Makakalimutin

Isa pang makakalimutin itong si Senador Tito Sotto,  tinira niya kahapon si Senador Kiko Pangilinan

Sotto recalled that as a member of the national board of canvassers in 2004, Pangilinan merely replied “noted” to persistent requests by the opposition to scrutinize election returns (ERs) purportedly indicating fraud.

“Ngayon sila dada nang dada, eh nung 2004, puro sila ‘noted’ (Now they’re squawking, when in 2004 all they said was ‘noted’),” Sotto told the Inquirer on Friday night.

“They’re too late the hero. I hate to say this, but I told you so,” he said.

and

"He said questions over the authenticity of the ERs could have been settled if only Pangilinan and then House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales, also a member of the canvassing board, allowed the opening of just one such document during the canvass.

“But they were blocking us every step of the way,” he said."

Nakalimutan na ni Senador Sotto na isa siya sa mga mag block ng pagbubukas ng pangalawang envelope sa impeachment trial ni Pangulong Estrada.  Napakasigasig din niya duon sa pagtatago ng katotohanan ng pagnanakaw.

Nakalimutan din niya na nuong 2007 elections,  tumakbo siya sa sa partido ni Presidente Arroyo.  At tinanggap niya ang pag appoint sa kanya ni Presidente Arroyo bilang Direktor ng Dangerous Drugs Board.

Balimbing.

Update:

Sagot ni Sen Pangilinan, parehas lang kami ng reaksyon sa mga salita ni Sen . Sotto

“The public should be reminded that he has no moral ascendancy to comment on the issue of fraud for the simple reason that he flip-flopped on the issue and embraced the cheater in the end. Yes, by all means let’s call a spade a spade. He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones,” Pangilinan said in a statement on Monday.

Ang nakakatawa ay yung sagot ni Sen. Sotto, hindi daw mahalaga yung pagbalimbing niya para kay GMA.

“Baryang issue lang yan. Don’t change the topic,” said Sotto, pointing out that the topic was the 2004 cheating, and not the 2007 elections.

Haha, nuong 2007, hindi isyu yung 2004 cheating kasi kailangan niya si GMA, ngayong di na niya kailangan si GMA isyu na uli ito.

Kuryente

Nakuryente Malacanang ng pinabulaanan ni Garci na nandaya si dating President Arroyo nung eleksiyon at nagpahiwatig siyang tetestigo siya sa ginawang nakawan.  Yan ang problema sa nagpapa presscon muna bago nakuha yung testimonya at ebidensiya. Kasalanan pa ngayon ni Garci na hindi siya tumestigo.

Bagong Eraption

Parang nagpapatawa na naman si Erap. Parang wala kasi siyang self awareness habang binabanggit niya ang mga katagang.

"The problem was that there was a grand conspiracy to suppress the truth during the Arroyo administration. But  you need not worry this time," Estrada said.

"Malapit na nating makamit ang katotohanan. Kaya kung nagtatago kayo noon dahil takot kayo sa korap na gobyerno ni Ginang Arroyo, huwag na kayong matakot ngayon dahil ang kasalukuyang administrasyon naman ay para sa katotohanan lamang."

Sabi nga, ang magnanakaw daw ay galit sa kapwa magnanakaw.

Freudian slip

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/29/11/palace-condoles-dead-prisoner-granted-clemency

Gusto ko pa rin ng ebidensiya

Dumadami ang mga tumetestigo na nandaya si dating pangulong Arroyo nung eleksiyon ng 2004.  Ang problema ko sa mga testigo na ito, wala pa silang dinadalang katunayan ng pandaraya na ito.

Halimbawa, itong mga bagong testigo na PNP.  Mayroon silang mga sinasabi na madali naman patunayan kung totoo o hindi. 

"Santiago said the operation was scheduled to be carried out on Jan. 23 and 29 and Feb. 5 and 27, 2005, starting at around 11 p.m. up to around 2:30 a.m. the next day.

To ensure that no one else would be at the Batasan main building when his team moved in, a bogus bomb threat was announced, he said."

Kailangan lang lumang balita nitong mga araw na ito na may nagkaroon ng bomb threat sa Batasan.  Sinubukan ko tingnan yung unang araw sa Archives ng Manila Bulletin, January 24 at 25, walang balita na angkaroon ng bomb threat sa Batasan.  Hindi naman ako makapaniwala na hindi mababalita ang bomb threat sa Kongreso.  Pero sige, sabihin natin na nag bomb threat sila at hindi ito nabalita at walang nakatunog sa mga reporters na 4 na lingo sunod sunod na may bomb threat sa Kongreso,  kumusta na yung ERs.

