Thursday, November 25, 2010

Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Court of Appeals

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

G.R. No. 122191 October 8, 1998

COURT OF APPEALS, MILAGROS P. MORADA and HON. RODOLFO A. ORTIZ, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 89, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, respondents.


The defendant Saudi Arabian Airlines hired the Filipina flight attendant on January 21, 1988.

On April 27, 1990, while on a lay-over in Jakarta, Indonesia, plaintiff went to a disco dance with fellow crew members Thamer Al-Gazzawi and Allah Al-Gazzawi, both Saudi nationals. Because it was almost morning when they returned to their hotels, they agreed to have breakfast together at the room of Thamer.

An attempted rape occurred by Thamer to the plaintiff. Fortunately, a roomboy and several security personnel heard her cries for help and rescued her. Later, the Indonesian police came and arrested Thamer and Allah Al-Gazzawi, the latter as an accomplice.

On January 14, 1992, just when plaintiff thought that the Jakarta incident was already behind her, her superiors requested her to see Mr. Ali Meniewy, Chief Legal Officer of SAUDIA, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Meniewy brought her to the police station where the police took her passport and questioned her about the Jakarta incident. Miniewy simply stood by as the police put pressure on her to make a statement dropping the case against Thamer and Allah. Not until she agreed to do so did the police return her passport and allowed her to catch the afternoon flight out of Jeddah.

One year and a half later or on lune 16, 1993, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, a few minutes before the departure of her flight to Manila, plaintiff was not allowed to board the plane and instead ordered to take a later flight to Jeddah to see Mr. Miniewy.

When she did, a certain Khalid of the SAUDIA office brought her to a Saudi court where she was asked to sign a document written in Arabic. They told her that this was necessary to close the case against Thamer and Allah. As it turned out, plaintiff signed a notice to her to appear before the court on June 27, 1993. Plaintiff then returned to Manila.

On July 3, 1993 a SAUDIA legal officer again escorted plaintiff to the same court where the judge, to her astonishment and shock, rendered a decision, translated to her in English, sentencing her to five months imprisonment and to 286 lashes. Only then did she realize that the Saudi court had tried her, together with Thamer and Allah, for what happened in Jakarta. The court found plaintiff guilty of (1) adultery; (2) going to a disco, dancing and listening to the music in violation of Islamic laws; and (3) socializing with the male crew, in contravention of Islamic tradition.

Facing conviction, private respondent sought the help of her employer, petitioner SAUDIA. Unfortunately, she was denied any assistance. She then asked the Philippine Embassy in Jeddah to help her while her case is on appeal. Meanwhile, to pay for her upkeep, she worked on the domestic flight of SAUDIA, while Thamer and Allah continued to serve in the international

Because she was wrongfully convicted, the Prince of Makkah dismissed the case against her and allowed her to leave Saudi Arabia. Shortly before her return to Manila, she was terminated from the service by SAUDIA, without her being informed of the cause.

Respondent's Action to File the Case in the Philippines

On November 23, 1993, Morada filed a Complaint for damages against SAUDIA, and Khaled Al-Balawi ("Al-Balawi"), its country manager.

The trial court issued an Order dated August 29, 1994 denying the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint filed by Saudia. Respondent Judge subsequently issued another Order dated February 2, 1995, denying SAUDIA's Motion for Reconsideration.
Consequently, on February 20, 1995, SAUDIA filed its Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order with the Court of Appeals.

Respondent Court of Appeals promulgated a Resolution with Temporary Restraining Order dated February 23, 1995, prohibiting the respondent Judge from further conducting any proceeding, unless otherwise directed, in the interim.

In another Resolution promulgated on September 27, 1995, now assailed, the appellate court denied SAUDIA's Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction dated February 18, 1995.

However, during the pendency of the instant Petition, respondent Court of Appeals rendered the Decision dated April 10, 1996, now also assailed. It ruled that the Philippines is an appropriate forum considering that the Amended Complaint's basis for recovery of damages is Article 21 of the Civil Code, and thus, clearly within the jurisdiction of respondent Court. It further held that certiorari is not the proper remedy in a denial of a Motion to Dismiss, inasmuch as the petitioner should have proceeded to trial, and in case of an adverse ruling, find recourse in an appeal.

On May 7, 1996, SAUDIA filed its Supplemental Petition for Review with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order dated April 30, 1996, given due course by this Court. After both parties submitted their Memoranda, the instant case is now deemed submitted for decision.


a) Whether the Respondent Appellate Court erred in holding that the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City has jurisdiction to hear and try the civil case?

b) Whether the Respondent Appellate Court erred in ruling that in this case Philippine law should govern?


As to the choice of applicable law, we note that choice-of-law problems seek to answer two important questions: (1) What legal system should control a given situation where some of the significant facts occurred in two or more states; and (2) to what extent should the chosen legal system regulate the situation.
Several theories have been propounded in order to identify the legal system that should ultimately control. Although ideally, all choice-of-law theories should intrinsically advance both notions of justice and predictability, they do not always do so. The forum is then faced with the problem of deciding which of these two important values should be stressed.

Before a choice can be made, it is necessary for us to determine under what category a certain set of facts or rules fall. This process is known as "characterization", or the "doctrine of qualification". It is the "process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule." The purpose of "characterization" is to enable the forum to select the proper law.

