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.

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.

Sendong

The national and local governments should be accountable for what happened to the victims of Sendong. Dapat merong mananagot. That's one of the principles of good governance. And the barangay and city officials and P-Noy, being the chairman of the Climate Change Commission, are the primary duty bearers.


It is not enough to explain the disaster, like attribute it partly to the complacency of the ordinary citizens. It is not hard to see why complacency, poor city planning, proliferation of urban slums, destructive mining, and deforestation are factors that increase people's vulnerability to disasters. That is why in 2009, P-noy signed into law the Climate Change Act that mandates the national and local governments to formulate and implement Local Climate Change Action Plans. But where are the plans?


Governor Joey Salceda of Albay has shown the way to climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. P-noy should start watching the performance of his former classmate rather than that of Valerie Conception (no pun intended).

Right to Travel

The denial of Gloria’s right to travel, prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, violated the constitution. The executive department during the Gloria-Macapagal administration committed a grave mistake by arrogating unto itself powers, which are supposedly provided by the Administrative Code, but are contrary to the provisions of the Constitution. The Aquino administration is continuing such grave mistake.

I disagree with Fr. Joaquin Bernas on his opinion that the Supreme Court should be obeyed in as far as the TROs are concerned. But I agree with his position that there was no sufficient and reasonable basis, prior to the issuance of the warrant of arrest, to violate a constitutional right (right to travel). The curtailment of such right is based on a reading of the Administration Code, which could not supersede the constitutional provision.

The principle is simple, it was not right to violate Gloria's right to travel on the ground that she may be charged with an offense in court or that she may not return to face the charges. We can never eat the fruits of a poisonous tree without any negative consequence. We were mad when Gloria used the travel ban during her term. We should be mad when anyone uses this travel ban now.

On Hacienda Luisita

I must say that this statement of Conrado De Quiros (PDI, Nov. 28, 2011) is an ideal scenario:

"P-Noy’s family should never have waited for the Supreme Court to have decreed its unconditional redistribution in the name of the law. P-Noy’s family should never have waited for the Supreme Court to find a weapon to hurl at them in the name of conscience. They should have redistributed the land unconditionally long ago."

But the ideal scenario is to not wait for an agrarian unrest to happen before redistributing those lands. Those lands should have been redistributed to legitimate tillers upon securing ownership from the Spaniards.

I must also say, however, that both scenarios are tantamount to committing hindsight. Those scenarios are simply not possible given the temper of those times. What is possible today may not necessarily be possible yesterday.

Brouhaha over Gloria

The arrest of Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, former president of the Republic of the Philippines, is a case of a blatant display of intimidation by at least one instrumentality of the State – the executive branch of the government. A reading of the incidents leading to the arrest points to the fact that the Department of Justice was bent on preventing Arroyo from leaving the country. The department ignored the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court, which allowed the former president to seek medical attention abroad. To buttress its position, the department partnered with the Commission on Elections in determining the culpability of Arroyo to the charge of electoral sabotage, a non-bailable offense that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Although there is no clear evidence to pin the department and the commission for collusion, the bottomline is that the commission filed the charge of electoral sabotage on the same day that the Supreme Court was to decide on the right to travel of Mrs. Arroyo. Before the day ended, the court issued the warrant of arrest for the embattled Arroyo.

A fundamental question that demands to be answered is whether the executive branch is justified in ignoring the issuance of the Supreme Court. The standard response to this question is in the negative. The Supreme Court must be obeyed. However, since the court neither declared how it interprets a law nor decided over a competing legal claim, the court may not be followed. Temporary restraining orders issued by courts are not absolute. They are at the very least temporary and at the very most a mere suspension of judgment. Justices of the courts are not paid to stop the wheels of justice from spinning, which is what TROs are all about. Justices are paid to hear the parties in conflict and to decide on the cases brought before their attention. TROs are unconstitutional.

The Pasay Regional Trial court is perhaps within the bounds of its power to issue the warrant of arrest against Mrs. Arroyo. However, it could not have acted if the Commission on Elections did not file the case.

