ON THE SEPARATION OF ART AND STATE

NATIONAL ARTISTS ASK COURT TO STOP AWARDS
<Illustrious names pray for probibition before the Supreme Court--

“Petitioners National Artists Virgilio Almario, Ben Cabrera, Bien Lumbera, Napoleon Abueva, and Arturo Luz have the right under the due process clause of the 1987 Constitution to not have the honor they have been conferred with diminished because of an irregular and questionable award made by the President to the four private respondents,”

To me, this hardly seems to be a dignified thing for the National Artists themselves to be doing. It is as if the 1999 Miss Universe Winner were to protest that her glory and honor previously conferred, was being diminished because she and her supporters think that the 2009 Winner is ugly and undeserving.

They asked the high court to declare as grave abuse of discretion on the part of President Arroyo the inclusion of the names of Cecille Guidote-Alvarez, Francisco Manosa, Jose Moreno, and Carlos Caparas in the recipient list of National Artist awards, as well as the deletion of the name of Dr. Ricardo Santos.

I think this very statement reveals a particularly disdainful type of hubris, fostered by state-sponsored art from Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, in susceptible awardees such as the "Petitioners" in the instant case. They have come to believe that they themselves were universally accepted as deserving of the award, or that they ARE now. Thus the very premise of the prayer is wet, shifting sand--that Miss Universe 1999 can hold all future judges of such contests to her own arbitrary standards is clearly self-serving and specious. Moreover, the Congress and the President could easily diminish the cash awards, or make the award posthumous, or modify it in some other way deemed beneficial to its aims. So that there is literally no truth to the assertion by National Artists to some kind of right not to have their honor diminished for all eternity!

But I have much bigger trouble with this fol-de-rol than the self-aggrandizing behavior of our national artists. I have come to the conclusion that the National Awards themselves ought to be ABOLISHED because they are a violation of the Bill of Rights guarantees on Freedom of Speech and Expression. My basic position is that ART is like Religion, a most fundamental and basic human mental and emotional activity, possession and faculty, which, like Religion, ought not to be the realm of the Government to be anything but absolutely neutral in. Those things, feelings, ideas, and activities which we consider to be religious, are hardly distinguishable from things we would consider to be artistic. Whether worshipped as a powerful Deity external to ourselves, or perceived by a human being as something divine or sublime within himself and others, both Religion and Art refer to something fundamentally and inherently human--and therefore the possession of every human being. Both to believe and not to believe compose the freedom of religions. Likewise, the beauty and truth that we see in things artistic are fundamentally matters of our subjective and individual opinion.

The 1987 Constitution's Bill of Rights upholds in quick succession Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion as part of the basic Right to Life, Liberty and Property. In a way, our thoughts ARE our Life, our Liberty and our most precious Property!

1987 Article III
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall a ny person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

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.

So that if we the People, have erected a strict Wall of Separation between the doings of the State and the freedom of religion, so too must we prevent the State from either promoting or impeding the freedom of speech, thought and expression by raising up from the vast diversity of arts some particular choice to be named "national artist". If we allow the State to dictate what is Good Art, good enough to be called "national art", then how long will it be before that State begins to dictate what is Good Journalism, Good Speech, Good Thought and Expression?

I think it is time to abolish the National Artists awards. Or at the very least they ought to be made only posthumously and only rarely, and certainly not by the Government. The world's major prizes--the Nobel, the Oscars, the Grammys and Pulitzers--are all privately made. Even Miss Universe!

Anecdotally too, there is some perception that after receiving a National Artist award, many awardees set off on commercial ventures and hardly ever produce any NEW ART as significant as before they received it. (And who would dare criticize them?)

Free Speech is the Casualty in Punishing Willie Revillame

The Movie Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) has once again shown its penchant for curtailing free speech rights by mulling over the imposition of sanctions against Wowowee television show host Willie Revillame. Last Monday, Revillame expressed his objection to the showing of live feeds on Cory Aquino's funeral cortege during a segment of the popular noontime show. He asked for the removal of the feeds for being inappropriate and distracting.

Apparently riding on the tide of public outrage against Revillame, MTRCB Chairwoman Consoliza Laguardia said Revillame violated Presidential Decree 1986 (the law creating the MTRCB)and the KBP (Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa Pilipinas) Code. Notice the haste and prematurity with which Laguardia has spoken; already, the MTRCB through its chairwoman pronounced its judgment even before the besieged showman was given the opportunity to defend his actions.

But not only is the MTRCB disregarding Revillame's due process rights, it is also arranging to violate his free speech rights by imposing sanctions for his conduct which, although distasteful and inappropriate, is a function of democracy. However objectionable Revillame's statement may be, the fact of the matter is there is nothing in either his conduct or statements that would justify MTRCB in imposing sanctions on him, for he was free to express how he felt about the mixing of the funeral procession with his game show.

Speech under our laws can only be regulated or punished if it passes a strict scrutiny test. Not long ago, Chavez v. Gonzalez made it abundantly clear that this test applies with equal vigor in the broadcast media - which is a dramatic departure from American jurisprudence from where we imported our concept of free speech. The Supreme Court in this case did away with the differentiation between print and broadcast media in the application of the strict scrutiny standard in content-based regulation of speech. Under this test, speech can only be regulated if it creates or is likely to create a clear and present danger of a grave and imminent evil which the government has the right to prevent. The government must show a compelling or overriding interest that would justify curtailment of speech.

There is nothing in the statement or conduct of Revillame that would even remotely suggest such clear and present danger. It may be in bad taste, but to say that the government has an overriding or compelling interest to prevent or punish such speech is downright ridiculous. Revillame's gaffe is the stuff of 24/7 news that thrive on controversy rather than of state interest.

In fact, a review of section 3 of PD 1986, which is being relied upon by MTRCB, would show that there is nothing that would make Revillame's case fall squarely. Said section enumerates the powers of the MTRCB and the instances upon which it may exercise its power to approve, disapprove or otherwise censor objectionable movie and television shows. Specifically, the section empowers MTRCB to regulate or prohibit media materials constituting sedition or rebellion, which glorifies criminals and condones crimes, solely satisfies market for violence and pornography, abets the traffic and use of prohibited drugs, are libelous or defamatory, or constitutes contempt of court. None of these instances cover Revillame's statement and conduct.

It is true that good Filipino customs dictate respect for the departed, but I find it hard to understand how requesting the removal of the coverage of a funeral procession in a game show - without a doubt out of place and timing in the show - could constitute such disrespect. If there is anyone who was disrespectful it was the director of the show, and not Revillame, for including or allowing the inclusion of the former president's funeral cortege during a merrymaking portion of the game show. Revillame may be guilty of insensitivity for proceeding with his show like it was business as usual at a time of national mourning, but his act of not allowing the mixing of a somber occasion with an entertaining game show was actually the right thing to do under the circumstances. He should have, however, requested the removal discreetly and should not have needlessly publicized his disgust.

Former President Corazon Aquino became our beloved icon of democracy when she stood to fill the place of Ninoy after being felled by an assassin's bullet. She led the fight to restore our democracy which gave us the freedom to speak our minds. Punishing Revillame for his inappropriate statement - which is certainly not a "crass attempt to desecrate the memory" of the former president, as her family's spokesperson Lourdes Dy Sytangco characterizes it - would be a disregard of the cherished right which Ninoy and Cory fought for.




SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Right of Reply Law Violates Press Freedom

Recently, legislator-turned-blogger Mon Palatino (courtesy of the Supreme Court in the Banat case) warned that the Right of Reply Bill (RORB) will affect bloggers and writers in other internet-based platforms, such as social networking sites, once it passes into law. Temporarily sidelined by the passage of House Resolution 1109, which calls for the convening of Congress into a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution, the RORB is one of the measures in the Lower House's high priority agenda.

