In just a few hours from now, the whole world will close an old calendar and open a new one as people from all walks of life welcome 2013 with a bright, big bang. The thing is, in these parts, unlike anywhere else, the bang is going to be not only big, it will also be bloody.
As has always been among Filipinos since time immemorial, our public and private hospitals nationwide will once again be awash with people, young and old, injured by firecrackers, most of which, by sheer calling, such as "Sinturon ng Sawa" or "Goodbye Philippines" are enough to summon death and hell. The new year's initial newspapers will again banner stories of this or that boy or man having lost a finger, a limb or an eye during the noisiest of all holidays in our midst and times. Per se, New Year is not really a festival of the Roman Catholic Church, but an old, originally pagan tradition where everyone must make noise and revelry in order to drive away evil spirits. Are we really driving them away or calling them into our homes? Quite ironically, it was the Chinese that introduced to us the firecrackers; yet never have we ever hear reports of mass casualties due to firecrackers as the Chinese themselves celebrate their own New Year between January and February each year. Truth is, we may have unquestionably gone into the Guinness Book of Records -- well, for notoriety, not for fame -- simply because of this. Ala eh, Ateng, Kuyang, di ga't nakaka-loka yan?
Very far more nakaka-loka is the bare fact that certain types of firecrackers are strictly banned -- that is, illegal, and ergo: their sale and use are clearly punishable. Yet we still have to see or hear of people being incarcerated for openly putting the public in harm's way because of firecrackers. Indeed, the living and most unarguable proof that one has violated the law is when he gets injured for personally indulging in that which the law forbids, such as in the case of shabu, hindi ga, Vice Ganda? And so, Ateng, di ka siguro masyadong maloloka if only, after being treated in the hospital, these open transgressors of the law are directly sent to jail and prosecuted like any other criminal. But they are not! In fact, the whole nation might even commiserate with them for all the pains they suffered. I really don't know if this is true justice, or if it is, then that is justice-Philippine style.
One other nakakaloka happenstance, BB Gandanghari, is that as early as the "ber-months" the PNP are already casting out their nets to catch these walang kadala-dalang dealers of forbidden firecrackers, and yet, while some are caught, they keep coming back year in and year out. The other day, for example, I saw on TV one such dealer in Laguna whose firecracker bodega had been raided by the authorities. As the forbidden stocks were being taken out and loaded into the PNP van, I asked myself: Saan kaya nila ito dadalhin pagkatapos? Of course, I realized they would need those stocks as evidence when they later prosecute the owner whom, I knew, would soon be incarcerated until he is able, in due course, to put up the proper bail. But I also knew, as is likewise published in the news every now and then, that the PNP do not have enough spaces in their stations to temporarily store as big a bulk of hazardous firecrackers as this one. And the storage would not be just temporary; given the exceptionally long span of time in between when one is caught committing a crime and the start of the actual prosecution and judicial processes. It should, then, indeed be downright puzzling to imagine where the so-called evidence was, in the interim,. supposed to be kept.. And so, when the day of actual arraignment finally comes -- alas, that may take until kingdom come -- and the defense lawyer eventually asks: :"where is the evidence?" and the prosecutor answers: "give us sometime to present them, your Honor/Sirs," then, mga Ateng at Kuyang, you would surely all the more be shouting till heaven and hell: "Ala'y eto na ang pinaka nakaka-loka sa lahat!" Well, this happens only in the Philippines, di ga, Kuya John Lapuz and Boy Abunda?
Happy New Year, everyone.
Linggo, Disyembre 30, 2012
Biyernes, Disyembre 28, 2012
A STUPID LEGISLATION
I have always thought that every lawmaker has first and foremost amply researched on all existing laws that may be related to a new one he wishes to write. I am afraid Bacolod Congressman Anthony Golez did not do that before he filed the bill he calls "Strengthening National Pride Act," PDI, 12/29/2012) which requires all malls and similar commercial establishments to play the Philippine National Anthem three times a day, in the same way they play Christmas carolss nonstop during the Christmas season. Or maybe, he simply does not appreciate the difference between songs of reverence and songs for amusement. . In either case I doubt very much his aforementioned bill will reach even first base in Congress.
Why? Ah, simply because there are at least two (2) existing laws that Golez's bill will squarely contradict from the very outset. The first is Republic Act No. 1265, providing that, during flag ceremonies, the national anthem may only be sung or played by the school band, or both. In other words, any rendition from tape recordings -- such as what is true of Christmas carols or any other entertainment songs, for that matter -- is not allowed. Or, with that, does Golez envision that malls would engage the services of a choir or bond to sing or play our national anthem three times daily, 365 days a year?
The other law is Republic Act No. 8491, otherwise otherwise known as "The Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines." Strictly speaking, this law does not also allow the taped rendition of our anthem. Further, it provides that whenever the National Anthem is played in any public gathering, whether by a band, by a choir, or both, the public shall simultaneously sing the anthem and, as a sign of respect, reverence, patriotism and national pride, all persons shall stand at full attention and face the Philippine flag if there is one deisplayed and, if none, shall face the band or the conductor, or the singing choir. Then, at the first note, everybody shall execute a salute by placing his right palm over his left chest. Given these regulatory circumstances, I cannot see how requiring malls to play, through sheer tape reditions, of course, the national anthem three times a day in all malls, as Christmas carols presently are being played during the holiday season, without the people at the malls feeling awkwrd or kind of embarrassed, instead of manifesting the same respect and reverence that they do when, for example, they are singing the "Our Father" in the canticles of the holy mass. Finally, the law does not only forbid the singing or playing of the anthem for mere recreation, amusement or entertainment --such as the Christmas carols and all other popular songs are -- but also specifically allows it to be played only in the following places and/or occasions: (a) International competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a participating representative; (b) Local competitions; (c) Before the initial and last screening of films and before the start of theatre presentations; (d) During the "signing off" and "signing on" of broadcasting stations; and (e) Other occasions as may be allowed by the National Historical Institute.
Indeed, I refuse to believe -- alas, it's a monumental pity, if true -- that Cong. Golez really knows nothing about the foregoing regulations. Maybe, just maybe -- as, truth to tell, many so called (dis)honorable congressmen do -- he merely did not want to see the present Congress eventually closing without a record of a bill he had authored, regardless of how laughable or stupid that bill might be.
Why? Ah, simply because there are at least two (2) existing laws that Golez's bill will squarely contradict from the very outset. The first is Republic Act No. 1265, providing that, during flag ceremonies, the national anthem may only be sung or played by the school band, or both. In other words, any rendition from tape recordings -- such as what is true of Christmas carols or any other entertainment songs, for that matter -- is not allowed. Or, with that, does Golez envision that malls would engage the services of a choir or bond to sing or play our national anthem three times daily, 365 days a year?
The other law is Republic Act No. 8491, otherwise otherwise known as "The Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines." Strictly speaking, this law does not also allow the taped rendition of our anthem. Further, it provides that whenever the National Anthem is played in any public gathering, whether by a band, by a choir, or both, the public shall simultaneously sing the anthem and, as a sign of respect, reverence, patriotism and national pride, all persons shall stand at full attention and face the Philippine flag if there is one deisplayed and, if none, shall face the band or the conductor, or the singing choir. Then, at the first note, everybody shall execute a salute by placing his right palm over his left chest. Given these regulatory circumstances, I cannot see how requiring malls to play, through sheer tape reditions, of course, the national anthem three times a day in all malls, as Christmas carols presently are being played during the holiday season, without the people at the malls feeling awkwrd or kind of embarrassed, instead of manifesting the same respect and reverence that they do when, for example, they are singing the "Our Father" in the canticles of the holy mass. Finally, the law does not only forbid the singing or playing of the anthem for mere recreation, amusement or entertainment --such as the Christmas carols and all other popular songs are -- but also specifically allows it to be played only in the following places and/or occasions: (a) International competitions where the Philippines is the host or has a participating representative; (b) Local competitions; (c) Before the initial and last screening of films and before the start of theatre presentations; (d) During the "signing off" and "signing on" of broadcasting stations; and (e) Other occasions as may be allowed by the National Historical Institute.
Indeed, I refuse to believe -- alas, it's a monumental pity, if true -- that Cong. Golez really knows nothing about the foregoing regulations. Maybe, just maybe -- as, truth to tell, many so called (dis)honorable congressmen do -- he merely did not want to see the present Congress eventually closing without a record of a bill he had authored, regardless of how laughable or stupid that bill might be.
Lunes, Disyembre 24, 2012
DOES 'SEXUAL MORALITY' STILL EXIST?
As today is Christmas Day, I beg a gift from my viewers: allow me this one "last hirit" against the RH Bill. After this, I promise no longer to discuss this subject matter in my blogs -- in deference to Sen. Ping Lascon's wish, as quoted in the news today, saying: "After RH War, let healing begin."
One recalls that of the 37 or so amendments that Sen. Tito Sotto had wanted in the Bill was the removal of the phrase "for safe and satisfying sex." I think Sen. Enrile also wanted it removed -- which, as we know, Sen. Pia Cayetano, the principal author of the RH Bill, had very vehemently opposed. Indeed, I could not help but ponder unto my self: Suppose that, instead of removing that phrase, Enrile/Sotto simply suggested the insertion of the word "moral," after "for," would Cayetano have still rejected it just the same? I would like to think so, otherwise, it's unthinkable that she would have not thought of that word in the first place.
Which, in turn, easily brings me to another question: Does "sexual morality" still exist in our society today? Probably not anymore, if we begin to consider that the society in which we live today has obviously become relatively more sex-obsessed than in the days of our ancestors, who had consistently preached and quite invariably practiced the virtue of self-discipline, self-control, self-denial in everything that has to do with sex. Well, that is as far as I have personally learned from my parents, I do not know about others.
As things stand, it seems to me that when we compare the role of sex in the mind of people then and before, there is a very clear difference. We now live in an entertainment world, i.e. such as made up of the movies, TV and like informal parties, where talks and jokes and day to day advertisements, do center on sex. Indeed, so much so that if people's lust for sex would miraculously stop, then our whole society might perhaps be less satisfying to us. Without that lust, advertising would be useless -- isn't it that all advertisements we see today, e.g. shampoo, cigarettes and wines, are designed to attract either the male or the female sex? And so, without advertising, our society, or a large part of our economy, might leave much to be desired. Why? Simply because our society, by extension, our economy, is very largely founded on greed for luxuries, sex is just one of those, that is for advertising to arouse.. And lest we forget, social and economic issues predominantly constitute every politicians campaign slogan.
This suddenly calls to mind a cartoon I saw many years ago. It depicted Moses standing on top of Mt. Sinai, holding a clipboard and reporting to God about what the people thought about the Ten Commandments "Sir, almost everybody approves the Commandment against killing, a large part abides by the one about stealing, but only a very negligible number can vow against adultery." Adulterers, as we all must admit, abhors "sexual morality" in the same way as a teenage girl doing sex outside of marriage is doing a sexually immoral act. The thing is, under the RH Law, there is nothing wrong about it for as long as an adulterer is not caught by his/her spouse or the girl by her parents, or the act does not result in unwanted pregnancy through the use of contraceptives. In other words, safety, that is, a sexual act not resulting in pregnancy, and satisfying sex now seems to be the only things worth considering. Forget if the act is moral or legal. But come to think of it, let's be honest: is sex with a man using condom really more satisfying than one without? Just asking, because my own experience tells me it's so much less.
One recalls that of the 37 or so amendments that Sen. Tito Sotto had wanted in the Bill was the removal of the phrase "for safe and satisfying sex." I think Sen. Enrile also wanted it removed -- which, as we know, Sen. Pia Cayetano, the principal author of the RH Bill, had very vehemently opposed. Indeed, I could not help but ponder unto my self: Suppose that, instead of removing that phrase, Enrile/Sotto simply suggested the insertion of the word "moral," after "for," would Cayetano have still rejected it just the same? I would like to think so, otherwise, it's unthinkable that she would have not thought of that word in the first place.
Which, in turn, easily brings me to another question: Does "sexual morality" still exist in our society today? Probably not anymore, if we begin to consider that the society in which we live today has obviously become relatively more sex-obsessed than in the days of our ancestors, who had consistently preached and quite invariably practiced the virtue of self-discipline, self-control, self-denial in everything that has to do with sex. Well, that is as far as I have personally learned from my parents, I do not know about others.
As things stand, it seems to me that when we compare the role of sex in the mind of people then and before, there is a very clear difference. We now live in an entertainment world, i.e. such as made up of the movies, TV and like informal parties, where talks and jokes and day to day advertisements, do center on sex. Indeed, so much so that if people's lust for sex would miraculously stop, then our whole society might perhaps be less satisfying to us. Without that lust, advertising would be useless -- isn't it that all advertisements we see today, e.g. shampoo, cigarettes and wines, are designed to attract either the male or the female sex? And so, without advertising, our society, or a large part of our economy, might leave much to be desired. Why? Simply because our society, by extension, our economy, is very largely founded on greed for luxuries, sex is just one of those, that is for advertising to arouse.. And lest we forget, social and economic issues predominantly constitute every politicians campaign slogan.
This suddenly calls to mind a cartoon I saw many years ago. It depicted Moses standing on top of Mt. Sinai, holding a clipboard and reporting to God about what the people thought about the Ten Commandments "Sir, almost everybody approves the Commandment against killing, a large part abides by the one about stealing, but only a very negligible number can vow against adultery." Adulterers, as we all must admit, abhors "sexual morality" in the same way as a teenage girl doing sex outside of marriage is doing a sexually immoral act. The thing is, under the RH Law, there is nothing wrong about it for as long as an adulterer is not caught by his/her spouse or the girl by her parents, or the act does not result in unwanted pregnancy through the use of contraceptives. In other words, safety, that is, a sexual act not resulting in pregnancy, and satisfying sex now seems to be the only things worth considering. Forget if the act is moral or legal. But come to think of it, let's be honest: is sex with a man using condom really more satisfying than one without? Just asking, because my own experience tells me it's so much less.
Sabado, Disyembre 22, 2012
NAKAKALOKA!
"Aquino in no hurry to sign RH Bill" -- news! That, after certifying the bill as "urgent" in the dying days of this year's legislative agenda, and after sending his top Cabinet Secretaries to the House to ensure passage of the Bill -- in turn, probably the first such happenstance in this country's political history. Alas, the badings would say: "Nakakaloka!"
Truth is there are a number of nakakaloka things in our midst and times. For example, some 32 congressmen voted No! during the second reading of the RH bill in the Lower House, only to be be absent and not to be counted in the third reading. In the same breath, one congressmen had been previously quoted in the news as saying "I would rather die than vote for the RH Bill." Of course he fulfilled that promise:: he abstained from voting in the third and final reading.
In an unrelated subject matter, President Aquino during presidential inauguration also promised there was not going to be any new tax measures in his regime. He has just signed the highly controversial Sin Tax Law. After doing so, he said many Filipinos would be liberated from the vices of smoking and drinking -- well, except the President himself and several of his Cabinet ministers and close friends who are well known to be chain smokers and heavy drinkers. .
Probably the most "nakakaloka" of them all would be if -- repeat, would be if --the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines had failed to make good a threat voiced out sometime in September 2010 to call a civil disobedience as soon as the RH Bill finally became a law. Or to not excommunicate PNoy.
Truth is there are a number of nakakaloka things in our midst and times. For example, some 32 congressmen voted No! during the second reading of the RH bill in the Lower House, only to be be absent and not to be counted in the third reading. In the same breath, one congressmen had been previously quoted in the news as saying "I would rather die than vote for the RH Bill." Of course he fulfilled that promise:: he abstained from voting in the third and final reading.
In an unrelated subject matter, President Aquino during presidential inauguration also promised there was not going to be any new tax measures in his regime. He has just signed the highly controversial Sin Tax Law. After doing so, he said many Filipinos would be liberated from the vices of smoking and drinking -- well, except the President himself and several of his Cabinet ministers and close friends who are well known to be chain smokers and heavy drinkers. .
Probably the most "nakakaloka" of them all would be if -- repeat, would be if --the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines had failed to make good a threat voiced out sometime in September 2010 to call a civil disobedience as soon as the RH Bill finally became a law. Or to not excommunicate PNoy.
Huwebes, Disyembre 20, 2012
RUBBING SALT ON FRESH WOUND
Indeed, the Roman Catholic bishops had good reason to be irked with Speaker Belmonte saying: "divorce is next" following the passage of the RH Bill. In street parlance, ika nga'y, nang-asar pa. I would have liked that Belmonte had been a little bit more circumspect, rather than rubbed salt on fresh wound -- well, even if he is a Protestant. Methinks that at this juncture, and as a high official in government, what's normally expected of him was to unite the nation after the still controversial passage of the RH Bill, rather than continue to divide the people in well nigh half.
To be honest, that bill's passage may be regarded not as much as a triumph of the state over the Church as the triumph of PNoy using the vast influence of executive powers to make the legislative branch of government a virtual rubber stamp. That there were originally 32 lawmakers who voted No in the second hearing but did not participate in the third hearing was living evidence that they have been "bought" -- most ostensibly with pork barrel funds.
Before anybody forgets, this country is predominantly Roman Catholic. Now is the time for the government to encourage this Catholic nation into moving on, rather than go into another more divisive debacle such as Divorce which, like the RH Bill, has been junked by our legislators before.
