Last March 7 was the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Bud Dajo, the massacre of some 600 Moro men, women and children by the officers and men of the United States Armed Forces, with some (Christian) Filipino soldiers. In 1999, I wrote a newspaper article on this episode of Moro history to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the Bates Treaty.

Below is the article published in The Philippine Post, a now defunct Philippine national daily newspaper, on Aug. 31, 1999.

Charge of the Wood Brigade

                                             by  Datu JAMAL ASHLEY ABBAS

On Aug. 20, a symposium on the Bates Treaty was held in San Francisco to commemorate its centennial. The Philippine-American War Centennial Initiatives (PAWCI) was one of the organizers of the event. One hundred years ago, on August 20, 1899, Brigadier General John C. Bates, representing the United States of America and His Highness Sultan Jamal ul-Kiram II of the Sultanate of Sulu signed what has since been known as the Bates Treaty. US President McKinley approved the accord two months later. The Sultan agreed to acknowledge the sovereignty of the US while the Americans agreed to respect the rights and dignities of the Sultan and the datus, not to interfere with religious matters, protect the Sulu archipelago from foreign waters and even pay the sultan and his privy council monthly salaries.

The treaty was a great tactical move by the US. It allowed American generals to concentrate their might in Luzon, where the Tagalogs under Aguinaldo were giving them a good fight. The US policy of attraction was such a success that the normally combative Taosug datus became complacent.

But then came General Leonard Wood. Mr. Wood , a close friend of Theodore Roosevelt, was famous for organizing the Rough Riders and for capturing the celebrated Apache chief, Geronimo. He was appointed Governor-General of Cuba in 1899. A few years later, he became the first governor of the Moro Province. He immediately imposed a “mailed fist policy”. He had no intention of treating the Moros as equals. He immediately worked for the abrogation of the Bates Treaty. In June 1903, he ordered that all Moros pay a cedula tax of P2.00 (two pesos) per head.

Paying tribute to a foreigner was anathema to the average Moro. It was a sign of submission. The Sultan pleaded not to enforce such a policy. But General Wood insisted. At first, the Sultan offered to pay the tax for all his subjects. But Wood wanted the Moros to live by his (Wood’s) law. He worked to abolish slavery and vigorously fought piracy. He also forbade the Moros from carrying arms, whether pistols or blades. Non-Moros, on the other hand, could carry gatling guns if they wished to. A Moro without a kris (!) — the idea was quite preposterous to the Moro minds. The Moros cried “foul” and took up arms — in Lanao, in Maguindanao, in Buayan, in Basilan and in Sulu.

The battles, massacres, assassinations, sieges, uprisings etc. that ensued were too numerous to mention. But there were some that caught the attention of the US press. One of them was the Bud Dajo massacre.

In 1906, the Taosugs were quite disenchanted with their Sultan and prominent datus. They hated the Americans and their US-made laws. When the US military patrols came to collect tax, they ran to the nearest jungle or hiding place.

Bud (Mt.) Dajo is a lava cone of an extinct volcano at an altitude of 2100 feet. The crater in the summit has a circumference of 1800 yards. The crater was a natural fortress; hence, a favorite shelter or hide-away for Moro “tax evaders”, who were mostly poor people. Soon families were staying in the crater. By March 1906, more than a thousand Moros — men, women and children, made their way to the crater. Gen. Wood would not have any of this nonsense. He ordered his officers to gather in Jolo. Col. Duncan with about 800 officers and men from the 6th and 19th infantry, the 4th Cavalry, the 28th Artillery Battery, the Sulu Constabulary and sailors from the gunboat Pampanga, armed with mountain guns, rifles, bayonets, fast-firing pistols and grenades launched the assault on March 5. The thousand or so Moro men, women and children were armed with kris, barungs and spears. By March 7, the smoke of battle had cleared. The people in the crater fought bravely, to the last Moro.

There were no survivors. It was a complete massacre. The Americans lost two dozen men and some seventy wounded. Gen. Wood reported to the Secretary of War the success of his mission. According to his report, the Moros lost 600 men, women and children while the US lost only 18 men and 52 wounded. President Roosevelt immediately sent a note to Wood: “I congratulate you and the officers and men of your command upon the brave feat of arms wherein you and they so well upheld the honor of the American flag.” But there were protests. The New Orleans Times-Democrat at the time called the event “a frightful atrocity”. The Boston Post exclaimed: “..if this is imperial expansion… heaven save us from anymore!” The Democrats called the affair a “horrible massacre” and “an assassination.” Americans wrote editorial letters, pamphlets and poems denouncing the massacre. C.E. S. Wood dedicated an emotional poem to the President, the Congress and to General Wood. The poem starts with :

   <blockquote>  " Six hundred Moros have been slain -- all -- all -- all -- 
        Fathers and mothers and boys and girls and black-eyed babes. 
        It is a glorious victory. 
        I weep for the little children who shall never play again; ….."

