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.
My Ties, Tethers, Anchors and Roots. These keep me grounded but also allow me to dream.
May 28, 2006
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?
Labels:
random
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.
Labels:
random
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.
April 20, 2006
Venetian blinded
Fiction from Faith.
That is what the forthcoming Philippine release of The Da Vinci Code expects us to think about. So too the recent revelation that there is what is called a Gospel of Judas—note it is not the Gospel According to Judas but the Gospel of Judas. The title alone tells everything.
In DVC, the title tells us of a code that comes from Venice—not from Leonarda Da Vinci. That, by itself, should tell us to take what it says with a large heaping pinch of salt. Any reference to Leonardo Da Vinci should be to “Leonardo” and not “Da Vinci” as the former is his name, the latter is a reference to his roots—Venice. At least, the Ninja turtles got it right. So, how do we look at DVC? As a work of fiction, as a work of suspense, as a novel—but certainly not as truth nor as gospel truth. Will I watch it? Sure, I like Tom Hanks and I love a good suspense movie. Will it affect me and my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word not to Dan Brown or to any other “gospel” he may be referring to.
The so-called Gospel of Judas also tells us a lot by the title alone. Gospel means “good news”; that’s why the four Gospels in the Bible are “Gospels According to” and not “Gospels of.” The four Gospel writers clearly point to one direction only—the good news comes from Christ and the good news is salvation. So, there is a Gospel of Judas; that means its essentially a brief for the man who betrayed Jesus and is intended to propagate the “good news” about Judas, not about Jesus and his salvific love. Would I read it? Given a chance and assuming someone translates it into understandable English, sure. Will it affect my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word, not to Judas and his “good news.”
These are simplistic ways of insisting on our faith. But, for me, we have to start somewhere and differentiating fact from fiction is the most logical starting point. Let’s not ban DVC or any the supposed Gospel of Judas—doing that will simply pique curiosity. Let the movie be shown but insist that it is a work of fiction and not faith and encourage the faithful to know the difference—at the pulpit and also in schools, forums or any other gathering of the faithful.
If you want to watch DVC and be entertained for two hours, go and watch it. But if you want to know God, seek Him out in prayer, seek Him out in reading His Word, seek Him out in the Lives of the Saints, seek Him out in the lives of the many men and women He sends to touch our lives—hopefully, these will take more than two hours and perhaps even a lifetime.
That is what the forthcoming Philippine release of The Da Vinci Code expects us to think about. So too the recent revelation that there is what is called a Gospel of Judas—note it is not the Gospel According to Judas but the Gospel of Judas. The title alone tells everything.
In DVC, the title tells us of a code that comes from Venice—not from Leonarda Da Vinci. That, by itself, should tell us to take what it says with a large heaping pinch of salt. Any reference to Leonardo Da Vinci should be to “Leonardo” and not “Da Vinci” as the former is his name, the latter is a reference to his roots—Venice. At least, the Ninja turtles got it right. So, how do we look at DVC? As a work of fiction, as a work of suspense, as a novel—but certainly not as truth nor as gospel truth. Will I watch it? Sure, I like Tom Hanks and I love a good suspense movie. Will it affect me and my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word not to Dan Brown or to any other “gospel” he may be referring to.
The so-called Gospel of Judas also tells us a lot by the title alone. Gospel means “good news”; that’s why the four Gospels in the Bible are “Gospels According to” and not “Gospels of.” The four Gospel writers clearly point to one direction only—the good news comes from Christ and the good news is salvation. So, there is a Gospel of Judas; that means its essentially a brief for the man who betrayed Jesus and is intended to propagate the “good news” about Judas, not about Jesus and his salvific love. Would I read it? Given a chance and assuming someone translates it into understandable English, sure. Will it affect my faith? NO. On matters of faith, I turn to God’s Word, not to Judas and his “good news.”
These are simplistic ways of insisting on our faith. But, for me, we have to start somewhere and differentiating fact from fiction is the most logical starting point. Let’s not ban DVC or any the supposed Gospel of Judas—doing that will simply pique curiosity. Let the movie be shown but insist that it is a work of fiction and not faith and encourage the faithful to know the difference—at the pulpit and also in schools, forums or any other gathering of the faithful.
If you want to watch DVC and be entertained for two hours, go and watch it. But if you want to know God, seek Him out in prayer, seek Him out in reading His Word, seek Him out in the Lives of the Saints, seek Him out in the lives of the many men and women He sends to touch our lives—hopefully, these will take more than two hours and perhaps even a lifetime.
April 18, 2006
"Second rate, trying hard. . . "
As far as political gimmicks go, its not even original. The first dictator did it—several times. I’m referring to commuting sentences of convicts on a special occasion. Marcos did it on his birthday, on Imelda’s birthday, on the anniversary of the new society—just so that he could put a benevolent sheen to his dictatorship.
What did that wise man say about old dogs and new tricks.
The current dictator has taken a page from the old one, which somehow leads me to admire Imee Marcos’s riposte about the current dictator being a “second rate, trying hard copycat” for its candor, if not its media-impact (One would wish that neither Imee nor the current dictator would try so hard though.)
The Easter message of the dictator mentioned a new policy of commutation of all death sentences. Now, all the legal scholars—acknowledged, unacknowledged, self-proclaimed or otherwise—have spoken at length about the commutations being flawed constitutionally because: 1. they trench on the judicial power to review death sentences, 2. they are broad and sweeping and may impair the rights of the truly innocent on death row (yes, there are those) and 3. commutations cannot be given on a blanket basis because they would involve only those sentenced by final judgment to death and would have to be determined on individual merits on a case to case basis. So I won’t bother too much with these.
What I do mind is the dictator using lives to simply toady up to the Catholic church and get the church’s nod on charter change. If the dictator had suddenly come to an epiphany in the cool mountain air of Baguio, I am certain that the Holy Spirit would have told her—just have the death penalty law repealed. Now, that would underscore a serious commitment to the sanctity of life. Oh, and I’m sure in the next whisper, the Holy Spirit would have told her—forget about charter change and just resign.
Unfortunately, from media grabs of the lent retreat, she sat beside Totoy Wangwang (aka Raul Gonzalez) and, despite what she may claim, the Holy Spirit doesn’t sound like Raul Gonzalez—perhaps another spirit, certainly not the Holy one.
I blogged about this before—I’ll believe it when I see it. Certify the bill to repeal the death penalty (of course, there’s nothing to prevent her stooges from inserting another constitutional provision in their proposed constitution on this; but that’s another story altogether.) and stop resorting to cheap—and unoriginal—gimmicks.
What did that wise man say about old dogs and new tricks.
The current dictator has taken a page from the old one, which somehow leads me to admire Imee Marcos’s riposte about the current dictator being a “second rate, trying hard copycat” for its candor, if not its media-impact (One would wish that neither Imee nor the current dictator would try so hard though.)
The Easter message of the dictator mentioned a new policy of commutation of all death sentences. Now, all the legal scholars—acknowledged, unacknowledged, self-proclaimed or otherwise—have spoken at length about the commutations being flawed constitutionally because: 1. they trench on the judicial power to review death sentences, 2. they are broad and sweeping and may impair the rights of the truly innocent on death row (yes, there are those) and 3. commutations cannot be given on a blanket basis because they would involve only those sentenced by final judgment to death and would have to be determined on individual merits on a case to case basis. So I won’t bother too much with these.
What I do mind is the dictator using lives to simply toady up to the Catholic church and get the church’s nod on charter change. If the dictator had suddenly come to an epiphany in the cool mountain air of Baguio, I am certain that the Holy Spirit would have told her—just have the death penalty law repealed. Now, that would underscore a serious commitment to the sanctity of life. Oh, and I’m sure in the next whisper, the Holy Spirit would have told her—forget about charter change and just resign.
Unfortunately, from media grabs of the lent retreat, she sat beside Totoy Wangwang (aka Raul Gonzalez) and, despite what she may claim, the Holy Spirit doesn’t sound like Raul Gonzalez—perhaps another spirit, certainly not the Holy one.
I blogged about this before—I’ll believe it when I see it. Certify the bill to repeal the death penalty (of course, there’s nothing to prevent her stooges from inserting another constitutional provision in their proposed constitution on this; but that’s another story altogether.) and stop resorting to cheap—and unoriginal—gimmicks.
April 10, 2006
Love, repeatedly
Repetition is an expression of love. Doing things over and over again, an endless cycle, a repetition of familiar events and happenings—it is the essence of and an expression of love.
That startled me. It was among the first few lines spoken by Sr. Perry, our retreat facilitator in the first session of our retreat. And it brought me upright and prompted me to write it down.
She was saying, “why do we do things over and over again? We are about to celebrate Holy Week, again; paulit-ulit, para tayong loko-loko. Yet we do it., Why? Because doing things over and over again shows that we love. If we do not love, then we would do something and stop.”
That made me really think.
Why, indeed, do we do the many things we do over and over again—because we believe that these things are worth our time and effort, because we believe that we will make a difference, because we believe that some day, some time, we will get it right. Perhaps, but I liked Sr. Perry’s way of putting it best: it is way of showing that you love.
I was on silent retreat with my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC at Sacred Heart Novitiate last weekend and after Sr. Perry said that, I just could not do the activity she asked us to do but I spent a lot of time chewing on that nugget of wisdom: repetition as an expression of love.
And then, I realized the enormity of that truth: it is reflected after all in God’s own act of showing love. God did not impose a one-time offer: “I love you; take it or leave it.” Its not as if God’s love were a sale—for a limited period. God’s love is eternal, limitless, boundless and God shows His love repeatedly for His people; for me.
God is not content with one single moment of grace, one single return to Him; He pursues me—repeatedly. Each time I fall from grace, He does not write me off—“tsk, tsk, tsk, I knew it. He can’t hack it”—but instead, picks me up, dusts me off and sends me on my way—again and again and again.
Under the tree-lined beauty of Sacred Heart Novitiate, I marveled at the many ways God showed that He loved me—as he repeatedly would send me grace upon grace, blessing upon blessing, even adversity upon adversity.
Just before lunch of the first day, sitting in a low swing under a tree, with my feet dirtied by the soil below me, I asked myself if I could be capable of that kind of love—to repeatedly do things over and over and over again, selflessly, all in love’s name. And I answered my own question with a “no.” I am not capable of that kind of love for many times, I tend to stop and let my humanity take over; I tend to not “waste time and effort.” And I fell to my knees, like Nehemiah, imploring God’s mercy that He might make more loving, He might make me more determined to be more loving. A I ended my prayer, I heard the Lord say to me—in the silence of Sacred Heart Novitiate and amidst the noise of my heart—“thank you for asking for that grace.”
It was a great start for an immensely fulfilling journey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal aside: I’ve raved about Sacred Heart Novitiate’s beauty for some time already; I think the brothers and sisters have been tuning out whenever I start on this.
But more than ever, last weekend, SHN became a beautiful place for me; perhaps it was because it was silent and God’s voice really could be heard or because it was peaceful and God’s presence could be felt.
