PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED

PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED

If we’re not serious about food security, then fine—let’s just let amateurs run agriculture. But if we are serious, then we must demand professionals: Agricultural and Biosystems Engineers (ABEs). Not just any engineers—these are highly trained experts who apply engineering science to farming, food systems, and the environment.

Why ABEs Matter Now More Than Ever

Conventional farming might survive without ABEs. But we’re no longer talking conventional. We’re talking precision agriculture: data-driven, science-based, and tech-enabled. ABEs help make that happen. They analyze soil, rainfall, and market data; use AI and blockchain; and design systems that help farmers plant smarter, harvest better, and deliver produce more efficiently. That’s not a luxury—it’s a necessity.

This is precisely why Kalinga’s Sangguniang Panlalawigan Member Christopher Dona-al is pushing for the establishment of a Provincial ABE office. The proposed ordinance underlines a simple but powerful point: this position isn’t optional. It’s mandated by national law.

Law on Our Side: The ABE Profession Is Already Recognized

Under Republic Act 10915, also known as the Philippine Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Act of 2016, the government has formally recognized ABEs as essential professionals. The law explicitly mandates the hiring of ABEs in national agencies, LGUs, and projects involving farm mechanization, irrigation, waste management, and even farm-to-market roads. 

Yet, despite the law, not all provinces comply. Kalinga, for instance, has yet to establish its own ABE office. Dona-al warns that this omission could sideline the province—especially now that the national government is prioritizing LGUs that do have ABEs.

The FMR Switch: ABE Roles Are Getting Bigger

This isn’t just theory: ABEs are increasingly critical to infrastructure. On October 30, 2025, government leaders announced that farm-to-market roads (FMRs) — once handled by the DPWH — will be overseen by ABEs under the Department of Agriculture.

That shift means: if a province has no ABE office, it risks being locked out of future FMR projects. For a heavily agricultural province like Kalinga, that’s not a minor concern—it’s a glaring governance gap.

What Would a Provincial ABE Office Do?

An ABE office at the provincial level would do far more than build roads. Its functions could (and should) include:

• Farm mechanization and post-harvest optimizations
  
  

• Irrigation, drainage, and water resource management
  
  

• Rural renewable energy (solar, bio-energy)
  
  

• Waste management and circular economy integration
  
  

• Climate-smart, disaster-resilient infrastructure
  
  

That’s governance innovation: blending engineering expertise with public service. It ensures that decisions aren’t driven by politics alone, but grounded in technical reality.

But Will It Be Feasible?

Two hard questions jump out immediately:

1. Do we have enough licensed ABEs? The law expects ABEs in key roles, but distribution across provinces could be uneven. RA 10915 and its implementing rules require ABE positions in local governments. 

2. Can we afford them? Hiring a full-time, licensed engineer is more expensive than a clerk. But consider what’s at stake: if we don’t pay for expertise now, we risk paying more for poorly built infrastructure, inefficient farming systems, or worse, exclusion from national funding.
   
   

The Bigger Picture: Food Security, Resilience, Innovation

Food security and rural development aren’t just about subsidies or short-term fixes. Long-term resilience means engineering systems that anticipate floods, droughts, market shifts.

ABEs bring that systems thinking. They empower barangays through training, help municipal engineers coordinate infrastructure, and allow provincial planning to rise above ad hoc projects.

My Call to Action

• LGUs must legislate: Local governments should pass ordinances to establish ABE offices—like the one proposed in Kalinga.
  
  

• Advocates should pressure: Civil society, farmer groups, and professional associations must demand that ABEs be institutionalized.
  
  

• National support needs alignment: DA, DOST, and other agencies should ensure ABE staffing is part of infrastructure and rural development programs.
  
  

---

Bottom line: Requiring Provincial Agricultural Biosystems Engineers is not just a “nice-to-have.” It is essential. If we want smart, resilient, and modern agriculture—not just for today but for tomorrow—then the choice is clear. We need the engineers—not amateurs—to do this job.