True, we may be the only nation in the whole world, except the Vatican, without a divorce law. I have not personally witnessed a wedding in a place where there is divorce, so I wonder how or into what words they have changed the traditional nuptial vow, "in sickness and in pain, for better or for worse, till death do us part" . . Marriage is a promise. Only humans can bind themselves in a promise; animals cannot, because they only live by instincts and feelings, and only for the present. It is unfortunate that in countries with divorce, perhaps half of marriage vows are broken. This is awful for two reasons: the disastrous effect on children, and the decline in our sense of honor, meaning in not keeping his promise. A man who cannot keep his solemn promises is not a man, he is an animal. How then can we ever learn to trust one not to cheat in a lesser matter, e.g. renege on a loan with a bank, if he cheats on the most solemn promise of all: in marriage. The aftermath of divorce is always traumatic unhappiness for at least one person, sometimes two, and always for children.
In my humble view, a law that is as controversial as Reproductive Health should deserve some deeper national discernment than be too suddenly classified as "urgent" in the last dying days of the legislative agenda.. At any rate, my hope runs high that when the righter time for us the tackle the divorce comes, it would not end up as half-cooked because of too much pork. Il believe the RH Bill was.
To be honest, that bill's passage may be regarded not as much as a triumph of the state over the Church as the triumph of PNoy using the vast influence of executive powers to make the legislative branch of government a virtual rubber stamp. That there were originally 32 lawmakers who voted No in the second hearing but did not participate in the third hearing was living evidence that they have been "bought" -- most ostensibly with pork barrel funds.
Before anybody forgets, this country is predominantly Roman Catholic. Now is the time for the government to encourage this Catholic nation into moving on, rather than go into another more divisive debacle such as Divorce which, like the RH Bill, has been junked by our legislators before.
True, we may be the only nation in the whole world, except the Vatican, without a divorce law. I have not personally witnessed a wedding in a place where there is divorce, so I wonder how or into what words they have changed the traditional nuptial vow, "in sickness and in pain, for better or for worse, till death do us part" . . Marriage is a promise. Only humans can bind themselves in a promise; animals cannot, because they only live by instincts and feelings, and only for the present. It is unfortunate that in countries with divorce, perhaps half of marriage vows are broken. This is awful for two reasons: the disastrous effect on children, and the decline in our sense of honor, meaning in not keeping his promise. A man who cannot keep his solemn promises is not a man, he is an animal. How then can we ever learn to trust one not to cheat in a lesser matter, e.g. renege on a loan with a bank, if he cheats on the most solemn promise of all: in marriage. The aftermath of divorce is always traumatic unhappiness for at least one person, sometimes two, and always for children.
In my humble view, a law that is as controversial as Reproductive Health should deserve some deeper national discernment than be too suddenly classified as "urgent" in the last dying days of the legislative agenda.. At any rate, my hope runs high that when the righter time for us the tackle the divorce comes, it would not end up as half-cooked because of too much pork. Il believe the RH Bill was.
Miyerkules, Disyembre 19, 2012
INVERTED LOGIC
Not really so long ago, I had a letter about the party list system published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer under the title "redundant, unnecessary party-list system." Letters to broadsheet editors are normally subject to certain publishing standards, e.g. length, so I was not able to say everything I wished to say about that subject matter. Let then this article be a continuation or Part 2 thereof.
Indeed, the Party-List System is not only redundant and unnecessary from the very outset. In addition, the manner by which it qualifies party-list representatives to their respective seats in Congress is, in my well considered view, based on a formula that is not only inscrutable but carries an inverted logic.
Under Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per cent (20%) of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. On the other hand, Sections 11 and 12 of RA No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, carries the basic procedures for allocating party-list representation in Congress after each election, and provides as follows:
"The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be marked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections. Parties, organizations or coalitions receiving at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes counted for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each, provided that those garnering more than 2% of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; provided finally that each party, organization or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. The Comelec shall tally all the votes on a national basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the % of votes obtained by each party, organization or coalition as against the total national votes cast for the party list system."
Now, let us relate the above with the ongoing national concern towards the eventual abolition of the party-list system -- of course, this is only possible through a constitutional amendment -- and assume that, in the pursuit of that concern, the voters in the 2013 elections, perhaps onwards, would simply ignore and not vote for the party-list candidates. Truth is, not a few electors against the party-list system have long been doing that boycott even in previous elections.
The end-result of the above assumption would then be to considerably reduce the total number of national votes for the party-list system, which would in turn make it relatively much easier for each party-list participating in the elections to achieve the numerical equivalent of he two percent (2%) threshold vote requirement for a party-list to send a sectoral representative in Congress. That is, using some little algebra, if we let X to be the total number of national votes cast for the party-list, then 2% of the X after voters boycott the party-list election, will now suddenly be correspondingly lower, in turn eventually benefiting the party lists that voters in fact shy away from.
Alas, if the related logic here is not inverted, what is? On the other hand, one wonders if this inscrutable formula has been what our lawmakers had really intended. I don't quite think so. I would rather think the 20% allocation to party-list representative should be taken as maximum, not strictly mandatory to the extent that there had always to be a strict numerical interdependence between district and sectoral representatives.
There are of course several other "errors" in the 1987 charter that only a constitutional amendment could correct. The problem is, the President has been shying away from any such amendment. And I can't totlly blame him for that. Less be honest: who, or which President, would really want to throw away his own mother's Constitution during his own inconvenience I am saying this with malice towards none.
Indeed, the Party-List System is not only redundant and unnecessary from the very outset. In addition, the manner by which it qualifies party-list representatives to their respective seats in Congress is, in my well considered view, based on a formula that is not only inscrutable but carries an inverted logic.
Under Section 5(2), Article VI of the Constitution, the party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per cent (20%) of the total number of representatives including those under the party-list. On the other hand, Sections 11 and 12 of RA No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, carries the basic procedures for allocating party-list representation in Congress after each election, and provides as follows:
"The parties, organizations and coalitions shall be marked from the highest to the lowest based on the number of votes garnered during the elections. Parties, organizations or coalitions receiving at least two per cent (2%) of the total votes counted for the party-list system shall be entitled to one seat each, provided that those garnering more than 2% of the votes shall be entitled to additional seats in proportion to their total number of votes; provided finally that each party, organization or coalition shall be entitled to not more than three (3) seats. The Comelec shall tally all the votes on a national basis, rank them according to the number of votes received and allocate party-list representatives proportionately according to the % of votes obtained by each party, organization or coalition as against the total national votes cast for the party list system."
Now, let us relate the above with the ongoing national concern towards the eventual abolition of the party-list system -- of course, this is only possible through a constitutional amendment -- and assume that, in the pursuit of that concern, the voters in the 2013 elections, perhaps onwards, would simply ignore and not vote for the party-list candidates. Truth is, not a few electors against the party-list system have long been doing that boycott even in previous elections.
The end-result of the above assumption would then be to considerably reduce the total number of national votes for the party-list system, which would in turn make it relatively much easier for each party-list participating in the elections to achieve the numerical equivalent of he two percent (2%) threshold vote requirement for a party-list to send a sectoral representative in Congress. That is, using some little algebra, if we let X to be the total number of national votes cast for the party-list, then 2% of the X after voters boycott the party-list election, will now suddenly be correspondingly lower, in turn eventually benefiting the party lists that voters in fact shy away from.
Alas, if the related logic here is not inverted, what is? On the other hand, one wonders if this inscrutable formula has been what our lawmakers had really intended. I don't quite think so. I would rather think the 20% allocation to party-list representative should be taken as maximum, not strictly mandatory to the extent that there had always to be a strict numerical interdependence between district and sectoral representatives.
There are of course several other "errors" in the 1987 charter that only a constitutional amendment could correct. The problem is, the President has been shying away from any such amendment. And I can't totlly blame him for that. Less be honest: who, or which President, would really want to throw away his own mother's Constitution during his own inconvenience I am saying this with malice towards none.
Lunes, Disyembre 17, 2012
THE DIE IS CAST!
The die is cast! At very long last, spanning more than a decade of legislative debates. the highly controversial RH Bill has been passed. So be it! What more can I say, except to hope in earnest that three years from now -- thanks to one of the 37 amendments that Sen. Sotto insisted before the bill was finally put to a vote --the new law would be revisited for lawmakers -- hopefully no more at the mercy of the President through the pork barrel fund, as they are now -- would be able to take a second look at some provisions that in my view kind of border on morality.
For example, the bill's proponents believe there is nothing wrong with an unmarried woman having sex with another, provided she does not get pregnant, and so they strongly opposed the proposition of Sen. President Enrile Sen. Sotto to remove the phrase "towards a safe and satisfying sex" as the principal objective of contraception. "Safe" in the sense that the woman need not worry about getting pregnant, "satisfying" because, according to one columnist, that is why God gave women a "clitoris" and humans a brain. But what about "legal" -- does it no longer matter to them whether a girl in his early teens indulges in sex, or a relatively elder woman is in coitus a man not her husband -- vis-a-vis the moral law saying "though shalt not do that!" I really do not know about the RH Bill proponents' views about morality, but for me, moral laws are absolute, objective and universal, and not relative, subjective nor dependent upon any particular circumstances.
The Commandment, "Though shall not commit adultery," is a moral absolute. It does not depend on our feelings or social mores or consequences. It does not suddenly become right when one feels in love and aches for a "safe and satisfying sex," or when society tolerates it. That is exactly the same as when an unmarried teenager engages in sex. That is absolutely immoral and will never be made moral by the mere use of contraceptives so that she will not be pregnant. Moral laws are "objective" not "subjective," something that is independent of us, our knowledge, our feelings, and our choices. They are like, for example, 2 plus 2 equals 4 is an absolute and objective truth, as absolute and objective as the plain truth that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is immoral; it can never be made moral by the use of a contraceptive in order to prevent
pregnancy. Alas, it is a great pity that the RH Bill proponents does not seem to subscribe to this.
Having said the above, there can't be no gainsaying the fact that had it not been for the President's intrusion into purely legislative affairs -- when first he called all administration congressman into a meeting about the rather slow pace, kuno, of the RH bill in Congress, next, on realizing that votes on the second reading was too close at 113-104 favoring the Pros. he did not only forthwith certify the bill as "urgent," but also sent 4 of his lapdogs, Roxas, Abad, Lacierda and Carandang as watchers on the third reading -- chances are the third voting might have turned out in favor of the Anti-RH Bill. Now, the President keeps saying he was not influencing the congressional voting. Ah, he better tell that to the Marines!
Of course, the die has now been cast, and may never be uncast. I hope others would forgive me for this, my Last Hirit, against the passage of the RH Bill. I still believe any legislative measure as controversial as this one, practically dividing the whole nation into half, should have been given some more time for deeper deliberation. For one thing, practically all of our past presidents since Cory had shied away from this highly debatable issue. For another, one recalls that even President Aquino was not totally sold to this bill during the presidential campaign, as well lately as at the height of the Coronal impeachment scandal. As things now stand, one can only hope against hope that the Catholic Bishops prediction that the new law may drastically change this country's overall moral values as the most predominantly Roman Catholic nation in the Far East.
For example, the bill's proponents believe there is nothing wrong with an unmarried woman having sex with another, provided she does not get pregnant, and so they strongly opposed the proposition of Sen. President Enrile Sen. Sotto to remove the phrase "towards a safe and satisfying sex" as the principal objective of contraception. "Safe" in the sense that the woman need not worry about getting pregnant, "satisfying" because, according to one columnist, that is why God gave women a "clitoris" and humans a brain. But what about "legal" -- does it no longer matter to them whether a girl in his early teens indulges in sex, or a relatively elder woman is in coitus a man not her husband -- vis-a-vis the moral law saying "though shalt not do that!" I really do not know about the RH Bill proponents' views about morality, but for me, moral laws are absolute, objective and universal, and not relative, subjective nor dependent upon any particular circumstances.
The Commandment, "Though shall not commit adultery," is a moral absolute. It does not depend on our feelings or social mores or consequences. It does not suddenly become right when one feels in love and aches for a "safe and satisfying sex," or when society tolerates it. That is exactly the same as when an unmarried teenager engages in sex. That is absolutely immoral and will never be made moral by the mere use of contraceptives so that she will not be pregnant. Moral laws are "objective" not "subjective," something that is independent of us, our knowledge, our feelings, and our choices. They are like, for example, 2 plus 2 equals 4 is an absolute and objective truth, as absolute and objective as the plain truth that sexual intercourse outside of marriage is immoral; it can never be made moral by the use of a contraceptive in order to prevent
pregnancy. Alas, it is a great pity that the RH Bill proponents does not seem to subscribe to this.
Having said the above, there can't be no gainsaying the fact that had it not been for the President's intrusion into purely legislative affairs -- when first he called all administration congressman into a meeting about the rather slow pace, kuno, of the RH bill in Congress, next, on realizing that votes on the second reading was too close at 113-104 favoring the Pros. he did not only forthwith certify the bill as "urgent," but also sent 4 of his lapdogs, Roxas, Abad, Lacierda and Carandang as watchers on the third reading -- chances are the third voting might have turned out in favor of the Anti-RH Bill. Now, the President keeps saying he was not influencing the congressional voting. Ah, he better tell that to the Marines!
Of course, the die has now been cast, and may never be uncast. I hope others would forgive me for this, my Last Hirit, against the passage of the RH Bill. I still believe any legislative measure as controversial as this one, practically dividing the whole nation into half, should have been given some more time for deeper deliberation. For one thing, practically all of our past presidents since Cory had shied away from this highly debatable issue. For another, one recalls that even President Aquino was not totally sold to this bill during the presidential campaign, as well lately as at the height of the Coronal impeachment scandal. As things now stand, one can only hope against hope that the Catholic Bishops prediction that the new law may drastically change this country's overall moral values as the most predominantly Roman Catholic nation in the Far East.
Biyernes, Disyembre 14, 2012
SPORTSMANSHIP
Where I stand, sportsmanship is an ethos or personal disposition to enjoy a sport activity solely for its own sake, with due consideration, come what may, for fairness, ethics, moral values, respect and a sense of sincere fellowship with one's opponent. As a component of morality in sport, it is made up of two intrinsic and overlapping elements: fair play and character. As such, it has evolved two other popular terms in our contemporary sports jargon: "good sport" meaning a good "winner" as well as a good "loser," and "sore loser" which is as self-explanatory as the first. Each characteristic in turn applies not solely to the player per se but but also necessarily extends to his supporters as well.
Truly lamentable, indeed, was the news report that two of Manny Pacquiao's most trusted "alalays" -- his assistant trainer Buboy Fernandez and his close adviser Michael Konez -- had collaborated in assaulting photo-journalist Al Bello, while the latter was taking shots at the face-down fallen Pacquiao at the end of his fourth encounter with Marquez. The assault has been amply supported by photographs showing Konez grabbing Bello at the back of his shirt while a comparatively bulky Fernandez was kicking the photographer. I regret to say this, but whether one likes it or not, the deplorable incident has inevitably put Pacquiao's image into some kind of a sore loser before the eyes of boxing afficionados worldwide -- although only via "extension."
It has been known that the assault was precipitated by a prior request of Manny's chief trainer, Freddie Roach, that Bello refrained from taking a shot of Manny as he laid unconscious on the canvass following his sixth-round knockdown by Marquez -- which request, Bello, as a professional journalist, had of course firmly declined, as indeed he must. To be sure, I don't recall a similar unfortunate event reported in the aftermath of British Hatton's monumental knockout by Manny several years ago.
That Roach had so far shown remorse and duly apologized for such request, whereas Fernandez and Konez have opted to just remain silent, truly leaves very much to be desired,. This has in turn compelled the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines to issue a strong statement denouncing what Konuz and Fernandez had done and urging Manny to penalize Fernandez and Konez for their clearly unfair and arrogant behavior.
Maybe -- well, just maybe -- Manny Pacquiao, who has always been a true sportsman in all his fights -- has just not been able to entirely wake up into and accept the painful reality of his unforeseen defeat. I am sure that, soon as he does, given his widely acclaimed humility, he would what he must: put his two favorite, yet grievously remorseless, confidants to task, ideally meting them appropriate censure for their manifest behavior as sore losers. It could have been much better, of course, had any such action from Manny not been simply overtaken by the unfortunate news reports. For, indeed, true sportsmanship, like a fountain, flows naturally from one's character; it is not something merely "urged" by external happenstances.
Incidentally, when recently interviewed on this issue, Manny Pacquiao was seemingly evasive, saying he was not in a position to comment on it. Alas, So Be It!
Truly lamentable, indeed, was the news report that two of Manny Pacquiao's most trusted "alalays" -- his assistant trainer Buboy Fernandez and his close adviser Michael Konez -- had collaborated in assaulting photo-journalist Al Bello, while the latter was taking shots at the face-down fallen Pacquiao at the end of his fourth encounter with Marquez. The assault has been amply supported by photographs showing Konez grabbing Bello at the back of his shirt while a comparatively bulky Fernandez was kicking the photographer. I regret to say this, but whether one likes it or not, the deplorable incident has inevitably put Pacquiao's image into some kind of a sore loser before the eyes of boxing afficionados worldwide -- although only via "extension."