Looking at them last weekend, I know that my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC appreciated the beauty of the place and now share this little secret with me as I saw them choose their favorite bench, their favorite swing, their favorite tree amidst the silence that is not the absence of sound but the absence of noise, amidst the solitude that is not the absence of people but the presence of God.
That startled me. It was among the first few lines spoken by Sr. Perry, our retreat facilitator in the first session of our retreat. And it brought me upright and prompted me to write it down.
She was saying, “why do we do things over and over again? We are about to celebrate Holy Week, again; paulit-ulit, para tayong loko-loko. Yet we do it., Why? Because doing things over and over again shows that we love. If we do not love, then we would do something and stop.”
That made me really think.
Why, indeed, do we do the many things we do over and over again—because we believe that these things are worth our time and effort, because we believe that we will make a difference, because we believe that some day, some time, we will get it right. Perhaps, but I liked Sr. Perry’s way of putting it best: it is way of showing that you love.
I was on silent retreat with my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC at Sacred Heart Novitiate last weekend and after Sr. Perry said that, I just could not do the activity she asked us to do but I spent a lot of time chewing on that nugget of wisdom: repetition as an expression of love.
And then, I realized the enormity of that truth: it is reflected after all in God’s own act of showing love. God did not impose a one-time offer: “I love you; take it or leave it.” Its not as if God’s love were a sale—for a limited period. God’s love is eternal, limitless, boundless and God shows His love repeatedly for His people; for me.
God is not content with one single moment of grace, one single return to Him; He pursues me—repeatedly. Each time I fall from grace, He does not write me off—“tsk, tsk, tsk, I knew it. He can’t hack it”—but instead, picks me up, dusts me off and sends me on my way—again and again and again.
Under the tree-lined beauty of Sacred Heart Novitiate, I marveled at the many ways God showed that He loved me—as he repeatedly would send me grace upon grace, blessing upon blessing, even adversity upon adversity.
Just before lunch of the first day, sitting in a low swing under a tree, with my feet dirtied by the soil below me, I asked myself if I could be capable of that kind of love—to repeatedly do things over and over and over again, selflessly, all in love’s name. And I answered my own question with a “no.” I am not capable of that kind of love for many times, I tend to stop and let my humanity take over; I tend to not “waste time and effort.” And I fell to my knees, like Nehemiah, imploring God’s mercy that He might make more loving, He might make me more determined to be more loving. A I ended my prayer, I heard the Lord say to me—in the silence of Sacred Heart Novitiate and amidst the noise of my heart—“thank you for asking for that grace.”
It was a great start for an immensely fulfilling journey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal aside: I’ve raved about Sacred Heart Novitiate’s beauty for some time already; I think the brothers and sisters have been tuning out whenever I start on this.
But more than ever, last weekend, SHN became a beautiful place for me; perhaps it was because it was silent and God’s voice really could be heard or because it was peaceful and God’s presence could be felt.
Looking at them last weekend, I know that my brothers and sisters from Lingkod QC appreciated the beauty of the place and now share this little secret with me as I saw them choose their favorite bench, their favorite swing, their favorite tree amidst the silence that is not the absence of sound but the absence of noise, amidst the solitude that is not the absence of people but the presence of God.
April 07, 2006
Noises off
Noise really does wear you down. It causes your body to react in many ways that we sometimes don’t realize.
These past weeks have been noisy for me.
I look forward to two days of retreat—of solitude that is not simply being alone but of being alone with God, of silence that is not absence of sound but the absence of noise.
Like Elijah, I seek the Lord not in the earthquake, not in the raging wind but in the gentle breeze.
I pray for this grace to be able to set these past weeks aside and focus on the God of the gentle breeze, the God whose power is not in noise but in the sound of His voice alone—the voice that calls me from my tomb to break the fetters of sin that bind and the mask of death that blinds and commands me to walk into the light.
These past weeks have been noisy for me.
I look forward to two days of retreat—of solitude that is not simply being alone but of being alone with God, of silence that is not absence of sound but the absence of noise.
Like Elijah, I seek the Lord not in the earthquake, not in the raging wind but in the gentle breeze.
I pray for this grace to be able to set these past weeks aside and focus on the God of the gentle breeze, the God whose power is not in noise but in the sound of His voice alone—the voice that calls me from my tomb to break the fetters of sin that bind and the mask of death that blinds and commands me to walk into the light.
April 04, 2006
Orals
The Resolution reads, in part:
“For PETITIONERS, Atty. Theodore Te will argue for a maximum of twenty five (25) minutes and he will decide on how to share his time with the other counsel/s for petitioners.”
Its not my first oral argument before the Supreme Court En Banc—its my fifth (previously on the Death Penalty [People v. Malabago], Oil Deregulation [Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo et al. v. Executive Secretary], Visiting Forces Agreement [Jovito Salonga, Wigberto R. Tanada, et al. v. Executive Secretary, Electricity rates [Freedom from Debt Coalition et al. v. ERC and MERALCO]) but the thrill—and the anxiety—is still there.
Today, the Court set orals for the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) issue (Del Prado et al. v. Ermita et al.) and at 1 pm, I will stand before the 15-member Court and once again start with that over-used opening, “May it please this Court. . .”
I’ve been preparing for this for what seems like ages and to speak only for 25 minutes. In an oral argument, however, 25 minutes is like the last two minutes of a basketball game—it can last for hours. In the Meralco orals, I started at 10 in the morning with my presentation and ended my presentation at 4 in the afternoon straight (without lunchbreak, coffeebreak or bathroom break); the orals for that case ended eventually at 9 in the evening.
I pray not only for wisdom, guidance, inspiration but also that I won’t need a bathroom break for hours.
“For PETITIONERS, Atty. Theodore Te will argue for a maximum of twenty five (25) minutes and he will decide on how to share his time with the other counsel/s for petitioners.”
Its not my first oral argument before the Supreme Court En Banc—its my fifth (previously on the Death Penalty [People v. Malabago], Oil Deregulation [Edcel Lagman, Joker Arroyo et al. v. Executive Secretary], Visiting Forces Agreement [Jovito Salonga, Wigberto R. Tanada, et al. v. Executive Secretary, Electricity rates [Freedom from Debt Coalition et al. v. ERC and MERALCO]) but the thrill—and the anxiety—is still there.
Today, the Court set orals for the Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) issue (Del Prado et al. v. Ermita et al.) and at 1 pm, I will stand before the 15-member Court and once again start with that over-used opening, “May it please this Court. . .”
I’ve been preparing for this for what seems like ages and to speak only for 25 minutes. In an oral argument, however, 25 minutes is like the last two minutes of a basketball game—it can last for hours. In the Meralco orals, I started at 10 in the morning with my presentation and ended my presentation at 4 in the afternoon straight (without lunchbreak, coffeebreak or bathroom break); the orals for that case ended eventually at 9 in the evening.
I pray not only for wisdom, guidance, inspiration but also that I won’t need a bathroom break for hours.
March 31, 2006
Rising higher than the source
Ever since I started teaching law (in 96), this time of year has always been special. It’s the time of the year that the Bar results come out.
For the civilians (read: non-lawyers) out there, this is going be totally difficult to understand because you just have to experience it to know what I am talking about. The Bar, that is, and the seemingly interminable wait for the results.
When the results of my bar exams came out, I and a classmate (now my law partner) were outside the Supreme Court well into the early hours of the April morning; we had commandeered a public pay phone and, with the help of classmates and batchmates inside the Court, were listing as many names of classmates and batchmates we could remember. I remember whooping out loud when I finally heard that my name was on the list (because of my initials, my name would appear on the last few pages). And suddenly, the four years of studying suddenly took on some meaning.
Now that I am teaching law, this time of year takes on special significance—it’s the time of the year that I remember those whom I’ve taught and are now officially members of the legal profession. As I was scanning the list on the net earlier this morning, I started conjuring up faces and even seating positions in the various classes they took under me. Funny (for me) and tragic (for them) moments of inane recitation came back unbidden—sometimes, I even remember what I said as riposte to particular gems of “how not to recite in law school.”
I remember all of these even as I hope that they will become better lawyers than I am for otherwise, all I did then was to mold mediocrity. Unlike the saying, I believe that the stream must rise higher than its source for it is only then that there can be change, for the better.
The Bar is a rite of passage, of sorts. But now the real test starts: you join a profession that is far from perfect and far from noble, you will soon be among the ranks of men and women who, in their all too human moments , will succumb to the temptation to use the law for reasons other than to do justice and to transform society and its inhabitants. Your passage from onlooker and bystander to actor and participant in the stage of Philippine life and society is at hand. The choice is always yours.
May you make a choice to make this far from perfect and far from noble profession one that will truly live up to its calling to do justice to every person and to transform society.
Until then, congratulations Batch 2005! See you in court!
For the civilians (read: non-lawyers) out there, this is going be totally difficult to understand because you just have to experience it to know what I am talking about. The Bar, that is, and the seemingly interminable wait for the results.
When the results of my bar exams came out, I and a classmate (now my law partner) were outside the Supreme Court well into the early hours of the April morning; we had commandeered a public pay phone and, with the help of classmates and batchmates inside the Court, were listing as many names of classmates and batchmates we could remember. I remember whooping out loud when I finally heard that my name was on the list (because of my initials, my name would appear on the last few pages). And suddenly, the four years of studying suddenly took on some meaning.
Now that I am teaching law, this time of year takes on special significance—it’s the time of the year that I remember those whom I’ve taught and are now officially members of the legal profession. As I was scanning the list on the net earlier this morning, I started conjuring up faces and even seating positions in the various classes they took under me. Funny (for me) and tragic (for them) moments of inane recitation came back unbidden—sometimes, I even remember what I said as riposte to particular gems of “how not to recite in law school.”
I remember all of these even as I hope that they will become better lawyers than I am for otherwise, all I did then was to mold mediocrity. Unlike the saying, I believe that the stream must rise higher than its source for it is only then that there can be change, for the better.
The Bar is a rite of passage, of sorts. But now the real test starts: you join a profession that is far from perfect and far from noble, you will soon be among the ranks of men and women who, in their all too human moments , will succumb to the temptation to use the law for reasons other than to do justice and to transform society and its inhabitants. Your passage from onlooker and bystander to actor and participant in the stage of Philippine life and society is at hand. The choice is always yours.
May you make a choice to make this far from perfect and far from noble profession one that will truly live up to its calling to do justice to every person and to transform society.
Until then, congratulations Batch 2005! See you in court!
March 27, 2006
Hmmmm moments
It starts as something that you never thought about but as you start thinking about it, you suddenly realize, “why didn’t I think about that?”
These strange moments of epiphany come to you unbidden and, sometimes, unwelcome but, almost everytime, significant.
Little things; nothing earthshaking; certainly, nothing that would win you any of the Nobel prizes or turn the world, as we know it, on its head. But still, little though they may be in the grander scale of things, they do give you pause.
I had one of those moments of epiphany lately—usually that happens when I’m not doing anything, which is not very often, or strangely enough, when I’m pressed for time with everything I’m doing, which is often (like right now).
