FRANCISCO. Good Afternoon Sir, thank you very much for allowing me to have this interview session with you. For the record, can you please tell me your name and present occupation?
DE VERA. My name is Ruel De Vera, I write under the name: Ruel S. De Vera. I'm presently a staff writer at the Sunday Inquirer Magazine and I'm a lecturer at the Department of Communications at the Ateneo De Manila University. I also write free lance.

Q. Oh I see. Sir how did you get into the writing business?
A. I've always wanted to write since I was in high school and all throughout college. When I was a junior at the Ateneo, I got a scholarship called the Philippine Daily Inquirer University Scholarship so the Inquirer paid for my senior year in the Ateneo under the agreement that I would come and work for them afterwards. So upon graduating in 1994, AB Communications, I went here in the Inquirer and I worked as a reporter for one year and then they transferred me to the Sunday Inquirer Magazine where I solemn to this day. But I've been writing professionally since I was in college. I would write book reviews and I would send them to various magazines and in the Inquirer, I first got published in the Inquirer with my book reviews which I still do to this day. And on the other side I write poetry and so sometimes that gets published also. I've been writing for the magazines pretty much since I was in college.

Q. You've been a reporter sir but you're also inclined into poetry and arts?
A. Right.

Q. Philippine Daily Inquirer was the first newspaper company you write for sir, right?
A. That's correct.

Q. And it is still the company you're presently employed in?
A. Yeah when I was in college I was basically contributing. Because most of the stuff I contributed was poetry, it's just all the magazines that had poetry just sent to them. This was not the first magazine that I came out in poetry wise but if you're talking article- yeah, I came out here- about '93-'94, so quite a ways back.

Q. When you started sir, what was your position?
A. In the Inquirer?

Q. Yes.
A. Professionally, at full time? I was a reporter.

Q. You were a reporter? But during your college years you were just contributing.
A. I was just contributing. I was just another student who was sending his stuff to the Inquirer hoping he will get published.

Q. Sir let's talk about your early years as a writer.
A. Right.

Q. Let's talk about your office. When you graduated sir and you were formally employed here, how did your office look like?
A. Oh we weren't here yet.

Q. Where was it located?
A. That was the Inquirer's third office. It was in U.N. Avenue. It was a big warehouse. It was very small compared to this and not very sanitary. We had to walk through a garage to get to the office. It was an up and down thing. It was basically what you would imagine one of those old newspaper office to be like. Lots of papers hanging around, the noise of people... you could see the entire office- the entire editorial was like one floor- so you could see everyone doing their own thing all over the place. It was very messy and very cramped and very noisy. It was in U.N. Avenue so it was quite a ways out. It was very near the WPD so there'd always be a lot of action goin' around back then. That was the old office however. We moved here in about 1995.

Q. Oh I see.. this is much better than before!
A. Oh yes! They were already building this when we moved in and they were just sort of hoping and holding on for this very streamlined building.

Q. OK. What about the working conditions sir? Did you work full time?
A. Yes, I was full time.

Q. How many hours a day?
A. At six days a week, sometimes seven depends on the story. A reporter's life isn't really covered by a nine to five thing. You're supposed to get out on the beat as early as you can and you're supposed to submit your stories by around four or five o'clock in the afternoon. Usually, you would have something like two to three stories a day, sometimes more sometimes less. If the story is breaking, you have to stay there until something happens. So if for example it was four o'clock and there's a fire or there's a bank robbery, then you have to stay until this thing blows over. And if the story is a serial story, like there are several stories one after the other like a kidnapping case that I covered before, you have to go back and stay there until way after dark because you have to make sure you had all the details cause otherwise they'll come out with it. So you'll stay there as long as you're sure your competitors are still there.

Q. And you have to protect your own story.
A. Yeah. The newspaper can carry a story quite late. But usually on a day when there aren't any massively important stories then I'd say I would probably leave the house around before nine, get to a police station or two, and then we'd call in our stories around three and then we'd have to submit them by five or six.