Originally introduced in the Senate by veteran street parliamentarian Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., Senate Bill No. 2150 requires media organizations under pain of sanctions to provide print space or broadcast time, free of charge, to the accused or criticized person in the same space or program where the accusation or criticism was made.


The flurry of oppositions and criticisms that the bill is receiving is not surprising, considering the serious implications it will have on the right to free speech and press freedom. And no matter how insistent Senator Pimentel is in defending his pet measure by claiming that it engenders rather than inhibits speech by allowing the objects of press accusations and criticisms the opportunity to counter the charges against them, the bill – no matter how well-intentioned by one who had undoubtedly vigorously fought an authoritarian regime notable for its suppression of free speech – presents clear restraints on press freedom that are hard to ignore.

The U.S. case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974) is instructive in determining the constitutionality of the bill. This case was about a candidate for the Florida House of Representatives who was the subject of adverse editorials in the Miami Herald newspaper. When the newspaper refused to publish the candidate’s replies to the editorials he sued claiming a “right of reply” under a Florida statute. The Florida statute substantially provides that if any newspaper assails the personal character of any candidate, such newspaper shall upon request of the candidate immediately publish free of cost any reply he may make.

In ruling that the Florida statute violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press, the U.S. Supreme Court held that government compulsion on a newspaper to publish that which reason tells it should not be published is unconstitutional. The statute was considered as a command by the State in the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding the publication of specified matter. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court was essentially saying that a law dictating the publication of certain matters is similar to one that prohibits their publication, which as a rule is clearly prohibited as unlawful restraint on free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court also found the statute to exact penalties on newspapers by imposing additional printing, composing, and materials cost and by taking up space that would otherwise be devoted by newspapers to matters they prefer to print. And even if no such penalty attends the allowance of print space to persons claiming their right of reply, the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that the statute intrudes into the function of editors in choosing what material goes into a newspaper, in deciding on the content and size of the newspaper and the treatment of public officials and issues.

The chilling effect of such regulation cannot also be taken for granted. As observed by the U.S. Supreme Court, “(f)aced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safest course is to avoid controversy . . . Government-enforced right of access inescapably “dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate.”

While this case is not binding on our courts, it is nevertheless persuasive. Historically and by practice, our own Supreme Court has on numerous occasions looked upon American jurisprudence in deciding constitutional issues, especially when it comes to free speech cases in view of the fact that Article 3, Section 4 of our Constitution – our constitutional guarantee on freedom of speech, of expression and of the press – is almost a verbatim copy of the free speech clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Senate Bill No. 2150 clearly violates press freedom by forcing under penalty of law the printing or broadcasting of matters that editors or publishers of print and broadcast media may not agree with or prefer to publish. Requiring media outlets to publish or broadcast materials from persons claiming to have been aggrieved by their adverse writing or reporting is in effect meddling with the editorial discretion of said media; it would virtually make the government inject itself in newsrooms and participate in the essential task of editors in determining what to print or publish.

If this bill were to become law, one could only imagine the volume of requests coming from the government and public officials to be given print space in newspapers, airtime or spots on radios and televisions, to rebut every adverse reports against them – which are not few, I should add.
In a very real sense, the print and broadcast media will be running short of print space and airtime just to accommodate, for free, these rebuttals, else they will be penalized with monetary fines ranging from P10,000 to P30,000 for every denied request.

To avoid such inconveniences and penalties, the print and broadcast media will limit themselves to printing and broadcasting non-controversial matters or issues that do not involve accusations of criminal activity or criticisms for “lapse in behavior,” as the bill words it. This will effectively chill the exercise of free speech and prevent what the U.S. Supreme Court said in the famous case of New York Times v. Sullivan that debate on public issues should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.”

Another questionable feature of the proposed law is its vagueness. Section 1 of the bill grants the right of reply to persons who have been criticized for lapse in behavior. What would constitute “lapse in behavior”? If I were to criticize Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago for laughing out too loud when giving media interviews or Jesus Dureza for praying for the extension of GMA’s term, would that be criticism for lapse in behavior?A statute seeking to regulate speech that is vague offends not only the freedom of speech, but also the right to due process. People ought to know what is a prohibited activity in clear and precise language so that they will know what activity they will refrain from doing. A vague statute seeking to regulate speech acquires special significance because if people do not know what speech is prohibited they will refrain from speaking altogether for fear that they might violate the law.

While a responsible press is undoubtedly important and people should be given the opportunity to rebut unfair charges against them, these considerations cannot, however, trump the right to a free press and free speech in general. Needless to say, individuals aggrieved by false and defamatory reports are not without legal recourse. That our judicial institutions do not deliver in seeking redress cannot override our most fundamental liberty in a democratic and republican government. In such case, rather than making press freedom the casualty strengthening of the judicial system should be the target.

Press Freedom is the Commercial Right to Sell News, Views and Entertainment

Which is probably why only scant attention is being paid to those four new kidnapped hostages of the MILF/Abu Sayyaf Group compared to the round-the-clock coverage of Ces Drilon, her two camera men and a professor for peace! After all who in the media really cares about some no-name employees of a Basilan electric cooperative. So what if they get beheaded, right? Anyway the famous tv anchorwoman Ces Drilon is safe, eh?

Manuel L. Quezon III takes up the issue of the Manila Pen caper, in which the most recent development is a decision by the Makati Regional Trial Court junking a ten million peso class action law suit by journalists who got in the way of law enforcers trying to serve arrest warrants against military rebels Sonny Trillanes and Danilo Lim. He points to an editorial in Business World (most likely written by Vergel O. Santos, one of the losing plaintiffs in the case) in which the faint complaint against the decision is heard that, "No attempt whatever has been made to validate it against superior legal principles, such as laid down in the constitution, in particular freedom of the press." Such an accusation cannot however be made against this blog and it is most unfair of MLQ3 to characterize my position as trivializing the importance of the decision as a mere comeuppance for the plaintiffs as I have always proudly and loudly argued these issues from "superior legal principles". Here is a small selection of relevant posts that I urge my good friend MLQ3 to peruse and debate on their own merits:

Press Freedom is not a License to Obstruct Justice and Endanger Police
The Difference Between Free Blogging and Commercial Journalism
Who Owns the Right to Know -- the Public, the Press, Congress?
Media Asks the Supreme Court to Make Them Immune from the Law
Supreme Court Praised for Prejudging Hundreds of Active Libel Cases
The Myth That Media Can Be Unobtrusive
The Limits of Press Freedom in Broadcast Journalism
Two Writs Don't Make a Right
The Right to Life Has Priority Over the Right to Know
Long Live Sancho Panza!
Oblivious Human Shields and the Right to Be in Harm's Way
Rapporteur is French for Reporter and Amparo is Gobbledygook for Unconstitutional
Artistic Freedom and the Right to Be Unhappy With It
Dustup Over Angono and the Terrorist Bill of Rights
Press Freedom and Organized Religion are Freedoms of Assembly
Bitter Herbs and Purple Flowers
PDI and the Separation of the Church and the Press
The Responsible Journalism of Conrado de Quiros
Pangalangan v. Puno on Judicial Activism and the Rule of Law
The Right to Know and the Writ of Amparo
Spying on Senate Executive Session Was a Violation of National Security

The reader will hopefully find more than just "superior legal principles" argued in these posts, but common sense and reason as well, to guard against the creeping liberal fascism of those in the Mass Media who haven't a care for the principle that Justice is Fairness and that NO RIGHT is unlimited by the duty to uphold the Constitution. Press Freedom as organized journalism is a MERE commercial right that like a spring cannot rise higher than its source in EVERYONE'S rights and freedoms. It is the height of hubris to claim that the right to sell news, views and entertainment somehow trumps the right to life and law and order.