Our starting point of analysis here is not a legal relation, but a factual situation, event, or operative fact. An essential element of conflict rules is the indication of a "test" or "connecting factor" or "point of contact". Choice-of-law rules invariably consist of a factual relationship (such as property right, contract claim) and a connecting factor or point of contact, such as the situs of the res, the place of celebration, the place of performance, or the place of wrongdoing. 58
Note that one or more circumstances may be present to serve as the possible test for the determination of the applicable law. These "test factors" or "points of contact" or "connecting factors" could be any of the following:

(1) The nationality of a person, his domicile, his residence, his place of sojourn, or his origin;

(2) the seat of a legal or juridical person, such as a corporation;

(3) the situs of a thing, that is, the place where a thing is, or is deemed to be situated. In particular, the lex situs is decisive when real rights are involved;

(4) the place where an act has been done, the locus actus, such as the place where a contract has been made, a marriage celebrated, a will signed or a tort committed. The lex loci actus is particularly important in contracts and torts;

(5) the place where an act is intended to come into effect, e.g., the place of performance of contractual duties, or the place where a power of attorney is to be exercised;

(6) the intention of the contracting parties as to the law that should govern their agreement, the lex loci intentionis;

(7) the place where judicial or administrative proceedings are instituted or done. The lex fori — the law of the forum — is particularly important because, as we have seen earlier, matters of "procedure" not going to the substance of the claim involved are governed by it; and because the lex fori applies whenever the content of the otherwise applicable foreign law is excluded from application in a given case for the reason that it falls under one of the exceptions to the applications of foreign law; and

(8) the flag of a ship, which in many cases is decisive of practically all legal relationships of the ship and of its master or owner as such. It also covers contractual relationships particularly contracts of affreightment. (Emphasis ours).

Lastly, no error could be imputed to the respondent appellate court in upholding the trial court's denial of defendant's (herein petitioner's) motion to dismiss the case. Not only was jurisdiction in order and venue properly laid, but appeal after trial was obviously available, and expeditious trial itself indicated by the nature of the case at hand. Indubitably, the Philippines is the state intimately concerned with the ultimate outcome of the case below, not just for the benefit of all the litigants, but also for the vindication of the country's system of law and justice in a transnational setting. With these guidelines in mind, the trial court must proceed to try and adjudge the case in the light of relevant Philippine law, with due consideration of the foreign element or elements involved. Nothing said herein, of course, should be construed as prejudging the results of the case in any manner whatsoever.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Civil Case No. Q-93-18394 entitled "Milagros P. Morada vs. Saudi Arabia Airlines" is hereby REMANDED to Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89 for further proceedings.


Tuesday, November 23, 2010

In the Matter of Charges of Plagiarism Against Assoc Justice Del Castillo

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC October 15, 2010


This case is concerned with charges that, in preparing a decision for the Court, a designated member plagiarized the works of certain authors and twisted their meanings to support the decision.


On April 28, 2010, the Court rendered judgment dismissing petitioners’ action. Justice Mariano C. del Castillo wrote the decision for the Court on the case of petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya and about 70 other elderly women, all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, filed with the Court in G.R. No. 162230 a special civil action of certiorari with application for preliminary mandatory injunction against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Office of the Solicitor General.

The Court essentially gave two reasons for its decision: it cannot grant the petition because, first, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative under the Constitution and the law to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claim against Japan; and, second, the Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to espouse their claims.

On June 9, 2010, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision. More than a month later on July 18, 2010, counsel for petitioners, Atty. Herminio Harry Roque, Jr., announced in his online blog that his clients would file a supplemental petition "detailing plagiarism committed by the court" under the second reason it gave for dismissing the petition and that "these stolen passages were also twisted to support the court’s erroneous conclusions that the Filipino comfort women of World War Two have no further legal remedies." The media gave publicity to Atty. Roque’s announcement.

On July 19, 2010, petitioners filed the supplemental motion for reconsideration that Atty. Roque announced. It accused Justice Del Castillo of "manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism" when he wrote the decision for the Court and of "twisting the true intents of the plagiarized sources … to suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment."

They charged Justice Del Castillo of copying without acknowledgement certain passages from three foreign articles:

a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009);

b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2006); and

c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).

Petitioners claim that the integrity of the Court’s deliberations in the case has been put into question by Justice Del Castillo’s fraud. The Court should thus "address and disclose to the public the truth about the manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism" that resulted in gross prejudice to the petitioners.

Because of the publicity that the supplemental motion for reconsideration generated, Justice Del Castillo circulated a letter to his colleagues, subsequently verified, stating that when he wrote the decision for the Court he had the intent to attribute all sources used in it. He said in the pertinent part:

It must be emphasized that there was every intention to attribute all sources, whenever due. At no point was there ever any malicious intent to appropriate another’s work as our own. We recall that this ponencia was thrice included in the Agenda of the Court en banc. It was deliberated upon during the Baguio session on April 13, 2010, April 20, 2010 and in Manila on April 27, 2010. Each time, suggestions were made which necessitated major revisions in the draft. Sources were re-studied, discussions modified, passages added or deleted. The resulting decision comprises 34 pages with 78 footnotes.

Twisted Foreign Materials

On July 27, 2010, the Court En Banc referred the charges against Justice Del Castillo to its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards, chaired by the Chief Justice, for investigation and recommendation. The Chief Justice designated retired Justice Jose C. Vitug to serve as consultant of the Committee. He graciously accepted.

In the meantime, on July 19, 2010, Evan Criddle wrote on his blog that he and his co-author Evan Fox-Descent (referred to jointly as Criddle-Descent) learned of alleged plagiarism involving their work but Criddle’s concern, after reading the supplemental motion for reconsideration, was the Court’s conclusion that prohibitions against sexual slavery are not jus cogens or internationally binding norms that treaties cannot diminish.

On July 23, 2010, Dr. Mark Ellis wrote the Court expressing concern that in mentioning his work, the Court "may have misread the argument [he] made in the article and employed them for cross purposes." Dr. Ellis said that he wrote the article precisely to argue for appropriate legal remedy for victims of war crimes.

On August 8, 2010, after the referral of the matter to the Committee for investigation, the Dean of the University of the Philippines (U.P.) College of Law publicized a Statement from his faculty, claiming that the Vinuya decision was "an extraordinary act of injustice" and a "singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land." The statement said that Justice Del Castillo had a "deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors’ work," and that the Court’s decision amounted to "an act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to mislead and deceive."

On August 18, 2010 Mr. Christian J. Tams wrote Chief Justice Renato C. Corona that, although relevant sentences in the Court’s decision were taken from his work, he was given generic reference only in the footnote and in connection with a citation from another author (Bruno Simma) rather than with respect to the passages taken from his work. He thought that the form of referencing was inappropriate. Mr. Tams was also concerned that the decision may have used his work to support an approach to erga omnes concept (obligations owed by individual States to the community of nations) that is not consistent with what he advocated.

