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.
Showing posts with label rh law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rh law. Show all posts
15.2.16
God’s plants: SC and Bt ‘talong’ case
Cristina Montes' and me writing on the Supreme Court's contradictory legal positions:
"It's curious that the Court ignored the precautionary principle in the RH Law case when contraceptives’ threaten human life or health, as well as the environment."
"It's curious that the Court ignored the precautionary principle in the RH Law case when contraceptives’ threaten human life or health, as well as the environment."
Article can be read here.
10.1.16
Mocha Uson on Duterte, morality, and hypocrisy
my Trade Tripper column in the 18-19 December 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
The past few weeks saw an interesting development in popular discourse: rather than the pettiness of who slaps who, it was a practical discussion on the proper role of morality in political debate and of hypocrisy. Interestingly, it was raised by singer/dancer Mocha Uson.
Ms. Uson, it seems, supports Davao City Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte for president and was defending the latter against charges of immorality raised by some other celebrities. In response, Ms. Uson had this to say:
“Moral standards mean different things to different people according to their belief. What is morally right to you might be morally wrong to me, and what is morally wrong to you might be morally right to me.”
She actually presents an internally coherent argument, which riffs off the secular progressive position of morality being relative to one’s individual circumstances and choices. This places emphasis on the Left’s definition of “freedom” or individual autonomy.
Accordingly, if I, as an individual, believe for example that pre-marital sex or any form of consensual sex or contraception or divorce or gay “marriage” or assisted suicide to be right, then who are you to tell me otherwise?
So as to charges that Mr. Duterte allegedly killed, had adulterous relationships, and so on, Uson puts forward a consistent thought: who are you to say that Duterte was wrong to do what he did, given the circumstances and choices that were specific to him and not to you?
Put another way: if you’re a “progressive” who believes in profanity (as freedom of expression), most forms of consensual sex, contraceptives, gay “marriage”, divorce, abortion, and assisted suicide, then you can’t criticize Duterte for immorality without being a hypocrite.
This is because Duterte is simply and logically following through on the progressive relativistic morality founded on individual autonomy.
The point here is that if the ethic is based on individual choice, then the proscription against killing or adultery becomes ultimately a random thing when set alongside “gay marriage”, divorce, or euthanasia.
Of course, one can say that the people Duterte allegedly killed did not consent to be killed.
But one can counter-argue on two grounds: first, by committing crimes in Davao, then they did consent to be killed (since Duterte allegedly warned them beforehand). And, finally, because many in Davao (and apparently so do many others in the rest of the Philippines) seemingly agree with Duterte’s acts.
So, again, if you’re for profanity, contraceptives, gay “marriage”, divorce, abortion, and euthasia, then what would be your rationale against Duterte’s alleged killings, adulteries, or cussing? Because you say so? But Uson and Duterte think otherwise. Because contraceptives, gay “marriage”, etc., are allegedly accepted by a majority? Well, many apparently agree with Uson and Duterte.
The ethical framework of conservatives and generally religious folk, of course, reject the relativism of progressives.
Morality cannot be anchored on individual autonomy or even by will of majority because such will necessarily be arbitrary or changeable.
Instead, reference is made to a comprehensive and consistent set of objective moral standards independent of human decision based on reason and experience, a “natural law” proceeding from a specific understanding of human nature as being both a physical body and intellect.
As such, Aristotelian thought would then tell us that humans are geared for a purpose: succinctly termed as “eudaimonia” or “happiness” (or “human flourishing”).
Accordingly, certain acts, from the use of contraceptives to extrajudicial killings are deemed “immoral” for being against human goods that ultimately prevent an individual from achieving “human flourishing” and society the “common good.”
Hence, why Duterte -- who says he extrajudicially kills, is for contraception and gay marriage -- should be anathema to conservatives, particularly Christians.
Progressives, on the other hand, except for clear-minded people like Ms. Uson (and there is absolutely no sarcasm here), have painted themselves into a corner -- confronted as they are with the logical conclusion of their thinking that is Duterte (whom many progressives seemingly detest).
Leaving us with Uson’s final point: on the nature of hypocrisy.
Again, she’s right. Albeit, safe to say, inadvertently.
Only a person with moral standards can be called a hypocrite. People without standards can never be hypocrites. Duterte cannot be considered one. For the simple reason that he appears to have no moral standards. Except himself. And that is no standard at all.
Note, however, that those with moral standards will, without exception, by ignorance or weakness, repeatedly fall short. That is why for Christians, as example, to keep up with moral standards is a daily (even hourly) struggle. To stumble or fall is not hypocrisy. That is being human.
Instead, hypocrites are those that uncompassionately demand others to do something that they deliberately and consciously don’t require of themselves.
True hypocrites include “progressives” that preach for a society of ostensible individual freedoms and yet condemn or insult a person for having different beliefs. Or because that person doesn’t come from the right family, school, social class. Or just because.
The past few weeks saw an interesting development in popular discourse: rather than the pettiness of who slaps who, it was a practical discussion on the proper role of morality in political debate and of hypocrisy. Interestingly, it was raised by singer/dancer Mocha Uson.
Ms. Uson, it seems, supports Davao City Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte for president and was defending the latter against charges of immorality raised by some other celebrities. In response, Ms. Uson had this to say:
“Moral standards mean different things to different people according to their belief. What is morally right to you might be morally wrong to me, and what is morally wrong to you might be morally right to me.”
She actually presents an internally coherent argument, which riffs off the secular progressive position of morality being relative to one’s individual circumstances and choices. This places emphasis on the Left’s definition of “freedom” or individual autonomy.
Accordingly, if I, as an individual, believe for example that pre-marital sex or any form of consensual sex or contraception or divorce or gay “marriage” or assisted suicide to be right, then who are you to tell me otherwise?
So as to charges that Mr. Duterte allegedly killed, had adulterous relationships, and so on, Uson puts forward a consistent thought: who are you to say that Duterte was wrong to do what he did, given the circumstances and choices that were specific to him and not to you?
Put another way: if you’re a “progressive” who believes in profanity (as freedom of expression), most forms of consensual sex, contraceptives, gay “marriage”, divorce, abortion, and assisted suicide, then you can’t criticize Duterte for immorality without being a hypocrite.
This is because Duterte is simply and logically following through on the progressive relativistic morality founded on individual autonomy.
The point here is that if the ethic is based on individual choice, then the proscription against killing or adultery becomes ultimately a random thing when set alongside “gay marriage”, divorce, or euthanasia.
Of course, one can say that the people Duterte allegedly killed did not consent to be killed.
But one can counter-argue on two grounds: first, by committing crimes in Davao, then they did consent to be killed (since Duterte allegedly warned them beforehand). And, finally, because many in Davao (and apparently so do many others in the rest of the Philippines) seemingly agree with Duterte’s acts.
So, again, if you’re for profanity, contraceptives, gay “marriage”, divorce, abortion, and euthasia, then what would be your rationale against Duterte’s alleged killings, adulteries, or cussing? Because you say so? But Uson and Duterte think otherwise. Because contraceptives, gay “marriage”, etc., are allegedly accepted by a majority? Well, many apparently agree with Uson and Duterte.
The ethical framework of conservatives and generally religious folk, of course, reject the relativism of progressives.
Morality cannot be anchored on individual autonomy or even by will of majority because such will necessarily be arbitrary or changeable.
Instead, reference is made to a comprehensive and consistent set of objective moral standards independent of human decision based on reason and experience, a “natural law” proceeding from a specific understanding of human nature as being both a physical body and intellect.
As such, Aristotelian thought would then tell us that humans are geared for a purpose: succinctly termed as “eudaimonia” or “happiness” (or “human flourishing”).
Accordingly, certain acts, from the use of contraceptives to extrajudicial killings are deemed “immoral” for being against human goods that ultimately prevent an individual from achieving “human flourishing” and society the “common good.”
Hence, why Duterte -- who says he extrajudicially kills, is for contraception and gay marriage -- should be anathema to conservatives, particularly Christians.
Progressives, on the other hand, except for clear-minded people like Ms. Uson (and there is absolutely no sarcasm here), have painted themselves into a corner -- confronted as they are with the logical conclusion of their thinking that is Duterte (whom many progressives seemingly detest).
Leaving us with Uson’s final point: on the nature of hypocrisy.
Again, she’s right. Albeit, safe to say, inadvertently.
Only a person with moral standards can be called a hypocrite. People without standards can never be hypocrites. Duterte cannot be considered one. For the simple reason that he appears to have no moral standards. Except himself. And that is no standard at all.
Note, however, that those with moral standards will, without exception, by ignorance or weakness, repeatedly fall short. That is why for Christians, as example, to keep up with moral standards is a daily (even hourly) struggle. To stumble or fall is not hypocrisy. That is being human.
Instead, hypocrites are those that uncompassionately demand others to do something that they deliberately and consciously don’t require of themselves.
True hypocrites include “progressives” that preach for a society of ostensible individual freedoms and yet condemn or insult a person for having different beliefs. Or because that person doesn’t come from the right family, school, social class. Or just because.
15.12.15
To next year’s president: Slash government
my Trade Tripper column in the 11-12 December 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
Last Dec. 2, I spoke at the University of Asia and the Pacific’s Business Economics Club 2015 Year-end Business Economics Briefing. The theme this year was “2016: New Normal or New Mediocre.” It was apt, coming off a horrible 2015, even by merely using policy direction as sole standard.
And if public commentator Ben Kritz is to be believed, 2016 promises to be an annus horribilis. An assessment I happen to agree with.
In any event, the point I wanted to make in the Briefing was essentially threefold:
• Our foreign policy must flow from an effective domestic policy, for which experienced well trained leadership is vital;
• The traditional family institution must be protected for its vital social benefits, as well as economic significance and overall effect on the common good; and
• The need to cut back on government and put more responsibility (and choice) to the people.
