The Misplaced Creativity of Modern Representation

The Misplaced Creativity of Modern Representation

In today’s era of cultural consciousness, inclusivity and representation have become buzzwords dominating conversations around media and storytelling. However, what is often presented as progressive inclusivity in mainstream media frequently feels shallow, commercialized, and ultimately a disservice to the very communities it claims to uplift. The trend of reimagining established fictional characters—such as casting an African actress as Ariel in The Little Mermaid or a Hispanic actress as Snow White—highlights a troubling pattern where marketability is prioritized over genuine creativity or cultural authenticity. 

Inclusivity vs. Commercial Strategy 

True inclusivity stems from celebrating diverse identities and narratives, but when representation is reduced to altering existing characters to fit a diversity agenda, it raises questions about intent. Are these choices made to reflect society’s evolving values, or are they calculated moves to capitalize on a growing demand for inclusivity? 

The reality often leans toward the latter. Recasting characters like Ariel or Snow White might generate buzz and controversy, but it seldom results in a meaningful connection with the audiences these changes are meant to represent. Instead of taking the risk to create original stories that authentically showcase underrepresented cultures, studios lean on familiar properties to ensure commercial success. The result is a brand of inclusivity that feels more like tokenism than true representation. 

A Shortcut to Representation 

Reimagining existing characters is not inherently problematic, but when it becomes the default approach to representation, it risks diminishing the value of diversity. By retrofitting characters into narratives where they lack cultural resonance, creators inadvertently suggest that underrepresented groups need to inhabit pre-existing roles to gain recognition, rather than being celebrated for their unique stories. 

For example, casting an African actress as Ariel or a Hispanic actress as Snow White does little to elevate African or European cultural narratives. Instead of exploring myths like Mami Wata—a richly symbolic water spirit in African folklore—creators opt to rework a European fairy tale, placing diversity in a context where it feels out of place, or instead of reimagining Snow White as Hispanic, why not adapt captivating Hispanic folklore such as La Llorona or El Sombrerón? This not only distorts the original story but also fails to provide authentic representation for the community being showcased. 

The Problem of Misplaced Authenticity 

Take the 2010 remake of The Karate Kid as another example of this misplaced creativity. Despite being set in China and focusing on Kung Fu, the movie retained its original title, The Karate Kid, a nod to the brand recognition of the 1984 classic. While the film succeeded commercially, its title raised questions about cultural accuracy. Was the decision to call it The Karate Kid a genuine tribute to the original, or was it simply a marketing move to attract nostalgic audiences? 

This kind of decision-making undermines authenticity and perpetuates confusion about cultural nuances. It demonstrates how creators prioritize marketability over the integrity of the narratives they present. If studios cannot commit to fully adapting stories to reflect their new contexts, how can they expect audiences to take these representations seriously? 

A Question of Creative Depth 

Representation becomes even more problematic when it begins to distort the essence of the stories themselves. Critics of reimagined adaptations might point to potential inconsistencies, such as questioning whether Frozen would still make sense if set in Greenland or the Himalayas instead of Scandinavia. Supporters may argue that these are just fictional stories, and producers have the “creative license” to reinterpret them as they wish. 

But this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While fiction allows for flexibility, it does not absolve creators from respecting the cultural and historical significance of the stories they adapt. By neglecting authenticity, creators risk alienating audiences who recognize these distortions as shallow attempts to pander to modern sensibilities rather than genuine efforts to celebrate diversity. 

Inclusivity Should Be Nurtured, Not Forced 

Forcing inclusivity into existing frameworks often comes across as artificial, and audiences can sense when representation is more about optics than substance. Inclusivity should be a natural byproduct of storytelling that values human diversity in all its forms. When creators prioritize authenticity, representation becomes an organic and enriching aspect of the narrative, rather than a box to tick for marketing purposes. 