The hospital arrest of Mrs. Arroyo is a testament of how government could abuse its authority. Mrs. Arroyo should be jailed, just like any other persons issued with a warrant of arrest. By putting her instead on hospital arrest, the government is being selective, in addition to being coercive, and abusive.

Being Critical of the Aquino Administration

I am not critical of the Aquino administration if by critical means being “inclined to judge severely and find fault”. I was critical of the administration of Gloria-Macapagal Arroyo. So much so that I stopped posting a blog after writing that she should step down as a result of the dark cloud of doubt that engulfed her election in 2004.

Personally, I like the new president for his simplicity and sincerity. I had the chance to listen and watch his interviews on television. It is hard not to admire a fresh face and a new voice in the country’s political landscape. An admiration that is in stark contrast to what one normally feels upon seeing the face or hearing the voice of the former president.

I am proud of our new president.

So much so that if he or his administration commits mistakes, I have to be critical of such mistakes so that there will be time for alternative courses of action. I will not be critical of the administration just for the sake of being critical. I shall endeavor to engage the administration in constructive criticism hoping that such rule of engagement will make whatever difference in my personal, social, community or national life.

For instance, I do not think it was nice for the president not to acknowledge Chief Justice Corona of the Supreme Court during his Inaugural Speech given the fact that he acknowledged by name the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Without necessarily imputing intentions or motives to the president, I think that such omission was tantamount to a clear breach of decorum. If the president is unhappy that Corona did not resign his position as chief justice of the Supreme Court, then he must contest the possible “midnight” appointment of Corona using the force of reason and the rule of law. If the president simply missed to acknowledge Mr. Corona, then I think he should have conveyed an apology to Mr. Corona.

Not that I am happy that Corona was appointed as head of the high court. Personally, I think Corona should resign his position, citing national interest, national reconciliation, or plain delicadeza and common sense. I think people will think more highly of him if he voluntarily vacates his position. Hopefully, the new president will also think highly of him and then refuse to accept his resignation.

This is not to say also that I do not recognize the process that went through the appointment of Mr. Corona. The legal aspects of his appointment have been discussed quite thoroughly. As a citizen, however, I think that an appointment can be legal but not necessarily proper. 


Appointments to public positions require public trust. If the appointing officer, with whom such trust is entrusted, is under serious doubt, thereby making the process of appointment questionable, then it would have been better if the appointment was not made or the person who benefited from such appointment relinquishes the position in order to safeguard or restore whatever credibility is left on the high court. 


I am, therefore, arguing on meta-legal grounds. Indeed, there are more things on heaven and on earth than are dreamed of in our laws and jurisprudence.

Another instance is the rendition by popular Filipino artists of songs that were meant to kill the time, rather than inspire the people in attendance, so that the speech of the new president will be on the desired moment. Those insertions marred the solemnity of the occasion. Although I respect the right of the artists to express their creative powers, it should have been done during the party held at Quezon Memorial Circle, where the new president shared a festive moment with friends, supporters and admirers.

I have no illusion of grandeur. I do not feel that I am important. I am just a blogger. As an ordinary citizen, I shall write what I think and think what I write. But in a manner that will not violate the right of other people. My intention is simply to share what I think with the hope that other citizens will express their thoughts and feelings to make our country a better place to live in.

So help us God.

The Bad and the Good News

-->

The Bad News

The bad news is that President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino probably became president mainly on the strength of the votes of the Iglesia ni Cristo. Aquino received 15,208,678 votes while former president Joseph Ejercito Estrada garnered 9,487,837 votes. The difference is 5,720,841 votes, still within the low estimate of the votes that the Iglesia could accordingly deliver in a national election. If his closest rival in the 2010 presidential elections, former Joseph Ejercito Estrada, received the political blessings of the Iglesia ni Cristo, then he could be the 15th president of the republic.

