PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE: Since 1997 © Copyright (PHNO) http://newsflash.org



EDITORIALS & OPINIONS OF THE WEEK:
(Mini Reads followed by Full news commentary)
FROM THE INQUIRER

EDITORIAL: GROSSLY MISINFORMED
[What are we to make, then, of the latest outburst from President Duterte? Last Sunday, he lashed out at the UN for its supposed temerity to question the growing bloodbath triggered by his administration’s war on crime and drugs. But, instead of addressing the issue, the President not only threatened to yank the Philippines out of the UN; he also startled everyone with these words: “Where were you here the last time? Never… When have you done a good deed to my country?” ]


AUGUST 23 -LAST JUNE 29, a day before Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) announced the turnover of 55 housing units in Ormoc City to survivors of Supertyphoon “Yolanda.” The units were the first batch in a resettlement program of 165 disaster-resilient houses in three sites—Ormoc, Tacloban City and the municipality of Hernani in Eastern Samar—that the European Union funded through the UNDP’s Project Recovery. The 9.7-million euro grant (about P508 million) was meant to complement national and local government efforts to rehabilitate Yolanda-affected communities by providing them sturdier, more fortified dwellings. A couple of weeks before that, on June 13, the Philippine government announced its commitment to the United Nations to work to end the rising HIV epidemic in the country by 2030, through a blend of approaches including increased funding by the government and additional support from the world body and other international partners. LGBT activist Jonas Bagas noted in a Facebook post that “The UN established the Global Fund, which has funded and is still funding HIV, TB and malaria programmes in the Philippines—including the ones being implemented in Davao. The country’s PLHIV (people living with HIV) community is in fact heavily relying on international donors for life-saving treatment, among others, because the Philippine government has continuously refused to fund these meds fully.” The UN’s World Food Program (WFP) is also present in the country through the nutrition interventions it is doing by providing nutritious, ready-to-eat meals to some 65,000 school-age children in Maguindanao, Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur. Pregnant and nursing women in conflict-ridden or disaster-affected areas also benefit from the food program, and the WFP has worked closely with the Food and Nutrition Research Institute to develop locally-produced fortified food for Filipino kids aged six months to three years old. In fact, immediately after Yolanda in 2013, the WFP was among the first to launch a relief effort for the survivors, flying in 40 tons of fortified “high-energy” biscuits to the Philippines from Dubai. The move was all of a piece with other UN mobilizations to rush aid to the country; Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealed for donors to raise $791 million for a yearlong rehabilitation and recovery program that would, for starters, allot $38 million of the amount to the local agriculture and fisheries sector through the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Some 128,000 households in the Visayas, Bicol and Mimaropa regions were the specific target of the FAO support. The UN International Telecommunications Union also deployed 90 satellite phones to support the joint relief efforts by the government and the World Health Organization, as well as to help survivors reestablish contact with their loved ones in other places. And so on. What are we to make, then, of the latest outburst from President Duterte? Last Sunday, he lashed out at the UN for its supposed temerity to question the growing bloodbath triggered by his administration’s war on crime and drugs. But, instead of addressing the issue, the President not only threatened to yank the Philippines out of the UN; he also startled everyone with these words: “Where were you here the last time? Never… When have you done a good deed to my country?” READ MORE...

 ALSO By Ambeth Ocampo - LOOKING BACK: Duterte language
[Many people I know find it distasteful for the President to cuss in public, and often describe this as, well, “unpresidential.” But then we have a new President who does not fit the mold that Manila-centric history and tradition have carved out for him. This square peg, forgive the allusion, does not want to conform to the round hole.]