In the US Congress, Rep. Williams read a satirical poem (adapted from Charge of the Light Brigade): Chased them from everywhere Chased them all onward Into the crater of death Drove them — six hundred. “Forward, the Wood Brigade; Spare not a one,” he said; “Shoot all six hundred.” Flashed all the sabres there Flashed as they turned in air, Sabring the women there, Charging the children, while All the world wondered. Stifled by the cannon smoke, Men, women, children choke. Women and children Reeled from the bay’net’s stroke, In death not sundered; Families slaughtered there, All of six hundred. * What shall such bloodthirst slake? Go ask Hell Roaring Jake Whether Wood blundered. Honor the charge they made Honor the Wood Brigade, For that six hundred.

In 1921, Leonard Wood was appointed Governor-General of the Philippines. He served as such until his death in 1927.

General Leonard Wood

Seeing Treason! - Palace documentary justifies PP1017

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty.” - Edward Roscoe Murrow

The movie Good Night and Good Luck (2005) showcased what many consider as television journalism’s finest moments when broadcast journalist Edward Murrow and his team took head-on the Terror known as McCarthyism or the Red Scare that gripped America in the early 1950s. On March 9, 1954, Murrow aired in his TV program See It Now a documentary showing clips of Senator McCarthy’s speeches. Murrow and his team used McCarthy’s own words against himself (McCarthy).

The timing of the movie is very opportune for Filipinos in the grip of the 1017 aftermath. While Americans have surrendered some of their freedoms in the name of President Bush’s War on Terror through the Patriot Act, the proclamation of a State of Emergency (PP 1017) in the Philippines has shown everyone that the freedoms the Filipinos regained in EDSA 1986 could easily be lost again.

To justify Proclamation 1017, Malacanang produced a video documentary titled Paglaban sa Kataksilan: 1017 (Fighting Treason: 1017 ). The producers and crew of this documentary did not use

Murrow’s techniques. Instead, they followed the tactics of Senator McCarthy. McCarthy fanned the anti-communist hysteria and led the witch-hunt that destroyed the lives of many freedom-loving Americans. Whoever got the ire of McCarthy was immediately labeled a Communist. In the 1017 documentary, everyone against the Arroyo government is a leftist-rightist extremist.

The video opens to martial music with the camera tilting from the sky to a long shot of Malacanang Palace. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) then explains in the vernacular the rationale behind 1017.

Apparently, the director wanted to show that the President is a person of Authority. Her words and demeanor give the impression of a “Strong President”.

The narrator then declares that the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) ordered the groups fronting for them to launch massive protest rallies on 24 February, the 20th anniversary of EDSA Uno. Images of ordinary Filipinos rallying at the EDSA shrine were shown.

To support this assertion, AFP Chief of Staff Gen. Generoso Senga states that previous to that date, there were lightning rallies by supporters of former President Estrada and the late presidential candidate Fernando Poe Jr.

The voice-over then states that Congressman Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna declared a union of forces with Erap supporters, the Hyatt 10 and former President Cory Aquino.

Ocampo’s plan, according to the documentary, was to march with 20,000 people on 22 February, to convene at the People Power monument on 23 February and to march to Mendiola on the 24th.

Do the video-makers believe that the people would cower in fear because the leftist congressman had joined forces with supporters of former Presidents Aquino and Estrada and the so-called Hyatt 10? Are Aquino and Estrada rightists? If they are rightists, what does that make of the generals?

What about the Hyatt 10, a strange mix of government functionaries and politicians? Are they of the Left or of the Right?

The viewers would certainly be led to ask if it is against the law to march in the streets to celebrate the 20th anniversary of EDSA.

In a democracy, the right to peaceably assemble is basic. Section 4 of Article III of the Philippine Constitution states: “ No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

Marching in protest during the anniversary of EDSA Uno is well within the rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. What then is so ominous about it?

