Scientific arguments vs abortion and divorce
- By Bernardo M. Villegas
I almost started a riot after addressing a group of university students in which I shared my experiences in the writing of the Constitution of the Philippines.
I described the various debates among the members of the Constitutional Commission created by then President Corazon Aquino to draft the Philippine Constitution that was ratified by the Philippine electorate in 1987. I especially focused on the provisions in our Constitution that protect the life of the unborn from conception and that foster the stability of marriage. Because it was a recounting of history, I had to cite the arguments I used against abortion: That it is the killing of the baby in the womb of the mother.
Among the university students were a few Europeans and North Americans who were strongly pro-abortion. They objected that a professor would try to influence their views by expressing mere opinions and not scientific evidence. According to these young minds heavily influenced by empiricism, i.e., the only truths are those that can be supported by empirical evidence, professors should only teach science, not opinions. Well, I have news for these enraged students. There is more than enough empirical evidences in the social sciences of psychology, psychiatry, and sociology that both abortion and divorce do much damage both to individual persons and to society at large. The views I expressed against the evils of abortion and divorce are based on hard scientific evidence. In a two-day congress held recently in Rome organized by the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family, social scientists presented findings of their research showing the lasting negative psychological impact of abortion. One of the participants, Victoria Thorn, founder of Project Rachel, told those in attendance: "The wound of abortion is both spiritual and human and must be resolved in both realms to be healed." The woman who has had an abortion "believes that she committed the unforgivable sin. That is the core of the spiritual wound. She is a mother who knows she is responsible for the death of her child, a child she never got to birth, to see, and to hold. That is the core of the human wound."
Another speaker reported on the findings of psychiatry: "The trouble with every abortion is that it profoundly and inescapably works havoc on an individual, a unique person, who fits no mold, falls into no organized category. If she has ever had a scintilla of faith, or religious conviction, or moral education, she is crushed with guilt--a guilt that may be driven deep into the unconsciousness by whatever forces at work--but which is then a cancer in the very soul."
As reported by Carrie Gress in Zenit International (April 7, 2008), research also has shown that divorce inflicts much psychological damage on the children of the divorced parents. There is evidence that "the grown children of divorce say there is no such thing as a "good" divorce. Even amicable or "good" divorces require children to grow up between two worlds, forced alone to make sense of their parents’ often dramatically different beliefs, values, and ways of living." In a presentation made by Elizabeth Marquardt, the vice president of the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute of American Values in New York, the participants were told that "when parents divorce, the tough job of dealing with the conflict between their worlds does not go away. Instead, divorce hands the job of making sense of the two worlds to the child alone. The result is that divorce sows lasting inner conflict in children’s lives. This inner conflict burdens children, making them grow up too soon."
Children of divorce, Marquardt added, "feel like the divided selves, torn between their parents’ world. They feel much more alone. They become guarded and often secretive. They don’t know where they belong. They feel like they have to figure out the big questions in life alone. They struggle with huge losses that impact their spiritual lives. And they do all this in isolation and silence, because no one ever talks about the job they’ve been given, to make sense alone of their parents’ two different worlds."
These are findings of scientific research in the social sciences. Unfortunately, the social sciences themselves do not have the solutions to provide the healing to the psychological wounds of abortion and divorce. Although I am sure the enraged students will refuse to accept that there is a world beyond the physical and psychological level, I will quote the remedies suggested by the participants of the congress. Marquardt says that churches can be a tremendous help to children and families affected by divorce, not by avoiding the topic because it makes some uncomfortable, but by discussing it from the pulpit. "It is fully possible to be compassionate to children of divorce and emphasize the importance of marriage while, at the same time affirming and supporting single and divorced parents."
As for abortion, Thorn underlined that "the sin of abortion has become so pervasive, so overwhelming today that it is imperative that the Church not only continue its prophetic stance in protecting unborn human lives, but also call to healing the millions who have been drawn into the evil of abortion, willingly or under duress, knowledgeable or ignorant of the reality, extending to them God’s forgiveness and healing. Women who experience healing through God’s mercy and love do not have more abortions. Men who are restored after abortion, work diligently to end abortion as do the women. Indeed, these people become the cornerstones of the Culture of Life."
I find it providential that some of the students I have met during this sabbatical period in Europe have given me the opportunity to explain more fully the sad truth about abortion and divorce, two social evils that are so deeply ingrained in many industrialized societies. I will pray that these young minds will eventually be enlightened about the scientific truth that this world would be a much happier place to live in if we can minimize, if not totally eradicate, these two widespread practices which cause so much pain and suffering to millions of individuals.