AUGUST 25 -By: Ambeth R. Ocampo
In retrospect, all the P-words uttered by the lead actor in the unexpected blockbuster of a film, “Heneral Luna,” was an uncanny prefiguring of President Duterte and the trademark cussing he spouts almost daily for public consumption. At the beginning of his term I noted the CNN coverage of his rambling, extemporaneous speeches, where cuss words familiar in Manila were routinely bleeped out. There must have been a few minutes’ delay in the feed to censor the cuss words; however, the person in charge of the bleep missed out on many of the cuss words and anatomical terms when Mr. Duterte shifted language to Visayan. As a matter of fact, the snide remark on Mar Roxas’ “o*in” could be seen as an allusion to Gen. Antonio Luna, who lost the Battle of Bagbag in 1899 because he pulled out soldiers required to defend the Filipino positions against the Americans. He sent the soldiers to Pampanga in a show of force to discipline the insubordinate Gen. Tomas Mascardo, who made a sneering reference to Luna’s anatomy, too. Historians Epifanio de los Santos, Teodoro A. Agoncillo and Vivencio Jose did not provide the exact Tagalog quotation that loses its power when translated into Spanish or English: “Komandante, inyong sabihin kay Heneral Luna na kung siya’y may bay*g ay gayon din si Heneral Mascardo na maipaglalaban sa kanya.” (Major, tell General Luna that if he has balls to execute his orders, General Mascardo, likewise, is a man who knows how to fight!) Many people I know find it distasteful for the President to cuss in public, and often describe this as, well, “unpresidential.” But then we have a new President who does not fit the mold that Manila-centric history and tradition have carved out for him. This square peg, forgive the allusion, does not want to conform to the round hole. Cursing was part of my childhood; I heard it all the time from adults, and knew by the context or tone of voice whether the P-word was said in anger or as a form of endearment. My father used to cuss a lot until his favorite grandson was born. When the grandson was but a toddler he would note every P-word his lolo uttered and provided his mother with a daily accounting. READ MORE...

ALSO: EDITORIAL: Rationalizing evil


AUGUST 26 -President Duterte has called on members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to help win the war against illegal drugs with their patriotism because “the enemy is within” and “you will have to come in very fast.” PPD/Kiwi Bulaclac It is becoming clearer that the success of the Duterte administration depends on a Faustian bargain; all the exhilarating headway made in the peace negotiations with the longest-running communist insurgency in this part of the world, all the bold ambition to implement the peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in partnership with others, all the newfound consensus on the need to finally get started on railways in Mindanao, all the debate on the emergency powers to resolve the traffic crisis in Metro Manila, all the sense of possibility that President Duterte inspired with his resonant inaugural address—all this is premised on a bloody war on illegal drugs, with the lives of innocent victims and suspected criminals, none of them convicted by a rule of court, making a holocaust on the altar of political purpose. The President himself speaks as if there is no choice: Human rights is the price we pay, he says, for cleaning the country of the illegal drugs menace. The implication is that he has looked at the matter squarely, and come away with only one decision, the resolve to do what must be done to meet the objective. But this way of thinking is in fact a false choice: It is possible to eradicate the drug menace without committing human rights violations—all we have to do is look at the examples, both negative and instructive, of other countries. What is disturbing is that his own Cabinet officials, even those we would usually expect more from, have learned to rationalize the uncommonly high kill rate as necessary. Economic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia should have expected the question when he made an economic presentation the other day. He seemed surprised, and finally tried the following answer: Maybe “it is a necessary evil,” he said, “a by-product of you know … [a] self-defense thing.” Self-defense is “legitimate,” he stressed—and of course, it is. But coming in the same week that the chief of the Philippine National Police admitted that over 700 of the killings involved suspected criminals fighting back against the police, it only reinforced thMOcreeping suspicion: Just how much of these killings are in fact justified by self-defense? READ MORE...