The full text of the Makati Regional Trial Court decision dismissing the class action suit of the Manila Pen journalists is provided by ABSCBN News Research Dept. (pdf)

Usama bin Laden Threatens Europe and Pope Benedict Over Danish Cartoons

You can listen to a reading of Benedict at Regensberg in this post.
Speaking in a newly released audio tape to "the intelligent ones" in Europe, Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden directly threatens the European Union with a "severe reckoning" over those cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands Postens. Publishing the cartoons "... came in the framework of a new Crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican has played a large, lengthy role," Vatican security officials are reportedly worried because of the Pope's numerous public appearances during the Christian Holy Week. Also in April, Pope Benedict XVI is scheduled to visit the United States (Homeland of the Infidels!). Filipinos will recall that in 1995 Al Qaeda plotted with the Iraqi intelligence agents Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Youssef to kill Pope John Paul II. That plot was foiled when the two, posing as playboys and living it up in Manila's Red Light districts, burned their shawarma in the apartment across where the Pope would've stayed and Philippine intelligence discovered their entire operation including Bojinka, the precursor to 9/11. Here is an analysis and a transcript of the new audio tape:

May Our Mothers Be Bereaved Of Us
If We Fail To Help Our Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him)
by Shaykh Usama bin Ladin
As-Sahab Production

In the name of Allah, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.

To the intelligent ones in the European Union: Peace be upon he who follows the guidance.

This talk of mine is to you and concerns the insulting drawings and your negligence in spite of the opportunity presented to take the necessary measures to prevent their being repeated.

To begin, I tell you: Hostility between human beings is very old, but the intelligent ones among the nation in all eras have been keen to observe the etiquettes of dispute and morals of fighting. This is best for them, as conflict is ever changing and war has its ups and downs. However, you, in your conflict with us, have abandoned many of the morals of fighting in practice, even if you hold aloft its slogans in theory. How it saddens us that you target villages with your bombing: those modest mud villages which have collapsed onto our women and children. You do that intentionally, and I am witness to that. All of this (you do) without right and in conformity with your oppressive ally who – along with his aggressive policies - is about to depart the White House.

And it is no longer hidden from you that these savage acts haven’t ended the war, but rather, increase our determination to cling to our right, avenge our people and expel the invaders from our country. And (you also know now) that these massacres are never erased from the memory of the peoples, and the effect of this are not hidden. Although our tragedy in your killing of our women and children is a very great one, it paled when you went overboard in your unbelief and freed yourselves of the etiquettes of dispute and fighting and went to the extent of publishing these insulting drawings.

This is the greater and more serious tragedy, and reckoning for it will be more severe. And I bring your attention to a telling matter, which is that despite your publishing of the insulting drawings, you haven’t seen any reaction from the one and a half billion Muslims which includes an insult to the Prophet Allah, Jesus the son of Mary (peace and prayers of Allah be upon him). We believe in all of the Prophets (peace and prayers be upon them), and whoever detracts from or mocks any one of them is an apostate unbeliever.

And here it is worth pointing out that there is no need to use as an excuse the sacredness you accord freedom of expression and the sacredness of your laws and how you won’t change them. If so, then on what basis were American soldiers exempted from being subject to your laws on your land? And on what basis do you suppress the freedom of those who cast doubt on the statistics of an historical event?

In addition, you know that there is one man who can put an end to these drawings, if it mattered to him: the crownless king in Riydah, who ordered your legal institutions to stop their investigations into the embezzlement of billions from the al-Yamamah deal, and Blair carried this out, and he is today your representative in the quartet. To sum up, then, the laws of men which clash with the legislations of Allah the Most High are null and void, aren’t sacred, and don’t matter to us. And in addition, your practical stance towards the al-Yamamah deal requires you admit that there are some values which are greater than your values.

In closing I tell you: If there is no check on your freedom of words, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions. And it is amazing to make light of others that you talk about tolerance and peace at a time when your soldiers perpetrate murder even against the weak and the oppressed in our countries. Then came your publishing of these drawings, which came in the framework of a new Crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican has played a large, lengthy role.

And all of that is confirmation on your part of the continuation of the war, as well as a testing of the Muslims in their religion: is the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) more beloved to them than themselves and their wealth? The answer is what you see, not what you hear, and may our mothers be bereaved of us if we fail to help the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). And peace be upon he who follows the guidance.

If anyone doubts the claim of President George W. Bush that this enemy hates us for our freedoms, those doubts are once more rigorously dispelled by Shayk Scumbag's demand for Civilization to get rid of Freedom of Expression and submit to his murderous Caliphate. And when he accuses us of murdering Muslims, let there be no doubt who in Iraq and Afghanistan kill Muslims at a rate of 100 to 1 over Coalition Forces: it's Al Qaeda of the Two Rivers and their insurgent allies.

Pope Benedict XVI had OBL's number at Regensberg in this Lecture delivered in 2006 (read by DJB Rizalist):

Pope Benedict XVI at Regensberg:

Part One:

Part Two:

Part Three:

Part Four:

Part Five:

Equal Opportunity Terrorism

The telecommunications infrastructure of the Philippines is a favorite target of the New People's Army. The ubiquitous cell sites that serve the country's favorite utility and pastime are often attacked, burned, or otherwise damaged and destroyed as part of the NPA's extortion of "revolutionary taxes." Thus whenever you read a headline like, "NPA Attacks Cell Site" -- most likely it is because the celco refused to pay up. A frequent reader of Philippine Commentary recently emailed to tell me that there is glaring disparity in the number of times the NPA attacks Smart and Globe cell-sites. So I decided to google the search phrase NPA attack "GLOBE Cell Site" -- which yielded 242 references. Googling on NPA attack "SMART Cell Site" yields a surprising 6 references. So what's going on here? Judging by the news coverage anyway, it appears that in an overwhelming majority of the cases over the years, the NPAs attack Globe cell sites far, far more than Smart facilities. Is Smart/PLDT paying revolutionary taxes to the New People's Army to secure its cellphone transmission system? Maybe free cellphones and credits for the poor suffering comrades--the better to coordinate their attacks on...Globe!

[Via MLQ3] John Nery of the Newsstand Blog (with the help of Wendy Kaminer) discovers that there is NO right to be offended if we uphold democratic free speech--

She laments the transformation of universities and colleges from bastions of academic freedom, where free speech and the arts of argument are considered essential to education, to fortresses of political correctness, where the distinction between words and actions is fudged, and censorship trumps freedom of speech...even though some uses of language can be offensive, we shouldn't place any limits at all on free speech, that it should in fact be [a] "free for all."

Hmmm...I seem to recall a number of PDI editorials and column pieces on "responsible journalism" that bear looking at now, with irony. But I must send this to Fleming Rose and the Danish cartoonists at Jyllands Postens. They will see it as progress and perhaps even thank Benedict for the lesson of Regensberg, and its salutary libertarian effects on our responsible Media.

Oh, but poor Rina Jimenez David has had her day of sightseeing in the Khyber Pass and intense haggling at the suqs and shopping bazaars of Peshawar interrupted by a terrorist suicide bombing--

A Taste of Terror: The minute we arrived in Peshawar, on a delayed flight from Karachi, we heard the news. A total of 42 army recruits, many of them still in their teens, were killed when a suicide bomber ran into their midst in a schoolyard and detonated himself. About 20 others were injured.

