PROPOSING A CABINET CLUSTER FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

PROPOSING A CABINET CLUSTER FOR SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES

Fifteen years ago, I wrote about the urgent need to integrate basic human needs into a cohesive development framework. With the UNIDA model (Universal, Needs-based, Integrated Development Approach), I had proposed a roadmap for national progress that centered on health, education, livelihood, peace and order, and justice. That vision is more relevant than ever in 2025—and it’s time to give it institutional muscle.

Fast forward to today, I now propose the creation of a new Cabinet Cluster for Sustainable Communities under the present Marcos administration. While there may be existing clusters for infrastructure, human development, climate change, and digital transformation that tackle these other sectors, none of them are able to bridge the grassroots interconnectivity of everyday community life. This new cluster would fill that gap.

Why a new cluster?

Because our communities continue to face fragmented, siloed approaches to development. Every city and town—collectively, municipalities—is mandated to create a Municipal Development Plan (MDP) through its Municipal Development Council (MDC). In theory, these MDPs should be grassroots driven, reflecting the inputs from barangays. In practice, however, this rarely happens.

One reason is capacity. Many local governments lack the material and technical resources to consolidate a meaningful plan. The solution? Public-private partnerships (PPP). But for PPPs to work, all sectors—especially NGOs and civic organizations—must work within a shared framework like UNIDA.

Even with over 1,600 municipalities in the Philippines, it’s still realistic to assign at least one NGO to assist each MDC, using UNIDA as a guide. These NGOs can form Technical Working Groups (TWGs) focused on four core areas: health, education, livelihood, and public safety. These are not just sectors—they are the very pillars of sustainable communities.

Who leads what?

Let’s clarify agency roles. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) clearly oversees public safety, via the PNP, BFP, and BJMP. But public safety is broader than law enforcement. It intersects with climate resilience, disaster risk reduction, and even the delivery of justice. Public safety also affects people’s access to shelters, transport, and daily livelihoods.

As for livelihood, it’s a gray area. Is it employment? Is it entrepreneurship? Both, in fact. Self-employment and microenterprises are central to livelihood. That’s why the Department of Finance (DOF)—through the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) and other financing bodies—must take a more central role, especially in tracking local financing needs. They have the tools; they just need a clearer mandate.

We also need to revisit how we measure public safety. Currently, the PNP reports crime statistics, but this creates potential conflicts of interest. We need independent monitoring systems for accurate data, perhaps through the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) or a dedicated Public Safety Data Board.

And then there’s justice. The DILG plays a role in two of the five pillars of justice—arrest (accusation) and penology (transformation). But without strong linkages to the DOJ, the courts, and parole agencies, the full justice chain remains broken at the community level.

Human resource clarity

When we say, "delivery of basic services," we must identify not just the sectors, but who and where. For health, it’s doctors and hospitals. For education, teachers and schools. Clear enough.

But what about livelihood? Who is at the core—trainers, coop leaders, microfinance officers? And what’s the delivery point—livelihood centers, cooperatives, barangay hubs?

The same confusion exists in public safety. Are our frontline workers the police, the firefighters, or barangay tanods? Are we building safety around police stations, community centers, or schools?

Making the Cluster Work

The Cabinet Cluster for Sustainable Communities would harmonize all these elements. It would bring together the DOH, DepEd, DILG, DOF, DOJ, DSWD, and even the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD)—plus representatives from the LGUs, private sector, and civil society. The goal: to create a fully integrated municipal-level development system, guided by shared goals, measurable outcomes, and community-driven data.

Let’s stop treating “livelihood” as a side issue. Let’s stop treating “public safety” as just police work. And let’s start treating communities not as recipients of programs—but as architects of their own progress.

Mr. President, this is an opportunity to create a legacy that goes beyond infrastructure and into the heart of human development. This is the time to build resilient, self-sustaining, and empowered communities—with the structure, data, and leadership to back them up.

Let’s bring the pieces together. Let’s cluster for sustainability.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

09-01-2025

GUNS, CARS, AND ANGER: IT'S TIME FOR A NEW CABINET CLUSTER

GUNS, CARS, AND ANGER: IT'S TIME FOR A NEW CABINET CLUSTER

There’s a dangerous intersection where guns, cars, and human emotion collide—and it’s paved with road rage. We see the headlines more frequently now: a minor traffic altercation escalates into a violent confrontation, often involving firearms. This isn’t just random bad behavior—it’s a policy gap crying out for attention.

