The College of Cardinals is not determined by proportional representation. So the number of Catholics there are do not determine the number of Cardinals a country gets in the College of Cardinals.
Saints do not become so by application or, worse, by patronage—at least not in this day and age. There must be proof that miracles have been attributed to them by people who have asked for their intercession (wait; if this is the criteria, what does that make of Garci who pulled off a miracle in 2004?).
Where do Gloria’s people get these ideas?
June 29, 2006
There is no other
Jessica Z said it before in her blog and I’ve been noticing it also in my own blog. The Comments section really starts to take a life of its own. I’m starting to recognize some of the “anonymous” bloggers as well as those who have been signing their names. I do appreciate the comments; what I do not appreciate are personal attacks that do nothing to contribute to any debate or thought formation but debase the writer, i.e., me.
My last post on Gloria Arroyo drew a comment from someone I “met” in email—Auntie Beth; I do appreciate her comments and I understand what she’s saying and where she’s coming from. Auntie Beth’s comment also drew an “anonymous” post from someone I presume is (was) my student “defending” my statements on Gloria Arroyo. I won’t pit the two against each other as that really isn’t something I would want to do.
I do, however, want to comment on Auntie Beth’s statement that she misses the “other Ted”, presumably referring to the posts that speak of God and my relationship with Him and my postings on my faith.
I realize that it can be disconcerting to read my blogs that speak lovingly of God and His people and harshly of Gloria Arroyo. I, however, find no contradiction. Those who have met me and know me well will not find it strange that I can speak lovingly of God and so harshly of Gloria.
Its easy to speak in loving terms of God and His people simply because I owe everything to God. It is not as easy to speak in loving terms of Gloria who has done nothing but cause hardship to Filipinos in the name of staying in power at all costs.
Is it un-Christian to speak harshly of Gloria? I do not think so. Even Christ had harsh words for the Pharisees; and believe me, Gloria is light years beyond the Pharisees.
Is it un-loving to call Gloria a dictator? I do not think so. Especially when she cheated in the last elections and enjoys no mandate whatsoever; especially when she, only a few months ago, arrogated unto herself powers the Constitution does not give her; especially when the Supreme Court has categorically told her that she can’t do what she did when she proclaimed CPR, Proclamation 1017 and EO 464.
Is it wrong to speak out in the face of a clearly manipulative attempt to curry favor by using every thing or person available? I think not. Especially when the subject of her manipulation is no less than the Holy Father himself. We must not forget that it is this very same Gloria Arroyo who, when she was still Vice President, declared that John Paul II had confirmed that it was perfectly alright to go ahead with her destabilization attempts against Erap; we must not forget that it is this very same Gloria Arroyo who, upon visiting Benedict XVI, now intones through her mouthpiece Mr. Bunyi that the Pope has also given his go-signal for her government to continue doing what it is doing.
Is it wrong to speak out in the face of such utter silliness as Mike Arroyo’s statement that Gloria will “lobby” the Holy Father for more Cardinals and for the application of two more Filipino saints? I do not think so.
Auntie Beth, I apologize if my harsh words against the dictator turn you off but I am the same person—not two persons—who is a Christian, a human rights advocate, a lawyer, a law professor, a Filipino. I cannot speak lovingly of my God and lovingly of a dictator; I believe absolutely and, wholeheartedly, in telling the truth and the truth is “Gloria must go.” There is no “other Ted”, what you read is what you get.
C.S. Lewis, paraphrased many times by the late Cardinal Sin, once said, “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I believe that, with all my heart. That is why I speak out against Gloria Arroyo, who is, like me, a sinner. If I keep my peace in the face of all the corruption, all the killings, all the anomalies, all the irregularities, then I would not only be loving the sinner but also loving the sin. Believe me, I do pray for Gloria Arroyo but not that she stays on because, believe me, I also pray for my country, which I love more than Gloria, sinner and daughter of God that she is.
And the most loving thing I can do for my country right now is to pray that Gloria goes--soon.
My last post on Gloria Arroyo drew a comment from someone I “met” in email—Auntie Beth; I do appreciate her comments and I understand what she’s saying and where she’s coming from. Auntie Beth’s comment also drew an “anonymous” post from someone I presume is (was) my student “defending” my statements on Gloria Arroyo. I won’t pit the two against each other as that really isn’t something I would want to do.
I do, however, want to comment on Auntie Beth’s statement that she misses the “other Ted”, presumably referring to the posts that speak of God and my relationship with Him and my postings on my faith.
I realize that it can be disconcerting to read my blogs that speak lovingly of God and His people and harshly of Gloria Arroyo. I, however, find no contradiction. Those who have met me and know me well will not find it strange that I can speak lovingly of God and so harshly of Gloria.
Its easy to speak in loving terms of God and His people simply because I owe everything to God. It is not as easy to speak in loving terms of Gloria who has done nothing but cause hardship to Filipinos in the name of staying in power at all costs.
Is it un-Christian to speak harshly of Gloria? I do not think so. Even Christ had harsh words for the Pharisees; and believe me, Gloria is light years beyond the Pharisees.
Is it un-loving to call Gloria a dictator? I do not think so. Especially when she cheated in the last elections and enjoys no mandate whatsoever; especially when she, only a few months ago, arrogated unto herself powers the Constitution does not give her; especially when the Supreme Court has categorically told her that she can’t do what she did when she proclaimed CPR, Proclamation 1017 and EO 464.
Is it wrong to speak out in the face of a clearly manipulative attempt to curry favor by using every thing or person available? I think not. Especially when the subject of her manipulation is no less than the Holy Father himself. We must not forget that it is this very same Gloria Arroyo who, when she was still Vice President, declared that John Paul II had confirmed that it was perfectly alright to go ahead with her destabilization attempts against Erap; we must not forget that it is this very same Gloria Arroyo who, upon visiting Benedict XVI, now intones through her mouthpiece Mr. Bunyi that the Pope has also given his go-signal for her government to continue doing what it is doing.
Is it wrong to speak out in the face of such utter silliness as Mike Arroyo’s statement that Gloria will “lobby” the Holy Father for more Cardinals and for the application of two more Filipino saints? I do not think so.
Auntie Beth, I apologize if my harsh words against the dictator turn you off but I am the same person—not two persons—who is a Christian, a human rights advocate, a lawyer, a law professor, a Filipino. I cannot speak lovingly of my God and lovingly of a dictator; I believe absolutely and, wholeheartedly, in telling the truth and the truth is “Gloria must go.” There is no “other Ted”, what you read is what you get.
C.S. Lewis, paraphrased many times by the late Cardinal Sin, once said, “hate the sin, love the sinner.” I believe that, with all my heart. That is why I speak out against Gloria Arroyo, who is, like me, a sinner. If I keep my peace in the face of all the corruption, all the killings, all the anomalies, all the irregularities, then I would not only be loving the sinner but also loving the sin. Believe me, I do pray for Gloria Arroyo but not that she stays on because, believe me, I also pray for my country, which I love more than Gloria, sinner and daughter of God that she is.
And the most loving thing I can do for my country right now is to pray that Gloria goes--soon.
June 27, 2006
Looking a gift horse in the mouth
“Please sign. Now , please resign.”
That’s what I would have said to Gloria Arroyo at Malacanang last Saturday during the signing of the law repealing the death penalty.
The consummate trapo (contraction for traditional politician; vernacular for dirty rag—whichever, it fits) that she is, she now brings the law to Pope Benedict XVI as a gift to him from the Filipinos; never mind that when she was a senator, she voted yes (by default) to the death penalty law as a fence-sitter; never mind that when she was Vice President, she marched with a hanky-covered “Baby” Echegaray along Ayala with the likes of Jamby Madrigal (another famous chameleon), Loi Estrada clamoring that Leo Echegaray be killed; never mind that from 2001, when she took over from Erap, she never certified abolition bills as urgent and even went to the extent of saying that she would continue to execute kidnappers and drug dealers; never mind that she only discovered that she was “pro-life” when she was teetering on being removed and she needed the support of the bishops; never mind that she changes her “principles” as quickly as she loses her temper or Mike Defensor changes his stands on many things. Never mind all these things, mind only that she has repealed the death penalty law and gotten a pat on the back and a “well done” from the Pope.
People ask me if I’m happy now with Gloria that she has repealed the death penalty in the Philippines. For my answer, scroll up to the top of this post.
That’s what I would have said to Gloria Arroyo at Malacanang last Saturday during the signing of the law repealing the death penalty.
The consummate trapo (contraction for traditional politician; vernacular for dirty rag—whichever, it fits) that she is, she now brings the law to Pope Benedict XVI as a gift to him from the Filipinos; never mind that when she was a senator, she voted yes (by default) to the death penalty law as a fence-sitter; never mind that when she was Vice President, she marched with a hanky-covered “Baby” Echegaray along Ayala with the likes of Jamby Madrigal (another famous chameleon), Loi Estrada clamoring that Leo Echegaray be killed; never mind that from 2001, when she took over from Erap, she never certified abolition bills as urgent and even went to the extent of saying that she would continue to execute kidnappers and drug dealers; never mind that she only discovered that she was “pro-life” when she was teetering on being removed and she needed the support of the bishops; never mind that she changes her “principles” as quickly as she loses her temper or Mike Defensor changes his stands on many things. Never mind all these things, mind only that she has repealed the death penalty law and gotten a pat on the back and a “well done” from the Pope.
People ask me if I’m happy now with Gloria that she has repealed the death penalty in the Philippines. For my answer, scroll up to the top of this post.
