Chess Match With GMA...Anyone?

And by GMA, I mean Grandmaster Arroyo, "Grandmaster" being a term appropriated for those who have excelled in the game of chess. (See http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?view=article&id=57 for the techincal definition of a Grandmaster, as defined by FIDE, the World Chess Federation.)

I would not want to have a chess face-off with former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

(Photo courtesy of Reuters UK/Stringer)


She has proven herself to be incredibly adept in reading what her opponents would execute three or four moves later, and preparing her garrison for what would come next.

Last night's standoff at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport merely served to highlight her skill in reading her own fate, thereby giving her a clairvoyant advantage. (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/94265/sc-allows-arroyo-to-travel-abroad%e2%80%94official)

In less esoteric terms, nakapaghanda siya.

By positioning her knights and rooks in their advantageous - to say the least - positions, it has allowed her and her family ways to jump over possible impediments to her "right to travel" (suddenly a term that everyone is using in conjunction with constitutional rights).

All eight Supreme Court justices who voted to allow her the right to travel to seek "medical assistance" for a non-life threatening condition are her appointees.

You be the judge.

As soon as the TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) was announced, GMA "suddenly" had three different flights "ready", two million pesos in bond money (one of the prerequisites of the TRO, and if we do a comparison, I'm guessing asking two million pesos from GMA would be like asking .005 cents from an ordinary person like me, to put things in relative perspective), a coterie of lawmakers and lawyers - and that ever composed but sometimes leaning-on-the-dramatic spokesperson of hers - by her side, and a doctor's appointment scheduled for November 17 in Singapore.

You be the judge.

GMA being filmed in a wheelchair with that contraption around her, transported around in a wheelchair, and in one segment, they were inching her wheelchair down the stairs, when they could have used the escalator which was just adjacent to the stairs, or asked to use an elevator, if they were truly after her "ease" and "comfort".

You be the judge.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima now threatened by Arroyo's lawyer to be charged with contempt for defying the TRO, because she ordered the authorities to prevent the Arroyos from leaving - at least until the government's oral arguments can be heard, which was scheduled for November 22 - when she merely used DOJ Circular 41 to put them on a Watchlist, a circular that was created and used during Arroyo's adminstration. (See the details in this excellent piece by Raissa Robles: http://raissarobles.com/2011/11/09/how-gloria-macapagal-arroyo-got-caught-in-her-own-mousetrap-halo-vest-and-all/)

You be the judge.

And, let's get a passage from Ms. Robles' article, to appreciate the bigger picture:

"This Tuesday November 8, 2011, lawyer Estelito Mendoza filed an urgent petition with the Supreme Court on behalf of Arroyo to declare DC 41 unconstitutional and to void it."

Teka nga.

A circular concocted by GMA's adminstration is now being petitioned by GMA's lawyer to be declared unconstitutional. It begs the very obvious question - it's practically screaming - if this particular circular is unconstitutional to begin with, why did GMA's adminstration create it in the first place?

You be the judge.

This current political telenovela we're seeing right now is - P-Noy supporters, please look away now - largely, in my estimation, the result of no charges or cases filed against the Arroyos until this very day. I seem to remember P-Noy making statements to that effect, that one of his biggest thrusts should he be elected would be to take the people who have plundered this country to court.

I have yet to hear of a SINGLE charge filed against GMA herself.

And, playing the devil's advocate, even if charges were filed against an ordinary citizen like me, I would STILL be presumed innocent until anyone can prove otherwise in a court of law.

Imagine how something like not having charges filed against her would embolden someone like GMA to make travel plans, as they say in today's parlance, "on the fly" (immediately).

Eh, wala ngang charges, eh.

Unlike GMA, though, most of us who are - silently or otherwise - cheering for de Lima know instinctively that what is legal does not mean it is necessarily right. And while it punches a hole in my gut to see GMA thwart the justice system this way, de Lima is constrained to follow the Supreme Court's TRO, as an "officer of the Court", as SC spokesperson Atty. Midas Marquez has said.

Like criminals who have used minute technicalities and loopholes in the way laws are written to get away from attaining true justice and serving their proper dues, GMA has somehow used the very underpinnings of our Constitution to serve her ends without being made accountable for the massive irregularities and endless questions and doubts accumulated over her nine year stay in Malacanang that still have no answers.

Justice - true justice - sometimes cannot be found in august halls where laws purportedly see their very incarnation and purpose in action and realization.

Let me repeat: Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

I still refuse to play chess with GMA.