"Santiago said the documents presented to De Lima were among the original ERs stuffed in more than 100 Marlboro cigarette boxes taken by his team from the Batasan main building."

 mga ER's na sa tingin ni Secretary de lima ay mukhang tunay, pero bakit di na lang muna niya pinatunayan kung tunay nga yung ER's bago sila nagpa press conference. Madali lang naman mapatunayan kung tunay nga o hindi yung mga ER's eh, sabi nga ni Atty.Panelo

"According to Panelo, tampering with the ERs should have been done before the canvassing and not after, when lawyers of each and every candidate have already scrutinized the ERs.

Panelo said perpetrators should replace all 7 copies of the ERs for the switching to succeed."

Mayroong 7 kopya ng ER,  isa sa COMELEC, isa sa Kongreso, isa sa NAMFREL, tig isa yung Minority at Majority party.  Sana, kinumpara muna nila yung Election Returns na binigya sa kanila una, sa kopya sa Kongreso.  Kung nagkaroon nga ng pagpapalit, dapat magkaiba yung nasa Kongreso at dun sa hawak nila.  Kung magkaiba, ihambing naman nila sa kopya sa COMELEC,  kung parehas yung sa COMELEC at yung binigay kay Sec. De Lima, aha, malaki na ang katunayan na malamang nagkaroon nga ng pagpapalit.  Para mas sigurado pa sila,  ihambing pa rin nila yung ER sa kopya ng NAMFREL.

Meron din palang nilabas na video si Sen. Lacson na kung titingnan mo naman ay mga tao na naglalabas at nagpapasok ng mga mukhang ballot boxes. Pero walang konteksto, hindi mo alam kung mga taong COMELEC yun na binobodega yung mga ballot boxes.

Gugustuhin ko na makasuhan at mapakulong din si dating pangulong Arroyo kung may ginawa nga siyang kriminal habang siya ay Presidente.  Isang malaking hakbang sa Pilipinas ang makapagpakulong ng isang tiwaling Presidente.  Pero sa ngayon, puro paratang lang ang nangyayari at kung walang ebidensiya napakadaling i dismiss ng mga Arroyo ang lahat ng paratang na pamumulitika lamang.

A wish for good health

This is a heartfelt plea for former President Arroyo to fully recover from her present ailment

Another Facebook debate

A friend of mine added me to this atheist group in FB, it was fun looking at the posts and the few discussions I had were quite good.  But yesterday somebody posted a video link that lead to this post.  A few people from the group reacted to my post and lead to some back and forth,  I quite enjoyed it,  I felt I fully debunked the video.  But the thread was deleted,  I don't know why, I asked who deleted it and why and got no satisfactory answer, so in the tradition of my other FB encounter where the other side deleted his comments, to mask the fact that his arguments were poor.  I will again post the thread here,  no names will be mentioned to protect whatever.

So the thread started when somebody posted this video. I will not embed the video here because I think it's a poorly argued video, go to youtube if you really want to see it.  I watched it and wrote my reaction, which I reproduced in the previously mentioned post.

The poster of the video, then posted a link to another video by the same guys.  I told him that the video he linked to did not refute or answer the points I raised. 

He answered "my friend i'm not here to answer questions i'm here just an idea :)"  and "you have the answer my friend :)"

Which was stupid,  if he was not ready to defend a video he shared to the group, why did he share it?  So I answered "And I am just pointing out that the ideas you are sharing are bullshit"

Which got this response "Ok my friend :) Just be a good person to your self :)"

I would like to reiterate that this group is an atheist and agnostic group,  presumably, the members had reasoned themselves out of the religion that has been inculcated in them by Philippine society.  And this guy was here, promoting this video, that he labels must see, and does not even have the guts to defend it. 

Some members then chimed, some idiot commented "Roy C. Choco I accept your opinion about the link shared by ___________, saying it that its a load of bullshit makes you a bigot. You should open yourself to different ideas of people in this group. Telling somebody that their ideas is a load of BS makes no contribution to a topic."

To which I answered "I call bullshit, bullshit, prove to me that the video is not bullshit and I will change my opinion."