June 26, 2006
Life and death
It’s finally dead. The death penalty in the Philippines, that is.
Last Saturday, Gloria Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346 formally ending the regime of capital punishment in the Philippines. A few weeks before the formal signing, the Chief Justice created a stir by announcing publicly that the Supreme Court had committed a grave error by ordering Leo Echegaray to be executed.
Because the death penalty is an issue that I can no longer avoid, I’ve been asked many times by many people how I feel about the repeal of capital punishment and about the Chief Justice’s comments on judicial error.
Honestly, similar to how I felt when I watched Leo Echegaray and Bobby Andan murdered in front of me, I don’t really know how I feel; at least, I can’t really describe it.
I know I should be happy that something I (and my colleagues at FLAG and the FLAG Anti-Death Penalty Task Force) spent more than a decade fighting for has finally happened. Strike that, I know I should be ecstatic. But I actually am not.
Maybe its because the death penalty repeal came many, many years too late; perhaps its because the abolition came seven (7) lives too late. I just cannot get myself to be ecstatic at the repeal because I keep remembering the 7 people whose lives were claimed at the altar of capital punishment and the more than a thousand lives who suffered due to the stigma and the burden of being sentenced to die at the hands of the State.
People ask me if I’m vindicated by the Chief Justice’s comments on the Echegaray conviction; I actually don’t feel vindicated even if that is what we had been saying all along. What good are his words when Leo and six (6) others have already been killed? What good will the acknowledgement of judicial error do when so many people have already been scarred by capital punishment?
People still equate me, 8 years after Leo’s execution, with him and I don’t find that I mind at all. It is my burden to carry his name along with mine; and, in a very strange sort of way, it is an honor.
The death penalty is dead. Long live life.
Last Saturday, Gloria Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9346 formally ending the regime of capital punishment in the Philippines. A few weeks before the formal signing, the Chief Justice created a stir by announcing publicly that the Supreme Court had committed a grave error by ordering Leo Echegaray to be executed.
Because the death penalty is an issue that I can no longer avoid, I’ve been asked many times by many people how I feel about the repeal of capital punishment and about the Chief Justice’s comments on judicial error.
Honestly, similar to how I felt when I watched Leo Echegaray and Bobby Andan murdered in front of me, I don’t really know how I feel; at least, I can’t really describe it.
I know I should be happy that something I (and my colleagues at FLAG and the FLAG Anti-Death Penalty Task Force) spent more than a decade fighting for has finally happened. Strike that, I know I should be ecstatic. But I actually am not.
Maybe its because the death penalty repeal came many, many years too late; perhaps its because the abolition came seven (7) lives too late. I just cannot get myself to be ecstatic at the repeal because I keep remembering the 7 people whose lives were claimed at the altar of capital punishment and the more than a thousand lives who suffered due to the stigma and the burden of being sentenced to die at the hands of the State.
People ask me if I’m vindicated by the Chief Justice’s comments on the Echegaray conviction; I actually don’t feel vindicated even if that is what we had been saying all along. What good are his words when Leo and six (6) others have already been killed? What good will the acknowledgement of judicial error do when so many people have already been scarred by capital punishment?
People still equate me, 8 years after Leo’s execution, with him and I don’t find that I mind at all. It is my burden to carry his name along with mine; and, in a very strange sort of way, it is an honor.
The death penalty is dead. Long live life.
June 22, 2006
Wearing the colors
The few games of the NBA Finals that I had gotten to watch—I was amazed at one thing (and this I noticed in the Miami games): when Miami played, it was to a backdrop of white shirts (white being Miami’s home game colors). Everyone was in white! Now, that’s intimidating to an opponent who goes into the arena looking for some measure of comfort or appreciation. And, that’s comforting to a home team that goes into the campaign looking for support.
It’s a good analogy for Christian commitment.
Are we ready to wear our colors proudly? Are we ready to be one with other Christians in being identified as a Christian? Its similar to wearing white in the Miami Heat basketball arena—you identify yourself with the home team to the extent that you would proudly display your colors.
God doesn’t ask much from us—just that we make a choice, we stand by it and we be proud of it.
For all those who have made that choice, let us stand by it and be proud of it. Wear your colors proudly, God’s child!
It’s a good analogy for Christian commitment.
Are we ready to wear our colors proudly? Are we ready to be one with other Christians in being identified as a Christian? Its similar to wearing white in the Miami Heat basketball arena—you identify yourself with the home team to the extent that you would proudly display your colors.
God doesn’t ask much from us—just that we make a choice, we stand by it and we be proud of it.
For all those who have made that choice, let us stand by it and be proud of it. Wear your colors proudly, God’s child!
Flash and Zo
The Miami Heat finally won its first championship since it came into the league as an expansion team more than a decade ago. They’re not my favorite team—Boston is, but they suck big time now (I wish Larry Bird would be hired by Red Auerbach to do in Bean town what he did for Indiana as Coach and later President of Basketball ops)—but I prefer Miami over Dallas. I’m happy though that Miami won, for two reasons.
The first is NOT Shaq. I don’t like Shaq—I think he’s overrated (I mean, what should you expect from someone that tall and that big? If he doesn’t score or block in the double figures and he doesn’t make you change your shot in the lane, then you didn’t get your money’s worth—for the ticket or the contract). He’s like Superman as against Batman—dude, no contest; even the colors are better on Batman (red underwear worn over blue tights, huh?).
The first reason is Dwayne Wade. Now that’s the player for me. He’s not that tall (officially 6’4”; though NBA books tend to exaggerate a little when it comes to height) but he plays BIG! He flies—to dunk or block or score in the lane; he shoots from mid-range or closer; he’s even known to take a few shots from outside the 3-point line; he rarely shows negative emotions on the court, except directed at himself and he has an almost preternatural ability to take over the game when it counts. He doesn’t mind being the last person to take the ball when it counts—regardless of glory or shame. He’s being compared to Michael Jordan—unfair, definitely, to Wade. Jordan does not compare to Wade—Jordan was largely a creation of media (fine, he dunks well and he flies but that’s probably propelled by the helium in his ego) which he manipulates quite well; also Jordan isn’t that much of a poster boy for good values. Jordan often pointed fingers at others for losses and pointed a finger at himself for wins; Wade hardly blames others for losses and usually credits others for wins. Jordan v. Wade—no contest; Wade wins, hands down—in ALL respects.
The second reason is Alonzo Mourning—Zo! He, with the unique last name. He, with the kidney transplant and the overwhelming desire to win a championship before he retired. He, who was willing to take on a supporting role in a team which he had led before he fell ill. Now, that’s character! Zo didn’t transfer back to Miami demanding things—even if the team probably would have given in to many of these—he moved back knowing he would be the oldest player on the team and a role player; now, that’s a bitter pill for a perennial starter (at Georgetown and at Miami) and a double-digit scorer and blocker. But he took the pill, knowing that he would be able to help Miami win one. And he did. In the final game, he took over from a foul-ridden Shaq and contributed his share of points, rebounds and blocks. In the end, all the trouble he went to paid off—he finally won one. And I am sure this one is the sweetest in his books.
Wade and Mourning. Two players who show good and positive values in a league dominated by an overriding concern to look out for number one--oneself; two players who display character in a league dominated by supersized egos. Wade and Mourning. Refreshing gusts of fresh air in a league that parades as its poster boy a spoiled brat like Kobe Bryant.
The first is NOT Shaq. I don’t like Shaq—I think he’s overrated (I mean, what should you expect from someone that tall and that big? If he doesn’t score or block in the double figures and he doesn’t make you change your shot in the lane, then you didn’t get your money’s worth—for the ticket or the contract). He’s like Superman as against Batman—dude, no contest; even the colors are better on Batman (red underwear worn over blue tights, huh?).
The first reason is Dwayne Wade. Now that’s the player for me. He’s not that tall (officially 6’4”; though NBA books tend to exaggerate a little when it comes to height) but he plays BIG! He flies—to dunk or block or score in the lane; he shoots from mid-range or closer; he’s even known to take a few shots from outside the 3-point line; he rarely shows negative emotions on the court, except directed at himself and he has an almost preternatural ability to take over the game when it counts. He doesn’t mind being the last person to take the ball when it counts—regardless of glory or shame. He’s being compared to Michael Jordan—unfair, definitely, to Wade. Jordan does not compare to Wade—Jordan was largely a creation of media (fine, he dunks well and he flies but that’s probably propelled by the helium in his ego) which he manipulates quite well; also Jordan isn’t that much of a poster boy for good values. Jordan often pointed fingers at others for losses and pointed a finger at himself for wins; Wade hardly blames others for losses and usually credits others for wins. Jordan v. Wade—no contest; Wade wins, hands down—in ALL respects.
The second reason is Alonzo Mourning—Zo! He, with the unique last name. He, with the kidney transplant and the overwhelming desire to win a championship before he retired. He, who was willing to take on a supporting role in a team which he had led before he fell ill. Now, that’s character! Zo didn’t transfer back to Miami demanding things—even if the team probably would have given in to many of these—he moved back knowing he would be the oldest player on the team and a role player; now, that’s a bitter pill for a perennial starter (at Georgetown and at Miami) and a double-digit scorer and blocker. But he took the pill, knowing that he would be able to help Miami win one. And he did. In the final game, he took over from a foul-ridden Shaq and contributed his share of points, rebounds and blocks. In the end, all the trouble he went to paid off—he finally won one. And I am sure this one is the sweetest in his books.
