THE HOA, THE GATE AND THE COMMON GROUND
A homeowners’ association needs enough power to protect a community—but enough restraint to respect the people who live in it
By Karl M. Garcia
A homeowners’ association is easiest to appreciate when something goes wrong.
The gate is left unsecured. Garbage is not collected. Drainage is clogged. A contractor does poor work. A homeowner stops paying dues. Someone builds a fence into common property. A supposedly vacant piece of land slowly becomes occupied.
Suddenly, everyone wants the HOA to act.
But when the HOA does act, another question arises:
How much power should a private community association have?
That is the real issue behind many HOA disputes.
A subdivision is not simply a collection of privately owned houses. It is a shared physical and social system. Roads, drainage, lighting, security, landscaping, open spaces and common facilities have to be maintained. Contracts have to be managed. Dues have to be collected. Reasonable community rules have to be enforced.
Without an organization capable of doing these things, a subdivision becomes harder and more expensive to manage.
But an HOA is also not a government.
Its authority comes from law, its governing documents and its legitimate responsibility to manage a shared community. It cannot turn that responsibility into unlimited private power.
The challenge, therefore, is not to make HOAs weaker.
It is to make them capable, professional and accountable.
THE GATE IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT
Consider the subdivision gate.
Residents want security. They want to know who enters the community and who should not. They want protection from unauthorized access and a system capable of responding quickly to emergencies.
That is a legitimate HOA function.
But a gate is a security device, not a private court.
A modern subdivision must accommodate residents, guests, household workers, contractors, delivery riders, caregivers, repair technicians and emergency responders. Security should make these movements safer and more orderly—not turn ordinary life into an obstacle course.
Technology can help: digital visitor passes, resident verification, CCTV, vehicle identification, delivery protocols and clear emergency procedures.
The principle should be simple:
Maximum security with minimum unnecessary friction.
But security also has a legal boundary.
The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Sabig, et al. v. Court of Appeals and Spouses Retirado provides a useful example. The case involved homeowners who had failed to pay association dues. The HOA declared them delinquent and imposed several sanctions, including restrictions affecting deliveries, transportation and guests.
The Supreme Court upheld the HOA’s authority to sanction delinquent members—but drew a line around that authority.
Under Republic Act No. 9904, the Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations, members have both the right to enjoy basic community services and facilities and the right to use common areas such as subdivision roads. The Court held that an HOA’s power to sanction delinquency does not extend to depriving a homeowner of that right to use common areas.
That distinction matters.
A homeowner who owes dues still owes dues. An HOA still has legitimate remedies.
But the association’s authority to collect does not automatically become authority to block a homeowner’s use of subdivision roads.
Enforcement is legitimate only within the authority granted by law.
That is a principle worth remembering well beyond HOAs.
SECURITY SHOULD BE BOUGHT AS A CAPABILITY
The same principle should shape how HOAs procure security services.
The question should not simply be:
How many guards can we get for the lowest price?
The better question is:
What security capability does this community actually need?
That means looking at manpower, training, technology, supervision, response procedures and continuity.
A contractor offering more guards for less money may not provide better security. High guard turnover, inadequate training, weak supervision, poor incident reporting and obsolete equipment can make a seemingly cheap contract expensive in practice.
Competitive procurement is therefore not an accusation against contractors.
It is basic community governance.
Residents should know what they are paying for, what performance is expected and how competing proposals were evaluated.
The same principle applies to landscaping, garbage collection, repairs, drainage maintenance and other major contracts.
An HOA is spending other people’s money.
That requires stewardship.
COMMON SPACE IS NOT SURPLUS SPACE
The other side of community governance is protecting what residents collectively own or are entitled to use.
This becomes particularly important with open space.
A vacant parcel inside a subdivision can look like unused land.
It may not be.
It could be a planned park, playground, drainage area, access corridor, landscaped space or another component of the approved subdivision plan.
Vacant does not mean available.
This is where small violations can become large problems.
One person puts up a structure. Another follows. A fence becomes permanent. A small store appears. Utilities are connected. More structures are added.
Eventually, what began as a few unauthorized acts can become an established settlement.
By then, enforcement becomes much harder. Property disputes become more complicated. Human needs become involved. Political pressure grows.
The lesson is not that every occupant should simply be removed.
The lesson is that problems are easier to solve before they become entrenched.
That requires early documentation, lawful enforcement and, where people genuinely need housing, humane and lawful housing solutions.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
There is also a tendency to focus only on the people physically occupying disputed land.
That may miss the larger problem.
If people are being charged for supposed rights to land that someone else does not own, who is collecting the money?
Who is producing the documents?
Who is organizing construction?
Who is facilitating utility connections?
Who is promising that occupants will eventually receive ownership?
Who benefits from allowing the occupation to grow?
Sometimes the visible occupant is not the person driving the problem.
Follow the money.
But enforcement must be even-handed.
