Category Archives: books

Penman No: 490: Unpopular Opinion: Bring AI On

Posted on by
Reply

Penman for Sunday, October 18, 2026

THE LITERARY world has recently been rocked by scandals involving the alleged use of AI in prizewinning entries to prestigious writing competitions.

Last year, the Commonwealth Literary Prize went to the Trinidadian writer Jamir Nazir’s story titled “The Serpent in the Grove,” which had been published in the highly regarded literary magazine Granta. A sophisticated AI-checking software program called Pangram flagged it as 100% AI-generated. The author denied it was, and the Commonwealth Prize people reviewed his drafts and stood by him, but Granta took to the matter to heart and severed its ties with the prize, while retaining the story on its website for the reading public to make up its own mind. Nazir has gone on to start work on a novel, but his reputation has been deeply if not irreparably damaged by a charge that, for legal and perhaps even aesthetic purposes, remains unproven.

Last month, France’s Prix Goncourt—that country’s most renowned literary competition that awards a symbolic 10 euros to the year’s best piece of prose—dropped the debut novel of the Canadian-Haitian Thelyson Orelien titled C’etait ça ou mourir (It Was Either That or Die) from its shortlist following accusations of AI use and plagiarism. The novel had already sold tens of thousands of copies, and had won another prestigious literary prize. Orelien disputed the charges, but the judgment had been made.

And just last week, the Atlantic broke a story accusing the winner of the Caine Prize for African Writing, Zimbabwe’s Simbarashe Steyn Kundizeza, of using AI to produce his story “The Blue Fighter.” Again using Pangram, the Atlantic’s Vauhini Vara noted that the text was laden with typical large language model (LLM) prose markers, pointing to repetitive “not X, but Y” grammatical structures and the story’s frequent metaphors (something markedly present as well in Nazir’s piece). The Caine Prize Foundation said it would look into the charges but insisted on employing human judgment to establish the truth. Its chair, Ellah Wakatama, was quoted as saying that that AI detectors were not conclusive, and that “If there is such an accusation, I want proof that does not come from a machine.”

I have no doubt we haven’t seen the last of these controversies—nor were they even the first. In 2024, Akutagawa Prize winner Rie Qudan had no problem admitting that she had used ChatGPT—just a little, about 5 percent of the text—in writing her novel Sympathy Tower Tokyo, because the novel after all features a chatbot. You’d think that would have quelled any controversy, but it didn’t. Mindless critics called the entire novel “AI-written,” and debates broke out over the use of AI in fiction.

It hasn’t been just the text coming into question. In this year’s Ockham New Zealand Book Awards, two books—Obligate Carnivore by Stephanie Johnson and Angel Train by Elizabeth Smither—were disqualified because their publishers were found to have used AI-generated cover designs.

Clearly, the global world of writing and publishing are up in arms, if not in a panic, over the growing intrusion of AI into a sphere we thought reserved for human creativity and imagination.  While beneficial AI use has been well tracked and established in such fields as medicine, the law, and fintech, writers and artists feel much more vulnerable if not resistant to it because of the direct threat it seems to pose to artistic integrity itself and to the livelihood of creatives.

The backlash has been quick and severe. Locally, the F. Sionil Jose Young Writers Award, administered by Philippine PEN, stipulates that built-in or external AI tools may not be used at any stage of the creative process, including using AI for ideation, outlining, drafting, writing, or editing. I’m expecting other major competitions and workshops, such as the Palancas and the UP and Silliman workshops, to employ similar restrictions, if they haven’t already.

Which brings me to how I feel about the whole brouhaha, a position I’ve been forced to define because of my professed openness to the use of AI in my Professional Writing class in UP and even to the possible employment of AI in fiction, in ways and under protocols we have yet to establish.

A friend recently messaged me privately to ask about guidelines for literary judges when addressing entries with suspected AI involvement. My short answer to him was that “Am not prepared to go public with this”—I guess I am now—“but here’s my unpopular opinion: I think anti-AI vetting is ultimately unworkable. Have to be convinced that AI checking is infallible. So either very strict and accurate checking for all entries, or let it be a free-for-all, with no more than a personal declaration of non-AI use if AI is to be shut out entirely.”

Before my literary friends and detractors pounce on me for this apostasy, let me lay a few things down:

1. I still believe that the best of AI cannot and will not replace the best of human imagination and insight and its literary and artistic expression. I simply cannot see AI achieving the quietly explosive turns of mind and phrase of an Anne Carson. But this will be so relatively rarefied as to offer cold comfort in light of other possible outcomes below.

2. Anything below the best is much less certain and highly negotiable. Let’s be honest: AI as it stands can easily out-write most people in most situations, for all their human sincerity and authenticity. The bar over which AI has to jump is very low, and lowered even further by poor education. The threat posed by AI here isn’t that students will use it to do their work and pass their subjects, but rather that students will pass without learning.

3. I’m not calling for unregulated, unidentified AI use. Ground rules should be laid down—but they should be fair, forward-looking, and enforceable.

As I’ve recently been predicting, I foresee a literary future where publishing will eventually be three-tiered, with 100% AI-produced work at the base, catering to the most popular tastes and trends; mid-range, an explicitly hybrid human-AI segment that offers interesting and exciting prospects for experimentation; and at a premium, 100% human-generated work, the best of which will exhibit human inventiveness and empathy, yes, but also courage, resistance, and risk-taking.

That said, the insidious entry of AI into literary competitions bothers me only because it’s undeclared. I would frankly be open to a competition—or even a category of one such competition—where AI can be employed and accepted with neither shame nor subterfuge, if only to explore the imaginative horizons of human-AI interaction. Retain the 100%-human category, sure and of course, but open a door that will be pushed open anyway by another generation if not us, like it or not. Bring AI on; let’s wrestle with it, curse it, bend it, bed it, tango with it, argue with it, embrace it—but we ignore or deny it at our own risk.

Do I use AI in my own work? In my creative nonfiction, including this very piece, yes, for research and organization, for transcription, and for mechanical tasks; I review all outputs for slop, misattributions, and misreadings. In my fiction, yes, for research (as in the historical novel I’m working on) and nothing more—at least not yet. If and when I do find an interesting use or need for it, I’ll say so and take full responsibility for it, although I still don’t see it happening.

But to return to the matter of literary judging (which I have stopped doing for many years now and have forsaken for good), there’s something ironically odd if not hypocritical about using an AI tool like Pangram to police and catch AI use in a piece of text. (I’ve used Pangram on a trial basis, and it is terrifyingly good.)

At the very least, if you have to, let the pre-screening of entries be done by a technical committee—not by the jurors themselves, who should bring only their discernment and connoisseurship to the judging table. Should a work truly prove outstanding despite certain AI misgivings, give it the benefit of the doubt; a great story remains a great story no matter whom or what it was written by. (I have read both “The Serpent in the Grove” and “The Blue Fighter” and found them powerful and moving.)

We don’t know how many masterpieces of the past were birthed and nursed by angels, demons, and other artificial handmaidens. Why not AI?