It has been known that the assault was precipitated by a prior request of Manny's chief trainer, Freddie Roach, that Bello refrained from taking a shot of Manny as he laid unconscious on the canvass following his sixth-round knockdown by Marquez -- which request, Bello, as a professional journalist, had of course firmly declined, as indeed he must. To be sure, I don't recall a similar unfortunate event reported in the aftermath of British Hatton's monumental knockout by Manny several years ago.
That Roach had so far shown remorse and duly apologized for such request, whereas Fernandez and Konez have opted to just remain silent, truly leaves very much to be desired,. This has in turn compelled the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines to issue a strong statement denouncing what Konuz and Fernandez had done and urging Manny to penalize Fernandez and Konez for their clearly unfair and arrogant behavior.
Maybe -- well, just maybe -- Manny Pacquiao, who has always been a true sportsman in all his fights -- has just not been able to entirely wake up into and accept the painful reality of his unforeseen defeat. I am sure that, soon as he does, given his widely acclaimed humility, he would what he must: put his two favorite, yet grievously remorseless, confidants to task, ideally meting them appropriate censure for their manifest behavior as sore losers. It could have been much better, of course, had any such action from Manny not been simply overtaken by the unfortunate news reports. For, indeed, true sportsmanship, like a fountain, flows naturally from one's character; it is not something merely "urged" by external happenstances.
Incidentally, when recently interviewed on this issue, Manny Pacquiao was seemingly evasive, saying he was not in a position to comment on it. Alas, So Be It!
REMEMBERING FPJ
Today, December 14th, the Philippine movie industry is remembering Fernando Poe Jr., also called Da King, on his eighth death anniversary. I just heard they are opening a statue of FPJ somewhere in Roxas Blvd. where, if memory serves me right, some scenes in a number of FPJ films had been location-shot.
I am proud to say that since my early childhood days, FPJ has been my movie idol. I say "has,' not "had," because up to now, I haven't missed a picture of FPJ in TV, even as most of them I have seen for many, many times already. Well, unless I didn't know one is showing. Truth is, at this very moment, as I begin writing this piece, I have just finished watching one of his early movies: - the one titled "One Day, Isang Araw," which he did with then still child star, Matet de Leon, newly blooming Dawn Zulueta, his now-deceased favorite side kick in nearly all his movies, Dencio Padilla, and his equally favorite kontra-bida, Paquito Diaz, also now resting in peace. Indeed, as of now, my apos or our housemaid, would receive a long tongue-lashing from me if I missed watching an FPJ film because they did not tell me there's one scheduled in TV.
I hope my blog-viewers won't get peeved if, on this special occasion, I share with them a short poem in sonnet form, which I wrote eight years ago, soon after FPJ lost to GMA in the 2004 presidential elections, as my silent tribute to my lost idol. It was farthest from my imagination, then, that in less than six months after I wrote this poem, exactly eight years to the day today, FPJ would meet his final fate on earth. May he rest in peace.
ODE TO A LOST MESSIAH
Trafficked behind the spell of summer's long travail
A rainbow casts at last its long cascading trail
Of polychromes that, arched in full-blown piebald band
Across the dome , out-beams a fairy's magic wand.
Nearby, the stand-by clouds in ochreous shrouds evolve
To prophesy that rain would soon the drought dissolve;.
Below, the barren earth's wide-fissured mouths look up
Agape for one good gasp of moistured air to sup.
Upon its bosoms bleat brown paddies parched and pall,
Earnestly entreating a fleeting manna' fall..
But woe! The fogs fly far from thawing down the plain,
Alas, great gulfs divide the rainbow and the rain!
Somewhere, in a forlorn and long forsaken shed,
Near yellowed heaps of hay, hungry horses lie dead.
I am proud to say that since my early childhood days, FPJ has been my movie idol. I say "has,' not "had," because up to now, I haven't missed a picture of FPJ in TV, even as most of them I have seen for many, many times already. Well, unless I didn't know one is showing. Truth is, at this very moment, as I begin writing this piece, I have just finished watching one of his early movies: - the one titled "One Day, Isang Araw," which he did with then still child star, Matet de Leon, newly blooming Dawn Zulueta, his now-deceased favorite side kick in nearly all his movies, Dencio Padilla, and his equally favorite kontra-bida, Paquito Diaz, also now resting in peace. Indeed, as of now, my apos or our housemaid, would receive a long tongue-lashing from me if I missed watching an FPJ film because they did not tell me there's one scheduled in TV.
I hope my blog-viewers won't get peeved if, on this special occasion, I share with them a short poem in sonnet form, which I wrote eight years ago, soon after FPJ lost to GMA in the 2004 presidential elections, as my silent tribute to my lost idol. It was farthest from my imagination, then, that in less than six months after I wrote this poem, exactly eight years to the day today, FPJ would meet his final fate on earth. May he rest in peace.
ODE TO A LOST MESSIAH
Trafficked behind the spell of summer's long travail
A rainbow casts at last its long cascading trail
Of polychromes that, arched in full-blown piebald band
Across the dome , out-beams a fairy's magic wand.
Nearby, the stand-by clouds in ochreous shrouds evolve
To prophesy that rain would soon the drought dissolve;.
Below, the barren earth's wide-fissured mouths look up
Agape for one good gasp of moistured air to sup.
Upon its bosoms bleat brown paddies parched and pall,
Earnestly entreating a fleeting manna' fall..
But woe! The fogs fly far from thawing down the plain,
Alas, great gulfs divide the rainbow and the rain!
Somewhere, in a forlorn and long forsaken shed,
Near yellowed heaps of hay, hungry horses lie dead.
Miyerkules, Disyembre 12, 2012
TACTLESS!
Columnist Rigoberto Tiglao said quite a mouthful against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno with respect to her Administrative Order No.175-2010 establishing a Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Cebu City, as well as against Liberal Party stalwart Francis Pangilinan for immediately coming to Sereno's defense.
I am sure not a few dogged supporters of the present administration who have read the said Tiglao column (PDI, 12/13/2012) will forthwith once again lose no time lambasting Tiglao for being extremely anti-PNoy -- although of course PNoy has absolutely nothing to do with this debacle. To be honest, I also at times tend to take Tiglao's words with a grain of salt. This time around, nevertheless, I think there is nothing condemnable in what he said on this particular issue.
First, it was absolutely undeniable that there had been a previous en banc Supreme Court resolution sometime during former CJ Renato Corona's time, opposing -- or perhaps at least putting on hold for further deliberation -- the establishment of RCAO-7 in Cebu. Even the dumbest law student certainly knows an "en banc" resolution by a collegial body can only be revered by an equally "en banc" resolution. Now, let's get real: and be honest at least to ourselves if not to others! Indeed, Tiglao, or anybody else for that matter, could be validly blamed for thinking that, as the highest Justice of the land, Sereno does not even know what an en back resolution means. Or, does she think that, as protegee of the most powerful official of the land, she can break that time-honored rule?
Neither, in the second place, may Tiglao be regarded as unduly demeaning Pangilinan for forthwith rushing to the media in Sereno's defense. So doing, Pangilinan had only summoned every right-thinking reader into forming three unwholesome impression of him as an otherwise lawmaker. One, like Sereno, he likewise do not know what an en banc resolution is. Two, given the relative bad light that Corona may have left in the eyes of the public, Pangilinan had so foolishly thought he could muster enough public-opinion support or justification for Sereno's shocking blunder. And three, as a Senator and avid supporter of the President -- though, as refuse to believe how his position in this fiasco would delight PNoy -- he unnecessarily broke in the process the time-honored balance of power between the three equal branches of government.
As things stand, that which Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Sen. Francis Pangilinan did had clearly mirrored an utter lack of a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations or avoid offense. The dictionary has an exact word for it: TACTLESS. That is, truth to tell so disgraceful an adjective that nobody -- very much less a high official in government or in a private organization -- would ever wish to be attached to him. The good news is Pangilinan stays in the Senate only until June next year; the bad news is Sereno will be this country's Chief Justice for the next eighteen years.
I am sure not a few dogged supporters of the present administration who have read the said Tiglao column (PDI, 12/13/2012) will forthwith once again lose no time lambasting Tiglao for being extremely anti-PNoy -- although of course PNoy has absolutely nothing to do with this debacle. To be honest, I also at times tend to take Tiglao's words with a grain of salt. This time around, nevertheless, I think there is nothing condemnable in what he said on this particular issue.
First, it was absolutely undeniable that there had been a previous en banc Supreme Court resolution sometime during former CJ Renato Corona's time, opposing -- or perhaps at least putting on hold for further deliberation -- the establishment of RCAO-7 in Cebu. Even the dumbest law student certainly knows an "en banc" resolution by a collegial body can only be revered by an equally "en banc" resolution. Now, let's get real: and be honest at least to ourselves if not to others! Indeed, Tiglao, or anybody else for that matter, could be validly blamed for thinking that, as the highest Justice of the land, Sereno does not even know what an en back resolution means. Or, does she think that, as protegee of the most powerful official of the land, she can break that time-honored rule?
Neither, in the second place, may Tiglao be regarded as unduly demeaning Pangilinan for forthwith rushing to the media in Sereno's defense. So doing, Pangilinan had only summoned every right-thinking reader into forming three unwholesome impression of him as an otherwise lawmaker. One, like Sereno, he likewise do not know what an en banc resolution is. Two, given the relative bad light that Corona may have left in the eyes of the public, Pangilinan had so foolishly thought he could muster enough public-opinion support or justification for Sereno's shocking blunder. And three, as a Senator and avid supporter of the President -- though, as refuse to believe how his position in this fiasco would delight PNoy -- he unnecessarily broke in the process the time-honored balance of power between the three equal branches of government.
As things stand, that which Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Sen. Francis Pangilinan did had clearly mirrored an utter lack of a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations or avoid offense. The dictionary has an exact word for it: TACTLESS. That is, truth to tell so disgraceful an adjective that nobody -- very much less a high official in government or in a private organization -- would ever wish to be attached to him. The good news is Pangilinan stays in the Senate only until June next year; the bad news is Sereno will be this country's Chief Justice for the next eighteen years.
Martes, Disyembre 11, 2012
MANNY A MILKING COW OF PROTESTANT PASTORS?
The banner story (which all along had been datelined six months ago in Inquirer-Mindanao) that Protestant pastors had been swarming Pacquiao for cash and various perks since he changed his faith was truly mind-boggling. At least, now I know why Mommy Dionisia had appeared in a television interview soon after her son's defeat as kind of "scolding" the pastors. Indeed, that story could have just fizzled out unnoticed like a shooting star in the news local horizons, had not certain quarters been quoted as attributing Manny's loss to Marquez to his sudden change of religion. Such attribution is of course pure gobbledegook!
Quite inevitably, the news cannot but leave a very unpalatable taste in the mouths of Protestants. In fairness, chances are the pastors involved -- some of whom have personally admitted asking boons from Manny in exchange for the role they played in making him change his erstwhile undesirable habits or life styles -- may not be true Protestants in the strict sense of the word; some say they are merely "born-again Christians" and, truth to tell, both Catholics and Protestants are "Christians." As things stand, even so, "born-agains" are of two kinds, each one being mostly a "break-away" group from either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant sect. Those who were truly Roman Catholics call themselves "Born-Again Charismatics", while those who were originally Protestants -- whose denominations, by the way, are so numerous in our midst and times -- are more commonly called "Born-Again Protestants." Only very few Charismatic groups now exist under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas many "Born-Again Protestants" that remain still galore.may have been once upon a time true Roman Catholics.
I have ventured to opine in my last blog that the sheer flair to be a leader-preacher -- to be kind of "bida" or "sikat" in a manner of speaking, is what oftentimes tempt otherwise true-born Catholics to call themselves "Born-Agains." And Pacquiao is just one of them. But the fact remains they are comparatively more identifiable with Protestantism than with Catholicism. That is clearly because, like Pacquiao, they abandon their allegiance to the Holy Rosary and the sign of the cross (items quite anathema to Protestantism) in expressing their respective religiosity. And so, Protestants may not just so easily disown the pastors who have turned Manny into a milking cow. That, quite unfortunately is the little problem in this regard. The Roman Catholic Church does have more control, better regulation on members of their flock than does the Protestant.
Alas, I am raring to hear or see how the Protestant movement in the Philippines will be able to handle this truly unfortunate happenstance. This is even as, at the very least, it calls to mind a related news once upon a time wherein Catholic bishops had been reported as accepting suspicious "envelopes" from GMA.
Quite inevitably, the news cannot but leave a very unpalatable taste in the mouths of Protestants. In fairness, chances are the pastors involved -- some of whom have personally admitted asking boons from Manny in exchange for the role they played in making him change his erstwhile undesirable habits or life styles -- may not be true Protestants in the strict sense of the word; some say they are merely "born-again Christians" and, truth to tell, both Catholics and Protestants are "Christians." As things stand, even so, "born-agains" are of two kinds, each one being mostly a "break-away" group from either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant sect. Those who were truly Roman Catholics call themselves "Born-Again Charismatics", while those who were originally Protestants -- whose denominations, by the way, are so numerous in our midst and times -- are more commonly called "Born-Again Protestants." Only very few Charismatic groups now exist under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas many "Born-Again Protestants" that remain still galore.may have been once upon a time true Roman Catholics.
I have ventured to opine in my last blog that the sheer flair to be a leader-preacher -- to be kind of "bida" or "sikat" in a manner of speaking, is what oftentimes tempt otherwise true-born Catholics to call themselves "Born-Agains." And Pacquiao is just one of them. But the fact remains they are comparatively more identifiable with Protestantism than with Catholicism. That is clearly because, like Pacquiao, they abandon their allegiance to the Holy Rosary and the sign of the cross (items quite anathema to Protestantism) in expressing their respective religiosity. And so, Protestants may not just so easily disown the pastors who have turned Manny into a milking cow. That, quite unfortunately is the little problem in this regard. The Roman Catholic Church does have more control, better regulation on members of their flock than does the Protestant.
Alas, I am raring to hear or see how the Protestant movement in the Philippines will be able to handle this truly unfortunate happenstance. This is even as, at the very least, it calls to mind a related news once upon a time wherein Catholic bishops had been reported as accepting suspicious "envelopes" from GMA.
Linggo, Disyembre 9, 2012
MANNY'S SUDDEN CHANGE OF FAITH
The whys and hows behind Juan Manuel Marquez' painful knockout of Manny Pacquiao in the last dying second of the sixth round of their much ballyhooed fourth encounter will be a favorite talk of the town for many days to come. One thing that certainly need not simply pass unnoticed is that of some fans somehow attributing Pacman's loss to his sudden change of religion - apparently from Roman Catholic to Born-Again Charismatics. Even Nanay Dionisia herself, Manny's equally well-known mother, when she was interviewed by the media soon after the bout, was quoted as somewhat "scolding" certain unnamed "pastors" who must have tempted her son into joining their sect.
Indeed, one recalls that Manny must have changed his faith just soon before his unsuccessful fight with Bradley last year. A truly devout Roman Catholic, Manny's trust in his God used to know no bounds. He would always wear his rosary, kneel down and make the sign of the cross before the start of each round, and more earnestly so every time he won. He had stopped doing that when he fought Bradley, as well as in his recent bout with Marquez who, quite noticeably, was the one who never forgot to make the sign of the cross before each round. Needlessly emphasizing, the Holy Rosary, which represents the Virgin Mary whose Immaculate Conception the whole nation was celebrating on the night of the Pacquiao-Marquez fight, as well as the sign of the cross, are two of the relics or rituals that Protestantism does not abide by.
That said, I definitely am not saying that Manny's sudden change of faith was that which had caused his two successive downfalls, for no one, indeed, may ever know, much less validly say, that. Even so, my gut feel -- which very seldom lies to me -- keeps suggesting that this kind of doubt had somehow lingered in his mind, and perhaps even in Nanay Dionisia's too, when he lost to Bradley, and perhaps much more as he now nurses a meek remorse at being knocked down by "El Dinamita," an unfortunate happenstance which, truth to tell, was farthest from the minds of most boxing aficionados, particularly in the Philippines. But of course, Manny is not about to go back to his old faith simply because of this stunning loss. On the contrary, he should probably need to pray more devoutly to his new-found God the next time around.
Why Manny was tempted into changing his religion, I humbly submit my own humble opinion. As most everybody has seen him, Manny is the kind of person who wishes to excel in every human activity under the sun. He wanted, and reasonably succeeded, to be a movie and television celebrity, in dancing, singing and playing the guitar, in raising the best fighting cocks in town, in becoming kind of a womanizer, a lawmaker -- all in addition to being the world's greatest boxer of all times. In fact, he practically leads all others in every way of life he indulges in, except perhaps in matters of religion. I mean, in the Roman Catholic faith, it is only the priests of pastors that leads, at the very most, the lay ministers whose actions before the public nonetheless remain regulated by the rules of the parish they represent.
