Saturday, March 29, 2003


Finally, an official website of the place where I was born and spent my childhood and teen age years. Click on the picture to access the site.

Friday, March 28, 2003

Do I need to say more?

Thursday, March 27, 2003

Why would America spent billions of dollar for the war, in "bribing" other nations to join their coalition, among others? Here's an interesting analysis from Geoffrey Heard as recounted by Conrado de Quiros in his column today at the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

I was talking yesterday about the US and the Marcos Dictatorship, I am just glad that the Philippine Daily Inquirer came up with an editorial today about this issue. I encourage you to read this and be enlightened. Let us all learn from the lessons of history.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

Dear Mr. Brody:

I salute you more than your winning the 2003 Best Actor plum for the Oscars. I salute you because of your sincerity in saying these words:
This is (referring to his award), you know, it fills me with great joy, but I am also filled with a lot of sadness tonight because I am accepting an award at such a strange time. And you know my experiences of making this film made me very aware of the sadness and the dehumanization of people at times of war. And the repercussions of war. And whatever you believe in, if it's God or Allah, may he watch over you and let's pray for a peaceful and swift resolution. Thank you

I pray that artist like you could do more than the mere lip service and do, with all your influence, to call for a real world peace.



courtesy of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

Over the weekend, my mail inbox was suddenly active with the barrage of opinions coming from my Sillimanian friends, in and out of the country. The topic - - war against Iraq. Several points were raised and I would like to share my opinions on several of these concerns.

Fresh from his oath taking as a new lawyer, Atty. Lowell Yu said that we should not forget that in August 2, 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait, so why is it that now the US is being portrayed as evil by those opposing the war on Iraq?

We will never forget the 1991 Gulf War. Never. But Iraq has already paid dearly with that invasion. Twelve years ago the United Nations came up with the Resolution No. 661 which imposed strict sanctions on Iraq's import and export. As a result to this economic sanction, as of October 1999, a total of 1.5 million Iraqis have died and 750,000 of these are children. The child death rate of Iraq in 1989 (before the Gulf War) was at 38 per 1,000 births. In October of 1999 the child death rate of Iraq rose to 131 per 1,000 births or an increase of 345 percent. Secondly, America claimed that it has already destroyed 80 percent of Iraq's military capacity.

(These facts were taken from the "Test the War-on Iraq IQ Test" by Charles Sheketoff, Executive Director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy)

Another issue raise was September 11, 2001. It would be unfair for us to criticize the United States when it was them who felt the pains on terrorism on that fateful day. Yes America was hurt, but the rest of the world was hurt too. How many Filipinos lost their jobs because of the recession resulting from 9/11? How many economies suffered because of 9/11? Needless to say, many poor countries have long suffered from terrorist attack even before 9/11.

The question now is, is there any hard convincing proof that Saddam Hussein has something to do with 9/11? That Saddam Hussein has links with the Al Queda Network? Unfortunately, the answer is "No".

The very essence of the criminal justice system of a democratic country is that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that his guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It unfortunate for America, being the "bastion of democracy", to have rush into their judgement against Iraq.

Yes you were hurt, but we hurt too. However, just because you were terribly hurt that does not give you any right to run after any of your enemies without the clear and convincing proof that they took part or helped the perpetrators of such terrible crime.

Third issue. Does Iraq still have some weapons of mass destruction? Probably yes or probably no. We would never know because America chooses to wage war against Iraq thereby the UN inspectors have no option left but the leave Iraq. On the first place, we should have asked the question, who helped Saddam develop his military arsenal? The answer is: United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden. There a total of 24 US companies who have helped Saddam develop his nuclear program, biological weapons, chemical weapons, rockets and conventional weapons, military logistics and military plants. On the other hand, 17 British firms gave the same support except for biological weapons.

Since 1975, these companies supplied the "entire complexes, building elements, basic materials, and technical know-how for Saddam's program to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction."

(This is based on the documents submitted to the United Nations to which British officials confirmed as accurate and upon the request of the United States these 8,000 pages document were censored by the UN but were somehow leaked to the press, thank you to Conrado de Quiros of the Philippine Daily Inquirer for this information).