Email me at jose@dalisay.ph and visit my blog at http://www.penmanila.ph.

Qwertyman No. 219: Notes on Cesar Virata (1930-2026)

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, October 12, 2026

FOR A personality so closely associated with the Marcos regime, it was inevitable that the obituaries following the passing last week of former Prime Minister Cesar Virata would reflect a broad range of opinion. 

The gentlest take on the man was that he was an honest, modest, and hardworking academic who found himself with an opportunity to help direct national economic policy, and who did his best, within a profligate bureaucracy, to mitigate economic catastrophe and sustain international support for the Philippines.

At the harshest extreme is his depiction as a complicit enabler of Marcosian martial law, a window-dresser for the regime, and ultimately an ineffectual technocrat—like others of his training and generation—who refused or failed to acknowledge the crimes of the regime he had been serving faithfully.

Those assessments came freely in social media last week, from friends I respect on either side. The variance told me as much about how we choose to remember history as how we choose what to forget, or at least to mediate after half a century, which probably tells more about us than about the other person.

I had several opportunities to meet with and to interview PM Virata, as he most likely would have wanted to be remembered, in the course of completing books to which he had something to contribute from his vast experience. We discussed mainly his life as an academic and as one of SGV’s early pillars, as well as being a member of Cavite’s prominent Aguinaldo and Virata clans. Inevitably—usually after the formal interviews, when he took me out to lunch for a more relaxed chat—he opened up about his life as a Marcos technocrat. He allowed me to take notes, from which I now share some interesting episodes and insights—edited for clarity—that might help complete whatever picture of the man we had in mind.

On martial law: “We didn’t know about the preparations for martial law. The President kept it to himself…. I was in the US when martial law was declared. I was attending a World Bank meeting. I went to my hotel room in DC, where we often stayed, although the actual meeting was at the Hilton. I got a call from one of the more senior Department of State reporters who had covered the negotiations on the Laurel-Langley Agreement. He said, ‘Don’t you know, Mr. Secretary, that martial law has been declared?’ I said no. That was around 4 pm because I had a 5 pm tennis game with Ambassador Suarez, who must also have been surprised, because he didn’t know, either. I thought of calling Joy, but she would have been asleep then, so we played our game and I waited until around 6 am to call her. When I did, the operator said, ‘All calls are suspended to the Philippines.’ Later, Alex Melchor and I were told to go to San Francisco and LA on our way home to tell the Filipinos and the consulate there about martial law. I still didn’t know what we were supposed to say. Eventually, when that same American reporter asked me for my reaction to martial law, what I said was, ‘Well, the Philippines just joined the rest of Asia,’ because everyone else around us had declared martial law—South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.”

On the Aquino assassination: “August 21st, Ninoy was killed. I was at home in Philam that day. Joy was having a show in Makati, so I had lunch with my sister in Kalayaan. I went home and I fell asleep. I was woken up by my military aide, saying that Sen. Aquino had been killed and that the President would be making an announcement soon. We had a TV and a radio in my room and turned both of them on, but the President didn’t appear, just his photo. It turned out that he was about to have an operation. We were called to Malacañang, but when we got there, the guards told us not to approach the President, because he was all bundled up. He was really struggling and had to be helped to the elevator. We learned that he was going to have a kidney transplant! He did instruct us to pay our respects when Ninoy’s body arrived. We went to the house on Times Street but we weren’t allowed in, so I wrote a letter to Butz Aquino, who was the only one I knew then.”

On the Constitution: “I just learned recently that a Cabinet meeting was called right after martial law that I was not present at. The issue presented by the President to the Cabinet was that he had received a summons from the Supreme Court because there were petitions asking for martial law to be declared unconstitutional. There was a group that included the military and I think even Sec. Abad Santos who were in favor of declaring a revolutionary government. But the President did not accept this. He said, ‘How can you assert civilian authority over the military without a Constitution?’ He really believed in Atty. Estelito Mendoza, so he asked Mendoza to respond to the Supreme Court summons, and Mendoza said he’d try to argue that this was a political issue and not within the Court’s jurisdiction.”

On becoming Prime Minister: “The President kept me concurrently as Finance Minister, but my weakness really was that I wasn’t a politician, so I wanted Jose Roño, the Minister for Interior and Local Government, to be my deputy because he knew the local governments and politicians. At that time, Foreign Minister Romulo wanted to be the deputy PM. CPR said, ‘Look at Singapore, Rajaratnam serves as both deputy PM and foreign minister.’ I said, ‘Look, I’m not a politician and you’re away most of the time, so how will I operate? If there was more than one deputy prime minister, I’d probably nominate you, but there’s only one vacancy!’”

There was a lot more I learned from PM Virata, both about and outside of martial law, but there are some stories you realize are being told to you in confidence that are best kept that way. It’s a sad thing that the general tendency these days—especially in social media—is to reduce people to their politically posterized worst, discarding the innate complexity in every person. Maybe I’m too naïve and tolerant, but the fictionist in me looks for those complexities and ambiguities rather than bottomlines better left to accountants and scholars. 

One detail I do remember about Cesar Virata was that he was already dean of the UP School of Business Administration (which now bears his name) when his father Enrique, a professor of mathematics, was named Acting President of UP. Cesar resigned and joined SGV rather than put both of them in an awkward situation. I know his detractors might say that he could and should have exercised the same delicacy in his later positions in government, but that’s a longer argument for another time.

Qwertyman No. 218: A Dead Man’s Voice

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, October 5, 2026

TODAY I’M going to turn over this column to the voice of a long-dead man, and all because—when last week I picked up a book he had published in 1957—I thought he might as well have been writing in the present, so uncannily familiar were the vignettes he recounted from this country’s political life seven decades and more ago.

The man was George A. Malcolm (1881-1961), the first full-time dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law whose building now bears his name, and later an Associate Justice of the prewar Philippine Supreme Court. The book he authored was American Colonial Careerist (Boston: The Chrisopher Publishing House, 1957), a collection of his memoirs and impressions as a civil servant under the American colonial regime over most of that period.

I was drawn to the Malcolm book because I collect antiquarian Filipiniana, for one, and of course because of the UP connection, but also because Malcolm graduated from the University of Michigan (where I and many other Filipino scholars took their graduate degrees) and had long been intrigued by Ann Arbor’s contributions (positive and surely some negative ones as well) to Philippine education and government. Michigan also produced Dean Worcester, who would defend America’s paternalistic rule, and lawyer Clyde De Witt, who would practice in the Philippines and later set up an endowment for Filipino student-lawyers in Michigan that would support such legal luminaries as Edgardo Angara, Miriam Defensor Santiago, and Raphael Lotilla.

