Opening Night

They said this day would never come. At least, not this soon.

It might be powered by persistent desire or defiant stubbornness. But the raging voice trapped in the silencing shackles can’t be caged forever. The story can’t just remain echoing between the chambers of our screens. It is screaming so loud, demanding for an audience--demanding the passive act of listening be an active statement of resistance. We all knew it would happen sooner or later. But the fact that it is happening this soon--that it is happening today--tells a story far greater than the words of the playwright.

Theatre is one of the first sacrifices in the new normal. Some even said it would be dead for a long time. For months, the stage has been gathering dust, the seats have been eerily silent. But it’s a preferable stillness than the confounding cacophony outside the theatre left in the wake of the pandemic. The country still weeps for its dead. The agonizing cry for justice prevails in the air. The silence covering incompetence is deafening. After all the clusterfuck brought by this pandemic, there’s a seething, collective voice that seeks, nay demands, to be heard. And tonight, it might have found the perfect stage.

While talks of mounting this stage play pervade various circles, the consensus is it will be subversive. In this political climate, staging it sets the tone for this. While the pandemic has gradually left us, the remnants of martial reins have not. This did not deter the group from making this defiant art piece come to fruition. Even in its title, “The Address”, leaves the ambiguity at the door in whom the play addresses (pun intended). There are only six cast members so rehearsing for the play is within the restricting limit of gatherings. The marketing for this play has been a massive online buzz. Most of it was organic as it carries the weight of being the first stage play post-pandemic. It has been a constant subject for investigation because of its subversive tone so they have to delete their content every now and then. The incessant desire to shut it down backfired as more people have been drawn to this ephemeral voice (complete with their witty puzzles that lead you to their content), showcasing their thirst for a voice they can identify with.

They have prepared. And they’ve marked tonight as their premiere. Without pre-selling of tickets, which for some reason is still not allowed, they don’t know if there will be an audience to perform to. As they put it in their last promotion online: “We’re ready to make our statement. Are you?” We have managed through the pandemic, inefficient and dysfunctional as it may have been, but we have overcome--at least for those that are still here. There’s still an atmosphere of cautious fear coupled with the overreach of rules meant for a pandemic which the implementers themselves have already claimed victory over. Where does our fear lie? This is basically the question the play gives to its presupposed audience. While attendance is not a must, it’s a statement.

I, for one, am ready to make that statement. We’ve been forced to fall back by an invisible enemy, we’ve been rallied to war with limited weapons and inconsistent generals, we’ve been shouting at a walled ivory tower for far too long. For a country that ensures each citizen has a voice, it only has the ears for the few. We need to make our voice a resounding statement.

When I arrived at the theatre, I was expecting a line. But not this long. They had to add a second entrance and still, the lines spilled out of the building--partly because of social distancing, but definitely because of social consciousness. The play hasn’t started and yet social issues discussions fill the one-meter gaps. The eagerness is palpable and hope sparks in eyes wide of anticipation. As of today, theater plays are still not allowed (and there’s this play partly to blame) but that did not deter these people from breaking this rule by ironically following the usher’s pleas to follow the two queues.

It’s also a good thing that “The Address” is just a 30-minute, one-act play. That allowed them to stage four shows for tonight and given the long lines, a sure SRO shows at that. This appeased the queues for this play might be shut down and this opening night could be its only night. As soon as the usher announced that they would start letting people in, the humdrum was broken by a single clap. Soon, the lobby echoed a thunder of applause and cheers, punctuated by drumming footsteps. And at that moment, as the theatre has always done, a community was born.

The hushed conversations slowly filled the silent theater back to life. Seats started to squeak in succession. The familiar chimes, the decorum reminders, the sporadic excuse me’s--all reminding me of the experience I have fallen in love with since I was a naive student, reminding us of how it once was, how we should’ve been.

Then, the lights gradually fade to black. A sea of masks brimming with excitement and hope awaits the dusty stage to be lit once again.

Saving you from spoilers, all I can say about the play is it lived up to its promise. “The Address” is about a president preparing to address the nation after a major disaster hit the country. Seems like a normal story except that there are four presidents debating for 30 minutes on how to go about the message. As these representative personalities argue on different social issues and political systems, security bulletins come every now and then to give updates on the rising death toll. The constant breaking of the fourth wall reminded us that we are not just spectators. We are part of the discussion. We are part of the decision--and not just in this play.

For the whole duration of the play, the audience laughed, welled up, applauded. But by the end of it, all were inflamed. As the stage went dark again in the end, the theater erupted into boisterous applause. There was a bit of technical difficulty that it took them longer to bring the lights back up for the curtain call. But that, I think, is kismet--for those long seconds that we could see nothing but can only hear the roaring crowd, no symbolic scene could come as close to home than that.

As the company took their bows, the audience leaped up, clapped, and cheered from start to finish. It was not just appreciation and respect for the powerhouse of talent on stage. Each cheer told the story of the unseen scenes behind the setting of the play: every suffering, frustration, every cry. Each whistle was a promise to protect the play at all costs. Each clap was a vow to echo the message. It was an orchestra where all played the same key of vision. In that full minute, the community sounded the revolution.

Dum Roma deliberat Saguntum perit origin. While Rome debates, Saguntum is in peril. This is basically what the play wants to say. For many times, theatre has been a platform to creatively use the art of storytelling in sparking social consciousness into a movement. In its most defiant sense, this play proved this inimitable power of the art form that insecure establishments have been trying to silence since its inception. Each act that goes with the whole experience--writing, directing, rehearsing, acting, even mere attending--is a statement in itself. 