Wade and Mourning. Two players who show good and positive values in a league dominated by an overriding concern to look out for number one--oneself; two players who display character in a league dominated by supersized egos. Wade and Mourning. Refreshing gusts of fresh air in a league that parades as its poster boy a spoiled brat like Kobe Bryant.
June 08, 2006
The Day After
It’s over-finally!
It is the day after and the death penalty is dead. The bicameral conference committee of the Senate (led by Senator Joker Arroyo—one of my former clients) and the House (led by Representative Edcel Lagman—another of my former clients) concluded its deliberation in record time and finally ended the reign of the death penalty in the Philippines.
All that it is needed is Gloria’s signature. And with all her political maneuverings, I have no doubt she’ll sign it—she needs the endorsement of the Catholic church and other pro-life denominations, particularly because she is currently so in love with mining (which the Church opposes).
From 1994, a few minutes after the ink dried on the Death Penalty Law, abolition has been one of my issues, one that has occupied top tier in my agenda; it has given me so many experiences and has made me many friends as well as enemies. It is hard to believe that it is finally over.
I won’t miss it—the death penalty, that is.
The death penalty issue has made me grow up a lot—in many ways.
As a lawyer, I have grown up in ways that I could never imagine; from arguing my very first Supreme Court orals at the ripe old age of 30; witnessing two executions in the same year—Leo Echegaray on February 5, 1999 and Pablito Andan on October 26, 1999; presenting position papers and engaging experts in round-table discussions here and abroad; learning new things (such as use of DNA forensic technology in criminal cases) and being looked upon as the savior, hero and role model (three roles that I am absolutely uncomfortable with).
As a person, I have become more open to many new ideas and to new ways of invigorating old ideas; I’ve also learned what’s truly important: a healthy acknowledgment of just how weak we all are, just how human, just how imperfect but also a healthy realization that, despite our weakness and our frailty, we are called to do extraordinary things by simpy living our ordinary lives.
As a Christian, my brushes with death on those two occasions when Leo and Pablito were executed right before my very eyes have shown me just how much love is missing in our lives right now; when the ultimate cruelty of man can be used to justify a perfect justice that only God is capable of, the issue of life and death takes on new meaning. My journey towards abolition has also led me back into a journey with the Lord who has given me everything, and, truly, it was only by His grace that I, and my companions on this journey, were able to accomplish so much. To Him is the glory.
I will miss it—not the death penalty but the campaign and the many friends and comrades who have enriched my life through the years. Through the years in the campaign, these were the lives who touched mine and I salute them: my colleagues from FLAG, Cookie, Chel, Arno, Pablito, Ed, Jun V., Milabel, Bombi, Chito, Ida, Weng, Glenda, Gilda, Leo, Domy, Ming and all the FLAG lawyers; my colleagues from the FLAG ANTI-DEATH PENALTY TASK FORCE: Fr. Jun Jun Borres, SJ, Fr. Roy Cosca, SJ, Fr. Robert Reyes, (Bishop) Rudy Diamante, (Cardinal) Tax Tan, Lydia and Dolly Pangilinan and everyone from Samahan ng mga Pamilya sa Death Row (SPDR), Brenda, all our clients from ALIS-DR, Maricel, Bing, Precy, Mike, Cora De Ungria and her staff at the DNA Lab; Racquel Fortun, our friends from the PAO Appeals Division; our volunteer lawyers who signed up for the TASK FORCE: Karreen, Ella, Jig, Lourie, Joji, Rhon, Lezyl, Jun, Dondon, Tel, Fe and many others whose names I don’t remember at the moment. I salute all of you and thank you. May we have many more journeys towards the attainment of fundamental freedoms together.
It is the day after and the death penalty is dead. The bicameral conference committee of the Senate (led by Senator Joker Arroyo—one of my former clients) and the House (led by Representative Edcel Lagman—another of my former clients) concluded its deliberation in record time and finally ended the reign of the death penalty in the Philippines.
All that it is needed is Gloria’s signature. And with all her political maneuverings, I have no doubt she’ll sign it—she needs the endorsement of the Catholic church and other pro-life denominations, particularly because she is currently so in love with mining (which the Church opposes).
From 1994, a few minutes after the ink dried on the Death Penalty Law, abolition has been one of my issues, one that has occupied top tier in my agenda; it has given me so many experiences and has made me many friends as well as enemies. It is hard to believe that it is finally over.
I won’t miss it—the death penalty, that is.
The death penalty issue has made me grow up a lot—in many ways.
As a lawyer, I have grown up in ways that I could never imagine; from arguing my very first Supreme Court orals at the ripe old age of 30; witnessing two executions in the same year—Leo Echegaray on February 5, 1999 and Pablito Andan on October 26, 1999; presenting position papers and engaging experts in round-table discussions here and abroad; learning new things (such as use of DNA forensic technology in criminal cases) and being looked upon as the savior, hero and role model (three roles that I am absolutely uncomfortable with).
As a person, I have become more open to many new ideas and to new ways of invigorating old ideas; I’ve also learned what’s truly important: a healthy acknowledgment of just how weak we all are, just how human, just how imperfect but also a healthy realization that, despite our weakness and our frailty, we are called to do extraordinary things by simpy living our ordinary lives.
As a Christian, my brushes with death on those two occasions when Leo and Pablito were executed right before my very eyes have shown me just how much love is missing in our lives right now; when the ultimate cruelty of man can be used to justify a perfect justice that only God is capable of, the issue of life and death takes on new meaning. My journey towards abolition has also led me back into a journey with the Lord who has given me everything, and, truly, it was only by His grace that I, and my companions on this journey, were able to accomplish so much. To Him is the glory.
I will miss it—not the death penalty but the campaign and the many friends and comrades who have enriched my life through the years. Through the years in the campaign, these were the lives who touched mine and I salute them: my colleagues from FLAG, Cookie, Chel, Arno, Pablito, Ed, Jun V., Milabel, Bombi, Chito, Ida, Weng, Glenda, Gilda, Leo, Domy, Ming and all the FLAG lawyers; my colleagues from the FLAG ANTI-DEATH PENALTY TASK FORCE: Fr. Jun Jun Borres, SJ, Fr. Roy Cosca, SJ, Fr. Robert Reyes, (Bishop) Rudy Diamante, (Cardinal) Tax Tan, Lydia and Dolly Pangilinan and everyone from Samahan ng mga Pamilya sa Death Row (SPDR), Brenda, all our clients from ALIS-DR, Maricel, Bing, Precy, Mike, Cora De Ungria and her staff at the DNA Lab; Racquel Fortun, our friends from the PAO Appeals Division; our volunteer lawyers who signed up for the TASK FORCE: Karreen, Ella, Jig, Lourie, Joji, Rhon, Lezyl, Jun, Dondon, Tel, Fe and many others whose names I don’t remember at the moment. I salute all of you and thank you. May we have many more journeys towards the attainment of fundamental freedoms together.
June 06, 2006
One more nail. . . one more House
The Senate of the Philippines just passed the abolition bill! One more chamber to go--the House, unfortunately.
One more nail in the coffin before the death penalty is dead--again (in 1987, the Constitution abolished the death penalty; in 1994, it was restored).
I pray that the majority of the members of the House can rise above themselves to vote on the abolition bill so that, finally, the death penalty can be removed from the statute books.
One more nail in the coffin before the death penalty is dead--again (in 1987, the Constitution abolished the death penalty; in 1994, it was restored).
I pray that the majority of the members of the House can rise above themselves to vote on the abolition bill so that, finally, the death penalty can be removed from the statute books.
Sudoku
I’m addicted; to Sudoku, that is.
It’s a numbers puzzle and the object of the game is to fill in the grids provided so that every row, every column and every 3 x 3 box contains the digits 1 through 9.
I first saw it on a Newsbreak issue and wondered what it was; I went online and managed to get it downloaded into my PDA.
Now, I’m hooked. Try it, you’ll see why.
It’s a numbers puzzle and the object of the game is to fill in the grids provided so that every row, every column and every 3 x 3 box contains the digits 1 through 9.
I first saw it on a Newsbreak issue and wondered what it was; I went online and managed to get it downloaded into my PDA.
Now, I’m hooked. Try it, you’ll see why.
June 01, 2006
Apt Anagrams
I got these from Rocky. While some of these have been making the rounds of the various egroups, I still found them a lot of fun—especially in the wake of the Da Vinci Code controversy.
DORMITORY = DIRTY ROOM
PRESBYTERIAN = BEST IN PRAYER
ASTRONOMER = MOON STARER
THE EYES = THEY SEE
GEORGE BUSH = HE BUGS GORE (ha ha ha; he bugs me too but that’s not an anagram)
THE MORSE CODE = HERE COME DOTS
SLOT MACHINES = CASH LOST IN ME
ANIMOSITY = IS NO AMITY
ELECTION RESULTS = LIES - LET'S RECOUNT
MOTHER-IN-LAW = WOMAN HITLER (can’t relate)
SNOOZE ALARMS = ALAS! NO MORE Z'S
A DECIMAL POINT = I'M A DOT IN PLACE
THE EARTHQUAKES = THAT QUEER SHAKE
ELEVEN PLUS TWO = TWELVE PLUS ONE
I especially love “Election Results”, “The Eyes” and “The Earthquakes.”