ALSO: EDITORIAL - Danica May, 5 years old


AUGUST 27 -INQUIRER EDITORIALCARTOON AUGUST 27, 2016
MORE THAN 1,800 deaths so far, and counting. That’s the number provided by Philippine National Police chief Ronald dela Rosa himself at the Senate inquiry into the surge of extrajudicial killings since July 1, when President Duterte took office with a vow to rid this country of drugs and crime by whatever means. How many of these deaths involved minors? The government numbers do not indicate that information. And so the death of Danica May Garcia will eventually be lumped along with the rest—one more negligible statistic in the administration’s brutal war against the drug menace that it has declared as the country’s No. 1 problem today. But there is nothing ordinary or negligible about the story of Danica May. Only five years old, the girl that her grandmother said was always excited to attend kindergarten at a nearby school was hit in the head by a stray bullet when her grandfather Maximo Garcia was shot by a gunman at the back of their house. The grandfather, a tricycle driver, survived with a wound in the stomach; the child died in hospital, becoming the youngest fatality so far in the ongoing bloodbath. When is the death of a human being one too many? Is there even a just measure for it? Dela Rosa said 756 persons in the PNP list died because they resisted arrest. “Nanlaban.” If they had not done so, he said, they would be alive today. “Buhay sila.” And yet, in a recent viral video, a drug suspect already wounded and shouting surrender still ended up peppered with bullets by the Pasay City police. And these are the adult ones, who, peremptorily declared suspects under lists drawn up in secret by police and barangay officials and, by that unproven accusation, without benefit of any formal investigation that would allow them to clear their name, may find themselves summarily killed. Take Danica May’s grandfather, who had earlier presented himself to the police after learning that he was on a drug watch list. That act appears to have only exposed him further to harm, leading to the attempt on his life three days later. But his young apo got shot and bled to death in the process. “Collateral damage,” the defenders of this campaign would say—the banal wording meant to carve a comfortable distance from the unnerving wails of those mourning dead loved ones. Besides, the same defenders would say, it wasn’t the administration that pulled the trigger. READ MORE...


READ FULL MEDIA REPORTS HERE:

EDITORIAL" Grossly misinformed

MANILA, AUGUST 29, 2016 (INQUIRER) @inquirerdotnet 12:15 AM August 23rd, 2016 - LAST JUNE 29, a day before Rodrigo Duterte became president of the Philippines, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) announced the turnover of 55 housing units in Ormoc City to survivors of Supertyphoon “Yolanda.”

The units were the first batch in a resettlement program of 165 disaster-resilient houses in three sites—Ormoc, Tacloban City and the municipality of Hernani in Eastern Samar—that the European Union funded through the UNDP’s Project Recovery. The 9.7-million euro grant (about P508 million) was meant to complement national and local government efforts to rehabilitate Yolanda-affected communities by providing them sturdier, more fortified dwellings.

A couple of weeks before that, on June 13, the Philippine government announced its commitment to the United Nations to work to end the rising HIV epidemic in the country by 2030, through a blend of approaches including increased funding by the government and additional support from the world body and other international partners.

LGBT activist Jonas Bagas noted in a Facebook post that “The UN established the Global Fund, which has funded and is still funding HIV, TB and malaria programmes in the Philippines—including the ones being implemented in Davao.

The country’s PLHIV (people living with HIV) community is in fact heavily relying on international donors for life-saving treatment, among others, because the Philippine government has continuously refused to fund these meds fully.”

The UN’s World Food Program (WFP) is also present in the country through the nutrition interventions it is doing by providing nutritious, ready-to-eat meals to some 65,000 school-age children in Maguindanao, Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur.

Pregnant and nursing women in conflict-ridden or disaster-affected areas also benefit from the food program, and the WFP has worked closely with the Food and Nutrition Research Institute to develop locally-produced fortified food for Filipino kids aged six months to three years old.

In fact, immediately after Yolanda in 2013, the WFP was among the first to launch a relief effort for the survivors, flying in 40 tons of fortified “high-energy” biscuits to the Philippines from Dubai. The move was all of a piece with other UN mobilizations to rush aid to the country; Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appealed for donors to raise $791 million for a yearlong rehabilitation and recovery program that would, for starters, allot $38 million of the amount to the local agriculture and fisheries sector through the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Some 128,000 households in the Visayas, Bicol and Mimaropa regions were the specific target of the FAO support.

The UN International Telecommunications Union also deployed 90 satellite phones to support the joint relief efforts by the government and the World Health Organization, as well as to help survivors reestablish contact with their loved ones in other places.

And so on. What are we to make, then, of the latest outburst from President Duterte? Last Sunday, he lashed out at the UN for its supposed temerity to question the growing bloodbath triggered by his administration’s war on crime and drugs. But, instead of addressing the issue, the President not only threatened to yank the Philippines out of the UN; he also startled everyone with these words: “Where were you here the last time? Never… When have you done a good deed to my country?”

READ MORE...

