The RH Bill Debate: Fanaticism on Both Sides

A trade of insults between pro- and anti-reproductive health (RH) supporters last Saturday illustrates the need for level-headed and objective debate over the issue, instead of hurling insults at one another.

According to yesterday’s report in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, “members of the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines (DSWP) and the Filipino Free Thinkers (FFT) went to Manila Cathedral for a Mass and prayer service ‘for discernment’ on the RH bill.”

“DSWP and FFT members were in white shirts with the word ‘Damaso’ printed on the front, referring to the fictional friar who was a hated figure in the Jose Rizal novel ‘Noli Me Tangere’.”

When the group arrived at the Manila Cathedral, they were not allowed in by members of Pro-Life Philippines, despite the presence of “a poster outside the church stated that ‘everyone’ was invited to the event.” The group was even subjected to an angry rant by Pro-Life Philippines president Eric Manalang, who apparently said, “You are not Catholics in the sense of real Catholics. You are dissident Catholics.” When DSWP and FFT members decided to leave, at least two people shouted that they (the DSWP and FFT members) should have told their mothers to abort them.

Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s election lawyer, Atty. Romulo Macalintal, a Pro-Life Philippines member, also told the DSWP and FFT members that Pro-Life Philippines sponsored the Mass, and that they should “have their own affair.”

On one hand, I doubt that the DSWP and FFT members were actually there for the Mass, as their shirts were clearly designed to put down the Catholic Church. The “Damaso” label was started when tour guide Carlos Celdran interrupted a ecumenical service at the Manila Cathedral last Sept. 30 by flashing a “Damaso”; he was subsequently arrested for offending religious beliefs or some such charge. While Celdran gained popularity for his stunt, it demonstrates the negative attitude of pro-RH proponents against the Catholic Church. If anything, Celdran’s actions simply proved to the Catholic Church that the pro-RH bill’s side was not open to listening to the church.

On the other hand, the insults and actions of Manalang, Macalintal, and the unnamed hecklers demonstrate that they are as un-Christian as the side they oppose. Christ teaches compassion and understanding, so the actions of the Pro-Life Philippines simply demonstrate the close-mindedness of the conservative wing of the Catholic Church.

In addition, the Mass is a celebration that should be open to all, and not be exclusive to Catholics only. By acting exclusive, the Pro-Life Philippines group doesn’t do the Catholic Church any favors in the RH Bill debate.

Fanaticism on both sides of the RH bill debate simply polarizes the issue, and prevents any middle ground from being reached. While the Catholic Church cannot impose its beliefs on non-Catholic Filipinos, the RH Bill proponents should also keep in mind that majority of Filipinos are still nominally Catholic, so there has to be a way to reconcile both sides.

On that aspect, some headway has been made by Jesuits Fr. Ritchie Genilo, SJ, and Fr. John Carroll, SJ, who have labored to come up with what they call talking points on the RH Bill. Moreover, the Aquino administration, which has supported the RH Bill’s passing, has shown willingness to dialogue with the bishops of the Catholic Church. This is the way to go about discussing the RH Bill, not hurling insults at one another. Here's hoping that cooler heads prevail, and a more intelligent discussion about the issue can be done.

1st Anniversary of the Maguindanao Massacre

Today marks the 1^st anniversary of the infamous Maguindanao Massacre. A year ago today, the wife of Esmael Mangudadatu, the province’s gubernatorial candidate, and 56 other unfortunate victims were callously gunned down, allegedly by members of the rival Ampatuan clan. A year since the massacre, however, has not brought the killers any closer to justice, as the wheels of justice turn so abominably slow.

The murders sparked international outrage, particularly because women and media, long considered to be non-combatants, and thus, off-limits, were among the dead. Ironically, Mangudadatu sent his wife and relatives, along with the media, to file his certificate of candidacy since, he thought, they would be safe from harm, a belief that has been proven tragically wrong.

