THE CRISIS OF THE PRESIDENCY

By Francisco S. Tatad1

On orders of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III, 188 members of

the House of Representatives, which has the exclusive power to initiate

impeachment cases, have impeached Supreme Court Chief Justice

Renato Corona without reading the Articles of Impeachment, and without a

committee hearing or a floor debate.

At first Malacanang tried to deny its involvement. But a Malacanang ally

quickly disabused the public by saying the impeachment complaint was

drafted at the Palace. And the President, who likes to be called Pinoy,

formally thanked the congressmen for their "help."

In making the congressmen sign an unread document in exchange for certain

tangible gifts, Pinoy unduly risked his political reputation for being previously

incorrupt. Critics see him now as the first corruptor of Congress.

In their view, he has made himself impeachable in the very act of impeaching

the Chief Justice. He, rather than Corona, should be the one impeached for

culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, corruption, betrayal of public

trust and other high crimes. He should be the one tried and removed from

office.

These are strong words, but nothing more than words. Having full control of

the House, Pinoy is in no danger of ever getting impeached, whatever wrong

The author was Senate Majority Leader during the 2000-2001 impeachment trial of then
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada. His book, A Nation on Fire: the Unmaking of Joseph Ejercito
Estrada and the Remaking of Democracy in the Philippines, is by far the most authoritative
documentation of the trial and ouster of Estrada.

1

3

he does. But he has provoked a constitutional crisis, and strong words and

strong passions are the first elements of this crisis.

The Articles of Impeachment, consisting of eight charges, are now in the

Senate. The Senate has the sole power to try and decide impeachment

cases. All 23 sitting senators have taken their oath to render "impartial

justice." Some of them, however, seem to take a cavalier view of the

impeachment process.

They say that impeachment is nothing but a political process, to be decided

on the basis of public opinion, not on the basis of the evidence. If that were

the case, then the Senate should have no role in it. The case should be put to

the people in a referendum, which should tell us what the "public opinion" is,

so long as everyone participates and the process is not rigged.

But that is not what the Constitution says. Impeachment is a constitutional

process. The Senate tries and decides all impeachment cases, on the

basis of the evidence, not on the basis of party line or personal sentiment of

the "judges."

Now, a former assemblyman and former national president of the Integrated

Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has asked the Supreme Court to restrain the

Senate from hearing the complaint, on the ground that the allegations are all

null and void. Atty. Vicente Millora's petition runs into a few pages. He is the

first one; others, including the IBP itself, could follow suit.

What happens then if and when the Court finds the complaint invalid? Would

the President recognize and respect such a ruling, given the fact that he

4

seems to believe he is free not to obey what the Court says? Would it not

create a crisis so grave that the only possible outcome would be either to

completely abolish the Constitution or to remove the President?

Should the case come to trial, Pinoy may have to move heaven and earth to

make sure the Chief Justice is convicted. Can he do to the Senate what he

did to the House without creating a farce? And supposing he fails, how will it

all end? Nobody knows.

In 1991, Cory Aquino, Pinoy's mother, led a big march to the Senate to

pressure the senators to approve the proposed RP-US treaty extending

the term of the American bases by another ten years. She thought she

could count on their votes, having helped 22 of them get elected in the 1987

senatorial elections. So she sat in the gallery and watched them vote. But the

ingrates voted "according to their consciences," and the treaty lost.

Pinoy could yet repeat his mother's experience. Should that happen, after

he had put his presidency on the line, he may no longer be able to govern. He

may have to resign, or else be removed by other means. I don't want to see

that happen to Pinoy.

He deserves a break. He has made enough mistakes. He must redeem

himself. He must abandon his zero-sum game and rethink his course.

He must choose democracy clearly and irrevocably against any form of

dictatorship. And he must do so now.

Pinoy is a democratically elected president, not a revolutionary one. He must

act as one. He is presiding over a deeply divided country, in a time of troubled

5

peace, amid so many natural and man-made calamities and other worries.

He should show the world he has the will and the skill to unite his people and

to mitigate the humanitarian disasters no man is able to prevent.

Senator Joker Arroyo, Cory's former Executive Secretary and hardly an

adversary, chides Pinoy for assuming control of all the three branches of

government without proclaiming martial law, and without any of the conditions

obtaining which could otherwise justify such a proclamation. Many agree with

Senator Arroyo.