An HOA should not aggressively pursue an informal occupant while ignoring a homeowner who has extended a fence, driveway, garden or structure into common property.
The rule should respond to the violation—not to the wealth or social position of the person committing it.
NOT EVERY COMMON AREA IS THE SAME
Another reason HOA disputes become complicated is that not all common areas have the same legal status or function.
A road is not a swimming pool.
A drainage easement is not a clubhouse.
A playground is not a parking area.
An amenity may have rules governing its use that are different from those governing a road needed for ordinary access.
The legal status of a particular road or parcel may also depend on ownership, dedication, donation, subdivision approvals and other circumstances.
That is why HOAs should resist one-size-fits-all enforcement.
Before imposing a sanction, the association should ask:
What is the legal basis?
What does the governing document actually authorize?
What right is being restricted?
Is the restriction proportionate?
Was due process followed?
Is the same rule being applied to everyone?
These questions may slow an association down.
They can also prevent much bigger problems later.
STRONG HOA DOES NOT MEAN UNLIMITED HOA
There are two bad extremes.
One says HOAs should have almost unlimited power because residents voluntarily joined a subdivision.
The other says that because some HOAs abuse their authority, they should have very little authority at all.
Both are wrong.
A weak HOA cannot protect common property, maintain infrastructure, collect legitimate dues or provide effective security.
An overreaching HOA can turn community management into private coercion.
The answer is neither.
The answer is competent authority with clear boundaries.
An HOA should be strong enough to enforce legitimate obligations, protect common property, manage contracts and maintain security.
It should also be disciplined enough to understand that homeowners retain rights.
The board is a steward, not the owner of those rights.
THE REAL TEST IS GOVERNANCE
A capable HOA should not be measured by how many penalties it can impose.
It should be measured by whether it can keep the community safe, orderly, financially sound and livable without constantly resorting to conflict.
That requires transparent budgets.
It requires competent procurement.
It requires good records and maps.
It requires maintenance before infrastructure fails.
It requires early action against encroachment.
It requires lawful collection of dues.
It requires fair and consistent enforcement.
And it requires knowing when the association’s authority ends.
Residents, for their part, also have responsibilities.
They should pay legitimate dues. Follow reasonable rules. Respect common property. Avoid encroachment. Cooperate with reasonable security procedures. And use lawful channels when they believe the board has acted improperly.
Rights and responsibilities have to work together.
That is the essence of community governance.
THE COMMON GROUND
The best subdivision is not one with the most restrictive gate or the most aggressive board.
It is one where residents understand that they share a community—and where the institution managing that community understands that it serves them.
The gate should protect people, not intimidate them.
Dues should fund services, not purchase arbitrary power.
Security contracts should buy capability, not simply headcount.
Open space should remain available for its intended purpose.
Roads should remain accessible according to law.
Encroachments should be addressed before they become permanent.
And rules should apply whether the person involved is an informal occupant, an ordinary homeowner, a wealthy resident, a contractor or an HOA officer.
The Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling provides an important reminder: even legitimate private authority has boundaries.
That is not a weakness.
It is what makes authority legitimate.
A good HOA does not need unlimited power.
It needs enough authority to protect the community, enough competence to use that authority well, and enough restraint to respect the rights of the people it serves.
That is the balance worth building:
Strong HOA. Strong homeowner rights. Strong accountability.
That is not a contradiction.
It is good community governance.
I was once president of a small HOA, 36 units as I recall, apartment building style. That means 36 different opinions on the simplest matter. Should screen doors be the same, for a community look, or can individual homeowners install whatever they want, for a sloppy look. Vote and decide.
Our condo complex in Cebu is a totally different scale, at about 1,200 units. The Association dues are roughly 3,000 a month. Do the math, it’s big business, and it is driven by the builder until all 10 buildings are built. They do a good job in my estimation. The grounds are maintained well, there’s a large security staff, they run generators during brownouts, the pools are in good shape. Elevators. Fire protocols. Earthquake drills. Lots.
They are quasi democratic I suppose, a process by which one submits to the will of others, and if the others are idiots, as in America, one curses a lot.
Thanks again Joe. Nice to know that you were once HOA president in Cebu.
President in the US, resident here. HOAs are a headache to run. So is a single family home, but in a different part of the brain. We were in our condo in Cebu at the time of Odette. The association provided generators and water. At our place in Biliran, we were on our own after Yolanda. “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose” as Janis Joplin instructed us.
If you “are on your own”, maybe you should ask yourself: “why?”
My mate in Bohol did not have electricity for 3 months after the earthquake (and all generators sold out within 24hrs) while I had electricity when I cleaned the panels after Yolanda. A matter of estimating the risks/rewards realistically. How big is the risk that a big storm will knock out the municipal electricity and water and roads and cellphone after a storm over a period of my lifetime here?? Well, I would estimate it as once per 15 years in my area, so then I have to ask myself the question if I want to prepare for that or take the inconvenience… And if something goes wrong, my wife knows who to blame: ME (LOL), so I am prudent, I love my wife and don´t want a fight……
I guess we will talk again after El Nino is over (as it might be a biggie). I was here when there was no rain for 7 months and even the city was struggling with water. The one which is building up now is supposed to be bigger… And if not this one, then the next one, or the earthquake, or the tsunami. It’s just more fun in The Philippines..
