Senators Tito Sotto and Chiz Escudero have been recently in the news, urging the President to certify as "urgent" the passage of the still controversial Freedom of Information Bill, which seems to be lagging behind in the Lower House even as the Upper House appears raring for its passage before Congress goes on recess in anticipation of the forthcoming elections. That, after the passage of the even far more controversial RH Bill, thanks or no thanks to the presidential certification of its urgency during the dying days of last year. Of course, whether or not the President would give in to the two Senators' request remains to be seen.
But based at least on how the House has railroaded the passage of the RH Bill on the strength of the clear presidential intrusion into an otherwise purely legislative process, methinks, with due respect and with malice towards none, the President had abused, and might again be tempted to abuse, his constitutional mandate in this regard. I do not recall any past president had acted as arbitrarily before.
And that is because Section 26(2), Article VI of the Constitution clearly provides that "no bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to each members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the passage of the RH Bill satisfactorily complied with the "three readings" and "printing and distribution of copies" requirement. But, for heaven's sake, where lies the "necessity of its immediate passage to meet a public calamity or emergency? Everybody knows that that legislation had undergone very rough sailing in Congress for at least two decades and, up until its final passage, it had been so monumentally controversial as to divide public opinion practically in the middle. And so, what kind of calamity or emergency would the nation pass through if the bill had been left for further and deeper national deliberation and discernment? Of course, what has been done may never be undone, so the saying goes.
Meanwhile, the present administration is known to be lukewarm or indifferent to the passage of the FOI or Freedom of Information Bill without the ROR "right of reply" proviso inserted, which nonetheless Congress apparently contradicts.. Under this situation. I cannot help but think: Aren't Sotto and Escudero, who were both against the RH Bill, perhaps just trying to give the President a bitter dose of his own medicine? I mean, the Senators might be speaking silently in their minds: "Mr. President, you have certified as urgent the passage of the RH Bill even though there is no known calamity or emergency situation threatening the nation even if it were temporarily shelved for further deliberation. Well, there may not also exist any public calamity or national emergency if the FOI bill, also long debated in previous Congresses, were not immediately passed. But then, Mr. President, you should be obliged follow your own precedent!" .
At any rate, these thoughts are mere products of my oftentimes wild and curious imaginations. Let us then simply wait and see.
Linggo, Enero 6, 2013
Linggo, Disyembre 30, 2012
AFTER THE BIG, BLOODIED BANG: (NAKAKALOKA! 2)
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.
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.
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.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)