Q. So sir you weren't really required to report in the office?
A. At the first week or so. (Oh yes.) But that really cuts into your ( time to look for news ) Yeah because when you're out there you can do the story any time. If you leave by the time you get into the office to meet the deadline. I was covering the Eastern part of Metro Manila. That's Pasig City, San Juan, Marikina City, Mandaluyong City and urban Rizal. So that's really quite a two hour ride away so it eats into most of the time.

Q. Okay. Sir do you work during holidays?
A. Of course! The reporter's day off is a day off. So as a six day week thing, my day off used to be a Saturday then they made it a Sunday cause I couldn't find any stories on a Sunday. Sundays was my day off, so if there was a holiday on Monday, I still went. If Christmas was on a Tuesday I'd still be there. The Inquirer does not come out I think only on Black Saturday. It's the only day it does not come out the entire year. So the only day we don't go to work would be Good Friday.

Q. But were you allowed to go on a leave?
A. Yeah of course! But the problem with newspapers is there's a network of reporters. And if you go on a day off, it's automatic that whoever is there has to cover for you. So if you go on leave at an extended period of time, someone has to do your work for you for a long period of time. So again it wasn't advisable but yeah we were allowed to do that.

Q. Were they were the ones to choose who'd take over your position?
A. Yeah, whoever's available pretty much. Just like on Saturdays I had to cover for someone, so basically on the weekends- our days off are always on weekends- so we would always be covering for someone else- all of us. Cause on Saturday and Sunday there would only be like half of us left. Strangely enough in the Metropolis in the Philippines, there really is a lot less happening on a weekend. So it's humanly possible to cover two beats on a weekend.

Q. Sir let's talk about your colleagues. Your editors, publishers... How was your relationship with them when you were just starting?
A. Oh of course at the start, you were awed by all this. I have to be quite honest that I initially did not want to become a reporter. I'd always thought I would become a feature writer or thereabouts and when I became a reporter, it was really tough because I wasn't used to that. What I had covered before was sports, so I really had no experience writing news. So the start was very rocky. My editors were very supportive but also they were very, very strict. I really went to a very important period in time in which my work was being massacred everyday. It took me such a long time to get published and then when I came out, it didn't have my name on it because it was so mangled. It took me about a month or so before I finally got my name and after a while you'll get used to it. But I think it was a very interesting experiment for me being there and after a while, you'll really get the hang of it. I think being a reporter is really very much an all in the job training kind of thing. There's no way to prepare you to be a reporter if you're not out there on the field. So you can't learn it in a classroom, certainly. ( It's through experience. ) Yeah. And you can't learn it doing it part time. I mean becoming a reporter is a full time on the job thing, and sooner or later after six or seven months, you'll get used to it. ( It's like being a doctor or a fireman..) Yeah. My publisher, my editors were all very supportive but I think they were all very clear that they wouldn't cut a slack for anyone. You all had to do the same thing. So even if I was new, this huge geographical area I was covering wouldn't be covered by anybody else. So even if I was new, I had to cover that area no matter what. Again, there is the constant reminder that you have to do your work, otherwise there's a hole in the coverage and you'd be failing the company.

Q. Sir, did you ever experience being a "cub" reporter?
A. No. We were just pretty thrown to the lions. That was how it works there. That's how it works here. I was employed so they threw you out there. Just to be perfectly honest, I was so shocked by work that after my first three days I totally threw out into quit because I just couldn't handle it. The first three days was so tough but I came back and I'm still here so obviously I got used to it after a while.

Q. Sir, what was your first writing about?
A. In what sense? On the job? Full time?

Q. Yeah, when you were formally employed in the Inquirer.
A. In the Inquirer? Oh crime! It was all crime! It was crime, fire... These were urban news stories. These were crime and kidnappings.. I've written I think pretty much during the time I was a reporter for the Inquirer. My major case was the one I consider to be my most fruitful case was I covered the trial of former Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez. But I've also covered BMX bikes being stolen, missing dogs... it's the whole thing. The first story I remember I think it was probably some stabbing. Filipinos stab each other a lot. They get drunk, they fight over basketball, they stab each other... it happens. My first story was either a very small fire story or some stabbing incident out of a drunken spree.