True representation also requires a willingness to take risks. It involves creating new stories, new characters, and new worlds that reflect the richness of human experience. By relying on established intellectual properties to achieve diversity, creators miss the opportunity to introduce audiences to the untapped wealth of global cultures and perspectives. 

The Responsible Approach to Cultural Appropriation 

Cultural appropriation is another layer to this discussion. While often criticized, not all forms of appropriation are inherently negative. When done responsibly, cultural borrowing can foster cross-cultural understanding and appreciation. The key lies in intention and execution. 

Appropriation becomes problematic when it reduces cultural elements to mere aesthetics, stripping them of their deeper meanings. For example, many traditional practices or symbols have been commodified for tourist markets, creating distorted representations that cater to outsiders’ expectations rather than honoring the culture itself. 

Responsible appropriation requires a deep understanding and respect for the culture being borrowed from. It involves collaboration with cultural representatives and a commitment to preserving the authenticity and significance of what is being shared. Without this responsibility, cultural borrowing risks perpetuating stereotypes or trivializing the traditions it seeks to highlight. 

A Better Path Forward 

To truly embrace diversity, creators must move beyond the safety of established brands. The world is full of untold stories, myths, and characters waiting to be brought to life. Rather than relying on retrofitted narratives, creators should focus on crafting original works that celebrate the unique beauty of different cultures. 

Consider how much richer the storytelling landscape would be if filmmakers explored African water deities like Mami Wata, Southeast Asian folklore like the Aswang, or Indigenous American legends like the Thunderbird. These narratives would not only provide authentic representation but also offer audiences something fresh and innovative. 

Representation should not be about visibility alone; it should empower underrepresented communities by giving them the platform to tell their own stories. By embracing originality and authenticity, creators can create narratives that resonate with diverse audiences while honoring the cultures they depict. 

Conclusion: Creativity Over Marketability 

The misplaced creativity of modern representation often prioritizes marketability over meaningful storytelling. While well-intentioned, the trend of reimagining existing characters as a means of achieving diversity often feels hollow and performative. 

True inclusivity demands more than casting decisions; it requires a commitment to authenticity, originality, and respect for the cultures being represented. By moving away from recycled narratives and investing in fresh, culturally rich stories, creators can foster a deeper appreciation for the diversity of the human experience. 

Representation is not about forcing diversity into pre-existing molds. It is about creating space for new voices, new ideas, and new stories that celebrate the richness of our shared humanity. In doing so, we can move beyond tokenism and build a storytelling tradition that is as inclusive as it is creative. 

They’re still clinging to that “fundless” fund whatever it takes

They’re still clinging to that “fundless” fund whatever it takes

This note wouldn’t be surprised that as the current administration continues to cling to this fundless fund of theirs that this may also serve as a biggest source of corruption in the country’s history. By having it not open to public scrutiny, both the final text of the law as well as the operations and investment decisions of the officers involved in this “sovereign wealth fund” will always raise concerns especially over conflicting provisions and potential legal and constitutional issues.

How come? Other than it is signed by the current administration prone to corruption and crony capitalism, the Maharlika Investment Fund, being “fundless” and “shouldered by loans”, has to depend on funds from state-owned banks and corporations despite the fact these agencies having limited funds for its intended clients to begin with. 

In an instance, the Philippine Chamber of Agriculture and Food Inc. worried as while Development Bank of the Philippines and the Land Bank of the Philippines have limited access to its intended clients, will contribute to the fund itself- and that interprets as directing funds away from agriculture and other important needs. 

Even the Church, the academe, and Civil Society expressed disapproval on the controversial fund and suggested that whatever funds are to be allotted to it would better serve Filipinos by strengthening existing poverty alleviation programs of the government. 

There are other groups that also expressed concern  in that sovereign wealth fund Marcos and his circle bragged about, as businessmen and economists still find the newly-passed law as having a “lack of clear focus” if not questioning its intentions, particularly its target to finance development projects, saying it may “render redundant” existing government programs; if not seeing “vague” about expected financial and economic returns.