Studies have long shown that having access to a weapon increases a person’s likelihood of acting on aggressive impulses. The psychology is simple: the presence of a gun doesn’t just make someone capable of violence—it often makes them feel entitled to exercise it. In traffic, where tempers run high and egos are fragile, that entitlement becomes explosive.

Of course, not every act of road rage involves a gun. A steering wheel-lock, a tire iron, or even a baseball bat can be weaponized in the heat of the moment. Many of these are carried “just in case” or under the pretext of sports or utility. But anger does not care about intent. When rage takes over, tools become weapons—and every car becomes a potential crime scene.

To understand where we went wrong, we need to talk about our current gun laws. In the Philippines, a License to Own and Possess Firearms (LTOPF) allows a civilian to legally own a gun—but only within the confines of their home. To carry it outside, a separate document is required: the Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR). That’s the law. And no, your car is not legally an extension of your home, as some would like to believe.

This distinction is not trivial. It is the legal firewall between a responsible gun owner and a potential vigilante on wheels. And yet, we still see incidents where firearms are drawn—or worse, discharged—in traffic disputes. The time has come to re-examine whether PTCFORs still serve the public good or if they have become a liability in our current environment.

Instead of another Technical Working Group (TWG), which tends to meet quietly and submit recommendations that rarely make headlines, I propose something stronger and more visible: a Cabinet Cluster for Civilian Safety and Conflict Prevention.

This new Cabinet Cluster should bring together the Department of Transportation (DOTr), Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), Department of Health (DOH), Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Science and Technology (DOST), Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). Just like the existing Security, Justice and Peace Cluster, this new formation would focus specifically on interpersonal conflict and preventive safety, both in public and private spaces.

The MMDA and UP National Center for Transportation Studies (NCTS) should serve as research and operational arms of the cluster. The Philippine Mental Health Association (PMHA), along with leading behavioral scientists, should be tapped as advisers to address the psychological dimensions of rage and aggression.

Here are the key issues this Cabinet Cluster must address:

1.   PTCFOR Policy Review
Should civilians still be allowed to carry firearms in public spaces, including vehicles? If so, under what conditions? The cluster should push for a thorough policy audit and, if necessary, propose new legislation to amend or limit PTCFOR privileges.

2.   Behavioral Assessment for Drivers and Gun Owners
Mandatory anger management programs for traffic offenders and stricter psychological evaluations for both gun permit applicants and public utility drivers must be considered. This isn't about punishment—it's about prevention.

3.   Public Education and Awareness
We need a massive information campaign to educate the public about existing laws. Many citizens genuinely don’t know the legal boundaries of gun ownership and transport. Education is the first line of defense.

4.   Digital Reporting and Monitoring
The DICT can develop mobile apps that allow real-time reporting of road rage and firearm incidents, directly feeding into a national safety database. We already have CCTV and dash cams—now we need coordination.

5.   Insurance and Licensing Reform
Make road rage a factor in insurance premiums and license renewal. If people knew that a temper tantrum behind the wheel could cost them more than a fine, they might think twice before acting out.

Let’s be clear: I am not calling for a gun ban. Responsible citizens deserve the right to defend their homes. But the privilege to carry that responsibility into the streets must be weighed against the right of the public to move safely without fear of being shot over a fender bender.

This is not an abstract issue. This is a daily risk faced by ordinary Filipinos every time they get on the road. We cannot legislate away anger. But we can—and must—create systems that prevent it from turning deadly.

Our laws on guns and our attitudes about driving are overdue for a collision of their own. Let’s make sure it’s the productive kind—not the tragic one.

Let us build a society where anger doesn’t travel with a loaded weapon. Let’s steer our policies—and our drivers—toward a safer future.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-31-2025

TIME TO MAKE THE DISEASE CONTROL DATABASE THAT COULD SAVE LIVES

TIME TO MAKE THE DISEASE CONTROL DATABASE THAT COULD SAVE LIVES

You’d think that after enduring dengue, SARS, bird flu, swine flu, and of course, COVID-19, we would have learned a thing or two about being proactive with public health. And yet, here we are in 2025—with no fully integrated national database for disease control.

This reality struck me during a lecture by Dr. Nelia P. Salazar on “Environment and Disease,” hosted by the National Academy of Science and Technology. Dr. Salazar explained that while the Philippines does have pockets of health-related databases, these operate in silos. There's no integration, no real-time coordination, and no central system to map and respond to disease outbreaks efficiently. That’s the good news—we have data. The bad news? We’re not using it wisely.