In 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law all over the

country, in response to the communist rebellion that threatened to take over

the government. It was a legitimate response to an actual emergency. By

contrast, many see Pinoy's rush into one-man rule as an attempt to conduct

the presidency as a kind of video game, of which he is reputedly a master.

But neither life nor government is a game. Not anywhere, least of all in

a constitutional democracy. Would Ninoy Aquino, Pinoy's father, have

approved of it, were he alive today? It is not unfair to ask that question, since

Pinoy ran on his parents' record, lacking one of his own. The best answer

that comes to mind is--- maybe yes, maybe no, no one can say.

Filipinos remember Ninoy as the opposition leader whom Marcos jailed during

martial law and who was eventually assassinated in 1983 at the Manila

international airport while coming home from his medical furlough in Boston.

But what most Filipinos do not know is that Ninoy was a most passionate

advocate of martial law.

6

Ninoy liked to tell his friends in the press that should he ever become

president, and many thought that would happen one day, the first thing he

would do was to declare martial law, exactly as Park Chung Hee did in Korea,

to consolidate power and accelerate the country's economic development. But

Marcos beat him to the draw.

Now Pinoy has fulfilled, or is about to fulfill, his late father's dream without

formally proclaiming martial law or national emergency. Is Pinoy simply

trying to follow his father's vision, or is he being egged on by some power or

principality?

In its Dec. 23, 2011 issue, the US-based Executive Intelligence Review

reports that Ninoy has become a frontline supporter of US President Barack

Obama's "Ring around China" policy, along with Japan's Nobuteru Ishihara,

governor of Tokyo and secretary general of LDP. EIR is not the least

passionate when writing about Mr. Obama, but it was light years ahead of

everybody else in predicting the collapse of the US housing bubble and the

euro, and the continuing meltdown of the trans-Atlantic economies.

EIR says that during Obama's recent Asia tour, Pinoy insisted that the US

denounce China as an aggressor in the South China Sea. EIR then cites

Pinoy's recent speech calling on the Armed Forces to prepare for external

challenges, not just internal ones. At the same time it sees more US warships

being dispatched to the area close to the Spratlys.

Is President Obama the cartilege that has stiffened Pinoy's back and made

him believe he could take over the entire government without provoking

resistance or hostility? Supported by the US, Pinoy could be tempted to

7

believe he could do anything without risking his office. After all, the Filipino

poor have remained docile until now, the remnants of the communist left that

were a threat to Marcos are now his allies, the elite look only after their own,

and the Americans will go after any dictator anywhere, except when he is

their own.

Still history is full of strongmen whom the US had coddled for years and then

dumped as soon as they were no longer useful to them. Pinoy would do well

to learn from their experience, including from his own father's. Ninoy himself

may have narrated his own story to his wife and children.

In 1957, during the so-called Permesta revolt in Indonesia, Ninoy undertook

secret operations for the CIA, according to the book "Subversion as Foreign

Policy" by Audrey Kahin and George Mc T Kahin, quoting the late Senator

Jose Wright Diokno as its source.

According to that story, Ninoy set up a clandestine radio station in Indonesia

for the rebels, shipped them guns from a third country, and opened up

Hacienda Luisita as a training ground for the rebel pilots. But when the

Americans saw they could not topple President Sukarno, they promptly pulled

out without telling Ninoy, leaving him in the dark and holding the proverbial

empty bag.

It is not known how that affected Ninoy's relations with the CIA. But in 1978,

when Ninoy ran from his detention cell for the interim Batasang Pambansa,

then Defense Secretary (now Senate president) Juan Ponce Enrile accused

him of being a CIA agent. He did not deny it. His only reply was that he

worked "with the CIA", but "not for the CIA."

7

about it.

Twenty-eight years after Ninoy's assassination, and no mastermind has

been identified, conspiracy theorists have started saying that NInoy was

terminally ill when he came home from Boston in 1983, and had agreed to

be sacrificed in a foreign intelligence operation specifically intended to bring

down Marcos, make Cory president, and restore the primacy of US interests

in the Philippines.

I do not buy that theory. But others may. Pinoy has to intervene. He has to

unlock the mystery about his father's death, to end all speculation, once and

for all. But he must, at the outset, make an irrevocable commitment to our

constitutional democracy, respect the separation of powers, act more the

statesman he is supposed to be, and make his countrymen, not any power or

principality, the sovereign masters in their own country.

