes, that scared women may want abortions, and that people may want to be more educated about what they can do. The bill makes sex education mandatory. I do not see how that can be wrong, or how it necessarily follows that kids who know a bit more about the birds and bees will want to make honey. On the other hand, I think that mandatory sex education is a good thing, because it provides an opportunity to come to terms, at least academically, with sex. Sex is not an evil thing, and being educated about it, about the issues attached to it, and the responsibilities that can arise because of it, is not a bad thing. In that regard, the bill cannot be said to be evil or against the unborn, because it allows for the strengthening of the living. The bill has no pretensions about protecting the living from life.

The bill is far from perfect, of course. And I am not certain if the policies can be implemented properly, or if the cost—quoted by the Varsitarian at Php1.2 billion—is something that we can spare. I agree that there is a need for government to address the health care situation in the Philippines and allocate funds properly and not merely push money towards more condoms or diaphragms or pills. I would think, of course, that this bill is one solution among others, and that it is not intended to operate alone. The fact that this matter is seriously being considered by government can be seen, if only to be optimistic, as some sort of positive action by government to address a social problem. Government isn't perfect—you can read my other blog posts and see that I agree with that point very much—but at least it is willing to consider doing something here.

Of course, that's my opinion, which I hope is not evil.

I understand that the Church has its official positions. And I understand that it has a duty to engage society, especially when it comes to matters of faith and morals, and that these matters are intrinsically tied up with actual living conditions. That's a good thing. But I do not think it is the Church's place to make impositions. Nor do I think the Church or its people can say that they are doing their job properly if they simply take a hard line stance on this matter without being willing to engage in meaningful discussion. This is why I welcome the opinion of some religious leaders to actually talk about this, or to propose alternative pieces of legislation. And I seriously do not think it is within the competence of the Church's hierarchy to determine, without bias, appropriate forms of social policy. But I do appreciate the fact that it is the Church's competence to at least tell us what the Christian faith says

I also understand that the Church is largely acting on matters of faith and doctrine. I will not be one to say doctrine is flat-out wrong, because I am certain that it comes from a good place and is also the product of the conscience of Church leaders, graced by God and His Spirit. However, even as a Christian, I will not be so irresponsible to simply take what the Church says as gospel truth without doing myself or my faith the proper service of thinking.

A strict, regimented, and unthinking subscription to doctrine has never been the point of any faith. Salvation is. Evangelization is. The point of the Christian faith can be summed up in two sentences: (1) Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again. (2) Love one another. The Reproductive Health Bill does not change the first. It does not render the second impossible, and in fact may be an expression of the second point. Of course, that's me trying to wax philosophical.

Blind faith is folly. Blind faith is irresponsible. Blind faith would lead us to sustain the position that the universe revolved around the earth, and then cause us to apologize to Galileo hundreds of years later when empirical data confirms that he was correct. Blind faith is contrary to the freedom of will that I believe and that the Church teaches my Creator gave me. And while freedom is never absolute, I know that God respects me enough and loves me enough to let me act according to conscience. And if I am wrong, I will appreciate being told about it, so that I can I can ask for the forgiveness that I know God will give.

That, I hope, is not evil.

Perhaps I may be wrong, and perhaps the Varsitarian's editors meant the best of things when they wrote what they did. But I cannot deny the fact that these are skilled writers, who must have been able to properly calibrate their language in order to achieve the effect that they wanted.

And the language of the editorial reads much like the Pharisees and Sadducees that emphasized doctrine rather than the salvation of people, or in legal terms, the letter of the law more than its spirit. The language is clear and telling when it disparages, defames, and demeans the 14 individuals (there are more than 14 now, which the Varsitarian failed to note) who, exercising their faith and their conscience, applying what their own limited reason allowed them to perceive, issued a statement in favor of an imperfect piece of legislation. The Varsitarian editors crucified these professors, even as the editors tried to deceptively set the agenda as one that supposedly favored Christian faith and morals on the centrality of the human person.

I do not think I am wrong, but hope I am when I say: That's evil.

[Read more]

November 4th, 2008: Yes we can.

Dear God,

Please let it be so.




Anyone who has been hanging around with me will probably know that I've been pretty interested in the US elections, especially this one. I was cursing at the TV when Al Gore was stripped of his victory by the US Supreme Court (I was also cursing at the same TV when the networks called it for Bush during election day) in 2000. I was pretty pissed off when Kerry lost to Bush and the swift-boat tactics of Karl Rove in 2004. So for this election, 8 years after I started getting really hooked in events like these, I've been paying lots of attention.

I'll confess: I was originally looking expecting to see Hillary take the Democratic standard and knock on the White House doors when she would have blitzkrieged her way to the presidency, even against Rudy Giuliani. I was surprised when she announced that she was forming a presidential exploratory committee to check on her prospects. She really seemed like she was on her way to simply steamrollering the opposition.