Because of his positions, Malcolm came to know and befriend nearly all the major Filipino and American politicians and leaders of the prewar period, and his book gives intimate and sometimes saucy sketches of them. Manuel L. Quezon, not surprisingly, dominates his memoirs. “The Filipino is a natural and consummate politician,” he writes. “The great Jefe of them all for three decades was Manuel L. Quezon. He was the spectacular figure who gave color to the scene. A close second to Quezon in astuteness, but lacking his dynamic personality, was Sergio Osmeña.” But he also adds that “Quezon dearly loved the trappings of office. He relished the glittering appellation, ‘Your Excellency.’… An added Quezonian touch was a red shoulder-sash and three foreign decorations—a medal attached to his left lapel and two blazing badges pinned on the right side of his coat above the hip.”

Further, Malcolm notes, “Quezon gave an early demonstration of a desire to see the world at the expense of the taxpayers. In the role of official delegate of the Philippines to the International Congress of Navigation, held in czarist Russia in 1908, the young Assemblyman arrived in St. Petersburg (Leningrad) after the Congress had already adjourned. The P34,000 set aside for this trip was trivial compared to the fabulous expense accounts entailed in paying for other pilgrimages all over the globe with a large entourage. Curiously, the Filipino people were rather proud of the impression their effulgent leader was making in foreign lands and rarely complained of his prodigality.” (One who did complain was a young UP student named Ferdinand Marcos, who railed against MLQ’s “extravagance.”)

But Quezon was hardly alone. Malcolm goes on to say that “Quirino filled the expensive shoes of Quezon, and even added frills of his own concoction. A P5,000 bed to case the President’s slumbers became the prize reference in political campaigns. An investigation conducted by an inquisitive Senate purported to reveal that Quirino had spent about a million pesos on four trips abroad. Journalist Teodoro M. Locsin cynically observed: ‘This is living.’”

Indeed, presidential or not, the corruption we seem so upset about these days was already widespread. Malcolm observes that “Certain phases of the electoral process in the Philippines merit special attention. Aspirants for office have flagrantly and repeatedly flaunted the provision of the Electoral Code which specifies that no candidate shall spend for his campaign more than the total amount of the candidate. Yet, it is common information that a candidate for a seat in Congress, whose annual salary is P7,200, has been required to deposit P25,000 with party chieftains and has had to part with many more pesos in addition to have a fighting chance. In the 1953 presidential election, such sums as P2,000,000 were openly mentioned as needed by each of the three contending parties to finance their campaigns.

“Where did this money come from? The money came from candidates who bankrupted their patrimony and from the ‘big shots,’ in particular the sugar tycoons. Moreover, millions of pesos of the people’s money was drained out of the public treasury, generally for local ‘public works,’ to influence the people’s will…. Many phrases descriptive of Philippine politics have been scattered about. Merely as examples, I quote the words of an American publisher and a Filipino educator. Wrote Roy W. Howard, Philippine politics is ‘a great national pastime,’ with politicians “ten centavos a dozen.” Declared Mariano V. de los Santos, President of the University of Manila: ‘There is no activity in which we can engage where partisan politics does not seep in. Business, industry, agriculture, all are permeated by bad politics. Under such a climate, naturally politicians of all sorts thrive. But they thrive at the expense of the general welfare.’”

And where did many of these politicians come from? We go back to the UP College of Law and its poorer cousins which seem to have mushroomed all over the place:

“One potent reason why politics has come to play such a large part in the life of the people is the preference on the part of the youth for academic education. The result is a bumper crop of lawyers with no place to go except into the government service or into politics. It would inure to good government to have legally-trained and disciplined men and women in public life, if such exaggerated importance was not attached to the title of abogado in the Philippines.

“The College of Law, University of the Philippines, was organized to supply quality, not quantity, leaders. All to no avail. Law schools mushroomed all over the Islands. The Bar examinations became great sporting events, with candidates ready to mortgage their patrimony and sell their souls if only they could get passing grades. Yet when the six long years of study were passed and the Bar examination was hurdled, no clients awaited the embryo lawyers. Droves of half-baked parasites were superimposed on an already top-heavy governmental structure and a lean economy.”

Perhaps we need to bring the spirit of Justice Malcolm back in a séance as amicus curiae in the Senate impeachment trial.

Qwertyman No. 212: Better than AI

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, August 24, 2026

MY RECENT column about my plans to harness AI in my Professional Writing class at the University of the Philippines provoked so many inquiries and reactions that I thought I’d share more of my ruminations, preparatory to a lecture on AI and writing that I’m scheduled to give at a conference in November. Feel free to disagree with and to interpellate me—some statements I’ll be making here might sound contradictory or even outrageous to some good people out there—so I can refine my arguments further. 

I’ll begin with the observation that the eminently practical Singaporeans have a strategic plan for promoting AI literacy toward what it calls “AI bilingualism,” i.e. domain expertise plus AI fluency. They don’t think AI should be taught as a separate course but embedded into what people are already doing. Citizens above 25 can avail themselves of free six-month subscriptions to AI apps. Singapore also hosts data centers under very strict conditions.

Can and should we go Singapore’s way? We’re still embroiled in the question over whether to allow a big data center like Pax Silica in—and rightly so. There are many key technical and ethical issues to sort out having to do with resource demands, legal frameworks, and people’s rights. 

That said, the realist in me expects that AI will be here to stay, whether we host it or not, like it or not, and there have audibly been many of those “nots” lately, in both public forums and social media. 

I can understand and respect this resistance. As an education professor studying AI reminds us, skepticism isn’t ignorance. It isn’t just technophobia; adopting AI isn’t as simple as getting used to a VCR, a cellphone, or even the Internet. Rejecting AI doesn’t mean you’re a Luddite, or you don’t understand algorithms, LLMs, and whatever it is they’re gushing about as though the heavens had parted and God’s open palms came out of the clouds showing “A” and “I.” I can see why even tech-savvy writers and artists will refuse to use it in their work on principle.

I myself use Claude in my nonfiction mainly to organize material, but beyond Google, I certainly won’t employ it in my fiction, precisely because I’m doing my best to avoid being predictable, which AI is in a sense all about.

(Am I not horrified by that image of Anthropic’s machine chopping up and digesting books for AI’s training? As an author and antiquarian book collector, of course I am. Will my outrage move the needle? Not by one degree; the harvest will continue, and its output will be so homogenized that we’ll be using it without knowing it. I think the original travesty, if you will, happened when those billions of trees were pulped and fed to the paper mills and printing presses so we could publish our precious books—but of course we don’t think of it that way.)

That doesn’t mean that in the future, writers and artists of unimpeachable integrity can’t or won’t find ways of integrating it organically into their work. It’s scary to contemplate, but AI will mutate to a point of familiarity and trustworthiness that it will be near impossible to deny or to ignore. Taking a page from physics, the controversial but eerily prescient futurist Raymond Kurzweil has anticipated a crucial juncture called “the Singularity,” when human and artificial will merge, likely through nanotechnology, and even boldly gives a date when that will happen: 2045. I’ll be long dead by then, so I’m not even going to worry about its implications.