We’ve been through a lot in this pandemic, and not just health-wise. It showed us a lot, even things that were trying to be obscured. It brought a lot of uncertainties, confusion, exasperation, and depression. It brought the best and worst in us, and our utmost exhaustion in doing so. We’ve lost rights and we’ve gained debt. There were actions that should have happened and there were sacrifices that should have not. It seemed we were fighting a losing battle every day. Lives have become numbers. Fear has become a daily routine.

In all those months of war, we lost track of our enemy. Amidst the uncertainty, we needed clarity. We needed to be reminded who truly is in power. We needed a voice to echo our collective cry. And today, we found that voice.

So, no, theatre is not dead. On the contrary, today, it arrived stronger--wounded and exhausted but fierce and sonorous. More than anything, this play proved that theatre will never die. All you need is a community aching for a revolution to make a statement into a movement. And this opening night marked its start.

#OverAgain: 8 signs we’re ready for 2nd martial law

Martial law will be forever etched in the consciousness of the Filipinos, but not its meaning. It used to be the darkest period of our history as a nation; now, to others, it is the glorious days of peace and order.

With the new administration, talks of declaring martial law have been circulating again. While there is a debate of whether it will be implemented or not in this administration, let’s look at the political environment and see if the country is ripe to be put under martial law again.

8. Terror attacks

The recent bombing in Davao was no joke. Yes, there had been so many terrorist attacks that have happened in the recent years. But to target and successfully strike what is perceived to be the safest city in the country – the very foundation of why our current president was elected – means much more than just to raise terror.

While disowning the blast and pointing fingers to other allies, Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) says this is “sending a message to President Rodrigo Duterte that all the Daulat Ul Islamiya (the group behind the blast according to ASG) throughout the country is not afraid of him.”

Demanding to be recognized as a caliphate, ASG made threats before the blast. "They gave us the warning. Not only in Jolo, but in other places. We were forewarned, we were ready," Duterte said. "Unfortunately, we cannot frisk or order people to stop and search because that could be fascistic. Then that is not a democracy anymore. That is the price of being a democratic state."

As more bombings are expected by the government, Duterte promised that there would be a “day of reckoning.” In what form it will be, we’ll just have to find out.

7. Killings and arrests

Let’s face it: the number of extrajudicial killings is alarmingly high for a country where even judicial killings are not allowed. More than 3,000 people had been in killed in this war on drugs in just less than 3 months, highest since martial law era. It may have been to eliminate the excruciating drug problem in the country but when innocent lives become unintentional collateral damage, then public safety becomes a catch-22 situation. Especially since there are reported police casualties, as well. It could be all going well until it hits our home.

And in most cases, PNP’s Operation Tokhang saw that through. The national police has been knocking on houses of known drug personalities and persuading them to surrender sans warrants. It has mostly been effective since many on the drug list have surrendered or been arrested. However, Commission on Human Rights, the very office that was established after Marcos regime, said it has been receiving reports from “people who are not involved in drugs, being included into this lists and thereby creating a scenario of possible abuse.” There are also reports that while criminals are being killed, NGO leaders or community leaders are also being killed.

Malacañang says the president is against extrajudicial killings and even decries UN’s attribution of the murders to the government. This adds to the confusion of who’s killing who. Are these killings result of police operations or murders of other illegal drug personalities? Was it legal? Was there a due process? Saying one need not to worry if he/she hasn’t done anything illegal is now not enough to calm you in the midst of the rising death toll.

6. Impending political crisis

The recent circus in the senate did not help. The senate committee on justice and human rights chairman Sen. Leila De Lima introduced a witness on the hearing regarding the supposedly extrajudicial killings committed by Duterte administration. Should the committee succeed in producing probable cause for these allegations, the next logical step would be an impeachment case filed against the president.

On the other hand, Duterte’s fierce ally and running mate last national elections, Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, has been fighting tooth and nail on validating the credibility of the witness. He then went on to theorize that this entire investigation is the opposing party’s (Liberal, which De Lima is a member) political move to remove the president in office and place Vice President Leni Robredo so that Liberal Party would take charge of the Malacañang again.

Beyond the speculations and grandstanding, if the president, enjoying more than 90% approval rating, would be removed from office by any means, a massive revolt is not far from happening. The government would be left in limbo as passionate supporters of both camps would definitely clash, and thus, a political crisis may open up possibilities, like in Thailand.

On his relentless war on drugs, even the president acknowledges the death  threats he’s been receiving. When he released his narcolist, Duterte implored the AFP to take up the fight against drugs, in case of unforeseeable fruition of these threats. “Prepare for that eventuality, prepare for war; the reason I want you to be equipped with advanced weaponry. I do not know if I would still be alive during the course of my six years term.”

5. Critical Press

On the day martial law was imposed in 1972, media establishments were the first ones to be shut down and the journalists critical of Marcos administration were arrested. Then, only publishing and broadcasting companies, as well as state-controlled ones, that would print materials suitable and passable to government’s taste would be allowed to operate. A very critical press is seen as subversive and therefore, anti-government.

Duterte welcomes criticism from the press: “Do not hesitate to attack me, criticize me, if I do wrong in my job,” he said. Media world has been topsy-turvy ever since he assumed office. Speaking as a representative of the office of the highest position in the land, many of his speeches have been colorful and downright blunt, making him an everyday headline. And with this fresh tough-talking president, sometimes the press can’t help but be critical, even be criticized themselves for so-called ‘clickbait headlines’. The government, on the other hand, has been defending his speeches being taken out of context, like the expletives at the Pope, the rape joke, or the expletives blurted while being asked about US President Barack Obama. It even stressed that the media should be more professional and responsible not to try changing the context of what was said.

So to avoid these mistakes, Duterte once boycotted the press and endorsed state-controlled media to be people’s source of news from Malacañang. Now, if this word war escalated, who knows what can happen.

