REVISITING PHILIPPINE BIOMEDICAL WASTE TREATMENT TARGETS

REVISITING PHILIPPINE BIOMEDICAL WASTE TREATMENT TARGETS Biomedical waste (BMW) treatment remains a critical public health and environmental issue in the Philippines. Despite existing regulations, the lack of publicly available compliance data raises serious concerns. How many hospitals and healthcare facilities comply with biomedical waste treatment laws? Is the compliance rate at 70% perhaps? If so, what happens to the remaining 30% of untreated waste? The Compliance Mystery There appears to be no official reports or accessible databases for the public to verify government and hospital industry compliance with biomedical waste treatment laws. If compliance is less than ideal, where does the untreated waste go? Are there any cases filed against violators? How many have been penalized for non-compliance? The public deserves clear and transparent answers. The Risks of Untreated Biomedical Waste Untreated biomedical waste poses a serious threat to public health. The improper disposal of infectious materials can contribute to the spread of diseases. Is the government fully aware of these risks? If so, how effectively are agencies such as the Department of Health (DOH) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) coordinating to address the problem? Does this issue ever make it to high-level discussions in the Cabinet or the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC)? Who is Watching the Waste? One key question is whether biomedical waste is being mixed with ordinary garbage, potentially ending up in dumpsites and landfills. Is anyone investigating these practices? If true, it highlights a dangerous loophole in the system. Are Local Government Units (LGUs) adequately equipped to manage biomedical waste? Are they even required to pass their own municipal ordinances regulating BMW treatment? Regulatory Oversight and Industry Accountability The responsibility of monitoring and reporting biomedical waste disposal falls primarily on the DOH, DENR, and LGUs. However, enforcement remains a challenge. Is there third-party oversight to ensure compliance? While environmental groups, advocacy organizations, and the media play a role, there is no single independent watchdog dedicated to biomedical waste management. Strengthening Coordination and Enforcement A more coordinated effort is necessary to ensure proper BMW treatment. Perhaps it is time to appoint a "Biomedical Waste Treatment Czar" to oversee compliance and drive accountability. Additionally, the Philippine Congress should exercise stronger oversight through relevant committees, including the Committee on Health, the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, and the Committee on Local Government. New Waste Treatment Technology Developed in India According to India News, “scientists working at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research-National Institute for Interdisciplinary Science and Technology (CSIR-NIIST) in Thiruvananthapuram in Kerala have developed an indigenous technology that treats biomedical waste using chemicals and converts it into manure. The first prototype has been installed at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in New Delhi, where the technology will be validated by in-house scientists”. We should instruct our Embassy in New Delhi to get more information about this. A Call for Transparency and Action Biomedical waste management should not be treated as an afterthought. Transparency in compliance data, strict enforcement of regulations, and increased public awareness are essential to safeguarding public health. The government must take decisive action to ensure that no biomedical waste is left untreated, preventing potential health crises before they arise. The time to act is now. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-09-2025

RENAMING THE PHILIPPINE DEER

RENAMING THE PHILIPPINE DEER The Philippine brown deer (Rusa marianna) carries a name that raises a fundamental question: why is our endemic species named after a foreign location? This peculiar situation stems from history. French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest first described the species in 1822, based on specimens found in the Mariana Islands. However, the deer did not originate there—it was introduced from the Philippines, likely for hunting purposes. Thus, we face an odd reality: our very own native deer species bears a name that honors a different place. How can we correct this error? First, it is crucial to understand that scientific names follow strict international conventions governed by taxonomists. However, there have been instances where countries have successfully changed species names to reflect national identity. For example, the Pithecophaga jefferyi, once known as the monkey-eating eagle, is now rightly called the Philippine eagle. A logical and patriotic step forward would be to rename Rusa marianna as Rusa philippenses or Rusa filipiniana. This initiative could be undertaken by Filipino scientists, endorsed by conservation groups, and even formalized through legislative action. If necessary, we can submit this name change to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature for consideration. Beyond renaming, we should also elevate the Philippine deer’s status. One way to do this is by featuring it on our currency and postage stamps. The Philippine eagle enjoys this honor—why not our own deer as well? Another issue to consider is the designation of the national animal. Currently, the carabao holds this title, but it is not uniquely Filipino. Carabaos are found in other parts of Asia and have even been interbred with foreign species. Meanwhile, the tamaraw is an excellent alternative, being endemic to Mindoro. But if the tamaraw is not a viable choice, why not consider the Philippine deer? Importantly, the Philippine brown deer is not our only native deer species. The country is home to four recognized subspecies: · R. m. marianna (Luzon biogeographic region) · R. m. barandana (Mindoro) · R. m. nigella (upland areas of Mindanao) · R. m. nigricans (lowland sites of Mindanao) Our indigenous peoples have long honored the Philippine deer in their cultures. Among the Bagobo-Tagabawa, for instance, the deer is considered a cultural keystone species. Its antlers are used in traditional medicine, and its presence is woven into their spiritual beliefs. Protecting the deer is not just an ecological responsibility but a cultural one as well. To that end, we must take concrete steps to safeguard the Philippine deer: 1. Pass laws prohibiting its hunting in the wild. 2. Expand conservation programs in protected zones. 3. Strengthen local breeding programs to ensure its survival. As we assert our national identity, renaming the Philippine deer is not just a matter of nomenclature—it is an assertion of pride, heritage, and responsibility. If we could rightfully rename the Philippine eagle, then surely, we can reclaim our own Philippine deer as well. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-08-2025

CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEFEAT CORRUPTION?

CAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEFEAT CORRUPTION? Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been hailed as a game-changer in many industries, but can it truly help combat corruption? Corruption is a deeply rooted problem worldwide, costing economies billions and eroding public trust in institutions. While AI cannot single-handedly eliminate corruption, it can play a crucial role in reducing it through data analysis, transparency, and automation. Can AI Software Reduce or Minimize Corruption? Yes, AI can help minimize corruption by automating government processes, analyzing financial transactions, and identifying suspicious activities. By reducing human discretion in decision-making, AI minimizes opportunities for bribery, fraud, and nepotism. Successful Cases Abroad Several countries have successfully used AI to curb corruption: Estonia: The country has developed AI-powered e-governance systems that ensure transparent public service delivery, reducing opportunities for bribery and mismanagement. Singapore: With AI-driven monitoring systems, Singapore has significantly enhanced its anti-corruption framework by ensuring procurement processes remain transparent and fair. Brazil: The AI bot "Alice" helps auditors detect anomalies in tenders and public contracts, identifying fraud and collusion in government procurement. Romania, France, and Lithuania: The “Datacros” tool alerts authorities to corruption risks in public sector contracts. United States: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have employed AI to detect financial anomalies, uncovering fraudulent activities in high-profile cases. Recent Corruption Exposures: Lessons from the Philippines Baguio City Mayor Benjamin Magalong recently exposed corruption in the purchase of cat eyes and safety barriers for public highways. Such cases highlight the need for AI-driven monitoring tools to ensure procurement prices align with market rates. Is There a Global Standard for Infrastructure Costs? While global benchmarks exist for infrastructure costs, corruption often inflates them. AI can analyze international reference prices for road construction, comparing them with local government expenditures to detect discrepancies and prevent overpricing. Actual Cases of AI Fighting Corruption AI has already been instrumental in detecting and reducing corruption worldwide: AI-driven forensic accounting has exposed fraud in corporate and government transactions. Machine learning models have identified money laundering activities by flagging suspicious transactions. AI-powered auditing software has prevented financial leakages in public sector budgets. Can AI Create a Database for Transparency? A centralized AI-driven database could record prevailing prices of goods and services, providing a reliable reference for government procurement. This would prevent overpricing and ensure transparency in public spending. Which Government Agency Should Implement AI Against Corruption? Various agencies could take the lead: Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT): Develop AI tools and implement digital transparency measures. Commission on Audit (COA): Use AI-driven auditing software to track anomalies in government spending. Civil Service Commission (CSC): Monitor government employees for conflicts of interest and unethical behavior. Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG): Enforce AI-driven transparency measures at the local government level. Ombudsman (OMB): Investigate and prosecute corruption cases flagged by AI. Department of Budget and Management (DBM): Use AI to monitor public spending and ensure compliance with financial regulations. A task force comprising DICT, COA, CSC, DILG, OMB, and DBM could collaborate to implement AI in anti-corruption efforts effectively. Is a Law Required to Implement AI in Anti-Corruption Efforts? A legal framework would provide the necessary authority and safeguards for AI implementation. Legislation should address data privacy, ethical considerations, and accountability in AI-driven investigations. Can DILG Act on Its Own? While DILG could initiate AI-driven anti-corruption measures, a collaborative effort involving multiple agencies would be more effective. AI as a Tool, not a Silver Bullet AI offers immense potential in the fight against corruption, but it has limitations: Data dependency: AI is only as effective as the data it is trained on. Corrupt actors may manipulate data to evade detection. Human oversight: AI can flag suspicious activities, but human judgment is needed to verify findings. Adaptability of corrupt actors: Criminals continuously evolve tactics to bypass AI detection. Ethical concerns: AI must be used responsibly to avoid privacy violations and misuse. Conclusion AI can be a powerful tool in fighting corruption through data analysis, predictive analytics, and transparency. However, it must be integrated with strong governance, legal frameworks, and human oversight. The fight against corruption requires a multi-faceted approach, combining AI with institutional reforms, law enforcement, and public engagement. While AI cannot single-handedly defeat corruption, it can significantly weaken its grip and promote a culture of integrity and accountability. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-07-2025

