There were those — not exactly hopeful, much less inspiring — years that a set of relatives took the reigns of the then government. The previous one was a dark episode in the history of the country particularly so on three counts: The disregard for human dignity. The violation of human rights. The depreciation of human lives.
With the eventual fall of the Martial Law Regime, people joyfully marched in the streets, singing songs and laughing with gusto. And the desired change came to fore: The dictator left. A new government was installed. There was jubilation all over the land.
So it was that practically the whole world admired the Filipinos’ and rejoiced their so-called “Bloodless Revolution.” This was considered as a sublime example of how civilized nations should act against an uncivilized government.
The Filipinos were cheered at international airports, were admired and congratulated by people in foreign countries. Those were glorious and promising times for the Philippines until slowly but surely certain non-acceptable — odious and shameful — socio-political phenomena slowly but surely came to fore.
Never mind that the then leadership did not know what to do, how and when to do it. Never mind if there were those who made the leader their follower. Never mind if the otherwise golden opportunity for national socio-economic development was converted into but empty rhetoric.
Among other interesting and notorious episodes that then took place, the people of the Philippines were entertained with the sale of “galunggong” coming from Malacañang itself. They were induced to buy electric generators for lack of power. Add hereto, the spectacle of  coup d’ etat one after another — not to mention the atrocious “Mendiola massacre.”
So it was that slowly but surely, the so-called “Kamaganak Inc.” became a living and vibrant reality in the country. In a few words, it meant that gradual but decided invasion of government by the close and or distant known and trusted relatives of the then Malacañang occupant. And the rest is history. People were disappointed if not angry. So it was that a constitutional convention was called, held and thereafter signed by the delegates on Oct. 15, 1986.
Behold the provision and spirit of a State Policy, Article II Section 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibits political dynasties as may be defined by law.” Now it becomes clear what instanced this constitutional provision and how come it is that to this date, the fundamental law remains futile under the present administration — an immediate heir of the former one that precisely ushered in the institution of the “Kamaganak Inc.”
Got it?
(Reprinted with permission of Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz, from www.ovc.blogspot.com)

“Almost everyone pins his hope for a change in the 2010 elections. There is always the general hopeful feeling every time we are on the verge of elections. People never learn. Almost immediately after the elections, disappointment resumes and helplessness returns. The reason is simple — the electoral process is seriously flawed. The ones running for elections with the chance of getting proclaimed, not necessarily elected, are made of the same rotten material as those who habitually occupy public office. It is still gold, guns and goons who rule the day capped with the running away with the proclamation courtesy of equally rotten officials in Comelec.”
The above challenging as well as disturbing thoughts were written in 2009 by someone who knows and lives politics, who is acquainted with a good number of high public officials — and who in particular has had a first hand knowledge of key political figures in the country who held the reigns of national government — from Marcos time. The above citation is taken from the book written by no less than well known lawyer  Homobono Adaza — titled “Leaders from Marcos to Arroyo,” published  by ADA, 2009, p. 267).
It is not exactly funny much less edifying to take serious note of the substance and particulars of the above quote. It is anything but a pleasing and hopeful observation made about politics and politicians in the Philippines.
Written before two — presidential and mid-term — elections, the content and spirit of the candid observation made therein remain true and relevant to this just held 2013 political exercise with a good amount of vote buying — to mention but one markedly adverse socio-political phenomenon.
It was no secret that a big amount of money changed hands on the occasion of yesterday’s election. While it is true that Philippine elections and money continue and persist as a ground reality paring, from all tri-media accounts, this time around, very much more money made the rounds on the occasion of the last political event. There can be various explanations for such an anomaly: Those running for elective offices had so much money to buy votes with. The voters sold their votes because of their abject poverty it not downright misery. The Filipinos in general have already lost their decency and pursuant integrity.
“… the electoral process is seriously flawed.” Such could be the key reality behind the many socio-ethical liabilities of the 2010, the 2013 plus the forthcoming 2016 elections — to mention but three concrete occasions.
Questions: Will the present Legislature look into it? Will Malacañang and its allies welcome its review? Or will the people themselves move and insist for its study? Or will it be the same — forever and ever?
(Reprinted with permission of Archbishop Emeritus Oscar V. Cruz, from www.ovc.blogspot.com)     

Call this a tribute, and accolade or a testimonial to mothers — or whatever. This is but meant to say what mothers really are, who they truly are, and what they are specifically to their children.
As some honest and complimentary and sincere observations made below about mothers, they are also especially intended to remind their children how to relate and treat their mothers when they are already grown up; when they are already on their own to think and decide as adults.
One more thing, the following reminders and pointers about mothers, have particular reference to their female children — even if only for the fact that they are basically the same in psychological and emotional constitution.
Every child starts its being; begins its life, in the womb of the mother — with mother and child literally attached to one another through the umbilical cord.
Needless to say, this biological reality brings about the living symbiotic relationship between mother and child.
For some nine months — every moment of the day — the mother carries and keeps, nurtures and protects her child. Such a long and prolonged, close and intimate relationship interaction between the mothers of the child makes them nothing less than a “two-in-one” phenomenon.
The mother cares for and feeds her in-womb child with her own nutrients, makes and helps the child breathe with her own breath — until her child can be somehow on its own — on the occasion of its birth through the labor and pain of the mother. Who else?!
But in no way does it stop there. Yes, the child is out of its mama’s womb. Yes, the umbilical cord joining them is eventually cut. Yes, the child cries to proclaim its readiness to face the world — though not yet, really. Mama lovingly, readily and regularly feeds her child with her own milk. Mama frequently, attentively and carefully cleans, powders, and clothes her child. Mama often carries and embraces her child with delight — kissing this again and again and again with much gusto.
Mama teaches her child how to say “mama,” how to walk step by step — until the child can walk on her own little by little. But just the same, when hungry or in pain, when afraid or just looking for comfort, the child calls for “mama.”
For one mysterious and marvelous reason or another, such is the unique and intimate closeness between mother and daughter that there is some kind of an unseen yet active and powerful antenna in the mother who then acquires some instinctive feelings about the lot her own daughter — if she is safe or in danger, if she is in good hands or not, if she is relating with the right or wrong man — with particular relevance to her choice of a spouse.
Ladies — listen and listen well to your mothers. Please!
(Reprinted with permission of Archbishop Emeritus Oscar V. Cruz, from www.ovc.blogspot.com)