As myself a practicing Roman Catholic, I feel and believe that except in church rituals, one must read the Bible all by himself alone directly talking to God. As we all know, bible reading before members of our flock is commonplace only during the rituals of the holy mass (as in First and Second Readings). On the other hand, most born-again or Christian charismatic movements, mostly being spontaneously self-proclaimed (I mean, anybody may form his own group and start preaching) or mere breakaway groups from Protestantism, are free to conduct bible studies as they wish to in public, which tends to satisfy man's natural flair to be a leader, which in turn, is one of Manny Pacquiao's particular weaknesses, and which he cannot freely do under his old sect. And so, since more or less a year ago, Manny has found great delights in being reported by the media every now and then as conducting this or that bible reading or bible study before a group of followers, whether they belong to Roman Catholicism or the Born-Again Charismatic movement. This kind of leadership he will never be able to actively practice as a Roman Catholic, because virtually only the priests and full-fledged theologians are given absolute freedom to preach. Truth is -- I was surprised when I had first known it -- the Bible is not among the required textbooks in schools for the priests. To avoid or forestall any possible misinterpretations of biblical provisions -- as indeed happens almost daily with different sects endlessly debating against each other in TV shows -- students of theology do study the Bible only through the book written by St. Thomas de Aquinas. Hence, the Holy Bible is practically forbidden in the seminaries.
There is of course nothing grievously wrong with, and never would I attempt to criticize, the varying practices under Protestantism as against those in the Roman Catholic Church. I am just trying to explain what in my very humble, yet well-considered, analysis had caused Manny to suddenly change his sect. At the end of the day, everything that happens to us in this world, without exception, is the result of our absolute freedom to choose between at least two things. What principally matters is that we are always ready, sans a bit of remorse, to accept the consequences of our choice.
Indeed, one recalls that Manny must have changed his faith just soon before his unsuccessful fight with Bradley last year. A truly devout Roman Catholic, Manny's trust in his God used to know no bounds. He would always wear his rosary, kneel down and make the sign of the cross before the start of each round, and more earnestly so every time he won. He had stopped doing that when he fought Bradley, as well as in his recent bout with Marquez who, quite noticeably, was the one who never forgot to make the sign of the cross before each round. Needlessly emphasizing, the Holy Rosary, which represents the Virgin Mary whose Immaculate Conception the whole nation was celebrating on the night of the Pacquiao-Marquez fight, as well as the sign of the cross, are two of the relics or rituals that Protestantism does not abide by.
That said, I definitely am not saying that Manny's sudden change of faith was that which had caused his two successive downfalls, for no one, indeed, may ever know, much less validly say, that. Even so, my gut feel -- which very seldom lies to me -- keeps suggesting that this kind of doubt had somehow lingered in his mind, and perhaps even in Nanay Dionisia's too, when he lost to Bradley, and perhaps much more as he now nurses a meek remorse at being knocked down by "El Dinamita," an unfortunate happenstance which, truth to tell, was farthest from the minds of most boxing aficionados, particularly in the Philippines. But of course, Manny is not about to go back to his old faith simply because of this stunning loss. On the contrary, he should probably need to pray more devoutly to his new-found God the next time around.
Why Manny was tempted into changing his religion, I humbly submit my own humble opinion. As most everybody has seen him, Manny is the kind of person who wishes to excel in every human activity under the sun. He wanted, and reasonably succeeded, to be a movie and television celebrity, in dancing, singing and playing the guitar, in raising the best fighting cocks in town, in becoming kind of a womanizer, a lawmaker -- all in addition to being the world's greatest boxer of all times. In fact, he practically leads all others in every way of life he indulges in, except perhaps in matters of religion. I mean, in the Roman Catholic faith, it is only the priests of pastors that leads, at the very most, the lay ministers whose actions before the public nonetheless remain regulated by the rules of the parish they represent.
As myself a practicing Roman Catholic, I feel and believe that except in church rituals, one must read the Bible all by himself alone directly talking to God. As we all know, bible reading before members of our flock is commonplace only during the rituals of the holy mass (as in First and Second Readings). On the other hand, most born-again or Christian charismatic movements, mostly being spontaneously self-proclaimed (I mean, anybody may form his own group and start preaching) or mere breakaway groups from Protestantism, are free to conduct bible studies as they wish to in public, which tends to satisfy man's natural flair to be a leader, which in turn, is one of Manny Pacquiao's particular weaknesses, and which he cannot freely do under his old sect. And so, since more or less a year ago, Manny has found great delights in being reported by the media every now and then as conducting this or that bible reading or bible study before a group of followers, whether they belong to Roman Catholicism or the Born-Again Charismatic movement. This kind of leadership he will never be able to actively practice as a Roman Catholic, because virtually only the priests and full-fledged theologians are given absolute freedom to preach. Truth is -- I was surprised when I had first known it -- the Bible is not among the required textbooks in schools for the priests. To avoid or forestall any possible misinterpretations of biblical provisions -- as indeed happens almost daily with different sects endlessly debating against each other in TV shows -- students of theology do study the Bible only through the book written by St. Thomas de Aquinas. Hence, the Holy Bible is practically forbidden in the seminaries.
There is of course nothing grievously wrong with, and never would I attempt to criticize, the varying practices under Protestantism as against those in the Roman Catholic Church. I am just trying to explain what in my very humble, yet well-considered, analysis had caused Manny to suddenly change his sect. At the end of the day, everything that happens to us in this world, without exception, is the result of our absolute freedom to choose between at least two things. What principally matters is that we are always ready, sans a bit of remorse, to accept the consequences of our choice.
Miyerkules, Disyembre 5, 2012
DOES THE PRESIDENT REALLY SMOKE OR NOT??
For sure, many readers will once again react with disgust to Rigoberto Tiglao's recent column, "Is Aquino breaking anti-smoking laws daily?" Indeed, that may just be one tiny bead in the litany of this columnist's never-ending tirades against the present government. But let us please get real, at least for once, in this respect. Doesn't the question so simply emanate from a matter of plain common sense as to deserve an equally commonsensical answer?
I mean, given the existing Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series of 2009, which calls for a 100% smoke-free policy, practically a smoking prohibition that covers all government premises, buildings and grounds inside the Palace, where or how else, for heaven's sake, may the President, so hooked to the smoking vice as he himself admits it, afford to make even a short or passing puff while discharging his daily tasks? Methinks this is a question the presidential spokesperson should be able to objectively deal with in one of his daily encounters with the press -- without ifs, ands or buts -- at the very least, for the sake of the Freedom of Information Bill that is now being debated in Congress.
Of course, there may yet be nothing so grievously wrong with the President eventually saying: "mag-Presidente muna kayo!" After all, hasn't someone else said that before and apparently succeeded in stopping people from questioning his presidential prerogatives?
I mean, given the existing Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series of 2009, which calls for a 100% smoke-free policy, practically a smoking prohibition that covers all government premises, buildings and grounds inside the Palace, where or how else, for heaven's sake, may the President, so hooked to the smoking vice as he himself admits it, afford to make even a short or passing puff while discharging his daily tasks? Methinks this is a question the presidential spokesperson should be able to objectively deal with in one of his daily encounters with the press -- without ifs, ands or buts -- at the very least, for the sake of the Freedom of Information Bill that is now being debated in Congress.
Of course, there may yet be nothing so grievously wrong with the President eventually saying: "mag-Presidente muna kayo!" After all, hasn't someone else said that before and apparently succeeded in stopping people from questioning his presidential prerogatives?
Martes, Nobyembre 27, 2012
RECTO'S 13TH MONTH PAY-RELATED PROPOSAL
With Christmas just in the offing, the proposal of Sen. Ralph Recto to raise the tax-exemption threshold of the 13th Month Pay from P30,000 to P60,000 is surely good news. The bad news is, not everybody will benefit from it; only employees earning more than P30,000 a month, and there are not too many of them, anyway.
More than three decades after the passage of the Labor Code, one of whose principal objectives was to encourage collective bargaining, the bigger bulk of our working populace has yet been the unorganized sector -- for whom joining a labor union resembles joining the Katipunan in Bonifacio's times: one may not be jailed for insurrection but he puts his job security in great peril. Our unscrupulous employers should admit this grim reality, at least to themselves in good conscience, if not really to others. Unarguably still the most marginalized sector of Philippine society even after the spawning of that political animal called party-list system, this sector continues to depend solely and very precariously upon the minimum provisions of the Code, some of which have either grown obsolete or are deemed stupid from the very beginning.
For example, what whale of a difference does exist between a regular holiday and a special holiday for our laws to give higher premium pay to the former than to the latter? As it stands, a worker is paid twice his daily wage for working on a regular holiday, but gets only 30% on top of his basic wage if he works on a special holiday. Too, a daily rated employee who does not work on a regular holiday is guaranteed his normal wage for that day; he does not receive any pay if the holiday happens to be "special." Some says it is not the fault of an employee that a holiday is declared, so he need not suffer a sudden loss in pay -- that is, the money to buy his meal for the day -- simply because of a holiday. That is for me a stupid alibi! Truth is, regular holidays being in the calendar as early as January each year, as against the relatively unforeseen special holidays, it is more on the latter than on the former that a daily paid worker unduly suffers a loss of the money with which to buy his daily meal, strictly speaking. At any rate, isn't it the present practice of the government to proclaim and list down all holidays, regular or special, even before the close of any given year? Moreover, while relatively shorter workweeks, higher overtime/night-premium pay rates and longer vacation, sick and other leave entitlements than those provided by the Labor Code have long been quite common in many local industries, the unorganized labor sector just keeps looking desperately on the sidelines.
The more for sure will they look in envy at Recto's proposal. Without intending to sound ingrate, that it will benefit only employees belonging to the good senator's salary bracket cannot but leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
More than three decades after the passage of the Labor Code, one of whose principal objectives was to encourage collective bargaining, the bigger bulk of our working populace has yet been the unorganized sector -- for whom joining a labor union resembles joining the Katipunan in Bonifacio's times: one may not be jailed for insurrection but he puts his job security in great peril. Our unscrupulous employers should admit this grim reality, at least to themselves in good conscience, if not really to others. Unarguably still the most marginalized sector of Philippine society even after the spawning of that political animal called party-list system, this sector continues to depend solely and very precariously upon the minimum provisions of the Code, some of which have either grown obsolete or are deemed stupid from the very beginning.
For example, what whale of a difference does exist between a regular holiday and a special holiday for our laws to give higher premium pay to the former than to the latter? As it stands, a worker is paid twice his daily wage for working on a regular holiday, but gets only 30% on top of his basic wage if he works on a special holiday. Too, a daily rated employee who does not work on a regular holiday is guaranteed his normal wage for that day; he does not receive any pay if the holiday happens to be "special." Some says it is not the fault of an employee that a holiday is declared, so he need not suffer a sudden loss in pay -- that is, the money to buy his meal for the day -- simply because of a holiday. That is for me a stupid alibi! Truth is, regular holidays being in the calendar as early as January each year, as against the relatively unforeseen special holidays, it is more on the latter than on the former that a daily paid worker unduly suffers a loss of the money with which to buy his daily meal, strictly speaking. At any rate, isn't it the present practice of the government to proclaim and list down all holidays, regular or special, even before the close of any given year? Moreover, while relatively shorter workweeks, higher overtime/night-premium pay rates and longer vacation, sick and other leave entitlements than those provided by the Labor Code have long been quite common in many local industries, the unorganized labor sector just keeps looking desperately on the sidelines.
The more for sure will they look in envy at Recto's proposal. Without intending to sound ingrate, that it will benefit only employees belonging to the good senator's salary bracket cannot but leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
Martes, Nobyembre 20, 2012
AN ORDINANCE THAT BORDERS ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It bothers me endlessly, indeed, that a Quezon City ordinance requiring business establishment to install short-circuit television (CCTV) cameras under a "no CCTV, no business permit" policy has been passed without much ado, to take effect lst January 2013. Maybe, medyo "nakatulog ako sa pansitan" about this one; but I think there's noharm in my hereby putting out my two-centavo worth of comments thereon.
To begin with, let me state categorically that I personally have nothing against CCTV cameras. As a matter of fact, even long before this wonderful invention of modern times became in vogue in these parts, I had been making my own research about it as they were used in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, amid these highly uncertain times, I would have also liked at least one unit installed in my own residence, if only I have the means to afford it. In this life we always have a choice to make in everything we do. So, since I cannot afford a CCTV camera, I just would rather have to contend with strengthening the security locks around my house as reliably as I can. In the same token, not a few business establishments probably believe that the security guards that are deployed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week around their premises are sufficient security that, right or wrong, no one else may ever challenge. I honestly believe that maintaining a security crew is still our basic line of defense against criminal elements in our midst and times. That, in a nut shell, is why I think the ordinance providing for a "no CCTV no business permit' policy should have first been looked into more prudently. First and foremost, it removes the element of optionality in in the business establishment's decision making process.
Truth to tell, the benefits derivable from the CCTV cameras are well recognized throughout the world. I don't have any quarrel with that. Well, even though for me, "seeing" criminals doing their very act through a CCTV camera does not always necessarily mean "solving" the crime itself. If at all, that is possible only in supermarkets where a shoplifter caught in the CCTV camera as he steals something and hides it in his person; will surely be accosted by a security guard. As we all realize, most other criminal acts that happen during off-normal hours are only post-factor reported by the CCTV camera long after the criminal has escaped out of the crime scene. Then follows a long series of identifying the criminal, perhaps through the police or the NBI's cartographic procedures. But what if the criminal was wearing a wig or a fake facial mole or otherwised dressed as a woman? My plain common sense tells me that the CCTV cameras may indeed increase the the record of number of crimes "reported" without necessarily correspondingly increasing the number of crimes "solved." Thus, the percentage of the latter over the former as a measure of police performance becomes even worse.
Be that as it may, I repeat, I am not against the use of CCTV cameras by business establishments. But let it simply be encouraged, not mandated, or put under a "No CCTV No business permit" premise. I strongly feel that already borders on the unconstitutional. The ordinance not only removes from business the right of making a choice, or the optionality element, in deciding how private business should be run and managed. The loss of privacy of the people under surveillance and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties is one other sign of unconstitutionality. Along this light -- my blog viewers may research it further if they wish -- I have read tha in "Katz vs. United States," the US Supreme Court held that there is a right to privacy even in public areas.
Last but not least, QC Councilor Joseph Juico clarified in a recent ABS-CBNnews interview with Tina Monzon Palma that not all establishments would be covered by the new policy, only establishments such as banks, money changers, restaurants, malls and gas stations. Doesn't this, then, somehow violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Not being a lawyer, I do not wish to dwell on that. At the very least, nonetheless, would somebody more qualified come out to challenge the subject QC ordinance before it takes effect on January 2013?
To begin with, let me state categorically that I personally have nothing against CCTV cameras. As a matter of fact, even long before this wonderful invention of modern times became in vogue in these parts, I had been making my own research about it as they were used in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, amid these highly uncertain times, I would have also liked at least one unit installed in my own residence, if only I have the means to afford it. In this life we always have a choice to make in everything we do. So, since I cannot afford a CCTV camera, I just would rather have to contend with strengthening the security locks around my house as reliably as I can. In the same token, not a few business establishments probably believe that the security guards that are deployed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week around their premises are sufficient security that, right or wrong, no one else may ever challenge. I honestly believe that maintaining a security crew is still our basic line of defense against criminal elements in our midst and times. That, in a nut shell, is why I think the ordinance providing for a "no CCTV no business permit' policy should have first been looked into more prudently. First and foremost, it removes the element of optionality in in the business establishment's decision making process.
Truth to tell, the benefits derivable from the CCTV cameras are well recognized throughout the world. I don't have any quarrel with that. Well, even though for me, "seeing" criminals doing their very act through a CCTV camera does not always necessarily mean "solving" the crime itself. If at all, that is possible only in supermarkets where a shoplifter caught in the CCTV camera as he steals something and hides it in his person; will surely be accosted by a security guard. As we all realize, most other criminal acts that happen during off-normal hours are only post-factor reported by the CCTV camera long after the criminal has escaped out of the crime scene. Then follows a long series of identifying the criminal, perhaps through the police or the NBI's cartographic procedures. But what if the criminal was wearing a wig or a fake facial mole or otherwised dressed as a woman? My plain common sense tells me that the CCTV cameras may indeed increase the the record of number of crimes "reported" without necessarily correspondingly increasing the number of crimes "solved." Thus, the percentage of the latter over the former as a measure of police performance becomes even worse.
Be that as it may, I repeat, I am not against the use of CCTV cameras by business establishments. But let it simply be encouraged, not mandated, or put under a "No CCTV No business permit" premise. I strongly feel that already borders on the unconstitutional. The ordinance not only removes from business the right of making a choice, or the optionality element, in deciding how private business should be run and managed. The loss of privacy of the people under surveillance and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties is one other sign of unconstitutionality. Along this light -- my blog viewers may research it further if they wish -- I have read tha in "Katz vs. United States," the US Supreme Court held that there is a right to privacy even in public areas.
Last but not least, QC Councilor Joseph Juico clarified in a recent ABS-CBNnews interview with Tina Monzon Palma that not all establishments would be covered by the new policy, only establishments such as banks, money changers, restaurants, malls and gas stations. Doesn't this, then, somehow violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Not being a lawyer, I do not wish to dwell on that. At the very least, nonetheless, would somebody more qualified come out to challenge the subject QC ordinance before it takes effect on January 2013?