Even more concerning: when I asked Dr. Salazar if we have a local equivalent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), her answer was a flat “no.” Yes, we have the Research Institute for Tropical Medicine (RITM), but it focuses mostly on training and research. There is an Office for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control under the Department of Health (DOH), but its scope is nowhere near the CDC's. In short, we’re flying blind.

Why does this matter? Because disease surveillance saves lives. We already know, thanks to researchers like Dr. Salazar, where many disease vectors—like mosquitoes and rats—are concentrated. We know how outbreaks start, how they spread, and even how to prevent them. What we don’t have is a centralized, responsive system that pulls all this information together and acts on it. That’s what the CDC does for America—and that’s what we urgently need here.

So, what should we do?

First, we must create a Philippine Center for Disease Control. This will require new legislation, yes. But until that can be passed, we need a stopgap: the DOH should immediately begin building an integrated disease control database under its Management Information Services (MIS) department.

Second, let’s not reinvent the wheel. The U.S. CDC already has proven systems and software for disease tracking, prediction, and coordination. We should tap into that. I suggest that the President instruct the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to coordinate with the Philippine Embassy in Washington, DC, and request help from the U.S. State Department. A faster route? Contact the U.S. Embassy in Manila. We’re not asking for charity—we’re asking for partnership in global health security.

Yes, adapting foreign systems will require customization. Our local realities—limited internet in rural areas, barangay-level recordkeeping, language differences—must be accounted for. But if we can get a functional base system, we can build on that. It’s faster and cheaper than starting from scratch.

Now, I may not be an epidemiologist, but I do know databases. I’ve led Management Information Systems (MIS) Department at the DFA, the National Computer Center (NCC), the National Computer Institute (NCI), and the PCSO. I know how to build systems that work. More importantly, I know dozens of capable Filipino ICT professionals—developers, analysts, network engineers—who would gladly volunteer their time to help set this up. That’s how urgent and important this is.

This is no longer about tech—it’s about national resilience. We’ve seen how a single virus can grind economies to a halt, collapse healthcare systems, and destroy families. Are we really going to wait for another COVID to remind us of that?

Let’s also not forget: data doesn’t just help us respond to outbreaks; it helps us prevent them. With an integrated system, we could identify hotspots for dengue before they spike. We could forecast water-borne diseases after floods. We could analyze respiratory illnesses in real-time during smog events. In short, we could be smarter about public health.

And here’s something else to chew on: the cost of setting up this system—hardware, software, training, integration—will be minuscule compared to what we’ll lose in the next pandemic if we don’t prepare now. Prevention is not only better than cure—it’s cheaper too.

So, Mr. President, the time to act is now. Build the system. Tap the experts. Seek international support. And most importantly, empower a new agency that will exist not just to study diseases, but to control them.

We cannot afford to stay reactive. We must be predictive, preventive, and prepared.
If we fail to plan, we are planning to fail.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-30-2025

RECYCLING IN THE PHILIPPINES IS FAILING—LET US BE HONEST ABOUT IT

 RECYCLING IN THE PHILIPPINES IS FAILING—LET US BE HONEST ABOUT IT

Let’s stop pretending that recycling in the Philippines is succeeding.

Despite years of government campaigns urging residents and businesses to segregate their waste, we’re still burying recyclables in landfills or leaving them to rot in dumpsites. Why? Because even when we segregate, the system doesn’t work. Garbage trucks still mix everything together. Segregated bags from households and commercial buildings often end up thrown into the same compactor, as if the effort was all for show.

What’s going on here?

We keep encouraging people to segregate their trash, but there’s no real infrastructure to support it. It’s like asking someone to save water in a house with broken pipes. We’ve heard the phrase many times— “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”—but how can people recycle when the government doesn’t even honor their efforts?

I see it in my own neighborhood. I separate paper, plastics, bottles—but when the garbage truck arrives, the collectors lump it all together. What message does that send to the public? That their effort is useless. So, they stop trying.

And that’s the real tragedy: we’ve taught people to recycle, but we haven’t built a system to make it succeed.

It’s time, Mr. President, for a new approach—or more accurately, a return to a time-tested, community-led solution that worked: buying recyclables by the kilo.

Remember the days when itinerant junk buyers roamed neighborhoods buying old newspapers and glass bottles? That grassroots system wasn’t just nostalgic—it was functional. And more importantly, it created incentives. People recycled not out of guilt, but because there was value in it.

Let’s bring that system back—but with modern tweaks. Scrap paper, plastics, and bottles now come in all shapes and sizes, so let’s stop pricing them by the piece or by the inch. Buy everything by the kilo. Make it straightforward, fair, and efficient.

