BE HONEST! A Call for Filipino citizens and leaders

Talking Points for the RH Bill (courtesy of the Simbahang Lingkod ng Bayan)

Issued jointly by Loyola School of Theology and the John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues
Authors: Fr. Eric O. Genilo, S.J., Fr, John J. Carroll, S.J., and Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J.

Talking Points for Dialogue on the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 96; filed July 1, 2010)

The polarization of Philippine society over the Reproductive Health Bill has been a source of discouragement and discontent among Filipinos. It is unfortunate that the debate has focused only on whether the Bill should be passed or rejected in its present form. Either option would not be good for Filipinos. The Church sees in the proposed Bill serious flaws that can lead to violations of human rights and freedom of conscience. It would not be acceptable to pass it in its present form. Total rejection of the Bill, however, will not change the status quo of high rates of infant mortality, maternal deaths, and abortions. It is a moral imperative that such dehumanizing conditions should not be allowed to continue. What is needed is a third option: critical and constructive engagement. By working together to amend the objectionable provisions of the Bill and retain the provisions that actually improve the lives of Filipinos, both the proponents and opponents of the Bill can make a contribution to protection of the dignity of Filipinos and an improvement of their quality of life.

The following are talking points and proposals for dialogue and negotiation on the objectionable portions of the Bill:

The Protection of Human Life and the Constitution
• The Church insists on protection of human life upon fertilization. The question to be answered by the State is if this is the same position it will take regarding the protection of human life.
• The Philippine Constitution says that the State will protect the life of the unborn upon conception. It is not specified in the Constitution whether conception means fertilization or the implantation of an embryo in the womb. The Constitutional Convention seemed to favor fertilization. The definition of conception will have a bearing whether contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos would be legally allowed or not. This definition of conception in the Constitution must be worked out both by medical and legal experts in order to determine the parameters of what reproductive services can be provided by the Bill.

Contraceptives that prevent the implantation of embryos
• At the center of the controversy regarding abortion and the RH Bill are IUDs and other contraceptive medications and devices that may have the possible effect of preventing the implantation of an embryo, which for the Catholic Church, is considered an abortifacient effect. [Contraceptives without abortifacient effects are treated differently in church teaching. They are forbidden for Catholics but other religious traditions allow them.]
• Proposal: The State first has to make a clear position whether it considers the prevention of implantation of an embryo as an abortion. If the State takes this position, there must be a careful and scientifically based evaluation of each of the medicines and devices provided by the Bill. Those contraceptive medicines and devices which are determined to have abortifacient effects are to be banned even now and regardless of whether the RH Bill is passed or not.

Age Appropriate, Value-Based, Integral Human Sexuality Education
• The mandatory nature of the sexuality education curriculum proposed by the Bill is a concern for the Church because it would compel Catholic educators to teach parts of the curriculum that may be unacceptable for Catholics. The Church is also concerned that the parents’ right to decide on the education of their children would be denied by such a mandatory curriculum for all schools.
• Proposal: For the purpose of protecting academic freedom and respecting religious traditions, should not the right of religious schools to write and implement their own sexuality education curriculum according to their religious traditions be respected? For public schools and non-religious private schools, an appointed panel of parent representatives, educators, experts in child development and psychology, medical experts, and representatives of religious traditions can write the sexuality education curriculum and the DEPED can monitor the implementation. Parents with children in public schools should have the right to have their children exempted from the sexuality education class if the curriculum is not acceptable to them. The Constitution allows religious instruction in public schools only if the parents consent in writing. Should a similar provision be enacted relative to sexuality education? The Bill must also respect the conscientious objection of individual educators who refuse to teach a sexuality curriculum that violates their religious beliefs.

Providing Reproductive Health Information and Services for a Multi-Religious Society
• Even if the majority of the population of the country are Catholics, our democratic system should ensure that public polices are not determined solely by majority vote but also by a careful consideration of the common good of all, including non-Catholics.
• The Compendium of the Social Teaching of the Church rejects any imposition of norms by a majority that is discriminatory of the rights of a minority: (#422) “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups;” (#169): “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.”
• It is the duty of various religions to teach their faithful and form their consciences about what their religious tradition allows and prohibits with regard to family planning. It is the duty of the government to provide correct and comprehensive information on all non-abortifacient (as defined by law) family planning methods that are available. Consciences will thus be better equipped to make informed choices according to their religious traditions.
• Proposal: There can be two separate parallel programs for providing information and training, one for NFP and another for artificial methods of family planning (with separate budgets). The separation of the programs will ensure that NFP will get adequate funding and those trainers who wish to teach only NFP for religious reasons will not be forced to teach artificial methods. The conscience of health workers and trainers should be respected. If a Catholic health worker or trainer conscientiously objects to teaching contraception methods, he or she should be allowed to teach only NFP methods.