By “on my own” I didn’t mean incapable. We can’t haul water with a truck, like the condo can, so we have a 27 cm reservoir. We have a generator but gasoline is another matter. Fortunately smugglers had us supplied until Petron could get trucks in, in about a week. We had no cell service for weeks. Shrug. We watch the weather closely, and track typhoon paths. We lay in about a month’s supply of spam before storms, and a lot of rice. LOL
The need for an HOA is a sure sign of a failed community.
Coming from the Netherlands and working in Germany & France, I initially only experienced the HOA as the management system of the apartment building I lived in. Now, in Philippines, I see it as the compensation for a failed government, a failed community, a way for a developer to get skyhigh prices and then abandon the community as the home owners (almost) never agree on proper maintenance of the shared facilities but elect to go for minimal expenses.
Even the top level HOA’s I have experienced failed to deliver the “community feeling” & failed to deliver real security. They went for maximizing profit and minimizing costs. Sure, an HOA can increase the security feeling, but that is only what it says: “feeling” because if you look at the actual statistics, criminality in the top of the Manila HOA area where my daughter lived was still classified as HIGH. Actually, the stats show that my free standing house without a real fence in a rural small barangay is actually safer than those big “safe” HOA’s and criminality in my area is limited to neighbours fighting over land, women and killing each other driving drunk at night.
The HOA’s give rich(er) people an excuse to separate themselves from society and create a bubble where “life is good” and real life problems are a different world. Hence those fancy private schools inside the HOA territory so the kids do not have to see/experience real life and those kids often become the selfish animals I have experienced, devoid of any civic virtue. Not all, but still….
In my ideal world, HOA’s would be prohibited: “Live with the consequences of the world you created”
The best example is this picture where the Dutch Prime Minister goes to his office on his bicycle and next to it the picture of Trump driving in his armored car with security guards all around and a helicopter above. Sure, Olaf Palme was murdered walking around, but so were Kennedy & Lincoln. sTrumpelstiltskin & Reagan came very close.
HOA’s are fact of life in The Philippines, you have to choose the lifestyle which fits you. To those I meet in the HOA’s, I say: Stop moaning about the HOA, it’s governance and the security. Realize that you have elected to isolate yourself from your fellow countrymen… Sure, you have “earned” a bit of luxury working hard as an OFW (often), but does that justify living in a different (virtual) world ???
My experience and thoughts. It would be an interesting topic for a few beers on my rooftop at sundown. A better experience than any HOA, I am sure….
Sorry.
Thanks for sharing your experience and insights once more.
HOAs are a fact of life wherever there are condominiums with common spaces (grounds and exteriors) that must be maintained. They are not bad by definition as they are necessary, by law. If an enclave becomes so large as to maintain its own school system, it may create an elitist living environment, but that’s what wealth does. It separates us into classes. Some become elitist and some do not. Life’s not a pattern to be lived by another elitists definition. If pro-indigenous people block a dam that will protect, water, and power a city, that is a form of elitism. So is partying on yachts. I fail to see the failure represented by organized ways of living together.
Well, I do not have the option to party on yachts, wayyyyyy beyond my means.
BUT, the increased segregation of schools, HOA’s and services is a worry for me. My wife came from a poor background, but her schools were not elitist (different times..) and in typical Filipino way, the bonds created at school last forever. So now, she socializes with the top class in the City as well as the (small) rural farmers. It was stimulating for the kids and many (including my wife) saw another world and worked hard to escape poverty.
Now, I see 2 worlds, the “Manila” system where rich kids are isolated from daily sorrows (schools, HOA etc) and the Dutch world where my other grandkids live in a mixed (big city) area and are in the same school together with the local Hells Angels kid, the doctor’s boy and the diplomat’s daughter in the same class, so when they visited me here, they mixed without any problems with the fishermen families/kids. This while the kids from my “Manila daughter” somehow stayed aloof.
I think that this “organized way to live together” actually is an organized way to live segregated. Unhealthy for all parties.
And, there is no pressing need if you are careful. The Captain’s kids nextdoor all went to the local schools, lived with their adoptive parents as integral part of the community and I love how they function in society. They could have elected to live more comfortably an HOA in the City, (Senior captains in a European companies earn enough) but they elected to stay in the small rural barangay.
I also see it in the medical community here in our province. The “old doctors”, the generation of my wife, 70++ year ones, they still work because their patients demand their attention, they hardly make any money because they charge peanuts to their old customers. They consider it social duty. Their (grand) kids are the young and bright doctors, they go for a good income..