(Pasted from: http://www.mb.com.ph/OPED20080502123378.html)
WWW inventor says web only in infancy
The World Wide Web is still only in its infancy, its British inventor said Wednesday, on the 15th anniversary of the web's effective launch.
Tim Berners-Lee told the BBC that the web, which started life in the CERN physics laboratory on the Franco-Swiss border in the early 1990s, could develop in unimaginable directions but above all should be a force for good.
"What's exciting is that people are building new social systems, new systems of review, new systems of governance," he said.
"My hope is that those will produce... new ways of working together effectively and fairly which we can use globally to manage ourselves as a planet."
The comments came on the anniversary of the announcement by CERN on April 30, 1993 that the World Wide Web could be used by everyone, after Berners-Lee and a colleague persuaded their bosses to provide the programme code for free.
The web -- of which the abbreviation www forms the start of all online addresses -- is now the ubiquitous network via which information is shared on the Internet. An estimated 165 million websites now exist, the BBC reported.
"The web has been a tremendous tool for people to do a lot of good even though you can find bad stuff out there," said Berners-Lee, adding that one day the web will put "all the data in the world" at the fingertips of every user.
But "we have only started to explore the possibilities of (the web)," he said, adding that it was "still in its infancy".
Robert Cailliau, who worked with Berners-Lee to open up the web, stressed that not all the bosses at CERN were in favour of making the web universally accessible.
"We had to convince them that this was going to take off and it was a really big thing. And therefore CERN couldn't hold on to it and the best thing to do was to give it away," he said.
Competing technologies -- such as Gopher developed at the University of Minnesota in the United States -- were also offering a way of connecting documents on the Internet, he said.
"If we had put a price on it like the University of Minnesota had done with Gopher then it would not have expanded into what it is now.
"We would have had some sort of market share alongside services like AOL and Compuserve, but we would not have flattened the world."
(Pasted from:
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/may/02/yehey/techtimes/20080502tech1.html)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008 EAST WEST The anti-GMA Black and White Movement and supporters of the political opposition expressed dismay after the CBCP refused to support the GMA resign movement. A chorus of statements to demonize the bishops’ stand followed this. Two recent developments may be part of the effort to reverse the bishops’ stand. There is that statement by Mr. Rodolfo “Jun” Lozada—now surrounded by nuns and priests - that he might leave the Catholic Church because he could not accept the CBCP position. The second is former President Corazon Aquino’s exhortation to the faithful to pray for the CBCP so it could be enlightened. The problem with President Aquino is that the bishops must have read her motives. The widow of our hero is no longer an independent entity, but is seen as an implementor of the political agenda of some political forces. She is no longer that credible. That is why when Cory makes statements like GMA “should make the supreme sacrifice,” (translation: Resign!) the public seems to be wary. Despite our secular Constitution, we cannot underestimate the influence of the bishops in our national life. That is why any political plan to oust the government has to have their blessing. We have seen this in the overthrow of Marcos when the CBCP took a collective stand against tyranny. The goading of the bishops in the present situation could only be part of the bigger plot. Despite the outspokenness of some bishops like Bishop Cruz of Pangasinan, the CBCP stepped on the brakes and junked the resign call. They probably know that if they support the resign call, this can lead to political crisis. And for heaven’s sake, why should they risk the prestige of their Apostolic office for the sake of putting one politician in power? The CBCP must have also realized that to allow themselves to be the tool of the power grab could be very divisive. The country is not 100 percent Catholic. There are Filipinos of other faiths which, by the way, is growing by the day. Surely, these other sects would not welcome the idea of a government that was put in power by clerics. That would bring forth memories of the Spanish colonial times when the friars exercised influence over political and economic affairs. Perhaps, it is best for the political personalities who want power served them on a silver platter to leave the Catholic bishops alone. They should fend for themselves in attaining their political goal. It is unfair to the 80 percent of Filipinos who consider themselves Catholics to have their bishops made the unwitting tool of an attempt at a political overthrow. It is perhaps time for national society to delineate the role of political parties and the clerics. If there are some political forces who want to oust the present government, they should use their own resources to carry out this task. But they must not get a free ride from the bishops whose role in society is different. The bishops should also ignore the threat of Lozada to resign from the Catholic Church on the ground that the CBCP has refused GMA’s resignation. By his own admission, Lozada is a nominal non-practicing Catholic who did not reject corrupt practices when he was in government. He should not be a big loss to the Church. pasted from: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/mar/18/yehey/opinion/20080318opi3.html
By Julius F. Fortuna
Why the bishops reject Cory Aquino
THE political temperature has died down, partly because Lent comes this week. But, there remains an effort to influence the members of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to support the move to remove President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo before her term ends in 2010. Expect the agitation to increase after Holy Week.