Of the first, I need not dwell on, it being previously discussed in other articles for this column. What will be said is that many critical challenges will be faced by the next administration (perhaps so intended by the current one): managing a likely legal victory over China at The Hague in relation to our sea claims, a Moro Islamic Liberation Front disgruntled over perceived noncompliance of a possible implementing legislation with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the ramifications of public courtship (as what happened during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Manila) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
On the second, I refer the reader to “Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect The Wealth Of States?” (W. Bradford Wilcox, Robert I. Lerman, and Joseph Price; American Enterprise Institute, 2015):
“Higher levels of marriage, and especially higher levels of married-parent families, are strongly associated with more economic growth, more economic mobility, less child poverty, and higher median family income at the state level in the United States.”
Furthermore: “Violent crime is much less common in states with larger shares of families headed by married parents, even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic factors at the state level... This is noteworthy because high crime rates lower the quality of life and real living standards and are associated with lower levels of economic growth and mobility.”
Hence, this column urges people to vote for candidates that will do away with nonsense such as government subsidized contraceptives, gay “marriage,” divorce, and euthanasia; and instead support those that uphold the traditional marriage and the family. It’s really the socially and economically sensible thing to do.
On the last, it is really urged by this column (and will be a theme repeated throughout 2016) to move away from the paternalistic, socialistic form of government that crept over the country through the decades.
It comes with a cost: a proposed 2016 national budget ballooned to P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006. Add to that a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
And this will not be solved by better tax collection or increased personal income tax. Regarding the latter, as John Mangun pointed out, any non-insane increase would still only constitute 14% of the national budget.
The point is that whatever way our government goes regarding tax increases, a budget deficit will still result.
No. The best way for the Philippines moving forward is to really start cutting down the size of government, which now is a humongous 25% of our economy.
Right now, our welfare expenses (using the 2015 budget as benchmark) add up to 64%: this includes programs such as socialized housing, climate change, social protection such as the Conditional Cash Transfer, health care, and employment.
These are fine. But we’ll be far better off allowing the bulk of the responsibility to be shouldered by the private sector.
Cut the size of government, lower spending, lower taxes, allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money, and give them the power to choose which health care, school, business, etc., they want.
Cut the bureaucracy and allow our citizens the power to open and close up businesses as is needed, to hire and fire people, and give incentives for them to share their wealth (such as donations to charity) rather than coercively taking money through taxes.
Such policies are more democratic and empowering of Filipinos.
On the other hand (and again using the 2015 budget as benchmark), on the one job that government is really supposed to do, which is national security, we allocated only a mere 4.4%.
In a world where terrorists and secessionists abound, this is patently not enough. Increased military spending and beefing up our civilian police force should be encouraged.
Clearly, these things cannot be achieved overnight.
But those looking to vote in the next elections would do well seeking candidates that put their trust in the Filipino, encouraging personal responsibility, rather than in fat paternalistic bureaucracies.
Last Dec. 2, I spoke at the University of Asia and the Pacific’s Business Economics Club 2015 Year-end Business Economics Briefing. The theme this year was “2016: New Normal or New Mediocre.” It was apt, coming off a horrible 2015, even by merely using policy direction as sole standard.
And if public commentator Ben Kritz is to be believed, 2016 promises to be an annus horribilis. An assessment I happen to agree with.
In any event, the point I wanted to make in the Briefing was essentially threefold:
• Our foreign policy must flow from an effective domestic policy, for which experienced well trained leadership is vital;
• The traditional family institution must be protected for its vital social benefits, as well as economic significance and overall effect on the common good; and
• The need to cut back on government and put more responsibility (and choice) to the people.
Of the first, I need not dwell on, it being previously discussed in other articles for this column. What will be said is that many critical challenges will be faced by the next administration (perhaps so intended by the current one): managing a likely legal victory over China at The Hague in relation to our sea claims, a Moro Islamic Liberation Front disgruntled over perceived noncompliance of a possible implementing legislation with the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro, and the ramifications of public courtship (as what happened during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Manila) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership over the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
On the second, I refer the reader to “Strong Families, Prosperous States: Do Healthy Families Affect The Wealth Of States?” (W. Bradford Wilcox, Robert I. Lerman, and Joseph Price; American Enterprise Institute, 2015):
“Higher levels of marriage, and especially higher levels of married-parent families, are strongly associated with more economic growth, more economic mobility, less child poverty, and higher median family income at the state level in the United States.”
Furthermore: “Violent crime is much less common in states with larger shares of families headed by married parents, even after controlling for a range of socio-demographic factors at the state level... This is noteworthy because high crime rates lower the quality of life and real living standards and are associated with lower levels of economic growth and mobility.”
Hence, this column urges people to vote for candidates that will do away with nonsense such as government subsidized contraceptives, gay “marriage,” divorce, and euthanasia; and instead support those that uphold the traditional marriage and the family. It’s really the socially and economically sensible thing to do.
On the last, it is really urged by this column (and will be a theme repeated throughout 2016) to move away from the paternalistic, socialistic form of government that crept over the country through the decades.
It comes with a cost: a proposed 2016 national budget ballooned to P3 trillion, representing a whopping 461% increase from 2000 and a nearly 300% from 2006. Add to that a nearly P6-trillion national debt.
And this will not be solved by better tax collection or increased personal income tax. Regarding the latter, as John Mangun pointed out, any non-insane increase would still only constitute 14% of the national budget.
The point is that whatever way our government goes regarding tax increases, a budget deficit will still result.
No. The best way for the Philippines moving forward is to really start cutting down the size of government, which now is a humongous 25% of our economy.
Right now, our welfare expenses (using the 2015 budget as benchmark) add up to 64%: this includes programs such as socialized housing, climate change, social protection such as the Conditional Cash Transfer, health care, and employment.
These are fine. But we’ll be far better off allowing the bulk of the responsibility to be shouldered by the private sector.
Cut the size of government, lower spending, lower taxes, allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money, and give them the power to choose which health care, school, business, etc., they want.
Cut the bureaucracy and allow our citizens the power to open and close up businesses as is needed, to hire and fire people, and give incentives for them to share their wealth (such as donations to charity) rather than coercively taking money through taxes.
Such policies are more democratic and empowering of Filipinos.
On the other hand (and again using the 2015 budget as benchmark), on the one job that government is really supposed to do, which is national security, we allocated only a mere 4.4%.
In a world where terrorists and secessionists abound, this is patently not enough. Increased military spending and beefing up our civilian police force should be encouraged.
Clearly, these things cannot be achieved overnight.
But those looking to vote in the next elections would do well seeking candidates that put their trust in the Filipino, encouraging personal responsibility, rather than in fat paternalistic bureaucracies.
11.4.15
The Supreme Court ruling on the RH Law: One year later
my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
Last Apr. 8 marked a year to the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imbong vs. Ochoa, more commonly known as the “RH Law case.” Quaintly touted then as the “trial of the century,” it paved the way for a ruling with fundamental implications for social policy and jurisprudence here in the Philippines. Albeit in a manner not recognized by many. Indeed, while the RH Law case represented a victory for organized legal planning and cohesive argumentation, it at the same time saw one of the more eccentric examples of lack of focus in legal advocacy.
One has to give credit indeed to the government lawyers who defended the law -- led by then Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Francis Jardeleza and Assistant Solicitor General (now Solicitor General) Florin Hilbay -- for their well orchestrated, legally coherent, and sophisticatedly reasoned stand.
Conversely, one can only shake one’s head at the mystifying amount of attention given by the Court on “abortifacients” and “the right to life.” This becomes evident when one realizes that the question of life’s beginnings should never have been an issue in the first place. One can see this not only from the Supreme Court’s immediate affirmation that “life begins at conception” but from the very fact that RA 10354 itself (as noted by the Court in its ruling) “clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization” and “that abortion is a crime.” But to emphasize how surrealistic (or just plain baffling) the whole thing is: whenever somebody now wants to complain about alleged abortifacients, the law they run to for protection is -- you guessed it -- none other than RA 10354.
All the while, the real and true issue of artificial non-abortifacient contraception was inexplicably forgotten.
During the early days of the release of the ruling, the idea was even flouted (evidently as a face-saving measure) that contraception was not really the target of the complaint. But that is wrong. And irresponsible. The reality is that government subsidization of contraception was and has always been the point of the entire case.
Ironically, it took a foreigner to grasp the various significant parts and implications of the ruling. Brian Simboli, writing for Public Discourse, puts it this way:
It is “troubling that while the Court asserts there is no compelling state interest to justify overriding the conscientious objector rights of health providers, it does not similarly conclude that objecting taxpayers should not be burdened coercively with taxes used to purchase contraceptives.”
This is significant because the main point of the RH Law was not that it made contraceptives legal (it has always been legal and cheaply available, cheaper than bottled water), but that it provided huge amounts of tax money to subsidize it.
Think about that when you read about the Department of Health asking for an additional P1.7 billion in its budget this year for the exclusive implementation of the RH Law. Admittedly, not all of it will be used for the purchase of contraceptives.
But note: the latest Global Competitiveness Report indicated tuberculosis as one of the country’s biggest health problems, with the Philippines ranking a low 127 (out of 144 countries) in this area and with a business impact of 114. The Philippines also ranked low in primary education and infrastructure. Why not put the money there?
The foregoing is crucially within the context of another fact that Simboli points out: “[The Supreme Court] did not dismiss a petitioner claim that oral contraceptive use has been correlated with significant health risks.”
But the most damaging portion of the ruling is when the Supreme Court, to use the words of Simboli, “greatly delimits the role of natural law reasoning.”
The ruling, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. It seemed to say that our Constitution (and all our laws) has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context. Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the RH Law ruling may have credence. But even then, the US Supreme Court employed natural law reasoning in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion (a power that the US Supreme Court does not have) and itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related thereto) in many of its past decisions.
The significance of this, as Simboli points out, is that it renders our Supreme Court with “quite a weak basis for responding to whatever legislative threats may emerge, not just to the pro-life cause, but also to the centrality of the family.”
In short, think about the consequences of the RH ruling the next time the issues of same-sex marriage, divorce, euthanasia, LGBT “rights,” and even abortion comes up.
Last Apr. 8 marked a year to the day of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Imbong vs. Ochoa, more commonly known as the “RH Law case.” Quaintly touted then as the “trial of the century,” it paved the way for a ruling with fundamental implications for social policy and jurisprudence here in the Philippines. Albeit in a manner not recognized by many. Indeed, while the RH Law case represented a victory for organized legal planning and cohesive argumentation, it at the same time saw one of the more eccentric examples of lack of focus in legal advocacy.