But I will predict that in the lead-up to that point, at least in publishing, three streams will emerge. At the top tier will be 100% human-written books, which will come at a premium though not necessarily sell better (as it is, right now, many if not most such books don’t sell, anyway). In the middle will be hybrid human/AI work—the new and intriguing frontier we have yet to explore, which will be initially met with distrust if not disdain, but will come into its own. At the bottom rung will be 100% AI-generated work, especially popular fiction, produced by skilled prompters working for publishers who will be paying them no royalties. 

As I’ve often asserted, the notion that “human is always better” simply isn’t true. To begin with, the world is full of brutish, stupid, and even murderous people for whom the word “humanity” seems purely a biological description; granted, some such ogres become great artists, but the world is also full of kind, smart, and pleasant people who can’t write or draw for the life of them. 

In other words, the bar is so low that AI doesn’t have to do very much to surpass human capabilities. It can’t out-write Shakespeare or maybe even the class genius, but it surely can compose a better business letter than most ordinary people—who will be AI’s real base, not academics or creatives wringing their hands over whether and how to incorporate AI into their work. AI mainly empowers the inarticulate; the genuinely good will likely eschew it, or limit its use to the most rudimentary tasks like formatting.

AI cannot be the truth-seeker. It can’t even be the standard against which we rate our students’ or employees’ performance. AI doesn’t work 12-hour shifts or struggle to pay the rent or commute in heavy rain. AI doesn’t cost overhead, leaves, benefits, and profit sharing; it’s never absent, and doesn’t talk back, indulge in water-cooler gossip, or comment snarkily on your OOTD (at least not yet). In fact, it doesn’t cost a thing beyond a basic subscription, easily recovered from the savings on paychecks. Sure, it doesn’t have “soul” or that “uniquely human touch” that poets and painters love to wax romantic about—but honestly, did you get those the last time you called Customer Service and demanded to talk to a real live person? How many people truly manifest “soul” and a “uniquely human touch”? 

Studies have already shown that AI will consistently outperform people in certain specific tasks. What we need to find is what we can consistently do better than AI. The key question I’d like my students to ask themselves is, “Why should they hire me, and not AI?” 

Better than just resignation, my current position is one of critical acceptance: use it where it helps save time and effort with routine processes (but make sure students understand those processes first), and with organizing material following some supervening human design. 

As soon as I say that. I know I’m idly hoping that people will resist having AI do their “thinking” for them, and will treat AI as a mere assistant or executor. In many cases, the temptation to have AI do everything will simply be too great. But this is where the most important element of human agency comes in: not even in the design of the project itself, but in the decision if and how to use AI for best results. If you can write better than AI, that might be the best result yet.

(Image from itexperts.co.in)

Qwertyman No. 209: The Pinoy Odyssey

Posted on by
2

Qwertyman for Monday, August 3, 2026

LONG BEFORE “The Odyssey” became a must-see movie thanks to the tempest of reviews surrounding Christopher Nolan’s highly publicized iMax version (and to get this out of the way, yes, I’ve seen it), it was a must-read book for us as literature majors, alongside its companion epic, the Iliad. I don’t recall whose translation it was we used, very likely Lattimore’s, but like most students, we were reading it for the story, and as these narratives are meant to do, that story stuck in the mind. That’s the function of myth, what I call the eternal past, a kind of memory that feels we’ve all shared in one way or another, even if we were never there, separated by millennia and thousands of miles.

I appreciated the tragic grandeur of the Iliad, which I would bring up in class when I needed to talk about how great heroes fall and about how the epic seems to glorify war and warriors but actually shows how war dehumanizes us. There are many compelling scenes and situations in the Iliad, but I’ve always found the Odyssey more fascinating because, as the Beatles might have put it, it’s a magical mystery tour that takes its hero to every distant shore except, finally, his home, and even when he gets there, it’s no longer what it used to be; home may be a fixed place in the map of the heart but it’s never static, never just as it was.

I’ve often used the character of Odysseus to describe the modern Filipino, especially in my lectures to foreign audiences (just as I would tell Americans that “We were your first Vietnam” to make sure they would sit up and listen). If the Filipino diaspora, in which a tenth of our population has embarked for the farthest corners of the world, isn’t an odyssey of truly epic proportions, then I don’t know what is. 

It isn’t the departure that matters as much as the homing instinct—the desire to come home, however long or how far away one has been gone, for whatever reason. I’ve yet to meet a Filipino abroad who didn’t want to come home, at least for a visit. When they can’t, Filipinos do their best to recreate home or some semblance of it wherever they are. One of my most touching discoveries was a bar named “Kabayan” in a remote corner of New Zealand, which was open even in the mornings for Pinoy sailors who happened to drift along.

In that sense, Jose Rizal was an early Pinoy Odysseus, traveling the world a century before his countrymen did so in droves, neither for war nor economic opportunity but for knowledge, a journey brightened by dalliances with this Circe and that Calypso. As did the original, Rizal came home to find the place badly out of joint, in dire need of reform (although “reform” seems a kind description of what Odysseus did to his wife’s suitors). The big difference, of course, is that in Homer, Odysseus emerges scarred but triumphant, reunited with his family, the beneficiary of a peace enforced by the gods; Rizal’s happy interlude in Dapitan, on the other hand, ends with a son who dies soon after birth, his abortive entry into a foreign war, and his arrest and execution in a domestic conflict.

Rizal’s novels left us with the figures of Crisostomo Ibarra and Simoun—both returnees from overseas, the former initially brimming with idealism, the latter consumed by retribution. That they are the same man speaks to the extremes in which we find ourselves pulled today by our politics, misty-eyed with patriotic fervor over Alex Eala and the West Philippine Sea, and yet deeply divided and darkly cynical when brought down to our immediate realities. 

A visiting professor and former colleague at UP’s English department, Dr. Gerald Burns, found that from Rizal onward, we Filipinos have produced a tradition of what Burns calls the “repatriate theme” in Philippine fiction, involving a hero-figure who goes for an extended stay abroad, perhaps for study or work or both, and then comes home with a “boon,” some social good picked up from that sojourn, to be shared with one’s people. The balikbayan is full of progressive ideas—could be from that newly minted PhD, or that stint in Silicon Valley, or that research laboratory in Germany—and thinks that he or she can illumine a benighted motherland with knowledge, only to realize that new ideas and their bearers are unwelcome, and that the path to progress and liberation is dark, narrow, and treacherous. There are no gods who will make things easy, punish evil, or rectify wrongdoing. The Pinoy Odysseus comes home to find Penelope defiled or worse, having abandoned him; his house is teeming with reptilian politicians feasting on what remains of his wealth. 

The Nolan movie divided audiences and critics with its liberal interpretation of whatever it was that Homer wrote (to sum up my own reaction, I found it entertaining but not particularly enlightening, as I—perhaps from my burdensome position as a writer and reader—kept expecting the script to rise to the occasion). Its best service to us as Filipinos may not be to revive our interest in Western classical mythology—although there’s value in regrounding the present century’s infatuation with Star Wars, Tolkien, and Game of Thrones—but to make us think about our sense of home, and why we keep coming back to a place we sometimes feel should be forsaken. Is our Ithaca worth the long journey across monster-infested lands and hostile oceans? Who and what is it that awaits us at our door?