Linggo, Nobyembre 18, 2012
OUR UNSOLVABLE SMUGGLING PROBLEM
I sympathize with Bureau of Customs Commissioner Ruffy Biazon as he humbly, yet kind of desperately, responded (Inquirer, 11/15/2012) to Rigoberto Tiglao's column just the day before, highlighting the bureau's poor performance as a result of rampant smuggling under the present administration. But in the same token, I must also admire Biazon's truthfulness and courage as he objectively reacted to Tiglao's deeply pugnacious though amply convincing assertions. Methinksthat was a gallant feat of Biazon, one never before exhibited by any other Cabinet ministers, past and present, very much less by his predecessor in the bureau whose performance had been also way below par.
Those of us who have read the full text of Biazon's rather lengthy rejoinder to Tiglao will readily admit that, except for the former curtly disputing the latter's claim that smuggling in this country is at its worst under the present political leadership -- a denial that is of course only to be expected lest he himself admits his days in the bureau are really numbered -- the good Commissioner has never even attempted to refute the smuggling-related statistical data presented by Tiglao. Truly most damning amongst these statistics are the comparative values of smuggling in these parts during the incumbencies of Estrada, Arroyo and Aquno, to wit, in billions: $3.1, $3.8 and $19.6, respectively. In all fairness, I must admit that sometimes I also personally tend to doubt some of Tiglao's generally horrendous anti-PNoy/pro-Glora trades in his columns. I am afraid, though, that these figures, unless proven false -- which, truth to tell, Biazon, had ostensibly chosen not to challenge, anyway -- are amply reliable and should provide, at the very least, a source of concern to all right-thinking Filipinos. Instead, Biazon laments that close to 50% of his bureau's operations are still being done manually, and so their apparent work-in-progress solution to the rampant smuggling that besets them in practically all ports of entry is to computerize such services -- well, as if to say, it is this lack of automation that is the root cause of smuggling. Methinks this presumption simply defies logic. Why do I say that? Ah, for the very simple reason that if automation of the operating services in the Customs bureau is just about 50% at present, then it had to be very much less under Arroyo's and Estrada's times. But, then, why was smuggling remarkably low under Estrada's watch, just a little bit higher under Arroyo's, and extremely high under PNoy's administration?
As I earlier said, I truly commiserate with Commissioner Biazon's rather unfortunate situation as far as his department's performance is concerned, which most probably must be the reason why he just kept silent when he was suddenly excluded from Pinoy's final list of senatorial candidates for next year's election (he was among those earlier mentioned, wasn't he?). But I would have liked that he explained the matter relatively more convincingly, rather than in a manner obviously too insulting to people's plain common sense. In reacting to Tiglao, he also kept repeating such over-used expressions as: "it is not true that we are not doing anything about smuggling," or "we have been trying our best to improve the BOC management," and so on and so forth. Such words of hope and self-reassurances have all been voiced out by his predecessors in the bureau and to no avail, to the extent that they have now grown to be a mouthful of vain and futile motherhood statements. I am sure President Aquino expects very much more than that. Rampant smuggling has been with us nearly since immemorial; yet it seems to be getting worse. At least for once, given PNoy's widely acclaimed though, methinks, meaningless "straight road to governance, "the people are expecting to hear relatively more concrete action plans to curb smuggling in our midst and times. In fact, Biazon and his tribes in the Bureau are even luckier that President Aquno, whether rightly or wrongly, would rather want his unsatisfactorily performing Cabinet secretaries to realize their failures and voluntarily quit their posts than bluntly tell them to resign.
Incidentally, I am sure the Palace has its own views on this issue. And so, I am raring to hear how presidential spokesman and shock absorber, Edwin Lacierda, would react to it in due course. .
Those of us who have read the full text of Biazon's rather lengthy rejoinder to Tiglao will readily admit that, except for the former curtly disputing the latter's claim that smuggling in this country is at its worst under the present political leadership -- a denial that is of course only to be expected lest he himself admits his days in the bureau are really numbered -- the good Commissioner has never even attempted to refute the smuggling-related statistical data presented by Tiglao. Truly most damning amongst these statistics are the comparative values of smuggling in these parts during the incumbencies of Estrada, Arroyo and Aquno, to wit, in billions: $3.1, $3.8 and $19.6, respectively. In all fairness, I must admit that sometimes I also personally tend to doubt some of Tiglao's generally horrendous anti-PNoy/pro-Glora trades in his columns. I am afraid, though, that these figures, unless proven false -- which, truth to tell, Biazon, had ostensibly chosen not to challenge, anyway -- are amply reliable and should provide, at the very least, a source of concern to all right-thinking Filipinos. Instead, Biazon laments that close to 50% of his bureau's operations are still being done manually, and so their apparent work-in-progress solution to the rampant smuggling that besets them in practically all ports of entry is to computerize such services -- well, as if to say, it is this lack of automation that is the root cause of smuggling. Methinks this presumption simply defies logic. Why do I say that? Ah, for the very simple reason that if automation of the operating services in the Customs bureau is just about 50% at present, then it had to be very much less under Arroyo's and Estrada's times. But, then, why was smuggling remarkably low under Estrada's watch, just a little bit higher under Arroyo's, and extremely high under PNoy's administration?
As I earlier said, I truly commiserate with Commissioner Biazon's rather unfortunate situation as far as his department's performance is concerned, which most probably must be the reason why he just kept silent when he was suddenly excluded from Pinoy's final list of senatorial candidates for next year's election (he was among those earlier mentioned, wasn't he?). But I would have liked that he explained the matter relatively more convincingly, rather than in a manner obviously too insulting to people's plain common sense. In reacting to Tiglao, he also kept repeating such over-used expressions as: "it is not true that we are not doing anything about smuggling," or "we have been trying our best to improve the BOC management," and so on and so forth. Such words of hope and self-reassurances have all been voiced out by his predecessors in the bureau and to no avail, to the extent that they have now grown to be a mouthful of vain and futile motherhood statements. I am sure President Aquino expects very much more than that. Rampant smuggling has been with us nearly since immemorial; yet it seems to be getting worse. At least for once, given PNoy's widely acclaimed though, methinks, meaningless "straight road to governance, "the people are expecting to hear relatively more concrete action plans to curb smuggling in our midst and times. In fact, Biazon and his tribes in the Bureau are even luckier that President Aquno, whether rightly or wrongly, would rather want his unsatisfactorily performing Cabinet secretaries to realize their failures and voluntarily quit their posts than bluntly tell them to resign.
Incidentally, I am sure the Palace has its own views on this issue. And so, I am raring to hear how presidential spokesman and shock absorber, Edwin Lacierda, would react to it in due course. .
Biyernes, Nobyembre 16, 2012
MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF MOLEHILLS
With all due respect, I honestly believe those thirty or so complainants who have sued Sen. Tito Sotto III for alleged plagiarism are making a mountain out of a molehill.
They call themselves "free thinkers." No, they are not. For me, they are more of a group that delights to unknowingly display too narrow a mental landscape whenever their egos are hurt. I have always had the gut feeling that the case is just their own desperate way to get even with Sotto, whose recent privilege speeches have indeed enlightened the public as to why the RH Bill had been junked by already several past Congresses. In the looming happenstance that it is again rejected, it should be due to to the faults of no one else but these complainants'. For one, not one of them has intelligently challenged Sotto's arguments so far;
for another, the plagiarism case unnecessarily shortens the already fast diminishing session days of the lawmakers before they adjourn for the forthcoming elections. Indeed, lawyer Romulo Macalintal and the group called Responsible Internet Users for Social Empowerment (Cyber.RISE) were right in separately positing there are so many important matters the Senate may more prudently spend the people's money for, rather than hear an ethics case for an alleged plagiarism that is deemed "baseless" from the very outset.
Truly baseless because, as far as I humbly know, plagiarism validly exists only when one publicly quotes the ideas or writings of another and passes them as his own. For heaven's sake, let us be a bit objective. Suppose in a speech or a published article, one speaker ir writer says: "words are like leaves, where they most abound, much fruit of the sense beneath is rarely found," without acknowledging its original source (Was it Alexander Pope? I'm not really sure!), is there plagiarism? On the other hand, did not Sotto time and again clarify in his speeches that the arguments he had been articulating were not his own? I really find it amusing that it had to be a group of bloggers -- in turn followed by certain free-thinking kuno academicians and lawyers -- not really the true authors of the ideas Sotto had lifted from the blogs, who had filed the plagiarism suit. If I may use some metaphors, isn't that quite laughably unlike "a whip to the horse and the cow complains?" Moreover, I hate to say this but I must: the complaint, so lengthily presented, and the quotation from Pope I earlier cited truly fits each other to a "T".
Chances are, nevertheless, the ethics case against Sotto may still prosper. As my gut feel has earlier suggested, the case is just the complainants' last-ditch personal vendetta against Sotto for sending their pet bill into a moribund state. It now seems it would no longer matter to them if the bill finally dies in due course -- not one of them could so far refute Sotto's arguments, anyway -- for as long as Sotto is sanctioned. For sure, given that the bill's principal proponent in the Senate and the chair of the Senate ethics committee that will soon hear and judge Sotto's fate happen to be siblings, can one plus one amount to anything else but two? I mean, blood is thicker than water, the old saying goes -- God, knowing not who first said it, am I plagiarizing? Incidentally, the rather dim ending that I portend awaits Sotto in this case may just be one of the many unfortunate circumstances we should expect from the political dynasties in our midst and times, most particularly inside a collegial body like the Philippine Senate.
They call themselves "free thinkers." No, they are not. For me, they are more of a group that delights to unknowingly display too narrow a mental landscape whenever their egos are hurt. I have always had the gut feeling that the case is just their own desperate way to get even with Sotto, whose recent privilege speeches have indeed enlightened the public as to why the RH Bill had been junked by already several past Congresses. In the looming happenstance that it is again rejected, it should be due to to the faults of no one else but these complainants'. For one, not one of them has intelligently challenged Sotto's arguments so far;
for another, the plagiarism case unnecessarily shortens the already fast diminishing session days of the lawmakers before they adjourn for the forthcoming elections. Indeed, lawyer Romulo Macalintal and the group called Responsible Internet Users for Social Empowerment (Cyber.RISE) were right in separately positing there are so many important matters the Senate may more prudently spend the people's money for, rather than hear an ethics case for an alleged plagiarism that is deemed "baseless" from the very outset.
Truly baseless because, as far as I humbly know, plagiarism validly exists only when one publicly quotes the ideas or writings of another and passes them as his own. For heaven's sake, let us be a bit objective. Suppose in a speech or a published article, one speaker ir writer says: "words are like leaves, where they most abound, much fruit of the sense beneath is rarely found," without acknowledging its original source (Was it Alexander Pope? I'm not really sure!), is there plagiarism? On the other hand, did not Sotto time and again clarify in his speeches that the arguments he had been articulating were not his own? I really find it amusing that it had to be a group of bloggers -- in turn followed by certain free-thinking kuno academicians and lawyers -- not really the true authors of the ideas Sotto had lifted from the blogs, who had filed the plagiarism suit. If I may use some metaphors, isn't that quite laughably unlike "a whip to the horse and the cow complains?" Moreover, I hate to say this but I must: the complaint, so lengthily presented, and the quotation from Pope I earlier cited truly fits each other to a "T".
Chances are, nevertheless, the ethics case against Sotto may still prosper. As my gut feel has earlier suggested, the case is just the complainants' last-ditch personal vendetta against Sotto for sending their pet bill into a moribund state. It now seems it would no longer matter to them if the bill finally dies in due course -- not one of them could so far refute Sotto's arguments, anyway -- for as long as Sotto is sanctioned. For sure, given that the bill's principal proponent in the Senate and the chair of the Senate ethics committee that will soon hear and judge Sotto's fate happen to be siblings, can one plus one amount to anything else but two? I mean, blood is thicker than water, the old saying goes -- God, knowing not who first said it, am I plagiarizing? Incidentally, the rather dim ending that I portend awaits Sotto in this case may just be one of the many unfortunate circumstances we should expect from the political dynasties in our midst and times, most particularly inside a collegial body like the Philippine Senate.
Huwebes, Nobyembre 15, 2012
CONFUSING NUMBERS ON THE SIN TAX BILL
It is odd that the ongoing photo finish toward the passage of a Sin Tax Bill that the Palace wants has become a race not as much fueled by prudence as by sheer statistics. Odd in the sense that the figures presented by the bill's vocal advocates do vary quite wildly, one wonders where they are getting them from. Worse, some figures nearly make some readers die laughing; I mean, readers who think a bit more than merely read the newspapers.
For example, Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago -- known for vowing once upon a time to speak the truth always lest she jumped from an airplane, only to curtly say "I lied" when found exaggerating -- reports that some 87,600 Filipinos die every year from ailments attributable to smoking (PDI,10/24/2012). That is a whale of a difference from Health Secretary Enrique Ona's 50,000 annual deaths for the same reason (PDI, 9/24/2012). Ona adds that of tobacco users in the Philippines, 17.5% are girls and 28.3% are boys, aged 13-15, meaning high school freshmen, sophomores and seniors. I do not have the numbers to contest Ona on the latter, merely my plain common sense that seldom lies to me, anyway. If one swallows Ona's numbers hook, like and sinker -- in turn indicating ten such students for every class of 20 boys and 20 girls are hooked to smoking -- then our teachers in the secondary schools must be sitting on their asses in molding the youth's morale in this respect. Then, we have more of an education than a health crisis in these parts!
Unfortunately lost in the hustle and bustle of this confusing numbers game is the plain truth that our local cigarette and wine industries, combined, are only averaging a gross revenue of P250 billion per year. This validates Sen. Edgardo Angara's estimation, during a recent television interview, that they are more or less netting just about P12 billion per year. And so, with the P40-45 billion in incremental sin taxes that Sen Franklin Drilon is proposing -- down from the P60 billion the administration had originally wanted -- it no longer matters that the government is practically killing these twin industries, providing it is able to raise enough revenues to prevent next year's anticipated budget deficits. The monumental irony is -- ask Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo -- none of our living past presidents will ever assert that in their respective times they had succeeded to balance their respective budgets through newer tax legislation.
But that which had nearly left me die laughing was the revelation of a doctor in his recent article in the Inquirer titled, "Rejoinder on the 'sin tax' bill." He presented allegedly World Health Organization-sourced data indicating that every Filipino smoker consumes 1,073 sticks of cigarettes per year. Alack, I did not know that a consumption of less than three sticks of cigarettes daily is already the highest smoking record in the region. Well, "numbers do not lie," the familiar slogan goes; and so, what more can I say? But wait a minute. Can't liars also use numbers? .
For example, Sen Miriam Defensor Santiago -- known for vowing once upon a time to speak the truth always lest she jumped from an airplane, only to curtly say "I lied" when found exaggerating -- reports that some 87,600 Filipinos die every year from ailments attributable to smoking (PDI,10/24/2012). That is a whale of a difference from Health Secretary Enrique Ona's 50,000 annual deaths for the same reason (PDI, 9/24/2012). Ona adds that of tobacco users in the Philippines, 17.5% are girls and 28.3% are boys, aged 13-15, meaning high school freshmen, sophomores and seniors. I do not have the numbers to contest Ona on the latter, merely my plain common sense that seldom lies to me, anyway. If one swallows Ona's numbers hook, like and sinker -- in turn indicating ten such students for every class of 20 boys and 20 girls are hooked to smoking -- then our teachers in the secondary schools must be sitting on their asses in molding the youth's morale in this respect. Then, we have more of an education than a health crisis in these parts!
Unfortunately lost in the hustle and bustle of this confusing numbers game is the plain truth that our local cigarette and wine industries, combined, are only averaging a gross revenue of P250 billion per year. This validates Sen. Edgardo Angara's estimation, during a recent television interview, that they are more or less netting just about P12 billion per year. And so, with the P40-45 billion in incremental sin taxes that Sen Franklin Drilon is proposing -- down from the P60 billion the administration had originally wanted -- it no longer matters that the government is practically killing these twin industries, providing it is able to raise enough revenues to prevent next year's anticipated budget deficits. The monumental irony is -- ask Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo -- none of our living past presidents will ever assert that in their respective times they had succeeded to balance their respective budgets through newer tax legislation.
But that which had nearly left me die laughing was the revelation of a doctor in his recent article in the Inquirer titled, "Rejoinder on the 'sin tax' bill." He presented allegedly World Health Organization-sourced data indicating that every Filipino smoker consumes 1,073 sticks of cigarettes per year. Alack, I did not know that a consumption of less than three sticks of cigarettes daily is already the highest smoking record in the region. Well, "numbers do not lie," the familiar slogan goes; and so, what more can I say? But wait a minute. Can't liars also use numbers? .
Sabado, Nobyembre 10, 2012
A FUTILE AND STUPID PROPOSITION
Have you heard of the standing petition with the Commission on Election of the Ang Kapatiran Party to provide it with the needed forms and/or procedures to eliminate political dynasty by amending the Constitution through the People's Initiative. I don't exactly know, but based on what I see on television news, it seems to me Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes is favoring that. By the way, I know I already wrote something on this issue last Nov. 1st; Let this be Part 2 of that blog.