And his comment was idiotic,  he called me a bigot for pointing out that a video posted was bullshit.  Where did he get his dictionary?  What definition of bigotry was he using? Being open to new ideas does not mean you should accept bad ideas.

At this point, concerned members try to mediate "Please be civil...the admins are watching...thank you..so far there is no ad hominem...thank you." and somebody else "Hi Roy, I think what people are trying to tell you is that there is a right way and a wrong way to debate a topic. The right way is civilly and not condescendingly. You are in group of very intelligent people. But everyone has their limitations and so can be wrong--even you and me."


The idiot also answered "We have different opinions to the said video I may not agree with all the content but it gave me an insight to the mind of the creator of the video." 

The idiot is hiding behind the "different opinions" argument,  lol,  post modernism in an atheist, I couldn't believe what I was reading.  He does not even try to give what insight it gave him.  So I try another tack to also appease the peacemakers.  I wrote "I stated the reasons why I think the video is bullshit, can you please share your opinions? What insights did you get from the video?"

His answer?  "My insight of the creator is that he has a strong political stand in something, just like you. In which he view that there is a specific reasons that our country is in a state in which it is now e.g. the 1987 constitution and the Oligarchy. It may be not the whole story but it is still a great idea that in order to solve the problem he propose a CHACHA. It is still a refreshing idea since I always hear a negative response when it comes to CHACHA etc.."

At this point, I think,  should I tell him that maybe he should study the proposal,  gut reactions based on non conformity to your social milleu is not a good way to live your life.  But I felt that would be condescending,  so I try to convince him that even though he thinks chacha is a good idea, the video itself is a bad one. 

"Ok, I can accept that. But please take into consideration my argument on why his video, as I call it, is bullshit, and I am going to repeat it in English so ________ can follow my reasoning.

Basically, the video is arguing that the answer to the prevailing poverty in the Philippines is a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary system of government. The only justification the video gives why this is so is because countries with parliamentary forms of government, Canada, UK, Australia, are more prosperous than countries with presidential forms of government, Haiti, etc.

I argued that that is fallacious reasoning as correlation does not equal causation, and if we are playing the the more prosperous card, the US is the richest country in the world, and the video maker did not put the US in the list of countries with presidential systems.

I argue that the omission of the US was a deliberate attempt by the video maker to stack the deck in favor of parliamentary systems."

 His answer?

"I already stated awhile ago that Philippines' and America's presidential system is way different so don't compare them as the same (Republic and Federal) . I will correct your statement, America is the most powerful country in the world but not the richest. They maybe the richest in terms of debt. They may hold most of the richest person in the world, but the country don't hold their wealth. My definition of a rich country is based on how the standard of living of a normal citizen in a country is. The video maker point out those top countries because a normal citizen in their country lives well ( medicare, security, food, shelter etc.) Right now America has a shitty medicare, security (gangs, prison overpopulation etc), there are more and more homeless due to the recession and foreclosure. If you are a poor citizen living in those country stated by the creator of the video, you will still live well compared to a poor American citizen. "

is misdirection.  I only used the US as an example, the argument I was making was correlation is not equal to causation,  the fact that these rich countries use a parliamentary form of government does not necessarily mean that it is the parliamentary form of government that is the cause of their prosperity.  The video does not even try to argue why a parliamentary form of government is superior to a presidential form of government,  it only present the correlation argument.  So I answered him.

"But the video only distinguished between presidential and parliamentary. So I am criticizing the video on its own claims. And correlation still does not equal causation, UK, Canada, and Australia all recognize the queen of England as their sovereign, does that mean that we should then recognize Queen Elizabeth as queen so we can become as rich as them?"

His answer? 

"WTH? Your also saying that Japan, Norway and the likes also recognize Queen Elizabeth? That statement just came from nowhere. Since when did you connect Parliamentary to the Queen of England. Though if my history is right the Parliamentary system started there but doesn't you give the credit to the Queen. And nowhere can you get rich by just recognizing a figure. BTW the purpose of the video was is to inform of the creator's purpose not to debunk the flawed system of the government in his own point of view. Quoted ("It is not based on reasoned factual argument, it was trying to convince people based on emotion not reason") by the looks of it your argument is based more on emotion not on reason."