(Rizal image from RizalsofAbra on IG)

Penman No. 487: A Prize for AI?

Posted on by
Reply

Penman for Sunday, July 12, 2026

LAST MAY, the literary world was rocked by the news that the winner of the Commonwealth Literary Prize—a short story titled “The Serpent in the Grove” by a little-known writer from Trinidad named Jamir Nazir—had been written using AI. Words like “fraud” and “hoax” flew out quickly into cyberspace. Probably suspecting something was off, someone had used an AI-detector app called Pangram to scan the piece, which returned an unequivocally damning judgment: “100% AI-generated.” 

Along with other Commonwealth winners, the story had been published in the respected literary magazine Granta. Given the uproar, the Commonwealth Prize judges reviewed Nazir’s drafts, and pronounced the work authentic; Granta severed its ties with the foundation giving the prize, but has retained the story on its website anyway for all to see and evaluate.

And that’s exactly what I did—go the website and read the work for myself before coming to any conclusion of my own.

Now, it’s not as if literary hoaxes are anything new; it’s happened before, and it’s even happened here. Long before AI, plagiarism and outright invention (a crime in the case of nonfiction) were practiced not only by the lazy and untalented but also by the cunning. Among the most notorious cases in the US were those of James Frey, who fabricated large sections of his bestselling memoirs, and Janet Cooke, whose Pulitzer-prizewinning story for the Washington Post turned out to be based on an entirely fictional character. Here in the Philippines, a postal clerk named Jose Marco duped generations of Filipinos into believing that the Code of Kalantiaw and a novel by Fr. Jose Burgos titled La Loba Negra were the real thing.

The fraud in these cases was uncovered not by programs like Pangram or GPTZero but by dogged scholarship—in the case of Kalantiaw, through the work of the historian William Henry Scott, who showed that Marco’s “code” had words that weren’t in use until centuries later.

Even with software, proving literary deception today is a lot more difficult, because creative writing almost by definition is, well, deception of the highest order, extremely liberal in its methods and means, and devious (without being necessarily evil) in its motivations. Fiction especially is intrinsically ambiguous, unlike journalism which rests on fact. So how can anyone be sure that this prizewinner was faked?

“The Serpent in the Grove” is not a very long short story at less than 3,400 words, and the controversy aside, is certainly an interesting if not significant one in many ways: freshness of language, simplicity of plot but complexity of character, power of imagination. It talks of a man named Vishnu who, enamored of a vamp he meets at the bar, contrives to drown his wife Sita in a well; she falls into it but then manages to crawl out with a neighbor’s help. Sita and even their young son seem to understand exactly what has happened, but no one brings it up and they somehow manage to survive into old age keeping that terrible truth unspoken. 

Some people have savaged the story after the scandal broke, in the way people change their minds instantly about someone after being told that person served time for rape or murder. Personally—and this could well be an unpopular opinion—I found it rich and engrossing, at least partly because of very same startling metaphors that got flagged as AI giveaways. It’s not an easy read, with its localized English, and I could see how Western readers attuned to the kind of language you hear at Walmart would find it painfully artificial (my friends in the Midwest found Nick Joaquin “too lush” when I had them read him). I don’t write that way myself, which is probably why it intrigues me even more. Here are some random excerpts:

“Sita moved quiet as if sound were taxed. Nineteen and brown like dust after rain, she turned roti dough with a rhythm that came not from joy but from endurance.”

“Marsha lived two bends down. If the village had a mouth, it was hers. Big in the way of women who never apologize to furniture, she had a laugh that shook dust from joists and a voice that could soften to coax a child from a ledge. She knew the ways of men hollowed by want until only one thing remained. She noticed the fresh-cut path and the way land bore witness. People talk about bush like it dumb. But bush keeps memory the way hair keeps scent.”

“Sita lifted two planks and slid them aside. Wood complained in a voice too near speech. She lowered the pail until rope slackened. Smell rose—old wet, crushed jasmine, frog skin. On the second haul, the board beneath her shifted the way a tired man shifts in his sleep. The plank gave one long groan and swallowed its word. Stone, shoulder, hip; shock of cold tearing breath. One foot banged and screamed. The wall was slick as lizard. She clawed moss and slid. Water took her and would not return her.”

So what did the software flag? Unlikely metaphors, it said, like the vamp “had the kind of walking that made benches become men.” Or that a character “smiled like sunrise over a sink.” It noted that there were nearly a hundred metaphors in such a short piece. It claimed that in the sentence “Coffee and cocoa leaned wild on a slope that wanted either rain in teeth or none at all,” the phrase “rain in teeth” made no sense, was a hallucination. 

But at this point, my own gut was telling me to trust Pangram less than the author. Call me dumb, but I find “rain in teeth” rather fetching. Any first-time workshopper would get that.

So would I have given the story a prize? That would depend on its competitors, which I haven’t seen, but it’s surely a story I would teach, both for its own merits and for its alleged employment of AI. I might even do that this incoming semester, when, for the first time in many years and possibly the last, I’ll be teaching an undergraduate class in Professional Writing. It’s a course I designed and had been teaching for two decades, but the big difference this time is that we’ll be dealing with AI—which is something that I don’t intend to ban outright (like Canute commanding the waves) but to grapple with head-on, negotiating the line between one’s imagination and what AI might do. I can foresee how controversial this will be, and I recognize the adamant opposition to AI from many writers and artists on both aesthetic and ethical grounds, but at 72, this could be my last look over the horizon. (I’ve already declared that I will no longer judge literary contests nor take part in literary workshops except in my own classes, so this will be my arena for engaging with AI.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the future (and if it hasn’t happened already), some smartass with an ax to grind enters a wholly AI-generated story or poem into the Palancas, only so that when trusting judges make it win, he or she can declare them and the entire literary Establishment (yes, that cabal of superannuated gatekeepers who keep ignoring one’s literary genius) a bunch of fools.

Right now, what I’m thinking is, if you can come up with the kind of prompt that produces “The Serpent in the Grove,” then you deserve a prize—maybe not the Commonwealth one, which is still an open question, but at least one for inventiveness and audacity which seem to remain in short supply in what I’ve been reading, with or without AI.

Penman No. 485: Forever Young—in Yearbooks

Posted on by
Reply

Penman for Sunday, May 3, 2026

THERE’S SOMETHING terribly sad and yet also strangely soothing about thumbing through the pages of college and high school yearbooks from decades past. As a diehard UP alum and collector of UP memorabilia, I’ve accumulated a stack of yearbooks from the University of the Philippines called the Philippinensian (a name likely inspired by that from one of UP’s formative models, the University of Michigan’s Michiganensian). 