I know… it’s a different world.
But, I can choose to live segregated or to try to integrate in the (whole) community.
Integration is a choice, and a condo does not mean segregation. It means urban living and riding motorcycle taxis to school (my son). Education quality is segregated by your standards, as rich people go to Stanford, middle income go to UCLA, and poor go to Community colleges or work. The Philippines has a similar stratification, just not as steep.
My wife’s background is also from poverty and no discernible family love, just need. She can socialize up and down, and generally stays middle, or with high school classmates, most of whom are OFWs.
Some schools are better than others but you have to pay to get 20 kids in a class rather than 45, or to learn Mandarin rather than broken English. Life is segregated economically. Because one’s wallet is full does not mean one’s brain has to segregate itself. I’m a globalist myself, not a barangayist, and my son is globalist, too. But he rides Ankas.
What Paul is describing reminds me of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, a 18th century philosopher of the German Idealism school, who wrote of one of the foundational concepts of modern liberalism which he called mutual recognition. Paraphrased, mutual recognition is where citizens actively grant each other equal dignity, rights, and respect, regardless of class. The Hegelian view contrasts and builds upon the British Hobbesian-Lockean liberalism of a legalistic social contract that guarantees life and pursuit of happiness (ability to own property) but not much else as society is atomized down to the individual and the immediate community around the individual.
Of course Hobbes, Locke, and Hegel are all important in how we as citizens of modern liberal-democratic societies understand our responsibility to self, society, and state. Most highly developed countries follow some balance of Hobbesian-Lockeanism and Hegelianism. Western European countries lean towards Hegelian systems, the Anglosphere leans towards Hobbesian-Lockeanism. The Philippines used to during the Third Republic, at least where the state had strong influence, leaned a bit more towards Hegelianism and the mutuality of social responsibility within the social contract. Somewhere along the way, the Philippines started to tilt to the other side where at times it feels like towards the extreme end that far exceeds an already quite Hobbesian-Lockeanist American society I’m used to. Subdivisions that can sometimes appear to be mini fortresses, a city-within-a-city with all the amenities confined within the subdivision walls, are an expression of that, so I understand where Paul is coming from. I guess that’s why Paul and I both prefer staying in the province.
Thanks Joey,
As a Dutchman, this issue was very obvious to me and I failed to recognize that other nationalities might not see it that way. Segregation is just not my thing.
Anyway, everybody has to do what he needs to do.
What appears obvious to you and I may not only be a difference in national origin but in my estimation something we, who closely observe Philippine society, notice what may be echoes of how the original Spanish colonialization transformed a subset of Philippine society some 450-odd years ago.
The first wall that created enclaves within Philippine society was not a post-WWII American-style subdivision but the Intramuros built by Miguel López de Legazpi in 1571 as an enclave of the colonial government and the mestizo elite. Indios (native Filipinos) and sangleys (Chinese migrants and traders) lived outside the stone walls in the extramuros — inside of Manila’s economic life but outside of the city’s formal community. What the Spanish set up was somewhat akin to the Medieval European system of citizenship as relates to the castle or city (using “citizen” here in the original sense as a “citizen of a city”). In German, to use an example, that was the bürger (internal residents behind the walls aka full citizens), the vorstädter (those living “sub-urbanly” just outside of the walls aka outside citizens with inner city rights), and the pfahlbürger (external citizens who paid tax and pledged loyalty for protection). Btw in Dutch (looked this up), that would be poorter, voorstedeling, and butenpoorter. So the Philippines already had a “template” of walled, gated, and contract-bound elite-only living areas long before Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, and the rise of liberal-democratic societies. The modern American-style Philippine subdivision (which amusingly to me, is another example of Filipino extreme literalness in copying) is but a façade over something much older. We can understand the Intramuros template of walls, gates, and guards as a provision of safety in a very low trust society as much as these are a symbol of status.
I have written along with Irineo from time to time about pre-Spanish Philippine society, so I won’t bore us repeating again, but essentially what had survived the Spanish period as relates to interpersonal dealings is an amalgamation of bayanihan (communal solidarity), utang na loob (relational debt that governs relationships), kapwa (caring for one’s fellows), and pakikisama (to get along with others). In pre-Spanish society one may also raise one’s social status, principally through wealth, and even become a datu.
The problem to me, it seems, is an elite class that has had a number of evolutions since the Spanish times that continually adapts to change then blocks most paths to advancement in order to monopolize power. Worse when the elite wall themselves off from everyone else. The Third Republic from my reading was an attempt to institute liberal-democratic civic values, but the Third Republic also enabled the Philippine elite to build “new intramuroses,” first at Forbes Park in Makati, the Philippines inaugural modern gated subdivision — American-ish in name and exterior, but with roots and function in the original Intramuros. The republic that ushered in full independence and mutual recognition to all Filipinos was also the one that started rebuilding the walls for the elite… Today there are hundreds of such subdivisions, often with names of famous American suburbs. The the middle class started approximating their own, “more affordable” subdivisions, mostly with even more aspirational names. I often joke that it seems like there are more exclusive communities in the Philippines, that there are bigger malls in the Philippines than the US which invented the shopping mall.