On August 26, 2010, the Committee heard the parties’ submissions in the summary manner of administrative investigations. Counsels from both sides were given ample time to address the Committee and submit their evidence. The Committee queried them on these.

The researcher demonstrated by Power Point presentation how the attribution of the lifted passages to the writings of Criddle-Descent and Ellis, found in the beginning drafts of her report to Justice Del Castillo, were unintentionally deleted. She tearfully expressed remorse at her "grievous mistake" and grief for having "caused an enormous amount of suffering for Justice Del Castillo and his family."

On the other hand, addressing the Committee in reaction to the researcher’s explanation, counsel for petitioners insisted that lack of intent is not a defense in plagiarism since all that is required is for a writer to acknowledge that certain words or language in his work were taken from another’s work. Counsel invoked the Court’s ruling in University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine, arguing that standards on plagiarism in the academe should apply with more force to the judiciary.

After the hearing, the Committee gave the parties ten days to file their respective memoranda. They filed their memoranda in due course. Subsequently after deliberation, the Committee submitted its unanimous findings and recommendations to the Court.


1. Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case, Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.

2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to make it appear that such works supported the Court’s position in the Vinuya decision.


Because of the pending motion for reconsideration in the Vinuya case, the Court like its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards will purposely avoid touching the merits of the Court’s decision in that case or the soundness or lack of soundness of the position it has so far taken in the same. The Court will deal, not with the essential merit or persuasiveness of the foreign author’s works, but how the decision that Justice Del Castillo wrote for the Court appropriated parts of those works and for what purpose the decision employed the same.

At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft of another person’s language, thoughts, or ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly understood according to Webster, is "to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one’s own." The passing off of the work of another as one’s own is thus an indispensable element of plagiarism.

No Misconduct

On occasions judges and justices have mistakenly cited the wrong sources, failed to use quotation marks, inadvertently omitted necessary information from footnotes or endnotes. But these do not, in every case, amount to misconduct. Only errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are subject of disciplinary action. This is not the case here. Justice Del Castillo’s acts or omissions were not shown to have been impelled by any of such disreputable motives. If the rule were otherwise, no judge or justice, however competent, honest, or dedicated he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary with an unblemished record.

No Inexcusable Negligence

Finally, petitioners assert that, even if they were to concede that the omission was the result of plain error, Justice Del Castillo is nonetheless guilty of gross inexcusable negligence. They point out that he has full control and supervision over his researcher and should not have surrendered the writing of the decision to the latter.

But this assumes that Justice Del Castillo abdicated the writing of the Vinuya decision to his researcher, which is contrary to the evidence adduced during the hearing. As his researcher testified, the Justice set the direction that the research and study were to take by discussing the issues with her, setting forth his position on those issues, and reviewing and commenting on the study that she was putting together until he was completely satisfied with it. In every sense, Justice Del Castillo was in control of the writing of the report to the Court, which report eventually became the basis for the decision, and determined its final outcome.


Since the above circumstances appear to be related to separate en banc matter concerning the supposed Faculty statement, there is a need for the Committee to turn over the signed copy of the same to the en banc for its consideration in relation to that matter.

WHEREFORE, in view of all of the above, the Court:

1. DISMISSES for lack of merit petitioner Vinuya, et al.’s charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano C. del Castillo;

2. DIRECTS the Public Information Office to send copies of this decision to Professors Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Dr. Mark Ellis, and Professor Christian J. Tams at their known addresses;

3. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide all court attorneys involved in legal research and reporting with copies of this decision and to enjoin them to avoid editing errors committed in the Vinuya case while using the existing computer program especially when the volume of citations and footnoting is substantial; and

4. Finally, DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to acquire the necessary software for use by the Court that can prevent future lapses in citations and attributions.

Further, the Court DIRECTS the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards to turn over to the en banc the dummy as well as the signed copy of petitioners’ Exhibit J, entitled "Restoring Integrity," a statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law for the en banc’s consideration in relation to the separate pending matter concerning that supposed Faculty statement.


Monday, November 22, 2010

Province of North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain

Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!

Province of North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
G.R. No. 1833591,
October 14, 2008



Subject of these consolidated cases is the extent of the powers of the President in pursuing the peace process. While the facts surrounding this controversy center on the armed conflict in Mindanao between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the legal issue involved has a bearing on all areas in the country where there has been a long-standing armed conflict. Yet again, the Court is tasked to perform a delicate balancing act. It must uncompromisingly delineate the bounds within which the President may lawfully exercise her discretion, but it must do so in strict adherence to the Constitution, lest its ruling unduly restricts the freedom of action vested by that same Constitution in the Chief Executive precisely to enable her to pursue the peace process effectively.


On August 5, 2008, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MILF, through the Chairpersons of their respective peace negotiating panels, were scheduled to sign a Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The signing of the MOA-AD between the GRP and the MILF was not to materialize, however, for upon motion of petitioners, specifically those who filed their cases before the scheduled signing of the MOA-AD, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the GRP from signing the same.

The MOA-AD was preceded by a long process of negotiation and the concluding of several prior agreements between the two parties beginning in 1996, when the GRP-MILF peace negotiations began. On July 18, 1997, the GRP and MILF Peace Panels signed the Agreement on General Cessation of Hostilities. The following year, they signed the General Framework of Agreement of Intent on August 27, 1998.

On July 23, 2008, the Province of North Cotabato and Vice-Governor Emmanuel Piñol filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No. 183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order. Invoking the right to information on matters of public concern, petitioners seek to compel respondents to disclose and furnish them the complete and official copies of the MOA-AD including its attachments, and to prohibit the slated signing of the MOA-AD, pending the disclosure of the contents of the MOA-AD and the holding of a public consultation thereon. Supplementarily, petitioners pray that the MOA-AD be declared unconstitutional.