That'll teach'em for wanting to become soldiers, eh Rina?

Manila Bulletin carries the approbation of US Ambassador Kirstie Kenney and Asst. Secretary Dr. John Hillen for the "legacy of reform" that resigned Sec. Nonong Cruz leaves. It is the strongest signal yet that the US wants those reforms to continue because it really is in the US national interest that the Philippine Military become professionalized and freed from the clutches of the politicians so it can do its real job: to defend the country and secure the people. For example, I think the US wants the Philippine Military to be concentrating on the joint training and planning exercises scheduled this year and next, rather than getting involved in the 2007 elections, because we are due, we are due! I notice Dulmatin and Bali Bombers have probably escaped, and the Filipino people even have to pay for the air fare of demure Mrs. Dulmatin back into the arms of the Jemaah Islamiyah. I hope the right people get the picture, like alleged Garci General Hermogenes Esperon, who was there to see Ambassador Kenney painting a clear picture for him, in case he hasn't been listening lately.

Senator-Judge Joseph Estrada? If the return of Atong Ang wearing a bullet-proof vest marked "NBI" doesn't get Joseph Estrada off his arse in Tanay, probably nothing will. Manila Times reports. But I think the Filipino people deserve liberation from the long-festering case of Erap, which the Philippine Star editorial recently called a "national embarrassment." It is a nontrivial conundrum however, because who will deny that Joseph Estrada has lost an essential element of due process because he has been denied the presumption of innocence and cannot be given a fair trial. Inasmuch as the Edsa Dos Supreme Court of Hilario Davide claimed the 2001 regime change to be "Constitutional throughout," Erap's current plunder trial cannot even be given the cover of "frontier justice" or "victor's justice" that the Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein is accused of. Yet, even I must admit, deep in my heart, I do believe Erap Estrada WAS guilty of plunder and corruption. It is a classic case of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem apparently being applicable to the Law itself! Erap cannot get a fair final judgment from the Supreme Court that he accuses of illegally overthrowing him. In such a case, IS there a higher court than the Supreme Court? I claim there is: the Filipino people themselves. Trial by election. Joseph Estrada could legally run for the Senate in 2007, and be in time to become a Senator-Judge for GMA's impeachment trial.

Apologize? For what and to whom?

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) says the strangest and most paradoxical things about Pope Benedict's Regensburg Lecture.

"We wish to invite our brothers and sisters of whatever religious sentiment to read the said address that is readily available (in the website). Reading the address in the full context will greatly help in understanding the message of Pope Benedict XVI, " the CBCP urged.

"It may be good to note that upon objectively reading said address, one realizes that it was not the intention of the Holy Father to undertake a comprehensive study of the jihad and of Muslim ideas on the subject -- much less to offend the sensibilities of the Muslim brothers and sisters," it said.

"On the contrary, the Holy Father warns especially the Western culture to avoid "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom," the CBCP said.

"A just consideration of the religious dimension is, in fact, an essential premise for a fruitful dialogue with the great cultures and religions of the world," it added.

I say strange and paradoxical because the CBCP not only denies the fact that Benedict WAS addressing "jihad and the Muslim ideas on the subject" when he condemned violent conversion as alien to the nature of religion. But what is worse is that the CBCP claims the actual target of the Holy Father's criticisms was actually...ta dah!...cyncial Western culture! Someone is bending over awful far to be politically correct...or at least consistent with the equally erroneous position someone took during the Danish cartoon controversy!

But not all Catholic Bishops are constrained to conform to the prevailing cant of "responsible papacy" or "responsible journalism"...

BISHOP TEODORO BACANI thinks it is a critical time for the Pope but uprightly defends him:

"Muslims should not exaggerate what fault they may see in the Pope’s speech. Untempered rage and violent reprisals may only show the rest of the world that the words of the emperor quoted by the Pope have indeed some justification. Once the Pope has explained that it was not his intention to hurt their feelings, and once he has made clear that he does not share in the exaggeratedly negative assessment of the person he cited, it would advance the cause of mutual understanding and peace if the Muslims who felt hurt would graciously accept the Pope’s gesture."

In the demagagosphere, the heavyweight Catolico cerrados have not yet weighed in (dumbstruck?). But the atheists are speaking up...Manila Standard columnist ANTONIO C. ABAYA ("Papal Bull") describes the reaction in the "Muslim press" as "predictably scathing" and immediately quotes the BBC. How apt! Abaya ends up wagging his finger at the Pope by praising Saladin's recapture of Jerusalem, writing:

By contrast, when Saladdin recaptured Jerusalem from the Crusaders in 1187, the 60,000 Christian survivors of the battle were freed on ransom from the English king; captured Christian defenders were reunited with their wives and daughters; Christian pilgrims were guaranteed safe passage to and from the Holy Land.

Muslims feel they do not need any lectures on right conduct and morals from any Christian leader.

(And so the interfaith dialogues begin...just as President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo suggested during her recent trip to Europe...Seems at least that the Pope has obliged her at Regensberg!)

The Jakarta Post's KORNELIUS PURBA,an Indonesian Catholic asks,

As the supreme leader of the Catholic church, was it wise to discuss such a sensitive issue amid the growing distrust between Christianity and Islam, regardless of the truth or untruth of his observations? It will be more difficult now to argue there is no "clash of civilizations" between the West (Christianity) and Islam. It will also be more difficult for the Catholic church to continue an effective interfaith dialog with Islam if Muslims suspect the sincerity of the church's leader."

The difficulty of such a dialog, if it is even at all possible, cannot be avoided by sweeping the substantial issues under the rug. If anything I must agree with the New York Sun's
DANIEL JOHNSON ("Understanding Benedict")who writes:

"By now, the answer to these questions is clear: churches firebombed in the West Bank and Gaza, a nun murdered in Somalia. Such persecution is, alas, routine in many Muslim lands, and Catholics are not the only victims. But it is clear that Muslim leaders — even those of "pro-Western" countries such as Turkey or Pakistan — are not yet ready for the "frank" dialogue proposed by the pope. By pointing out that violence is a part of medieval Islam, not a "distortion," as Western liberals like to think, Benedict has touched a raw nerve.

"No, this pope is not naïve. It is our liberal, theologically illiterate politicians who are naïve. We are already at war — a holy war, which we may lose.

"Nor is he inconsistent. The Ratzinger of old, his skill in disputation honed over many years of patiently defending Catholic orthodoxy against liberal or secular opponents, was never going to duck the long-postponed doctrinal confrontation with Islam. In his subtle, scholarly way, he is urging the rest of us to face the fact that if we have no faith, we cannot hope to withstand the onslaught of a resurgent Islam.

"Benedict is well aware of the risks, not least to his own life, of speaking out. Like his great Polish predecessor, this "German shepherd" has the courage of his convictions. Thank God he does: Without convictions, our courage will surely fail us."

I suppose way over at the other end of the spectrum are the reported statements of Al Qaeda in Iraq which calls on the West to surrender now, convert to Islam, or surely die by the sword. Here is coverage from the SITE Institute on statements by Iraqi insurgent groups on the Pope's Regensburg comments.

Neocon Pope?