One has to give credit indeed to the government lawyers who defended the law -- led by then Solicitor General (now Supreme Court Justice) Francis Jardeleza and Assistant Solicitor General (now Solicitor General) Florin Hilbay -- for their well orchestrated, legally coherent, and sophisticatedly reasoned stand.
Conversely, one can only shake one’s head at the mystifying amount of attention given by the Court on “abortifacients” and “the right to life.” This becomes evident when one realizes that the question of life’s beginnings should never have been an issue in the first place. One can see this not only from the Supreme Court’s immediate affirmation that “life begins at conception” but from the very fact that RA 10354 itself (as noted by the Court in its ruling) “clearly mandates that protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization” and “that abortion is a crime.” But to emphasize how surrealistic (or just plain baffling) the whole thing is: whenever somebody now wants to complain about alleged abortifacients, the law they run to for protection is -- you guessed it -- none other than RA 10354.
All the while, the real and true issue of artificial non-abortifacient contraception was inexplicably forgotten.
During the early days of the release of the ruling, the idea was even flouted (evidently as a face-saving measure) that contraception was not really the target of the complaint. But that is wrong. And irresponsible. The reality is that government subsidization of contraception was and has always been the point of the entire case.
Ironically, it took a foreigner to grasp the various significant parts and implications of the ruling. Brian Simboli, writing for Public Discourse, puts it this way:
It is “troubling that while the Court asserts there is no compelling state interest to justify overriding the conscientious objector rights of health providers, it does not similarly conclude that objecting taxpayers should not be burdened coercively with taxes used to purchase contraceptives.”
This is significant because the main point of the RH Law was not that it made contraceptives legal (it has always been legal and cheaply available, cheaper than bottled water), but that it provided huge amounts of tax money to subsidize it.
Think about that when you read about the Department of Health asking for an additional P1.7 billion in its budget this year for the exclusive implementation of the RH Law. Admittedly, not all of it will be used for the purchase of contraceptives.
But note: the latest Global Competitiveness Report indicated tuberculosis as one of the country’s biggest health problems, with the Philippines ranking a low 127 (out of 144 countries) in this area and with a business impact of 114. The Philippines also ranked low in primary education and infrastructure. Why not put the money there?
The foregoing is crucially within the context of another fact that Simboli points out: “[The Supreme Court] did not dismiss a petitioner claim that oral contraceptive use has been correlated with significant health risks.”
But the most damaging portion of the ruling is when the Supreme Court, to use the words of Simboli, “greatly delimits the role of natural law reasoning.”
The ruling, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. It seemed to say that our Constitution (and all our laws) has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context. Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the RH Law ruling may have credence. But even then, the US Supreme Court employed natural law reasoning in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion (a power that the US Supreme Court does not have) and itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related thereto) in many of its past decisions.
The significance of this, as Simboli points out, is that it renders our Supreme Court with “quite a weak basis for responding to whatever legislative threats may emerge, not just to the pro-life cause, but also to the centrality of the family.”
In short, think about the consequences of the RH ruling the next time the issues of same-sex marriage, divorce, euthanasia, LGBT “rights,” and even abortion comes up.
7.2.15
Pope Francis: the human permission slip
was my Trade Tripper column in the 23 January 2015 issue of BusinessWorld:
As he so eagerly awaited, CNN, local liberal news and social media, and the “progressive” Left academics and commentators couldn’t hide their giddiness at the arrival of the man who would finally put the Filipino bishops in their place, announce changes to Catholic doctrine, demand that the Church get with the times to “retain its relevance,” and proclaim that to judge another is so 1980s-2000s. Unfortunately, for them, for some reason (my guess is that it had something to do with “reality being superior to ideas”), Pope Francis threw away their script.
A VERY GOOD SPEECH
Admittedly, though, the papal visit started off on a quite humdrum note. After the obligatory “North Korean-ish” reception at the airport (at least according to one commentator; I myself wished the dancing kids spent more time with the Pope rather than the politicians) and the waving at crowds, the Pope spent a relatively quiet evening at the Apostolic Nunciature in Manila. But the next day and the days after, it would be different. For this we probably have to thank President Benigno Aquino.
Jesuit-trained and Ateneo-educated (which, according to one online writer, “preached a faith that was more relatable, more grounded and more rational... not centered on the Catholic traditions”), he welcomed the Pope next morning in Malacañang with a speech. And it was probably a very good speech (I haven’t read it myself) because from that point on the papal visit zoomed from 0 to 100.
THE NEED FOR BETTER LEADERS
Speaking after the President, Pope Francis declared that now, more than ever, it is “necessary that political leaders be outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good.”
After that would be profound, relentless pleas to care for the poor and fight against the evils of corruption. This was a theme that would be repeated again and again at the Manila Cathedral and in Tacloban.
Even then, it needs to be said that Pope Francis is not a liberation theologian of the Marxist or socialist kind. In essence, he was reiterating fairly established Church teachings, particularly in relation to charity.
It must be remembered that the Church is not an economic policy think tank. Nor is the Pope an expert on the environment. Any teaching he makes is always through the prism of morality, from the viewpoint of faith and the supernatural.
As one commentator puts it, Pope Francis’ “theology is defined by the question of how to speak good news to the poor.” Anything else will just minimize the Church into an activist organization or NGO.
ON MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
However, while the Church can indeed talk about economic or environmental issues (albeit within the aspects of morality and faith), nevertheless, it is on far surer footing (scriptural, human experience, and reason-wise) on social issues such as the family or sexual ethics. And it is on this subject that Pope Francis spoke the words that will be and should be remembered for quite some time.
Because, to be honest, many of the Catholic faithful have been asking what Pope Francis’ actual stand is on contraception, divorce, same-sex “marriage,” and euthanasia. So it was just stunning and overwhelming to realize that Pope Francis chose the Philippines to say what many in the world have so longed to hear:
“Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself” and the family is “threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” All therefore must do their best “to overcome these threats.”
This was said at the Mall of Asia on Jan. 17. Before that, at the Manila Cathedral, was a quiet, almost unnoticed but significant rebuke to those who thought that Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” was a call for a “if it feels good, do it” return to 1960s self-indulgence: “The Gospel is also a summons to conversion,” which “means being the first to examine our consciences, to acknowledge our failings and sins, and to embrace the path of constant conversion.”
LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE GIRLS
Pope Francis even took the time to say something about women: “Women have much to tell us in today’s society. Sometimes we’re too macho and we don’t leave enough room for women. Women are able to see things with different eyes than us. Women are able to ask questions that men can’t understand.”
This was received well in the media. But really, why are people surprised? This has always been the Church’s teaching: the greatest human was the one that gave birth to God, the only one hailed, blessed, and full of grace. The only human whose requests Christ could not refuse. And when Christ was crucified and all the men ran away scattered and scared, only the women were brave enough to be with Him till the very end. And it was to women whom He appeared first upon resurrection. Oh, and we do refer to the Church as our “mother.”
FOREVER OLD, FOREVER NEW
And then there was the homily during Sunday Mass at the Luneta. Closing my eyes, I really couldn’t tell anymore if it was Pope Francis or his brilliant predecessor Pope Benedict XVI or Saint John Paul the Great speaking. And what was said showed a Church ever united and one in teaching:
“Sometimes, when we see the troubles, difficulties and wrongs all around us, we are tempted to give up. It seems that the promises of the Gospel do not apply; they are unreal. But the Bible tells us that the great threat to God’s plan for us is, and always has been, the lie. The devil is the father of lies. Often he hides his snares behind the appearance of sophistication, the allure of being ‘modern’, ‘like everyone else.’”
This call against modernity’s “allure” does not only refer to technology (as some local news anchors tried to spin it) but rather to all passing fads and fancies, of socio-political theories that are detached from reality, of governmental measures that disconnect us from faith and values.
But most of all, it is against a modernity that portrays the Church as out of touch and tempts us with “confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.”
This, Pope Francis reiterates: “Sadly, in our day, the family all too often needs to be protected against insidious attacks and programs contrary to all that we hold true and sacred, all that is most beautiful and noble in our culture.” One has to love how Pope Francis inserted the word “program.” I don’t think this was a show of support for the RH Law.
SURPRISE: POPE FRANCIS IS CATHOLIC
In the end, the man the media painted as surprising and “progressive” proved to be just that: a surprise and a progressive (albeit in the best and true sense of the word: a defender of the faith, an upholder of the truth).
But perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised. It was ultimately unfair and naïve to look at Pope Francis not as he is but as one that “progressives” wanted to create and mold as their will dictated: a walking talking permission slip who would say “there there” and “whatever you do is fine” and “so long as you’re happy, I’m happy.”
Instead, Pope Francis turned out to be someone far far better: the Bishop of Rome, the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ preaching mercy with justice, forgiveness with conversion, and of truth, reason, and faith.
As he so eagerly awaited, CNN, local liberal news and social media, and the “progressive” Left academics and commentators couldn’t hide their giddiness at the arrival of the man who would finally put the Filipino bishops in their place, announce changes to Catholic doctrine, demand that the Church get with the times to “retain its relevance,” and proclaim that to judge another is so 1980s-2000s. Unfortunately, for them, for some reason (my guess is that it had something to do with “reality being superior to ideas”), Pope Francis threw away their script.
A VERY GOOD SPEECH
Admittedly, though, the papal visit started off on a quite humdrum note. After the obligatory “North Korean-ish” reception at the airport (at least according to one commentator; I myself wished the dancing kids spent more time with the Pope rather than the politicians) and the waving at crowds, the Pope spent a relatively quiet evening at the Apostolic Nunciature in Manila. But the next day and the days after, it would be different. For this we probably have to thank President Benigno Aquino.
Jesuit-trained and Ateneo-educated (which, according to one online writer, “preached a faith that was more relatable, more grounded and more rational... not centered on the Catholic traditions”), he welcomed the Pope next morning in Malacañang with a speech. And it was probably a very good speech (I haven’t read it myself) because from that point on the papal visit zoomed from 0 to 100.