My best friend, the daughter of a Martial Law-era musician of note, grew up in Hong Kong. But her parents also owned a home in Parañaque within BF Homes (the original “grand” subdivision). She spent much of her high school years in that subdivision, never giving a thought of going outside the walls. BF Homes has restaurants, a mall, banks, supermarkets, movie theaters, medical clincs, pharmacies and so on, all within the gates. I recall there was a major controversy in 2006 when the court forced the subdivision to open its gates to allow through-traffic, where an outsider carjacked and murdered a young nursing student. So why should the inhabitants of subdivisions, especially the more exclusive ones, fight to fix a public elementary school, the public roads, or a public clinic when HOA dues can already buy a private version of all the above? I had always loved venturing “outside the walls,” eloping almost immediately from the Batangas compound of a high school friend’s family despite the explicit orders of his auntie when I was 13 years old on my first visit. Imagine the shock on my best friend’s face, a kind person, when I toured her through Tondo, Happyland, Baseco, and so on. She had literally never experienced “the Philippines” living within the gates, with helpers, drivers. Amusingly her parents, who are in their 70s now and see me as their own son, told me a recently they decided to learn how to drive at their age since their long-time driver had retired after decades of service on beck-and-call.
The root problem is the Philippines, for various reasons, never built a model of community with built-in accountability at a national scale. Small communities in the province hold neighbors accountable to each other just fine. A subdivision only needs to grant its HOA enough private authority to protect and respect its walled inhabitants. There does seem a tendency to keep building more subdivisions, more walls. Alongside the Mactan Airport, squatter communities I’m very familiar with, the landowners have been buying out squatters and building subdivisions on previously undesirable land under the roar of passenger airliners taking off. The empty mudflats in Cordova are now built up with cheaper subdivisions owned by Cebu BPO workers. Personally, I’d never live in a gated community. I’ve made it a point that my house here in the US, while in a subdivision, has no gate, no wall, no HOA. Nor do any of my other properties, including apartments, have the same. What the Philippines keeps building are new versions of the original Intramuros, but with new, more aspirational names over the gate each time. Cities-within-cities. Barangays-within-barangays.
“The root problem” is people’s need for security in low trust society? Gated communities seem to me to be a solution, not a problem, and your abhorrence of gated communities, and ability to stay secure outside of them, is an elitist position of rather huge scale it seems to me. You can choose your own lifestyle but maybe ought not look down on those who have different backgrounds and solutions, and choose a different one. Gated communities and condos are common to Filipino lifestyles. So is not having a car.
I’m sorry, you’re totally wrong here. I am pressed for time here so let’s have Claude check.
Answer as follows:
Saying that gated communities and condos are “common to Filipino” lifestyles is preposterous and obvious once one steps outside of the housing community’s gates.
Hmm, preposterous depends whether one is standing outside the gates? LOL LOL. I think it depends on the definition of common, which, in my terms, does not mean majority or any particular income strata, but is better defined as the target market for major developers who are investing big money to serve Filipinos who buy their products, either to live in or rent out. It is common in the Philippines to see condo high rises in major urban locations. And there are gated single family residences here and there. I think looking down on their choices is a kind of elitism worse than living in a gated community.
https://business.inquirer.net/594068/the-upside-in-an-uneven-condo-market/
So common that nearly a quarter of condo units in Metro Manila, amounting to about 75,000 units, stand vacant. And that’s just Manila. I appreciate your perspective on any subjects, but on this one going off of good vibes is completely wrong. So are we here elite apologists now? How do we suppose the Philippines will get better if the focus is on elites rather than ordinary Filipinos who wonder what food they’re eating for dinner tomorrow, much less having time to think about how they’ll move up in life to buy a condo?
LOL, so I’m an apologist now. Why are there so many vacancies? Marcos closed the Pogos, and builders were caught with buildings half-way done. They finished the buildings. Now the economy is stressed, BPO buildings (and employees who live in condos) are hanging by an AI thread, and you want to solve the matter by saying gated communities are elitist? And are cherry picking the data to support your view? I guess I lost the thread somewhere along the line.
Joe, just because my verified facts do not line up with vibes does not mean it’s cherry picked. That’s just moving goal posts. I invite you to run your opinions through a fact check too. I could say the same for your opinions on this subject. So we will agree to disagree.
I find it ad hominem to suggest my opinions are based on vibes. They are arguments of principle, not facts. I’ve explained this in specific terms. Holding the Philippines up to standards she cannot achieve, while failing to recognize steps being made, just foments the angst and dissatisfactions that will get Sara Duterte elected.
Okay, then please back up your argument with facts.