DORMITORY = DIRTY ROOM
PRESBYTERIAN = BEST IN PRAYER
ASTRONOMER = MOON STARER
THE EYES = THEY SEE
GEORGE BUSH = HE BUGS GORE (ha ha ha; he bugs me too but that’s not an anagram)
THE MORSE CODE = HERE COME DOTS
SLOT MACHINES = CASH LOST IN ME
ANIMOSITY = IS NO AMITY
ELECTION RESULTS = LIES - LET'S RECOUNT
MOTHER-IN-LAW = WOMAN HITLER (can’t relate)
SNOOZE ALARMS = ALAS! NO MORE Z'S
A DECIMAL POINT = I'M A DOT IN PLACE
THE EARTHQUAKES = THAT QUEER SHAKE
ELEVEN PLUS TWO = TWELVE PLUS ONE
I especially love “Election Results”, “The Eyes” and “The Earthquakes.”
May 28, 2006
Pass the cheese, please.
Before I forget, another line from X-Men III that had me cringing:
Logan, ending his version of a pep talk to Bobby Drake, who had correctly pointed out that there were only six of them to Magneto’s Army, “We’re X-Men.”
Whoa. Is that supposed to make me, like, fearless, bub?
I wanted to laugh out loud but my companions and everyone else behind me probably would have stoned me as it was apparently the dramatic high-point of the “action” movie (similar to Filipino movies where the lead explains the whole plot while hiding behind a crate and shooting an unextinguishable clip of bullets), so I kept my peace. But, man, that was such a cheesy line.
Maybe if Logan had been told that X-Men in the Philippines has been taken to refer to persons of chosen gender, he might have hesitated before saying that line.
Still and all, X-Men III is worth watching. Don’t mind me, I just have a terminal aversion to cheesy movie lines.
Logan, ending his version of a pep talk to Bobby Drake, who had correctly pointed out that there were only six of them to Magneto’s Army, “We’re X-Men.”
Whoa. Is that supposed to make me, like, fearless, bub?
I wanted to laugh out loud but my companions and everyone else behind me probably would have stoned me as it was apparently the dramatic high-point of the “action” movie (similar to Filipino movies where the lead explains the whole plot while hiding behind a crate and shooting an unextinguishable clip of bullets), so I kept my peace. But, man, that was such a cheesy line.
Maybe if Logan had been told that X-Men in the Philippines has been taken to refer to persons of chosen gender, he might have hesitated before saying that line.
Still and all, X-Men III is worth watching. Don’t mind me, I just have a terminal aversion to cheesy movie lines.
X-cited!
I grew up on books and comic books. For the longest time, I could remember my brothers and me waiting for each to finish so that we could swap issues. And, for the longest time, I could remember being very selective about the comic books I read; I was never a big fan of Superman—he was bland, shallow and too good to be true—and besides, he’s not even from earth. I was a bigger fan of Batman—now, that’s a superhero—who continues to do battle not only against crime but also against his own self and often straddling the line between giving in to his twisted side and letting his dark side win. For a young kid, that was something that caught my imagination.
One other title that caught me early was The X-Men. And I’m referring to the original team of Professor X (as he was then known), Scott Summers aka Cyclops (the team leader), his girlfriend then Jean Grey, Henry “Hank”McCoy aka The Beast (the team’s brains apart from Xavier), Warren Worthington III aka Angel and Bobby Drake aka Iceman. At that time, the word “mutant” was not too frequently used and they were just known as a group of youngsters under Xavier’s tutelage. Magneto was already around, together with his children, Wanda aka Scarlet Witch (who would team with The Avengers) and Pietro aka Quicksilver (who would start out as a villain and later join up with The Avengers and later become an X-man). It would also be during this period that villains like Juggernaut (aka Cain Marko, Xavier’s half-brother) would be introduced.
Years passed and the comic book needed to be revitalized and, thus, The Uncanny X-men came along with new members coming in and old members leaving. The very first issue saw Angel, Beast and Jean Grey leaving and Cyclops and Iceman remaining; for the first time, we saw people like Ororo Munroe aka Storm and Logan aka Wolverine (who had previously debuted in The Incredible Hulk as a villain) and Pyotr “Peter” Rasputin aka Colossus; much much later, we would get Kitty Pryde aka Shadowcat, Kurt Wagner aka Nightcrawler, Rogue, Forge, Cable, Gambit, Longshot, Dazzler and many, many others. The word “mutant” would be used more and more often and The X-men (and many other related X-titles or mutant titles such as X-Factor, Excalibur, New Mutants and Alpha Flight) would blaze the trail for issues and topics hardly ever discussed in comic books; even before the world spoke of Aids, the X-men were already grappling with the Extermination agenda, a virus so lethal that it could wipe out mutants; it was already grappling with hate, bigotry on top of the daily angst that teenagers thrust into superhero work went through. It helped that the comic book was written by many good writers, among the best of whom was Chris Claremont, and that it was drawn by many good artists.
Imagine my excitement when X-men finally hit the big screen. Although, I knew not to expect the heroes of my childhood to be portrayed in the same way, it was still so cool to see on live action something that I, as a kid, only imagined growing up. So while Wolverine was this 6 foot plus lean Australian hunk instead of a short, squat and swarthy Canadian and Scott Summers, whose mutant power aside from laser blasts for eyes was his leadership, was portrayed as a wimp, I suspended my disbelief and just simply enjoyed myself.
I recently watched X-Men III (aka The Last Stand) and thoroughly enjoyed myself. There is hardly any dialogue (except one, which I will talk about later) that matters as it is the action that moves the film and move the film, it does. Brett Ratner knows where he is strong and he capitalizes on that in this third installment of the X series. From start to finish, it is action-packed and X-afficionadoes are treated to many, many more mutants not revealed from X-Men and X2.
Worthy of mention is a delightful Kelsey Grammer (aka Frasier) as Hank McCoy; he is great in the role. Not so notable is Ben Foster as Angel, who is hardly given anything to do (compared to hism comic book treatment as one of the original X-men and who later turns to evil after being taken and changed by Apocalypse into Archangel. . . but that is several X movies down the line, I think).
The Rogue-Bobby Drake-Kitty Pryde tri-angle is well-made and quite realistic; Rogue’s angst about not being able to touch Bobby (because of her mutant power to absorb the life essence of anyone she touches with her bare skin) is quite moving and is one of the real reasons why the “cure” spoken of in the film becomes relevant. Her decision and her dialogue with Logan (who enjoys a paternal bond with her, as shown in the previous films) is quite compelling; Ana Paquin may not have done much with her powers in this film, but she does quite well as the tortured Rogue.
The actress who plays Kitty Pryde is well-cast. She calls to mind the playful child in the comic book who can phase through walls. Colossus is . . .well. . . big and metallic. I did have a hoot though with the “fastball express” (comic book readers will know what this is) between Logan and Peter and this happens twice—at the start and at the end—and enjoyed seeing this scene, done in so many comic books (and even filched by Peter Jackson in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King; see the part where Gimli tells Aragorn to throw him), come to life on the big screen.
My main complaint is Phoenix and the way they explained her. It’s lame. The entire Phoenix saga is one of the X-Men’s highest points and to have it reduced to Jean Grey having a multiple personality is a big let-down. Famke Jannsen is appropriately menacing as Phoenix and while she doesn’t really say much, the characterization of Phoenix as the mutant everyone (including Xavier and Magneto) is afraid of is quite good.
The part where I went “Oh man” is near the end when Logan, as the only one impervious to Phoenix’s power because of his mutant healing factor, manages to draw himself close enough to Phoenix to kiss—or kill—her is asked, “would you die for them?” Predictably enough (and even before this scene, I was cringing already waiting for some sappy ending between Logan and Phoenix), the response from Logan was sappy, “no, I’d die for you.” At least, it wasn’t the sappy ending I was dreading—Phoenix backs down because Logan affirms his love for her and yada yada yada yada and all that bunk; but it was bad enough.
Still and all, X-Men III manages entertain those not familiar with the series; it manages, as well, to placate a grizzled X-fan like me into really enjoying the film. Can’t wait for the next one; if not an X-movie, possibly a Wolverine movie.
(deleted for being a spoiler; sorry, didn't realize it when I first posted it.)
Oh, and by the way also, wait for the credits to end before leaving the movie house.
One other title that caught me early was The X-Men. And I’m referring to the original team of Professor X (as he was then known), Scott Summers aka Cyclops (the team leader), his girlfriend then Jean Grey, Henry “Hank”McCoy aka The Beast (the team’s brains apart from Xavier), Warren Worthington III aka Angel and Bobby Drake aka Iceman. At that time, the word “mutant” was not too frequently used and they were just known as a group of youngsters under Xavier’s tutelage. Magneto was already around, together with his children, Wanda aka Scarlet Witch (who would team with The Avengers) and Pietro aka Quicksilver (who would start out as a villain and later join up with The Avengers and later become an X-man). It would also be during this period that villains like Juggernaut (aka Cain Marko, Xavier’s half-brother) would be introduced.
Years passed and the comic book needed to be revitalized and, thus, The Uncanny X-men came along with new members coming in and old members leaving. The very first issue saw Angel, Beast and Jean Grey leaving and Cyclops and Iceman remaining; for the first time, we saw people like Ororo Munroe aka Storm and Logan aka Wolverine (who had previously debuted in The Incredible Hulk as a villain) and Pyotr “Peter” Rasputin aka Colossus; much much later, we would get Kitty Pryde aka Shadowcat, Kurt Wagner aka Nightcrawler, Rogue, Forge, Cable, Gambit, Longshot, Dazzler and many, many others. The word “mutant” would be used more and more often and The X-men (and many other related X-titles or mutant titles such as X-Factor, Excalibur, New Mutants and Alpha Flight) would blaze the trail for issues and topics hardly ever discussed in comic books; even before the world spoke of Aids, the X-men were already grappling with the Extermination agenda, a virus so lethal that it could wipe out mutants; it was already grappling with hate, bigotry on top of the daily angst that teenagers thrust into superhero work went through. It helped that the comic book was written by many good writers, among the best of whom was Chris Claremont, and that it was drawn by many good artists.