Limits to the Anti-Discrimination Provision
• The current Bill prohibits the refusal of health care services and information based on a patient’s marital status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work. This provision must have parameters. For example, if a doctor refuses to administer an IUD to a minor who requests for it, would that be considered age discrimination?
• Should the provision apply equally to both in the public and private health care providers or shouldn’t private practitioners have more leeway in practicing their medicine as they see fit?


Employers' Responsibility
• Employers should not be required to provide in their CBAs reproductive health services of their employees. To enforce this requirement would be a violation of the conscience of Catholic employers.
• Proposal: Such a provision is unnecessary because the general Philhealth medical coverage, which is mandatory for all employees, provides for such reproductive health services upon request of the employee. This allows employers with religious objections to contraceptives or sterilizations to avoid direct formal cooperation in the provision of such family planning methods to their employees.

Contraception as Essential Medicines in Government Health Centers and Hospitals
• The Church’s objection to this provision is that it appears to treat pregnancy as a disease.
• Proposal: The question of whether contraceptives are essential medicines should be resolved by a panel of objective medical experts such as the Philippine Medical Association. What contraceptives actually prevent diseases? It would be helpful to be able to present cases where the use of a contraceptive is a medically indicated treatment for a particular disease or emergency situation. If some contraceptives are ultimately decided as essential or emergency medicines that should be stocked in government health centers and hospitals, no contraceptives with abortifacient effects are to be allowed.

Freedom of Speech
• Proposal: The Bill’s provision that penalizes malicious disinformation against the intention and provisions of the Bill should be refined by a clear description of what constitutes “malicious disinformation,” or failing that, the provision should be scrapped.

Implementing Norms
• Proposal: The committee to be in-charge of the Bill's implementing norms should have representatives from major religious traditions to ensure that the rights of people of various faiths would be protected.

The above proposals are intended to generate constructive and respectful dialogue leading to concrete actions that would correct the RH Bill. It is hoped that the parties involved in the RH debate would move away from hard-line positions and consider negotiations as a more positive step towards working for the good of all Filipinos, with special consideration for the unborn, the youth, women and families in difficult circumstances.

Finally, we can turn to the following Christian maxim as our guide in our search for answers and solutions regarding the RH Bill: “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, charity.” For things pertaining to protecting human life and dignity, we need to come to a consensus for the common good; for things that can be left to individual decisions without violating human life and dignity, we need to respect freedom of conscience of every Filipino both Catholics and non-Catholics; in all our discussions, we need to speak and act with charity and understanding as members of the same human family and community.

An Open Letter to Noynoy by F. Sionil Jose

An open letter to Noynoy

HINDSIGHT

by F Sionil Jose
from The Philippine Star

Dear Noynoy,

You are now swamped with suggestions and advice, but just the same, I hope you’ll have time to read what this octogenarian has to say.

You were not my choice in the last election but since our people have spoken, we must now support you and pray that you prevail. But first, I must remind you of the stern reality that your drumbeaters ignore: you have no noble legacy from your forbears. It is now your arduous job to create one yourself in the six years that you will be the single most powerful Filipino. Six years is too short a time — the experience in our part of the world is that it takes at least one generation — 25 years — for a sick nation to recover and prosper. But you can begin that happy process of healing.

Bear in mind that the past weighs heavily on all of us because of the many contradictions in it that we have not resolved, whose resolutions would strengthen us as a nation. This past is now your burden, too. Let us start with the fact that your grandfather collaborated with the Japanese. Your father was deeply aware of this, its stigma, its possibilities. He did not leave any legacy because he did not become president. He was a brilliant and courageous politician. He was an enterprising journalist; he had friends in journalism who can attest to his effulgent vision, who did not profit from his friendship, among them Nestor Mata, Gregorio Brillantes — you may consult them. I cannot say I did not profit — he bought many books from my shop and when he was in Marcos’s prison, your mother brought books from my shop to him.

Forgive me for giving you this unsolicited advice. First, beware of hubris; you are surrounded by panderers who will tell you what is nice to hear. You need to be humble always and heed your conscience. When Caesar was paraded in ancient Rome before the cheering multitudes, there was always a man chanting behind him: “Remember, you are mortal.”

I say to you, remember, the poor — some of them in your own hacienda — will be your ultimate judge.

From your comfortable and privileged cocoon, you know so little of our country and people. Seek the help of the best — and the best do not normally want to work in government and neither will they approach you. You have to seek them.