CRIME RATES: WHO REPORTS THEM, WHO CHECKS THEM?

CRIME RATES: WHO REPORTS THEM, WHO CHECKS THEM? How do we know if crime is rising or falling? Who decides what makes it into the official crime statistics? These are critical questions that affect not just law enforcement policies but also our economy, governance, and even daily lives. Crime data in the Philippines is primarily collected by the Philippine National Police (PNP) through reports filed at police stations nationwide. The data is then consolidated and published in official crime statistics. However, there are growing concerns about how these figures are gathered and whether they present an accurate picture of public safety. Can We Trust the Numbers? The PNP, the very agency tasked with preventing crime, is also the one reporting crime rates. This situation presents a potential conflict of interest. If crime rates are used as a performance metric for local police commanders, is there an incentive to underreport incidents or reclassify crimes to make the numbers look better? While we would like to believe that all crime statistics are reported objectively, we cannot ignore the possibility of data manipulation. Reports of victims being discouraged from filing complaints, or crimes being labeled under lesser offenses, have been raised in different parts of the country. If the numbers are being adjusted for political or administrative convenience, how can the public be sure of the real crime situation? Who Should Double-Check Crime Data? Given these concerns, should an independent body validate crime statistics? Some possible candidates include: The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) – as it oversees the PNP and local governments. The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) – which is tasked with ensuring police accountability. Local Government Units (LGUs) – which may maintain their own crime data. Independent research institutions and NGOs – which can conduct separate crime victimization surveys. In many countries, crime reporting is supplemented by victimization surveys—polls that ask individuals if they’ve been victims of crime, regardless of whether they reported it to the police. The Philippines lacks such a system, making it difficult to compare official reports with the actual experiences of citizens. Who Gets Credit for Low Crime Rates? Another debate in crime statistics is whether credit for a low crime rate should go to the PNP or the local government. While law enforcement plays a major role, factors such as economic development, community programs, and education also contribute to safer communities. When crime rates drop, is it due to better policing, or do social conditions simply improve? The Need for Transparent Reporting Crime statistics influence public perception, investment decisions, and even the insurance industry. Areas with high crime rates face economic consequences—businesses struggle, real estate prices drop, and tourism suffers. Accurate data is essential not just for safety but for economic growth. For a truly transparent crime reporting system, the Philippines must consider: Establishing an independent crime data verification body. Enhancing crime reporting software for better data accuracy. Conducting nationwide victimization surveys. Allowing LGUs and NGOs to independently assess crime trends. Public trust in crime statistics is critical. If the numbers don’t reflect reality, the entire system suffers. It’s time to demand greater transparency and accountability in how crime rates are reported and verified. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-06-2025

