Philippine Commentary 2012

Is the Supreme Court Exempt From Silly Midnight Bans?

2012-01-31T06:33:00.000+08:00

The ban on midnight appointments in the 1987 Constitution can be found in Art VII Sec. 15 The Executive:

Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

Nothing would seem to be clearer or more definite, and yet on March 17, 2010 the Philippines Supreme Court ruled that appointments to the Supreme Court are exempt from this ban in a Decision penned by J. Bersamin GRP191002

The Supreme Court today ruled that the prohibition under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution against presidential appointments immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the term of the President does not apply to vacancies in the Supreme Court.

But it required a breath taking somersault and the dusting off of some hitherto unknown "framers' intentions" from the darkened folios and dim recollections of the 1986 Constitutional Commission:

In its March 17 decision, the Court said that “Although Valenzuela came to hold that the prohibition covered even judicial appointments, it cannot be disputed that the Valenzuela dictum did not firmly rest on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Thereby, the confirmation made to the JBC by then Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado of this Court, a former member of the Constitutional Commission, about the prohibition not being intended to apply to the appointments to the Judiciary, which confirmation Valenzuela even expressly mentioned, should prevail.“

Like so many others who have read this SCoRP decision, I'm disgusted with the Corona Supreme Court for exempting itself from the long-standing Midnight Ban on Election-Period Appointments by the President in a brazen demonstration of SELF-SERVICE that I believe amounts to a grave abuse of juridical and logical discretion. Well so much for stare decisis non movere? So much for Final Arbiter?

Consider this bit of prose in the Bersamin Ponencia GRP191002:

"...that had the framers intended the prohibition to apply to Supreme Court appointments, they could have easily expressly stated so in the Constitution, which explains why the prohibition found in Article VII (Executive Department) was not written in Article VIII (Judicial Department); and that the framers also incorporated in Article VIII ample restrictions or limitations on the President’s power to appoint members of the Supreme Court to ensure its independence from “political vicissitudes” and its “insulation from political pressures,”[33] such as stringent qualifications for the positions, the establishment of the JBC, the specified period within which the President shall appoint a Supreme Court Justice."

The clause I've highlighted in red in the above paragraph contains a very deceptive and sly piece of reasoning about why the Judicial Department might be exempt from the midnight ban on appointments. It is based on the purely facile observation that the ban is not mentioned in Article VIII on the Judicial Branch of government, but in Article VII on the Executive Branch. But what could be more obvious? The 1987 Constitution places the ban on election period appointments in the Executive Branch (1987 Article VII Section 15) for the obvious reason that the appointing power is the Chief Executive. Even more clearly, the ban applies to all presidential appointments to all branches of government, except as noted in the same 1987 provision.

By their rules shall we bind them

2012-01-30T07:25:00.000+08:00

Joaquin Bernas, S.J. worries about a number of things in regards to IMPEACHMENT.

First is whether the impeachment trial is a civil or criminal proceeding. Second is what the Quantum of Evidence and Proof are required to convict. Though Fr. Bernas claims to be exasperated with the term, I'm quite comfortable with impeachment being a sui generis process, whose nature, practices and rules of procedure are evolving with the institution as the Congress learns how to wield the special Constitutional powers of impeachment granted exclusively and solely to the House and Senate. The Rules of Senate and House, separately and together with the orders, rulings, proceedings, records, testimonies relating to the Senate Impeachment Court and the trial of the accused Chief Justice Renato Corona are now the body of jurisprudence and official record by which we are giving life to Article XI of the 1987 Constitution on Accountability of Public Officers.

By itself, the text of the 1987 Constitution is necessarily too thin and laconic, to satisfy the intellectual demands of Constitutionalists and ordinary citizens that impeachment be better defined. But look at 1987.XI.Sec3(8):

(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.

Like a magical link, this provision empowers the House and Senate to literally create whatever RULES on impeachment they need to "effectively carry out the purpose" of impeachment. The evolution, adoption and utilization of these Rules are a matter of public interest and record and should be open to public debate like any other important matter of public policy.

Fr. Bernas also addressed the matter of what penalties go with conviction by the Senate Impeachment Court. He does not answer a question I still don't have a good answer to: what happens if Accused CJ resigns before a verdict is pronounced. He clearly vacates his post, but is a permanent lifetime ban automatically attached to resignation, or does the Senate have to impose it? How does resignation differ from conviction in regards to subsequent civil and criminal prosecution?

Constitutional Ban on "Midnight Appointments"

2012-01-29T15:55:00.000+08:00

The 1987 Constitution expressly commands the President:

Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

In January, 2010, Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas opined that anyone accepting an unconstitutional appointment would be an accomplice in the act and be liable for impeachment, as indeed Renato Corona has found himself to be, impeached and presently on trial in the Senate, after PGMA appointed him Chief Justice just two days before the 2010 May elections.

Bernas' point is crystal clear: Renato Corona in this case has committed a culpable violation of the Constitution by accepting a clearly unconstitutional appointment from President Gloria Arroyo right smack in the middle of the period during which a Constitutional ban exists on such "midnight appointments."

Keeping An Eye on K+12

2012-01-28T14:29:00.000+08:00

Starting with the appointment of De La Salle University's Bro. Armin Luistro as Secretary of Education, the Aquino administration has committed both political capital and vast budgetary resources to the K+12 Basic Education Program.

Integral to K+12 is the introduction and adoption of a largely new K+12 Basic Education Curriculum which the department has to sell to Congress in order to get the requisite multiyear legislative commitment of funding and support as the Department undertakes a most ambitious expansion program from the present ten year basic education cycle to the global standard thirteen year K+12 program.

The Deped affords a glimpse at its upcoming new K+12 Curriculum in this Press Release.

Enjoyable, easily understood lessons using the language spoken at home, less contact time, and interactive.

These are just some of the features of the new curriculum for Grade 1 and first year high school students that the Department of Education will implement starting June 2012 under the K to 12 basic education reform program.

Education Secretary Br. Armin A. Luistro FSC said the new curriculum is centered more on the students rather on the traditional way of teaching which is focused on the teacher. “We are making it a real learning experience for the students, meaning, it will be less on memorization but more encouraging of critical thinking,” he added.

It helps that the new K to 12 curriculum will implement the mother tongue-based multi- lingual education (MTB-MLE) in studying lessons from Kinder up to Grade 3. Studies have shown that students learn better when the language used at home is the same language used in discussing class lessons. DepEd is already piloting MTB-MLE in various schools nationwide using eight major regional dialects.

I'm all for those "enjoyable, easily understood lessons" (especially in algebra and high school chemistry). I'm also full of hope and some apprehension over the "Mother tongue-based multi-lingual education" to be used in Kindergarten to Grade 3. I wonder how this helps in the declared purpose of the K+12 Curriculum to facilitate the beginning of formal Science subject study at Grade 3.

When the Department first removed the Health and Science Subject from the Basic Education Curriculum in Grades One and Two, on of several reasons advanced was this. Many students at Grade 1 & 2 are supposedly unprepared to absorb Science Lessons because of lack of English proficiency. So they suggested that formal Science Subject start at Grade 3 with Science "integrated" with the English Subject. But after ten years, do the outcomes justify continuing the policy of a truncated science curriculum? In my opinion, the answer is NO!

Expanded Certiorari Power

2012-01-27T06:42:00.000+08:00

Consider the opening provision of Article VIII on the Judiciary in the 1987 PH Constitution:

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Above provision comes as two separate sentences. The first vests the Judicial Power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by Law. The second statement appears to be the Constitutional well-spring of the so-called "expanded certiorari power" allegedly vouchsafed to the Judiciary by the 1987 Constitution.

What is most often adduced is that virtually any question involving the Constitution and any instrumentality of the government, can be addressed to the Supreme Court for its Judicial Review and adjudication as the Final Arbiter of the Constitution. "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." has become the battlecry of judicial papists who see the Constitution as a secular equivalent of the Catechism to be interpreted by the Supreme Court of wise justices.

The Alpha List

2012-01-26T03:33:00.001+08:00

The so called Alpha List of "local employees" giving their salaries and tax withheld is explained by private prosecutor ARTHUR LIM in the video clip shown by Rappler Dot Com. During yesterday's trial session during which the main prosecution witness was Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares And some Scream Therapy from Senator-Juror Miriam Defensor Santiago

Article Eleven

2012-01-26T03:08:00.000+08:00

The historic trial of the Philippines Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato C. Corona is covered under Article Eleven of the 1987 Constitution. This article is all about the Accountability of Public Officers--of which there are exactly thirty-one (31) impeachable officials, namely: President, Vice President, Ombudsman, 15 Supreme Court Justices, 7 Comelec, 3 Civil Service, and 3 Audit Commissioners. For convenience I am quoting in full the first 3 sections of the relevant article 11 of the Constitution:

1987 Constitution Art XI

Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.

Eleven Years Ago Today

2012-01-20T19:56:00.000+08:00

ELEVEN YEARS AGO TODAY, on Saturday, 20 January 2001, Hilario Davide, was wearing the robes of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when he strode up to the stage at the Edsa Shrine to swear into office as President of the Republic of the Philippines, its grey-garbed Vice President, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. But it was without legitimacy that he administered this oath, for contrary to the fiction he had forced upon the Court earlier that day, then President Joseph Estrada was not PERMANENTLY DISABLED, as claimed in a towering lie of a fax sent to the Court on behalf of Mrs. Arroyo (by her then Chief of Staff Renato C. Corona [sic!] )but watching in disbelief from Malacanang Palace, with a gun to his head held by agents of AFP Chief o Staff Angelo Reyes, their co-conspirator in a coup d'etat that would later be hailed as the Edsa 2 People Power Revolution.

I was in the hooting throng that cheered this event as liberation from a corrupt President Estrada, but we did not know of the fiction by which the Supreme Court Chief Justice was acting in utter violation of the 1987 Constitution, did not know that Joseph Estrada would not leave Malacanang until after this incredible turn of events. Three months later, and based on an alleged diary kept by then Executive Secretary Edgardo Angara, the Supreme Court would "construe"--actually they would CONSTRUCT--an Erap resignation, in the landmark ruling Estrada v. Arroyo.

But whatever eloquent arguments are to be found in that decision, the simple fact is that to this day, Joseph Estrada denies he ever resigned, and there is no resignation letter to be found. Moreover, just four days previous, on 16 January 2001, a crucial vote at his Senate impeachment trial, the so-called Second Envelope Vote, proved to one and all that he had at least eleven votes to sustain an eventual and near certain ACQUITTAL in that trial. So that since he had submitted entirely to the processes of impeachment by the House and Trial by the Senate, he had every expectation of being found not guilty of all four charges brought against him. WHY THEN WOULD HE RESIGN except for fear of his life and that of his family at the hands of the mutineers led by Gen. Angelo Reyes in conspiracy with Arroyo and Davide?

ELEVEN YEARS AGO TODAY, a date that is hardly mentioned now in the newspapers or by any one at all, because it is in fact the date of a Filthy Family Secret, the Supreme Court of the Philippines had usurped the "sole power of the Senate to TRY and DECIDE all cases of impeachment." This, it did not by some jurisprudential act or decision, but by authorizing Hilario G. Davide Jr. to simply and illegally swear in the Vice President. Instead of carrying out his duty as Presiding Judge of the Senate Impeachment Court, and pretending to be "preventing violence" Davide threw out the Rule of Law, violated the 1987 Constitution, and forever etched his name in history as a villain who destroyed democratic rule and opened the gates to the ruinous nine year reign of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Related: When Last the Military Withdrew Support

Impeachment as Sui Generis Process

2012-01-19T14:10:00.000+08:00

The following is a story I have published at Storify based on a Twitter conversation with Teddy Boy Locsin. It covers several different topics related to the ongoing impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Day Two: Padre Faura Punts, Prosecution Fumbles

2012-01-17T19:27:00.000+08:00

Day Two of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona produced a number of interesting developments.

First, away from the Senate, the Supreme Court did not create a Constitutional Crisis some worried about by issuing a TRO nullifying the Impeachment Complaint of the House of Representatives. Instead the High Court deferred any decision on five separate suits urging Padre Faura to do so, notably that of lawyers Homo Adaza and Alan Paguia based on the accusation that there was no proper verification of the complaint transmitted to the Senate for trial. It gave all parties ten days to submit their Comments.

Second, the first hour or so of the resumed trial proper saw the Senate deny the Prosecution's motion to issue subpoenae to Chief Justice Corona, his wife, children and other relatives summoning them to testify at the trial. The ruling of presiding Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was challenged by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, but was upheld upon the subsequent vote 14-6.

Third, the question of the role of private prosecutors on the House team was settled.

Fourth, the subject of blaring headlines tomorrow occurred. The House Prosecution turned out to be unready to present admissible evidence on the matter of the Accused's property holdings, the subject matter of the second charge in the impeachment complaint. It was a near complete rout for the Prosecution as JPE would not accept computer generated material from the Prosecution without the requisite evidentiary verifications of the same and instead, mercifully for the abashed House presenter, Rep. Barzaga, allowed for an immediate adjournment of the session to Wednesday. Trying to put the best face on the embarrassing development House Prosecutors called it "a learning experience." The less flattering characterizations are all over Twitter where #CJonTrial is trending.

Day One Ends in Prosecution Win But Will Supreme Court Take Up Corona's Fight?

2012-01-16T18:46:00.000+08:00

Day One of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona ended in an unequivocal victory for the House Prosecution team. After hearing both sides address the issue of the validity or nullity of the House impeachment complaint, and even allowing the Defense two turns on the key issues of verification and due process based on notice and hearing for the Accused, Presiding Senator-Juror Juan Ponce Enrile DENIED FOR LACK OF MERIT the Defense's plea for a full blown judiciary-style Preliminary Hearing. Citing the House's compliance with Article XI of the Constitution ("exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment") and its own House Rules for doing so, he rejected Defense counsel and former Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas' arguments based on Supreme Court decisions, such as Art Panganiban's ponencia in the Francisco case.

Discussions on Twitter among my correspondents there have centered on what will happen now at the Supreme Court, where hearings on five petitions for a TRO nullifying the House Impeachment Complaint largely on the same grounds as propounded by Cuevas, such as that by lawyers Homobono Adaza and Alan Paguia, are scheduled to start tomorrow 17 Jan 2001. The BIG QUESTION is whether the Supreme Court will indeed intervene.

One suggestion comes from @ageofbrillig who opines that the Supreme Court is not likely to intervene before a verdict of conviction is rendered by the Senate weeks or months from now. Another comes from Francis Acero (@FrancisAcero) who opines that the High Court might require the Senate to grant the Defense's motion that a full blown Preliminary Hearing be conducted to establish probable cause and touch other judicial bases before proceeding with trial proper.

I think that both scenarios are unlikely for the following reasons.

In the case of @ageofbrillig's scenario of the Supreme Court waiting for a verdict of conviction, there would be by then a huge preponderance of evidence that the accused Chief Justice Renato Corona is in fact guilty of one or more of the eight charges against him. Public Opinion will surely have hardened by then and with a two thirds majority of the Senators having to concur in such a verdict of guilt, the Supreme Court would have to wage a huge political battle to reverse not only perception but solid trial evidence and other process that it may have neither the fortitude nor the public support to carry out. A verdict of conviction would be politically insuperable for it to overcome. Not only would the Court have to retry FACTS it would have to reverse however many rulings and deliberations and votes the Court will by then have accomplished.

As for the notion of @FrancisAcero that the Supreme Court might in the next week or two decide to overrule Juan Ponce Enrile's ruling today, it might occur to them that they would then be risking the ire not only of a House of Representatives that could turn around and impeach one or more of them, but also that of Enrile and the Senators behind him for dissing the Senate Impeachment Court's first major ruling.

I think the Supreme Court will think twice about doing either of these two things, out of either a natural pusillanimity of unelected judges to take on both Houses of Congress with its hardened politicians as well as the Mass Media and the Public, and/or a growing instinct of self-preservation from a fight that only now involves the Chief Justice anyway.

On a lighter note, I have received some humorous comments on the graphic shown here that I've adopted from the Bill Clinton Impeachment in the United States because the Chief Justice has been at great pains to paint himself as a victim and a saint--even holding Novena Masses at the Supreme Court itself in violation of Freedom of Religion articles in the Constitution and allowing himself to be photographed receiving Communion from Manila Archbishop Juan Luis Tagle and even weeping in confession to Archbishop Oscar Cruz. The Church has allowed itself to be used as a prop by the Chief Justice, because I believe it is hoping to stop the Reproductive Health Bill in the Supreme Court if and when Congress passes that controversial measure into law and President Aquino signs it.

The Impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona

2012-01-15T20:16:00.002+08:00

Impeachment Complaint against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (full text at Chan Robles Law Library)

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Renato Corona, was impeached by the House of Representatives as authorized by the 1987 Philippine Constitution when 188 Members signed the above Impeachment Complaint against him last December 12, 2011. His trial in the Philippine Senate will commence tomorrow, Monday, January 16, 2012.

Here is a helpful Primer on this historic document and event from Spacelab Infographics.

The Rules of Impeachment in the Philippine Senate were duly adopted last year in preparation for the trial of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, but she resigned before the trial could begin. A Primer on the Rules has also been released by the Senate.

A flattering short biography or curriculum vitae of the impeached and accused Chief Justice has been published by Ed Malay on Facebook: Renato Corona: A Life of Grit and Determination.

The trial that begins tomorrow is only the third impeachment (including those of President Joseph Estrada in November, 2000 and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in 2010) against a so-called "Constitutional Officer" of the Republic of the Philippines since 1987, of which there are 31: President, Vice President, Ombudsman, 15 Supreme Court Justices, 7 Commission on Election members, 3 of the Civil Service Commission and 3 from the Commission on Audit.

Here is the full text of the the 1987 Philippine Constitution (also at Chan Robles Law).

ABSCBN News has a fairly comprehensive Summary of the Corona Trial including the Answer of the accused Chief Justice to the Impeachment Complaint and the answers to the Answer from the House Prosecutors.

Philippine Commentary Rides Again!

2012-01-15T03:44:00.000+08:00

I am dusting off Ye Olde Philippine Commentary after a long period of dormancy because the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona bids me to re-enter the old fray.

Eleven years ago today, on 15 January 2001, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published my weekly Commentary in their Opinion/Editorial section. In it I was analyzing the likely course of then President Joseph Estrada's ongoing Impeachment Trial in the Philippine Senate. In that small essay I noted that since he was on trial for four separate charges brought against him the House of Representatives, there was some combination of Guilty/Not Guilty verdicts that could either convict or acquit him depending on how the 24 Senator-Judges actually voted. After going through the combinatorics, I wrote that if there were ELEVEN Senators behind him, he could be acquitted of all charges by them, yet each could find him guilty in at least two or three of those charges because in none of them would there be the required 2/3 majority vote to convict.

Little did I know that on the very next day, on 16 January 2001, there would indeed be a crucial vote in the Impeachment Trial, in which what would later be called the Craven Eleven Senators would propose a vote called the Second Envelope Vote, in which it became clear Joseph Estrada would surely be acquitted of all charges and be found Not Guilty by the Senate Impeachment Court. The vote was 11-10 to exclude what was thought to be a piece of evidence that would convict the President in the eyes of the Public (but which would later turn out to be the opposite, though too late!)

Senator Tessie Aquino Oreta would dance an infamous jig for joy whilst then freshman Senator Loren Legarda would weep in front of the cameras. House Prosecutors led by then Congressman, now Senator Joker Arroyo, would walk out of the trial. At the famous Edsa Shrine small groups of anti-Erap demonstrators began to gather and cell phones which had only then began to be used in the Philippines would call out more and more of them until their numbers swelled throughout the night. In the next three days anti-Erap demonstrations would continue 24 hours a day under continuous television and radio coverage, until on 19 January 2001 Armed Forces Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes would walk onto the podium and announce that the AFP had mutinied against the President and were joining calls for him to step down.

We all know what happened next (or perhaps we don't know!) but in any event, on the very next day, on Saturday 20 January 2001, the Presiding Officer of the impeachment trial, then Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Hilario Davide would swear in Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as President of the Republic of the Philippines! The full story is told in dozens of posts right here on Philippine Commentary to which I shall have occasion to refer in the coming days.

Suffice it to say, that from that historic event to this very day, everything that has happened has seemed to conspire to produce the event upon whose brink we stand, as the House has impeached Renato Corona, then Chief of Staff of Vice President Arroyo, and whose trial begins on 16 January 2012, the self-same anniversary of the historic Vote on the Second Envelope!

Much has transpired in the intervening eleven years, dominated by the ill-fated Presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who today is under arrest for electoral sabotage and is now under "hospital arrest" at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center.

We shall have several opportunities to re-examine all those events of yesteryear, and since. Suffice now only that I welcome back old readers of Philippine Commentary, and greet many new ones who were perhaps too young to have participated in or remember those important events. But all are witness again to another cataclysm in Philippine politics which I am honored to reflect and write upon in the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Will Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. Run for the Presidency of the Philippines?