4. Government Composition

The success of martial law lies heavily on the president’s command of the armed forces and military force. For one, when Fidel Ramos, former chief of Philippine Constabulary, broke off from Marcos administration, the regime took a great blow in controlling the people power revolution of 1986. And the success of continuing the martial law lies on Congress and its majority according to 1987 constitution as it has the sole power to extend the declaration or vest emergency powers to the president.

The appointment of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Visaya as the first Armed Forces of the Philippines chief-of-staff of the new administration met criticisms from human rights group Karapatan, citing his link to the controversial Gen. Jovito Palparan and his involvement as a ground commander during the Hacienda Luisita massacre. There were no cases filed yet and Duterte, while discussing his appointment of Visaya, defended that it is not fair to take his friendship with Palparan against him. Of course, we also have the very visible Philippine National Police Chief Ronald Dela Rosa – arguably crafted from the same branch of tree as the president.

The current senate president elected by majority of the senators is Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III, also the president of the political party PDP-LABAN in which Duterte is the national chairman. The current speaker of the house elected by majority of the representatives is Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez, secretary-general of the same party. Even Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who as former president declared martial law in Maguindanao herself, is one of the deputy speakers. Liberal Party also enjoyed this setup for the last three years of previous administration. But with the current political environment where anything can happen with a very robust presidency, it is safe to say that Duterte has the support of the congress and armed forces in his decisions for the country, for now.

3. State of National Emergency

The constitution is quite unclear on declaring a state of emergency. It gives, however, the president the power to call all armed forces to suppress lawless violence in a part or of the whole country. This specific provision is cited by Malacañang when it declared a state of national emergency on account of lawless violence through Proclamation 55 days after the bombing incident in Davao.

The government has repeatedly appeased the public that this is not  martial law nor a prelude to one, as some critics would infer. There are no curfews and no suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, as that would only be applicable in an invasion or rebellion that endangers public safety. With this declaration though, he may “invite uniformed personnel to run the country according to his specifications." Even though this was pertaining to the Davao blast, it’s indefinite duration covers the enter country because according to presidential legal adviser Salvador Panelo, “the threats are not only in Davao but also in key cities nationwide. So why localize the declaration?” In fact, Malacañang was preparing to declare a state of lawlessness even before the bombing.

The proclamation explicitly states that the military must abide by the constitution and respect the human rights of all civilians. The move received polarizing reactions. Most notable of which are from Sen. Richard Gordon, who even agreed the President should be granted the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and from Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who presupposes that this could lead to “like what happened when former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a state of lawlessness, and it spawned unwarranted illegal arrests, which the Supreme Court no less debunked as illegal.”

2. Accepting Marcos

Ferdinand Marcos served the country as a soldier and a president and should be buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani (LNMB) according to AFP rules. But we can’t erase the fact that he declared martial law that led to numerous violations of human rights and extrajudicial killings for which tranches of remuneration to the victims are still ongoing.

From the onset, Duterte supports burying the former president in LNMB so as to erase the hatred that has divided the nation. “The law says that Marcos is qualified to be buried there, as a soldier. They are contesting whether Marcos was a hero. I don’t care. Whether he was a hero or not, he was a soldier,” he said. But it might have been the unfortunate name of the cemetery that keeps on preventing the burial at the cemetery. A person interred in Libingan ng mga Bayani would consequently be referred as a bayani, a thought martial law victims don’t want to embrace for Marcos.

If it’s not enough, let’s look at the last vice presidential elections where his son, Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr., almost clinched the victory, some supporters even claiming that he was cheated. He might not be like his father and his father’s sins might not have to be taken as his. But electing a Marcos in Malacañang proves that we are ready for a Marcos’ brand of leadership. It’s the same reason we elected Noynoy Aquino, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo or anyone with the same last name as their predecessors: they might not be exactly like their parents but in Philippine political scenario, electing them means we approve of what their brand of leadership represents and we want that to continue.

1. People want it

People who are tired of the crippling drug problems and rising crime rates are actually seeing the extrajudicial killings as a tangible move to fix the country. Especially the youth who were born after the martial law imposition, many believe that it was for the sake of addressing peace and order. "Many of today's youth have not experienced martial law, and say things that I don't think they really know about," martial law victim Bonifacio Ilagan says. Some even call the Marcos administration was the golden age of the country.

It can’t be erased, though, that martial law has a certain stigma for the country. Even the Duterte administration acknowledges the “dark pages of history during martial law.” While it repeatedly assures that martial law will never happen under Duterte, the sudden quip about declaring it and mulling over of the idea to impose it after the Davao blast make things more uncertain than ever.

In all honesty, martial law can happen anytime as long as there is an evidence of invasion or rebellion. But the survival and continuance of its imposition again throughout the whole country depends on the country’s political suitability to accept it. And these signs say it is. It is now a question of whether that’s a good or bad thing.

The speech that was not even

Krisel Mallari during her welcome remarks at Sto. Nino Parochial School's commencement exercise. In the middle of her speech, Mallari was stopped from giving her speech that hinted unfair grading system and favoritism.

The social media picked up one of the most relevant education-related buzz in the past few weeks. A recent graduate of secondary education, a salutatorian, I must add, was stopped in the middle of her speech. Krisel Mallari was just supposed to give welcome remarks in front of her co-graduates, teachers and school's officials. In the midst of her address, a school faculty member stopped her speech. This prelude alone has most, if not all, of the ingredients of a sensational story in this new age: curiosity, novelty, issues to spark passion, David and Goliath. But reading on, this story reflects more than just a girl deprived of freedom of speech.

Yes, I am taking this issue personally as this is one that is very close to my heart and personal experiences. Yes, I'm also riding on the popularity of the story for the reason that angles on this must be spoken at the time it is most relevant to the generation of short attention span and memory.