ROMAN CATHOLIC POPE BENEDICT XVI is at the center of a growing global controversy for his recent remarks about Mohammed and Islam at the University of Regensberg, Germany last Tuesday. A complete transcript is available from the following Vatican link:

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)

MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE

LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER

Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections

I just got done reading the Papal Lecture and urge all Philippine Commentary readers to do the same. It's quite a deep and complex meditation on a number of important topics, including his remarks on Islamic jihad and the use of violence to compel obedience or conversion to religion. Here is the offending passage that has gotten all the screaming headlines and sound bites from the above Lecture in which Pope Benedict discusses the conversations of Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologus II in the 14th Century with an unnamed "Persian interlocutor:"

POPE BENEDICT: The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The Pope's upcoming visit to Turkey may be imperilled as today there are riots over his recent statements. His effigy already burns in various places in Pakistan as strident demands for apology swell from Muslim clerics and the leaders of Islamic nations. It feels like the early days of Jyllands Postens Danish cartoon controversy. I wonder how long before we see photographs like this ?

Although the Vatican was at great pains to deny any intention to insult Islam or Muslims, the riots, vituperative statements and growing violence of the reported reactions around the world, will unavoidably recall the Mohammed Cartoon controversy that erupted last year.
Moreover, not only is Pope Benedict quite a bit more significant than the Jyllands Postens cartoonists, his statements were not graphic renditions of, but direct statements about the Prophet Mohammed and his most essential teachings. I suspect the Pope is already being condemned as an infidel blasphemer and fatwas for his execution, along with cars and money as bounty rewards, will soon be offered by flamboyant radical clerics advertising their madrassahs and mosques.

CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURAL PLURALISM There is far more, actually to the Benedict Lecture than what has so far been reported on jihad. The rest of the Lecture is a contemplation upon the relationship between Reason and Faith as seen in the historical encounter between Christian faith and Greek philosophical inquiry.

POPE BENEDICT: This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

Mourning a "dehellenization" process he espies in the modern age, the Pope stands by the idea that Reason is a part of Faith and the religious experience. He rejects the idea of a God not accountable to Himself...

POPE BENEDICT: In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

In so doing Pope Benedict has now enraged the Muslim world and those who proclaim that Islam--unlike Christianity--does not accept the right of Unbelievers to continue to Disbelieve. The Pope rejects the notion that the Christian Faith would countenance murderous intolerance in the name of culture or religion. I find in the Regensberg Lecture a continuation of many ideas the Pope expounded upon in his Inaugural Encyclical Deus Caritas Est in which he strongly affirms democratic principles of religious freedom, the separation of the Church and State and toleration among all faiths.

Bishop Iniguez Separates the Church From the State

Several closely related questions of public interest need elucidation in the wake of Caloocan City Bishop Deogracias Iniguez's decision to sign the second impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, and the subsequent attacks from Palace adjuvants mumbling something about separation of church and state.

(1) Does a Bishop or other high ranking member of the Catholic Church hierarchy have the right under the Constitution to participate in "partisan political activities" such as the filing of impeachment complaints, as Bishop Iniguez did?
The relevant provision is:

1987 Constitution Bill of Rights 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.

It appears incontrovertible that yes, even if they wear funny hats, Catholic Bishops most definitely have the right and the duty to participate fully in politics, just like any other ordinary citizen of the Republic. Apart from voting in elections, Bishops are even allowed to "meddle" in politics, no more and no less than any other citizen. Yet it is widely misconceived that that Separation of Church and State means that churchmen may not involve themselves in partisan politics. It most indubitably does NOT mean that. But here is a more difficult question:

(2) Does the Catholic Church, as an organized religion, as a nondemocratic, indeed hierarchical-monarchic-theocratic community of believers, have the right under the Constitution to participate in "partisan political activities"? Would it be legal for example, for the CBCP itself to become an institutional signatory to the impeachment complaints?

During the controversy over certain Danish cartoons of Prophet Mohamed last year, I had come to the conclusion that the individual's "freedom of religion" as vouchsafed by democratic Constitutions, is a logical extension of the perhaps more basic constitutional right of every person to be secure in his own person and that of his home and his possessions, including his thoughts, opinions and hence, his religious beliefs. The freedom of religion in other words, is really a special case of exercising the freedom of speech and expression. Carrying forward this metaphor, what are to make of an organized religion like the Roman Catholic Church? In my opinion, churches are exercises in the freedom of peaceful assembly. They are like NGOs perpetually engaged in demonstrations and rallies that they call "the liturgy of worship." Or, churches may be regarded as equivalent to newspapers, both being forms of "organized opinion" as far as the Constitution and the State are concerned. Freedom of Religion IS Freedom of Speech and Expression.

ERGO: Yes! the Catholic Church itself, or any subset of its membership banding together as an assembly of individual citizens, may legally participate in the democratic process of impeaching the Chief Executive, by signing one of the complaints. Various churches through the ages have already been exercising such freedoms of assembly and expression during election season, when they openly or discreetly endorse political candidates. Or, as in the case of Bro. Eddie, when they actually have run for the Presidency and there was no talk of Separation of Church and State.

(3) Does the Catholic Church, as a matter of its own internal laws and policies, allow Bishops or other high ranking officers to particpate in "partisan political activities."?

Deus Caritas Est ("God Is Love")--Pope Benedict's first encyclical as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church -- which is being mentioned in the news in connection with the Palace's criticism of Caloocan City Bishop Deogracias Iniguez decision to sign the current impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. When asked by Dong Puno about the propriety of his action he quoted or referred to this passage from the Encyclical:

The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.

This is about as finely balanced as the Constitutional provision on the neutrality of the State relative to Religion. But there is clearly no blanket prohibition against participating in politics. What there is, is a carefully calibrated and modernized version of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's."

As such, it actually boils down to the individual consciences of Bishops and clergy. And as such, the Palace may now have further sleepless night. For there is one thing about the Catholic Bishops. They tend to stick to together on most things. Once one or more of them take a strong moral stand and make a strong moral judgment, as Bishop Iniguez has done, the tendency is for his colleagues to let him run with the ball and for everyone to start coming off the fence.

No wonder Bishop Iniguez set off alarm bells at the Palace.

The Da Vinci Code, the Mohammed Cartoons, and Being Consistent

Lots of people ask me why I am so hard on the Philippine Daily Inquirer when for eight years they dutifully and unfailingly published every weekly article I produced (for which they paid me a tiny pittance compared to the shock and awe value of my excommunicant ideas in religion and politics.) Am I a disgruntled former contributor of the newspaper? (Ha he hi ho hu!) Truth is, no one can ignore PDI. It is about the best one will find in the Philippines, as newspapers and media go, because it has published more than its share of the consequential writers and thinkers in the Archipelago (Naturally that is a biased and self serving view!). Also, PDI has a generally coherent (if leftist) editorial policy. Moreover, the paper has destabilized at least two previous Presidents and may be working on a third. Although threatened by the Manila Bulletin in reader popularity, PDI has far surpassed the crony newspaper, the Philippine Star (which isn't worth linking to as they don't understand, or utilize, the concept of permlinks.)

So I am hard on PDI because they are a cut above the rest in the Main Stream Media's demagagosphere, and therefore its memes exercise a vast influence on the blogosphere, even when they get things wrong! Especially when they get things wrong! As in the Art Bell fiasco.

I am hardest on PDI on three general occasions, all involving a form of rhetorical or moral inconsistency:

(1) when they engage in ideological victimology, such as in the so-called cause celebre over fork and spoon in Canada, and the Subic Bay Rape Case here and here.

(2) when they take inconsistent stands on important issues of principle and politics such as on the issue of the role of the Military and the Supreme Court in the matters of mutiny Mutiny, Judicial activism and Regime Change; and

(3) when they take paradoxical or inconsistent stands on religion and religious issues in the democratic sphere, such as in the Danish Mohammed Cartoon controversy and the present Da Vinci Code phenomenon.

On the Separation of Church and Press was my reaction last February to this PDI Editorial on the Mohammed Cartoons controversy, entitled Indivisible Freedoms, which you may wish to compare with today's Sunday Editorial, Da Vinci Decoded.