Going through them inevitably fills me with what I know to be a naïve longing for seemingly simpler times; the past gets rosier the farther we move away from it. But these images, imbued with innocence, still offer relief from today’s sordid realities. When I look at the youthful visages of such figures as Juan Ponce Enrile and Jose Ma. Sison, I am reminded that we had choices, and that, while indicative, college could be too soon to plot the full trajectory of our lives. Yearbooks are also, of course, an intellectual and social history of the university itself, balancing the frilly fun of a Cadena de Amor with the sonorous seriousness of editorial commentary.

The first issue of the Philippinensian came out in 1915, seven years after UP opened in 1908—occasioned, argued its editors, by the realization that “There has heretofore been little consolidation of interests on the part of students of the University and the so-called University spirit, which should be stronger here because of the maturer quality of the students enrolled, was subordinated to the college spirit.” (I was fortunate to find a copy of this maiden volume, once owned and signed by Guillermo Tolentino.) 

In 1928, the Philippinensian apparently assumed the name of UP Alpha. If you studied then at the College of Liberal Arts your professors would have been people like Maximo Kalaw, Conrado Benitez, H. Otley Beyer, Vidal Tan, Carlos P. Romulo, Maria Agoncillo, Paz Marquez Benitez, Manuel Bernabe, Jose P. Laurel, Marcial Lichauco, Mauro and Mendez, and Pura Santillan. The college’s editorialist expressed the tenuous hope that education would resolve the class struggle: “Far out in the villages away from cities reign ignorance, selfishness, suspicion, all things that a life of isolation and narrow-mindedness afford. We recognize the need for light in those nooks, that light which will add strength of vision to the eyes of the unlearned, which will make them see the invisible ties that unite hearts the world over. We are aware of the selfish exploitation of the poor by those who have greater cunning, and higher intelligence; but we believe that the broadening of the sympathies of the latter and the opening of their closed, hard hearts will banish away all suspicion and hatred that rend souls asunder.”

A decade later, the 1938 Philippinensian opened with a dedication to that year’s commencement speaker, Field Marshal Douglas A. MacArthur, followed by postcard-worthy shots of UP’s Manila campus, carefully curated to show off its best facets. The staging creates ironic if not tragic overtones, especially when taken with the photographs at book’s end of UP’s cadets in smart formation, many of whom would march into the maw of war in a few years. Padre Faura itself would be bombed to ruins, albeit with the Oblation statue still standing defiantly.

After the war, with school having been closed for a while and the whereabouts of hundreds of students and graduates unknown, the Philippinensian resumed in 1946 under the temporary banner of the UP Phoenix 1942-1946, to cover the lost years. The yearbook staff could only note that “Some letters [of invitation to the yearbook] were received postmarked ‘return to sender’ for various reasons: “addressee unknown,” “no such address,” “moved.” In many cases, the addresses were among those burned or shelled during the war. In a few cases, the graduates were already dead. But so long as there was a clue, no matter how unreliable, the staff did not fail to track it down, sending letters, again and again, to the same person, at different addresses.”

Among those who fortunately responded were Narita Manuel of San Andres, Manila, BSE 1942 (soon to marry a writer named NVM Gonzalez); Damiana Ligon Eugenio of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija, BSE 1942, cum laude(long before assuming the deanship of Philippine folkloric studies); and Renato Constantino of Manila, PhB 1946, cum laude, then already working for the Malacañang PR Office. (There were no privacy issues then, and one’s full address could be published at will.)

The closer we get to the present, the more familiar the names become, although their juvenile faces always come as a surprise. My mother Emy—who turns 98 next Sunday—was among those who first made the move from Padre Faura to Diliman. She appears as Emilia A. Yap, BSE, from Guinbirayan, Sta. Fe, Romblon, in the 1953 Philippinensian, a volume in which also appear such luminaries as Rafael M. Salas, Rony V. Diaz, Amelia Lapeña, Andrez Cristobal Cruz, Jose T. Joya, and Napoleon V. Abueva. For many alums, the ‘50s were UP’s golden age, and the yearbook reflects that; with the war over, it could claim that “The UP spirit is of beauty…. The tradition of looking for beauty everywhere, even where none is supposed to exist, is born… to temper an otherwise skeptical, cynical mind.”

But by the end of that decade, on the cusp of the ‘60s, and in the midst of the great debates between secular liberals and sectarian conservatives on campus, UP had to be ever reminded of its unique position as social critic. Introducing the 1958 Philippinensian marking UP’s golden jubilee, E. San Juan intoned that “Ours is an age of rebellion…. Man of the twentieth century… strives for a blessedness yet unbestowed, the blessedness incarnated in him as rebel-artist.” Petronilo Bn. Daroy would warn the following year that “It is at this point that we begin to see the estrangement of the university from the mainsprings of life, from the fact of the national reality. With politics controlling the focus and acting as guidepost from which the university must stand to gain its angle of vision, the reality that is revealed for inspection is necessarily fragmented and false.” 

UP’s vibrant social and cultural life continued, with the fraternities and sororities leading the way. The yearbooks lauded the smartest and the prettiest. But the dark clouds were gathering, and the mood was shifting. Writing in the 1966 Philippinensian, Temario C. Rivera began his essay with a stinging line: “Frivolity has always been the most vicious stigma of youth.” But, he concludes, invoking protests around the world, “The youth have finally come of age.”

In a few more years, the First Quarter Storm and the Diliman Commune would erupt, and the last Philippinensian would come out in 1971; the last Cadena de Amor had taken place in 1968. Many of those street warriors, myself included, would live on to their seventies and eighties, brandishing canes and hostage to metformin.

But in these yearbook pages, full of faces brimming with hope and idealism, we remain forever young and forever free.

Qwertyman No. 190: Beyond Survival

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, March 23, 2026


PARDON ME for this rambling piece this week, which I’m writing in a stupor, blindsided by the sudden, heartbreaking loss of a friend. I’m guessing I’m not alone in this state of disorientation, of looking for a center or an anchor to stabilize at least our view of the horizon. Every day we come across so many deaths on Facebook, amid hundreds of faceless thousands more around the world—much too many to mourn, even counting just your friends.

It’s been a tough time for many, with a war halfway across the planet casting a dark red shadow on us and our pedestrian lives, far out of sight and out of mind of Washington, Jerusalem, and Tehran, but ever vulnerable to the subterranean tremors of politics and economics snaking around the globe.

A viral post tried to make the best of that by reminding us that at least we’re not dodging missiles. That’s true, but it doesn’t remove the cloud of fear and uncertainty we’re living under—not to mention the pain of brutal price increases, which is what Donald Trump’s war comes down to for 98 percent of the world.

I’ve heard many friends and even strangers saying that despite all the aggravations we face today as Filipinos—the corruption, the inefficiency, the pollution, the noise both physical and political—they’re relieved to be where they are, instead of being somewhere out there under constant threat of death falling out of the sky. I’ll admit to feeling the same way, and that I even feel safer to be here today than in America, which I have no intention of revisiting until after the Trumpian nightmare is over.

