LAW AND FREEDOM

(SPEECH BEFORE THE CANON LAW SOCIETY OF THE PHILIPPINES, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, 17 APRIL 2012)

The Officers and Members of the Canon Law Society of the Philippines; Your Excellencies, Most Reverend Bishops; Very Reverend Monsignori; Reverend Fathers; Reverend Sisters; Eminences in the teaching and practise of Canon Law; Distinguished Guests, Friends: Good Morning.

It is an honor to join the people of Puerto Princesa and Palawan in welcoming you all to our Pro-Life and Pro-Family City. Maambeng nga pag-abot, as we would say in our Cuyuno language. Thank you for choosing to hold your National Convention here, for the second time, because the first time was in 1998; which brings me to a second, more personal reason to thank the CLSP.

It was in 1998 that I first met Fr. Jaime Achacoso, when he first came to Puerto Princesa to attend the CLSP Convention. Since 1998, I have had the benefit of the friendship and spiritual advice of Fr. Jim. For those who think I am bad inspite of all that, they can imagine how much worse I would be without Fr. Jim.

I mention this because Fr. Jim has been making regular trips to Puerto Princesa for some years already, to shepherd a growing flock of men and women, young and old, and their families, which makes him as much a Puerto Princesan as anyone. He was infected by the “come-back, come-back” virus, which can also happen to you. I am also a witness to the effort Fr. Jim has put into the planning, preparation and actual conduct of this Convention. Thank you for everything, Fr. Jim.

As I say thanks to you all, allow me also to pay tribute to “law”, to the “law of the land”, the civil law, as well as ecclesiastical law, and to say that the very existence of CLSP, your very presence in this Convention, already contributes to promoting the rule of law.

Much of the problems human society has experienced since the second half of the last century could be traced to “liberalist” trends in almost all aspects of life. By “liberalist”, I am referring to an ideology that would place individual freedom as an end in itself or as the highest social good, such as to belittle the values of law and order, the value of justice. This is perhaps understandable as a reaction to the other, undesirable extreme of totalitarianism which earlier found expression in royal absolutism and, by the beginning of the twentieth century, in the fascist and socialist dictatorships that sprang up in many places of the earth.

To the liberal, human freedom is absolute or extends to determining good and evil, to amending or discarding even the natural moral law.

As we all know, on the other hand, the truth is that human freedom is not absolute. It must bow to objective reality and to the truth of our authentic human nature. What is more, our very exercise of this freedom, our choices, bind us to their natural conse quences. Indeed, human freedom is meaningless unless it ends in a binding choice. Freedom is for commitment; and because our choices can result in happiness or misery, freedom is inseparable from responsibility. In the end, human freedom makes sense only as man’s capacity to direct himself towards his end—towards sanctity, perfection, eternal happiness.

For this, law is necessary. The liberals have it wrong. May the Church and our political community be protected from liberalism. And that is why I feel that we need more lawyers’ conventions, if only to highlight the need for law in social life. Congratulations to the participants and organizers of this Convention. I join you all in the fervent hope that the proceedings would bear much fruit in terms of the sanctity and apostolic effectiveness of all the faithful.

Maraming salamat po.

O.C.P.A.J.P.M.

EULOGY PARA KAY TIA NATY (31.III.2012)

Magandang umaga po sa inyong lahat.

Ang papel ko po ngayong umaga ay magbigay ng eulogy para kay Tia Naty, kahit medyo anti-climactic—sapagkat kagabi ay nagkaroon na ng parangal at maraming mabuting mga alaala ang naihayag tungkol sa kanya—at magpasalamat sa inyong lahat, sa inyong presensya, sa inyong mga naitulong sa pagdaos ng mga nararapat na maganap mula ng huling tibok ng puso ni Tia Naty bago dumating sa Jordan, hanggang sa pagkakataong ito na ihahatid sa libingan ang kanyang mga labi.

Ang “eulogy”, mula sa dalawang katagang Griyego, eu, “mabuti”, at logos, “salita”, kaya “mabuting salita”; sa karaniwang paggamit, talumpati ng papuri sa isang taong namatay.

Para sa lahat nating mga tao, ang sandali ng ating kamatayan ang nagtatakda ng ating kalalagayan sa walang-hanggan. For each and everyone of us, the moment of death is that one defining moment for all eternity. Sa oras ng kamatayan, nililisan natin ang materyal na sansinukob, kung saan nagbabago-bago ang lahat at dahil dito, may panahon, at pumapasok tayo sa walang hanggan, sa walang panahon sapagkat wala nang pagbabago. Kung sa sandaling iyon ay may pagkiling sa Diyos ang ating kalooban, magiging kaisa tayo ng Diyos sa kaligayahang walang-hanggan; kung hindi naman, kung walang pagkiling sa Diyos sa sandali ng kamatayan (huwag sanang mangyari kaninuman), pagdurusang walang hanggan. Sapagkat ang kabuluhan nga naman ng ating buhay ay kilalanin, ibigin, at paglingkuran ang Diyos at ng maging kaisa Niya sa kaligayahang walang-hanggan: kilalalanin ang Diyos sa pamamagitan ng ating pag-iisip na inilawan ng pananampalataya; ibigin ang Diyos sa pamamagitan ng ating kalayaang tinulungan ng grasya; at paglingkuran, tupdin ang kalooban ng Diyos ng buong lakas, ng buong damdamin, ng ating buong pagkatao, kasama ng lahat ng ating kayamanan at mga iniibig. Diyos ang kaganapan ng katotohanan at kabutihan: Siya ang talagang hinahanap ng puso ng tao; ng ating pag-iisip at kalayaang pumili—ang dalawang kapangyarihan ng espiritwal na diwa ng tao, na hindi nawawala kundi humihiwalay sa pagkasira ng ating materyal na pangangatawan sa sandali ng ating kamatayan. Sabi nga ni San Agustin, “Panginoon, nilikha Mo kami para sa Iyo, at ang aming mga puso ay hindi matatahimik hanggat hindi nahihimlay sa Iyo.” Kung sa oras ng kamatayan ay kaisa tayo ng Diyos, kaligayahan ang ating mararanasan sa walang hanggan; at kung hindi, pagdurusang walang hanggan. Kung ano ang kalalagayan ng ating puso sa oras ng kamatayan, ito ang kalalagayan natin sa walang-hanggan. Ang oras ng kamatayan ang ating pagtawid mula sa panahon palipat sa walang-hanggan.