Both are thoughtful, complex essays, but here are two crystal clear examples in which blasphemy against a great world Religion is claimed by some of its most devout adherents in both Islam and Catholicism, yet PDI takes two very different positions.

In today's editorial on the Da Vinci Code (a film by Ron Howard starring Tom Hanks, as if you didn't know!) PDI gets it right (almost):

Let’s talk principles.

Religious freedom, in the modern context of our constitutional democracy, must mean not only the freedom to practice one’s religious beliefs, but also the freedom not to believe. It is a right that protects both the devotee and the skeptic, the orthodox as well as the heretical.

Thus, in a predominantly Christian nation like ours, religious freedom must include space even for those beliefs or practices that Christians will find blasphemous. If we were to hold otherwise, then the privileging of the Christian religion would violate both the letter and spirit of our Constitution. It would lead, again, to “an establishment of religion.”

Caveat: I say almost because the "privileging of the Christian religion" does not just "lead to" but IS an "establishment of Religion" in the well understood sense that Separation forbids the State from promoting "Religion" by law or policy, just as much as it forbids the State from prohibiting the free exercise of "thereof". One does not have to actually establish an Official State Religion, to violate this great principle in the bill of Rights:

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.

I otherwise agree with PDI's stance the Da Vinci Code controversy. But here are several passages from back in February regarding the Mohammed Cartoons:

Excesses such as rioting and complications such as some irresponsible provocateurs inserting two cartoons (the most offensive ones) among the real cartoons circulated among Muslims aside, the Islamic world has been adamant about its belief that the Western press crossed the line. Non-Muslims have also observed that what the Western media attempted to paint as purely a question of freedom of expression was not that at all; it was a question of secular contempt for religious conventions.

Caveat: The emphasis is mine, because this is a kind of coded message itself that tells the editorial reader (all 3 of us in the metropolis!), that this is PDI's own position and take on the matter. Who else could they be referring to as "non-Muslims" and "non-Western" journalists? PDI continues:

While the Philippines adheres to the principle of the separation of Church and State, and indeed, the Philippine media are heir to a tradition of anticlericalism dating to the Propaganda Movement, as a whole, Filipinos are profoundly respectful of religious conventions. Even the bigotry of certain Filipinos toward their Islamic countrymen does not extend to flagrantly heaping contempt on their faith. There are lines Filipinos do not cross, and rightly so (if only we did not cross more of them than we already do).

Caveat: Actually there is practically NO adherence to the Principle of Separation of Church and State in the Philippines, contrary to this amazing claim of the editorialist. Just ask any Muslim, lumad, Protestant, Buddhist, skeptic, atheist -- anyone who is not Romano Catolico cerrado. The claim that religious freedom reigns in the Philippines is utterly laughable when one thinks of the ostentatious display of Catholic religious idols, altars and sectarian symbols in government buildings and offices. We have already seen this risible claim contravened directly and its opposite amply demonstrated by the Executive Secretary, Ed Ermita calling for the banning of a Hollywood religious thriller and blockbuster in order to protect those of weak faith in "our predominantly Catholic country." Further proof that Spanish-style Talibanism is alive and well in 21st Century Philippines comes from the Manila City Council, which unanimously disgraced itself as no better than that provincial burg, Lucena City, which likewise 'banned' the film. Now it is not enough for me that these clumsy attempts at censorship have the entirely opposite effect on the movie's box office numbers. It is not after all, my goal to promote the film. But it should be the concern of all citizens, including the guardians of its opinions like PDI, to be sensitive to attacks on Democracy and culpable violations of the constitution, which these acts represent.

PDI concluded on the Danish Mohammed Cartoons as follows (but try reading this passage as if they were referring to Da Vinci Code film and novel!)

Islam and Christianity both pay the highest tribute to martyrs. Even secular societies consider martyrdom possible in defense of country or ideology. The question is whether any kind of creed, including secularism as understood in the West, calls for provocations that make it inevitable for people to become martyrs, whether unintentionally or by design. While we do not counsel self-censorship arising out of fear, we do believe that a proper recognition of the central role faith plays in the lives of millions would go far to avoid undue provocation against people who take their religion seriously. After all, since World War II, the world has rallied to defend the Four Freedoms: of speech and expression; of every person to worship God in his own way; from want; and from fear. They all go hand in hand, and to raise one over the other diminishes them all.

Well, which is it folks? Secular contempt for religion or freedom of religion and expression? Do they mean to imply that Islmists "take their religion seriously" while "Catholicists" do not? Are religious liberty and freedom of expression to be made a hostage to the most serious fanatics in the world. More serious, more respect?

In The Responsible Journalism of Conrado de Quiros, the irony is lost on PDI column writer of note, when he says,

I join those who say this is not an issue of freedom of the press at all, it is one of basic decency and respect...

This of course is not Mr. de Quiros' take on the Da Vinci Code's blasphemous attack on the Catholic faith. Another case of inconsistency enforced by an anti-American ideology.

Of course, in the case of the rioting Islamic fanatics, the Danish Cartoons were a case of CAPITAL blasphemy against their religious proscription against idolatry. So it is a matter of some interest to many that there are apparently no Catholicist crowds burning down the American Embassy or calling for the beheading of Tom Hanks for apostasy and "disrespect" toward Jesus Christ. Strangely enough, in the Philippine archipelago, it is secular authorities who've acted most like the theocrats of the bygone times of the Spanish Taliban. No less than the Executive Secretary Ed Ermita called for banning the film, the Da Vinci Code. So did a unanimous resolution of the Manila City Council and another troglodyte mental barrio called Lucena City.

It is of course entirely possible that the level of CORPORAL MORTIFICATION will change among the ranks of the so-inclined. (Up or down, who's to tell?)

A sampler of the Mohammed Cartoons postings and great Reader Comments here at Philippine Commentary:

Freedom of Religion IS Freedom of Expression

Danish Cartoons Broke the Muslim Taboo On Idolatry

It's Capital Blasphemy Just To Describe the Cartoons

Democracy Saves Religions From Each Other

Bitter Herbs and Purple Flowers

The Taliban In the Manila City Council

The Manila City Council is acting a lot like the Spanish Frailocracy did in theocratic times... Glenn Omanio of Newsroom Barkada has today's lead story on that bizarre unanimous Resolution by the 35-member Manila City Council, banning the Hollywood blockbuster, The Da Vinci Code, from being shown in the Ever-loyal City of Manila and urging the Mayor, Lito Atienza, to "take drastic action" to enforce it. It is a move more Catholic than the Bishops of the CBCP, who've wisely decided not to give the heretical and apostatic film and novel an even bigger publicity boost. The overwhelmingly Catholic population has apparently ignored all warnings of eternal damnation due to a shaken faith, as over 100 movie theatres reportedly played to packed audiences.

I can think of no better recent example of a culpable violation of the Principle of Separation of Church and State than this Resolution by the Manila City Council banning the Da Vinci film and so it is worth a careful Commentary.

Perhaps the most widespread misconception about the Constitutional Principle of the Separation of Church and State, is that it refers to the actions of religious believers and their leaders. You find lots of otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people claiming that this principle is violated when priests or bishops meddle in politics. The truth is, this principle is addressed entirely to the State, and like virtually the entire Constitution, it is a carefully calibrated set of double prohibitions on the government and its officials regarding what they may or may not do with respect to "Religion." Here it is in the Bill of Rights:

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.