This is when I realized he probably does not know the phrase correlation is not equal to causation.  This is when I think,  "Is this guy really and atheist?  He does not display any of the critical thinking skills that I associate with atheists.  But I still tried to be civil.

"Now you see the point I am making. correlation does not equal causation. he is saying that a parliamentary form of government is good because rich countries have parliamentary forms of government without any proof of why this is so. That is why the video's argument is bullshit.

As you have pointed out, his argument comes from nowhere."

At which point he goes back to the post modernist argument

"As I told you the video and your argument in my own understanding. I view the video as informative not as an argument or how to make a case. We view the video differently if in your own view its BS in mine it isn't. You don't get the view of others and you try to force others to on how view things. This isn't how it should be, even if you have your own stance in this argument you don't force them. If you have an aggressive stance in your beliefs and if you find others that suit your own world view you categorize it as BS. See my point? Do you understand my view?

Its a matter of perspective."

 So I tried to teach him the dangers of post modernism if you are an atheist

"No, a bad argument is a bad argument. A believer can tell you that his belief in a god is correct based on his understanding. That does not actually make it correct, because his belief is not based on evidence.

I accept your viewpoint that you find the video informative. That does not make the video actually informative. It does not give any information whatsoever."

 An atheist is somebody who believes that the evidence for the existence of god or gods is insufficient.  If you subscribe to the "this is my opinion, and my opinion is as good as yours"  Then you cannot then tell the believer that his opinion on the existence of god is wrong.  There are subjects and things where one's opinion is as good as another.  Favorite color, food, sexual orientation.  But we have standards for when a bad argument is a bad argument. Just because you think it is a good argument does not make it so,  and an atheist not familiar with logical fallacies is something I never thought would happen.  The support for religion is full of logical fallacies,  I had to argue my way out of these logical fallacies before I could call myself an atheist.  I guess not every atheist becomes one through reason and logic.

His answer? 

"WTH your first statement says that you have already accepted other's POV over the video and yet your final statement it isn't just because your POV is different. On what grounds do you hold to say which is informative or not. I don't want to argue anymore about this thanks anyways."

Which probably means he does not even comprehend well.  He thinks because I accept that he thinks the video is informative means that I accept that the video is informative.  These are 2 different things.  I accept that he is a moron that thinks a video that does not have any information to give is informative.  It does not necessarily mean that I accept that the video is informative,  specially since I proved time and again that it is not.  So I answered.

"I have stated time and again why the video is not informative. It seeks to change the government of the Philippines from presidential to parliamentary without giving sufficient reason. In fact, not giving any reason at all except for a fallacious correlation argument.

What definition of non-informative do you have, what information does the video give to a prospective person that wants to know more about the pros and cons of parliamentary vs presidential. None at all."

His answer?  a link to a video with the title "THE WORLD IS WAKING UP, ILLUMINATI BANKERS TREASON EXPOSED, WORLD REVOLUTION OF TRUTH AND JUSTICE"  and the text "Research and educate be the techear of your self :) PEACE KAIBIGAN"

Lol,  at this point I am thinking, shit, this guy is a conspiracy nut.  the Illuminati?  really?  what about the lizard men?  the masons, the catholic church?  What does this guy believe without evidence?  Now I know why he thinks that evidence free video is insightful.  so I just answere "lol, another fact free video"  and that is when the thread was deleted.

Finish.

Pushing his Luck

Bakit mahirap ang Pilipino?

May nag post nitong video na ito sa isang group na kasama ako.  sinagot ko na rin naman don, gawin ko na blogpost, sayang panahon.

Ok pinanood ko yung video at hindi ako impressed. 

Una.Ang title nung vdeo ay bakit mahirap ang mga Pilipino pero ang kanyang message ay ang pagpapago ng saligang batas mula presidential patungong parliamentary.  Pero ang tanging suporta niya bakit parliamentary ang maganda ay dahil mayayaman ang mga bansa na parliamentary ang gamit na sistema.  Isa itong fallacious na argument,  correlation does not equal causation, besides ang USA ang pinakamayamang bansa sa buong mundo at presidential ang gamit niya.  Bakit hindi ito lumabas sa video, dahil ba masisira ang argumento nung gumawa ng video?