THE NEED FOR BETTER LEADERS
Speaking after the President, Pope Francis declared that now, more than ever, it is “necessary that political leaders be outstanding for honesty, integrity and commitment to the common good.”
After that would be profound, relentless pleas to care for the poor and fight against the evils of corruption. This was a theme that would be repeated again and again at the Manila Cathedral and in Tacloban.
Even then, it needs to be said that Pope Francis is not a liberation theologian of the Marxist or socialist kind. In essence, he was reiterating fairly established Church teachings, particularly in relation to charity.
It must be remembered that the Church is not an economic policy think tank. Nor is the Pope an expert on the environment. Any teaching he makes is always through the prism of morality, from the viewpoint of faith and the supernatural.
As one commentator puts it, Pope Francis’ “theology is defined by the question of how to speak good news to the poor.” Anything else will just minimize the Church into an activist organization or NGO.
ON MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
However, while the Church can indeed talk about economic or environmental issues (albeit within the aspects of morality and faith), nevertheless, it is on far surer footing (scriptural, human experience, and reason-wise) on social issues such as the family or sexual ethics. And it is on this subject that Pope Francis spoke the words that will be and should be remembered for quite some time.
Because, to be honest, many of the Catholic faithful have been asking what Pope Francis’ actual stand is on contraception, divorce, same-sex “marriage,” and euthanasia. So it was just stunning and overwhelming to realize that Pope Francis chose the Philippines to say what many in the world have so longed to hear:
“Every threat to the family is a threat to society itself” and the family is “threatened by growing efforts on the part of some to redefine the very institution of marriage, by relativism, by the culture of the ephemeral, by a lack of openness to life.” All therefore must do their best “to overcome these threats.”
This was said at the Mall of Asia on Jan. 17. Before that, at the Manila Cathedral, was a quiet, almost unnoticed but significant rebuke to those who thought that Pope Francis’ “who am I to judge?” was a call for a “if it feels good, do it” return to 1960s self-indulgence: “The Gospel is also a summons to conversion,” which “means being the first to examine our consciences, to acknowledge our failings and sins, and to embrace the path of constant conversion.”
LET’S HEAR IT FOR THE GIRLS
Pope Francis even took the time to say something about women: “Women have much to tell us in today’s society. Sometimes we’re too macho and we don’t leave enough room for women. Women are able to see things with different eyes than us. Women are able to ask questions that men can’t understand.”
This was received well in the media. But really, why are people surprised? This has always been the Church’s teaching: the greatest human was the one that gave birth to God, the only one hailed, blessed, and full of grace. The only human whose requests Christ could not refuse. And when Christ was crucified and all the men ran away scattered and scared, only the women were brave enough to be with Him till the very end. And it was to women whom He appeared first upon resurrection. Oh, and we do refer to the Church as our “mother.”
FOREVER OLD, FOREVER NEW
And then there was the homily during Sunday Mass at the Luneta. Closing my eyes, I really couldn’t tell anymore if it was Pope Francis or his brilliant predecessor Pope Benedict XVI or Saint John Paul the Great speaking. And what was said showed a Church ever united and one in teaching:
“Sometimes, when we see the troubles, difficulties and wrongs all around us, we are tempted to give up. It seems that the promises of the Gospel do not apply; they are unreal. But the Bible tells us that the great threat to God’s plan for us is, and always has been, the lie. The devil is the father of lies. Often he hides his snares behind the appearance of sophistication, the allure of being ‘modern’, ‘like everyone else.’”
This call against modernity’s “allure” does not only refer to technology (as some local news anchors tried to spin it) but rather to all passing fads and fancies, of socio-political theories that are detached from reality, of governmental measures that disconnect us from faith and values.
But most of all, it is against a modernity that portrays the Church as out of touch and tempts us with “confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family.”
This, Pope Francis reiterates: “Sadly, in our day, the family all too often needs to be protected against insidious attacks and programs contrary to all that we hold true and sacred, all that is most beautiful and noble in our culture.” One has to love how Pope Francis inserted the word “program.” I don’t think this was a show of support for the RH Law.
SURPRISE: POPE FRANCIS IS CATHOLIC
In the end, the man the media painted as surprising and “progressive” proved to be just that: a surprise and a progressive (albeit in the best and true sense of the word: a defender of the faith, an upholder of the truth).
But perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised. It was ultimately unfair and naïve to look at Pope Francis not as he is but as one that “progressives” wanted to create and mold as their will dictated: a walking talking permission slip who would say “there there” and “whatever you do is fine” and “so long as you’re happy, I’m happy.”
Instead, Pope Francis turned out to be someone far far better: the Bishop of Rome, the Pope of the Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ preaching mercy with justice, forgiveness with conversion, and of truth, reason, and faith.
10.1.15
Want inequality? Wreck the traditional family.
my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
Amid the discussions regarding 2015’s ASEAN integration, certain data had been consistently ignored by the general academe and policy makers: Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those at 65 years old comprise only about 4.1%.
Quite simply, beyond economics, the very future of this country depends on how well that 70% is educated, developed, and formed.
But even just narrowing the discussion in economic terms, to state the obvious: a lot is dependent on people. A huge portion of our output or trade has to do with services, yes, but even then, manufacturing and agriculture would need people to run them. Nevertheless, despite the demographic potential that the Philippines has compared to the ageing populations of our trading partners, all of that would be meaningless if that youth would not grow up as responsible adults.
Unfortunately, our education system needs a lot of improvement. The “Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015” show no Philippine university included.
That is compounded by the fact that of the almost three million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% from those in the 25-34 age group. Most of them are high school graduates.
All these are not contributing to the proper formation of the youth. And yet, nothing could be more devastating to them than the weakening of the traditional family institution.
But unfortunately, teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). Figures for 2010 show 206,574 of such pregnancies. Data from the National Youth Commission show that the Philippines is third highest in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the ASEAN region and the only country where that number is increasing.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among teenagers. On the other hand, perhaps not coincidentally, there is also a rise in annulment cases (records indicate a 100% increase in the past 10 years). Add to that the increasing incidences of rape.
However, not only is economic development retarded by the diminution of the traditional family institution, economic inequality is fostered as well.
According to Jeff Jacoby in a November 2014 article, “One report, aptly titled ‘For Richer, For Poorer,’ is by sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox of the American Enterprise Institute and economist Robert I. Lerman of the Urban Institute. It documents the profound links that connect family structure and financial well-being and underscores what decades of empirical data have shown: Families headed by married couples tend to be stronger economically than those headed by unwed single parents.”
“‘Anyone concerned about family inequality, men’s declining labor-force participation, and the vitality of the American dream should worry about the nation’s retreat from marriage,’ the authors write. The steady fall in the percentage of married two-parent households -- from 78% in 1980 to 66 % in 2012 -- goes a long way toward explaining why so many ordinary families have trouble climbing beyond the lower rungs on the economic ladder. Correlation isn’t proof of causation, of course. But there is no refuting the strong association between growing up with both parents in an intact family and achieving higher levels of education, work, and income as young adults.”
“To be sure, not all families headed by married parents are stable or successful, and not all children raised by single parents struggle economically or professionally. Barack Obama, who was two years old when he was abandoned by his father, is dramatic evidence of that. But as Obama himself says, the data aren’t in question. ‘Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They’re more likely to drop out of school. They’re more likely to wind up in prison.’”
The message was emphasized further by Aparna Mathur: “Wilcox and Lerman document how the shift away from marriage and traditional family structures has had important consequences for family incomes, and has been correlated with rising family-income inequality and declines in men’s labor force participation rates. Using data from the Current Population Survey, the authors find that between 1980 and 2012, median family income rose 30% for married parent families, for unmarried parents, family incomes rose only 14%.”
With such scientific and researched backing, then the media’s, academe’s, and policy makers’ wholesale effort to look the other way is truly the height of irresponsibility.
Dominated as they are by left-leaning “progressive” thought, the only thing that matters to them is to further ideologically driven policy initiatives such as divorce, same-sex marriage, the Reproductive Health Law, and euthanasia. Any evidence that shows the necessity to strengthen the traditional family institution simply does not fit their narrative.
30.9.14
Better thinking on poverty and development
my Trade Tripper column in the recent weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
The Philippines today is a country of contradictions: it proclaims economic growth with rising unemployment, good governance with deteriorating infrastructure and broken transportations systems, progress with worsening traffic, and pleas for tolerance and gender equality with increased incidents of rape, teenage pregnancies and marriage annulments. But then, this is what happens when one wants all for nothing.
Unfortunately, this government’s vision (if it has one) does not seem to work for the simple reason that it cannot align with reality and common sense.
Consider that even though Filipinos are taxed the highest in ASEAN but with the lowest of wages (P5,500 a month will get you classified as middle class), it also has the highest unemployment rate. But what’s really disturbing is that almost 80% of our unemployed are from below 35 years old, the age considered most productive and yet formative. And 20% of the unemployed are college graduates.
The foregoing is within the context of the Filipino working among the longest hours. And those work hours do not include the two- to four-hour commute to and from work that many Filipinos go through every day, commuting hours that could get longer (according to the government itself).
Our people pay one of the most expensive rice in Asia, we have water scarcity among floods, and constant threats of power shortage.
The government’s solution, which is to throw money at the poor (via the Conditional Cash Transfer, or CCT), has not worked. And it doesn’t apply to our unemployed but educated population. Not only is there work scarcity, the disincentive to work is even greater.
I’ve long railed at the government’s progressive policy mind-set that, as David Brooks puts it, “aims to place individuals in unmediated dependency on a government” and encourages an entitlement culture. The President’s characterization of himself as the “father of the country” is indicative of that. But this has reached the level of ridiculousness: why make people dependent on the government when it can’t be depended on?
Because from the beginning, it can’t. Our society was constructed along the lines of self-governance and personal accountability, not “progressivism.”
But, in words that are applicable here, Paul Ryan (in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece) aptly describes the pitfalls of such thinking: “Over the years, we’ve slowly been adding to the number of benefits that government provides to an increasing number of our citizens. Some of those benefits are worthy, laudable commitments, but others aren’t really the responsibility of government or the kind of thing we can afford. If we keep on this way, we’ll reach a tipping point where there are too many people receiving government benefits and not enough people to pay for those benefits. That’s an untenable problem.”