But let's look at it objectively and break down into pieces. First, whose idea is it to give the salutatorian a speech? It is the school's discretion but from where I came from, it's the valedictorian who gives a prepared speech as an address to the graduating class. Welcome remarks (or even closing) are given by school officials. The other graduates can lead the class in reciting school creeds, city creeds, national creed - god, there's even a regional creed - but the prepared speech is given by the leader of the class (not counting, of course, inspirational speeches by the guests of honor). It may be a blessing in disguise for Mallari but knowing there is a tension, the school should've expected something like this from her even if she submits a copy of her 'speech' beforehand. So did the school give her a bit more freedom and made itself vulnerable or was my alma mater too restrictive?

Ok, given that it is the school's ritual or staple or something, what led to the content of her speech? The school, in one of its statements, said that Mallari and her parents have consistently questioned the computation of grades every end of academic year - sometimes, to the point of harassment. It said that computation of grades is computerized and cannot be changed. Mr. Ernesto Mallari, Mallari's father, has been shown the computation of his daughter's grades but the former insists also on seeing the computation of the valedictorian's grades. On the other hand, some sources say that Mallari has been your typical hardworking student. She never cheated on an exam and never sought for help while there are allegations that the valedictorian did. So when the announcement of honor graduates came, many were shocked that Mallari, presumed to be the top graduate, was named salutatorian. She mastered her exams yet got a low grade while the valedictorian, while sometimes getting help from friends and even boyfriend, was allegedly preferred to receive the first honors.

Now I may have decorated that last paragraph with the word 'allegation' and its family, literally and subliminally. That is because this is a classic '(s)he said, she said' case. But what's so obvious here is that there is a reasonable doubt on the validity of the grading system - and more so in determining who gets recognition. It doesn't matter if it has been consistently questioned; it just adds to the doubt that has been raised to the validity of the grading system. Yes, the Mallaris may be competitive but that's how you thrive in this life. Survival of the fittest. Do you see giraffes with short necks? Do you see malnourished 90-year olds? Have you seen any competition - in any form - where you don't have to be competitive? Where you don't have to bring your A-game and up your skills? If the school did not have anything to hide, why did they not clarify the grading system even before the graduation? Why didn't they explain why the valedictorian is the valedictorian when there was doubt raised to the grading system? If I was the head of the school, I would've instructed the faculty involved to declare visibility on the grading system until everyone's wonders are satisfied, whether to their liking or not. I don't want other parents losing confidence to the grading system, and by extension the school, by letting unanswered doubts afloat. The school said they cannot do this without the valedictorian's parents' permission and it is against the school policy. First, why do the school need the parents' permission to discuss the school's valedictorian and salutatorian - a prerogative recognition they give. Second, if the valedictorian really deserved the recognition, wouldn't the parents want to clear the accusations? And why in the world would it be against the school policy to address with the truth an issue that threatens its very integrity? Sounds too familiar.

Ok, let's say that it was inevitable. Did Mallari have the right to give her speech? The speech she used is different from what she submitted and was approved. Maybe through the guidance of parents or guardians, Mallari did submit a speech that would be palatable to the school and did make a different speech suiting her camp's sentiments. But why would there be a need for two speeches? Had the second speech been submitted, would the school approve it? The obvious answer will be no and Mallari's camp knew this, thus the first speech. In that, good faith is eliminated. After all, the school owned the program - spent pesos on putting up the commencement exercise - and thus, should have a knowledge of everything that will happen on the event. This now dates back to the old argument of education being a right or privilege. Whether the school is private or public, the money the school spends - the very fund they use to continue operations and pay faculty salaries - comes from the students themselves. Education is a right just like it is your right to learn from a tutor whom you are paying honorarium for. If submitted, should the second speech be approved by the school? Yes. Maybe check for grammatical errors, consistency of language or construction of sentences. But the content? The student studied four years and performed above average - she deserves to air her content. Admittedly, one of the main motivations I had when I was aiming for valedictorian was the valedictory address I can give at the graduation rites. Was the school right in stopping her from giving her speech? I believe not. If there was a baseless accusation in her speech, the school could've filed a defamation case after. Or should Mallari have submitted her speech, the school could've advised her that this speech can warrant a suit against her. Mallari should have not been sly about providing two speeches (after all, honesty and truth are what she's standing for) but what choice did the kid have?

Which leads me to the next item: Was the graduation the venue for her speech? Ok, there was unfair treatment, claims the Mallari camp. To whom should I escalate this issue if I want justice? The school division office? The city hall? The Department of Education? The attendees of the rites - students, faculty, officials - must've heard about the Mallari's claims already. After all, in the transcript of her speech, she quips, "Chismis, isang piyesta ng chismis ang inabot ko ng pinagmukha nila akong masama." Without the uploaded video, Mallari's audience would just be the same audience who already knew the issue. Why did she have to cap her sentiments about the school in an event where everyone is looking forward to celebrate? Again, what choice did the kid have? Is there a clear cut guideline on how to address issues with the school? If so, is it well communicated to the students and parents? Is there a proper venue to settle these issues? If you are an aggravated student, like Mallari felt, what are the actions you can take? Before the video was uploaded, Mallari is just a regular student with no power or venue to air sentiments outside the school - those that can take action about the issue. Had there not been a video uploaded available for social media consumption, there wouldn't be an issue. But how many Krisels are there? How many of those are given a chance to speak? And how many of those speeches were recorded and uploaded? 

But was this story really just a student complaint blown out of proportion? Should Mallari just let it go, after all, according to the school's alumni, there are other things more important than grades? These points of view on this issue are what made me write this. Character is more important than grades, they said. Just accept what happened and move on, they said. After all, grades are not important when you have your career. It's more important to have an attitude to accept failure.