Angry bird bomber

Cupcake-polvoron a sure bomb for kids and kids at heart

iCloud + SugarSync + Dropbox is equal to

Minimum free:
iCloud: 2GB?
SugarSync: 5GB!!
Dropbox: 2GB
Sum: at least 9GB!!!
LOTSASPACE. Will we still need external or USB drives? Only if we are not online.

iCloud = SugarSync = Dropbox ???

The three are platforms (not the shoes that make you taller) (let's just say they're apps?) in the internet that allow you to store files for free and enables automatic syncing with your other devices.

iCloud is owned by Apple (like iPhone, iPad, iPod,...). You can only encounter it when you have iDevices. For Dropbox and SugarSync, you can encounter them even if you don't have iDevices.

For additional 2GB cloud space

Always have your stuff when you need it with @Dropbox. 2GB account is free! http://db.tt/5aARWLGS
Earn 250K per referral for a max of 8GB. Not baaaad.

Will there be a need for a rain dance in cloud computing? Sweet SugarSync and dropped Dropbox

What the heck is this cloud computing? Is it the activity of students needing to practice their maths on the fly or something? Or is it the new task for weather forecasters to make sure their rain prediction work? There is no need for weather mumbo jumbo here or calculating x's or y's.

Cloud computing is the activity that you do in order to make file uploads and file sharing between devices simple and sweet. There is only the act of syncing folders from the device you have up to the internet cloud. I think "cloud" is used because that is what is labeled as a sort of network or something. 

Two cloud computing applications I used in the last 24 hours are: Dropbox and the SugarSync. The former was suggested by a coordinator of real estate projects so that the files shared will always be the latest. I signed up for that to get the files. Its benefits are having free 2GB of space up in the cloud and for every successful referral, I get additional 250K up to a cap of 8GB. I thought it was nifty until my FB friend posted a reply to my Dropbox ravings. Then I learned the fantastic free 5GB for the free accounts in SugarSync. Aint that sweet. For every successful referral to the app, there is additional 500K space for both the suggester and his friend. And no ceiling at all!

Why don't you try sweet SugarSync: http://bit.ly/rwpMSQ

Stress buster #4

Stress buster #5

Stress buster #6

Stress buster #3

Stress buster #2

Stress buster #1

Missing

Missing beside the tree is YOU. Merry Christmas to YOU!

Merry Christmas to all of us


There was a tennis ball inside my congee bowl

Urbi et Orbi Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (Christmas, 25 December 2011)

Urbi et Orbi Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI (Christmas, 25 December 2011)
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Rome and throughout the world!

Christ is born for us! Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to the men and women whom he loves. May all people hear an echo of the message of Bethlehem which the Catholic Church repeats in every continent, beyond the confines of every nation, language and culture. The Son of the Virgin Mary is born for everyone; he is the Saviour of all.

This is how Christ is invoked in an ancient liturgical antiphon: "O Emmanuel, our king and lawgiver, hope and salvation of the peoples: come to save us, O Lord our God". Veni ad salvandum nos! Come to save us! This is the cry raised by men and women in every age, who sense that by themselves they cannot prevail over difficulties and dangers. They need to put their hands in a greater and stronger hand, a hand which reaches out to them from on high. Dear brothers and sisters, this hand is Jesus, born in Bethlehem of the Virgin Mary. He is the hand that God extends to humanity, to draw us out of the mire of sin and to set us firmly on rock, the secure rock of his Truth and his Love (cf. Ps 40:2).

This is the meaning of the Child's name, the name which, by God's will, Mary and Joseph gave him: he is named Jesus, which means "Saviour" (cf. Mt 1:21; Lk 1:31). He was sent by God the Father to save us above all from the evil deeply rooted in man and in history: the evil of separation from God, the prideful presumption of being self-sufficient, of trying to compete with God and to take his place, to decide what is good and evil, to be the master of life and death (cf. Gen 3:1-7). This is the great evil, the great sin, from which we human beings cannot save ourselves unless we rely on God's help, unless we cry out to him: "Veni ad salvandum nos! – Come to save us!"

The very fact that we cry to heaven in this way already sets us aright; it makes us true to ourselves: we are in fact those who cried out to God and were saved (cf. Esth [LXX] 10:3ff.). God is the Saviour; we are those who are in peril. He is the physician; we are the infirm. To realize this is the first step towards salvation, towards emerging from the maze in which we have been locked by our pride. To lift our eyes to heaven, to stretch out our hands and call for help is our means of escape, provided that there is Someone who hears us and can come to our assistance.

