5 disgusting things in Philippine politics (no. 4: Rape)

Coming in no. 4 for my list of 5 disgusting things in Philippine politics is the case of "Filipina "Nicole",  American US Soldier Daniel Smith and whatever happened before and after that incident in Subic.

Rape is typically defined as forced, unwanted sexual intercourse or sex without mutual consent. We may never really know what really happened that fateful day. According to a Makati judge, it was rape. But according to our Court of Appeals, it was not rape, it was a romantic encounter.

But more than just sex, rape is about power. The act involves the desire of individuals to dominate over others. Hence, rape is found in almost all societies, regardless of economic or income class and regardless of political or social structure. It is used a weapon in wars and conflicts. We also see rape used against vulnerable members of the society, like children and women. Because rape is more about power, it should not be a mystery why most rape cases were perpetrated by people whom the victims knew.

Looking at the Subic incident at a bigger context, both Nicole and Smith can be seen as victims. They may have been used as pawns in an international chess game played by the US and the Philippines. You may look at it this way, Bush felt betrayed by GMA's decision to pull out of Iraq. But GMA found a bargaining chip, a US soldier that can be jailed in a Philippine prison. This is a huge embarrassment for Bush's global war on terror. A bargain was struck, Smith is convicted but jailed inside the US Embassy.

Then, here comes the Obama Administration with less focus on war but more on the economy. Nobody really knows what GMA and Obama talked about when he called, but a lot of things happened after that phone call. Smith's conviction was reversed and he was immediately whisked back to the US.

Obama could have say any of the two
1. "okay, jail Smith, we don't care" 
2. "okay... I don't know what is the deal between you and Bush, but please free him now and we will include Filipino veterans in our recovery package"

Whatever really happened, what we know is that Nicole is in the US right now with her American groom-to-be who is also a soldier. Smith is also in the US with no military career and a dishonorable discharge.

While in the Philippines, we are at odds on how to deal with this issue. When economic, political and social realities clash with the quest for truth, justice and the rule of law, where do we draw the line? In other countries, debate ensues regarding principles, laws and direction the country will go to. Here, we focus on the drama of the individuals involved. (too much telenovela is bad for our country's future)

There is a very thin line dividing "blaming the victim" and "asking people to take precautions, so that they will not be a victim." It is true that nobody wakes up in the morning hoping to be raped. But you cannot also blame people when they say that "if she were not in that bar, drinking and dancing as if there is no tomorrow, she would not end up in that situation." This thin line, our Justice Secretary always carelessly crosses.

But what can we do, as long as his remarks can add up to the drama, then we can comfortably watch our evening news and our primetime telenovelas even if there are no clear distinctions between them.

Real Men and Crying Men

While watching the news last night, I saw two commercials by Colt 45, a strong beer distributed by Asia Brewery Inc. They market the beer as "The STRONG BEER for REAL MEN."

COMMERCIAL 1. A group of "real men" are talking about an approaching girl in a swimsuit. They are generally talking about how sexy she is when one of the "real men" started talking about fashion... how her swimsuit does not match her. This not-real man was crushed by a bottle of Colt 45 with a voice over saying "real men should act like real men."

COMMERCIAL 2. A group of "real men" are watching basketball on TV. One of them receives a call in his cell phone. He promptly goes out to the lobby and tells her girlfriend mushy nothings like "I miss you na." This not-real man was crushed by a bottle of Colt 45 with a voice over saying "real men should act like real men."

I am not really a big fan of stereotypes of what a real man is. And I am definitely not a big fan of liquor (inuming nakalalasing), I can't barely finish a bottle of San Mig Light. However, there is something in the commercial that really ticked me off.

Perhaps it is their idea of what a real man is. What was clearly shown in their commercials clearly is that a real man drinks a strong beer (Colt 45), has huge muscles,  watches basketball games with their buddies and 'appreciate' sexy women wearing swimsuit. What they are implying is that real men do not talk about fashion (at least not in front of other real men) and do not tell their significant others that they miss them (even if he is not in front of other real men). The extreme interpretation of the ad is that real men are not in touch with their emotions.

Whenever I hear stereotypes about real men and men in general, I remember the story by my Sikolohiyang Pilipino teacher. A girl wanted a strong, silent-type guy for a husband. She ended up marrying someone who beats her without even telling her why. It may be a bit extreme, but I don't think any of my friends and colleagues would want a partner or a husband based on Colt 45's concept of a real men.