Eh, wag na lang kaya tayo mag-aral. Numbers run the game because it is an absolute and objective measurement. Ever since the start of the timeline we knew, we have been told that good education yields greatness. Education is the only wealth that can never be taken away. When you study hard, you'll be successful. And how do we know that the student got a good education in a quick glance? It's not because his or her name was never included in the 'noisy' list. It's not because his or her parents were never summoned to the principal's office. It's not because he or she always helps the teacher with her things. It's because he or she performed well academically. And that's measured through grades. Why do parents reward a child who got high grades? Why do we laud the student who has the highest score in the exam? Why do we make fuss of the bar topnotchers? It was grueling four years of sleepless nights and all she could get was 'humility award'?

What is the general measurement of working hard? Hours on the time record, performance evaluation, salary. Why do we have high regards for graduates from UP, ADMU, DLSU, UST? Because these schools are top ranked. How do we define success? It's when a person finally changes the status of his or her life for the better. And let's face it, it always comes with a higher figure. Have we ever announced a successful garbage collector or pedicab driver? We don't elect a public official because he's 'nice'; he or she who receives the highest number of votes wins.

And 'just accept what happened'? How many times in a lifetime can you graduate from high school knowing that you can be the top of the class? You know, given the chance, I would've done the same. I would push more to correct. I would speak louder to agitate. I want to set a precedent that when the time this happens again: (1) the aggravated student has something to pattern to in deciding what to do and (2) the school cannot rest on the issue again. That's what Mallari did. You can't just accept that it happened. It's not a death in the family or natural calamity - it is something in which you can do something about. It's almost a sin of omission if you do not.

This is exactly why we can't properly move on and progress. We tend to divert away from the issues by providing the seemingly 'larger picture' point of view, sometimes just to sound off as a better person. When people argue, we often tell them 'there are bigger issues that we need to address than that'. When lawmakers debate through media, we often say 'there are bigger issues than that'. And are we able to address those 'bigger issues'? Moving on to bigger issues does not address the small issues. And not being able to address the small issues should be a 'red flag' when trusting them to address the bigger issues. The inspirational quotes about being good cannot solve the problems we currently face; it makes us lazy to attack the problems head on as they make the problems seem less important.

In the end, wouldn't we be able to discuss this had this not been an issue?

The long overdue grief for Behn Cervantes

It's been a year since the persistent shouting stopped. The voice that used to resonate the entire space of wherever the owner is, whether Bahay ng Alumni or Araneta Colisuem or even inside the church beside a convent. Back then, I wished the shouting would stop, but now that it did, I knew I would crave for that shouting once more. That shouting snaps me out of dreamland and pricks the bubble around me. That shouting made me stronger to face reality.

Here's the picture from the first time we worked together. I was a complete neophyte, yet you gave me a chance. You proved that opportunities are available to people who never gave up, so I never did. To you, money, fame, beauty don't matter. It's the willingness, the commitment, the passion. When arts is gradually plagued by the commercialization, you stood true to its form. Named artists are treated equally with the newest member of the group. An athlete can be a performer in your stage and a performer can be fired when they're late. That's one of the things I admire about you. When everyone is working their way of pleasing others to be pleased, you do the exact opposite. It's not pleasing, it's gaining respect. And that's how you earned mine.

It is an understatement to say that I learned so much from you. I'm half a century younger and I was never in one of your classes, yet I believe I have gained so much from you than any other theatre class. You instilled in me a better taste in films, deciphering clearer what is good acting or directing and what is not. Needless to say, I have dramatically changed my perspective in cinema and theatre. Yes, I am still struggling to be better but your guidance boosted me a deal advantaged head-start.

There are so many things I admire about you. You lived a simple life. You mix friends and family. You have a tough shell and a soft core. You lived with your principles and integrity. There are moments when I thought if I could live the life you led. I always have this amazing future dreamt every night and day, yet you looked like you are living yours. In the world where people in your breadth are measured in terms of productivity and commercial value, you maintained to produce less yet with quality that will outrank blockbuster hits combined. When something is wrong, you speak out loud, moving the bloodstream of the society to effect the change. 

You have rubbed so much ideas and principles in my life. Speak your mind. Write what you think. Care for the nation and the oppressed. Treat everyone equally. Instill nationalism. Theatre of the mass, as you would always put it. I've never been more aware and concerned about the nation, government, politics and current affairs than I am now. We are not just another voice shouting "Makibaka!". There's a reason behind everything we say, and we say it because it needs to be heard. You taught me that.

Photo credit: Dolfin Manila by Joseph Olfindo

Many feared you. I will not hide that most of the times, I really do. You make work very arduous sometimes. I will admit that I almost quit when you made me change my hair 4 times to make it look professional or when you shouted at me about something personal. But fear is like a rite of passage. Fear establishes belief and faith. I won't forget that time you called me to say you're sorry. It melted my heart, especially with the very determined and proud way you said it. The mix that demands respect yet elicits apology. People who were not able to know you more because of too much fear that led to avoidance missed half of their lives. In truth, you are very strict because you wanted to maintain professionalism and creativity. After work, you're like one of the gang, exchanging jokes (like "cheers and tibols" and the "We Three Kings" song), drinking and eating and singing like buddies. You like shopping in ukay-ukay with us, travelling to great sights, visiting friends and watching classic movies. You'd invite us to your house just to have dinner (partake of an authentic dish of spaghetti) and discuss future projects. If people had not feared you too much, they'd know the purpose of the fear - and they'll learn to embrace it.

Only few know about your honorable causes and your heartfelt missions. Arts, for you, has a massive positive effect on people. With singing and acting, you were able to combine compassion and arts. There was not a single project you had in mind that hasn't had nobility and dedication in it. "If you don't get excited about what you do, don't do it," as you would say. Above all, even without you knowing it, you used arts to propel the goodness of the Lord ecumenically. 