Jesus Christ is the proof that God has heard our cry. And not only this! God's love for us is so strong that he cannot remain aloof; he comes out of himself to enter into our midst and to share fully in our human condition (cf. Ex 3:7-12). The answer to our cry which God gave in Jesus infinitely transcends our expectations, achieving a solidarity which cannot be human alone, but divine. Only the God who is love, and the love which is God, could choose to save us in this way, which is certainly the lengthiest way, yet the way which respects the truth about him and about us: the way of reconciliation, dialogue and cooperation.

Dear brothers and sisters in Rome and throughout the world, on this Christmas 2011, let us then turn to the Child of Bethlehem, to the Son of the Virgin Mary, and say: "Come to save us!" Let us repeat these words in spiritual union with the many people who experience particularly difficult situations; let us speak out for those who have no voice.

Together let us ask God's help for the peoples of the Horn of Africa, who suffer from hunger and food shortages, aggravated at times by a persistent state of insecurity. May the international community not fail to offer assistance to the many displaced persons coming from that region and whose dignity has been sorely tried.

May the Lord grant comfort to the peoples of South-East Asia, particularly Thailand and the Philippines, who are still enduring grave hardships as a result of the recent floods.

May the Lord come to the aid of our world torn by so many conflicts which even today stain the earth with blood. May the Prince of Peace grant peace and stability to that Land where he chose to come into the world, and encourage the resumption of dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians. May he bring an end to the violence in Syria, where so much blood has already been shed. May he foster full reconciliation and stability in Iraq and Afghanistan. May he grant renewed vigour to all elements of society in the countries of North Africa and the Middle East as they strive to advance the common good.

May the birth of the Saviour support the prospects of dialogue and cooperation in Myanmar, in the pursuit of shared solutions. May the Nativity of the Redeemer ensure political stability to the countries of the Great Lakes Region of Africa, and assist the people of South Sudan in their commitment to safeguarding the rights of all citizens.

Dear Brothers and Sisters, let us turn our gaze anew to the grotto of Bethlehem. The Child whom we contemplate is our salvation! He has brought to the world a universal message of reconciliation and peace. Let us open our hearts to him; let us receive him into our lives. Once more let us say to him, with joy and confidence: "Veni ad salvandum nos!"


Sent from my iPhone

(Mini) bucket list item

Last Tuesday I attended John Calub's Secret to Success and Prosperity at SM Mega Mall. One resolution I formulated is to make a bucket list. Though I didn't watch the movie, I'm following what the main characters did before they died. Life will be more fulfilling if you set a goal for yourself and be able to really accomplish it. I'm on my second day in a planned
month-long 'walkout'-walking as my workout.

I record part of the steps made. Here's hoping I'll be consistent! This bucket list item is needed for me to accomplish my bucket list #3 which is to shed off 30 pounds. Help me, my guardian angel Pica!!

Sebago is NEW again to me

I went to SM MOA last Saturday to attend a brokers' seminar for our SMDC session. It was raining when I crossed the building to get to the grocery. Eventually I got to chance upon a shop that sold the shoes that were in fashion during my teenage years: Sebago. Took pictures to show my friend for her to entice to buy.

Sebago once new, is new once again. This time, made in China. So what else is new.

Raul Nidoy: Breathtaking infatuation for RH bill

Breathtaking infatuation for RH bill

 I just want to help wake the Inquirer up from what I see might be its "RH infatuation," which I believe led it to assert that the "best argument for the RH bill as it now stands is that it will help minimize the number of illegal or illicit abortions we suffer every year. Think of tens of thousands of innocent lives spared."

A cold shower of scientific findings might help.

First, from a study on the link between contraception and abortion (published early this year, not in a prolife magazine but in the scientific journal, Contraception, subtitled "an international reproductive health journal" and conducted through a 10-year period). From 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1 percent to 79.9 percent. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1,000 women.

Second, Nobel prize winner and liberal economist, George Akerlof, writing at the Quarterly Journal of Economics (published by the MIT Press), described the effect of contraceptives: more premarital sex, more fatherless children, more single mothers, and since the contraceptives sometimes fail, more abortions.
Third, leaders of the abortion industry themselves have openly admitted the empirical link between contraception and abortion. Malcolm Potts, the first medical director of International Planned Parenthood: "As people turn to contraception, there will be a rise, not a fall, in the abortion rate." Judith Bury, coordinator of Doctors for a Woman's Choice on Abortion: "There is overwhelming evidence that … the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate."

