Google
 

Monday, October 01, 2018

The 2018 TWSC Writeshop Fellows


The Third World Studies Center (TWSC) announces the following successful applicants to the 2018 TWSC Writeshop on 24-26 October 2018. In no particular order, the TWSC welcomes the following writeshop fellows with their respective manuscript submissions:

  1. Pawilen, Reidan (UP Los Banos) - "The Bodong Indigenous Allied Group, Inc. (BIAG) as an institution for Justice and Women Empowerment among Indigenous Peoples in Ilocos Sur and Abra"
  2. Estrella, Victor (Philippine Normal University) - "Illicit Trade in Gold Cultural Materials in Butuan, Philippines"
  3. Ladia, Charles (UP Diliman ) - "Communicating Youth Civic Engagement: Spaces for Youth in National and Local Governments’ Disaster Management Policies and Programs, The Case of the City of Malolos, Philippines"
  4. Magallona, Diego (UP Diliman) - "Neocolonial Troops: The United States and the Shaping of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, 1964-1966"
  5. Ramos, Dondy Pepito II (UP Diliman) - "Opium: Discourses and Policies in the Philippines, 1900-1908" 
  6. Luga, Jose Matthew P. (UP Diliman) - "Living in and Leaving from the Japanese Occupation: Everyday Transportation in Baguio City, Philippines (1941-1945)"
  7. Guiang, Francisco Jayme Paolo A. (UP Diliman) - "History as a Tool for Social Criticism: The Development of Renato Constantino’s Ideas, Selected Works from 1970 to 1991"
  8. Ariate, Maria Ima (UP Diliman) - "Atty. Nguyen Van Dai and Contending Views on Democracy in Vietnam: A Life History"
  9. Baguisi, Maria Margarita (De La Salle University Manila) - "Pakikibaka Para sa Pambansang Demokrasya: Anakbayan, 1998-2015"



Monday, September 24, 2018

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS: One (1) Part-Time Research Assistant

Mr. Zenta Nishio, a PhD student at the Graduate School of Asia and Africa Area Studies, Kyoto University, and Visiting Research Fellow at the UP Third World Studies Center is looking for a part-time research assistant from 15 October 2018 to 31 January 2019. The RA will assist Mr. Nishio on his study on jeepney drivers/ operators and how they conduct their daily practices and construct social relationship. In particular, the RA will translate from English to Filipino interview questionnaires and interview consent forms, as well as translate and transcribe interviews with key informants during field work.

Net compensation is PHP138/hour.* Weekly schedule of work will be determined between Mr. Nishio and the RA.

Applicants must be:

  • University of the Philippines students (senior standing) or recent U.P. graduates of courses in the social sciences and/or community work;
  • those who can communicate effectively both in English and Filipino;
  • those who have scholarly interests in mass-based transportation; and 
  • willing to work in Metro Manila (mainly Manila and Quezon City) for a minimum of four (4) hours for four (4) days a week.

To apply, submit the following:

  • a comprehensive curriculum vitae,
  • a true copy of grades or a printout of grades from CRS, and
  • a letter of application addressed to:

Zenta Nishio
Visiting Research Fellow
Third World Studies Center
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
University of the Philippines-Diliman


Due date for applications is on 8 October 2018 (Monday). All application requirements must be submitted online as PDF attachments at zenta.nishio@gmail.com. ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE POST MUST ALSO BE ADDRESSED TO MR. ZENTA NISHIO. THE THIRD WORLD STUDIES CENTER HAS NO PART IN THE SELECTION PROCESS.


* Rate is based on Salary Grade 12 Step 1 on the adjusted salary schedule as stipulated in National Budget Circular No. 572 of the Department of Budget and Management

Friday, September 21, 2018

Did A Marcos Lie Today? (1)



"Of Course Imelda and I Denied It"

For Marcos loyalists and apologists, it was perfectly logical that Marcos would let in only a handful of trusted people into his plans to declare martial law. It was a necessary lie; part of springing the trap against the enemies of the Marcoses. Yet for the Filipinos, this was how the cloak was drawn before the conjugal dictatorship mercilessly stabbed the people in the back. 

Marcos played his martial law cards close to his chest. Yet not too close so as not to allow his main backer, the United States (US), a peek.

As the course of events will show, Marcos did not declare martial law to save the republic or to bring about a “new society.” It was all about his lust for power and on how he and his family and their ilk used this power to enrich themselves.