It’s one of those “hmmmm” moments which usually place a furrow in your brow or a goofy smile on your mug.
That’s where I am right now—furrowed brow but goofy smile.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
These strange moments of epiphany come to you unbidden and, sometimes, unwelcome but, almost everytime, significant.
Little things; nothing earthshaking; certainly, nothing that would win you any of the Nobel prizes or turn the world, as we know it, on its head. But still, little though they may be in the grander scale of things, they do give you pause.
I had one of those moments of epiphany lately—usually that happens when I’m not doing anything, which is not very often, or strangely enough, when I’m pressed for time with everything I’m doing, which is often (like right now).
It’s one of those “hmmmm” moments which usually place a furrow in your brow or a goofy smile on your mug.
That’s where I am right now—furrowed brow but goofy smile.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
March 21, 2006
dubious Alias
Just went through an 8-DVD boxed set of the 4th season of “Alias”—the type that Edu Manzano goes after. Just when it got to the DVD of the very last episode and just when things start to get exciting, the frame freezes and remains frozen. . . despite anything I do to get it started again. I played it on my “pirated” DVD player—no go.
Will see if I can just score the last episode on the net.
Will see if I can just score the last episode on the net.
Short memories
What we are seeing now is the clearest sign that in any upheaval, to the victor go the spoils.
When Gloria launched her own coup d’etat against Erap in 2001, she had her own left and right “tactical alliance”—this much is already part of history. Dinky Soliman, the first member of her cabinet to be announced, was most probably already thinking up and doing the many gimmicks she is doing now, as part of the so-called “civil society.” When her coup d’etat succeeded, the criminals took over government.
In law, there is a theory of non-liability that is premised on the existence of a crime but no criminal; it is called an exempting circumstance. In a coup d’etat, it appears that success is an exempting circumstance; for certainly, no one will prosecute the successful coup stagers as they would have taken over the government already. There is a crime but no criminal—well, at least none that can be prosecuted, during their tenure.
Gloria should remember her history and she should stop being so hypocritical, if this is not a genetic trait on her part (if it is, then she should try very hard to not be so hypocritical). The left and right tactical alliance she is decrying now is taken from her own playbook.
Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
When Gloria launched her own coup d’etat against Erap in 2001, she had her own left and right “tactical alliance”—this much is already part of history. Dinky Soliman, the first member of her cabinet to be announced, was most probably already thinking up and doing the many gimmicks she is doing now, as part of the so-called “civil society.” When her coup d’etat succeeded, the criminals took over government.
In law, there is a theory of non-liability that is premised on the existence of a crime but no criminal; it is called an exempting circumstance. In a coup d’etat, it appears that success is an exempting circumstance; for certainly, no one will prosecute the successful coup stagers as they would have taken over the government already. There is a crime but no criminal—well, at least none that can be prosecuted, during their tenure.
Gloria should remember her history and she should stop being so hypocritical, if this is not a genetic trait on her part (if it is, then she should try very hard to not be so hypocritical). The left and right tactical alliance she is decrying now is taken from her own playbook.
Those who do not remember the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
March 20, 2006
The new yellow
Black is the new yellow.
In the old dictatorship of Marcos, the conjugal dictatorship wanted all taxis painted another color other than yellow because yellow became associated with Ninoy Aquino and the street protests.
In this current dictatorship, it appears black is the new yellow.
As with all dictatorships, they start by being OA (over-acting).
In the old dictatorship of Marcos, the conjugal dictatorship wanted all taxis painted another color other than yellow because yellow became associated with Ninoy Aquino and the street protests.
In this current dictatorship, it appears black is the new yellow.
As with all dictatorships, they start by being OA (over-acting).
March 16, 2006
Affirmation
Was pleasantly surprised to get this from my students in an email. It's inspiring to know that there is hope still for Malcolm Hall residents and that perhaps despite or inspite of our efforts and shortcomings as faculty members, they're learning something--most still can't address a rally in straight Filipino though.
------------------------------------------------------------
Call of the Times
Proclamation 1017 (Proc. 1017) was issued on February 24 2006. Since then, our collective shock was overtaken by a series of state actions that run counter to our reasonable expectations as citizens of a democratic republic: violent dispersals of, and ban against public assemblies; denial of due process; the raid on the Tribune offices and police presence in media establishments; the threat of arrest against members of the House. Proc. 1017, and public officers’ acts pursuant to it, are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They trespass into a territory where they are most unwelcome – the sphere of civil rights and liberties which no less than the constitution deems hallowed ground. Proc. 1017 vests upon the President a plethora of powers akin to those enjoyed by Marcos during Martial Law. It is an issuance that, in substance and in operation, unabashedly tramples upon our protected freedoms. We believe that we have to contend against Proc. 1017 on the basis of actual consequences that it has already effected in society. The fact that it was couched in a language that is harmless by constitutional standards does not make it less reprehensible. Constitutional defect cannot be rectified by evasive phraseology. Consenting to bring the debate to the level of semantics is paying homage to the skewed legal minds behind the President, who had no qualms exploiting the gray areas of the constitution to serve unprincipled ends. We will not give them that satisfaction.
THE CALL is to speak – loudly, clearly, courageously – for ourselves and in behalf of those who cannot. If we believe that Proc. 1017 is unconstitutional, we should lead our fellow students on saying so without reservations or delay. We owe it to the students of UP, our faculty, and the College of Law to herald our presence in the university and national scene. The majesty of the law – what it is, what it means, what it stands for – is not confined in the classroom. It also thrives in the heart of society and pulsates through the veins of the body politic. There are times when the intellect must be enriched, and times when relevance must be asserted. There is no conflict between the two endeavors, if we believe in learning the law in the Grand Manner.
THE CALL is to learn FROM and WITH the people, to LIVE the days and not simply LIVE THROUGH them, and to be OBJECTS, not mere ACCESSORIES, of history. We must act NOW.
UP Law Class 2009B
SUPPORT THE BLACK-AND-RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN.
Through BLACK we mourn the death of civil liberties;
through RED we invoke the spirit of resistance and militancy that will revive it.
------------------------------------------------------------
Call of the Times
Proclamation 1017 (Proc. 1017) was issued on February 24 2006. Since then, our collective shock was overtaken by a series of state actions that run counter to our reasonable expectations as citizens of a democratic republic: violent dispersals of, and ban against public assemblies; denial of due process; the raid on the Tribune offices and police presence in media establishments; the threat of arrest against members of the House. Proc. 1017, and public officers’ acts pursuant to it, are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. They trespass into a territory where they are most unwelcome – the sphere of civil rights and liberties which no less than the constitution deems hallowed ground. Proc. 1017 vests upon the President a plethora of powers akin to those enjoyed by Marcos during Martial Law. It is an issuance that, in substance and in operation, unabashedly tramples upon our protected freedoms. We believe that we have to contend against Proc. 1017 on the basis of actual consequences that it has already effected in society. The fact that it was couched in a language that is harmless by constitutional standards does not make it less reprehensible. Constitutional defect cannot be rectified by evasive phraseology. Consenting to bring the debate to the level of semantics is paying homage to the skewed legal minds behind the President, who had no qualms exploiting the gray areas of the constitution to serve unprincipled ends. We will not give them that satisfaction.
THE CALL is to speak – loudly, clearly, courageously – for ourselves and in behalf of those who cannot. If we believe that Proc. 1017 is unconstitutional, we should lead our fellow students on saying so without reservations or delay. We owe it to the students of UP, our faculty, and the College of Law to herald our presence in the university and national scene. The majesty of the law – what it is, what it means, what it stands for – is not confined in the classroom. It also thrives in the heart of society and pulsates through the veins of the body politic. There are times when the intellect must be enriched, and times when relevance must be asserted. There is no conflict between the two endeavors, if we believe in learning the law in the Grand Manner.
THE CALL is to learn FROM and WITH the people, to LIVE the days and not simply LIVE THROUGH them, and to be OBJECTS, not mere ACCESSORIES, of history. We must act NOW.
UP Law Class 2009B
SUPPORT THE BLACK-AND-RED RIBBON CAMPAIGN.
Through BLACK we mourn the death of civil liberties;
through RED we invoke the spirit of resistance and militancy that will revive it.
March 15, 2006
Good man gone
His “resignation” letter gave the end date as “April 1, 2006 or until my replacement is appointed, whichever is earlier.” Thus ended the public life of Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo, Tribune of the People.
He is a good man in a rotten government; a good lawyer in a lawless reign.
Thrust into the thankless defense of an indefensible government and an illegitimate ruler, this good man became the public face of a government that deserved to be publicly humiliated. Before his peers in a Court he had served long and faithfully, the Tribune of the People simply could not provide the reasons for something that was totally beyond reason. And when that public humiliation did come—within the halls of the Court and in the bar of public opinion—it was all he could do to put a brave smile on his face and pretend that nothing was wrong.
Yet, it is in the character of the man who would not simply allow that brave smile and feeble pretense to be his legacy.
That he “resigned” yesterday, pending the submission of a Memorandum that would rationalize the dictator’s rule, betrayed the turmoil behind that brave smile. That an “equal” in the Secretary of Justice (I use this loosely in relation to the current Secretary of Justice because he is far from being Benipayo’s equal--in erudition, in integrity, in character) would “accept” or even “demand” his resignation is the unkindest cut of all.
Someday, perhaps, when there is no longer a reason for that brave smile and the feeble pretense, Benipayo may tell us the reasons why he would abandon the dictator at the most crucial point in its legal battle for legitimacy. As he belts Sinatra and Bennett, one day, Benipayo may tell us what everyone now “knows”—that he was fired because he could not defend the indefensible and could not legitimize the illegitimate.
In the meantime, the Tribune of the People is gone; long may he live!
He is a good man in a rotten government; a good lawyer in a lawless reign.
Thrust into the thankless defense of an indefensible government and an illegitimate ruler, this good man became the public face of a government that deserved to be publicly humiliated. Before his peers in a Court he had served long and faithfully, the Tribune of the People simply could not provide the reasons for something that was totally beyond reason. And when that public humiliation did come—within the halls of the Court and in the bar of public opinion—it was all he could do to put a brave smile on his face and pretend that nothing was wrong.
Yet, it is in the character of the man who would not simply allow that brave smile and feeble pretense to be his legacy.
That he “resigned” yesterday, pending the submission of a Memorandum that would rationalize the dictator’s rule, betrayed the turmoil behind that brave smile. That an “equal” in the Secretary of Justice (I use this loosely in relation to the current Secretary of Justice because he is far from being Benipayo’s equal--in erudition, in integrity, in character) would “accept” or even “demand” his resignation is the unkindest cut of all.
Someday, perhaps, when there is no longer a reason for that brave smile and the feeble pretense, Benipayo may tell us the reasons why he would abandon the dictator at the most crucial point in its legal battle for legitimacy. As he belts Sinatra and Bennett, one day, Benipayo may tell us what everyone now “knows”—that he was fired because he could not defend the indefensible and could not legitimize the illegitimate.