Fourth, silent abortions caused by the use of the pill amount to deliberate killings of innocent lives. Dr. Walter Larimore, who for decades prescribed the pill, tried to disprove the claim that the pill is abortifacient, only to find 94 scientific studies proving that "postfertilization effects are operative to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy." He published his findings in the scientific journal of the American Medical Association, and from then on stopped prescribing the pill. Shouldn't we as a nation also stop prescribing a drug that kills our youngest Filipinos?

Please take note that the basis of Rep. Edcel Lagman's claim of an 85-percent reduction in abortion rate due to contraception is a report of the Guttmacher Institute, which started as a division of Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion services in the United States.

It is significant that the Guttmacher Institute itself found in its 2003 study that "levels of abortion and contraceptive use rose simultaneously" in six countries: Cuba, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United States, Singapore and the Republic of Korea.

These are hard facts. And the rational explanation behind the link is clear: the anti-human mentality at the heart of contraception's falsification of sex, which casually call some children "unwanted" rather than gifts.
—RAUL NIDOY,
ranidoy@gmail.com

Peter Kreeft: Christian Anthropology versus the Sexual Revolution

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Christian Anthropology versus the Sexual Revolution

"Christian Anthropology versus the Sexual Revolution" by Peter Kreeft.
-an address to the The Catholic Medical Association's 79th Annual Educational Conference, October 27-30, 2010.
(excerpts)

To see that the Sexual Revolution has been radical in thought as well as behavior, just look at the revolution in language. When people use the word "morality" today they almost always mean sexual morality. That's a remarkable new development, an astonishing narrowing; it's as if we started to use the word "state" to mean only Russia, or the word "technology" to mean only "computers". The reason for the new development is obvious from my two comparisons: sex, Russia, and computers are where there have been the most radical revolutions.
[...]
Look at abortion. No one defends killing innocent, defenceless human beings, except for sex. That is what abortion is. The whole purpose of abortion is backup birth control and the whole purpose of birth control is to have sex without babies. If storks brought babies, Planned Parenthood would go broke. Sex is the motor that drives the abortion business.

Look at divorce. Suppose there were some practice that did not involve sex that had the same three scientifically provable effects that divorce has. First, it betrayed your most solemn promise you ever made to the person you said was the most important person in your life. Second, it was child abuse, it maimed your children's psyches, it made a happy life and a happy marriage and family much, much harder for those vulnerable little people you brought into the world and who remained largely dependent on you for their future. Third, it infallibly guaranteed that your society would die, would self destruct.
[...]
The moral revolution is confined to sex. We are not allowed to steal another man's money without being put into jail, but we can steal another man's wife. You cannot betray your lawyer without being severely penalized, but you can betray your wife, and SHE is severely penalized. You cannot kill bald eagles or blue whales without being a criminal but you can kill your own children as long as you do it a second before the two blades of the scissors meet in the middle of the umbilical cord rather than a second after, or a second before the body emerges from the birth canal rather than a second after. What kind of logic is this?
[...]
What then do we need to defeat this revolution, which has brought about such immense destruction, and eventual death, to families, and eventually to society? Reason, logic, argument, science, facts, common sense, compromise, return to tradition – none of these are strong enough. What is strong enough? Only one thing. Nothing less than Jesus Christ will do.

Why? Because the heart of the error of the Sexual Revolution is the identifying of love with sex. Christ undoes this fundamental confusion by showing us – not just telling us but showing us – what love is.
[...]
No official teaching in the Church's 2000 year history, no official document, has ever been so hated, despised, ignored, and disobeyed as Humanae Vitae. What is the most unpopular teaching of the Church today? Nothing comes even close. It's the teaching of the Church about sex that is by far the main reason the world hates and fears the Church today...
[...]
And how does Jesus Christ answer that? What does Christ have to do with the Sexual Revolution and its causes and its consequences? Everything. Because Christ alone gives us intimacy with God, and that's the thing the Sexual Revolution is looking for but doesn't know it. As Chesterton said, When the adulterer knocks on the door of the brothel, he's really looking for a cathedral.

Therefore Christ alone is the answer to the Sexual Revolution. Because nobody else gives us intimacy with God.

[read the entire transcript here]

WillyJ: The future for female fertility according to the man who created the Pill

Friday, June 3, 2011

The future for female fertility according to the man who created the Pill

The future for female fertility according to the man who created the Pill

..his vision of the future, Professor Djerassi sees egg freezing as a fundamental tool of family planning - empowering women further...

