POVErTy

isang araw umuwi ako sa Legazpi!


"mommy, asan na pala kotse nating bulok?" tanong kay mommy ko..

"pinapapaayos!", sabat ng kapatid ko.

"pinapayos saan?"

"Gagu! pinapaayos ng bagong may-ari!"

"Mommy? binenta na kotse natin? (na bulok..sabi mo sa isip ko)"

"Oo"

"Eh di wala na tayo kotse?", angal ko sa kanila

"Oo, eh kailangan din natin, wala ng trabaho si Daddy mo" paliwanag niya.

Naghihirap na nga talaga kami! Totoo na to, sabi ko sa sarili ko!..
gayon na nga! isang araw ulit..

"Kuya, bakit hindi ko na nakikita motor mo? pinahiram mo na naman sa kaklase mo no?!"

"Anong ipapahiram?!"

"Eh di yung motor! duh?"

"Anong motor pinagsasabi mo? binenta na rin!"

"HAAAAH?!! is that fir real??!!"

"Gagu! Oo! mahirap na tayo kaya wag ka na mag-aral sa Ateneo!"


Yan ang katotohanan! Naghihirap na kami! kaya hindi na ako magugulat na pag-uwi ko sa bahay next time eh! wala na tv, radio, ref namin...


hay..

Kahihiyan 1

masakit pa ang aking kamay dahil sa aking pagkapaso habang ginagawa ang BLOG na to...


As usual, I had my lunch in KFC again, I ordered the pasta with chicken chunks, Nakalimutan ko na tawag don, na tig 75 pesos with MUG at brownies na tig 15 pesos...
I found a seat next to somebody whom I recognized, and I put my Mug, brownies and the bowl of that Chicken pasta thing on the table. Suddenly, nagdrama si chicken pasta bowl at nag dive sa sahig bago pa man ako makaupo!

(Parang nagslow motion ang paligid habang ako nama'y inaabot ang bowl, sa pagiisip na baka ito mabasag)

!SPLASH!
So I immediately grabbed the bowl just to found out na nahulog na lahat ng pagkain sa sahig! Napaso pa mga daliri ko! sabay sigaw ng 'SHIT!' Yung kasama ko naman, with concern, inabot sa akin lahat ng tissue na para ba akong tumae!


Of course, the usual me, I stood up, gained my poise and decided to order another one pasta chicken bowl. I said over and over again "okay lang yan" at "Oops! sorry" sa mga natapunan. Kahit sa kaibuturan ng aking puso eh gusto ko ng magwala..

"Tangna naman oh! ba't ba kasi hindi pantay ang magkadikit na table na yan! Oh kayong mga service crew anong tinitingin tingin niyo jan?! panonoorin niyo na lang ba akong pinapanood ng madaming tao?! Galaw! Galaw! Nasan ba ang manager niyo!!

Hay after ten years siguor saka pa lang may lumapit sa akin na service crew at sinabing
"SIR! linisin ko na ba?"

"OP KORS! alangan naman kainin ko pa yan!! ano akala mo saakin POOR?!"

And there it was, Lumapit ako sa counter na para lang walang nangyari habang nakatingin sa akin ang buong mundo with mouths open! tsaka umorder ulit!

It was so embarrasing but I managed to handle the situation as smooth as possible..

lesson learned? huwag ng umorder nag pasta bowl sa KFC!

Having coffe with 'mind-loosing Philo Profs' I

I was devouring my mouth watering lunch at KFC at around 1:45 pm when I received a text message from my Philosophy Professor.

"Patrick we won't have class. Let's just have coffee at coko cafe by 3pm, it will be
my belated treat for my birthday last Saturday..blah..blah..blah..."


