Not a simple incident !!!

A Filipino fishing boat was rammed by a Chinese vessel which abandoned the 22 fishermen in the sea in June 9. In this just an ordinary, simple maritime incident? This is the claim by a Chinese diplomat which was readily seconded by Duterte and then chimed in by his minions in cabinet and the senate. At first the tone of the government was indignation, then it softened down to mere downplaying.

Abandoning people to die in the sea is utter cruelty! It is so inhuman! This is even against international law! Were it not for a Vietnamese vessel which picked up the fishermen from the waters, they would have died. And our government does not have the guts to demand at least an apology from the Chinese. Why can’t the government do this? Is it so much indebted to the Chinese already?

It is good that there are still many Filipinos who are bold enough to show their indignation. They raise their voice, some in the streets, many in the social media and still many in their conversations. This is not right! The government should protect its people, at least within its own territory. We should not be subservient to the Chinese. Justice demands that there not only be apology but compensation for the damage done. If we keep silent now, the Chinese will just easily take us for granted in the future. Yes, we need an independent foreign policy – independent from all, not only from the West but also from the Chinese.

 It is very unfortunate that it is always the poor who are being taken for granted, and even victimized. The urban poor are the primary victim of the war on drugs, thousands have already been killed and the killings still continue; labor and farmer leaders are being killed, tagged as rebels; lands and schools of the lumads continue to be militarized. Now it is the turn of the fishermen to be abandoned.

Let us, who are able, speak up. Let us not take the line of Duterte that this is just an ordinary incident, and just be silent about it. This is serious and we demand apology and compensation. If the government does not raise its voice, let us raise ours. This is the least that we can do for our fishermen, and for our Philippine sovereignty.

Separation of Church and State

THERE was a new development in the May 13 election. Several lay faith groups came out openly with their choice of candidates to have an independent senate. This set of candidates, in turn, have been endorsed by some church leaders. Several quarters cried: “Foul! They were breaching the constitutional principle of separation of church and state!” Many church people were also wary to openly campaign for candidates in elections because of the separation of church and state issue. Whenever church leaders criticized government programs and practices people use the separation of state and church call to silence the government critics. What really is this separation of church and state provision of the constitution?

The mother provision is found in Article II, Section 6 of the Constitution, which states - - “The separation of Church & State shall be inviolable”.

This principle is given eight specific provisions in the constitution:

1.     The government is prohibited from establishing its own religion (Art III, Sec 5)

2.     The government is prohibited from prohibiting the free exercise of any religion (Art III, Sec 5)

3.     The government is prohibited from giving or showing any preference to or discrimination against any religion (Art III, Sec 5)

4.     The government is prohibited from using any “religious test” for the exercise of any civil or political rights (Art III, Sec 5)

5.     Churches, convents, mosques, and all their lands, buildings, improvements that are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious purposes are exempt from taxation (Art VI, Sec 28, par 3)

6.     The government is prohibited from appropriating and using any public money or property for the direct or indirect use, benefit or support of any religion, church, priest, pastor or imam (Art VI, Sec 29, par 2)

7.     The government is prohibited from registering as political party any religious denominations or sects (Art IX, Part C, Section 2[5])

8.     The government is prohibited from teaching religion as mandatory in public schools. Religion shall be only allowed to be taught in public schools if the parents give their consent in writing (Art XIV, Sec 3[3])

 Since congress has not passed any law to further give other provisions, these are the only instances for the provision of the separation and state.  As we can see, all the provisions are addressed to the state and not to the church. Never does the constitution prohibit church people, especially if they are citizens of the land, to participate in the life of the government nor to speak for or against the government.

In the Catholic Church, though, we also follow another law which we can Canon Law. Here the lay faithful are enjoined to actively participate in politics and are mandated to bring Gospel values to all aspects of life, including politics. The clergy, being shepherds of all the faithful who may belong to opposing political parties, are enjoined not to be partisan in political affairs in the sense of belonging to one particular political party. Canon Law, however, does not prevent the clergy to educate the faithful by speaking the truth and pointing out what is evil. Pope Francis clearly wrote: “The Church’s pastors, taking into account the contributions of the different sciences, have the right to offer opinions on all that affects people’s lives, since the task of evangelization implies and demands the integral promotion of each human being.” (Evangelii Gaudium 182)

It behooves us to know our rights so as not to be cowed down due to ignorance.

Is COMELEC already compromised?

Is COMELEC still an independent body, or is it already co-opted by the present regime? Many people cannot help asking these questions after this midterm election.

1.     Four days before the election day COMELEC declared the Nacionalista Party (NP) as the dominant minority opposition party. The NP is a known allay of the administration. How could it be considered as a dominant minority opposition party? Under the Omnibus Election Code the dominant minority party is guaranteed to receive copies of the election returns and certificates of canvass to assure check and balance in investigating the election results. This is a mechanism to ensure fairness and transparency, which now is lost because of the COMELEC decision.

2.     The COMELEC refused to allow NAMFREL to have an open access to the data and information in real time of the transmission results. An important traditional watchdog of clean and credible elections has been pushed aside.

3.     During the campaign period, COMELEC did not organize national open debates among candidates of senatorial candidates as it traditionally did in the past. Is this because the administration’s  senatorial candidates cannot stand public scrutiny on national issues vis-à-vis the opposition candidates? Could it be that it does not want to expose the ignorance and shallowness of the senatorial pets of the administration?

4.     There are still many glaring technical glitches that the COMELEC fail to convincingly address almost one month after the election, like the 7-hour lull in the transmission of the election results to the transparency server on the night of the election day, the malfunctioning of more than 1000 SD cards and  1,699 voting counting machines (VCM), the many allegations of pre-shaded ballots and other election irregularities.

5.     The recent decision to approve the midnight substitution bid of Ronald Cardema, former Chairman of National Youth Commission, to assume the representation of the youth party-list Duterte Youth. This decision is very questionable. First, Ronald Cardema is already 34 years old, and under Republic Act (RA) No. 7941, Section 9, the representative for the youth party list must at least be twenty-five (25) but not more than thirty (30) years of age on the day of the election. Second, Cardema filed his notice of substitution at 5:30 P.M. on May 12, a Sunday, contrary to Resolution No. 8665, which prescribes the filing of pleadings or motions only during office hours on regular working days.

These glaring issues against the COMELEC are indicative that it is no longer an independent body but has become another tool of the present administration to further its agenda. It has a lot of hard explanations to do to clear its name!