The Armed Opposition

The video then segues into the armed opposition. The narrator explains that the NPA attacks against the military had intensified. Footage shows military men waging war against an unseen enemy.

The narrator then boasts that the NPA terrorists failed and that many of their members have in fact surrendered.

This micro segment begs the question, “So what’s the problem?” If the NPAs were defeated, then bravo for the AFP! So why is there need for 1017?

Gen. Senga says that meanwhile, military components are moving against the government. Their alleged activities include recruitment of junior officers as well as spreading black propaganda to sow disunity in the AFP.

A newspaper headline announcing the escape of the 4 Magdalo officers flashes on-screen. The narrator says that NPA spokesperson Roger Rosal announced his offer to give sanctuary to the Magdalo officers.

Lt Gen. Hermogenes Esperon then explains that there was a Memorandum of Agreement between the CPP and the Magdalo or the Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan.

As further proof of the alliance between disgruntled military officers and the CPP, the narrator states that on 21 Feb, Lt. San Juan, one of the escapees, was recaptured together with two NPA members.

One of them was Atty. Cristopher Belmonte, who, according to the video, had been arrested in 1997 together with the Alex Boncayao Brigade leader Nilo de la Cruz.

Raising a Hackle

Viewers are bound to ask: If Atty. Belmonte, a supposed top leader of the CPP/NPA, had already been arrested before, then why was he out of jail? Was he freed? Or did he escape? Or is the military simply doing what McCarthy used to do – labeling perceived enemies as “communist”?

The only item in the video that could lead viewers to suspect an alliance between disgruntled military officers and leftists is the presence of lawyers Argee Guevarra and JV Bautista, both of SANLAKAS, a leftist group. Gen. Senga pointed out that both were constantly beside Col. Querubin during the Fort Bonifacio stand-off.

Of course, the two lawyers could just be offering their legal services or they simply wanted to be on TV.

The video then went on to say that a document among Lt. San Juan’s papers indicated a supposed attempt to overthrow the government through OPLAN HACKLE. But the viewers never get to see that document.

OPLAN HACKLE is allegedly a complex plan to overthrow the government by attacking various government institutions and media facilities. It comes complete with sub-plans carrying cinematic titles like The Main Event, Sister Act 1 and Sister Act 2.

According to the documentary, the NPAs have failed in their attacks against the military and many have surrendered. Why then would disgruntled military officers with top-notch skills and high-tech weapons forge ties with an emaciated group whose ideology opposes theirs? It just doesn’t make sense.

Defining Documentary

Throughout its history, the term documentary has always referred to facts, clues, proofs or giving evidence about something. It refers to Reality or something that is real. The 1017 documentary is really more like a Power Point presentation than a film documentary. Yet with its varied and numerous assertions, not a single document (evidence), whether written or filmed, was shown.

For example, the ringleaders of the military would-be rebels were supposed to be Gen. Danilo Lim and Col. Querubin. According to the video documentary, Gen. Lim was the “over-all ground commander of the military component” of the alleged coup attempt and was arrested before the scheduled rallies.

Col. Querubin even had a very public tantrum when he protested the removal of his superior, Marines chief Gen. Miranda. The 5-hour or so “stand-off” at Fort Bonifacio certainly did not give the impression that Col. Querubin was a man under arrest.

According to the video, PP 1017 was issued to prevent a coup d’etat. Using PP 1017 as the “enabling law”, police dispersed rallies, arrested citizens, and threatened the media. Yet the alleged leading coup plotters Lim and Querubin were not arrested and formally charged immediately. Gen. Esperon recommended that Gen. Lim be brought before a court martial almost one month after the issuance of PP 1017.

Again, it doesn’t make sense.

Curiously, while PP 1017 states: “WHEREAS, the claims of these elements have been recklessly magnified by certain segments of the national media”, the 1017 documentary is quite silent on the role of the mass media in the alleged coup attempt.

Yet one of the first things that the government did after proclamation 1017 was to harass the media and instruct them to follow government guidelines.

Kataksilan- Fact or Fiction?

Stanford University’s Henry Breitrose, in his essay There Is Nothing More Practical Than a Good Film Theory, argues that “one of the functions of the documentary is to truthfully represent how things are in the world by ensuring that statements correspond to facts.” He further noted that “the normative assumption is that the film maker tells the truth, and bias or untruth is open to determination by colleagues and critics in the public forum.”

Critical thinking viewers can easily determine the bias and untruth of Malacanang’s video documentary.

