Compilation of articles on the SOGI bill, LGBT 'rights', and same sex 'marriage'

For the convenience of those arguing in favor of the family and marriage, here are the articles or papers I've written on the matter so far:

- There is no such thing as SOGI rights, just human rights;
- The SOGI law will hurt business owners, schools, the military;
- House testimony on the SOGI anti-discrimination bill;
- Gay rights and marriage;
- Gay marriage not a human right;
- Still no right to gay marriage;
- Death and the transgender;
- Transgender policy: he or she as they want to be; and
- The continued womanization of men.

Inasmuch as LGBT activists are wont to rely on international law to override Philippine law to advance their agenda, here are my thoughts on international human rights (click here).

Feel free to copy, quote, or share with proper attribution.

Civics 101

my Trade Tripper column in the 15-16 October 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:

First off, we don’t do kings.

It says so right in the Constitution.

There’s no tribal elder or wise old man. There is no “father of the nation” benignly looking over us helpless children. We are a government of self-rule, embodying our will in a specific constitutional system.


This is what it means when we declare that we are a government of, by, and for the people. The people made government and government exists for the people (not the other way around).

The public servants we appointed (or elected) are servants in a peculiar way: their service is to make or implement rules over us. Their ability to “rule,” however, is not unrestrained, kinglike, or godlike. It is very narrow, timebound and limited.

The last means that public servants cannot exercise powers they do not have. Their powers are restricted to that stated in the Constitution or legislative enactments. That’s also why we broke up the major functions of government to three (and this is the important part) “equal” branches.

We did this so that not one person has greater power over the people. Final say and responsibility is always with the people.

What’s the measure by which pubic servants must comply? Aside from the expressed functions in the Constitution and laws, there’s also the overall standard of the “common good.”

The “common good” is that peculiar phrase found in the Constitution’s preamble. It means the flourishing of each and every human being towards a purpose and within an environment that the members of the society laid out or created by themselves.

How do we know this? Because we recognized each human being as a rational creature; i.e., blessed with an intellect. Also, because we recognize that all human beings are created equal, and imbued with dignity and rights. These are in the Constitution. Being so, a citizen must not be dictated upon and should be trusted to figure out for himself/herself what is good for him/her personally.

There is a further limit to the powers of government and that’s the concept of “subsidiarity.” This simply means that issues and problems that can be handled by the smallest political unit (i.e., the individual) should be handled by that individual; if unable, then the family, then the neighborhood, then the town, then the province; and only if such is unable, should the national government step in.

How do we know this? Because the dignity and rights of every single human being are to be respected in our Constitution; that our Constitution recognizes the family as a “basic autonomous social institution,” and that our Constitution encourages local governments towards “local autonomy.”

In practice, this means that with regard to education, formation of beliefs (including religion and values), health, welfare, employment, housing, commerce, and so on, the main responsibility lies with the parents and the family (specially), then the neighborhood parish, civic organizations, the businessman down the street.

The actual main job of government is to serve and protect the people, which include maintaining peace and order, and securing life, liberty, and property. All others are secondary and only as assistant to the people. This is in the Constitution.

The rationale behind it is that if the people abdicate their responsibilities and prefer government stepping in, the latter’s tendency is to want more power: soon, it will be telling people what to eat, work, buy, believe, travel, who to be with. Which requires more government personnel/resources, which demands a bigger budget, hence more taxes. Hence, lesser autonomy for the people: less money in the wallet, less choices, less exercise of free will. Thus, more dependency. And on and on.

People complain about democracy (and the rule of law) because it’s messy and slow. Here’s a shocker: it’s supposed to be messy and slow! The system is designed to protect us from our passing passions and the temptation of quick fixes.

It encourages people to study, debate, and ponder, and eventually come up with a deliberate solution for the common good because of the (wise) assumption that the government does not and cannot know and solve everything.

Our dignity and self-respect demand that we govern and rule ourselves.

When we say Philippines and common good, we’re not only talking of the 100 million living in our country right now. We also mean those that died before us, that fought and built this country they believed in (and its values and culture). We the living have a responsibility that they not die in vain.

The Philippines includes also those yet to be born, deserving to flourish as human beings, and thus our responsibility to bequeath to them a decent country they’d be proud of, to work for (and die for, if necessary) because they know that it stands for something bigger than the merely passing.

This is the Philippines embodied in our Constitution. It was a great idea. Too bad, it hasn’t been implemented.