ESTABLISHING WALKABLE, BIKEABLE MODEL BARANGAYS

ESTABLISHING WALKABLE, BIKEABLE MODEL BARANGAYS Imagine living in a barangay where you can walk or bike to work, school, church, the market, and even the hospital. A community where cars do not dominate the streets, and instead, people take priority. This vision is not only possible but necessary for a sustainable future. I advocate that every city and municipality in the Philippines should establish at least one model barangay that is walkable and bikeable (WABA), setting the standard for others to follow until the entire city or municipality transforms into a pedestrian-friendly haven. Why Walkable, Bikeable Barangays Matter Urban congestion, pollution, and inefficient public transport systems have made mobility a daily struggle for many Filipinos. A well-planned WABA can significantly improve quality of life by promoting physical activity, reducing air pollution, and fostering a stronger sense of community. These barangays should not only prioritize walking and biking but also ensure that residents can “live, play, shop, and pray” all within short distances. Essential services like schools, hospitals, markets, and places of worship should be accessible by foot or bicycle, reducing the reliance on motor vehicles. The Features of a Model Barangay A model WABA should adhere to global standards for walkable and bikeable communities, ensuring: 1. Compact Development – Higher-density, mixed-use neighborhoods that minimize the need for long commutes. 2. Pedestrian-Friendly Infrastructure – Sidewalks at least 3.5 meters wide on major streets, safe crossings, and active street frontages that encourage walkability. 3. Bike-Friendly Infrastructure – Dedicated, protected bike lanes at least two meters wide per direction, secure bike parking, and comprehensive bikeway networks connecting homes to key destinations. 4. Integrated Planning – Coordinated urban planning that aligns transportation with land use to support a car-free lifestyle. 5. Sustainability – Reliable electricity, clean water, and strong internet signals all year round. 6. Waste and Sanitation Compliance – Proper Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) and Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) for efficient waste management and sanitation. 7. Efficient Public Transport – Community-based shuttle services that connect residents to downtown areas and work sites, reducing the need for private car use. 8. Employment Opportunities – Encouraging local businesses and job creation to lower unemployment and poverty rates. Learning from Global Best Practices Cities like Copenhagen, Amsterdam, and Paris have successfully embraced walkable and bikeable urban planning. The “15-minute city” concept, pioneered in Paris, aims for residents to access daily essentials within a 15-minute walk or bike ride. London’s Walking Action Plan and Amsterdam’s extensive bike lane network demonstrate that sustainable mobility is not just a dream—it is achievable with the right policies and community engagement. Moving Forward How can we make this happen in the Philippines? Local government units (LGUs) must take the lead by selecting one barangay in each city or municipality to serve as a model WABA. Urban planners, transportation experts, and community members should collaborate to design and implement these neighborhoods. Funding can be sourced from public-private partnerships, national government support, and international urban development grants. Would you like to see your barangay transformed into a walkable, bikeable paradise? Let’s push for policies that prioritize people over cars, health over convenience, and sustainability over short-term urban sprawl. The future of our cities depends on the steps we take today—one pedestrian-friendly barangay at a time. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-05-2025

GLOBAL STANDARDS FOR WALKABLE, BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES: ARE WE THERE YET?

GLOBAL STANDARDS FOR WALKABLE, BIKEABLE COMMUNITIES: ARE WE THERE YET? The vision of vibrant, human-scaled communities where walking and cycling are the norm, not the exception, is a compelling one. Global standards for walkable, bikeable, sustainable villages emphasize mixed-use development, prioritizing people over cars, and creating connected networks of streets and paths. Think Copenhagen's cycling culture or Amsterdam's pedestrian-friendly canals – these are the ideals we aspire to. But how close are we to achieving this in the Philippines? The question of national legislation is central. While the Walkable and Bikeable Communities Act has been a topic of discussion (Senate Bill No. 1290), its passage into law remains elusive. Is it already a law? As of this writing, no. This raises crucial questions: What's the holdup? What forces, if any, oppose it? Why are we not prioritizing this crucial step towards healthier and more sustainable cities? Even without a national law, local governments aren't powerless. LGUs can, and should, pass their own ordinances to create walkable and bikeable barangays. Imagine the impact if every barangay implemented best practices for pedestrian and cyclist safety, prioritized green spaces, and integrated active transport into their planning. Are there existing examples of such ordinances we can learn from? Yes, there are glimpses of progress. Iloilo City's Esplanade, for example, demonstrates the transformative power of prioritizing pedestrian spaces. But these are often isolated examples, not the norm. The Clean Air Act's goals are intrinsically linked to the Walkable and Bikeable agenda. Reducing car dependence directly improves air quality. Shouldn't this shared objective create a stronger push for active transport infrastructure? Which agency should be the lead implementing entity for the Walkable and Bikeable Act? The DILG seems a logical choice, given its oversight of local governments. Clear lines of responsibility are essential to avoid bureaucratic bottlenecks. And what about the DHSUD and MMDA? How do we define their roles and responsibilities in this shared endeavor? The question of inclusivity is paramount. Walkable and bikeable communities must be for everyone, not just the affluent. Affordable housing, accessible public transportation, and equitable access to green spaces are non-negotiable. Let's delve into the specifics. Should churches, hospitals, and markets be prioritized in walkability and bike-ability plans? Absolutely. These are essential destinations for daily life. What infrastructure should be mandatory? Clean water, reliable power, and high-speed internet are crucial, but so is accessible and safe transportation. Waste management, including MRFs and STPs, is also critical for sustainable communities. Should these communities have their own police and fire departments? Perhaps not dedicated forces, but certainly strong coordination with existing emergency services. Tax incentives for LGUs that achieve walkable and bikeable status could be a powerful motivator. The path to walkable, bikeable communities is not easy. Funding, infrastructure gaps, and political will are all challenges. But the benefits – improved health, cleaner air, stronger communities – are too significant to ignore. It's time for a concerted effort, from national legislation to local action, to make this vision a reality for all Filipinos. If you have copies of existing municipal ordinances, city ordinances or provincial board resolutions that have created walkable, bikeable (WABA) communities, please send them to me. I will distribute them to LGUs that would be interested in adopting those as the legal basis for their own WABA projects. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-04-2025