Murrow’s documentary used McCarthy’s own words against the Senator. The 1017 documentary might end up indicting the very people it is supposed to serve. (END)

              ================================================
              Datu Jamal Ashley Abbas is a Media and Film Studies scholar, a documentarian and author of an award-winning article for journalism. He writes a monthly column, “Quantum Cinema” for Mr. & Ms Magazine.

Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility

In the April issue of Philippine Journalism Review, I did a review of the government’s 1017 documentary. My article is titled: Seeing Treason: Palace documentary justifies PP 1017 , pp. 12-13.

Later, I might upload it here.

Knowlege Society? Not in the Philippines! Below is an excerpt from a paper I wrote (Ecology of Media) in 2003:

Today, there is a lot of talk in the Philippines about media convergence, the Information Highway, Cyberspace, etc. Practically all universities offer degrees in Computer Science and Computer Engineering. Yet, the University of the Philippines itself uses only PC’s (Personal Computers). This year, it had to return what it called a “Supercomputer” back to Singapore because it had no use for it.

The “supercomputer” was just a one-cabinet computer. I graduated more than 20 years ago, yet my school at that time had an IBM mainframe computer and students had access to the computer almost 24 hours a day. Of course, we used the computer to write programs to solve mathematical and engineering problems, and not as mere word processors or database organizers.

Who uses the Internet and the World Wide Web? Not a lot. Visit a nearby internet café, and most people there are playing games on the ‘Net. But outside Metro Manila, who has even heard of the Net? Who uses video conferencing? Hardly any. In 1994, I instituted in my then office the practice of sending fax through the computer thus eliminating the need for paper. Who does that here? A visit to any government office will make one conclude that the idea of a Philippines becoming a paperless society is a hopeless dream.

I put up a website a couple of years ago, and I continually receive a lot congratulatory feedback. But all came from abroad – Filipino workers, Fil-Ams and foreigners. How come not a single Manila-based Filipino ever commented on my website? Most probably, there are not as many Manila-based Filipinos who surf the Net. Foreigners even did some Philippine websites. In fact, the domain name www.mindanao.com is owned by a foreigner.

While many countries are already entrenched in the Information Age, the Philippines is barely entering it. In 1978 when I was doing my practicum in Germany, I needed an article from a journal. The library did not have a copy of that issue. I gave the details to the librarian and the day after, I got photocopies of that article. Last year, I went to the UP main library and I was shocked at how strict the sentinels were. ID’s were carefully inspected. It was as if they were guarding Fort Knox. Today, I cannot even borrow from the library because my ID is still being processed. Free flow of information, anyone?

Recently, I tried using the Internet at a government office. It was super slow. The people there told me that it has always been like that. Nobody there thought that the phone cables had any connection with the Internet. When the maintenance head was called, he said that the Internet needs fiber optics, etc. I told him that it was not true, and that copper cables would do just fine. He finally admitted that they had been bugging the telephone company, PLDT, about their lines, which were very old. The Head of the Agency wrote to PLDT head Mr. Pangilinan recently and so PLDT promised to fix it.

When Pres. Ramos announced his “TopWeb” project, I laughed because someone was pulling his leg. In comparison, Mr. Mahathir’s Cyber projects were successful. Without infrastructure, there cannot be any talk of Media Convergence or even a viable modern communication system.

In the Philippines, changes in the economic and social structure is a must for there to be changes in the Mass Media. The technology is already there.

Marshall McLuhan, Alvin Toffler and others maintain that communication systems are important historical determinants. Without telecommunication infrastructure, without the necessary engineering science education, without economic growth and socio-political stability, we cannot hope for a better future, as our communications system would lag far behind world standards.

During my stay at the Department of Energy and Philippine National Oil Company, I was shocked at the extent of the ignorance of the country’s bureaucrats.

Some of the technical people told me that the DOE people sent to monitor the oil rigs did not know anything about petroleum engineering or even the names of the oil rig equipment. They bring along a checklist and verify if they exist or in what condition. But these people did not know what was a Christmas tree or a female plug and would just have to take the word of the roughnecks there.

If the technical people did not know much, what more about the Undersecretaries, Asst. Secretaries and Directors? Most of them were lawyers or businessmen.

At the PNOC, I was the only Manager who wrote my own reports. The other Managers and Vice Presidents let their staff do them. In fact, the other managers and VPs did not even have their own computers because they did not know how to use them!!!

