On the RH Bill

The proposed law defines reproductive health as “the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes”.

The proponents of the bill cite the following grounds for its enactment into law:

1. Protect the health & lives of mothers;
2. Save babies;
3. Respond to the majority who want smaller families;
4. Promote equity for poor families;
5. Prevent induced abortions;
6. Support and deploy more public midwives, nurses and doctors;
7. Guarantee funding for & equal access to health facilities;
8. Give accurate & positive sexuality education to young people;
9. Reduce cancer deaths, and
10. Save money that can be used for even more social spending.

Those who oppose the bill, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) in particular, argue that:

1. It does not protect the health of the sacred human life that is being formed or born. The very name “contraceptive” already reveals the anti-life nature of the means that the RH bill promotes;
2. Contraceptives are hazardous to a woman’s health;
3. Many scientific analysts themselves wonder why prevalent contraceptive use sometimes raises the abortion rate;
4. Contraceptives provide a false sense of security that takes away the inhibition to sexual activity;
5. Condoms provide a false security that strongly entices individuals towards increased sexual activity, increasing likewise the incidence of HIV/AIDS;
6. “Safe sex” to prevent HIV /AIDS is false propaganda;
7. Conscience must certainly be enlightened and guided by religious and moral teachings provided by various religious and cultural traditions regarding the fundamental dignity and worth of human life;
8. The causes of our poverty are: flawed philosophies of development, misguided economic policies, greed, corruption, social inequities, lack of access to education, poor economic and social services, poor infrastructures, etc.;
9. Use of public funds for contraceptives and sterilization is objectionable, and
10. Compulsory sex education that would effectively let parents abdicate their primary role of educating their own children, especially in an area of life – sexuality – which is a sacred gift of God is condemnable.

My personal stance regarding this issue is that the State has the responsibility to provide reproductive health services to the citizens, particularly the poor women. However, the State must not commit error by allowing its instrumentalities, particularly the government, to use products and techniques that will lead to a human act that endangers, per se, any human life. Abortifacients (substances that induce abortion) should not be allowed as a State policy.

Stakeholders must therefore come up with a consensus on the socially and morally acceptable birth control techniques and under what conditions should they be allowed. Those who advocate any type of contraceptives must do so within an atmosphere of free market of ideas. They may sell, give, or distribute any contraceptives, but they must ensure that the intended beneficiaries understand the nature and effects of such contraceptives.

On the issue of mandatory sex education, there must be an acceptable formula to make this possible. The State, through the government, should not dictate how this should be done at the classroom level. Parents, teachers, school administrators, and the children should have a say how to best handle this matter.

The health status of families, especially mothers and children, are horrible enough. We cannot solve these problems solely and primarily by birth control. We have to change the conditions that brought about the high maternal mortalities and infant deaths, among others. My humble suggestions on how these should be done include the following:

1. Establish institutions to take good care of unwanted children by providing reproductive services to women who have unwanted pregnancies;
2. Prescribe and maintain minimum standards for communities, especially residential areas, to discourage unplanned and informal settlements;
3. Provide effective information, education and communication programs to change the behaviors of the target audience (spacing birth, breast feeding, etc.);
4. Set up support mechanism for children who are neither sent to school nor treated well, and provide penalty regulatory approaches for irresponsible parents, and
5. Design and implement interventions that will enhance the standard of living of the poor families.

Tragedy of Philippine Independence

The Philippine Daily Inquirer, in its Editorial today, laments:

Why aren’t we as animated with our Independence Day as other countries are with theirs. A strong cause of the rather limp nationalism may be the record of failures of the Philippine nation-state. The first republic of Asia can’t ever seem to get its act together so that more than a century after declaring its independence, the Philippine economy and development remains a relative laggard when compared with its neighbors, which achieved their independence much later.

It is not hard to see why the present generation of Filipinos doesn’t seem to care much about the Independence Day celebration of the Philippines. 

In the first place, there was really no independence that took place. The Philippine Declaration of Independence on June 12, 1898 in the town of Cavite-Viejo, Province of Cavite made the country a protectorate of the United States. This was the belief of Apolinario Mabini, who insisted that another proclamation be done in Malolos, Bulacan.

The Declaration read in Cavite-Viejo said in part:

And having as witness to the rectitude of our intentions the Supreme Judge of the Universe, and under the protection of the Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, the United State of America, we do hereby proclaim and declare solemnly in the name and by authority of the people of these Philippine Islands, that they are and have the right to be free and independent; that they ceased to have any allegiance to the Crown of Spain; that all political ties between them are and should be completely severed and annulled…

In the second place, the road to the declaration of independence was filled with blood, sweat, tears and shame.