Pangalawa.  Bakit  presidential ang sistema ng Pilipinas.  Namana natin ang sistemang presidential sa mga amerikano, ito ang gamit natin mula 1946 hanggang sa mag martial law si Marcos at binago niya't ginawang parliamentary.  Kaya nung mapabagsak si Marcos nung 1986 at magkaroon ng constitutional convention, natural lang na mangimi ang mga kasapi ng convention na gamitin ang isang sistema na ginamit ni Marcos,  kaya nanalo sa botohan ang presiential system.  Kung hindi alam nung gumawa ang kasaysayan ng Pilipinas bakit ko siya paniniwalaan sa iba pa niyang sinasabi?

Pangatlo.  Bakit hindi sinusuportahan ng AKBAYAN ang pagbabago ng sistema mula presidential patungo parliamentary.  Kasi, hindi pinagkakatiwalaan ng AKBAYAN ang mga tao na nagsusulong nito.  Si Erap?  Si Joe De Venecia?  Si GMA?  Naniniwala ang AKBAYAN na sinusulong lang ng mga taong ito ang pagbabago ng sistema ng gobyerno para mas tumagal sila sa kanilang poder sa kapangyarihan.  Ang gobyerno natin ngayon ay may limitasyon sa pagiging presidente, ang prime minister sa isang parliamentary system ay wala.

Wala pa ring Nagbago

Ang pinaka nangunguna ngayon sa mga rally ay nag BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA at kanilang mga kaalyadong organisasyon.  At ang kanilang pangunahing sigaw ay walang nagbago sa panahon ng gobyernong Aquino. 

Kaya lang paano mo naman seseryosohin ang ganitong klaseng sigaw kung ang kanilang sigaw ay wala ring pinagbago.  Mula pa nuong panahon ni Presidente Marcos, lahat na lang ng gobyerno sa Pilipinas ay tinawag nilang tuta ng kano.  Joke nga nung ka-org ko nung college, dapat ang mga poster nila "Ibagsak ang US_____ Regime"  fill in the blank na lang pag nagbago yung gobyerno.  25 taon na mula nung mapagsak si Presidente Marcos, wala pa ring pinagkaiba ang kanilang pagtingin nila sa gobyerno. 

Sasabihin nila, wala naman talaga pinagkaiba.  At kung ang pag-uusapan natin ay ang political economy ng bansa,  maaaring totoo iyon,  pero ang gobyerno ng Pilipinas?  Siguro bago sila humingi ng pagbabago sa lipunan,  suriin muna nila ang kanilang mga sarili at tingnan kung kailangan na rin nila ng pagbabago.

Photo courtesy of Mr. John Paraiso

Walang Nagbago

Sa SONA ni Presidente Aquino ngayong araw,  marami ang nagmartsa na nagsasabing walang nagbago sa Pilipinas,  walang nagawa ang gobyerno ni Presidente Aquino.

Kung kakausapin siguro natin ang maraming Pilipino,  madami ang sasang-ayon sa ganitong saloobin.  Kung buhay at buhay lang ang pag-uusapan, wala talagang masyado nabago sa pamumuhay nating Pilipino.  Kayod pa rin ng kayod, taas pa rin ng taas ang presyo ng mga bilihin.

Ngunit, datapwat, subalit,  Kung titingnan mo kung may nabago sa gobyerno,  madami kang makikita.  Dati, corrupt ang presidente mo, ngayon hindi na.  Dati, pinagtatakpan ng ombudsman ang katiwalian ng mga kakampi ng presidente, ngayon hindi na.  Dati,  pera ng PCSO, pinamimigay lamang sa mga kakampi ng presidente, ngayon hindi na, etc, etc.  Hindi man natin nararamdaman na gumaganda ang buhay natin,  minsan nga, sumasahol pa,  kailangan pa rin natin intindihan na maliban na lamang kung tumama tayo sa sweepstakes, mahirap maramdaman ang biglang pagbabago sa ating buhay.

Ang kinakatakot ko ay maging truism, o katotohanan sa tao ang kasabihan na wala namang pinagkaiba ang gobyerno ni Aquino at gobyerno ni Arroyo, na sa susunod na mga eleksyo, iisipin na lang nila na bumoto sa corrupt na kandidato, at least duon may mahihita sila, sa hindi corrupt wala.

Photo courtesy of Mr. John Paraiso

Oblivious

The Philippine Star reports that Bishops are calling for a boycott of an exhibit that the Bishops think is sacrilegious. The exhibit, s where, "some of the works featured phallic images and condoms juxtaposed with religious icons", is being held at the Cultural Center of the Philippines.