In 1995/1996, the Energy Dept. was tasked to draft an Oil Deregulation Law. But no line officer in the department knew anything about oil deregulation.

When a law is needed, the modus operandi of government agencies are to hire foreign consultants and to send officers abroad for training. Or, as was the case for the Oil Deregulation Law, ask the industry people to do it.

Thus, the Oil Deregulation Law was written by people from the private oil companies — particularly one British/Dutch company. Naturally, the law crafted was anti-Filipino and even anti-deregulation.

I was the only one at DOE who opposed the Law. Most, if not all, did not understand the very concept od oil deregulation. Many colleagues were asking me to conduct a seminar so they could understand it. I wrote two articles about it in the PNOC newsletter, SANDIWA.

The Secretary, in one flag ceremony speech, asked all DOE people to support the law and said that those who were against it should resign!

The Philippines is simply too far away from being a Knowledge Society. In fact, it is fast becoming an Ignorant Society.

Below is an excerpt of a piece I wrote about the Philippine Oil Deregulation Law: OIL DEREGULATION

In March 1996, Congress passed the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996 or R.A. No. 8180. There was not much public protest since the concept of a deregulated oil industry is not well understood. But a few gentlemen questioned the constitutionality of the law, and brought it up to the Supreme Court. The petitioners zeroed in on the three allegedly prejudicial provisions; namely: tariff differential, the inventory requirement and the predatory pricing clauses. The petitioners averred that the law ran counter to its objective: “to foster a truly competitive market”.

On November 5, 1997, in a move that surprised many, the SC declared RA 8180 unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to create another law, but this time adhering to the tenets of the Constitution.

In its decision, the SC declared :

Again, we underline in scarlet that the fundamental principle espoused by section 19, Article XII of the Constitution is competition; for, it alone can release the creative forces of the market. But the competition that can unleash these creative forces is competition that is fighting yet fair. Ideally, this kind of competition requires the preserve of not one, not just a few but several players. A market controlled by one player (monopoly) or dominated by a handful of players (oligopoly) is hardly the market where honest-to-goodness competition will prevail. Monopolistic or oligopolistic markets deserve our careful scrutiny….”

It went on to emphasize that:

“…the perpetuation of RA No. 8180 threatens to multiply the number of our people with bent backs and begging bowls. R.A. No. 8180 …cannot be allowed by this court to stand even while Congress is working to remedy its effects.”

And it concluded with rhetorical flourish:

“…the Constitution is a covenant that grants and guarantees both the political and economic rights of the people.” The Constitution mandates this Court to be the guardian not only of the people’s political rights but their economic rights as well. The protection of the economic rights of the poor and the powerless is of greater importance to them for they are concerned more with the exoterics of living and less with the esoterics of liberty. Hence, for as long as the Constitution reigns supreme, so long will this court be vigilant in upholding the economic rights of our people especially from the onslaught of the powerful. Our defense of people’s economic rights may appear heartless because it cannot be half-hearted.”

(Amen.)

Congress immediately cobbled another law, R. A. 8479, which is actually just RA 8180 without the provisions that the Court found “odious” and “offensive.” Some enterprising gentlemen again petitioned the Supreme Court, this time zeroing in on the transition period.

Three years after RA 8479, the kind of competition the SC envisioned still is nowhere in sight. The arguments cited for declaring RA 8180 unconstitutional appears to be as valid against RA 8479, the present oil downstream deregulation law.

There were, and still are, calls for a repeal of the law. But this would just bring us back to regulation. Regulation is the mechanism for controlling consumer prices; however, there is a price to it. The government is forced to give subsidies, but the government gets its money from the people. It’s a Catch-22 situation. Regulation also stagnates growth, inspires complacency and promotes inefficiency.

If one were to take heed of the zeitgeist, it is very clear that regulation is now out of the question. De-regulation is simply the order of the day, not only in the oil industry, but also in practically all industries.

The main function of deregulation is to give a freer reign to market forces. It opens up the market. Even if there were many and huge barriers to entry, the mere threat of entry would stimulate the industry. Existing firms, be they monopolistic or oligopolistic, would be forced to innovate, streamline and be efficient. Otherwise, the mere threat (of entry) would translate to new entrants. Or, other existing firms, which heeded the call of deregulation (i.e., modernization, streamlining, efficiency, etc.) would eat up the market share.

Theoretically speaking, in the long run, efficiency and growth of the industry would translate into better quality goods and services, higher tax revenues for the government and even lower prices for the consumers.