Photo credit: Dolfin Manila by Joseph Olfindo

Even with just five years of working with you, I am proud and privileged to say that I am one of the few who stayed, learned and got to know you beyond theatre. I am proud I conquered the fear and listened to the true meaning of the persistent shouting. It was a difficult experience working with you but those are rewarded with good times and valuable lessons. Just like every one who went under your tutelage, I've grown to be a better thespian and a better person.

One of the memories of you that I will always treasure: We were in Tagaytay and both of us were the first ones to wake up. You decided to jog with me across the serene subdivision overlooking pineapple farms. You opened up to me a personal issue like I was a very close friend. I treasured the trust, like you believed I am not a teenager who may have an immature point of view. Actually, you never treated me as if I'm just a young boy. Work is work and your expectations from me are way beyond my age. You've given me responsibilities beyond the capacity of my maturity. Yet, I managed through. Thank you for your persistent shouting.

As if that wasn't enough, you made possible two of the most important milestones in my life, among other things. First, you wrote a newspaper feature article about me. In your column where you write about anything - from your favorite actors and movies to everyday antics to national issues - you wrote an article about my life. You made me feel proud and grateful for myself. Those kind words are incomparable. I have a long standing problem with recognition way back primary school days. I believe I do so much but don't get recognized enough. That what made me a consistent pursuer and achiever; I always felt that what I do is not enough. That I have to break records and boundaries everyday. Your article put me in a momentous introspect. 

And for nominating me for a university alumnus award was something I would never even think of. But you made it possible. All those hardwork in the past two decades that I thought weren't enough came through with that recognition. To be on stage with the country's luminaries and leaders (and being the youngest among them) was a, however cliche, half-of-my-life experience. I wasn't able to experience college fully like a normal college student, but I gained much, much more than any person of my age. To that, I will endlessly thank you.

Photo credit: Dolfin Manila by Joseph Olfindo

This was our last project together. And aptly so because you made me do everything there is in a theatre piece: stage manager, narrator, actor, director. As exhausting as it was, all of it was very rewarding. I should have perceived that that project will be the last as for the first time in seven decades, you took a bow at curtain call. Your final bow.

I hope your system of work ethic and professionalism can be made as a teaching for performing arts, may it be on stage or on camera, or even in real life. Everyone has equal chances: whatever your face or body looks like, whatever is your performing background, however famous or wealthy or important you are. Then commitment and passion filter those who deserve. You would talk to a staff like you would talk to the chief. You would shout at the president like you would shot at the stage hand.

Had I known this would be the last project, I would've cherished every rehearsal. I would've recorded every moment of it. I would even have impersonated you in front of you during breaks. I would've tried to learn more.

Photo credit: Dolfin Manila by Joseph Olfindo

We were with you until the end that's why the news wasn't surprising for us. And as if poetry was not enough in your life, you left near the day you were born. For people who haven't seen you for a long time were crying when they saw you on wheelchair or in the hospital or even after you left. I will admit that I haven't shed a tear yet and I never attended your wake, except when they finally buried you. And even then, I did not cry. It's not out of being strong or being proud. With the little time given to get to know you, I know this is what you wanted. I know you are in peace and not suffering anymore. And I can't visit you during your last days. I want to remember you shouting at the company at the top of your voice. I want to remember you defending us when people around are taking the heat on us. I want to remember you strong enough to push the photographer half your age when he's in your way. I want to remember you laughing at our jokes and telling yours like it's a personal performance. I want to remember you singing in the middle of the road. I want to remember you alive and strong.

It must've been selfish of me but I can't deal with loss, detachment and change that easily. I wish to cope with the way I know, however long. And thus, this long overdue eulogy.

You are the true embodiment of a National Artist, one who offered most of his life and body of work to the development and showcase of Philippine arts at its highest quality. Whether or not you would be conferred or even nominated to be a National Artist, by its very definition, you are already one. You are a National Artist and the pioneer of theatre for the mass.

And on a personal note, you have a great deal of importance in my life, of who I am now. I grieved inside as a mentor left me. I'm also grieving for the nation as it lost a true gem of theatre and nationalism. Yet, I am calm knowing that you will be forever immortalized by your mentees and their respective mentees. I will miss you. I will miss the persistent shouting. It wouldn't be long till we will do our next project.

Confessions of an average awesome guy

An article as food for thought...

Type kita. Ako ang unang pangalan sa tabi ng puso sa lahat ng Instagram posts mo. Combo ang retweet at favorite ko sa tweets mo. Tambay ako ng Facebook profile mo. Silently, tagatawa ako sa mga korni mong knock-knock joke posts. Ewan ko, parang ang dali-daling i-like ang posts mo, kahit emoticon lang. Di pa naman ako umaabot sa mga papansing "Nakauwi ka na ba?" texts. Hindi naman ako sobrang pa-obvious. Iisipan ko ng rason para i-text ka araw-araw. Yung tipong parang "by the way" lang pero "usap naman tayo"-text talaga. In this way, feeling ko stronger yung connection natin.

Ok, parang creepy stalker na ang description ko niyan. Ang totoo, close friends tayo. Di naman yung level na first choice mo kong share-an ng BFF fries, pero we have occasional personal talks. In a group of friends ba. Siyempre, di mo alam na secretly, nagsa-somersault ang puso ko pag kausap ka. Leche kasi, ang ganda mo, kinikilig pati mga dahon. Parang fragile ang personality at dating mo. Sobrang amo ng face mo; makakalimutan yung utang ng Pilipinas, titigan ka lang. Kaya di ko nga maintindihan kung bakit assholes yung nagugustuhan mo. Pinapaiyak ka or lolokohin ka or di ka mamahalin nang todo, yung way na deserve mo. Average lang. Di special.

Tinanong naman kita: ano ba talaga gusto mo sa lalaki? Actually, madami na kong tinanong niyan at halos pare-pareho kayo ng sinasabi: 1)hindi kayo tumitingin sa itsura, 2)matalino at may sense kausap, 3)may sense of humor, 4)dependable/honest/faithful/(insert abstract positive attribute here), 5)di kayo tumitingin sa yaman, basta masipag/maparaan at kaya kang alagaan, among others. Eh katarantaduhan naman pala yang mga standards na yan eh. Bakit yung last boyfriend mo na hawig ni Richard Guttierez na akalang fairies ang mga Gypsies, tumagal ka ng 2 years? Madalas pa kayong mag-away niyan ha. (A little secret lang, 2 weeks before kayo magbreak, tinanong niya ko kung tungkol daw ba sa Africa yung Hunger Games.) Yung ex mong may kotse at condo pero nagpapadeliver ng ulam araw-araw at nagpapalaba at nagpapaplantsa sa nanay niya? 1 year din yun, on and off, plus free tutorials sa assignments niya. At yung isa na kamukha ni Daniel Padilla na may mga babaeng kasindami ng na-link kay Robin Padilla? Pati yung MU mong ginawa kang punching bag for 2 years, nasa championship na ba siya?

Nagstandards ka pa. Ako lahat yung dinescribe mo eh. Pero ako yung kabaligtaran ng dating history mo. Oo, alam ko mayroon kayong happy moments. Pero yun yung operative word: mayroon. Minsanan lang? Pag trip lang niya? Pag nilagnat lang siya? Wag ka na mag-rason na lahat ng relationships dumaraan talaga sa ups and downs. Saan dumaan yung sa inyo: sa roller coaster na may loops na kasindami ng isla ng Pilipinas? Malaking difference ng "mayroong happy moments" sa "happy na mayroong tampuhan". Hindi yung World War every week.

Sabi nga nila, mahirap sabihin kapag totoo. Di ko masabi sayo. Saan ako lulugar sa itsura ng mga exes mo? It shouldn't get in the way, pero yun yung lumalabas eh. Nagiging reality yung song ni Andrew E. Nagrereklamo ka na walang matinong lalaki, yet you fall with the next good-looking doofus around. Pag may matinong liligaw o magpapahangin o even magpapakilala sayo, either friendzoned o hookzoned. Di sa nagbubuhat ng sariling bangko pero kung ako lang, di ko makakalimutan birthday mo or monthsary natin. Buong araw akong magreresearch para mapasaya ka kinabukasan. Di ako magiging jejemon at boring. Makikinig ako, mananahimik pag kailangan. At higit sa lahat, mamahalin kita. Dahil di pa man ako nabibigyan ng chance, yun na ang alam kong gawin.

Kaya nung nakita kita kanina, may kasamang bago, sabay-sabay ang roll eyes, gasp at heartpain pang. Holding hands. Daig pa yung namatay si Gwen sa Spiderman 2 at pagkawala ng MH370 combined. A month ago lang, sabi mo, gusto mo na ng matinong lalaki, yung papasa sa listahan ng standards mo. Pagod ka na. Gusto mo na yung pangmatagalan. Eh yun na naman eh. Coco Martin nga itsura, Remy Martin lang naman laman ng utak. Ni hindi mo nga siya makausap with foreign politics or TV series or kahit anong interests mo. Kailan pa naging si Fidel Ramos ang pinatalsik sa EDSA I? Tinanong nga niya ako kung nabalik ba sa zoo yung Wolf of Wall Street.

So stick ka na sa choices mo. Ganun na siguro ang resolution dito. Sorry kung ganito yung tono nito. Sobrang naiinis lang ako; hindi sayo kundi sa mundo. Sa society at sa standards nito. Sa media at sa mga judger na tao. Sa psyche na nagpapatakbo sa pagpili ng housemates sa PBB. Sa pretentious right that trumps just. Sorry rin kung dito ko dinaan. Hindi dahil wala akong lakas ng loob na aminin sayo. Choice mo rin naman na hindi pansinin eh. Yung ibang guys, ibili ka lang ng drink sa bar or hingin number mo, may gusto na sayo. May boyfriend material appraisal ka kaagad. Ako, naka-ilang dinner treats at hatid sa bahay na, candidate pa rin ng Lotlot & friends.

For me, subukan kong mag-move on. Maaaring di ko maaalis yung feelings. Maaaring habambuhay akong aasa, ala Ted kay Robin. Pero susubukan ko. Mahirap din umibig sa tanga - makes me more tanga. Sobrang funny kasi di siya nakakatawa. Dumaan yung relationship na ako lang nakakaalam. Ok lang. Kung sakali naman, pag nakita tayo ng mga tao together, tipong "doesn't make sense" ang reaksyon. I don't blame you. Ganun talaga ang society. Pero my two cents worth lang, kung pagod ka na talaga at yung standards mo talaga ang gusto mo, ipaglaban mo kahit sa sarili mo. And it will be worth it, sigurado ako.

TV: How I Met Your Mother

Before you Go On (sorry, Matthew Perry), if you haven't watched the series finale, then it's up to you. :)

It's over. It took 9 years for a really talkative father to tell the tale to his children of how he met their mother. Alongside was a raucus of a gang of 5.

Crafted creatively, HIMYM veered slightly away from the regular telling of sitcoms. Working on a framework of memory and storytelling, the show was able to employ a lot of flashbacks and flashforwards and play around with it. It's not the usual linear storyline. Kudos to creators Carter Bays and Craig Thomas. The sense of bending the timeline in storytelling is somewhat brave and fresh; and using that to make the story more creative and unpredictable is commendable. So is Pamela Fryman for directing most of the show's best episodes and for keeping the craziness of the creators alive.

Now that it is over, it's kinda hard to see the cast apart from each other. The catch in starring in a long-running TV series (especially sitcom) is that the TV character can't seemed to be separated from the actor. In Afternoon Delight, Josh Radnor is still Ted Mosby with slight deeper acting. Jason Segel is dirtier Marshall Eriksen in upcoming Sex Tape. Cobie Smulders successfully created an action-filled character in Captain America and Avengers, but will still be Robin Scherbatsky in my mind. Neil Patrick Harris is a different case. Having accomplished character roles on stage (Rent, Sweeney Todd, etc.) and on TV (Doogie Howser, MD), he may be the first to shed Barney Stinson (especially when everyone knows he's gay). And Alyson Hannigan became from "that girl in American Pie" to "Lilypad" Lily Aldrin.

Bays and Thomas were also successful in developing the characters (highlighted in an episode where Ted Mosby comforts Robin Scherbatsky and ends up saying that what they are now are the better dopplegangers of themselves) aided, of course, by the great acting. While Segel has a workable knack for comedy, I believe he would do better in serious roles (based from his performance in the episodes where his father died) so I'm pretty excited to see him play David Foster Wallace in biopic The End of the Tour. So is Radnor although I believe he and Smulders performed the least among the five, having some moments yet not consistent. Harris was quite the scene-stealer throughout the show. He can play a good support but he also knows how to take control of the scenes. Hannigan is ready for better serious roles, as well. All of the cast are actually honed, in one way or another, by the show to handle better roles - a feat that most sitcoms can't do. This is another deviation of the show from the mainstream sitcoms. They added the flavor of emotions and nostalgia in their storytelling model of plot. There are moments in the episodes when it gets reminiscing or heartwarming to stress emotions; these are the moments when serious acting comes in to play.

The show was able to make a lot of contributions to pop culture, mostly provided by Harris's character. Also, most parts hit closer to home as Bays and Thomas tackle day-to-day situations of friendship and romance - their perfect recipe that I think what made the show successful. Award-wise though, it would be expected the show won't get any nods. Acting, directing and writing pretty much focused on the storytelling for the benefit of the audience.

But acting-wise, Cristin Milioti stood out. With her brief appearances, she has the most natural acting, most adept comedic antics and never came second to the gang in group scenes.

It must be heartbreaking, but the show had to end the logical way it did and here's why. They had the ending material from the start where the children finally figured out why their father has sat them down to tell the story, meaning the creators had the ending in mind from the very beginning in case the show got cancelled. In an interview, the creators said that at the end of the first season, where Ted Mosby told his children "That's how I met your Aunt Robin", they made it such as to end the probable "will-they-or-won't-they" situation between Ted and Robin, like Ross and Rachel's in Friends. Sadly, it ended in the same situation. But the ending of the first season where it established the lost possibility of Robin as the mother paves the way that the plot will go with finding out who the mother was.

The creators did not expect the show to be successful and to last very long. This is proven by creating the character of Victoria, Ted's first girlfriend in the show, as a back-up mother in case the show got cancelled. But it went on for 9 seasons and the suspense for finding out the mother's identity built, making it very integral to the show than planned. So when they introduced the mother, it seemed harder to stick to the original ending. Having waiting for eight years to finally materialize the character of the mother but then having to make Ted and Robin end up together is really hard and I believe most of the fans of the show wouldn't appreciate it. Plus, Milioti and Radnor have this great chemistry, credit goes mostly to Milioti's acting. They have better chemistry than Radnor and Smulders. That supposed to be first kiss of Tracy and Ted in "Gary Blauman" was the sweetest kiss in the series. But all TV series has to end with a bang and series of twists always, or the show would be more disappointing.

So they stuck to the ending. They took less episodes for Milioti to appear in the final season (after all, the show stars the gang of 5) yet making each as romantic as possible to make it more like a reminiscing than a storytelling. In "Vesuvius", I think it was foreshadowed that the Mother will die when she said "What mother is going to miss her daughter's wedding?" which reduced Ted to tears. But as to not spoil the ending, they kept all revelations and the scenes leading to their original ending in the last episode and tried to make it as sensible as possible.

The ending is a series of flashforwards to make it not sudden. First step was to break Barney and Robin and the most sensible reason was their similarities, the same reason they broke up the first time. After all, Barney's character should end up with a girl with stronger personality (which is shown by his two longest relationships, Nora and Quinn) than him. They made Robin's character, after the divorce, travel a lot to give way for Ted and Tracy romance and so as to give a justified timeline for Ted and Robin's reunited romance. Then they gave Barney a love child with three-fold reasons: to evolve Barney's character, to have another big moment without Robin, and to lower possibilities of Barney and Robin. Yet, the mother of the child wasn't revealed to keep the story to the cast and to still have the possibility of Barney and Robin ending up together. Then finally reveal that the Mother has died to end up with the original ending.

The ending may not be appreciated by most fans but that's the logical way to end given the circumstances and without forcing the story more than it is. I particularly liked the part in "Gary Blauman" when they showed what happened to other guest characters. But so with the other sitcoms, the ending must have twists and "happy ending". Friends has Ross and Rachel's relationship tumble back and forth until the very last episode when they ended up together. Cheers reunited Sam and Diane in the last episode after the latter's absence in the show for 6 years and although they ended parting ways, the show hinted that they will come back to each other. Mad About You had a final twist where Paul and Jamie are actually related. Yet on the very last episode, all things ended well and they ended up happily ever after.

Nevertheless, looking at HIMYM in its entirety, it became a part of the history and our lives (for a frame of reference, I was just 2nd year high school student when the show started). Telling stories closer to our lives, the show reflected and guided everyday situations. I, myself, have picked up some from the show. Overall, it was a quite experience and I hope future sitcoms would pick the good things and improve the bad things on the show. And that's how I met How I Met Your Mother.