This "Bulaga" Doesn't Come From Sotto

Just when we thought we had heard it all from the anti RH camp.

Now comes the news, really more a nasty surprise (which is what the Filipino word bulaga would approximately mean) from Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, who, as of last count, was one of the senators against the RH Bill. (Ironically, his sister, Pia, also a senator, is one of the two main proponents in the Senate of the same bill. The title of this post is a reference to vocal anti-RH Senator Sotto, who was a mainstay of the noontime variety show "Eat Bulaga!", before heading out to more, uhm, legislative pastures.)

(Photo courtesy of inquirer.net)

Cayetano wants the RH Bill to be "supported" by the Catholic Church, on the grounds that the Philippines is "a country where majority of the population is Catholic". (See the article here: )
http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?articleid=731807)

The senator is lighting the fuse on something that should not even be on the table.

In a way, I am "glad" he brought this out, as it gives everyone a chance to see, once and for all, why he is hideously wrong in bringing this point up. And I am coming from the perspective of someone who has never been a Catholic, which makes my voice the perfect counterbalance to what the senator is suggesting.

To Senator Alan Cayetano:

I am a citizen of this country.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this country has a democratic form of government. One of the basic tenets of democracy is the Separation of State and Church, and one of the freedoms we enjoy is the freedom of religion. I would think that you, a Senator of this Republic, would know this first hand, seeing as the position you now enjoy is a result of a largely convoluted but still democratic process.

Your contention that the RH Bill should be "supported" by the Catholic Church is thrusting an unnecessary spear into my freedom to choose a religion of my own. If what you want should come to pass, you will unwittingly make me, nay, FORCE me to become a Catholic, against my wishes. Why should I be subjected to rules and regulations that, supposedly, are only under the jurisdiction of a particular faith - the Catholic one, specifically - when I do not wish to become a Catholic in the first place?

Many belief systems, faiths and paradigms do not find it "immoral" to use artificial contraception. But with your proposal, you would be empowering the Catholic Church in this country to dictate and impose its own religious views onto those who have elected - freely, under a democracy - to follow other faiths. That is a clear contravention into my right and freedom to have my own faith.

Also, this position of yours blurs the line between State and Church. Aren't religions, in a secular, democratic form of government, supposed to follow our secular laws? I would think that if any religion were to practice cannibalism or child molestation, and claim that these were not "answerable" to secular authorities, under the perverted mantle and guise of reasoning out that "our religion calls for it, we only answer to OUR God, we have freedom of religion!", not only would we find this monumentally laughable, but extremely offensive and of the highest disrespect for the secular laws of our land as embodied in the Constitution, particularly those that seek to punish murderers and pedophiles.

But this is exactly what you are doing, by saying that before the RH Bill is to be passed, that it should be "supported" by the Catholic Church. On what grounds should we consider the Catholic position on this, and any other matter, superior to the stand of other faiths, when the entire point of having freedom of religion is to enforce the legal truth in a democracy that no faith should be given preferential treatment, and should not even be a "deciding factor" when it comes to discussing secular matters? Should President Noynoy Aquino now pay homage to our bishops and subsume his decisions in deference to their preferences?

Your suggestion is, at its core, proposing a radical shift in our form of government; if you cut out any rationalizations, you are essentially endorsing a Catholic theocracy, where what Catholic leaders say become the law of the land, where no bill can be passed without their "support".

If that is what you wish, you may renounce your citizenship to this democratic country and move to the Vatican.

Until we officially become that theocracy, you would be well reminded of the FACT that this is still a democracy, and are a direct beneficiary of that form of government. You do not have the right to disregard me, or any one else who does not share the Catholic faith, on account of Catholics being the majority. In fact, BECAUSE this is a democracy, you actually have to make sure that those in the minority are to be heard and are to be included in any and all secular decision making laws and agenda.

You work for the citizens of this country, the Republic of the Philippines. You DO NOT work for the Catholic Church. You are obligated to us, not to them.

Do not just hear these words.

Listen.

Debate The RH Bill - In Any Language

Last week, the major dailies were all abuzz with one particular news about the RH (Reproductive Health) Bill debates: Actor-turned-Senator Manuelito "Lito" Lapid publicly acknowledging his weakness in English, and therefore his hesitation to go further into the RH Bill debates, since English will be considered "the" language to be used for questioning and interpellation. (See http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/62167/sen-lapid-dying-to-enter-rh-bill-debates-but-pia-miriam-scare-him)

(Photo courtesy of newsaroundus.com)

He is particularly hesitant to go head to head with two lady senators who have been at the forefront of chamipioning the RH Bill, Senators Miraim Defensor-Santiago and Pia Cayetano. Santiago, in particular, is well known for her sting with the use of the English language.