The magical words: ‘international human rights’

my Trade Tripper column in the 27-28 August 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:

“International human rights law” always had this mystique. Regularly mentioned yet rarely understood. Like “sovereignty.” The moment someone utters it, like one would in an incantation, the expectation is of openings to lines of argument from which there can be no opposition. Hence, from entitling transgenders to use another name to the issue of Marcos’s burial site, international human rights law is invoked by earnest activist lawyers everywhere.

If only it were that simple.

The truth, however, is that international human rights has always been a contentious concept.

Hence why London School of Economics’ Susan Marks (“Human Rights Myths,” Oct. 2012) relevantly brought up the facts that the universality of international human rights shouldn’t be presumed, of its relative novelty, that the bulk of international human rights law are either ambiguously crafted or in the nature of “soft law”, and that it is not above ideological agendas.

Hence why a State would be foolish to indiscriminately bind itself to such.

International human rights -- which essentially arose after the two world wars but had its emergent heyday “out of the anti-totalitarianism and anti-authoritarianism of the 1970s” -- simply stands on “the ‘myth of presumptive universality”: that rights are uniform in form and substance for all. But such is far from the reality.

Another international human rights myth is its supposed apolitical nature: “the human rights movement’s claim to be engaged in a ‘pure defense of the innocent and powerless against power.’” But this is hogwash. As illustrated by Marks, “there is no such thing as a pure defense of the innocent and powerless, and that human rights are, in any event, not just defenses against power, but themselves significant forms of power.”

And perhaps because they know their advocacies are unacceptable in many countries, human rights activists picked on the tactic of preaching that international human rights laws are “sui generis.” But sui generis according to whom? Their fellow human rights activists?

It’s due to the forgoing that international human rights law has such a dismal record. As Eric Posner points out (The Case Against Human Rights, Dec. 2014): “The truth is that human rights law has failed to accomplish its objectives. There is little evidence that human rights treaties, on the whole, have improved the well-being of people. The reason is that human rights were never as universal as people hoped, and the belief that they could be forced upon countries as a matter of international law was shot through with misguided assumptions from the very beginning.”

“The central problem with human rights law is that it is hopelessly ambiguous. The ambiguity, which allows governments to rationalize almost anything they do, is not a result of sloppy draftsmanship but of the deliberate choice to overload the treaties with hundreds of poorly defined obligations. In most countries people formally have as many as 400 international human rights -- rights to work and leisure, to freedom of expression and religious worship, to nondiscrimination, to privacy, to pretty much anything you might think is worth protecting. The sheer quantity and variety of rights, which protect virtually all human interests, can provide no guidance to governments. Given that all governments have limited budgets, protecting one human right might prevent a government from protecting another.”

Finally, even assuming that international human rights -- at the specific level -- can be identified, determined, and enforced, the same cannot deviate from natural law. In short, any such rights should be based on a logical and reasoned appreciation of human nature.

As noted philosopher Jacques Maritain explains, human rights being based on natural law, then it can be fairly said that there can be no human right contrary to natural law: “The moral absolutes give legal reasoning its backbone. xxx These moral absolutes which are rationally determined and essentially determinate, constitute the most basic human rights.”

International law itself recognizes the connection of natural law to rights. One easily sees this in the creation of the United Nations (where Jacques Maritain played a not insignificant role), as well as important documents on international human rights such as the 1948 UN Declaration on Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, amongst others. Thus, one basis of international law is said to be the natural law, upon which our concepts of jus cogens (as well as erga omnes) is rooted.

Hence, this utterly relevant insight by our Supreme Court (from Ang Ladlad vs. Comelec, 2010): “not everything that society -- or a certain segment of society -- wants or demands is automatically a human right. This is not an arbitrary human intervention that may be added to or subtracted from at will. xxx [To do so will have] the effect of diluting real human rights.”

The point here is this: people are much better off relying on and having confidence in Philippine statutory law than the ambiguity that is international human rights.

The damage of liberal elitism to the Philippines

my Trade Tripper column in this 6-7 August 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:

And I’m not talking about the wealthy oligarchy, a completely different topic altogether. No. Am focusing on this country’s so-called “intelligentsia,” of the academe and the professions, particularly of law (which I’m most familiar with), from those exclusive few universities convinced only they are entitled to influence others and make the decisions simply because (so they believe) they’re smarter than all of us.

Which is really annoying considering how utterly without basis their thinking is.

I remember one former Supreme Court justice pointedly (but quite correctly) telling a graduating central Manila law school class (and I’m paraphrasing here): “Be proud of yourselves, don’t be intimidated by the elite universities. Remember, at least your school hasn’t produced corrupt leaders, plunderers, and traitors that plague this country.”