It is crystal clear from the last line that in fact, the religious affiliation of any person engaged in the exercise of civil and political rights cannot be used as a test of whether such exercise is legitimate or not. For example, the Catholic Bishops may be seen to be meddling in political affairs far from their expertise, when they issue pastoral letters on burning issues of the day, but the Constitution does not forbid them from doing so. Indeed, I believe Catholic Archbishops may run for public office. Once elected however, as government officials, they may no longer pursue the full "freedom of religion."

What it does forbid is for the government to either promote or prohibit "Religion." Look at the first sentence, specifically at the two words "Religion" and "thereof." I think the key to really understanding the rhetorical heart of the Principle of Separation of Church and State, is to realize that these two words refer to one and exactly the same thing!

A law which is clearly unconstitutional because the State establishes or promotes religious acts, beliefs or expressions, would also be unconstitutional if the law were to forbid or prohibit such religious act or expression. For example, it would be unconstitutional for the State to require that all citizens worship as members of the El Shaddai. But it would be equally unconstitutional for the State to forbid people from joining El Shaddai.

No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

How compact and economical a principle!

Under this remarkable principle of neutrality, if some act or practice by the public is forbidden by the State, and we want to know if such policy is unconstitutional, we need only to ask whether we think that REQUIRING the public to undertake such acts or practices is unconstitutional. For if the answer is YES, then, almost certainly, forbidding that same act or practice would be unconstitutional by parity of reasoning in the first sentence of Section 5. For example, if the government passes a law requiring citizens to pray the Litany to the Virgin Mary whenever they visit Luneta Park, that would be unconstitutional if we think it would be unconstitutional to FORBID praying the Litany at Luneta Park.

Likewise, if the Manila City Council were to REQUIRE citizens to watch the Da Vinci Code movie, that would seem to be an unconstitutional requirement say on devout Catholics who might be disgusted with the movie and its premises that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children. Likewise, it would be unconstitutional to FORBID citizens from watching the Da Vinci Code movie on grounds that it might shake their faith. This is clearly a case of religious discrimination, since it applies to all citizens and not all citizens are Catholics. Moreover, it seeks to make showing the movie illegal on purely religious grounds, a case of the State protecting Religion from secular fantabulists like Dan Brown, Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Leonardo da Vinci.

As such, Manila's councilors are guilty of a culpable violation of the Constitution and ought to be so charged. But the Executive Secretary has also called for a banning of the movie, even if the Bishops haven't. I seem to recall that just a few months after seizing political power from Joseph Estrada in 2001, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo sided with the Bishops in calling for the X rating on a movie entitled Toro, by Joey Reyes. The Taliban control the Palace too, I see.

But the most amazing admission comes from Vice Mayor "Mullah Omar" Danilo Lacuna who claimed on ABSCBN New's noon time show that they were concerned we could have a situation like the Danish Mohammed Cartoon controversy. Well, I guess in fact we do have such a situation. Except that the Manila City Council is playing the role of rioting Islamist mobs decrying blasphemy and passing illegal, unconstitutional Resolutions.

If the Manila City Council is right, however, we should begin to see large demonic bacchanals as the previously devout members of the faith emerge from the hypnotic brainwashing in the cinema houses now believing that Jesus Christ was a -- gasp -- married man with children. I suppose priests and nuns will dispense with the their vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, should they be so unfortunate as to transgress the Manila City Fathers' wise and prudent establishment of a ban on a clearly heretic and apostatic expression of unbelief in the Catholic Religion.

But no, I don't think we are going to see crazed excommunicated Catholics running around rioting and calling for the beheading of Tom Hanks. However, the City Council should get a cut of the resulting windfall from movie theatre owners.

Celibacy Is As Silly As The Cilice

BOYCOTT Da Vinci Code the Movie! This was the earnest appeal by Monsignor Angelo Amato, (reportedly Pope Benedict XVI's No. 2 man when he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also called the Roman Curia) when he spoke last Friday to a receptive audience at Opus Dei-run Pontifical Holy Cross University. Last year, Italian Cardinal Tarciso Bertone had called for a similar boycott of Da Vinci Code, the novel by Dan Brown. But last Friday Zenit reported--

"I hope all of you boycott this film," the Italian agency quoted Amato as saying. He said the film, based on the best-selling novel by Dan Brown, was full of "offenses, slander, historical and theological errors concerning Jesus, the gospel and the church." "Slander, offenses and errors that if they were directed toward the Quran or the Shoah would have justifiably provoked a worldwide revolt," he said, referring to Islam's holy book and the Hebrew word for Holocaust. "Yet because they were directed toward the Catholic Church, they remain 'unpunished,' he said.

I wonder if Msgr. Amato literally wants Hollywood movie producers and the writers of historical fiction novels, punished somehow. That would be medieval or imitative of certain retrograde sectors of Islam, that have, in the wake of the recent Danish cartoon controversy. Everyone knows of course that if the Vatican calls for a boycott of the film, it will only increase the publicity and audience of the film. Even Opus Dei is reported to have refrained from calling for a boycott of the Da Vinci Code book and movie because they still remember what happened last year with Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ, which detractors only succeeded in making even more popular by their attacks on it as "sadomasochistic pornography." But wily Msgr. Amato did not rise to the top of the Roman curia by being dense. Perhaps the point is in fact to give the movie a boost and that Opus Dei that is cast in the villain's role within the book and film only as Hollywood can. Perhaps, in a martyr's role, even the Work can receive its portion of fortune and fame from moving picture apostasies. I am sure the word CILICE (pronounced "SILL-is") will enter the mainstream as an exotic article of fashion...I can see the music video now of some sultry-spectacular teen idol performer wearing one...

Or, Msgr. Amato is pissing into the wind with his call for a boycott of Da Vinci Code the movie. It is absurdly counterproductive to call for a boycott of a Hollywood blockbuster movie on doctrinal, religious grounds. But at least we are unlikely to see the Christian world rise up in "worldwide revolt" over the Da Vinci Code, as the world saw Islam do in the matter of the Danish Mohammed cartoons. (Some revolt. Several embassies were burned down by crazed rioters. Dozens of Muslims died, but not one Danish cartoonist, though a rich tele-imam in Pakistan has offered a Mercedes Benz bounty.)

But I do think the Da Vinci Code phenomenon can have long-lasting and revolutionary effect on Roman Catholicism. In particular, I think that the ground under priestly celibacy will begin to shift, along with perhaps the true payload of Dan Brown's, uhmm, masterpiece: the status of women in the Catholic Church.

Somehow I think that women in general, and nuns in particular will thrill to delicious premise of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene as man and wife with children and grandchildren. All human beings would warm to such a Jesus, even if only in the imaginary world of fiction. For two thousand years, Christianity has been inspired by a Savior that has been portrayed as unmarried and seeking primarily the company of the male gender, though there have been unavoidable revelations to the contrary even in the canonical gospels. In the Da Vince code, everyone becomes free to explore, within the limits of that genre, an alternate possible history of the First Century that would revise many fundamental premises about the Twenty-First Century and how we ought to live it.

The evolution of Christianity is not yet finished. Celibacy is as silly as the cilice and probably just about as effective, especially when one considers that the whole tribe of Mary Magdalene is still excluded from the highest councils of power and the rituals of worship. Let us accept that it may have been wise, or necessary, or unavoidable that women in the Catholic Church still have the same status they had when Leonardo da Vinci painted the Last Supper. Perhaps this movie will establish the notion that it is no longer wise, or necessary or unavoidable.

I think the Da Vinci Code reveals and explores but does not unlock the mystery -- which is only partly historical and is surely psychological -- of why we have an all-male priesthood and hierarchy in the Catholic Church. It addresses the status of women in the Church in a way that perhaps only fiction can, blending elements of fantasy, speculation and history with a powerful effect.