Now, before I get misinterpreted (again!), I categorically say that I do not condone Saddam Hussein. To quote one friend of mine who works in one of the embassies here, "if half of the stories about Saddam and his sons are true, then he is a real monster." To which I agree. Saddam has done terrible things to the Kuwaitis, to the Kurdish and to his own people. He has tortured a lot of people, his republican guard raped hundreds of women and he has stolen the wealth of his country which should have been due to his people.

By all means we should disarm Saddam if indeed his weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the world. BUT, it should be done according the standards set by international bodies like the United Nations. I believe no one has the right to disregard the sovereignty of another country. That is why we have the United Nations to address our concerns in the international arena. We should, by any means, respect these bodies, for if we don't we would just be inviting chaos.

What the United States and the "Coalition of the Willing" have done seriously undermined the credibility of the United Nations. It is unfortunate that the US and the UK, who taught of organizing the nations of the world at the end of World War II to promote international understanding and world peace, would trample upon the credibility of the United Nations to which they were two of the founding members. (I wonder if Roosevelt and Churchill were alive today, what kind of advice would they give to Bush and Blair?) Just because the majority's decision was inconvenient to you, that does not mean you can just disregard them. That is the very essence of democracy and America who claimed to be the "defender of democracy", should know that.

Secondly, since the Gulf War America has conducted a number of air raids against Iraq and claimed that 80 percent of Iraq's military capacity is destroyed. With 20 percent of its military capacity and with the declaration of Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief that "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history," can Saddam and his Republican armies be still considered a threat to the world?

I share the opinion of that friend of mine who works in one of the foreign embassies here that if there is one thing we should be bothered, it should be North Korea. Saddam has been disarmed, Saddam shows himself to international bodies like the Arab League. But Kim of North Korea has never been disarmed, and I wonder who among the world leaders counsels him. He has been very secretive through the year. Yet the United State choose the diplomatic avenue to settle this. But for Iraq, the US has suddenly become impatient when in fact Iraq was given 12 years to disarm.

I just wonder what interest does the United States have in North Korea? Probably there are some. How about Iraq? Well, Iraq happens to have the second largest oil reserve in the Middle East. And who controls the oil in Iraq? Definitely not the US. When Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela of South Africa said that oil is the reason for this war, this should be given serious considerations.

And for those who thinks that the United States is the savior of the world, let us not forget that once in our history American invaded us and killed our fellow Filipinos. Let us not forget that once in our history, America supported a dictator named Ferdinand Marcos and America played blind to the Marcos atrocities and human rights violations. Let us not forget that America once supported the tyrant Shah of Iran. Let us not forget that that America helped Saddam in building his war arsenal. Let us not forget America still won't do something with the toxic waste they left in the former US bases in Subic and Clark. And let us not forget that America never apologized for all these things that they committed.

America's interest is their "own interest". If they want to save the world from all weapons of Mass Destruction, then America should also disarm. Having possess 10,000 nuclear warheads and now with their wanton disregard to the United Nations, isn't it that America is also a threat to the world?

I just hope and pray that history will judge the US right. Because no amount of reconstruction and aid after the regime change in Iraq could bring back the life of the innocent civilian who died in this war. No amount of foreign aid could save the Iraqi children from being an orphan because their parents died defending their country from foreign invaders. No amount of aid could bring back the dignity of one country and its people that was trampled by foreign aggression.

I pray for a swift resolution because there is nothing much left for me to do.

This is a very sad day in the history of the human race. Very Sad.
By Charles Sheketoff, Executive Director of Oregon Center for Public Policy

Q: What percentage of the world's population does the United States have? A: Six percent

Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the United States have? A: 50 percent

Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves? A: Saudi Arabia

Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves? A: Iraq

Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? A: 900+ billion dollars

Q: How much of this is spent by the United States? A: 50 percent

Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according to the United Nations? A: 10 percent (that's about 40 billion dollars, the amount of funding initially requested to fund the US retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).

Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II? A: 86 million

Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? A: Since the early 1980s.

Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical and biological weapons on its own? A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.

Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran? A: No

Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988? A: 5,000

Q: How many Western countries condemned this action at the time? A: 0

Q: How many gallons of Agent Orange did America use in Vietnam? A: 17 million.

Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and Sept. 11 terrorist attack?

A: No

Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? A: 35,000

Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the Western forces during the Gulf War? A: 0

Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by US tanks with ploughs mounted on the front? A: 6,000

Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War? A: 40 tons

Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994? A: 700 percent

Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991? A: 80 percent

Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self-defense? A: No

Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago?

A: No

Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3? A: 10,000

Q: What percentage of these will be children? A: Over 50 percent

Q: How many years has the US engaged in air strikes on Iraq? A: 11 years

Q: Were the United States and the United Kingdom at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: No

Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? A: 20 million

Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports? A: 12 years

Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)? A: 38

Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?

A: 131 (that's an increase of 345 percent)

Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions? A: 1.5 million

Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997? A: 750,000

Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq? A: No

Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? A: 300

Q: How many of these inspections had problems? A: 5

Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ? A: Yes

Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history." A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief

Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post-1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled? A: 90 percent

Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in? A: Yes

Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992? A: Over 65

Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990?

A: 30+

Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons? A: 8

Q: How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got? A: 0

Q: How many nuclear warheads has the United States got? A: Over 10,000

Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons? A: The United States

Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have? A: Over 400

Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"? A: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

I am posting the speech of Robin Cook, Labour leader of the British House of Commons, when he resigned from the Cabinet of Tony Blair. Here's the speech:
I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated. If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results that are inconvenient to us.

I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

In recent days France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed at no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of President Chirac.

The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading member. Not NATO. Not the EU. And now not the Security Council. To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year ago we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism which was wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible. History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules. Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a single shot yet being fired.

The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands. Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces are so weak, so demoralized and so badly equipped that the war will be over in days.

We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify preemptive action on the claim that he is a serious threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of that term-namely, a credible device capable of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had them since the 1980s when the United States sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.

Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons program is frustrated by the presence of UN inspectors?

I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet it is over 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops to action in Iraq.

I believe the prevailing mood of the British public is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But they are not persuaded he is a clear and present danger to Britain. They want the inspections to be given a chance. And they are suspicious that they are being pushed hurriedly into conflict by a US administration with an agenda of its own. Above all, they are uneasy at Britain taking part in a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies. It has been a favorite theme of commentators that the House of Commons has lost its central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for parliament to stop the commitment of British troops to a war that has neither international authority nor domestic support.

Friday, March 21, 2003


I am placing today's editorial of the Philippine Daily Inquirer because I totally agree with them regarding the war on Iraq. Friends, let us pray for peace for the sake of the innocent civilians in Iraq and for the sake of the world.
Posted:9:44 PM (Manila Time) | Mar. 20, 2003
By Editorial

AS HE had vowed two days earlier, US President George W. Bush unleashed Thursday the mighty American war machine against Iraq. Less than two hours after the expiration of the deadline Bush had set for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq, cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs were falling in and around Baghdad.

Bush said the opening salvo of the new war was aimed at "targets of military opportunity." The whole war effort, dubbed "Operation Iraqi Freedom," was intended to "disarm Iraq and free its people," he said. "This will not be a campaign of half-measures and we will accept no outcome but victory."

Victory was also what Saddam promised his people after at least 40 missiles rained on Baghdad. Condemning the attack as a "shameful crime against Iraq and humanity," he urged the Iraqi people to "draw your swords" against the "evil invaders." He predicted that their enemies faced "a bitter defeat" and that Iraq will emerge victorious.

Between the bully and the bullied, it is difficult to see who still retains a measure of sanity. Saddam's defiant stand suggests a willful disregard of the hard lessons of the 1991 Gulf War that saw his elite Republican Guards quickly raising the white flag in the face of an onslaught by US and allied forces. But given surrender or death as his only choices, what else could Saddam have done but put up a bold front and rally his people behind what could prove to be a suicidal course?