Be the revolutionary your father wanted to be and don’t be scared or wary of the word “revolution.” It need not be always bloody. EDSA I was not. Your father wanted to destroy the most formidable obstacle to our progress — the Oligarchy to which you and your family belong. To succeed, you have to betray your class. If you cannot smash the oligarchy, at least strive to have their wealth develop this country, that they bring back the billions they stashed abroad. You cannot do this in six years, but you can begin.

Prosecute the crooks. It is difficult, thankless and even dangerous to do this. Your mother did not do it — she did not jail Imelda who was the partner in that conjugal dictatorship that plundered this nation. Watch her children — they were much too young to have participated in that looting but they are heirs to the billions which their parents stashed abroad. Now the Marcoses are on the high road to power, gloating, snickering at our credulity and despicable amnesia.

You know the biggest crooks in and out of government, those powerful smugglers, thieves, tax cheats — all you really need is guts to clobber them. Your father had lots of it — I hope he passed on to you most of it.

And most of all, now that you have the muscle to do it, go after your father’s killers. Blood and duty compel you to do so. Cory was only his wife — you are the anointed and only son. Your regime will be measured by how you resolve this most blatant crime that robbed us of a true leader.

And, finally, your mother. We loved her — she united us in ousting an abominable dictator. But she, too, did not leave a shining legacy for her presidency was a disaster. She announced a revolutionary government but did nothing revolutionary. She promised land reform but did not do it. And most grievous of all — she transformed the EDSA I revolution into a restoration of the oligarchy.

She became president only because her husband was murdered and you became president elect only because your mother died. Still, you are your father’s son and may you now — for the good of this country and people — scale the heights he and your mother never reached.

I am 85 and how I despair over how three generations of our leaders failed! Before I go, please let me see this unhappy country begin to be a much better place than the garbage dump our leaders and people have made it. You can be this long awaited messiah but only if you are brave enough and wise enough to redeem your father’s aborted promise.

Hopefully yours,

F. Sionil Jose

Sumilao Farmers' Fight Still On Going

Hindi pa pala natatapos ang pakikibaka ng mga Sumilao Farmers. Akala natin ok na ang lahat, yun pala pinapaikot-ikot nanaman ng mga may kapangyarihan ang proseso upang tumagal ang kanilang paghihirap.

Mabuti at bantayan natin ito muli. Salamat!

29 March 2010

PRESS RELEASE

Reference: Atty. Kaka Bag-ao (09068375849)

Sumilao land remains undistributed after 2 years; Sumilao farmers resume claim over disputed 144-hectare land

Two years ago today, in March 29, 2007, the Sumilao farmers signed an agreement with San Miguel Corporation (SMC), represented by its president, Ramon Ang in the presence of Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales. In signing of the agreement, SMC ceded 50 of the 144 hectares being claimed by the Sumilao farmers and committed to acquire 94 hectares of land outside the disputed property for distribution to the farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform. This marked the end of the Sumilao campaign which started with their historic 1,700 kilometer-march from Sumilao to Malacañang. As a direct result of their 1,700 kilometer march, President Arroyo revoked the conversion order covering the contested property in December 2007 and ordered the distribution of the property under the CARP forcing SMC to the negotiating table with the farmers. After the signing of the agreement, the Sumilao farmers returned home and occupied and began to cultivate the 50 hectares covered by the agreement.

However, after two years, the Sumilao farmers are yet to receive the land titles of the 50 hectares within the contested property and the 94 hectares outside the 144-hectare disputed land. “We have met with the representatives of SMC and the DAR and they have promised the land titles every time we met. Deadline after deadline came and went but the promised land titles failed to materialize. Even the title of 50 hectares we are now tilling remains an unfulfilled promise” Peter Tuminhay, spokesperson of the Sumilao Farmers said. He added that the lands offered to them by SMC have various problems; some of the lands are still leased to Del Monte, some had titles that were not surrendered by the landowners.

“Last February, Atty. Fred Peñaflor, legal counsel of San Miguel Corporation committed to us that they will distribute the titles for the 50 hectares of land that we are now tilling and the 94 hectares outside the 1-44-hectare property today on the 2^nd anniversary of the signing of our agreement. After waiting for 2 years and listening to promises several times, this will be the last deadline. Should they fail to distribute the titles today, as they have promised, we take it that San Miguel Corporation is not serious about fulfilling its commitments to us. It is almost a year since our leader, Rene Peñas was gunned down here in this land. We can no longer wait for more promises. We will to return to our original claim, should they again break their promise today, we shall begin to occupy and cultivate portions of original 144-hectare land” said Yoyong Merida, spokesperson of the Sumilao farmers. “We call on those who have supported our struggle to once again join us in our cause. We will not stop until we cultivate the land that belongs to us” Merida added.