Just the Two of Us

If the martial law administrator Juan Ponce Enrile would be believed, the just re-elected president Ferdinand Marcos started planning for martial law in early December 1969 (Enrile 2012, 275-77). It started with Marcos asking Enrile to “study his powers under the commander-in-chief provisions of the [1935] Constitution” since Marcos “was foreseeing an escalation of violence and disorder in the country.” Marcos instructed Enrile that he may ask others to help him but they should conduct the study “discreetly and confidentially.” Enrile enlisted the help of two 1954 magna cum laude graduates from the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, Efren Plana and Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes.

In late January 1970 Enrile submitted to Marcos a compendium bearing the result of the study. A week later, Marcos instructed Enrile “to prepare the documents to install martial law in the country.” Enrile claimed that, working alone (save for Simplicio Taguiam, Marcos’s private and confidential secretary who did the typing), it took him six months to complete what would eventually become Proclamation 1081.

As the First Quarter Storm raged in 1970, Marcos intimated to the US that he may resort to martial law.

Henry Kissinger, then US President Richard Nixon’s assistant for national security affairs, in a memorandum to the US president dated 7 February 1970, quoted US ambassador to the Philippines Henry Byroade’s conversation with Marcos. Byroade reported “a rambling conversation with a very distraught and unnerved President Marcos.” Kissinger mentioned that Marcos “wanted Byroade’s ‘active help’; Marcos said he might have to impose martial law, and wanted to know if Byroade would ‘stand behind him’.”

In response, “Byroade reacted cautiously to keep us from being drawn into this situation. He tried discreetly to suggest the need for social programs and land reform, and to head off drastic actions such as martial law.” In a marginal note, Nixon wrote that he “doubts this line’s effectiveness” (emphasis in the original).


You’re My Baby

Almost a year later, as related in a 15 January 1971 memorandum of conversation involving Nixon, Byroade, and John H. Holdridge, a member of Nixon’s National Security Council, Marcos now asked the White House, and not just Byroade, if the US would oppose or support his martial law plan.
Ambassador Byroade . . . at the end of his predeparture conversation with Marcos, Marcos had warned him that he might find it necessary to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and establish martial law in the city of Manila—unprecedented steps which had not been taken by any Philippine President since the late ‘40s during the Hukbalahap movement. What Marcos wanted to know was: in the event that he found it necessary to declare martial law in Manila, would the United States back him up, or would it work against him? Ambassador Byroade noted that he had promised Marcos he would bring back the President’s personal reply.

The President [Nixon] declared that he would “absolutely” back Marcos up, and “to the hilt” so long as what he was doing was to preserve the system against those who would destroy it in the name of liberty. The President [Nixon] indicated that he had telephoned Trudeau of Canada to express this same position. We would not support anyone who was trying to set himself up as a military dictator, but we would do everything we could to back a man who was trying to make the system work and to preserve order. Of course, we understood that Marcos would not be entirely motivated by national interests, but this was something which we had come to expect from Asian leaders. The important thing was to keep the Philippines from going down the tube, since we had a major interest in the success or failure of the Philippine system. Whatever happens, the Philippines was our baby.
In late May 1972, Byroade had another conversation with Marcos that he reported to the US State Department. And again, Macros “talked of the ‘great upsurge of communist insurgency threat in the country,’ adding that ‘he might have to reinstate martial law. He asked again if we would support him or at least not oppose him.’ To this, Byroade said that he ‘mumbled that our position on that had not changed, but added the hope that he would not find such a move necessary as I thought it would clearly at this time tear the nation apart into opposing factions.’” (In using “reinstate” Byroade may have erred in his report. Unless, of course, he and Marcos were referring to the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus that Marcos did in response to the 21 August 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing.)

But as September 1972 neared, Marcos became coy. In a lengthy 15 September 1972 telegram to the US State Department, Byroade related that a day before he sent the telegram he asked Marcos “if he were about to surprise us with a declaration of martial law.”
He said no, not under present circumstances. He said he would not hesitate at all in doing so if the terrorist stepped up their activities further, and to a new stage. He said that if a part of Manila were burned, a top official of his Government, or foreign ambassador, assassinated or kidnapped, then he would act very promptly. He said that he questioned Communist capability to move things to such a stage just now . . .

Suspicious Minds

Yet in public, Marcos was saying the exact opposite of what he told Byroade. In the Notes on the New Society of the Philippines—ostensibly by Marcos but actually written by writer-bureaucrat Adrian Cristobal (see Reyes 2018)—first published in 1973, “Marcos” said,
So, on the long night of Sunday, 17 September 1972, it became quite clear to me that the rightist conspiracy and the communist rebellion had almost succeeded in rendering the government impotent to meet any crisis, that in fact this unholy combination, if given just the shortest time, would pronounce the death sentence on the Republic.