Coko CAFe is located inside Ateneo. My principle in life is never to be late, agree? So I entered coko cafe by 3 o'clock, more or less, expecting that my prof was already there waiting for me. I was stupid to expect such thing. I waited for nearly fifteen minutes. When I stepped in, a service crew greeted me and ask me what was my order, in English ha. So, I replied with the British accent that I used to do in the Seminary,

"Actually my professor told me that we would meet here, so I am wondering where is he now"

Then, the Englisherong crew said in a friendly tone,

"What is the name of your professor? Sir"

And I replied in a more friendly tone, hiding my irritated response,

"Oh surely you don't know him, perhaps he didn't yet arrive. I'll just wait for him and I suppose you could leave me alone while waiting"

Maybe the service crew was just trying to handle my rudeness in a friendly manner so he said with a smirk,

"Oh that's fine, I hope he won't arrive at our closing time"

Then, he went away from me. When I was about to send my professor a text message asking where he is already, I heard the irritable voice of the same crew saying,

"Good afternoon sir, what do you want for Merienda?"

And at long last, my Professor had arrived with an another Philo professor coming near to me. They acted like little children as they approached me and ignored the crew. My professor apologized for they were late.

"Good enough Sir, I deserve your apology" loko lang! actually I said it's ok!
Then we went straight toward the counter to make our order. My professor and his friend were like teletubbies who acted very childish, and said funny crap words that made us break into a roar of laughter.

"Meron ba kayong WORLD PEACE?"
"Ako naman order ko ay DEATH OF BUSH"

"WAHAHA!" they laughed resembling the way Nicole Hiyala and her partner in Balasubas at Balahura laugh contagiously.

Then they asked me, "What's yours Patrick"
and I replied, "Ice coffee, Mocha"
then a crew asked back, "tall or Grandii"
"WAHAHAHA!" My prof and his friend laughed again, "It's Grande! not Grandii"
So I said, hiding myself laughing, "just Grande."

And finally we found our table. When we sat, they bombarded me with questions, all asking me what made me busy this weekend. As expected, I answered their questions dramatically. After my answers, I shot back with my question,

"So Sir, you've just turned?" Unexpectedly, the other Professor said, "Well, I've just turned around"
"WAHAHAH!" we laughed in Chorus.I never expected my professor and his friend, also a Philo prof, to act that way they did. They were so funny, messy, and scandalous--hehehe. I felt like they were at my age that time due to what they were doing.

...abangan part II...