Would you like help drafting a policy brief or memo for LGUs advocating for ABE offices?

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/07-28-2026

CRITICAL THINKING VERSUS FAKE NEWS

 CRITICAL THINKING VERSUS FAKE NEWS

When my former Political Science professor at UP, Dr. Clarita Carlos, urged us not only to ask who, what, when, and how — but also why and so what — she was calling for more than curiosity. She was championing critical thinking. And in today’s age of fake news, deepfakes, and AI-manipulated media, that kind of thinking isn’t just useful. It’s essential.

---

What Is Critical Thinking, Really?

Critical thinking is more than just asking questions. It’s a disciplined process: analyzing facts, weighing evidence and arguments, and forming judgments rooted in reason, not bias or emotion. It’s a skill set — logical reasoning, evaluating sources, solving problems — combined with a disposition — open-mindedness, skepticism, reflective inquiry. The goal? To arrive at sound conclusions and to make informed choices.

This is not abstract philosophy: it’s arguably the armor our students need in a world saturated with manipulated content.

---

The Threat of Fake News and Deepfakes

Lately, I’ve been seeing warnings in my Viber groups — AI-generated videos and voice clips that feel real, but are entirely synthetic. These deepfakes are not just harmless pranks: they can influence public opinion, mislead citizens, and even sway election outcomes.

And the data supports this fear. Trend Micro has cautioned Filipinos that as we head into the coming elections, “anyone can produce deepfakes just by grabbing a photo … to make someone appear to do or say something they never did.” The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) itself is considering a ban on deepfakes and AI in campaign materials, warning that malicious use undermines election integrity. 

Tsek.ph, a fact-checking coalition, documented nearly a dozen likely deepfakes during the campaign season — from endorsements using fake voices to composite avatars of public figures. In some cases, 45% of the conversation around election candidates on social media was driven by inauthentic or coordinated accounts.

---

Why Critical Thinking Matters More Than Ever

When deepfakes proliferate, asking who made this? or how was it made? is no longer sufficient. We must also ask:

• Why did someone create this video? Is it propaganda? A political smear?
  
  

• So what if people believe it — what are the social, political, or institutional consequences?
  
  

Critical thinking empowers us to interrogate not just the source of information, but its purpose and impact. It means recognizing emotional appeals, checking assumptions, demanding evidence, and reflecting on bias — both ours and the creator’s.

---

But — Can We Detect Deepfakes?

Yes, to some extent. Detection tools are advancing. Some use sophisticated AI to spot inconsistencies in pixels, voice patterns, or even subtle physiological clues. Intel, for example, developed a platform called FakeCatcher that analyzes blood flow changes in video pixels to detect fakes. Researchers are also building watermarking technologies and proactive detection frameworks. 

Still, detection is not a silver bullet. As technology evolves, so do the tools of deception. And that’s where education becomes our first line of defense.

---

Teaching Critical Thinking in Practice

So how do we embed this in our schools?

1. Media Literacy: Teach students to evaluate sources, differentiate fact from opinion, and verify before sharing. UNESCO, for instance, warns that many content creators do not fact-check before posting — pointing to the urgent need for training.
   
   

2. Reflective Inquiry: Ask students to regularly play “why” and “so what” when surveying any piece of content.
   
   

3. Civic Resilience: Encourage participatory spaces (like barangay discussions) where citizens practice these skills together — building a community immune system against disinformation.
   

Dr. Carlos’s words keep ringing in my mind. If we only teach students who said it, when they said it, and how they said it — we stop short. We give them the tools to identify an image or a clip, but not necessarily the capacity to resist manipulation. By encouraging why and so what — by nurturing critical thinking — we prepare our students not just to recognize fake news, but to challenge its power and to demand better from their democracy.