1. Whether the petitions have become moot and academic

(i) insofar as the mandamus aspect is concerned, in view of the disclosure of official copies of the final draft of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA); and

(ii) insofar as the prohibition aspect involving the Local Government Units is concerned, if it is considered that consultation has become fait accompli with the finalization of the draft;

2. Whether the constitutionality and the legality of the MOA is ripe for adjudication;

3. Whether respondent Government of the Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it negotiated and initiated the MOA vis-à-vis ISSUES Nos. 4 and 5;

4. Whether there is a violation of the people's right to information on matters of public concern (1987 Constitution, Article III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of full disclosure of all its transactions involving public interest (1987 Constitution, Article II, Sec. 28) including public consultation under Republic Act No. 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE OF 1991)[;]

If it is in the affirmative, whether prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is an appropriate remedy;

5. Whether by signing the MOA, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines would be BINDING itself

a) to create and recognize the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) as a separate state, or a juridical, territorial or political subdivision not recognized by law;

b) to revise or amend the Constitution and existing laws to conform to the MOA;

c) to concede to or recognize the claim of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front for ancestral domain in violation of Republic Act No. 8371 (THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES RIGHTS ACT OF 1997), particularly Section 3(g) & Chapter VII (DELINEATION, RECOGNITION OF ANCESTRAL DOMAINS)[;]

If in the affirmative, whether the Executive Branch has the authority to so bind the Government of the Republic of the Philippines;

6. Whether the inclusion/exclusion of the Province of North Cotabato, Cities of Zamboanga, Iligan and Isabela, and the Municipality of Linamon, Lanao del Norte in/from the areas covered by the projected Bangsamoro Homeland is a justiciable question; and

7. Whether desistance from signing the MOA derogates any prior valid commitments of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines.


The main body of the MOA-AD is divided into four strands, namely, Concepts and Principles, Territory, Resources, and Governance.

The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies. Courts decline to issue advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems, or mere academic questions. The limitation of the power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies defines the role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power, to assure that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of government.

As the petitions involve constitutional issues which are of paramount public interest or of transcendental importance, the Court grants the petitioners, petitioners-in-intervention and intervening respondents the requisite locus standi in keeping with the liberal stance adopted in David v. Macapagal-Arroyo.

Contrary to the assertion of respondents that the non-signing of the MOA-AD and the eventual dissolution of the GRP Peace Panel mooted the present petitions, the Court finds that the present petitions provide an exception to the "moot and academic" principle in view of (a) the grave violation of the Constitution involved; (b) the exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest; (c) the need to formulate controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (d) the fact that the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.

The MOA-AD is a significant part of a series of agreements necessary to carry out the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace signed by the government and the MILF back in June 2001. Hence, the present MOA-AD can be renegotiated or another one drawn up that could contain similar or significantly dissimilar provisions compared to the original.

That the subject of the information sought in the present cases is a matter of public concern faces no serious challenge. In fact, respondents admit that the MOA-AD is indeed of public concern. In previous cases, the Court found that the regularity of real estate transactions entered in the Register of Deeds, the need for adequate notice to the public of the various laws, the civil service eligibility of a public employee, the proper management of GSIS funds allegedly used to grant loans to public officials, the recovery of the Marcoses' alleged ill-gotten wealth, and the identity of party-list nominees, among others, are matters of public concern. Undoubtedly, the MOA-AD subject of the present cases is of public concern, involving as it does the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, which directly affects the lives of the public at large.

In sum, the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process committed grave abuse of discretion when he failed to carry out the pertinent consultation process, as mandated by E.O. No. 3, Republic Act No. 7160, and Republic Act No. 8371. The furtive process by which the MOA-AD was designed and crafted runs contrary to and in excess of the legal authority, and amounts to a whimsical, capricious, oppressive, arbitrary and despotic exercise thereof. It illustrates a gross evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined.

The MOA-AD cannot be reconciled with the present Constitution and laws. Not only its specific provisions but the very concept underlying them, namely, the associative relationship envisioned between the GRP and the BJE, are unconstitutional, for the concept presupposes that the associated entity is a state and implies that the same is on its way to independence.

The Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain Aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 is declared contrary to law and the Constitution.

I Dream of "A Better Philippines!"

“The Philippines’ economic miracle has come characterized by a strong political structure mandated by an amended constitution that is duly supported by the Filipino people. This is a result of an honest and clean automated plebiscite. This is cognizant now based from responsive political processes that promote transparency and accountability, electoral reforms, people’s support to the government, social equity, and a strong territorial integrity.”

A Competitive Philippines

The Philippine economic miracle is now felt. Its battle against corruption in this decade looks very optimistic. In 2016, the Philippines has achieved 134th place among 180 countries surveyed by the Transparency International-Corruption Perception Index. The improvement in the corruption rating is manifested by the unprecedented 100% yearly increase in foreign investments in three (3) years from 2014 to 2016.

A truthful Philippine government means that it totally and seriously embraces transparency and accountability. The public has now the right to know via the Internet and new media major laws of various government agencies that reflect their wise actions, decisions, and transactions which are now widely posted on the net. Because of this stride, government officials and employees have become accountable of their actions subject to scrutiny of free press and the public. Thus, a culture of professionalism and technocracy remains intact in many bureaucracies and private sectors.

Enhanced Electoral Reforms

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has been revamped to perform competency and credibility. Traditional elitism has paved way to the reduction of political dynasties based from results of the 2016 elections. The candidates have espoused good governance with right platform, qualifications, and competence. Election laws are etched in the minds of candidates, voters, and the arbitrators. They deem that these laws are made tailored to stringently punish or sanction violators of the law.

There is now a high election turnout due to speedy and enhanced election automation both in the national and local elections. Because of credible results, the international community has applauded this great leap in the Philippine's electoral process. The voters are considered smart in choosing their candidates. They choose their leaders based from platforms and not by personality. The trust in the election process and that institutions that protect their votes has become credible. The will of the people is suddenly reflected in the ballot with integrity, following the principle of vox populi est suprema lex (the voice of the people is the supreme law).

Cognizance of the contributions made by massive information and education drive on election process, the people have appreciated the efforts of the COMELEC, teachers, and media. They taught voters especially at the grassroots level to choose conscientiously their leaders. Election automation is at its best in a decade comparable to technologically-advanced countries. The Filipino people and leaders have learned their lessons from recurring old age problem of cheating during elections.