I say go ahead and let him debate in Filipino (which is Tagalog in terms of dialect, much to the frustration of the other dialects in the country).

Language should not be used to hinder someone from participating in something of such importance. That sounds to me as something "elitists" would do, and this Bill concerns ALL Filipinos, so the more people involved in the debate, the better. As a Senator - one I did not vote for, but he is one - he should make his voice known, if only to represent the people who did vote for him.

Both Santiago and Cayetano have said that they find no issue if he decides to use Filipino to engage them in debates.

Personally, I welcome it because I admit as well my weakness in the national language (one of them, since both Filipino and English are considered our national languages). I do not like learning it from inane telenovelas and local dramas, because while some of them may use terms I have never heard before, the insipid plotlines and endless caterwauling make my teeth literally hurt, and it's all I can do to stand through 5 minutes of the same drivel in every channel, every night, over and over.

I welcome the chance to learn it, as it will be used in discussions of a bill that I have great interest in - and most Filipinos should have that same interest as well, given how almost everyone I know has an opinion or something to say about it, nowadays.

One of the considerations switching from language to language is that some of the nuances and "hidden meanings" may be lost as they try to communicate in different ways. But that works both ways: an English speaking senator like Santiago would also find it hard to put her points across in Filipino without losing some of its intended meaning in English - that is both the bane and boon of languages.

And while I remember being punished severely as a youngster for speaking in "Taglish" (a bastardized form of speaking in English and Filipino intermittently) - my mom would always reprimand us that we should either speak in straight English or Filipino - this is one instance where the form should pay homage to substance, and if using "Taglish" will be something that will communicate an idea better without losing much of the translation for what the speaker intends to say, then I am all for it.

What would be deplorable, given this leeway, is if there is no substance behind the form.

Our senators should remember that the RH Bill is also a measure that respects ALL religions - and I know this acutely well, being a non-Catholic. I know exactly when something is being imposed on me, it is something I have lived with all my life in a country that proudly carries its "we are true blooded Catholic" credentials. (My past blogposts already relay this in more detail.) An overwhelming amount of the opposition to the RH Bill had been based on religious views, specifically the Catholic view that is it "immoral" to use or promote artificial contraception.

Our senators would do well to remember that our government is still a democracy, NOT a Catholic theocracy. The tenets and practices of one religion should NOT be forced  and enforced on others who do not share this particular faith. Many Catholics themselves are supportive of the RH Bill, if we go by current, scientific surveys. How they resolve this with the statements of their anti-RH leaders is a matter of personal choice, faith and conscience. I find it odd that that those who are rabid in opposing the RH Bill based on their faith keep invoking the "freedom of religion" as their basis for opposing it - while seeing nothing hypocritical about what they wish to happen as being disrespectful to others who do not share the same faith and see nothing wrong with using artificial contraception.

The RH Bill is a PUBLIC HEALTH issue. Period. Our lawmakers should keep this in mind when they make their debates and their decisions about the bill.

In whatever language.

"Justice" By Way Of Alabang And Palawan

More specifically, by way of the 2 "Alabang Boys" and a former Palawan governor, all acquitted or had charges dropped.

(Photo of 2 "Alabang Boys" above courtesy of Inquirer.net/Nino Jesus Orbeta)

What great news to greet everyone.

In the case of the Alabang Boys, they were acquitted because the judge found a "breach in the chain of custody of evidence" - in short, tampered evidence. (Full news story here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/48423/2-%e2%80%98alabang-boys%e2%80%99-acquitted) The reactions of the people concerned, like Justice Secretary de Lima, was telling: For her, the verdict was a "surprising development". (Which would belie that she, like others who handled the case, thought this would be of the open-and-shut variety.)

A technicality comes to save the (2 Alabang Boys') day.

In other news, former Palawan governor Joel Reyes has been exonerated by a DOJ (Department of Justice) panel on a complaint filed by Gerry Ortega's wife (Gerry Ortega was a journalist killed in broad daylight in Puerto Princesa), because of "insufficiency of evidence".