Sa kabilang dako, bagamat ang ating kamatayan ang kritikal na sandali kung kailan at saan naitatakda ang ating magiging kalalagayan sa walang-hanggan, hindi ito nangangahulugang bale-wala ang ibang sandali ng ating buhay; bagkus, ito rin ang nagbibigay ng kabuluhan sa lahat ng ating panahon sa daigdig, bilang isang paglalakbay—pamemelegrino, pilgrimage—o kaya ay pagsasanay, paglago, pakikibaka, patungo sa pagiging kaisa ng Diyos, patungo sa kabanalan. Nagsisimula tayo sa pagkadispalinghado, sa mga kahinaan at depekto ng ating minanang may-sugat na kalikasan mula kina Adan at Eba: kailangan nating pagsikapang lumago sa ating pagkiling sa Diyos.

Oo nga, ang buhay ng tao sa mundo ay isang paglalakbay tungo sa pagiging kaisa ng Diyos, tungo sa kabanalan. Lahat tayo tinatawag na magpakabanal; at hindi tayo dapat mawalan ng pag-asa na, sa kabila ng ating mga kahinaan at pagkakasala, huwag lamang tumigil sa pakikibakang ito, sa tulong din ng grasya o biyaya ng Diyos, tayo rin ay magtatagumpay na sa huling sandali ng ating buhay sa daigdig, maabutan tayo ng kamatayan na kaisa tayo ng Diyos.

Ang buhay at kamatayan ni Tia Naty ay isang larawan ng pag-unlad patungo sa kabanalan; kahit sa literal na kahulugan, isang pamemelegrino, pilgrimage. Namatay siya habang patungo sa Herusalem; hindi nga naman malayong asahan nating ang kanyang kalooban sa sandaling iyon ay nakatuon sa Diyos, sa pagiging kaisa ng Diyos sa makalangit na Herusalem.

Sa mga naging malapit kay Tia Naty, lalo na sa loob ng dekada mula nang mamatay ang kanyang mahal na Badong, kapansin-pansin ang pag-unlad sa buhay-espiritwal. Araw-araw, nakikisalo sa Banal na Misa; puno ng panalangin ang mga oras mula sa paggising hanggang sa pagtulog. Unti-unting nawala ang dating pagiging “mataray”; hanggang sa huli, tanggap na tanggap ang kawalan ng kapangyarihan, lahat ng bagay pinasasalamatan. Sabi ko sa sarili ko, noong huli ko siyang makausap, ganito na dapat tayo bago mamatay: wala nang pagkaakit sa kayamanan o karangyaan; wala nang yabang, wala nang pagmamalaki sa sariling kakayahan; wala nang mga galit o sama ng loob kaninuman, ang hinahangad ay kung ano ang tama at mabuti; maawain; mapayapa ang loob na nakikita sa pananalita at gawa; matiisin. Sa madaling salita, maaaninag na sa kanyang pagkatao ang mga “punong kabanalan” o beatitudes na inilahad ng Panginoon. At bagamat nagulat pa rin tayo at nalungkot sa kanyang pagpanaw, masaya rin tayo sa matibay na pag-asang nakamit nga ni Tia Naty ang “nag-iisang talagang kailangan”, the one thing necessary, ang tagumpay ng pakikibaka nating lahat sa buhay na ito. Salamat sa Diyos, sapagkat hindi mangyayari ito kung hindi rin dahil sa grasya. At tama si San Josemaria Escriva: ang Diyos ay hindi dapat isipin na parang isang mangangaso, hunter, na nakaabang at papaslangin tayo sa oras na hindi tayo nakahanda; bagkus, ang Diyos ay maihahalintulad sa isang maalagang hardinero, at tayo ang Kanyang mga bulaklak, pinalalago at pipitasin lamang Niya kapag ganap na ang pamumukadkad.

Sa ngalan ni Tia Naty, humihingi rin po ako ng paumanhin at patawad sa anumang pagkukulang namin sa inyo, sa anumang pinsala o sakit ng loob na naidulot sa inyo.