So yeah, tell all your friends to tell all their friends to boycott the movie and book...

Noted In The Blogosphere -- Nothing Unites Or Divides Like Democracy

Guess Who's Coming to Online TV Whether you love her or hate her, or don't know anything about the world's top-rated blogger of Filipino ancestry (sexy good looks and sassier than the average human female), you can now see and hear MICHELLE MALKIN at a new site called, Hot Air where she may be doing regular videocasting on favorites subjects, a clue to which may be gleaned in the debut title: The Tech World Bows To Red China's Tyrants Local bloggers shouldn't be put off by this rather stentorian title, especially watching and hearing a Filipina-American blogger strut her stuff online and dish it out with the verve of those already free human beings called Americans. Full-fledged Filipino-American Michelle Malkin, even models T-shirts on this new website...Here's the launch message: "We’re live! Welcome to Hot Air, the world’s first, full-service conservative Internet broadcast network. Tune out Katie Couric and tune …"

But back to Red China's tyrants...the link above actually points to the website of Ethan Zuckerman, whom many of us here in Manila just met -- with the most salutary of effects -- during the Free Expression in Asian Cyberspace Conference last week. He's associated with Harvard University Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society and his most excellent technical presentation on Internet filtering and censorship in China and elsewhere is to be found at the FEAC Conference proceedings, complete with pod- and videocasts too. The issue is repression of freedom of speech and expression in China and revolves around the arrest and disappearance of Chinese documentary film-maker Hao Wu--

Hao Wu (Chinese name:呉皓 “Wu Hao”), a Chinese documentary filmmaker who lived in the U.S. between 1992 and 2004, was detained by the Beijing division of China’s State Security Bureau on the afternoon of Wednesday, Febuary 22, 2006. On that afternoon, Hao had met in Beijing with a congregation of a Christian church not recognized by the Chinese government, as part of the filming of his next documentary.

Many local bloggers also had the pleasure last week of meeting REBECCA MACKINNON of Harvard University's Global Voices Online. Ms. MacKinnon is a former CNN broadcast journalist turned blogger with long and extensive experience in China, fluent in Mandarin and quite knowledgeable with the territory. Indeed, some of us first met her at IBLOG2, the conference at UP Law School a week ago today. Much valuable information has been transmitted to the Southeast Asian blogosphere through her presentations at both recent conferences here in Manila. The Chinese film-maker Hao Wu is a Global Voices Online's China editor and his case is only one of many in China.

For an overview of the status of press freedom in Asia, lookup the presentation of Rapporteurs Sans Frontieres at the FEAC conference last week.

IMMIGRATION IN AMERICA But since we are speaking today of noteworthing Filipinos who are making their mark far away from the homeland archipelago, here is email from RODEL RODIS, President of the San Francisco City School Board, and like Michelle Malkin, also a great Filipino-American patriot, who however, may differ strongly with Michelle Malkin on the issue of immigration in America. I give way to Rodel today to say his piece about a certain piece of legislation in the U.S. that may be of deep interest to many Filipinos and Filipino-Americans. Rodel doesn't think criminalizing the TNT's is a good idea...

RODEL RODIS: "HR 4437 will criminalize the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the US. Once the bill passes and becomes law, there will instantly be 12 million new felons in the United States.

As it stands today, "unlawful presence" in the United States is not considered a crime but rather a civil violation of US immigration laws. When illegal immigrants are apprehended only by agents of the US Department of Homeland Security, they are placed in deportation or “removal” proceedings, which are civil, not criminal, in nature. If they have no affirmative relief available, they are deported back to their home countries.

Under the Sensenbrenner bill, however, these same undocumented immigrants can be arrested by any federal, state or local authorities and handed over to the feds where they will then be charged in federal court (because it would be a federal offense, not a state crime) with being in unlawful presence in the US.

The US Constitution will provide these 12 million accused felons with certain rights that apply to all people in the US, regardless of whether they are US citizens or accused “illegal aliens”.

For example, they will be entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as, after all, some of them may have been born here or are the beneficiaries of approved visa petitions. Unlike in civil deportation proceedings, they will be provided with free legal counsel if they cannot afford one. Under the famous Gideon’s Law, indigent criminal defendants are provided with taxpayer-paid federal public defenders. Because it is a criminal charge, the defendants are also entitled to a trial by jury.

How many federal courtrooms, judges (which require confirmation by the US Senate), prosecutors, defense counsel, bailiffs, court reporters, jurors will be needed to prosecute 12 million defendants?

According to the US Department of Justice, there are currently 2,135,901 prisoners held all over the United States in federal, state and local jails. US authorities will have to provide more prisons to house an additional 12 million felons, six times the current capacity, who, if found guilty, will be required to serve time in jail before being deported. More prisons will require more prison guards, food and inmate clothing.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger estimates that the cost of enforcing the Sensenbrenner bill would be 500 billion dollars a year (which is larger than the annual budget for US defense). California spends $31,000 a year to house, feed and guard each inmate. One million inmates would cost $31-B a year. Twelve million inmates would cost about $400-B. Fortunately for the Governator, it will not be California’s problem because they would be federal inmates.

The 12 million new felons would not include another 50 million relatives, friends and co-workers who would also be charged with aiding and abetting the felons. This would include the Catholic Church which has gone on the record as stating that it will continue to help the poor and the sick and the needy, even if they don’t have legal papers.

Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony has announced that Catholic priests are obligated to disobey such a law because Pope John Paul II and other popes have taught that nations with resources have a moral obligation to accommodate people fleeing persecution or economic hardship - regardless of legal status.

Besides, about 30 percent of the nearly 65 million U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, including about 6 million "undocumented" Mexicans. And there are at least 500,000 Filipinos “illegals” (“TNTs”) who are also mostly Catholic.

And what would happen to California’s $65-B a year agricultural industry? Who would pick the grapes, the lettuce and tomatoes? Americans will have to be willing to pay $20 for one tomato to defray the high costs of hiring Americans to work the agricultural fields. Prices will skyrocket and taxes will hit the roof.

President Bush may reluctantly be compelled to rescind the huge tax cuts he gave to his rich friends and campaign donors just to pay for some of the enormous costs that would come with the passage of the Sensenbrenner Bill.

Rodel Rodis is also published by the Philippines News in San Francisco and the Philippine Daily Inquirer INQ7.net online edition in Manila. That Left-Right divide in America is really opening up...

OSAMA BIN LADEN TAPE STIRS THE INFIDELS Another A-lister in the blogosphere, Filipino-Australian editor of Pajamas Media, Richard Fernandez, (Wretchard of the Belmont Club: Emanations from a Cave) weighs in on the recent audio tape message from Osama bin Laden. Wretchard notes the fact that OBL includes in his anti-Western rant the issue of those Danish Mohammed cartoons, on which Philippine Commentary did many posts. For example, Bitter Herbs and Purple Flowers and Global Jihad Against Journalists?

Author and Readers of Philippine Commentary explored and debated the civil rights dimensions of the Mohammed Cartoons issue in several posts:

On the Separation of Church and Press
The Responsible Journalism of Conrado de Quiros
Democracy Saves Religions From Each Other

Alert readers will note the breadth of the political spectrum -- from Right to Left -- that supports freedom and democracy all over the world, both online and not.

Nothing unites -- or divides -- the global blogosphere than these transcendental issues of freedom, democracy and religion! Rely on Philippine Commentary to keep them in focus and close to heart.

Hat Tip to Lord Dracula for the Heads Up: Supreme Court Decision on Calibrated Pre-emptive Response is up on their Beta Web Site.