Yes, Mr. President, recyclables are not garbage—they are untapped economic assets. The only difference between “trash” and “resource” is collection and recovery. If recyclables are not picked up, they rot. If they are collected, they become raw materials again.

This is where Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs) should come in. But let’s be real—most barangays are not operating MRFs, despite the law requiring them to do so. Some blame funding, others cite land availability, but ultimately, it’s about enforcement. And let’s face it, DENR can’t do this alone.

This is where the DILG must step in. After all, barangays are under their purview. The DENR can provide technical guidance, but only DILG can compel local compliance. In Metro Manila, perhaps MMDA should take the lead.

So, Mr. President, here’s my modest proposal:

1.   Issue an Executive Order mandating all barangays to operationalize their MRFs within a set timeframe.

2.   Direct DILG to monitor implementation and assist with enforcement.

3.   Incentivize the junk shop economy by helping these micro-enterprises get access to micro-financing and legal protections.

Let me emphasize that last point: junk shops are key players in the recycling ecosystem, yet they are often the most neglected. Under-capitalized and under-protected, they are sitting ducks for corrupt local officials who see them not as partners but as prey.

Why not treat them as allies instead?

If we strengthen the business of junk shops—give them credit access, organize them into cooperatives, shield them from extortion—we could build a true circular economy from the ground up.

What’s missing isn’t awareness. It’s execution. People are willing to recycle. Businesses are willing to cooperate. But government must lead with action, not slogans. Otherwise, we’re just throwing more good intentions into the same landfill.

As the saying goes: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It's time to stop the insanity. Let’s go back to what works—and build something smarter from there.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-29-2025

WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT IGNORING BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING?

WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT IGNORING BUSINESS PROCESS OUTSOURCING?

Isn’t it ironic that we are hailed globally as the “Call Center Capital of the World”—and yet, the Philippine government hardly supports the very industry that earned us that title?

Let me ask plainly: How many government agencies actually use Filipino call centers or Customer Relations Management (CRM) services? Probably just a few, if at all. It’s almost laughable, if it weren’t such a missed opportunity.

As of 2022, over 700 contact centers operate across the country, employing around 1.4 million Filipinos and generating billions in revenue. That’s no small feat. And yet, this thriving sector has grown largely without serious government patronage or structural support.

Management experts will tell you: the best way to strengthen an export product is to first cultivate it locally. That allows you to fix bugs, prove the concept, test sustainability, and build scale—all before going global.

But not in the case of our BPO sector. Here, it went global-first, local-never. We skipped the logical development ladder. Our BPO companies became world-class suppliers for foreign clients while being ignored by our own government. That must change.

And it's not too late, Mr. President. In fact, the moment is ripe.

Start small, if you must. Start by engaging local CRM providers to handle public hotlines, digital services, or even basic e-governance support. There’s no reason a government agency should be struggling to manage inbound queries when local BPOs are literally world experts in this field. Why are we outsourcing abroad what we could easily insource locally?

Look at how Accenture operates: their ICT professionals are “embedded” in client offices, bringing not only expertise but also their own hardware. It’s efficient. It’s cost-effective. And it’s a model that’s already proven to work. Alternatively, they also support work-from-home (WFH) arrangements—which brings me to the bigger picture.

The Work-at-Home (WAH) phenomenon could very well be our answer to the long-standing OFW dilemma. Imagine a future where Filipinos no longer need to leave the country just to earn a decent wage. Imagine families that stay intact, while still receiving dollars. That’s what WAH offers. It’s already happening quietly through online freelance work and remote employment via BPOs—but it could grow much faster with government intervention.

So let me pose a few questions to our national leaders:

·       Why aren’t we training more workers specifically for remote BPO employment?

·       Why aren’t CHED, TESDA, and DTI more involved in this workforce transition?

·       Why haven’t DOLE and DMW created programs to support remote workers the same way they support OFWs?

·       And perhaps most critically, why is there no task force exploring this massive potential?

Mr. President, I respectfully suggest you create that task force. Make it inter-agency. Include DOLE, DMW, DFA, CHED, TESDA, and DTI. Give it a clear mandate: build a national roadmap for scaling WAH and local BPO employment—especially for government services.

We already have the talent. We already have the infrastructure in key cities and provinces. What we lack is coordination, vision, and political will. This is low-hanging fruit, and yet it’s being ignored.

Our BPO professionals are world-class. They’ve put us on the map without government help. Imagine what they could do with help. Imagine what it would mean for our economy if we finally closed the loop—by becoming not just the global provider, but also the local user of our own BPO expertise.