2011-06-27T19:00:00.000+08:00

Few Filipino politicians seem to fully appreciate the power of the new online social media networks like Senator Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. In fact, Bongbong Marcos seems to genuinely enjoy the freewheeling exchange of ideas with virtual friends and virtual strangers alike and is active on both of the leading platforms Facebook and Twitter. Some of his recent statements bear exposing to a wider audience. He posted the following statement on a Facebook Group page (TNM) addressing as he says, "for the first time" the question in the blog post title:

SENATOR BONGBONG MARCOS: "[...] This is probably the first time I've answered questions regarding higher office. But I'll also have to repeat what I've been saying and its not being coy or calculating with my thoughts about it but the fact is the Presidential elections is a lifetime away as it is just around the corner. That contradiction can be explained. A lifetime away to prepare and plan to win but around the corner in as far as getting prepared for the job and I'm not going to run and use the excuse of "nobody is really prepared for the job" which is what some people use when it becomes an issue during a campaign that one is ill prepared. When I run, I will be prepared and confident of my qualifications, no ifs or buts. Or, I will not run."

Joaquin Bernas on Conception, Abortion and Sex Education

2011-05-25T06:40:00.000+08:00

My stand on the RH Bill by Joaquin Bernas, S.J. in Philippine Daily Inquirer is the strong position and lucid explanation of it from a literal Founding Father of the 1987 Cory Constitution that was ratified to establish the present "Fourth" Philippine Republic (after Malolos 1898, Commonwealth 1935, Marcos 1972). A previous Commentary covered the first few points in that column article.

Bernas Points No. 5, 6, and 7

"Fifth, specifically I advocate removal of the provision on mandatory sexual education in public schools without the consent of parents. (I assume that those who send their children to Catholic schools accept the program of Catholic schools on the subject.) My reason for requiring the consent of parents is, among others, the constitutional provision which recognizes the sanctity of the human family and “the natural and primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character.” (Article II, Section 12)

DJB's Commentary on Bernas No.5 :

I am puzzled as to why Fr. Bernas does not assume that those parents and families who send their children to PUBLIC schools (as opposed to private Catholic schools) ALSO accept the program of the Department of Education on the subject--especially since the matter of sex education will have been debated right in the House, Senate and in the general public and presumably is appropriate and acceptable. I for one am against "picking the SEX ED peas out of the salad" called the public school curriculum. It reminds me of how in 2002, xPGMA and Raul Roco did radical brain surgery on the curriculum and CUT OUT the Health and Science Subject in all Grade One & Two classes throughout the entire public grade school system. Here is an infographic on the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum showing the damage done. The reduction of the grade school Health and Science program by 33% also drove away into emigration, as a direct consequence, thousands of public school SCIENCE teachers. If the suggestion of Fr. Bernas for an OPT-IN system by parents on the topic of Sex Ed were adopted, it would create an artificial barrier between that subject matter and the entire program of Health, Science and Biology of which Sex education is an integral and I daresay, inseparable part. To single out this very specific topic for parents to either join or not join, would make it hard or impossible to INTEGRATE sex ed into the rest of the public school science and health program, as really it ought to be or don't even do it! Therefore I also oppose the so called OPT-OUT program by parents, since even that would create artificial barriers between sex ed topics and the rest of educational science. Consider for example the matter of education on sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/Aids. Is this really a matter for which we expect parents to decide whether to opt-in or opt-out? What would prevent a precedent being set and any one or more of the million topics IN the curriculum would become optional? Moreover, making it optional would treat Sex Ed on par with Religion, which is a subject allowed to be taught in public schools under just such an OPT-IN program as Fr. Bernas suggests for what is in essence a topic under the Science subject.

Fr. Bernas addresses abortion and abortifacients in Point No. 6:

Sixth, I am pleased that the bill reiterates the prohibition of abortion as an assault against the right to life. Abortifacient pills and devices, if there are any in the market, should be banned by the Food and Drug Administration. But whether or not there are such is a question of scientific fact of which I am no judge.

I would love for Fr. Bernas to do a follow up piece on ABORTION and ABORTIFACIENTS after reading the following article I've been calling attention to for several months on Twitter where I am, as everybody knows, writing a lot under the handle ((@SagadaSun)):

Is Natural Family Planning Abortion?

Above article throws a rhetorical monkey wrench right in the middle of Humanae Vitae and the so-called "natural" family planning method of contraception and birth control. I think Fr. Bernas would find the premises and assertions made here credible and grounds for the Vatican to invoke the FALLIBILITY of its present teaching on contraception (including especially NFP!).

The central matter of CONCEPTION is addressed in Bernas Point No. 7:

Seventh, I hold that there already is abortion any time a fertilized ovum is expelled. The Constitution commands that the life of the unborn be protected “from conception.” For me this means that sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation."

Commentary by DJB on Bernas No. 7

When Fr. Bernas says that "sacred life begins at fertilization and not at implantation" he is no longer speaking as a Constitutional lawyer but as a Catholic priest. He is expressing the religious belief that when a sperm happens to fertilize an ovum and their DNA information combines together, an immortal human soul is created at that very moment of conception and "sacred" life begins.

But such religious belief must answer to and explain certain things before we use it as basis for interpreting the all-important 1987 provision Fr. Bernas refers to:

Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

If or when the RH Bill is enacted into Law, I am certain it will be challenged in the Supreme Court on the basis of the above provision.

What happens physically and biochemically during the stage of human reproduction called fertilization is rather well known and on that basis I would like to state my own take on what happens at the point or moment of conception referred to by Fr. Bernas and 1987 Constitution.

In my opinion when a human male's sperm cell successfully merges its DNA information with that of a female's ovum, what results is the creation of the "architectural plans" for the development of a new, individual human being. It is essentially the creation of a new packet of INFORMATION through the biochemistry of genetic materials, which at some stage has the potential not only for independent biological and physical life but also a mental life through a self-aware consciousness.

However, not every actual fertilization event is guaranteed to result in a DNA assembly that is HUMAN. Many things could go wrong and the resulting combination of sperm and egg might contain DNA information that is not actually capable of producing a human being or any other kind of viable living being at all.

I shall reserve further commentary on this vast subtopic for the Comment Thread.

Father Bernas Takes a Stand on the Reproductive Health Bill

2011-05-24T17:16:00.000+08:00

JOAQUIN BERNAS, SJ, weighs in on the highly controversial Reproductive Health Bill currently being debated in the Philippine Congress, in Mass Media and online in the social networks.

If and when this legislation is passed by Congress and signed by the President, the Catholic Church opposition and its staunchest allies will surely seek to have it annulled by the Supreme Court--in a case destined to be historic as far as religion, education and social policy making in the PH are concerend.

Thus the many salient points Joaquin Bernas makes in his Philippine Daily Inquirer column are likely to echo in the coming controversies and debates over the RH Bill. I hope to address them in a series of now-rare "long form" Philippine Commentaries and invite readers old and new to participate in the Comment Threads.

BERNAS No. 1

"First, let me start by saying that I adhere to the teaching of the Church on artificial contraception even if I am aware that the teaching on the subject is not considered infallible doctrine by those who know more theology than I do. Moreover, I am still considered a Catholic and Jesuit in good standing by my superiors, critics notwithstanding!"

Commentary on Bernas-1:

In the above, Fr. Bernas mentions a little-appreciated point about current Church Doctrine on "artificial contraception"-- that it is not one of the Churches officially designated INFALLIBLE TEACHINGS. Even though this opinion is held by "theologians who know more than" he does, Fr. Bernas claims to nonetheless adhere to the Church's teaching on the matter. As proof of this he notes that his religious superiors still consider him to be in good standing within the Catholic Church. (((Whew, only a Jesuit could put it like that and thus smuggle in some Freedom of Speech wiggle room on the issue of contraception without being excommunicated or fall out of good standing!))) But I happen to agree with his assessment of the current state of the Church's teaching on contraception. Papal infallibility has not been proclaimed for its teachings on birth control -- which only means that it COULD CHANGE. In other words, the present Church teachings on artificial means of birth control are corrigible and reformable. Upon close examination, this simple observation made in Bernas No. 2 has a severe rhetorical implication for diehard anti-RH Bill forces inside and outside the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines. They cannot claim that the Vatican won't ever change its position on artificial contraception. Indeed, the Pope could at any time allow certain forms of artificial contraception that the Church authorities could establish as definitively and technologically non-abortifacient. A hint of this possibility has already been given in Pope Benedict's recent statements condoms.

Bernas No. 2

Father Bernas was a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission appointed by President Cory to draft the later ratified 1987 Constitution. He addresses certain essential operating principles Freedom of Religion at those who oppose the RH Bill's passage into law on religious grounds--that such a law would allow behavior contrary to Catholic doctrine and faith.

"Second (very important for me as a student of the Constitution and of church-state relations), I am very much aware of the fact that we live in a pluralist society where various religious groups have differing beliefs about the morality of artificial contraception. But freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. Hence, the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief. As the “Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Catholic Church” says, “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” [italics and bolding by DJB]

DJB Commentary on Bernas No. 2

Having first expressed his adherence to Church teaching and continued "good standing" within it, Father Bernas here in Point No. 2 makes crystal clear, his take on Freedom of Religion and I congratulate him for the lucid expression of it above. For it is a stunning statement if you look at it more closely and mine it for all its panoply of rhetorical and constitutional implications.

For example, Father Bernas is surely indirectly chastising public persons such as Rep. Manny "The Pacman" Pacquiao and Rep. Pablo Garcia who invoke their belief in God and the Church's teachings in opposing the RH Bill. As with the most conservative among the Catholic Bishops they declare that their opposition to the Reproductive Health Bill is based on a strict interpretation of, and adherence to the Church's teachings and is essentially an exercise of their Freedom of Religion. But Father Bernas' point above challenges such Catholic because their right to exercise Freedom of Religion depends on recognizing an equal right by others to practice their religion, and most importantly, "to act or not to act" according "to what one believes."

Fr. Bernas is saying that even if Catholics believe (as some of them certainly do) that "human life begins at fertilization and not at implantation" they may not prevent others from believing that "conception" of human life begins at some other earlier or later stage of the reproductive process. Moreover such Catholics have no right to prevent others "to act or not act" upon such different belief.

I agree with this characterization of Freedom of Religion. It presents the radical anti RH Bill wing of the Catholic Church with an ethical dilemma as follows. In the crafting of laws and public policies by Congresses of Catholic majority composition, how are conscientious officials what is the that some Catholics may deem as going against Catholic doctrinal teaching in one way or another.

The 1987 Constitution contains the following provisions in the Bill of Rights which many regard as a definition of the Freedom of Religion in the PH (with obvious Anglospheric roots):

Section 5. [1] No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[2] The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.

[3] No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Of these three I think the last contains a relevant and material point to the RH Bill as follows. While the No Religious Test provision is conventionally interpreted as covering only the idea that anyone otherwise qualified can run for political office regardless of his Religion, I think it can be given a much wider interpretation and applies to far many more situations involving questions of Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State.

For example, who will deny that getting married and having children is both a CIVIL and HUMAN RIGHT protected by the Constitution and the Civil Code? We can surely assert that, "No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil and political rights," such as the right to get married to have children. Or NOT to have children at a particular time in a couple's life and relationship."

I don't see why "No religious test" should be restricted in interpretation to "a test of what is a person's religious affiliation." I think the provision actually means something much more. I think that "No Religious Test" means that the Congress may not pass laws or craft social policy based on some particular THEOLOGICAL consideration. The "public morality" enforced by the Laws, in my opinion, cannot be based on any theology at all for that would violate the absolute neutrality towards Establishments of Religion that Separation of Church and State demands.

On the Resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez

2011-05-01T12:15:00.000+08:00

With less than two weeks before the start of her Senate Trial, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez suddenly resigned on Friday, 29 April 2011 after she had been impeached by the House of Representatives on six counts of BETRAYAL OF THE PUBLIC TRUST.

In her letter of resignation presented personally to President Benigno Aquino III, the resigned Ombudsman said (among several even more self-serving things) “the President needs an Ombudsman in whom he has complete trust and confidence.”

Without a doubt, the President never had any reason to trust or have confidence in Ombudsman Gutierrez, a holdover from the previous administration seemingly installed to undertake a rear guard holding action against any significant investigation into graft and corruption under Gloria Arroyo. This objective lack of trust and confidence in her ought to have been enough for her to tender her courtesy resignation out of delicadeza on Day One of the Aquino administration.

Indeed, when the House of Representatives began to consider impeaching the Ombudsman last September, she was able to quickly get an astounding "Status Quo Ante Order" from the Supreme Court (which as everybody knows is populated by 14 out of 15 Justices appointed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo).

But the House stood its ground and finally did impeach her in plenary after months of exhaustive investigation by the House Justice Committee led by Reps. Niel Tupas and Rudy Farinas who I hope will carry out a threatened impeachment of the Supreme Court Justices for "betrayal of public trust" in the manner that they issued above mentioned SQA Order.

CONGRESS is coming back, albeit slowly, from the debacle handed to it by GMA, Hilario Davide, Angelo Reyes and the Supreme Court during Edsa2001!

The IMPEACHMENT POWER will again be the SOLE and EXCLUSIVE power of the Congress of our people! Beware ye now UNELECTED JUDGES!

UNILEVER Pulls Ads On Willie Revillame and All Live Game Shows

2011-04-08T17:12:00.001+08:00

FROLAN GRATE via Facebook reports on a Press Release by UNILEVER, Philippines announcing the company's temporary withdrawal of all advertising in live game shows on Philippine television networks in connection with a controversy involving Willie Revillame and the Willing Willie Show.

8th April 2011, 1:30PM

Press Release: Unilever’s Sponsorship on Live Game Shows

This is to make public a set of actions taken by Unilever Philippines after an incident in a popular TV show a few weeks ago. The incident featured a 6-year old boy doing a dance number as part of a reality game show.

We recognised that this incident has drawn mixed reactions from different sectors in the society.
In Unilever Philippine’s view, it was a serious incident and as a result, we acted by immediately engaging the network authorities, expressing our serious concern and demanded assurance that similar incidents would not happen again.

TV5, the network, has apologized to us and committed to a series of “self-regulation” measures including the appointment of an internal ombudsman to supervise stricter program guidelines and impose a moratorium on the presence of kids in their live reality shows until a complete investigation is finished. This seems to have been validated by MTRCB as per article published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on April 6, 2011, Page F3.

We see all these actions as positive steps, but we also look forward with great interest to the prospect of MTRCB strengthening regulations on content across all live game shows and making clear the potential sanctions for erring programs.

In support of the above, Unilever Philippines has decided;

1. To temporarily suspend effective Monday, April 11, 2011, our participation in ALL reality-based live game shows across all networks. This measure will be in place until we observe stricter and objective self regulatory guidelines across networks and proper enforcement by the relevant government agencies of existing content regulations.

2. We will actively seek for PANA’s (Philippine Association of National Advertisers) involvement and leadership to help the networks develop a strict and consistent self-regulatory framework. We expect this to be in place no later than one month.

3. In all these, Unilever Philippines actions are oriented to:

a. protect the rights of contestants (especially women and children),
b. provide responsible content for TV viewers, and
c. ensure a safe communications environment for sponsors and brands.

With these actions, we expect something good will come out of this incident.

Unilever Philippines will continue to positively influence the media landscape and work on strengthening our long-standing partnership with all TV networks.

If you have further queries please feel free to email us in media.affairs@unilever.com or call:

Chito Macapagal
VP for Corporate Affairs

Liz Vengco
External Communications Manager

+6325887342

Procter & Gamble Suspends Advertising on Willing Willie

2011-04-07T09:10:00.001+08:00

Procter and Gamble suspends advertising on Willing Willy (via the Pinoy Buzz Blog) In an email from Sol Liboro, Consumer Relations Manager, Procter & Gamble Distributing Phils, reportedly said:

We would like to let you know that P&G always strives to advertise on programs that align with our values as a company and with our purpose to touch and improve life. We routinely monitor the media in which our brands' messages appear and make advertising decisions that meet our policies and achieve our goals. As what we have mentioned in our first email, we are taking the Willing Willie case seriously and have been working closely with TV5 on the incident that happened in the said show last March 12, 2011. We would like to inform you that we have suspended advertising on the show beginning April 7, 2011 while the incident is being reviewed and investigated by authorities.

Advertising & Marketing can easily survive even the permanent loss of a genre of television like The Willing Willie Show with Willie Revillame.

The Life of the Mother and the Life of the Unborn

2011-04-06T10:44:00.000+08:00

1987 upholds as a State Policy in Article II Section 12 the following provision:

1987 ART II Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.

I believe that the controversial Reproductive Health Bill currently being fought over in Congress and far beyond it, in places like Ayala Alabang Village, if passed into law, will be questioned before the Supreme Court for being violative of the above State Policy.

As with much of the 1987 Constitution, this passage contains words of Biblical proportions and importance which even reasonable men might have trouble agreeing upon the true meaning of, particularly in the bolded sentence above.

I would ask Philippine Commentary readers comment on what they think this provision means.

The Infamous Willie Revillame and the Sexy Macho Child Dancer

2011-04-05T11:22:00.000+08:00

The Willing Willie Show starring Willie Revillame is a daily 2-1/2 hour television "variety" show that airs a prime time (6:30-9:00pm) and used to be ABSCBN's top rated Wowwowee. The show host has recently been embroiled in charges of child abuse and exploitation. Follow the latest development on Blogwatch TV

The latest atrocity from Mr. Revillame has to do with the above episode of the show and subsequent developments that have seen a firestorm of criticism against him from UNICEF Philippines, the Commission on Human Rights, the Dept of Social Welfare and Development and many in the Private Sector. Even commercial sponsors are abandoning what appears to be a sinking SS Willie.

The False Expertise of Bishops on Human Love

2011-04-04T23:20:00.000+08:00

OSCAR CRUZ, Bishop Emeritus of Lingayen, derides SEX (along with Methods & Number) --

Sex divorced from the human person becomes but a piece of meat. It is then made to stand as but the carnal means to enjoy and delight on—without relevance to the dignity of the human person and to the fundamental Ethics that governs human acts. Withdrawn from its human premise, sex becomes but an instrument of instinctive satisfaction proper of irrational beings devoid of responsibility and beyond accountability.

In my opinion, only someone who has never actually experienced human sexual love and been in a loving relationship between two human beings, could possibly be this theoretical about the subject matter! But the bishop blogger is in earnest about the moral hazards inherent in an activity which however, he himself could not possibly have any experience, much less, expertise. And he continues along the same vein:

Methods on how to enjoy and delight in sexual acts without its inherent significance and import—this is the central concern and main preoccupation of the Bill. What to wear and to drink as well as what will be subjected to surgical intervention—these are the main means forwarded by the Bill in order to separate the right to copulate from the obligation appended to copulation in terms of possible conception.

It is clear from this that Oscar Cruz does not want even married couples to enjoy GUILT-FREE or WORRY-FREE sex. In his book the "Right to Copulate" must always be mentally burdened by the actual possibility of getting pregnant as a deterrent to pure enjoyment. In other words he denies the right of couples the most basic right involved in the Civil Right of Marriage: which to decide if and when they will try to procreate a new life to which they will commit their own lives to bring forth, to nurture and to support.

I am truly offended--on behalf of my own parents whom I know loved and cherished each other body and soul whenever they could with seven children running around--that Bishop Cruz ascribes such great evil in human beings for human experiences of which he apparently knows absolutely nothing about personally.

Blogger's New Dynamic Views

2011-04-02T12:16:00.000+08:00

Trying out the new Blogger feature for remixing this blog.

All about Dynamic Views for Readers - Blogger Help

Flipcard, Mosaic, Sidebar, Snapshot & Timeslide modes. Very interesting Blogger!

Where Zucchettos Reign There Are No Barong Tagalogs

2011-02-07T09:40:00.001+08:00

The Catholic Bishops have issued a Pastoral Letter: Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill declaring, "This is our unanimous collective moral judgment: We strongly reject the RH bill." The Bishops summarize their position quite succinctly:

(1) Human life is the most sacred physical gift with which God, the author of life, endows a human being. Placing artificial obstacles to prevent human life from being formed and being born most certainly contradicts this fundamental truth of human life. In the light of the widespread influence of the post-modern spirit in our world, we consider this position as nothing less than prophetic. As religious leaders we must proclaim this truth fearlessly in season and out of season.

(2) It is parents, cooperating with God, who bring children into the world. It is also they who have the primary inalienable right and responsibility to nurture them, care for them, and educate them that they might grow as mature persons according to the will of the Creator.