Q. So from art work and poetry you went into crime.
A. Yeah, that took some getting used to actually.

Q. Sir what was you first beat?
A. That's it. That was my beat- crime.

Q. Ah OK. So beat was something like your assignment?
A. Yeah. We have a Malacanang reporter, we have a Congress reporter. It was crazy especially during the weekends because the beat I was covering on the weekends included Makati, Pasay City, a couple of other places. It depended on who was not at work that day. So you'd get to rotate and you'd get to cover a lot of things. The only thing I don't remember ever having covered was the Northern area. I never got to cover Caloocan, I didn't cover Quezon City for a while- very very briefly. Too large an area. I think I only covered Manila for like a day or two. Thank God because too much happens there. Back then Makati wasn't as action packed as it is today because the traffic wasn't bad yet then. That was '94. The traffic wasn't very bad yet so the MMDA was a small beat. I covered that very briefly. It was such a small beat! Now sa full time beat just get a reporter assigned to the MMDA everyday! That's how different things are now.

Q. Who were the people with you on that beat? Or as you said you were in rotation so there weren't really any specific person assigned with you?
A. Oh no, of course not! We were alone. (Oh you're independent.) That's how it works. They got to assist someone else like once a week. But the rest of the week, you're there. You're stuck with the other reporters from all the other newspapers, all the other TV stations, radio stations. You're all just thrown together to cover a certain area. And most of them would have the same, exact geographical area and assignments as you do so it was really very competitive.

Q. Sir what was the most important lesson you've learned from this? From your beat?
A. Oh boy! That's a very tough question. It was a very difficult time. I think if there was anything I learned from that time was that we could go profound, we could go very practical. The most profound thing I learned about then is that really it's a very, very cruel life out there. I think that people die everyday, misfortune happens everyday. People out there who are planning to go out and work in the world with a cushy job in mind and thinking that everything would go they way they expect is wrong. Because life out there is just totally very, very cruel. It's very difficult. Good people suffer, bad people don't get punished, that kind of thing. It's really an education. (reality) It's really an education the gruteness of reality and I think more than anything else, it's where people grow up very quickly. I was 21 if I remember right starting the beat but the education you get there makes you grow old very, very quickly. It makes you a lot tougher. It also makes you a lot harder as a person to survive that kind of coverage.

Q. OK Sir let's go to a lighter subject. Did you have any favorite assignment?
A. As a reporter? Back then? ( Yes, as a reporter. ) I was only a reporter for one year. Then they moved me to the magazine. As a reporter, my favorite coverage was the Sanchez case. Reporters have this mentality is that if there's nothing happening, they wouldn't go there. And the Sanchez case dragged out for three years but I believe making the investment of time. So everyday I would go to the court house (follow up?) and sit with them, talk with them and listen to their testimonies and familiarize myself with the case. I felt that with enough time given, I would be familiar enough with the case in a way that they wouldn't be even if they had covered it for a longer time. And true enough, when the case was heading into it's more important phases I was completely aware of all the issues, I knew everyone personally, I knew things they didn't know, and it was a very important advantage. And when the case finally came into its conclusion, I felt that I did the best reportage as a reporter because I really was able to prepare for it. I did the three part series leading into it, about it. The irony was that I was there outside the court room trying to get in, and there were these reporters next to me and I could hear on the radio the editor saying to the guy: "Hey, there's a special report in the Inquirer. Use that! Use it as your background!" And I was there standing right next to him. When I got a copy of the decision, I just lit out of there and I wrote it as quickly as I can. That was my favorite story definitely. But the funny thing about it is that right after that case I tried very hard to get away from it because shortly after that case, nothing was happening anymore. And I felt that there was no need to flogging that horse. If there's anything you have to learn as a writer and as a reporter, you can't get pigeon holed with just one thing. Whether it's one genre or one case, you don't wanna get stuck just doing the same thing. So after that, it was on to the next thing.