I wasn't even super interested in Clinton. The guy whom I wanted to run was Gore. But he didn't, and that was pretty disappointing at the time.

Then I heard on TV that the other guy, that one, Barack Obama, also announced that he was interested in the presidency. I heard about the speech he made in 2004, but I didn't really think he stood much of a chance. And because I really had no idea who he was, I told myself that if he could coherently tell me about his intentions for seeking the presidency, then maybe he was worth listening to. And after watching his announcement on TV, and comparing it with Hillary's, I sensed that this guy was someone that would at least sound nice.

Then I heard him announce his candidacy, and found it interesting that he was channeling preachers and Martin Luther King. He really knew how to give a speech. But even then, I wasn't convinced. I paid a lot of attention to the random homeless guy in New York, who decided to give a speech about why it was "important to send Mrs. Clinton to the White House," and felt that he made more sense than the other African-American fellow who asked him why he was picking Clinton when he could pick a "brother" like Obama.

Then I saw the debates leading up to the primaries. And Obama made more and more sense. Then the gaffes came. And it became apparent then that it was going to be Obama versus Clinton, with Clinton being the favorite.

Perhaps it was being Pinoy that made me appreciate Obama's status as the underdog. There was really no way that he could just pull off a win against Hillary, who was described as inevitable. And then YouTube links of his 2004 speech were sent to me, and I finally saw why this guy was really considered one of the rising stars of his party.

Later, little by little, listening to his stump speeches leading up to the primaries and to the other debates, it became clear to me that this guy knew how to campaign well, and that his speeches, while a bit vague and highfalutin at times, actually made a lot of sense. And when he gave that speech during one of those pre-primary dinners, I knew that this guy probably stood a chance to win. He had, at the time, started to close the gap in Iowa.

Then, he won in Iowa, and pointed to the significance of his victory with words that Joe Klein appropriately described as "gorgeous": "They said this day would never come." I was sold. If only for being a candidate who was far more inspiring than anyone else in the field, and with a sense that America probably needed a little inspiration, I genuinely started wanting Obama to win.

Then came the "Yes We Can" speech, a speech which he gave even when he was conceding defeat in New Hampshire. And after that, the will.i.am video. I was beyond sold at this point.

Ever since the Iowa primary, I've been following the progress of the race on a daily basis, with occasional refreshing of my browser and checking the TV to see what the news was saying. I was, for all intents and purposes, pretty obsessed. I've managed to catch a lot of the ups and downs of the campaign, and am glad to have been, at least as a distant observer, part of it, and to have shared in witnessing history unfold. I've been sold on Obama's candidacy. I like his policies. I like his ability to inspire with words. I think he should be President of the United States.

And so today, in a matter of hours, it'll all be over, and hopefully we'll see a brighter day for America and for the rest of the world tomorrow.

Filipinos like us probably like underdogs because they teach us a lot about having a will to live on, having faith to persevere, having hope in the face of adversity. Barack certainly hasn't been the underdog lately, at least as far as the polls show, but I think it's pretty hard to go up against centuries of history and decades of cynicism.

I wish I could vote for Barack, if only because he has given a lot of people a reason to believe.

The words pull at the gut with a taut heartstring:

"Change."

"Hope."

"Yes we can."

They speak to us and remind us of the aspirational character of our own humanity.

How can we possibly remain in the darkness of our disbelief?

[Read more]

One Big Fight!

Glory to God in the highest, and peace to His people on earth.

Congratulations to the Ateneo Blue Eagles and Ateneo Blue Eaglets, 2008 UAAP Champions.

We remember, we celebrate, we believe, then, now, and always.


(Thanks to Philip Sison of the Ateneo Sports Shooters and www.fabilioh.com for the picture from which my new header was taken.)

[Read more]

Quaerendum: On state recognition by the International Court of Justice

This week has been pretty eventful. A holiday, a typhoon, and my finally submitting a (possibly temporary) preliminary topic and outline for my thesis (after going through around five, six, or maybe even seven possibilities). A few hours ago, I was helping the Asia Cup team of the law school do drills, and before that, TJ, JV, Reese, Belinda, and I had a pretty interesting discussion on the BJE issue. After dinner, but before drills, as TJ and I were walking back to the law school, we were tossing around ideas, and we both think we might have stumbled upon yet another topic. Oh no.

I say "oh no," because I'm pretty tired of having to jump from topic to topic (although my friends say that it's something that can happen), and my esteemed thesis adviser, Atty. Aris Gulapa might rip my head off for thinking of yet another topic (Aris, if you're reading this, I know you can't rip my head off literally, being separated by the China and Japan seas, but please forgive me nonetheless. I'll try to stick with what I have now unless you think this is better. Hehe). I'd like to talk about it here, if only to unload my brain (God knows it's full of useless crap). By the way, if anybody else in my batch dares use this as a thesis topic before I'm done writing mine, I'll make sure he or she gets expelled. Hahahaha.