The Road to Constitutional Reform

The Constitutional reform takes off in 2013 through a plebiscite dovetailed with peace process. The Filipino people realized to push for Constitutional Reform or Charter Change as amended by the Congress. The legality and constitutionality of the action rendered is based from the concurrence of the Supreme Court as the supreme arbiter. Two-thirds (2/3) of the joint House voted directly, without prejudicial questions whether it will be voted by both houses, jointly or separately, to amend the Constitution, which is the supreme and fundamental law of the land.

The Filipino people likely supported the government and the COMELEC to amend the Constitution. The president who has a very high trust rating supported the COMELEC which has adequate budget and strong manpower to conduct a plebiscite, despite the fact, that the public is in favor of Charter Change.

With the new Constitution, reforms in the federal form of government are now translated as good governance. There are great improvements on the national living standards and well-being of the Filipino people. They attribute this as a positive result of charter change. There are now wide reforms to attain good governance with great improvement in social, economic, and well-being of the nation. This improved the Human Development Index (HDI) of the Philippines in the world ranking, alleviating its position to 100 out of 180 countries.

Leadership by Example

With less corruption in the bureaucracy and leadership by example exemplified by the President and other public servants, the Filipino citizens are now obeying simple rules and other laws. Hence, the symbiotic actions that are taken by the government, civil society, and the whole citizenry, are such manifestations of participatory leadership.

There is political support and commitment by the politicians for every citizen to achieve the “Filipino dream” where each one of us can now dream again and achieve our dreams. Political dynasties are now positively perceived good because of good values shown through leadership by example. Nepotism is lessened in the bureaucracy, thus, equal distribution of wealth and power is now felt by the people.

A competent and qualified Ombudsman has become impartial, fair, and apolitical in the adjudication of cases. This is to truly show that the Ombudsman Office has been strengthened and is doing properly the job. The judiciary is credible in its position to strictly enforce laws on graft and corruption. henceforth, the Supreme Court and Sandiganbayan are now alerted to organize watchdogs and give teeth on its anti-corruption slogan. Lastly, the Philippines adheres to the UN Convention against Corruption as part of the law of the land by principle of Law of Incorporation in Public International Law.

Philippine’s Federal Republic

The Philippines has become a federal republic based from the newly-amended Constitution. It has retained the multi-party system which provides alternative platforms for a wider participatory-type of leadership among the elected and voting populace. However, the COMELEC as a quasi-judicial court has ruled based from standard qualifications to vying political parties including its representatives.

In 2019, an effective high-turnout of election returns is achieved because our electoral laws have transformed our culture and social values to be steadfast, efficient, and progressive. The diffusion of ideas and political ideologies brought by globalization and the advancement of technologies certainly improved our damaged culture to free our society from corruption, and certainly empower the Filipino power to choose well their leaders. Hence, the leaders they voted are now transparent and accountable.

A Well-Settled Peace Process

Cognizance of information and widespread consultation among stakeholders down to the grassroots level, negotiations have become important between the government and anti-governments (e.g. GRP-CNN and GRP-MILF). Stakeholders have understood the effects of armed conflicts and parties clamor for a peaceful settlement. There is assurance of a continuous people’s participation in the peace process; there are consultations for constructive exchanges between the government and local communities, especially on issues that affect the lives of the community.

In 2014-2016, the rehabilitation of Mindanao has been realized paving for continuous and robust direct investment. Peace negotiation is near to be realized with outmost trust and confidence. In the end, parties hope for a more peaceful resolution of conflicts between the government and anti-government parties. No new anti-government groups are formed that day on and beyond. And the principle of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Laws are observed by all the citizens.

Wealth and Power

Elitism in the Philippines has been redefined as achieved power rather than ascribed status. Because of the strength on the purchasing power of the Filipinos and the continuous positive outlook of the country’s economy, more lucrative investments are pouring in our country due to very intense culture of professionalism and technocracy. In the end, this has made the Philippines, truly a progressive nation-state.

Acknowledgement: This essay is the result of a series of workshops pioneered by the DND based from the inter-agency outputs of the Strategic Environment Assessment, in which, participants from various lead agencies share their expertise on the issues and prospects our country has experienced in the past, currently experiencing, and is about to experience through future scenarios to create an outlook. This scenario produces a dream of a wonderful Philippines which captures the emblem of a Philippines Reborn!® or a Whole New Philippines!

Pessimists and realist will certainly counter the future scenarios here. But what if we pause for a while, imagine and dream, and immersing ourselves in the movie-inspired Inception. But with a great twist that tomorrow will be the greatest generation for the Filipinos! Hold on to our dreams of a better Philippines :-)

Syllabus in Anthropology 225 (2ND SEM): Introduction to Philippine Culture and Society

Copyright © 2010 by Chester B. Cabalza. All Rights Reserved.

Philippine Culture and Society
Saturday 9:00 AM - 12:00 NN
Second Semester, 2010-2011 (Graduate Course)
Exclusively for Master in International Studies Students
Prof. Chester B. Cabalza, MA

I. Course Description

Culture in its classic definition by English anthropologist Edward Tylor (1871) is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, law, morals, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by a person as a member of society (Miller, 2002:12).

This course aims to provide students with basic knowledge and appreciation of Philippine culture and society through the use of anthropological perspectives.

The course will give a general survey of the major cultural, social, historical, political, and economic processes in the country through an examination of the cultural changes in Filipino values and character.

Through this course, the students will gather first-hand experience of Philippine culture by doing class exercises through simple ethnographies and fieldwork.

The content of this Course involves the study of the following subjects:

- Theories and Approaches of anthropological perspectives in understanding Philippine Culture and Society;

- Understanding the prehistory and ethno-history in the Philippines of the various archaeological, anthropological and historical processes;

- To identify explanatory frameworks that could lead to a deeper understanding of the cultural factors affecting Philippine Culture and Society during the country’s colonization period, post-war and post-independence, and the contemporary period;

- To be critical in analyzing anthropological studies on Philippine value system, Filipino family and kinship, Filipino indigenous ethnic communities, and other important cultural beliefs in the country.