Q. OK. Sir I've read some of your write-ups and I noticed that one in a while you interview people. Do you have any favorites?
A. Well actually it's my job. My job in the Inquirer now, after they've moved me, for one year as a reporter they moved me to the magazine. Basically now, the magazine is a people magazine so we do profiles. I've been doing profiles for about five years now and it's a very interesting job. You get to meet a lot of people. Favorite people... ahh! that's very difficult. I have interviewed so many people through the years. Well I think those would be Cone, the coach of Alaska who I've always looked up to. I interviewed him at that time the national team was going to fight in the Asiad. That was very interesting for me. I've always been quite fascinated by Tim Cone's intensity. And you know I think it's every little boy's dream to do a basketball story. I also interviewed Cory once. That was a very big deal. It's always such a pleasure to interview people who were great. Outside the magazine, I did two stories that I remember very clearly; I loved. One was with Nick Joaquin who I admire very much. I admire him very much ( Oh! I know him. Yes! He's very profound..) But that wasn't solo because I was interviewing him with a bunch of other people. The other was on a Nobel laureate. His name is Wole Soyinka, he's from Nigeria. There's always a big deal when you get to interview award winning people like Wole Soyinka who's a Nobel prize winner. I think that more than anyone interviewed, what always shocks me is the great variety of interviews and how different they seem. For example, my interview with Vicky Morales was very good to me. It was something I really enjoyed because you see her in the news everyday, but she was so warm and really very, very charming. And when I went into an interview with Jolina Magdangal, expecting the full star thing, she was like the most "normal" thing in the world. And she was so charming because you get to see her on television, but you meet her and she's like so real. And I think that that's the joy in meeting people, where you all have this preconceived notion of how they are and then you meet them and it's totally different. There's just too many people I've interviewed through the years so it's kinda hard to choose just one based on all those people.

Q. When you were just starting sir, how was your first salary- if you don't mind me asking?
A. Oh God! That was terrible!

Q. Were you contented with it?
A. Of course not! I don't think I can tell you how much my salary was but it was really very, very, very small. Because the first six months you are on probation, you get a lot less than they do - than the regular people. After six months, you can become regular then your salary goes up. But those six months were so difficult. The salary I was getting was just ridiculously low. I can't tell you what it is, but when I say it to people now, this blach it's so unbelievably low. ( It's not worth it. ) I have shoes which are more expensive than my salary back then, so it was really very low; ridiculously low.

Q. Sir let's talk about the memorable people that you've worked with. Do you have any memorable editors?
A. Of course. I remember two editors in specific. One of my first editors at the paper was Recca Trinidad. Recca was the person who formed the "Metro" page of the Inquirer and I was one of the first reporters for that section. It was Recca's idea to put a "tabloid" on the back of the Inquirer. So the Metro section is sort of like the tabloid and he was the brain crossed of it. He was the editor, he crafted everything. He basically mentored us in how to be Metro reporters and we now have the system. The Metro: it's still there. Recca's no longer the editor but his mark is pretty much there. It was wonderful working with Recca cause Recca's one of these old school editors where he's very grut and he's very tough on you, he's very critical of you, but it is he's also nicest person in the world. He saw the old system. He's part of the old school where you've come to work but afterward you'd meet with the other reporters. you'd go out, drink. He fostered that very, very tight net kind of unit. We all knew each other; all the Metro people knew each other so that was really pretty good. The second editor I remember in specific was my first editor at the Sunday Magazine when I first came here. She was someone I had read before when I was still studying. She was Lorna Kalaw Tirol. She was the editor of the magazine for a long time before I came here. And basically, she was one of the people who asked me to come over from the paper to the magazine and she really helped me work on my long pieces, on the critical pieces. She helped me really see how it was to write very long, exhaustive, very powerful pieces, so she really helped me be very critical with my work. I would add a third to that. My current boss, Carla Delgado Yulo is from Harvard. My current boss really helped me write differently because when the magazine shifted, I was still writing very long and very, very serious and very, very studgy in a way because I had gotten used to that.... not studgy -- I think very overly serious in a way. We were already a people magazine and so we had to make the adjustment to become more accessible and I think to become a lot funnier. I think Carla was very important, together worked with Alliah previously at Sunday Special. They really taught me how to be very accessible and also I think quite relaxed in my writing which I hadn't had before. Before I used to write very rigidly and very serious, and it was obviously very patterned. And I think sometimes, reading a work that is obviously very patterned is like watching the four corners passing game in a basketball game wherein you know how this works. You can see the ball being passed around the corner. And it's kind of interesting to be able to do a little bit of magic in the sense that your reader doesn't know where it's gonna come from because you're able to surprise them with something you that you had prepared. So I think that these are the editors have really made quite an impression on me when I was starting out.