The other possible reason why the commercials annoyed is the disconnect with the current political and social realities. Women, I believe, appreciate men in touch with their emotions. Nobody takes the most insensitive (and chauvinistic) man in the office seriously. They are often viewed as empty-headed jerks gloating about their imaginary love affairs.

Men crying in public are not seen as weak, but men who are brave enough to show their true emotions. They won admiration for revealing that they are real humans with feelings. A lot of men admitted in public that they cried when Obama won as president. The very long  list included Gen. Colin Powell and Will Smith. I was teary-eyed when I was listening to Obama's Victory Speech.

Here in the Philippines, ZTE whistle-blower Jun Lozada cried in public while talking about the pains he and his family suffered when he exposed an anomalous government contract. (Lozada's former-sidekick-turned-accuser also cried in public while trying to convince people that Lozada is also a crook, he was largely dismissed.)

Crying men also won praise (and votes). Obama cried in public when he talked about the death of his grandmother. Biden choked up while talking about the accident that killed his wife and daughter and almost killed his two sons. In the Philippines, former Senator Franklin Drilon cried when the Senate voted to prevent the opening of the second envelope during Erap's impeachment trial. He was soundly re-elected.

The next time I see that Colt 45 ad, I'll probably just dismiss it (together with the other ads based on stereotypes). It is highly unlikely that I'll buy their product to show people that I am a real man. I don't have to prove anything.

One of the greatest advices I received in life was this "Boys don't cry, real men do."
 

The Audacity of the Audacious and the Race to 2010

I am currently reading Barack Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope." After he was declared as the president-elect, I could not resist the temptation of not buying the book. The book is very good (I am not yet finished, though). It provides insights on Obama's view on issues. It also provides a quick review of US and world history and current events. Ten years from now, you can judge whether his presidency changed his world view, for better or for worse, by reading this book.

According to some sources, the success of the book was actually one of the reasons why he was encouraged to run for president. The publishers and Obama's handlers were very surprised on how many people show up for book signing. It is also one of the reasons why Oprah endorsed him as "the one."

I once lamented that presidential candidates in the US write books, in the Philippines, they make movies, or movies about their life or join singing contests... or any other way for them to appear on TV.

American politicians who hoped to claim their party's nomination has a book of some sort, including McCain, Hillary Clinton, Biden, Giuliani, Kerry and Gore. It elevates their status as an intellectual, a person knowledgeable of issues and events, a statesman who can grasp the problems of their constituency and a person of experience with lessons to tell.

Here, writing books are for old, retired and nearly forgotten politicians writing their memoirs as their legacy. I am not sure who to blame for it, or if blame is actually necessary. If presidentiables write a book, I am not sure if they can actually sell more than a thousand copies. Even if they give it away for free, I am not sure if 1% of the 40 million electorate will read it.

After Obama won, I told myself (and my office mates) that at least one presidentiable will claim to be the Filipino Obama. Not a week has passed and Binay was audacious enough to claim the title (ginugel ko, audacious means bold). I can cite ten reasons why Binay is not an Obama but I'll wait to hear from him more.

So far, here are the possible presidentiables and their parties
Senate President Manny Villar: Nacionalista Party
MMDA Chairman and Celebrity Duets Champion Bayani Fernando: Lakas CMD (or his own party)
Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay: PDP-LAban
Prayer leader and losing presidential candidate Bro. Eddie Villanueva: Bangon Pilipino Movement
Senator and losing presidential candidate Panfilo Lacson: Independent
Senator Mar Roxas: Liberal Party
Senator and losing vice-presidential candidate Loren Legarda: Nationalist People's Coalition
Vice President Noli de Castro: Kampi

It is already a crowded race and I am sure a few nuisance candidates will join the race. I do really hope that there will a debate of issues and not just populist causes (Villar is pro-OFW, Legarda is pro-environment, Noli is pro-housing). Although 'causes' are good they are not good enough, not one will run as an anti-OFW, anti-environment and anti-housing crusader.

A significant issue that can and must be tackled is federalism. With two former local executives running for president, they can push for more responsibilities for local leaders. However, they probably run for president to consolidate power and they will not give up that power.