The fact is the argument is clearly understandable, and forms the principle under which I debate. You can disagree with the principle and we will argue ad infinitum when you throw cold water on legitimate successes (a drone manufacturer) and hold Filipinos to ridiculous standards (they are thinking badly if they live in a gated community). This is not an anti-Pinoy blog. Never has been. Never will be.
I resent you continually insinuating that I am anti-Pinoy whenever I even lightly challenge your views. In fact I am very pro-PH despite not having any family ties there myself. I accord you with respect that would be nice if that respect is reciprocated. But right, it’s your blog. You win.
It isn’t a matter of winning. It is a matter of understanding why.
The context of the creation of this blog is as an alternative to GRP and Anti-Pinoy blogs that were dominant in the early stages of blogging in the Philippines. I’ve been around and am sensitive to the patterns, unreasonable expectations, relentless criticism. It’s what foreigners do whenever they collect. I’ve added to this recently in my belief that the Philippines is the orphan state never loved by the powerful, and easily turned over to the Dutertes for a good whipping. I’d like to see successes recognized, not discounted.
“An orphan,” presumably to be taught by his foreign betters. Just like what our country did a century ago with the fullest of misguided good intentions, and what the Spanish did before with lesser intention. Been there, done that, how’d it work out? The elite are the elite, why should be they coddled even further? Success is everywhere in the ordinary Filipino. Identify that ordinary success, encourage and equip those people who lack resources. How about some change, for once. How about understanding the non-elite Filipino for who he is, and what he dreams to be. Assume a few can replicate the extra-ordinary, then should the rest feel defeated and useless as often one feels in Philippine society? What good is there in touting “accomplishments” from that can never be replicated by the ordinary person?
Whoa, that’s a mindful.
Orphan in a literary sense, of a nation with low self esteem, driving bad voting. How do you correct an emotional issue through pragmatics and criticism? Bad voting here is not rational.
Every society has elite. They are a part of the fabric. They are elite because they have dynastic privilege, power, or wealth. By ordinary Filipinos I presume you mean the 90% C/Ds. My understanding of ordinary Filipinos is that they want jobs that give them a decent life. The elite control the jobs, along with a some foreigners.
Some ordinary people find success. Should those who don’t make it be condemned and made to feel useless? Of course not. Who is making that argument?
The reason for touting a drone manufacturer choosing the Philippines is because it’s manufacturing that we recognize is important because it creates multiples of Filipino jobs supporting it. How can we, on one hand, demand manufacturing, and, on the other, say it is not good enough? Where is the consistency of argument?
The glass half-empty premise is a tiresome, easy argument.
Let’s call good things good and soon Filipinos will believe good things are happening here. And they will vote to sustain it. Let’s stop burdening ordinary Filipinos with the need to live in a perfect country. Meanwhile, let’s pound on the elite to provide careers instead of day jobs, cheer manufacturing progress, and other steps that will be good for ordinary Filipinos.
Sometimes in your replies I wonder if you accord me the same respect of reading my full comment that I give to you… a lot of our arguments are me defending my original comment while you go off on completely different tangents that seem to be rooted in a certain anger at malfeasance that you don’t realize I also may share.
I reserve my criticism for those who should know better. By that principle I almost never criticize DEs, who while being wrong at times, don’t know better due to their ignorance. The ignorant can be taught. The ignorant often want to be taught. Those who willfully choose selfishness and stupidity, like many Filipino elites seem to choose, know better and actively choose the wrong thing often due to their own selfishness.
What I espouse for and often write about, is pragmatic and novel ways that DEs might be uplifted. Perhaps you don’t think my ideas are pragmatic even if you might think my ideas are novel, but isn’t discounting new ideas then going with same ‘ol same ‘ol trying to effectuate change through the elites in some ways worse?
Most of what you write here in your reply, I agree with. Even those which I don’t agree with, such as how transformative the drone motors story is (because I know something about it, while you may not), I can see the merits of your position. I do not follow glass half full, as you suggest, because I was born into refugee poverty and if that had been my mentality I would’ve not been able to achieve a measure of success. The personal stories you shared of your own childhood and eventual success is more like my own than you think. Empathy is the ability to understand and see oneself in another.
So I would appreciate if you do not project your legitimate frustrations onto me, when I have nothing to do with it. I’ve asked you for this favor before, multiple times.
I read every line. For you to say otherwise stands for what it is. Whether I understood your point is a different matter. As for projecting things, I would only say look within.
Here’s another cut at my point, my context, my principles. The primary target market of this blog is the elite of the Philippines. Educated Filipinos or those with some stake in the Philippines, well off people, government officials, influencers within their chosen social media accounts. It is not C/Ds, although it’s great to have one stop by. I’d like to influence them to make good decisions, and the blog in its heyday did just that.