Imagine my excitement when X-men finally hit the big screen. Although, I knew not to expect the heroes of my childhood to be portrayed in the same way, it was still so cool to see on live action something that I, as a kid, only imagined growing up. So while Wolverine was this 6 foot plus lean Australian hunk instead of a short, squat and swarthy Canadian and Scott Summers, whose mutant power aside from laser blasts for eyes was his leadership, was portrayed as a wimp, I suspended my disbelief and just simply enjoyed myself.
I recently watched X-Men III (aka The Last Stand) and thoroughly enjoyed myself. There is hardly any dialogue (except one, which I will talk about later) that matters as it is the action that moves the film and move the film, it does. Brett Ratner knows where he is strong and he capitalizes on that in this third installment of the X series. From start to finish, it is action-packed and X-afficionadoes are treated to many, many more mutants not revealed from X-Men and X2.
Worthy of mention is a delightful Kelsey Grammer (aka Frasier) as Hank McCoy; he is great in the role. Not so notable is Ben Foster as Angel, who is hardly given anything to do (compared to hism comic book treatment as one of the original X-men and who later turns to evil after being taken and changed by Apocalypse into Archangel. . . but that is several X movies down the line, I think).
The Rogue-Bobby Drake-Kitty Pryde tri-angle is well-made and quite realistic; Rogue’s angst about not being able to touch Bobby (because of her mutant power to absorb the life essence of anyone she touches with her bare skin) is quite moving and is one of the real reasons why the “cure” spoken of in the film becomes relevant. Her decision and her dialogue with Logan (who enjoys a paternal bond with her, as shown in the previous films) is quite compelling; Ana Paquin may not have done much with her powers in this film, but she does quite well as the tortured Rogue.
The actress who plays Kitty Pryde is well-cast. She calls to mind the playful child in the comic book who can phase through walls. Colossus is . . .well. . . big and metallic. I did have a hoot though with the “fastball express” (comic book readers will know what this is) between Logan and Peter and this happens twice—at the start and at the end—and enjoyed seeing this scene, done in so many comic books (and even filched by Peter Jackson in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King; see the part where Gimli tells Aragorn to throw him), come to life on the big screen.
My main complaint is Phoenix and the way they explained her. It’s lame. The entire Phoenix saga is one of the X-Men’s highest points and to have it reduced to Jean Grey having a multiple personality is a big let-down. Famke Jannsen is appropriately menacing as Phoenix and while she doesn’t really say much, the characterization of Phoenix as the mutant everyone (including Xavier and Magneto) is afraid of is quite good.
The part where I went “Oh man” is near the end when Logan, as the only one impervious to Phoenix’s power because of his mutant healing factor, manages to draw himself close enough to Phoenix to kiss—or kill—her is asked, “would you die for them?” Predictably enough (and even before this scene, I was cringing already waiting for some sappy ending between Logan and Phoenix), the response from Logan was sappy, “no, I’d die for you.” At least, it wasn’t the sappy ending I was dreading—Phoenix backs down because Logan affirms his love for her and yada yada yada yada and all that bunk; but it was bad enough.
Still and all, X-Men III manages entertain those not familiar with the series; it manages, as well, to placate a grizzled X-fan like me into really enjoying the film. Can’t wait for the next one; if not an X-movie, possibly a Wolverine movie.
(deleted for being a spoiler; sorry, didn't realize it when I first posted it.)
Oh, and by the way also, wait for the credits to end before leaving the movie house.
May 27, 2006
Bonfire of Inanities
I am a Catholic—a renewed Catholic at that. I am also a lawyer—a human rights lawyer. Let’s get those two things out of the way at the start.
I will never condone, tolerate, allow, leave unaddressed any challenges to my faith; I love being a Catholic and I will use every ounce of my strength to defend it.
But I draw the line at book burning. The Philippine Daily Inquirer today carries a story about a group burning copies of the Da Vinci Code, in book form as well as in bootleg DVD form.
I draw the line at any book burning because it is censorship and it violates the right to free expression. I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST ALL FORMS OF CENSORSHIP (yes, that’s why I tolerate Kris Aquino and Boy Abunda being on the air; I exercise my right to free expression by switching the channel and not watching anything with them on it. I will, however, not interfere with any one else’s right to be “entertained” by Kris Aquino or Boy Abunda and their ilk.)
I previously posted that I would watch the Da Vinci Code (I read it many years back and found it a delightful suspense thriller with an ingenious plot albeit with sophomoric and quite shallow writing—Dan Brown is no Ellery Queen, he’s not even close to John Grisham, who’s good for comfort room or airplane reading—that’s how quickly you can read his books) and I did. I found it the worst movie I’ve watched this year (my review of DVC in two words for those who don’t want to go to the previous post: IT SUCKS!).
I see no reason (good or otherwise)—other than publicity—for book burning. For one, you destroy the environment by polluting it; second, ultimately, you waste the sacrifice of the many trees they cut down so that Dan Brown could come up with his books.
Burning books is a throwback to the burning of witches, which symbolizes a fear of the unknown, a fear of matters we cannot address; in the olden days, “witches” would be burned at the stake on mere suspicion. In 2006, a book is being burned unread by those burning it.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me, goes a child’s taunting chant. And, yes, there is a lot of truth to that.
If we have faith smaller than a mustard seed, it would still be enough to counter the lies of Dan Brown. Burning books and DVDs is not the solution. A little more RESPONSIBLE READING and RESEARCH is; motherhood statements about blasphemies is not the solution. A little more effort at EXPLAINING THE FAITH TO OTHERS IS.
At the risk of sounding self-righteous, perhaps those who allow themselves to be affected by a badly-written work of fiction and a badly-made film without reading the book or watching the movie have faith even much smaller than a mustard seed. Sticks and stones may indeed break our bones, but will words like Dan Brown’s hurt my faith?
Not if we are zealous at defending our faith through a clear, well-discerned, well-presented and sober discussion on why Dan Brown is lying and why his book should be read as fiction (and perhaps fittingly so, only in the confines of the comfort room)—not with burning of books and censorship. Even the Vatican has not called for a ban on the book or the film—and who are we to be more pope-ish than the Pope?
Instead of burning the DVC, whether symbolically or otherwise, why not read the repository of ALL TRUTH? My book burning friends, have you read your (and I’m presuming here) Bible lately?
Instead of railing on tv and radio about the lies being propagated by Dan Brown (who’s laughing all the way to the bank), why not go on tv and radio to share about the beauty and the power of God’s transforming love?
Instead of misleading the faithful about a book you have not read and a movie you have not watched, why not lead the flock to a better understanding of God’s Word and God’s Love.
But, then, these would be a lot harder than burning books, wouldn't it?
I will never condone, tolerate, allow, leave unaddressed any challenges to my faith; I love being a Catholic and I will use every ounce of my strength to defend it.
But I draw the line at book burning. The Philippine Daily Inquirer today carries a story about a group burning copies of the Da Vinci Code, in book form as well as in bootleg DVD form.
I draw the line at any book burning because it is censorship and it violates the right to free expression. I AM ABSOLUTELY AGAINST ALL FORMS OF CENSORSHIP (yes, that’s why I tolerate Kris Aquino and Boy Abunda being on the air; I exercise my right to free expression by switching the channel and not watching anything with them on it. I will, however, not interfere with any one else’s right to be “entertained” by Kris Aquino or Boy Abunda and their ilk.)
I previously posted that I would watch the Da Vinci Code (I read it many years back and found it a delightful suspense thriller with an ingenious plot albeit with sophomoric and quite shallow writing—Dan Brown is no Ellery Queen, he’s not even close to John Grisham, who’s good for comfort room or airplane reading—that’s how quickly you can read his books) and I did. I found it the worst movie I’ve watched this year (my review of DVC in two words for those who don’t want to go to the previous post: IT SUCKS!).
I see no reason (good or otherwise)—other than publicity—for book burning. For one, you destroy the environment by polluting it; second, ultimately, you waste the sacrifice of the many trees they cut down so that Dan Brown could come up with his books.
Burning books is a throwback to the burning of witches, which symbolizes a fear of the unknown, a fear of matters we cannot address; in the olden days, “witches” would be burned at the stake on mere suspicion. In 2006, a book is being burned unread by those burning it.
Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me, goes a child’s taunting chant. And, yes, there is a lot of truth to that.
If we have faith smaller than a mustard seed, it would still be enough to counter the lies of Dan Brown. Burning books and DVDs is not the solution. A little more RESPONSIBLE READING and RESEARCH is; motherhood statements about blasphemies is not the solution. A little more effort at EXPLAINING THE FAITH TO OTHERS IS.
At the risk of sounding self-righteous, perhaps those who allow themselves to be affected by a badly-written work of fiction and a badly-made film without reading the book or watching the movie have faith even much smaller than a mustard seed. Sticks and stones may indeed break our bones, but will words like Dan Brown’s hurt my faith?
Not if we are zealous at defending our faith through a clear, well-discerned, well-presented and sober discussion on why Dan Brown is lying and why his book should be read as fiction (and perhaps fittingly so, only in the confines of the comfort room)—not with burning of books and censorship. Even the Vatican has not called for a ban on the book or the film—and who are we to be more pope-ish than the Pope?