Friday, March 14, 2008
By Dan Mariano
Selective reporting
Have the news media—like the opposition-dominated Senate and civil society—become afflicted with selective perception? Have the newspapers and networks, whose reporters are closely following the NBN-ZTE controversy, decided to pick up and report only those bits of information that seem to confirm the guilt of the so-called Greedy Group—and nothing else?
Opposition senator and presidential wannabe Panfilo Lacson arranged for the appearance of telecommunications expert Leo San Miguel at the Blue-Ribbon hearing on Tuesday. However, as virtually all the papers bannered the next day, the surprise witness ended up surprising Lacson himself, along with his nonplussed colleagues.
The senators had expected San Miguel to confirm the allegations earlier made by Jose de Venecia 3rd, Rodolfo Lozada Jr. and Dante Madriaga who all claim that the contract for the National Broadband Network was awarded to China’s Zhong Xing—pronounced as Jong Tsing—Telecommunications Equipment Co. Ltd. (ZTE) on the basis of multimillion-dollar kickbacks to persons closely identified with President Arroyo.
Instead, San Miguel consistently testified—despite severe pressure from badgering senators who called him “liar” to his face again and again—that he had no direct knowledge of the ZTE “commissions,” which allegedly went or was promised to the Greedy Group consisting of former Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos, San Miguel and several others.
Last Monday’s hearing, lasting some 12 hours, was yet another marathon session. The dailies and networks reported how San Miguel was grilled, how de Venecia 3rd, Lozada and Madriaga disputed his insistence that he had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged kickbacks—and even rehashed info on how the contract price ballooned purportedly because of a $130-million commission.
Yet, when it finally came for San Miguel to reveal what he knows of the de Venecias’ and Lozada’s participation in the deal, most of the media suddenly turned deaf and blind.
PDI article
I subscribe to five newspapers and regularly scan the websites of the other dailies and networks. Only the Philippine Daily Inquirer seems to have carried a report on San Miguel’s disclosure. Interestingly, it was buried in the 10th paragraph of an article headlined, “Coming soon at the Senate: War of wiretap tapes,” bylined Gil C. Cabacungan and published on page A17.
Cabacungan’s report, which was not reflected on PDI’s website, read in part:
“Yesterday’s main witness, Leo San Miguel, claimed that former House Speaker Jose de Venecia had lobbied for his son’s company to be included in the NBN contract even though it had already been awarded to ZTE Corp.
“In a meeting at the former Speaker’s mansion at Forbes Park, the elder de Venecia strongly urged Abalos’ group to find a way to include his son in the NBN contract. ‘You know boys, let us not forget my son, let us work together,’ said San Miguel quoting the Speaker.
“San Miguel said he was tasked to find a way for de Venecia’s Amsterdam Holdings Inc. (AHI) to piggyback on the NBN by distributing some of the areas to the Speaker’s son through geographical distribution of the equipment.
“San Miguel said AHI’s entry into NBN was the reason why Joey de Venecia and the Abalos group flew to China to discuss AHI’s entry into the deal.
“San Miguel also accused Lozada of brokering for the interest of AHI claiming that the star witness was not hired for the technical aspects of the deal but for financial considerations, specifically AHI’s entry into NBN.”
Criminal liability
The law expressly forbids the relatives of ranking government officials from participating in any government contract. However, the de Venecias have thus far eluded criminal liability for their bid to get a piece of the action, as it were, from the NBN-ZTE deal.
To use Lacson’s favorite phrase, fair is fair. The testimonies extracted by the Blue-Ribbon inquiry from the senator’s “resource persons” tend to indicate wrongdoing by the Greedy Group—and even by the President and her husband. However, given San Miguel’s voluntary disclosure last Monday, shouldn’t the inquisitors at the Senate also focus on the culpability of the de Venecias?
Unfortunately, the public will probably never get a chance to see how the senators respond to San Miguel’s revelation about the former speaker and his son.
The senators suspended their NBN-ZTE inquiry late Tuesday but failed to set the next hearing date. Are they finally beginning to show symptoms of investigation fatigue—or is it a case of “once burned, twice shy”?
Electric shock, as in kuryente, can do that to anyone.