In the meantime, the Tribune of the People is gone; long may he live!
March 09, 2006
Changing me
Reflecting on what is happening to the country now under this dictatorship, I have had to confront so many things about myself—impetuousness, anger, rage, refusal to love, refusal to forgive. In prayer, I have brought all these to God and yet, they remain.
This has led me to reflect even more why they remain and I am reminded of the exhortation in James 5:13-18:
“Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.”
It speaks of praying in season and out of season; it speaks of prayer as the first and only imperative in the life of one created by God in love and for love.
Many times, I have looked at prayer as a “quick fix” or a “magic wand.” Many times, I have asked God, in prayer, to change the many things around me I do not like—the current situation with the dictatorship is one of many things I pray about. Yet, they remain and do not change. Yet, James in his exhortation speaks of prayer having great power in its effects.
Of course, I could always say that James spoke of a righteous man and I am not a righteous man (spoken like a lawyer) and, therefore, my prayer is not great in its effects. While this may be true, yet, I do not think that is all there is to it.
Perhaps, instead of praying that God change what is going on, my prayer should be that God change me.
This has led me to reflect even more why they remain and I am reminded of the exhortation in James 5:13-18:
“Is any one among you suffering? Let him pray. Is any cheerful? Let him sing praise. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit.”
It speaks of praying in season and out of season; it speaks of prayer as the first and only imperative in the life of one created by God in love and for love.
Many times, I have looked at prayer as a “quick fix” or a “magic wand.” Many times, I have asked God, in prayer, to change the many things around me I do not like—the current situation with the dictatorship is one of many things I pray about. Yet, they remain and do not change. Yet, James in his exhortation speaks of prayer having great power in its effects.
Of course, I could always say that James spoke of a righteous man and I am not a righteous man (spoken like a lawyer) and, therefore, my prayer is not great in its effects. While this may be true, yet, I do not think that is all there is to it.
Perhaps, instead of praying that God change what is going on, my prayer should be that God change me.
March 07, 2006
Tumiklop si Saksi
Sorry, Mike E., I will listen to FM or CD during the 6-9 time slot every day. You just lost an avid listener.
Mike E is Mike Enriquez, anchor of DZBB’s Saksi sa BB 6-9 every weekday morning; and I listen to him everyday while driving to work and going to my hearings or meetings.
If you caught the live on-air simulcast anchored by Mike E earlier this morning., you will know why Mike E. has lost a listener on radio (I will continue tuning in to 24 Oras because Mel Tiangco is still credible but I’ll switch channels everytime Mike goes on air). He had a one on one with the dictator; and for a while there, I thought Mike had been hired by Cerge Remonde and had gone over to Channel 4.
To say that Mike was fawning over Gloria is gross understatement. Not even Ronnie Nathanielsz was that bad and at least, for Nathanielsz, it was understandable. But for Mike E., who attempted to project a sense of objectivity and independence? And even through the airwaves, you could feel palpably Mike’s chest (and head) swell when the dictator rewarded him with effusive praise on air.
Someone tell me that interview was a bubble gang prank with Michael V. and ate glow.
Mike E is Mike Enriquez, anchor of DZBB’s Saksi sa BB 6-9 every weekday morning; and I listen to him everyday while driving to work and going to my hearings or meetings.
If you caught the live on-air simulcast anchored by Mike E earlier this morning., you will know why Mike E. has lost a listener on radio (I will continue tuning in to 24 Oras because Mel Tiangco is still credible but I’ll switch channels everytime Mike goes on air). He had a one on one with the dictator; and for a while there, I thought Mike had been hired by Cerge Remonde and had gone over to Channel 4.
To say that Mike was fawning over Gloria is gross understatement. Not even Ronnie Nathanielsz was that bad and at least, for Nathanielsz, it was understandable. But for Mike E., who attempted to project a sense of objectivity and independence? And even through the airwaves, you could feel palpably Mike’s chest (and head) swell when the dictator rewarded him with effusive praise on air.
Someone tell me that interview was a bubble gang prank with Michael V. and ate glow.
March 04, 2006
Lessons in life and law
“But he’s not wearing any clothes.”
That is the innocent but utterly true reaction of the child in the children’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, to the sight of the Emperor walking around naked even as his courtiers, jesters, ministers and everyone else afraid to say “No” to him told him otherwise.
“We’re back to normal with the lifting of 1017.” Yea, and I’m 6 feet tall.
Sometimes it takes childlike innocence to see beyond all the crap and reveal the truth. And when that truth is revealed plainly, it becomes no less compelling because it is spoken by the innocent, the young, the untrained, the inexperienced. In all its stark simplicity, the truth—plain, guileless, unvarnished—stands out.
A lot of my students experienced standing up for their rights these past days. If, in the course of this semester, their only experience with activism was my rants about the dictator and how the study of law becomes irrelevant in a regime where there is no rule of law but the rule of one person, in a span of a week, that experience became personal.
For many, the walk-out last Thursday was memorable because it was probably the first time they walked around the academic oval—chanting slogans from decades past, “walk out, walk out, sumama na kayo!” For many, it was also memorable because it was a time they found common cause with their Dean and their professors as fellow activists for the rule of law. For many, it was memorable because it was probably the first time they felt for a cause strongly enough to take a stand and speak out for it.
Yesterday, lawyers marched to the EDSA Shrine, the current de facto symbol of freedoms now that Plaza Miranda has been removed by Lito Atienza from the list of freedoms’ bastions; with us was a group of students from my alma mater, the U.P. Law—my students, in past semesters as well as some from the current semester.
For many, that was memorable—walking with lawyers of every stripe and color and persuasion. You had civil libertarians, past and present, walking with trapos, past and present. You had opponents in court walking hand in hand. You had alternative lawyers, young and old, walking with traditional lawyers, young and old. You had academicians walking with the foot soldiers in the trenches.
And you had the lawyers of today walking with the lawyers of tomorrow. For me, that was memorable.
In a way because of 1017 and G.O. 5, the dictator managed to put things in perspective for many people, including lawyers and law students alike. That it is possible to push the people too far; that it is possible that greed, lust for power, corruption, malice, selfishness and an overriding ambition to hold on to an illegitimate office and a non-existent mandate can cut across apathy, indifference, cynicism and lack of hope.
I saw in my students that same fire that was mine in those heady days of February 1986 when, as a senior graduating from U.P., I marched with many people I did not know nor cared to know, screamed my throat dry, raised my fist in protest, clasped my hands together in prayer, wept for my country, and later exulted with my people—all for the cause of freedom.
As these twenty something students shouted, “never again, never again to martial law!”, I saw in them (many of whom live sheltered lives) a fire that was stoked, a realization that had just dawned, a passion that was burning and an idea, for them, that had just come: that it was not possible to learn the law without loving the country and the people whom that law professes to serve. It is a lesson that no law professor could teach in the classroom; it is a lesson that no amount of study time in the library could impart; it is a lesson that no school of law could ever drive across. It is a lesson that only life can teach. And for my students who walked out of their classrooms on Thursday and walked with the lawyers on Friday, it is a lesson well-learned.
In 1986, when Marcos fled and Cory Aquino took power, I was then unsure of my calling. An activist who had just finished a pre-med course without any intention of going to medical school, I briefly flirted with the idea of taking up law; yet, I found the beliefs forged in many a DG in the steps of the Palma Hall Annex with my friends from Sapul, SURGE and Buklod-Isip almost irreconcilable with the “rule of law” that I had experienced under Marcos. I refused to become a part of that structure. While praying and reflecting on what my life post-EDSA would be, I came across a letter written by one man to his eldest son and namesake; it was a letter that changed my life and made me enter the halls of Malcolm Hall.
In that letter, the father told his son:
"When you asked me about a month ago, for a list of books that you could read to start studying law, I was loathe to prepare the list because I felt that you would be wasting your time studying law in this “new society.”
I am still not sure that it would be worth your while to do so. A few days ago, while chatting with a soldier, he asked, in all seriousness and sincerity, “Pero sir, kailangan pa ba ang mga abogado ngayon?” And in a way that perhaps he did not intend, he raised a perfectly valid question.
A lawyer lives in and by the law; and there is no law when society is ruled, not by reason, but by will–worse, by the will of one man.
A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.
A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear and criticism silenced by force.
A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and charges are fabricated.
Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only denied–it is perverted.
And what need do our people have for men and women who would practice perversion?
Yet the truth remains true that never have our people had greater need than today for great lawyers, and for young men and women determined to be great lawyers.
Great lawyers–not brilliant lawyers. A scoundrel may be, and often is, brilliant; and the greater the scoundrel, the more brilliant the lawyer. But only a good man can become a great lawyer: for only a man who understands the weaknesses of men because he has conquered them in himself; who has the courage to pursue his ideals though he knows them to be unattainable; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, “what you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.”
For men and women of this kind, our country will always have need–and now more than ever. True, there is little that men of goodwill can do now to end the madness that holds our nation in its grip. But we can, even now, scrutinize our past; try to pinpoint where we went wrong; determine what led to this madness and what nurtured it; and how, when it ends, we can make sure that it need never happen again.
For this madness must end–if not in my lifetime, at least in yours. We Filipinos are proverbially patient, but we are also infinitely tough and ingeniously resourceful. Our entire history as a people has been a quest for freedom and dignity; and we will not be denied our dreams.
So this madness will end; the rule of force will yield to the rule of law. Then the country will need its great lawyers, its great engineers, its great economists and managers, the best of its men and women to clear the shambles and restore the foundations of that noble and truly Filipino society for which our forefathers fought, bled and died."
This letter, written on October 23, 1972 in detention, was written to Jose Ramon Diokno, Popoy, by his father and namesake, Jose W. Diokno, Ka Pepe. It was this letter--alternately an answer to his son’s question, a treatise on the legal profession, a discourse on the national situation prevailing at that time, and a showcase of a lifetime of insights on how to study law–that gave a young and idealistic activist, unsure of his decision to pursue law, the first insight that law and activism, law and advocacy, law and social change, law and a lifetime of meaningful service could co-exist. Twenty years later, that slightly older but still idealistic activist is now a lawyer actively engaged in human rights practice and the teaching of law. In the same manner that his letter challenged me, I would ask you, after reading what Ka Pepe told his son Popoy, to ask yourself if you are the person he describes; if you are a law student, ask yourself if you want to become the lawyer he describes; if you are a lawyer, ask yourself if you are capable of becoming the lawyer and the person he describes.
Now, more than ever, when the Empress’s new clothes are on full display, we need women and men who will tell the Empress that her clothes are an ill-fit. Now more than ever, will we need our good women and men, our good lawyers and law students, our great Filipinos. Now more than ever, our country needs women and men who will stand up for the freedoms that great Filipinos like Ka Pepe, Ka Tanny Tanada, Lean Alejandro, Edgar Jopson, Ditto Sarmiento, and even, more recently, Bobby Gana made their lives’ work and gave up their lives for.
That is the innocent but utterly true reaction of the child in the children’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, to the sight of the Emperor walking around naked even as his courtiers, jesters, ministers and everyone else afraid to say “No” to him told him otherwise.