So when I hear the self-congratulatory prattle of academics, lawyers, policy makers from those hallowed halls of learning, the humble bragging about their progressiveness (and they usually do describe themselves as “progressives” or “liberals”) supposedly making a difference to the country, I get baffled: have you seen the Philippines lately?

However, in fairness to the present administration, let’s agree it’s really too early days to tell how Bedans fair in governance. Full disclosure, I’m a Bedan.

In any event, beyond the corruption and mismanagement our intellectual class brought down upon us, the greater danger is the thought homogeny permeating our top schools.

This leads to two distressing consequences, both observable priorly from the United States, which we’re seemingly determined to copy.

The first is hostility to dissenting opinions: anyone with a conservative viewpoint will surely be labeled as “medieval,” “racist,” “bigoted,” or “uninformed.” And these occur in a range of topics: from sexual ethics to immigration to national security.

Thus, if you dare question the concept of “the other” (the latest buzzword favored by progressives), you are “xenophobic.”

If you ask about the merit of allowing transgenders their choice of restrooms, you are “bigoted.”

And God help you if you ever utter the word “God” in an “intellectual” conversation.

All this renders learning inutile.

As Nicholas Kristof (New York Times, “A Confession of Liberal Intolerance”, Nicholas Kristof, May 7, 2016) puts it, “the stakes involve not just fairness to conservatives or evangelical Christians, not just whether progressives will be true to their own values, not just the benefits that come from diversity (and diversity of thought is arguably among the most important kinds), but also the quality of education itself. When perspectives are unrepresented in discussions, when some kinds of thinkers aren’t at the table, classrooms become echo chambers rather than sounding boards -- and we all lose.”

Finally, we seem to be aping the US’ obsession (at least from the academic standpoint) with national guilt. In their case, it’s about race and slavery. In ours, the alleged historical baggage the Philippines has vis-à-vis the Bangsamoro concept.

There’s also the academic and social media “thought leaders” fashionable passion to seek out and help (again to use those words) “the other” (usually minority refugees), with nary a nod to national security or economic viability.

But intellectual elite actions also led to the (likely intended) consequence Janet Daley (The Telegraph; “The US elite abandoned the American dream -- Trump is the terrifying result”, March 12, 2016) decried as where “love of country is no longer instilled in the children of every generation as it once was.”

So with the Philippines.

Most of our so-called intelligentsia took post-graduate studies from foreign universities, many from the Ivy League, again usually “progressive,” and it’s interesting how naively oblivious they are about the damage the ideas coming from those schools wrought upon the rest of the world.

For example, the liberal freak-out over “Brexit”: “Over the past decade, elites broke the world, and were unrepentant about their failure. They created the conditions for the worst economic crisis in nearly a century, and made sure that their elite friends at the top would scoop up the post-crisis gains, stranding the vast majority of people. They decided their project of globalization and liberalization mattered more than democracy.” (The American Prospect, David Dayen, “Who’s to Blame for ‘Brexit?’ The Elites,” June 24, 2016)

Another: elites at the IMF fostering “groupthink and intellectual capture” resulted in unmindful cheerleading “for the euro project, ignored warning signs of impending crisis, and collectively failed to grasp an elemental concept of currency theory.” (The Telegraph, “IMF admits disastrous love affair with the euro and apologizes for the immolation of Greece,” July 29, 2016)

This article, make no mistake, is not a call against experts. Rather, it’s a plea for people to be accepting of dissenting ideas and to be more democratic in the sourcing of varying thoughts.

For the Philippines, certainly expanding the bench from where we get our analytical input could only be helpful.

We know that because our continued insistence in narrow intellectual sourcing from an exclusive set of families and schools has definitely not worked for the country.

For a strategic, coherent Philippine foreign policy

my Trade Tripper column in this 28-29 May 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:

For foreign policy, perhaps it’s time for a reset. And resets need a plan. And plans involve a consideration of where one is and going to. That is why international relations fundamentally should be conducted in complete unity with the identity and values of the Philippines.

Or put another way, our foreign policy should be but the mere extension of our domestic, also recognizing that these are matters strategically, patiently, and deliberately played out in decades, and that there is more to foreign relations than just facilitating the documentation and regulation of our overseas workers.

For a start, this means a healthy regard for the rule of law. This is particularly true as we are pushing that principle in relation to China and the West Philippine Sea. If extra-judicial measures are resorted to, even de facto, as domestic policy, we can’t reasonably expect the Chinese to do the same.

It also means respecting human rights, particularly freedom of expression and religion. Considerably so, when there’s around 2.5 million of our countrymen abroad who we do not want discriminated against for being Filipinos (or acting or speaking or believing as they do).