What’s the catch ?

The Philippines was fortunate to have a national oil company like the ones in Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand, which have had quite an experience competing with multinationals. Such experience would have proved valuable for the country when deregulation of the industry came. However, for some reasons, PNOC’s refining and distribution arm, Petron, was privatized some years ago. This left the Filipino public purely at the hands of “market forces.” And the oil downstream market is far from perfect.**

Coupled with the fact that the Filipino people do not have an oil company that could compete with the transnationals is the presence of an oil deregulation law that promotes the perpetuity of the existing oligopoly.

CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS

The tariff differential created a big fuss and was one of the reasons for the Supreme Court’s junking of the first Oil Deregulation law. But it is just another barrier to entry. The existing barriers to entry are already too numerous for the tariff differential to be significant. In fact, the three companies are better off without it as they can gain more in terms of goodwill rather than get all the bad publicity because of it.

Another controversial provision of the first deregulation law is the “predatory pricing” clause. Any price “lower than the industry average” is prohibited. With all the formidable forces against a new entrant, lower price would be its only weapon to attract customers and earn profits. But before being able to exercise “predatory pricing”, one has to enter the industry first and must have huge resources to be able to challenge the so-called Big Three. Shell, Petron and Caltex cannot possibly be expected to sit back while a new entrant would come in with lower prices.

And as for the existence of a cartel, it must be re-iterated that this should not be the point of contention. One will only encounter the sophistry of company lawyers, paid apologists, jargon-loving bureaucrats and media consultants The fact is that the present market structure is, by definition, a STRICT OLIGOPOLY. And in such a situation, one cannot expect healthy competition.

All the reasons cited by the Supreme Court for declaring the first Oil Deregulation law unconstitutional remain valid. The provisions cited by the Supreme Court (predatory prices, oil inventory and differential tariff) affect only ONE of the FIVE basic competitive forces of an industry . And even in that one (potential entrants), the existing barriers to entry are numerous enough to protect the interests of the existing oligopoly.

However, in the imperfect real world, it would have been a miracle for the Supreme Court to declare the new oil deregulation law unconstitutional for the following reasons: First, when the SC declared the first oil deregulation law unconstitutional, it was not as popular as it should have been. One popular economist (and TV personality) even chided the SC’s decision and said that it was the cause of the oil price increase then. If the so-called progressive and well-known economists came out against the SC ruling, who was left to defend the SC justices?

Second, the alternative being espoused for the deregulation law is a return to regulation or Price Control. The leftists’ call for price control would be hard to defend in this age of globalization, deregulation, and free trade zones.

Third, some petitioners were merely questioning the length of the transition period. How would the justices know how much time would be enough? Moreover, with the market forces obtaining in the oil industry, the transition period can be extended to 20 years yet not much will change. A new entrant cannot possibly compete with the Big Three unless it is ready to use huge amount of resources that would force the Big Three to welcome it to the club. It will then be called the Big Four. The market would remain an oligopoly.

Fourth, and most importantly, oil deregulation remains an IMF “conditionality”.

** It is interesting to note that Petron was sold to Saudi Aramco for about 14 Billion pesos (most of which were easily recouped by Aramco after the IPO which had the stocks’ price soaring almost three times as much as the buying price of Aramco.) And just a year later, PNOC was ordered to infuse 10 billion pesos (of people’s money) to the OPSF so that it can be distributed among the three oil companies. Thus, the Filipino peolple and government not only lost control of the very profitable Petron, it also gave back most of the money it got from selling the company. Truly illogical!

I was going through my old magazines and I found the Dec 2005-Feb 2006 Special Edition of NEWSWEEK. The issue was dedicated to the topic of The Knowledge Revolution. While going through its pages, I realized that the Philippines will certainly lag behind in the knowledge economy.

I graduated with a B.Sc .degree in Petroleum Engineering in 1980. I had my practicum in Clausthal Institute of Technology in Germany and had a 7-month on-the-job training at ARAMCO in Saudi Arabia. I went on a study tour in Germany, Mexico and Algeria,

I was the Philippines’ first petroleum engineer. I thought that Philippine oil companies would make a beeline for me. I couldn’t be more wrong. The oil companies in the country, private or State-owned, did not want me at all.