To cut this thought short, seeing that controversial law being signed by the president shows that the administration doesn’t mind about the sovereign while claiming that the fund is meant for “them”. The funds meant to invest in that entity will always be coming from the working public, and really concerning that these might go to waste if mismanaged. Is the Santiago principles enough to prove that the sovereign wealth fund be managed properly? Not even, especially when people, the very sovereign who’s worried about their taxes and savings as sources of funds, wanted sound good governance and development strategies as well as having people’s participation and support- and these are seemingly absent in this current situation. 

Apologists of the fund, however, may still cling to their thought that the fund meant chances of making the country not to depend on international loans, if not a panacea for the ever-yearning for “nationl development” - despite the fact that the fund itself also includes those from borrowings both local and abroad. Even the President’s certification of the bill as urgent despite the absence of a public emergency or calamity as countered by that of the recent pandemic and global events being necessitated for “urgent action” even with lack of surplus funds from the national budget nor having responsible managers to begin with.        

Again, as said in earlier writeups concerning this “fund”, that amid rising prices, low wages, acute joblessness, rural dislocation and economic dispossession, seeing the Marcos regime prioritizing their own interests as well as that of his cronies and their foreign partners as a mockery of the promises being said to the people the way it downplays the truth the country experiencing inflation as “not that high” if not failing to fulfill making 20 pesos for a kilo of rice.

“Is the nation’s state really sound and improving?”

“Is the nation’s state really sound and improving?”

“The state of the nation is sound and improving…” said the president in his second state of the nation address.

Facing his camarilla and that of his allies in the legislature, the president, just like his predecessor, is trying to appease the people with another round of empty rhetoric and half-baked programs, alongside “achievements” trying to stave off controversies- as he provided a thorough evaluation of the performance of his administration in 15 key areas, including the economy and food security, infrastructure, the controversial Maharlika Investment Fund, energy, uniformed personnel, education, health, foreign policy, investments, digitalization and internet, migrant workers, housing, the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (BARMM), a refocused drug war, insurgency, and priority bills. 

And regardless of the controversies surrounding his proposals supporters of the administration will still cling to the president’s optimism. That by claiming the country as improving amidst crisis, it becomes a copium that tries to counter the truth- in a way the Maharlika Fund is treated as a panacea despite being fundless and unsure of its goals. True that restrictions imposed during the COVID19 pandemic been relaxed and hence trying to stimulate transactions, but how about a sound minimum wage for laborers, and support for smallholder farmers and local enterprises especially startups? The KADIWA stores being said with pride, does it benefited the farmers who are in desperate need for accessibility to buyers? Or that of profiteering smugglers benefiting from imported sugar, fruits, vegetables, even meat?

True it may be that the regime tries to “moderate” its image in the face of criticism borne from of the past administration, but despite these promises and “achievements” nothing has said about pressing issues particularly on human rights as those from the opposition are being harassed, red-tagged, arrested, imprisoned, killed, or simply disappeared, even silent on his predecessor’s case in the International Criminal Court if not the crimes under his father’s dictatorship. Marcos’s speech also fell short in addressing important issues like national sovereignty, widespread corruption, and the nation's growing debt of PhP 12.7 trillion, among others. 

These and more would say that despite their words this doesn’t stop people from questioning, seeking truth from facts and to expose the inconvenient truths the order has trying to cover upon. He is the same president who has perchance for expensive overseas junkets and downplays people’s hardships, who claims inflation as “not that high” while everyone felt its effects. Worse, to claim that justice thrives when crooks and thugs roaming freely as that of the past administration’s- making such truths altogether would say that the “new Philippines” presented by the second Marcos administration is as same as that of the old- benefiting the corrupt bureaucrat, the oppressive despot, and the profiteering economic conmen who altogether use the people for their interests as it harps on grand promises but falls short of actual benefits for their constituents. 