Maraming salamat kay Bishop Arigo at sa lahat ng kapariang nagsipagdiwang ng Banal na Misa para kay Tia Naty. Kay Fr. Eugene Elivera at sa mga kapwa-pelegrino ni Tia Naty, sa inyong pag-alaga. Kay Bryan, sa iyong pag-uwi kay Tia Naty sa Pilipinas. Kay Atty. Junjun at Sir Sammy at mga kasama sa inyong napakagandang parangal kay Tia Naty kagabi. Kina Ate Nenette at Ate Papot sa kanilang pagiging mga punong-abala. Sa lahat ng mga tumulong sa lahat ng aspeto at yugto ng pagburol at paglibing. Sa lahat ng nagsidalo, lalo na po ang nanggaling pa sa malalayong bayan. Sa presensiya ninyong lahat, at sa patuloy ninyong mga panalangin para kay Tia Naty at para sa ating mga kamag-anak at kaibigang pumanaw na rin.

Maraming salamat po.

O.C.P.A.J.P.M.

KONGKRETUHIN ANG DAANG MATUWID SA SUR!

KONGRETUHIN ANG DAANG MATUWID SA SUR!

(TALUMPATI SA IKA-TATLUMPU’T ANIM NA ANIBERSARYO NG PAGKAKATATAG NG WESTERN COMMAND, IKA-15 NG MARSO 2012, LUNGSOD NG PUERTO PRINCESA)

Lieutenant-General Juancho M. Sabban and Madame Irene C. Sabban, the Officers and Men of the Western Command and their Ladies, Distinguished Guests, Friends:

Malugod na pagbati sa inyong lahat sa ika-tatlumpu’t anim na anibersaryo ng pagkakatatag ng Western Command. Karangalan ko pong maanyayahang magsalita sa inyong harapan sa pagkakataong ito. Maraming salamat po. At kalakip ng aking pagpupugay sa matagumpay na pagsasakatuparan ng misyon ng Western Command sa nagdaang tatlumpu’t anim na taon, payagan po ninyo akong magbahagi ng ilang punto ng pagmumuni-muni tungkol sa serbisyo sa estado.

Bilang kinatawan ng distrito sa konggreso, at tulad ng ating mga kawal, ako po ay isa ring lingkod ng bayan; magkaiba lamang po sa partikular na gawain.

Ang trabaho ko po, sa pinakabuod, ay dumalo sa mga sesyon ng konggreso, tatlong araw sa loob ng sanlinggo, at sa mga pagpupulong ng iba’t ibang komite nito, at makisali sa pagtalakay at pagbabalangkas ng mga panukalang-batas. At isa lamang po ako sa mahigit sa dalawandaan at walumpung miyembro ng kamara de representante.

Hindi sinlaki ng akala ng marami ang kapangyarihan ng isang konggresman. Anim lamang ang staff ng bawat konggressman, at ang aming tanggapan ay halos masasabing kuwartito lamang. At bagamat mayroong sinasabing “pork barrel” ang mga konggresman, ito ay masasabing “accommodation” lamang; “pagbibigay”, pinagbibigyan lamang kahit hindi talaga nararapat. Sa katunayan, ang taguring “pork barrel” ay may halong panlalait, para bagang ipinahihiwatig na “matakaw” ang mga kongresman.

Ang pormal na tawag sa regular na pork barrel sa ating kasalukuyang General Appropriations Act ay “Priority Development Assistance Fund”, P.D.A.F. o “pidaf”.

Sa loob ng ilang taong nagdaan, ang PDAF ng bawat konggresman ay nasa 70 Milyong Piso taun-taon. Malaki pa ang taunang budget ng isang munisipyong katulad ng Sofronio Espanola at Jose Rizal ng Palawan. Kung ikakalat sa buong congressional district, ito ay maliit at hindi halos mararamdaman. Ang ating distrito ay sumasaklaw sa Puerto Princesa City at walong munisipyo.

Lalong maliit ang 70 Milyon kung ihahambing sa taunang budget ng Pamahalaang Panlalawigan, na sa loob ng nagdaang ilang taon ay hindi na bumababa sa Isang Bilyong Piso. Sa taong ito, ang budget ng Pamahalaang Panlalawigan ay tila nasa 1.4 Bilyon Pesos.

Bukod pa rito, ang 70 Milyon Pesos na PDAF ng bawat konggresman ay hindi rin dumadaan sa aming mga kamay. Ang karapatan lamang dito ng konggresman ay sumulat sa Department of Budget Management, sa pamamagitan ng Appropirations Committee, upang sabihin kung anong mga proyekto at programa ang nais niyang paglaanan nito, at kung aling ahensiya ng gobyerno ang nais niyang magpatupad sa proyekto o programa niyang iyon. Wala kaming sariling burukrasyang maaaring direktang magsagawa ng proyekto o programa; at wala rin kaming kakayahang tiyakin talaga na maayos ang pagsagawa sa proyekto o programang pinondohan mula sa PDAF.

Sinasabi ko lamang po ito upang bigyang diin ang katotohanang hindi sinlaki ng akala ng marami ang kapangyarihan ng isang konggresman; at kung mayroon mang mga konggresmang makapangyarihan o mayaman ang dating, hindi yon nagmula sa pagiging kongressman lamang kundi, marahil, sa ibang aspeto ng kanilang sariling pagkatao at kalagayan sa buhay.

