Beneath the Sewers

 

                                               (image: msn.com)

Taong imburnal.

Last May 26, 2025, William Roberts shared photos of a woman emerging from a sewer at the corner of V.A. Rufino and Adelantado Streets on Reddit. Authorities later found the woman and sealed the drainage (Nick Garcia, philstar.com, 2023).

In a Facebook post on Thursday, May 29, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) announced that its personnel had interviewed the woman and assessed her situation to determine the appropriate support and intervention. Reports indicate that the woman allegedly received ₱80,000 in government assistance.

This sparked a backlash among netizens, some of whom sarcastically suggested finding a conspicuous sewer themselves in hopes of receiving a similar amount. Others criticized the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), accusing it of offering token handouts while ignoring the deeper issue—that some individuals are living in such extreme poverty that they have taken shelter in sewers. For these critics, the agency's actions represent a mere band-aid solution to the government's persistent neglect of the poor.

In his seminal work A Theory of Justice (1971), John Rawls argued that a just society must prioritize the needs of its least advantaged members through fair and sustainable institutional arrangements. While the DSWD’s financial aid may appear compassionate, Rawls would likely critique it as insufficient if it does not address the systemic conditions that led the woman to live in such dire circumstances.

After receiving numerous brickbats and memes from netizens, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) defended its decision to give P80,000 in livelihood assistance to Rose – the woman who went viral on social media after she was spotted emerging from a sewer in Makati.

Sought for comment, DSWD spokesperson Irene Dumlao said there is nothing unusual for their department to help poor people such as Rose. Dumlao said Rose underwent a case management process wherein the latter was interviewed and assessed by social workers, according to the latest report of Jose Rodel Clapano.

“When social workers asked Rose what she wants, she said she wants a sari-sari store to start her life over,” Dumlao said at the Saturday News Forum in Quezon City.

But what are the deeper implications of this situation? Can we simply turn a blind eye to the reality that there are individuals who are forced to scavenge through sewers just to survive? What has become of the very society we claim to uphold and protect? More importantly, is there a comprehensive and systemic intervention that can prevent such social injustices, often dismissed as mere 'eyesores', from continuing to afflict the Filipino people?

This phenomenon underscores the failure of existing social safety nets and raises urgent questions about the effectiveness of current poverty alleviation programs. According to Reyes et al. (2019), despite various government interventions, a significant portion of the Filipino population remains vulnerable to extreme poverty, particularly in urban areas. Turning a blind eye to such realities not only dehumanizes the marginalized but also reflects a deeper erosion of collective societal responsibility.

As Porio (2020) argues, urban poverty is not merely a result of individual failure but a manifestation of systemic neglect and unequal access to resources and opportunities.

A truly humane and progressive society cannot thrive while segments of its population are relegated to the margins. What is needed is not temporary relief, but sustainable, inclusive development strategies that prioritize human dignity, equitable access to resources, and long-term social investment. Only through such systemic and compassionate reforms can we begin to transform these grim images into narratives of hope and resilience.

Courtesy Resignations

 

                                              (image: explained.ph)

Simay na sab am lider baja?

On May 22, 2025, President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. requested all Cabinet secretaries to tender their courtesy resignations, according to the Presidential Communications Office. The move, announced through the Philippine Information Agency, is meant to "recalibrate his administration following the results of the recent elections." This allows the President to evaluate each department’s performance and decide who will continue to serve based on his administration’s updated priorities.

Evaluating department heads can improve government efficiency and accountability by retaining only those aligned with the President’s goals. This builds a more effective team and enhances policy implementation. However, frequent evaluations and leadership changes risk destabilizing agencies and lowering morale, as officials face uncertainty and may shy away from long-term initiatives.

President Marcos said, “The people have spoken, and they expect results—not politics, not excuses. We hear them, and we will act.” But is this a case of appeasement leadership?

When leaders avoid making firm decisions out of fear of public uproar, they often prioritize self-preservation over conviction or vision. Such leaders lean toward appeasement, choosing inaction or compromise to dodge backlash. This can undermine their authority and hinder meaningful progress, eroding public confidence in times when courage and clarity are most needed.

Yet, appeasement leadership is not always negative. Dimuccio (1998) explains that while often criticized as weak or indecisive, appeasement can be a pragmatic strategy grounded in diplomacy and risk management. It can help maintain stability and prevent greater conflict, showing that appeasement sometimes reflects calculated statecraft rather than mere passivity.

But what about the programs initiated by secretaries who aim to help the people? These initiatives risk being cut short when new leaders take over. Incoming officials may lack the commitment or continuity to sustain projects, especially amid frequent turnover and short tenures. This instability threatens long-term progress and the lasting impact of valuable reforms.

Consider DepEd Secretary Sonny Angara, who in his first 10 months faced the challenge of shifting the school calendar to June-March while enhancing the Senior High School Curriculum. A 2024 PSA report reveals nearly 19 million Filipinos aged 10 to 64 are functionally illiterate, emphasizing the need for urgent education reform. Angara has responded by strengthening Early Childhood Care and Development and National Reading Programs to boost literacy and develop graduates’ critical thinking—skills essential for a knowledge-based economy.

Yet, as the President said, “It’s time to realign government with the people’s expectations.” Whether this realignment leads to stronger leadership or mere appeasement remains to be seen.

 

Echo Chambers

 

                                                   (image: ikot.ph)

Umay rajaw nat na paglalisan?

Recently, heated debates have erupted across social media platforms over who deserves credit for landmark legislation, such as the free tuition law in tertiary education. These discussions often go beyond policy and drift into personal beliefs, heavily influenced by the political leanings of the participants.

People define themselves based on the groups they belong to—such as political parties, ideologies, or social movements. To maintain a positive self-image, individuals often favor their in-group and view the out-group negatively.

Social Identity Theory, developed by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, explains how individuals derive a sense of identity and self-esteem from the social groups they belong to, such as political parties, ethnic groups, or religious affiliations. The theory suggests that people naturally categorize themselves and others into "in-groups" and "out-groups," often favoring their own group to maintain a positive self-image.

In the context of social media debates over credit for laws like free tuition, users are not just discussing policy, they are defending their political identities. Assigning credit to a favored politician or party reinforces a sense of pride and belonging. Attacking rival figures helps maintain a clear boundary between "us" and "them."

Echo chambers are social or digital environments where individuals are primarily exposed to information, opinions, and beliefs that reinforce their existing views, often excluding or dismissing opposing perspectives. These spaces are common on social media, where algorithms curate content based on user preferences, effectively surrounding people with like-minded voices.

While echo chambers can provide a sense of belonging and validation, they also foster intellectual isolation, discourage critical thinking, and contribute to political polarization.

Avoiding echo chambers requires a conscious effort to seek out diverse perspectives and engage critically with information. In today’s digital landscape, social media algorithms often reinforce our existing beliefs by showing us content we’re most likely to agree with, which can limit our exposure to differing viewpoints. To counter this, individuals should diversify their information sources, follow voices from across the political and ideological spectrum, and engage in respectful dialogue with those who hold opposing views.

However, amid today’s unchecked information overload — a result of the constant and unfiltered consumption of content — critical thinking is increasingly being sidelined.

Instead of reacting immediately to what we read online, it’s worth taking a moment to think about why we feel the urge to respond. This pause can help us better understand our own thoughts and motivations. It’s not about limiting free speech, but rather about encouraging a more thoughtful and reflective approach to the ideas we encounter.

This writer does not seek to declare who is right or wrong, but rather to emphasize that the free exchange of ideas—rooted in rational discourse—deserves to be heard. At the same time, it is essential to recognize and reflect on the personal motivations and emotional drives that often fuel passionate debates, whether they unfold online or in person.

If we cling too tightly to the social identity theory and become consumed by the need to defend our beliefs, even in a biased manner, we risk pushing ourselves to the extreme of psychological imbalance.

According to Westen (2007), this type of motivated reasoning often leads individuals to interpret information in a way that supports their pre-existing views, further entrenching them in their beliefs. The need to protect one's identity within a group can override critical thinking, making it harder to engage with opposing ideas in a meaningful way. Westen emphasizes that such processes can impair rational decision-making and contribute to greater polarization in society.

The Philippines is deeply polarized, and it’s crucial for us to actively contribute towards bridging these divides and fostering a more unified society.

We Are

 

                                                   (image: pna.gov.ph)

Sajon suoron… Mag uno man kaw?

While listening to various political jingles, a recurring theme emerges in the phrase “Sayon duolon”, which translates to “approachable.” This phrase underscores a personal connection between the voter and the politician, suggesting accessibility, familiarity, and a sense of shared experience.

On a broader level, it becomes clear that most candidates using this tagline are aspiring members of the legislative body. But what does “approachable” truly mean in this context? How does the average citizen engage with a legislator? Will ordinary individuals be expected to present data that could shape future laws? Will they initiate meaningful discussions on pressing societal issues, hoping these concerns will translate into policies for the greater good?

Legislators play a crucial role in the formulation, evaluation, and enactment of laws that govern society. They are responsible for representing the interests of their constituents, proposing bills, debating policy issues, and overseeing the implementation of public laws. In democratic systems, legislators also serve as a check on executive power, ensuring transparency and accountability within government institutions (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2020).

There are persons whom we hear to approach a Sangguniang Bayan member who seek help by presenting medical prescriptions to the lawmaker seeking monetary support. There are also those who approach a politician for solicitations on projects and contests.

In a practical sense, an open-minded legislator would recognize pressing local issues - such as inadequate health services or the scarcity of free medicine in rural health units -as opportunities for deeper research and policy development. These insights could form the foundation for proposing new legislation aimed at supporting marginalized communities. Similarly, a legislator might identify gaps in infrastructure or the absence of adequately funded local programs by the LGU, prompting initiatives that address these developmental needs.

However, quick-fix or band-aid solutions are often employed to eliminate problems immediately. In such cases, both the legislator and the citizen may become entangled in the pursuit of personal interests, losing sight of the broader goal of serving the common good.

Over time, this practice risks becoming normalized. The average citizen may begin to believe that a legislator’s primary role is to solve individual, personal problems, rather than craft policies for collective benefit. Conversely, politicians may come to view the poor as easily swayed individuals—vulnerable to promises and portrayals of the legislator as a savior, rather than a public servant focused on systemic change.

This concept also marginalizes those who can see the bigger picture. Individuals who rely on data, engage in research-based analysis, and apply deep, critical thinking are often misunderstood—perceived as aloof or dismissive. These so-called "geeks," who explore complex, systemic issues, are frequently misinterpreted as unapproachable simply because their methods and language differ from the populist appeal many expect from public figures.

As a result, fewer individuals in the legislative body are grounded in addressing critical societal issues through thoughtful, reform-driven legislation. Instead, those perceived as more "approachable” often favoring quick-fix solutions - are elected to office. This shift leaves forward-thinking perspectives sidelined, reduced to overly simplistic views, as public demand leans more toward immediate, personal assistance than toward long-term policies that serve the greater good.

Just as someone frustrated with an AI platform may overlook the importance of providing clear, thoughtful input to receive meaningful results, citizens must also recognize their role in shaping a responsive and effective political system.

So, what would you say if you had the chance to approach a legislator?

Hegemony

 

                                              (image: mds2016)

Gikan tagkamang!

Rene F. Antiga (2019) posited: Election is a game of thrones between the ruling elite of society. So, they cannot be expected to serve the interest of the oppressed and exploited sectors of society – the workers in the city and the peasants in the countryside. They only pay lip service to fool the people, but after being elected they say goodbye to all their promises.

“Under the circumstances, the poor masses of people who comprise the vast majority readily sell their votes to the highest bidder during elections, thinking that it is the only way to they can settle the score with traditional politicians. After all, whoever is elected will never serve their interest.” Antiga continued.

In the context of the Philippines, widespread poverty and disillusionment with the political system have fostered a culture where many among the poor majority see vote-selling as a practical, if cynical, form of justice. Faced with generations of unmet promises and systemic neglect, these voters often view election season as the only time politicians actively seek them out—and the only opportunity to extract any tangible benefit, however short-term.

But doesn’t this mindset risk to normalize a deeply flawed practice? When vote-selling becomes routine and even expected, it not only erodes the value of democratic participation but also reinforces a cycle of corruption that further marginalizes the poor. One must ask: will there ever come a time when individuals, especially those from vulnerable sectors, recognize the long-term cost of short-term gain and begin to assert their voices through more empowered, principled choices? Without a shift in mindset -both among the electorate and the political elite - traditional politicians may continue to view Filipinos as passive recipients of favors rather than as capable citizens with the power to demand real accountability.

Antonio Gramsci wrote in Prison Notebooks (1937) the concept of Cultural Hegemony which refers to the subtle and pervasive way dominant groups in society maintain power, not merely through force or coercion, but by shaping cultural norms, values, and beliefs to make their dominance appear natural and acceptable. Rather than ruling through overt oppression alone, the ruling class uses institutions like education, religion, media, and family to spread its worldview, which becomes accepted as the societal "common sense."

Recently, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) reported a troubling trend: most high school graduates are functionally illiterate. While many can technically read, they struggle to comprehend and critically engage with the material - an alarming indicator of the quality of education. This has led some, particularly those who are into conspiracy theories, to question whether the chronic underfunding and neglect of the education sector is merely accidental or part of a deeper, systemic issue.

From this perspective, it raises the unsettling possibility that keeping the populace undereducated serves the interests of those in power, making citizens more susceptible to manipulation and less likely to question the status quo. Such a scenario echoes Antonio Gramsci’s theory of cultural hegemony, where ruling elites maintain dominance not only through force but by controlling knowledge, shaping beliefs, and discouraging critical thought among the masses.

On the other side of the argument, one must also consider the unsettling possibility that it is the people themselves who, knowingly or unknowingly, adopt a kind of political masochism during elections, willing to trade their votes for short-term gains during the campaign period, fully aware that they will likely suffer under the same leaders once elected.

This mindset, shaped by years of systemic neglect and eroded trust in governance, reflects a survival strategy more than a democratic choice. It reveals a tragic normalization of political dysfunction, where voters expect little beyond temporary relief, and in doing so, perpetuate the very cycle of exploitation they resent.

Educating the mind and cultivating critical thinking are essential pillars for an empowered and progressive society.

Systemic Illiteracy

                                              (image: youtube.com)

Kibali, uhang!

Marlon Ramos of the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported on May 1, 2025: Some 18.9 million Filipinos who completed secondary education between 2019 and 2024 may be considered “functional illiterate” as they still have problems with reading comprehension despite years of schooling. This was according to a periodic study conducted by the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the results of which were tackled in a Senate hearing on Wednesday.

The teachers and educators who have poured immense energy and dedication into helping learners succeed now find themselves grappling with such disheartening data. It raises painful questions: Have they been doing something wrong? Are parents providing enough support at home to reinforce learning? Or is this the outcome of deeper, systemic issues that go beyond the classroom?

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) reported that the attrition rate for college students has more than doubled since the pandemic, with 41.16% of students who were sophomores during the 2020-2021 school year either dropping out or temporarily leaving school by 2023,

A closer examination of the report from the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) and the Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) reveals that the COVID-19 pandemic played a significant role in shaping the current educational landscape. The prolonged school closures in the Philippines—among the longest in the world—deeply disrupted the learning process for millions of students. The shift to modular and online learning, though a necessary emergency response, laid bare the stark inequalities in access to technology, internet connectivity, and parental support at home.

These disruptions led to substantial learning losses, especially in critical foundational skills such as reading comprehension, which are now reflected in the alarming levels of functional illiteracy among secondary school graduates.

The alarming levels of functional illiteracy underscore the urgent need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to education reform. Solving this issue goes far beyond revising the curriculum – it requires a comprehensive strategy that mobilizes all sectors to create an environment where meaningful learning can thrive. Investments must be made not only in improving teaching quality and updating infrastructure, but also in supporting the broader ecosystem that affects student learning.

This includes ensuring access to adequate health and nutrition, strengthening family and community involvement, and addressing socioeconomic barriers that hinder educational engagement. Only through coordinated and sustained efforts can the nation begin to close the literacy gap and ensure that every learner is equipped with the foundational skills needed for lifelong success.

Placing sole blame on the Department of Education (DepEd) for the alarming data may be a misplaced judgment, as the department has been making earnest efforts to implement the curriculum and address learning challenges, often within limited resources. It is important to recognize that ensuring quality education is not the responsibility of DepEd alone. Both local and national government units have a crucial role to play in supporting early childhood development and foundational learning—responsibilities that fall squarely within their mandates.

In a recent statement, Education Secretary Sonny Angara emphasized the Department's renewed commitment to strengthening foundational learning. “We have intensified our interventions — from literacy and remedial programs to the strategic use of school-level data. We've also enhanced our teaching and assessment methods to ensure deeper, more effective learning,” he shared.

Remember the uproar over the Department of Education's budget? Instead of receiving the highest allocation as mandated by the Philippine Constitution, it was controversially slashed.

When leadership underperforms in every corner, it is less a mystery and more a mathematical certainty that mediocrity will flourish elsewhere—people tend to follow the loudest example, even if it is off-key.