The Bishops opened this Pastoral Letter by promising to present a position based "not on specifically religious teachings" but on "the basis of the fundamental ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people." ( A promise they immediately violate in the above two points. )

This is to be expected. The Bishops have their zuchetos on, not their Barong Tagalog. But I do not understand why the CBCP should be COY about presenting their most powerful THEOLOGICAL arguments, since their Clerical Slips are much in evidence beneath the thin Secular Disguise.

Nonetheless, the Bishops have put forward a STRONG position that doesn't beat around the bush very much. They go right for the JUGULAR!

In Finger #(1) the Bishops are sanctimoniously insinuating that everybody involved with Condoms, Pills, IUDs are MURDER or HOMICIDE suspects. The crime and weapon of choice? Premeditated Murder of Zygotes using lethal abortifacients.

In Finger #(2) the Bishops reveal what their most PRECIOUSSSSS possession actually is: the Freedom of Indoctrination! The sacred Right to teach Theology in Kindergarten and Grade School so that Organized Religion may guarantee its survival into the next generation of urban and rural poor idolaters--in the name of Morality.

Two underlying principles may be gleaned from the Pastoral Letter:

(1) SEX must never exclude the possibility of PREGNANCY.
(2) Contraception must never include the possibility of HOMICIDE.

What are the Catholic Faithful to make of this Pastoral Letter? Here is the Free Choice they are offered by the Catholic Bishops:

You may have WORRY FREE SEX with Artificial Abortifacients like condoms pills and IUDs, or you may adhere to Mother Church's approved method of Vatican Roulette--the Rhythm Method--to assure that you get GUILT-FREE SEX. (( This form of Accidental Family Planning is completely NATURAL and not ARTIFICIAL. ))

This leads me to observe that the Sin of Artificial Contraception contains a MOTIVE that is completely identical to the MOTIVE behind the Grace of Natural Family Planning: SEX without making a baby.

In most cases, I do believe it can also be shown that the MEANS employed cannot in any metaphysical or moral sense be differentiated along the lines of what is NATURAL vs. ARTIFICIAL.

Natural Family Planning--and whether or not it is in any moral, legal or philosophical sense different than Artificial Contraception--is the weakest link in the Catholic Bishops' rhetorical position on Reproductive Health public policy.

The matter of CONDOMS is occasion of great consternation and confusion for the Catholic Bishops, nonetheless for the undeniable fact that the Vatican itself and Pope Benedict XVI have apparently come around to the 1987 position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In 1987, the administrative committee of the US Catholic bishops' conference argued that limiting sex to marriage was the moral and most effective way to stem the spread of AIDS. But they went on to "acknowledge that some will not agree with our understanding of human sexuality." As a result, in "The Many Faces of Aids" they said that public education "could include accurate information about prophylactic devices or other practices proposed by some medical experts as potential means of preventing AIDS."

The above quotation is from an article by Thomas J. Reese, S.J. in the Washington Post, Sex and the Fifth Commandment which is required reading for anyone who wants to understand the recent comments of Pope Benedict XVI on Condoms. Here what we find is that the Pope allows condoms to uphold "Thou shalt not kill!" -- but the Sixth and Ninth Commandments still stand!

(( Forgive me gentle Readers of Philippine Commentary. But lately I've been having problems doing the LONG FORM of blogging. Kindly follow my attempts at nano-blogging @SagadaSun on Twitter ))

The Monotheistic Republic of the Philippines

2011-01-17T00:41:00.000+08:00

On one side of all debates about Separation of Church and State in the Philippines, the most quoted provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is its Preamble:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

For example former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban (now a regular newspaper columnist) in a public address to seminarians of the Royal Pontifical University of Sto. Tomas (Feb. 19, 2002 UST Martyrs Hall and reproduced in his book Saving the Constitutional System) defends his creation and imposition of The Centennial Prayer of the Courts which precede every Philippine Court session [sic!] :

Many people, including some men and women of the cloth, are surprised why the Supreme Court has an official prayer. They ask: is this not a violation of the separation of church and state? The answer is "no." Let me explain.

The Philippines is theist, not atheist, not even agnostic. In fact, it is monotheist; it worships one God. [emphasis DJB's]

That is why our Constitution begins with this significant first phrase: "We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God x x x." You may want to know that both houses of Congress and the Cabinet also preface their sessions with prayers.

So there you have it folks! The Monotheistic Republic of the Philippines. From the pen of no less than its distinguished former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. My rebuttal after the jump...

Commentary:

It is time to lance this boil and deprive it of any claim to the credence of thoughtful and rational men as being in any way descriptive of the very essence of the Republic of the Philippines.

Mr. Panganiban basically concludes and asserts that "The Philippines is theist..." solely on the observation that the Constitution opens with "a significant first phrase" in which we do indeed find The Filipino People to be "imploring the aid of Almighty God" as they create and promulgate their Constitution.

Now please notice, gentle reader, the two phrases "The Philippines" and "The Filipino People" in the paragraph above.

Do they refer to one and the same thing? I don't think so and let me explain why.

First, let me concede that "The Filipino People" do indeed appear to be THEIST for imploring the aid of "Almighty God." But does this mean that the GOVERNMENT (which the Filipino People are indeed imploring Almighty God for aid to establish) can consider itself to be theist and act accordingly? Does it mean that any institution, organization or commission created by their Constitution automatically is also theist and in fact monotheist?

Here I am distinguishing between the Filipino People and the institution of Government which they are creating, defining and most of all LIMITING by each and every provision of the Constitution that comes AFTER the Preamble.

If we assume that the Filipino People are theist in the Preamble, does it mean the Government is also theist? I don't think so because in the Bill of Rights provision on Freedom of Religion we find the People laying down explicit provisions on Government and Religion which does not at all suggest they are creating a theistic Government. On the contrary. Here we have the admittedly theistic Filipino People creating a decidedly nontheistic, religiously neutral Government "in order to build a just and humane society!" --

1987 Art III Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

These provision on Freedom of Religion and Worship are clearly directed at the Government. Here the theistic Filipino People are creating a Government that is obviously nontheistic!

In coming to his conclusion that "The Philippines is theist" however, Mr. Panganiban is no longer referring to the Filipino People but to the Government (which makes the laws and regulates exercise of civil and political rights by the citizens).

This is a grave error of Reading Comprehension on the part of the former Chief Justice. "The Filipino People" is absolutely not the same thing as the Government they create and delimit in the Constitution they have promulgated, even with its "theistic" Preamble.

The Filipino People can say or do virtually anything since it is their Constitution. But NOT the Government which they have prohibited from either promoting or opposing Religion in the Bill of Rights. Even if the Filipino People are conceded to be theistic, they can still create a nontheistic Government as a NECESSARY vehicle towards a just and humane society.

Kudos Maria Ressa

2011-01-11T23:46:00.000+08:00

Philippine Commentary is pleased to link to Maria Ressa's new blog Brave New World. Formerly Senior VP of News and Current Affairs at ABSCBN News she has gone independent and will apparently be writing a new book on terrorism in Asia as Author in Residence at Singapore's International Centre for Political Violence & Terrorism Research.

A Toast to Conviviality?

2011-01-08T22:30:00.000+08:00

President Noynoy Aquino offered a toast to the New Year at an annual Palace event for the Diplomatic Corps in Manila the other day.

[Delivered at the Rizal Ceremonial Hall, January 7, 2011]
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to propose a toast to the New Year that we usher in today. It is a year in which record numbers of Filipinos anticipate with optimism that their lives undoubtedly will improve.
Their optimism will be validated. This year, businesses will invest more in this country, creating new jobs for families. This year, government resources will be spent to uplift the lives of the poor. This year, the Philippines will once again be a voice in the world for freedom and fairness.
There will be challenges ahead—from an uncertain outlook for the global economy, to a noisy minority who want to rekindle the malicious practices of the past.
But if we work together, we will overcome the challenges and fulfill the promise of the year ahead. We have much to look forward to.
Your Excellencies, may we lift our glasses to a prosperous and peaceful New Year for all of us in 2011.
Happy New Year to all.

It contained the sentence, "There will be challenges ahead—from an uncertain outlook for the global economy, to a noisy minority who want to rekindle the malicious practices of the past." which has generated some controversy. What do you think of this?

The Unattributed Biblical Quotation in the New Philippine Currency

2011-01-03T00:01:00.001+08:00

For a while there, it looked like the Dept. of Finance's launch of newly designed Philippine paper money might go the way of Tourism's ill-fated Pilipinas Kay Gandah slogan. In fact, only the timely intervention of Christmas holidays may have saved it considering the gathering storm of chatter on the social media nets over inaccuracies in scientific nomenclature and geography and nitpicking over the color and depiction of native animals in the newly announced money. I suppose for most these we can simply accept and endure the President's own hand-waving explanation, attributing these deficiencies to the vagaries of "artistic rendition."

But I simply cannot accept a feature that is apparently found on ALL denominations of the new money. Emblazoned top and center right under "REPUBLIKA NG PILIPINAS" is an unattributed Biblical quotation of Psalms 33:12:

"PINAGPALA ANG BAYAN NA ANG DIYOS AY ANG PANGINOON."

(( Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord. ))

Because the source of this clearly religious quotation of a Jewish Psalm by King David which is also found in the Christian Bible's Old Testament, is not all indicated, reveals perhaps a knowingly guilty conscience on the part of the bill's progenitors. For how can they fail to ignore the following provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution's Bill of Rights which are wantonly violated by this?

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

I agree with the statement by Filipino Freethinkers that the Bangko Sentral immediately remove this violation of the provisions guaranteeing religious liberty in the Bill of Rights.

Education's Big Budget and Even Bigger Agenda

2011-01-02T10:51:00.000+08:00

For fiscal year 2011 the Dept. of Education gets a budget of over 207 billion pesos, a substantial increase of 19% over 2010, and a signal that the Aquino administration intends to fulfill campaign promises to fix perennial problems in public education left unsolved by Gloria Arroyo. These include the need for over 152,500 more classrooms and twice the current number of half a million teachers, in order to achieve more effective class sizes and student to teacher ratios of about 25:1.

But these logistical and human resource problems have plagued the public schools since before xPGMA's time. That they have been treated merely as a resource allocation matter bespeaks of the overall lack of vision about the role of education in national development. What ails Philppine education is of a more systemic and structural nature where we are trying to cram 13 or 14 years worth of study in ten years.

Thus, there is the ambitious plan to expand the current ten year public education program to thirteen years by installing universal kindergarten for five year olds, prior to the current six year Elementary school program, and a two-year "Senior High School" at the end of the present 4 year Secondary school program. Deped's K12 Discussion Paper contains the details of this proposed expansion of the public school system. A successful implementation would bring the Philippines up to the present international standard of a 13-14 year public school system before College education. PH would be the last to do so in the region.

Deped Secretary Armin Luistro laid out the overall Education Agenda in a First Hundred Days Message last month.

(1) the 12-year basic education cycle,

(2) universal preschooling for all,

(3) Madaris Education,

(4) technical vocational education,

(5) “Every Child a Reader” by Grade 1,

(6) Science and Math proficiency,

(7) assistance to private schools as essential partners in basic education,

(8) rationalization of the medium of instruction,

(9) quality textbooks, and

(10) partnering with Local Governments to build years more schools.

Each item above represents the material for an active public debate and discussion for years to come.

Universal Kindergarten or pre-school for five year olds is reportedly set for inauguration in the 2011-2012 school year. The public should be interested and involved in the development of the academic and activity package of Kindergarten, since the critical nature of such early childhood education has become widely recognized. In my opinion Universal Kindergarten can be the proper antidote to an early childhood education regime completely dominated by religious indoctrination of defenseless human minds.

What Was the Star of Bethlehem?

2010-12-24T12:31:00.002+08:00

[Nb: This is reposted from Philippine Commentary 2005--DJB=]
SINCE NO ONE SEEMS TO KNOW THE ANSWER, I have made it a habit, indulged in around Christmas time, to write an essay based on the best conjectures, past and present, as to what exactly the author of the Gospel According to Matthew might have been referring to in this famous passage --

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, "Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East and are come to worship him." When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him." -- Matthew 2:1-10

The Griffith Observatory provides an authoritative set of links to various investigations into the astronomical mystery of the Star of Bethlehem, assuming of course that Matthew was reporting a real observation of something that was perhaps an abiding mystery even then. Check out this video animation -- it gives a quick visual introduction to the theories that have been favored for centuries.

PLANETARY CONJUNCTIONS: The planets of the solar system move roughly within the same plane of revolution, or slice of space, around the sun. It sometimes happens that they seem to be right on top of one another in the night sky. A planetary conjunction is rare and remarkable enough that ancient peoples have invested them with portentous or momentous meanings, just like eclipses and other unusual astronomical and atmospheric phenomena. For example on August 12 in the year 3 B.C. there was a CONJUNCTION in the sky between the planets Venus and Jupiter in the constellation Leo and near the star Regulus, an event that would have been known to astute skywatchers and astrologers of that era, such as "the Maji." According to John Mosely, Leo was the tribal sign of Judah, the tribe to which the forebears of Jesus of Nazareth are said to have belonged. To the Babylonians and Persians, Jupiter was the Planet of Kings, Regulus the Star of the Kings, and Venus (named Ishtar) was the Goddess of the Female Spirit. Of course the idea of moving Christmas to August may keep this particular theory, just that. But see the video animation for a good idea of how this actually looks from the perspective of someone on the ground, one Holy Night, ABOUT 2000 years ago, plus or minus 10 years!

COMETS like Halley's have been an attractive model for the Star of Bethlehem, though this particularly famous one, HALLEY'S COMET which last returned in 1986, was far away in the far reaches of the Solar System, far out in the middle of its orbit in the Oort Cloud, during the most likely period of Jesus's birth in Bethlehem. The related phenomena of METEORS is probably not a good candidate however, because a meteorite usually lasts only a few seconds at the most during its fiery descent to Earth, and would not be expected to behave like the object described by Matthew. The nice thing about comets is it usually takes months to appear from out of nowhere, come careening towards the sun and back out again -- just the time-scale needed by the Three Kings to follow a celestial signal. But no such comet with a suitable orbit has been found. If the Star of Bethlehem was comet, perhaps its orbital period is longer than 2000 years, since it has not yet returned.

SUPERNOVA EXPLOSIONS are mysterious, titanic stellar explosions that produce extremely bright objects in the night sky, sometimes brighter than the containing galaxy, for a period of weeks or months. (Again, the right time frame to qualify as the Star of Bethlehem in the Gospel story). However, it seems that supernovae usually leave visible remnants. For example, the most famous supernova remnant is what is today known as the CRAB NEBULA, which was first observed and recorded by Chinese astronomers in 1054 AD. Today it is known that the Crab Nebula is the location of a PULSAR, a rapidly spinning, extremely dense NEUTRON STAR. The Crab Nebula is pictured nearby. Another famous supernova remnant is something called Kepler's Star, which is associated with a really famous name in astronomy, JOHANNES KEPLER. Carl Sagan reportedly referred to Kepler as the "last scientific astrologer in history." Kepler's work is associated with other famous names like TYCHO BRAHE and GALILEO GALILEI.

NEAR EARTH OBJECTS LIKE APOPHIS: About a week ago I read the following amazing article in the GUARDIAN --

In Egyptian myth, Apophis was the ancient spirit of evil and destruction, a demon that was determined to plunge the world into eternal darkness.A fitting name, astronomers reasoned, for a menace now hurtling towards Earth from outerspace. Scientists are monitoring the progress of a 390-metre wide asteroid discovered last year that is potentially on a collision course with the planet, and are imploring governments to decide on a strategy for dealing with it. Nasa has estimated that an impact from Apophis, which has an outside chance of hitting the Earth in 2036, would release more than 100,000 times the energy released in the nuclear blast over Hiroshima. Thousands of square kilometres would be directly affected by the blast but the whole of the Earth would see the effects of the dust released into the atmosphere.

Well you heard it here first folks. THE END OF THE WORLD could come in 31 YEARS. Seriously. At the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Mass., there has been for several years a serious effort to discover, monitor and track these NEAR EARTH ORBITING ASTEROIDS which are all over the Solar System, but in particular near the orbits of the Earth, Mars and Jupiter. The concern is real, and now it looks like they have found at least one asteroid, 390 meters across, that IS on a collision course with the Earth and has good chance of hitting it.

THE THREE KINGS AS SCIENTISTS AND ASTRONOMERS:No discussion of the Star of Bethlehem can possibly be complete without touching upon the names of the three MAJI who followed the Star of Bethlehem to Christendom's greatest discovery -- Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar. There are perhaps as many theories about who they were as speculations on the nature of the Star of Bethlehem. But here is a very unusual and charming essay about the Three Maji arguing rather cogently that they were free spirits, scientists, astronomers AND kings --

Excerpt from DR. MALCOLM BRENNAN: THE MAJI
The Wise Men were not scientists only but kings also. Practically, this meant that they did not have to seek funding from a university, a foundation, or a government agency, and so they did not have to modify their research project to fit the notions fashionable in those bodies. Their royalty also meant that they had certain advantages in traveling from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and that they could deal with other kings, like Herod, on an equal footing. It also gave them the practical savvy to use and to evade the likes of Herod, as prudence might require.

More importantly, their kingship furnished their minds with an important body of knowledge that enabled them to recognize the full meaning of their research results. As kings they understood things like authority and obedience, jurisdiction and sovereignty, legality and equity. As "pure" scientists—who refuse to go beyond the confines of their discipline—they would have been constrained only to record their observations on the Star of Bethlehem; they could not even have moved on to the scientist's cherished "predictability" or "repeatability" for the behavior of this star was altogether unique. In other words, these kings were able to know a King when they saw one, despite the limitations of their science's vocabulary and procedures.

Their legal and practical knowledge was apparently supplemented by some skill at literary and historical research, for they had enough sense to enquire among Herod's scholars about the legends and prophecies in Hebrew tradition and then to sort through them to find material pertinent to their astronomical observations.

Perhaps we cannot find the Star of Bethlehem out in the largeness of the Night, but rather, in the depths of our soul.
GOD REST YE MERRY, GENTLE FOLKS!

UPDATE: From OREMUS DOT ORG

We three kings of Orient are,
bearing gifts we traverse afar,
field and fountain,
moor and mountain,
following yonder star.
Refrain:
O star of wonder, star of night,
star with royal beauty bright;
westward leading, still proceeding,
guide us to thy perfect light!

Born a King on Bethlehem's plain,
gold I bring to crown him again,
King for ever,
ceasing never
over us all to reign.
Refrain

Frankincense to offer have I:
incense owns a Deity nigh;
prayer and praising,
gladly raising,
worship him, God Most High.
Refrain

Myrrh is mine; its bitter perfume
breathes a life of gathering gloom;
sorrowing, sighing,
bleeding, dying,
sealed in the stone-cold tomb.
Refrain

Glorious now behold him arise,
King and God and Sacrifice;
heaven sings
alleluia; alleluia
the earth replies.
Refrain

Words: John Henry Hopkins, Jr., 1857

No Rizalist! Now is not the time to talk about DARK ENERGY.
And quit playing around with that REAL TIME SOLAR SYSTEM ORRERY already.

UPDATE: Philippine Commentary is following BREAKING NEWS ITEMS today, including President Bush's Oval Office Speech and doings in OZ at THE ARCHIPELAGO CALLED EARTH.

9.9% -- Chance of 84 Successive No-Winner Grand Lotto Draws

2010-11-29T10:50:00.000+08:00

According to the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office the Jackpot Prize that someone could've won during the 84th Grand Lotto Draw the other day was a whopping 693 million pesos. During the upcoming Draw tonight, the Jackpot is likely to exceed 700 million pesos. But how likely was this RUN of 84 successive No Winner Draws of the Grand Lotto? What was the mathematical probability of 84 No Winner Grand Lotto Draws? I think I can answer this question with a good estimate based on some numbers mentioned by Margie Juico of the PCSO on TV this morning, specifically that there have been 84 Draws since this run began.

First of all, there are 28, 989, 675 possible six number combinations in Grand Lotto 6/55.

C(6,55)=55!/(6!(49!))=55*54*53*52*51*50*(49!)/(6*5*4*3*2*1)*(49!)=28,989,675

The chance that on any given Draw there will be NO WINNER--depends on what percentage of these nearly 29 million possible combinations are actually placed as 20 peso bets by the Public. This percentage varies from Draw to Draw. For example when it started as a P30 Million jackpot there were probably much fewer bettors than tonight's Monday Draw which could award a jackpot exceeding P700 Million.

But what percentage of the 29 million possible 6 number combinations actually ARE placed as bets?

We can estimate the AVERAGE number of bets placed during each of the last 84 draws from some things that PCSO's chair MARGE JUICO told ABSCBN's Karen Davila on Headstart this morning. She said that for each peso bet, 15% goes to PCSO, 30% to Charity and 55% to Jackpots (less 2% to the Operators!). Since the Jackpot is now about P700M after 84 successive no winner Draws (3 times a week since last May), this implies a total of (700million/53%) or 1.32 Billion pesos has been bet since May. Assuming there is negligible duplication of 20 peso bets this means that an AVERAGE of about 780,000 unique bets have been placed during each of the last 84 GrandLotto Draws.