Q. Sir, what about your memorable colleagues? Do you have any?
A. Colleges. Most of the people I've worked with are characters so that would be tough. But I would remember a few people. Well, before there were three staff writers in the magazine, now there are only the two of us & most of the people I've worked with staff writer wise were very interesting people. One of them isn't in the magazine anymore but she's still with the paper, Ceres Doyo. Ceres was the more serious writer. She was very oriented socially. So all her work was very dramatic. Basically, if you're looking for someone for someone who writes about causes, that would be Ceres-- always. It's always very edgy, always very affecting.... The other person who I find very interesting is Eric Caruncho- who's still my colleague now. Eric is the Philippine's foremost rock writer. (Rock writer? What do you mean by that sir?) He's a rock journalist. He's the single most important journalist when it regards to the history of Philippine rock music and he has a book about it. ( Oh I see..) What I like about Eric is he's really the kind of guy where his personality shows up in his work. It's very funny and very, very biting and ( cool ) yeah exactly! And I like Eric's hair. He used to have long hair and short hair and long hair and short hair. He's really very much of a music guy and that's very nice, but what's interesting about him is that I used to be pigeon holed too, I used to be the "book guy", I only use to write about writers, but now we get to write about so many people. And we're showing amptitude. I think Eric shines writing about people you wouldn't expect he'd be very interested in. I think he did an interview with Ara Mina recently. It was just very fair herself. So these are the people whom I've worked with, I think, colleague wise. It's kinda hard in the paper kase when you're working, you don't see your fellow reporters because you're all out- (Yes, doing your own stuff?) doing your own stuff. It was really hard. I don't think we saw each other too much so I wouldn't be able to say if a colleague in particular because we were all sort of parts of a system.

Q. OK. Sir on a different light. You told me awhile ago about the Sanchez case, was that the most significant event you covered?
A. Interesting. I think personally, if it was a one on one coverage I think it would be. You look at what you've covered in your life and we've covered a lot of things. If you're talking as a reporter, not necessarily, because I also covered the Anti- Cha Cha Rally a couple of years ago. Sometimes when there's a special coverage, either they ask me to come on and back up as a reporter or sometimes I join them, volunteer as a reporter to fill holes in the coverage. The last time I did that was during the '98 Election. I was covering NAMFREL. (Oh, I've been part of that once!) I was covering NAMFREL at La Salle and I was covering that as a reporter. And I think if we were to look at one major thing that I've covered I think the '98 Election was sort of that. It was sort of a very pivotal event because that was me with a bunch of other people; it's not just me who was doing that. We were two reporters covering NAMFREL. It was very interesting. That's the kind of event where you can see the history sort of happening; when people elected Estrada in the huge margin. And everyday, from day one the margin was gigantic and everyday the margin just kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger. (How sad!) It was really gigantic and people were just not conceding! Erap was really like millions and no one was conceding. It's the craziest thing in the world! You know, coming at night and coming back in the morning.. and the lead just kept getting bigger and bigger! That was probably the largest thing but as a person covering one thing, Sanchez thing was pretty critical. I think it was one of those controversial cases that people sort of remember ( Until now. ) until now so I think that sort of it. But if you're asking history wise, then I think the '98 Election. I came back to the editorial to help out on that one. I wanted to be part of that coverage.