At the end of that September vigil, during which I exhausted all possibilities in my mind, I found my duty—and the responsibility for the nation’s destiny—forced on me by historical circumstances (“Marcos” 1973, 34)
It was a game played by the suspicious with the duplicitous. And Byroade was clear-eyed on how it was done: “My own attitude is that, if Marcos can keep his fingers crossed behind his back while making agreements with us, so can we.”

According to journalists Raymond Bonner (1987) and Stanley Karnow (1989), the American ambassador through a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) mole in Marcos’s inner circle, obtained a copy of the martial law proclamation on 19 September 1972. This was just a day after Marcos claimed in his diary that they had finalized the plans for the proclamation of martial law.

The following day, 20 September 1972, Byroade met with Marcos. In a 21 September 1972 telegram to the US State Department, Byroade said, “Marcos . . . had made no decision to move towards martial law, and he had never considered anything beyond that, such as military rule. He did admit, however, that planning for martial law was at an advanced state.” At the end of the telegram Byroade admitted that he was unsure if he “succeeded in at least postponing new developments.”

What partly informed Marcos’s hesitation was the fact that Congress was then in session.
President Marcos was waiting for Congress to adjourn sine die . . . on Friday, September 22, 1972. It was for that reason that he had not acted on the declaration of martial law. President Marcos wanted Congress to adjourn first before he would proclaim martial law in the country. He wanted to avoid any resistance from Congress once he declared martial law in the country. (Enrile 2012, 377)
But Congress did not adjourn. And Marcos was right in his sense that there could be resistance. But it was a puny one.
[A] few days after the declaration of martial law, a bipartisan caucus of congressmen and senators was held in the cell of Benigno Aquino, Jr., who had already been arrested and detained in Camp Crame. The caucus deliberated on convening a special session of Congress to declare Presidential Decree 1081, null and void. Aquino’s cell was, of course, bugged; the following day, soldiers secured the legislative building and dismantle the offices, carting away equipment, tables, and chairs. The legislative building was turned into the National Museum. (Daroy 1988, 24)
The inquisitive press was what alarmed Enrile that he eventually advised Marcos that they should put in effect what they have long planned. The press was getting more dogged in pursuing the story of a possible martial law declaration after then Senator Benigno Aquino Jr. made his expose about Oplan Sagittarius on 15 September 1972, a plan for martial law which was leaked to him by sources from the Armed Forces. In fact Aquino first brought the information to the US embassy on 12 September 1972 before making it public. US Ambassador Byroade did not believe Aquino (Karnow 1989, 359).


I Just Died in Your Arms Tonight

Since the start of 1972, talks of martial law abounded in the chattering class of Manila. It finally descended and exacted its vengeance on Marcos’s enemies in the evening of 22 September until the early morning of 23 September. With his critics in jail and the press silenced, Marcos addressed the nation on radio and tv in the early evening of 23 September.
My countrymen, as of the 21st of this month, I signed Proclamation No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under martial law. This proclamation was to be implemented upon my clearance and clearance was granted 9 o’clock in the evening of the 22nd, last night.
He let Francisco “Kit” Tatad, his press secretary read the martial law proclamation.

But when exactly did Marcos sign Proclamation 1081?

Enrile, in his memoir, seems to have a definitive answer.
Maj. Roland Pattugalan arrived in my office a little before six o’clock in the afternoon [22 September 1972] . . . He brought with him three large sealed brown envelopes and delivered them to me. I opened the enveloped in his presence.

The first envelope contained Proclamation No. 1081. This document proclaimed martial law throughout the country. The second envelope contained seven General Orders. The third envelope contained seven Letters of Instructions. All the documents had the signature of President Marcos and carried the seal of his office. (Enrile 2012, 378)
But as is ever true with Enrile, he is a master in giving lies a patina of truth. What he wrote in his memoir contradicts what Marcos wrote in his diary on the same date.
Sec. Juan Ponce Enrile was ambushed near Wack-Wack at about 8:00 pm tonight. It was a good thing he was riding in his security car as a protective measure. His first car which he usually uses was the one riddled by bullets from a car parked in ambush.
He is now at his DND office. I have advised him to stay there.
And I have doubled the security of Imelda in the Nayon Pilipino where she is giving dinner to the UPI and AP as well as other wire services.
This makes the martial law proclamation a necessity.
Why was Marcos saying that the proclamation was then a necessity, that it must be done—not that it was done—when Enrile claims that before his supposed ambush, he had already set in motion Marcos’s martial law plans?