That his inaugural speech managed to stir emotions on many of the citizens, regardless of political persuasions, social backgrounds, and economic standing, can be attributed to the fact that he defined himself and his mode of governance as the exact opposite of that of his predecessor, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Ms. Arroyo presided over nine years of despicable rule punctuated by some accomplishments and good intentions that made many people unsure to take part in efforts to unseat her from office. If the French revolution ended by beheading their king and crowning Napoleon, then EDSA Two ended by removing Estrada and installing Arroyo.

The rise of the son of martyred parents can be attributed to a number of important factors, such as his parent’s reputation, the love and respect that many people nurture for his mother, former President Corazon C. Aquino, his quaint image as someone unlike a traditional politician despite being a descendant of a political dynasty, the unusually awful appeal of the outgoing administration, the absence of an experienced and respected presidential candidate who could command loyalty, admiration and votes, and the contribution and efforts of the thousands of volunteers and supporters.

The apparent lack of preparations on the part of the new president is discernable from the way Memorandum Circular No. 1 was drafted, issued, recalled, and then transmitted to the bureaucracy, as well as from the manner by which appointments to the cabinet and other key positions are done. MC No. 1 -- which declared all positions appointed by the president and occupied by officials who have no career executive service officer (CESO) eligibility as vacant as of June 30, 2010 -- was formulated without consulting the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the agency that takes charge of the human resources of the government. The appointments to cabinet and other key positions are still incomplete and the choice of cabinet members is, to a large extent, made on the basis of personal and political affiliations rather than competence.

The appointment of Dr. Ramon Paje as secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is a case in point. To his credit, Dr. Paje has been with the DENR since 1990s as an assistant secretary, one of the youngest holders of that position in government around that time. Dr. Paje, however, has a level of performance that is similar to that of the president when he was still a member of the House of Representatives and the Senate of the Philippines – mediocre.

Stated differently, the appointments of president Aquino do not convey the message that he projected in his inaugural speech. And the bad news is, he is beginning to show signs that he is becoming what he promised not to be.

The Good News

President Aquino still has nearly six years to become what he said he will be. His insistence on the no wang-wang policy is admirable. His decision to keep the Director General of the Philippine National Police, Jesus A. Verzosa, is commendable. His mere presence in the current political landscape simply evokes pride, joy and optimism.

His appointment of Mr. Butch Abad as head of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is better compared to an earlier hint that Mr. Abad will get back the Department of Education (DepEd) portfolio. It has been suggested by some quarters that someone who at least has an earned doctorate should head the basic education department given the fact that many of the employees of that agency have postgraduate degrees. Thus, the appointment of the president of De La Salle University (DLSU) to the basic education portfolio, Brother Armin Luistro, is a curious case. Brother Luistro does not hold a doctorate but his being a former president of DLSU is a possible equivalent qualification. That Brother Luistro was among the few who called for the resignation of Arroyo at the height of the “Hello Garci” scandal in 2004 is another story. And so is the appointment of Mr. Abad’s daughter as head of the Presidential Management Staff.

The Philippines operates on the principle of delegated sovereignty. The citizens take care of themselves and their families and a few others are elected or appointed in government positions to ensure that the rights and liberties of the citizens are protected and upheld. Those who violate the citizens’ trust should be prosecuted and punished. President Aquino said something like that in his inaugural speech. There will be no reconciliation without justice, he said. And he has a good benchmark that he could use to measure his level of performance in this regard. Arroyo prosecuted Estrada, who was found guilty of plunder by a Special Division of the Sandiganbayan but managed to get a presidential pardon by what some people call political intervention.

Mr. Aquino espouses no clear political and economic ideology; hence, no expected clear economic and political agenda. His main message in his inaugural speech is good governance: one that is dedicated, transparent, effective, efficient, consultative, equitable, predictable, and subservient to the will of the people. This is his main tool to pursue reform, build infrastructure, provide employment, raise revenue collection, promote quality education, provide health services, establish safe communities, and strengthen the police and the military.

In other words, he wants to plug the holes and put in place what should have been there. This is firefighting all over again, although not in the same category as her mother did. But, may be, this is the first thing that should be done. Before one can think out of the box, sometimes one has to stay inside the box until one realizes that the box is no good at all.