- To enable the student to apply the concepts and ideas on a research problem mutually agreed upon by the student and teacher.

II. Course Objectives

Upon the completion of this Course, a student is expected to have:

- obtained a comprehension of the various frameworks and levels of analysis of Philippine Culture and Society;

- acquired an appreciation and understanding of the cultural factors influencing the internal and external environment of the country from Spanish, American and Japanese colonial periods in the Philippines, to post-war and succeeding administrations by Filipino presidents, and the contemporary and global Filipino diaspora; and

- gained an insight into the social role of culture in selected indigenous ethnic communities in the Philippines, and in rural and urban societies in the country.

III. Course Requirements


Long Examination 30%
Class Project (Documentary) 30%
Reports/Ethnography 20%
Seminar Paper 20%

IV. Course Outline

Week 1 (Nov 13, 2010)

1. Introduction: Scope, Coverage, and Expectations of the Course
2. Assignments:
- Read an Ethnography on “The Barrio Folk” by Juan Flavier
- Read “Wisdom from a Rainforest: A Spiritual Journey of an Anthropologist” by Stuart Schlegel
3. Classroom Policies

A. Students are only allowed up to a maximum of three (3) unexcused absences. Beyond this number, students will be given a grade of DRP if his or her class standing is passing or 5.0 if failing.

B. Those who want to be excused from class must secure a certificate from the U.P Health Service or a letter from his/her Dean explaining the reason for the absence.

C. Students who arrive more than 20 minutes late will be marked absent for the day.

D. Turn off your mobile phones during class hours.

Week 2 (Nov 20, 2010)

1. Lecture on the Development of Anthropology in the Philippines
2. Lecture on Theories and Methods in Anthropology and the Anthropological Approaches in Writing Ethnography
3. Assignment:
- Ethnography 1: Trip to Museums in Metro Manila (National Museum, AFP & PNP Museums, Ayala Museum, George Vargas Museum, Anthropology Museum, Metropolitan Museum, etc.)
- Distribution of Reports on Philippine Prehistory

Week 3 (Nov 27, 2010)

1. Lecture on Philippine Prehistoric Society and Culture
2. Reports
- “A Study of the Animal Bones Recovered from Pits 9 and 10 at the Site of Nagsabaran in Northern Luzon, Philippines” by Phil Piper, Fredeliza Campos, and Hsiao-Chung Hung
- “Characterisation and Geological Provenance of Jasper that was Used for Debitages in the Archaeological Site of Tabon Cave, Philippines” by Patrick Schmidt
3. Discussion of Ethnography 1 (A Visit to Museum)
4. Submission of Abstract of Seminar Paper

Week 4 (Dec 4, 2010)

1. Lecture on “A Preliminary Study on Early Indian and Chinese Influences in Philippine Ethnomathematics” by Chester Cabalza
2. Lecture on "Chinese or Indian and Not Spanish Discovery of the Philippines: A New Perspective" and 'Maritime Strategies in Asia" by Chester Cabalza
3. Reports on Philippine Culture and Society during the Spanish, American, and Japanese Colonial Periods
- Group 1: Spanish Period
- Group 2: American Period
- Group 3: Japanese Period
3. Assignments:
- Ethnography 2: Ride on a Public Transportation in Metro Manila (Jeepney Ride at UP Ikot & UP Toki, LRT 1 & 2, MRT, Ferry boat along Pasig River)
- Distribution of Reports on the Philippines Indigenous Peoples

Week 5 (Dec 11, 2010)

1. Reports on the Philippines’ Indigenous Peoples
- “Distribution of Filipino Indigenous Ethnic Communities” by F. Landa Jocano
- “Indigenous Peoples and National Security” by Rudy Rodil
- “Ethnography of the Muslim Filipino” by Realidad Rolda
- “The Internationalization of Ethnic Minority Movements in the Philippines” by Nestor Castro
- “ Mouthpiece of the Bangsamoro in Southern Philippines” by Chester Cabalza
2. Lecture on “Writing the History of Non-Literate Peoples: The Case of Ayta in Bataan” by Chester Cabalza
3. Lecture on Actual Legal Cases Pertaining to IPs, Ancestral Domain, and Ethnic Minorities in the Philippines
- Sec 22, Art II, 1987 Constitution; IPRA Law (1997) or RA 8371, ILO 107 & ILO 169; UN Declaration on the rights of the IPs (2008)
- UP vs CA, Ortiz, Elizalde, Balayem, et. al., G.R.No. 97827, February 9, 1993
- Rubi vs Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 660 (1919)
- Carino vs Insular Government, 212 US 449
- Cruz vs Sec of DENR, G.R. No. 135385, December 6, 2000
- Province of North Cotabato vs GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, G.R. No. 1833591, October 14, 2008
4. Assignment:
- Ethnography 3: Celebrating Filipino Christmas and New Year Holidays or the UP Lantern Parade

Week 6 (Dec 18, 2010)

1. Field Research: Class Project

Week 7 (Jan 8, 2011)

1. Discussion of Ethnography 3
2. Assignment:
- Ethnography 4: Malling (SM North, Trinoma, Shangrila Mall, Megamall, SM MOA, Starmall, Greenbelt, Robinson’s mall, etc.)
- Distribution of Reports on Filipino Values

Week 8 (Jan 15, 2011)

1. Discussion of Ethnography 4
2. Reports:
- “The Study of Values” by Frank Lynch
- “Notion of Value in Filipino Culture” by F. Landa Jocano
- “Filipino Values” by Alfredo and Grace Roces
- “Reciprocity as a Filipino Value” by Mary Racelis
3. Lecture on “The Dimensions of the Filipino Character” by Prospero Covar

Week 9 (Jan 27, 2011)

1. WORKSHOP: Analyzing James Fallows’ proposition on “A Damaged Culture: A New Philippines” using Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats (Write-ups of future scenarios on Philippine culture and society up to years 2016-2020).
2. Assignment for Week 11 – Group Reports (Post-war to Martial Law and Post-Martial Law to Contemporary Times)