First off, let me lay down the related terms of reference. 1. Article II, Section 26, of the Constitution provides: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibits political dynasties as may be defined by law. This simply means that for this charter provision to be feasible, Congress must pass an enabling law that principally defines "political dynasty." Of course, after close to a quarter of a century, it has not, as indeed, our lawmakers will never do that; lest, they kill the goose that, for them, virtually lays the golden eggs. 2. On the other hand, under Article XVII, Sec. 2, Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. . . .The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. 3. Like in the political dynasty provision, an enabling law is also required to be passed by Congress in this connection. That enabling law is supposed to be RA No. 6735, principally authored by former Sen. Raul Roco in August 1989 and appropriately titled "The People's Initiative and Referendum Act.".
As I understand, the Ang Kapatiran Party believes that by virtue of this enabling law they may now proceed to amend the Constitution, particularly the provision on political dynasty even though the latter has yet no enabling law of its own. With all due respect, I think this undertaking is bound to be an exercise in futility.
Why? For the following reasons: First, RA No. 6735 has already been thrice rejected by the Supreme Court and declared as an insufficient enabling law for the purpose of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Second, even granting the remote happenstance that the Supreme Court may now allow 6735 to operate for the purpose of the people's initiative system of amending the charter -- and that is after the horrendous process of securing people's signatures (this was exactly where the PIRMA failed) -- I refuse to believe there is a need to amend the Constitution, specifically Sect 2, Art. II, in order to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. For one thing, isn't it simply a matter of plain common sense that the only way to amend that provision is to allow, rather than prohibit political dynasties? For another matter, the charter says political dynasty needs a law to define it, and only the Congress or our lawmakers, definitely not the people, who may do it.
But having said the above, I certainly also strongly believe that the dominance of political dynasties in our midst and times has not only kept more deserving but poor individuals from running and winning in elections; it has also enabled powerful and affluent individuals to corner appointive positions for their followers and relatives. And so, we must really eliminate this political "curse!" Despite the fact that our lawmakers will never do it, I still sincerely believe that the voice of the people is still democracy's most powerful tool. I mean, I cannot agree more with the suggestion of Neal Cruz in a recent column: Let there be a People's Movement Against Political Dynasty. And let us join our act together by not voting every political "dynast" starting with next year's elections. The process may indeed take some time, but I am sure if we will sustain and thus make what we mean loud and clear in every election, there surely is eventually going to be a light at the end of the tunnel. We have vainly waited for twenty-five years for our (dis)honorable makers to do what they must, another twenty-five years will no longer be too long.
First off, let me lay down the related terms of reference. 1. Article II, Section 26, of the Constitution provides: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibits political dynasties as may be defined by law. This simply means that for this charter provision to be feasible, Congress must pass an enabling law that principally defines "political dynasty." Of course, after close to a quarter of a century, it has not, as indeed, our lawmakers will never do that; lest, they kill the goose that, for them, virtually lays the golden eggs. 2. On the other hand, under Article XVII, Sec. 2, Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. . . .The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. 3. Like in the political dynasty provision, an enabling law is also required to be passed by Congress in this connection. That enabling law is supposed to be RA No. 6735, principally authored by former Sen. Raul Roco in August 1989 and appropriately titled "The People's Initiative and Referendum Act.".
As I understand, the Ang Kapatiran Party believes that by virtue of this enabling law they may now proceed to amend the Constitution, particularly the provision on political dynasty even though the latter has yet no enabling law of its own. With all due respect, I think this undertaking is bound to be an exercise in futility.
Why? For the following reasons: First, RA No. 6735 has already been thrice rejected by the Supreme Court and declared as an insufficient enabling law for the purpose of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Second, even granting the remote happenstance that the Supreme Court may now allow 6735 to operate for the purpose of the people's initiative system of amending the charter -- and that is after the horrendous process of securing people's signatures (this was exactly where the PIRMA failed) -- I refuse to believe there is a need to amend the Constitution, specifically Sect 2, Art. II, in order to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. For one thing, isn't it simply a matter of plain common sense that the only way to amend that provision is to allow, rather than prohibit political dynasties? For another matter, the charter says political dynasty needs a law to define it, and only the Congress or our lawmakers, definitely not the people, who may do it.
But having said the above, I certainly also strongly believe that the dominance of political dynasties in our midst and times has not only kept more deserving but poor individuals from running and winning in elections; it has also enabled powerful and affluent individuals to corner appointive positions for their followers and relatives. And so, we must really eliminate this political "curse!" Despite the fact that our lawmakers will never do it, I still sincerely believe that the voice of the people is still democracy's most powerful tool. I mean, I cannot agree more with the suggestion of Neal Cruz in a recent column: Let there be a People's Movement Against Political Dynasty. And let us join our act together by not voting every political "dynast" starting with next year's elections. The process may indeed take some time, but I am sure if we will sustain and thus make what we mean loud and clear in every election, there surely is eventually going to be a light at the end of the tunnel. We have vainly waited for twenty-five years for our (dis)honorable makers to do what they must, another twenty-five years will no longer be too long.
Lunes, Nobyembre 5, 2012
LET PH & CHINA SOLVE THEIR RIFT, NOT OTHERS
President Aquino, who is now in Europe, has been quoted in the news as saying he hopes the European countries would issue official statements regarding the Phil-China rift in the South China (or West Philippine) Sea. I nearly die laughing hearing that. He had the self-same expectations when he previously met with the ASEAN, all to no avail. In fairness, I do not wish to preempt what Europe has in mind about this.matter. Suffice it for me to say that whatever statement it issues is going to end up equally vain and meaningless as an instrument to settle the Phil-China dispute because the European countries, whether individually or acting together, has no authority to settle international territorial disputes. The United Nations do have that exclusive mandate. But as I wrote in a letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, published nearly ten years ago, indications are such that even the UN may have outlived its usefulness as a world peace maker.
For some historical flashbacks, the UN was originally called League of Nations, in turn formed just after the end of World War I. Yes, in its early years, the League had settled a number of disputes and prevented several wars. But those were essentially between small countries; it failed to control the Axis and Allied Powers. After Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933, the league condemned the aggression but did not impose sanctions. Japan withdrew from the league in the same year, along with Germany, which immediately began to re-arm, while Italy invaded and annexed Ethiopia in 1935. The league imposed economic sanctions but allowed Italy to get the supplies it needed most, until Italy withdrew in 1937. The league expelled Russia for its 1939 aggression against Finland, but the World War II had already began. After the war, the UN had of course, some notable achievements. The first was the peaceful blockade of the Berlin Blockade in 194z5z, then it prevented the Balkan War in a947, stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and settled Indonesian-Dutch War in 1949, and ended the 1950-53 Korean War. UN efforts had also stopped or prevented a number of hostilities in the Middle East, such as between Israel and the Arab states in 1948, the total seizure of the Suez Canal by Egypt in 1956, and an imminent and otherwise bigger Middle East Conflict in 1967. The UN, however, failed to prevent the Vietnam War and the advance of Russian tanks during the Hungary revolt in 1956. One recalls that it was not the UN but a steadfast John F. Kennedy that had forced an arrogant Nikita Khrushchev to back down during the Cuban Crisis of 1962. Now, in relatively more modern times, we have the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan hostilities, the Libya and Syria crises. Given this, the conclusion is not altogether baseless that the UN and the League of Nations had been good only at preventing petty wars, not when the world superpowers are involved.
Now, why am I re-narrating all of these? Ah, simply to bring to the fore my own personal opinion that the ongoing territorial dispute between China and the Philippines inside the South China Sea (or West Philippine Sea, if you wish) cannot be solved even with the involvement of the UN, very much less of the ASEAN and the European countries, which President Aquino now appears to relying on. Even the participation of the initially much ballyhooed UNCLOS will be useless since that international court of justice may only hear disputes where both contending parties jointly submit themselves to voluntary arbitration -- and China has time and again very resolutely junked that alternative. Neither may the Philippines rely upon the United States by virtue of the so-called Mutual Defense Country between the two countries. For one thing, if one looks more deeply into that treaty, he will be surprised that it covered only mutual defense inside the Pacific Region, and the West Philippine Sea is outside of that.
Methinks only a continuing bilateral -- repeat, bilateral, now multilateral -- diplomacy could help the Philippine cause. One recalls, for example, that prior to April 12 this year, both countries had more or less been jointly exploiting the Scarborough Shoal in relative peace. Prudence should probably dictate for the Philippines to find out the reason for China's suddenly hostile attitude, and to objectively discuss that with China, and with China alone. But let it be done only by our Foreign Affairs Department only, without such back-channeling as has been recently, and initially secretly, undertaken by Sen. Trillanes at Aquino's behest.
I must admit, I have had no experience in foreign affairs to say all of these with authority. I earnestly believe though that I am talking from the standpoint of plain common sense. And that, in my view, is the very first foundation of reason.
For some historical flashbacks, the UN was originally called League of Nations, in turn formed just after the end of World War I. Yes, in its early years, the League had settled a number of disputes and prevented several wars. But those were essentially between small countries; it failed to control the Axis and Allied Powers. After Japan invaded Manchuria in 1933, the league condemned the aggression but did not impose sanctions. Japan withdrew from the league in the same year, along with Germany, which immediately began to re-arm, while Italy invaded and annexed Ethiopia in 1935. The league imposed economic sanctions but allowed Italy to get the supplies it needed most, until Italy withdrew in 1937. The league expelled Russia for its 1939 aggression against Finland, but the World War II had already began. After the war, the UN had of course, some notable achievements. The first was the peaceful blockade of the Berlin Blockade in 194z5z, then it prevented the Balkan War in a947, stopped the fighting between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, and settled Indonesian-Dutch War in 1949, and ended the 1950-53 Korean War. UN efforts had also stopped or prevented a number of hostilities in the Middle East, such as between Israel and the Arab states in 1948, the total seizure of the Suez Canal by Egypt in 1956, and an imminent and otherwise bigger Middle East Conflict in 1967. The UN, however, failed to prevent the Vietnam War and the advance of Russian tanks during the Hungary revolt in 1956. One recalls that it was not the UN but a steadfast John F. Kennedy that had forced an arrogant Nikita Khrushchev to back down during the Cuban Crisis of 1962. Now, in relatively more modern times, we have the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan hostilities, the Libya and Syria crises. Given this, the conclusion is not altogether baseless that the UN and the League of Nations had been good only at preventing petty wars, not when the world superpowers are involved.
Now, why am I re-narrating all of these? Ah, simply to bring to the fore my own personal opinion that the ongoing territorial dispute between China and the Philippines inside the South China Sea (or West Philippine Sea, if you wish) cannot be solved even with the involvement of the UN, very much less of the ASEAN and the European countries, which President Aquino now appears to relying on. Even the participation of the initially much ballyhooed UNCLOS will be useless since that international court of justice may only hear disputes where both contending parties jointly submit themselves to voluntary arbitration -- and China has time and again very resolutely junked that alternative. Neither may the Philippines rely upon the United States by virtue of the so-called Mutual Defense Country between the two countries. For one thing, if one looks more deeply into that treaty, he will be surprised that it covered only mutual defense inside the Pacific Region, and the West Philippine Sea is outside of that.
Methinks only a continuing bilateral -- repeat, bilateral, now multilateral -- diplomacy could help the Philippine cause. One recalls, for example, that prior to April 12 this year, both countries had more or less been jointly exploiting the Scarborough Shoal in relative peace. Prudence should probably dictate for the Philippines to find out the reason for China's suddenly hostile attitude, and to objectively discuss that with China, and with China alone. But let it be done only by our Foreign Affairs Department only, without such back-channeling as has been recently, and initially secretly, undertaken by Sen. Trillanes at Aquino's behest.
I must admit, I have had no experience in foreign affairs to say all of these with authority. I earnestly believe though that I am talking from the standpoint of plain common sense. And that, in my view, is the very first foundation of reason.
Biyernes, Nobyembre 2, 2012
A LEADER WITHOUT SELF-DISCIPLINE
My repugnance went deep down into my bones on reading the case of a UST graduate who was abducted and murdered apparently due to no reason at all except drugs. Indeed, I cannot find a stronger word to express my disgust : imagine stabbing a helpless young lady close to fifty times. And so, I have now opted, at least for once, to use mostly Pilipino in this particular blog. Mas magaling kasi ako sa Pilipino kesa sa English, siyempre naman!
Maitanong ko nga, to begin with? Ano na nga ba ang ating ginagawa sa kasalukuyang panahon to solve the continung menace of drugs in our midst? Di ko maiwasang di maalaala si Marcos, noong panahong di pa kasing-lala ang ating problema sa drugs na kagaya ngayon. Di ba't iyong isang Intsik na napatunayang drug dealer ay ipinabaril ni Marcos sa Luneta? Di ba't for a long-long while after that ay nawala ang drugs sa ating kapaligiran. Ngayon, ano naman ang ginawa natin ngayong mas marami - repeat, marami, hindi iisa lang -- na drug pushers ang nahuli at nahatulan na ng bitay sa Tsina? Aba'y hndi baga't inutusan ng gobierno si VP Binay na magtungo sa Tsina at maglumuhod doon para huwag bitayin ang mga Pilipinong drug pushers -- na, of course, ay hindi naman pinagbigyan? Aba'y talaga bang hindi tayo magkaroon ng kaunting disiplina na tulad ng sa Tsina para putulin ang ugat ng bawa't mali sa ating paligid. Alas, it's unfortunate that we are instead continuing to denouce Marcos' times! This somehow calls to mind what Singapore's Lee Kuan Yu told to Ramos in their respective times: "You have too much democracy in this country!" To which Ramos simply kept silent.
Ngayon, ang higit na pinag-aabalahan ng gobierno ay ang alak at sigarilyo. Bakit nga ba? Aba'y dahil sa "sin taxes" kuno na kaakibat ng dalawang produktong ito. Wala kasi tayong iniintindi kundi puro newer and additional taxes, even as we continue to incur snowballing budget deficits year after year. Ang alam ko sa newer tax legislaton, ito ay paraan upang mapababa ang budget deficit ng isang bansa. Pero alin na bang new tax laws ang naka-solve ng ating problemang iyan. Di ba, we vowed to solve that when we first imposed the 10% Vat in Cory's time. We did not solve it! Then we included in the VAT electricity and petroleum products that the people daily consume -- which should not have been because there is no "value added" in their transactions. Wala rin, bokya pa rin tayo sa ating budget performance. Then we increased VAT to 12% -- indeed the highest in the region -- Bokya pa rin. Ngayon ay alak naman at sigarilyo ang ating pinagtutuunan. It is well settled that cigarettes and wines are bad for the health, hence there is the so-called "sin taxes." But as Cory said in her times, "tama na, pag sobra na." And truth to tell, to tax these products by an additional 907%, according to news reports, ay talang sobra na. If taxing the local cigarette and wine industry which only nets about P12-billion in profits per year -- that's according to Sen. Angara -- by an additional, repeat: additional, P60-billion annually is not the height of legislative stupidity, I do not know what is! And far more stupid it becomes given that Congress recommends only P33-billion, but the Aquino government wants P60-billion. What an insatiable greed for tax. Not only that, the P60-billion has already been included in the government's budget of more two trillon yata for 2013, even as continuing debates on it still continue in the Senate.Sana, kung ano ang sigasig nating itakwil ang alak at sigarilyo sa ating lipunan, gayon din ang maging sigasig nating ibasura ang drugs, which we all know, have been the root cause of manifold crimes in our midst and times.
Incidentally, sabi ni Pangulong Aquino, humigit kumulang: "I am for taxing cgarettes and wines to extinction but I cannot stop my smoking habit!" Ano ba namang klaseng pananalita ito ng isang naturingang Presidente ng bansa? Hindi iilan sa atin -- let's admit -- ang nakuhang makapag-alis ng pagsisigarilyo through sheer self-discipline? So, wala palang self-discipline si Aquino to remove his smoking habit, nay, smoking vice pala! We all know that self-discipline is among the essential attributes of effective leadership. Aba'y if the President cannot discipline himself into eliminating a vice that is as simple as smoking, how can the nation expect him to discipline those under him into following his much ballyhooed anti-corruption and "tuwid na daan" advocacies?
Naku, some of my readers may once again accuse me of being extremely anti-PNoy because of what I say. No, I'm not. I voted for him in 2010. It's just that medyo sising-alipin ako sa botong iyon, kahit na alam kong even if I had NOT voted for him he would have easily won just the same. At any rate, my hopes still run high he would learn to perform better before his term expires. 'Yan lang naman talaga ang tangining magagawa natin, hindi ba?
Maitanong ko nga, to begin with? Ano na nga ba ang ating ginagawa sa kasalukuyang panahon to solve the continung menace of drugs in our midst? Di ko maiwasang di maalaala si Marcos, noong panahong di pa kasing-lala ang ating problema sa drugs na kagaya ngayon. Di ba't iyong isang Intsik na napatunayang drug dealer ay ipinabaril ni Marcos sa Luneta? Di ba't for a long-long while after that ay nawala ang drugs sa ating kapaligiran. Ngayon, ano naman ang ginawa natin ngayong mas marami - repeat, marami, hindi iisa lang -- na drug pushers ang nahuli at nahatulan na ng bitay sa Tsina? Aba'y hndi baga't inutusan ng gobierno si VP Binay na magtungo sa Tsina at maglumuhod doon para huwag bitayin ang mga Pilipinong drug pushers -- na, of course, ay hindi naman pinagbigyan? Aba'y talaga bang hindi tayo magkaroon ng kaunting disiplina na tulad ng sa Tsina para putulin ang ugat ng bawa't mali sa ating paligid. Alas, it's unfortunate that we are instead continuing to denouce Marcos' times! This somehow calls to mind what Singapore's Lee Kuan Yu told to Ramos in their respective times: "You have too much democracy in this country!" To which Ramos simply kept silent.