MANAGING A NATIONAL CANCER CARE PROGRAM

MANAGING A NATIONAL CANCER CARE PROGRAM The recent announcement that the government has earmarked P3 billion for cancer care and assistance is a step in the right direction. However, several questions arise about how this program will be managed and implemented effectively. Who Will Lead the Implementation? The Department of Health (DOH) is the most likely lead implementing agency, but will it work alone, or will the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) also play a role in mobilizing local government units (LGUs)? Given the scale of the initiative, coordination among various agencies is crucial to ensure effective nationwide implementation. Funding Allocation and Coverage: A critical concern is how the P3 billion budget will be distributed across different types of cancers. Will there be prioritization based on mortality rates, prevalence, or cost of treatment? Additionally, will the program cover outpatient care and medicines, or will funding be limited to hospitalization? Many cancer patients struggle with the high costs of outpatient chemotherapy and medications, and failing to include these aspects could undermine the program’s effectiveness. Interaction with Existing Programs: The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and PhilHealth already provide some cancer-related financial assistance. Will the new program complement these existing efforts, or will there be potential overlaps and conflicts? Ensuring a streamlined approach is key to maximizing resources and avoiding bureaucratic delays that hinder patient access. International Models and Readiness: Is the new cancer care initiative modeled after successful programs in other countries, such as Australia, the United States, or South Korea? If so, which elements have been adapted for the Philippine healthcare system? Furthermore, was the announcement based on a fully developed implementation plan, or is the government still drafting the necessary rules and regulations? A common issue in healthcare legislation is the delay in finalizing Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs), which could stall the program’s rollout. Involvement of Key Stakeholders: Was the Philippine Cancer Society or other medical associations consulted before the law was passed? Their input is crucial in shaping a practical and effective program. Additionally, if approximately 35,040 Filipinos die from cancer annually, how many lives does the government project will be saved through this initiative? If 194 cancer cases are diagnosed per 100,000 patients today, how will this number change under the new program? National Cancer Database and Accessibility: A robust cancer patient database is essential for tracking cases, monitoring treatment outcomes, and ensuring equitable access. Does the new law provide for such a database, and if so, how will it be maintained? More importantly, how can we guarantee that even the poorest patients benefit from cancer care and medication support? Long-Term Vision and Infrastructure: Does the program offer long-term care beyond initial consultations? Will government hospitals be upgraded to provide specialized cancer treatments? Addressing these concerns is essential if the country aims to achieve a cancer-free status in the future. Human Resource Challenges: The Philippines faces a shortage of oncologists, with only around 112 radiation oncologists serving the entire country. Given the demand, was this law passed with a plan to increase the number of trained oncologists? Will there be incentives for general practitioners to specialize in oncology? Furthermore, does the law include provisions for a dedicated national cancer hospital, like the Philippine Heart Center (PHC) or the National Kidney and Transplant Institute (NKTI)? These questions demand urgent answers. While the allocation of P3 billion is commendable, it must be backed by a concrete, well-structured implementation plan. Otherwise, this much-needed initiative risks falling into the common pitfalls of underfunded, poorly executed government programs. Cancer patients in the Philippines deserve better—and the success of this program will be measured not just in pesos spent, but in lives saved. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-03-2025