You may detest the elite, but they are who makes the Philippines do the good works that are being done, amongst all the crap. To demean their gated communities, to lay blame on the innocent for some conceptual rationale of rent seeking abuses seems to me to need a different market to write into. Leftists maybe, I dunno. Or the disenfranchised.
When I don’t understand a point, I ask for clarification if I’m interested enough, or I simply choose not to comment. Commenting without understanding makes one look like a jerk, to be frank. As usual I have attempted conciliation a few replies now without reciprocation after being unfairly painted. You have your view, I have my view. One is capable of changing his view when corrected with evidentiary facts. I am not a far-leftist, but I will never cheer for the elite when they do not deserve commendation. Have a good night.
Then you have few influential people here to cheer for, because the drivers of change are mostly elitist. Senator Hontiveros, the moderate leftish icon of many good works, lists three residential properties on her SALN. Mar Roxas is a superstar elitist. He was obsessed with good works. I cannot imagine how you hope to be any kind of successful advocate of change in the Philippines. Seems you’re spitting into the wind for distance, as we used to say back on the farm.
How you’re able to distill my last comment and come up with something completely different from what I expressed quite clearly is beyond me.
(1) “Commenting without understanding makes one look like a jerk, to be frank”
(2) “I will never cheer for the elite when they do not deserve commendation”
What did you mean then?
Not what you jumped to conclusions on and took it to be.
FYI I can accept minor differences another may have with me. I have seen you accept minor differences with others. For some reason over a year now since before my Ukraine and Philippines trips, you can’t seem to do the same specifically just with me. Freud wrote about this: the narcissism of small differences.
How about a new rule, whatever you assume of me, just default to the opposite, as my view aligns remarkably with your own view aside from minor differences.
You didn’t explain what you meant. It seems simple English to me, and shifting the blame to me by quoting Freud, and projecting nonsense onto me, says you don’t want to explain. How am I to interpret your two statements? You wrote them and say I misrepresented them. How do I represent them correctly?
You’re projecting and jumping to conclusions again. I do not know the reason why you do so, particularly with me. I value your insight, which is why I originally gladly accepted your invite to come here. I guess you don’t feel the same. Now you’re accusing me of spouting nonsense. One is clearly ranting, and it’s not me.
If you didn’t know the simple English concept from Freud, which to not understand is a legitimate position, you could’ve just asked rather than to assume. In short, someone who engages in the narcissism of small differences focuses on the forest not the trees, arguing over minor details despite sharing great agreement. I already said many times going back over a year that I don’t understand why you insist on arguing with me over such small differences when I reiterate each time I agree with your view probably 95%+ of the time.
I came here to add my own insight from my own experiences, which a reasonable person might recognize may be different from their own. And to learn from others’ perspectives. Isn’t that how discussion towards a better understanding takes place? Conceding that one may not know everything, which I regularly do. If I am no longer helpful here, do let me know. I’d not stick around if you feel that to be the case.
Trees not the forest *
I’d like to know how to interpret your two statements, after having been name called for failing to respond “correctly”. Elevating a simple discussion on elitism into a character defining matter of chest thumping import seems to me to be excessive and gets us no where. Of course your contributions here are enlightening, welcomed, and appreciated. Are we not allowed to disagree in our own words?
You FEEL that I name called you, when I did no such thing. I simply pointed out where you’re incorrect on the whole subdivision thing then you went buck wild. After you were being passive-aggressive with me. Then you spent a whole 10+ hours arguing with me, starting with my original mild and not at all disrespectful pointing out of where you may have not had the whole picture. I provided evidence. Numbers. Explanations. History. Concepts from Sikolohiyang Pilipino. Connecting threads. I put actual effort into all that while you seemed to wave your hand and dismiss it to go back to what you already believe. At every turn I attempted to explain more, including your many tangents. I requested that if you don’t agree with me, at least fact check yourself using AI. I offered to agree to disagree. You went on a multi-reply rant, about how I am supposedly ranting, where my continued disagreement is apparently a “rant.” Well NOW I’m ranting! Look, we are both obviously strong-willed Americans but come on, this is ridiculous. As you said before, respect goes both ways. I default to respect. But I do not like being disrespected without cause.
Good grief. Go to bed.
What is your sense of this article, DHL reporting heavy item volumes up. Meaningful or abberation?
https://mb.com.ph/2026/09/16/philippines-among-asia-pacifics-fastest-growing-heavyweight-shipment-marketsdhl
Very meaningful.
More air freight services coming in means those companies expect to have customers sending by air high-value complements as it bounces around the supply chain.
DHL is a logistics company. They have consumer courier services too but mainly focus on high-value B2B air freight. DHL’s biggest jet is their Boeing 777’s, still smaller than an old 747 freighter version. Even jumbo jets can’t carry bulk freight cheaply though, so whenever we see goods being moved by air freight that’s shorthand for “high-value.” The export goods DHL is carrying here that has the most value are semiconductor parts after assembly, testing, and packaging (ATP) in the Philippines, going back and forth between the chip fabs in Taiwan to Malaysia to Thailand, with the Philippines conveniently in-between. The actual computer chip is usually the size of a thumbnail, but worth on order of hundreds to thousands of dollars. This category was what drove the Philippines to increase exports to the US in 2025 by +10.6% ($13.46 billion) despite the multiple rounds of Trump tariffs, which did not affect the Philippines that much in the main export categories (such as electronics and semiconductors) as those were exempt.