Week 10 (Jan 29, 2011)

First Long Examination

Week 11 (Feb 5, 2011)

1. Discussion on Exam Results
2. Group Reports
- Group 4: Post-War Philippines and Martial Law
- Group 5: Post-Martial Law to Contemporary Period
3. Assignments:
- Ethnography 5: Filipino Life Circle (Baptism, Debut, Wedding, Burial) or Kinship System (Family Tree)
- Distribution of Reports

Week 12 (Feb 12, 2011)

1. Reports
- “Life Circle” by Alfredo Roces”
- “The Filipino Family Confronts the Modern World” by Mary Racelis
- “State Policies and Practices around Transnational Marriages in the Philippines” by Joseph Ryan Indon
- “Marriage as a Contract and Marriage as a Status in the Philippines” by Edgardo Paras
2. Lecture on Marriage in the Philippines (Cultural, Historical, and Legal Implications; Actual Cases and Philippine Jurisprudence on Annulment, Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, and Legal Separation)
3. Discuss Ethnography 5

Week 13 (Feb 19, 2011)

1. Research Break for Approved Abstract of Seminar Paper
2. Assignments:
- Ethnography 6 Watch Filipino Movies in Cinemas or Philippine Basketball Association (PBA)Games or University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP)Games
- Distribution of Reports on Language and Culture

Week 14 (Feb 26, 2011)

1. Reports
- “Conceptual Categories in Primitive Language” by Edward Sapir
- “Language and Education: Colonial Legacy and the National Imperative” by Macario Tiu
2. Discuss Ethnography 6
3. Lecture on “Colonialism, Decadence and Orientalism: Problematizing Southeast Asian Cinema and Literature” by Chester Cabalza
4. Lecture on "Philippine Pastimes and the Making Filipino Sports Legends" by Chester Cabalza
5. Assignment:
- Ethnography 7 Trip to Quiapo Church
- Distribution of Reports on Religion, Bangungot and Filipino Caring System

Week 15 (March 5, 2011)

1. Reports
- “Folk Catholicism in the Philippines” by Frank Lynch
- “Folk Islam in the Life of Jama Mapun” by Eric Casiño
- “The Diagnosis of Disease among the Subanun of Mindanao” by Charles Frake
- “The Filipino Perspectives on Caring and a Caring Society” by Cora Anonuevo
2. Discuss Ethnography 7
3. Lecture on Legal and Actual Cases Related to Religion in the Philippines
- Sec 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution
- Aglipay vs Ruiz, 64 Phil 201 (1937)
- Islamic Da’wah Council vs Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003
- American Bible Society vs City of Manila, 181 Phil 386 (1957)
- Iglesia ni Cristo vs Court of Appeals, 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
- Victoriano vs Elizalde Rope Workers Union, 59 SCRA 54 (1974)

Week 16 (March 12, 2011)

Reporters of Seminar Papers

Week 17 (March 19, 2011)

1. Presentation of Class Project (Documentary)
2. Integration

Week 18 (March 26, 2011)

Final Examination

Syllabus in Anthropology 124: Peoples of Southeast Asia and Oceania

Copyright © 2010 by Chester B. Cabalza. All Rights Reserved.

Peoples of Southeast Asia and Oceania
Wed/Fri 5:30-7:00 PM
Second Semester, 2010-2011
Prof. Chester B. Cabalza, MA

I. Course Description

This course aims to provide students with basic knowledge about Southeast Asian and Oceanic cultures through the use of anthropological perspectives.

The course will give a general survey of the major cultural, social, historical, political, and economic processes in the region through an examination of the internal dynamics in a particular country in Southeast Asia and the Oceanic regions.

Furthermore, this is also a study of Southeast Asians and Oceanic peoples’ responses to external developments and influences that had shaped the ‘Austronesian” culture.

The content of this Course involves the study of the following subjects:

- Approaches of anthropological perspectives in studying the geography and peopling of Southeast Asia and Oceania;

- Understanding the early and paleolithic culture and the neolithic revolution of this region;

- The contribution of ‘Austronesian’ culture in the world;

- To gauge basic understanding and identify explanatory frameworks that could lead to a deeper understanding of the various archaeological, anthropological and historical processes that shaped Southeast Asian and Oceanic developments from the ancient past to the contemporary times; and

- To enable the student to apply the concepts and ideas on a research problem mutually agreed upon by the student and teacher.

II. Course Objectives

Upon the completion of this Course, a student is expected to have:

- obtained a comprehension of the various frameworks and levels of analysis of the peoples in Southeast Asia and Oceania;

- acquired an appreciation and understanding of the cultural factors influencing the internal and external environment of the region;

- gained an insight into the social role of culture in selected Southeast Asian and Oceanic countries; and

- obtained an understanding and appreciation of the major art, literary, aesthetic and religious forms and intellectual traditions in Southeast Asia and Oceania.

III. Course Requirements


Class Participation & Reports 25%
First Long Examination 25%
Research Paper & Class Project 25%
Second Long Examination 25%

IV. Course Outline

Week 1 (Nov 10 & 12, 2010)

1. Introduction: Scope, Coverage, and Expectations of the Course
2. Classroom Policies

A. Students are only allowed up to a maximum of six (6) unexcused absences. Beyond this number, students will be given a grade of DRP if his or her class standing is passing or 5.0 if failing.

B. Those who want to be excused from class must secure a certificate from the U.P Health Service or a letter from his/her Dean explaining the reason for the absence.