Hindi ang kongresman ang boss ng District Engineer ng DPWH o ng Division Superintendent ng DepEd; at kung mangyaring nagkaganoon ay mayroong paglabag sa prinsipyo ng “separation of powers” ng ating Saligang Batas; mayroong “maling paggamit”, mayroong “pag-abuso” sa kapangyarihan.

Madalas po kasi, ang pinag-uugatang sanhi ng pag-abuso sa kapangyarihan, ang pinagmumulan ng katiwalian, ay ang maling pananaw sa kung ano ang totoong sinasaklaw ng partikular na katungkulan. Minsan, kulang; ngunit, madalas, lumalabis. Walang katiwalian kung tamang-tama lamang ang ating pag-unawa sa ating tungkulin at sa hangganan ng ating kapangyarihan.

Sa bahagi ng isang pulitiko, laging malakas ang tukso na patulan ang paghangad ng maraming manghahalal na ang kanilang ibinotong konggresman o gobernador ay maging puntahan sa oras ng personal na pangangailangan. Sa kabilang dako, ang pondo ng pamahalaan ay hindi naman talaga nakalaan sa pagtugon sa mga personal na pangangailangan; mahigpit ang mga batas na nagsasabing para lamang sa “public purpose”, sa kabutihang panlahat, ang perang nagmula sa buwis nating mga mamamayan. Kaya nga kung ang pondo ng gobyerno ay gagamitin sa pribado o personal na kapakanan ng kung sino, malamang ay may paglabag sa batas-kriminal o sa ating anti-graft and corrupt practices act. Magsasagawa ng cash advance at dodoktorin na lamang ang liquidation voucher. Magsisinungaling sa mga opisyal na dokumento.

Kung minsan, ang ginagamit ay hindi direktang pondo ng gobyerno, kundi perang nagmula sa kontratista o supplier na nabigyan ng pabor at kumita sa kanilang transaksyon sa gobyerno. Ito po ang kickback, komisyon; sa salitang-kalye, ang tawag ay “tongpats” at kung minsan ay “s.o.p.”—standard operating procedure—ibig sabihin, ito ang “kalakaran”. Katiwalian po ito sapagkat sa ilalim ng ating anti-graft and corrupt practices law, pinarurusahan ang sinumang opisyal ng pamahalaang tumanggap ng anumang regalo mula sa sinumang may transaksyon sa tanggapan ng opisyal na iyon. At ang pagbawal na ito sa batas ay makatuwiran sapagkat, kung papayagang tumanggap ng regalo ang ating mga opisyal, hindi malaon at malamang na ang magiging motibasyon sa pagtupad sa tungkulin ay hindi na dahil iyon ang kanyang tungkulin kundi ang regalo o pabuya na aasahan na niyang matatanggap. Paano naman ang hindi makapagbigay ng regalo?

Noon pong ako ay mahalal na konggresman, narinig ko rin na kalakaran daw na tumanggap ng s.o.p. ang konggresman mula sa mga kontratista ng mga proyekto ng pamahalaang nasyonal sa kanyang distrito. Sabi ng ilang kaibigan ko, kung hindi ko kukunin ang bahagi para sa konggresman, baka mapunta lang sa ibang tao. Sabi ko naman, kung mayroong gagawa ng katiwalian, siya ang pangunahing may problema o pasanin; at kung hindi natin kayang pigilin ang kalakaran sa pangkalahatan, maaari pa rin akong tumanggi pagdating sa aking sarili.

Ako po ay nasa unang termino ng panunungkulan bilang konggresman, maaaring ito rin ang aking huling termino (walang nakatitiyak sa hinaharap), at anupaman po ang isumbat sa marami kong mga depekto, maaasahan pa rin ninyo na ang inyong kinatawan ay hindi tumatanggap ng s.o.p., komisyon, kickback, tongpats, o anupaman ang maaaring itawag dito.

Ang kultura ng katiwalian ay isa sa pinakamalaking sanhi ng karalitaan ng ating bansa. Marahil, hindi malayo sa katotohanan ang sabihing halos kalahati ng budget ng ating pamahalaan ay napupunta sa katiwalian, sa halip na maayos na mga kalsada at pasilidad na pampubliko, tulong sa kabuhayan ng mga maralita, maayos na serbisyo ng mga ospital ng pamahalaan, at iba pa. Hanggang ngayon, sa maraming barangay sa ating lalawigan, ang pinagkukunan ng tubig ng mga mamamayan ay balon pa rin, parang nasa panahon pa rin nina Abraham at Isaac. May namamatay sa sakit na nagmula sa hindi malinis na tubig. At dahil halos walang maintenance ang ating provincial roads, kailangang maglakad ng sampung kilometro palabas ng barangay bago pa makakita ng sasakyang pampasahero; walang sasakyang makapasok dahil sira ang kalsada; hindi madala ang produkto mula sa sakahan papunta sa merkado.

Sa ating Hukbong Sandatahan, ang resulta ng kultura ng katiwalian ay kakulangan sa kagamitan, maaaring mauwi sa kamatayan ng ating mga kawal at pagkatalo sa digmaan.

Ito ang krisis ng ating bansa sa ating panahon. Kailangang matigil na ang kultura ng katiwalian sa ating pamahalaan. Hindi tayo aasenso habang hindi ito nawawala. Salamat na lang at marami na ring kumikilos na maituwid ang mga baluktot na landas sa mga kalakaran ng ating pamahalaan. Nagsisimula ito sa pagmulat ng kaisipan, sa paghubog ng ating kabataan.