But regardless of these empty messages and half baked promises, there’s still hope for people who wanted a new Philippines to happen- that by taking the future from the goddamn system!

Now that it is signed, what’s next?

Now that it is signed, what’s next? 

 Amid lack of surplus funds and popular discontent, President Bongbong Marcos signed the act creating the Maharlika Investment Fund into law, the creation of the country’s first sovereign wealth fund. 

 Surrounded by his allies in congress, Marcos jr. highlighted the creation of the Maharlika Investment Fund as a bold step towards development despite the fact that business groups, academia, economists, opposition lawmakers, and civil society disagreed with the proposition, citing several provisions as problematic, including the use of state pension funds as seed money, and susceptibility to corruption.

 Of course, the administration would “heed” and therefore “omit” if necessary certain provisions in the draft just to appease them; but, despite assuring the public about the fund “will be run by finance professionals” to that of “addressing issues on accountability and transparency”, this doesn’t stop the concerned from being critical, especially when another Marcos meant another chances of cronyism and corruption. But come to think of this, now that the bill is signed into law, what’s next for a sovereign wealth fund that’s having lack of funds in itself? Sovereign wealth funds generally arise out of a country’s surplus revenues — whether from surpluses due to natural resources, trade surpluses, or any other similar sources. 

And it is not surprising if the administration would able to “gain funds” initially from government-owned banks, and subsequently from the dividends of the Central Bank, gaming revenue streams from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, and other sources, such as royalties and/or special assessments based on natural resources, proceeds from privatization of government assets, and even borrowings. And in speaking of government-owned banks and other Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, isn’t it that Land Bank of the Philippines should prioritise first the funding of the agrarian reform program and rural development rather than funding that controversial wealth fund? The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, under its charter would say that it is their duty to help raise funds for the government and may also include that controversial MIF. Even the Central Bank with its surplus dividends would say helpful to subsidise that investment fund- but still, it needs to be surplus. 

 Yet, why the government’s assurances doesn’t it stop people from worrying aside from possible misuse of public funds, graft and corruption, and mismanagement like what happened in Malaysia and in Nauru? Is their message enough to appease people whose serious and immediate concerns outweigh the administration’s promises and alibis? The lack of clear objectives especially in this still-developing country such as supporting efforts in industrialisation, “green jobs” creation, even agricultural modernisation and supporting improvements in education, science and technology, or even culture and the arts, makes one worrying on the need for a sovereign wealth fund that prioritises the interests of the few using proceeds that meant to be for the many while claiming this would be “for the welfare of the Filipino people.” After all, should investing using people’s funds (whether it is taxes, pension, dividends from state owned financial institutions, etc.) be limited to that of stocks, real estate, among others? 

 Perhaps alongside the need for prioritising immediate attention and comprehensive solutions to education, healthcare, housing, employment opportunities, and poverty alleviation, the need for a sovereign wealth fund may sound feasible, but since this issue is without even asking from the crisis-marred sovereign (that is, the Filipino people) from the start, it becomes a mockery- especially when having a “fund” that’s without any fund other than borrowings and babblings, and led by bureaucrats who wanted to consolidate their entrenched interests by evenly using people’s funds. 

 So now that it is signed, what’s next? Folk! Be vigilant in their soonest actions!

“When an Ugly logo can also become a can of worms”

“When an Ugly logo can also become a can of worms”

In celebration of its 40th year, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) inaugurates its new logo, which represents the agency’s re-energized role as the main gaming regulator in the Philippines. 

In a statement, PAGCOR Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Alejandro Tengco justified the need for changing the logo into a dynamic one, as he said,  "The new PAGCOR logo incorporates the element of fire associated with energy, inspiration, passion, and transformation. It symbolizes the flame that ignites change and drives progress. The logo likewise reflects a beacon which symbolizes guidance, leadership, and direction. It represents a guiding light that helps people find their way,” 

 “All these taken together, our new logo reflects PAGCOR’s long standing commitment of being a guiding force that illuminates the way forward, drives transformation and development, and brings inspiration and motivation to the lives it touches,” Chairman Tengco furthered. 