In commemorating the 2^nd anniversary of the signing of the agreement, Malaybalay Archbishop Honesto Pacana will celebrate a mass with the farmers at their camp outside the gates of San Miguel Corporation in San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon. He will join the farmers in demanding the distribution of the Sumilao property.

--
BALAOD Mindanaw, Inc.
2/F BELSAR Building,
Capistrano-Del Pilar Sts., Barangay 19,
9000 Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
+63 8822 727432 (telefax)
balaodmindanaw@ gmail.com
balaod_mindanaw@ yahoo.com

Statement of the Ateneo Law School Student Council re: CJ Appointment Controversy

The Ateneo Law School Student Council calls on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to exercise prudence, restraint, and statesmanship in deferring the appointment of the next chief justice of the Supreme Court to the duly elected President in the coming May 10, 2010 elections.

The impending retirement of Chief Justice Renato Puno on 17 May 2010 has been shrouded with much issue and controversy, centering on the power of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to appoint the next head of the Judiciary. The issue has centered on two conflicting provisions of the 1987 Constitution, one which prohibits the President from making appointments to positions 60 days before the succeeding elections, the so-called “midnight appointments” prohibition, and another which calls on the President to fill in any vacancy in the position of chief justice within 90 days from its occurrence. Various individuals and groups have called on the president not to make the appointment, while the Palace has said that the President will choose the next chief justice to fulfill her constitutional mandate.

The Constitution, in clear and unequivocal terms prohibits any appointments to be made by the President during the 90 day period before the end of her term. Although the President is mandated to fill in any vacancy in the judiciary 90 days from its occurrence, this power and duty is limited by the above constitutional provision. The proscription on “midnight appointments” should be read and harmonized with the duty of the president to fill in vacancies as a qualification on the mandate to make such an appointment. The clear intent of the framers of our constitution is to shield the appointing power of the president from patronage politics and the use of the government for self-interest. Provisions in the Constitution should be read in harmony with each other, and one provision cannot be separated from any other.

We thus call on President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to exercise prudence, restraint, and statesmanship by not appointing the next chief justice and allowing the next president elect to make the said decision. The rule of law must be upheld and respected; no one is above the law and the Constitution, not even the President. Our institutions, especially the judiciary, must be insulated from partisan politics. At a time when the Philippines lacks moral leadership and ascendancy, at a point when the integrity of our institutions are being challenged, and at an age when the rule of law faces challenges amidst a sea of injustice, the President must show the people and the world that she is a President bent on protecting and promoting our democracy and our democratic institutions.

Automating the Philippine Elections: Kaya Ba?

It recently came out in the news that 1 bidder in COMELEC's attempt to automate the 2010 elections was deemed eligible, but wa snot yet declared the winning bidder. Other bidders have been disqualified, some are asking for reconsideration, while others are still trying to bid. While all this is happening, the question in some people's mind is: can we really have automated elections in a year's time? Or more importantly: can we have automated elections in 2010, that are clean, honest, orderly, transparent, and credible?

The COMELEC would like to have a fully automated system using the PCOS (Precinct Count Optical Scan) system. We would have 80,000 machines nationwide where in people will have their ballots scanned, and after the voting, results will automatically be transmitted to the municipal and city canvassing centers. Although this system seems all good and problem free, critics and skeptics have aired some concern. First, there is not enough time to actually ensure that all the needed preparations are done properly before 2010. Second, there is still doubt as to the capacity of COMELEC to handle a fully automated system. Its own automated elections advisory council, in a report, expessed doubts as to COMELEC's capacity, based n the existing technological capacity and infrastructure of the commission. There is another sector, a group of local IT experts, who are advocating that the COMELEC adopt an open election system given the time constraints and the capacity of the commission. This system still involves the usual manual voting process that we're all used to. The only new thing is that the transmission of the results will be automated. Less money needed, fewer new things to teach people, but you still have a faster electoral process, and you lessen the possibility of whole sale cheating at the canvassing level.

I personally would prefer a fully automated system - it's about time we had one in our country! But I also believe that we shouldn't force to fully automate if our COMELEC and the entire country is not prepared. What is needed now is for us to be vigilant and to guard the whole bidding and procurement process. More on this to come.

Law Student Councils unite for CARPER

WE KNOW THAT THE LAW IS ON THE FARMERS’ SIDE.

Joint Resolution No. 19, which extends the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program but without providing for compulsory acquisition, expires on June 30. On June 5, however, the second regular session of Congress will end, resuming only on the first week of July. This means that despite months of campaigning and lobbying for a struggle that has spanned decades, and because of the indifference or neglect of our representatives in Congress, we are again in the eleventh hour, with only nine session days left to pass a law that is not only constitutionality mandated, but is required by basic notions of equity and social justice.