1.32 billion/(20*84) = 786,163 bets on an "average Draw"

Even though there may now be millions of bets being placed, there were surely far less during the early draws when the Jackpot was much smaller.

If only 786,163 unique bets out of 28,989,765 are placed on a given Draw, the probability that there will be a winner is

786,16/28,989,765 = 2.7% is the chance of a winner being drawn or 97.3% is the chance of no winner during each draw.

So what are the chances that 84 times in a row, there would be NO WINNER of the Grand Lotto Jackpot? The answer of course is 97.3% raised to the 84th power or

.973 multiplied by itself 84 times or a slighty improbable 9.9%

Bernas Defends Intent As An Element of Judicial Plagiarism

2010-11-23T08:20:00.001+08:00

JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J. defends the centrality of malicious intent as an element of Judicial Plagiarism in his PDI column, Sounding Board. In the piece About Plagiarism, Fr. Bernas quotes an essay of Margaret Randall's:

In the case of plagiarism, by contrast, Randall asserts, ‘Identifying plagiarism entails ascribing to an agent a series of guilty or fraudulent intentions, the necessity to show intent, in order to establish guilt, or at least degrees of it, is by far the most important of all criteria for establishing plagiarism.’ Intention is relevant not just in the sense that the copying is deliberate, but also in terms of a further intention, sometimes referred to in criminal law as an ulterior intent, to claim the credit by passing [off] the work as one’s own.”

But is intent always required? The author goes on to add: “While some institutional statements explicitly include unintentional copying and non-attribution within their definition of plagiarism, the centrality of the element of deceit or bad faith suggests that, at least outside the academic sphere (where, as Groom observes, the concern is really with cheating rather than plagiarism in its literary or artistic context) intention should be key to a charge of plagiarism.”

I actually like the idea of making intent central to Judicial Plagiarism.

In doing so, Fr. Bernas in effect, chains the tenant Justices of the Supreme Court to a Ticking Nuclear Bomb which will explode if malicious intent ever IS proved. For example: if a PATTERN of PLAGIARISM should ever be established in their recent jurisprudence. In their Compliance to the Show Cause Order of SCoRP, the UP Law's Malcolm 37 have begun that clinical demonstration of judicial plagiarism as defined by SCoRP and now Bernas--right within the corpus delicti that is Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. Moreover, there is also another SCoRP decision, already final and executory, in the Ang Ladlad case, that is also tainted with plagiarism. It was also written by Justice Mariano Del Castillo and promulgated just two days before Vinuya last April.

Father Bernas is driving the Court deeper into the Quagmire of plagiarism that they have dug themselves with two highly immoderate and unwise actions: (1) the unethical manner by which the Ethics Committee formed by Chief Justice Corona exonerated their colleague, when all five members had concurred with Del Castillo unqualifiedly in Vinuya to begin with; and (2) the Show Cause Order against the UP Law Faculty, which was really a Resolution finding them guilty of violating professional canons of behavior delivered in a Notice of Judgment with an order for them to show cause why they should not be punished according to the vindictive whims of the Court!

On Freedom of Assembly and the Religious Services

2010-11-20T20:33:00.000+08:00

If we consider the Catholic Church to be equivalent to a "Non Government Organization (NGO)" under the 1987 Constitution, then we are forced to the conclusion that the Catholic Mass is equivalent to Mass Demonstrations such as those daily conducted by activist groups, party lists or other cause advocates. All such activities are first order forms of Free Speech and are specifically covered by the Freedom of Assembly. In addition, religious services are covered by the Bill of Rights provisions on Religion.

The Bill of Rights Art. III Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution declares--

(5a) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Principle of State Neutrality)

(5b) The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. (Principle of Equal Liberty)

(5c) No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. (Principle of Secular Morality)

It would not constitute legitimate exercise of free speech, in my opinion, if persons not allied with an organization that was conducting such a mass demonstration, were to demand a place on the stage or in the proceedings just by showing up, and then unfurl some symbol or message that could cause tumult or disorder. For example anti-communist activists like ANAD have no legitimate place in a Bayan Muna rally if they want to display slogans against JoMa or the NPA. But they may do so at their own rally and can expect a similar exclusion of any hypothetical pro-communist activists bent on provoking a confrontation.

Clearly, organizers have a right to police their ranks and their venues to prevent the unruly presence of PROVOCATEURS bent on disturbing the peace. It's like crying "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, especially if provocation leads to a violent confrontation. Such persons however, have an equal right to make their own mass demonstration, and there engage in their own free speech.

U.P. Law Faculty Comply With Supreme Court Show Cause Order In Vinuya Plagiarism Scandal

2010-11-19T11:21:00.001+08:00

(Manila, Philippines) Marvic Leonen, Dean of the College of Law, University of the Philippines said this on his UPLAWDEAN Page a few minutes ago:

Today, we filed a pleading called a “Compliance” for faculty members that were made respondents in the administrative matter entitled In re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity”. Accompanying this Compliance is a Manifestation on behalf of Dr. Owen Lynch, a research fellow and a visiting professor from the United States, and a separate supplemental submission from the Dean of the UP College of Law in response to his separate citations.

We are represented by a number of prominent law firms, lawyers and the Free Legal Assistance Group. They spent a considerable amount of time working with us to come out with a respectful yet principled defense that can be filed at the soonest possible time.
So as not be seen as waiving this possible defense, we have simply reserved the due process rights in our Compliance. These rights were also pointed out in the dissents to the Order requiring us to submit an explanation. What we were served was a full Resolution covered by a Notice of Judgment. The Resolution made findings of fact and law. We were not heard at first instance.

In our Compliance, we emphasized that our statement entitled Restoring Integrity was a fair comment on a published (and still uncorrected) decision of the Supreme Court in Vinuya versus Executive Secretary. The underlying intention in the expression of opinion of the faculty of the UP College of law is in the statement itself. It was and remains “to defend the integrity and credibility of the entire supreme court”, in the light of the perceived plagiarism and misrepresentation that was committed. It was issued in discharge of the solemn duties and trust reposed upon us as teachers in the profession of law and as members of the Bar to speak out on a matter of public concern and one that is of vital interest to us.

Our statement was issued so that the Court could urgently act to correct a wrong so as to inspire confidence in the legal system rather than to lessen it. Various individuals and academic institutions here and abroad had, by then, noticed the failures in attribution and misrepresentations. We still continue to call on the Court to institute ways and means to prevent similar occurrences. We are more than willing to sit down with the Court’s representatives and contribute our academic resources to find ways to lessen its docket as well as to continue to improve court staff’s ability to do research.

Public critique of a published decision is different from disrespect of the Court that makes such a decision. Law professors are the most likely experts within the legal profession to be able to assist the public understand these decisions. They should be expected to be independent and candid in their assessments. Critique will always come with some degree of irreverence. Otherwise those who wish to speak their truths may not be able to address those in power. We teach our students that injustice suffered by those who are powerless deserve their most effective voice. We teach them that that is what ennobles our calling as lawyers.
Timidity within the legal academia may result in a failure of democracy. From the point of view of the traditions of the University of the Philippines, it would have been a betrayal of our role as part of the national university if we failed to speak out on what we perceived as an injustice. We did not wish to betray our role as an academic institution especially on the eve of our centennial as an institution.

We thank all those who have publicly and privately expressed their support for what we stand for. Despite our circumstances, we ask that we all continue to be vigilant. We ask that, with all due respect, we continue to discharge our right to examine and comment on the decisions and procedures of our judiciary. This way we can constructively assist our Supreme Court find creative and lasting solutions to bring about the kind of justice that all our peoples deserve.

Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Dean and Professor of Law
University of the Philippines
uplawdean@gmail.com
Tel and fax: 9270518

The Supreme Court's Show Cause Order to which this reply applies is also here on Dean Leonen's website.

The Arithmetic of Number Coding and How It Fools Everybody

2010-11-16T09:42:00.001+08:00

Number coding is a Mental Scam. There is NEVER a Reduction in the Volume or Number of Vehicles potentially present on a given roadway--even with 100% Compliance with Number Coding.
Number coding should be abolished. Mathematicians and statisticians ought to assure the public that nothing much would change except MMDA has to do things the hard way: by fairly enforcing traffic laws, removing obstructions and illegal vehicles from the roadways. MMDA should quit promoting official innumeracy with mental trickery involving percentages and absolute numbers!

[Updated]

TRAFFIC is a notorious part of living in a city like Metro Maligna, where it achieves monstrous proportions during holiday seasons in a maddening, spaghetti-like jumble of cars, buses, jeeps, motorcycles, pedestrians and pushcarts--crawling or dead-stopped for hours.

To alleviate this problem without really seeming to do any work, the Metro Manila Development Authority has been running a Vehicle Volume Reduction Program called Number Coding.

Number coding claims to reduce the potential number of cars on the roadways by banning those with plate numbers ending in 1 or 2 on Mondays, 3 or 4 on Tuesdays, 5 or 6 on Wednesdays, 7 or 8 on Thursdays and 9 or 0 on Fridays between the hours 7-10am and 3-7pm.

By keeping one-fifth (or 20%) of all licensed vehicles off the roadways on appointed days of the week according to Number Coding we are reducing vehicle volume by 20% of the total number of vehicles that could potentially be on the roadways if we didn't.

It is a very convenient scheme for the MMDA to maintain because it presents the following commonly accepted notion: that the scheme reduces traffic congestion to acceptable levels by allowing only four out of five, or 80% of all the vehicles to travel on a roadway like EDSA on weekdays. Saturdays and Sundays are not covered.

But it is a mathematical and physical falsehood to claim that the Number Coding Scheme is a "VOLUME" Reduction Program. I show below that even with 100% Compliance by all drivers with the Number Coding Scheme, that the potential traffic volume on a given roadway on a given day is STEADILY INCREASING.

It has to do with the fact that in the Philippines the TOTAL number of cars is ever increasing. At Year One, say, we might have 1 million cars that potentially could use a given roadway like Edsa on a given day. If we ban 20% of them on that day using Number Coding, then only 800,000 of them could potentially be on Edsa, giving us a nice feeling that we have prevented a potentially greater traffic congestion.

But now think of what happens a few years later in Year Two, when we might have 2 million cars that potentially could use Edsa on a given day. Under Number Coding, 20% of them are banned from Edsa on that day, so only 1, 600,000 of them are potentially going to be on Edsa that day, giving us a nice feeling that we have prevented a potentially greater traffic congestion. [sic!]

So, does Number Coding actually reduce the traffic volume or number of cars on Edsa on that day in either Year One or Year Two?

Well, in Year One 800,000 cars could potentially be on Edsa when Number Coding is in effect, while in Year Two 1.6 million could potentially be on Edsa on that week day.

So there is a reduction in potential traffic volume on both days equal to 20% of TWO DIFFERENT TOTALS but the potential traffic volume on the roadway increases continuously with the population growth rate of the vehicles that potentially could be on it on any given day! (Until, of course, it reaches the maximum physical carrying capacity of the roadway.)

Number coding is a Mental Scam! Over any finite length of time, there is NEVER a Reduction in Volume or Number of Vehicles potentially present on a given roadway on a given week day, year on year, even with 100% Compliance with Number Coding. This is because Number coding allows a fixed 80% of the more or less constantly increasing total number of licensed vehicles to be on the road on any given weekday.

How Much Do You Need To "Buy" the Grand Lotto 6/55?

2010-11-15T23:11:00.002+08:00

Filipinos are a gambling nation so news has really excited them that one of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes lotteries has reached a jackpot of over a half a billion pesos for a single bet of 20 pesos. It has everyone buying tickets ("who knows?") -- even OFWs abroad who are getting friends and relatives in the Archipelago of Pacquiao to buy them a chance to win. Of course at these high jackpots, some billionaire tayps may be thinking of ways to "buy" the jackpot by betting on all the possible bets. But how much would be needed and is it really smart to do it?

There are 28,989,675 unique 6 number combinations to be chosen from the numbers 1 to 55. At 20 pesos each you need 579,793,500 pesos to "buy" the Grand Lotto, i.e., to place a bet on each possible 6 number combination. Since no winner was found in the draw today, the next draw could be worth about 580 million pesos. You would win for sure but profit would only be P206,500. Unless someone else wins, in which case you lose a quarter of billion pesos! More if there are two or more winners.

At the heart of this is a very famous mathematical formula for the number of unique Combinations of R things selected from a larger collection of N things:
C(R, N) = N!/(R!(N-R)!)
and
C(6,55)=55!/(6!(49!))=55*54*53*52*51*50*49!/(6*5*4*3*2*1)*49!=28,989,675

It's probably not a good idea to "buy" the Grand Lotto until it's worth about a billion pesos!
[This post was inspired by a Tweet from @Kakanturing (Tony Velasquez)]

The Great Debate

2010-11-12T13:09:00.000+08:00

Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Patricia Churchland, Lawrence Krauss, Peter Singer, Roger Bingham tackle the Big Question: Can Science replace Religion on the matter of Morality?

Social Media As An Anti-Corruption Weapon

2010-11-12T12:06:00.003+08:00

In the wake of the twittered "gaffe" by Presidential speechwriter Mai Mislang on Vietnam's wine, men and roadways, the President's communications team felt obliged to issue guidelines to all government officials and employees on the use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Although they have reportedly been approved by Pres. Aquino, spokesperson Abigail Valte said these Guidelines will not yet be released and implemented because of Constitutional and legal concerns. The Daily Tribune did not hesitate to call the Guidelines all but censorship by too sensitive a Presidency.

In this post I examine the possibility of using Social Media in the anti-corruption campaign. The more that one million employees of the government are uniquely positioned to act as watchdogs and whistleblowers. But Congress must provide the appropriate laws and facilities.

Since the Guidelines have not actually been released of course, it's hard to say if this characterization is fair or not. But I think the president's men should see the caution flag. Though they are not likely to mandate any overt censorship of Tweets and FB activity, the Guidelines cannot also be a subtle call for self-censorship on the part of government employees.

The guidelines must not appear to be a prohibition on saying anything negative about the government since that would only invite the same kind of vituperative and explosive response that the original Mai Mislang Tweets did.

For example, this self-proclaimed Facebook Hate Page--which by the way is full of people displaying far worse behavior themselves in the manner of decrying and denigrating Mai Mislang than she did as a wine tweeter. But they can afford to do that only because they are not themselves Presidential speechwriters.

I suppose in this sense, we can regard the social media sites as a way for people to "give the government a piece of their mind" or just to blow off steam about some juicy piece of news.

As much gratuitous scorn as will relieve the scorner of that acrid core of anger and disdain at the object of hate may be freely dispensed at such a hate page. Participants are comfortable in the knowledge of being in the company of like-minded "friends." It's a slamfest where you can hit the slam button as often as you can dream up of some one-liner to share, or more often than not, some guttural sound decorated with special Ascii symbols. Krip Yuson offers up a devastating critique of the online behavior in the Age of Tweeter & Facebook.

Looking a the bigger picture however, and over the long term, President Aquino should really see Social Media as an important tool in his Anti-corruption campaign.

I have always believed that a proper Whistleblower Protection Law would empower our one million public employees to be the Eyes and Ears of the People at every level and niche of the government. They are in fact in the best position to expose corrupt activities.

Facebook and Twitter have enough privacy protections built in that such whistle blowers can protect themselves whilst still blowing the whistle on malfeasance.

What the government should really do is craft Guidelines that encourage the use of FB and Tweeter for fighting and exposing Corruption in the government. I realize there will have to be a vetting and evaluation process, but that is surely the job of DOJ in this brave new world.

A lot or raw intelligence can be gathered from FB and Tweeter on government shenanigans if government employees and ordinary citizens realize that their tweets can change the face of government.

The President's communication group has to develop and innovate on the FB/Tweeter platforms, create specialized applications and websites that cater to Whistleblowers -- large and small!

On the Proposed K-12 Basic Education System

2010-11-10T09:13:00.000+08:00

The Philippines currently offers a ten year public school system to provide basic education, namely six years of tuition-free grade school and four years of high school. Since most children begin entering school at six years old however, those who do finish the entire program end up graduating from high school at around 16 years old. Many critics and educators point out that at this age the high school graduate is not old enough to execute legal contracts such as for employment or business so that those who want to work immediately after high school are hard pressed to find productive occupations. Perhaps that is why even the best of them drift into ... politics! through the SK system (but that's another topic.) At the same time, even among those intending to go to college many are emotionally and academically unprepared at 16 to effectively undertake college level study. In part this is due to our short ten year elementary and secondary school curricula.

A major agenda item for the Dept of Education (DepEd) is the proposed K-12 Basic Education System (PDF) which would represent a major expansion of the present ten year public school program to thirteen years. The PDF file above discusses the rationale, design and implementation plan of DepEd. In this post I consider some of the problems and challenges attendant upon the K-12 proposal.

The Philippines will be the last country in the region to adopt a K-12 basic educations system, and only three countries are left in the whole world like it, according to the DepEd discussion paper. As a result, graduates of the Philippine public school system are at a competitive disadvantage as overseas workers because they do not have as much education, at least on paper, as counterparts from other countries which do have K-12.

Of course the mere fact that everybody else does it is not the only justification for adopting K-12-- although the dismal showing of Philippine students in such global testing surveys as the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (where she is consistently near the very bottom) may be a good indicator that something drastic must be done. Much was fortunately learned from participating in TIMSS about the possible reasons for the poor showing. TIMSS analysis clearly pointed out the insufficiency of our ten year public school system--with its necessarily congested basic education curriculum.

It appears that we have been teaching 12 years worth of learning in the space of 10 years. What other countries take 12 years to do -- we attempt to accomplish in 10 years. DepEd suggests this is a partial explanation for the ill preparedness of our high school graduates to undertake college level study. The Commission on Higher Education (Ched) which oversees tertiary education in the Philippines has already pointed out that most colleges are spending too much time providing remedial courses to entering students because of that deficiency in the secondary school program.

Most private schools already offer thirteen years of basic education (2 years of Kindergarten, 7 years of elementary school, 4 years of high school). For example: the Christian Brothers' De La Salle network of schools from which Sec. Armin was recruited by President Aquino.

But attempts by Deped under the Arroyo administration to add a seventh elementary grade between grade school and high school in the so called Bridge Program collapsed under a storm of protest from parents and students who, rightly or wrongly, felt unobliged to defer entry into high school on such short notice, as it were.

The lesson of that ill-fated Bridge Program of a few years ago does not seem to have been lost on the present management at DepEd.

For the public schools DepEd now proposes the addition of a Kindergarten or Pre-school level for five year olds ahead of the existing six year Elementary School program. Then the Secondary School program would grow to six years long by retaining the present four year high school program as "Junior High School" and adding a 2 year "Senior High School" program at the end of that.

It's a clever solution that stands a good chance of working, since DepEd is basically keeping the present system intact and will "bookend" or "sandwich" it between a preparatory kindergarten level at the start, and a Senior High School subsystem at the end.

Education's Agenda

2010-11-09T10:39:00.001+08:00

SECRETARY ARMIN LUISTRO has issued a Press Statement on his First One Hundred Days at the Dept. of Education. From the looks of things he has a full plate as he lays out a 10-point Education Agenda for the next six years and beyond:

(1) the 12-year basic education cycle,

(2) universal preschooling for all,

(3) Madaris Education,

(4) technical vocational education,

(5) “Every Child a Reader” by Grade 1,

(6) Science and Math proficiency,

(7) assistance to private schools as essential partners in basic education,

(8) rationalization of the medium of instruction,

(9) quality textbooks, and

(10) partnering with Local Governments to build years more schools.

I shall have occasion in the coming weeks to look at each of these in some detail...

Perhaps the most ambitious task that Deped sets out to do in this administration is the planning and implementation of the proposed K-12 Basic Education System which will feature universal kindergarten starting as early as age 5. This would be followed by elementary school (Grades 1 to 6); four years of "Junior High School"; and a final two years of Senior High School. The definitive DepEd document on K-12 is this Paper which notes that Philippines would be the last country in the region to adopt K-12, and one of only three countries remaining in the world.

The Philippines currently maintains a ten year public school system which will soon be expanded to 12 years of Basic Education plus Kindergarten, for a total of 13 year preparation before collegiate studies or gainful employment at around age 18.

There are currently five major subjects taught as part of the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum (English, Math, Science, Filipino, and Makabayan). K-12 will have its own custom curriculum

According to the DepEd Factsheet of 2009 there were about 20 million students enrolled in the elementary and secondary schools throughout the country. This number increases by up to 2 million a year at the current birth rate.

Benedict's Biology

2010-11-07T18:15:00.001+08:00

POPE BENEDICT XVI is in Spain. Independent Catholic News covers his itinerary and statements in detail.