The only charitable view one could take here is that the President has been grossly misinformed about all the help the UN has extended to the country, and ill-advised on how to deal with its scrutiny of the recent spike in extrajudicial killings. The Philippines is not only a charter member of the UN, it is also a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not unreasonable to be reminded of that commitment, especially when the human rights violations may appear to be state-directed.

Also, the Philippines’ vulnerable position, as a country with 10 million of its citizens working all over the world and subject to other countries’ laws, makes it imperative to work with international organizations like the UN to ensure its citizens’ welfare. The UN’s Ban was among those who publicly lobbied the Indonesian government to spare the life of

Mary Jane Veloso in the run-up to her announced execution for drug smuggling.

President Duterte’s off-the-cuff governance—policy out of pique—is creating needless problems. If he continues down this truculent path, the Philippines might find itself an international pariah soon enough.


LOOKING BACK: Duterte language By: Ambeth R. Ocampo @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:34 AM August 26th, 2016


By: Ambeth R. Ocampo

In retrospect, all the P-words uttered by the lead actor in the unexpected blockbuster of a film, “Heneral Luna,” was an uncanny prefiguring of President Duterte and the trademark cussing he spouts almost daily for public consumption.

At the beginning of his term I noted the CNN coverage of his rambling, extemporaneous speeches, where cuss words familiar in Manila were routinely bleeped out. There must have been a few minutes’ delay in the feed to censor the cuss words; however, the person in charge of the bleep missed out on many of the cuss words and anatomical terms when Mr. Duterte shifted language to Visayan.

As a matter of fact, the snide remark on Mar Roxas’ “o*in” could be seen as an allusion to Gen. Antonio Luna, who lost the Battle of Bagbag in 1899 because he pulled out soldiers required to defend the Filipino positions against the Americans. He sent the soldiers to Pampanga in a show of force to discipline the insubordinate Gen. Tomas Mascardo, who made a sneering reference to Luna’s anatomy, too.

Historians Epifanio de los Santos, Teodoro A. Agoncillo and Vivencio Jose did not provide the exact Tagalog quotation that loses its power when translated into Spanish or English: “Komandante, inyong sabihin kay Heneral Luna na kung siya’y may bay*g ay gayon din si Heneral Mascardo na maipaglalaban sa kanya.” (Major, tell General Luna that if he has balls to execute his orders, General Mascardo, likewise, is a man who knows how to fight!)

Many people I know find it distasteful for the President to cuss in public, and often describe this as, well, “unpresidential.”

But then we have a new President who does not fit the mold that Manila-centric history and tradition have carved out for him. This square peg, forgive the allusion, does not want to conform to the round hole.

Cursing was part of my childhood; I heard it all the time from adults, and knew by the context or tone of voice whether the P-word was said in anger or as a form of endearment. My father used to cuss a lot until his favorite grandson was born. When the grandson was but a toddler he would note every P-word his lolo uttered and provided his mother with a daily accounting.

READ MORE...

When I was growing up, my father rarely used the P-word in anger, but my mother made up the balance. Once I laughed at her angry face, when she used the P-word on me. When I reminded her that she referred to herself when she used the P-word, she used “g*go” and pinched my side so hard it produced a welt.

The only time we were spared from my mother’s cussing was after her bypass operation, when she was left practically voiceless. Nevertheless, at table we could read her lips and know how frustrated she was at not being able to express herself with the P-word.

When I taught the Rizal course in the University of the Philippines, I realized that the course title was “Philippine Institutions 100,” with the course code “PI 100” that students took to mean something else.

There is something about the P-word that hits Pinoys in the gut. It is more powerful than the Spanish P*ñeta made current again by “Heneral Luna.” I was surprised that the movie review board did not bleep out the many P-words in “Heneral Luna,” and I presume that it was because the word was Spanish and did not sound as bad as it would have if it were in Filipino.

Nobody seems to know what P*ñeta means, and nobody takes the time to google its exact meaning. In one translation, it is said to be the colloquial word for “hell.”

Thus, to say “que p*ñeta!” is to say “go to hell!” A more adequate Spanish dictionary will tell you that the root word is “puño,” meaning a fist or to make a fist; therefore, the fist flaunted at someone with a shaking movement says plainly that p*ñeta is the vulgar word for masturbation.