This includes not raising the issue of the death penalty at this time, with about 80 Filipinos on death row overseas. It’s simply incongruous to request clemency for fellow Filipinos when we are putting them to death ourselves.

Going back to China, the incoming administration’s declared policy of reaching out and focusing on the positives of our relationship with it is the correct step.

Discussions and agreements should be hashed out allowing for mutual exploration and use of the disputed areas and resources, without necessarily prejudicing sovereignty claims at a more opportune future time.

Enhanced trade arrangements should be raised, particularly with the Philippines supporting and joining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement led by China. Along with the Silk Road aspirations of the latter.

Preferably, all that be at least initiated before the Hague arbitral tribunal releases its decision in our case against China.

As for Mindanao and the ongoing Bangsamoro issue, one fundamental change that should definitely be done is to overtly and declaratively categorize the same as a domestic matter. This includes having the Department of the Interior and Local Government leading negotiations from now on.

Further on that: revival of the BIMP-EAGA is a definite priority, along with a viable transport system among the trading countries. Long-term investment and tax incentives should be given, encouraging Filipino businesses from all over the country and overseas to set up in the area.

We need to strengthen our relationship with Russia. Trade between our two countries hovers around $1 billion, with around 4,500 overseas Filipinos working there (mostly in Moscow). Even adding tourism in, the economic aspect of the relationship is quite anemic considering that we are the closest tropical country to Russia (at least its eastern part) and pales in comparison with other APEC countries (of which Russia is a part of).

Nevertheless, the Philippines and Russia have always been generally in good terms: the former being the first democratic country to reach out to the then Soviet Union during the Cold War (the effort led by then Executive Secretary Alex Melchor and then Major Joe Almonte). In 2012, Russian naval vessels made a goodwill visit to the Philippines, signifying the potential for a deepening of relations between the two countries.

Also suggested are acquiring defense pacts with our longtime trading partners: Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea.

The Philippines and Australia already have a working arrangement on protection of our transport systems; we have an understanding with Japan on maritime security; and our military history with South Korea peaked with the 1950’s Philippine Expeditionary Forces to Korea.

Incoming president Duterte did well to reiterate the strong relationship the Philippines has with the United States. The shared political and cultural values are too embedded for us not to do so.

Though we should definitely join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we must also encourage the US to commit itself to leading a revived multilateral trading arrangement through the World Trade Organization.

Furthermore, we should also realize that historically and geographically, we have the potential to play a significant role similar to that of Great Britain vis-à-vis the US and Europe. Perhaps more so.

Our location in the Pacific is not only strategic but also freed us from the various intra-continental conflicts between Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia. This makes us not only the perfect conduit for the US towards Asia but also a pragmatically objective mediator for our neighbors.

Finally, even in diplomacy, talk is futile unless one has the muscle and will to back it up. Our foreign policy must be partnered with a strong, robust military.

Indeed, increasing defense spending and reviving mandatory military service for all college-age students is ironically a good first step towards a coherent, strategic foreign policy.

We must elect a pro-family president

my Trade Tripper column in the 29-30 April 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:

This election campaign season unfortunately neglected the family.

Distractions (some necessary, some not) prevented the nation from putting in the needed time to discuss two really important issues.

And while debates abounded on national security, crime, unemployment, and inequality, the most important issues, one that actually encompasses all others due to their fundamental nature, were never raised.

Am referring, of course, to human dignity and the traditional family.

Princeton professor Robert George famously said there are three pillars to a decent and dynamic society. The third was about having “fair and effective system of law and government.”

This is a matter commonly known to most Filipinos.

However, what we disastrously fail to realize is how important the first two pillars are to the rule of law. These are “respect for the human person” and “the family” (i.e., that based on the commitment of a husband and a wife).

Regarding the human person, George notes that a “society that does not nurture respect for the human person -- beginning with the child in the womb, and including the mentally and physically impaired and the frail elderly -- will sooner or later (probably sooner, rather than later) come to regard human beings as mere cogs in the larger social wheel whose dignity and well-being may legitimately be sacrificed for the sake of the collective.”

Measures such as euthanasia and abortion (as well as the extrajudicial killing of criminals) obviously do not help in advancing respect for the human person.

Regarding the family, without it “there is no transmission of the virtues which underpin society and which also ensure respect for human dignity. Political and legal institutions cannot function without people who respect the fundamental virtues that bind society.”

The importance of the family cannot be overestimated.

Research by Wilcox, Lerman, and Price for the Institute for Family Studies “shows that states with higher levels of married parenthood enjoy higher levels of growth, economic mobility for children growing up poor, and median family income, along with markedly lower levels of child poverty.”