Sana nga ay magpatuloy ang pagkilos na ito; kahit na, paminsan-minsan, may dalang kapaitan sa mga iskandalo at palitan ng mga akusasyon sa mga pahayagan at hukuman. Lahat po tayo ay may maitutulong sa pagsasakatuparan, sa paglikha ng “daang matuwid”, kahit dito na lang sa ating kinalalagyan. Kongkretuhin ang Daang Matuwid sa Sur! Kongkretuhin natin ang daang matuwid sa Palawan

Maraming salamat po at magandang araw sa inyong lahat.

O.C.P.A.J.P.M.

NEW YEAR'S MESSAGE

Mga casimanua,

Dague endong malesed nga bogtetenae, si Dennis Socrates, haga paabot y Happy New Year greetings canendong tanan.

Sa pagsalubong natin sa taong 2012, payagan po ninyo akong maghayag ng mga new year’s wishes para sa ating lalawigan:

Hindi lingid sa kaalaman ng nakararami nating mga kababayang may inaasahan tayong Recall Election patungkol sa gobernador ng ating lalawigan. Ito po ay bunsod ng petisyong inihain ng Citizens’ Recall Volunteers at Kilusang Love Malampaya ni Ginoong Cesar Rodriguez Ventura. Sana po ay mabigyang daan ang kahilingan nilang ito sapagkat ito ay karapatan din naman sa ilalim ng batas, matupad lamang ang mga kondisyong nakasaad sa Local Government Code na, sa aking pagkaalam, talagang tiniyak naman ng mga naghain ng petisyon.

Bukod sa ito ay karapatan nating mga mamamayan sa ilalim ng batas, ang Recall Election ay isang pagkakataon upang palitan ang isang lokal na opisyal, nang hindi na hintayin pang matapos ang tatlong taong termino, sapagkat bawat taong lumilipas ay malaking kawalan kapag ang opisyal na tinutukoy ay korap o walang kakayahang gampanan ang kanyang tungkulin.

Kung tutuusin nga, taun-taon, mahigit isang bilyong piso ang budget ng pamahalaang panlalawigan, at mahigit isanlibong tao ang empleyado nito, na dapat talagang panghinayangan kung pamumunuan ng isang gobernador na trapo, na ang napakababaw na pananaw sa kanyang tungkulin ay umikot lang nang umikot, mag-basketbol at mambola sa mga barangay, mamigay ng mga lapis at notebook sa ilang mag-aaral sa elementarya, gamit ang pera ng pamahalaang panlalawigan. Talagang hindi uunlad ang Palawan kung ganito ang pag-iisip ng ating pamunuan.

Nasubukan na natin ang ating gobernador. Sa siyam na taong pagiging congressman ng ikalawang distrito, walang sinabi man lamang na may laman. Hindi rin masasabing napaangat niya ang buhay ng mga taga-Sur. Inangkin nga niya bilang “kanyang” mga proyekto ang lahat ng ginawang kalsada sa Sur, lahat may karatula niya, lumalabas naman ngayong katatapos-tapos pa lamang ay sira-sira na kaagad (kailangan ipaliwanag ito ng ating gobernador). At kung hindi siya mapalitan sa pamamagitan ng inaasahang Recall Election, siyam na taon na naman tayong walang aasahan mula sa pamahalaang panlalawigan.

Kailangan natin, sa lalong madaling panahon, ang isang gobernador na may malinaw na pangitain, may pangarap para sa Palawan, at may kakayahang isakatuparan iyon.

Ito rin ang dahilan kung bakit ako bumalik sa pulitika noong halalang 2010, bilang suporta sa kandidatura ni Manong Pepito Alvarez para gobernador, sapagkat mayroon siyang mensahe ng pagbabago sa kaunlaran, at alam kong may kakayahan siyang pamunuan at pagalawin nang tama ang pamahalaang panlalawigan.

Hindi tayo pinalad na manalong gobernador si Manong Pepito Alvarez noong 2010, at isang malaking sanhi nito ang propagandang hindi raw siya taga-Palawan. Ngunit sino nga ba ang tunay na taga-Palawan? Ang Mitra ay hindi naman katutubong taga-Palawan. Si Baham hindi naman ipinanganak sa Palawan, hindi lumaki sa Palawan, hindi nag-aral sa Palawan, umangkin lang na siya ay Palaweño para kumandidato.

Aco Cuyunon, aqueng tatay Cuyunon, aqueng nanay Cuyunon, aco yng bata sa Cuyo, ag colay aco sa Cuyo, ag adal sa Puerto, aqueng mga bata tanan ag aradal sa PSU. Ngunit hindi ito ang tamang batayan ng pagpili ng ating mga halal na pinuno. Kung mayroong Tsino, Amerikano, Hapon, Kastila, Ilokano, Cebuano, Ilonggo, Tagalog, o anupamang lahing kandidatong may higit na magandang pangitain para sa Palawan at kakayahang isakatuparan iyon, siya ang dapat mahalal. Sa kabilang dako, gaano man ka-Cuyunon ang isang pulitiko, kung siya ay trapo o korap o walang kakayahang mamuno, hindi siya dapat maupo nang kahit sandali sa katungkulan.

Nagkamali tayo sa nahalal na gobernador noong halalang 2010. Ang Recall Election ay isang natatanging paraan at pagkakataon upang iwasto ang pagkakamaling iyon.