Instead of burning the DVC, whether symbolically or otherwise, why not read the repository of ALL TRUTH? My book burning friends, have you read your (and I’m presuming here) Bible lately?
Instead of railing on tv and radio about the lies being propagated by Dan Brown (who’s laughing all the way to the bank), why not go on tv and radio to share about the beauty and the power of God’s transforming love?
Instead of misleading the faithful about a book you have not read and a movie you have not watched, why not lead the flock to a better understanding of God’s Word and God’s Love.
But, then, these would be a lot harder than burning books, wouldn't it?
May 22, 2006
Identity crisis
I’ve never been overly-concerned with my identity in the sense that I’ve never really taken people to task for mistaking me for someone else. And believe me, that happens to me quite often.
One of the most amusing episodes happened in the gym.While at the drinking fountain, a lady approached me and said, “I know you, you’re that lawyer. What’s your name now?” I replied, with a sheepish grin, “I’m Atty. (and I gave my name).” Then she replied, “No,you’re not. You’re Atty. Fortun! (the reference is to any of the two Fortun brothers who garnered their share of fame or notoriety, depending on which side you are, because of the impeachment trial of Estrada)” Honestly, I didn’t know how to react to that.
Ironically, I would most often be identified with the younger of the two Fortuns; although people also mistake me for someone else less “notorious.”
On Mother’s day last week, while waiting for my family at Gateway, I heard someone say toward my direction, “Hi Fr. Jboy!” (the reference is to Fr. Jessel Gerard “Jboy” Gonzales, SJ, who, at a young age, is already gaining a reputation for being a very inspired and inspiring homilist; check out his blog here.) He’s a good friend of mine so I turned to see where he was before I realized the lady was in front of me and was greeting ME. We both had a good laugh when she realized I wasn’t him and I realized she mistook me for him!
Only yesterday, after mass, another lady accosted (she came up to me, blocked my path and “forcibly” shook my hand) me and said, “Hi, I know you. You’re Atty. Fortun!” Again, I didn’t know how to react to that.
Mistakes in identity happen. They’re often funny (as in my situations) but they can also have serious consequences--I’ve had many cases involving mistaken identity where people were arrested, tortured, killed or disappeared. Despite the differences in features, personality, look, these mistakes happen and its part of life on earth so we don’t really need to get so strung out on these mistakes.
I rest assured though of One who never mistakes me for anyone else. The One who knows me inside and out, who never fails to pick me out in any crowd, the One I can never fool regardless of what I put on or become, the One who knows my heart and its ways (Ps 139:23) because He has made me fearfully and wonderfully (139:14). My One Lord and Master. Before Him, I need not be anyone else for my identity is secure, my identity is clear, my identity is precious: I am His beloved. He has called me by name and I am his (Isaiah 43:1) and no one on earth can take that away from me.
I thank You, Lord, for giving me this unmistakeable identity as Yours. May I respond in a manner befitting Your call to me.
One of the most amusing episodes happened in the gym.While at the drinking fountain, a lady approached me and said, “I know you, you’re that lawyer. What’s your name now?” I replied, with a sheepish grin, “I’m Atty. (and I gave my name).” Then she replied, “No,you’re not. You’re Atty. Fortun! (the reference is to any of the two Fortun brothers who garnered their share of fame or notoriety, depending on which side you are, because of the impeachment trial of Estrada)” Honestly, I didn’t know how to react to that.
Ironically, I would most often be identified with the younger of the two Fortuns; although people also mistake me for someone else less “notorious.”
On Mother’s day last week, while waiting for my family at Gateway, I heard someone say toward my direction, “Hi Fr. Jboy!” (the reference is to Fr. Jessel Gerard “Jboy” Gonzales, SJ, who, at a young age, is already gaining a reputation for being a very inspired and inspiring homilist; check out his blog here.) He’s a good friend of mine so I turned to see where he was before I realized the lady was in front of me and was greeting ME. We both had a good laugh when she realized I wasn’t him and I realized she mistook me for him!
Only yesterday, after mass, another lady accosted (she came up to me, blocked my path and “forcibly” shook my hand) me and said, “Hi, I know you. You’re Atty. Fortun!” Again, I didn’t know how to react to that.
Mistakes in identity happen. They’re often funny (as in my situations) but they can also have serious consequences--I’ve had many cases involving mistaken identity where people were arrested, tortured, killed or disappeared. Despite the differences in features, personality, look, these mistakes happen and its part of life on earth so we don’t really need to get so strung out on these mistakes.
I rest assured though of One who never mistakes me for anyone else. The One who knows me inside and out, who never fails to pick me out in any crowd, the One I can never fool regardless of what I put on or become, the One who knows my heart and its ways (Ps 139:23) because He has made me fearfully and wonderfully (139:14). My One Lord and Master. Before Him, I need not be anyone else for my identity is secure, my identity is clear, my identity is precious: I am His beloved. He has called me by name and I am his (Isaiah 43:1) and no one on earth can take that away from me.
I thank You, Lord, for giving me this unmistakeable identity as Yours. May I respond in a manner befitting Your call to me.
What's the fuss? Tell me whats-a-happening?
The title comes from a song in the Tim Rice-Andrew Lloyd Webber 70s rock opera Jesus Christ Superstar which, during its time, earned (undeservedly) its share of brikcbats as it showed an all-too human side of Jesus. The song is sung by Magdalene, Peter and the apostles and is one of the catchiest songs in the entire musical. I thought of that line while watching another film about Jesus's humanity which has earned (deservedly) its share of criticism.
I watched The Da Vinci Code yesterday and truly regretted it—it was a waste of hard-earned money and precious time.
Without a doubt,--and please quote me on this--, it is ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES TO COME OUT THIS YEAR! Considering that it is Oscar winner Ron Howard who directed it and it has in its smorgasbord of stars, Oscar winners Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen and established veterans like Jean Reno and an intriguing Paul Bettany, it is a movie that truly disappoints.
The plot is confused and confusing (Akiva Goldsman, another noted screenplay writer, disappoints with this outing); the characters are very shallow and the pace is uneven and at crucial stretches dragging; I nodded off at the pivotal scene among Leigh Teabing [McKellen], Langdon [Hanks] and Sophie Neveu [aka anak ni Jesus, Audrey Toutou] where Teabing discourses about Mary Magdalene and Jesus and the Knights Templar and even the part (inserted by Goldman and Howard) where Langdon debates with Teabing (not in the book). It is that boring and that dry.
Midway through the film, you start to ask yourself, what’s the fuss all about? The movie does not even explain valuable premises and leaves the audience to wonder what the characters who, owing to the heavy French accents and overtones apparently keep mumbling to themselves about many things (if you want to see two excellent movies about mumbling, see The Godfather and The Godfather Part Two and even the particularly refreshing and delightful licensed parody The Freshman with the always delightful Matthew Broderick and a very hammy—in many ways than one-- Marlon Brando. But I digress.)
You never get to the thriller part—as in the book, which, at least is a good suspense-filled read—because every scene is so predictable. You also never get to the faith part because by then you’ve probably nodded off. Even the treasure hunt that is the basic premise of Dan Brown’s novel is shallow—I’ve seen better treasure hunt premises in The Amazing Race and Alias.
Ron Howard tries to stave off controversy involving the Opus Dei and the Vatican as well as from Christians worldwide by making Langdon a more sympathetic figure—at one point, he even challenges Teabing on the latter’s belief—and makes the Langdon character’s views less dogmatic (which, in the book, is clearly held by the Langdon character with all the lectures the character gives there). In doing so, Howard misses the entire point of the book. In trying to make it less controversial, Howard misses Dan Brown’s point—he (Brown) truly believes in what he wrote (don’t believe the balderdash that he is merely echoing the words of others; if Brown were a man of integrity—which he obviously is not—he would stand by what he wrote, especially in the first page where he says everything contained in the book is true). By trying to make the movie less controversial, Howard manages to confuse everyone and, in the process, comes up with one of the lamest excuses for a movie in recent years. What makes it truly confusing is this: in the end, Langdon “kneels” before the sarcophagus of Mary Madgalene and, in the process, reveals himself to be a believer and, thus, reveals the intrinsic and patent flaw of the characterization.
All in all, The Da Vinci Code (The Movie) sucks. Please quote me on this: it sucks. You would be better served to watch another movie or read the best selling book of all time (hint: its not by Dan Brown).
So tell me, what's the fuss? tell me whats-a-happening?
I watched The Da Vinci Code yesterday and truly regretted it—it was a waste of hard-earned money and precious time.
Without a doubt,--and please quote me on this--, it is ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES TO COME OUT THIS YEAR! Considering that it is Oscar winner Ron Howard who directed it and it has in its smorgasbord of stars, Oscar winners Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen and established veterans like Jean Reno and an intriguing Paul Bettany, it is a movie that truly disappoints.
The plot is confused and confusing (Akiva Goldsman, another noted screenplay writer, disappoints with this outing); the characters are very shallow and the pace is uneven and at crucial stretches dragging; I nodded off at the pivotal scene among Leigh Teabing [McKellen], Langdon [Hanks] and Sophie Neveu [aka anak ni Jesus, Audrey Toutou] where Teabing discourses about Mary Magdalene and Jesus and the Knights Templar and even the part (inserted by Goldman and Howard) where Langdon debates with Teabing (not in the book). It is that boring and that dry.