When I was taking Spanish and French in college, I was taught mainly how to conjugate verbs, use the conditional, and speak courteously. The late E. Aguilar Cruz rounded up my language education by introducing me to the Adrienne “Gimmick” books that taught colloquial usage or everyday language. Naturally, the last part of the Gimmick books was the first I referred to and often reviewed because it was marked “What not to say!”

Here I learned to see how usage in the Philippines differed from Spain or Latin America. For example, “bombo” in colloquial Spanish had nothing to do with a bomb or the radio program “Radyo Bombo.” It referred to a lesbian. Then, for all the poor women born on Dec. 8 and given the baptismal name Maria Concepcion, if their nickname was “Maricon,” they will be horrified to learn that in colloquial Spanish “maricon” refers to a gay man, or to use colloquial Filipino, a “bakla.”

In the 1970s, Filipinos went mad over handball played with a short tennis racquet known locally as “pelota.” In Spain, pelota refers to someone’s “balls,” and to be “en pelotas” does not refer to someone in a pelota outfit but to someone who is bare-assed.

Filipino slang words for going out and having a nice time are “pasyal” from the Spanish “pasear” and “paseo” that refers to taking a walk or a stroll. Be warned, however, that “mag-lamierda tayo” is not the synonym of pasyal. La mierda is the Spanish word for excrement or sh*t.

Some academic should do a study on Duterte language and explain it plainly without the jargon and the scary algebraic diagrams that make for linguistics literature today.


EDITORIAL: Rationalizing evil @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer 12:38 AM August 26th, 2016


President Duterte has called on members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to help win the war against illegal drugs with their patriotism because “the enemy is within” and “you will have to come in very fast.” PPD/Kiwi Bulaclac

It is becoming clearer that the success of the Duterte administration depends on a Faustian bargain; all the exhilarating headway made in the peace negotiations with the longest-running communist insurgency in this part of the world, all the bold ambition to implement the peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in partnership with others, all the newfound consensus on the need to finally get started on railways in Mindanao, all the debate on the emergency powers to resolve the traffic crisis in Metro Manila, all the sense of possibility that President Duterte inspired with his resonant inaugural address—all this is premised on a bloody war on illegal drugs, with the lives of innocent victims and suspected criminals, none of them convicted by a rule of court, making a holocaust on the altar of political purpose.

The President himself speaks as if there is no choice: Human rights is the price we pay, he says, for cleaning the country of the illegal drugs menace. The implication is that he has looked at the matter squarely, and come away with only one decision, the resolve to do what must be done to meet the objective.

But this way of thinking is in fact a false choice: It is possible to eradicate the drug menace without committing human rights violations—all we have to do is look at the examples, both negative and instructive, of other countries.

What is disturbing is that his own Cabinet officials, even those we would usually expect more from, have learned to rationalize the uncommonly high kill rate as necessary.

NECESSARY EVIL

Economic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia should have expected the question when he made an economic presentation the other day. He seemed surprised, and finally tried the following answer: Maybe “it is a necessary evil,” he said, “a by-product of you know … [a] self-defense thing.” Self-defense is “legitimate,” he stressed—and of course, it is. But coming in the same week that the chief of the Philippine National Police admitted that over 700 of the killings involved suspected criminals fighting back against the police, it only reinforced the creeping suspicion: Just how much of these killings are in fact justified by self-defense?

READ MORE...

He also offered a perspective that seemed to pivot on the same argument the President and his spokespersons used, that international observers were exaggerating the killings because they were viewing them from far away. “When you are from a distance, then you see the thing… more serious than what it really is because it’s localized.”

This is really unfortunate, because Pernia, an internationally recognized economist, knows better than most Duterte Cabinet officials that the international community is in fact very much present in the Philippines. There are literally thousands of Filipinos and expatriates working in the Philippines for international institutions; surely they serve as sources of information, too.

Interior Secretary Ismael Sueno, addressing a forum where government officials and members of the international institutions present in the Philippines took part, offered a blanket denial. “Ang mga nangyayari ngayon na mga extrajudicial killings, hindi ‘yan kagagawan ng gobyerno,” Sueno said. [These extrajudicial killings that are happening, these are not the work of the government. Why? Because “The President adheres to the rule of law; he wants due process. He does not want extrajudicial killings.”]