Pasted from: http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/mar/14/yehey/opinion/20080314opi2.html
International Women’s Day
TO honor the significant changes and shift in attitudes in both women’s and society’s thoughts about women’s equality and emancipation, International Women’s Day is observed on March 8 of each year as a day when women are recognized for their achievements without regard to divisions, whether national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, economic, or political. It is also an occasion for looking back on past struggles and accomplishments, and more importantly, for looking ahead to the untapped potential and opportunities that await future generations of women.
More than 60 years have passed since the founders of the United Nations inscribed in the first chapter of the United Nations Charter the equal rights of men and women and since then, studies have taught the world that there is no tool for development than the empowerment of women.
Over the decades, we have seen progress in many fronts for women. Life expectancy and fertility rates have improved, more girls are enrolled in primary school, and more women are earning an income than ever before. New challenges have emerged. But one thing stands out above all – we have learned that the problems women face are not problems without solutions, and we have learned that what works and what does not. If we are to change the historical legacy that puts women at a disadvantage in many societies, we must implement what we have learned on a larger scale and we must take specific, targeted action in a number of areas.
The empowerment of women continues to be a central feature of the efforts of world organizations to address social, economic, and political challenges around the globe. The pertinence of the global theme for this year’s celebrations, "Shaping Progress,’’ is central to the advancement of women around the world and to the progress of human kind.
With the challenges facing humanity, it has become necessary for women to fully participate in using their influence in all spheres of society, including involvement in determining the processes fundamental in the achievement of socio-economic goals, equality, development, and peace.
On International Women’s Day, let us rededicate ourselves to ensure that half the world’s peoples take up their place in shaping progress in the world.
(pasted from: http://www.mb.com.ph/OPED20080308118866.html)
Should Arroyo resign? Upsides, downsides
MANILA, Philippines -- Do I want truth and accountability in the country? Of course I do—I’ve sought it and fought for it, as we all should. Do I want an end to corruption, and punishment for the wrongdoers? Of course I do—I’ve sought it and fought for it, as we all should. Do I want President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to be removed from office? Only if she has been found guilty of crimes listed in the Constitution and only through the prescribed process—in short, impeachment.
So do I want Ms Arroyo to resign? It depends on what the alternatives are. If it is a choice between resignation and being forcibly ousted from office, clearly resignation is the superior option. Forcible removal will surely be marked by violence, even civil war in its aftermath, with the Left and the Right grappling for power. The people who favor this course, who openly ask the military to “protect the people” and intervene, fail to see the ironies of their position. One irony is that while one of Ms Arroyo’s “sins” is the increased militarization of government, her forcible removal may arguably result in more militarization—like a junta either led or controlled by the military. Another irony is that while doubts have been aired about her “legitimacy,” there will be no doubt whatsoever about the illegitimacy of her successor/s (unless it will be her constitutional successor who steps into her shoes, which is an unlikely scenario, given the lust and greed for power all around).
But if the choice is between resigning and finishing her term, the choice is not so clear. And the most rational way of deciding one way or another is to compare the costs and benefits, the advantages and disadvantages of both. From the point of view of the country as a whole, of course, not from that of the vested interests, political and ideological, who talk a patriotic talk but walk a self-serving one.
So what good will it do if she resigns (or alternatively, what “bad” will continue if she stays on)? Not necessarily in order of importance: First, her appointees, who are co-terminus with her, will have to go—and a lot of them are corrupt, incompetent, or both. It is obvious that many were chosen either because of their loyalty (to her or her husband), or as payment for political debts. And we are not talking only about secretary- and undersecretary-level appointees, but also about the director-level appointees, not to mention the directorships in government-owned or -controlled corporations. It will give the public great satisfaction to see the backs of the likes of, say, Raul Gonzalez, Winston Garcia, Romulo Neri, or Sergio Apostol.
A second “good” from an Arroyo resignation is that the unhealthy hold of the military/police over the presidency—exhibited in many forms, not the least of which is the number of retired military people in civilian government agencies and corporations, and her seeming inability to put her foot down on their alleged civil and human rights abuses—will be severed; or, at least, the doubts about civilian supremacy over the military will be erased.
Thirdly, if she goes, her family goes too—or at least the power by affinity (her husband, her brother-in-law), and the corruption allegedly arising from that power. The dynasty train will be stopped in its tracks, and they will no longer have any influence to sell or use.