'It is already happening at Stanford, where I teach. Women assistant professors on a tough ten-year career path, working 60 or 80 hours a week, are freezing their eggs for later use.'


Whoah!

Women chained to a 60-80 hour workweek, for 10 or so years wherein they are not 'burdened' by pregnancy and child-rearing. Thanks to the pill!

Good thing there is a solution according to Professor Djerassi: these women can freeze their eggs for later use. Of course, the wonders of In-Vitrio Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. Meanwhile her live-in partner can enjoy sex with her all he wants, without any of the consequences and attendant responsibilities (say, a child for example).

Sooner or later, her live-in partner would likely ditch this busy and aging career woman to live-in with another partner of his choice. A younger one definitely. Now this empowered woman will most probably grow old alone.

Professor Djerassi, the father of the pill, calls this scenario: "empowering women further".

No, I think he's serious. Well maybe a tad crazy, but serious.

Check out the article [here]

WillyJ: A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again)

Friday, June 3, 2011

A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again)

A response to the latest salvo of Fr Bernas (again?)

"...There are claims, for instance, that there are contraceptive drugs in the market that cause abortion or are carcinogenic. What I would like to see is an authoritative identification of the drugs that are said to be abortifacient or carcinogenic so that they can be withdrawn from the market or their use subjected to medical regulation. So far I have seen only one drug identified as abortifacient, namely postinor. This was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug and Administration. But the identification of drugs claimed to be abortifacient or carcinogenic should be authoritative in a manner that is fair to drug manufacturers and to those who rely on them for legitimate medical purposes."

- Fr Bernas in his article: Levels of Discourse in RH debate


Dear Fr Bernas,

I am aware that you have asserted time and again that life starts at fertilization, both from the Catholic as well as from the Constitutional standpoint. So it is not a Catholic position alone as it also has a firm basis in the Constitution. This core issue has nothing to do with the non-establishment clause. As far as "authoritative indentification" of abortifacients are concerned, it is obvious that you are referring to the FDA. I believe delegating the issue to the judgment of the FDA should not give us any comfort with respect to its particular relevance to the RH bill. May I respectfully point out that HB 4244 contains a repealing clause: SEC. 31. Repealing Clause. All other laws, decrees, orders, issuances, rules and regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

It is therefore evident that the bill intends to dictate the parameters of FDA's contraceptive regulatory guidelines. We all know that contrary to faith and science, the RH bill sponsors have insisted on implantation as the start of life, rather than fertilization. The very premise of the RH bill opens the floodgates to abortifacients of all natures, but with a twisted definition that is dictated by the RH bill with the expected blessings of FDA. FDA would then assume authority over the life and death of the unborn. Are they that "authoritative"?

WillyJ: Angsioco versus unborn

Monday, June 6, 2011

Angsioco versus unborn

With prominent RH bill proponent Elizabeth Angsioco's latest tirade entitled "Unborn versus mother", one is convincingly left without any iota of a doubt as to the main agenda of the RH bill: it is all about Abortion with a capital A. Unless the RH bill proponents disown Angsioco's statements, her astonishing message reveals the strikingly clear motive. The title of her opinionated (and grossly erroneous) piece is in itself a dead giveaway. Why, is there an inherent war between ''Unborn vs Mother"? Does Angsioco herself feel that her mother is at war with her from the moment of her conception up to every breathing moment of her life? I suppose not, for even Elizabeth Angsioco herself should probably make a convincing case for the timeless adage "only a mother can love''.

Angsioco takes umbrage at the various bills pending in Cong
ress that seek to put teeth into the Constitutional provision requiring the State to ''equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception". While she acknowledges the provision, in the same breath she claims:

''A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me. A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights. Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides."

So according to Angsiocotic philosophy, the unborn is not a complete person until it is "born into this world". If the unborn is not a "complete person'', what is it then? A half-person? A quarter-person? Semi-person? A clump of inhuman cells? She attempts to bolster her argument by referring to the Constitution but I do not see anything in there that says the unborn is a partial human person. What I do see in there, is that the unborn is accorded by the State a presumptive personality from the moment of conception. A presumed person that merits protection by the State. Why, because the Constitutional Commission precisely said so. If the state presumes the personhood of the unborn it does not consider it as an incomplete human unworthy of protection. She harps about the right of the mother (the unfettered right to abort, if that is not clear enough) and completely turns a blind eye to the right of the unborn. The records of the 1986 Commission flatly rejects her imaginations:

"Whats being affirmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as the constitutional right of the unborn child to life, If this should entail the granting of presumptive personality to the unborn befinning at the moment of the conception, then so be it. Xxx Respect for the rights of the woman with child and respect for the rights of the child in her womb are by nature intimately linked such that any deliberate harm that should come upon one will doubtless effect a corresponbding harm to the other. Conflicts of rights is fictitious. Xxx The conflict is only apparent. It is easily resolved by applying the following principle: When two rights come in conflict, the more basic right and/or the right concerning the graver matter takes precedence over rights involving the less basic or less serious matter. It is clear that the right to life is more basic than the right to privacy or any other posterior rights. Therefore, since removal of the fetus would most certainly result in violation of its right to life, the woman has no right to evict the temporary resident of her private womb."

(Bernas, J.. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), p. 119.)

Not only does Angsioco twist legalities, she also manages to twist mathematics as well. Equal Protection means, well, EQUAL Protection. The right of the mother for protection is EQUAL to the right of the unborn for protection. Not GREATER THAN nor LESS THAN. Of course there are exceptional cases where the medical treatment of the mother might result to a NOT DIRECTLY INTENDED harm to the unborn. Angsioco apparently, is not capable of acknowledging the nuanced distinction whatsoever. She is clearly all for the 'rights' of the mother to abort the unborn regardless. After all according to her, the unborn has no rights whatsoever until it is born. Well, she has a right to her opinion, however twisted it may be. The State guarantees EQUAL protection of freedom of speech to the erroneous person as well as to the factual person. I presume her mother would love her in spite of that. As to the rest of the pro-RH bill advocates, I presume they would love to gag her from now on. She just let the screaming cat out of the bag.

WillyJ - Senator Pia Cayetano: REDUNDANT times 5

Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Senator Pia Cayetano: REDUNDANT times 5

Earlier today, Senator Pia Cayetano delivered her sponsorship speech of the Senate version of the RH bill. In essence, she spells out 5 supposedly earth-shaking points up front of what the Senate version of the RH bill is all about. To cut it to the chaste, the 5 points she enumerated are as follows: 1) REDUNDANT; 2) REDUNDANT; 3) REDUNDANT; 4) REDUNDANT; and 5) REDUNDANT. However, she should be credited with a feel-passionate , heart-tugging sponsorship speech, but at the end of her melodramatic, long-winded speech there is only one conclusion to the discerning listener. Please bear with me for repeating it again for the umpteenth time : REDUNDANT.

Maternal and child health, upgrading of health facilities, addressing HIV, access to different family planning methods, and health/sex education. Who can deny that all of these are not already currently the mandate of the Department of Health? To ascertain, all we have to do is to verify it in the official DOH website. If that is not enough, look up the DOH budget under the 2011 General Appropriations Act, where it is plain to see that about 12.07 Billion pesos are already allocated for the same, same purposes that Senator Cayetano attempts to make a big deal out of. Should we not take to task the DOH for the 12.07 Billion pesos already budgeted to it before we even think of enacting a redundant bill? Yes, 12.07 billion. That is OUR money, my dear co-taxpayers.

Even her concern about HIV control is already rendered doubly moot by RA 8504, "The Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998", of which again, DOH is tasked to implement. And before she tries to make a big deal out of sex education, may we gently remind the good Senator that Catholic schools have been teaching their faith-compatible version of sex education all along. But of course we all know that the various versions of the RH bill (the Cayetano version being no exception) intends to force their own immoral brand of sex-education down the throats of ALL schools, Catholic and otherwise.

At the risk of being repetitive, all that Senator Cayetano proposes in her 5 points are completely unnecessary. Why? because they are REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, REDUNDANT, and finally for the last and not the least reason, REDUNDANT.

Satur C. Ocampo - Fil-Ams: 'P-Noy, take charge!'

OPINION
READ OTHER NEWS
 
READER COMMENToraman wrote:

oro821:dapat mo maintindihan malaki galit ni ka Satur ke makoy dahil nabiktima siya ng torture nung panahon ng batas militar. wag mo na asahan ng pulaan ni ka Satur ang china supporter ng NPA ang China.
 