The tragedy also cast a long look on the presence of private armies in our country, and how local politicians have used them to consolidate and hold on to power. While there was initial noise about investigating and dismantling these armies, it appears that, like many initiatives in this country, this effort has fallen by the wayside.

The massacre was a black mark on the previous administration of former President, and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who has continued to shrug off accusations that her administration ultimately was the reason why the Ampatuans became so powerful, despite the overwhelming evidence of government assistance in Maguindanao, given the numerous weapons caches that had the seal of the army and the police. Up to now, though, Rep. Arroyo has remained unscathed and unaccountable for her minions’ actions.

And now, a year after the massacre, it seems like nothing has changed. The Ampatuans, while in jail, continue to slow down the pace of the trial through the efforts of their lawyer, Atty. Sigfried Fortun. It is estimated that, at its current pace, the trial will take around 10 years to finish. By then, given the short historical memory of our countrymen, the tragic event will likely be tragic only to the victims, buried under other scandals and news stories.

But, this is one event that we must not forget. Forgetting it will mean that another warlord will have license to commit a similar, or worse, atrocity. Forgetting it will mean that the deaths of the 57 victims will have meant nothing. By remembering the Maguindanao Massacre, and seeing its perpetrators tried and sentenced, perhaps it will be a sign of our growing maturity as a country.

UP Law's Response to Supreme Court's Show Cause Order

Below is the statement of UP Law Dean Marvic Leonen regarding the show cause order of the Supreme Court regarding the UP College of Law's statement accusing Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo of plagiarism and calling for his resignation. The ball is now in the Supreme Court.

Dean’s Statement
Filing of Compliance
In re: Letter of UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity”
A.M. No. 10-10-4 SC
November 19, 2010

Today, we filed a pleading called a “Compliance” for faculty members that were made respondents in the administrative matter entitled In re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring Integrity”. Accompanying this Compliance is a Manifestation on behalf of Dr. Owen Lynch, a research fellow and a visiting professor from the United States, and a separate supplemental submission from the Dean of the UP College of Law in response to his separate citations.
We are represented by a number of prominent law firms, lawyers and the Free Legal Assistance Group. They spent a considerable amount of time working with us to come out with a respectful yet principled defense that can be filed at the soonest possible time.
So as not be seen as waiving this possible defense, we have simply reserved the due process rights in our Compliance. These rights were also pointed out in the dissents to the Order requiring us to submit an explanation. What we were served was a full Resolution covered by a Notice of Judgment. The Resolution made findings of fact and law. We were not heard at first instance.
In our Compliance, we emphasized that our statement entitled Restoring Integrity was a fair comment on a published (and still uncorrected) decision of the Supreme Court in Vinuya versus Executive Secretary. The underlying intention in the expression of opinion of the faculty of the UP College of law is in the statement itself. It was and remains “to defend the integrity and credibility of the entire supreme court”, in the light of the perceived plagiarism and misrepresentation that was committed. It was issued in discharge of the solemn duties and trust reposed upon us as teachers in the profession of law and as members of the Bar to speak out on a matter of public concern and one that is of vital interest to us.
Our statement was issued so that the Court could urgently act to correct a wrong so as to inspire confidence in the legal system rather than to lessen it. Various individuals and academic institutions here and abroad had, by then, noticed the failures in attribution and misrepresentations. We still continue to call on the Court to institute ways and means to prevent similar occurrences. We are more than willing to sit down with the Court’s representatives and contribute our academic resources to find ways to lessen its docket as well as to continue to improve court staff’s ability to do research.
Public critique of a published decision is different from disrespect of the Court that makes such a decision. Law professors are the most likely experts within the legal profession to be able to assist the public understand these decisions. They should be expected to be independent and candid in their assessments. Critique will always come with some degree of irreverence. Otherwise those who wish to speak their truths may not be able to address those in power. We teach our students that injustice suffered by those who are powerless deserve their most effective voice. We teach them that that is what ennobles our calling as lawyers.
Timidity within the legal academia may result in a failure of democracy. From the point of view of the traditions of the University of the Philippines, it would have been a betrayal of our role as part of the national university if we failed to speak out on what we perceived as an injustice. We did not wish to betray our role as an academic institution especially on the eve of our centennial as an institution.
We thank all those who have publicly and privately expressed their support for what we stand for. Despite our circumstances, we ask that we all continue to be vigilant. We ask that, with all due respect, we continue to discharge our right to examine and comment on the decisions and procedures of our judiciary. This way we can constructively assist our Supreme Court find creative and lasting solutions to bring about the kind of justice that all our peoples deserve.