For Enrile, self-serving as ever, it was to allow him to walk back his confession during the February 1986 EDSA Revolution that his ambush was faked.
Why would I have faked my ambush for? When it happened, the military operation to impose martial law was already going on. I had already delivered Proclamation No. 1081 and all the General Orders and Letters of Instructions to the military leaders. I had already ordered them to proceed with the military operation that carried out the orders of President Marcos to place the entire country under martial law . . . . I honestly did not know why Marcos suddenly decided to cite my ambush in justifying the declaration of martial law when he made his public statement on September 23. There was absolutely no need for it. (Enrile 2012, 380–81)
The latest event mentioned in Proclamation 1081 is the 18 September 1972 Quezon City Hall bombing. If Enrile’s ambush on September 22 really was pivotal to the declaration of martial law, as is often claimed, then one would think that Marcos would have mentioned it in his proclamation. Though if it truly was important, it is odd that it was not mentioned at all in Marcos’s radio-tv address on 23 September.


All For Show

But highlighting the ambush makes sense if one would recall what Marcos told the American ambassador more than a week before martial law was declared. Marcos told Byroade that he would declare martial law if “a top official of his Government, or foreign ambassador, [was] assassinated or kidnapped, then he would act very promptly.”

In the CIA’s daily brief for Nixon on 23 September 1972 there was almost a hint of admiration for what Marcos had done, that “Marcos carefully orchestrated the move well in advance.”

What is clear, despite the contradictions among these accounts and texts, is that Marcos was ready to declare martial law before 21 September 1972, and outright lied about it in public.

One can argue that Marcos and his inner circle did so because imposing and implementing martial law was a national security concern; they did not want the people they eventually apprehended beginning 22 September 1972 to hide or flee, or for violence to escalate. But was such subterfuge truly necessary? Did not the military already have the power to arrest suspected subversives during that time even without a martial law decree, as they did when they rounded up dozens of student activists in Manila on 17 September 1972 (Villa 1972; De Vera 1972)? Did not everyone concerned (such as Ninoy Aquino) believe that Marcos was going to declare martial law in any case, but did not hide or flee anyway?

What did Marcos accomplish by making it appear that martial law was not contemplated, but was actually being thoroughly readied behind the scenes, later revealing that he had been planning to declare martial law at least as early as September 17? Did Marcos want to make it appear that he was a master strategist? Was the delayed announcement to the public actually related to optics more than anything else?

If that was the intent, then at least Marcos succeeded on one person: Ambassador Byroade. “This man Marcos is a chess player, par excellence,” Byroade conceded after his rope-a-dope with Marcos on the imposition of martial law.

But forty-six years after the fact, what we have is a cautionary tale of brilliance gone wrong, of diplomatic maneuvers seemingly in pursuit of national interests, of order and progress, only to be revealed as brazen efforts to kowtow to a dictator and deprive a generation of a future that they could have deserved.

JFA/MPPR/9/21/2018


References

Bonner, Raymond. 1987. Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy. New York: Times Books. 

Daroy, Petronilo Bn. 1988. “On the Eve of Dictatorship and Revolution.” In Dictatorship and Revolution: Roots of People’s Power, edited by Aurora Javate-de Dios, Petronilo Bn. Daroy, and Lorna Kalaw-Tirol, 1-25. Manila: Conspectus.

De Vera, Jose. 1972. “51 Held in AFP Mass Arrests.” Manila Bulletin, September 18, 1, 22.

Enrile, Juan Ponce. 2012. Juan Ponce Enrile: A Memoir. Edited by Nelson A. Navarro. Quezon City: ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc.

Karnow, Stanley. 1989. In Our Image: America’s Empire in the Philippines. New York: Random House.

“Marcos, Ferdinand.” 1973. Notes on the New Society of the Philippines. N.p.: The author.

Reyes, Miguel Paolo P. 2018. “Producing Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Scholarly Author.” Philippine Studies 66, 2: 173–218.

Villa, Rodrigo L. Jr. 1972. “Troopers Arrest 48 in Raids.” Manila Times, September 18, 1, 13.

Monday, August 20, 2018

JOB OPENING: STUDENT ASSISTANT

DUE DATE OF APPLICATION: 31 AUGUST 2018, 5:00 P.M.

The UP Third World Studies Center (TWSC) is looking for one (1) Student Assistant (SA) who can work beginning 3 September 2018. As per the Office of Scholarships and Student Services under the auspices of the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Student Affairs, TWSC can hire one (1) SA, with a maximum 120 working hours each month following a regular schedule.

The SA will for the most part assist in data gathering and encoding for the research project “Violence, Human Rights, and Democracy in the Philippines” and provide support in the conduct of other activities by the TWSC. Applicants are preferably proficient in using Microsoft Excel. Compensation is PHP 60/hour. To apply, please submit in PDF the following:

·Form 5 (with units enrolled);
·Grades from the previous semester (no grades of 5.0);
·Curriculum vitae with references; and
·A letter of application addressed to:
Dr. Ricardo T. Jose
Director
Third World Studies Center
For inquiries, send an email to Ms. Elinor May K. Cruz at twsc.updiliman@up.edu.ph.