There are severe limits to what the government can do, despite its propensity to think otherwise: “the tipping point we’re approaching is the result of a liberal progressive mind-set that seeks a larger, more active government and lets bureaucrats decide what’s best for everyone instead of allowing citizens to govern themselves. Its response to every social problem is more government, more bureaucracy and more taxpayer money.”
This column has warned repeatedly about the dangers of such an entitlement culture. But now, scientific data may even show that welfare entitlements like the CCT, no matter how huge the allotment, are futile at best.
The Economist reported a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry that found that “families which had started poor and got richer, the younger children -- those born into relative affluence -- were just as likely to misbehave when they were teenagers as their elder siblings had been. Family income was not, per se, the determining factor.
“That suggests two, not mutually exclusive, possibilities. One is that a family’s culture, once established, is ‘sticky’ -- that you can, to put it crudely, take the kid out of the neighborhood, but not the neighborhood out of the kid. Given, for example, children’s propensity to emulate elder siblings whom they admire, that sounds perfectly plausible. The other possibility is that genes which predispose to criminal behavior (several studies suggest such genes exist) are more common at the bottom of society than at the top, perhaps because the lack of impulse-control they engender also tends to reduce someone’s earning capacity.
“Neither of these conclusions is likely to be welcome to social reformers. The first suggests that merely topping up people’s incomes, though it may well be a good idea for other reasons, will not by itself address questions of bad behavior. The second raises the possibility that the problem of intergenerational poverty may be self-reinforcing.”
Our constitutional system espouses the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, virtue, strong traditional families, self-responsibility, and the common good. All of these have specific meanings that have centuries of thought and experience behind them. Perhaps the government would like to acquaint itself with these before tinkering around with progressive social programs that do nothing but throw away huge amounts of the people’s money.
The Philippines today is a country of contradictions: it proclaims economic growth with rising unemployment, good governance with deteriorating infrastructure and broken transportations systems, progress with worsening traffic, and pleas for tolerance and gender equality with increased incidents of rape, teenage pregnancies and marriage annulments. But then, this is what happens when one wants all for nothing.
Unfortunately, this government’s vision (if it has one) does not seem to work for the simple reason that it cannot align with reality and common sense.
Consider that even though Filipinos are taxed the highest in ASEAN but with the lowest of wages (P5,500 a month will get you classified as middle class), it also has the highest unemployment rate. But what’s really disturbing is that almost 80% of our unemployed are from below 35 years old, the age considered most productive and yet formative. And 20% of the unemployed are college graduates.
The foregoing is within the context of the Filipino working among the longest hours. And those work hours do not include the two- to four-hour commute to and from work that many Filipinos go through every day, commuting hours that could get longer (according to the government itself).
Our people pay one of the most expensive rice in Asia, we have water scarcity among floods, and constant threats of power shortage.
The government’s solution, which is to throw money at the poor (via the Conditional Cash Transfer, or CCT), has not worked. And it doesn’t apply to our unemployed but educated population. Not only is there work scarcity, the disincentive to work is even greater.
I’ve long railed at the government’s progressive policy mind-set that, as David Brooks puts it, “aims to place individuals in unmediated dependency on a government” and encourages an entitlement culture. The President’s characterization of himself as the “father of the country” is indicative of that. But this has reached the level of ridiculousness: why make people dependent on the government when it can’t be depended on?
Because from the beginning, it can’t. Our society was constructed along the lines of self-governance and personal accountability, not “progressivism.”
But, in words that are applicable here, Paul Ryan (in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece) aptly describes the pitfalls of such thinking: “Over the years, we’ve slowly been adding to the number of benefits that government provides to an increasing number of our citizens. Some of those benefits are worthy, laudable commitments, but others aren’t really the responsibility of government or the kind of thing we can afford. If we keep on this way, we’ll reach a tipping point where there are too many people receiving government benefits and not enough people to pay for those benefits. That’s an untenable problem.”
There are severe limits to what the government can do, despite its propensity to think otherwise: “the tipping point we’re approaching is the result of a liberal progressive mind-set that seeks a larger, more active government and lets bureaucrats decide what’s best for everyone instead of allowing citizens to govern themselves. Its response to every social problem is more government, more bureaucracy and more taxpayer money.”
This column has warned repeatedly about the dangers of such an entitlement culture. But now, scientific data may even show that welfare entitlements like the CCT, no matter how huge the allotment, are futile at best.
The Economist reported a study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry that found that “families which had started poor and got richer, the younger children -- those born into relative affluence -- were just as likely to misbehave when they were teenagers as their elder siblings had been. Family income was not, per se, the determining factor.
“That suggests two, not mutually exclusive, possibilities. One is that a family’s culture, once established, is ‘sticky’ -- that you can, to put it crudely, take the kid out of the neighborhood, but not the neighborhood out of the kid. Given, for example, children’s propensity to emulate elder siblings whom they admire, that sounds perfectly plausible. The other possibility is that genes which predispose to criminal behavior (several studies suggest such genes exist) are more common at the bottom of society than at the top, perhaps because the lack of impulse-control they engender also tends to reduce someone’s earning capacity.
“Neither of these conclusions is likely to be welcome to social reformers. The first suggests that merely topping up people’s incomes, though it may well be a good idea for other reasons, will not by itself address questions of bad behavior. The second raises the possibility that the problem of intergenerational poverty may be self-reinforcing.”
Our constitutional system espouses the principles of subsidiarity, solidarity, virtue, strong traditional families, self-responsibility, and the common good. All of these have specific meanings that have centuries of thought and experience behind them. Perhaps the government would like to acquaint itself with these before tinkering around with progressive social programs that do nothing but throw away huge amounts of the people’s money.
24.8.14
Our natural Constitution
is my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
To my mind, what ironically went below many people’s radar are the most damaging portions of the April 8 Reproductive Health (RH) Law decision penned by Justice Jose Mendoza: “With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural law, suffice it to say that the Court does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or invalidating a law. Our only guidepost is the Constitution.”
It then goes on to say: “While every law enacted by man emanated from what is perceived as natural law, the Court is not obliged to see if a statute, executive issuance or ordinance is in conformity to it. To begin with, it is not enacted by an acceptable legitimate body. Moreover, natural laws are mere thoughts and notions on inherent rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and theologists. The jurists of the philosophical school are interested in the law as an abstraction, rather than in the actual law of the past or present.”
“Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a written law, it cannot serve as a basis to strike down a law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the very case cited by the petitioners, it was explained that the Court is not duty-bound to examine every law or action and whether it conforms with both the Constitution and natural law. Rather, natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable.”
The foregoing, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. To say that “natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable” is itself contradicted by the ruling. Setting aside precisely the fact that the Constitution is silent on the subject of contraception, Justice Mendoza himself declares: “Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men.“
The ruling also seems to be saying that our Constitution has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context.
Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the above statements would be correct. US constitutional law places strict boundaries on the US Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the US SC employed natural law in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion. This serves as basis for our Supreme Court to examine the wisdom of a law (a power not normally given to judicial bodies of other countries), whether the law is in conformity with reason, and complies with the overall objectives of the Constitution.
Our Supreme Court itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related to it) in many past decisions. Our domestic laws, such as the Civil Code, in fact contain provisions in which the natural law is expressly mentioned. The international law system, which the Philippines is part of, considers natural law as basis for determining whether other international law norms (such as treaties) are valid, a fact constantly recognized by previous Supreme Courts.
Instead, the present Supreme Court seemed to have mixed natural law with a religious freedom argument, a point which Hugo Grotius (the father of international law) sought to dispel: “Natural law would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs.”
The saving grace in all this is found in the dissenting opinion of Justice Mariano Del Castillo: the statements in the ruling quoted earlier “are not necessary in the disposition of this case and appear to be an inaccurate description of natural law. The Court need not foreclose the usefulness of natural law in resolving future cases.”
Hopefully, Justice Del Castillo’s more considered statements could serve as an opening for natural law to be considered in future cases, particularly on legislation involving same-sex marriage, divorce, stem cells, and euthanasia -- all of which the Constitution is silent on and for which only the natural law and the invocation of the “common good” (found in the Preamble) stand as reasonable standards.
And, since natural law has been a part of our constitutional system, resort to it by the Supreme Court can in no way be considered as “judicial activism.”
Finally, this also tells us that our political system is dominated almost exclusively by “positivists” that ignore the culture, history, and philosophy upon which Philippine society is based. There is therefore a need to work harder in correcting this imbalance that has resulted in so much inconsistency in our legal system.
To my mind, what ironically went below many people’s radar are the most damaging portions of the April 8 Reproductive Health (RH) Law decision penned by Justice Jose Mendoza: “With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural law, suffice it to say that the Court does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or invalidating a law. Our only guidepost is the Constitution.”
It then goes on to say: “While every law enacted by man emanated from what is perceived as natural law, the Court is not obliged to see if a statute, executive issuance or ordinance is in conformity to it. To begin with, it is not enacted by an acceptable legitimate body. Moreover, natural laws are mere thoughts and notions on inherent rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and theologists. The jurists of the philosophical school are interested in the law as an abstraction, rather than in the actual law of the past or present.”
“Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a written law, it cannot serve as a basis to strike down a law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan, the very case cited by the petitioners, it was explained that the Court is not duty-bound to examine every law or action and whether it conforms with both the Constitution and natural law. Rather, natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable.”
The foregoing, with all due respect, evokes a substantial misappreciation of natural law. To say that “natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is applicable” is itself contradicted by the ruling. Setting aside precisely the fact that the Constitution is silent on the subject of contraception, Justice Mendoza himself declares: “Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law, custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men.“
The ruling also seems to be saying that our Constitution has no philosophy, without history, and has vacuum as context.
Had the ruling been within the parameters of the US Constitution, the above statements would be correct. US constitutional law places strict boundaries on the US Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the US SC employed natural law in a number of cases.
Our Supreme Court, on the other hand, has the power to strike down laws considered done with grave abuse of discretion. This serves as basis for our Supreme Court to examine the wisdom of a law (a power not normally given to judicial bodies of other countries), whether the law is in conformity with reason, and complies with the overall objectives of the Constitution.