“We’re back to normal with the lifting of 1017.” Yea, and I’m 6 feet tall.
Sometimes it takes childlike innocence to see beyond all the crap and reveal the truth. And when that truth is revealed plainly, it becomes no less compelling because it is spoken by the innocent, the young, the untrained, the inexperienced. In all its stark simplicity, the truth—plain, guileless, unvarnished—stands out.
A lot of my students experienced standing up for their rights these past days. If, in the course of this semester, their only experience with activism was my rants about the dictator and how the study of law becomes irrelevant in a regime where there is no rule of law but the rule of one person, in a span of a week, that experience became personal.
For many, the walk-out last Thursday was memorable because it was probably the first time they walked around the academic oval—chanting slogans from decades past, “walk out, walk out, sumama na kayo!” For many, it was also memorable because it was a time they found common cause with their Dean and their professors as fellow activists for the rule of law. For many, it was memorable because it was probably the first time they felt for a cause strongly enough to take a stand and speak out for it.
Yesterday, lawyers marched to the EDSA Shrine, the current de facto symbol of freedoms now that Plaza Miranda has been removed by Lito Atienza from the list of freedoms’ bastions; with us was a group of students from my alma mater, the U.P. Law—my students, in past semesters as well as some from the current semester.
For many, that was memorable—walking with lawyers of every stripe and color and persuasion. You had civil libertarians, past and present, walking with trapos, past and present. You had opponents in court walking hand in hand. You had alternative lawyers, young and old, walking with traditional lawyers, young and old. You had academicians walking with the foot soldiers in the trenches.
And you had the lawyers of today walking with the lawyers of tomorrow. For me, that was memorable.
In a way because of 1017 and G.O. 5, the dictator managed to put things in perspective for many people, including lawyers and law students alike. That it is possible to push the people too far; that it is possible that greed, lust for power, corruption, malice, selfishness and an overriding ambition to hold on to an illegitimate office and a non-existent mandate can cut across apathy, indifference, cynicism and lack of hope.
I saw in my students that same fire that was mine in those heady days of February 1986 when, as a senior graduating from U.P., I marched with many people I did not know nor cared to know, screamed my throat dry, raised my fist in protest, clasped my hands together in prayer, wept for my country, and later exulted with my people—all for the cause of freedom.
As these twenty something students shouted, “never again, never again to martial law!”, I saw in them (many of whom live sheltered lives) a fire that was stoked, a realization that had just dawned, a passion that was burning and an idea, for them, that had just come: that it was not possible to learn the law without loving the country and the people whom that law professes to serve. It is a lesson that no law professor could teach in the classroom; it is a lesson that no amount of study time in the library could impart; it is a lesson that no school of law could ever drive across. It is a lesson that only life can teach. And for my students who walked out of their classrooms on Thursday and walked with the lawyers on Friday, it is a lesson well-learned.
In 1986, when Marcos fled and Cory Aquino took power, I was then unsure of my calling. An activist who had just finished a pre-med course without any intention of going to medical school, I briefly flirted with the idea of taking up law; yet, I found the beliefs forged in many a DG in the steps of the Palma Hall Annex with my friends from Sapul, SURGE and Buklod-Isip almost irreconcilable with the “rule of law” that I had experienced under Marcos. I refused to become a part of that structure. While praying and reflecting on what my life post-EDSA would be, I came across a letter written by one man to his eldest son and namesake; it was a letter that changed my life and made me enter the halls of Malcolm Hall.
In that letter, the father told his son:
"When you asked me about a month ago, for a list of books that you could read to start studying law, I was loathe to prepare the list because I felt that you would be wasting your time studying law in this “new society.”
I am still not sure that it would be worth your while to do so. A few days ago, while chatting with a soldier, he asked, in all seriousness and sincerity, “Pero sir, kailangan pa ba ang mga abogado ngayon?” And in a way that perhaps he did not intend, he raised a perfectly valid question.
A lawyer lives in and by the law; and there is no law when society is ruled, not by reason, but by will–worse, by the will of one man.
A lawyer strives for justice; and there is no justice when men and women are imprisoned not only without guilt, but without trial.
A lawyer must work in freedom; and there is no freedom when conformity is extracted by fear and criticism silenced by force.
A lawyer builds on facts. He must seek truth; and there is no truth when facts are suppressed, news is manipulated and charges are fabricated.
Worse, when the Constitution is invoked to justify outrages against freedom, truth and justice, when democracy is destroyed under the pretext of saving it, law is not only denied–it is perverted.
And what need do our people have for men and women who would practice perversion?
Yet the truth remains true that never have our people had greater need than today for great lawyers, and for young men and women determined to be great lawyers.
Great lawyers–not brilliant lawyers. A scoundrel may be, and often is, brilliant; and the greater the scoundrel, the more brilliant the lawyer. But only a good man can become a great lawyer: for only a man who understands the weaknesses of men because he has conquered them in himself; who has the courage to pursue his ideals though he knows them to be unattainable; who tempers his conviction with respect for those of others because he realizes he may be mistaken; who deals honorably and fairly with all, because to do otherwise would diminish him as well as them–only such a man would so command respect that he could persuade and need never resort to force. Only such a man could become a great lawyer. Otherwise, “what you are speaks so loudly, I cannot hear what you say.”
For men and women of this kind, our country will always have need–and now more than ever. True, there is little that men of goodwill can do now to end the madness that holds our nation in its grip. But we can, even now, scrutinize our past; try to pinpoint where we went wrong; determine what led to this madness and what nurtured it; and how, when it ends, we can make sure that it need never happen again.
For this madness must end–if not in my lifetime, at least in yours. We Filipinos are proverbially patient, but we are also infinitely tough and ingeniously resourceful. Our entire history as a people has been a quest for freedom and dignity; and we will not be denied our dreams.
So this madness will end; the rule of force will yield to the rule of law. Then the country will need its great lawyers, its great engineers, its great economists and managers, the best of its men and women to clear the shambles and restore the foundations of that noble and truly Filipino society for which our forefathers fought, bled and died."
This letter, written on October 23, 1972 in detention, was written to Jose Ramon Diokno, Popoy, by his father and namesake, Jose W. Diokno, Ka Pepe. It was this letter--alternately an answer to his son’s question, a treatise on the legal profession, a discourse on the national situation prevailing at that time, and a showcase of a lifetime of insights on how to study law–that gave a young and idealistic activist, unsure of his decision to pursue law, the first insight that law and activism, law and advocacy, law and social change, law and a lifetime of meaningful service could co-exist. Twenty years later, that slightly older but still idealistic activist is now a lawyer actively engaged in human rights practice and the teaching of law. In the same manner that his letter challenged me, I would ask you, after reading what Ka Pepe told his son Popoy, to ask yourself if you are the person he describes; if you are a law student, ask yourself if you want to become the lawyer he describes; if you are a lawyer, ask yourself if you are capable of becoming the lawyer and the person he describes.
Now, more than ever, when the Empress’s new clothes are on full display, we need women and men who will tell the Empress that her clothes are an ill-fit. Now more than ever, will we need our good women and men, our good lawyers and law students, our great Filipinos. Now more than ever, our country needs women and men who will stand up for the freedoms that great Filipinos like Ka Pepe, Ka Tanny Tanada, Lean Alejandro, Edgar Jopson, Ditto Sarmiento, and even, more recently, Bobby Gana made their lives’ work and gave up their lives for.
March 03, 2006
Going beyond mootness
Now that the dictator’s decree is lifted, is it over? Not by a long shot.
Things are not back to normal—media is still chilled, despite their denials; censorship by the police will still continue; warrantless arrests and the threat thereof will still continue; E.O. 464 is still in effect; CPR is still in force.
The Filipino people have said, “Never Again!” It’s time the Supreme Court says it too.
I urge the Supreme Court not to hide behind the seeming mootness of the petitions challenging 1017 and to decide them on the merits. Do not dismiss them simply because they are moot—in that way, you will legitimize a dictator. Instead, use the power of the pen—be once again the “conscience of government”—and say to the dictator and anyone else who would follow after her: “never again.”
Certainly, the Supreme Court cannot—and must not--turn a blind eye on the assault on truth, the attack on press freedom. So, hide not behind mootness, rule instead that Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 are patently unconstitutional. In Salonga v. Cruz Pano and Evelio Javier v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled despite mootness.
So I say to the Supreme Court: decide in favor of democracy, not dictatorship. Say in one voice, with the people, “never again!” Do not hold your peace, speak out now.
Things are not back to normal—media is still chilled, despite their denials; censorship by the police will still continue; warrantless arrests and the threat thereof will still continue; E.O. 464 is still in effect; CPR is still in force.
The Filipino people have said, “Never Again!” It’s time the Supreme Court says it too.
I urge the Supreme Court not to hide behind the seeming mootness of the petitions challenging 1017 and to decide them on the merits. Do not dismiss them simply because they are moot—in that way, you will legitimize a dictator. Instead, use the power of the pen—be once again the “conscience of government”—and say to the dictator and anyone else who would follow after her: “never again.”
Certainly, the Supreme Court cannot—and must not--turn a blind eye on the assault on truth, the attack on press freedom. So, hide not behind mootness, rule instead that Proclamation 1017 and General Order No. 5 are patently unconstitutional. In Salonga v. Cruz Pano and Evelio Javier v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled despite mootness.
So I say to the Supreme Court: decide in favor of democracy, not dictatorship. Say in one voice, with the people, “never again!” Do not hold your peace, speak out now.
Law in the grand manner
To say it was a mixed group is an understatement.
A motley group of about 300 lawyers, law students, paralegals and activists marched this morning to the EDSA shrine from the IBP National Headquarters to protest the dictator’s decree 1017. It was a reunion between civil libertarians from way back and those they had mentored and are now leading the charge; it was also a reunion for the EDSA forces who had somehow parted ways after EDSA and found themselves on different sides of the fence. There were the new generation of lawyers with and of conscience; there were the idealistic law students and paralegals. And oh yes, there were the trapos as well—Cayetano, Binay, Maceda; well, you can’t have everything.
This group took over the EDSA shrine and for close to 45 minutes took turns telling the dictator “NO!” NEVER AGAIN!” After that, we marched back to the IBP National Headquarters for photo ops. En route, we learned that 1017 had been lifted.
I saw my students there, past and present; and despite their being very new to this activism, I see their hearts burn with idealism and passion. And I am suddenly even more hopeful for this country. Now, if they can only learn to address a crowd in straight Filipino. . . (peace, faye.)
A motley group of about 300 lawyers, law students, paralegals and activists marched this morning to the EDSA shrine from the IBP National Headquarters to protest the dictator’s decree 1017. It was a reunion between civil libertarians from way back and those they had mentored and are now leading the charge; it was also a reunion for the EDSA forces who had somehow parted ways after EDSA and found themselves on different sides of the fence. There were the new generation of lawyers with and of conscience; there were the idealistic law students and paralegals. And oh yes, there were the trapos as well—Cayetano, Binay, Maceda; well, you can’t have everything.