Friday, August 10, 2018

EXTENDED: Call for applications: 2018 TWSC Writeshop



Monday, July 30, 2018

Free Online Copy of Kasarinlan 2017


























KASARINLAN: PHILIPPINE JOURNAL OF THIRD WORLD STUDIES
TWSC AND FORTY YEARS OF CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP
VOLUME 32 NUMBERS 1–2
2017

[Please click on the link to view or download the article.]

NOTES FROM THE EDITOR

1 TWSC at Forty: Multidisciplinary Research and the Challenges to the Center (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Ricardo T. Jose

ARTICLES

7 Global Populism: A Lineage of Filipino Strongmen from Quezon to Marcos and Duterte (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Alfred W. McCoy

ABSTRACT. The rising global phenomenon of populism has been framed as a reaction to the unmet promises of globalization in nominally democratic nations. Rodrigo Duterte has similarly been positioned along this trend. This article traces the lineage of Filipino strongmen from Quezon to Marcos and Duterte and shows that they emerged through juxtaposition of skilled diplomacy and local controls. This situates Duterte at an intersection of global trends and local political tradition, beyond the flat application of the term populism to the Philippines. Studying these Filipino strongmen reveals the role of performative violence in projecting domestic strength and a complementary need for diplomatic success to demonstrate international influence. These overlooked aspects of global populism can be used to speculate about the political fate of populist strongmen in disparate corners of the globe.

55 The Orient Express and Late Development (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Johannes Schmidt and Jacques Hersh

ABSTRACT. The demise of the Soviet Union, which was celebrated in the Anglosphere as the triumph of US supremacy, gave rise to different paradigmatic interpretations of the evolution of the world. The bulk of the evolving mainstream discourse was agenda-driven and projected a continuation of the US hegemony of the global capitalist system. Two theses stood out in the context of the post-Cold War. The first was the optimistic assumption encapsulated in the notion of “the end of history,” which projected a world having arrived at the last station based on the victory of liberal democracy and continued US hegemony. The second was the counter-assumption of the thesis of The Clash of Civilizations, which rejected the harmony interpretation of international relations and considered the future contradictions and conflicts to be related to cultural, not to say civilizational, antagonisms. The evolution of the world order in the past few decades demands a theoretical shift explaining the transformation, which takes into consideration the geostrategic and geopolitical ascendency of Eurasia and the Eastern Asia-Pacific hemisphere as well as the relative decline of the hegemony of the Anglosphere. Understanding the process at work makes it imperative to include the historical perspective. In this context, the growth of China and India as powerhouses in the world political economy cannot be exclusively defined as exemplars of catching up or late development but by the notion of “return of history.” After a long period of self-centered development, they are gradually reinserting themselves in the world system and reemerging into their former dominant status prior to the eighteenth century and the Western imperialist intrusion in the East. The aim of this paper is to explore and explain the economic and political consequences this ongoing transformation will have for the future of geopolitical and geo-economic domination of the West.

81 Shortcomings of an Idealized Urbanity: Ghost Urban Areas and the Asynchronous Territorial Development of Hanoi
Olivier Jacques, Danielle Labbé, and Clément Musil

ABSTRACT. This paper examines the recent emergence, on the periphery of Hanoi, of large real estate projects that began construction during the 2000s but have now remained unfinished or, even when completed, largely uninhabited. These “ghost urban areas,” as the local press calls them, epitomize some of the problems which emerged in Hanoi when a model of urban development that aimed at realizing an imagined urban future, formulated by state planning agencies, encountered the highly speculative reality of Vietnam’s property market. Ghost urban areas reveal how the state’s planning orientations and discourse—conveying ideals of urban “modernity,” “civility,” and particularly “synchrony”—instead generated dysfunctional, incomplete, and disconnected places. Based on a survey of thirty-nine ghost urban areas, a cartographic analysis, interviews with key actors, and a critical study of policy documents, this paper reveals multiple scales and forms of what we call “asynchronous territorial developments.” Around Hanoi, these developments involve vast tracts of agricultural lands forcibly appropriated yet left fallow, planned infrastructure and amenities that stay unbuilt for indefinite periods of time, and housing units transacted multiple times among speculators but have remained largely uninhabited and out of reach for a majority of urban households. Ultimately, we interrogate how these various territorial asynchronies, both generated by and plaguing ghost urban areas, shape their livability and inhabitants’ experience.