But I was struck by something the Pope said today, after embracing the statue of St. James the Greater in Compostela de Santiago, and meeting with the Prince and Princess of Asturias.

"Truth and freedom are closely and necessarily related", he added.

"Honestly seeking and aspiring to truth is the condition of authentic freedom. One cannot live without the other. The Church, which desires to serve unreservedly the human person and his dignity, stands at the service of both truth and freedom. She cannot renounce either, because what is at stake is man himself, because she is moved by love for man, 'the only creature on earth which God has wanted for its own sake', and because without this aspiration for truth, justice and freedom, man would lose his very self.

There have been many creatures on Earth, all of them creations of the very God which Pope Benedict worships. Estimates of the number of species that have ever existed on Earth--plants, animals, multicellular organisms of all kinds--range from 750 million to 7.5 billion individual species.

That homo sapiens sapiens ("Man") is unique among God's creatures in the sense that Benedict claims--that he alone has God wanted for his own sake!--this claim I find to be extravagantly illogical given the facts of life on Earth as we know them.

Such homocentrism is as wrong as the geocentrism that was spectacularly deposed in that bit of unpleasantry involving Galileo Galilei.

The human race is NOT the center of the Biological Universe, nor in any real sense, apart from it. We are part of a genetic structure that stretches from the very earliest time that life existed on the planet. But we are relatively young for an Earthly species, having emerged in our present form less than 250,000 years ago (if not less). Life on earth, of which we are genetic inheritors, is however thought to be at least 2 billion years old.

The suggestion that God is indifferent to all other creatures--only Man does He want for its own sake!--is a bleak and pitiful piece of Vain Glory when viewed against the majestic backdrop of rich and vibrant diversity that life on earth displays.

It is a claim easily reduced to absurdity when one contemplates even a few of the logical consequences of assuming the Pope's claim to be valid and true.

It would mean for example, that for almost the entire 2 billion year history of life on earth, up until the emergence of homo sapiens a few hundred thousand years ago, Benedict's God has been engaged in nothing but genetic experimentation in which he has created millions upon millions of unique life forms; allowed 99.998% percent of those species to go extinct; and thereby slaughtered, mindlessly for their own sake! zillions of individual living creatures from bacteria to trilobytes to dinosaurs to sabertooth tigers and wooly mammoths which belonged to those now vanished species of creatures.

So what was God doing all those long, bloody aeons if he didn't care about these creations "for their own sake"? Was He maybe practicing to make the ultimate creature--the Catholic Human Being?

Only Man does God want for its own sake! Pope Benedict told the world today from Santiago de Compostela. But if the pinnacle of human perfection is attained only by the grace of God, (the one that Benedict worships) and within the folds of His Holy Church (the one that Benedict heads!), surely this statement is not only scientifically illogical, it is theologically self-serving.

This is the kind of exceptionalism that buttressed Hitler's Third Reich, his racist pogroms against the Jews and is dangerous shyte in my opinion.

Maybe Papa Ratzinger needs a refresher reprogramming course from when he was a member of the Hitler Youth!

A Religious Test Is Required To See If Religious Feelings Were Offended

2010-11-06T08:38:00.001+08:00

Performance artist CARLOS CELDRAN has been charged under a little-used 1930 law in the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

Art. 133 criminalizes acts notoriously offensive to the religious feelings of the faithful.

Not just any old feelings, mind you, but the RELIGIOUS feelings of the Faithful! This law is very specific and ought not to be used for every circumstance of VEXATION of feelings that so easily arises among people. If one is to be convicted of the crime of "Offending the Religious Feelings" it had better BE religious feelings that are offended.

This immediately suggests to me a strong line of defense. The Accused ought to be shown some proof that the feelings he has allegedly offended are indeed genuine RELIGIOUS feelings, and not some other kind of feeling like: false pride, rash judgment, spiteful hatred, vaingloriousness, political vindictiveness or some other non-religious feeling.

But how should the Court and the parties decide whether a given human emotion in a given circumstance was indeed a RELIGIOUS FEELING of the Faithful, and not just some fleeting emotion of the crowd?

Would it be enough for a member of the Faithful to attest to having had a religious feeling of the faithful notoriously offended within himself or herself as a result of the act committed by the Accused?

How could the Court and the Parties be assured of the veracity of such a testimonial? How is notorious offensiveness to self-described religious feeling to be detected and measured?

Since at the very least there should be a clear demonstration to the Court of a religious feeling being notoriously offended for guilt to be adduced, it seems unavoidable that a RELIGIOUS TEST be required to detect the RELIGIOUS FEELING alleged to have been "notoriously offended."

The theory and justification for such a test is that only a religious test could possibly distinguish a religious feeling from an irreligious feeling. More so, only a religious test could possibly distinguish a notoriously offended religious feeling from one that is not notoriously offended.

Such a religious test seems indispensable if a further determination is needed that such bona fide religious feelings were in addition, notoriously offended.

In short, a Religious Test is logically required to prove that a bona fide Religious Feeling exists "in the faithful" and then was notoriously offended.

For example, the Defense may wish to put on the stand the Accuser, Msgr. Cerbo to testify upon the Religious Feelings he alleges have been notoriously offended by Mr. Celdran's actions on September 30, 2010 at the Manila Cathedral during a religious ceremony.

If we now turn our attention to the Constitution it will become fairly obvious where the infirmities of Article 133 lie.

The Bill of Rights Art. III Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution declares--

(5a) No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (Principle of State Neutrality)

(5b) The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. (Principle of Equal Liberty)

(5c) No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. (Principle of Secular Morality)

Because the existence of bona fide Religious Feelings being notoriously offended requires some type of Religious Test for the purpose of submission to the Court as evidence, such a test imposes a heavy burden on "the exercise of civil or political rights."

For example, to comply with the Law and avoid the criminal offense of "Offending the Religious Feelings of the Faithful" all persons must mentally apply that self-same religious test to determine if their actions will violate the law.

It seems reasonable to conclude from this series of deductions that Article 133 directly or indirectly violates the 1987 Bill of Rights prohibition against requiring religious tests in the exercise of civil and political rights.

Perhaps the Celdran Case will cause Article 133 to be deemed REPEALED by the 1987 Constitution's guarantees of Freedom of Religion.

CBCP's Double Damaso Rule on Fathers Fathering Children

2010-11-01T09:41:00.000+08:00

Padre Damaso is alive and well in the 21st Century. The troubles of Carlos Celdran are ample proof of this! So the topic of this post is relevant to both local and international concerns...

There was a Protest March against clerical sex abuse at the Vatican yesterday--

Citizens of 12 countries who suffered sexual abuse by Catholic priests today gathered in Rome for a protest march on the Vatican.

Wearing t-shirts reading: "Enough!" in English, Italian and German, the organisers of the candlelit march demanded that the UN recognise the systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity.

Philippine Commentary supports the above proposal to make the sexual abuse of children a Crime Against Humanity, along with the rape and sexual slavery of women during war time conflicts, which have been the subject of much recent Commentary here.

The Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines has had its share of clerical sexual scandals, including this incident just last July where the Bishop of Boac has rejected calls for an investigation into child sex abuse allegations against a priest in his diocese. (Does this sound familiar from the horrific cauldron that was Boston?)

In the early part of this decade Mass Media reported freely on the reproductive activities of several high profile Catholic Church hierarchs, including Bishops: the famous fathers fathering children scandals.

In response to this the CBCP Permanent Council approved in September, 2003 the document Pastoral Guidelines on Sexual Abuses and Misconduct by the Clergy, drafted by the present Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales of Manila. He was interviewed by the Catholic press agency UCA News about the issue of clerical sexual abuse in the Philippine jurisdiction. I reproduce the entire interview to share with readers a really in-depth look at the successor to the most famous Jaime Cardinal Sin.

It is a long interview but it includes Cardinal Rosales rationale for a rule that allows Bishops to continue serving even if they have illegitimately fathered ONE child, on the theory that this first-born may have been unintentional. A second supposedly implies malicious intent! (I call this the Double Damaso Rule).

TAGAYTAY CITY, Philippines (UCAN, 8/22/2007) – Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales of Manila on Aug. 15 inaugurated John Mary Vianney-Galilee Development and Retreat Center in Tagaytay City, 55 kilometers (about 35 miles) southeast of Manila.

Speaking with UCA News after the inauguration, he said the Assist Ministry for priests, under the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), will use the center. The Assist Ministry, he explained, has developed several programs to address needs of priests at various stages of their priesthood.

According to the cardinal, the clergy commission's approach to caring for priests is driven by a desire to help priests who could use some "affirmation" or "renewal," as well as those who have children and partners, who have "problems with authority" and other special needs. He also said the commission is training personnel to minister to priests.

During the interview, the cardinal also talked about the Pastoral Guidelines on Sexual Abuses and Misconduct by the Clergy, approved by the CBCP Permanent Council on Sept. 1, 2003. In sociological, cultural, psychological, civil and canonical terms, the guidelines describe the context, issues, concerns and principles relevant to "allegations and actual cases of sexual abuse and misconduct by clergy in the church in the Philippines." They also include recommendations for dealing with such allegations and cases.

Cardinal Rosales, 75, was ordained a priest in 1958 and appointed auxiliary bishop of Manila in 1974. In 1982, he was assigned to Malaybalay Diocese in Mindanao, the southern Philippines. Two years later he headed that diocese. He was appointed archbishop of Lipa in 1992 and archbishop of Manila in 2003. Pope Benedict XVI made him a cardinal on March 24, 2006.

Cardinal Rosales assumed chairmanship of the clergy commission in 2000, after serving as chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Seminaries for 15 years.

The UCA News interview with the Philippines church leader follows:

UCA News: What inspired this center?

CARDINAL GAUDENCIO ROSALES: In the Catholic Church, the formation of the priest is continuous, ongoing. In fact, in one of the latest documents of the Church on priestly formation, Pastores Dabo Vobis (I will give you shepherds, 1992), the late Holy Father John Paul II mentioned that this formation is not just ongoing. He calls it "permanent." Even old people need formation. At 70 or 80, it is not so much to add new ideas or to add new theologically enriching doctrine, but to affirm them in what they have done in terms of their long ministry. In this center we will have room for priests to live in. We will have the classrooms, and can have the five-day retreats of the Assist.
UCA News: The center and programs are not only for troubled priests?

CARDINAL ROSALES: Definitely not. I was surprised that almost half a dozen dioceses have already booked. On Aug. 22, the whole clergy of Puerto Princesa (vicariate) in Palawan (province) is coming with the bishop for their own retreat.

Whenever I go to a monastery and attend a full-time directed retreat, where we need complete silence, I come back feeling renewed and with a feeling of inner strength.

Priests are very public persons. Our Lord was a very public person. People grabbed him, listened to him, pushed him and even wanted to touch any part of his clothing. And yet when they looked for him in the morning they found him on a hill by himself.

It shows us solitude is needed for effective ministry and "humanhood." We need that to express what is in there inside of us. Solitude creates a space where the heart can express itself. It is not only for the priest. I think it is for every person. My father was a doctor, a very public person. And yet like most men, he had his quiet moments and we knew not to disturb him.
UCA News: What are you speaking about when you talk of troubled priests?

CARDINAL ROSALES: There are many aspects, not only in the area of celibacy. Sometimes there are priests who have authority hang-ups. There are different forms of addiction and other levels of needs of priests as human beings.

For example, I am 49 years a priest. As an idealist I remember feeling disappointed and down when I was young, and I looked at my companions. I asked myself, especially around five years into my priesthood, "Did I take the right steps?" My classmates were successful doctors, engineers, and there I was -- a priest.

I talked to my spiritual father. He told me, "Father, the time you give up prayer you will also give up priesthood." A young man like me, in my 30s at the time, I remember that very well, and I am very grateful to recapture that zeal, that moment of fervor.

Around the time the council (Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965) was beginning, it was a very confusing moment for priests. When my bishop promised me I would go to Rome to study, I was keeping that in mind. I'm going to Rome. But when the council finished, half of our priests who were studying in Rome and finished didn't come home. They married in Europe. So naturally my bishop got disappointed and told me, "You don't go to Rome."

To me, that was painful. The others were able to go to Rome, and when it was my time to go, no more. It may seem a small matter to you, but to us priests that is a very painful thing. Besides, the bishop didn't keep his word. I took it in. When I introspect and return to that experience, there is that slight pinch. But you move past it.

The best example I can give you also is when I was appointed to Mindanao. I never thought that would come. It was painful too when priests asked me, "Why are they sending you to Mindanao? What have you done?" Some were happy I was sent to Mindanao. And some were shocked. But I told myself, rather than brood, just treat it as one episode in my life. That is over. But when it was happening, it was painful.
UCA News: How does the church deal with priests fathering children?

CARDINAL ROSALES: The pastoral guidelines say, if you have a child – singular – you may undergo curative measures. There have been priests who had children, like St. Augustine. There may be a singular event or episode that could spell a weakness on the part of the person. This could be treated pastorally and it could be healed through a program that encourages a person to be better rather than just punishing him.

But speaking in plural terms, it is where you will apply the hardness of the law. When we get a case like that, Assist will help the priest acknowledge that he has a natural obligation to support the children that supercedes his other obligations, including priesthood. So we explain this and it will surface that parenthood is a much greater obligation that he should face. The priest has to leave the ministry.
UCA News: What about a priest with one child?

CARDINAL ROSALES: It depends on the decision of the person. Because of renewal, if he decides he will not have any more contact with the woman, at least we have hope for that person. The natural obligation to support one's child remains the higher obligation than the priesthood. Therefore, if he wants to stay in the priesthood, he has to set aside a certain amount to support that child. But he doesn't have to give it directly to the mama, maybe through another source. There will be no more relationship with the mother.

A priest cannot take the money of the parish or the church even if he has not fallen. The priest cannot claim the parish's money for himself. We are talking about his own money, for example, stipends from baptisms, salaries from teaching or lecturing.
UCA News: What is the role of punishment in caring for priests?

CARDINAL ROSALES: The church is very strict about those who have been abusive. Failure or weakness is different from abuse. If it's only a matter of weakness, you could study the case, introspect with them to see this is what happened, you were weak.

But something that happens repeatedly, that hurts others, I don't think that is weakness. There is something wrong. There is a certain bad will, a certain taking advantage of your position and taking advantage of others. This is bad. But if it is something that happens to a priest once, here is where you can be curative, not punitive. And here we will have some courses that are curative.
UCA News: Has poverty been a problem for Filipino priests?

CARDINAL ROSALES: No, I don't think so. I was assigned in Mindanao and I take off my hat to those priests trying to minister in very impoverished places. I remember when we did not have insurance for accidents, five of my priests got involved in vehicular accidents. We had nothing to spend for their hospitalization. You know, we passed the hat around among priests and they helped. So don't tell me that simply because you are in a poor area, that is a reason why you will lose your vocation. I won't buy that.

One of my priests in Mindanao asked me once if he could go on vacation. In my mind I asked, what was he thinking asking for a vacation when Mindanao is suffering from poverty. I immediately thought he planned to go to Manila or Baguio (mountain vacation city in the north). I was so angry at myself when I learned he was planning to take two weeks off to help his father plow the field before the rains came. He was back in 10 days.

This is a priest and he was spending his vacation plowing the field. So let the world know it is not true that poverty is an obstacle to priesthood. There may be some exceptions, but don't believe everyone who says he left the priesthood because of the difficult life of a priest.

UCA News: What exactly are “Assist” programs and who runs the center?

CARDINAL ROSALES: The development programs in the center are under the programs director, Father Ray Panegunda, and he has five resident priests on his staff.

There is a five-week renewal program for priests according to the number of years in the ministry. The three-month Assisted Intensive Renewal (AIR) for priests is for deeper integration and processing of issues and needs of persons. A two-month live-in AIR for formators or priests working in seminaries focuses on human-formation training skills.

There is also a whole-year program for staff, and counseling and spiritual direction. Servants of the Paraclete priests will provide tutorial courses for resident staff.

There are programs planned for clergy one-to-five years in the ministry, value clarification for clergy six-to-10 years in the ministry, programs on midlife concerns for those 18-24 years as priests and preparing for their silver jubilee. For those 25 years and above in the ministry and for senior clergy about to retire, we will have modules on a second look at priesthood as a gift and fullness of life.

UCA News: What is the status of the CBCP guidelines on priests' sexual misconduct?

CARDINAL ROSALES: We sent it to Rome and they returned it with some corrections. It is approved and for implementation by individual bishops, not by CBCP per se, that's why it is called "pastoral guidelines," and not protocol.

The bishops voted down the punitive school of thought. I thank God the bishops of the Philippines did not advocate the "one strike you're out" theory. They accepted the school of thought to which we belong, which says: Give the man help, repair the man and help him repent.

Notoriously Offending the Religious Feelings of the Faithful

2010-10-30T12:36:00.002+08:00

This cause celebre pits the Catholic Church hierarchy against Manila's most famous Tourist Guide of the Nineteenth Century, Carlos Celdran, who recently entered a plea of "Not Guilty!" to criminal charges brought against him by Monsignor Nestor Cerbo, Director of the Archdiocesan Office of Research and Development of the Arzobispado de Manila. Msgr. Cerbo is also the Rector of the Minor Basilica of the Immaculate Conception at the Manila Cathedral in Intramuros. At the heart of the criminal proceeding Cerbo v. Celdran is the following Law:

Revised Penal Code of the Philippines

Section Four. — Crimes against religious worship

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.

This Law can put convicted parties in prison for up to six years, so these are serious allegations that the Good Monsignor Cerbo makes against Mr. Carlos Celdran. But as we no longer live under the Theocracy that once reigned here with Sword and Cross, under the Constitution Carlos Celdran is innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law of the crimes alleged.

In my opinion, proving his guilt in a Court of Law will be extremely difficult. (And hugely entertaining for the Court of Public Opinion!) Towards these ends, I propose to lend some assistance and advice to the Prosecution and the Accuser, Msgr. Nestor Cerbo by making the following observations...

By pleading NOT GUILTY, the Defendant Carlos Celdran obliges the Accuser to mount a credible Prosecution or face public opprobrium and a major loss of face for the Catholic Church Hierarchy in the PHilippines. At the very least, the Prosecution will have to define, for the Record and for the curiously watching Public, precisely what they mean by each word and phrase and nuance of the Criminal Charge they are bringing, considering that the last prosecution under this Law was sixty years ago.

To that end, the Accuser will do well to answer several simple questions of definition:

What does Art. 133 Offending the Religious Feelings, mean when it criminalizes "acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful."?

The Prosecution may wish to begin by addressing the double occurrence of the plural noun -- feelings -- in Article 133 (first in the Article Heading, second in the text of the Article). They may wish to note that both occurrences logically refer to one and the same set of emotions or "feelings" of the Faithful.

Since this Article 133 is entitled "Offending the Religious Feelings" I hope the Prosecution will make it clear that the "Feelings of the Faithful" referred to in the body of Art. 133 are the Religious Feelings of the Faithful and not just any arbitrary non-religious "feelings" like amor propio, personal or collective vanity, avarice, greed, envy, anger, spite or superstition, etc.

Next we may rightfully ask the Accuser, "Who are "the Faithful" whose religious feelings are alleged to be "notoriously offended" by acts performed by the Accused?

Since the criminalized acts must be committed " [1] in a place devoted to religious worship or [2] during the celebration of any religious ceremony" it would seem logical to presume that by "the Faithful" the Law means the members or adherents of the religion(s) engaged in religious worship or celebration.

Since the Accuser of Carlos Celdran is a Roman Catholic hierarch, Monsignor Nestor Cerbo, it would be reasonable to assume that "the Faithful" whose religious feelings he believes have been offended are the Faithful Members of the Catholic Church.

Thus we are led to ask a whole series of questions:

What are the qualifications of the Good Monsignor Cerbo to know the Religious Feelings of the Faithful Members of the Catholic Church?

How does he know if and when and how and which of those religious feelings were offended? Monsignor Nestor Cerbo should also indicate who exactly and how many among the Faithful have had their Religious Feelings offended.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what right does Msgr. Cerbo have to speak for the Catholic Faithful about the state of their Religious Feelings?? Since the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy, how are we to be assured that Msgr. Cerbo even HAS the right speak for the Faithful.

It would also be necessary for the Accuser to show some type of written or documentary proof that such Faithful Members of the Catholic Church did have their Religious Feelings offended in just the manner that the Accuser claims. We cannot send a man to jail on some general claim of hurt religious feelings without getting some confirmation of the factual existence of such hurt in some significant fraction of the Faithful--even just those who were present at the event. Then of course a thorough catalogue of the Religious Feelings themselves alleged to have been offended ought to be supplied by the Accuser together with documentary verification thereof that they ARE religious feelings of the Faithful.

When I first heard about these charges being levelled against Carlos Celdran, I remembered our meeting last March at Ignite!Manila under the auspices of Ryan "Red" Tani and the Filipino Free Thinkers. Little could we have known that Carlos Celdran would do a Damaso with such devastating panache.