In the fight against AI-driven falsehoods, critical thinking isn’t just a skill. It’s our strongest weapon.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/07-27-2026

WHAT COULD BE BETTER THAN PLASTIC?

 WHAT COULD BE BETTER THAN PLASTIC?

For decades, we looked at plastic as the villain of modern life — polluter of oceans, killer of turtles, clogger of esteros. And rightly so. Traditional plastics last for hundreds of years, break down into microplastics, and only a tiny percentage ever gets recycled. So the logic was simple: replace plastic with something biodegradable — seaweed, bagasse, hemp, rice straws, bamboo woods, anything natural.

But what if what’s better than plastic… is also plastic?

Out of nowhere comes a new material called Lyfecycle, a proprietary “self-destructing” plastic. At first, rumors claimed it was made of seaweed. But as it turns out, it is plastic after all — but the good kind, if there is such a thing. Developed by UK-based Polymateria, Lyfecycle behaves like regular plastic during its useful life. It’s strong, durable, recyclable, and compatible with existing waste systems. But the magic lies in the additive built into it.

If it escapes collection —meaning if it ends up as waste, it begins to biodegrade in open air, transforming within two years into a harmless, earth-friendly wax. And most importantly: it leaves behind no microplastics.

It is plastic redesigned with a fail-safe mechanism. A “just in case it becomes litter” technology.

Remember the old saying: “If you can’t lick them, join them”? Maybe that’s where we are today. We aren’t winning the war against plastic — not by a long shot. Global data shows that less than 10% of plastic packaging is actually recycled. The rest leaks into nature, where it stays for centuries. So if we cannot eliminate plastic overnight, the next best thing may be to use a better, safer plastic — one that doesn’t haunt the planet forever.

Of course, Lyfecycle is not a perfect solution. During the two-year window before it breaks down, marine animals could still ingest it. It won’t solve all environmental problems. And it’s not meant to replace natural biodegradable materials like seaweed, bagasse, or bamboo. These alternatives remain superior in many situations.

But as another saying goes, “You can’t win them all.” Maybe we can at least win some battles by using materials that won’t leave microplastic ghosts for the next 400 years.

Interestingly, the first major Southeast Asian rollout of Lyfecycle came from a surprising sector: coffee shops. In 2024, ZUS Coffee introduced Lyfecycle straws — durable like regular plastic, but biodegradable after disposal. They launched them in over 600 branches across Malaysia, making it one of the biggest deployments of this new technology. Customers welcomed the move because, let’s face it, soggy paper straws have tested the patience of even the most environment-loving consumers.

So the big question: what will the Philippine government do?

Since we are not banning plastic, we cannot logically ban Lyfecycle materials either. In fact, shouldn’t we encourage alternatives that are demonstrably better? Why not provide incentives to companies that bring biodegradable, microplastic-free plastic technologies to the country? Why not pilot their use in high-leakage sectors — food packaging, e-commerce mailers, beverage companies, supermarkets?

This is where policy must evolve. Instead of the endless cycle of bans, penalties, and cleanup drives, we need transition materials and transition strategies. Lyfecycle is not the final destination — but it can be a bridge.

Imagine barangays using Lyfecycle bags for their wet markets. Imagine sari-sari stores shifting to biodegradable wrappers that won’t survive long enough to pollute creeks. Imagine LGUs awarding “Green Procurement Points” for brands that adopt next-generation materials.

We often say we want to move toward a circular economy. Well, here is one opportunity to actually walk the talk.

So what could be better than plastic? Sometimes, surprisingly, a smarter kind of plastic. One that knows how to disappear when we humans fail to dispose of it properly.

Because let’s be honest: we still have a long way to go before we fix our waste management mess. In the meantime, if some plastics can clean up after us — even just a little — then why not let them help?

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/07-26-2026

WHO CARES FOR CANCER CARE?

 WHO CARES FOR CANCER CARE?

