james.soriano

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 17 December 2008 Issue (Page G-2)

---

At the Ayala Avenue-Paseo de Roxas junction in Makati last Friday afternoon, the multi-sectoral rally against Charter Change proved at least two things.

First, that rallies still work– sort of. During the days that followed, the Senate voted to junk the Constitutional Assembly, and House Speaker Prospero Nograles declared a ‘ceasefire’ on moves to amend the Constitution.

Second, it proved that people still cared. Well, some people, at least. The multi-sectoral rally did live up to its name. It drew a wide spectrum of protesters, from priests to politicans, capitalists to conservatives, students to street people. It was, on a miniature scale, almost ideally representative. Despite the disillusionment that pervades society when it comes to issues of politics, it is encouraging to know that some people still care about whether our government is doing the right thing.

It didn’t occur to me that it happened last Friday, though, until I came home that same night, when I came home to the sound of my parents watching TV Patrol in the living room, and in my head I blurted out, “Oh, that was today?” I guess I had been too preoccupied with my academic work the past week to be able to keep abreast with national news. I had the television turned off on most nights.

But the truth is, I consciously avoid following news on national politics whenever I can help it, which unfortunately isn’t very often because there is only one place at home to study in, and that place is where my parents watch the evening and midnight news, whichever is on by the time they arrive. Part of me is disenchanted whenever I hear talk on political squabbles or scandals or Charter Change, because it seems to me that nothing positive ever happens. But alas, due to ANC being on all the time, I am regrettably quite informed, and very disillusioned.

I used to be one of those young people who actively kept aware, though. I used to stay up to watch congressional sessions and impeachment votings, even if the results were mostly in favor of the Administration. But besides that, I used to make myself heard: I aired out my views to classmates and friends, whether or not they gave a damn, I blogged my positions, and I tried to join demonstrations whenever it was within my means to do so.

Nowadays I just sit around and watch re-runs of old sitcoms. I figure my voice won’t matter in the end. This issue proves my point.

It isn’t so much that amending the Constitution is such a horrible thing to do, it’s that they’re amending it for all the wrong reasons.

For one thing, this isn’t the first time that the Administration has brought it up. In fact, if my memory serves, they bring it up at least once every year. Not only that, they’re intent on making it happen before election time arrives, before her term expires. It’s been shot down again, but I’m wiling to bet a million bucks that it will come back to life by the time next year rolls around. This issue is turning out to be immortal.

For another, the method which they advocate to do it with, a constituent assembly, seems suspect. Loosely speaking, it will bring both the Senate (24 senators), and the House of Representatives (250 congressmen), the two houses of Congress, together in a meeting to vote on charter change. If three-fourths of all the members (198 votes) vote in favor of it, then amendments can be made to the Constitution. It would be fairly easy to predict how this one will go.

Somehow, I find it hard to convince myself that this little charade is for anything else than to keep some people in power.

Of course, it’s not like my voice will matter. My congressmen haven’t asked me whether I would be in favor of Cha-Cha, and I doubt they’ve asked anyone else who isn’t in government. I’ll have to wait until 2010– if we ever get there.

It’s thoughts like these that make me wish I had switched to another channel.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 10 September 2008 Issue (Page E-4)

---

As a young adolescent, my father loved talking about his experiences as a young activist. That was back in the late ‘70s, when life was characterized by Cold War-like tension under the Marcos administration, and threats seemed more visible and real, even for young people.

Nonetheless, activism had an appeal to the youth then. And my father was one of those people who would be at the forefront of rallies, as well as behind organizing them. Eventually, he would be one of the millions of people who flocked to EDSA and proved to the world that oppressive regimes could be brought down by bloodless revolutions. Obviously, he’s proud to be part of that movement.

Conversations like these, though, would inevitably come to a comparison with our generation. My father would say that activism was not what it used to be, when the youth truly felt like they had a stake in their country’s future. He would also say that the youth of today is a lot more apathetic and indifferent.

Firstly, I think he’s right in saying that activism is not what it used to be. Then again, he lived in a generation when fears were much more palpable. You always felt like you were being watched, and you never knew what could happen to you. One day, you could be in school, and the next day, you would never be heard from again; nowadays, it’s not like that. Or, at the very least, you wouldn’t expect that to come from non-criminal elements.

Besides, back in the day they had an incentive to be disruptive. For one thing, most people supported it, whether openly or not. For another thing, they used to send stronger messages. Now, they don’t seem to work. Moreover, sometimes they are just annoying.

Secondly, in my opinion there’s some merit to the accusation that we’ve become more apathetic. Things have changed, yes; but besides that, I think our generation has become more detached from reality. The advent of the information age has ironically made it easier for us to lock ourselves in our own little worlds. We are now able to block out the sounds of the world around us with the sounds that come from our iPods.