But it seems manifest that the Accuser, Nestor Cerbo and the Catholic Church hierarchy will have a very difficult time proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a Court of Law. And, it will be HUGELY entertaining for the Court of Public Opinion!

ADDENDUM:
From The Legally Inclined Blog comes a survey of the past, not so humorous convictions under Art. 133--

"Believe it or not, but there are actual cases on this provision of law as when the following was found to be notoriously offensive and criminal: (1) when a rock was thrown at a minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo while he was preaching and (2) when remarks were made that Christ was called the Anti-Christ, that the Church marked by a demon and that the Pope is the Commander of Satan (Ibid., citing People vs. Migallos, CA-G.R.NO. 13619-R, Aug.5, 1955 and People vs. Mandorio). However, it was found that there is no such offense in an instance where a Protestant maligned the Pope as a Catholic procession was passing through near the house where they were having a meeting (Ibid., citing People v. Gesulga, pp. 75-76). And entering an assembly of a congregation which was having chapel services while drunk and attempting to grab the song leader is only unjust vexation (Ibid. citing People vs. Nanoy)."

JPE Appeals for Judicial Restraint from Supreme Court

2010-10-27T15:37:00.000+08:00

(Editor's Note: The Office of the Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile just released a PRESS STATEMENT on the plagiarism issue that has engulfed the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines. I reproduce the Statement verbatim below as received by email.)

STATEMENT OF THE SENATE PRESIDENT
HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE
27 October 2010
Ref: Yvonne Caunan/ Lizette Nepomuceno
Tel. 5526782; 5526691

On the Supreme Court’s Order to U.P. Law Faculty to show cause why they should not be liable for Indirect Contempt for their statement regarding the issue of plagiarism in the Decision in the case of Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary

AN APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL RETRAINT

I feel compelled to express my humble position on the issue of the Supreme Court’s order for the Dean and the members of the faculty of my alma mater, the College of Law of the University of the Philippines, to show cause why they should not be cited for indirect contempt for issuing and publishing a statement denouncing the plagiarism committed by one of its Associate Justices and to justify why they should not be administratively sanctioned and disciplined.

The Supreme Court had adopted and promulgated its decision by a majority vote in the case of Vinuya et al vs. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230) involving the petition of the victims of rape and sexual slavery committed by the Japanese forces against the so-called Filipina “comfort women” during the Second World War. Thus, understandably, the Highest Court of the land was not spared from the U.P. Law faculty’s statement expressing criticism and indignation over the blatant act of intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation by the ponente of the decision.

As a member of the Philippine Bar, I am fully cognizant that all of us in the law profession are officers of the Court. The practice of law as a profession is a privilege granted to each of us by the Court, and we are bound by rules of ethical conduct, especially in the manner by which we are required at all times to accord the Court utmost respect. In the practice of our profession, whether as counsels, litigators, advocates, or professors, we are subject to the Supreme Court’s disciplinary powers.

But I hasten to add that our duty to conduct ourselves properly as members of the Bar carries with it the serious duty to protect the Court’s honor and integrity as an institution devoted to the dispensation of justice. The Supreme Court, no less, being the final arbiter in the resolution of disputes that affect both individual and State rights, legal obligations and duties, must be protected against any act, even and more so by one of its own, which in any way would compromise, diminish or weaken its moral, intellectual and institutional integrity.

I understand that no less than three international authors have written the Supreme Court to call attention not only to the lack of attribution of obviously lifted and copied portions of the work of the original authors found in the Vinuya decision, but also to the misrepresentation in the use of the plagiarized material to support conclusions which are far from and in fact opposite to the context of the original works from which they were lifted.

Plagiarism is a grievous affront not only to the Supreme Court itself but to the Philippine judicial system. To claim as one’s own the intellectual work of another without proper attribution is theft of intellectual property. Such practice has no place especially in the drafting, preparation, debates, discussions and decisions of our courts, most especially, the Supreme Court.

When the Highest Court’s attention was invited to the plagiarism, the public, not only the academe, rightly expected that the Court would make sure that such reprehensible conduct would not be allowed to stain the Court’s reputation.

The tenuous justification offered as an excuse for the non-attribution of copied intellectual material, followed by the adoption by the majority of the questioned ponencia on a most sensitive and internationally significant issue such as the right of the “comfort women” to demand the State’s action on their behalf, has stirred much concern and controversy.

The latest action of the Supreme Court, being just a step away from punishing those who wished to voice out and protest what they honestly believed to be a serious wrongdoing on the part of an Associate Justice and a mistake on the part of the Court, has only served to add pain to the aggrieved parties and to spark a fiery debate between the Court on the one hand, and the legal academe and their sympathizers among the members of the Bar and the public on the other.

In the face of such a serious ethical breach on the part of the decision’s ponente, and with all due respect to the majority of the Court who decided to adopt the ponencia, thus making it its own and a part of Philippine jurisprudence, I strongly believe that sadly, the Supreme Court has made itself vulnerable to and must render itself open to legitimate criticism.

I respectfully submit that the Supreme Court’s independence, honor and integrity were not besmirched by the release of the U.P. Law faculty’s statement. The Court’s independence, honor and integrity, including its moral ascendancy, have been placed under a dark cloud of doubt unfortunately by the intellectual dishonesty of one of its own.

The power and majesty of the Supreme Court is too awesome for anyone to trifle with or ignore. As a legislator, public servant, and as a humble member of the Bar, I would like to respectfully appeal to the Supreme Court to exercise restraint in using its disciplinary hand to exact punishment or retribution from those who may disagree with the correctness and wisdom of its decision.

Freedom of expression which embraces academic freedom may be orphaned should our Highest Court choose to use its strong hand when it feels bruised or hurt, rather than to act as its faithful guardian. Ultimately, it is the Supreme Court, acting as the stronghold of civil liberties and rising above its own frailties, which is in the best position to cleanse itself and its ranks and repair the damage brought upon its image before the nation and before the world.

Why SCoRP Owes UP Law Faculty a Debt of Gratitude

2010-10-26T16:04:00.000+08:00

The Supreme Court Decision alleged to contain plagiarized passages Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230 (28 April 2010) has not become final and executory because a Motion for Reconsideration on the substance of that Decsion has not been ruled upon. Of course in A.M. 10-7-17-SC (the administrative matter In Re Del Castillo) the Court has basically ruled that there was no INTENTIONAL PLAGIARISM in the preparation of that Decision, indeed no plagiarism at all but merely "editing errors" by an unnamed assistant of the ponente, Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.

I am prepared to concede this ruling simply because the Decision has not been promulgated as final and executory. There is only the potential of plagiarism being committed if it is promulgated AS IS, without the so-called "editing errors" being corrected or properly acknowledged.

In a way, the Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner. By insisting there is NO PLAGIARISM in their April 28 Decision, they would have no reason to change anything relating to those passages not properly attributed without admitting that the Decision is invalid as it stands for the particular kind of FORM VIOLATION recognized internationally as plagiarism.

By a parity of reasoning however, if the Supreme Court allows the Decision to stand as is, and promulgates Vinuya v. Romulo as final and executory, a part of the Law of the Land, an official ACT of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (SCoRP), then they could deservedly be accused of committing INTENTIONAL PLAGIARISM.

There is another interesting aspect of this. By filing a Motion for Reconsideration and supplementing that with the criticism that plagiarism objectively exists in the assailed Decision, Petitioners have actually given the Supreme Court an opportunity to correct the very grievous form violations of internationally accepted norms in using the intellectual works of others.

For imagine if there had been no Motion for Reconsideration and the Decision had passed into Law with finality and executory power, then the plagiarism was discovered!

I would say the Supreme Court owes the UP Law Faculty a debt of gratitude.

Who Owns The Alleged Plagiarism?

2010-10-25T08:53:00.000+08:00

The Supreme Court Decision Vinuya v. Romulo is believed by many both here and abroad to be polluted with plagiarism, whether intentional or not. Indeed the very authors involved have even communicated to the Supreme Court their criticism of the inappropriate utilization of their work -- both in FORM and in SUBSTANCE. Not only were requisite attributions and references to them missing, but the allegedly purloined ideas and formulations were also used to come to an entirely opposite conclusion about the matter at hand--war time rape whose victims have cried to the Court for help. Just today, Yale University's constitutional authority, Prof. Bruce Ackerman has weighed in on the matter and warned the Court that it could lose a lot of face with the international community over their recent actions.

Unfortunately the Mass Media and many commentators seem to have ignored the question asked in this post: Who owns the alleged plagiarism? Even the UP LAW faculty statement accuses the PONENTE or penman assigned by the Chief Justice to write up the Court's opinion: Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo.

Yet the simple and obvious fact is that under the Constitution there is nothing that empowers a single Justice to issue a Decision as his own work. The Supreme Court under 1987 Article VIII only ever issues Decisions and Resolutions as a collegial body, in Divisions with a minimum of three justices or sitting En Banc.

The assailed Decision, Vinuya v. Romulo, was an En Banc Decision. It is in form and substance entirely an ACT of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (SCoRP), and with all its flaws and pollutions, it is presumed to be part of the Law of the Land. The En Banc itself is responsible for this ACT, not Del Castillo, not his unnamed Court Researcher, and most certainly not the programmers of a well known word processing program.

Had the UP Law Faculty made this identification explicitly, instead of focusing only on Del Castillo, the present Show Cause Order why they ought not to be disciplined with disbarment, suspension or worse, would be more obviously a self-serving and unethical judging of their own cause by the Supreme Court Justices with concurred unqualifiedly with the ponencia.

Intent Is Not Essential To Plagiarism

2010-10-25T08:28:00.000+08:00

The essential insight of dissenting Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is that in order to exonerate Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo of plagiarism charges in preparing for the En Banc its Decision in the case of Vinuya versus Romulo, the Majority introduced a most troublesome innovation:

The unfortunate ruling of the majority Decision that no plagiarism was committed stems from its failure to distinguish between the determination of the objective, factual existence of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision[1] and the determination of the liability that results from a finding of plagiarism. Specifically, it made “malicious intent”, which heretofore had not been relevant to a finding of plagiarism, an essential element.

She then details the internationally recognized FORMS of plagiarism and identifies their objective existence in Vinuya and criticizes the Court for "against the overwhelming conventions on what constitutes plagiarism."

Plagiarism is thus akin to a crime like MANSLAUGHTER. You may not have intended to hit the pedestrian, but if you killed or maimed him or her, the death or injury is an objective and readily verifiable fact for which you are liable under the Law. The Supreme Court cannot be above this very logic. Worse it ought not to be introducing judicial innovations for the mere purpose of self-preservation that now aids and abets both plagiarists and copyright violators.

An Open Appeal to International Legal Scholars

2010-10-21T20:14:00.000+08:00

(I ask all Philippine Commentary and Global Post readers, correspondents and bloggers to give the letter below the greatest possible circulation in the Philippines and abroad--Dean Jorge Bocobo)

An Open Appeal to International Legal Scholars

by Professor Diane A. Desierto, University of the Philippines College of Law

Dear friends and fellow legal scholars,

I apologize for this long note, but I thought I should set the record straight on the maelstrom of ongoing institutional persecution against the UP Law Faculty, where I serve as a faculty member. Several hours ago, a majority at the Philippine Supreme Court issued an unprecedented contempt order for the “Statement of the Faculty of the UP College of Law”, naming 37 out of 81 faculty members (including five present and former deans, a retired Justice of the Supreme Court now back in the faculty, among other senior academics and junior faculty members) whose physical signatures appeared in the Statement. Many faculty members support this Statement, but, as is customary, did not need to physically sign the Statement so long as we signified our support over email. For this reason, many of us understand the contempt order to eventually extend to all 81 members of the UP College of Law. All our bar licenses, without which we cannot teach, work, or practice as lawyers, are now at stake.

Let me narrate the brief factual background of this case:

1. On April 28, 2010, the Philippine Supreme Court issued its decision in Isabelita Vinuya et al. v. Executive Secretary et al. (full text of this decision available at:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm ). This case involved a certiorari petition of most remaining Filipina survivors of the “comfort women system” during World War II, asking the Court to compel the Executive Branch to exercise its constitutional duties and international obligations, in order to ensure these Filipina survivors’ their rights to redress. I wrote this petition as a law student of UP Law in 2004 along with UP Law Professor Harry Roque, theorizing then that our broadly universalist 1987 Philippine Constitution imposed unique constitutional duties on the Philippine President to observe our international legal obligations, including the right to redress for war crimes, mass rapes, and sexual slavery. Professor Roque and I published our analysis and theory of the petition in 2006, in the Journal of International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict. (full text of this available at: http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ifhv/documents/huvi/huv_2006/3_2006.pdf Relevant pages are pp. 91-98).

2. The Vinuya decision denied the petition. Professor Roque filed an initial Motion for Reconsideration, subject to the submission of a more extended Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration (Supplemental MR) under the Philippine Rules of Court. Professor Roque and his colleague, Attorney Romel Bagares, closely coordinated with me in the preparation of the Supplemental MR . After we discussed the legal arguments, I requested Attorney Bagares to recheck all sources cited in the Vinuya decision, as is customary for us in preparing appellate pleadings. Several days later, Attorney Bagares and Professor Roque discovered that many significant portions of the Vinuya decision appeared to have been lifted without attribution from the works of International Law authors (Professor Evan Criddle and Professor Evan Fox-descent’s 2009 Article in the Yale Journal of International Law, titled “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens”; the book of Dr. Christian Tams, titled Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law, published by Cambridge University Press; and an article by Mark Ellis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association, in the 2006 volume of Case Western Journal of International Law, entitled “Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime”). What was worse than the lifting without attribution of these sources was that the Vinuya Decision completely twisted what the authors said in their works. Professor Roque and Attorney Bagares decided to file the Supplemental MR inviting the Philippine Supreme Court’s attention to this grave matter, showing that the misrepresentation of these works erroneously laid the foundation for the Court’s decision to deny the petition. The Supplemental MR also included the rest of the arguments of the petition. The full text of the Supplemental MR can be found here:http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/

3. All International Law professors/authors came forward with their separate complaints to the Philippine Supreme Court regarding the misuse of their works. Unfortunately, FB doesn't have an attachment function yet, so I will repost in a separate note the letters of Dr. Christian Tams, Mark Ellis to the Philippine Supreme Court. Professor Evan Criddle posted his complaint on Opinio Juris at this link:http://opiniojuris.org/2010/07/19/international-law-plagiarism-charge-bedevils-philippines-supreme-court-justice/

a) Professor Criddle told Opinio Juris: “Speaking for myself, the most troubling aspect of the court’s jus cogens discussion is that it implies that the prohibitions against crimes against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture are not jus cogens norms. Our article emphatically asserts the opposite.”

b) Dr. Tams’ letter said: “The relevant passage of the judgment is to be found on p. 30 of your Court’s Judgment, in the section addressing the concept of obligations erga omnes. As the table annexed to this letter shows, the relevant sentences were taken almost word by word from the introductory chapter of my book Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005). I note that there is a generic reference to my work in footnote 69 of the Judgment, but as this is in relation to a citation from another author (Bruno Simma) rather than with respect to the substantive passages reproduced in the Judgment, I do not think it can be considered an appropriate form of referencing. I am particularly concerned that my work should have been used to support the Judgment’s cautious approach to the erga omnes concept. In fact, a most cursory reading shows that my book’s central thesis is precisely the opposite: namely that the erga omnes concept has been widely accepted and has a firm place in contemporary international law….With due respect to your Honourable Court, I am at a loss to see how my work should have been cited to support – as it seemingly has – the opposite approach. More generally, I am concerned at the way in which your Honourable Court’s judgment has drawn on scholarly work without properly acknowledging it.”

c) Mr. Ellis’ letter said: “My attention was called to the Judgment and the issue of possible plagiarism by the Philippine Chapter of the Southeast Asia Media Legal Defence Initiative (SEAMLDI), an affiliate of the London based Media Legal Defence Initiative (MLDI) where I sit as a trustee. In particular, I am concerned about a large part of the extensive discussion in footnote 65, pp. 27-28, of the Judgment of your esteemed Court. I am also concerned that your esteemed Court may have misread the arguments I made in the article and employed them for cross purposes. This would be ironic since the article was written precisely to argue for the appropriate legal remedy for victims of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.”

4. When Philippine national media carried these complaints, the Philippine Supreme Court did not appear disposed to take them seriously. The Court Spokesperson/Court Administrator, Midas Marquez, stated that the “You can’t expect all justices of the Supreme Court to be familiar with these law journals.”http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20100721-282283/High-court-not-probing-plagiarism

5. In light of the apparent plagiarism and twisting of the works in the text of the Vinuya Decision and the Court’s predispositions, the UP Law Faculty issued a Statement asking the Court to take responsibility and to provide guidance to the Philippine bench and bar. The UP Law Faculty, headed by the present Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and other law deans, expressed alarm at how the works were misused to deny a key petition of comfort women survivors, and asked the ponente of the Vinuya Decision, Justice Mariano del Castillo to voluntarily resign from the Court. The full text of the UP Law Faculty Statement can be found here:http://harryroque.com/2010/08/09/restoring-integritya-statement-by-the-faculty-of/

6. On Friday, October 15, 2010, a majority of ten members of the Philippine Supreme Court issued a resolution denying that Justice del Castillo had committed plagiarism and misuse of plagiarized works, holding that Justice del Castillo’s clerk/court researcher accidentally deleted the attributions, which could not have been detected since “the Microsoft word program does not have a function that raises an alarm when original materials are cut up or pruned.” The full text of the decision can be found here:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-7-17-SC.htm

7. The newest member of the Court, Justice Lourdes Aranal-Sereno, strongly dissented along with (Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales) from the Court’s findings and showed why plagiarism and misrepresentation was committed not just through deletions of attributions, but due to the deliberate inclusion of phrases that tried to convey the opposite of what the authors’ works said. Saying that the court will be remembered for saying Del Castillo did not commit plagiarism because there was "no malicious intent" to pass off someone else's works as his own, Justice Sereno added that the ruling of the court's majority has caused "unimaginable problems" for the Philippine academe. She explained decisions on future cases of plagiarism committed by students will be based on the court's ruling that malicious intent must be present to constitute plagiarism. "Unless reconsidered, this Court would unfortunately be remembered as the Court that made 'malicious intent' an indispensable element of plagiarism and that made computer-keying errors an exculpatory fact in charges of plagiarism, without clarifying whether its ruling applies only to situations of judicial decision-making or to other written intellectual activity," said Sereno. "It will also weaken this Court’s disciplinary authority ─ the essence of which proceeds from its moral authority ─ over the bench and bar. In a real sense, this Court has rendered tenuous its ability to positively educate and influence the future of intellectual and academic discourse," she added. The full text of the Sereno dissent can be found here: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-7-17-SC_sereno.htm

8. On Monday, October 18, 2010, various Philippine national media carried the news that the Philippine Supreme Court had deliberated and decided to hold the UP Law Faculty in contempt for its Statement. Seehttp://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101020-298693/UP-Law-faces-sanction-over-SC-plagiarism-case andhttp://www.gmanews.tv/story/203873/up-law-risks-sanctions-for-statements-on-plagiarism-mess , among others.

9. Copies of the Court’s seven-page Order were finally seen several hours ago. As will be seen from the full text of the Order and the dissenting opinions (I will repost this file in a separate note), the Court majority made the unprecedented move of holding the UP Law Faculty in contempt, until they can show why they do not merit contempt. Three justices of the Court noted this prejudgment in their dissents:

CARPIO-MORALES, j., dissenting:

"The Resolution demonstrates nothing but an abrasive flexing of the judicial muscle that could hardly be characterized as judicious. This knee-jerk response from the Court stares back at its own face, since this judicial act is one that is "totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance.

xxx

The adverse declarations describing the written work of the UP law faculty operate to their prejudice since that would render any subsequent proceeding illusory, because the Court, which would ultimately decide the administrative case, has already made up its mind before hearing the parties.

Worse, the Resolution is not what it purports to be. Ostensibly, the Resolution is a show cause order that initiates what would merely become a newly docketed regular administrative matter. There is more than meets the eye, however. When stripped of its apparent complexion, the Resolution shows its true colors and presents itself as a pronouncement of guilt of indirect contempt, without proper recourse left to the parties.

xxx

Unless the Court intends to busy itself into consistently engaging in a judicial witch hunt against its detractors, it is more in keeping with the Court's dignity not to dignify each and every write-up that is taken to vilify it, and console itself with the number of testimonials, written or living that vilify the judiciary.

Although as a human being, a person naturally gets pissed off by hurtful words, it would not hurt the Court as an institution and the law as a profession if it passes off the statement of the UP law faculty at this time."

SERENO, j., dissenting.