The impact of the family on the economy is so strong, in fact, that it is a better predictor of economic health than the population’s “educational attainment.”

Harvard economist Raj Chetty backs this up, saying that “the strongest predictors of upward mobility are measures of family structure.”

Family Research Council’s Patrick Fagan was more direct: “No matter which way you look at it -- through the lens of income, savings, or poverty -- marriage is the great engine of the economy, with every household a building block that either contributes or takes away, millions of times over. Put all these families together, and we have the team that runs the American economy.”

Even more direct: “The foundation for a productive household begins with marriage”. “Cohabitation does not take the place of marriage, and there are very strong indications that cohabitation may rival single parenthood as the largest generator of child poverty, while divorce is the cause of most women and children entering poverty in any given year.”

Much was made this election season regarding crime. What was incredibly missed was how taking care of the traditional family structure could go a long way towards a solution.

The Atlantic’s Kay Hymowitz pointed out that 70% of youths in prison “did not grow up with both parents.” An even starker study found that only 13% of criminal juveniles “grew up with their married parents.”

Finally, referencing a study by Cynthia Harper and Sara McLanahan: “The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single mothers are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents. This is true not just in the United States, but wherever the issue has been researched.”

The desperation caused by the breakup of the traditional family structure was famously summed up -- ironically -- by Barack Obama:

“We know the statistics -- that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

More than corruption and more than any other issue, to protect the family is a matter of national survival.

Unfortunately, we have candidates who, unknown to many, have filed bills or advocated measures that experience taught are extremely damaging to the traditional family structure.

These involve contraceptives, euthanasia, same sex marriage, divorce, and the not so well thought through Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

In the remaining days of this campaign, Filipinos are urged to grab the opportunity to make its vote one that protects human dignity and the traditional family.

Now, more than any other time in our history, we desperately need a pro-family president.

No tango in Belgium and lessons for the Philippines

was my Trade Tripper column in the 1-2 April 2016 issue of BusinessWorld:

Perhaps what’s really tragic about the recent slaughter in Brussels is the fleeting idea that it could have been avoided. That the Belgian police could have previously arrested one of the suicide bombers, that they were aware of the terrorism records of the other two. That there should have been no 35 deaths to mourn, and more than 300 injured to console. But that is, indubitably, all hindsight.

For the Philippines, blithely shuffling its way to being a terrorist hotbed, there are lessons shrieking to be learned. For one, it is the importance of having the determination to deny the demands of one group if such contradicts the fundamental values and principles of the country.

And, like Belgium, a significant factor is territory.

As discussed by Jeff Jacoby (“Why there are Muslim ghettos in Belgium, but not in the US”, March 2016), “Last November’s horrific slaughter in Paris was masterminded by a Belgian radical, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, and at least four of the men who carried out those attacks were from the Brussels district of Molenbeek.”

Indeed, “for Islamist imams and terrorist ringleaders, such neighborhoods -- heavily Muslim, densely populated, with high unemployment and crime rates -- have proved fertile territory for recruiting violent jihadists.”

“Molenbeek”, according to Feargus O’Sullivan (“How a Brussels Neighborhood Became a Breeding Ground for Terror”, November 2015), “may be a new name for the international media, but the inner-city neighborhood has been linked to a string of terror attacks dating back years.”

Put another way: radical Islam’s internal logic, which is to wage war against and eliminate a democratic way of life founded on individual freedoms, directs isolation for its adherents rather than opportunities for assimilation.

This should commonsensically lead us to questioning the propriety of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, of which last Easter was the second anniversary of its signing.

As this column kept pointing out: for two years now, with the tacit agreement of this government, we have in de facto existence another State carved out of a territory of the Philippines. And an entity that surely could pose serious security problems for the country.

Yes, as Jacoby is quick to clarify, it is true that “Muslim communities are not inherently predisposed to violence” and that there is a far larger -- and peaceful -- Muslim community in the United States.

But the US has been quite successful in assimilating not only Muslims but most other migrants into mainstream society. Again, Jacoby: “There are no Muslim ghettoes here like those in Molenbeek or the Paris suburbs, where authorities turn a blind eye to antisocial behavior and aggressive incitement by radicals preaching jihad.” Instead, US Muslims’ participation “in various everyday American activities -- from following local sports teams to watching entertainment TV -- are similar to those of the American public generally. Half of all Muslim immigrants display the US flag at home, in the office, or on their car.”

In short, political correctness (so far) has not undermined the equal application of the rule of law in the US.