Q. OK. Sir what about the best memories? Did you have your best memories as a writer? As a young reporter?
A. Well I think as a reporter you always come up two ways and you always want the headline. Everytime I had the headline, I was really very proud of it because that's 250,000 copies and that's big, big, big headline, big by line. That's what I always looked at, that's something I was always very proud about. And now, you look for the cover story. But I think after a long time you begin to understand that it's not about the glory anymore. The truth is: when you're new, and you're starting out it's all the "name in lights" kind of business. But after you stay a long while, that goes old. And after a while you begin to understand three things. The first thing is that, this is the job you like. You love this job. And I still believe that when you get to write for a living, it's sort of like a musician who gets paid to do an album. It's sort of like you're doing something you want and you're getting paid for it. That's always very good. The second thing, it's not about the money. If you're going into writing and journalism, it shouldn't be about the money because it can't be about the money. There's really not enough of it. ( Yes! ) And the last thing about it, I think journalism really at the end of the day, any serious, committed journalist understands- I think -it's a service. It's not a hobby. It's not just something you do when you have the time. Being a journalist is all about service. It's understanding that, away from the big lights, away from the big stories, the little stories count. The little people count as much as the big people. There's an understanding when you're a reporter when you see everything seems to fit and how these events just sort of- have a place in the greater scheme of things. I think this is something you see as a reporter; something that makes you understand that you are a part. You are never bigger than the story. (Oh yes.) You are always never bigger than the story. I think this is something people misconstrue. I mean, unpopular media sometimes, reporters are portrayed as grubby, as very petty and competitive to a fault- which is true. There are many reporters who are like that. And many reporters who make up the news as they go along. But then again as many as them, there are still those who see themselves as being witnesses. And I think until now, the thing I can say the most is that I'm an incredible spectator. I love watching life go by. Being a reporter back then, was the equivalent of being able to watch life go by and take note of things that other people didn't see. You were giving other people their agenda. When they read the paper the next day, they will see and a lot of people. Being a writer for a personality oriented magazine is being the biggest fan. I mean you write about these people that you admire and you're still a fan, and I think these are the things the people have to remember when you read the paper. Being a writer takes an uncommon amount of selflessness as well as selfishness. I think it all just kinda comes together (complement)- yeah, in that aspect. They sort of like complement each other. And when people say writers have huge egos- and that's true. But I think at the same point there's a great amount of humility involved. I think people misunderstand. We get edited like crazy almost everyday. I've met people na you take one word out of their articles and they go bananas. We don't raise a peep when our work gets mangled because that's what we're paid for so we understand that. And I think that alongside with the ego issues I think that journalists are incredibly patient and incredibly humble.

Q. Sir do you think those are your reasons also why you pursued this career in writing?
A. I think it's why I am still here. I think that initially I thought that after two or three years maybe I'd leave and go to some other job. I thought maybe advertising or I thought the money was good. But after a while you'll get stuck on the "good" here and the "bad" here. I mean you get stuck knowing that you're doing something. And another factor was that I had been asked back by the Ateneo to teach. So I wasn't teaching English, I wasn't teaching Filipino, I wasn't teaching something you could learn from a book. I was teaching what I was living, so you had to keep living this way. One of other the important aspects that I think I had learned about myself during that time was that: when you're in this job, you have no illusions; that when you go to bed at night you should know that you're trying to make a difference. I think that that's important. You're not just making a living. That's why I think I stopped. Because the conscience element never was an issue. I think that it was very clear that you're trying to good even if you don't whine up doing too much good. You're not in a job wherein your only reason of being there is making money. You're trying to make a difference. And I think a lot of the young journalist out there feel the same way. And even if they get jaded to the yearsh, as long as they remain uncorrupt, then by their very presence I think that they present hope and they present a little bit of life in all the darkness that people think is out there.

Q. Sir in relation to that, being a reporter yourself and a professor at the same time on journalism, what do you think is the present state of the Philippine journalism?
A. What do you mean?