"Ordering the 37 respondent members of the UP law faculty to "show cause" in this indirect contempt case is like ordering the little boy who exclaimed that "the emperor has no clothes" to explain why he should be crucified for his public observation. It is true that the little boy may have aggravated the situation by adding that the unclothed emperor did not present a flattering figure in his natural state, but the analogy remains true -- that the subject UP law faculty members have been prematurely adjudged guilty and asked to explain why such prejudgment should be reversed simply for expressing what they believed was the truth.

xxx

What is so grievous about this whole contempt proceeding is that it comes in the wake of the gross injury that the Court has inflicted upon the virtue of honesty in learned discourses by labeling plagiarism as not plagiarism in the related case involving one of its members.

With all due respect to my colleagues, it is not the place of the Court to seek revenge against those who, in their wish to see reform in the judiciary, have the courage to say what is wrong with it. The Court finds its legitimacy in demonstrating its moral vein case after case, not in flaunting its judicial brawn. There is nothing to be gained for the administration of justice in not letting his one instance pass just because feelings have been hurt and the urge to retaliate must be satisfied.

If the 37 members of the UP law faculty are wrong, there will be recompense in their loss of esteem among the academic community and the legal profession. But if they are right, then the Court will have made martyrs out of those who -- in their temporary passion --- may have acted recklessly, but truthfully and sincerely. Indeed, should they be proven right they may even rise in the esteem in the eyes of the international academic and legal circles, for being the object of prosecution by one's Supreme Court for bold but intelligent reformist language can be deemed a badge of honor similar to that bequeathed by history to the great thinkers who were persecuted by society's forces."

In view of the blatant institutional persecution now being committed against the UP Law Faculty --- who discharged their duties in good faith as public servants, law professors, and officers of the Court in asking the Court to take responsibility for the apparent plagiarism and misrepresentation that tainted the Vinuya decision --- I urgently plead for the help of fellow legal scholars and academics to write --- either public statements, or letters to their embassies in Manila regarding this matter. As the dissenting Justices have disclosed, the Supreme Court majority has already prejudged this matter, and that same majority will prevail in imposing sanctions (from disbarment, to suspension of bar licenses, fines, imprisonment) on the UP Law Faculty. We cannot realistically expect a fair hearing anymore when the majority acts as both the supposed “injured” party and our judge at the same time. We acted in good faith, conscious of our duties as lawyers and legal scholars, to ensure the preservation of integrity in our jurisprudence ---- we could not anticipate then, nor would we have accepted now as law professors and members of the Philippine legal academia, the Supreme Court majority’s defense that Microsoft Word was responsible for failing to detect the plagiarism and misrepresentation. The objective fact of plagiarism and misrepresentation are glaring from the text of Vinuya, as confirmed by the international law professors whose works were used, and as confirmed by the extensive dissent of Justice Sereno. Most importantly, we acted from our sense of justice and duty as lawyers to promote the rule of law, on behalf of those comfort women survivors whose petition was denied through a decision-making process that apparently relied on plagiarized and misrepresented works of international law authors.

Our only hope now is for reason from the rest of the world to prevail against this institutional persecution --- the glaring and ongoing threats to our constitutional and international rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom. While it appears that only 37 of the 81 faculty members signed the UP Law Faculty Statement, the Court majority overlooked all the names sent in the original list by Dean Marvic Leonen. It has been our practice to signify support for statements electronically through email or discussions in our faculty egroup, and for many of us abroad it was not necessary to physically sign so long as we expressed our support for the statement to the faculty egroup. We expect, therefore, that it will only be a matter of time before the contempt order is extended to all of us. We will not shirk from our part in having supported the UP Law Faculty Statement.

We fervently hope for your help in this fight against institutional persecution. We have no recourse left.

Very truly yours,

Professor Diane A. Desierto, University of the Philippines College of Law

Law Reform Specialist, Institute of International Legal Studies, University of the Philippines

JSD candidate (2014), LLM (2009), Yale Law School

* IMPORTANT: This NOTE in NO WAY represents the views of the International Court of Justice or any of its staff. This Note was written in my private capacity, SOLELY as a member of the UP Law Faculty.

Sereno's Dissenting Opinion: Supreme Court Decision Aids Plagiarists and Copyright Violators

2010-10-19T22:11:00.001+08:00

The opening paragraphs of Justice Sereno's Dissent from the majority opinion in the recent plagiarism decision of the En Banc A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC contains very chilling predictions about how plagiarists and copyright violators will benefit from the terrible innovation created by the Supreme Court. By making "malicious intent" essential to those crimes Justice Sereno warns that lack of such malicious intent now becomes a strong defense against charges of plagiarism and copyright violation.

Dissenting Opinion

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DELCASTILLO

What is black can be called “white” but it cannot turn white by the mere calling. The unfortunate ruling of the majority Decision that no plagiarism was committed stems from its failure to distinguish between the determination of the objective, factual existence of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision[1] and the determination of the liability that results from a finding of plagiarism. Specifically, it made “malicious intent”, which heretofore had not been relevant to a finding of plagiarism, an essential element.
The majority Decision will thus stand against the overwhelming conventions on what constitutes plagiarism. In doing so, the Decision has created unimaginable problems for Philippine academia, which will from now on have to find a disciplinary response to plagiarism committed by students and researchers on the justification of the majority Decision.
It has also undermined the protection of copyrighted work by making available to plagiarists “lack of malicious intent” as a defense to a charge of violation of copy or economic rights of the copyright owner committed through lack of attribution. Under Section 184 of R.A. 8293 (“An Act Describing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers and Functions, and for Other Purposes”), or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, there is no infringement of copyright in the use of another's work in:
(b) the making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned. (Emphasis supplied)
Because the majority Decision has excused the lack of attribution to the complaining authors in the Vinuya decision to editorial errors and lack of malicious intent to appropriate ─ and that therefore there was no plagiarism ─ lack of intent to infringe copyright in the case of lack of attribution may now also become a defense, rendering the above legal provision meaningless.[2]

Read it all at the Supreme Court Website!

A Sagada Sunrise

2010-10-18T23:34:00.000+08:00

At Philippine Commentary V3.0 it's not all just speaking bitterness against that rogue Supreme Court...

Has Not the Supreme Court Judged Its Own Cause?

2010-10-18T23:22:00.000+08:00

A recent En Banc Decision by the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (SCoRP) disposes of charges that a previous En Banc Decision Vinuya v. Executive Secretary contained plagiarized passages from three froreign academics, as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of all of the above, the Court:
1. DISMISSES for lack of merit petitioner Vinuya, et al.’s charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano C. del Castillo;
XXX
SO ORDERED.

That's funny...Vinuya v. Executive Secretary was an EN BANC Decision, so if anything it was the En Banc that was being charged with plagiarism, twisting the conclusions of the cited materials [sic!] and gross negligence.

By portraying the charges as being merely directed at Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, the Court is being entirely disingenuous. Whilst the Court attributes the entire brouhaha to the "editiing errors" of an unidentified Court researcher, it cannot escape notice that the researcher herself could not have been responsible for the Court's having come to an opposite conclusion to which the misappropriated materials originally led--as the genuine authors Criddle and Fox-Descent in fact claim the Vinuya decision did.

The subject matter of the allegedly plagiarized material (jus cogens status of the war time rape) was not tangential but central to the entire Vinuya Decision, which held that the Philippine government is not under any obligation under international law standards to assist the Malaya Lola's long search for justice!

This substantial and essential matter was under the complete control and recognizance of the En Banc during the three times that Del Castillo's draft was on their agenda.

ERGO, by issuing A.M. 10-7-17-S.C. allegedly exonerating just Del Castillo, has not SCoRP in effect, exonerated the En Banc of all editorial and juridical responsibility for Vinuya and unethically and most inappropriately judged its own cause?

Should not every Justice who participated in the production of Vinuya, taken cognizance of that participation and delicately recused themselves from the Administrative Matter?

Palusot! Supreme Court Absolves Itself of Plagiarism Charges

2010-10-17T17:57:00.000+08:00

There is a quaint tradition in the Philippines that goes by the Filipino slang term palusot which operates when someone -- usually rich, powerful and sanctimonious -- is caught red-handed doing something embarrassingly wrong, unethical, unseemly and undignified.

But to see fifteen highly respected men and women in robes making palusot is a rare sight and sound to behold! That they are also each and everyone of them an impeachable official of the government makes it rarer still.

So whilst the swinging door of revealing observation is slightly ajar on the Highest Court in the land --sometimes called The Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (SCoRP) -- there is an opportunity for the usisero public to witness PALUSOT done in the grand manner of a full blown en banc Supreme Court Decision:

IN THE MATTER OF CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM AGAINST ASSOC. JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)

The Supreme Court website contains much of its Jurisprudence in electronic (and therefore digitallly interrogatable form!) My own summary of and commentary on the instant Decision follows...

The Decision en banc can be analyzed using its own major subheadings:

The Background Facts are these:

On April 28, 2010, SCoRP rendered an adverse decision in Vinuya v. Exec Sec against Petitioners from Malaya Lolas Organization a group of Filipino World War II-era "comfort women" who were asking the Court to compel Philippine government agencies and officials to pursue their case against Japanese tormentors in an international legal venue.

SCoRP denied Petitioners prayers on two grounds: first, that it was the exclusive prerogative of the Executive whether or not to assist the war victims in their search for justice; and second that the Philippine government was not obliged under international law to do so.

Petitioners moved to reconsider on June 9. Then in a supplemental motion on July 19, petitioners dropped a bombshell through counsel Harry Roque: charges of plagiarism in the Decision or ponencia penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo as large chunks of the following articles allegedly appeared in it without proper attribution:

(1) A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009);

(2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2006); and,

(3) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).

At this point the Decision then makes the following statement:

"Because of the publicity that the supplemental motion for reconsideration generated, Justice Del Castillo circulated a letter to his colleagues, subsequently verified, stating that when he wrote the decision for the Court he had the intent to attribute all sources used in it."

Caveat:

This appears to me to be an ADMISSION by Del Castillo that the allegations of questionably attributed passages being present in his ponencia are indeed true and that interested but fair-minded members of the Public need not verify the same by having to examine and compare the original assailed Decision or above foreign sources.

In this letter, Associate Justice Del Castillo also appears to drag in his Colleagues on the Court as follows:

"It must be emphasized that there was every intention to attribute all sources, whenever due. At no point was there ever any malicious intent to appropriate another’s work as our own. We recall that this ponencia was thrice included in the Agenda of the Court en banc. It was deliberated upon during the Baguio session on April 13, 2010, April 20, 2010 and in Manila on April 27, 2010. XXX "

Without as yet judging the merits of Del Castillo's initial line of defense, Del Castillo nonetheless tacitly and directly admits an all-important LAPSE in his preparation of the Decision which requires some kind of explanation.

A second charge made by Petitioners in their Motion for Reconsideration, and one that is perhaps more disturbing, is that not only were certain passages improperly handled so as to invite the obvious charge of plagiarism, but they seem to have been used to come to an entirely opposite conclusion than their utility and role in the original contexts.

This is neither confirmed nor denied by Del Castillo in his Verified Letter to Colleagues, saying only that it was a matter of opinion from Petitioners:

"As regards the claim of the petitioners that the concepts as contained in the above foreign materials were “twisted,” the same remains their opinion which we do not necessarily share."

Okay. Del Castillo and His Colleagues at SCoRP may not share this opinion, but guess who does??

Here is what Prof. Evan Criddle wrote on the well known international law blog Opinio Juris:

Speaking for myself, the most troubling aspect of the court’s jus cogens discussion is that it implies that the prohibitions against crimes against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture are not jus cogens norms. Our article emphatically asserts the opposite.

SCoRP even got a letter from Dr. Mark Ellis, the other allegedly plagiarized party:

On July 23, 2010, Dr. Mark Ellis wrote the Court expressing concern that in mentioning his work, the Court “may have misread the argument [he] made in the article and employed them for cross purposes.” Dr. Ellis said that he wrote the article precisely to argue for appropriate legal remedy for victims of war crimes.

We thus have a claim from the apparently injured parties that not only were their intellectual efforts misappropriated by Del Castillo and the En Banc (which had the ponencia as a working draft no less than three times on its agenda) but that these efforts were indeed twisted by Del Castillo and the En Banc to come to an entirely different substantial conclusion about international law obligations of governments in historic cases like that of the comfort women.

The Issues
This case presents two issues:
1. Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case, Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.
2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to make it appear that such works supported the Court’s position in the Vinuya decision.

Two big fat NO's sayeth the Court later, but very interesting is...

The Explanation

Unless amply explained, the above lifting from the works of Ellis and Criddle-Descent could be construed as plagiarism. But one of Justice Del Castillo’s researchers, a court-employed attorney, explained how she accidentally deleted the attributions, originally planted in the beginning drafts of her report to him, which report eventually became the working draft of the decision.

The Rulings

WHEREFORE, in view of all of the above, the Court:

1.       DISMISSES for lack of merit petitioner Vinuya, et al.’s charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano C. del Castillo;

2.       DIRECTS the Public Information Office to send copies of this decision to Professors Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Dr. Mark Ellis, and Professor Christian J. Tams at their known addresses;

3.       DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide all court attorneys involved in legal research and reporting with copies of this decision and to enjoin them to avoid editing errors committed in the Vinuya case while using the existing computer program especially when the volume of citations and footnoting is substantial; and

4.       Finally, DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to acquire the necessary software for use by the Court that can prevent future lapses in citations and attributions.

Commentary

So there it is in one neat package: complete exoneration of Del Castillo and itself by itself from the High Court.

But in the manner of certain television detective characters, one is forced to ask some niggling questions.
Could the apparent coming to an opposite conclusion from the substance and logic of the allegedly plagiarized material, as claimed by their true authors, offer indirect proof of the alleged plagiarism itself!

For example, the present Decision does not explain WHY it is only these passages that are indeed missing the requisite attribution?! At there very least this circumstance goads SUSPICION. Is it because, in "the matter of opinion" mentioned by Del Castillo in his Verified Letter of Explanation, he may have been aware of the fact that he was coming to an entirely opposite conclusion regarding jus cogens from two authors whose ideas and reasoning he had just misappropriated.

I think it is revealingly disingenuous of both Del Castillo and SCoRP to innocently claim they do not plainly see the "twisting" that Petioners and the foreign academics assert, that they did not in fact come to an opposite conclusion about substantive matters even if the injured parties say they did!

They have to make this denial because it does indirectly explain why the attributions were left off -- even inadvertently.

Executive Order No. 1 is Unconstitutional

2010-10-17T16:09:00.002+08:00

by Alan F. Paguia

Former Professor of Law

Ateneo Law School

University of Batangas

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

alanpaguia@yahoo.com

Why is President Noynoy Aquino’s Executive Order (EO) No. 1, dated July 30, 2010, “CREATING THE PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010” – unconstitutional?

Because it appears to violate two (2) constitutional principles. First, the principle of equal protection of the law, and second, the principle of separation of powers.

Violation of equal protection

1. The EO materially provides:

“...WHEREAS, corruption in the Philippines has reached very alarming levels, and undermined (sic) the people’s trust and confidence in the Government and its institutions;

WHEREAS, there is an urgent call for the determination of the truth regarding certain reports of large scale graft and corruption in the government and to put a closure to them by the filing of the appropriate cases against those involved, if warranted, and to deter others from committing the evil, restore the people’s faith and confidence in the Government and in their public servants;

WHEREAS, the President’s battlecry during his campaign for the Presidency in the last elections “kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” expresses a solemn pledge that if elected, he would end corruption and the evil it breeds;

WHEREAS, there is a need for a separate body dedicated solely to investigating and finding out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration, and which will recommend the prosecution of the offenders and secure justice for all;...”

“... NOW THEREFORE, I, BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:

SECTION 1. Creation of a Commission. – There is hereby created the PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION, hereafter referred to as the “COMMISSION”, which shall primarily seek and find the truth on, and toward this end, investigate reports of graft and corruption of such scale and magnitude that shock and offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of the people, committed by public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration; and thereafter recommend the appropriate action or measure to be taken thereon to ensure that the full measure of justice shall be served without fear or favor.

The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four (4) members who will act as an independent collegial body:

SECTION 2. Powers and Functions. – The Commission, which shall have all the powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, is primarily tasked to conduct a thorough fact-finding investigation of reported cases of graft and corruption referred to in Section 1, involving third level public officers and higher, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories from the private sector, if any, during the previous administration and thereafter submit its findings and recommendations to the President, Congress and the Ombudsman...”

“...SECTION 14. Term of the Commission. – The Commission shall accomplish its mission on or before Decmber 31, 2012...”

2. In short, the Commission was created to investigate reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration, meaning the Gloria Arroyo administration, and not the other previous administrations.

3. The EO singles out the Arroyo administration from the other previous administrations.

4. Does the EO claim there are no reports of graft and corruption during previous administrations other than the Arroyo administration? NO.

5. Does the EO claim there are no reports of large-scale graft and corruption during previous administrations other than the Arroyo administration? NO. In fact, it states corruption in the Philippines has reached very alarming levels, resulting in the need to restore the people’s faith and confidence in the Government.

6. Does the EO claim the very alarming levels of corruption in the Philippines were caused wholly and exclusively by the Arroyo administration? NO.

7. Does the EO claim the previous administrations other than the Arroyo administration, did not contribute to the very alarming levels of corruption in the Philippines? NO.

8. Does the EO claim there is no causal relation between the previous administrations other than the Arroyo administration, on one hand, and the very alarming levels of corruption in the Philippines, on the other? NO.

9. Consequently, it would appear that, compared with the other previous administrations, the Arroyo administration does not have a monopoly of reports of large-scale graft and corruption that need to be investigated. The truth is, all previous administrations share the common predicament.

10. Thus: (a) there appears no substantial distinction between the Arroyo administration and the other previous administrations, and (b) the EO does not apply equally to all members of the class of previous administrations. While the EO commands the Truth Commission to investigate the Arroyo administration, there apppears no command to investigate the OTHER previous administrations. According to jurisprudence, these infirmities would render the EO violative of the equal protection clause (Quinto v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189698, December 1, 2009) and, therefore, VOID from the beginning (Art. 5, CIVIL CODE; Velasco v. Lopez, 1 Phil 720).

Violation of separation of powers

11. Under the Constitution, the essential duty of the Chief Executive is to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed (Sec. 17, Art. VII).

12. What law does EO 1 seek to ensure to be faithfully executed? The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).

13. What government agency has the constitutional duty to investigate cases of graft and corruption? The independent Office of the Ombudsman (Sec. 5, Art. XI).

14. What is the scope of the Ombudsman’s power of investigation? According to the Constitution, it shall: “Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or ommission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or ommission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient” (Sec. 13, subpar. 1, ibid.).

15. Under the EO, the duty of the Truth Commission is to investigate reports of graft and corruption during the previous administration. Under the Constitution, the duty of the Ombudsman is to investigate any act or ommission when such act or ommission appears to be illegal. Is there any substantial difference? NONE. Both laws seek to investigate graft and corruption or illegal acts or ommissions committed by public officials. The Truth Commission is, therefor, a DUPLICATION of the Ombudsman. It is the Chief Executive’s “Ombudsman”, as against the Constitution’s “independent Office of the Ombudsman”.

16. The Chief Executive, through EO 1, instead of respecting the SEPARATE power of the “independent Office of the Ombudsman” to investigate cases of graft and corruption, does the opposite by creating a Truth Commission that will USURP, or ENCROACH upon, the same power to investigate vested by the Constitution exclusively in favor of the Ombudsman.

Expired term

17. The Chief Executive either has trust or no trust in the current Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez. In the first case, there would be no need for EO 1. The Ombudsman can do the job of the Truth Commission. In the second case, the question that naturally arises is: WHY? Regardless of the answer, and regardless of the need for a Truth Commission, the answer is the Chief Executive must follow the Rule of Law. If indeed there is a need for an executive Truth Commission outside of the Office of the Ombudsman, then let it be created through an Executive Order that does not violate the Constitution.

18. The Chief Executive appears to ignore, albeit without any apparent reason, the fact that Ombudsman Gutierrez’s term of office had expired in 2009. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto’s seven-year term from 1995 to 2002 was completed. Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo followed and began his seven-year term from 2002 to 2009, but did not complete the same. He resigned in 2005. To complete Marcelo’s term, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was appointed in his place in 2005. Thus, the latter’s TENURE was cut short by the expiration of Marcelo’s TERM in 2009. The Constitution vested Desierto and Marcelo with a TERM of seven (7) years each. Gutierrez had no such term under the law. She only had a TENURE or actual stay in office for the balance of Marcelo’s term. Gutierrez is, therefore, an overstaying Ombudsman who is acting WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

19. Under the foregoing premises, should the Chief Executive declare the Office of the Ombudsman vacant, and appoint a new one? YES. It is a matter of DUTY under the Constitution.