And the traditional values (not the vices) exhibited by mainstream Americans have proven attractive enough for other migrants to generally feel welcome and join freely.

The difference in policy and attitude -- and hence, results -- between the US and the Philippines could not be more obvious. Our country bizarrely adopted a “historical baggage” mentality that resulted in a guilt-ridden, appeasement policy direction for the Philippines. This must stop.

Finally, we must re-visit the efficacy of our security apparatus.

Or, to be precise, we should stop the inane (and expensively futile) delusion of matching militarily whatever hostile State there may be and instead -- for now -- focus on eliminating threats of an internal or asymmetric nature.

We must set aside progressive political correctness, confidently assert our sovereignty, and better equip our intelligence services in securing our borders from smuggled goods or individuals. The government itself admitted that there are more than a million undocumented or illegal aliens freely lurking around the country.

We must also have an effective surveillance program on communities that potentially serve as breeding grounds or shelter for Islamic terrorists.

Such security measures are not only constitutionally proper. It is actually the constitutional duty of government to do so.

But inevitably and unfortunately, one suspects the capability of our intelligence services when the intelligence fund of the Office of the President (P500 million) is ridiculously far bigger than that of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (in 2015, somewhere around P21 million).

In fact, the OP’s intelligence fund is bigger even than of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (P270 million) or the Philippine National Police (a little over P300 million).

Why would the President need such humongous intelligence funds? Why does he even have intelligence funds? Can’t he rely on the information provided by intelligence professionals doing their lawful duty?

Because, ultimately, the lesson of Belgium is this: politics should never get in the way of combatting terror.

Antonin Scalia: exemplary juror for PH

Cristina Montes and I on originalism and Justice Scalia's relevance for the Philippines.

Article can be read here.

Radical Islam and the war of world views

my Trade Tripper column in the 20-21 November 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:

The 13th of November, of course, was the day radical Islamic terrorists attacked Paris. It was also an anniversary of sorts, it being the day, almost a hundred years earlier, when Western troops occupied Constantinople, the capital of the Caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire.

Coincidence? Perhaps. But this is what’s certain: Islamic terrorists specifically targeted in Paris a football game between France and Germany, a heavy metal rock concert (where the US band Eagles of Death Metal was playing), a hip upscale Cambodian restaurant, and three bars.

This was an attack not simply on Paris but against a way of life. Which is the same kind recognized by most in this globalized world. Of which the Philippines is a part.

Anybody who says those barbaric acts are solvable with better understanding and tolerance of other’s viewpoints to achieve peaceful coexistence is in cuckoo land.

There is no compromise or inane “don’t judge” position available in this case.

Accept it or not, the moment you ask for tolerance and plea for coexistence you make a stand. A stand peculiarly Judeo-Christian Enlightenment in view regarding human right, freedom, and reason. And which is precisely diametrically opposed to and clashes with the radical Islamic belief that everyone must think and do as they do.

If you don’t believe that, try asking for gender equality and religious freedom in radical Islam controlled areas.

Indeed. What these radical Islamic terrorists want is for us to change our way of life or lose it.

Realistic coexistence is unobtainable. Sayyid Qutb (a 20th century Egyptian Islamic theorist) influentially equated modernity and nonbelief in Islam to jahiliyya (ignorance of divine guidance), and declared that “Islam cannot accept any compromise with jahiliyya. Either Islam will remain or jahiliyya. The mixing and co-existence of truth and falsehood is impossible.”

Or, if you like, take the late unlamented Osama Bin Laden’s rant against Western culture, demanding we “reject homosexuality, intoxicants, gamblings, and trading with interest... drugs... art, entertainment, tourism, and freedom,” and further demanding that people be ruled by the “Sharia of Allah.”

And it goes on and on. Hating our freedoms: the fact that women are free to be educated or work, for homosexuals to be treated as people, for anyone to be free to join any religion, and to have a constitutional system that espouses the separation of Church and State.

Thus, more than foreign intervention or economics, what radical Islamic terrorists have declared war on is our world view: their unenlightened totalitarian version of existence against our twin pillars of faith and reason that created democracy and religious tolerance.

And they absolutely abhor the fact that we celebrate our freedom and that such influences their youth: from Manchester United to the trashy Kardashians, the sublimity of Bach, to reading Shakespeare and watching animé.

And that is why radical Islam prefers isolation rather than assimilating with other societies. In France alone, there are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of so-called “no-go zones” that Fox News was forced to apologize for even though it actually exists.

These autonomous areas are not officially recognized but are parts of the country dominated by Muslims and largely exclude non-Muslim people or culture. Civil authorities have abdicated control for fear of violence and secular laws are supplanted by Shariah.