No, this isn’t another piece about “resiliency,” although there’s certainly that, at least as a way of putting a good face on a bad experience. Rather I’m thinking about how we survive at all, beyond meeting economic needs, about prevailing meaningfully as humans with purpose and dignity and even hope in this horribly oppressive and degrading environment.

The fact is, people learn to adjust soon enough to adversity and privation, excepting such extremes as Stalingrad and Gaza, where sheer survival may have been heroic enough.

Nick Joaquin recalls in Manila, My Manila how quickly the city’s inhabitants fell back on their old routines after the first bombs exploded and the Japanese marched in. The shows reopened, the restaurants thrived, pedestrians bowed to the sentries, and life continued. Certainly there was terror and suffering aplenty, but until famine hit them, followed yet later by the horrors of the Japanese withdrawal, many Manileños apparently coped with the war.

Even closer to the present, we seniors well know what it was like in the early years of martial law, when, as if domestic turmoil weren’t enough, we were hit by a global oil crisis triggered by another Mideast war. The buzzwords then were “austerity,” “alcogas” and “Asiong Aksaya.” We mixed corn with our rice. We complained, we resisted, we struggled, we suffered—but we survived.

I have to remember these when I think of how confused and depressing the present can be, and how pointless it may seem to persevere, especially when we turn on the news or go online. We seem surrounded by hostility and indifference, by death and sorrow—and yet, just as insistently, goodness, creativity, and courage abide, our handmaidens and henchmen, the torchbearers of our humanity.

Last week, on one particularly busy day, my wife Beng and I attended two consecutive book launches.

The first, in Makati, was by our friend Erlinda Panlilio, who had been my student in a graduate writing class more than twenty years ago. Linda was among several women enrolled in Creative Nonfiction—all of them already accomplished in their respective fields—who thought that the time had come to gather and preserve the wealth of their memories in a book. I was less their teacher than their enabler, and many if not most of them subsequently published outstanding memoirs that looked back on lives well lived—not just in privilege as you might expect but in struggle, whether in business, love, conflict, or self-fulfillment.

Aside from many other compilations she’s edited, this was Linda’s third book (and she claims her last as she is now in her eighties, although no one believes her). The book, Saying Goodbye to the House, comes across as a valedictory, a summing-up of a long and fruitful life. At the launch, I said that it was important for senior voices like Linda’s to be heard in today’s frenetic, youth-oriented culture, which barely leaves time to pause, reflect, and rejoice as Linda does.

And then we moved back to Quezon City, where the young Cedric Tan was launching his second novel for young adults, a fantasy titled The Hotel Titania, in which a girl steps into a hotel that turns out to be full of magical beings. You could not imagine a sharper contrast with Linda Panlilio’s domestically grounded universe (which, being Filipino, has its touches of wonder as well). Cedric not only wrote a fantasy; by giving up his job to go full-time into writing, he’s living it, exploring territory at once exciting and fraught with danger.

Stepping into the car homebound after a day full of books and stories, Beng and I felt exhilarated, our confidence in the tenacity and the infinite variety of the human imagination restored. Against dismal reality, our memory and our curiosity would save us.

And then, as I was scrolling on my phone, came the stunning and crushing news that our friend, the veteran journalist and essayist Joel Pablo Salud, had succumbed to a heart attack. A recently professed Christian, Joel had fought hard for truth and justice, and he died a man of faith who knew where he was bound. Even among hard-bitten writers used to seeing the worst of things, the passing of someone so passionate about his craft, his convictions, and his family produced profound grief and consternation. Again we had to ask: why does God take the dearest of his creatures? Why does he bring so much suffering to the world?

And I think Joel knew the answer: so we could assert our humanity while we could, and among the best ways to do that is to employ our talents against surrender and despair. Every book we write does that. We seek survival not just to eat and breathe—but to love, to sing, to endure, to yet become.

Qwertyman No. 187: No Better Time for Philippine Publishing

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, March 2, 2026

I WAS asked by the National Book Development Board to give brief remarks last week at the media launch of this year’s Philippine Book Fair, which will take place from March 12 to 15 at the SM Megamall’s Megatrade Hall. I spoke alongside publishing stalwart Atty. Dominador Buhain of Rex Book Store, who laid out a legislative road map for the book industry in the Philippines.

For my part, I addressed myself to the young Filipino writer, speaking as a senior often accused of being a capo in our so-called “literary Mafia”—my tongue-in-cheek acceptance of which has been taken in dead seriousness by some parties intent on proving that a conspiracy exists out there to rob of them of their literary fame and fortune.

It was a happy coincidence that we were launching the PBF on the 40th anniversary of EDSA 1, because it provided a natural frame within which to appreciate the growth and progress of Philippine writing and publishing, from martial law to where we are today.

Forty years ago, in 1986, I had exactly one book, my first collection of stories. Today I can count more than 45, both fiction and nonfiction, so I guess I’ve been pretty busy (in fact I have another book deadline to meet over the weekend, after I turn in this column). But what many people don’t know is that it took me about a decade to come up with that first book, which was launched in December 1984, and I might have waited longer had it not been for a bet I had made with a dear friend, the late playwright Bienvenido “Boy” Noriega, that we would both come out with our first books by our 30th year (we did).

Having dropped out of college as a student activist after my freshman year, I had very little literary training beyond my own reading. I knew no one and no one knew me; no literary network, no doting mentor or sponsor. I sent out stories to the very few publications open under martial law, like Focus and the Manila Review. I joined all the literary competitions in sight, and lost as many times as I won. I never attended the UP Writers Workshop as a fellow, although I did get invited to the Silliman Writers Workshop in 1981 after the Tiempos came across a published story of mine, after which I felt fired up enough to resume my studies in UP and graduate with my AB in 1984 at age 30. 

My biggest stroke of luck was having a friend from martial-law prison, Raffy Benitez (who would found the Erehwon Arts Center), who ran a small printing press in Quezon City, and who offered to publish my first book from the scrap paper left over at his press. And so Oldtimer and Other Stories (Asphodel Books, 1984) was born. We had no marketing, no bookstore access. Somehow, the books got sold. 

I told this story—which wasn’t mine alone, but my generation’s—to emphasize that there has never been a better time for Philippine writing and publishing than the present. The PBF, now on its fourth year, is the best proof that hundreds of publishers exist out there for all manner of material, from ghost stories, romances, and comic books to big novels, biographies, and collections of essays. Add to that the support network that writers get from writers’ workshops, writing programs, book festivals like the PBF and Frankfurt, literary contests, and of course social media, print-on-demand, and online marketing.

What every writer needs to do to get published is what all writers have done from the very beginning: persevere, get those words on the page, and find a publisher (who will also hopefully provide good editing and marketing). 

There are, of course, writers who believe that “gatekeepers” like me (professors, editors, publishers, reviewers, etc.) merely stand in the way and spoil what should be a great literary experience accessible to everyone. To them I say that if you want complete control over your work and not have to engage in mainstream publishing, you can always publish yourself online, for free, without having to worry about contracts, royalties, launches, and such. 