What's puzzling is that the shooter surrendered moments after the act had taken place, identified the lookout as well as the others involved in the slaying, and the "head" of the operation pointed to Gov. Reyes as the mastermind behind it all, even going so far as citing where he got paid (500,000 pesos, at the house of the governor's brother, a mayor), and describing where he got the gun and how. (Full details in Solita Monsod's column, read it here: http://opinion.inquirer.net/10729/a-farcical-probe)

Another technicality saves the (former governor's) day.

Is anyone celebrating the fact that "justice" has again won? I'm sure the people accused and their relatives are happy with the outcome. Not me. The reason being, in spite of glaring evidence that the accused where indeed guilty of what they were charged, they still got away scot-free.

All because of legal technicalities.

Is there anyone out there with a suggestion on how we can avoid this insiduous cycle again and again?

My suggestion would be to hire better people to work for government, and as shallow as this may sound, the best way to do this is to increase the salaries of people in public office. If they are paid better than lawyers or investigators in private practice, then they are bound to give good, if not great, attention to their work which will reduce these sorts of "lapses". The added bonus is that they are less likely to respond to bribery invitations if they are already paid well, or at least I would hope so.

More importantly, justice (without quotation marks), in the broader and more moral sense (as opposed to the technical, legal fashion), even though blind, will finally see her way through.

Where do we get the budget for better salaries for public officials? That is another problem for which I cannot give a definitive answer, seeing as how our national budget is lacking as it is.

This is just an eternal Pandora's Box.

We Aren't Really A Democracy, Are We?

Thanks to Mideo Cruz, visual artist, whose current work, "Poleteismo" (Polytheism), exhibited until recently at the CCP (Cultural Center of the Philippines), drives home that very point. Having lived in this country for all my life, I must say that the negative reaction (to put it mildly) to Cruz's art isn't exactly unexpected, but remains to be a disappointment.

(Photo above courtesy and credited to Reuters/Romeo Ranoco. For the full Reuters article, please go to http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/02/uk-philippines-artist-controversy-idUSLNE77103I20110802.)

Disclosure time: I am NOT a Catholic. This makes me a minority in this country in terms of religious preference. To Catholic conservatives, this gives me the "devil's advocate" voice - how apropos that pun is in this context, seeing as how Cruz has been called a "devil" because of his work.

It also magnifies how one cannot escape the topic of religion in this country, whatever sphere of discourse or discussion is to be had.

Specifically, how Catholicism permeates practically all aspects of our lives on a daily basis. And given that I was never a Catholic to begin with, I have felt this intrusion more acutely, all my life. Which really begs the question of this post's title - are we really a democracy, where it counts - in substance?

Constitutionally, we are established as a democracy. From everything that I have read and understood about democracy, a democratic government cannot impose a state religion, precisely because it would go against the concept of freedom of religion, which is guaranteed under our Constitution. (See Section 5 of Article 3, Bill Of Rights, Philippine Constitution: http://www.chanrobles.com/article3.htm)

At this juncture, I need to emphasize a salient point, one which conveniently escapes most conservatives when they make impassioned pleas on behalf of their religion: RELIGION IS A CHOICE. No one is "born" a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Protestant, etc. This is a choice every person has to make on his/her own volition, notwithstanding the customary fact that babies in this country are "automatically" baptized as Catholic within a certain amount of days from birth. The reason for the emphasis is that most of the criticisms leveled against Cruz has been that he has been "blasphemous" and "disrespectful" of the Catholic faith, and how "insensitive" he is, given that we are "the only Catholic nation in Asia" (as that phrase has been drilled into us in every social studies class that ever existed in this country).

Excuse me, are you saying that no one can criticize or say anything construed as "negative" against the Catholic faith?

I find that idea to be utterly laughable, except that this is exactly what's happening: anybody who hits the slightest of discordant notes about Catholicism in this country is automatically judged as an "enemy of the (Catholic) faith", and must be dealt with. Which is why I'm not laughing at all.

This is how Cruz explains his "Poleteismo": "This speaks about objects that we worship, how we create these gods and idols, and how we in turn are created by our gods and idols." (Quoted from the same Reuters article, link above.) The portion which offended the conservatives - a crucifix with a movable penis - is merely a small part of what the artist intended to convey, but naturally, this is where the "controversy" centered, who on earth cares about the other "pieces". The myopia exhibited is simply staggering in its' audacity to be propped up as the truth.

In return, Cruz has received death threats - from the pious defenders of the "offended" faith. (And quite obviously, from the artist's explanation, it was not his intention to single out any one faith - the title says it quite succinctly, polytheism.) Members of the CCP who were responsible for allowing this exhibit were also given death threats (see Raissa Robles' excellent commentary on this as well, http://raissarobles.com/2011/08/09/meet-our-new-philippine-president-her-excellency-madame-imelda-marcos/).