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

Sanction 'Em!

Last Monday’s bus strike stranded thousands of commuters, as bus operators kept their vehicles off the streets presumably to protest the imposition of the number coding on buses.

What was reprehensible was how the bus operators, represented by singer and Metro Manila bus operator association head Claire de la Fuente, as well as spokesperson, Atty. Grace Addulcul, tried to deny the fact that they held a strike, by saying everything from not being able to contact their drivers to claiming that the majority of their buses’ plates ended in 1 or 2, which meant that they would be banned from plying their routes. De la Fuente was even quoted as stating that there was no strike, because a few buses continued to operate, her simplistic argument being that, if there was really a strike, there would’ve been no buses at all.

If de la Fuente and the other bus operators saw the huge crowd of stranded commuters, which included elementary and high school students, risking life and limb by occupying almost half of Commonwealth Avenue just to be able to catch a ride, they wouldn’t have been so glib.

The bus operators’ excuses for last Monday’s strike are paper-thin, and government agencies in charge of supervising them should go after them, hammer and tongs, and remind them that they had no right to do what they did.

Public transportation is a public service, a fact that the striking bus operators should remember. Above making money, the bus operators have a duty to provide the public service of transportation, a duty they utterly failed to do during last Monday’s strike.

It doesn’t help that buses have been notorious for a number of traffic violations, from improperly loading and unloading passengers, sometimes in the middle of a busy thoroughfare, to ‘accidents’ that have resulted in injuries and deaths. Oftentimes, these bus companies are able to continue despite numerous violations, thanks to corruption in the MMDA, and the LTO.

At the same time, these agencies aren’t off the hook, since the reason for so many bus franchises is due to the lax supervision at the LTO, which handles the franchising. In addition, the MMDA, which supervises traffic, is lax in enforcing traffic laws, which often results in chaos on the streets. On Commonwealth Ave., where I normally travel, it is easy to spot the offending buses, as well as the lack of any traffic enforcement personnel, either police or traffic enforcer. The combination of such lapses is what led to the situation last Monday.

The sheer number of buses on the streets is what compelled the MMDA, with the approval of Metro Manila mayors, to experiment with the number coding scheme. Admittedly, it is a stop-gap measure at best, but the MMDA’s mandate is to improve the traffic flow along Metro Manila, and they do have to try whatever they can. Still, it is also important for agencies such as the LTO to look into the issue of colorum public utility vehicles, and take steps in order to get these off the street at the soonest possible time.

I do hope the LTO is serious about sanctioning these recalcitrant bus operators, by either suspending or canceling their franchises, and award these franchises to companies that understand the meaning of public service. At the same time, I hope our government leaders take concrete measures in order to improve the traffic situation in Metro Manila. Otherwise, we’ll just have more of the same.

Kudos to Manny Pacquiao!

Manny Pacquiao truly has the heart of a winner, as he proved once more last Sunday when he demolished Mexican Antonio Margarito to annex his eighth title. Despite his opponent’s bigger size and the longer reach, Pacquiao showed the world that he is, without a doubt, the greatest fighter of his generation.

While Margarito managed to get a few blows in the early going, it was clear that Pacquiao, despite a training regimen which his trainer Freddie Roach worried about, still possessed the blinding speed to throw a flurry of punches at Margarito, rocking the much bigger opponent. By the 10^th round, it was clear that the fight was Manny’s, even if Margarito’s camp didn’t think so.