Midway through the film, you start to ask yourself, what’s the fuss all about? The movie does not even explain valuable premises and leaves the audience to wonder what the characters who, owing to the heavy French accents and overtones apparently keep mumbling to themselves about many things (if you want to see two excellent movies about mumbling, see The Godfather and The Godfather Part Two and even the particularly refreshing and delightful licensed parody The Freshman with the always delightful Matthew Broderick and a very hammy—in many ways than one-- Marlon Brando. But I digress.)
You never get to the thriller part—as in the book, which, at least is a good suspense-filled read—because every scene is so predictable. You also never get to the faith part because by then you’ve probably nodded off. Even the treasure hunt that is the basic premise of Dan Brown’s novel is shallow—I’ve seen better treasure hunt premises in The Amazing Race and Alias.
Ron Howard tries to stave off controversy involving the Opus Dei and the Vatican as well as from Christians worldwide by making Langdon a more sympathetic figure—at one point, he even challenges Teabing on the latter’s belief—and makes the Langdon character’s views less dogmatic (which, in the book, is clearly held by the Langdon character with all the lectures the character gives there). In doing so, Howard misses the entire point of the book. In trying to make it less controversial, Howard misses Dan Brown’s point—he (Brown) truly believes in what he wrote (don’t believe the balderdash that he is merely echoing the words of others; if Brown were a man of integrity—which he obviously is not—he would stand by what he wrote, especially in the first page where he says everything contained in the book is true). By trying to make the movie less controversial, Howard manages to confuse everyone and, in the process, comes up with one of the lamest excuses for a movie in recent years. What makes it truly confusing is this: in the end, Langdon “kneels” before the sarcophagus of Mary Madgalene and, in the process, reveals himself to be a believer and, thus, reveals the intrinsic and patent flaw of the characterization.
All in all, The Da Vinci Code (The Movie) sucks. Please quote me on this: it sucks. You would be better served to watch another movie or read the best selling book of all time (hint: its not by Dan Brown).
So tell me, what's the fuss? tell me whats-a-happening?
May 18, 2006
Love in the Open Hand (John 15:9-11)
The Gospel reading for today (May 18, 2006) is taken from The Gospel According to John (15:9-11). It is very short and familiar:
“(9)As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. (10) If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love. (11) These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be full.” (ESV)
Yet, despite its familiarity, abiding in God’s love is something that I’ve not been able to truly grasp and personalize many times. Perhaps it’s the lawyer in me—whenever I see a “condition” (clue: it usually starts with “if”) like “(i)f you keep my commandments. . .”, I start to analyze what is being asked of me. Frequently, this passage makes me reflect not so much on the extent and nature of God’s love but on what it demands of me—the “if” that is written so prominently in Jesus’s exhortation at verse 10.
Jesus says I will abide in His love “if” I keep His commandments. Again, being a lawyer, I have to be obsessed with rules—nothing gets me going more than a good debate on the law and its many “ifs” and “buts.” Yet, all that Jesus commands me is this:
“(34)A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. (35) By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” [John 13:34-35, ESV]
Simple. Straightforward. A commandment after my own heart—uncomplicated yet complex; terse but true. All that Jesus commands is that we love as He has loved us. And that is what terrifies a lot of people; okay, it is what terrifies me. To love as Jesus has loved me.
Today, as I reflect on that love, I remember a poem that a friend gave me some time back; it came with a homily which was the same title as the poem, and which I have appropriated as well for this post’s title—“love in the open hand.”
The poem is a sonnet attributed to Edna St. Vincent Millay and is written from the point of view of a young girl speaking to the man she loves; while it may speak of love that is eros, it also speaks truly of what love is—or should be—and how Jesus has loved me—us—and continues to love me—us. It speaks to me of love that is agape--love in the open hand, indeed.
In the last part of the sonnet, the young girl tells the young man she loves that she gives him a very simple thing: “love in the open hand, nothing but that. Ungemmed, unhidden, wishing not to hurt.” THAT is how Jesus loves—and that is how, in the Gospel today, He asks us to love as well. Love that is open, unhidden, unadorned—generously offered in its entirety. Love in the open hand.
During lent, Fr. Mon Bautista, S.J. spoke about loving like Jesus. He said that to love like Jesus is to become vulnerable like Him; the measure of Jesus’s love for us is that He gave it all to the point of becoming vulnerable. THAT is how love in the open hand is—to offer it all to all. Free to be accepted by all; free to be rejected by all, as well. We cannot choose to whom our love is to be offered, we cannot choose, as well, who will accept our love. If our joy is to be full, we simply must just love.
Oftentimes—okay, many times—we fail to just love. We keep our love locked away; we keep our love in a clenched fist because we choose to whom we want to give this love, we choose to what extent we wish to love, we choose under what conditions we wish to love, we choose when we wish to love.
I’ve raised my share of clenched fists as an activist and I’ve discovered that it is difficult—if not impossible-- to love with a clenched fist.
A clenched fist cannot caress. A clenched fist cannot wipe away tears. A clenched fist cannot hold another’s hand. A clenched fist cannot pat another on the back. A clenched fist cannot pick another up. A clenched fist cannot share love.
Only an open hand can.
Similar to the young girl who speaks to the man she loves in the last line of the sonnet—“look what I have!—and these are all for you.”--let us love in the same way. That we may open our hands as generous bearers of God’s love to all, reflecting our own experience with God’s love, and that we may say to all that we meet, in the same way that Jesus says to us today and everyday: look at what I have and these are all for you.
I pray for the grace to allow my clenched fists to be opened into open palms bearing love; I pray for the additional grace that my open palms may be clasped with other open palms so that love may be shared; I pray also that, having so shared love, my clenched fists may become open hands clasped in prayer or open palms outstretched in supplication, in praise, in offering.
“(9)As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. (10) If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love. (11) These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be full.” (ESV)
Yet, despite its familiarity, abiding in God’s love is something that I’ve not been able to truly grasp and personalize many times. Perhaps it’s the lawyer in me—whenever I see a “condition” (clue: it usually starts with “if”) like “(i)f you keep my commandments. . .”, I start to analyze what is being asked of me. Frequently, this passage makes me reflect not so much on the extent and nature of God’s love but on what it demands of me—the “if” that is written so prominently in Jesus’s exhortation at verse 10.
Jesus says I will abide in His love “if” I keep His commandments. Again, being a lawyer, I have to be obsessed with rules—nothing gets me going more than a good debate on the law and its many “ifs” and “buts.” Yet, all that Jesus commands me is this:
“(34)A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. (35) By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” [John 13:34-35, ESV]
Simple. Straightforward. A commandment after my own heart—uncomplicated yet complex; terse but true. All that Jesus commands is that we love as He has loved us. And that is what terrifies a lot of people; okay, it is what terrifies me. To love as Jesus has loved me.
Today, as I reflect on that love, I remember a poem that a friend gave me some time back; it came with a homily which was the same title as the poem, and which I have appropriated as well for this post’s title—“love in the open hand.”
The poem is a sonnet attributed to Edna St. Vincent Millay and is written from the point of view of a young girl speaking to the man she loves; while it may speak of love that is eros, it also speaks truly of what love is—or should be—and how Jesus has loved me—us—and continues to love me—us. It speaks to me of love that is agape--love in the open hand, indeed.
In the last part of the sonnet, the young girl tells the young man she loves that she gives him a very simple thing: “love in the open hand, nothing but that. Ungemmed, unhidden, wishing not to hurt.” THAT is how Jesus loves—and that is how, in the Gospel today, He asks us to love as well. Love that is open, unhidden, unadorned—generously offered in its entirety. Love in the open hand.
During lent, Fr. Mon Bautista, S.J. spoke about loving like Jesus. He said that to love like Jesus is to become vulnerable like Him; the measure of Jesus’s love for us is that He gave it all to the point of becoming vulnerable. THAT is how love in the open hand is—to offer it all to all. Free to be accepted by all; free to be rejected by all, as well. We cannot choose to whom our love is to be offered, we cannot choose, as well, who will accept our love. If our joy is to be full, we simply must just love.
Oftentimes—okay, many times—we fail to just love. We keep our love locked away; we keep our love in a clenched fist because we choose to whom we want to give this love, we choose to what extent we wish to love, we choose under what conditions we wish to love, we choose when we wish to love.
I’ve raised my share of clenched fists as an activist and I’ve discovered that it is difficult—if not impossible-- to love with a clenched fist.
A clenched fist cannot caress. A clenched fist cannot wipe away tears. A clenched fist cannot hold another’s hand. A clenched fist cannot pat another on the back. A clenched fist cannot pick another up. A clenched fist cannot share love.
Only an open hand can.
Similar to the young girl who speaks to the man she loves in the last line of the sonnet—“look what I have!—and these are all for you.”--let us love in the same way. That we may open our hands as generous bearers of God’s love to all, reflecting our own experience with God’s love, and that we may say to all that we meet, in the same way that Jesus says to us today and everyday: look at what I have and these are all for you.
I pray for the grace to allow my clenched fists to be opened into open palms bearing love; I pray for the additional grace that my open palms may be clasped with other open palms so that love may be shared; I pray also that, having so shared love, my clenched fists may become open hands clasped in prayer or open palms outstretched in supplication, in praise, in offering.
May 07, 2006
Felicity, Alias, Lost and now MI3
(For my 3 readers who have been asking me to comment on 464, CPR and 1017, sorry, that post is forthcoming; in the meantime, something light.)
