ONE OF the enduring mysteries of the recent Pacquiao-Obama encounter at the White House is that no photos of that meeting have so far surfaced, at least in the traditional media.
In this age of photo-ops and instantly downloadable images, not a single photo, not even a grainy image shot with a cell phone, has been aired or printed. All we?re provided so far have been photos of the Filipino boxer with US Sen. Harry Reid, who served as Pacquiao?s tour guide in Washington, D.C.
Explanations have been scarce. And to fill the vacuum, people have come up with several theories. Was it the Pacman?s new Justin Bieber ?do? Maybe the graying Obama didn?t want to be shown standing beside a teen idol wannabe (or avid Bruce Lee fan, as Pacquiao explained), deeming it damaging to his image.
Could the White House have feared that ?boxing?s only legislator,? as the New York Times dubbed him, would use any photo with Obama in a future campaign? This early, trainer Freddie Roach already proclaims Pacquiao a future Philippine president. Is the Pacquiao camp reserving the valuable photos for a future run for the presidency?
Talking with a broadcast executive at Friday?s Anvil Awards night, I heard the most intriguing theory yet. It?s possible the White House imposed an embargo on any Obama-Pacquiao photo release because the Pacman will be fighting an African-American, Sugar Shane Mosley, in his coming fight. Is Obama afraid he would be accused of abandoning a ?brother? just to cozy up with the Pacman from Dadiangas? ?Obama has always labored under the perception that he isn?t ?black? enough,? said my broadcaster friend, so the half-white President might have thought it the wiser course not to further damage his standing among the African-American community.
Whatever the reason, I hope someone from the Pacquiao camp comes up with a credible explanation soon. I for one am begging for answers to a burning question: What did Jinkee wear to the White House meeting? (And did the outfit include an Hermes Birkin?)
* * *
?AANHIN pa ang debate kung patay na ang babae? (Of what use would be the debate when the woman is already dead?)? read one streamer at the recent ?GO NaGo for RH: Ipasa Na!? rally.
The rally was described as a show of force among GOs (government organizations) and NGOs (non-government organizations) in support of the pending reproductive health bill. This after the recent announcement by Malaca?ang that President Aquino had taken the RH bill off the list of priority measures he was endorsing to Congress, on the ground that a dialogue with Catholic bishops was still going on.
?I was feeling so frustrated,? recalled Philippine Commission on Women Chair Remmy Rikken. ?Then I remembered what women?s groups did during the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission in 1986.? Pushing for the inclusion of an equal rights provision in the Charter, women from all sectors and political persuasions marched to where the Constitutional Commission was meeting, there unfurling a long banner bearing the women?s appeal and thousands of signatures. Inspired, Rikken proposed the GO-NGO gathering and there start a signature campaign to be appended to a ?Statement of Support? expressing women?s (and men?s) sentiments regarding the urgent need to pass the RH bill ?now na!?
* * *
MEETING at the Risen Garden in front of the Quezon City Hall, women braved the searing late-morning sun to listen to speakers explain why the passage of the bill on reproductive health was urgently needed, mainly to save the lives of women and children.
?Our hair has grown white advocating for this measure,? wryly noted feminist leader Princess Nemenzo, even as speaker after speaker counted the years spent trying to put sexual and reproductive health and rights in the law books. For former Sen. Leticia Ramos-Shahani, the fight began in 1987, when she introduced ?a simple resolution? calling for the creation of a rational family planning policy and met with a firestorm of opposition. But as an offshoot of this experience, explained Shahani, she and other like-minded legislators created the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), ?an NGO based in the House of Representatives, certainly a first in the world,? and today a leading advocate of the RH measure.
Also present at the rally was Commission on Higher Education Chair Patricia Licuanan. ?I am here because I believe the RH bill is pro-poor, pro-women and pro-family,? she declared.
* * *
BUT the most pungent statements came by way of representatives of urban poor women?s groups, who drew from the harsh realities of their lives.
Lina Bacalando of the urban poor women?s group Pilakk told the story of Olivia, who died soon after delivering her 10th child. But the story is also an inter-generational tragedy, since Olivia?s oldest daughter Ineng, only 13, has had to stop schooling to take care of her youngest sibling, perhaps dooming her to a lifetime of hardship, and her own children to another cycle of poverty.
Lorena Purificacion of the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (Alliance of Filipino Workers) wanted to know, while the endless debate on reproductive health rages, ?who is looking after the health and welfare of ordinary people??
Rep. Edcel Lagman, the principal author of the RH bill, told the story of a friend who asked a priest if indeed Catholics supportive of RH would be denied Communion. The priest told him there was no such ruling, and when Lagman asked the priest if he thought supporting RH was a sin, ?the priest simply said: ?No comment.??
?Not all priests, especially those who know the problems of ordinary Catholics, support the stand of the bishops,? he declared.