But if desperation drove Saddam to madness, the assertion of power was what did it for Bush. From the moment Bush set his eyes on Iraq as the next target of his campaign against international terrorism, it was clear that nothing would deter him from his single-minded pursuit of war. Over the last few months he has cited one reason after another for fighting Iraq. One day it was Iraq's alleged support for al-Qaeda, the international terrorist network that launched the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; the next day it was to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of terrorists. One day it was protecting the world against terrorism; the next day it was protecting the Iraqi people against Saddam's cruel regime.

When Iraq allowed United Nations arms inspectors to look at suspected facilities for the storage or manufacture of weapons of mass destruction, Bush made it quite clear that any findings that did not support his own suspicions would be unacceptable to him. He was fishing for an excuse-any excuse-to send his troops to Baghdad, and finding none, he sought to coerce the UN to give him one. Thwarted in his effort to get the international community to confer legitimacy on the war he wanted to wage, he accused the UN of not living up to its responsibility.

Bush apparently thinks that the world revolves around America, that if he believes he is right the whole world should simply nod in agreement, that if he wants war he can go to war and the rest of the world be damned. He has sought to give an international color to his war of aggression by claiming it is being fought by a "coalition of the willing," but only the United Kingdom and Australia have sent troops to fight alongside the Americans. A total of 35 nations have come out to express their support for his decision, but that only serves to underscore the fact that more than 150 others don't approve of his tragic misadventure.

Saddam might have been less than cooperative with the UN. He might have "used diplomacy to gain time and advantage (and) defied Security Council resolutions," as Bush has charged. But the majority of nations obviously do not consider them as enough provocation to wage war. And now that Bush has chosen to employ force to impose his will on Iraq without the consent of the UN, what makes him think he is less of an outlaw than Saddam?

Since Sept. 11, 2001, Bush has been spoiling for a war. Now he has got his war, and the rest of world can only pray that it will be mercifully quick, for the sake of the Iraqis as well as many others who will be affected by its economic fallout. But then a swift victory might not slake Bush's thirst for blood. Who will be his next target for superpower bullying? Who can stop this man?

Tuesday, March 18, 2003


I am no drama queen. Although there were times that my favorite past time was to wallow into self-pity, I usually keep it to my self.

But I am a "cry baby" and a "sentimental fool". I don't usually cry for myself. I have already spent considerable time crying in self-pity when I was still a kid that I could no longer cry for myself now.

I usually cry from what I saw on TV or in the movies. I cry for happiness when I watch stories of people who emerged victorious over the impossible odds they faced in life like extreme poverty. I cried when a child whose only Christmas wish was for a decent roof for their shanty, but was instead given all the things needed for their house. I cried when the kids of Vilma Santos in Bata, Bata Paano Ka Ginawa choose not their respective father but her and greeted her "happy women's day." I cried over a lot of things, even those things to which other might find corny.

Last I cried. But it was out of sadness. I cried while watching last night's episode of GMA's "Eyewitness. I cried over the fate of the children who were suffering from "war shock". I cried because at a tender age they have to suffer the atrocities caused by heartless adults. I cried because they used to have no biases against any Christians, but was now, because of what he saw, thought that all Christians are enemies. I cried for baby Almonar (I hope I got his name right) who was born while his parents (a Christian mother and a Muslim Father) were running away from the bombings in Pikit, Cotabato. I cried what kind of future he will have.

I also cried in happiness for a 63 year old math teacher, who left the comforts of the private school in Manila where he used to teach just to go to war ravaged portion of Mindanao and teach Children the culture of peace and help them come into terms with the violence that is going around them. But I still cried in sadness knowing that there are only few of them who still feel that they are needed here. Many of his fellow teachers have left for the United States. I wish they could hear say that despite the low salary and despite the less support from the government, a teacher could only have to look back and would know that there is at least one child who needs his or her guidance.

I cried knowing that with the war in Mindanao and the looming crisis in the Middle East, plenty of innocent Children will still have to suffer or die or lost a parent because the power-that-be can't just talk peace.