Cancer is not just a disease — it is a systemic failure. In the Philippines today, we see this reality drawn in stark numbers: over 180,000 new cancer cases reported yearly, and 466,000 Filipinos living with cancer within the last five years. Every day, we lose more than 300 Filipinos to cancer, according to recent cancer-summit data. 

These are not just statistics — these are lives undone, families saddened, and dreams stunted. What’s worse, these may be conservative figures: many cancer cases among the poor go unreported, uncounted.

Yet, for all this burden, we lack a national cancer institution at par with the Philippine Heart Center for heart disease or the Lung Center of the Philippines for respiratory illness. Instead, cancer care is fragmented. Yes, we have several cancer treatment centers — but none fully symbolizes the unity, capacity, and recognition of a national “cancer hospital.”

At the heart of the nation’s public cancer fight is the PGH Cancer Institute, part of the University of the Philippines-Manila — not under the Department of Health. That distinction matters. Because PGH is funded through the UP education budget, not via the health department, when key funding is cut, there’s no simple line to repair.

Dr. Jorge Ignacio, who led the PGH Cancer Institute for 15 years, has sounded the alarm. In a recent public statement, he described the collapse of the Philippine health-insurance system: “Bagsak na ang health insurance natin … kawawang Pilipinas.” That’s not hyperbole — it’s a tired oncologist’s cry of frustration. He warns that the ₱100 million monthly allowance that PGH once received has reportedly been discontinued under our current administration. Without that, operations suffer.

The consequences fall hardest on the poor: over half of PGH’s 70,000 cancer patients are indigent, and about 40,000 depend on affordable chemotherapy. On average, PGH treats 500 cancer patients daily, many of whom cannot access newer, expensive therapies and are stuck with older, more affordable chemo.

The COVID-19 pandemic made things worse. Dr. Ignacio noted that many patients have deteriorated because they missed treatment, and PGH is bracing for a surge in delayed-care cases.

Even worse, beyond Dr. Ignacio’s warning, we lack public transparency. Has the funding for PGH’s Cancer Institute been restored? Is it covered under “Zero Balance Billing” (ZBB)? Do PhilHealth Z-Benefit packages reliably support cancer care in other hospitals? These are questions the government must answer.

Some efforts are already underway, but are they enough? The National Integrated Cancer Control Act (NICCA), for example, was supposed to expand access and create a Cancer Assistance Fund — yet implementation lags. PhilHealth’s Z-Benefit Package now covers breast cancer up to ₱1.4 million per patient, a big leap from its former cap of ₱100,000. But this is only for certain cancers and accredited hospitals.

Indeed, PhilHealth just reaffirmed its commitment to cancer care when it pledged support for the Philippine Cancer Center, a 20-story comprehensive facility in Quezon City. This could be a game-changer — if implementation is handled with urgency, equity, and transparency.

Beyond policies, we need systems thinking, governance reform, and community empowerment. Here’s what must happen:

1. Appropriate a dedicated cancer-care budget in Congress. Cancer is not an optional health concern. It must be funded like any other national-level public health priority.
   
   

2. Ensure national coordination. We need a centralized cancer center, working in tandem with regional hubs, not a fragmented patchwork.
   
   

3. Expand PhilHealth coverage. Z-Benefit must grow to include more cancers, more hospitals, and more Filipinos. And we should push for true No Balance Billing for poor patients.
   
   

4. Support early detection and prevention. Mobilize community-based cancer screening, host HPV vaccination drives (especially for cervical cancer), and strengthen public health education.
   
   

5. Make cancer care sustainable. Support PPP models like the new UP-PGH Cancer Center — but ensure public oversight, so public services remain public.
   
   

So again I ask: Who cares for cancer care, really? Is it us — ordinary Filipinos, patient groups, doctors — or will we let it be an afterthought? Dr. Ignacio’s warning is not a lament but a call to arms. We must listen, act, and demand accountability. Because cancer does not wait.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/07-25-2026