Now let’s go to the other side of the ledger: What good will it do if she stays on (or what bad will it do if she resigns)? For one, the economy has never looked so good: the gross domestic product, or output, increasing at an increasing rate, a healthy fiscal picture (the fly in the ointment is low tax effort ratio), low interest rates (her choices haven’t been all bad, and her central bank governor was a good choice, even if they are from the same province), increased human priority and primary spending, increased direct foreign investments, much lighter debt burden, higher international credit ratings … the list of her government’s accomplishments is quite long. It’s not perfect, but it is arguably a better performance than that of her predecessors, at least as far as the macroeconomy goes. For two, while this splendid growth does not seem to have trickled down, i.e., while the growth hasn’t led to poverty reduction (at least between 2003 and 2006), the 2007 picture seems to be brighter as far as poverty is concerned. And one can’t say she isn’t desperately trying, with her Accelerated Hunger Mitigation Program in response to the result of a survey by the poll group Social Weather Stations showing an increase in hunger, and her Ahon Pamilya Pinoy Plan (a conditional cash transfer program that has great promise) in response to the country’s lagging behind in achieving the Millennium Development Goals for basic education.
So what weights do we put on each item, so we can decide whether she should resign or she should stay? That’s up to each of us. Looking at that list though, as far as I am concerned, I think that she should stay (as long as she exiles the spoiler). Why? Because the good of her resigning will likely not be permanent: there is no assurance that Vice President Noli de Castro will not make the same mistakes and will not have similar political debts to pay to other people. At the same time, there is no assurance that he will be able to manage the economy as well as she has.
What about corruption? Changing guard will not guarantee its eradication. Only constant vigilance and whistle-blowing will—just as what we are doing with the ZTE national broadband network (NBN) project. There is no quick fix.
Irrelevant 
Today’s purported inter-faith rally in Makati, if the anti-administration Black and White Movement is to be believed, will be attended only by the “relevant” religious groups. Apparently, to this so-called civil society group, the minimum requirement for relevance is a willingness to demand the resignation of President Arroyo.
That makes failed presidential candidate and televangelist Eddie Villanueva suddenly relevant (or at least worthy of mentioning in news reports again), because Villanueva has announced that he will attend the rally. By the same token, Mike Velarde, leader of the El Shaddai charismatic group, is irrelevant in the eyes of the movement because Velarde has declared that he and his followers will not come to Makati.
Of course, according to B&W leader Leah Navarro, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has already chosen to be irrelevant by not calling for the resignation of the President earlier this week. Strangely, even by Navarro’s definition, this is something that does not make the entire Catholic Church useless to the movement.
Navarro, in a television interview, explains: Her group intends to continue wooing other members of the Catholic Church who are “more truth-seeking” and “dedicated,” Catholic leaders “who are more open and not members of the CBCP.”
Thank goodness for the still-relevant Christian Brothers of De La Salle and some religious orders belonging to the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines who are still demanding the resignation of President Arroyo. These religious groups, which meet the B&W’s inflexible relevance requirements, are probably still going to Makati to join the always-relevant Leftists—who will apparently stop demanding that a President (any President) resign only when a fellow traveller assumes the office—and the washed-up opposition politicians, big and small, who want to become relevant again by getting some television face-time at today’s shindig.
(One final relevant group, the jailed military adventurists belonging to the so-called Magdalo group, cannot attend the rally for obvious reasons. If the gathering was to be conveniently held on a day that a hearing of their rebellion case had been scheduled in nearby Makati City Hall, they probably would have just walked to Ayala Avenue again.)
B&W’s dismissal of the bishops as irrelevant, while expected in the wake of the Church leaders’ refusal to call for the President’s resignation, is also very enlightening. By defining the relevance to the anti-Arroyo forces of the various religious groups, B&W reveals their real purpose in the current political turmoil, at least to the people who merely want to use them.
Indeed, by virtually admitting that the real purpose of religious groups to the “resign” movement is to pad the protesters’ ranks until some predetermined critical mass is achieved, B&W and the other ringleaders of the recent mass actions reveal that they are no different from the aforementioned Magdalo putchists. By seeking to rally the people to their cause, the “resign” proponents only want to give the impression of having the numbers to bring down the government, with elections still two-and-a- half years away.
This is just a rehashed, civilianized version of the entire Magdalo strategy, as implemented both at Oakwood and at the Peninsula: Assemble a hard core of people calling for the government to step down, then wait for the people to come.
It doesn’t matter where you are in the political spectrum. Just as the Magdalo had no qualms about bedding down with the communists to advance their cause (to the horror of their military brothers-in-arms who had been fighting the underground Left for decades), B&W is demanding that religious leaders cohabit with the same godless forces to bring down duly constituted authority.