EXAM KO sa Philosophical Theories of Civil Society

The form of the government the Philippine adopts is Republican, and it seeks the Democratic way. Republic, according to Mr. Collins, is a form of government in which the people or their elected representatives posse the supreme power. Carefully analyzing the description, Mr Collins has this obscure essential thing to convey to us. As you are observant enough, you'll notice it states there that the supreme power rests primarily on the people, that he uses or before elected representatives for us to comprehend that the people have it more than representatives do—the power. If Mr. Collins were to have mouth, he would deliver his his definition of Republic with the outmost stress upon saying people, to give emphasis. The idea of me analyzing the definition's essence constitutes to Rousseau's notion of Civil Society that the people, hold the power, as the sovereign, with their representatives just submitting themselves to what is agreed upon by the people.
Being brutally honest, I couldn't figure out specific situations, either nationally or locally, which somehow prove Rousseau's notion of Civil Society. I've utilized my power of imaginations, made my intellect fly around with its wings, and envisioned picture perfect scenes yet I just could stumble on things that disagree to the way Rousseau view his civil society. Things like beggars on the street being used by the syndicates, poor fellows dying for just a kilogram or two of rice., activists getting lost and their families crying out for justice, political figures patronizing rampant corruptions and many more stuff just cause my mind to be blind, and be not able to see what good things are still left in the civil Society where we are in.
According to Rousseau, “And although in the civil society man surrenders some of the disadvantages that belong to the state of nature, he gains in return far greater ones.” Yes, indeed he explains it very well that upon the submission of some of our powers, we do create a body that would guarantee us goodness, security, contentment, and justice. Do Filipino's experience that? No! We never do. We submit ourselves to contract with the officials by paying taxes, observing laws, obeying orders, giving them he power to lead and so many limited things, but never do these officials, the government, pay something good, something substantial, and something that would ensure and gratify our absolute security. Funny it is that we still go into contract with the officials, Gloria herself, though we see that we are being faced by the truth we are cheated, we get corrupted, and we experience injustice. If that is so, we shall end transcending powers and obedience to them. They are never true to our contact. Rousseau believes, “The commitments which bind us to the social contract are obligatory because they are mutual.”
First situation, I would like to put into evaluation is the Hello Garci scandal of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It is then an obvious manifestation that we are being played and fooled by her—President, they call her. We are the justified if we'll get back the power which we vested upon her, as Rousseau says, “..they are such that, though perhaps never formally stated, they are everywhere the same tacitly admitted and recognized; and that if ever the social pact is violated, every man regains his natural freedom for which he exchanged it.” It will be righteous if ever we do so. Besides, we are no longer in contract with her, so we are not anymore bound to follow her orders, and render obedience to the power Gloria has. “The duty of obedience is owed only to legitimate powers”. Well, of what she did, she is well thought-out illegitimate.
Second situation, I believe to be evaluated, is the ZTE issue. What right does Gloria have to engage into contract with China? She didn't even consult the people, as a mere representative. We can clearly say that we have the right to file a suit against her if we'll just carry it out according to Rousseau, “However, since the body politic, or sovereign, owes its being to the sanctity of the contract alone, it cannot commit itself, even in treatise with foreign powers, to anything that would derogate from its original act of association. To violate the act which has given its existence is to annihilate itself.” Gloria, as our Head-of-State should have consulted us, such that it concerns us all. Yet again, we see another act of violation.
Third situation, which we thought right, is the body politic that claims they do represent us. Rousseau supposes, “My argument, then, is that sovereignty, being nothing other than the exercise of the general will, can never be alienated, and that the sovereign, which is simply a collective being cannot be represented by anyone but itself—power may be delegated, but the will cannot be.” We can now stand to say that we are erroneous assuming that the representatives we vote and we designate to power actually represent us. How can they if they don't even meet us in an assembly, or at least the major citizens, and spare time to hear each and everyone's voice to come up with the general will that Rousseau says. “General will studies the common interests.” What they represent are just themselves, they never do have the sentiments of the people, e.g. Congressman Edcel Lagman, he never has the sentiments of the Albayanos when he started a motion for the legalization of abortion. In fact, they ought to represent the people for they are held representatives. Congressmen must go out of their houses, assemble the district, and do some deliberations. After having the deliberations, the true representation follows. Rousseau cites, “ From the deliberations of the people properly informed, and provided its members do not have communication among themselves, the great number of small differences will always produce a general will and the decision will always be good.” Suppose the deliberation, Rousseau believes in, frequently happens, there can we consider a true representation. More so in making laws as legislators, Rousseau says, “We have seen that the legislative power belongs to, and can only belong to the people.” Precisely, we are the legislators and we just appoint them to represent us in making motions for the creations and modifications of laws. It's a big mistake to assume that the representatives who push motions to the Congress parallel our minds whenever they do, bearing in mind that a deliberation never happens then. There must, first, be the reckoning of the people's sentiments, cares, concerns, and worries before a law be represented in the Congress. Another concrete situation is the phenomenology of the Lawyers speaking in behalf of the party lists of the farmers, associations of transport groups, and the organizations of workers. Why not allow them speak for themselves and represent their kind to the Congress? They do have the rights to speak and represent themselves because these lawyers do not feel how it is like to be farmers, drivers, laborers and etc. Not letting them do so, is depriving them of their rights. Each of us has equal rights in this contract, so if one can speak, why others cannot?
Last situation, as this is going too long already, is the prohibiting of the government to multitudes of persons doing rallies to express their grief and disappointment to the government,well, it's their rights. I just hardly see it why the government sends polices and armies to stop them—worst scenarios are the use of Firetrucks to force the people away and policemen using wooden arms to hurt these people thus causing them to retreat out of disability to fight.
As I run out of space, I'll just make some conclusions. The essence of sovereignty shows that the people should not always be following. The officials are the ones to, first and foremost, follow for they are never masters but servants to the people. Rousseau believes, “If a people promises simply to obey, it dissolves itself by the very pledge, it ceases to be people; for once there is a master, there is no longer a sovereign, and the body politic is therefore annihilated.” Obedience is a part of the contract. If obedience takes part so does freedom. In this civil society, we must be vigilant enough, we must be aware of our rights, and we must stand always for what we believe is right.
*Note : All contents are just opinions of the writer. Any persons offended by this essay shall have no rights to sue the writer of any case, such as libel or written defamation. : - )
PATRICK DAVE F. EBID