This group took over the EDSA shrine and for close to 45 minutes took turns telling the dictator “NO!” NEVER AGAIN!” After that, we marched back to the IBP National Headquarters for photo ops. En route, we learned that 1017 had been lifted.
I saw my students there, past and present; and despite their being very new to this activism, I see their hearts burn with idealism and passion. And I am suddenly even more hopeful for this country. Now, if they can only learn to address a crowd in straight Filipino. . . (peace, faye.)
March 01, 2006
Who and whose I am
“Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to hit with wicked fist,
Fasting like yours this day will not make your voice
to be heard on high.
Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a man to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a rush,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the Lord?
Is not this the fast that I choose:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the thongs of the yoke,
To let the oppressed go free,
And to break every yoke?
Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
And bring the homeless poor into your house;
When you see the naked, to cover him,
And not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then shall your light break forth like the dawn,
And your healing shall spring up speedily;
Your righteousness shall go before you,
The glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.
Then you shall call, and the Lord will answerl
You shall cry, and he will say, Here I am.”
- Isaiah 58:4-9, RSV
On Ash Wednesday, we remember who we are and whose we are.
For catholics like me, we recall our humble beginnings—from the dirt of creation, God showed His love for mankind by creating us in His own image and breathing on us His own Spirit. Created in love and for love, in pale imitation of the perfect relationship and companionship of love that is shared by the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
This Ash Wednesday, I recall who I am and whose I am. I am Ted, God’s creation and precious in His sight. (Isaiah 43:4, RSV). Created in love and bound by God to love.
On this Ash Wednesday, in the year of P.P. 1017 and G.O. 5, I take to heart the words of the Prophet Isaiah:
Is not this the fast that I choose:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the thongs of the yoke,
To let the oppressed go free,
And to break every yoke?
February 28, 2006
Tulang astig
This is a poem written by Marlon; astig!
Go to: http://matangkuwago.blogspot.com/2006/02/proklamasyon-1017.html
PROKLAMASYON 1017
Marlon Hacla
Walang magrereklamo,Walang magsasabing siya'y nagugutom,Walang magdadasal ng tipun-tiponO sisigaw nang sabay-sabayO gagawa ng anumang bagayNa makasisira sa reputasyonNg gobyernong kumalinga
Sa inyo nang tapatAt buong puso.
Ang katanggap-tanggapLamang na mga salita
Ay sabihing ika'y mamamayanNg isang matatag na republikaSa ilalimNg isang matatag na pangulo.
Ang susuway ay dadakpin,Aagawan ng ari-arian,Aalisan ng kalayaan,Tatatakan sa ulo ng marka ng teroristaAt ipauubaya
Sa kamay ng militar.
Go to: http://matangkuwago.blogspot.com/2006/02/proklamasyon-1017.html
PROKLAMASYON 1017
Marlon Hacla
Walang magrereklamo,Walang magsasabing siya'y nagugutom,Walang magdadasal ng tipun-tiponO sisigaw nang sabay-sabayO gagawa ng anumang bagayNa makasisira sa reputasyonNg gobyernong kumalinga
Sa inyo nang tapatAt buong puso.
Ang katanggap-tanggapLamang na mga salita
Ay sabihing ika'y mamamayanNg isang matatag na republikaSa ilalimNg isang matatag na pangulo.
Ang susuway ay dadakpin,Aagawan ng ari-arian,Aalisan ng kalayaan,Tatatakan sa ulo ng marka ng teroristaAt ipauubaya
Sa kamay ng militar.
February 27, 2006
Your slip is showing
Psychologists call it a Freudian slip. Senga and Lomibao kept referring to Proclamation No. 1017 as Proclamation 1071 and even 1081. For those young enough to not have experienced martial law, the order placing the entire Philippines under martial law was Proclamation No. 1081.
New collar. Old dog.
New collar. Old dog.
Show us EDSA
I’m attaching a link to a statement made by Mrs. Carmen “Nena” I. Diokno, the widow of the late former Senator Jose W. Diokno, Ka Pepe to most.
http://flagfaqs.blogspot.com/2006/02/show-us-edsa_114100355789706221.html
http://flagfaqs.blogspot.com/2006/02/show-us-edsa_114100355789706221.html
February 26, 2006
Saying No!
Nothing on the news today; and I mean, nothing.
That is Gloria Arroyo’s Philippines; that is the Philippines of Lomibao, of Senga, of Mike Arroyo, of her lawyers—many of whom I count as friends (if you read this blog, you know who you are), of those who sit quietly waiting on the fence.
But because of Gloria Arroyo’s censorship of media, only “praise releases” are out on tv and radio. I never thought I would miss being called by radio commentators to comment on anything under the sun but now I do because all that AM radio runs now (sadly, even DZBB and Channel 7, which I thought had enough courage to stand up to dictatorship; et tu, Mike Enriquez? Et tu, Jessica Soho?) is commentary by Miriam Santiago and Romulo Macalintal (the first is a political butterfly of the highest order and the second is a paid legal mercenary; on the other hand, there is not much difference between the two) and all they do is clog up the free airwaves with pro-Gloria propaganda. For those old enough to remember Martial Law, its exactly like those days (remember Rita Gaddi, remember Ronnie Nathanielsz; except its now Cerge Remonde—someone tell him to get rid of that turtleneck sweater, quick, Jarius Bondoc and their ilk).
This is NOT MY Philippines. This is not the country I love. This is not the country that God has promised His people.
Not many of us may have noticed that in Proclamation 1017, Gloria Arroyo clearly stated why this “national emergency” has been declared: to save her. In the second preambular paragraph, it is clearly stated that “these conspirators have repeatedly tried to bring down the President.” At least Marcos had the decency to lie about saving the country and all; Gloria just says it out—this “national emergency” is nothing but a grand scheme to make sure she remains seated on her throne.
So what is this all about? One person. In my mind, a chant from the 80s comes unbidden but not entirely unwelcome: Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, Tuta! You fill in the blanks.
“Turn the other cheek” is not the appropriate response to tyranny. “Why have you made my Father’s House a den of thieves?” might be a more appropriate response.
I love this country; despite my foreign-sounding last name, it is the only country I know, it is the only culture I know, it is the only nationality I will ever claim. If there is one legacy my parents have given me, it is to be able to think and think well, to love and to love passionately, to feel and to feel compassionately, to serve and to serve with everything I have.
So forgive me if my words sound harsh and I sound unloving, but, given these times, I will love in the only way I know how—with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, with all my strength. And if that means, telling a dictator like Gloria Arroyo and her cronies—NO!—then that is how I shall love.
That is Gloria Arroyo’s Philippines; that is the Philippines of Lomibao, of Senga, of Mike Arroyo, of her lawyers—many of whom I count as friends (if you read this blog, you know who you are), of those who sit quietly waiting on the fence.
But because of Gloria Arroyo’s censorship of media, only “praise releases” are out on tv and radio. I never thought I would miss being called by radio commentators to comment on anything under the sun but now I do because all that AM radio runs now (sadly, even DZBB and Channel 7, which I thought had enough courage to stand up to dictatorship; et tu, Mike Enriquez? Et tu, Jessica Soho?) is commentary by Miriam Santiago and Romulo Macalintal (the first is a political butterfly of the highest order and the second is a paid legal mercenary; on the other hand, there is not much difference between the two) and all they do is clog up the free airwaves with pro-Gloria propaganda. For those old enough to remember Martial Law, its exactly like those days (remember Rita Gaddi, remember Ronnie Nathanielsz; except its now Cerge Remonde—someone tell him to get rid of that turtleneck sweater, quick, Jarius Bondoc and their ilk).
This is NOT MY Philippines. This is not the country I love. This is not the country that God has promised His people.
Not many of us may have noticed that in Proclamation 1017, Gloria Arroyo clearly stated why this “national emergency” has been declared: to save her. In the second preambular paragraph, it is clearly stated that “these conspirators have repeatedly tried to bring down the President.” At least Marcos had the decency to lie about saving the country and all; Gloria just says it out—this “national emergency” is nothing but a grand scheme to make sure she remains seated on her throne.
So what is this all about? One person. In my mind, a chant from the 80s comes unbidden but not entirely unwelcome: Marcos, Hitler, Diktador, Tuta! You fill in the blanks.
“Turn the other cheek” is not the appropriate response to tyranny. “Why have you made my Father’s House a den of thieves?” might be a more appropriate response.
I love this country; despite my foreign-sounding last name, it is the only country I know, it is the only culture I know, it is the only nationality I will ever claim. If there is one legacy my parents have given me, it is to be able to think and think well, to love and to love passionately, to feel and to feel compassionately, to serve and to serve with everything I have.
So forgive me if my words sound harsh and I sound unloving, but, given these times, I will love in the only way I know how—with all my heart, with all my soul, with all my mind, with all my strength. And if that means, telling a dictator like Gloria Arroyo and her cronies—NO!—then that is how I shall love.
February 25, 2006
Rage, rage against the dying of the light
In the 80's, the last line of a poem by Dylan Thomas captured the essence of struggle against a dictatorship:
"Do not go gently into the night,
rage, rage against the dying of the light."
It helped that student leaders like Lean Alejandro used to use this a lot.
In my comments section, a student going by the name "people powered" asked "Sir...what can students do??? Tried attending a rally, pero nakita ko lang na napalo yung kasama namin."
My answer, which I am reproducing in full,on this page:
"A LOT!!! Go join another rally, even if you get hit, truncheoned, water cannoned. Read, research, analyze, form an opinion, stand up for what is RIGHT and not
just what is POPULAR or SAFE.
In view of today's sad news about the death of freedom of the press with the closure of The Tribune, the words of Ditto Sarmiento, the late former Editor of the Collegian, translating and paraphrasing a jewish saying ring true: "kung hindi ikaw, sino? kung hindi ngayon, kailan pa?" If not you, who else? If not
now, when else?
I don't read the Tribune--its a pro-Erap rag--but that is no longer the issue anymore. Other news organizations that I read will be next. And if they follow, without me raising my voice, then I will be as guilty as Gloria of killing freedom of the press. (An aside: my law firm even sued the Tribune for libel for a client; I regret this. I have asked for permission from my partners to withdraw as counsel for that client.)
As students, there is a lot you can do. You have the distinct advantage of having access to the very instrument that a dictator like Gloria Arroyo craves--knowledge of the law's legitimizing effect. Understanding the law and how it legitimizes
dictatorships like Gloria's is the most potent instrument a law student or even a non-law student has because it will help others understand just how powerful they are; instead of a resigned shrug of the shoulder and a hopeless sigh, use your privileged position as law student to help people oppressed by Gloria's emergency rule find their voices and find hope.
Sic Gloria transit mundi. Gloria too will pass.
But not without a fight and not without the help of everyone who has a conscience and a backbone and is willing to take a stand."