This sort of political marriage of convenience happens all the time, of course, in the name of unity and coalition-building. However, when any group attempts to officiate the political equivalent of the shotgun marriage outside of an election campaign period, it must be condemned as an opportunistic power grab, whether or not the proponents carry firearms.
Besides, if I were the leader of a religious group, I would much rather be called irrelevant by power-grabbers than to be willingly used in a cynical numbers game intended to topple authority outside of the voting booth. Because, at the end of the day, the biggest difference between a working democracy and mob rule is the fact that elections are scheduled, while coups d’etat and other power grabs take place only when a small group of conspirators decide that they should.
And given the success rate of both Magdalo and the Black and White Movement, it’s easy to see who—in the eyes of the people—the truly irrelevant groups in our midst are.
(pasted from: http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=jojoRobles_feb29_2008)
Biased and selective
There’s a new phenomenon among presidential hopefuls. They become endorsers of popular products like soap detergents or anything imaginable at all. The objective is to get maximum exposure either over television or in print.
Senator Mar Roxas, for instance, is now an endorser of a popular soap detergent associating him with ordinary housewives. Senator Dick Gordon has the National Red Cross as his vehicle. He goes all over the country where the Red Cross is needed. Vice President Noli de Castro is constantly in media as the champion of government’s cheap and affordable housing.
I still have to see my good friend Senator Loren Legarda endorsing something. Hopefully she won’t endorse Vicky Belo’s supposed liposuction or enhancement expertise.
But the one that takes the cake is Senator Ping Lacson, becoming an endorser of facial care for men. In a newspaper advertisement, Lacson claimed he wanted to get rid of lines and wrinkles on his face. Santa Banana, I thought only women worried about this stuff!
My gulay, has it come to this?
***
There is no doubt that the refusal of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines to join the mob by calling on President Arroyo to resign effectively pulled the rug from under the political enemies and critics of GMA. Note their overwhelming dismay at the bishops’ decision not to join their call. Why, now they are calling the bishops wimps.
But, if there’s one salutary effect of the CBCP’s decision not to join calls for the President to resign, it is its calming effect nationwide. This is clearly reflected by the further appreciation of the peso and the rebounding of the stock market.
The militant bishops, however, have a different interpretation the CBCP pastoral letter urging the President and all branches of government to take the lead in combating corruption wherever it is found. This group is now saying the letter does not stop them from calling on the President to resign.
Sanata Banana, the anti-Gloria bishops don’t give up, do they? This, when most of their colleagues have already discerned that they did not want to join the mob.
Clearly, the CBCP based its decision on the Gospel, where Christ admonished the mob out to throw stones at a prostitute for sinning. Jesus said the one without sin should cast the first stone. After hearing this, the mob dispersed.
Sad to say, there still many in the crowd, among them bishops, priests and nuns, who want to cast the first stone. Judge not, and you will be judged, as the Good Book says.
That’s precisely why as a lawyer-journalist, I believe that the search for truth should not end on what paid or unpaid witnesses and whistleblowers allege. It’s worse when the lynching mob claim these statements as the truth.
I repeat that in our kind of democracy, only the courts can ferret out the truth. It is only here where rules of evidence, due process and the rule of law prevail.
***
There’s one aspect of that pastoral letter that I’m concerned with as a member of media. It’s the call of the bishops for media to be a “positive resource of seeking the truth and combating corruption by objective reporting without bias and partiality, selective and tendentious reporting of facts.”
I have been in media for over half a century. I lament the fact that objective reporting has become a thing of the past. Then, we stuck to the five Ws—the who, what, why, when and where. I still recall when our late editor-in-chief, the newspaper icon, Felix “Judge” Gonzales would chew our ears for not reporting the five Ws.
Now, we read “unimpeachable sources,” or “sources who prefer to remain anonymous,” or “according to a knowledgeable source,” or something along that line. In other words, speculation, hearsay and even downright lies are reported as facts—all for the benefit of bigger circulation.
Objective reporting my foot. To many in media, especially to my favorite tabloid-national broadsheet, objective reporting means reprinting with an objective to further its own biases, prejudices and partialities. This practice even has a fancy name—progressive reportage.
All these have an adverse impact on the credibility of the press.
***
A perfect example of biased, partial, selective and tendentious reporting of facts is that claim of some newspapers that the reason President Arroyo cancelled the controversial national broadband network deal with China’s ZTE was that it was “flawed.”
I was able to obtain a transcript of what GMA said in a radio interview, and while anomalya (anomaly) was mentioned, she never said that the deal was “flawed.” It was the conclusion of some newspapers.