On the part of the United States, it broke its traditional version of Manifest Destiny (a people not capable of rising to statehood should never be annexed) and acquired the Philippines as a colony, rather than as a protectorate. The Americans considered the Filipinos as barbarians; hence, President McKinley could only say, 

"There was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them…." 

They did not bother to know that a number of Filipinos were already attending schools and universities in the Philippines and in European countries. They did not bother to check if, after more than 300 years of Spanish colonization, the Filipinos were not yet Catholics!

Mabini, in his book “The Philippine Revolution” analyzed this situation and lamented:

Undoubtedly President McKinley destroyed the Spanish tyranny, but, apparently, only in order to replace it with another in the American manner. It is interesting to observe that the Republican Party, led by a Lincoln in its beginnings, freed many millions of slaves in the United States, while, led by a McKinley in its greatest period of vigour and prosperity, it made the United States the absolute owner of many millions of Filipinos. Immortal Washington, speaking of the Constitution of the United States, said that so long as the civic virtues did not wholly vanish among the classes of North-American society, the distribution of powers made in that Constitution would not permit an unjust policy to become permanent. God grant that the Americans do not, forget the father of their country, or defraud his fond hopes!

On the part of the Philippines, a number of critical incidents continue to haunt the integrity of the Philippine Independence. These critical incidents include the following:

1. Opposition to the election of Andres Bonifacio as director of the interior of a central government (to replace the Katipunan) on the ground that he was not educationally qualified;
2. Andres Bonifacio’s non-recognition of the proceedings of the meeting and actions that threaten the continued existence of the fragile revolutionary movement;
3. Arrest, trial and execution of Andres Bonifacio and his brother – which eventually demoralized the revolutionary movement;
4. Surrender of the revolutionaries to the Spanish authorities after receiving payments;
5. Lack of plan, guns, competencies and discipline to fight the Americans;
6. Murder of General Luna at the hands of soldiers he had court-martialed for abandoning their posts and disobeying his orders, and
7. Rape of Filipinas by Filipino soldiers.

Mabini summed up the Philippine Revolution in this way:

[T]he Revolution failed because it was badly led; because its leader won his post by reprehensible rather than meritorious acts; because instead of supporting the men most useful to the people, he made them useless out of jealousy. Identifying the aggrandizement of the people with his own, he judged the worth of men not by their ability, character and patriotism but rather by their degree of friendship and kinship with him; and anxious to secure the readiness of his favorites tosacrifice themselves for him, he was tolerant even of their transgressions. Because he thus neglected the people forsook him; and forsaken by the people, he was bound to fall like a waxen idol melting in the heat of adversity. God grant we do not forget such a terrible lesson, learnt at the cost of untold suffering.

The End Did Not Justify the Means

Originally posted on Wednesday, May 30, 2012

That former Chief Justice Renato Corona has been impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Impeachment Court is now water under the bridge.

But what is worthy of attention are the means by which the House of Representatives impeached Mr. Corona and how the Impeachment Court facilitated the trial. The operational principle is “the end does not justify the means”. It is wrong to convict an individual person if the rights of that person are violated in the process. It is evil to do wrong to make good happen.

The Prosecutors failed to prove Mr. Corona’s guilt. It was Mr. Corona himself who convinced the Senators that he violated certain laws.

Be that as it may, it was improper for the House to transmit the articles of impeachment under a dark smog of doubt. It was certainly not transparent. It was simply not good governance. It was simply not daang matuwid. In addition, the Prosecutors were in a fishing expedition to pin down the accused, using the resources of the instrumentalities of the State.

The Senate, instead of correcting the faulty process, in the end became a reluctant accomplice.

I wonder whether the entire twists and turns of the impeachment are simply full of fire and fury signifying nothing. I wonder whether they are actually worthy in the altar of public service.

There is no sense in fighting evil with evil. There is no sense in using the State’s instrumentalities to commit violence. That is not exercise of power. That is abuse of authority, which emanates from the Sovereign Filipino People.