I hope Bush, Blair, Howard and the rest would consider the children before they go to war. But I cried knowing that this plea would just fall on deaf ears. Ando so I joined these poet when they said the following lines in the chapbook "100 Poets Against War":

Are there children
by Robert Priest

are there children somewhere
waiting for wounds
eager for the hiss of napalm
in their flesh -
he mutilating thump of shrapnel
do they long for amputation
and disfigurement
incinerate themselves in ovens
are there some who try to sense
the focal points of bullets
or who sprawl on bomb grids
do they still line up in queues
for noble deaths

i must ask:
are soul and flesh uneasy fusions
longing for the cut -
the bloody leap to ether
are all our words a shibboleth for silence -
a static crackle
to ignite the blood
and detonate the self-corroding
does each man in his own way
plot a pogrom for the species
or are we all, always misled
to war

by Sampurna Chattarji

Death is easy to pronounce.
He deserved to die.
They ought to be shot.
Hanging's too good for him.
The words fall glib.
Throwaway lines
sentencing them to death.

Distant observer,
you speak without guilt, or fear
of misplaced allegiances.
You just need something to say,
that all.

The right sentiment, rightly declared
whichever way your loyalties blow
in the gust of the smokefilled air.
A country burns.

The death-dealers deserved to die,you say.
Death is easy to pronounce.
It the smell of burning children that's hard.

Friday, March 14, 2003

My dear friend Ian Casoct texted me yesterday to update my blog. I said I will and reason out that I am busy. He answered he is also busy but he still updates his blogs. Ok case close Ian, I am updating my blog na.

I have plenty of thinsg to write. First about the movie "Chicago", such a great movie but it won't be a movie review. And second is about domestic violence, my piece for the Women's Month Celebration. Promise, it will come out at the latest, Monday.

This is another "I wish day". I wish some specific persons were just with me this morning and I will be vindicated. It's a little thing actually, but I never forgotten it. I was at the Senate library this morning doing my research for the office and I came across with a letter that I wish, some people from Silliman could have seen.

Two years ago, I was elected Secretary of the Oratorical and Debating Club (ORADEC) of Silliman University College of Law. My President was Lowell "Wang" Yu (now a lawyer). Well, part of my job, as any secretary would do, is to write letters. So I wrote letters to be signed by the president of the ORADEC. At that time, we were preparing for the grand debate between the law schools of Silliman University and Ateneo de Manila.

I was already bored ending my letters with "I am looking forward to your favorable response," or " we hope this letter merits your favorable attention," and the likes. So I opted to use this, "anticipating your favorable response, I am." (actually, I could not remember the exact words, but it has something to that effect). When that letter reached our president, he insisted on changing it. He has never seen a sentence that ends with comma and "I am". And so are the most of the people of the Silliman University College of Law.

It would have been okay for me, but Aliakbar Jumrani and Roma Badrina, then second year law students, made it as a butt of their jokes. Not in their wildest imagination could a sentence in a letter end with ", I am". And they would even made fun about it in my presence. I got mad, but I did not argue with them. I find it useless. I know I am right, but it is just difficult telling it to these people who think they have perfect English.

Now, the letter I discovered this morning. It was a letter written by then Sen. Arturo Tolentino to then President Carlos Garcia when the latter vetoed Senate Bill 293, the law against Graft and Corruption in the Government. The letter ends with this "with my highest esteem and regards, I am".

Do I need to say more? I just wish Aliakbar and the rest could read this blog.

Thursday, March 06, 2003


It has been 14 days since my last blog. I had a lot of things to write but somehow, everytime I open the net, I just feel lazy.

Last week week was a great week for me. Many of me friends pass the Bar exams and I was at the Supreme Court when the results were released. My cousin Kitkat had a succesful surgery and thanks to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, their publication has brought a lot of kind-hearted souls to my aunt and uncle who desperately needed financial assistance. They are now back in Bukidnon overflowing with gratitude and joy (and should I say leaving Manila without any debts from St. Lukes Hospital).

But, life is like a wheel, last week I am soo happy, now I am depressed. Money problem, well according to a tagalog cliches "Lilipas din ito."