And yet even just the number of killings committed by the PNP, as admitted by PNP Director General Ronald dela Rosa, is a cause for great concern; are these 700-odd kills not problematic killings, too, subject to internal investigation?

The President notoriously promised to kill 100,000 criminals to fatten the fish of Manila Bay with; we take him at his word. How curious that his own men, by legal definition his alter egos, think he didn’t really mean what he said.


EDITORIAL: Danica May, 5 years old @inquirerdotnet Philippine Daily Inquirer 12:38 AM August 27th, 2016


INQUIRER EDITORIALCARTOON AUGUST 27, 2016

MORE THAN 1,800 deaths so far, and counting. That’s the number provided by Philippine National Police chief Ronald dela Rosa himself at the Senate inquiry into the surge of extrajudicial killings since July 1, when President Duterte took office with a vow to rid this country of drugs and crime by whatever means.

How many of these deaths involved minors?

The government numbers do not indicate that information. And so the death of Danica May Garcia will eventually be lumped along with the rest—one more negligible statistic in the administration’s brutal war against the drug menace that it has declared as the country’s No. 1 problem today.

But there is nothing ordinary or negligible about the story of Danica May. Only five years old, the girl that her grandmother said was always excited to attend kindergarten at a nearby school was hit in the head by a stray bullet when her grandfather Maximo Garcia was shot by a gunman at the back of their house. The grandfather, a tricycle driver, survived with a wound in the stomach; the child died in hospital, becoming the youngest fatality so far in the ongoing bloodbath.

When is the death of a human being one too many? Is there even a just measure for it? Dela Rosa said 756 persons in the PNP list died because they resisted arrest.

“Nanlaban.” If they had not done so, he said, they would be alive today. “Buhay sila.” And yet, in a recent viral video, a drug suspect already wounded and shouting surrender still ended up peppered with bullets by the Pasay City police.

And these are the adult ones, who, peremptorily declared suspects under lists drawn up in secret by police and barangay officials and, by that unproven accusation, without benefit of any formal investigation that would

allow them to clear their name, may find themselves summarily killed. Take Danica May’s grandfather, who had earlier presented himself to the police after learning that he was on a drug watch list. That act appears to have only exposed him further to harm, leading to the attempt on his life three days later. But his young apo got shot and bled to death in the process.

“Collateral damage,” the defenders of this campaign would say—the banal wording meant to carve a comfortable distance from the unnerving wails of those mourning dead loved ones. Besides, the same defenders would say, it wasn’t the administration that pulled the trigger.

READ MORE...

This kind of response is appalling, and misses the point. Whatever one’s position in this war, the current apparently state-sanctioned climate of impunity where people under mere suspicion of crime are killed without compunction is already a tragedy—a violation of the fundamental presumption of innocence enshrined in the Constitution. But the death of children—whether by unfortunate accident or as the targets themselves, as in the well-documented case of three brothers, all minors, summarily executed by the so-called Davao Death Squad years ago—brings the tragedy to another level.

President Duterte’s war is now claiming many more unintended victims. Can it be because of the official endorsements of extrajudicial means emanating from, or abetted by, Malacañang? Earlier, the top cop himself has said he thinks the spiraling vigilante deaths are welcome because they mean that the drug syndicates are eliminating each other; now, he has taken to goading admitted addicts who have surrendered to police to commit arson on the houses of their alleged drug suppliers.

The apparent effect of these extraordinary exhortations is to open the environment to greater bloodshed and a wider field of combat—and with it, the possibility of many more civilians, including children, dying in the crossfire.

While Danica May’s death made the headlines, no significant public outcry attended the news. Contrast that with the shock and outrage expressed by many Filipinos on social media over the video of a shell-shocked boy in Aleppo, covered in dust and blood, uncomprehending and rendered mute by the carnage around him. Children are indeed the most vulnerable victims of any war, but one need not look to Syria or other countries for confirmation of that distressing truth. The out-of-control

violence in our streets is racking up the same victims; Danica May will not be the last of them.


Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi

© Copyright, 2016 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved


PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE