Monthly Archives: August 2011

The Bangsa Moro Problem through Krippendorf’s emancipatory theory


March 2002

by ©Datu Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas

In 1989, Klaus Krippendorf wrote his The Power Of Communication And The Communication Of Power: Toward An Ethical Theory Of Communication. In this theory, he proposes, “to examine a pathology of communication of which the social use of the notion of power is an illustrative example. He discusses ethical issues of communication practices which would lead to an outline of the elements of an emancipatory communication theory.

Krippendorf defines Ethics as any system of thought and action that a] prevents social pathologies from arising, b] helps to overcome social pathologies that may have arisen elsewhere and c] does not constitute a pathology by itself.

Note that the definition is a] negative and not normative and self-referenced; i.e., an ethic be ethical by its own criteria.

Krippendorf defines PATHOLOGY as a deviation from something collectively desirable. Pathology becomes social when others are seen as co-determinants of the entrapment. A social pathology becomes one of communication when it is constituted in language, in the interactive use of discourse.

Is the Moro Problem a communication pathology? Let us analyze it through Krippendorf’s conditions for a TRAP:

1.CLOSED SYSTEM of reality constructions

The prevailing ideas in the Philippines, as perpetuated by Mass Media and all State apparatuses, are:

The Philippines is one country, the only Christian nation in Asia. It has minorities, who are also citizens of this nation-state. The citizens are called Filipinos. They belong to one race, one culture, one psychology, one destiny one history. Those who do not think they should be a part of this nation-state have no choice because there is only one country, the Philippines. 

The Moros are impoverished because they are mostly illiterate, uneducated, “uncivilized”. They are mostly terrorists and bandits. Their leaders enriched themselves at the expense of the ordinary Moros. 

Mindanao, the “Land of Promise”, needs Christian Filipino industriousness and general know-how to bring out its full potential.

2. The closed system is, or at least some of its constituents are demonstrably non-viable, incorrect, invalid, untenable, the source of stress and pain, etc.

Without doubt, the Bangsa Moro people are marginalized, impoverished. Their provinces are the least developed and the poorest in terms of revenues, per capita income, literacy rate, etc. In the early 1970’s, they waged a war that resulted in at least 50,000 deaths, millions of casualties, 500,000 refugees in Sabah, and at its height, cost the Marcos government 1 million dollars a day.

While the Tripoli Agreement in 1976 reduced the fighting, the state of rebellion continued to exist. Today, the Philippine government even called on the American Armed Forces to help defeat some of these Moros. Premise No. 2 is therefore demonstrably valid.

3. Certain of its constituents prevent examination of the system’s non-viability.

The Philippine government, while supporting the independence of East Timor, a nation that cannot even show an independent history as the Bangsa Moro, declares that the sovereignty of the Philippine nation-state and its Constitution, which has been changed several times, remains supreme. The Filipino majority would not allow the “desecration” of the “Filipino nation”. 

According to Krippendorf, political alienation, racial prejudice, powerlessness and all kinds of addictions are social pathologies according to the three requirements.

Let us examine the Problem through Krippendorf’s other criteria:



“Mindanao was part of the Philippines ever since the Spanish colonizers came and created boundaries in what were formerly trading networks” 

–Vitug and Gloria “Under the Crescent Moon: Rebellion in Mindanao” (Q.C.:2000, 327 pp.)

The above statement correctly summarizes the official position of the government and practically all Christian Filipinos.

OUTSIDER OPINION: (cultural and historical “outsiders”)

“If (territorial) claims were based on raiding villages, then the Maguindanaons (the Sultanate of Maguindanao) had much more territory to claim than the Spaniards. The Muslims have the Spanish settlements burning and blazing every year and take some 500 captives per raid, while the Spaniards got only one Maguindanao(n) last year.”

–Simon Cos, Dutch Governor of Moluccas May 16, 1658

“Her Majesty’s government has never regarded the Sultan of Sulu as a pirate; they never admitted the claim of Spain to sovereignty over the archipelago; and in the interests of British trade, they never have been disposed to regard with favor any extension of Spanish authority or influence in the Sulu waters…” 

— the British Earl of Denby’s instruction to Consul Palgrave on Aug. 25, 1877

“From this time…these Moros have not ceased to infest our colonies. Innumerable are the Indios they have captured, the ranches they have destroyed and the vessels they have taken. It seems as if God has preserved them for vengeance on the Spanish that they have not been able to subject them in 200 years in spite of the expeditions sent against them, the armaments spent every year to pursue them. In a very little while, we conquered the islands of the Philippines, but the little islands of Sulu, parts of Mindanao and other islands nearby, we have not been able to subjugate to this very day.” 
– Spanish Captain-General Marquma to the King of Spain in the late 18th century

“The close of the unsuccessful Spanish conquest of Moroland marked the beginning of the end of one of the most remarkable resistance in the annals of military history. The Moslems has staged a bitter and uninterrupted warfare against the might of Spain for a period of 377 years. It is doubtful if this record has been equaled in the whole bloody history of military aggression. The Dons, accustomed to the easy conquests of Peru and Mexico, met their match and more in the jungles of Mindanao.”

   – Vic Hurley, “Swish of the Kris: The Story of the Moros”

Muslims are geographically concentrated in the south of the country, and are distinguished from Christian Filipinos not only by their profession of Islam but also by their evasion of 300 years of Spanish colonial domination.” 
— THOMAS M. MCKENNA Associate Professor of Anthropology, Department of 
Anthropology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA. March 17, 1999

And of course, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) recognizes the Bangsa Moro Cause and has given the MNLF observer status.

Clearly, there is quite a divergence of opinion from the outside (non-Filipinos throughout history) and inside (present-day Filipino dominant opinion.)


Oppression is usually an explanation of someone’s disablement or burden in terms of political rule (traditionally), of social class (since Marx) and recently, of ethnicity, gender and age.

Oppressed people acknowledge their pain and misery but they deny themselves the ability to change. They blame others, technology, political structures or unethical values. In other words, scapegoating.

Many Moros believe the propaganda that they are themselves to blame, esp. their leaders.


Krippendorf is one of the theorists who believe that the ordinary use of language can entrap people or even societies. He cites Stoltzenberg, who says:

Entrapment…consists, first, in being taken in a] by certain uses of language that have the appearance, but only that, of being meaningful; and] by certain modes of reasoning that have the appearance, but only that, of being self-evidently correct;….

Last week, when I questioned the validity of a “Filipino” psychology, the response of the Communication 240 class of the UP CMC Graduate School was almost unanimous. They all affirmed: “We are all Filipinos.” “We are in the same geographical area” “We have one psychology.” “Until the Moros become independent, we are all Filipinos”!

Even some Moros believe that they are Filipinos, sharing the same culture, psychology and even history as the Christian majority.

Yet when did the word “Filipino” belonged to the present-day Filipino? Before 1898, the term Filipino is reserved for the Spaniards in the Philippines, both peninsulares and insulares. The grandfathers and great-grandfathers of present-day Christian Filipinos were called Indios or Naturales.That was why Leon Ma. Guerrero, one of the elites who constructed the “imaginary nation” called Filipinos, had a hard time translating Rizal’s novel, Noli Me Tangere.

In the novel, the word Filipino as understood in the 1950s was not used. Benedict Anderson wrote:

“…young Filipinos would at once see, in any straight translation from the Spanish, that they do not exist within the novel’s pages. Filipinasof course appear, but they are exactly what today’s Filipinas are not: ‘pure-blood’ Spanish Creoles.” (Pertierra and Ugarte 1994 p. 108)

– Two different histories. The Moro and Indio peoples have two very different histories. 

-The Lease of Sabah to British East India Co. in 1878 is one proof that the Sultan of Sulu was not part of the Philippines under the Spanish.

-The Filipino Revolution of Bonifacio and Aguinaldo did NOT include the Moros. Aguinaldo sent letters urging the Moros to fight the Spanish. The Moro datus answered that they had been doing that all the time and now it was the time for the Indios to do the same. 

-Bates Treaty proved that America did not consider Treaty of Paris sufficient to claim Mindanao and Sulu

-During the American Period, the word Filipino referred to Christian Filipinos.

-The Moro Province and later Department of non-Christian tribes were administered by the Americans separately.

-The Quezon-Osmena political fight for Philippine independence were opposed by the Moros

-1922 Wood-Forbes Commission concluded that the Moros, including “pagans and non-Christians” in Mindanao, did not want to be with the rest of the Philippines in case of independence from the US

– The Bacon Bill of 1926 (US Congress) demanded the separation of Mindanao and Sulu from the Philippines

– US Sec. of War Patrick Hurley’s visit to the Philippines in 1931 resulted in “a great quantity of petitions from Moros asking for American sovereignty in one form or another” 

– Pres. Hoover vetoed the Philippine Independence Act of 1933 in response to Moro protests.

And now, Pres. GMA declared that “if you are not in favor of the presence of American forces to fight the ABU SAYYAF, THEN YOU ARE NOT A FILIPINO.” She added, “If you are not a Filipino, then who are you? A protector of TERRORISTS, a cohort of murderers, an Abu Sayyaf lover.”

In a non-Moro Filipino mind, what usually accompanies the word “terrorists”? Moros or Muslims. Abu Sayyaf is a Moro group. Semiotically, psychoanalytically, GMA was saying “If you are not a Filipino, then you are a Moro/Muslim lover.”

Metaphor, according to Krippendorf, is “a pattern, an explanatory structure, tied to a word or expression that is successful in a familiar domain of experiences and carried from there into another familiar domain whose experiences and actions it thereby organizes and coordinates in its own way.” Ex.:Pilipinas, ang Inang Bayan.


Kurt Black (1989) states that language has two functions: transmission and influence. Hence, effective communication becomes the powerful communication of power.

After WWII, the leaders of the new nation-states like Egypt, India, Indonesia and the Philippines spent most of their rhetorical energies convincing their fellow citizens to give up their primordial loyalties – family, caste, religion, ethnic group, nation, history, etc. – in the interest of a new abstraction called the “nation-state”.

Suddenly, there is this abstraction called “India” (Nehru’s India was not like the “British” India or the Mughal India), Indonesia (Sukarno’s Indonesia vs. the Dutch East Indies), the Philippines (the Roxas’s Republic of the Philippines vs. the Philippine Commonwealth or the Spanish Filipinas or Aguinaldo’s Republica or the Katipunan’s Katagalugan)

It was only at this time that the Moros participated fully in the construction of a “Filipino nation.” – A new batch of leaders – educated by Americans and graduates of Manila universities – were part of the elites who constructed the notion that the Moros were Filipinos. Amilbangsa, Abbas, Sr., Domocao Alonto, Pendatun, and the Sinsuat brothers cemented the triumph of the Moro “Filipinistas” over the Moro “Americanistas”. In fact, Sen. Alonto filed a bill that prohibited the use of the word Moros and called for the use of term Muslim Filipinos instead. Sen. Pendatun was one of the primary sponsors of the creation of PMA (Phil. Military Academy). Abbas penned the judicial ruling that a Muslim Filipino who got married in civil rites lost his right to divorce and other marital practices under Moro customary law (most of them based on the Shar’iah).

In the early 60s, the Moros realized that they got a very small slice of the national pie. There were no Moros in the Cabinet except for Datu Duma Sinsuat, a classmate of Macapagal. There were no generals except for Pendatun who was a Reservist. There were no judges in the CFI and higher except for Abbas, who got his post as the quid pro quo for his campaign efforts for Magsaysay in the presidential elections.

By the late 60s/early 70s, the Moros realized that the Moro experiment with Filipino nationhood was a failure. Moro ‘Young Turks’ – Abbas, Jr., Misuari, Salamat, etc. – led the movement for “Moro nationalism” which produced the MNLF, MILF, BMLO, etc. and called themselves Moros. It must be noted though that their elders, who had also realized that the “Philippine nation-state” project was a failure, supported these young Turks.

Thus, it was only from 1946-1969 (the formation of MNLF and MIM), a period of 23 years did the Moros agree to be called “Filipinos”

Wilson and Dissanayake (p.3) says: “The nation-state, in effect, have been shaped into an ‘imagined community’ of coherent modern identity through warfare, religion, blood, patriotic symbology and language…”

“Modern nationalism involve communities of citizens in the territorially-defined nation-state, who share the collective experience, not of face –to – face contact or common subordination to a royal person, but of reading books, pamphlets, newspapers, maps and other modern texts together (Habermas 1989, Calhoun 1992). (Appadurai, p.159)

Philippine history books portray the Philippines as one nation, one people since the coming of Magellan.

Philippine history books glorify the event of Cebu’s Rajah Humabon’s and his wife’s conversion to Christianity. But they conveniently leave out what happened next. After Magellan’s death, Humabon invited the Spaniards to a feast and massacred all of them except one who was permitted to go back to his shipmates to ask for ransom.

Philippine history books chronicle only the activities of Spaniards up to ca.1896. It should be properly called not Filipino history but Spanish history in Las Filipinas (Philippine Islands) and the Spanish response to the various sporadic indio revolts as well as the Spanish-Moro wars. These same texts see Moro history as similar to indio revolts, albeit sustained and long-term. 

The fact is that Moros and Indios never had any contact (except during wars where the Indios fought for the Filipinos (Spanish) during the Spanish era. The Moros and the Indios came together officially only during the Commonwealth era.

Appadurai (1996) goes on to say: “Through ‘print capitalism’ (Benedict Anderson 1991) and ‘electronic capitalism’ such as films and TV (Warner 1992, Lee 1993), citizens imagine themselves to belong to a national society. The modern nation-state in this view grows less out of natural facts – such as language, blood, soil and race – and more out of a quintessential cultural product, a product of the collective imagination.”


According to this theory, indications for entrapment of power are:

1.Obviously true from within. Nearly every change can be explained as a consequence of where the power to cause it resides. 


2.While convincing, it is also painful, debilitating and depressing to those who do not see themselves as having the power to control their lives


To remedy the pathology requires one:

1. To create alternative constructions that are both incompatible with the dominant power notions and potentially viable.


2. To show that the received reality prevents an examination of its non-viability; 

The Government, Media and the Christian majority refuse to recognize the Bangsa Moro’s right to self-determination while insisting on the sanctity of the Philippine constitution which insists on referenda, i.e., on the say-so of the Christian majority.

3. To show how language is implicated in this entrapment.

Example: The sacredness of the Philippine Constitution. The indivisibility of the Philippine Republic. The shared historical heritage of the Moros and Filipinos. “All are Filipinos.” One nation, One culture, One psychology

Power resides in social relationships. In society, it is not the power of the powerful that forces the powerless into compliance, but it is compliance that invites power to emerge. (The imbecility of men — such as the corruption of Moro politicians– invites the impudence of power.)

In 1946, because of WWII, the Moros were overtaken by events and woke up one day to find themselves “Filipinos”. Moro leaders underestimated the Filipinos. They thought that there would be equality in the new Republic. Some leaders also found it more convenient to ally themselves with the Indios.

Krippendorf reiterates that “Power does not reside in objective conditions outside social relationships but in the reality constructions invented, talked about, held on to and complied with those involved.”

Ultimately, the Moros hold the power to choose their destiny.

Reasons for Inability to recognize entrapments:

1. Belief in reality consisting of tangible objects that can be characterized as possessing or acquiring certain properties with time. Ex. Green parrots, red apples, powerful people, the powerless “masa”, the dominant elite, Muslim terrorists, Moro bandits.

2. Reliance on linear causal constructions of reality. This comes from the S-V-O sentence construction. A causes B but who caused B? 

MOROS WERE PART OF THE PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC IN 1946 SO THEY STAY THAT WAY. Moros are uneducated and poor and cannot govern themselves. Moro provinces are poor because Moro leaders are corrupt. And so on and so forth.

3. Embedded in the causal construction are the abstract nature of power and the systematic confusion of explanatory constructs with experiences. Power turns out to be such a “powerful” notion because its abstract nature defies disconfirmation by observation. It is presupposed in the way experience is framed and accepted as such in discourse.


4. Concept of language as a system of representations or symbols according to which talk is always ABOUT something, about a world outside the speaker, as if language is not part of the world it describes.




In this theory, language is constitutive of reality. Words are deeds (Wittgenstein 1953). John Austin’s (1962) performatives are cases in point. Ex.: Priest says: “I pronounce thee Husband and Wife.” Therapeutic interventions, political agenda-setting, self-fulfilling prophesies, blaming someone a criminal before trial are examples of how assertion of something can make it real for those who use that language.

For a linguistic assertion to do something, someone must let it participate meaningfully within his or her reality construction wherein it preserves its coherence while intervening in or working itself through it.

In the Maranao language, the word Filipino DENOTES non-Muslim or Christian Filipinos. It has several negative CONNOTATIONS. A Maranao might describe himself as “Filipino” when speaking English or Tagalog to non-Moros, but he will NEVER use the word “Filipino” to describe himself when conversing in Maranao with fellow Maranaos. 

This proves the importance of Krippendorf’s assertion that we must study LANGUAGING, the very process language is used by the speakers themselves. It is incongruous for a Maranao to talk of a “Filipino” psychology if he will not use the very word “Filipino” to describe himself in the vernacular to his fellow Maranaos.

Objective descriptions of social relationships in terms of power, from Marx to Foucault, only breeds power, empowers the powerful (by reifying the power they already possess) and continue to disable the powerless whoever they may be.

Krippendorf argues that “scholars of human communication have an ethical responsibility to develop reality constructions and support the emancipation from pathological reality constructions wherever they arise and whenever they can be recognized as such.”

According to Krippendorf, there are elements of an ethical theory of communication. Ethical theory must be general, but cannot be predictive for this would precipitate the very class distinction that denies its generality. Hence, an ethical theory must be applicable in principle, suggestive perhaps but demonstrably viable in discourse practice. It should evidence the human concern it espouses in its very proposition.

Seeing others in more or less painful pathological conditions, without apparent hope to escape from them, entails an ethical responsibility for communication.

Also, ethical discourse is emancipatory at its core. The film “Bagong Buwan”, for example, portrayed some of the woes of the Moros. But there is also the other side of the coin, the death and suffering of Christian Filipinos. 


Krippendorf’s theory is not just hermeneutic or critical it is also ethical. He maintains that it is incumbent upon everyone to acknowledge a pathology and seek its cure. The Bangsa Moro situation in the country is a pathology and is in need of a cure. The cost in terms of dollars and lives it has already exacted is already considerable. The health of the country as a whole will never achieve its full potential if this pathology continues. The presence of the Abu Sayyaf Group and the US Armed Forces in Mindanao is symptomatic of the gravity of this pathology.

The country can pretend through languaging that the situation is “isolated” and easily solved. Marcos waged an all-out war against the Moros. Erap waged an all-out war against MILF. Erap proclaimed that the Abu Sayyaf had been wiped out. Now GMA called on the US military machine to “wipe out terrorism” in the Philippines.

The way of the gun has been tried many times over. Perhaps it is better to try an honest-to-goodness dialogue, with thorough analysis of the socio-cultural and historical situation and be prepared to accept the truth — see the disease as it actually is, and implement the necessary cure, however painful. 

Hak kaum Cina yang kita tidak tunaikan

Hak kaum Cina yang kita tidak tunaikanoleh HermitAssalamualaikum dan selamat sejahtera,Hari Raya adalah antara nostalgia yang kental di dalam hati setiap sanubari orang Melayu di Malaysia khususnya.Bila teringat Hari raya,kita pasti teringat tentang ku…

Category: Uncategorized


Neldy Jolo

This is the letter of a Tausug Nursing student expressing her sentiment to the president of the Republic of the Philippines, P-Noy. She has a good write. She is a young talented girl that understands and experience the chaotic condition of the people around her, whom she belong – the Tausug. This Tausug young generation is aware of what is happening – the history, culture and the real identity that she is part. This was sent to the President this month.

This letter writing was their requirement. The instructor required his student to write a letter to the president according to the issues they wanted to bring. He started requiring student since the time of Marcos.  

Her instructor commented:

“…The entire content deserves to be fully respected. And I think I am not in a position to edit your ideas as presented…What is most important is the substance which I think should be answered by the Office. Hope the President will really consider those points in your letter. Anyway, let me know whatever would be the response.”

The letter runs this way:

August 23, 2011

Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III
President Republic of the Philippines

Malacañang Palace

Compound J. P. Laurel St., San Miguel

Manila City

 Dear Mr. President:

 Good morning your Excellency. My name is CUJ, 18 years of age, an ordinary student of Western Mindanao State University-Zamboanga City. I am writing to ask for your support and help for the TAUSUG people living in Sulu. I am a Tausug. And I cannot afford to see the situation of my land like this.

Let us be frank and practical to solve our respective problems. Filipino is for Filipino, Tausug is for Tausug.

Sulu people or Tausug have been put as one of the tribes of the Philippines, hence they are now called Filipino per legal document of the Republic of the Philippines. The word Filipino was coined during the invasion of the Spanish to group of Islands that were known as Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and Sulu Archipelago.
The known “FILIPINO” was address to the Christianized people of Luzon and Visayas which were known as INDIOS – natives of the islands. Mindanao and Sulu Archipelago people were called MORO by Spanish before their religion – ISLAM. The real identity of the Sulu People is called Tausug, thus made them distinguished from FILIPINO and Tausug were never Christianized as Indios do. Tausug already exists before Spanish set foot to the Sulu Archipelago in 1578. They have their own government and system, the Sultanate of Sulu that was established in 1405 led by Ahlul Bait, Sultan Syariful Hashim Sayyid Abubakar.

 The inclusion was started after the “mock battle” between America and Spain then signed the Treaty of Peace in Paris, France in 20 December 1898, known today as Treaty Paris. Through this treaty that Sultanate of Sulu was included as part of the Philippine Islands. After around nine months, America and Sulu signed treaty called Bates Treaty in 20 August 1899.


Sultanate of Sulu started forcibly became part of the Republic of the Philippines when the United States of America gave independence to the Philippine Islands (that is Luzon and Visayas only) in 1946, without the consent of the citizens or people of Sulu, the TAUSUG.

 Present Endeavour


After four decades of movement for independence in Mindanao and Sulu brought about by MNLF for Bangsamoro Republik of which ended to “autonomy” and now MILF is on the table bargaining the “sub-state” for Bangsamoro Homeland that is previously also wanting independence.


Every human heart in Mindanao and Sulu is now put in vain and frustrations with the directional changed of these two big fronts from independence to something else – autonomy and sub-state. Since Tausug has separate history and government from Mindanao, they moved to reassert their independence last 17 November 2010 by bringing the issue of citizenship and sovereignty rights aside from religious right as Muslim.

That is because sovereignty is permanent and perpetual and citizenship or nationality movement is one of the peaceful or the alternative movement other that armed movement. It is according to the legal rights and basic human rights – as mention in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – The Rights to Nationality. 

Tausug still owns the de jure government (sovereign government) and right now running their de facto government (government of the fact) even though Philippine de facto government is still in the playing in the Sulu Archipelago.

Tausug, the citizens of the Sultanate of Sulu have been struggling for years of their right of self-determination. They have then defended their island country of Southeast Asia from the Spaniards, Americans, Japanese and right now the Filipinos who have tried to colonize and subdue the Sultanate of Sulu – UNCONQUERED!

In this, I am asking the Philippine de facto government to withdraw from the territory of the de jure Sultanate of Sulu government thus FILIPINO IS NOT TAUSUG!

 With this I am glad to hear a positive response from you Mr. President. 



p.s: pls pull AFP out from Sulu. Plentiful of PNP-SAF were already visible in our place.


CUJ – Student Nurse.

HalalManila on Facebook

As-salaamalaikum dear brothers, sisters and guestsPlease “like” us also on Facebook, where we also have discussions about anything Halal :)JazakaAllah KhairWasalaam HalalManila

Category: Uncategorized

Catatan Srikandi VII part II

Catatan Srikandi VII part IICatatan Srikandi VCatatan Srikandi VI”At the end there are two of us”Terdapat beberapa city-states di Indochina pada masa lampau seperti Javaka dan Syam yang diterajui oleh ‘Mala Kings of Malayu’ seperti yang tercatat di dal…

Category: Uncategorized

Bongkar Ooo bongkar : Pejuang MNLF menerima gaji dari kerajaan Philipina

AFP: Number of ‘ghost army’ is top secret


1:02 am | Wednesday, August 17th, 2011

The number of ‘ghost’ soldiers will remain secret for now.
The Armed Forces of the Philippines has refused to reveal to the Commission on Audit (COA) the number of officers and soldiers under its wing, citing national security reasons, Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares said on Tuesday.
Colmenares said he was shocked to learn from COA officials that even state auditors were barred from prying into the AFP personnel strength.
“This is in violation of COA’s constitutional mandate to audit Department of Defense funds. While other countries submit their roster to their auditing bodies, the Philippine COA cannot even check if the supposed number of troops hired by the AFP actually exists,” Colmenares said in a statement.
The AFP has been padding its actual troop strength by 20 percent through the years, according to George Rabusa, a retired lieutenant colonel.
At Senate hearings on corruption in the military early this year, he said the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) would release a fund for, say, 120,000 troops when the AFP actually had only 100,000. The salary for the 20,000 allegedly became the source of additional funds for military officials.
Source of slush fund
Rabusa, who served as military budget officer from 2000 to 2002, said the budget for the salaries of the ghost soldiers was the major source of the military’s slush fund, from which sendoff gifts amounting to hundreds of millions of pesos for retiring top military officials are taken.
Rabusa said it was a tradition in the military to give a new AFP chief of staff start-up funds and to give him sendoff gifts upon retirement.
Accused of receiving some P150 million from the slush fund, former AFP Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes committed suicide on Feb. 8.
As a result of Rabusa’s revelations, the DBM withheld early this year P8.6 billion from the AFP budget and P11 billion from the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) budget for uniformed units, including P9.5 billion from the Philippine National Police.
The amounts represented 20 percent of the salaries for unfilled positions in the AFP and DILG for 2011, according to the DBM.
Colmenares wanted to know the actual number of AFP officers and soldiers to confirm whether the salaries and allowances allocated by Congress to the military were not bloated.
In February, Colmenares said the AFP received P179 billion in surplus funds from 2002 to 2010 as the actual salary disbursements were much lower than what the AFP had requested in the annual budget.
Colmenares reckoned that the AFP refused to open its books to the COA due to its fear that the “ghost soldiers” who have padded the military payroll through the years would be finally exposed.
“This only allows for ghost soldiers and the conversion previously exposed by Col. George Rabusa,” said Colmenares.
Rebel returnees
Aside from the ghost soldiers, Colmenares said the AFP should reveal how much it was giving to rebel returnees.
“The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) integrees were supposedly given P18,000 a month each in 2002-2003 and Cordillera People’s Liberation Army integrees were allocated P13,400 a month each. The salary of a regular soldier is below P10,000.
“How is it that the salary of an integree is double that of a regular soldier? Did the MNLF integrees really receive the P18,000 a month or was it subjected to conversion?” Colmenares said.
Promote transparency
During the presentation of the COA budget in the House, Colmenares said COA officials had agreed to give a comprehensive and complete audit report of the entire budget on top of the separate COA reports for each agency or department.
“This will be a major change in auditing the budget and will promote transparency and help eliminate corruption and ghost employees,” Colmenares said.

Initial List of Applicants/Nominees for ARMM OICs 2011-2013 – UPDATED!

Initial List of Applicants/Nominees received by the PMS and DILG Office of Assistant Secretary for Muslim Affairs and Special Concerns as of 23-Aug-2011 These are the initial list of applicants/nomineeswhose applications/nominations were received by the ARMM Screening Committee Secretariat before the issuance/publication of the Notice…

Berpuasa di rumah MAK

wah..seronok betul puasa kat rumah mak ni…maklumlah…x payah nak masak..bagun sahur pagi2…kire bila dapat rasa macam ni sekali sekala okey juga…rasa macam vacation from daily  routine during ramadhan…hahahaha..pemalas betul makcik sorang …

Category: Uncategorized

Unity Iftar 2011

Sponsored by University Student Council (USC) and Muslim Youth Movement for Peace and Development, in-coordination with different student organizations based in
Western Mindanao State University (WMSU)

designing a film

I juggle the roles of director and production designer in my films. In Cartas de la Soledad, I will recreate a decrepit villa caught in a time warp. To be shot in Davao City, the house is a typical 1950s style. The interior design is a hodgepodge of st…

Antara Suka Duka & Terlebih Suka Terlebih Duka…..

Kadang2 bile bace blog org lain pasal kesah2 duka ni kite yg terEmosi lebey, walaupun org kata berat mata memandang berat lagi org yang memikul…tapi kite plak rase macam kitalah yg mengalaminye…sedeynye wey…bile kita update kesedihan kat muka buk…

Category: Uncategorized

Introducing the Wiki Concept

There are lots of online collaboration tools and document management systems. Wikis, however, remain a simple way of creating large, shared information repositories.
DokuWiki to be specific, but it’s more the idea and use of wikis in general .
Regular readers will know that I’m the first to jump up in support of Wikipedia (as long as it’s tempered by a critical eye and thoughtful users). And I’ve used wikis more generally, whether in class or in various jobs for document management and collaboration.Hosted wikis like those offered by Wikispaces, wikis embedded in tools like Moodle, and have stood up small wikis for special projects. All good stuff.
More recently, though, personally I’ve turned to, Google Sites and Google Docs to manage most of my documentation needs. Used together, they make for a pretty robust solution that lends itself to collaboration.
Sure, Google Docs and Sites could handle this, but this felt like a job for a wiki.Classes that require collaboration on an extensive document or that will be used for longer-term reference or guidance (as this particular set of documents will also be). Needs wiki.
Having a look at  the open source DokuWiki, for a few reasons.
  1. It’s free
  2. It’s incredibly simple to set up. All you need is FTP access (with write privileges) to a single folder on a web server. The DokuWiki folder and subfolders get copied to the server and the rest of the install happens via an install.php file that is accessible via any browser.
  3. It’s fully text-based; there are no databases to install or access and files are stored as text making them readable outside the wiki and easily transported to other wiki instances.
  4. It’s incredibly fast.
  5. It’s very well-documented.
  6. It’s customizable with templates and easily installed plugins.
  7. The default installation uses a wiki markup syntax, but a WYSIWYG editor can be installed for novice users.
  8. It takes a while to get the hang of creating namespaces (essentially directories) and pages for people used to a non-wiki interface, but once understood becomes quite simple for all users to extend the wiki and clearly organize files.
  9. It has basic authentication, roles, and access control lists built in, but can easily be connected to a database or LDAP server for more sophisticated authentication needs
  10. It scales very easily.
DokuWiki isn’t perfect, of course. Without a bit of thought, the paths that it displays to each document can be cumbersome and navigation isn’t as intuitive as it should be. However, in the brief time that it took me to set it up and have people (even those new to wikis) working together and building our documents, I was able to ensure pretty immediate utility. We can refine later; the goal was to start collaborating fast on a space that could live and be used by a growing group for months to come and we achieved that goal in a day.

Taking a Look at some educational tools available combining use with gmail:

Taking a Look at some educational tools available combining use with gmail:Exchange 2010 – When combined with a Microsoft Desktop, the eCAL, and the extreme discounts afforded to education, there simply was no better combination.Zimbra – Close second, …

happy birthday, madonna!

Madonna is 53.

Three years ago I had the privilege of being in the Madgesty’s presence during the Chicago leg of the Sticky and Sweet Tour. I wrote a five-page essay entitled The Pilgrim on the experience. Here’s an excerpt.

I scrambled off the bus as soon as it reached the station on Harrison. Chicago was cold all right. I inhaled the dry air.  I walked towards Halsted Street. My hostel was two blocks away, occupying the second and third floors of an old building in the Greek part of the city, above a restaurant called Parthenon. I reached it in five minutes, thanks to my impeccable sense of direction, an ability my friends are jealous of —“What are you a walking compass?” A friend once remarked— because I can be more precise than a GPS.  

The innkeeper was an old Greek guy, presumably in his 70s, who looked like Anthony Quinn on the heavy side. After collecting payment, he escorted me to the second floor. “Put this in key hole when you leave. Check out time is ten in the morning,” he said, and went back downstairs. My room was spartan. There was a small bed and desk, a square mirror on the wall next to a framed charcoal drawing of what looked an impression of a Grecian urn. No cabinet. The window had a view of the street. The bathroom was located at the end of the hallway. I would only be staying for the night. 

The concert would start at eight, and, anticipating a long queue, there was no time to rest. I walked to the bathroom and washed my face. Back in my room I preened myself in front of the mirror. I couldn’t face the Queen looking like a hobo. I pulled out my belt bag from the backpack. I stuffed it with my wallet, concert ticket, cell phone, maps, lip balm, gum, and after deciding what the heck, my camera. I would think of a plan to sneak it in.   

All roads lead to United Center. Pilgrims of all ages, ethnic origins, religions, and sexual persuasions would congregate that night. I set off on Halsted Street, walking three blocks until I reached the corner of Madison Avenue, and took a left turn. I could hear my heart racing, unable to hide my excitement. This was a journey that took me twenty-four years to make, traversing different time zones, the expanse of the great Pacific Ocean, a voyage of 8,000 miles, and nearly 9,000 days since the first time I saw Madonna in the Borderline video when I was still in third grade. In the intervening years I’ve slipped in and out of faith and nonbelief, moved across the terrains of lucidity and melancholia, even navigate the sexual topography from being top to bottom to versa, but all throughout this constant movement, my devotion to Madonna never faltered. And now I would see her in person, this woman that I called my Icon. I walked closer to United Center, the sky slowly turning into the color of gunpowder, my hands sweating despite the cold. I rubbed my eyes to clear my vision, and got a big surprise. There was nobody outside United Center. Except for the security guards. I checked my watch. It was only five twenty. I proceeded to the box office. “What time will the gates open?” I asked. “Not until six thirty.” I was early. I was way too early. But there was no turning back. I would just have to wait. I walked to the other side of the arena, took out my camera, and started snapping photos. Ten minutes later I saw a group of teenagers taking a video of themselves, talking to the camera about how excited they were about the concert. They were planning to do a documentary. But how would they sneak in the camera? At that point I had thought of a way to sneak in my camera. I would tuck it in my brief. The guards would check my bag, I was sure of that. But it was most unlikely that they would ask me to strip, unless they really have some very kinky fetish. 

16 August 2011

2nd attemp buat blog sbb tepengaruh dengan blog orang lain.Kalau tulis kat FB nanti semua org yg kenal kite kite buat blog supaya kite boleh bertukar…harharhar…rase cam otromen plak…

Category: Uncategorized

Who is Nelly Sindayen?

Nelly Sindayen (April 7, 1949 – April 4, 2009) was a journalist. She was best known for her longtime association with Time magazine as a correspondent based in Manila.

What is her connection to Sulu? She was born in Siasi, Sulu to a Christian father and a Muslim mother.

She earned her journalism degree from University of Santo Tomas. She worked for the Manila Bulletin and various news agencies before joining Time magazine in the mid-1970s.She remained with Time until 2007, when illness disabled her from returning to work.

While at Time, Sindayen scored a notable scoop in 1983 concerning the supposed kidnapping of Tommy Manotoc, future son-in-law of President Ferdinand Marcos. Sindayen reported for Time that Manotoc had in fact gone to the Dominican Republic to obtain a quick divorce, then headed to the United States to secretly marry Marcos’s eldest daughter, Imee.

She is also reported on the controversies that hounded President Joseph Estrada, and narrated an eye-witness account on an aborted coup plot against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in February 2006.

She suffered a severe diabetic stroke in June 2007 and died from lingering complications on April 4, 2009, three days before her 60th birthday.


battle of the samosa

Remember the time when a lady Muslim legislator slapped a caterer during a dinner break at the House because she was served a noodle dish containing pork? Well, something of that nature has spawned a lawsuit in New Jersey after Hindu vegetarians were served samosas containing meat.

Recently, in Gupta v. Asha Enterprises, No. A-3059-09T2 (N.J. Ct. App. July 18, 2011), the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an Edison, New Jersey restaurant that allegedly served meat-filled samosas to sixteen Hindu vegetarians.
 As part of an India Day celebration in 2009, the plaintiffs placed an order at the Indo-Pak restaurant for vegetarian samosas, informing the restaurant that the food was being purchased for a group of strict vegetarians. The restaurant filled the order and assured the plaintiffs that the food did not contain meat. After consuming some of the samosas, the plaintiffs returned the remaining samosas to the restaurant and were advised that the food was, in fact, filled with meat. As a result, the plaintiffs claimed spiritual damage and asserted a number of causes of action against the restaurant, including product liability and breach of express warranty.
 The Court found prima facie evidence of an express warranty by the restaurant employees and reversed the grant of summary judgment as to that claim. However, the Court affirmed summary judgment on the product liability claim, holding that, while the plaintiffs were supplied the wrong product, the food was safe, edible, and fit for human consumption. Alas, religion and products liability remain divided.
As practitioners of the Swaminarayan principles of Hinduism, the plaintiffs believe that by eating meat they “become involved in the sinful cycle of pain, injury and death on God’s creatures, and that it affects the karma and dharma, or purity of the soul.”

Psst…..Want to write for Halal Manila?

Calling all readers of Halal Manila!

We would like your help! If you know of any halal restaurants in and around Manila and other parts of the Philippines then please let us know!

Be sure to get info on type of cuisine, name, tel number, operating ho…

Category: Uncategorized


[NOTE: Actual Documentations of the Grand Qiyamul Layl will be posted soon, InshaAllah. This post is the Project Rationale before the program was held]

The United Voices for Peace Network (UVPN) is an organization composed of enthused and empowered Moro youth leaders from the areas of Basilan, Cotabato, Davao, Lanao, Maguindanao, Palawan, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi and Zamboanga who are united and committed to voice out and act together for the enlightenment, empowerment and development of the Bangsamoro people in order to attain ALLAH S.W.T.’s Pleasure, Forgiveness and Mercy that will give way to the true face of PEACE and PROGRESS in Southern Philippines. Since its establishment in 2005, UVPN has been very active in upholding its noble advocacy through conducting Islamic Seminars and Symposiums, Leadership Trainings, Dialogues and Outreach Programs in different Moro communities with the sole intention of Pleasing ALLAH S.W.T.

Recognizing the efficacy of the Holy Month of Ramadhan in inculcating the divine importance of “Tawbat” or self-reformation among Muslim believers, the UVPN will be holding its Grand Qiyamul Layl Symposium 2011 with the theme: “Self-Reformation: A Gateway to Peace and Progress” on August 27-28, 2011. 8:30pm-4:00am at Sultan Kudarat Islamic Academy-Annex Compound, Cotabato City. It is an annual grand activity being undertaken by the organization which aims to make the Bangsamoro people aware of the significant role of self-reformation being taught by Ramadhan in attaining peace and progress in Southern Philippines and to promote a spirit of unity, social responsibility and leadership among them in order to bring about effective and sustainable actions as response to many problems confronting them and various misconceptions against the Muslim Ummah as a whole. This event has been annually held within the last ten days of Ramadhan, wherein the Night of Power (Laylatul Qadr) can be witnessed by every Muslim (as in the Hadith of our Prophet, S.A.W). The event will be participated by hundreds of Muslims in doingibadaah (worship) together for one night. The highlights of the activity are: praying Salatu At-Taraweeh together, Islamic Symposium, Qur’an Reading, praying Salatu At-Tahajjud together; and having Shuhr together.. This is a great avenue for our people, young and old, to work for the sake of Allah in Unity and in Harmony.

We are humbly asking assistance from our generous brothers and sisters by means of donating any amount of financial aid that we can use to defray our expenses. Next to Almighty ALLAH S.W.T.’s Grace and Mercy, we believe that your generosity will greatly help in making this event a success.

The following are the Objectives of this Program:

General Objectives:
• To make the Bangsamoro people aware of the significant role of self-reformation being taught by Ramadhan in attaining peace and progress in Southern Philippines.
• To promote a spirit of unity, social responsibility and leadership among them in order to bring about effective and sustainable actions as response to many problems confronting them and various misconceptions against the Muslim Ummah as a whole.

Specific Objectives: 

The participants are expected:

• To have strong Taqwa and Aqeedah for them to behave in such manners as described in the Holy Teachings of ISLAM;
• To re-echo to their families the significant teachings they will learn from the activity;
• To help in the promotion in their communities of the complete and absolute practice of ISLAM as a way of life; and
• To help in the eradication of various misconceptions on ISLAM among non-Muslims by dealing with them in righteous ways as encouraged in the Holy Qur’an.

For more information please contact the following:

Hamodi Tiboron                          09194857979  email:
Jelfaad  Salik                              09169421065, email:
Fairoz Abdulkadir
(Finance Committee Head)            09053801384, email:

Catatan Srikandi VII

Catatan Srikandi VII

“The truth is out there”

Semasa saya kecil-kecil dahulu,saya selalu mencuri makan serbuk milo ketika ibu sedang sibuk di depan televisyen pada bulan puasa.Jika ibu tertidur,saya apa lagi,terus buka peti ais dan meneguk air sirap yang ibu simpan semasa sahur.

“Adik buat apa tu?”

“Tak de pape…”, saya menjawab laungan ibu dari arah ruang tamu.Agak berdebar juga,bagaimana ibu boleh terbangun secara tiba-tiba.

Ibu memang tegas dalam melatih saya untuk berpuasa.Semasa kecil saya begitu rimas dengan perintah agama untuk berpuasa.Tak boleh makan,tak boleh minum.Hidup sepanjang-panjang hari dengan berlapar dan dahaga.Begitu menyiksakan.Setiap masa mata saya asyik melirik ke arah jam besar di ruang tengah.Penantian adalah satu penyiksaan.Kadang-kadang,dah pukul 7 petang pun,nak menunggu beberapa minit untuk berbuka adalah pengalaman yang paling dasyat.Setiap saat dikira bagai ‘countdown’ malam tahun baru.

Bila masa berbuka,sayalah orang pertama meneguk air!

“Makanlah buah kurma dahulu baru minum air…”, ibu menegur.Saya hanya tersengih-sengih memandang ibu.

Bila dewasa begini,pengalaman berpuasa begitu memotivasikan saya.Ia bukan satu penyiksaan lagi,tetapi sumber inspirasi dan kekuatan.Berpuasa membuatkan saya begitu tenang dan matang.Semua tindakan saya begitu jelas ketika berpuasa.Emosi saya stabil,fikiran saya lapang.Bila usia menginjak dewasa,barulah saya mengerti mengapa Tuhan memerintahkan kita berpuasa.

Kalau tidak silap saya,dalam satu kajian perubatan ada mengatakan 90% penyakit berpunca dari perut.Kadang-kadang saya berjalan-jalan di bandar,saya terpandang juga iklan ubat-ubatan yang memaparkan gambar-gambar najis mangsa pelbagai penyakit.Agak ‘geli’ juga melihatnya.Ada yang hitam legam dan berpintal-pintal.Memang benarlah satu fakta yang mengatakan dari rupa keadaan najis seseorang,pakar perubatan boleh tahu apakah penyakit yang dideritainya.Dalam iklan itu,pelbagai gambar najis mangsa dipaparkan,menunjukkan tahap kesihatan mereka yang teruk berpunca dari makanan yang mereka ambil sehari-hari.Tetapi ini dapat dielakkan jika mereka berpuasa.Berpuasa mampu membersihkan usus kita berkali ganda dari mengambil ubat-ubatan.Ia lebih berkesan dan tidak meninggalkan kesan negatif.

Mencari pengertian puasa bagaikan mencari jejak-jejak sejarah Melayu yang misteri.Ketika di bangku sekolah dahulu saya tidak mengerti mengapa saya perlu belajar sejarah terutama sejarah Malaysia yang 70% nya berkisar zaman penjajahan.Kini baru saya tahu era sebelum imperialisme menyimpan 1001 rahsia Asia Tenggara dan dunia Kemelayuan.

Malay is truly Southeast Asia.Asia Tenggara adalah tanahair orang Melayu dan segala misterinya.Ketika ahli arkeologi,pakar genetik dan DNA serta ahli kajian genome sedunia semakin tertarik dengan kawasan bernama Asia Tenggara ini,kita tahu mengapa ada ‘orang luar’ yang beria-ria mahu orang mengiktiraf dirinya berasal dari Asia Tenggara.

Orang Melayu adalah etnik yang unik berbanding mana-mana etnik Asia Tenggara kerana menduduki kedua-dua bahagian tanah besar dan kepulauan.Ini memberitahu kita bahawa induk Asia Tenggara adalah Austronesia.Di bahagian tanah besar Asia Tenggara,terdapat 4 kaum yang dikenal pasti oleh majoriti ahli sejarah dalam dan luar Asia Tenggara sebagai ‘indigenous’ iaitu:Mon,Pyu,Khmer dan kita,Malayu.Kaum Pyu sudah pupus manakala orang Mon semakin tersepit dan menuju ke arah kepupusan bahasa dan budaya.Yang masih bertahan adalah Malayu dan Khmer kerana kedua-duanya memiliki peradaban tinggi dan tahap survival yang lasak.

Hubungan orang Melayu sebagai suku Austronesia dan Khmer sebagai suku Austro-asiatic sememangnya diketahui sejak zaman berzaman.Orang Khmer adalah ‘mainlander’ manakala Melayu adalah ‘seafarers’.Orang Melayu membuka perdagangan maritim dan memerlukan barang dagangan dan pertanian untuk didagangkan.Transaksi ekonomi berlaku antara kedua-dua kaum ini.Orang Khmer juga meminati galian mahal ini;emas,yang dilombong oleh orang Melayu.Raja-raja Khmer selalu memesan sejumlah perhiasan dan jongkong emas yang banyak dari negeri-negeri Melayu untuk menghiasi kuil-kuil mereka.Tradisi emas dengan negeri-negeri Melayu memang berakar umbi dari sejarah yang panjang dan ini membuka rahsia yang lain mengapa Raja Siam tetap mahukan negeri-negeri Melayu naungannya menghantar bunga emas ke Bangkok pada masa dahulu.

Antara pengkhususan kajian sejarah saya ialah hubungan antara Malayu dan Khmer.Kedua-dua kaum ini memiliki hubungan misteri pada masa silam sejak ramai pengkaji mula sedar sebahagian raja-raja Angkor adalah berketurunan Melayu!

Saya juga mengkaji hubungan bangsa Melayu dengan kaum-kaum bukan serumpun (non-Austronesia) yang lain seperti Thai,Burma dan Dai Viet di Asia Tenggara.Dan yang paling penting sekali,hubungan Melayu dengan sukukaum-sukukaum Austronesia sendiri seperti Jawa,Sunda,Bugis dan sebagainya.

Sudah semestinya jika kita membuka buku teks sejarah Tingkatan 3,kita tidak akan menemui nama raja-raja Angkor yang berketurunan Melayu seperti Suryavarman I,Jayaviravarman,Udayadityavarman II,Harshavarman III,Jayavarman VII,Indravarman II atau Jayavarman VIII.Ini semua adalah nama Emperor-emperor Empayar Khmer atau kerajaan Angkor yang terkenal itu.Bagi kita,Angkor adalah Khmer dan semua raja-rajanya adalah Khmer.INI SALAH!Hubungan bangsa Melayu dengan bangsa-bangsa di sekelilingnya adalah SAMA DENGAN HUBUNGAN BANGSA JERMAN DENGAN BANGSA-BANGSA EROPAH DI SEKELILINGNYA sebagai contoh.Dahulu hubungan orang Melayu dengan Mon dan Khmer amat rapat sehingga terjadi perkahwinan sesama mereka.Tanah bangsa Melayu juga menjangkau tengah Thailand dan bersempadan dengan Kemboja,tanahair bangsa Khmer.Di Battambang,Kemboja buat pengetahuan anda merupakan bekas wilayah negeri Melayu pada masa silam.Ini semua ada tercatat dalam prasasti atau petitih-petitih kuno bangsa Khmer.

Kita kena belajar memahami dari sekarang bahawa hubungan orang Melayu dengan entiti di sekelilingnya bersifat antarabangsa.Bukti konkrit paling jelas menggambarkan maksud ini adalah Sulalatus Salatin,yang menceritakan hubungan kerajaan Kesultanan Melaka dengan kerajaan-kerajaan di sekelilingnya seperti Majapahit,Champa,Pasai,Pahang atau Ayutthaya.Inilah karya sejarah yang bijak,menceritakan betapa ‘international’ nya orang Melayu pada masa dahulu,belum dikira era Srivijaya lagi.Saya sudah tegaskan berkali-kali,hubungan kerajaan-kerajaan silam di Asia Tenggara adalah sama seperti hubungan kerajaan-kerajaan di Eropah.Sebagai contoh keturunan bangsawan Jerman,Saxe-Coburg dan Gotha mewarnai beberapa keluarga diraja Eropah seperti Sweden dan England.Puteri Sybilla dari Sweden (1908-1972),isteri kepada Putera Gustav Adolf,Duke of Västerbotten yang merupakan ibu kepada Raja Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf adalah dari keturunan bangsawan Jerman tersebut.Contoh yang paling jelas adalah suami kepada Ratu Victoria dari England,Putera Albert adalah keturunan Jerman Saxe-Coburg dan Gotha.Jadi tidak hairanlah mengapa dalam Riwayat Chiang Mai yang ditulis di atas manuskrip dedaun pada tahun 1827 menyebutkan Suryavarman I (maharaja empayar Khmer) berketurunan dari Malayu.Suryavarman II pula (yang membina Angkor Wat) adalah sepupu Jayavarman VII,yang merupakan cicit Suryavarman I!

Kita sesungguhnya berhubung dengan bangsa Khmer melalui peperangan dan perkahwinan.

Raja Sujita dari negeri Melayu Sri Dharmaraja telah mengahwini seorang gadis Khmer dan melahirkan emperor ke-39 Angkor,Suryavarman I yang telah membina Preah Vihear yang kini menjadi perebutan antara Kemboja dan Thailand.Seorang emperor dari dinasti Melayu Sailendra telah menakluki Chenla (negeri asal bangsa Khmer) pada tahun 774 Masehi.Seorang kanak-kanak cerdas telah ditawan bersama-sama ekspedisi ketenteraan Sailendra itu,dan diasuh di dalam istana Sailendra,kemudiannya apabila dewasa menjadi pengasas Empayar Khmer.Dia adalah Jayavarman II,yang fasih berbahasa Melayu Kuno,bahasa tradisi dinasti Sailendra dan Sriwijaya,dua ‘ruling house’ yang amat berkuasa di Asia Tenggara ketika itu.

Saya pernah menghadiri satu teater Khmer berkenaan raja-raja Angkor.Ketika itu terdapat satu slot tentang adegan peperangan dengan Champa.Kemudian adegan seorang raja dan permaisurinya memberi restu kepada para perajurit.Yang menarik hati saya ialah pakaian raja itu yang bersampin dan memakai ‘vest’ sebagaimana gambaran raja-raja Melayu pada masa dahulu.Mahkotanya juga berbentuk tanjak.Saya berbisik kepada rakan sebelah saya (orang Kemboja),dan dia memberitahu saya bahawa raja itu adalah Jayavarman VII dan di masa pemerintahan beliau,memang ada peperangan dengan Champa.

Menariknya,apabila saya mengkaji lebih dalam ternyata Jayavarman VII adalah dari susur galur raja Melayu dan pernah tinggal di Champa beberapa lama.Saya kurang jelas adakah dari sebelah ibu atau ayah,namun saya yakin dari sebelah ibu kerana perkataan ‘cudamani’ pada nama ibunya,Sri Jayarajacudamani,adalah ‘title’ khas Maulimalaraja,garis keturunan raja-raja Melayu Indochina.Kemudian barulah saya tahu bahawa beliau adalah cicit Suryavarman I selepas membaca ulasan sebuah prasasti di Laos,iaitu Prasasti Say Fong!

Salasilah raja-raja Melayu Indochina tercatat dalam pelbagai prasasti dan manuskrip Khmer,Mon dan Thai!

Di dalam rekod Dinasti Sui (581-618 Masehi),merujuk kepada misi oleh Tchan Sun dan Wang Kiun Tching,memberitahu serba sedikit tentang Chih Tu:

“Nama keluarga raja Chih-tu adalah Chu Tam (Chudam), dan nama peribadinya adalah Li-fo-shi. Sejak bila sejarah putera ini bermula kami tidak tahu. Kami hanya diberitahu bahawa ayahnya, selepas meninggalkan takhta untuk menjadi seorang biarawan, dihantar kepadanya kedudukan kerajaan, kedudukan yang telah diadakan selama enam belas tahun. Raja ini Li-fu-to-Hsi mempunyai tiga isteri, yang semuanya puteri gerbang yang sekitar seratus langkah berasingan. Pada masing-masing gerbang, diselubungi dengan loceng emas kecil, yang dicat Bodhisattva dan abadi yang menjulang tinggi di udara…”

Li-fo-shi adalah sebutan China kepada Srivijaya,seorang putera raja Melayu purba yang memulakan dinasti yang teragung itu.Dimanakah Chih Tu?Chih Tu diyakini berada di kawasan Kelantan sehingga ke Patani pada hari ini.Persekutuan dengan beberapa negarakota Mon menyebabkan nama Chih Tu juga dikesan sejauh Chiang Mai,kawasan yang dahulunya merupakan sebahagian Haripunjaya,sebuah negarakota (city-state) Mon.

Perhatikan nama keluarga pemerintah Chih Tu adalah ‘Chudam’.Sebab itu sejarahwan Thailand mendakwa Jayavarman VII adalah berasal dari dinasti Melayu Indochina,sekurang-kurangnya punya kaitan dengan suku Cham.

Betapa asyiknya tenggelam dalam misteri raja-raja Melayu di tengah-tengah riwayat Khmer dan Mon.Saya benar-benar ingin kembali ke zaman silam dan ingin melihat sendiri bagaimana raja-raja keturunan Melayu ini memerintah Empayar Khmer di dalam istana secantik Preah Vihear.Mereka pasti berbahasa Mon,Khmer dan Sanskrit bila berurusan dengan rakyat Kemboja,dan apabila bertemu dengan saudara mara mereka sudah tentu berbahasa Melayu.Adakah bila saya datang mengadap emperor-emperor Angkor ini dan cuba berbahasa sendiri terhadap mereka,adakah mereka memahami saya,cucu cicit yang seketurunan dengan mereka,Malayu?

Adakah mereka memahami saya?

“Mera juga disebut sebagai Ye Ye dalam pelbagai rekod dinasti China,yang diterjemah oleh penterjemah Inggeris sebagai ‘Coconut Leaf’,” Nari bercerita tentang Mera,puteri Funan yang menurunkan bangsa Khmer.

“Mayang Mengurai…”

“Apa kamu kata?” Nari menyoal.

Saya menarik nafas panjang.Gadis Khmer itu merenung saya menanti jawapan.Pada zaman dahulu,ada seorang puteri dari Malayu yang memerintah pulau Kok Thlok,berjiran dengan raja-raja Cham purba.Ketika itu bangsa Khmer berada di utara,tepatnya di utara Laos sekarang.Namun begitu mereka belum lagi wujud sebagai ‘Khmer’.Mereka digelar Chenla,atau Zhenla,lebih merupakan etnik-etnik selatan China.


(Ikuti kisah Srikandi dengan rakan Khmernya,Nari berhadapan dengan seorang pemuda dari Thailand yang berdebat tentang sejarah Indochina,yang akan diupdate dalam ruangan yang sama)

~Malayu from Lords of The Sea Dragon

Category: Uncategorized

Sulu-born Lawyers

NOTE: This list of lawyers is not in anyway exhaustive. They were taken from the SC E-Library (link at the bottom of this post) up to 2007. Included herein are those who listed Sulu or Tawi-Tawi as their birth place. Not included are Tausog/Sama born outside of Sulu/Tawi-Tawi. Also, not in this list are earlier passers (1940s and backward) where the birth place is not included in the register. Readers are encourage to call to attention any missing entries.

To date, there 166 Sulu-born members of the Philippine Bar. 
  1. ABDUL WAHID, HAKIM S.; Sitangkai, Sulu; March 10, 1972; Roll No. 24022.
  2. ABDURASAD, JINMAR H; Jolo, Sulu; May 02, 2005; Roll No. 49814.
  3. ABDURASAD, JUHAN K.; Muralla St., Jolo, Sulu; March 24, 1970; Roll No. 22971.
  4. ABUBAKAR, ALLEN R.; Jolo, Sulu; March 11, 1968; Roll No. 22303.
  5. ABUBAKAR, BENJAMIN R.; Jolo, Sulu; May 16, 1950; Roll No. 1812.
  6. ABUBAKAR, HALIM R.; Jolo, Sulu; April 06, 1953; Roll No. 4340.
  7. ABUBAKAR, HASHIM R.; Jolo, Sulu; March 20, 1965; Roll No. 20439.
  8. ADIL, BANDI U.; Sitangki, Tawi-Tawi; March 14, 1994; Roll No. 38772.
  9. ADIL, BASHIRUDDIN U; Sibutu, Tawi-Tawi; May 02, 2005; Roll No. 50081.
  10. AJAN, MADJAYRAN H.; south Ubian, Tawi-Tawi; May 12, 1980; Roll No. 30469.
  11. AKIM, EUGENIO K.; Jolo, Sulu; January 25, 1952; Roll No. 2965.
  12. ALAM, HASAN G.; Parang, Sulu; May 18, 1976; Roll No. 26779.
  13. ALAM, OMAR C.; Simunul, Tawi-Tawi; March 31, 1976; Roll No. 26610.
  14. ALEGADO, GEOFFREY H.; Bongao, Sulu; June 09, 1992; Roll No. 38181.
  15. ALEGADO, MARIO H.; Jolo, Sulu; May 10, 1991; Roll No. 37548.
  16. ALFAD, JR., ALSAD H.; Maimbung, Sulu; March 15, 1990; Roll No. 36111.
  17. ALHABSI, IBRAHIM A.; Jolo, Sulu; March 08, 1968; Roll No. 22241.
  18. ALPAD, JR., ARASAD R.; Jolo, Sulu; March 15, 1971; Roll No. 23558.
  19. ALPAD-GOPEZ, SANDRA R.; Jolo, Sulu; May 07, 1982; Roll No. 31964.
  20. ALLADO, MA. LETICIA F.; Jolo, Sulu; February 22, 1962; Roll No. 16967.
  21. ALPHA, ABDUL-WAHID M.; Parang, Sulu; April 21, 1978; Roll No. 28734.
  22. AMILBANGSA, AYSAR T.; Jolo, Sulu; May 09, 1991; Roll No. 37337.
  23. AMILHASAN, HADJI SAN; Sulu; March 18, 1957; Roll No. 12476.
  24. AMIN, HUSSIN U.; Jolo, Sulu; May 15, 1979; Roll No. 29375.
  25. AMIN, OMAR U.; Jolo, Sulu; January 20, 1955; Roll No. 7322.
  26. ANNI, ARDEN S.; Siasi, Sulu; April 20, 1978; Roll No. 28445.
  27. ANNI, WILSON S.; Siasi, Sulu; March 30, 1976; Roll No. 26291.
  28. ANUDDIN, JALALUDDIN K.; Sulu; April 10, 1957; Roll No. 12640.
  29. APION, YASER H.; Tulay, Jolo, Sulu; May 05, 1998; Roll No. 42745.
  30. ARABANI, ABDULHAMID; Gapas, Sulu; August 02, 1954; Roll No. 7235.
  31. ARABANI, BENSAUDI I.; Tapul, Sulu; March 11, 1971; Roll No. 23414.
  32. ARADANI, HAKAIN P.; Banting, Tapul, Sulu; March 17, 1965; Roll No. 19897.
  33. ARBISON, ADZRA A; Jolo, Sulu; May 02, 2005; Roll No. 49896.
  34. ARADANI, HASMIN A.; Tapul, Sulu; May 14, 1979; Roll No. 29140.
  35. ARNADO, EUGENIA R.; Jolo, Sulu; May 13, 1960; Roll No. 14997.
  36. ARPA, PULLONG; Siasi, Sulu; November 13, 1945; Roll No. 381.
  37. ASAALI, TIBING A.; Indanan, Sulu; March 24, 1970; Roll No. 22970.
  38. ASDALA, WYNNE B.; Tandubas, Tawi-Tawi; May 05, 1982; Roll No. 31501.
  39. ASKALI, ABDULKALIM A.; Jolo, Sulu; July 07, 1978; Roll No. 28796.
  40. ASTIH, ABDULMAJID J.; Talipao, Sulu; July 08, 1968; Roll No. 22321.
  41. BAHJIN, ABIDIN; Jolo, Sulu; January 24, 1955; Roll No. 8838.
  42. BAHJIN, ANWARUDDIN R.; Jolo, Sulu; June 09, 1975; Roll No. 25753.
  43. BANDON, JR., ALAWADIN T.; Sitangkai, Sulu; March 20, 1967; Roll No. 21546.
  44. BANDONG, EVALAINE N.; Jolo, Sulu; June 25, 1973; Roll No. 24796.
  45. BAO, HERCULES S.; Jolo, Sulu; February 22, 1962; Roll No. 16891.
  46. BARRAQUIAS, BETLEE-IAN J.; Jolo, Sulu; May 07, 1998; Roll No. 43270.
  47. BARRAQUIAS, HUGO T.; Cagayan De Sulu, Sulu; May 11, 1959; Roll No. 13763.
  48. BAWASANTA, CESAR T.; South Ubian, Tawi-Tawi; May 05, 1999; Roll No. 43581.
  49. BAWASANTA, JAIME V.; Siasi, Sulu; March 02, 1956; Roll No. 9860.
  50. BELLO, ABDUR-RASID N.; Siasi, Sulu; January 21, 1955; Roll No. 8141.
  51. BELLO, JR., FELIX N.; Siasi, Sulu; January 18, 1954; Roll No. 6012.
  52. BIDIN, ABDULWAHID; Sibutu, Sulu; February 22, 1954; Roll No. 6900.
  53. BITENG, LADJABETE SH.; Sulu; April 01, 1953; Roll No. 3833.
  54. BUENO, MARCELINO A.; Jolo, Sulu; October 22, 1956; Roll No. 10492.
  55. BURAHIM, ALNIE A; Bongao, Tawi-Tawi; April 26, 2007; Roll No. 53088.
  56. CAWED, ROBERT T.; Jolo, Sulu; June 18, 1974; Roll No. 25010.
  57. CHEONG, ZENERY M.; Siasi, Sulu; March 31, 1976; Roll No. 26409.
  58. CHIONG, RICKSON L.; Jolo, Sulu; June 06, 1975; Roll No. 25475.
  59. DAGGI, REYNALDO P.; Siasi, Sulu; May 10, 1982; Roll No. 32130.
  60. DE LEON, ANTONIO C.; Jolo, Sulu; January 25, 1952; Roll No. 2657.
  61. DELA PAZ, TERESITO S.; Jolo, Sulu; May 11, 1959; Roll No. 13675.
  62. DIANSUY, JR., RUALDO C.; Jolo, Sulu; May 04, 1977; Roll No. 27665.
  63. EBBAH, PERCIVAL B.; Siasi, Sulu; January 25, 1954; Roll No. 6695.
  64. EISMA, CARLITO A.; Jolo, Sulu; March 02, 1956; Roll No. 9687.
  65. EISMA, PETER V.; Jolo, Sulu; June 02, 1986; Roll No. 34051.
  66. EISMA, ROSE LIZA V.; Jolo, Sulu; May 06, 1998; Roll No. 42924.
  67. ELUM, ANTONIO C.; Jolo, Sulu; March 12, 1969; Roll No. 22390.
  68. EVANGELISTA, ROMEO; Jolo, Sulu; March 28, 1967; Roll No. 21859.
  69. FERNANDEZ, ALEJANDRO L.; Jolo, Sulu; March 28, 1949; Roll No. 1148.
  70. FLORES, FILEMON F.; Siasi, Sulu; April 21, 1953; Roll No. 4950.
  71. GAGARRA, GRACELINA P.; Jolo, Sulu; April 27, 1989; Roll No. 35788.
  72. GUERZON, JR., BENJAMIN E; Mapon, Tawi-Tawi; April 30, 2007; Roll No. 53923.
  73. HADJAIL, NURNARDA A; Jolo, Sulu; April 27, 2007; Roll No. 53589.
  74. HADJIRUL, ABDULMAJID L.; Bongao, Tawi-Tawi; May 09, 1991; Roll No. 37289.
  75. HASIM, SAJI M.; Siasi, Sulu; April 20, 1978; Roll No. 28364.
  76. HATAIE, MALLI A.; Parang, Sulu; March 06, 1964; Roll No. 18590.
  77. HAYUDINI, ALDIN H.; Jolo, Sulu; May 08, 1997; Roll No. 41814.
  78. HAYUDINI, PARAJA G.; Jolo, Sulu; June 19, 1974; Roll No. 25073.
  79. HUSSIN, FAIZAL U.; Simunul, Tawitawi; June 10, 1975; Roll No. 26055.
  80. IBNOHAJIL, HASSAN T.; Balimbing, Tawi-Tawi; October 09, 1986; Roll No. 34442.
  81. IBRAHIM, ABDULCADIR T.; Siasi, Sulu; April 30, 1977; Roll No. 26972.
  82. INDANAN, HAYUDINI H.; Indanan, Sulu; March 16, 1971; Roll No. 23617.
  83. ISMAEL, BAGIS S.; Jolo, Sulu; April 20, 1978; Roll No. 28436.
  84. ISMAEL, HARUN B.; Sitangkai, Tawi-Tawi; March 14, 1979; Roll No. 29308.
  85. ISNANI, ASAALI S.; Jolo, Sulu; January 18, 1954; Roll No. 5561.
  86. ISSAN, SAWADJAAN K.; Jolo, Sulu; April 27, 1985; Roll No. 33616.
  87. IZQUIERDO, MUSSOLINI S.; Jolo, Sulu; March 01, 1958; Roll No. 13075.
  88. JAAFAR, NUR G.; Sibutu, Sulu; June 22, 1973; Roll No. 24641.
  89. JAINAL, OMBRA T.; Siasi, Sulu; June 09, 1975; Roll No. 25721.
  90. JAJURIE, RAISSA H.; Jolo, Sulu; May 03, 1995; Roll No. 40219.
  91. JALAMBO, ABDULMAJID; Parang, Sulu; January 26, 1961; Roll No. 15188.
  92. JALAMBO, JULPIHIR U.; Jolo, Sulu; April 11, 1996; Roll No. 40706.
  93. JAMASALI, RAMON RJ.; Siasi, Sulu; March 09, 1972; Roll No. 23773.
  94. JAMSANI, ROHERMIA J.; Jolo, Sulu; May 08, 1997; Roll No. 41975.
  95. JULA, ABDUA S.; Sibutu, Tawi-Tawi; May 15, 1979; Roll No. 29395.
  96. JULIE, VIDZFAR A.; Indanan, Sulu; May 12, 1999; Roll No. 44658.
  97. JUMAANI, RYAN T; Pandami, Sulu; April 26, 2007; Roll No. 53175.
  98. KHO, JR., ANTONIO T.; Jolo, Sulu; June 04, 1992; Roll No. 37665.
  99. KONG, ENGDIAN I.; Siasi, Sulu; March 05, 1968; Roll No. 22043.
  100. KONG, ORLANDO V.; Siasi, Sulu; April 27, 1976; Roll No. 26776.
  101. KONG, JR., DAVID V.; Siasi, Sulu; March 14, 1972; Roll No. 24216.
  102. KULAYAN, JAMAR M.; Siasi, Sulu; May 05, 1998; Roll No. 42828.
  103. LAO, JAMES T.; Jolo, Sulu; May 13, 1980; Roll No. 30700.
  104. LIM, JOHN ANTHONY L; Jolo, Sulu; May 12, 2006; Roll No. 52784.
  105. LIM, ARTHUR D.; Siasi, Sulu; March 25, 1970; Roll No. 23033.
  106. LIM, CAUTI S.; Jolo, Sulu; January 19, 1954; Roll No. 6331.
  107. LIM, ROBERT E.; Bongao, Tawi-tawi; May 22, 1980; Roll No. 30757.
  108. LIM, ROGER J.; Siasi, Sulu; March 06, 1968; Roll No. 22166.
  109. LORENA, JOSE I.; Pang-Pang, Tapul, Sulu; April 27, 1989; Roll No. 35725.
  110. LUKMAN, ABDUL-HAMID M.; Jolo, Sulu; January 20, 1955; Roll No. 7330.
  111. LUTIAN, GAFAR E.; Jolo, Sulu; June 04, 1992; Roll No. 37858.
  112. MALDISA, ABDULATIP D.; Maimbung, Sulu; April 30, 1977; Roll No. 27048.
  113. MALIK, NABDAR J.; Jolo, Sulu; January 23, 1967; Roll No. 21195.
  114. MALLI, ABRAHAM M.; Parang, Sulu; March 19, 1965; Roll No. 20395.
  115. MANULON, MAQTAHAR L.; Sapa-Sapa, Tawi-Tawi; May 04, 2000; Roll No. 45022
  116. MEMORACION, SALVADOR A.; Jolo, Sulu; March 08, 1957; Roll No. 10996.
  117. MOHAMMAD, ABDULGAFAR A.; Jolo, Sulu; August 02, 1988; Roll No. 35416.
  118. NAVARRETE, AURORA P.; Jolo, Sulu; March 09, 1957; Roll No. 11339.
  119. NUEGA, BENJAMIN S.; Jolo, Sulu; March 22, 1966; Roll No. 21085.
  120. OBSEQUIO, MANUEL T.; Jolo, Sulu; March 02, 1956; Roll No. 10099.
  121. OMAR BASA, LIASIN A.; Luuk, Sulu; March 08, 1972; Roll No. 23734.
  122. PAKAM, ABDULMOIN M.; Parang, Sulu; April 27, 1989; Roll No. 35879.
  123. QUE, JR., THOMAS T.; Jolo, Sulu; May 14, 1993; Roll No. 38681.
  124. QUIJANO, DEUSDEDIT B.; Siasi, Sulu; May 11, 1959; Roll No. 13757.
  125. RAGUDO, AMY BELEN W.; Jolo, Sulu; May 28, 1988; Roll No. 35201.
  126. RASUL, ABRAHAM; Jolo, Sulu; January 26, 1952; Roll No. 3137.
  127. RASUL, GAMBRA D.; Jolo, Sulu; March 02, 1960; Roll No. 14341.
  128. RASUL, JAINAL D.; Jolo, Sulu; March 02, 1956; Roll No. 9670.
  129. RASUL, JR., JAINAL T.; Jolo, Sulu; April 28, 1989; Roll No. 36026.
  130. REYES, LORENZO R.; Buan, Tawi-Tawi; May 05, 1982; Roll No. 31492.
  131. SADAIN, MEHOL K.; Jolo, Sulu; May 30, 1987; Roll No. 34515.
  132. SAHIBBIL, GULAMURRASID R.; Jolo, Sulu; April 20, 1978; Roll No. 28259.
  133. SAIPUDIN, ARTHUR L.; Siasi, Sulu; May 07, 1982; Roll No. 31778.
  134. SAIPUDIN, IRVING L.; Siasi, Sulu; May 08, 1980; Roll No. 29909.
  135. SAKKAM, AKMAD A.; Indanan, Sulu; March 09, 1972; Roll No. 23838.
  136. SALI, AL HARITH D.; Jolo, Sulu; May 07, 1999; Roll No. 44118.
  137. SALIALAM, JALILUL H.; Jolo, Sulu; July 06, 1964; Roll No. 19622.
  138. SARAJAN, MOHAMMADJAN M.; Laum, Tabauan, Sulu; February 23, 1962; Roll No. 17191.
  139. SAYDIL, AL-KHAIZAR A; Jolo, Sulu; April 26, 2007; Roll No. 53178.
  140. SIBULAN, MELTINO J; Jolo, Sulu; April 30, 2007; Roll No. 53900
  141. SCHUCK, AHMAD A.; Jolo, Sulu; March 21, 1967; Roll No. 21652.
  142. SOBREVIÑAS, FRANCIS V.; Jolo, Sulu; June 18, 1974; Roll No. 24922.
  143. SUAREZ, VIVENCIO C.; Jolo, Sulu; April 01, 1953; Roll No. 4111.
  144. SULAY, CARLO D.; Jolo, Sulu; March 20, 2003; Roll No. 47854.
  145. SUSUKAN, MUTALIB K.; Siasi, Sulu; May 04, 1977; Roll No. 27474.
  146. TAHIL, AMILHAMJA M.; Jolo, Sulu; January 19, 1954; Roll No. 6330.
  147. TALLOW, JR., ADAMIN; Parang, Sulu; May 16, 1950; Roll No. 1858.
  148. TAMMANG, ASANI S.; Panamas, Sulu; April 19, 1978; Roll No. 27975.
  149. TAN, ALVIN L.; Jolo, Sulu; June 28, 1960; Roll No. 15008.
  150. TAN, ANCHETA K.; Siassi, Sulu; March 20, 1967; Roll No. 21531.
  151. TAN, JAMES Q.; Siasi, Sulu; May 09, 1980; Roll No. 30215.
  152. TAN, NABIL A.; Jolo, Sulu; May 10, 1982; Roll No. 32155.
  153. TAN, ROMEO I.; Jolo, Sulu; May 05, 1981; Roll No. 31350.
  154. TEE, WILSON L.; Siasi, Sulu; May 07, 1982; Roll No. 31915.
  155. TILLAH, IDE C.; Siasi, Sulu; March 17, 1965; Roll No. 20034.
  156. TINGKAHAN, TETTYWANGSA L.; Parang, Sulu; May 05, 1999; Roll No. 43432.
  157. TULAWIE, RENE I.; Buntod, Jolo, Sulu; May 12, 1959; Roll No. 13981.
  158. UCKUNG, YUSOP J.; Jolo, Sulu; March 14, 1994; Roll No. 38850.
  159. ULAMA, ULKA T.; Semunul, Sulu; January 26, 1961; Roll No. 15428.
  160. USMAN, HAMJAN A.; Jolo, Sulu; March 16, 1965; Roll No. 19658.
  161. USSAM, ALSAD N.; Tawi-tawi, Sulu; March 09, 1957; Roll No. 11365.
  162. UTTU ANNI, INDANAN M.; Sulu; March 08, 1957; Roll No. 10995.
  163. VILLARANTE, ROMEO C.; Jolo, Sulu; April 27, 1995; Roll No. 39674.
  164. YANGA, ARMANDO A.; Jolo, Sulu; June 20, 1974; Roll No. 25323.
  165. YAP, REYNALDO S.; Jolo, Sulu; March 08, 1957; Roll No. 10629.
  166. YNAWAT, NAZIR H.; Luuk, Sulu; May 10, 1991; Roll No. 37480.


Who is Ben Rodriguez?

Born on September 17, 1923, in Jolo, Sulu, Ben F. Rodriguez spent six decades of his life in the profession of journalism.

An alumnus of Sulu High School, he started his collegiate education at Silliman University, Dumaguete City.

In the middle of his collegiate education, Rodriguez had to stop with the outbreak of World War II. He was conferred the Purple Heart, a United States military award. He subsequently completed his Bachelor of Science and Literature degree, major in journalism, at the University of Santo Tomas (UST) in 1949.

After graduating from UST, Rodriguez, popularly known as Mang Ben, started his career in journalism as a cub reporter of the Manila Bulletin. He covered virtually every area – the airport, Customs, weather bureau, police, City Hall, government corporations, the courts, Senate, and Malacañang. He also served as provincial news editor, deskman, and news editor.

In 1972, he assumed the Editor-in-Chief position of Bulletin Today, a position he held up to 1983.

From 1986 to 2004, he served again as Editor-in-Chief of Manila Bulletin until he retired in 2004. His connection with the Manila Bulletin did not end, however, as he continued to serve as a member of the Board of Directors.

Mang Ben was conferred numerous awards, including Outstanding Alumnus in the field of journalism, from the University of Santo Tomas, Silliman Outstanding Alumnus in Journalism, and an honorary Doctorate in Journalism from the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila. He served as President of the National Press Club for two terms – 1982-83 and 1983-84.

Who is Shaldilyn Bangsaja?

Shaldilyn Bangsaja was born in Jolo, Sulu. When she was in Third Grade, the worsening socio-political unrest in the Province drove her family to relocate her to Zamboanga City to stay with relatives. There she continued her studies and eventually found…