If referee Laurence Cole or Margarito’s trainer Roberto Garcia had any compassion for Margarito, either of them should have stopped the fight or thrown in the towel as early as the 10^th round, when it was clear that the so-called “Tijuana Tornado” was beat, and beat good. By allowing the match to go the full distance, Cole and Garcia let Margarito absorb additional punishment that he shouldn’t have had to take. As a result, Margarito, whose eyes were almost swollen shut, had to undergo surgery to repair a broken right eye socket, an injury that could possibly end his career as a fighter.

With the win, and the title, Pacquiao has stamped his dominance over the sport, and, once more, raises the question of if or when he will face Floyd Mayweather, Jr, arguably the one fighter at Manny’s level . At this point, however, such a fight may be one the fans (which apparently include “Harry Potter” stars Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson) may want, but it won’t be the spectacle it could’ve been had the two sides agreed to fight earlier this year. Now, with Margarito’s face reduced to hamburger, I would agree with Yahoo! Sports’ Dan Wetzel that Mayweather will do everything he can to avoid getting into the ring with Pacquiao in the near future. If Margarito, who hits harder than Mayweather, wasn’t able to faze Pacquiao, what can Mayweather do?

At this point, though, the question is moot, since Mayweather, as well as his uncle/trainer Roger, is facing a number of separate domestic violence charges, charges that could put Mayweather behind bars for more than a decade. Should that happen, the fight fans dearly want to see will exist only in their imaginations.

Congratulations once more to the fighting congressman from Saranggani for bringing glory to the Philippines, and serving as a reminder that yes, the Filipino can.

Hornet's Nest

When the members of the Supreme Court ordered the 37 members of the University of the Philippines (UP) Law faculty to show cause for issuing a statement accusing Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo of plagiarism and calling for his resignation, I wonder if they were aware of the firestorm that they would unleash.

In the first place, Justice Del Castillo was actually guilty of plagiarism, since his decision denying Filipino comfort women the help of the government in their fight for justice, now known as the Vinuya decision, contained a number of passages that had been lifted from various sources, including parts from international scholars.

However, after its ethics committee evaluation, the Supreme Court ruled that Justice Del Castillo did not commit plagiarism, and that the error apparently lay in the inability of Microsoft Word to alert Del Castillo’s legal researcher that she had inadvertently deleted the necessary footnotes. In addition, there was no malicious intent on the part of Del Castillo and his legal researcher, so, concluded the Supreme Court, neither of them was guilty of plagiarism.

The UP Law faculty saw it differently, which is why they released their statement condemning Del Castillo and calling upon him to resign. It should be noted that they released the statement while the Ethics Committee was still deliberating on the matter, and, as lawyers, are bound to respect the processes of the Court. It should also be noted that the language in the statement can be interpreted as overly harsh, and, as lawyers, the faculty should still show a modicum of respect to the Supreme Court, even if its members appear to be unworthy of it. If ever, this is the key to the show cause order of the Supreme Court.

However, by clearing Justice Del Castillo and his legal researcher, the Supreme Court displayed a fraternal side, as it practically redefined what plagiarism means in order to create an escape for their beleaguered colleague. In closing ranks to protect one of their own, the Supreme Court sacrificed its credibility and integrity as an institution, and, by ordering the UP Law faculty to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for their statement, the Court has displayed a predilection to bully, a willingness to utilize the power at its command to defend its wrongdoing with another wrong.

In the wake of its show cause order, the Supreme Court has stirred a hornet’s nest of disagreement. The Ateneo de Manila University, Del Castillo’s alma mater, issued a statement flatly stating that plagiarism involves the act itself, and the intent only serves to help determine the sanction that will be given; the statement, though, stops short of condemning the Supreme Court decision clearing Del Castillo.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., the noted constitutionalist, called upon the Supreme Court to withdraw its order against the UP Law faculty, saying that the Court's image has been "tarnished" and that its order was a "blow against freedom of expression."