If EDSA taught us anything, it is that freedom does come with a cost. It is the cost of preserving that freedom. Each time we exercise a freedom, we should be reminded that others who have gone before us paid the cost for that freedom--martyrs like Lean Alejandro, Chino Roces, Hermon Lagman, Ditto Sarmiento, Eman Lacaba, Pepe Diokno, Tanny Tanada and many others who have allowed us to be free.
Now that freedom is threatened by one who will stop at nothing to ensure that she remains in power. What is the cost of the freedom we enjoy? If it is raising your voice to say, "no", then so be it. If it is raising your fist in defiance, so be it. If it is joining a rally to show that you stand for freedoms, so be it.
"Do not go gently into the night, rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Indeed.
"Do not go gently into the night,
rage, rage against the dying of the light."
It helped that student leaders like Lean Alejandro used to use this a lot.
In my comments section, a student going by the name "people powered" asked "Sir...what can students do??? Tried attending a rally, pero nakita ko lang na napalo yung kasama namin."
My answer, which I am reproducing in full,on this page:
"A LOT!!! Go join another rally, even if you get hit, truncheoned, water cannoned. Read, research, analyze, form an opinion, stand up for what is RIGHT and not
just what is POPULAR or SAFE.
In view of today's sad news about the death of freedom of the press with the closure of The Tribune, the words of Ditto Sarmiento, the late former Editor of the Collegian, translating and paraphrasing a jewish saying ring true: "kung hindi ikaw, sino? kung hindi ngayon, kailan pa?" If not you, who else? If not
now, when else?
I don't read the Tribune--its a pro-Erap rag--but that is no longer the issue anymore. Other news organizations that I read will be next. And if they follow, without me raising my voice, then I will be as guilty as Gloria of killing freedom of the press. (An aside: my law firm even sued the Tribune for libel for a client; I regret this. I have asked for permission from my partners to withdraw as counsel for that client.)
As students, there is a lot you can do. You have the distinct advantage of having access to the very instrument that a dictator like Gloria Arroyo craves--knowledge of the law's legitimizing effect. Understanding the law and how it legitimizes
dictatorships like Gloria's is the most potent instrument a law student or even a non-law student has because it will help others understand just how powerful they are; instead of a resigned shrug of the shoulder and a hopeless sigh, use your privileged position as law student to help people oppressed by Gloria's emergency rule find their voices and find hope.
Sic Gloria transit mundi. Gloria too will pass.
But not without a fight and not without the help of everyone who has a conscience and a backbone and is willing to take a stand."
If EDSA taught us anything, it is that freedom does come with a cost. It is the cost of preserving that freedom. Each time we exercise a freedom, we should be reminded that others who have gone before us paid the cost for that freedom--martyrs like Lean Alejandro, Chino Roces, Hermon Lagman, Ditto Sarmiento, Eman Lacaba, Pepe Diokno, Tanny Tanada and many others who have allowed us to be free.
Now that freedom is threatened by one who will stop at nothing to ensure that she remains in power. What is the cost of the freedom we enjoy? If it is raising your voice to say, "no", then so be it. If it is raising your fist in defiance, so be it. If it is joining a rally to show that you stand for freedoms, so be it.
"Do not go gently into the night, rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Indeed.
February 24, 2006
You can't do that
Gloria Arroyo effectively declared martial law without calling it such under Proclamation No. 1017 today.
She just declared a “state of emergency” (see Constitution, art. XII, sec. 17 which deals with national emergency that confers extraordinary economic powers on the Chief Executive), which does not entitle her to call out the armed forces (art. VII, sec. 18).
Yet, I just heard her do exactly that—by leaving it to the military and police to take care of things.
As they say on Nickleodeon, “you can’t do that.”
She just declared a “state of emergency” (see Constitution, art. XII, sec. 17 which deals with national emergency that confers extraordinary economic powers on the Chief Executive), which does not entitle her to call out the armed forces (art. VII, sec. 18).
Yet, I just heard her do exactly that—by leaving it to the military and police to take care of things.
As they say on Nickleodeon, “you can’t do that.”
"I read the news today, oh boy"
Woke up to news of arrests of military men supposedly involved in a coup attempt. A few hours after, Gloria’s Chief of Staff Mike Defensor would announce that arrests of military men and civilians would be made; he also announced that Gloria would make an announcement in a few minutes (30 minutes ago, as of this writing). Many are speculating that Gloria will declare a state of rebellion, a state of emergency or even martial law.
Here’s what the Constitution provides on martial law:
Article VII, sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
On the other hand, here’s what the Constitution provides on state of emergency:
Article XII, sec. 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
Article XII, sec. 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.
Given that the military has already announced that what supposedly transpired this morning was a coup attempt, it is highly unlikely that Gloria would declare only a state of emergency as the powers that would be conferred by such a declaration would be only economic in nature. It becomes more probable that a state of rebellion or a proclamation of martial law would be declared.
Here’s what the Constitution provides on martial law:
Article VII, sec. 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
On the other hand, here’s what the Constitution provides on state of emergency:
Article XII, sec. 17. In times of national emergency, when the public interest so requires, the State may, during the emergency and under reasonable terms prescribed by it, temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest.
Article XII, sec. 18. The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the Government.
Given that the military has already announced that what supposedly transpired this morning was a coup attempt, it is highly unlikely that Gloria would declare only a state of emergency as the powers that would be conferred by such a declaration would be only economic in nature. It becomes more probable that a state of rebellion or a proclamation of martial law would be declared.
February 23, 2006
20-20 vision?
6: how old I was when Martial Law was declared.
20:* how old I was when EDSA happened.
20: how long it has been from EDSA to today.
40: ** how old I am now.
If hindsight is 20-20 vision, its high time we really took a look back—a long look back at EDSA in the hope that we can appreciate what it really meant back then, in the hope that we may truly learn from its lessons.
But right now, I don’t see them.
20:* how old I was when EDSA happened.
20: how long it has been from EDSA to today.
40: ** how old I am now.
If hindsight is 20-20 vision, its high time we really took a look back—a long look back at EDSA in the hope that we can appreciate what it really meant back then, in the hope that we may truly learn from its lessons.
But right now, I don’t see them.
- Well, almost
- Well, almost
About time
Gloria Arroyo now says that because of her Catholic upbringing, she is now saying that she is totally opposed to the death penalty and will certify as urgent any resolution that passes the Committee. The House Committee has passed the abolition bill so we will know soon enough if she willl put her pen where her mouth is and certifies the bill as urgent.
Allow me to look a gift horse in the mouth and say, "well, what took you so long?" Forgive me for not getting too excited. I won't believe it until I see the death penalty officially out of the statute books--hopefully forever.
Having re-discovered her Catholic upbringing, maybe Gloria Arroyo can bring herself to that part where she confesses her sins and does penance for them.
Allow me to look a gift horse in the mouth and say, "well, what took you so long?" Forgive me for not getting too excited. I won't believe it until I see the death penalty officially out of the statute books--hopefully forever.
Having re-discovered her Catholic upbringing, maybe Gloria Arroyo can bring herself to that part where she confesses her sins and does penance for them.
February 13, 2006
"A Love Story"
[Note: For those old enough to remember, the late Fr. James Donelan, S.J., the Chaplain of a colorum (his word) parish at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), would always have a special homily on Valentine’s Day during his 12:15 noontime mass. When I was still working in Makati, I would walk from Salcedo Village to Legaspi Village to make it in time for his 12:15 mass at AIM. Each year, his Valentine’s Day mass would be packed to the rafters and each year, those who went would not be disappointed. In 1998, the year he passed on to the Father, a collection of Fr. Jim’s homilies was published; it is entitled “God’s Crooked Lines: The Search for Truth.” I was delighted to see that it contains one of my all-time favorites ever from Fr. Jim’s vast collection. It is a homily he gave one pre-Valentine’s Day mass. I take the liberty of setting it out in full here.
It is a homily to be read quietly in quiet reflection but later to be read aloud in loving company; but it is, most of all, a homily to be read with loved ones and those whom we love in the company of He who loved us first, loves us most and loves us for all eternity.]
“A Love Story”
Fr. James F. Donelan, S.J.
If by some happy chance you should ever find yourself in the Italian city of Florence, take a little time out for a sentimental pilgrimage. Leave the Piazza Vecchio, cross over the Ponte Vecchio, where the goldsmith shops are. Go up the Via Maggiore towards the Pitti Palazzo where, just opposite the Palazzo and the Church of San Felice, stands the Casa Guidi. This is the shrine of our pilgrimage.
It is a proper pilgrimage to make as Valentine’s Day approaches. For here in this old ancestral house of the Guidi family was enacted one of the great love stories of all times.
I would like you to relive with me two touching scenes from that love story.
The first scene takes place on an early spring morning in the year 1849. Standing on the street below, we can see the large windows of the Casa Guidi open up, and a man, an Englishman, stands there looking across towards San Felice, but actually lost in thought. He is a writer, a poet, and he is thinking about what he will write that day. He doesn’t hear his wife come up behind him until he feels her hand push some papers into his pocket, and turning, he sees her fleeing from the room.
An hour later, he is still standing there by the window, his cheeks wet with tears. For what he read in his wife’s neat handwriting on the crumpled sheets of paper was the answer to a question, an answer which he kept to himself for twelve years. Until his wife died. Then he gave it to the world. We all know now both the question and the answer:
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach . . .
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs. . .
. . . with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints—I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life! –and if God choose,
I shall love thee better after death.
Elizabeth Barrett, the Englishman’s wife who wrote those lines, never dreamt she would ever say such things, feel such things. At 16, she had fallen from a horse. The injury developed into tuberculosis. It also gave a tyrannically possessive father the weapon with which to imprison her for 15 years in a room where no brightness, neither of smile nor of sunshine, ever came. To pass the time, she wrote poems. A kindly uncle published some of them.
One day she received a note which read, “I love your poetry with all my heart, and I love you too.” Signed, Robert Browning.
What followed is an astonishing example of the power of love. Elizabeth escaped from her father’s house, married Robert Browning and sailed to Italy, to Florence, to the Casa Guidi on Via Maggiore, which was to be her home until she died. That “incurable” invalid bore her husband a son, and so filled his heart with song that Robert Browning became one of England’s great poets. While she, transformed by his love, wrote a collection of sonnets which earned for her an immortal place among the world’s great poets of love. My young friends, what advice do you think Elizabeth Browning would have for you today?
I choose to ask Elizabeth rather than her husband because I have found, at least in my reading of literature, that while male poets like Sydney, Wyatt, Shakespeare, John Donne excel in expressing their love, it is the women who get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps because, as Jane Austen, an English novelist, wrote: Love is only a part of a man’s life. It is a woman’s whole life. And she went on to say that while men may love as long as there is hope, women love long after there is none. When Jeremy Irons, playing the English gentleman, asked the French lieutenant’s woman if she walked those bleak shores waiting for her lieutenant, she proved Jane Austen’s point. She had learned, she said, that the very brave can be very false. She knew he wouldn’t return, and yet she waited.