The implementation of an agrarian reform program is a Constitutional mandate which the State may not avoid by legislative inaction. Section 4, Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution requires the State to “undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.” As it is, Joint Resolution No. 19 is unconstitutional for being contrary to the very spirit of agrarian reform. If Congress again fails to pass an agrarian reform law by June 5, it will be nothing short of a dereliction of a duty reposed on the legislative body by our Constitution.

The CARP has been in existence for 20 years, but the fruits of authentic agrarian reform in the country have yet to be reaped. 80% of privately owned agricultural lands remain undistributed. 18% of CARP beneficiaries have not received titles to the lands that they till and should rightfully own. 65% of CARP beneficiaries have no access to government support services that should be available in agrarian reform areas. Rural poverty still accounts for 70% of the country’s poor. If we are to attain social justice eloquently defined by Justice Jose P. Laurel in Calalang vs. Williams as “…the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the State…” then agrarian reform is a measure that must not only be continued, but must be among those prioritized.

The Philippine’s agrarian reform program needs to be given more time to fully attain the goals it was created to accomplish. Twenty years of unsatisfactory implementation clearly leaves much room for improvement and reform. House Bill 4077 and Senate Bill 2666, or the CARP Extension with Reforms Bill, reflect the needed changes to address the shortcomings that have prevented the law’s noble purpose from coming into fruition.

We, who study the law, know that laws are there for a reason. Agrarian reform is explicitly identified as a fundamental State policy in Art II Sec 21 of the Constitution. Thus, we ask that our lawmakers breathe life into this policy by enacting laws that set in motion and ensure actual and speedy results.

We, who study the law, know that while the actual provisions are drafted by the members of Congress, laws are ultimately articulations of the people’s will and expressions of the power inherent in them as citizens of a free country. Thus, we remind our lawmakers that their mandate emanates from the people, and their duty is to address their constituents’ needs, even if it means sacrificing their own interests. We reiterate that by eliminating compulsory acquisition, the agrarian reform program is reduced to no more than an empty promise. Without it, there is no reform, only more of the same.

We, who study the law, are no strangers to policies that look resolute on paper, but are torn apart and rendered useless by the selfsame provisions, where motherhood statements mask gaps, loopholes and false pretenses. Thus, we demand that Congress deliver an agrarian reform program that is responsive, sincere and faithful to the principles of social justice.

The second regular session of Congress ends in less than a month. Too much has been lost, too much sacrificed and there is too much at stake for our legislature to fail us now. We take up this cause because we, who study the law, owe it to this country. We owe it to the farmers who walked thousands of miles, and spent weeks in hunger strikes, asking to be heard. We owe it to the blood shed and lives lost. We owe it to the law that we study and pledge to serve. Because if the law cannot be used to protect those who need it the most, then it betrays its own purpose.


TIME IS RUNNING OUT! PASS THE CARPER BILLS (HB 4077 and SB 2666) NOW!!

May 18, 2009

Signed (in alphabetical order):

Student Council
Ateneo Law School
Makati City, Metro Manila

Supreme Law Council
College of Law
Silliman University
Dumaguete City, Oriental Negros

Student Council
College of Law
University of Baguio
Baguio City, Benguet

Civil Law Student Council
College of Law
University of Santo Tomas
Manila City, Metro Manila

Law Student Government
College of Law
University of the Philippines
Quezon City, Metro Manila

COMELEC's Automation Timeline

For your reference and guidance. Let's see if they can keep to this schedule.

The Irony That is Nicole (Part 2)

The headlines in the papers this morning carried stories that "Nicole", the rape victim of US Serviceman Daniel Smith, has made an affidavit before leaving for the US last week recanting her allegation that she was raped by Smith, thereby exonerating the American from the crime charged.

This is indeed was a surprise to many, especially for those who actively and contnuously supported her throughout her ordeal. Her decision to move to permanently move to the US came as a shock, which was immediately followed by thsi recent development. Lawyers for Smith are now saying that they will inform the Court of Appeals of this new affidavit, and they argue that this may very well turn the tides of the case in their favor. However, some quarters argue, in particular the government prosecutors and those who are opposed to the VFA, that the affidavit will have no effect in the case, and it would be wrong for the CA to consider the affidavit of desistance.