109 Conflict Calamities: Natural Disasters and the CPP-NPA (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Joshua Eastin

ABSTRACT. This study examines the effects of natural disaster inundation on the internal armed conflict waged by the Communist Party of the Philippines–New People’s Army (CPP-NPA) against the Philippine state. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic data and employing insights from the literature on civil conflict, social movements, and environmental security, this study suggests that the Philippines’ vulnerability to disaster has provided the CPP-NPA with tactical opportunities to increase attacks against the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and has enabled the group to penetrate affected communities to increase civilian collaboration and augment recruitment. In some cases, the Philippine state’s institutional architecture for humanitarian relief, which relies heavily on local government units, has abetted this process by enabling local politicians to distribute relief supplies according to political patronage. The effect marginalizes individuals and groups from the political process and enhances the receptivity of the CPP-NPA’s anti-state propaganda. The overall impact has been to prolong the CPP-NPA’s ability to maintain its revolutionary campaign and increase the group’s capacity to wage violence.

PROCEEDINGS

139 Third World Studies Center Fortieth Anniversary: Directors’ Forum (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Randolf S. David, Maria Serena I. Diokno, Miriam Coronel-Ferrer, Teresa Encarnacion S. Tadem, Maria Ela L. Atienza, and Ricardo T. Jose

161 Tribute to Dodong Nemenzo, TWSC Founder (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Ricardo T. Jose, Emerlinda R. Roman, Leslie E. Bauzon, Consuelo J. Paz, Maria Serena I. Diokno, Randolf S. David, and Francisco Nemenzo

REVIEWS

177 A Review of Changing Lives in Laos: Society, Politics, and Culture in a Post-Socialist State edited by Vanina Bouté, and Vatthana Pholsena
Matthew Santamaria

183 A Review of  Moral Politics in the Philippines: Inequality, Democracy and the Urban Poor by Wataru Kusaka (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Hansley A. Juliano

COMMENTARY

191 Expecting the Unexpected: Documenting Accidentology in the Philippines (CORRECTED COPY UPLOADED 31 AUG 2018)
Barbara Politsch


Wednesday, May 16, 2018

The 2018 TWSC Writeshop


The 2018 TWSC Writeshop
Third World Studies Center, Lower Ground Floor,
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy,
Palma Hall, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City
11–13 October 2018


About the Writeshop
The Third World Studies Center (TWSC) is launching the 2018 TWSC Writeshop in continuing its commitment to build the capacity of early career researchers, junior faculty members, and graduate students in the social sciences. As a premiere social science research center in the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines-Diliman, the TWSC continues  to  develop  critical,  alternative  paradigms  to  promote  progressive  scholarship  by undertaking  pioneering  research  and  publishing  original,  empirically-grounded,  and innovative studies.

Originally  meant  as  a  capacity-building  workshop  on  social  science  research  in  2010,  the TWSC  Writeshop  transformed  into  a  unique  publication  platform  for  early  career researchers,  junior  faculty  members,  and  graduate  students  in  the  social  sciences.  Since 2014, successful participants, called Writeshop fellows, were not only given the opportunity to interact with senior scholars, but also the opportunity to produce a publishable manuscript for TWSC’s internationally refereed  journal  Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies.

The 2018 TWSC Writeshop sustains the manuscript-driven mentoring format in the form of intensive yet collegial small-group discussions with mentors, established scholars in their respective fields and the Kasarinlan editorial staff. The intensive three-day session  will  bring  in  line  problematization,  researcher  positionality  and  ethics,  and crafting meaningful narratives based on empirical work to equip the Writeshop fellows in making their own contribution  to  social  science  scholarship,  i.e.,  a  publishable  work.  In  seeing through  the  TWSC  Writeshop’s  goal,  the  Writeshop  culminates  in  the  publication  of successful manuscripts in a special issue in Kasarinlan. Fellows whose manuscript will be accepted for publication within one year or until October 2019 will receive a cash incentive of P20,000.00.


Who may apply
There  will  only  be  ten  Writeshop  Fellows. Preferred applicants are social science graduate students, early career researchers, and/or junior faculty members from any Philippine higher education institution.


What to submit
Applicants  must  be  able  to  submit  the  following  to  twsc.updiliman@up.edu.ph on  or  before  31 July 2018:
  1. A 6,000–8,000 word unpublished paper (excluding end notes and references.) on any social science topic, authored solely by the applicant, inclusive of an abstract and a list of references, that can be developed into  a  full-length  article  for  publication  in  the  Center’s  internationally  refereed  journal Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of  Third  World  Studies.  The submitted work must not be under consideration in any other publication. The draft article must demonstrate theoretical rigor and must be rooted in the author’s own empirical work. Submissions will be plagiarism-checked. Applicants are encouraged to follow this format (https://bit.ly/2jm8jX5).
  2. Soft copy of latest curriculum vitae with references.