Supporting this industry is not just an economic move—it’s a nation-building strategy. It keeps families together. It creates jobs without requiring migration. It taps into a digital future where geography no longer limits opportunity.

Mr. President, the BPO industry is not just knocking—it’s pounding on the door of government attention. The question is, will we finally answer?

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-28-2025

LIVELIHOOD, NOT LIP SERVICE FOR OUR INDIGENOUS CULTURAL PEOPLES

LIVELIHOOD, NOT LIP SERVICE FOR OUR INDIGENOUS CULTURAL PEOPLES

Let’s get real. Despite countless promises and programs from one administration after another, many of our Indigenous Cultural Peoples (ICPs) are still living in poverty. They remain cut off from basic services—healthcare, education, infrastructure, and livelihood. It’s a national shame we should no longer tolerate.

Mr. President, with your recent appointment of a new management team at the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), there’s a spark of hope. Maybe this time, the promises will be backed by real change. But let me offer one straight-to-the-point proposal: tell your new team to focus on livelihood.

Why? Because livelihood is strategic. It’s not just aid—it’s empowerment. It allows ICPs to provide for themselves—food, shelter, clothing—on their own terms, with dignity. If we can help them generate sustainable income, we’re not just giving charity; we’re giving them a future.

Now, let’s be clear. The problem is not the lack of government programs. I believe most agencies are willing to help. But the issue is the same old bureaucratic weakness: the lack of government coordination. The national government agencies (NGAs) don’t talk to each other. Worse, they don’t coordinate effectively with the local government units (LGUs) on the ground.

Here’s a painful truth. While NCIP is supposed to take the lead, it doesn’t have enough political clout. It’s not a cabinet-level agency. Some local officials treat NCIP field officers like they’re second-class citizens. Even more disturbing, some mayors and governors refuse to recognize the Indigenous Peoples Mandatory Representatives (IPMRs) in municipal councils and provincial boards. That’s a clear violation of both the spirit and letter of the law.

It gets worse. Reports have surfaced that some LGU officials are refusing to honor Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADTs) already awarded to indigenous communities. In some areas, tribal people are bullied or even threatened—sometimes allegedly by private armies—when they try to assert their land rights.

So, here's my first direct question to you, Mr. President: Can we finally task the DILG and the PNP to protect the ICPs and enforce CADTs? These communities are citizens of the Republic. They have land titles. And yet they live in fear? That should not be the case in your administration.

But back to livelihood—because protection means nothing without opportunity.

There are many agencies that can contribute to a real, integrated livelihood strategy for ICPs:

·       DOST can help with product development.

·       DTI can assist with packaging and market access.

·       DA can provide agribusiness support.

·       DENR can develop sustainable forestry programs.

Let’s not reinvent the wheel. What the ICPs need is not a new agency or a fancy task force—they need coordination among existing agencies and implementation on the ground.

One clear opportunity? Agribusiness. Many indigenous communities already have ancestral land and traditional farming knowledge. With the right support, they could go into tree farming, livestock, poultry, and aquaculture. These aren’t just livelihood options—they're climate-friendly, sustainable, and even profitable. With tree farming, for instance, they could earn carbon credits—a win for their income and a win for the planet.

Mr. President, I’ve seen with my own eyes that NGOs, state colleges and universities (SUCs), and concerned private individuals are more than willing to help. But what they often lack is access—to the people in power who can break red tape, fast-track permits, and bring agencies together.

So, what’s stopping us from acting?

Is it bureaucracy? Then cut through it.
Is it turf wars between agencies? Then resolve them.
Is it political posturing? Then let’s call it out for what it is.

It’s time we stopped treating our Indigenous Peoples like footnotes in our national story. They are stewards of the land. They are defenders of culture. And they are citizens—just like us—entitled to a fair shot at livelihood, dignity, and development.

So yes, Mr. President, appointing new NCIP leadership is a good first step. But leadership means action. And action means results.

Let this be the term when we finally get it right—not with more empty promises, but with livelihood programs that last.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-27-2025

 

DO WE WANT TO SAVE OUR FUTURE? LET US START WITH THE RAINFORESTS

DO WE WANT TO SAVE OUR FUTURE? LET US START WITH THE RAINFORESTS

It seems everyone is planting trees these days—from government offices to corporations, from schools to Sunday hikers. On paper, that’s a beautiful sight. Even DENR is out front with its National Greening Program (NGP). But here's the problem: everyone’s planting trees, and yet we’re still losing forests. Why? Because we’re planting without a national vision, without a common goal, and without understanding the science behind the trees we plant.