Whatever the legal effect of the affidavit may be, and whether or not it contains truth or falsehood, one cannot help but speculate that the long arms of US supremacy and influence have once again reached our shores. The US once again flexed its muscle to ensure that one problem against it would get out of hand. More than ensuring that their citizen Smith does not rot in Philippine jails, the US would not want public sentiment against the VFA to each an enourmous proportion such that the Philippine government would be forced to cancel the treaty. The US would not want this to happen since it will lose a valuable ally in the South East Asian region, especially since China has in recent years been very aggressive in the region. Without the VFA, it would lose the capability to respond against Chinese aggression from the Philippine territory.

I hope that the Philippines does not once again give in to American dominance and influence. I have nothing against the US: I just hope that the Philippines first protect the intrests of its people before giving in to US demands and requests. Though the USmay indeed be a very valuable ally, the government should always, always put Filipino interests, welfare, and concerns first.

The Irony That Is Nicole

It was reported in the news today that Nicole, the victim of convicted rapist US Serviceman Lance Corporal Daniel Smith, is already in the US and doesn't want to continue with the case anymore. In my opinion, it's a sad development, and a huge irony at that.

Her mother, who is still here in the Philippines, was reported as saying that her daughter simply wants closure, wants to move on and that she doesn't want to be bothered by the issue anymore. And she adds that she will get nothing, and she got no help and support from the Philippine government. And this my friends is the reason why she went to the US - to the very country where her rapist came from!

This for me is the irony and the sad story: Nicole was raped by an American, she joined calls to junk VFA and to condemn the US, and now, she runs to the land of milk and honey because she got tired of the fight here at home. Some are speculating that she went to the US because she got the $100K from Smith, as ordered by the court; and in addition, some are even saying she went to the US with the blessing (and the funding) of Malacanan (since it was part of Obama's phone call to GMA).

Setting aside all these speculations and controversies, the most tragic thing to come out of this whole hoola baloo is the lack of justice for a Filipina rape victim. Smith is enjoying the comforts of the US Embassay (and for all we know, he might even be going in and out of the compound, in violation of his commitment order). Once again, we see how the justice system has failed our people, how justice seems to be far from the reach of ordinary Filipinos. We once again see how money, power and politics play a big role to turn the wheels of justice. Even is Nicole was indeed given money, or if she simply wanted to get away from it all, the reality is that there are hundreds and thousands of other "Nicole's" out there in search of justice, in search of fairness, and in search of the truth, and also the hope that someday, this land that we call home can truly be a place where we Filipinos are safe and are the privileged ones.

Survey Says: Pulse Asia's Latest Survey on the 2010 Elections

Got an email today with a link to Pulse Asia's latest survey on the 2010 elections. I offer below my take and analysis of the survey's content. A copy of the artivel/results can be accessed through this link, courtesy of the FTV Network (http://firsttimevotersproject.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/pulse-asias-february-2009-nationwide-survey-on-the-may-2010-elections/).

The first batch of result say that around 65% of Filipinos believe the 2010 elections will push through. Count me in with that 65%. I don't think people and civil soceity groups will allow a no-election scenario to push through. Besides, if GMA attempts such a move, then she'd be pushing the limits of Filipino's patience, then perhaps she'll get a taste of the wrath and anger welling up in most people's hearts and minds (more on this in another entry).

The next batch of results are more interesting, talking about the possible presidentiables. I expected VP Noli de Castro to still be on top. What surprised me was the 2-3 position of Sen. Escudero and former Pres Erap, respectively. Seems as though Chiz is still quite popular among voters, even though he is a newby senator. However, I think it is too early for him to run as pres, may be VP or even another term as Senator. Also, he might not be ready to become most powerful person in this country.

In Erap's case, I really, really doubt if he can stil run as Pres. In my humble law student opinion, and from my learnings as a student of Fr Joaquin Bernas and Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria in Constitutional Law, he can't run anymore as the Constitution bars a person ELECTED as President from running again as Pres. He can run for VP, Senator, Mayor, even Brgy Capt of Greenhills, but not as President. The constitution does not make a distinction on whether the person finishes or not his or her term. The only condition for the restriction to set-in is when the person is ELECTED as president. So Mr. Erap, I think it would be a good time to stop telling your opposition friends that you'll run for pres if they won't unite and work together.

One more thing to note about the presidentiables. I'm quite surprised to see Mr Palengke Mar Roxas only in 6th place, despite all the publicity and media attention he's gathering now and in the past few months. Maybe he's doing something wrong, or perhaps he's doing it too much that the people who supported him as senator are being turned off. Points to ponder on Mr Senator.