This issue is another litmus test for the elasticity of democracy - that it should allow different beliefs and views to be expressed freely. Unfortunately, we have failed this test, yet again. You may not agree with the views presented by Cruz, but it doesn't give anyone the right to stifle his views as well. Anyone is free to disagree with his point of view, but to threaten him with death? Is this an example of our purported "democracy"?

I have never subscribed any kind of adoration for Mary as she is seen through the eyes of every Catholic. As it was explained to us both in the school and church of my childhood, she was merely a vessel. It could have easily been Samantha, or Louella. And if you've ever sat through one of our pastor's sermons, you would know that he has a special section devoted to lambasting Catholics: the amount of statues that Catholics pray to was - in his view - a direct violation of the Biblical admonition, "Thou shalt not have any other gods before Me." In fact, while he says he is friends with several Catholics, it saddens him that "they will never get to heaven".

Will Catholics now have the right to stone me to death for not having the same amount of reverence and adoration that they have for "Mama Mary"? Does that give them the right to now kill my (childhood) pastor for having these "blasphemous" thoughts - he practically consigned all Catholics to hell? On the scale of gravity, I would sumrise that what the pastor said about Catholics would be even more diabolical than what Cruz exhibited in "Poleteismo".

If you think I'm being facetious with these questions, think again.

Where else do you have government offices with a Marian statue, complete with flower offerings, candles and a spotlight? I remember going to the BIR (Bureau of Internal Revenue) mid-afternoon, and when the clock hit 3 PM, everything stopped: an announcement came on the speakers that it was time for the 3PM Prayer, most everyone stood up and recited along (while I, along with 2 others who were obviously non-Catholics, just sat and waited for it to end). Even malls have the Catholic rituals before they open their doors: Prayers are being said over the PA system right before the gateway to crass commercialism leads more shoppers deeper into their chosen vice.

At least malls get to pull their "I'm a private entity" card. What's irrational - and unforgivable - is the government more than tacitly supporting the Catholic faith - and as a result, its' viewpoint in its' very own corridors. This is a blatant violation of our Constitution. Before any lawyers gang up on me, I'm saying this as a private citizen who makes his views plain and simple: the State cannot endorse - nor be seen as endorsing, not even in the slightest - any religion under a democracy. That is how I understand that particular consitutional provision. (If any lawyer can say or convince me of another viewpoint, I would love to hear it. Honestly.)

This explains why the Catholic leaders in this country have long felt their entitlement in meddling into our national, political and legal affairs. The government has always made it more than allowable. In the current RH (Reproductive Health) Bill debates, it is rather clear that the Catholic edict that disallows any use of artificial contraception is the driving force behind the opposition to its' passage. This bill - in all its' forms - has been languishing in our Congress for more than a decade (we're nearing a second one as we speak), and it has been in this state precisely because of the power that the Catholic hierarchy has wielded. Threatening excommunication, staging rallies, going on media to air their views as the "correct" and "moral" one - they certainly believe in the end justifying the means.

The end being that only the Catholic view be held as "true" in this country.

So it really isn't surprising that Cruz and others who support his work are facing death threats by conservative people who think they have an exclusive birthright to morality and decency. If it's in service of the end goal, then everything is permissible. Don't get me started on the endorsement of the Philippine Daily Inquirer that those who tried to destroy Cruz's art in a physical sense are doing something "understandable" (see http://opinion.inquirer.net/9593/art-as-terrorism). How a member of an institution that is supposedly a bastion of free expression can condone censorship is beyond me.

"Poleteismo" achieved its' goal in that it certainly provoked closer scrutiny and discussion. The question becomes, if it affected you negatively, why and how did it do so? Could it be that his expression served as a mirror that challenged your preconceived notions and ideas about something as personal about faith? Note that the artist was showcasing his point of view - why does it seem to be so threatening?

Let's call it like it is. We are essentially a Catholic theocracy - where the Catholic viewpoint is viewed as king, nay, as god - but with the Filipino rationalization of "that's not what it says in our Constitution!", which allows those who push the Catholic way of thinking into our laws a disingenious way to avoid owning up to what is really happening.

Anyway, who cares? On paper, we are a democracy. You're free to dissent - as long as the Catholic leadership says it's "permitted".

Basta (as long as) on paper we're a democracy.

Ah, basta.