Bottomline in Corona’s Impeachment Trial

Much has been said about the use and abuse of government’s resources to prove that Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona is no longer fit to continue holding his office, that Mr. Chief Justice Corona is an obstacle in carrying out anti-corruption initiatives in the country,  that the House of Representatives rushed the transmittal of an ill-prepared articles of impeachment, that the Senate Impeachment Court should discontinue the trial and drop the charges, that the case against Mr. Chief Justice Corona is an act of vengeance by President Aquino due to reasons that include Mr. Corona’s alleged bias regarding Supreme Court cases involving the Hacienda Luisita, former Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, etc.

It boils down to this: Mr. Chief Justice Corona failed to include in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) the peso equivalent of his dollar deposit and his share of the commingled funds deposited under his name.

Such act is a violation of Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution,which states that a “public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law”.

Such act is also a violation of Section 8 (A) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Pubic Officials and Employees), which provides that “All public officials and employees … shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households. The two documents shall contain the following: a) real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value and current fair market value; b) personal property and acquisition cost; c) all other assets such as investments, cash on hand or in banks, stocks, bonds, and the like; d) liabilities, and e) all business interests and financial connections.”

In addition, such act is a violation of Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) which provides that “Every public officer, within 30 days after assuming office … shall prepare and file … a true, detailed sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year.”

By his own admission, Mr. Chief Justice Corona has $2.4 million in deposits and P80.7 million in commingled funds. His defense that the dollar deposit is covered by Republic Act No. 6426 (Foreign Currency Deposit System) does not hold water. Section 4 of RA No. 6426 states that "All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act ... are hereby declared and considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency desposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private. Mr. Chief Justice Corona would not have violated this law if he included in his SALN the peso equivalent of his dollar deposit. His defense that the commingled fund is not his own asset does not also hold water. Mr. Chief Justice Corona would have not violated any law if he included in his SALN the total commingled fund and his share of that fund.

Section 11 of RA No. 6713 provides the following:

“(a) Any public official or employee …  committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office… and

(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public official or employee, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.”

The laws are clear. The laws must be implemented. Dura lex sed lex (Law is harsh, but it's the law).

On Rappler's Comments to UST

As a concerned citizen of this Republic, I am bothered by the statements of Rappler on UST’s granting of a doctorate to Mr. Chief Justice, Renato Corona. I am not an admirer of Corona, but I defend his right to earn his doctorate with honors, especially that he completed it despite the demands of his work and family.


Issue 1: Why did UST bend its rules and waive its dissertation requirements for Corona?


UST did not bend its rules and waive its dissertation requirements. Corona delivered a “scholarly treatise” in a public lecture. This is equivalent to a dissertation. Note that other universities in Japan and Europe, the equivalent of a dissertation can be “essays” or an article “published in a refereed journal”. In some PhD programs around the world, dissertation, as Ms. Vitug probably understands it, is no longer required.


If Rappler doubts that Corona’s lecture is not equivalent to a dissertation, I challenge Rappler to do a comparative study of related dissertations among Philippine universities.


Issue 2: Why was he given top honors, summa cum laude, when he had overstayed?


Corona spent an equivalent of seven years to complete his PhD. Seven years is the maximum residency requirement. The UST Graduate School Student’s handbook provides that “As a general rule, a PhD degree program may be completed in five (5) years, i.e., enrolled for at least ten (10) semesters or summer terms. The maximum residency for the PhD program is seven (7) years…Students who overstayed beyond the maximum residency must take reactivation courses.” Granting that Corona overstayed, he could take reactivation courses.


The top honors given to Corona was based on his grades. If he is that good academically, then let him earn what he deserves.


Comments to Rappler


Code 1 of the Journalist's Code of Ethics as adopted by the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines states that “I shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential facts nor to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis.” Why did Ms. Vitug failed to check the UST Student’s Handbook, which is available at the website of the University, to determine the veracity of the accusations contained in her write up?


Code 11 states that “When in doubt, decency should be my watchword”. Where is decency when Ms. Vitug’s write up was published by the Inquirer without getting the side of UST (see check Codes 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics)? Why did she not interview the Dean and faculty members of the UST Graduate School to get their side of the story?


As a former journalist, I feel bad each time I watch reputations destroyed by practitioners of free press. Ms. Vitug is a recognized practitioner of free press, but I am disappointed that she committed conflict of interest and violated the Journalist's Code of Ethics in the pursuit of producing a “ripple” without “rap”, probably forgetting that what Rappler claims as the meaning of “rap” is similar to dissertātiō (Latin), meaning "discourse", which is the etymology for the word dissertation.