What to expect after submission of requirements
  1. All  submissions  will  undergo  plagiarism  check  by  the  Kasarinlan  editorial  staff. Submissions without plagiarized contents will undergo preliminary editorial evaluation by the Kasarinlan editorial staff. Ten submissions will be selected.
  2. The  ten  applicants  whose  submissions  were  selected  will  be  notified  by  email, including the terms of reference (TOR) for the Writeshop. They must convey their full understanding, agreement, and acceptance of the TOR by sending the signed TOR to twsc.updiliman@up.edu.ph.
  3. There is no registration fee. Successful applicants based outside of Metro Manila may apply for accommodation and airfare subsidies in the form of reimbursement and subject to government accounting rules. This excludes baggage fees, taxi fare, travel tax, and the likes. To apply for subsidies, send a signed letter addressed to the Director, Dr. Ricardo T. Jose at twsc.updiliman@up.edu.ph stating your reasons for availing them.


What to expect during the writeshop
Day 1
Activity 1: Introduction of the Writeshop Fellows
Objective: To create a collegial atmosphere among the fellows.

Activity 2: Keynote speech on the state of the art of social sciences in the Philippines
Objective: To establish the research and publication milieu in which early-career researchers can stake their claim as potential authors.

Activity 3: Plenary Lecture on social science research and publication
Objective: To set the general parameters of problematization, research positionality, and ethics in social science research and publication.

Activity 4: Small-group discussion on writing a manuscript in the social sciences
Objective: To provide a platform for the fellows where they can engage mentors and members of the editorial staff in a dialogue on the basics of manuscript writing in the social sciences.

Conduct of small-group discussion: The fellows will be assigned to groups with a mentor and a member of the editorial staff each. The mentors will be provided with a copy of the manuscript before the Writeshop to give substantive feedback. The discussion will revolve around, but will not be limited  to: 1) What research question/s does the manuscript seek to answer?; 2) What are its key arguments?; 3) What are its strengths and weaknesses?; 4) What outline/structure can be developed to strengthen the manuscript in making an original contribution in the existing literature?

Day 2
Activity 5: Small-group discussion on revising a manuscript in the social sciences
Objective: To provide a platform for the fellows where they can engage mentors and members of the editorial staff in a dialogue on transforming their draft manuscript for publication in Kasarinlan.

Conduct of small-group discussion: With the same group assignment, the discussion, this time, will revolve around, but will not be limited to: 1) Based on the first small group discussion, what is/are the research question/s that the manuscript can problematize and answer?; 2) What revised outline/structure have you chosen in revising your manuscript?; 3) What are its strengths, its foreseeable challenges, and how can they be addressed?

Activity 6: The Kasarinlan Editorial Process
Objective:  To  familiarize  the  fellows  on  the Kasarinlan editorial process, with emphasis on plagiarism and  Chicago Manual of Style referencing.

Day 3
Culminating Activity: Writeshop Fellows’ Plenary Session
Former Writeshop fellows will also be invited.

Closing Activity: Awarding of Certificates
(Applicants who will not be able to attend the entire three-day writeshop, will not be provided a certificate.)


For inquiries
Elinor May K. Cruz
University Research Associate
Third World Studies Center
University of the Philippines Diliman
Lower Ground Floor, Palma Hall
University of the Philippines
1101 Diliman, Quezon City
Email: twsc.updiliman@up.edu.ph
Telephone: +63 2 981 8500 ext. 2488
Telefax: +63 2 920 5428
Mobile: +63926 710 2926

For updates

Friday, May 11, 2018

TWSC Director Dr. Ricardo T. Jose Receives his 2018 Gawad Tsanselor para sa Natatanging Guro Award

The Third World Studies Center is extremely proud of its Director Dr. Ricardo T. Jose for being one of the awardees of the 2018 Gawad Tsanselor para sa Natatanging Guro. This is Dr. Jose's third Gawad Tsanselor. In 1999 he received the Gawad Tsanselor for his outstanding work as a researcher and in 2011 and 2018 for him being an outstanding teacher.

Congratulations Sir Rico!



























Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Forum 3: Kanino Kinikilig ang Korte Suprema? | Sa Bungad ng Diktadura? Ang 2018 Third World Studies Center Public Forum Series



SA BUNGAD NG DIKTADURA?
Ang 2018 Third World Studies Center Public Forum Series
FORUM 3: KANINO KINIKILIG ANG KORTE SUPREMA?
10 Mayo 2018 (Huwebes), 1:00 n.h.-4:00 n.h.
National Engineering Center AVR
University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City


Panoorin DITO ang video recordings ng forum na ito.