In connection with the word anomaly, what the President said was that if or in case there’s a claim of an anomaly in the deal, she could cancel it, which she did. The deal became so controversial affecting national security.
I also watched that Malacañang press conference the other day and I was surprised why some of the Palace reporters kept on insisting that indeed, the President mentioned anomaly, but, she did not mention it as the reason for canceling the project.
This illustrates “reporting with an objective” and not objective reporting.
The out-of-context reportage practiced by some newspapers has raised so much brouhaha that even former Senate President Jovito Salonga and another group have chosen to sue the President for plunder, allegedly for admitting that the NBN deal with ZTE was “flawed.”
My gulay, Salonga obviously failed to read the radio transcript. Merely upon a knee-jerk reaction, he condemned the President for not acting immediately on a “flawed” contract.
As a result, my esteem and admiration for Salonga as a legal luminary and constitutionalist has diminished greatly. Of all people, he should not have allowed himself to rely on biased, partial, selective and tendentious reporting.
Truth to tell, I had my feet got wet as a legal practitioner way back in the mid-’50s as a junior partner of Salonga and Associates for a year or so. I admired him as a lawmaker and constitutionalist. But times have changed. It is unfortunate that somebody of Salonga’s caliber should base his case on hard facts and nothing else.
(pasted from: http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=emilJurado_feb29_2008)
1986! 2001! 2008?
MANILA, Philippines - Why have I not joined the clamor for the resignation of President Macapagal-Arroyo? The reason is not because I am of the same mind as the Assumption schoolmates of the President. Nor is the reason because I do not find Jun Lozada credible, even if he is a self-confessed sinner. I do. Neither is the reason because I believe Gen. Avelino Razon or Sec. Eduardo Ermita or Ignacio Bunye and other apologists of the President. I find that difficult to do. My simple reason is that I do not see her voluntarily relinquishing her office.
President Ferdinand Marcos did not voluntarily leave office. He was ousted from office. Joseph Estrada did not voluntarily surrender his office. He was pressured out of it. Resignation is a voluntary act. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will not resign. One clear lesson I am sure she has learned from the experience of Marcos and Estrada is that for her to leave office now would mean jumping from the frying pan into the fire. Out of office she loses her immunity from suit and she becomes fair game. I do not see her wanting to go into exile in Hawaii or to settle in her own Tanay.
Will I therefore join those who advocate extra-constitutional ouster? The advocacy for this option is loud in volume and rich in rhetoric. But I do not see it as a viable option now. Let us look back to 1986 and 2001.
In 1986 the nation reverberated with two complementary cries: “Tama na. Sobra na. Palitan na!” and “Cory, Cory!” Neither one without the other could have succeeded.
I participated in the search for an alternative to President Marcos who had called for a “snap” election. Among the potential alternatives in sight the only person who won the support of all was Cory Aquino. Thus, when the time for action came, she was the rallying point. But the effort was completed only when the military turned against the Commander in Chief. If the military had not turned against Marcos, there could have been blood in the streets.
How about 2001? The mass movement was immediately triggered by the impeachment exercise which ended in the walk-out of senators and prosecutors. As to potential alternative, there was, waiting in the wings, a constitutional successor who at that time was still mabango and enjoying popular support. After all, she had earlier topped the senatorial elections and handily won the vice presidency. She had also inherited the support won by her father. But, as in 1986, the ouster of President Estrada only became possible when police and military again turned against the Commander in Chief.
Thus in both 1986 and 2001 the participation of the military was an essential ingredient.
As I see things now, although there is widespread and mounting outrage against corruption in the administration, extra-constitutional action is not in sight. And if such action will be successful, it can only be with the full support of the military. I do not believe that our people, grown weary of military adventurism, are prepared to accept a Burmese type of government.
How about “snap” elections? Besides the fact that a special election is allowed only when there is a vacancy, under present circumstances the electoral process can be less credible than that of 2004.
What do I support therefore? I favor attempting a rehabilitation of the presidency. To start with, I favor the complete dismantling of EO 464, the notorious gag which the President has clamped on the mouths of executive officers who are in a position to reveal incriminating truth.
True it is that the objectionable portions of EO 464 (Sections 2b and 3) have been declared unconstitutional. But the executive department continues to behave as if Senate v. Ermita never happened. You will notice that, whenever executive officers are called to testify in an investigation, rarely do such officers claim the lame excuse of executive privilege. They simply say that they are prevented by EO 464. EO 464, although constitutionally dead, remains the biggest obstacle to the discovery of truth. Its dark spirit remains.