In my own experience, the sad truth is that I know too many people who just don’t give a damn. For some, the sad state of affairs is simply not a reality that can be felt, whether literally or figuratively, in their lives. Others are aware of what’s happening, but would rather not care. What’s the point in caring, anyway? It’s either that, or there’s also no point behind their not caring. Ours, after all, is also a “wala lang” generation.

But it would be wrong to say that we’re completely indifferent. Activism is often equated with protests and demonstrations, particularly in this country, where “militant” takes on the special meaning of “one who engages in rallies”. Yet activism also takes a number of different forms, such as advocacy campaigns. If that’s the case, then the ranks of the young activists in this country would increase. It might be by a small amount, but I guess it’s better than nothing.

If we are going to insist on traditional notions of activism, though, can you blame us for not being involved in political change? Our generation bore witness to the other People Power, but things didn’t turn out the way our people had hoped they would. We’ve also borne witness to the massive protests that have followed, and none of them have succeeded. As a generation, we’ve learned—via experience, in fact—that these methods don’t work anymore. Or that if they do, they don’t necessarily make things better.

That’s funny, though. It’s either we don’t care, or we’re disillusioned this early. All the while, things seem to be getting worse, and it’s either we don’t feel it, or we don’t feel anything can be done about it.

In the final analysis, maybe we are an apathetic generation.

But as long as there are people who continue struggling to make things better, no matter how few, I refuse to believe that there is no hope.

---

PUBLISHED: Student & Campus Section, Manila Bulletin, 4 September 2008 Issue (page F-4)

---

One hot topic that seems to recur in the newspapers and among my socially-aware peers is HB 4110, known more commonly as the Reproductive Health Bill. The bill, which is national in scope, promoted information on and access to both natural and family planning methods. It also claims not to “have any bias for or against either method.” The author of the bill, Rep. Edcel Lagman, has characterized the bill as pro-life and pro-family.

Supporters of the bill commend it for promoting the exercise of freedom of choice, as well as for being a timely response to the causes underlying overpopulation and, in the long run, poverty. Opposition to the bill, on the other hand, centers on claims that it is anti-life, that it promotes a culture of promiscuity, and that sex education is best practiced at home.

In my own opinion, it is the most reasonable alternative we have at the moment.

I think it’s unfortunate that the term ‘population control’ has negative connotations. Whenever mentioned, it seems to imply that we reduce people to mere numbers or statistics, or connote unacceptable and unnatural methods of prevention. That’s why it’s hard to give bills like these a fair hearing. But I propose that we set aside our biases for just a moment.

I want to begin with an observation: people who live in poverty are basically uninformed when it comes to reproductive health. It does not help either that society deems sex as a taboo topic. These people, then as now, find out through their friends, or by trying it out themselves. It is situations like these that cause more, usually unwanted, pregnancies. These pregnancies make their already-complicated lives even more complicated.

In an ideal situation, traditional methods would be enough. People would abstain because they would know the consequences, and their values would be consistent with it. But reality isn’t like that. People’s values differ, and they don’t always know the consequences.

If we really want to help them out, then the best we can do is to inform them, and give them their options. Isn’t this what we value in a democracy? Besides, if there’s anything that should be going for this bill, it’s the fact that it does not value one method over another. This means that if society’s values are as consistent as they appear, then most people would probably just listen to their parish priest anyway.

I understand the most of the controversy stems from the notion that modern methods would be available. Apparently, making these available would constitute an attack on our values. They would also, presumably, turn us all into sex maniacs, because condoms are available at our nearest convenience stores.

I don’t know what’s more oppressive, though—that we insist on imposing one system of beliefs for all people, or that we allow these ‘threats’ to exist for the sake of giving people knowledge. That’s because I don’t believe in an absolute notion of good. Or, maybe I’m just a liberal, believing that democracy is all about giving people choices, and that the furthest government can step in is by recommending some choices over others.

It’s the same banana with the ‘culture of promiscuity’ argument. True, safe sex is not the same as responsible sex, and I’m sure adults with ten or more children would understand.

As for experimental teenagers, well, they’re going to be exposed sooner or later. The question is whether we’ll let them get there first before they know anything. Or, maybe I’m just a cynic, not believing we can expect many of us to listen to abstinence talks because the world today encourages us to find out for ourselves what’s good for us, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

In the end, it’s not just a question of values, but a question concerning the just distribution of resources. I agree, this problem must be addressed, but I’m afraid we’ll have to wait forever before we get anywhere. In the meantime, more children are being born into lives that will become more and more difficult, the more that they keep on coming.

Maybe that’s the greater oppression.