Huling-huli na tayo sa ibang lalawigan at lugar. Sana nga ay maging simula ng pag-angat ng Palawan ang pagpasok ng bagong taon. Samahan po ninyo ako sa aking New Year’s wishes na ito. Kasama rin po kayo sa aking mga panalangin.

Isang pinagpalang Kapaskuhan at Bagong Taon, at all the best po sa inyong lahat!

OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL NO. 1799, “AN ACT INTRODUCING DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES...”

STATEMENT OF REP. DENNIS M. SOCRATES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF LAWS IN OPPOSITION TO HOUSE BILL NO. 1799, “AN ACT INTRODUCING DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES...” (1.VI.2011)

Madame Chair, may i be heard in opposition to House Bill No. 1799, “An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines...”

With all due respect to the authors and supporters, the proposed measure—and any proposal to introduce divorce, for that matter—would run counter to the Constitution.

Section 12, Article II of the Constitution states: “The State recognizes the sanctity of the family and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution”. This is reiterated in Article XV, particularly Sections 1 and 2 thereof, which read: “Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”

The concept of divorce is diametrically opposed to the “solidarity” and “development” of the family. Divorce is precisely the breaking apart of the marriage and the family. It is also a direct attack on the institution of marriage—which the Constitution says should be “inviolable”—since marriage is meaningless if it is not “indissoluble”. Kung hindi rin lang “until death do us part”, hindi dapat tawaging "marriage": "live-in" lang yon o "em-yu".

On the practical aspect, while there are cases where the marriage may be considered a “failure”, the social benefits accruing from an accomodation of those exceptional cases could not possibly outweigh the costs of weakening the institution of marriage in general. We would then be reducing the dis-incentives for failure—which, in the final analysis, is a matter of choice on the part of the spouses. Norms should not be made out of exceptions.

Finally, on the question of divorce, our Lord Jesus Christ said: “Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Therefore now they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Mt 19:3-6)

For those who think they are serving the will of the people by promoting divorce—and i strongly believe that the majority of our people do not want divorce—may i paraphrase St. Thomas More, who was martyred over this same issue of divorce: We are good servants of the people, “but God’s first”.

Thank you, Madame Chair.

O.C.P.A.J.P.M.

MALIGAYANG KAARAWAN, KASAMANG DONG!

CONTEMPLATING TRIAL BY JURY IN OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
(Speech of Rep. V. Dennis M. Socrates in the House of Representatives, 22.V.2011)


Mr. Speaker, may i be heard on a matter of personal and collective privilege: this is about our personal security, protecting the lives of citizens—and for that matter, of politicians—and the apparent inadequacy of our criminal justice system in that regard.

It bothers this representation, Mr. Speaker, that two of my best friends have already been killed, murdered, as victims of what were obviously political assassinations. I am referring to Fernando “Dong” Batul, a former Vice-Mayor of Puerto Princesa City, who was felled by assassins’ bullets on the morning of May 22, 2006; and to Dr. Gerardo Ortega, a former Provincial Board Member of Palawan, who was gunned down very recently, on the morning of January 24, 2011.

Much has been made of the fact that both Dong Batul and Doc Gerry were hard-hitting, courageous, and idealistic broadcasters; but, yes, they were also politicians—in a very real sense, our colleagues in this noble calling of politics, of public governance.

Dong Batul was like a younger brother to this representation. He and i were running mates in the 2001 elections in which he was elected as Vice-Mayor; and I, as Mayor of Puerto Princesa City.

We were also almost simultaneously unseated without completing the three-year term of office: Vice-Mayor Dong Batul by way of an election protest; and i by way of a recall election. Together, Dong Batul and i ran again for our former positions in the 2004 elections, and, after losing together, we co-hosted a radio show until his tragic, untimely demise.

Yesterday, May 22, 2011, was the fifth anniversary of Dong Batul’s assassination; and tomorrow, May 24, would be his forty-second birthday, and so i wish to take this opportunity as well to greet Dong Batul a happy dies natalis in his present heavenly abode.

But the point in invoking this privilege of being heard by this august chamber and by our nation, the substance of my gripe, is that the gunman who was charged with the murder of Dong Batul was acquitted.

Days after the assassination of my friend, former Vice-Mayor Dong Batul, several witnesses came forward to testify that they saw the actual shooting incident and knew and could identify one of the two gunmen who murdered Dong Batul. That one whom they knew and could name was Police Officer Aaron Golifardo.

Based on the sworn statements of these witnesses, an Information was filed in the Regional Trial Court in Puerto Princesa City, docketed as Criminal Case No. 21309, entitled “People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus PO1 Aaron Golifardo and John Doe, accused”, for Murder.

Trial proceeded only against PO1 Golifardo because the co-accused John Doe was never found nor his true name ascertained. This representation was one of the panel of private prosecutors in the proceedings representing the family of the late Dong Batul; that is, until i assumed this present position as a humble member of this august body.

The defense took the line of alibi. Surprisingly, and to the mind of this representation, unfortunately, despite positive identification by eyewitnesses whose credibility were unimpeached, in a judgment promulgated very recently, while we were on recess, decision was rendered acquitting Police Officer Golifardo of the charge.