When Obama won, a lot of prominent African-Americans said that they did not expect that within their lifetime America will have a black president. Shall we witness a true presidential debates and real political parties within our lifetime?

Raising the Level of Political Discourse (w/ comments on the RH Bill)

Obama won! Although my prediction on how many electoral votes he will win is way off the chart (I said 32, latest projection is 365 with Missouri's 11 votes unsettled), he won nevertheless. 

As the US election campaign came to its close, it became dirtier. A lot of name-calling and fear-mongering. Obama was tagged a socialist, a radical, a liberal, a Muslim... not that they are bad or wrong to be one (definitely, I don't mind being called a radical, liberal, left-leaning Muslim.. it is just that, they are untrue).

Towards the end, McCain's campaign became more negative. In one of his speeches, he accused Obama and Democrats that "they are now planning to increase your taxes. My friends, they will raise your taxes... they are tax and spend liberals..."

There is one outrageous allegation that Obama is a baby-killer or that he will allow babies to die. With Obama and the Democrats generally pro-choice and pro-abortion, some people (especially conservative evangelicals) actually believed it.

It is actually disheartening  to see the level of discourse to go that low. I am actually surprised by Mccain's gracious concession speech. It was McCain the statesman, the war hero, the maverick who reaches across the aisle speaking... not the desperate, bumbling presidential candidate.

Turning to local politics, I am disheartened and disappointed by the way the Catholic Church has responded to the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill in the House of Representatives (HB 5043). For the past few weeks, I have listened to priests denounce the RH Bill in their homilies. However, instead of focusing on the Catholic Church's belief regarding life, intimacy and creation, they often resort to fear-mongering and name calling.

Priests talk about the evil intents of lawmakers to promote DEATH. They warn that the RH bill will destroy families, lives and values. One said that human life will cease if lawmakers have their way. From yesterday's homily, the parish priest said that if children were taught reproductive health in schools then parents lose their right to teach it to their children.

(I remember one negative ad against Obama saying that Obama promotes "teaching sex education to kindergarten. Learning sex before learning how to read." Obama actually promoted age-appropriate sex education, designed to prevent sexual abuse).

A few months back, I saw on TV a priest spraying holy water on the seats of congresspeople who supported the RH bill (is he implying that RH bill supporters are possessed by the demon?).

A lot of half-truths and misleading statements are said from the pulpit. And I am in shock and awe. As far as I know, priests are required to finish a college degree. They study theology, sociology, history, language and philosophy, on top of other subjects. Those who go up the hierarchy (Monsignors, Bishops and Cardinals) study much more. Of all people, they should be able to defend the faith based on the Bible, doctrines, dogmas and Church teachings. The Catholic Church should not resort to sweeping statements or making it just a fight between good and evil (with them on the good side).

I understand the difficulty and complexity of discussing the RH bill. It deals with two sensitive topics, privacy and faith. It is very difficult to debate on faith... sometimes it is even futile. But it should not stop us from elevating the level of discourse. The discussion can be raised on so many levels, economic, scientific, medical, political, philosophical, social and theological. It must be debated and then let the people, the couples and families decide. 

As the US campaign has shown, fear mongering and name calling are typically used by desperate people who are losing the debate. I am not exactly sure who is winning right now...

Kudos to professors of UP School of Economics and the Ateneo de Manila University for spearheading moves towards a meaningful discussion of issues!

Read here:
Full text of HB 5043: Reproductive Health and Population Development Act of 2008
Position papers of faculty members of:
UP School of Economics: Population, Poverty, Politics and the Reproductive Health Bill
Ateneo de Manila University: Declaration of support for the Reproductive Health Bill's immediate passage into law
and
ADMU Professors: Catholics can support the RH Bill in good conscience
Statement from the National Academy of Science and Technology in support of the RH Bill.

Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines: Our Firm Stand Against Contraceptive Mentality
Documents and Position papers by Couples For Christ: Foundation for Family and Life (CFC:FFL) including Catholic Teaching on Voting for Pro-Abortion Candidates.

Predicting an Obama win

Finally... November 4, 2008... Election Day in the United States of America.

With early voting in place, Nov. 4 is actually the last day for voting and the day votes cast will be counted. I expect Obama to win with 325 Electoral Votes against McCain's 213.