Unfortunately, these areas have been taken advantage by radical Muslim clerics to preach their hateful ideology, resulting in the brainwashing of future terrorists and provide safe havens for present ones.

And thus the unfortunate and ironic statistic (taken last year) where 27% of 18- to 24-year-old French citizens support the Islamic State (IS; 16% for the whole population).

Due to the social media environment we live in, this quite blindingly obvious caveat is made: I am not against Muslims or the Islamic faith. I am not against any religion or race. What I am against are people who seek to impose their beliefs on others by violence.

So what do we do?

First is to value our way of life. We defend it rather than apologize for it. And aggressively, completely reject the littlest notion that real or imagined oppression or minority status will ever justify the slaughter of innocent people.

Another is to call these terrorists for what they are: radical Islam. Because that’s what they call themselves. Because you don’t see Catholic nuns blowing up restaurants. Because these terrorists wreak havoc to make the world ruled by an Islamic Caliphate.

We must also strongly call on the US to finally lead: restrictively guarded measures on refugees and putting boots on the ground.

While France (along with others in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) took the admirable step of committing to obliterating IS, they just cannot do it without US strength and resources. And President Obama’s incredibly incompetent “leading from behind” presidency is utterly making matters worse.

Finally, we must also act with this realization: foreign policy is but an extension of our domestic policy. By which I emphasize: our policy in relation to Philippine territory.

Paying for the Philippines' new normal

my Trade Tripper column in the 9-10 October 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:

The problem is disconnect. The disconnect between what our current government leaders say (and swear to) and what they actually do. Like that presidential candidate who dismisses taking an oath renouncing Philippine citizenship as a mere scrap of paper. And this resulted in the Republic lurching from one reactive policy to another, the government imposing measures that are far detached from the people’s will or the national interest.

One symptom of the disconnect is the present Administration trying to (or at least acts like it wants to) direct people to the good life. But experience shows how unhinged this is from reality. And under our constitutional system, that shouldn’t even be government’s primary focus. Thus, the principles of “common good” (the individual’s right to human flourishing) and “subsidiarity” (the people deciding for themselves how to attain that common good), embodied in our Constitution, but which the ruling political class keeps ignoring.

Instead, our Constitution declares that our government really has one job to do: “to serve and protect the people.”

Thus, essential are the maintenance of peace and order, and the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Our government is not mandated to directly run the country, its economy, educate the youth, and develop society. That is properly the people’s responsibility. As far as those are concerned, including attaining a just social order and social justice, the government merely “recognizes,” “promotes,” and “develops” -- serving as an assist to the work primarily carried out by the Filipino people.

In short, the government is actually supposed to keep its efforts to the minimum, limited to fostering an environment where the people are free to properly do their thing. After that, the government should just keep out of the people’s way.

If you think the foregoing is a mere academic concern better confined to the classroom, think again. This Administration has expanded the reach of government to areas that should primarily be left to the people.

By doing so, insisting in interfering with business and education through more regulations, weakening institutions like the family and the Church, and acting like the “padrone” through billions spent on the Conditional Cash Transfer, this Administration now feels entitled to increase taxes to expand its powers even more.

So now, we have a proposed 2016 budget of P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006.

The government’s “underspending” 2014 budget deficit (which meant that, despite all the underspending for necessary infrastructure, our government still spent more than it earned) is P73.1 billion.

The foregoing is within the context of the Filipino paying among the highest income tax in Asia but with the lowest wage rates in the world for work hours deemed among the longest globally.

And this is not counting the fact that Metro Manila workers suffer the longest commutes due to the now internationally recognized as the world’s worst traffic.

And with all that money being taken from ordinary taxpaying Filipino citizens (aside from an external debt of P2.042 trillion and domestic debt of P3.856 trillion, resulting in an outstanding debt of P5.898 trillion as of August 2015), what does this Administration have to show for it?

One of the world’s worst airports, the world’s worst traffic, slowest internet speed; 23.2% unemployment (80% of which belong to the 18-34 age group), around 7% student drop out rates, nearly 26% poverty incidence; water shortage (amidst floods), huge backlog in issuances of drivers licenses and car plates and passports; and a deteriorating educational system.

In the end, the “just-let-the-government-take-care-of-you” cash dole-outs, the considerable unemployment/underemployment rates, and legislation like the Kasambahay Law (that demands a professional’s pay but without the need to work professionally), all provide a clear disincentive to work and fosters an entitlement culture that could only lead to this country’s social and fiscal bankruptcy.