In Dec 1994, I finally worked for the energy sector – at the Department of Energy (DOE), no less. The Secretary’s brother belonged to the same fraternity as my brothers. The Secretary’s Chief of Staff discouraged me from joining the department. When I insisted, he tried giving me low positions, which I promptly turned down. Finally, I settled for the position of Executive Assistant VI or Chief of Staff of the Chair of the Philippine National Oil Co. (PNOC). The DOE Secretary is the ex officio PNOC chair.

I then realized why no oil company wanted me. To my utter shock, the people at PNOC and DOE, who were supposed to be the country’s most knowledgeable people in the field of energy, knew practically NOTHING about ENERGY!! Oh sure, they talk about energy, write about energy, speak about energy, but they DO NOT UNDERSTAND the basics of Energy, especially OIL and GAS.

The Energy Secretary asked me if I knew about Natural Gas Pricing because of the negotiations going on about the gas field discovered by Shell and Occidental. I answered in the affirmative.

Meanwhile, the gas negotiations were going on and I realized from what I had read in the newspapers that the DOE and National Power Corp (NPC) officials did not seem to know much about oil and gas. So, I took the initiative and gave the Secretary a report. I explained some basics in gas pricing to aid the government negotiators.

I was then asked to attend a Press Conference given by the Secretary. I was dumbfounded when the Secretary could not answer a reporter’s question and passed it on to the Undersecretary in charge of the negotiations. The undersecretary hemmed and hawed until I blurted out the answer. The official next to me repeated what I said and the undersecretary picked up on it.

I then realized that I had to make a complete report that would explain to the Secretary the very basics of Natural Gas.

The DOE officials, especially the undersecretary who now calls himself the “father of the natural gas industry in the Philippines,” kept on repeating that the DOE would not interfere in the negotiations. They swallowed Shell/Oxy’s argument that since state-owned NPC was one of the buyers of the gas and the government co-owned the gas field, the government could not participate it the negotiations because it was both the buyer and the seller.

In my report, I showed the fallacy of the oil companies’ argument by reviewing the experience of European governments’ oil and gas experience. I also criticized the previous studies done by a Japanese and an American consultant.

The Secretary, a UP professor, must have been quite impressed with my long report. He immediately asked President Ramos to issue an Executive Order creating the Philippine Gas Task Force to be composed of several government agencies. The DOE then changed its stance from being a disinterested observer in the negotiations into being an active and “hands-on” negotiator.

Instead of promoting me, the Secretary seemed to prefer that nobody would know about me. When the Undersecretary still persisted in giving wrong information to the press, I made a Memo to the Secretary, cc the undersecretary about some technical points. It was then that I met USAID’s consultant at DOE.

The American consultant expressed surprise that somebody else knew something about oil and gas at DOE. He told me that he did all the research, studies, and everything else that DOE claimed to have done regarding natural gas.

To make a long story short, I was made the head of the Secretariat of the Gas Task Force, but on an unofficial basis (no honorarium whatsoever) and later Team Leader (The Philippine Counterpart team was composed of DOE, PNOC and NPC people) that went to Hawaii to create computer models on Gas Pricing, which became the core of the DOE recommendation to President Ramos.

When the term of Ramos ended, I had to leave DOE. The new Secretary replaced me with a clerk who had absolutely no technical experience.

Meanwhile, the Undersecretary became the Gas Office consultant paid for by USAID while the American consultant was sent home packing. This undersecretary later became president of one of the PNOC companies.

An assistant secretary who came almost at the same time with me, who is a lawyer with no engineering or scientific background, became Undersecretary and now is the President of NPC.

Apparently, at the DOE / PNOC / NPC, the less you know about energy, the more likely you will be be hired and promoted to the top.

Knowledgeable people like me are thrown out of the energy sector while people with little or no knowledge in the field are made heads of companies.

The Philippines has a long long way from becoming a knowledge society.

Dark Days for Philippine Democracy - New York Times

America has now spoken! The New York Times Editorial is a clear warning to Ms. Arroyo to shape up or ship out.

The Philippine ambassador to the UN defended his boss and challenged the NY Times writers to “come visit the Philippines, breathe the air of freedom in a democracy that is thriving in our fertile grounds, our blue skies and our shining seas.”

Obviously, the ambassador lives in a fool’s paradise. There is indeed freedom to do anything here if one is a member of the favored few of Malacanang or one has wealth and power. Such freedoms even include stealing votes and corruption of all kinds.

Now that Uncle Sam had spoken, albeit unofficially, President Arroyo better not ask for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for her.