Ah, thanks. Good to know, and it seems to build on Clark’s development as a regional air services hub. It’s like the Philippine centrality of location in the region, and decent political and economic stability, is benefitting from a shift away from China.
Related. Port development in Batangas.
https://splash247.com/ictsi-gears-up-new-south-luzon-terminal/
The Philippines absolutely does occupy a central location in the region but until now failed to develop as a logistics and transshipment hub, most of the containerized TEU traffic are domestic-oriented or own-exports — that’s changing.
My startup is in the area of ERP, MRP, WMS, Capacity Planning, and how new technologies like machine learning and AI are applied to transform the field.
The Philippines currently greatly trails other regional hubs (Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand) in both TEU volume and dollar value. There are a number of factors on why this is aside from the focus on domestic I already referred to. A big detrimental factor is getting goods to and from where they are manufactured across CALABARZON and the ports in Manila or Batangas. The roads are a limiting factor here, and I’ve read that these roads are being upgraded/expanded too. In the past the Philippines does stuff piecemeal — upgrade the road but not the port, or vice versa — so good that Philippine planners are recognizing the need to look at systems and how different areas affect, support, or inhibit other areas.
The Port of Batangas mainly focuses on existing electronics and semiconductor exports. I read an analysis earlier this year, which I cannot currently find, that pointed out that the under construction SCLT was part of the Philippines’ argument that Manila should get the premier manufacturing role in Pax Silica rather than Hanoi. So my read on this is that the Philippines is preparing to go into the Pax Silica role with full speed. To do that supply chains need to be localized, logistics costs need to be reduced, and export infrastructure such as ports need to be scaled.
I’m pretty sure freight rail is going to be a part of the backbone of the industrialization infrastructure for Subic-Clark-Manila-Batangas.
Yes. And a lot of the difference between the admirable efforts of Aquino and the current efforts of Marcos Jr. is that the latter seems to less encumbered by unrealistic idealism demands that the former faced from his own allies back then. The Philippine system is imperfect, as all systems are, but there are pragmatic ways through. I believe the many developments we’re seeing are results of that pragmatism which I’m in favor of. BTW the Subic-Batangas freight railway is principally funded by the US (with some pledged help by Sweden), so it appears other mercantilist nations agree that the Philippines has great potential, evidenced by the funds they help provide. All in all good developments.
Subway infrastructure update. Trains will connect to the airport. Game changer?
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2306599/marcos-work-progress-on-metro-subway-at-60
Cutting commute time in Metro Manila will always be a game changer. Wasted time is wasted economic or leisure potential. Not to mention that one common complaint international tourists have told me about the Philippines is “the country is stunningly beautiful, but takes forever to get anywhere.”
Last time sitting in a taxi outside of NAIA, the kuya driver hadn’t closed the taxi’s trunk yet while he was taking a pee break and a rival kuya driver shamelessly pulled out my luggage and put it in his own taxi, beckoning me to ride his taxi instead. Avoiding that would always be a game changer.
So far I’ve made 31,921 comments here counting this one. You call me a jerk for not understanding (agreeing with) your rants? LOL LOL LOL
Great.
Well, I prefer staying in the province, too. And the Philippines seems to me to be a bit of a dumbbell shape with dogmatic controls at one end of the bar, near mindless rote execution demanded, and free giveaways of cash and homes at the other end, near socialistic in execution. All I’m objecting to is the idea that HOAs are society’s villains by segregating Filipinos. Wealth segregates societies more than condos, a common form of city dwelling. The OPPORTUNITIES for building wealth also happens to be the great energizer of capitalism, and democracy says every one is equal in opportunities, not station. It’s all good.
Philippines subdivisions and HOAs operate at-face similarly to the American ones they copied, but it’s really a facade on top of something much older. They function to separate, not to build communities. In many subdivisions, one does not even need to go outside the gates at all.
No, they function to give people homes they enjoy and feel secure in. I think you are over-intellectualizing the matter.
Answer:
Compression means cherry picking data to support a premise? LOL
We are both native English speakers. “Compression” does not mean that.
And THAT is the point where we differ in cultural background.
The Dutch (European) philosophy is: You created a mess, now you have to live with it. Grow up. (simplified).
The American / Filipino philosophy seems to be: We maybe created a mess, but let’s use our money to circumvent the consequences. Tough sh.t for the rest, you should get more money so you can do it as well.
Nothing personal, mind you, more a generalized description of the system.
I think we now start to see the consequences of these different positions.