Programa
12:30 - 1:00 Pagpapatala
01:00 - 1:05 Pagbati, Ricardo T. Jose, PhD, Direktor, TWSC
01:05 - 1:10 Pagpapakilala ng mga Tagapagsalita, Moderator
01:10 - 1:30 Vicente Mendoza, Associate Justice, 1994–2003, Assistant Solicitor General, 1973–1980
01:30 - 1:50 Rene Saguisag, Senator, 1987–1992 (to be confirmed)
01:50 - 2:10 Victoria Avena, Associate Professor, UP College of Law
02:10 - 4:00 Malayang Talakayan

Moderator: Marites Vitug, Editor-at-Large, Rappler

Libre ito at bukas sa publiko (RSVP).

Concept
The Solicitor General is like a persistent suitor of the Supreme Court, an amorous houseguest that seemingly never leaves. Thus, the current SolGen, Jose Calida, has taken to calling himself the “sixteenth justice” of the Supreme Court

Unsatisfied, Calida now demands that if he fails to win his sweetheart's hand, he'll have her thrown out in the streets. That is what can happen if Calida's quo warranto petition to have Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno ejected from the Court succeeds. If that happens, we will trace the origins of a doctrine that can cause the removal of all government officials—even those whom the Constitution states can only be removed via impeachment—to Calida.

Calida’s strategy has deep-seated roots.

Legal experts have stated that our Supreme Court has clarified—if not actually expanded—the extent of the powers of the president under our previous and current constitutions. What is usually not highlighted in such explanations is the role of the office of the Solicitor General. During the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, Lansang v. Garcia was promulgated. That decision reinforced the ability of the Supreme Court to look into the legality of orders by the president, but also stated that the president is in the best position to determine if there is evidence for the reasonable use of his police powers. Such reasoning came from the office of the SolGen, then headed by Felix Antonio—which, in the context of a dictatorship, represented more the interests of Marcos than those of the citizenry.

The sameness in thinking, if not collusion, between the Court and the SolGen does happen. During the Corazon Aquino administration, SolGen Francisco Chavez succeeded in convincing the Court that the president has the power to prevent the immediate repatriation of the remains of Ferdinand Marcos from Hawaii. Recently, Calida has also enjoyed such wins; the Court found meritorious his defense of the legality of President Rodrigo Duterte's order to have Marcos's remains buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. In two distinct cases related to a single corpse, both Chavez and Calida resurrected the “political question” doctrine that the Court—and the most prominent Marcos-era SolGen, Estelito Mendoza—was fond of during the Marcos dictatorship.

Such are the moves that the Court and the SolGen make under a ratified constitution; what if there isn't one? We have already experienced being under what some have been clamoring for, a “RevGov” or a revolutionary government. Corazon Aquino established one after EDSA. A month after she became president, using the dictatorial powers she had at the time, Aquino issued a temporary “Freedom Constitution,” which junked several sections of the 1973 Constitution. A few months after a government was formed under the Freedom Constitution, several petitions questioning the legitimacy of the Aquino administration had to be dealt with by the Supreme Court. These petitions were dismissed in a minute resolution, which stated that the legitimacy of Aquino government was not a justiciable matter.

This forum will focus on the possible responses of the Supreme Court if Duterte forms a RevGov. Or, barring that, if Duterte arrogated unto himself unchecked executive powers. If the current Constitution will be disposed of to make Duterte a Supreme Leader, what “fundamental law” will be said to prevail over the country, which the Court will follow—if there will still be a Supreme Court? If, like Corazon Aquino, Duterte issues a Freedom Constitution, can the Supreme Court void it? Will judicial review still exist? If Duterte will not declare a RevGov, can he still become dictator-like—a harsh ruler who is able to make laws or law-like proclamations—that, with a meeting of the minds of the SolGen and the Supreme Court, is not violative of the Constitution?

At the moment, the Supreme Court has entertained a tendentious judicial proceeding against its very own institution in seeming titillation to the sweet nothings that Calida whispers in its ear. The SolGen asks for its heart and the Supreme Court might just give in. Then the next time around, the Solgen will ask for its brain. By that time, the Supreme Court may be quivering in fear instead of titillation. Inured to subservience to the SolGen’s importunings, it might just commit judicial lobotomy.


Sa Bungad ng Diktadura? Ang 2018 Third World Studies Center Public Forum Series:
Forum 1: Matotokhang Ba ang 1987 Constitution?
Forum 2: Puro Bato na Ba ang mga Unipormado?


PHOTOS FROM THE PUBLIC FORUM