Reply | Read Other Posts 

 
SHARE
facebook share facebook
twitter
yahoo buzz yahoo! buzz

Advertisements
Fil-Ams: 'P-Noy, take charge!' 
AT GROUND LEVEL By Satur C. Ocampo (The Philippine Star) Updated June 04, 2011 12:00 AMComments (9) View comments

A Filipino-American group that says its members supported President Aquino in the May 2010 elections expresses dismay over his "seeming abnegation of responsibility" over the controversial proposal to bury the remains of ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Responding to this column's discussion of the issue (May 21), a member of the US Pinoys for Good Governance emailed to me the group's May 10 letter to Mr. Aquino, signed by Loida Nicolas Lewis, chairperson, Rodel Rodis, president, Ted Laguatan, spokesperson, and 67 others.

Attached were copies of email exchanges among USP4GG members, all outraged over the idea of making Marcos a hero.

The letter urges President Aquino to "take charge" and "openly declare to the Filipino people that the late dictator was absolutely no hero and that you owe it as your duty… not to have Marcos buried as a hero at the Libingan ng mga Bayani - not only now but forevermore."

Laguatan assures that I can freely quote the USP4GG letter as well as his personal views. Three members, Greg Mariano Jr. (who emailed the letter), Charito Benipayo (who urges "mass action ASAP"), and Jessy Ang likewise have agreed to be quoted.

Ang, a psychiatrist, laments:

"It is sad that the Marcos family can get away with a national crime, emboldened by unprincipled large number of congressmen and a president who has abandoned his moral leadership to do the right thing… I ask Ted to contact the progressive groups, such as Bayan Muna, Akbayan, and Gabriela to hold a candlelight vigil in front of Malacanang… and the Philippine Congress to show our disapproval.

"I am afraid that the civil societies have been demoralized and disillusioned by supporting leaders that promise change, [but] when they assume office . . . become obstacles to the radical reforms our nation needs."

Mariano Jr. wonders why President Aquino hasn't replied to the USP4GG letter handed to him on May 16, when the law (RA 6713) requires public officials and employees to reply, within 15 working days from receipt of letters or other means of communication sent by the public, stating the action taken on the request.

Portions of the USP4GG letter state:

"As an absolute dictator, (Marcos) engaged in all kinds of corruption and also stole directly from the nation's treasury, amassing an indecent fortune while Filipinos starved. US military records also prove that Marcos' claims of having been awarded 27 medals for heroism in WWII are blatantly false. In short, President Marcos was far from a hero; he was a villain who brought shame, suffering and impoverishment to the Filipino people."

"[If Marcos were buried as a hero] we would be the laughing stock of the world and be the subject of ridicule. We would be shamed, disrespected and dishonored. Overseas Filipinos would especially suffer much.

"We also don't need a Marcos hero's burial for us to move on. If in fact that happens, it will continuously disturb our peace and national self-respect because we know that a terrible lie has been imposed on us."

These portions drip with pain:

"Like millions of Filipinos in the homeland, we supported [you: President Aquino] in the 2010 elections believing that you would be true to your promise to provide the moral leadership to rid the country of institutionalized corruption and other evils.

"However, your seeming abnegation of responsibility on this important issue is very disturbing. By passing this onus to the Vice President, the perception is that as President you do not want to provide the proper leadership to protect the people and nation from being dishonored and insulted by the possible hero's burial of a despotic corrupt former President.

"With all due respect, we view as puzzling your reason from recusing yourself from this issue: 'I don't want to appear biased.' Every right-thinking individual should be biased against honoring and burying as a hero a man who in truth and in fact was a villain. While your intention may have been to be fair to all  which is admirable  true fairness involves adherence to truth. The obvious truth: Marcos was clearly not a hero.

"Among other things, burying him as one would bring to naught the honor and pride we acquired as a people from the EDSA revolution which toppled the dictatorship and inspired people around the globe to bring down similar corrupt regimes. It would also seem to waste the sacrifices paid for with blood by the President's father and other true heroes and martyrs  for our people's freedom and dignity."

Howls Dr. Philip S. Chua, chairman of the Filipino United Network-USA: "Hell NO! Marcos is no hero!"

Laguatan, a lawyer, bluntly avers:

"When P-Noy passed the responsibility of making the decision to Binay . . . he was playing accommodation with the Marcoses. It's conceivable that he now has a friendly relationship with Bongbong and Imee. His best friend Ochoa and Bongbong's wife are law partners, providing the bridge system to enhance that relationship.

 "Commendable if it's for the good of the country; bad if it is for their own selfish personal interests." 

What's President Aquino's response to all these?

*      *      *

E-mail: satur.ocampo@gmail.com


View previous articles from this author | Subscribe to this author via RSS
  SHARE:   facebook share facebook        yahoo buzz yahoo! buzz