Elizabeth’s advice to all young lovers is contained in a sonnet in which, having already told her husband how she loved him, she now tells him how she wants to be loved. She asks him not to build his love on the shifting sands of change, not on looks or mind or personality or shared interest or on pity, for “love so wrought can be unwrought so.” She writes:
If thou must love me, let it be for naught
Except for love’s sake only. Do not say
“I love her for her smile—her looks—her way
of speaking gently—for a trick of thought
that falls in well with mine, and brought
a sense of pleasant ease on such a day.”—
For these things in themselves, Beloved, may
Be changed, or, change for thee—and love so wrought
May be unwrought so. Neither love me for
Thine own dear pity’s wipingmy tears dry—
A creature might forget to weep who bore
Thy comfort long, and lose thy love thereby!
But love me for love’s sake that evermore
Thou mayest love on through love’s eternity.
For Elizabeth Browning, love was not an exchange. A deal. A barter. You give to me. I give to you. For her, true love was an outright, unconditional gift. It gives all and asks nothing.
The second and last scene in our love story takes place 12 years later in the same Casa Guidi. Again, it is early morning. Robert Browning is sitting fully dressed at Elizabeth’s bedside. They are alone. Elizabeth is sleeping, resting against his cheek. He has been there all night. She wakens and he asks how she feels. Later he wrote: Then came what my heart will keep until I see her again, the most perfect expression of her love for me within my whole knowledge of her. She answered his question with one word: “Beautiful.” And died.
Today, the Casa Guidi still stands there along the Via Maggiore, opposite the Pitti Palazzo. A small plaque near the door tells us that this is where Elizabeth and Robert Browning lived. But the anthologies and histories of English literature tell us more. In these pages, along with William Shakespeare and John Donne and John Keats, along with Byron and Shelley, we read the names of Robert and Elizabeth Browning, who loved each other with the breadth, smiles, and tears of all their life, and who now live on in love’s eternity.
It is a homily to be read quietly in quiet reflection but later to be read aloud in loving company; but it is, most of all, a homily to be read with loved ones and those whom we love in the company of He who loved us first, loves us most and loves us for all eternity.]
“A Love Story”
Fr. James F. Donelan, S.J.
If by some happy chance you should ever find yourself in the Italian city of Florence, take a little time out for a sentimental pilgrimage. Leave the Piazza Vecchio, cross over the Ponte Vecchio, where the goldsmith shops are. Go up the Via Maggiore towards the Pitti Palazzo where, just opposite the Palazzo and the Church of San Felice, stands the Casa Guidi. This is the shrine of our pilgrimage.
It is a proper pilgrimage to make as Valentine’s Day approaches. For here in this old ancestral house of the Guidi family was enacted one of the great love stories of all times.
I would like you to relive with me two touching scenes from that love story.
The first scene takes place on an early spring morning in the year 1849. Standing on the street below, we can see the large windows of the Casa Guidi open up, and a man, an Englishman, stands there looking across towards San Felice, but actually lost in thought. He is a writer, a poet, and he is thinking about what he will write that day. He doesn’t hear his wife come up behind him until he feels her hand push some papers into his pocket, and turning, he sees her fleeing from the room.
An hour later, he is still standing there by the window, his cheeks wet with tears. For what he read in his wife’s neat handwriting on the crumpled sheets of paper was the answer to a question, an answer which he kept to himself for twelve years. Until his wife died. Then he gave it to the world. We all know now both the question and the answer:
How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.
I love thee to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach . . .
I love thee to the level of every day’s
Most quiet need, by sun and candlelight.
I love thee with the passion put to use
In my old griefs. . .
. . . with a love I seemed to lose
With my lost saints—I love thee with the breath,
Smiles, tears, of all my life! –and if God choose,
I shall love thee better after death.
Elizabeth Barrett, the Englishman’s wife who wrote those lines, never dreamt she would ever say such things, feel such things. At 16, she had fallen from a horse. The injury developed into tuberculosis. It also gave a tyrannically possessive father the weapon with which to imprison her for 15 years in a room where no brightness, neither of smile nor of sunshine, ever came. To pass the time, she wrote poems. A kindly uncle published some of them.
One day she received a note which read, “I love your poetry with all my heart, and I love you too.” Signed, Robert Browning.
What followed is an astonishing example of the power of love. Elizabeth escaped from her father’s house, married Robert Browning and sailed to Italy, to Florence, to the Casa Guidi on Via Maggiore, which was to be her home until she died. That “incurable” invalid bore her husband a son, and so filled his heart with song that Robert Browning became one of England’s great poets. While she, transformed by his love, wrote a collection of sonnets which earned for her an immortal place among the world’s great poets of love. My young friends, what advice do you think Elizabeth Browning would have for you today?
I choose to ask Elizabeth rather than her husband because I have found, at least in my reading of literature, that while male poets like Sydney, Wyatt, Shakespeare, John Donne excel in expressing their love, it is the women who get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps because, as Jane Austen, an English novelist, wrote: Love is only a part of a man’s life. It is a woman’s whole life. And she went on to say that while men may love as long as there is hope, women love long after there is none. When Jeremy Irons, playing the English gentleman, asked the French lieutenant’s woman if she walked those bleak shores waiting for her lieutenant, she proved Jane Austen’s point. She had learned, she said, that the very brave can be very false. She knew he wouldn’t return, and yet she waited.
Elizabeth’s advice to all young lovers is contained in a sonnet in which, having already told her husband how she loved him, she now tells him how she wants to be loved. She asks him not to build his love on the shifting sands of change, not on looks or mind or personality or shared interest or on pity, for “love so wrought can be unwrought so.” She writes:
If thou must love me, let it be for naught
Except for love’s sake only. Do not say
“I love her for her smile—her looks—her way
of speaking gently—for a trick of thought
that falls in well with mine, and brought
a sense of pleasant ease on such a day.”—
For these things in themselves, Beloved, may
Be changed, or, change for thee—and love so wrought
May be unwrought so. Neither love me for
Thine own dear pity’s wipingmy tears dry—
A creature might forget to weep who bore
Thy comfort long, and lose thy love thereby!
But love me for love’s sake that evermore
Thou mayest love on through love’s eternity.
For Elizabeth Browning, love was not an exchange. A deal. A barter. You give to me. I give to you. For her, true love was an outright, unconditional gift. It gives all and asks nothing.
The second and last scene in our love story takes place 12 years later in the same Casa Guidi. Again, it is early morning. Robert Browning is sitting fully dressed at Elizabeth’s bedside. They are alone. Elizabeth is sleeping, resting against his cheek. He has been there all night. She wakens and he asks how she feels. Later he wrote: Then came what my heart will keep until I see her again, the most perfect expression of her love for me within my whole knowledge of her. She answered his question with one word: “Beautiful.” And died.
Today, the Casa Guidi still stands there along the Via Maggiore, opposite the Pitti Palazzo. A small plaque near the door tells us that this is where Elizabeth and Robert Browning lived. But the anthologies and histories of English literature tell us more. In these pages, along with William Shakespeare and John Donne and John Keats, along with Byron and Shelley, we read the names of Robert and Elizabeth Browning, who loved each other with the breadth, smiles, and tears of all their life, and who now live on in love’s eternity.
February 09, 2006
Songs in the Key of the Spirit
Sometimes, the Spirit just moves you. . .
A week ago, during the regular music ministry Thursday practice, someone mentioned that we should sing at church. One thing led to another and then I asked the brothers and sisters there—“you want to sing for Fr. Jboy’s Wednesday masses at U.P.?” A chorus of “yes” and “why nots” followed.
Before any concrete plans could be made, I had texted Fr. Jboy and informed him that”kami’y mangahas na kakanta sa misa nyo sa darating na miyerkoles, nawa’y huwag kaming ipagtabuyan.” To which he replied, “syempre hindi, dahil wala talagang choir nun.” And before anyone could say, “we’re a church choir”, we were one.
Fast forward to yesterday. . .
I had circulated a text forward to musicmin to meet at 5 pm for practice before the mass; typically, no one texted back to confirm. So, I must admit to feeling some anxiety because we hadn’t practiced, no one had confirmed—everything was so. . . Spirit-led and Spirit-moved. So, before 6 pm yesterday, just after I finished class, I was texting Ella about it and even told her if no one comes, I might just tell Fr. Jboy next week na lang.
A mustard seed would be spacious enough to fit my faith. . . when I got to the U.P. Chapel, I saw Alan on the floor playing his guitar, Nick, Darleth, Gem, and was told that Ria and Jas were also around; a few minutes after, Len arrived. Then, it struck me. . . this was it, we were really doing this!
Talk about being led by the Spirit.
These were not sisters and brothers who worked or lived nearby. Len worked in Mandaluyong and for a company that was notorious for keeping its employees beyond office hours—yet she was there! Gem was so new to Lingkod but she was there as well. God is good because He enables those He calls.
Ella and Grace would later complete the cast which took to the risers. Despite lack of practice, it was spirited singing and Spirit-led singing. It brought me back to high school and it was a good—no, great---feeling.
Fr. Jboy would meet us after the mass to thank us; but I thanked him for allowing us yet another venue—the most logical venue for most of us, actually—to serve Him and to bring Him glory.
See you next Wednesday, brothers and sisters.
A week ago, during the regular music ministry Thursday practice, someone mentioned that we should sing at church. One thing led to another and then I asked the brothers and sisters there—“you want to sing for Fr. Jboy’s Wednesday masses at U.P.?” A chorus of “yes” and “why nots” followed.
Before any concrete plans could be made, I had texted Fr. Jboy and informed him that”kami’y mangahas na kakanta sa misa nyo sa darating na miyerkoles, nawa’y huwag kaming ipagtabuyan.” To which he replied, “syempre hindi, dahil wala talagang choir nun.” And before anyone could say, “we’re a church choir”, we were one.
Fast forward to yesterday. . .
I had circulated a text forward to musicmin to meet at 5 pm for practice before the mass; typically, no one texted back to confirm. So, I must admit to feeling some anxiety because we hadn’t practiced, no one had confirmed—everything was so. . . Spirit-led and Spirit-moved. So, before 6 pm yesterday, just after I finished class, I was texting Ella about it and even told her if no one comes, I might just tell Fr. Jboy next week na lang.
A mustard seed would be spacious enough to fit my faith. . . when I got to the U.P. Chapel, I saw Alan on the floor playing his guitar, Nick, Darleth, Gem, and was told that Ria and Jas were also around; a few minutes after, Len arrived. Then, it struck me. . . this was it, we were really doing this!
Talk about being led by the Spirit.
These were not sisters and brothers who worked or lived nearby. Len worked in Mandaluyong and for a company that was notorious for keeping its employees beyond office hours—yet she was there! Gem was so new to Lingkod but she was there as well. God is good because He enables those He calls.
Ella and Grace would later complete the cast which took to the risers. Despite lack of practice, it was spirited singing and Spirit-led singing. It brought me back to high school and it was a good—no, great---feeling.
Fr. Jboy would meet us after the mass to thank us; but I thanked him for allowing us yet another venue—the most logical venue for most of us, actually—to serve Him and to bring Him glory.
See you next Wednesday, brothers and sisters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)