 The logo, which is prominently featured in the 40 anniversary celebration of the agency, was inaugurated by President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos, House Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, and PAGCOR Chairman and CEO Alejandro Tengco at the Grand Ballroom of the Manila Marriott Hotel in Pasay City.

“Ugly”, “waste of people’s money”, 

 and “lacking in harmony” according to Facebook users 

 But despite Tengco’s “optimistic” message, the new logo does not spare from popular criticism, as Facebook users have been critical of the new blue and red design, saying it’s uglier compared to the old familiar icon, if not a waste of people’s money.

 According to writer Ninotchka Rosca, “What fire? Guy needs new glasses. How much did it cost?” 

 Others like Mark Camilon, compared the logo to that of Petron Corporation, with the choice of color and the similarity of its design, as he said,

 “You cannot fool us Petron!” 

 Meanwhile, artist Jonathan Teodoro described the logo as lacking in harmony in his Facebook post. 

 “ I analyzed the 3 Million pesos PagCor logo. No ‘bes’, no harmony at all. I got a oblongs instead of circles. I tried to correct it, but I can’t, there are already curves that are off.” Teodoro said. 

 “Looks like it is rushed by a kid who guards at the computer shop.” Teodoro added.

 It is also said that PAGCOR spent 3 Million pesos for the design of the logo. According to a document issued on June 27, 2023, the agency issued notice of award to the designer Francisco Doplon’s Printplus Graphic Services, with a total contract price of three million thirty five thousand, seven hundred fourteen pesos (PhP 3,035,74.28).

A possible case of corruption? 

Such events would say that behind the ugly design and the amount given lies an uglier transaction.

According to recent information shared in Facebook, Francisco Doplon’s Printplus was just newly registered for PhilGEPS on June 14, 2023, while it’s business scope is limited to that of a barangay-level. So since it is limited for a barangay, how could a startup be able to gain national-level with a contract of three million pesos?

And in speaking of being newly registered, being marked “red” at PhilGEPS raises doubts because "red" is the standard PhilGEPS registration for its new members. Red members can only view bidding notices with small sums of money at stake, typically less than 1 million pesos, as they are unable to directly submit bids on the PhilGEPS platform. "Shopping" refers to the process of examining offers. And "Red" members must send their quotes for projects directly to the chairperson of the bids and awards committee (BAC). 

 So how could Printplus, a company with a “red” level status under PhilGEPS and registered since June 14, 2023 able to gain three million pesos for a logo? People may find the logo not just ugly, but also there’s something fishy behind gaining three million from a company that’s probably "hired" for another corruption scheme. 

And if this were to turn out to be the case, how do these bureaucrats believe they can keep all these accusations of fraud and corruption from the public? Who could be in charge of this purportedly egregious act of corruption? Imagine a logo that people would say costs 3,000 or less and receives 3,000,000,000 without going through a bidding process. Is politics a factor in this situation? If so, then there is no doubt that something fishier than the logo's offensiveness results from these connections.

 Conclusion 

 To cut it short, it’s true that most Filipino graphic designers are underpaid or given less value than any other professional jobs, and thus they deserve better/higher pay and recognition; however, with this serious issue looming out of what supposed to be a matter related to graphics and design, people must also recognize that PAGCOR is a “government owned and controlled corporation” and at times is funded by the people through government subsidies, so whatever spending may also comes from everyone's hard earned money. So, yes, the agency did overspend on the logo redesign, and its design isn't really 3 million worthy, and if one think covering this up with issues of underpaid or undervalued local graphic designers as a solution, then there’s something’s wrong on that person- for that person contributes to a problem. 

 Perhaps, PAGCOR should again remind people, especially gamers to be responsible in their gaming and themselves while transacting. That would be way better than having a logo that can also become a can of worms.

"Is the country really worth loving for?"