Our Supreme Court itself knowingly employed the natural law (or reasoning involving or related to it) in many past decisions. Our domestic laws, such as the Civil Code, in fact contain provisions in which the natural law is expressly mentioned. The international law system, which the Philippines is part of, considers natural law as basis for determining whether other international law norms (such as treaties) are valid, a fact constantly recognized by previous Supreme Courts.
Instead, the present Supreme Court seemed to have mixed natural law with a religious freedom argument, a point which Hugo Grotius (the father of international law) sought to dispel: “Natural law would maintain its objective validity even if we should assume the impossible, that there is no God or that he does not care for human affairs.”
The saving grace in all this is found in the dissenting opinion of Justice Mariano Del Castillo: the statements in the ruling quoted earlier “are not necessary in the disposition of this case and appear to be an inaccurate description of natural law. The Court need not foreclose the usefulness of natural law in resolving future cases.”
Hopefully, Justice Del Castillo’s more considered statements could serve as an opening for natural law to be considered in future cases, particularly on legislation involving same-sex marriage, divorce, stem cells, and euthanasia -- all of which the Constitution is silent on and for which only the natural law and the invocation of the “common good” (found in the Preamble) stand as reasonable standards.
And, since natural law has been a part of our constitutional system, resort to it by the Supreme Court can in no way be considered as “judicial activism.”
Finally, this also tells us that our political system is dominated almost exclusively by “positivists” that ignore the culture, history, and philosophy upon which Philippine society is based. There is therefore a need to work harder in correcting this imbalance that has resulted in so much inconsistency in our legal system.
15.5.14
Rape and the hook-up culture
my Trade Tripper column in this weekend issue of BusinessWorld:
An offshoot of one celebrity’s misadventures is the increased public debate on rape. This was followed by a celebrity/model “breaking her silence and started to talk about the things that people don’t want to hear.” The gender studies crowd and feminists were quick to join the fray, blaming rape on the “patriarchal” mindset and Filipino men’s lack of gender sensitivity training. The truth, however and as usual, is more subtle and complicated.
Rape is a detestable crime and one instance is one too many. Unfortunately, the numbers for rape in the Philippines are harrowing. According to the Philippine Commission on Women, 4% of women ages 15 to 49 experienced forced first sexual intercourse and 10% of women ages 15 to 49 experienced sexual violence.
The Center for Women’s Resource reported that cases of rape “have reached an alarming level. For the year 2010, a total of 4,572 cases of rape were documented by the Women and Children Protection Center of the Philippine National Police (WCPC-PNP), 19 of which were incestuous or perpetrated by a victim’s blood relative. This was equivalent to a 13% increase in reported cases of rape and incest from 4,048 in 2009.” The true figures, however, could be much higher.
Incidentally, one consequence of increased rape cases is that moves to amend the Constitution and legalize abortions of rape-related pregnancies could gain traction, as pro-lifers will have a difficult time defending against such a powerfully emotional argument.
In any event, as disturbing as the above numbers are, tragically it could get worse. Philadelphia Magazine (“Rape happens here,” April 24) describes one incidence of alleged “rape” this way:
“[Lisa] Sendrow is a 23-year-old brunette from Princeton, New Jersey ... in the midwinter of 2013, Sendrow says, she was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months. They’d now decided -- mutually, she thought -- just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, ‘No, I don’t want to have sex with you.’ And then he said, ‘Okay, that’s fine’ and stopped,” Sendrow told me. “And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything -- I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”
The foregoing illustrates the dangers (and confusions) that a sexually permissive or “hook-up” culture brings. Surely, “no means NO.” And yet, taking all particular factual context and the absence of witnesses, one would be very hard put to determine the truth in what happened and act judiciously to all concerned.
Although with social media’s habitual thinking-is-for-losers lynch mob mentality, another consequence might be for men and women to start demanding signed affidavits of consent from each other before engaging in anything sexual.
And that a hook-up culture has taken root in the Philippines is palpable. The 2013 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Study reveals that almost 30% (or 6.2 million) of Filipinos 15- to 24-years-old engaged in premarital sex, an increase of 14% from two decades ago; 7.3% of our young engaged in casual sex, with 3.5% (or around 800,000) regularly having sex in what is now popularly known as a “friends with benefits” arrangement.
The foregoing’s connection to the sharp rise in Philippine teenage pregnancies and marriages, as well as the increase in the dissolution of marriages, are evident.
Now, our government and media’s solution to the foregoing is to throw more condoms around. Which doesn’t really solve anything. As Mona Charen insightfully wrote (“Who really created the rape culture,” May 9), what such leftist secular progressive thinking does is merely to encourage a “sexual free-for-all.”
And ironically, as Ms. Charen points out, this sexual liberalism, while supposedly empowering women, resulted in the opposite: “If men and women were just the same in their sexual needs, desires, and behaviors, then the hook-up culture would yield an equal number of unhappy males and females complaining of rape and assault. What could be the reason that the overwhelming number of those who feel victimized -- who are victimized -- are women?”
Again, Mona Charen: “Smart women didn’t rely only on a man’s conscience, though. They didn’t get blind drunk and go to a stranger’s room. It was once considered foolish to take off your clothes with someone who didn’t love you -- far less someone who hardly knows your name. That’s not ‘slut shaming,’ it’s simple prudence.”
Indeed. It’s a given that society “must teach men not to rape.” But society needs to do more: it should teach and demand from both men and women, young and old, better judgment, personal accountability, self-restraint, and prudence.
An offshoot of one celebrity’s misadventures is the increased public debate on rape. This was followed by a celebrity/model “breaking her silence and started to talk about the things that people don’t want to hear.” The gender studies crowd and feminists were quick to join the fray, blaming rape on the “patriarchal” mindset and Filipino men’s lack of gender sensitivity training. The truth, however and as usual, is more subtle and complicated.
Rape is a detestable crime and one instance is one too many. Unfortunately, the numbers for rape in the Philippines are harrowing. According to the Philippine Commission on Women, 4% of women ages 15 to 49 experienced forced first sexual intercourse and 10% of women ages 15 to 49 experienced sexual violence.
The Center for Women’s Resource reported that cases of rape “have reached an alarming level. For the year 2010, a total of 4,572 cases of rape were documented by the Women and Children Protection Center of the Philippine National Police (WCPC-PNP), 19 of which were incestuous or perpetrated by a victim’s blood relative. This was equivalent to a 13% increase in reported cases of rape and incest from 4,048 in 2009.” The true figures, however, could be much higher.
Incidentally, one consequence of increased rape cases is that moves to amend the Constitution and legalize abortions of rape-related pregnancies could gain traction, as pro-lifers will have a difficult time defending against such a powerfully emotional argument.
In any event, as disturbing as the above numbers are, tragically it could get worse. Philadelphia Magazine (“Rape happens here,” April 24) describes one incidence of alleged “rape” this way:
“[Lisa] Sendrow is a 23-year-old brunette from Princeton, New Jersey ... in the midwinter of 2013, Sendrow says, she was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months. They’d now decided -- mutually, she thought -- just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, ‘No, I don’t want to have sex with you.’ And then he said, ‘Okay, that’s fine’ and stopped,” Sendrow told me. “And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything -- I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”
The foregoing illustrates the dangers (and confusions) that a sexually permissive or “hook-up” culture brings. Surely, “no means NO.” And yet, taking all particular factual context and the absence of witnesses, one would be very hard put to determine the truth in what happened and act judiciously to all concerned.
Although with social media’s habitual thinking-is-for-losers lynch mob mentality, another consequence might be for men and women to start demanding signed affidavits of consent from each other before engaging in anything sexual.
And that a hook-up culture has taken root in the Philippines is palpable. The 2013 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality Study reveals that almost 30% (or 6.2 million) of Filipinos 15- to 24-years-old engaged in premarital sex, an increase of 14% from two decades ago; 7.3% of our young engaged in casual sex, with 3.5% (or around 800,000) regularly having sex in what is now popularly known as a “friends with benefits” arrangement.
The foregoing’s connection to the sharp rise in Philippine teenage pregnancies and marriages, as well as the increase in the dissolution of marriages, are evident.
Now, our government and media’s solution to the foregoing is to throw more condoms around. Which doesn’t really solve anything. As Mona Charen insightfully wrote (“Who really created the rape culture,” May 9), what such leftist secular progressive thinking does is merely to encourage a “sexual free-for-all.”
And ironically, as Ms. Charen points out, this sexual liberalism, while supposedly empowering women, resulted in the opposite: “If men and women were just the same in their sexual needs, desires, and behaviors, then the hook-up culture would yield an equal number of unhappy males and females complaining of rape and assault. What could be the reason that the overwhelming number of those who feel victimized -- who are victimized -- are women?”
Again, Mona Charen: “Smart women didn’t rely only on a man’s conscience, though. They didn’t get blind drunk and go to a stranger’s room. It was once considered foolish to take off your clothes with someone who didn’t love you -- far less someone who hardly knows your name. That’s not ‘slut shaming,’ it’s simple prudence.”
Indeed. It’s a given that society “must teach men not to rape.” But society needs to do more: it should teach and demand from both men and women, young and old, better judgment, personal accountability, self-restraint, and prudence.
13.4.14
Virtues, families, and the economy
was the subject of my Trade Tripper column in the recent weekend's issue of BusinessWorld:
Looking at various studies related to the upcoming ASEAN 2015 integration, one would be struck by the amount of data compiled by our policy makers but at the same time disappointed at the seeming non-interest on their part on one particular set of numbers: the rise in teenage pregnancy and the seeming dissolution of the institution of marriage.
Recent figures indicated that teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). The 2010 figures show 206,574 such pregnancies, with more than half of that number of girls below 14 years of age. Data from the National Youth Commission show that the Philippines has the third highest number of teen pregnancies in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the ASEAN region and the only country where such a number is increasing.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among those below 20 years old. Meanwhile, there is also a rise in annulment cases. The number of annulled marriages has steadily increased in the past decade or so, with a daily average of 28 couples reportedly filing annulment cases (as per the records of the Office of the Solicitor General). In 2012 alone, it was reported that 10,528 annulment cases were filed, representing a 100% increase in just 10 years.