Otherwise, if you want your book published and put out there, do your homework, find a publisher or agent, and prepare to compromise and negotiate. At its core, publishing remains a business, which has both its good and bad aspects, so learn to navigate the territory, because for the professional writer, it doesn’t end with that final period on the screen—you’re just halfway to your reader. If you think this is too sordid for you, too much of a sellout, then stay away and again, publish yourself (or look for an academic publisher, if your book is worthy enough) and be happy with your reading circle Contrariness can be a virtue; just don’t preach like you’re the only virtuous soul left on the planet.

I may sound like another hard-hearted Boomer, but I won’t echo what one senator said about Gen Z’ers being “weak”; they just deal differently with their realities. Still, there are realities that cut across generations. No one in the world owes you a reading, a publishing contract, a positive review, a spot on the syllabus, and a fistful of money. The demands that matter most are those you make on yourself. Sure, as in any business, contacts and networks count in publishing—but only to a point; again as in any business, no publisher will invest in something too poorly conceived or executed to connect with an audience.

Just write, and don’t let yourself get too distracted by the politics of writing or even of everyday life. If you believe strongly enough, the politics will find its way into your poem or story in the best ways possible—organically, without the shrillness or snarkiness of those who can’t make themselves heard otherwise. If it resonates with others, it will find its way to publication. The usual critics will pile on me for this, but I think there’s too much noise, too much drama, too much flag-waving out there; indulge in it if you will, but I’m too old to care, and I’d rather hole up in my home office with a cup of coffee and peck away at my next novel than prove that I’m more, uhm, Polynesian than thou.

Write your heart out, but with craft and composure; write something moving and memorable, and get that book out with your name on the spine. Me, I’ll be at the PBF to sign books all day on March 15.

Qwertyman No. 183: Lawyers for the People

Posted on by
Reply

Qwertyman for Monday, February 2, 2026

I MIGHT have become a lawyer in another life, given that, back in the sixties, the profession of law still carried with it a certain gravitas, a presumption of not only intellectual brilliance but a commitment to public service. The best of legal minds found themselves in the Supreme Court and the Senate, and the latter was studded with such stars as Jovito Salonga, Jose Diokno, Arturo Tolentino, and Tecla San Andres Ziga. (To Gen Z’ers unfamiliar with these names, Diokno topped both the bar and CPA exams—despite the fact that he never completed his law studies, for which the Supreme Court had to give him special dispensation, and was also too young to be given his CPA license, for which he had to wait a few years. Ziga was the first woman bar topnotcher.) 

My father studied to be a lawyer, but other priorities got in the way; his dream would be achieved by my sister Elaine and my brother Jess. As for me, activism and martial law happened, and in that environment where the law as we knew it suddenly didn’t seem to matter, I lost any urge to enter law school, and chose between English and history instead.

Thankfully, many others saw things differently, and now make up the cream of the profession, appearing on lists such as the Philippines’ Top 100 and Asia’s Top 500 Lawyers. Their skills are formidable—I’ve been told that some senior lawyers are so sharp (or so, shall we say, highly persuasive) that they can get a Supreme Court decision reversed—and their fees will certainly reflect that.

But my utmost admiration is reserved for lawyers who have devoted their careers to that portion of the Lawyer’s Oath that says: “I shall conscientiously and courageously work for justice, as well as safeguard the rights and meaningful freedoms of all persons, identities and communities. I shall ensure greater and equitable access to justice.” 

No better group of lawyers represents that than the Free Legal Assistance Group or FLAG, founded in 1974 by Diokno himself, then newly released from prison, together with Lorenzo M. Tanada, Joker P. Arroyo, Alejandro Lichauco, and Luis Mauricio, all fellow members of the Civil Liberties Union of the Philippines (CLUP), as martial law entrenched itself and civil liberties became increasingly threatened. 

In the half-century since then—documented in FLAG’s anniversary book Frontliners for Human Rights: FLAG of the People @50 (FLAG, 2025)—FLAG has worked to locate and release desaparecidos, or persons abducted by State agents, fight the death penalty, defend victims of extrajudicial killings, and contest the Anti-Terrorism law, among other key initiatives.

“From its birth, FLAG has kept faith in its philosophy of developmental legal advocacy—the adept use of the law and its processes and institutions not only to secure rights and freedoms but also to change the social structures that trigger and perpetuate injustice,” FLAG reports. “Over 50 years, FLAG has handled over 9,052 cases and assisted over 9,591 clients throughout the country. These figures are merely a fraction of the cases FLAG has handled, and the clients FLAG has served nationwide. The number of FLAG clients excludes the communities and barangays who had experienced massacres and hamletting, urban poor communities whose homes had been demolished, and landless farmers and tenant farmer associations, whose numbers are impossible to count. Overall, FLAG’s rate of success ranged from a low of 66.89% (in 1989) to a high of 79.11% in 1990. On average, FLAG has won 7 out of every 10 cases it has handled, or an impressive success rate of 72.92%.

“FLAG has always provided its legal services, free of charge. In line with its core mandate, FLAG renders free legal assistance primarily to those who cannot afford, or cannot find, competent legal services. FLAG counts clients among the urban poor, students, indigenous peoples, farmers, fishers, political prisoners, and non-unionized or non-organized workers.”

These gains have come at a huge personal cost—no less than 14 FLAG lawyers have died in the line of duty, presumably at the hands of State agents. FLAG lawyers have been Red-tagged, harassed, and put under surveillance. 

That hasn’t stopped its lawyers from pursuing their mission under its current Chairman, former Supreme Court spokesman Atty. Theodore Te. The need for their services certainly remains, with the Philippines ranking 38th out of 170 countries in the world in the 2023 Atlas of Impunity released by the Eurasia Group for “impunity,” defined as” the exercise of power without accountability, which becomes, in its starkest form, the commission of crimes without punishment.”

We can only wish Ted Te and his courageous colleagues well, as they operate in an environment more complex in many ways than martial law.

Speaking of law books, I’d like to recommend another book that was launched just recently, Constitutional Law for Filipinos: Mga Konsepto, Doktrina at Kaso (Central Books, 2026) by Atty. Roel Pulido. One of our leading environmental lawyers, Atty. Pulido teaches Constitutional and Environmental Law at Arellano University, where he also serves as Director of the Office of Legal Aid. 

“This is a project designed to be a learning aid,” says Roel. “It has a few unique features. First, It does not explain each and every Article of the Constitution. Instead, it focuses on Constitutional law concepts. Each concept is explained in simple language. Then Supreme Court rulings explaining the concepts are quoted. And in a box, I have placed a short and simple Filipino explanation of the concept. Second, the cases are quoted to explain and elaborate each concept. Instead of including all the convoluted issues in one case, it focuses only on the topic at hand. Third, the doctrine of each case cited is summarized in a sentence in both English and Filipino.”

We need more books like this that make the ideas and the language of the law more accessible to ordinary Filipinos. That’s the first requisite of legal literacy, which is also a form of empowering people. FLAG and Atty. Pulido are the kind of lawyers I would have wanted to become.