Q. I mean, is it good? Or is it corrupt?
A. It's corrupt. It's very corrupt. I think it's been documented. There's a great book about it called "News for Sale" - that's Chaya Jofileno's book, a really good book. We have a very corrupt journalism system because of the simple reason that government is corrupt. When you have a government na everyone basically- well not everyone- but all levels of government, there exists corruption in every level, in every branch, people's reactions have always to been is to whip money out and pay someone off. So, when you stay in a beat and you cover for a long time, sometimes you can't help but become like the people that you cover. That's why you have a lot of corrupt reporters, a lot of corrupt people because they need the money. I mean some people out there don't understand that journalism doesn't pay well. Nobody comes to become a reporter to make money but some people when they get there they make money. It's very important however, to keep in mind that that's not what they're there for. And I think getting money - immediately, compromises you.

Q. I remember one story Ate Mench told me that they were holding this press conference and then after that they were....
A. Given out envelopes.

Q. Yeah! Envelopes distributed with money inside.
A. That's right. This is called "envelopmental journalism" and this is S.O.P. for press conferences. (Really?) It's a white envelope and it's really funny because it really is a white envelope. And you would think it wouldn't look like that but they were giving it out together with the hamburgers. And somebody came late and there was no more money, and he actually asked for more money, because all the envelopes were out already. (They do that openly?) Among the other reporters yes. It's been a problem. Corruption has been a problem. I'd be one to talk, I mean, I never took money but that's easy to say because I didn't need the money. I mean, whatever you said at that time I was still living with my parents, and I didn't have a family to support, so in a great way I escaped corruption because I didn't need the money then. But there are so many other people who need the money and have nowhere to get it. There are people who are really just corrupt. There are just some reporters who are corrupt, I mean you give them all money and they'll just want more. The system is flawed. There's a lot of old people out there who have gotten used to it in government. You know the Philippine system, I wrote an essay about it recently for a project in the States. I called Philippine newspapers: "vulgar, vibrant and vigilant". Philippine journalism is at its sharpest. I mean, right now Philippine journalism is so brave, it hurts. As the Inquirer's example will show you, we can write about anything. It's the truth. But we're also pandering to the worst stereotypes, to the worst tastes: sex, violence, we are just such an unbridled set of people that our journalism reflects our personality. Philippine journalists will cover anything, and people will read anything. Anything violent, anything sexual, anything supernatural, and I think that is interesting. I think we have the freest press in Asia. We have the only true free press in Asia and it's not just that. I like to calling it the "Wild West of Journalism" in Asia because what we cover here is just amazing. But it's also very irresponsible. Just like the Wild West. Before shooting left and right, don't really know what they are doing, same thing here. You should read the tabloids- amazing stuff. I mean if you read the tabloids you feel like you are living in a different world. And I think that's part of the problem also. The vibrance of our journalism is reflected also in its lack of responsibility. It's very irresponsible. It's also at times very tasteless. But taste is relative. And finally I think corruption is the biggest problem, very clearly, because it compromises a lot of things. But there are also a lot of problems, but despite that, these are problems that come with being a free press. If we were a government regulated press, this wouldn't be a problem, but then again there wouldn't be free expression. There wouldn't be free expression- it's that simple. That's why I think to a great degree, these are birth pains. Philippine journalism is still evolving. People have to recognize that we began journalism pretty late. We don't have that long tradition and so we're still trying. Because of the nature of journalism, we will only be able to achieve evolution through self regulation. If the reporters themselves begin patrolling each other... We're very strict here in the Inquirer. We are watched all the time. Even gifts here. We have guidelines about what kinds of gifts we can get, when we can get gifts. And I think the Inquirer tries to set an example when people try to bribe us, we're told to try and write about it. Those guidelines were drawn when I was here already but I think it that it takes an act of all the newspapers. Some of the newspapers like The Manila Times before, the old one, was also very vigilant about corruption and some of the other newspapers also are like that so I think it takes a concerted effort to try and clean up journalism. And once you get journalism in the Philippines cleaned up, I think the rest of the problems will take care of itself because people will see who's not doing their jobs well, who's doing more tasteless work. I think eventually -- but right now I think it's just time for people to sort of see the kind of birth pains that Philippine journalism are having. To sort of look at it and appreciate the fact. But I think there's no where to go but up. I mean, from where we are now, we're still trying to get out of all these sex stories, of all of these ridiculous -- Q: Pornography? A: Yeah, Well, not just the pornography, but the talk about pornography. And all the focus on violence and all that. Eventually, people will come back out of that. For one thing, the Filipino kase reader wants only to read stories that affect him. (Applicable to him.) You know, the dollar exchange may be big but it does not affect everyone. The economy is not an inherently interesting topic despite its significance. So eventually, I think, when the Filipino reader gets more educated, we'll see a cleaning up in the Philippine journalism. Not just yet, eventually- and I hope we'll all still be alive when that happens.