And so, may I propose something clear and urgent? Let’s make the revival of our watersheds and rainforests a national goal.

Let’s be honest: the forests are gone. Illegal loggers, greedy politicians, short-sighted policies—they’ve all played a role in turning our once-lush mountain ranges into bare, flood-prone slopes. Those trees held water in their roots. They slowed down rain, filtered it, and fed it gently into our rivers. Now, the rain comes—and it rages. Water rushes down unchecked, flooding cities, destroying crops, and leaving nothing in the ground to feed our watersheds.

But that’s history. What matters now is the future. And we still have time to write a better one—if we act with purpose.

Let’s get technical for a moment. What’s the difference between just any forest and a rainforest? According to Microsoft Copilot (a handy assistant for facts like these), a rainforest is a type of forest that gets over 2,000mm—or 80 inches—of rain per year. These places are dense, alive, and biodiverse. And more importantly, they are sponges—natural systems that hold and slowly release water. That’s what our watersheds desperately need.

Now, I’m not naïve. We’re not going to grow a genuine rainforest overnight. True rainforests can take centuries to develop. But why should that stop us from beginning? We didn’t take a hundred years to destroy the forests—we did that in a few decades. So maybe, just maybe, we can start healing in our lifetime too.

But if we’re serious, we must learn from past mistakes. Let’s not repeat the failures of the National Greening Program. The NGP became more of a box-ticking exercise than a real ecological solution. Trees were planted—yes—but where they were planted, when they were planted, and what trees were planted? Those details were often ignored. Sometimes, the seedlings were overpriced. Sometimes, they were “recycled.” (Yes, that’s code for corruption.) That’s not reforestation. That’s a government project for paperwork and press releases.

So here’s a better approach: plant native trees. Not exotic, invasive species like mahogany or gmelina. Sure, they grow fast. But they don’t help. In fact, some reports suggest that gmelina sucks up all the water in its area, depriving other species of moisture. If our goal is to support the watershed, not just check a tree-planting quota, we need species that hold water—not steal it.

This is where real science must guide policy. Certain trees thrive in specific soil types. Certain planting seasons yield better survival rates. Let’s stop acting like all tree-planting is equal. It’s not. The wrong tree in the wrong place is just as harmful as no tree at all.

But there is good news. All over the country, there are NGOs, citizen groups, and scientific communities that are doing the work DENR should have done better. One shining example is the Philippine Native Tree Enthusiasts (PNTE). These groups understand biodiversity. They work with local communities. They plant for ecosystems, not for photo ops.

So, what should we do?

First, let’s investigate what happened to the NGP. The public deserves to know how much was spent and what results we got.

Second, let’s realign our tree-planting strategy with a single, unifying purpose: restore the watersheds and revive the rainforests. Not all forests are equal. Rainforests are the gold standard—and while we may not get there soon, we must aim in that direction.

Third, let’s work with those already doing it right. Government doesn’t have to do it all. Civil society and local experts can help. All they need is recognition, support, and coordination.

In a world that’s heating up, drying out, and flooding more often, this is not just an environmental issue. It’s an issue of food security, public health, and national survival.

Let’s stop thinking of tree planting as charity. It’s strategy. It’s survival. And it’s time we do it the right way.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-26-2025

TECHNOLOGY FOR FARMING: WHY IT IS NOW ESSENTIAL FOR AGRICULTURE

TECHNOLOGY FOR FARMING: WHY IT IS NOW ESSENTIAL FOR AGRICULTURE

You’d think that in 2025, the idea of using information and communications technology (ICT) in agriculture would be mainstream by now. But alas, here we are—with at least eight government agencies that should be working together on this, still moving in their own solo directions.

Let’s name them, because they matter: the DICT, DA, DAR, DENR, CHED, TESDA, NAMRIA, and PhilSA (yes, our own space agency—Philippine Space Agency). Sounds like a powerful coalition, doesn’t it? But where’s the coordination? Where’s the synergy?

DICT and DA, naturally, should be leading the charge. The Department of Agriculture must innovate or become irrelevant. And DICT? Well, it’s their job to make sure tech reaches even the most remote corners of our country.

But this isn’t just about farming techniques. DAR must play a part, too. After distributing land to farmers, what comes next? Just leaving them to sink or swim? No. They need tech tools and knowledge to survive. DENR can’t sit this one out either—forests, mountains, and protected lands overlap with agriculture zones. Coordination is not optional.