Mr. Speaker, i am not complaining about the acquittal of Police Officer Golifardo, nor against the judge who rendered the decision. Nevertheless, based on knowledge from my direct participation in the proceedings, i think that the outcome should have been a conviction rather than an acquittal—a thinking which i know is shared by many.

But like all acquittals, that judgment is immediately final and executory and not appealable, because of the constitutional right of the accused not to be twice placed in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. Thus, to revisit here the merits of that case would be like crying over spilled lugaw. What is more worth our while is to consider the possibility of adopting the institution of “trial by jury” in our criminal justice system.

Under the present state of Philippine law, the judge presiding over a case decides “questions of fact”, based on the evidence, as well as “questions of law”, based on his technical knowledge and interpretation of existing statutes and jurisprudence. But, as the example of the Dong Batul murder case shows, such a decision arrived at by the judge hearing the case can leave in its wake widespread feelings of dissatisfaction and a sense that justice was not done. The judge may also be vulnerable—unfair though it may be—to suspicions that his judgment was motivated by considerations other than an honest and competent appraisal of the facts, based on evidence, and of the law and jurisprudence applicable.

On the other hand, in a system of trial by jury, at least for purposes of this present discussion, the judge will continue to decide questions of law as they may arise in the course of the proceedings, based on his technical knowledge and understanding of law and jurisprudence. But the questions of fact, which depend on a human, subjective, appraisal of the evidence presented, will be decided by a jury, that is, a previously empanelled group of ordinary citizens, after discussing and deliberating among themselves towards achieving unanimity—especially regarding the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In the not so distant past, discussions among the bench and bar regarding the merits of adopting a system of trial by jury ended up dismissing the idea as not feasible because: a) the average citizen is supposedly not politically mature enough to be entrusted with determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case; and b) because of the time, effort and expense that selecting and maintaining a jury would cost during the trial period.

To the contrary, this representation submits that: a) if the average citizen is deemed politically mature enough to decide who will represent him in this august chamber, the average citizen is certainly capable of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case; and b) considering the immense time, effort and expense cases already cost at present, the additional costs, if any, net of savings on shorter deliberation-time, would only be marginal or negligible. But we would then have the satisfaction of knowing that the evidence were seen and evaluated, and the guilt or innocence of the accused discussed and deliberated-upon, by and among a group of persons interacting as citizens conscious of civic duty, of justice, and of the common good.

It is also the submission of this representation that while a lot of people might think that juries were composed of twelve persons in all criminal cases, the number need not be that many: we can perhaps have a jury of six persons; and the mandated trial-by-jury can be limited, at least initially, to heinous crimes or to criminal cases where the imposable penalty were reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death.

As i end, Mr. Speaker, i exhort our distinguished colleagues to consider and reflect upon the possibility of adopting a system of trial by jury in criminal cases, towards eventually passing a measure that would make the outcome of criminal trials less dependent on the subjective dispositions of the individual judge and more satisfactory to the public, to the political community as a whole.

Maligayang bati sa iyong kaarawan, Kasamang Dong!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you, distinguished colleagues.

PRIVILEGE SPEECH

TOWARDS A PHILOSOPHY OF LAW

(Speech of Rep. V. Dennis M. Socrates in the House of Representatives 6.XII.2010)

Mr. Speaker,

Thank you for this privilege of sharing some points for reflection. The title of this speech is “Towards a Philosophy of Law” because it is about the need to be clear on fundamentals, the need for a clarity that digs below the surface of mere routine or even of technical competence, in answering the question “What is the task of the legislator” and its even more fundamental companion, “What is law?” We are, of course, referring to human positive law, the “law of the land”, the laws of our legal system.

Philosophy, after all, cannot belong exclusively to professional philosophers (nor is this representation such a one, notwithstanding my family name). Indeed, philosophy is the knowledge of things according to their ultimate causes. Namimilosopiya na tayo sa pagsisikap nating alamin ang puno at dulo ng mga bagay-bagay; at kailangang magmuni-muni tayo nang ganito paminsan-paminsan upang alamin ang ating pinatutunguhan at nang hindi tayo maligaw ng landas.

Any philosophy of the legal system must, as a matter of course, define “law” according to its “ultimate causes”. To the school of Legal Positivism, law is simply “the command of the sovereign”; to the Historical school of jurisprudence, law is to be “found (not made)” in historical tradition; to the Sociological school, it is simply the “balancing of social interests” or “social engineering”; and to the so-called “Realist” view of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., it is “what judges in fact do”. But the most comprehensive school of legal philosophy is that which is sometimes referred to as the Classical School or the Natural-Law School. It is this approach that gives us the well-known definition of law, or the norms of the legal system, as “ordinances of reason for the common good promulgated by the political authority”.

Natural law thinking in jurisprudence teaches the existence of a set of norms (the natural moral law) as higher than the norms of the legal system (or human positive law) and to which these latter must conform. Thus, the legal system is a participation (by society through its political authority) in the natural moral law. The norms of the natural moral law derive from the truths of human nature and are discernible, albeit with difficulty, by human reason.

Law must conform with morality; and the norms of the natural moral law constitute the objective bases of morality. These norms are “objective”; that is, they have an existence outside the consciousness of the individual human person. Whether one agrees or not, whatever surveys may show, murder, theft, and so on, are immoral. They run counter to our authentic human nature. And laws that are immoral cannot be binding or cognizable as law. To cite a specific area of conduct, this representation cannot see how a law that promotes contraceptive sex can be valid law, because contraceptive sex is immoral.