C. Students who arrive more than 20 minutes late will be marked absent for the day.

D. Turn off your mobile phones during class hours.

Week 2 (Nov 17 & 19, 2010)

1. Lecture on Approaches to Anthropology
2. Lecture on the Overview of Southeast Asia and Oceania
- Physical Features of Southeast Asia and Oceania
- Cultural Scope of Southeast Asia and Oceania
- Environment-Culture Interaction

Week 3 (Nov 24 & 26, 2010)

1. Lecture on Early Paleolithic Culture and the Neolithic Revolution in Southeast Asia and Oceania.


1. Hominid Cultural Evolution as Seen from the Archaeological Evidence in Southeast Asia by Richard Shutler Jr
2. Early Agriculture, Language History, and Archeological Record in China and Southeast Asia by Peter Bellwood
3. The Roots of Indochinese Civilization: Recent Development in the Prehistory of Southeast Asia by Donn Bayard

Week 4 (Dec 1 & 3, 2010)

1. Lecture on the Austronesian Culture

- “Heterogenetic Cities in Premodern Southeast Asia” by John Miksic
- “Ties that (Un) Bind: Families and States in Premodern Southeast Asia” by Tony Day
- "Concepts of Order in Southeast Asia and Micronesia by William Alkire
- “Southeast Asia’s Food and Culture” by Brent Roman and Susan Russell
- “Matrilineal Kinship in Melenesia” by Michael Rynkiewich

Week 5 (Dec 8 & 10, 2010)

1. Lecture on Peoples and Early Kingdoms of Southeast Asia and Oceania

- “Jayavarman VII: The Great Khmer Monarch and Southeast Asian Leader” by Chester Cabalza
- “Beyond the Mandala: Buddhist Landscapes and Upland-Lowland Interaction in North-West Thailand AD 1200-1650” by Peter Grave

Week 6 (Dec 15 & 17, 2010)

1. Film Showing: The Angkor Civilization or South Pacific
2. Research Break

Week 7 (Jan 5 & 7, 2011)

1. Lecture on Concepts of Culture


1. The Resistance to Culture by William Warner
2. The Politics of Pedagogy of Popular Culture in Contemporary Textbooks by George Lipsitz
3. Notes on Deconstructing “The Folk” by Robin D.G. Kelly
4. Political Culture – From Civic Culture to Mass Culture by John Street
5. Culture Across Borders by Tim Mitchell
6. Popular Culture by Chandra Mukerj and Michael Schudson

Week 8 (Jan 12 & 14, 2011)

1. Lecture from the paper on Colonialism, Decadence and Orientalism: Problematizing Southeast Asian Cinema and Literature by Chester Cabalza
2. Film Showing: Jan Dara or Scent of Green Papaya

Week 9 (Jan 19 & 21, 2011)

Visual and Performing Arts in Selected Southeast Asian Countries

- “Silver Screen, Shadow play: The Tradition of Wayang Kulit” by Felicia Campbell
- “Mae Naak and Company: The Shifting Duality in Female Representation on Contemporary Thai Stage” by Catherine Diamond
- “Malaysia’s Traditional Performing Arts: Berbalas Pantun, Ghazal, Nasyid, Dondang Sayang, Boria, Bangsawan, and Wayang Kulit”

Week 10 (Jan 26 & 28, 2011)

First Long Examination

Diversity, Race, and Ethnicity

- “Western Modernism and Eastern Thought” by Mahathir Mohammad
- “The Malay Dilemma” by Mahathir Mohammad
- “Revisiting Mahathir’s Legacy: NEP as a Roadmap to Vision 2020 and Insights on Asian Values” by Chester Cabalza
- “Bearer of the Sword: Misconceptions on Islam and Islamism” by Chester Cabalza

Week 11 (Feb 2 & 4, 2011)

Role of Intellectuals and the Women Leaders in Southeast Asia and Oceania

1. Lecture on the Role of Intellectuals in Society; Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam
2. Lecture on Female Leadership in Southeast Asia and Oceania

- “Political Cartoons in Singapore: Misnomer or Redefinition Necessary by Lim Chang Tju
- “Indonesian Debate on a Woman President” by Nelly Van Doorn-Harder

Week 12 (Feb 9 & 12, 2011)

Folk Medicine and Beliefs

- “From Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder to Cultural Bereavement: Diagnosis of Southeast Asian Refugees” by Maurice Eisenbruch
- “The Therapeutic Role of the Khmer Medium (Kru Boramei) in Contemporary Cambodia” by Didier Bertrand
- “The Diagnosis of Disease among the Subanun in Mindanao” by Charles Frake
- “The Ethnicity of Efficacy: Vietnamese Goddess Worship and the Encoding of Popular Histories” by Philip Taylor
- “Writing the History of Non-literate Peoples: The Case of Ayta in Bataan” by Chester Cabalza

Week 13 (Feb 16 & 18, 2011)

Tobacco, Food, Music, and Internet

- “From Betel-Chewing to Tobacco-Smoking in Indonesia” by Anthony Reid
- “Underground Rock Music and Democratization in Indonesia by Jeremy Wallach
- “Folk to Computer Songs: The Evolution of Malaysian Pop Music (1990-1930) by Craig Lockare
- “ldeology, Social Commentary and Resistance in Popular Music: A Case Study of Singapore by Phua Siew Chye and Lily Kong
- “Cyberterrorism and its Implications on Global-Local (Glocal) Discourse in Southeast Asia” by Chester Cabalza

Week 14 (Feb 16 & 18, 2011)

Tourism in Southeast Asia and Oceania

1. Lecture on Threats and Opportunities to the Tourism Industry in Southeast Asia and Oceania

- “Tomb Raiding Angkor: A Clash of Cultures” by Tim Winter
- “Threats and Opportunities to the Tourism Industry in the SEAN Region” by Chester Cabalza

Week 15 (March 2 & 4, 2011)

Group Reports

1. Polynesia Group
2. Micronesia Group
3. Melenesia Group

Week 16 (March 9 & 11, 2011)

Group Reports

1. Insular Southeast Asia Group
2. Peninsular Southeast Asia Group

Week 17 (March 16 & 18, 2011)

Research Break for Seminar Paper

Week 18 (March 23 & 25, 2011)

Final Examination

Other Required Readings:

Hiatt, L.R. and C. Jayawardena, eds.
1971 Anthropology in Oceania: Essays Presented to Ian Hogbin. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company.

Langloh Parker K.
2001 Australian Legendary Tales: Dreaming Stories from the Oral Tradition of the Aboriginal People: Wordsworth Edition.

Keesing, Felix M.
1947 Native Peoples of the Pacific World. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Z'Graggen John A.
1992 And Thus Became Man and World: The Pentland Press Limited.

--- E N D ---