CHED and TESDA? They’re the silent giants in this equation. CHED oversees state universities and colleges (SUCs) that have already created innovative Agri-tech—but that research rarely leaves the classroom. TESDA, on the other hand, should be on the frontlines of teaching farmers and agri-workers basic ICT skills. Imagine turning our rural youth into digital agri-tech specialists. Why not?

Then there’s NAMRIA, our geospatial data powerhouse. They hold the maps, the terrain info, the elevation models—all essential to determining what can be planted, where, and when. And let’s not forget PhilSA. Satellites can help monitor weather, crop conditions, even pest outbreaks in real-time. We’ve launched a space agency—why aren’t we using it more effectively for the one thing we can’t afford to get wrong: food security?

Let’s be honest: modern agriculture without ICT is a non-starter. If we expect our farmers to stay competitive, we need to move them from carabaos to cloud computing. Agriculture today isn’t just about planting. It’s about planning, forecasting, logistics, packaging, financing, and yes—marketing.

Once upon a time, we were all excited about the “knowledge economy.” Remember that buzzword? Back then, we said everyone needed to be a “knowledge worker,” meaning digitally literate. It was a prophetic warning. If companies failed to adopt e-commerce, we said, they wouldn’t be doing business at all. Well, look around. That future is now.

It’s the same for agriculture. If our farmers don’t adopt digital tools soon, they may not be farming at all.

We need precision agriculture. We need sensors that track temperature and soil moisture. We need drones to monitor crops. We need satellites and even low-orbit balloons to bring connectivity to the most remote rice paddies. We need Internet of Things (IoT) devices that can use Long Range (LoRa) or TV White Space (TVWS)—connectivity options that don’t require expensive infrastructure.

We already have the tools. What we lack is the orchestration. These eight agencies, all capable, need to be singing from the same hymnbook. Right now, they’re playing different instruments on separate stages.

So, Mr. President, what do we need? A national task force? An Executive Order? A digital agriculture command center? Whatever it takes—give this effort the weight of executive authority.

Food security is not a talking point. It’s a survival issue. And in this era, it’s inseparable from tech. If we want to eat, we must digitize.

To my fellow citizens: If we can send satellites into orbit, we can surely send a drone over a cornfield. Let’s stop pretending the future is far away. It’s already here—our farmers just need the government to help them catch up.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-25-2025

SHOULD ONLINE MEDICAL CONSULTATIONS BE A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEDGE?

SHOULD ONLINE MEDICAL CONSULTATIONS BE A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEDGE?

Let’s talk about something that started out of necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic and somehow never left—online medical consultations. Once a novel emergency response, they’re now becoming part of the healthcare landscape. But here’s the rub: they’re only accessible to those who can afford them. That’s not just a bug in the system—it’s a clear violation of our national vision for universal healthcare.

So, what happened? Why is something as potentially democratizing as telemedicine creating a new form of inequality? The answer, it seems, lies in two simple but frustrating facts: First, our public hospitals and clinics are either not equipped or not allowed to offer online consultations. Second, PHILHEALTH—the very institution meant to protect the Filipino patient—is not reimbursing them. Still.

Now, I don’t say this to bash PHILHEALTH. Let’s be fair—this agency has been burned before. Remember the cataract scam? That was a painful reminder of how vulnerable our systems are to exploitation. Frankly, it's no surprise PHILHEALTH is cautious. In a country that breeds scams like mushrooms after rain, caution is understandable.

But here’s my question: Is it really that hard to secure online consultations from fraud?

We live in an age where even your smartphone knows more about you than your closest friend. Multifactor authentication (MFA) is already standard practice in banking, finance, and even food delivery apps. We have biometrics—facial, voice, retinal recognition. We have one-time passwords (OTPs), QR codes, NFC chips. Heck, we even have gait recognition! (Yes, apparently your walk is as unique as your fingerprint.)

So why can’t we use the same tools to secure digital healthcare?

Let’s not make this more complicated than it needs to be. The problem here isn’t the lack of technology—it’s the lack of coordination, willpower, and frankly, vision.

If PHILHEALTH is worried about identity fraud, then let’s fix that. Secure the patient’s identity. Validate the doctor’s credentials. Use two-factor authentication as a baseline. Scale up to more advanced verification where needed. This is not rocketing science—it’s policy lagging technology.

And that brings me to the bigger picture. Mr. President, I humbly submit: It’s time to bring together the agencies that matter—DICT, DOH, PHILHEALTH, NPC, and the CICC—and task them with a national strategy for secure online healthcare. If necessary, do what only you can do: issue an Executive Order. Lay the foundation. Remove the ambiguity. Signal that digital healthcare is no longer optional—it’s the future.