. (Interactive electoral map from ABC News)

Based on tactics and strategy, there are several reasons why I think Obama will win.
1. His campaign is very disciplined and calculated, which I think reflects on his character. He is in control of the situation because he placed the right people at the right position.
 
2. As a former community organizer, Obama knows his ground game. How to encourage people to vote and how to encourage people to encourage more people to vote.
 
3. The campaign was able to harness the full power of the techno-savvy youth and electorate.
He was able to solicit campaign funds from people ten dollar at a time through text.
 
4. His eloquence helps a lot, but the research behind his speeches and interviews are remarkable. He is thoroughly briefed on the background and personal circumstances of the reporters and interviewers (not surprising why the media is biased in favor of him).
 
5. They were able to take advantage of the situation by focusing on the issues. When he started his campaign, the economic crisis is the yet this bad. By luck or prophecy, a campaign based on hope and change sounds better when you are in crisis (as against McCain's campaign of experience and maverick-ness).

Final note... in almost all of McCain's rallies, you'll see his wife, Cindy, behind him. It is very seldom that you'll find Michelle Obama campaigning with Barack. It is because Michelle often campaigns on her own and draws her own crowd. The same thing with vice-presidential pick Joe Biden. With Barack, Michelle and Joe campaigning separately, with the help of Hillary and Bill Clinton at times, they were able to cover more ground.

On the other hand, McCain and Palin campaigned together for one month after the Republican convention. When they campaigned separately, Palin has bigger crowds than McCain.

Once the US election is over...  I hope I'll have the same enthusiasm over the 2010 Philippine Presidential Elections.

The Democrat and Republican in you and me

As the 2008 US Presidential Election nears, I can only lament the sorry state of our political system. We don't have political parties, we have individuals with supporters who need to call their grouping a party to fulfill election requirements.

There is nothing liberal with the views of the Liberal Party. The Nacionalista Party, bought by Senator Villar is not more nationalistic than the Nationalist People's Coalition of Danding Cojuangco. At least I know that Ramos' Lakas CMD is about 'palakasan' (roughly translated as cronyism) and GMA's KAMPI party is all about 'kampihan' (us versus you). Erap's Partido ng Masang Pilipino is a party of Erap and FPJ fans. And then we have all the political leaders with their own parties, PDP-Laban, LDP, PRP, and the list continues.

I have been a member of political parties in the past... when I worked as a poll watcher in the past three elections, I had to sign the ID which basically makes me a member of the party thus eligible to be a watcher. Since my paid-poll-watching days are over, I don't think I will be a member of a political party in the future.

If I am an American, I am not sure if I will be a registered party member even if I am likely to vote for Obama, the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Democrats are generally anti-war, pro-women's rights, pro-environment, pro-choice, and pro-stem cell research. They hold the right to privacy sacred. They believe that there should be a clear separation between church and state. They favor a more interventionist government  in terms of regulation, education, and health care.

Republicans are pro-life, pro-market, pro-democracy and pro-God. They place special value to the right to bear arms. They generally advocate lower taxes, less regulation and more globalization. They are more likely to think the America is the most supreme country on earth and they should go to great lengths to promote and preserve America-type democracy. 

However, political beliefs are not strict dogmas to be followed strictly by all party members. People are not Blue Democrats and Red Republicans, there many shades of violets, purples and magentas in between. Politicians tend to be more centrist and populist as election nears. Individuals are allowed to reach across the isle and be bi-partisan to pass crucial legislation (almost all Filipino politicians vote for personal reasons and not according to party stand... party stand does not exist).

I am still in the process of assessing where I stand on several issues. I believe that there are government failures and market failures, and there should be a balance between regulation and letting the market work freely (where is that balance is very difficult to find). I believe couples should have access to reproductive health services but abortion is never an option. I think that the government should protect the environment but not to the extent that we ban all mining and logging. I believe that gun ownership should be strictly regulated. I think that it was wrong for America to act as the world's police and occupy Iraq.

Having written that... actually, I think I am leaning a bit more like a Democrat, to a certain extent... I think.

That was difficult!!! Being rational for your political views is actually very difficult.

Now I understand why people end up just saying "I don't like McCain (or Jovito Salonga), he is old" or "I'll vote for Obama (or Erap), he is handsome." 