Q. Sir as of now, you're very young...
A. I'm not particularly young. I'm already 26.

Q. Well, considering that you've gone through a lot, you've been a writer for a long time.
A. OK.

Q. Sir do you plan on staying here in the Inquirer? Do you plan to be a writer forever? Or do you have other plans, switch field...
A. Oh no. People always tell me I'm lucky because I found the field that I belong in. And I always tell them: "Well don't forget. I almost willingly left it so very early". So I'm glad that I stayed. This is what I wanna do for the rest of my life. I want to write and I want to teach-- (wow!) the sort of things I think I should be doing. Because you know, the important thing people don't understand is that I don't just do journalism. I do poetry, I write books, it's just something I like doing. I write essays... And it enables me to sort of, when I get bored to one, I (switch to another) do to another - that kind of thing. And people misunderstand how important hobbies are. These aren't just what I do. I don't just write all day. I mean I cook... I do some other things... I play basketball. There's just a lot of different things that people do. But if you're asking vocation, then I want to write as long as I can possibly, humanly can write. I want to teach as long as people will listen to me and I want to do it here at the Inquirer and at the Ateneo, and hopefully in other schools, maybe. I taught in UP for a while but my schedule made it very difficult for me to keep that up-- two schools. ( Would you consider La Salle? ) Yeah, sure. Why not? I think if I moved somewhere closer it wouldn't be a problem because now I live in the Eastern part. It's kinda far-- that's always been a consideration. I think that we go wherever we're supposed to spread the message that journalism needs people. They need young people who have yet to be corrupted, who have yet to be jaded, who believe that society can profit from truth. So I think that as long as the message is still right there, we'd still be right in. We'd still be teaching that message as time goes on.

Q. It's nice that you've really found the place where you belong to.
A. Yeah.

Q. Sir, last question. Do you have any message for aspiring writers? Like me?
A. Oh yeah. Quite a lot. Very easy. The first thing you have to do is you have to read a lot. You can't be a writer if you don't read. You really have to read a lot and you shouldn't be picky about what you read. Read everything, Read anything. I read the ingredients of a snack when I'm eating it. I read anything. Don't ever get bored of reading-- very important. Second thing, you have to develop humility very early. Get used to people saying your work sucks because these are the same people who will say the real thing when your work is good. The last thing is this, understand that writing is a gift. A long time ago when I was depressed and I didn't want to write anymore, a teacher of mine told me a very important thing. He said: "Writing is a gift from the muse, it doesn't choose everyone. It chooses very carefully. And when you have that gift, it is your responsibility to honor it." When you are given the gift of writing you must honor it with your devotion. Because if it's ever taken away from you, nothing you can do can ever take it back. You have to understand that writing makes you gifted. And because of that it's so rare and you have to honor that. You have to try and become the best writer you possibly can no matter what the obstacles are. I think all writers have crossed some sort of problem or overcome some sort of obstacle in the past-- that's part of it. Writing isn't just mechanical process Writers, I think, are just ordinary people. Writing is just like cooking--it's just another thing you do well. But people need to eat. And people need to read. And so they're all the same thing. They are all important things that you have to be good at. And everyone has a place; and if your place is writing then good for you. Writers, I think, are more sensitive than the usual person. They feel more. But at least they get to do something they really wanna to do and I think that helps people more than anything else. Ok.

Q. Thank you so much Sir. I've learned so much!
A. Really?

Q. Yes! Thank you! Thank you so much Sir!
A. OK! Let me give you my card in case you need to get in touch with me.