Here it goes:

Remember how some time ago, the people of Kosovo decided that they wanted to be independent, and then later on, declared their independence? That issue caused quite a ruckus for a while, especially since certain world powers were siding with the new, independent state of Kosovo, while others were siding with Serbia, from whom Kosovo declared its separation. Under international law, it is perfectly acceptable for a people to come together as a state, and it is quite acceptable for them to declare their statehood and independence. (If you disagree, bear with me, it gets interesting). And let's go back to the Montevideo Convention on what makes a state: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, freedom from external influence, and an ability to freely enter into relations with other states (that's not the precise enumeration, but I think it's close enough). Under the same Convention, recognition is not a requisite for the creation of a state.

Now, what would have happened if Kosovo decided to file a case against, say, Serbia, for one reason or another (let's assume they have a perfectly valid one) before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)? Note that Kosovo, at this point in time was already recognized as an independent state by some other states like the United States, although technically, I don't think this should have affected its statehood.

Now, let's imagine for a moment that Kosovo was not recognized by any state as an independent and sovereign state by any other state by the time it had filed a dispute before the ICJ. Let us also imagine that even if it was not yet recognized, it had already met the requirements for statehood under international law.

The first question that the ICJ would ask is whether or not it has jurisdiction over Kosovo, Serbia, and the case. The most interesting thing would be jurisdiction over Kosovo. Why? Because according to the Statute of the ICJ, only states can be parties to a dispute before the court.

In theory, the question would then be a question of whether or not Kosovo is indeed a independent and sovereign state. The ICJ would have to decide on this matter in order to properly decide on whether or not it even has jurisdiction over the case, and even before going over the merits of Kosovo's claim against Serbia.

What does this mean, and why do I think it's worth writing about? There are implications if the ICJ decides that Kosovo is a state and that it can exercise jurisdiction. This, in effect, would be a determination by the ICJ, the UN's official judicial entity, and what is arguably the foremost world court, of the existence of a state. This, in effect, would amount to a recognition or non-recognition of Kosovo by the ICJ.

Of course, Serbia will probably oppose the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that Kosovo is not a state but a separatist, rebel group from Serbia, and that therefore the matter is a domestic affair that Serbia alone is competent and allowed t resolve. The ICJ will have to decide on the dispute of jurisdiction, but that resolution will touch upon whether or not Kosovo is a state.

The implications are pretty interesting. First, recognition of the existence of a state would mean that the state of Kosovo, as a subject of international law, has the rights and privileges and powers of a sovereign state, meaning it would be able to make a claim (assuming the claim is valid) against Serbia (or against any other state, for that matter). Second, it would amount to a recognition, under the parameters of international law, of an independent, sovereign state. I earlier stated that recognition is not a requirement for statehood, but do try to imagine the weight of the world court thrown behind a new state that had recently proclaimed its independence.

The third, and perhaps more interesting implication-cum-question, is what happens when the court rules in favor of Kosovo. Note that international law has no central, coercive enforcement mechanism for judicial dispute resolution. International law relies on individual states to give effect to its judgments, using some kind of state-based incorporation, enforcement, and compliance mechanism. The question here is: How exactly will Serbia enforce the ICJ decision, when its position precisely is that Kosovo is not a state? How does this change when after the ICJ decision, or pending resolution by the court, other states start recognizing Kosovo, and others refuse to recognize it?

The question, and the answers to it are, of course, political. But this looks like it might become an alternative means of a state getting recognition. It seems pretty dangerous, though.

Of course, one of the questions thrown around when TJ and I were talking about this is why haven't belligerent or self-determining groups fighting for independence done this in the past? Our only guess was that it was a possible question of politics: A group that declares itself a state is probably wont to seek recognition from other states rather than risk non-recognition by the world court. Why? Because the former situation, of a group seeking recognition of statehood granted first by states, might not only be easier, but is also something that involves less risk (of course, there are also political risks and consequences on the part of the states that give or withhold recognition). In seeking recognition from the world court in the manner described above, the group assumes the risk of its existence being denied. But what happens if other states openly defy the ICJ pronouncement (not being bound by it, since the ICJ's decisions are only binding on parties to states before it) and recognize the group anyway? This might, in effect, undermine the ICJ itself.

Upon reflection, this is an interesting topic in light of all the brouhaha on the BJE. I am convinced that the Bangsamoro people can, under international law, provided they meet the requirements of statehood, simply declare themselves independent. Of course, depending on the state of global geopolitics, countries like the US may or may not recognize the Bangsamoro state, although I'm sure they'll gain some sympathy from Muslim states. This might even lead to a situation akin to the China-Taiwan thing, although surely slightly different.

But what happens if the Bangsamoro state file a claim against say, the Philippines, for one perfectly valid reason or another (let's assume there's one), and the Philippines (and some allies) refuses to recognize it? What happens if the ICJ rules in favor of the Bangsamoro state?

[Read more]