Moving on to the results for the senatoriables survey, some interesting names popped up. Jinggoy Estrada topped the list, making him sure for a 1, 2 or 3 finish. Sen. Miriam's re-election bid would be a success, and so will a possible comeback by former Sen Drilon if he chooses to do so. Former senators Serge Osmena and Ralph Recto could also make a possible re-entry into the halls of the Senate. Interestingly, Edu Manzano and Korina Sanchez are placed in a good position to become senators. I guess TV and media really will bring you a long way, with all the exposure that you'd be getting. No wonder why VP Noli is poised to possibly become our next Pres, with the good run he had as anchor of TV Patrol and the good old days of Magandang Gabi Bayan. Not much new names popped up in the possible winners, I guess it's because it's too early to say who will run for senator. Perhaps in the next few months, more names will emerge and join the the circus that is the Philippine elections.

Survey says this and says that. It may be right and it may be wrong. It may even end up giving people an idea of who to support: as they say, some politicians actually commission surveys and ask that the results put them on top, because voters sometimes tend to be swayed by these results, somewhat similar to peer pressure. I guess this highlights the importance of educating our voters and giving them the opportunity to know their candidates well. A well-informed citizenry, I believe, is one of the first important steps that we need to atke for our country to be able to solve our problems. Good people electing good leaders will eventually lead to good plans and results.

More on this in the coming weeks and months ahead. Here's to hoping that we don't have another circus for an election.

Solidarity: A Brief Moment W/ Our Farmer Brothers and Sisters

Last Tuesday night, 10 March, a small group of Ateneo Law Students (who were mostly Interns of the Ateneo Human Rights Center), visited the farmer's groups, most of whom were spending their last night in Manila before going home to their respective provinces.

Before I continue, let me tell you the story of how this night came to be. I received several emails, and was seeing in the news that about a thousand or so farmers from various parts of the country were converging in Manila to urge Congress and Malacanang to pass the CARPER law (or CARP Extension with Reforms). Then I realized it was unfortunate that the Ateneo Law Community has not done anything to support the farmers this time, especially since we strongly supported the Sumilao Farmers in December of 2007. So, I forwarded the email, in the hope that my fellow law students would at least have a glimpse of what was happening in the streets of Manila. Thursday last week, I had a meeting at the Loyola Campus. I arrived early and saw that several farmers were in campus, talking and engaging with the college students (apparently, they were the preparatory group for the larger contingent which spent the night there). I then told myself that Ateneo Law had to do something. So I got in touch with some of my fellow AHRC Interns, and we decided to have a solidarity night with the farmers, wherein we share a meal with them and at the same time entertain them with some songs.

All went well, and over the past weekend we were expecting that we had a few days more to prepare for the soldiarity night. Alas, on Monday morning, we were informed by the NGOs helping the farmers that their last night in Manila would be Tuesday night; and it meant that we only had Monday night and Tuesday morning to prepare for what we were planning. An emergency meeting was called, and we decided that we will push through, and that we were going to "beg" money from our rich classmates so that we cna buy the farmers a meal for Tuesday night.

Tuesday came, and we were all set to go room to room to ask for donations, and invite teh law students to join us in the evening. I was quite scared that we would not be able to raise enough money to even provide half of them with food. 1pm came, our first class to visit - no class for the day: this definitely got us worried. Luckily, we got the ball rolling at 2pm, and the donations started trickling in. I had straight classes from 12pm-6pm, so I had to occasionally go out to see what was happening. We ended my last class early, which was a blessing since we still ahd much to do. Then, good news came: at 430pm, i was informed that we already had 7000 pesos in donations; 7k in 2 1/2 hours! That covered the food for the farmers, and we also had extra to buy them other items that they needed.

It was 6pm, and we already had to leave for Adamson (that's where the farmers were staying for the night). Now guess how much we had by this time: we collected donations totalling 10,235 pesos, all in a matter of 4 hours. I think it was simply a miracle that we were able to collect that much in such a short span of time; add to that the fact that we only had 2 minutes to convince people who were preparing for class about the cause we were fighting for.

We arrived in Adamson at around 8pm. There were around 80 or so farmers present. We gave them dinner (we didn't have enough to buy food for ourselves), we shared stories with them, and for a brief moment, we were able to make them feel that indeed Ateneo Law students was supporting them in their cause. We prepared a short program, but we had to cut it short because the Adamson pep squad was practicing with their drums adn cheers.

It was indeed a brief moment, we were only there for abour 21/2 hours. But we left determined to continue supporting them. We didn't want this to be a one time thing which would simply make us feel content that we did something good for the day. We knew, and we now know, that the farmers' struggles are far from over. And we will do whatever little thing we can, in our little nook called rockwell, or in the graeter world out there, to share in the plight and the cause of our farmer brothers and sisters.