Chris Tams, Evan Criddle, and Evan Fox-Decent, the authors of the works which were plagiarized by Del Castillo and his legal researcher, have also come out with statements (here and here) decrying the Supreme Court's action on the UP Law faculty.

The Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) and the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations (Cocopea) both issued statements in the newspapers condemning the Supreme Court decision, and the CEAP stated its support for the UP Law faculty.

The statement issued by the De La Salle University College of Law is probably the strongest condemnation since the UP Law statement. It starts out by stating, “Our job as legal educators is to shape lawyers, not fixers.” It goes on to condemn the act of plagiarism committed by Del Castillo, and calls on the Supreme Court to withdraw its show cause order against the UP Law faculty.

Whatever possessed the Supreme Court to issue the show cause order, it was an ill-advised move, as it compounded a wrong with another wrong. While the UP Law statement might have been premature, it still recognized that a wrong was being committed by the highest court in the land, and the UP Law faculty moved to identify that wrong, and attempt to preserve the Court’s integrity. By going after the UP Law faculty, the justices of the Supreme Court are now discovering just how wrong their move to protect their colleague was, and, should they persist in persecuting the UP Law faculty, the justices will be sacrificing the integrity that is so essential to the image of the Supreme Court.

Musings from Last Week

Last week was busy enough for me that it was impossible to write about anything. It was a pity, though, considering the number of noteworthy events that occurred last week.

On the local side, there was that flap about the President’s assistant speechwriter who tweeted about her experiences from the President’s trip to Vietnam. Unfortunately, all she could tweet were negative experiences, specifically about the quality of the wine served at one of the dinners, and about how she couldn’t find any handsome men. I think the speechwriter could learn a lot from the old adage about not saying anything if one cannot find anything nice to say at all.

One of the challenges about using internet social networks is the separation of one’s private life from one’s public life. While there are controls which can help here, not all of us are savvy in their use, and, as a result, our private comments become public. It’s even more challenging when one is a public figure, such as a government official, since what one posts or says in public reflects on his or her superiors. That’s the thing that Mai Mislang, the hapless speechwriter, did not consider when she posted her damning tweets. For a government official, there is little or no private life, which means that, when in government service, one should be more discreet about what one says or does.

One the international side, the big news last week consisted of the natural disasters in Indonesia, as well as the stunning defeat of the Democratic Party in the United States’ mid-term elections. I'll focus on the U.S. elections.

Last week’s elections in the U.S. delivered a message to President Barack Obama, primarily that Americans were dissatisfied with the way he and the Democratic Party were running the country. It should be noted that the U.S. is undergoing some severe economic problems, and, so far, President Obama has been unable to set a course to lead Americans out of the mess they’re in.

The election results also shows a marked impatience in American attitudes, as well as a short-term memory that I thought I only saw in Filipinos. It should be remembered that the current economic problems were inherited by Obama from the previous Republican administration, and that the changes the President and his party instituted would take time in order to show concrete results. For Americans, particularly the Republicans and the ultra-conservative Tea Party movement, it wasn’t enough, and the Republican Party took advantage of the situation and fed American fear to victory.

Now, the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives, and the Democrats’ majority in the Senate has been greatly reduced. President Obama is going to have to try to work with the new leadership in the House in order to continue whatever initiatives he has planned.

However, based on their statements, it appears that the Republicans aren’t interested in working together, and are focused more on the goal of winning the Presidency in 2012. It’s going to be interesting to see how the Republicans are going to help solve the country’s economic woes, since their performance will either help or hinder their 2012 plans. By winning big in this year’s elections, the Republicans have now taken on the burden of easing their countrymen’s problems. If they don’t even attempt to play ball, it could reflect badly on them, since the victims of their political play won't just be the Democrats, but the American people.