Why are these numbers important in relation to our economy? Because the basic economic unit and source of productivity are people.
As pointed out by Henry Potrykus and Patrick Fagan (in their study “The Divorce Revolution Perpetually Reduces US Economic Growth: Divorce Removes a Fourth of Head-of-Household Productivity Growth,” March 8, 2012): “It is worth emphasizing that though economic production generally, and growth particularly involve three components, economic enterprise is a human activity. Human beings, by the measure of growth accounting, contribute over half of what is valuable to production. Only one third of growth may be attributed to non-human, physical capital. Domestic production is affected massively by the human component’s contribution.”
Also, because it must be pointed out that despite the ASEAN integration being packaged as turning ASEAN into one big “production base,” the Philippines nevertheless is also hinging its strategy on expanding our services industry. But services require people. And people need to be educated and trained.
Connect that with the recent presentation at National Economic and Development Authority and Philippine Institute for Development Studies (NEDA PIDS) (Jobs, Expansion, and Development; by Paqueo, Orbeta, Lanzona, and Dulay; April 3, 2013) which talked about the “positive correlation of open unemployment with income and education.” More tellingly, they spoke of the fact that “income of households headed by high school graduates is more than double that of households with only elementary education.” In short, “the rate of return to investment in education is relatively high.”
Or put another way: the longer you stay in school, the higher your income and the greater the productivity, which then leads to overall national economic gain. But how can kids stay in school longer if they can’t control their hormones (urged on by a sexed up media) and keep getting pregnant?
Thusly, of the almost 3 million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% those 25-34 years old. Most of them are high school graduates.
The government’s solution is to pour condoms on them, which isn’t a solution at all. It’s like throwing band-aids at an accident-prone person but not teaching that person how to avoid accidents.
It’s common sense that is no longer common. As Tara Culp-Ressler writes (“Teen Pregnancy Negatively Impacts The National Economy”, June 8, 2012), albeit in the US setting, “Because teenage pregnancy deters increased education, it leads to significant amounts of lost earnings, which negatively effect the economy as a whole.”
In any event, the foregoing has to be understood within this context: at present, Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those 65 years old comprise only about 4.1%.
Where our young go, literally so will our country.
And it takes no stretch of the imagination to connect the rise in teenage marriages to the rise in annulments. In which event, Potrykus and Fagan had this to say (albeit about marriage, divorce, and the economy): “Marriage is a causal agent of economic growth. It constitutes one third to one fourth of the human capital contribution of household heads to macroeconomic growth. The total contribution of human capital to growth of domestic product in turn is large, being of equal proportion to the other two contributing factors: size of the labor pool and physical capital. Divorce removes this agent of economic growth.”
The point of all this is: economics is not just about numbers and graphs. In the end, it’s about people. If we don’t care for our people well, molding their character properly and inculcating in them proper virtues, then all that economic planning is useless.
Looking at various studies related to the upcoming ASEAN 2015 integration, one would be struck by the amount of data compiled by our policy makers but at the same time disappointed at the seeming non-interest on their part on one particular set of numbers: the rise in teenage pregnancy and the seeming dissolution of the institution of marriage.
Recent figures indicated that teenage pregnancy in this country rose by 70% in the past 10-year period (114,205 in 1999 to 195,662 in 2009). The 2010 figures show 206,574 such pregnancies, with more than half of that number of girls below 14 years of age. Data from the National Youth Commission show that the Philippines has the third highest number of teen pregnancies in Southeast Asia and among the highest in the ASEAN region and the only country where such a number is increasing.
Also disconcertingly, 13-14% of all registered marriages are among those below 20 years old. Meanwhile, there is also a rise in annulment cases. The number of annulled marriages has steadily increased in the past decade or so, with a daily average of 28 couples reportedly filing annulment cases (as per the records of the Office of the Solicitor General). In 2012 alone, it was reported that 10,528 annulment cases were filed, representing a 100% increase in just 10 years.
Why are these numbers important in relation to our economy? Because the basic economic unit and source of productivity are people.
As pointed out by Henry Potrykus and Patrick Fagan (in their study “The Divorce Revolution Perpetually Reduces US Economic Growth: Divorce Removes a Fourth of Head-of-Household Productivity Growth,” March 8, 2012): “It is worth emphasizing that though economic production generally, and growth particularly involve three components, economic enterprise is a human activity. Human beings, by the measure of growth accounting, contribute over half of what is valuable to production. Only one third of growth may be attributed to non-human, physical capital. Domestic production is affected massively by the human component’s contribution.”
Also, because it must be pointed out that despite the ASEAN integration being packaged as turning ASEAN into one big “production base,” the Philippines nevertheless is also hinging its strategy on expanding our services industry. But services require people. And people need to be educated and trained.
Connect that with the recent presentation at National Economic and Development Authority and Philippine Institute for Development Studies (NEDA PIDS) (Jobs, Expansion, and Development; by Paqueo, Orbeta, Lanzona, and Dulay; April 3, 2013) which talked about the “positive correlation of open unemployment with income and education.” More tellingly, they spoke of the fact that “income of households headed by high school graduates is more than double that of households with only elementary education.” In short, “the rate of return to investment in education is relatively high.”
Or put another way: the longer you stay in school, the higher your income and the greater the productivity, which then leads to overall national economic gain. But how can kids stay in school longer if they can’t control their hormones (urged on by a sexed up media) and keep getting pregnant?
Thusly, of the almost 3 million Filipinos currently unemployed, 48.2% are within the 15-24 age group, with 29.9% those 25-34 years old. Most of them are high school graduates.
The government’s solution is to pour condoms on them, which isn’t a solution at all. It’s like throwing band-aids at an accident-prone person but not teaching that person how to avoid accidents.
It’s common sense that is no longer common. As Tara Culp-Ressler writes (“Teen Pregnancy Negatively Impacts The National Economy”, June 8, 2012), albeit in the US setting, “Because teenage pregnancy deters increased education, it leads to significant amounts of lost earnings, which negatively effect the economy as a whole.”
In any event, the foregoing has to be understood within this context: at present, Filipinos 30 years old and below comprise around 70% of the population (with those below 14 years at 35%, with the median age at 22.9 years old). Those 65 years old comprise only about 4.1%.
Where our young go, literally so will our country.
And it takes no stretch of the imagination to connect the rise in teenage marriages to the rise in annulments. In which event, Potrykus and Fagan had this to say (albeit about marriage, divorce, and the economy): “Marriage is a causal agent of economic growth. It constitutes one third to one fourth of the human capital contribution of household heads to macroeconomic growth. The total contribution of human capital to growth of domestic product in turn is large, being of equal proportion to the other two contributing factors: size of the labor pool and physical capital. Divorce removes this agent of economic growth.”
The point of all this is: economics is not just about numbers and graphs. In the end, it’s about people. If we don’t care for our people well, molding their character properly and inculcating in them proper virtues, then all that economic planning is useless.
27.8.13
Compilation on the Imbong case oral arguments (updated 28/8/13)
After two lawyers and former Senator Tatad have presented their case against RA 10354 (the Responsible Parenthood/Reproductive Health Law) in the Supreme Court, followed by Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza and Assistant Solicitor General Florin Hilbay arguing in defense of the law, numerous articles have come out offering views on the developments in the case so far. While I strongly believe that the RH Law is unconstitutional (exclusively on the grounds laid out in Pro-Life Phils.' petition, see below), I sought to make an objective a compilation as possible (particularly for the benefit of law students). Most of the articles, frankly, are nonsense and just a waste of time. This compilation seeks to limit itself to those which in my view are reasonably open-minded, have a modicum of intelligence, or at least informative.
Marites Vitug has five excellent articles. Those here and here analyzes the first and second hearings and detailed the subtle shift in the SC Justices' positions. Equally interesting is what Ms. Vitug points out in one of her Facebook updates, "'Every statute is presumed valid ... Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality ...' wrote SC Justice Jose Mendoza in a 2012 decision. He said that 'judicial legislation' is 'unpardonable.'" Vitug's take on the 6 August 2013 oral arguments is quite good (click here), with Solicitor General Jardeleza making the quite correct point that: "... the question is not when life begins but whether or not congress, in passing the rh law, acted in grave abuse of discretion."
Ms. Vitug's account of the 13 August 2013 hearing is here. And I agree with her assessment that: "These public sessions seem to be no longer of much value to the Court. At this point, they are more theatre than anything else, showing the quality of discourse in Padre Faura, among the men and women in robes whom we thought were demigods." Indeed, the merit of this case would have been apparent to the Court by the second hearing, so one could be forgiven for seeing the subsequent hearings as pointless. Her assessment on the possible outcomes for the case after the oral arguments closed on 27 August 2013 can be found here.
In any event, Assistant Solicitor General Florin Hilbay closed off the government position on 27 August 2013, arguing that the RH Law does not violate free speech and religious rights (see here). Hilbay's answers were quite instructive for serious students of constitutional law: analytical, precise, highly contexted, subtle. While, of course, I do not agree with his arguments, Hilbay nevertheless displayed how somebody who actually knows constitutional law is supposed to answer. What I found amusing is that, perhaps exactly for that reason, it apparently went over the journalists' heads and just about most everyone who attended the hearing that only a passing report was made of the matter in the media.
Having said that, the interrogation done by the Justices were really less than impressive and will in no way contribute to building up the respect much needed for the judiciary and the rule of law. Quite frankly, the line (and manner) of questioning by Justice Roberto Abad on the second, third, fourth hearings were truly embarrassing. At one point, during the 6 August 2013 oral arguments, he may have even lost it a little, comparing the RH Law to the "Nazi holocaust" (click here).
The only saving grace for these hearings were the learned, logical, and instructive questions thrown by CJ Sereno and Justices Carpio and Leonen. A good discussion on the line of questioning undertaken by Chief Justice Sereno and Justice Leonen in the first hearing is found here, including the fact that the Supreme Court is not the forum to settle medical issues (click here). Justice Carpio's 'rebuke' of the anti-RH lawyers on jurisdictional grounds reported here.