Contraceptive sex is immoral because it is the use of the human sexual power in denial of the “procreative purpose” of the marital act. Indeed, reason tells us that the purpose of sex is procreation and the union of the spouses, and any exercise of this faculty in rejection of the procreative or unitive purpose is an abuse, a moral disorder.

It is not for nothing that the term “reproductive system” is applied to the collection of body parts involved. Sex is for reproduction; and it is therefore an abuse, a moral disorder, to utilize the human sexual faculty in denial of its procreative end, which is what contraceptive sex is all about.

Contraceptive sex is immoral just as it is immoral to eat for the sake of satisfying the appetite, in denial of the end proper to the “digestive system”, which is the nourishment and preservation of the individual's life. The pleasures involved in eating, and for that matter, in sex, are nature's ways of helping man to achieve necessary ends he might otherwise neglect to his injury. To place these pleasures above the purposes they are only supposed to facilitate would be like a bridegroom choosing the bridesmaid over his bride.

On the other hand, sex is, of course, different from eating: “For, unlike food, which is necessary for every individual, procreation is necessary only for the species, and individuals can dispense with it.” Indeed, the capacity to enjoy food is directly oriented to the good of the individual, while the capacity for sex is oriented to the good of the family and society (preservation of the species) rather than the need of the individual. This is a truth affirmed by those who have lived holy celibacy.
This divergence in ends would explain why the immorality of contraceptive sex is perhaps less obvious (to the individual) than that of gluttony (or the unbridled appetite for food and drink, in which induced vomiting, to allow one to continue eating or drinking, is roughly the moral equivalent of contraception). The undesirable consequences of the disorderly use of the sexual faculty (on family and society) may not directly affect the individual actor or agent, unlike those arising from over-eating or drunkenness.

The different purposes of the appetites for sex (for the good of society) and food (for the individual) would also explain why the pleasure in sex is more intense than in eating, This would be nature's way of compensating the individual for serving the social purpose. It is obvious that most people would still eat, knowing they need to in order to live, even with only the gentle prodding of the apetite. On the other hand, far less would think of marriage and raising a family without the greater incentive and strong urge therefor accompanying the marital act. Even so, the analogy stands: gluttony leads to the death of the individual; sex in denial of its procreative purpose leads to the death of the family and society.

Proponents of the notion that contraceptive sex were morally licit would argue that the purpose of the human sexual faculty is served already in the loving union of the partners; that there is no need to advert to the procreative end. On the contrary, however, to deny the procreative end of sex would also remove the rational basis for the very existence of the institution of marriage. Indeed, an indissoluble marriage is necessary precisely because sex is intended by nature for procreation, which includes the upbringing and education of the offspring; and because human life, in its totality, is so fragile in its developing stages. The good upbringing and education of the human offspring requires a lasting partnership of the father and mother; that is, lasting independently of the changeable preferences and circumstances of the parties. Thus, if sex is not for procreation, the institution of marriage would be meaningless.

It is precisely because of the obvious procreative purpose of sex that even primitive cultures have some sort of mariage. The common good requires a social “mechanism” to ensure the welfare of the offspring. Thus, to hold that the conjugal act may be separated from its procreative purpose, so as to justify contraceptive sex, is also to justify divorce (because there would be no need for permanence in the partnership of the spouses) and homosexuality (in which procreation is inherently impossible), and so to open the floodgates for the unwholesome scenarios arising from a prevalence of these (broken homes, juvenile delinquency, the AIDS epidemic, and so on), not to mention the problems of shrinking or aging populations in those nations that have early on adopted birth-control policies, confusing issues of social-justice and economics, with supposed over-population.

Contraception is the active removal of the procreative end from the sexual encounter by human action. On the other hand, sex during the infertile periods involves nothing of that sort: even if foreseen or availed of by the spouses, the impossibility of achieving the procreative purpose of the sexual encounter is “independent of their will”. Indeed, even during the fertile periods, “new life is not the result of each and every act of sexual intercourse.” Thus, sex during the infertile period is morally good in so far as it serves the unitive purpose (alone) of marriage, since it is not by human intervention that the procreative purpose is removed from the sexual encounter. It helps also to consider that “recourse to the infertile period” is actually, essentially, abstention or the non-use of sex during the fertile periods, in which case there is no abuse (no wrongful use) of the sexual faculty; hence, no moral disorder.

One last point. Much is often made of the idea of contraception as the only way to check population growth which supposedly condemns families to poverty. But this proposition unduly shifts the blame on the poor (for reproducing); whereas the causes of poverty lie elsewhere. Moreover, population control programs assume an authority to determine (by arbitrary, subjective criteria) who (or which economic classes, ethnic groups, or sectors) may multiply and who should eventually become extinct as a group. But the State has no such authority. To hold otherwise would justify the totalitarian state’s “one-child policy”, forced sterilization, even genocide or ethnic cleansing. Thus, right reason demands that society leave “the proper regulation of the propagation of offspring” to the right consciences of married couples, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity; that is, without the undue influence of propaganda and other inducements or coercive measures, whether state-sponsored, foreign funded or financed by big business, and certainly without “legitimizing” immoral acts through legislation.

Much more can and would need to be said on the matter, but, for the moment, this representation feels that he has said enough.

Thank you.