Do we need a Pinoy Obama?

Years from now, wikipedians, historians and pundits will look at the past two weeks as the reasons why Obama won the US presidency in 2008. There are 5 main reasons why Obama won:
1. Sarah Palin (if she is not lying, she is fumbling)
2. Presidential Debates (to go or not to go)
3. Economy (it's the economy, stupid)
4. Campaign Ads (Lipstick on a pig)
5. Iraq War (tell that to the Marines)

Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. will be the first African-American president of the USA, not a descendant of a slave traded in colonial times but literally the son of an African-Kenyan and an American. He is an intellectual heavyweight with humble roots. His parents met in the University of Hawaii, where his mother earned her PhD in Anthropology. His father Barrack Obama, Sr. was a graduate scholar in Hawaii, and later earned a Master's degree in Economics from Harvard. (Can a Ravanilla be the first Asian-American president of the US?)

Barrack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, has degrees in Political Science from University of Columbia and Law from Harvard. He worked as a community organizer, a law senior lecturer at University of Chicago, an Illinois State Senator, and a US Senator of Illinois.

Obama runs on a platform of change and hope. With almost everything screwed up in the US today, he has a lot of things to change: the economy, budget, housing, finance, labor market, two wars and everything else in between. The task is enormous and it makes Obama's HOPE mantra more powerful.

In difficult times, more than the ability to make difficult decisions, pick the right people, and push difficult reform provisions, a leader must be able to inspire people. The need to inspire is the same reason why people vote for politicians they can relate to, candidates who can feel (or at least appear to feel) their pain.

(This is the same reason why Erap became president and why he remains popular. He does not have a college degree, the same with about 60%-70% of Filipino adults. Erap would love to talk with the average-hockey-mom from Alaska, and they will have thousands of things to talk about.)

The ability to inspire people to do things for themselves separates good leaders from less notable ones. More than just being the highest technocrat or bureaucrat, leaders who inspired people leave a lasting memory, they move a nation for a greater cause... Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Ramon Magsaysay and Junichiro Koizumi, to name a few.

With the crisis the Philippines is facing, do we need an Obama? Probably not... as Obama said in one of his most mocked statements "we are the ones we have been waiting for." We should not spend countless hours looking for people to inspire us, we should strive hard to be an inspiration for other people.

We do not need to look outside to find great inspirations, we have Among Ed Panlilio of Pampanga, Grace Padaca of Isabela, and Jessie Robredo of Naga City. But what have we done? Local politicians in Pampanga are trying to unseat Among Ed. Robredo and Padaca are trapped in a system that it seems they cannot be elected to a higher office. And we are left with politicians on the national level rewarded for mudslinging, defamation and grandstanding.

Reform and change are very difficult. We need leaders with the political will to do the reforms, the technical skills to implement them and the charisma to rally the nation behind him. Not just rhetoric and showing off, We need a change that we can believe in.

Parallels between the Crises in Asia (1997) and the US

Despite all the complexities of financial markets and financial products, when there is a crisis the problem can often be broken down to simple economic issues. The parallels between the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the current US Financial market meltdown are so staggering, chief central bankers in Asia can be sent now to US to lecture Bernanke and Paulson.

Here are the similarities:
1. Overexposure to real estate
Awash with foreign earnings, Asian banks started lending heavily to companies. Since it was very easy to obtain credit, private companies invested heavily in real estate, even if their main business has very little to do with property. Even fly-by-night companies can get a loan to build a subdivision or condominium.

In the US, the mortgage market kept on expanding since China's appetite for American securities seem insatiable. Small mortgage companies provided housing loans to everybody, including NINJAs (people with No Income, No Jobs, no Assets).

2. Lack of regulation
The expansion of the financial market in Asia in the 1980s and early 1990s was so fast, regulators (Central Banks, SECs and finance departments/ ministries) were caught flat-footed. Institutions for monitoring and regulating real estate markets were either missing or ill-equipped. In the Philippines, the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies (McCain's favorite term, until recently) dealing with the housing market is still in disarray. The agencies with housing in its name include HLURB, HUDCC, HMF (Pag-ibig Fund), NHMF, NHA, HGC, and SHFC (with so many homeless people in the Philippines, I am not sure what do they all do).