"Is the country really worth loving for?"

The recent shamble in the Department of Tourism shows that the tourism slogan “Love the Philippines” is a half baked kind of mess. 

Meant to replace the 11 year old slogan “It’s more fun in the Philippines”, this new tourism slogan may sound forceful as Secretary Frasco described it as a “call to action to every Filipino citizen to remember the beauty of our country, to honor our past, and to look forward to the future armed with the virtues, (and) values of being a Filipino.” 

Sounds ideal isn’t it? Especially that after the pandemic and tourists able to “return and savour the tropical setting the Philippines has to offer”, the slogan is perceived by many as a “demand”, “generic”, and “lacks the appeal” that “It’s More Fun in the Philippines” had. Besides, how come neighboring countries didn’t change their slogan? Thailand has its “Amazing Thailand”, or Malaysia with its “Malaysia, Truly Asia”, so why need to change the slogan? Some would even say Richard Gordon’s “Wow Philippines” should stay longer. 

And even commenters suggested that the tagline would have been better with a comma – Love, the Philippines – to show that the destination and its people have lots of love to give. 

However, this demand for ‘love’ arrived at a marketing plan that ended up degrading, instead of promoting, the country’s tourism product. It raises questions instead of praise, especially after the the two-minute video, produced by the advertising agency DDB Group Philippines as part of a six-month, P49.925-million consulting contract with the tourism department, which included stock footage of tourist destinations from Indonesia, Thailand, Switzerland and the United Arab Emirates. There would be no controversy if the ad agency uses local tourist spots like Cordillera, Bicol, Cebu, or even Metro Manila; but the use of stock footages featuring places from abroad, no matter how it was meant to be a “mood board” to excite “internal stakeholders” (in other words, an internal consumption), has mocked not just the client (that is, the tourism department) but the folk in using the foreign, rather than local for a reference.- That makes one senator call it “unsalvagable”, while a congressman described it as a “lazy job”. 

But that doesn't matter to Secretary Frasco, who believes the contract between the department and the ad agency was terminated with the latter "taking full responsibility for the 'unfortunate oversight'" and agreeing to "fully cooperate with the department in its investigation." She repeated that slogan several times during an event in Manila to defend it in the face of popular criticism. 

Yet despite being “resolved”, this “Frasco Fiasco” doesn’t stop as legislators urged to pause and rethink on the issue, especially that the campaign requires public funds to begin with only to found seeing the campaign as “unsalvagable”, “laughingstock”, and a “lazy job” as one advertising agency ruined a national project using stock videos from foreign countries for a “mood board”. Is dropping the ad agency enough to call it a day? Not at all- for even the recent statement from Apollo Quiboloy further fanned the flames of controversy as he himself who claims to be “son of god” is wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for his crimes. 

Hence, will that fiasco really stop? For the government perhaps they may trying to “in order for the country to move on”, but not for the commoner who demands accountability as the slogan itself involves taxpayer money. 

 *** 

And, since this topic is about this goddamn slogan, it is true that people should "Love the Philippines," with all of its pristine beaches, beautiful wonders, culture and heritage, and people's laughter; but, for reality's sake, what kind of love in a time when inflation and indebtedness forced these very same people who smile in front of the camera to face everyday hardship as they buy expensive goods while earning lower wages? 40 pesos from an average laborer isn't even enough to sustain a family, let alone with rising prices of goods and services, which makes a real living wage necessary. To "love the Philippines" also means to recognize the unpleasant reality of a poor and oppressed country- all thanks to that goddamn system that cares about its own interest even at the expense of the suffering rest. It also reminds that of the paintings of Amorsolo that tends to romanticise rural life, smiling and having fun in a time when poverty and social injustice forced farmers and farmworkers to raise their bolos and fight for freedom in the countryside. 