How dismantle EO 464? The most efficient way would be for the President and the executive secretary to forget it. Easy, no; difficult, yes. Nevertheless this is a more viable goal than trying to persuade the President to resign and effectively jump into the fire. Moreover, the total abandonment of EO 464 can be the beginning of the rehabilitation of her ailing presidency. E.g., she should now allow the exposure of those who were involved in the corruption that caused her to cancel the ZTE contract. It would be a very concrete way of substantiating her loud cries against corruption. With political will, between now and 2010, much can be achieved toward rehabilitation of the presidency.
Whether or not the dark spirit of EO 464 will be totally neutralized must also depend in large measure on the insistence of Congress. Congress is the institution most directly affected by the crippling effect of the EO. The Supreme Court, because it is generally a passive institution, does not grant relief unless properly asked. Now we are awaiting what the Supreme Court will do with the Romulo Neri case. But it was Neri who started it, not the Senate.
In conclusion, I am hoping that much of the energy being expended toward demanding that Arroyo resign will include in its focus a clamor for the total abandonment of EO 464 and the dark spirit that inspired it. I am also hoping that the bishops, as a body, and the religious sector will join in this specific clamor. It would be a very concrete way of campaigning for truth. The truth can make even a beleaguered President free.
Political Tidbits
Questions for Lozada, Lacson et al.
There are those who believe, after closely following the recent hearings in the Senate on the ZTE national broadband network (NBN) controversy, that there was extensive manipulation by a group of opposition leaders of chief witness Rodolfo Noel Lozada Jr. in order to bring down the government.
To these observers, his recent testimony tended to show that Lozada was not a victim of what he claims to be a kidnapping by government authorities but, on the contrary, that there was a grand design of opposition leaders, led by Senators Panfilo Lacson and Jamby Madrigal, to set up the authorities who, perhaps out of naiveté or eagerness to help the President, fell for the trap. To these observers, it was a typical Lacson maneuver, smooth and scheming, with all the angles covered.
Part of Lozada’s credibility stems from his looking helpless and guileless, a victim of persecution by the Arroyo administration for "telling the truth." But to keen observers, that impression was being blown bit by bit in the past few days, as it began to appear that he was a part of a grand design to overthrow the government and hoodwink the nation -- even as he kept seeking help from government officials for his security and financial wellbeing at the same time.
It was Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Lito Atienza who first raised in the Senate this possibility of a grand design and hinted that Lacson was the manipulator. When I heard Atienza, I began to closely follow this argument and I must say that I tend to agree.
For instance, Bro. Felipe Belleza, president of La Salle Greenhills, testified that Lozada and his family had been talking to him since early January about seeking refuge in the school. When Lozada disembarked from the plane from Hong Kong, he claimed that he was held against his will, but later in the evening he asked to be brought to La Salle and the police were surprised to see his family already there.
And yet, in the early morning of Feb. 6, as Police Senior Supt. Paul Mascariñas pointed out, even though Lozada was already with his family in the evening of Feb. 5, his wife still filed writs of habeas corpus and amparo (which the Court of Appeals threw out later). Part of the grand design to make the kidnap/cover-up angle more believable?
Lacson has a lot to explain not just to the people but to his colleagues as well. As Atienza pointed out, how come he knew ahead of everyone that Lozada was resigning, that he was not going to London but to Hong Kong, and that he was arriving on Feb. 5? And how come he was at the airport that afternoon with his men, apparently seeking to preempt the Senate sergeant-at-arms who was sent by the chamber to fetch Lozada? Did Lacson plan to brief the witness first? He said later that he was simply being enterprising. Or is it because he was manipulating the witness all along, since December, when Lozada and Romulo Neri met with Lacson and Madrigal and the latter tried to get them to turn against the government.
By their own admission, Lacson and Madrigal tried to entice Neri to jump to their side by offering to raise a "patriotic fund" of P20 million that would enable him to live comfortably if he should resign from government. Isn't this bribery? Neri, to his credit, turned that big amount down despite initial temptation to accept it (about a year after supposedly turning down Commission on Elections Chair Benjamin Abalos' promised P200 million).
The question being raised now is: If there was a "patriotic fund" for Neri, there must have been one for Lozada, to enable him to maintain his lifestyle as a high roller and one perpetually preoccupied with money (he asked the Senate to pay for what he spent in Hong Kong). How much was Lozada's "patriotic fund"? Then too, how come he disclosed only now the P500,000 that Deputy Executive Secretary Manuel Gaite "lent" him as spending money in Hong Kong?