(Editorial Note: This is a Commentary on President Noynoy Aquino's Executive Order No. 1 creating a Truth Commission headed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. It was written last August 15, 2010 by Prof. Alan F. Paguia, with whose gracious permission it is here republished. --DJB)

NB: Nota Bene

2010-10-16T20:52:00.005+08:00

The experiment involving Philippine Commentary as a "group blog" is now formally ended. It has, in my opinion, not worked out. So, I am unilaterally transforming Philippine Commentary back into an individual and personal blog. I sincerely thank all who've participated in Philippine Commentary as authors, commenters and readers.

This is a kind of second resurrection for this old blog, which started around 2002 upon the inspiration of the guy who runs The Belmont Club. I gave it up in 2004 after blogging extensively on Edsa Dos, the failed impeachment of then Chief Justice Hilario Davide and GMA's seizure of a second term. I returned to Philippine Commentary after the Subic Bay Rape Case incident occurred, as well as "Hello Garci."

Philippine Commentary Version 3.0 will be primarily concerned with SCoRP (Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines) and its continuing role in the evisceration of our constitutional democracy. Fortunately for my readers, I am not a lawyer, just like most of them. I only hope to be able to address these momentous issues of our Republic from the intelligent layman's point of view.

Education, environment, and energy will also be a strong themes in coming blog entries as I have just spent the last nine months (in lieu of blogging!) living and working in the fifth class municipality of Sagada in the Mountain Province.

Welcome to Philippine Commentary V3.0 !

The Supreme Court at Nadir

2010-10-15T08:10:00.001+08:00

Restoring Integrity

A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UP COLLEGE OF LAW

on the Plagiarism Issue at SCoRP

(republished from Harry Roque's blog...Dean Jorge Bocobo)

An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war. After they courageously came out with their very personal stories of abuse and suffering as “comfort women”, waited for almost two decades for any meaningful relief from their own government as well as from the government of Japan, got their hopes up for a semblance of judicial recourse in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230 (28 April 2010), they only had these hopes crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land.

It is within this frame that the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law views the charge that an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court committed plagiarism and misrepresentation in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The plagiarism and misrepresentation are not only affronts to the individual scholars whose work have been appropriated without correct attribution, but also a serious threat to the integrity and credibility of the Philippine Judicial System.

In common parlance, ‘plagiarism’ is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s work as one’s own. In the field of writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at worst. It constitutes a taking of someone else’s ideas and expressions, including all the effort and creativity that went into committing such ideas and expressions into writing, and then making it appear that such ideas and expressions were originally created by the taker. It is dishonesty, pure and simple. A judicial system that allows plagiarism in any form is one that allows dishonesty. Since all judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, to allow plagiarism in the Supreme Court is to allow the production of laws by dishonest means. Evidently, this is a complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice.

A comparison of the Vinuya decision and the original source material shows that the ponente merely copied select portions of other legal writers’ works and interspersed them into the decision as if they were his own, original work. Under the circumstances, however, because the Decision has been promulgated by the Court, the Decision now becomes the Court’s and no longer just the ponente’s. Thus the Court also bears the responsibility for the Decision. In the absence of any mention of the original writers’ names and the publications from which they came, the thing speaks for itself.

So far there have been unsatisfactory responses from the ponente of this case and the spokesman of the Court.

It is argued, for example, that the inclusion of the footnotes from the original articles is a reference to the ‘primary’ sources relied upon. This cursory explanation is not acceptable, because the original authors’ writings and the effort they put into finding and summarizing those primary sources are precisely the subject of plagiarism. The inclusion of the footnotes together with portions of their writings in fact aggravates, instead of mitigates, the plagiarism since it provides additional evidence of a deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors’ work of organizing and analyzing those primary sources.

It is also argued that the Members of the Court cannot be expected to be familiar with all legal and scholarly journals. This is also not acceptable, because personal unfamiliarity with sources all the more demands correct and careful attribution and citation of the material relied upon. It is a matter of diligence and competence expected of all Magistrates of the Highest Court of the Land.

But a far more serious matter is the objection of the original writers, Professors Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, that the High Court actually misrepresents the conclusions of their work entitled “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens,” the main source of the plagiarized text. In this article they argue that the classification of the crimes of rape, torture, and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity have attained the status of jus cogens, making it obligatory upon the State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. Yet, the Vinuya decision uses parts of the same article to arrive at the contrary conclusion. This exacerbates the intellectual dishonesty of copying works without attribution by transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to mislead and deceive.

The case is a potential landmark decision in International Law, because it deals with State liability and responsibility for personal injury and damage suffered in a time of war, and the role of the injured parties’ home States in the pursuit of remedies against such injury or damage. National courts rarely have such opportunities to make an international impact. That the petitioners were Filipino “comfort women” who suffered from horrific abuse during the Second World War made it incumbent on the Court of last resort to afford them every solicitude. But instead of acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for almost seven years, oblivious to the deaths of many of the petitioners seeking justice from the Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials, the Court decided this case based on polluted sources. By so doing, the Supreme Court added insult to injury by failing to actually exercise its “power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up the claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathy and nonchalance, belies a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect. The reputation of the Philippine Supreme Court and the standing of the Philippine legal profession before other Judiciaries and legal systems are truly at stake.

The High Court cannot accommodate less than absolute honesty in its decisions and cannot accept excuses for failure to attain the highest standards of conduct imposed upon all members of the Bench and Bar because these undermine the very foundation of its authority and power in a democratic society. Given the Court’s recent history and the controversy that surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of such clear and obvious plagiarism to pass without sanction as this would only further erode faith and confidence in the judicial system. And in light of the significance of this decision to the quest for justice not only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere in the world who have suffered the horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in times of war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted texts.

The Court cannot regain its credibility and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own conduct, whether collectively or through its Members, is beyond reproach. This necessarily includes ensuring that not only the content, but also the processes of preparing and writing its own decisions, are credible and beyond question. The Vinuya Decision must be conscientiously reviewed and not casually cast aside, if not for the purpose of sanction, then at least for the purpose of reflection and guidance. It is an absolutely essential step toward the establishment of a higher standard of professional care and practical scholarship in the Bench and Bar, which are critical to improving the system of administration of justice in the Philippines. It is also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter of all controversies: a position that requires competence and integrity completely above any and all reproach, in accordance with the exacting demands of judicial and professional ethics.

With these considerations, and bearing in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession of Law, it is the opinion of the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law that:

(1) The plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary is unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and judicial and professional competence expected of the Supreme Court;

(2) Such a fundamental breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire Supreme Court and undermines the foundations of the Philippine judicial system by allowing implicitly the decision of cases and the establishment of legal precedents through dubious means;

(3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya case does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who have been left without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein;

(4) In light of the extremely serious and far-reaching nature of the dishonesty and to save the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court as an institution, it is necessary for the ponente of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary to resign his position, without prejudice to any other sanctions that the Court may consider appropriate;

(5) The Supreme Court must take this opportunity to review the manner by which it conducts research, prepares drafts, reaches and finalizes decisions in order to prevent a recurrence of similar acts, and to provide clear and concise guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure only the highest quality of legal research and writing in pleadings, practice, and adjudication.

Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines College of Law, Quezon City, 27 July 2010.

(SGD) MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Dean and Professor of Law

(SGD.) FROILAN M. BACUNGAN
Dean (1978-1983)

(SGD.) PACIFICO A. AGABIN
Dean (1989-1995)

(SGD.) MERLIN M. MAGALLONA
Dean (1995-1999)

(SGD.) SALVADOR T. CARLOTA
Dean (2005-2008)
and Professor of Law

REGULAR FACULTY

(SGD.) CARMELO V. SISON
Professor

(SGD.) PATRICIA R.P. SALVADOR DAWAY
Associate Dean and Associate Professor

(SGD.) DANTE B. GATMAYTAN
Associate Professor

(SGD.) THEODORE O. TE
Assistant Professor

(SGD.) FLORIN T. HILBAY
Assistant Professor

(SGD.) JAY L. BATONGBACAL
Assistant Professor

(SGD.) EVELYN (LEO) D. BATTAD
Assistant Professor

(SGD.) GWEN G. DE VERA
Assistant Professor

(SGD.) SOLOMON F. LUMBA
Assistant Professor

(SGD.) ROMMEL J. CASIS
Assistant Professor

LECTURERS

(SGD.) ARTHUR P. AUTEA
(SGD.) ROSA.MARIA.J..BAUTISTA
(SGD.) MARK R. BOCOBO
(SGD.) DAN P. CALICA
(SGD.) TRISTAN A. CATINDIG
(SGD.) SANDRA MARIE O. CORONEL
(SGD.) ROSARIO O. GALLO
(SGD.) CONCEPCION L. JARDELEZA
(SGD.) ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA
(SGD.) CARINA C. LAFORTEZA
(SGD.) JOSE C. LAURETA
(SGD.) DINA D. LUCINARIO
(SGD.) OWEN J. LYNCH
(SGD.) ANTONIO M. SANTOS
(SGD.) VICENTE V. MENDOZA
(SGD.) GMELEEN FAYE B. TOMBOC
(SGD.) NICHOLAS FELIX L. TY
(SGD.) EVALYN G. URSUA
(SGD.) RAUL T. VASQUEZ
(SGD.) SUSAN D. VILLANUEVA

Evil cloaked in Greek letters

2010-09-29T20:00:00.001+08:00

by Theodore Te

(For those who would read this post, do keep those injured by yesterday's bombing in your prayers, especially Ms. Raissa Laurel and another whose name I am unaware of, who are reported to be the most seriously injured and stand to lose their legs.)

Many, I included, thought at first that it was an extremely loud firecracker; in the nanosecond that it took me to realize that it was louder than most firecrackers, had an echo and that it shook the ground hard, a hush had descended over Taft Avenue. Where, just seconds ago, there was loud cheering, drums pounding and people shouting, there was now an incredulous, unbelieving, surreal silence while people, I and the UP Law contingent included, started to slowly push backwards.

It was 5:00 in the afternoon, 26 September 2010. The Bar Examinations of 2010 had officially ended, and the traditional Salubong [greeting and receiving of Bar examinees after last day of exam] was in full swing.
That was when the screaming started: from those on the pavement--mostly women, some half-seated, some lying prone--almost all bloodied--and from those who were scrambling to move out of the way.

That was when it dawned on many, me included, that the Bar Examinations 2010 Salubonghad been bombed.

My first concern was the UP Law contingent which included our guests, the drummers from the UP Pep Squad, and many students--not all of whom were known personally to me by name or by face. I pushed back some physically to secure places and ordered others to retreat to the nearby McDonald's and stay there; grabbing hold of students I knew were leaders and/or part of the UP LSG [Law Student Government] as well as my team members from the 2010 Bar Operations, I asked them to make an immediate head count--ask where their companions were, and if they were not physically at McDonald's, to account for where they were; some, like Tim, who was at Starbucks, called in helpful information as to who was there with them.

My second concern was for the parents, alumni, guests and friends whom we did not know personally but whom we knew would be there at the Salubong. Those parents I knew (or had gotten to know through the four weekends of the Bar), I asked to just stay put at McDonald's.

My third concern was our bar candidates and our contact, Dan Sebollena, who had gone ahead to be closer to the exit gate so that the bar candidates could march out at the same time. We needed to also make a head count before they left, so we would be able to trace where people were because some had left ahead of the agreed upon 5:00 p.m. march out.

All throughout, while this was happening, there was a mad rush of people and muted whimpers, crying, and a general disbelief at what had just happened (though some, tastelessly, continued to cheer and even spray beer and other liquid) even as the police secured the area and carried off those who were wounded.

Looking at the crime scene (while the head counts were being taken) and the bomb blast site, I realized that if the bomb had gone off a few meters to the right, it would have hit UP Law people. It was that close, and we were that blessed. As I looked at the bloodied Taft Avenue, with UP Law pennants, fans and tarpaulins and with undistributed flowers strewn all over, I silently thanked God for protecting us even as I prayed for those who were injured. Even now, as I write this, frantic appeals for blood donations are going out for Raissa Laurel, who faces the prospect of losing her legs as she undergoes surgery at the PGH. (Editor's note: As of posting time, both of Laurel's legs had already been amputated. Click here for story.)

It took us about an hour to account for all our people. By that time, night was falling and my concern now was to get people home before night fell because the darkness could provide yet another venue for opportunistic criminals to strike. We moved out in delegations--classmates, sororities, fraternities, the bar candidates and their families, other supporters. Many stayed for a while at the nearby Starbucks to catch their breath or to simply shake off the disbelief.

That night, as we processed the raw information coming our way through various sources, it became clear that it was related to fraternity rumbles between rival fraternities of a Manila-based law school. Some had seen men in black running away a few seconds after the sound of the explosion. Others fed raw information about the rumbles that were on-going among several fraternities of some of the schools in the university belt. All of us in that room, didn't find the news surprising as much as shocking. Many of us knew just how stupid and senseless fraternities can get when it comes to proving their manhood and their brotherhood to each other. But that night, a new realization came to me--probably also to the others in the room--the savagery of these "Greek-lettered men," who beat each other and others to a pulp, had transcended known civilized boundaries.

There is no justification for lobbing an explosive into a densely packed crowd of people who are oblivious to nothing but cheering for their friends, schoolmates, family and loved ones. Absolutely none.

There is nothing anyone can say to me that will convince me that one who would throw an explosive into a crowd did not deliberately plan to kill other people. Absolutely none.

It was an act done with malice, with premeditation, intentionally with the purpose of inflicting mortal harm.

That Ms. Laurel and the others did not die is a testament to Divine Intervention; that Ms. Laurel will probably end up a cripple is directly attributable to the cowards who hide behind the cloak of Greek letters and the skirts of their "brods."

As one of our students, a frat man himself, has pointed out in his blog posts, it is time to go beyond words and condemnation, and it is a time for more concrete action. I agree.

The fraternities at war yesterday must make the first move: surrender those responsible so that they may be prosecuted. Otherwise, they reduce ALL Greek-lettered societies, many of them legitimate, to nothing better than street gangs and organized criminal syndicates.

Other Greek-lettered societies must also do the right thing: more than just condemning the act and saying that "we don't do things like that", they must ensure that in admitting people into their ranks, they are absolutely certain that those with issues, those with homicidal streaks, those with anger management problems, those who are in fraternities for the absolutely "wrong reasons" should not be admitted; and if, somehow, some of these have made it into their number, that they are courageous enough to ensure that they are not let out into decent company, unless on an extremely short leash.

The culture of "my brother, wrong or right" must stop. There is such a thing as fraternal correction and, if necessary, discipline. The Supreme Court, which is in charge of legal education, and the universities and colleges must also take steps to ensure stricter regulation (I do not believe in prohibition as the fraternities will simply go underground and be totally unchecked), on pain of stringent sanctions, including expulsion and criminal prosecution, if warranted. The solution is not a reflexive reaction of banning the Salubong, but perhaps ensuring that school fraternities' activities during the Salubong are regulated and monitored. For some fraternities, adult supervision might be required; perhaps, for those fraternities, the dean of the law school needs to be required to be personally present at the Salubong.

September 26, 2010 will enter the history books as the day when the Bar Examinations were bombed and blood was spilled. For a country with notoriously short memories, this day should not be forgotten because it was the day that evil visited the Bar.

Lobbing an explosive at a crowd filled with innocents goes beyond the limits of stupidity, transcends the parameters of senselessness and breaches the borders of barbarism. Plainly and simply, it was evil.

I recall what our dean said during the last Saturday evening Mass at the Hotel, as we sent off our candidates with the Lord's blessings. Not known for his religious bent, the dean nonetheless, very presciently, warned that "Evil is disguised." Informing our Bar candidates to be vigilant, the dean mentioned one simple truth--evil will not be revealed in the ways we expect, it will come in forms, hues, shapes and guises that we do not expect.

Prophetic and eerily accurate, the dean's words came true a few hours later.

On September 26, 2010, evil came to Taft Avenue, bearing a bomb and garbed in Greek letters.

(Reposted with permission by Mr. Theodore Te)

________

Source:

Te, Ted. Evil Cloaked in Greek Letters. 27 Sept. 2010. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=443328838971

*********

Reposted by: Jesusa Bernardo

Also available at: BLOG by Taga-Ilog

103rd Anniversary of the Treacherous Death of Macario Sakay, President of the Revived Katipunan during the Fil-Am War

2010-09-13T18:50:00.002+08:00

TODAY is the 103rd Anniversary of the Death of Gen. Macario Sakay, President of the Republic of Katagalugan (Philippines), the revived Katipunan during the Philippine-American War (1899-1914).

Click for MACARIO SAKAY poster

Gen. Sakay was deceived into giving up fighting the invaders on promises of independence for the Philippines and amnesty for him and his officers made by the American Governor-General. It turned out to be a trap as he and Col. Lucio de Vega were arrested and eventually taken from the bartolina to the gallows by the imperialist soldiers on September 13, 1907.

Reaching the platform at around 8:30 a.m., Sakay shouted at the top of his lungs:

“I face the Lord Almighty calmly but we must tell you that we are not bandits and robbers as the Americans accuse us, but members of the revolutionary force that defended our country. Long live the Philippines! Adios Filipinas!”

Sakay's treacherous death came quite early at age 37. For more details about this valiant Filipino hero who continued the anti-colonial aspirations and revolutionary movement of Gat Andres Bonifacio, please check the following links:

Senate Resolution honoring Gen. Macario Sakay & Co.
http://blog-by-taga-ilog-news.blogspot.com/2010/09/senate-resolution-honoring-gen-macario.html

The mark of Sakay: The vilified hero of our war with America
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=398995

________

Posted by: Jesusa Bernardo

Also posted at: SOBRIETY for the PHILIPPINES

The racists among the HK Chinese, kindly listen to Jackie Chan

2010-09-04T01:25:00.003+08:00

THE racists among those Hong Kong Chinese, who baselessly think they are a 'superior' race and that they have any right at all to turn the unfortunate HK tourists hostage issue into a racial slur, would do well to listen to their compatriot, Jacky Chan. Of sober mind and logic, Chan says:

“This kind of things always happen around the world. ..If they killed the guy sooner, they will say why not negotiate first? If they negotiate first, they ask why not kill the guy sooner? So sad... Humans should be united and not kill or hate each other..”

In his statement clarifying his earlier Twitter post, Jackie reiterates his "do not hate" position:

"What I wanted to convey was that I won’t hate Filipino people as a result of this tragic incident. There are several hundred thousand Filipinos working in Hong Kong, and there are quite a few Hong Kong people working in the Philippines as well. If we start hating each other, it will cause great damage to both Hong Kong and the Philippines."

In this age of political correctness, nobody has the right to think lowly of another race, no matter that several thousands of Filipinos work there in your territory as domestic helpers. Did I not hear your mother country, the People's Republic of China, uphold the dignity and interest of the working class during the Revolution and beyond?

Does science in any way bear out the genetic superiority of the yellow race over the Malay race? I don't think so. Not even religion, I think.

Thus, I call on every Hong Kong citizen not to condemn the Filipino nation over that tragic isolated case (at least as far as hostaging of tourists are concerned) in Luneta, Manila. My people have repeatedly expressed our apologies or sympathies to the families of the victims, the government of HOCUS PCOS Noynoy Aquino III has done the same, and in our hearts, we have prayed for the repose of the soul of the same.

So, do NOT slur our nation, our race. No one, absolutely no one has the right to do so. Not even you, perhaps, esp. you, because you and your government are not perfect yourselves. We just need to check our common history to find out.

To the good people of Hong Kong who have allowed sobriety, sanity, and the sense of brotherhood/sisterhood between our races and the whole of humanity to prevail, I thank you from the bottom of my heart and soul.

Mabuhay kayo!

_______

Posted by Jesusa Bernardo

Jessica Zafra's "World Domination" theory maybe coming to an end

2010-09-01T20:08:00.001+08:00

Jessica Zafra's theory is that we Filipinos will dominate the world because our OFWs are everywhere. But insensitive and questionable acts like these ("Smiling president", police and students posing at the hostage scene, Flag draped coffin for the hostage taker) will have long term consequences on how Filipino overseas workers will be treated in the future by their Chinese employers.

That, and the incompetence caught on TV of course for the world to see.

Not looking good for us, sez Conrad de Quiros:

Our OFWs in Hong Kong and China say they are deeply fearful about how their employers and neighbors are going to treat them over the next few months or years. They have every reason to. This isn’t going to blow over. This isn’t going to disappear anytime soon. This will get worse before it gets better...

To this day, pictures of the crowd that surged forward after the shooting to ogle the dead continue to make it to the social media. To this day pictures of cops and students posing before the blood and gore, in some instances smiling and preening, continue to make it to the social media. How do you think that is going to be taken by the Chinese community? How do you think that is going to be taken by any sane person?
That is a disgusting display of bad manners and wrong conduct. That is a disgusting display of perversity. That is a disgusting display of lack of humanity.

Insensitive. Just like putting that Mosque near "Ground Zero" insensitive.