SUPPORT OUR FARMERS, SUPPORT CARPER!
MAMULAT, MANGMULAT, TUMUGON AYON SA PAGKAMULAT!
- Ateneo Law Task Force CARPER

Are We Ready? A LENTE Forum on Election Automation

Invited speakers are: COMELEC Chairman Jose Melo, Senators Richard Gordon and Francis Escudero, Rep. Teddy Locsin, and former COMELEC Chair Atty. Christian Monsod among other guests.

Hope to see you there!

Lupang Hinarang

Catch the free screening of this film by Ditsi Carolino, which focuses on the plight of our farmers, on 11 March 2009 (Wednesday) - 10:00 am at the Cardinal Sin Center, Loyola School of Theology, Ateneo de Manila University.

Support CARPER Now!

The Right of Reply vs Freedom of The Press

There has been a growing controversy over the potential passage of The Right of Reply Bill (SBN 2150). This propsoed legislation seeks to give persons who are the subject of a media article; publication; radio or TV program, be it for a crime, acts in public or private or mere rumors, the right to respond to such comments through the same medium.

Journalists have been up in arms against this bill, arguing that such bill was merely proposed to protect the self-serving interests of the politicians who are usually the subject of media talk and criticisms. They also argue that it is a violation of press freedom, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. On the other hand, proponents of the measure argue that the bill is a measure of fairness, which merely gives an aggrieved person the opportunity to answer and have a chance to air his or her side of the story.

The bill, which can be accessed through this link (http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/70916334!.pdf), is simple and straight to the point. It gives the reasons for granting the right to reply, how it is to be granted and what are the penalties for its violation. On first reading, it would seem that the bill has good intentions and it merely seeks to provide a fair playing field for those who are the butt of media controversies. Thus, if one has no working knowledge or is not aware of the Constitutionally guaranteed right of press freedom, one would immediately jump to the conclusion that the bill should indeed become a law. After all, if you were put in the shoes of those people who become the subject of media controversies, then you would of course want to have the chance to give your side of the story.

We all know that press freedom is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, this has been ruled on by our courts time and again. Sometimes, the press and the media are the only way by which the people can put a check on the actions of the government; the media serves as the watchers of the people. This puts the media in a very powerful position, which can be easily abused. Perhaps our journalists, and even some people, are scared that a martial law type of situation will occur because media men and women will be afraid of becoming the subject of retaliatory attacks through the Right of Reply. These are valid concerns, and I myself would not want the country to fall into that kind of situation. However, we cannot deny the fact the a level playing field should be given and that there are instances when false accusations and baseless attacks are indeed made by some journalists.

Perhaps the media can provide an alternative to this bill, by policing their own ranks better or even sanctioning erring members. They can even give aggrieved persons the opportunity to reply or respond in some other way. Right now, I am all for press freedom and I agree that the Right of Reply bill should be scrapped. The bill is too one-sided, and it seems as if it simply wants to threaten media entities with retaliation. Even the US Supreme Court shot down a similar bill in one state and declared it unconstitutional. I'm guessing our own SC will rule in the same way since press freedom, as I said, is highly valued and protected by our courts. Let's just wait and see if this issue will even reach the courts.

Farmers March for CARPER (again!)

Today, about a thousand farmers marched to Malacañan to call on the Arroyo administration to push for the extension and reform of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARPER for short). Various farmers groups and their supporters from all over the nation converged in Manila to push for CARPER, and even the famous Sumilao farmers once again marched from Bukidnon though they've already been blessed with the return of their lands. However, once again, battalions of police forces were there to prevent the farmers from airing their grievances to the government.

3 days are left before Congress goes on its Lenten break; and it seems as though it would take a miracle for our "busy" and "hardworking" legislators to find time to put CARPER on the agenda. The Resolution they passed last December was an empty gesture, because it stopped compulsory land acquisition meaning no new lands can be claimed by the government on behalf of farmer beneficiaries in the interim period, unless and until a new law is passed giving a new lease on life to the Agrarian Reform in the country. The problem is most of our legislators, or the powerful ones at least, come from the landed elite, the class who owns the land which should be distrubuted to the farmers. Naturally, they wouldn't want their precious land to be given to their former tenants for a measely price.

The farmers will be staying in Manila to clamor for the passage of CARPER. After the lenten break, our politicians will then be too busy with the coming elections, more so since the COMELEC recently declared that the deadline for the filing of candicacy was moved 2 months earlier to accomodate the automated elections. Let's pray that the march of our farmer brothers and sisters will not go to waste. Kalampagin natin ang ating mga Congressman, o kaya samahan natin ang mga magsasaka sa kanilang pakikibaka. Kailan pa kaya matatapos ang pagmamartsa ng ating mga magsasaka?

More to come...