 Call it a killjoy moment this hell of a kind note, but that’s the reality everyone faces with- for will people truly love the country when most chose to leave because of its ever-existing poverty? Thank the heavens that there are those who despite leaving abroad doesn’t agree to that kind of thought of leaving one’s homeland for they have families to begin with; but instead the best thing to do is to seek truth, and in seeking truth means to expose the oppression, bloodshed, and injustice that’s prevailing in the country. Such truths would say makes one willing to fight for resisting, even at the expense of one’s life is itself out of loving. 

Hence, to cut this thought short, saying that the country is worth loving is not just because of its pristine beaches, mountains, and the smile of the people tourists should encounter. To love the Philippines means to fight for it, to fight for the right and willing to march into hell with a heavenly cause. Sorry to use “The Impossible Dream” for this, for the fact that the slogan sounds obliging each and everyone to love, then it is quite difficult to love a country that’s worth loving for.

“When an idiot end booted out by the courts after appointed by the palace”

“When an idiot end booted out by the courts after appointed by the palace”

(Or: questioning Larry Gadon’s choice by Malacañang as Antipoverty Czar 

after his disbarment by the Supreme Court for impropriety)

The recent disbarment of Larry Gadon demonstrates that lawyers must take their oath seriously, which includes maintaining professional and personal integrity as members of the bar. 

 When Gadon's profanity-laced tirade against Raisa Robles went viral two years ago, some netizens correctly predicted that justice would soon hold him accountable for his actions, despite the fact that his three-month suspension from the court was "insufficient." And it's only a matter of time before a unanimous decision by the justices is imposed to protect the legal profession's integrity. 

 As a result, he loses his years of hard work, his license, and his title. Being disbarred means that an attorney can no longer practice law and may lose their job, which is a significant consequence. Disbarment, which results in the loss of a lawyer's right to practice law, is the result of serious misconduct or violations of ethical standards. A severe punishment may jeopardize an attorney's career and reputation. As a result, having a title that carries so much power and influence comes with a great deal of responsibility, which includes upholding the highest standards of professional conduct and decency.

 Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the importance of decency and integrity in the legal profession, and it is bestowed on those who are intellectually, academically, and, most importantly, morally competent. That from the time bar passers swore an oath and became full-fledged lawyers, being a member of the bar is more than just bearing the title of "attorney" and practicing law, but a privilege that can be revoked--and by revoked, a message is sent that abuse or misconduct of any kind will not be tolerated. Whereas a child should be taught "good manners and right conduct" at home and school, a lawyer or any other professional should be taught the highest standard of decency and conduct leading to a more accountable society, where individuals bear the consequences of their actions.

 Despite his disbarment, Gadon continues to serve as the president's adviser on poverty alleviation. And the fact that Malacañang defends his appointment during his removal from the bar makes one wonder if it is worth worrying about the credibility of a person who has no regrets about his remarks, if not the need for a "antipoverty czar" whose tasks are the same as those of other existing agencies such as the National Anti-Poverty Commission. Its commissioner is capable of performing the same duties as him! Even the Secretary of Social Welfare and Development is capable of performing the same duties as him! So, why do we need another bureaucrat at a time when the president has promised to reduce the size of government? Or why Gadon when there are people actively involved in anti-poverty campaigns who can be proven?

 But this recent issue is irrelevant to Gadon, who believes that the title "secretary" sounds "sweeter" to him than "attorney" because of his appointment by the president. He even claims that he never paid his dues as a cardholder member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines because he was "retired" and no longer practicing law. Furthermore, he believes that he is protected by free speech, whereas his supporters will continue to support him "right or wrong" (and even treated his remarks humorously). On the other hand, he admitted that the high court's decision was "too harsh" and that he must file a motion for reconsideration--an act attempting to defend his license as a lawyer despite his claim that he has retired from the profession. 

 In conclusion, regardless of how Malacañang defends Gadon's appointment or how Gadon himself downplays the punishment, people will remember him as a guttermouth who believes he has the right to say whatever he wants even if it means jeopardizing his reputation as a member of the bar.