I was prepared to hate it: MI3. I don't particularly like Tom Cruise (the only movies with him in it that I liked were Collateral--and that was because of Jamie Foxx--and Magnolia--and that was because he was so not Cruise), I think he's over-rated. I was intrigued however by one credit in MI3: JJ Abrams.
Now, my 3 regular readers know that I'm a big Alias Fan (that's primarily because of JJ Abrams) and the thought of JJ Abrams handling this franchise intrigued me.
From the very first scene, I knew I was going to love this one--it is so Abrams (those who watch Alias will know what I mean; I won't describe it as it might be a spoiler to those who haven't watched it yet). The frenetic pace, the beautiful and strong women (Keri Russell bka Felicity, Maggie Q; incidentally, Felicity and Alias are Abrams creations), the intelligent plot complete with twists and turns and the out-of-this-world situations packed into almost two hours--that's so Abrams.
MI3 does not disappoint. Unlike MI2, which, despite John Woo, never took off and MI which was mired in too much introspection and the most funereal pace, MI3 just establishes a very simple plot and lets the action rip. You hardly notice Cruise (that might be why I liked the movie) because the action is the star and for an action movie, that should be the case.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is appropriately menacing; Ving Rhames is consistently good; even Laurence Fishburne, despite the short airtime, is striking. But again, what makes MI3 good is the pace, the action and the "intelligent" suspension of disbelief that Abrams asks the viewers to go through. His scenarios make sense and the twists and turns don't appear contrived.
I just have one beef: the woman who played Ethan Hunt's wife (Maggie somebody) suddenly became a great shot despite being told how to handle a firearm a few seconds back. And a beef and a half: they should have given Keri Russell more scenes--she filled up the screen in the minutes she was there (perhaps they could give her a series similar to Alias, now that its off the air, Russell has shown that she can hold her own in action and not just in pop-drama).
I left the moviehouse feeling that the money I spent was worth it. Can't wait for Star Trek to be directed by Abrams--in 2008.
I was prepared to hate it: MI3. I don't particularly like Tom Cruise (the only movies with him in it that I liked were Collateral--and that was because of Jamie Foxx--and Magnolia--and that was because he was so not Cruise), I think he's over-rated. I was intrigued however by one credit in MI3: JJ Abrams.
Now, my 3 regular readers know that I'm a big Alias Fan (that's primarily because of JJ Abrams) and the thought of JJ Abrams handling this franchise intrigued me.
From the very first scene, I knew I was going to love this one--it is so Abrams (those who watch Alias will know what I mean; I won't describe it as it might be a spoiler to those who haven't watched it yet). The frenetic pace, the beautiful and strong women (Keri Russell bka Felicity, Maggie Q; incidentally, Felicity and Alias are Abrams creations), the intelligent plot complete with twists and turns and the out-of-this-world situations packed into almost two hours--that's so Abrams.
MI3 does not disappoint. Unlike MI2, which, despite John Woo, never took off and MI which was mired in too much introspection and the most funereal pace, MI3 just establishes a very simple plot and lets the action rip. You hardly notice Cruise (that might be why I liked the movie) because the action is the star and for an action movie, that should be the case.
Philip Seymour Hoffman is appropriately menacing; Ving Rhames is consistently good; even Laurence Fishburne, despite the short airtime, is striking. But again, what makes MI3 good is the pace, the action and the "intelligent" suspension of disbelief that Abrams asks the viewers to go through. His scenarios make sense and the twists and turns don't appear contrived.
I just have one beef: the woman who played Ethan Hunt's wife (Maggie somebody) suddenly became a great shot despite being told how to handle a firearm a few seconds back. And a beef and a half: they should have given Keri Russell more scenes--she filled up the screen in the minutes she was there (perhaps they could give her a series similar to Alias, now that its off the air, Russell has shown that she can hold her own in action and not just in pop-drama).
I left the moviehouse feeling that the money I spent was worth it. Can't wait for Star Trek to be directed by Abrams--in 2008.
May 03, 2006
Blogger's block
Haven’t blogged for some time now.
There’s been a lot on my mind and on my plate and while there is sufficient pc time and opportunity to blog, I think I have blogger’s block. There are so many things running through my mind that I want to blog about but when I sit down in front of the screen to write about them, the words come out stale and bland.
I know this blogger’s block will disappear soon. Until then. . . God bless you.
There’s been a lot on my mind and on my plate and while there is sufficient pc time and opportunity to blog, I think I have blogger’s block. There are so many things running through my mind that I want to blog about but when I sit down in front of the screen to write about them, the words come out stale and bland.
I know this blogger’s block will disappear soon. Until then. . . God bless you.
April 26, 2006
A Win?
It’s not exactly a win; in fact the dispositive portion of the Decision says all the Petitions are granted only in part and dismissed as to all other respects. But at least something came out of it.
I’m referring to the Supreme Court’s Decision in the CPR case, which I argued before the Supreme Court En Banc on April 4, promulgated yesterday.
The Court upheld the law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, which is Marcos vintage, but struck down the press release, i.e., CPR. For me, it was a foregone conclusion that CPR would be struck down but I was more interested in striking down Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. Unfortunately the Court did not see it my way.
What is interesting about the CPR Decision is this part:
“In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that “in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.”
For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious, “maximum tolerance” is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.
In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor’s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED.”
What the Court essentially ordered is that all local governments all over the country must designate freedom parks within 30 days, otherwise the “no permit, no rally” provision in the law, sec. 4, becomes inoperative. Essentially, the right to freedom of assembly has become subject to a “resolutory” condition of sorts.
That’s why it’s a weird decision, from where I sit.
Also, the Court said the law was not vague nor overbroad and that it was not a content-based restriction to freedom of assembly and expression. Of course, I disagreed with this in my Memorandum to the Court but, hey, you lose some and then you lose some more.
It’s the latest thing nowadays—a “win-win” formula for cases of transcendental public importance; for example the recent EO 464 case. I’m not sure I like this trend of decision-making of the Court right now—I’d rather lose and know why I lost rather than lose and not be able to figure out why I lost, which is what these “win-win” cases actually are not able to tell me.
In the meantime, the CPR Decision, particularly that part on Freedom Parks, is going to raise more questions than answers, particularly for May 1—where rallies are traditional and expected. I would not be exaggerating if I say that this won’t be the last we will hear of BP 880 being challenged in the Court; hopefully, the next time the Court sees the light.
I’m referring to the Supreme Court’s Decision in the CPR case, which I argued before the Supreme Court En Banc on April 4, promulgated yesterday.
The Court upheld the law, Batas Pambansa Blg. 880, which is Marcos vintage, but struck down the press release, i.e., CPR. For me, it was a foregone conclusion that CPR would be struck down but I was more interested in striking down Batas Pambansa Blg. 880. Unfortunately the Court did not see it my way.
What is interesting about the CPR Decision is this part:
“In sum, this Court reiterates its basic policy of upholding the fundamental rights of our people, especially freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. In several policy addresses, Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban has repeatedly vowed to uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. He said that “in cases involving liberty, the scales of justice should weigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, the dispossessed and the weak. Indeed, laws and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to the courts with a heavy presumption against their validity. These laws and actions are subjected to heightened scrutiny.”
For this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom. It merely confuses our people and is used by some police agents to justify abuses. On the other hand, B.P. No. 880 cannot be condemned as unconstitutional; it does not curtail or unduly restrict freedoms; it merely regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner of assemblies. Far from being insidious, “maximum tolerance” is for the benefit of rallyists, not the government. The delegation to the mayors of the power to issue rally “permits” is valid because it is subject to the constitutionally-sound “clear and present danger” standard.
In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. If, after that period, no such parks are so identified in accordance with Section 15 of the law, all public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the mayor’s office to allow proper coordination and orderly activities.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED in part, and respondents, more particularly the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, are DIRECTED to take all necessary steps for the immediate compliance with Section 15 of Batas Pambansa No. 880 through the establishment or designation of at least one suitable freedom park or plaza in every city and municipality of the country. After thirty (30) days from the finality of this Decision, subject to the giving of advance notices, no prior permit shall be required to exercise the right to peaceably assemble and petition in the public parks or plazas of a city or municipality that has not yet complied with Section 15 of the law. Furthermore, Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL and VOID and respondents are ENJOINED to REFRAIN from using it and to STRICTLY OBSERVE the requirements of maximum tolerance. The petitions are DISMISSED in all other respects, and the CONSTITUTIONALITY of Batas Pambansa No. 880 is SUSTAINED.”
What the Court essentially ordered is that all local governments all over the country must designate freedom parks within 30 days, otherwise the “no permit, no rally” provision in the law, sec. 4, becomes inoperative. Essentially, the right to freedom of assembly has become subject to a “resolutory” condition of sorts.
That’s why it’s a weird decision, from where I sit.
Also, the Court said the law was not vague nor overbroad and that it was not a content-based restriction to freedom of assembly and expression. Of course, I disagreed with this in my Memorandum to the Court but, hey, you lose some and then you lose some more.
It’s the latest thing nowadays—a “win-win” formula for cases of transcendental public importance; for example the recent EO 464 case. I’m not sure I like this trend of decision-making of the Court right now—I’d rather lose and know why I lost rather than lose and not be able to figure out why I lost, which is what these “win-win” cases actually are not able to tell me.
In the meantime, the CPR Decision, particularly that part on Freedom Parks, is going to raise more questions than answers, particularly for May 1—where rallies are traditional and expected. I would not be exaggerating if I say that this won’t be the last we will hear of BP 880 being challenged in the Court; hopefully, the next time the Court sees the light.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)