In the US, the regulations put in place after the Great Depression were gradually removed by the government. Hence, there is a call for greater regulation and oversight in the current US elections. (Actually after the US$70 billion bailout package, they don't need to regulate anything anymore since they'll end up partially owning the entire financial industry.)

3. Corruption
Companies owned by government officials, their families and cronies benefited a lot from the housing and lending booms in Asia before the crisis struck. And when the government injected money to revive the industry, they benefited once more (I think we have a very rich senator who made a lot of money from banking and real estate).

In the US, the corruption is not that obvious... they call it lobbying. Lobbyists push congress and the government to loosen regulations and to look the other way. Worse, they actually use economic studies to push their corrupt cause.

4. Politics
In several countries in Asia, the financial crisis led to a change in leadership. Populists with a pro-poor agenda won in South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. On whether they fulfilled their campaign promises is another matter.

In the US, the economic mess by the Republican Bush administration seem to benefit the Democrats led by Barrack Obama.

5. Bailout
With the economy in a mess, it needs bailing out. In Asia, the IMF, ADB and World Bank contributed for bailout funds for the Asian economies.

In the US, they are bailing out themselves probably by borrowing internationally. If they were in Zimbabwe, they would simply print more money until everybody becomes a trillionaire.

Obama in, GMA out. McCain in, GMA stays?

Iraq War. Historic high oil prices. Sub-prime mortgage crisis. Philippine occupation.
What do they have in common? They all happened while a Republican is in the White House.

Flashback: 1901
US is an emerging US power. US President William McKinley, a Republican, annexed the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam after winning the Spanish-American War.

As a colony, the highest government offices in the Philippine Islands were all held by Americans. This continued to the next decade as Republicans continue to rule the US. While the Philippine-American War was ongoing, the government implemented "Benevolent Assimilation", intended to teach "brown monkeys" civility.

Things changed in 1913, when Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat became president. The US government changed its track in dealing with their colonies, a series of policy changes which eventually led to Philippine independence. Why the shift in policy? The Democrats realized that it was too costly to maintain the Philippine Islands as a colony.

In 1933, a Democrat-led US Congress passed the Hares-Hawes-Cutting Law overriding a veto by Pres. Herbert Hoover, a Republican. It was the first law dealing with the decolonization of the Philippines. However, the Philippine Senate led by Manuel Quezon rejected the law.

In 1934, a revised version of the law was passed, the Tydings-McDuffie Law or the Philippine Independence Act. It was signed by Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat. It led to the creation of the Commonwealth of the Philippines in 1935 with a ten-year transition period before full independence.

Interrupted by World War 2, there were talks that the Philippines should not be independent in 1945. But with a Democrat US president, Harry Truman, the Philippines became independent in 1946.

When Ferdinand Marcos declared Martial Law in 1971, the White House was occupied by Republican Richard Nixon. When Martial Law was lifted in January 1981, the White House was occupied by Democrat Jimmy Carter.

The ousting of Marcos might have happened earlier if Democrats continued to occupy the White House. However, because Republican Ronald Reagan was president from 1981-1989, we had to endure more of Marcos. Marcos was ousted by People Power in 1986, but Reagan  allowed Marcos to live in exile in Hawaii.

Back to the present:
Iraq is the new Philippines (remember that Macario Sakay, the last Filipino general to surrender to Americans, was called an Insurgent). Republican John McCain is against pull-out from Iraq. Democrat Obama is calling for an end to American occupation of Iraq.

Republicans have a long history of keeping loyal dictators in power as long as they support the US against whatever it is fighting... communism then and terrorism now.

GMA supported the War in Iraq and she was elected in May 2004. In July 2004, sure that she "won" the election, she ordered a pull-out of Philippine troops from Iraq so that kidnap victim Angelo delaCruz can be released.

Now, here is where the conspiracy theorist in me gets excited. Remember when GMA went to the US and tried to meet both US candidates... she was able to talk in person to McCain but not to Obama (he called her instead)...

What are the chances... Obama in White House in 2008, GMA out of Malacanang in 2010. McCain in White House, GMA stays...

Historical Sources:
Corpuz, O.D. (1997). An Economic History of the Philippines. Quezon City, UP Press.

Constantino, R. (1996). Ang Bagong Lumipas. Quezon City, UP Press.