Yes, we seem to have improved competitiveness. But even that proves my point: an examination of this year’s and the last Global Competitiveness Index reveals the uptick attributable to private sector efforts and held back by bureaucratic red tape.

And there are still the areas of special concern remaining unaddressed: Yolanda rehabilitation and the inability to give justice to the Special Action Forces 44.

And yet, quite insanely, on the one job this government is supposed to do -- to protect our people and territory -- it bafflingly waffles between apathy, incompetence, or the downright treasonous.

Thus our country bears increased incidence of crime, increased smuggling, unchecked rise of illegal aliens (estimated at 1.3 million, posing a threat to national security, as well as stealing employment), the confused legal/diplomatic “defense” of our territory vis-a-vis China, and the almost giving away of Mindanao to a supposed “Bangsamoro”. All messes clearly intended to be left to the following administration to clean up.

Hopefully, our next set of government leaders has had a better read of our Constitution. And respect the fact that words (and oaths) do matter.

Coffee, truth, and TV

my Trade Tripper column in the 21-22 August issue of BusinessWorld:

Found myself thinking over coffee of C.S. Lewis: “We [modern society] make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.” And “a great many of those who ‘debunk’ traditional... values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.”

Indeed, the problem with modernity is that it itself cannot cope with modernity. By this we see people finding themselves disoriented, confused, lost. That with all the material and financial pleasures available, people find that such is never enough, that in worldly goods is not to be found true human flourishing.

Interestingly enough, not many realize that all this is connected to our constitutional and economic design of a free and democratic society choosing by its right judgment its leaders and the product and services it wants to advance. But this presupposes a well-formed citizenry, with a functioning system of judgment-making.

But today’s modernity (including, unfortunately, our judiciary) rejects the notion of a natural law, an objective standard of reason upon which our ethical system is based. And again, C.S. Lewis is prescient: “Natural law or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it’s rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world.”

Thus, Pope Francis was speaking of the necessity of speaking up for reasoned beliefs when (at the Plenary Assembly of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications last September 2013) he said, “We talk about the Church behind closed doors. But this is more than a Church with open doors, it’s more! Finding ‘home’ together, building ‘home’, building the Church. It’s this: building the Church as we walk. A challenge! To lead to the rediscovery, through means of social communication as well as by personal contact, of the beauty which is at the heart of our existence and our journey, the beauty of faith, the beauty of the encounter with Christ.”

The foregoing poetic language, however, is necessarily balanced with the need for reasoned objective truth. Pope Benedict XVI correctly teaches: that without truth, charity becomes mere sentimentality; without truth, there is no social conscience.

It with this in mind that I am taken back to the days when, with collaborators like Edwin Lopez of EWTN and Fr. Ces Magsino of the Opus Dei, we broadcast in TV Maria the show Naturang Batas. It was simply made, with the sparest of resources. But it had the biggest of ambitions: to re-introduce to Filipinos the natural law, and its importance not only to sexual issues (such as contraception, same-sex ‘marriage’, divorce) but also to others extending to the whole range confronted by our citizens: national security, immigration and labor, education, and politics.

Shooting out of the Caritas compound in Manila, and working with the dedicated of Frs. Jopson and Buenafe, along with an unbelievably small but workaholic group of Kat, Angelyn, Roberto, Marla, Jiggo, and led by director Sharon, we managed to crop out two seasons, still shown on air, and slowly but surely putting natural law back in the national conversation.

Interestingly enough, exactly a week ago, TV Maria historically did its very first direct broadcasting via the internet; and the pioneer broadcast launched by no less than His Eminence Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle, DD: “Yan din po ang misyon ng social communication, social media sa loob ng simbahan hindi po tayo nakikipaglabanan sa ratings, hindi po tayo pumuporma lamang, hindi po tayo nagpapa-image-image. Ang TV Maria at ang buong apostulado ng simbahan sa pamamagitan ng social communication ay gawaing banal dahil ito ay pagtutuloy ng gawain ng Diyos na nakikipag-usap, nagpapakilala at nag-aanyaya tungo sa buhay na ganap sa piling nya.”

But more than that is the need to proclaim vigorously fundamental moral truths. Not bizarre childish thinking like “don’t judge” or “love wins”. There is always the need to judge, the question is to ensure right judgment.

As C.S. Lewis reminds us: “An open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man’s mind is open on these things, let his mouth be at least shut. He can say nothing to the purpose. Outside the Tao [the Natural Law] there is no ground for criticizing the Tao or anything else.”

Indeed. Unfortunately, most of “progressive” media today gets it the other way around. And hence the task before all who still value reason and reality.

Senator Marcos' substitute BBL

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.