But don’t stop at the government. The private sector is teeming with experts who know how to make systems secure and reliable. I know this because I’ve worked with them before—on the National Crime Information System (NCIS) and Project 8888. They’re still around. They’re still willing. Let’s mobilize them.

Let me end with a question to every Filipino reading this: Should access to online consultations depend on your wallet, or your right as a citizen?

We have the tools. We have the talent. What we need now is leadership. Universal healthcare was never supposed to mean just physical clinics and hospitals. In the digital age, it must include virtual access too.

As the saying goes, “For every problem, there is a solution.” Technically speaking, there’s no such thing as a data security problem that can’t be solved. The only unsolvable problem is one we refuse to address.

Let’s not allow digital healthcare to become just another luxury for the rich. Let’s make it what it should be: healthcare for all—wherever you are, whenever you need it.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-24-2025

LET’S BUILD A FASTER AND CHEAPER INTERNET—FROM THE BACKBONE OUT

LET’S BUILD A FASTER AND CHEAPER INTERNET—FROM THE BACKBONE OUT

Our electric power system may not be perfect, but at least we know how it works: there's production (like power plants), transmission (via the national grid), and distribution (done by Meralco or the electric coops). That structure—clear and layered—helps us manage power more efficiently.

Now, can we do something similar for the internet?

Today, the internet is arguably as essential as electricity. Yet it remains expensive, slow, and—ironically for the digital age—inequitable. The urban rich get fiber connections, while many in the provinces struggle with unreliable or nonexistent service. But the problem isn't just about infrastructure; it's also about structure.

---

Who Owns the Internet Highway?

Let’s use the power sector as a metaphor. If we think of telcos like Globe, PLDT, and Converge as the National Power Corporation of the internet world, they are doing more than just transmitting. They’re also controlling the last mile, the way Meralco controls your neighborhood’s electricity lines.

But here's the rub: in the old days, Value Added Networks (VANs)—the backbone providers—stayed out of the Value-Added Services (VAS) or “last mile” business. Smaller Internet Service Providers (ISPs) used to serve the final leg, connecting homes and offices. That model was more inclusive and encouraged competition.

Now, the telcos are doing both: controlling the backbone and the last mile. And as they grow, smaller ISPs get squeezed out, unable to compete in a market where access to the core infrastructure is monopolized or too costly.

---

Why the Government Needs to Step In

So, here’s my big suggestion, Let the government build and own more of the internet backbone.

Think of it as building a public internet superhighway. The more lanes we build—meaning more bandwidth capacity—the faster and cheaper our internet becomes. And unlike roads, where land is finite, digital bandwidth is expandable. This isn’t theory. This is infrastructure that pays for itself in national productivity.

And why should government intervene? Because the private sector alone will never invest in the far-flung barangays, or in rural schools, or in mountainside cooperatives. It’s not profitable. But the state can—and should—step in where markets fail.

---

Let’s Rethink Public Access

Here’s another idea. Just as private bus companies can use our highways for free, why not let telcos use government-owned internet backbones freely, under certain conditions?

If they benefit from public infrastructure, they must also create space for smaller ISPs and cooperatives on the last mile. It’s not unreasonable. In fact, it’s a form of digital franchise fairness. If you want to run on public roads, open your doors to more passengers.

---

Cooperatives: A Missed Opportunity?

We already have electric cooperatives operating in areas where private distributors don’t bother to go. So, here’s a challenge: Why not empower these same coops to become ISPs?

With a bit of training, equipment, and incentives, these grassroots institutions could be transformed into last-mile digital heroes—bringing internet to schools, farmers, fisherfolk, and remote communities. This isn’t just about internet access. This is poverty alleviation through digital inclusion.

Cooperatives have boots on the ground. They have organizational structure. Most importantly, they have members who want better lives. What they don’t have—yet—is the digital backbone to plug into.

---

The Cost of Doing Nothing

If we continue with the status quo, we’ll stay stuck with:

• High internet prices, especially outside major cities
• Low speeds, especially in rural and underserved areas
• Digital inequality, where only urban centers benefit
• Missed opportunities for digital jobs, education, and innovation

And all this despite living in the “social media capital of the world.”

---

Time to Digitally Decentralize

Let’s not put all the power in the hands of a few big telcos. Let’s build a national backbone, managed or supported by the government, and open it up to more players—especially cooperatives and small ISPs.

Because just like electricity changed the 20th century, cheap and fast internet will define who thrives in the 21st.

Let’s give the people the tools to connect, compete, and create. Not someday—today.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

08-23-2025