Ngayon, ang higit na pinag-aabalahan ng gobierno ay ang alak at sigarilyo. Bakit nga ba? Aba'y dahil sa "sin taxes" kuno na kaakibat ng dalawang produktong ito. Wala kasi tayong iniintindi kundi puro newer and additional taxes, even as we continue to incur snowballing budget deficits year after year. Ang alam ko sa newer tax legislaton, ito ay paraan upang mapababa ang budget deficit ng isang bansa. Pero alin na bang new tax laws ang naka-solve ng ating problemang iyan. Di ba, we vowed to solve that when we first imposed the 10% Vat in Cory's time. We did not solve it! Then we included in the VAT electricity and petroleum products that the people daily consume -- which should not have been because there is no "value added" in their transactions. Wala rin, bokya pa rin tayo sa ating budget performance. Then we increased VAT to 12% -- indeed the highest in the region -- Bokya pa rin. Ngayon ay alak naman at sigarilyo ang ating pinagtutuunan. It is well settled that cigarettes and wines are bad for the health, hence there is the so-called "sin taxes." But as Cory said in her times, "tama na, pag sobra na." And truth to tell, to tax these products by an additional 907%, according to news reports, ay talang sobra na. If taxing the local cigarette and wine industry which only nets about P12-billion in profits per year -- that's according to Sen. Angara -- by an additional, repeat: additional, P60-billion annually is not the height of legislative stupidity, I do not know what is! And far more stupid it becomes given that Congress recommends only P33-billion, but the Aquino government wants P60-billion. What an insatiable greed for tax. Not only that, the P60-billion has already been included in the government's budget of more two trillon yata for 2013, even as continuing debates on it still continue in the Senate.Sana, kung ano ang sigasig nating itakwil ang alak at sigarilyo sa ating lipunan, gayon din ang maging sigasig nating ibasura ang drugs, which we all know, have been the root cause of manifold crimes in our midst and times.
Incidentally, sabi ni Pangulong Aquino, humigit kumulang: "I am for taxing cgarettes and wines to extinction but I cannot stop my smoking habit!" Ano ba namang klaseng pananalita ito ng isang naturingang Presidente ng bansa? Hindi iilan sa atin -- let's admit -- ang nakuhang makapag-alis ng pagsisigarilyo through sheer self-discipline? So, wala palang self-discipline si Aquino to remove his smoking habit, nay, smoking vice pala! We all know that self-discipline is among the essential attributes of effective leadership. Aba'y if the President cannot discipline himself into eliminating a vice that is as simple as smoking, how can the nation expect him to discipline those under him into following his much ballyhooed anti-corruption and "tuwid na daan" advocacies?
Naku, some of my readers may once again accuse me of being extremely anti-PNoy because of what I say. No, I'm not. I voted for him in 2010. It's just that medyo sising-alipin ako sa botong iyon, kahit na alam kong even if I had NOT voted for him he would have easily won just the same. At any rate, my hopes still run high he would learn to perform better before his term expires. 'Yan lang naman talaga ang tangining magagawa natin, hindi ba?
Huwebes, Nobyembre 1, 2012
ONLY PEOPLE'S VOTE MAY KILL POLITICAL DYNASTY
Neal Cruz was certainly right: "PNoy, Una's Trinity Killing Constitution." Indeed, it's not only Neal Cruz but several other columnists and opinion makers are saying the senatorial candidates of both the Liberal Party and Binay-Erap's UNa, best indicates the grim truth that political dynasty, which the Constitution prohibits reigns supreme in our midst and times.
The big problem is these opinion makers are only good at shouting their protest to the four winds. In other words, they are only good in saying, never in doing what they are supposed to do. As a matter of fact, there is reason to believe some of them may be voting for political-dynasty candidates in the coming elections.
For me, people like them are good for nothing hypocrites!
I still believe that the people's voice in an election is still the most powerful tool of democracy. Why, then, can't we, who keep shouting we abhor political dynasty, join our votes and voices together and vote against candidates with the same names or belonging to the same clan or family? I know we may not necessarily win soon enough, it will really take a much longer process, to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. But that is certainly better than doing nothing at all.
I realize that when I go to the polls to vote for new senators, my own vote is going to be a voice in the wilderness. But I will definitely NOT vote for Allan Peter Cayetano, JV Estrada-Ejercito, Jack Enrile, Villar, Bam Aquino, the Magsaysays, and Tingting Cojuangco. Neither may I vote for Grace Poe Llamanzares (even if FPJ was my idol), Loren Legards and Chiz Escudero, UNLESS they decide which party they belong to: PNoy's LP-NP coalition or Binay-Estrada's UNA. To vote for these three are not unlike betting "BAKLAY" in beto-beto or jueteng, from which, in turn, the word "BAKLA" came from.
As I said, I know some of these names are still likely to win in 2013. I don't care! 'Yan namang eleksyon -- para sa akin, ewan ko sa inyo --ay hindi isang sugal. Ala eh, sino na ga sa atin ang nakinabang diyan? For me, again ewan ko sa inyo, eleksyon is the voters' only remaining tool to at least hope for a change in existing governance. Aba'y kung hindi ko pa naman magamit ang tool na ito nang TAMA, aba'y di we the people become as equally good for nothing as the people and the policies in government that we condemn. To put it more bluntly, I dont want to be a hypocrite by continuing to denounce political dynasty but voting into office
people who are members of a political dynasty. Indeed, in a situation where our so called (dis)honorable lawmakers will never pass the need enabling law to effectively curb political dynasty, then only the people's votes may hope to kill it -- maybe not now, but sooner or later -- in the same way that there is always a light at the end of the darkest tunnel. As I recall Henry Wadsworth Longfellow saying in his "A Psalm of Life," what matters most is we "learn to labor and to wait."
The big problem is these opinion makers are only good at shouting their protest to the four winds. In other words, they are only good in saying, never in doing what they are supposed to do. As a matter of fact, there is reason to believe some of them may be voting for political-dynasty candidates in the coming elections.
For me, people like them are good for nothing hypocrites!
I still believe that the people's voice in an election is still the most powerful tool of democracy. Why, then, can't we, who keep shouting we abhor political dynasty, join our votes and voices together and vote against candidates with the same names or belonging to the same clan or family? I know we may not necessarily win soon enough, it will really take a much longer process, to eliminate dynasties in our political landscape. But that is certainly better than doing nothing at all.
I realize that when I go to the polls to vote for new senators, my own vote is going to be a voice in the wilderness. But I will definitely NOT vote for Allan Peter Cayetano, JV Estrada-Ejercito, Jack Enrile, Villar, Bam Aquino, the Magsaysays, and Tingting Cojuangco. Neither may I vote for Grace Poe Llamanzares (even if FPJ was my idol), Loren Legards and Chiz Escudero, UNLESS they decide which party they belong to: PNoy's LP-NP coalition or Binay-Estrada's UNA. To vote for these three are not unlike betting "BAKLAY" in beto-beto or jueteng, from which, in turn, the word "BAKLA" came from.
As I said, I know some of these names are still likely to win in 2013. I don't care! 'Yan namang eleksyon -- para sa akin, ewan ko sa inyo --ay hindi isang sugal. Ala eh, sino na ga sa atin ang nakinabang diyan? For me, again ewan ko sa inyo, eleksyon is the voters' only remaining tool to at least hope for a change in existing governance. Aba'y kung hindi ko pa naman magamit ang tool na ito nang TAMA, aba'y di we the people become as equally good for nothing as the people and the policies in government that we condemn. To put it more bluntly, I dont want to be a hypocrite by continuing to denounce political dynasty but voting into office
people who are members of a political dynasty. Indeed, in a situation where our so called (dis)honorable lawmakers will never pass the need enabling law to effectively curb political dynasty, then only the people's votes may hope to kill it -- maybe not now, but sooner or later -- in the same way that there is always a light at the end of the darkest tunnel. As I recall Henry Wadsworth Longfellow saying in his "A Psalm of Life," what matters most is we "learn to labor and to wait."
Huwebes, Oktubre 25, 2012
SENATE AS NEXT AQUINO RUBBER STAMP
Recently saying "New Senate majority waiting for sign to oust Enrile" (Inquirer 10/22/2012), Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago may have wittingly or unwittingly spilled the beans as to what ulterior move President Aquino has in mind: to make the Senate its next rubber stamp.
Everybody knows he has done that to Congress, as evidenced by the blitzkrieg approach by which he had ordered congressmen to impeach Corona. It is still a bit doubtful that with Corona out and Sereno in, he has similarly succeeded in the high tribunal. On the one hand, most of the magistrates had been clearly insulted and lost a great deal of morale with Sereno's appointment as CJ. On the other hand, the high court has still to rule on the final fate of the Hacienda Luisita case, at least among several other critical issues still pending there, in which the President has a personal stake. The latter would then be the turning point on whether we should call his incumbency "Aquino government" or merely "Aquino administration."
Back to the Senate, Santiago was right that Enrile's potential ouster could arise out of his reluctance to endorse two of the administration's pet legislative agendas: the Reproductive Health and the Sin Tax bills. Incidentally, Santiago is principal sponsor of the former, and has also filed her own version of the latter, which is much closer to the incremental P60-B tax take that Aquino and his allies in the Lower House had always wanted than Recto's relatively watered-down tax proposal of P15-B, which Enrile is in turn more or less endorsing. Except for Sen. Trillanes, who has been quite vocal in his desire to oust Enrile, no other senator has yet voiced out his dislike for Enrile as Senate President. And so, Santiago was just telling the truth -- well, something she might not have done if she were not leaving the Senate soon in favor of the post awaiting her at the International Court of Justice -- that senators are just waiting for the sign, which certainly, though Santiago didn't say it, can only come from none else but President Aquino.
At any rate, whether or not Enrile would be eventually ousted still remains everybody's wild guess. On one hand, I refuse to believe that at this point in his long political career, Enrile can still be intimidated. Methinks he has grown amply immune to presidential influence. He was certainly right saying he holds no Torrens Title to the Senate presidency, although he believes being just an ordinary senator would give him better freedom to vocally oppose his peers than, at least initially, remaining neutral as Senate President. On another, I believe President Aquino is not too naive to realize that, just in case, his voicing out the signal to oust Enrile and to replace him with a truer ally (Drilon most probably) simply because of Enrile's refusal to approve the additional, repeat: additional, P60-B sin taxes for cigarette and liquor that he lusts for, may sooner or later bounce back to him in terms of even much higher and no longer curable budget deficits in the years to come. (As a matter of fact, that P60-B has been factored into next year's budget.) For, indeed, an additional P60-B is absolutely unachievable. Based on reliable records -- look at the Business Day's annual listing of top Philippine corporations -- the local cigarette and wine industry has been averaging only about P12-B in combined net profits every year. Moreover, the President is neither naive to realize that with or without his behest, the RH Bill has already a very very slim chance of passage in the current Congress.
But whether or not Enrile will remain Senate President is the least of my concerns in this write up. It is rather that from the looks of it, President Aquino has discovered an even surer way than what Marcos had in his time to make the legislative -- if not as much yet the judicial -- branch of government his virtual rubber stamp. I mean, Marcos used the military, Aquino uses the pork barrel.
Everybody knows he has done that to Congress, as evidenced by the blitzkrieg approach by which he had ordered congressmen to impeach Corona. It is still a bit doubtful that with Corona out and Sereno in, he has similarly succeeded in the high tribunal. On the one hand, most of the magistrates had been clearly insulted and lost a great deal of morale with Sereno's appointment as CJ. On the other hand, the high court has still to rule on the final fate of the Hacienda Luisita case, at least among several other critical issues still pending there, in which the President has a personal stake. The latter would then be the turning point on whether we should call his incumbency "Aquino government" or merely "Aquino administration."
Back to the Senate, Santiago was right that Enrile's potential ouster could arise out of his reluctance to endorse two of the administration's pet legislative agendas: the Reproductive Health and the Sin Tax bills. Incidentally, Santiago is principal sponsor of the former, and has also filed her own version of the latter, which is much closer to the incremental P60-B tax take that Aquino and his allies in the Lower House had always wanted than Recto's relatively watered-down tax proposal of P15-B, which Enrile is in turn more or less endorsing. Except for Sen. Trillanes, who has been quite vocal in his desire to oust Enrile, no other senator has yet voiced out his dislike for Enrile as Senate President. And so, Santiago was just telling the truth -- well, something she might not have done if she were not leaving the Senate soon in favor of the post awaiting her at the International Court of Justice -- that senators are just waiting for the sign, which certainly, though Santiago didn't say it, can only come from none else but President Aquino.
At any rate, whether or not Enrile would be eventually ousted still remains everybody's wild guess. On one hand, I refuse to believe that at this point in his long political career, Enrile can still be intimidated. Methinks he has grown amply immune to presidential influence. He was certainly right saying he holds no Torrens Title to the Senate presidency, although he believes being just an ordinary senator would give him better freedom to vocally oppose his peers than, at least initially, remaining neutral as Senate President. On another, I believe President Aquino is not too naive to realize that, just in case, his voicing out the signal to oust Enrile and to replace him with a truer ally (Drilon most probably) simply because of Enrile's refusal to approve the additional, repeat: additional, P60-B sin taxes for cigarette and liquor that he lusts for, may sooner or later bounce back to him in terms of even much higher and no longer curable budget deficits in the years to come. (As a matter of fact, that P60-B has been factored into next year's budget.) For, indeed, an additional P60-B is absolutely unachievable. Based on reliable records -- look at the Business Day's annual listing of top Philippine corporations -- the local cigarette and wine industry has been averaging only about P12-B in combined net profits every year. Moreover, the President is neither naive to realize that with or without his behest, the RH Bill has already a very very slim chance of passage in the current Congress.
But whether or not Enrile will remain Senate President is the least of my concerns in this write up. It is rather that from the looks of it, President Aquino has discovered an even surer way than what Marcos had in his time to make the legislative -- if not as much yet the judicial -- branch of government his virtual rubber stamp. I mean, Marcos used the military, Aquino uses the pork barrel.
Miyerkules, Oktubre 24, 2012
A NEW DIVISIVE ISSUE IN THE OFFING
Given this country's unarguable reputation, or notoriety, as the world's greatest copier of everything foreign, we should probably brace up ourselves for another divisive legislative issue that looms in the offing. I am referring to the United Nation's recommendation to the Asia-Pacific region, and that includes the Philippines,
to decriminalize prostitution, the envisioned objective being to prevent kuno the rapid spread of HIV and other sex-related diseases particularly in highly urbanized communities.
Well, that's how we are naman as a nation, di ba?. As soon as one deeply divisive public issue begins to subside, there will surely be another coming. And so, now that the HR Bill is about to bow out from the public forums -- its advocates are now virtually beginning to concede their eventual defeat in Congress -- a new and equally controversial issue, the decriminalization of prostitution, is before us. In due course, this is going to be the subject of endless heated debates from the highest down to the lowest echelons of Philippines society. I just cannot help but ask: "Kala ko ba, one of the primary objectives of the government's unbridled proliferation of condoms and the like throughout the archipelago is to curb STD (sexually-transmitted diseases)? Our drugstores from Batanes to Jolo have long been flooded with condoms and the like even long before the HR Bill became a controversial public issue in these parts. And we all know every call girl in town keeps them handy in their bags. Then, why does the UN suddenly think these contraceptives are not enough and so prostitution now needs to be decriminalized? Doesn't the UN now admit that neither has or may the RH Bill prevent the spread of STDs? With more reason, then, should we throw the RH Bill into the dust bins of perpetual oblivion! But why must the proposal to legalize prostitution suddenly come from the UN.
Kung sabagay, I have long lost my trust on the UN even as an instrument to prevent war. Originally known as League of Nations, it failed to prevent World War I. Changed into its present calling, it ended up as inutile in avoiding World War II, as well, in relatively more recent times, as the Korean and Vietnam Wars Then came the past and still subsisting atrocities in the Middle East which, likewise, the UN has not contained. Even in the very simple territorial rift between China and the Philippines on the Scarborough Shoal, the UN has just been uselessly watching. Alas, the Asia-Pacific should probably first see the UN succeeding in its most important mandate before even mulling that an otherwise clearly cultural or health problem of nations can ever be effectively curable through the decriminalization of prostitution.
Having said the above, I find it rather odd that at this writing only two Senators (Enrile and Pimental) -- quite surprisingly, both males rather than females, at that -- have yet voiced out strong objections to the decriminalization of prostitution in these parts. (Never mind the Church for now; it will surely soon follow, and in a louder voice).
I am more concerned with our honorable(?) lawmakers, of course. Ah, maybe -- just maybe -- the majority of them are yet waiting for certain other worldwide financing institutions, the World Bank, the ADB or the WHO, for example, to endorse the UN's recommendation, realizing as they do that, like in the case of the RH Bill to whose eventual passage these institutions are known to have offered enormous funds disguised as foreign aid, similar carrots are not far behind. And so, for them it's just too early to shed their truer colors in the interim.
