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?
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)