On the CJ's deft and reasoned questioning in the second hearing, click here. CJ Sereno even took the time to lecture a pro-life lawyer on a basic feature of our constitutional law: "The solution is to get more people who think like you elected in Congress so right priorities will be set as you see fit. It is not for us to cure problems you see in Congress."
For a somewhat partisan pro-life view on the matter by Chet Espino, click here and here. Dr. Santiago Del Rosario's response, in turn, is here. Then there's Patricia Evangelista's quite polemical but superbly written piece, implicitly including a warning on the dangers of using international law terms like "genocide". She followed that up with somewhat quite sharper language here. Rina Jimenez-David follows in a similar vein here. Journalist and former Senator Francisco Tatad's constitutional analysis can be found here and here. For a perspective that doesn't even attempt to claim legal expertise, Fr. Ces Magsino's quite thoughtful and commendably highly intelligent pieces can be found here, here, and here.
Pro-lifers made an open letter to RH supporters, which resulted in an open letter in turn by RH supporters to pro-lifers.
What is strange about this is that most of the articles and opinions presently circulating in media or the public regarding this Supreme Court case were written by non-lawyers. It's strange considering that the case involves only - and is actually limited to only - technical legal matters (not economic, medical, scientific, social, or religious issues) that will form the exclusive basis for deciding whether the law is unconstitutional or not.
So, unfortunately for laymen, inasmuch as doctors, scientists, sociologists, or economists want their say in the spotlight as well, this is a Supreme Court case and the only thing that matters are the legal arguments. And clearly four years of law school training still means something. As well as passing the Bar exams.
Lawyer Jose C. Sison has some articles on the case (see here, here, and here). But reading it one doesn't see much legal analysis, rather justifications based on Sison's strong Catholic beliefs.
So for the few actual legal analysis, there is Oscar Tan (see here), with a discussion on the possibility that the case could be dismissed by the Supreme Court either due to lack of standing on the part of the petitioners, prematurity, or lack of justiciability. Tan's discussion on the remaining issue of this case, religious freedom, is here. His account of SolGen Jardeleza's near flawless performance in the 6 August 2013 oral arguments can be found here. Of the 20 August 2013 oral arguments and Justice Abad's somewhat confused questioning, see here. His quite devastating summing up of the case upon the close of the oral arguments is here. If viewed solely on what transpired in and what was only covered at the oral arguments, there is little one can dispute of Atty. Tan's account.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas has his say here and here and here (the latter two making short work on the issues of speech, religion, and equal protection).
My views on why the religious freedom argument is actually a hard sell to the Court can be found here (with my early comments on it here). My analysis on the issue of "judicial restraint" is here. My take on what should have been the strongest argument against the RH Law can be found here and here. A copy of our petition can be found here.
For a not so serious take on the subject by So, What's News?, click here and here.
For audio recording on the Supreme Court hearings regarding this case, click here (for 9 July 2013), here (for 23 July 2013), here (for 6 August 2013), here (for 13 August 2013) and here (for 27 August 2013).
*************
'In Constitutional Law, the Presumption of Constitutionality of a statue or provision occurs when two possible interpretations for a statute occur - one favoring the constitution while the violating, the one that is in favor of the constitution is taken as valid.
- It is presumed that Acts made by Legislations are valid and that they do not intent to enact a law that is ultra vires to the constitution. When a situation occurs to question the validity of the law, the burden is on the petitioner to prove contra.
- Courts generally do not want to interpret the Acts unless, by way of language, they are proved to be unconstitutional.
Marites Vitug has five excellent articles. Those here and here analyzes the first and second hearings and detailed the subtle shift in the SC Justices' positions. Equally interesting is what Ms. Vitug points out in one of her Facebook updates, "'Every statute is presumed valid ... Every presumption should be indulged in favor of the constitutionality ...' wrote SC Justice Jose Mendoza in a 2012 decision. He said that 'judicial legislation' is 'unpardonable.'" Vitug's take on the 6 August 2013 oral arguments is quite good (click here), with Solicitor General Jardeleza making the quite correct point that: "... the question is not when life begins but whether or not congress, in passing the rh law, acted in grave abuse of discretion."
Ms. Vitug's account of the 13 August 2013 hearing is here. And I agree with her assessment that: "These public sessions seem to be no longer of much value to the Court. At this point, they are more theatre than anything else, showing the quality of discourse in Padre Faura, among the men and women in robes whom we thought were demigods." Indeed, the merit of this case would have been apparent to the Court by the second hearing, so one could be forgiven for seeing the subsequent hearings as pointless. Her assessment on the possible outcomes for the case after the oral arguments closed on 27 August 2013 can be found here.
In any event, Assistant Solicitor General Florin Hilbay closed off the government position on 27 August 2013, arguing that the RH Law does not violate free speech and religious rights (see here). Hilbay's answers were quite instructive for serious students of constitutional law: analytical, precise, highly contexted, subtle. While, of course, I do not agree with his arguments, Hilbay nevertheless displayed how somebody who actually knows constitutional law is supposed to answer. What I found amusing is that, perhaps exactly for that reason, it apparently went over the journalists' heads and just about most everyone who attended the hearing that only a passing report was made of the matter in the media.
Having said that, the interrogation done by the Justices were really less than impressive and will in no way contribute to building up the respect much needed for the judiciary and the rule of law. Quite frankly, the line (and manner) of questioning by Justice Roberto Abad on the second, third, fourth hearings were truly embarrassing. At one point, during the 6 August 2013 oral arguments, he may have even lost it a little, comparing the RH Law to the "Nazi holocaust" (click here).
The only saving grace for these hearings were the learned, logical, and instructive questions thrown by CJ Sereno and Justices Carpio and Leonen. A good discussion on the line of questioning undertaken by Chief Justice Sereno and Justice Leonen in the first hearing is found here, including the fact that the Supreme Court is not the forum to settle medical issues (click here). Justice Carpio's 'rebuke' of the anti-RH lawyers on jurisdictional grounds reported here.
On the CJ's deft and reasoned questioning in the second hearing, click here. CJ Sereno even took the time to lecture a pro-life lawyer on a basic feature of our constitutional law: "The solution is to get more people who think like you elected in Congress so right priorities will be set as you see fit. It is not for us to cure problems you see in Congress."
For a somewhat partisan pro-life view on the matter by Chet Espino, click here and here. Dr. Santiago Del Rosario's response, in turn, is here. Then there's Patricia Evangelista's quite polemical but superbly written piece, implicitly including a warning on the dangers of using international law terms like "genocide". She followed that up with somewhat quite sharper language here. Rina Jimenez-David follows in a similar vein here. Journalist and former Senator Francisco Tatad's constitutional analysis can be found here and here. For a perspective that doesn't even attempt to claim legal expertise, Fr. Ces Magsino's quite thoughtful and commendably highly intelligent pieces can be found here, here, and here.
Pro-lifers made an open letter to RH supporters, which resulted in an open letter in turn by RH supporters to pro-lifers.
What is strange about this is that most of the articles and opinions presently circulating in media or the public regarding this Supreme Court case were written by non-lawyers. It's strange considering that the case involves only - and is actually limited to only - technical legal matters (not economic, medical, scientific, social, or religious issues) that will form the exclusive basis for deciding whether the law is unconstitutional or not.
So, unfortunately for laymen, inasmuch as doctors, scientists, sociologists, or economists want their say in the spotlight as well, this is a Supreme Court case and the only thing that matters are the legal arguments. And clearly four years of law school training still means something. As well as passing the Bar exams.
Lawyer Jose C. Sison has some articles on the case (see here, here, and here). But reading it one doesn't see much legal analysis, rather justifications based on Sison's strong Catholic beliefs.
So for the few actual legal analysis, there is Oscar Tan (see here), with a discussion on the possibility that the case could be dismissed by the Supreme Court either due to lack of standing on the part of the petitioners, prematurity, or lack of justiciability. Tan's discussion on the remaining issue of this case, religious freedom, is here. His account of SolGen Jardeleza's near flawless performance in the 6 August 2013 oral arguments can be found here. Of the 20 August 2013 oral arguments and Justice Abad's somewhat confused questioning, see here. His quite devastating summing up of the case upon the close of the oral arguments is here. If viewed solely on what transpired in and what was only covered at the oral arguments, there is little one can dispute of Atty. Tan's account.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas has his say here and here and here (the latter two making short work on the issues of speech, religion, and equal protection).
My views on why the religious freedom argument is actually a hard sell to the Court can be found here (with my early comments on it here). My analysis on the issue of "judicial restraint" is here. My take on what should have been the strongest argument against the RH Law can be found here and here. A copy of our petition can be found here.
For a not so serious take on the subject by So, What's News?, click here and here.
For audio recording on the Supreme Court hearings regarding this case, click here (for 9 July 2013), here (for 23 July 2013), here (for 6 August 2013), here (for 13 August 2013) and here (for 27 August 2013).
*************
'In Constitutional Law, the Presumption of Constitutionality of a statue or provision occurs when two possible interpretations for a statute occur - one favoring the constitution while the violating, the one that is in favor of the constitution is taken as valid.
- It is presumed that Acts made by Legislations are valid and that they do not intent to enact a law that is ultra vires to the constitution. When a situation occurs to question the validity of the law, the burden is on the petitioner to prove contra.
- Courts generally do not want to interpret the Acts unless, by way of language, they are proved to be unconstitutional.
- While interpretation, the provision which is unconstitutional should be avoided and when proved to be unconstitutional, should become void.
- A statute is constitutional till the time that it was established to be unconstitutional.
- The interpretation that creates unjust and discriminatory situation should be avoided.
- The Presumption of Constitutionality says that a court having a jurisdiction cannot invalidate a statute unless there is a gross constitutional violation in a statute.
- When an interpretation is possible that will save an Act from an unconstitutionality attack, the court should accept the affirmative interpretation that will save it to the extent possible.
- Presumption fails to operate when it is clearly shown that the statute is unconstitutional.
- When a statute is retrospective in operational, it should not be constructed to have greater retrospective operation that its language makes necessary.
- The courts should not go into the act of adding words, reading words that are not in the statute, correct or make up to the deficiency as it will lead to casus omissus.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)