In summing up, I hate to say this but I must. There seems to be good reason to believe that it is these so-called "benevolent" financial institutions, supported by the many corrupt local governments they assist in various parts of the world, that are wittingly or unwittingly conspiring together towards the continuing globalization of poverty and economic and cultural degradation in our midst and times.
to decriminalize prostitution, the envisioned objective being to prevent kuno the rapid spread of HIV and other sex-related diseases particularly in highly urbanized communities.
Well, that's how we are naman as a nation, di ba?. As soon as one deeply divisive public issue begins to subside, there will surely be another coming. And so, now that the HR Bill is about to bow out from the public forums -- its advocates are now virtually beginning to concede their eventual defeat in Congress -- a new and equally controversial issue, the decriminalization of prostitution, is before us. In due course, this is going to be the subject of endless heated debates from the highest down to the lowest echelons of Philippines society. I just cannot help but ask: "Kala ko ba, one of the primary objectives of the government's unbridled proliferation of condoms and the like throughout the archipelago is to curb STD (sexually-transmitted diseases)? Our drugstores from Batanes to Jolo have long been flooded with condoms and the like even long before the HR Bill became a controversial public issue in these parts. And we all know every call girl in town keeps them handy in their bags. Then, why does the UN suddenly think these contraceptives are not enough and so prostitution now needs to be decriminalized? Doesn't the UN now admit that neither has or may the RH Bill prevent the spread of STDs? With more reason, then, should we throw the RH Bill into the dust bins of perpetual oblivion! But why must the proposal to legalize prostitution suddenly come from the UN.
Kung sabagay, I have long lost my trust on the UN even as an instrument to prevent war. Originally known as League of Nations, it failed to prevent World War I. Changed into its present calling, it ended up as inutile in avoiding World War II, as well, in relatively more recent times, as the Korean and Vietnam Wars Then came the past and still subsisting atrocities in the Middle East which, likewise, the UN has not contained. Even in the very simple territorial rift between China and the Philippines on the Scarborough Shoal, the UN has just been uselessly watching. Alas, the Asia-Pacific should probably first see the UN succeeding in its most important mandate before even mulling that an otherwise clearly cultural or health problem of nations can ever be effectively curable through the decriminalization of prostitution.
Having said the above, I find it rather odd that at this writing only two Senators (Enrile and Pimental) -- quite surprisingly, both males rather than females, at that -- have yet voiced out strong objections to the decriminalization of prostitution in these parts. (Never mind the Church for now; it will surely soon follow, and in a louder voice).
I am more concerned with our honorable(?) lawmakers, of course. Ah, maybe -- just maybe -- the majority of them are yet waiting for certain other worldwide financing institutions, the World Bank, the ADB or the WHO, for example, to endorse the UN's recommendation, realizing as they do that, like in the case of the RH Bill to whose eventual passage these institutions are known to have offered enormous funds disguised as foreign aid, similar carrots are not far behind. And so, for them it's just too early to shed their truer colors in the interim.
In summing up, I hate to say this but I must. There seems to be good reason to believe that it is these so-called "benevolent" financial institutions, supported by the many corrupt local governments they assist in various parts of the world, that are wittingly or unwittingly conspiring together towards the continuing globalization of poverty and economic and cultural degradation in our midst and times.
Lunes, Oktubre 22, 2012
A "STRAIGHT PATH" THAT'S "PAURONG," NOT "PASULONG"
An Inquirer news item this morning reveals, "Pnoy suspends 3 bridge projects worth P3-B due to overpricing." It's truly nice to hear that! But reassuring, I still have some doubts.
I know that the news refers to the Bridge Projects Scam apparently began in GMA's time, and is the subject of Sen. Serge Osmena's ongoing Senate probe "in aid of legislation" kuno -- even as only the devil knows if there is going to be a legislation to emanate therefrom. As far as I know -- to give credit where credit is due -- this mega scam was first revealed by a movement called "InfraWatch," with my good friend, Rick Ramos, at its helm.
As I said, it is nice to hear that the present administration's drum-beaters have been earnestly pursuing Pnoy's much ballyhooed "tuwid na daan." The only little problem, it seems to me, is that the "straight path" they are pursuing might only be selectively leading to the past -- in other words, "paurong" -- rather than "pasulong" or a walk through the present to eventually lead to a brighter future.
Why do I say that? Simple! The present administration has now been on its third year. Since bridges do not normally take too long to build, it is not entirely far-fetched to speculate, then, that the implementation of the three now-suspended bridge projects had began not as much before as during the present administration. And so, two curious questions ache for equally curious answers: Have these three specific projects continued to be pursued under the self-same anomalous circumstances as those pursued in GMA's time? I have no quarrel with the need to make GMA accountable for her past "sins" on the bridge projects in general. So be it in the interest of truth. But why, with respect to these three projects, call quite selectively only GMA's public works men ( Ebdane, et al) and not likewise, in fact more appropriately, the present DPHW bosses, to shed a probably brighter light? For all we know, they may have themselves made of these three suspended projects their very own milking cow. I mean, fair is fair!
This is what I mean in saying -- nay, just imagining -- that Pnoy's "straight path" is being pursued rather "paurong" than "pasulong." If that is the case, then, where is that path leading us to?
I know that the news refers to the Bridge Projects Scam apparently began in GMA's time, and is the subject of Sen. Serge Osmena's ongoing Senate probe "in aid of legislation" kuno -- even as only the devil knows if there is going to be a legislation to emanate therefrom. As far as I know -- to give credit where credit is due -- this mega scam was first revealed by a movement called "InfraWatch," with my good friend, Rick Ramos, at its helm.
As I said, it is nice to hear that the present administration's drum-beaters have been earnestly pursuing Pnoy's much ballyhooed "tuwid na daan." The only little problem, it seems to me, is that the "straight path" they are pursuing might only be selectively leading to the past -- in other words, "paurong" -- rather than "pasulong" or a walk through the present to eventually lead to a brighter future.
Why do I say that? Simple! The present administration has now been on its third year. Since bridges do not normally take too long to build, it is not entirely far-fetched to speculate, then, that the implementation of the three now-suspended bridge projects had began not as much before as during the present administration. And so, two curious questions ache for equally curious answers: Have these three specific projects continued to be pursued under the self-same anomalous circumstances as those pursued in GMA's time? I have no quarrel with the need to make GMA accountable for her past "sins" on the bridge projects in general. So be it in the interest of truth. But why, with respect to these three projects, call quite selectively only GMA's public works men ( Ebdane, et al) and not likewise, in fact more appropriately, the present DPHW bosses, to shed a probably brighter light? For all we know, they may have themselves made of these three suspended projects their very own milking cow. I mean, fair is fair!
This is what I mean in saying -- nay, just imagining -- that Pnoy's "straight path" is being pursued rather "paurong" than "pasulong." If that is the case, then, where is that path leading us to?
Biyernes, Oktubre 19, 2012
AN INSATIABLE GREED FOR TAX
None else but insatiable greed for tax lies behind the administration's unbridled desire for a P60-Billion increase in the sin taxes. A recent report says the government has watered-down its incremental sin-tax take to P40-Billion. Let me repeat, INCREMENTAL, meaning an additional tax of P60/P40 billion over and what the cigarette and alcohol companies have been taxed before.
For heaven's sake, that is the most callous, the most unconscionable expression of greed I have heard in all my 73 years in Planet Earth. Consider this: A recent business magazine reports that the top 50 corporations in the Philippines have posted an aggregate, repeat: aggregate, net income of P134.0 billion. None of the cigarette or liquor companies in the country is even included in that least. According to Sen. Angara in a recent television interview with Karen Davila in ABS-CBN's "Headstart," the local cigarette and liquor industry is netting only P12.0 Billion annually. And imagine that the new sin tax law is yet intending to reduce cigarette and liquor gross sales, and hence net income, by nobody knows how much. Alas, if that which this government wants is not GREED in its absolute superlative degree, I do not know what is.
The government's greed for tax money becomes even more condemnable as soon as we begin to think that PNoy has already included that incremental P60-Billon sin-tax take in the government's budget for next year. Of course, that should most particularly delight Finance Secretary Purisima and BIR chief Henares because they are expecting that with that new revenue their tax collection figures next year could improve.
Tax collections per se, maybe yes. But budget deficits, NEVER. Since when, may I ask, has this government ever been able to balance its budget after the passage of a new tax law? Has the VAT law, for example, ever achieved that? Definitely not! I really doubt if our Finance managers realize the fact that none of them has ever predicted accurately what the government expects to receive from a new tax law. Chances are, they would even overstate the predictions so that they could justify as much newer budget expenditures as possible, in turn to finally end up with budget deficits very much higher than they had been before a new tax law is passed. And that, without doubt, is what is likely going to happen in the aftermath of the new sin-tax law. That is the JINX this government has never been immune from since time immemorial!
It is certainly not that I am for smoking. Of course, not. I used to smoke nearly three packs a day before I stopped this high school habit of mine only less that five years ago. But for me, the single biggest antidote against this habit -- nay, this abominable vice -- is self-discipline. And the best example of self-discipline in a more or less national scale could only come from a country's very own leaders. But how can that be possible in a country whose highest leader, PNoy, keeps saying: "I really want to tax cigarettes to extinction, but I cannot stop smoking!" Alas, if this country's top leader do not know how to discipline himself against continuing with an abominable vice, how can he impose discipline against graft and corruption into his ranks in the government service? Call it motherhood statement, but it still remains that self-discipline is every true leader's most essential qualification. PNoy says if he stops smoking there will be nothing to help him docompress? How laughable! Alas, does that apply only to himself and not to every Filipino in that habit? Isn't he then virtually saying: "magsitigil kayo sa inyong biso, ako hindi, presidente yata ako!"
At any rate, I tend to maintain that extremely high prices of cigarettes and liquors can't really give a significant dent on people's smoking habit. Look at shabu. It does not only command the most prohibitive price in the market place; it is also illegal and one may be jailed for using it. But let's be honest, indeed, more and more are being hooked to drugs day in and day out in our midst and times. That's where a vice differs from a habit.
Yes, let's adjust our existing sin taxes. But as Recto says, let's be realistic. And it is definitely unrealistic for government to tax the cigarette and liquor industry with an increment that is nearly five times what it has been netting annually on the average. Not only unrealistic, also extremely insensitive! Do some extents, aren't we killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?
For heaven's sake, that is the most callous, the most unconscionable expression of greed I have heard in all my 73 years in Planet Earth. Consider this: A recent business magazine reports that the top 50 corporations in the Philippines have posted an aggregate, repeat: aggregate, net income of P134.0 billion. None of the cigarette or liquor companies in the country is even included in that least. According to Sen. Angara in a recent television interview with Karen Davila in ABS-CBN's "Headstart," the local cigarette and liquor industry is netting only P12.0 Billion annually. And imagine that the new sin tax law is yet intending to reduce cigarette and liquor gross sales, and hence net income, by nobody knows how much. Alas, if that which this government wants is not GREED in its absolute superlative degree, I do not know what is.
The government's greed for tax money becomes even more condemnable as soon as we begin to think that PNoy has already included that incremental P60-Billon sin-tax take in the government's budget for next year. Of course, that should most particularly delight Finance Secretary Purisima and BIR chief Henares because they are expecting that with that new revenue their tax collection figures next year could improve.
Tax collections per se, maybe yes. But budget deficits, NEVER. Since when, may I ask, has this government ever been able to balance its budget after the passage of a new tax law? Has the VAT law, for example, ever achieved that? Definitely not! I really doubt if our Finance managers realize the fact that none of them has ever predicted accurately what the government expects to receive from a new tax law. Chances are, they would even overstate the predictions so that they could justify as much newer budget expenditures as possible, in turn to finally end up with budget deficits very much higher than they had been before a new tax law is passed. And that, without doubt, is what is likely going to happen in the aftermath of the new sin-tax law. That is the JINX this government has never been immune from since time immemorial!
It is certainly not that I am for smoking. Of course, not. I used to smoke nearly three packs a day before I stopped this high school habit of mine only less that five years ago. But for me, the single biggest antidote against this habit -- nay, this abominable vice -- is self-discipline. And the best example of self-discipline in a more or less national scale could only come from a country's very own leaders. But how can that be possible in a country whose highest leader, PNoy, keeps saying: "I really want to tax cigarettes to extinction, but I cannot stop smoking!" Alas, if this country's top leader do not know how to discipline himself against continuing with an abominable vice, how can he impose discipline against graft and corruption into his ranks in the government service? Call it motherhood statement, but it still remains that self-discipline is every true leader's most essential qualification. PNoy says if he stops smoking there will be nothing to help him docompress? How laughable! Alas, does that apply only to himself and not to every Filipino in that habit? Isn't he then virtually saying: "magsitigil kayo sa inyong biso, ako hindi, presidente yata ako!"
At any rate, I tend to maintain that extremely high prices of cigarettes and liquors can't really give a significant dent on people's smoking habit. Look at shabu. It does not only command the most prohibitive price in the market place; it is also illegal and one may be jailed for using it. But let's be honest, indeed, more and more are being hooked to drugs day in and day out in our midst and times. That's where a vice differs from a habit.
Yes, let's adjust our existing sin taxes. But as Recto says, let's be realistic. And it is definitely unrealistic for government to tax the cigarette and liquor industry with an increment that is nearly five times what it has been netting annually on the average. Not only unrealistic, also extremely insensitive! Do some extents, aren't we killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?
Lunes, Oktubre 15, 2012
THE GRP-MILF PEACE TALK 2
I said in my last blog that already three peace talks, including the Framework Agreement signed yesterday, 15 October, had been concluded by the government with the Muslims of Mindanao. I have to apologize that I was wrong; there has actually been four already, that which I failed to mention was the FPA or so-called Final Peace Agreement concluded in 1996 during the incumbency of former President Fidel V. Ramos. So-called "final," it really was not, as indeed two others -- the MOA-AD in GMA's time and now the Framework Agreement at present. To sum up, the first two were signed with the MNLF, the latter two with the MILF.
The more indeed does this tend to cast some clouds of doubt on the eventual success of the current one. Before anybody gets me wrong, I do not wish to sound a "kill-joy" in this connection. The thing is, as Misuari of the MNLF now tends to show, the new agreement may be on for rough sailing during PNoy's remaining terms, or in his exact words, tantamount to a suicide for the MILF. Of course, he also said, the MNLF is not going to war owing to their disagreement to the ongoing negotiation. Well, my only remaining hope is when the government realizes the need to first agree to between themselves and sincerely assert that either is no longer interested in "liberation," but now in true "autonomy." My common sense -- as well as that of others, I am sure -- would simply suggest that the MILF and MNLF unite under one I-don't-know- what name or calling that has totally shed off or removed the letter "L" for liberation.
As we all know, the purpose for the establishment of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) is give the kind of autonomy -- let's not forget, not liberation -- that the Muslims need towards optimum peace and co-existence with their Christian brothers and sisters in that part of the country. And as everybody, the ARMM's noble objective has failed. But why did it fail, in the first place. Less be honest: isn't it essentially because of graft and corruption and the greed for power among those that governed the ARMM. If that is the case, then doesn't the common-sense solution simply lie in solving that graft and corruption and addressing the ARMM governors' insatiable greed for power? Then, why must the government abolish the ARMM rather than squarely address its basic problems and give it a chance?
As I said, I am no lawyer nor a political analyst. I may be analyzing problems not really as much from the standpoints of law and politics as merely from that of plain common sense. But I have always believed that all laws and governmental policies anywhere in all democratic societies must first and foremost be common-sensical. And I am sure I am not alone in that conviction.
The more indeed does this tend to cast some clouds of doubt on the eventual success of the current one. Before anybody gets me wrong, I do not wish to sound a "kill-joy" in this connection. The thing is, as Misuari of the MNLF now tends to show, the new agreement may be on for rough sailing during PNoy's remaining terms, or in his exact words, tantamount to a suicide for the MILF. Of course, he also said, the MNLF is not going to war owing to their disagreement to the ongoing negotiation. Well, my only remaining hope is when the government realizes the need to first agree to between themselves and sincerely assert that either is no longer interested in "liberation," but now in true "autonomy." My common sense -- as well as that of others, I am sure -- would simply suggest that the MILF and MNLF unite under one I-don't-know- what name or calling that has totally shed off or removed the letter "L" for liberation.
As we all know, the purpose for the establishment of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) is give the kind of autonomy -- let's not forget, not liberation -- that the Muslims need towards optimum peace and co-existence with their Christian brothers and sisters in that part of the country. And as everybody, the ARMM's noble objective has failed. But why did it fail, in the first place. Less be honest: isn't it essentially because of graft and corruption and the greed for power among those that governed the ARMM. If that is the case, then doesn't the common-sense solution simply lie in solving that graft and corruption and addressing the ARMM governors' insatiable greed for power? Then, why must the government abolish the ARMM rather than squarely address its basic problems and give it a chance?
As I said, I am no lawyer nor a political analyst. I may be analyzing problems not really as much from the standpoints of law and politics as merely from that of plain common sense. But I have always believed that all laws and governmental policies anywhere in all democratic societies must first and foremost be common-sensical. And I am sure I am not alone in that conviction.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)