Bishop Deogracias Iniguez calls for a boycott because, the artists "“...should be very sensitive and respectful to the people…they should respect the religion of others,”.   Which tells of a lack of self awareness from a member of a church who actively opposes a bill, that would provide contraceptive options to Filipinos whose religions allow their use.  A religion that actively opposes a bill, that will allow people whose belief does not forbid them, to divorce.

Maybe the good Bishop should heed his call and respect the religion of others.  The Bishops can call on their flock to not use contraceptives and to not divorce,  they should respect the religion of others who wants to.

Another Bishop

Former Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Oscar Cruz, who previously served as CBCP president, said he saw a video of the “sick” exhibit.

“The ones who did those things are sick. They are not only sick, what they did was also sickening. No one in his right mind with the proper values system would even think of doing such a thing. I wonder if those who did those desecration would allow me to do those things to them… Meaning to say, to put those items on their faces and bodies and to desecrate them with all those items, like a used condom,” Cruz said.

He seem to have not noticed that no actual person's face and/or body was used in the making of the exhibited item.  It is the Bishop who is threatening to do the things he thinks are disgusting to live human beings.

I don't think anybody within the Catholic hierarchy ever challenges this bishops when they voice their ideas,  they seem so oblivious to the contradictions within their own pronouncements.

Evidence not Testimony

Madami na namang testigo na lumalabas na nagpapatunay na nadaya si GMA sa eleksyon.  Ang hindi ko nakikita ay ang ebidensiya na nadaya nga si GMA.  Kung puro testimonya lang, maski si Garci pa yan, madaling siraan ang mga testimonya na yan.  Ang kailangan natin ebidensiya, kung walang ebidensiya, wag na nating pag aksayahan ng panahon ito.

Worst Defense of PCSO Bishops

Antonio Montalvan has a column today with probably the worst defense for the PCSO bishops ever.  Worse than the non-sequitur defense by Teddy Locsin, Jr.  His defense is basically, the bishops need the vehicles to perform their priestly duties, therefore good. Long quotes below

A few years ago, a Catholic bishop assigned to a Mindanao diocese resigned from his post for health reasons. The good bishop had a chronic back problem that was exacerbated by the performance of his duties. A bishop has to make what is known as a pastoral visit to all the parishes under his diocese, besides numerous other duties. He has to look after the social action programs being implemented. In Mindanao, most dioceses have a very active program for indigenous peoples. Few people in Manila perhaps have knowledge of the vast Mindanao terrain where the hinterlands can only be traversed on unpaved roads.

then

That bishop had to eventually resign. His work was, literally, back-breaking. Not even a 4×4 vehicle could alleviate the pain he was suffering. His resignation was accepted by the Pope.

Distance and the primitiveness of roads are a reality in Mindanao that Margie Juico of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office surely does not know. I wonder now if she can sleep well at night. She has just committed one of the most serious blunders a public servant can ever do—to accuse and impute malice where there was none.

The only reason, according to Father Bernas that government money can be appropriated for religious institutions is if the money is to be used for secular purposes.  And that rationalizations the bishops kept repeating publicly,  that the vehicles they got were used for the poor, and not to promote religion.  And here is this man, demolishing the bishops own public rationalizations for getting those vehicles.

He probably should have stuck to the new meme the bishop defenders are using, that the PCSO scandal was done to tarnish bishops so they will be less proficient in their opposition to the RH Bill.  Never mind that the allegations were true, the bishops did get money from the PCSO and GMA.  Never mind that no investigation was ever done whether the vehicles were actually used primarily for secular purposes and not for religious ones.  The government and the church does not want any kind of confrontation at this time.

update

Here is Senator Drilon's explanation on secular purpose

"He said under the Constitution, financial aid from the government cannot be used by a religious organization for religious purposes.

“Pero kung pagbigay ng pera ay for religious purposes, yan po ang bawal. At sa nakalipas na araw na ating tinatalakay ang isyu, eh wala pong ebidensya na ito ay ginamit para sa religious purposes,” he told dzMM’s Tambalang Failon at Webb.

He, however, said that any religious organization can still receive financial aid from the government as long as its purpose is for charity.

“Kung ang pagbigay ng pera sa simbahan ay for charity work, hindi po taliwas yan sa ating Saligang Batas,” he said.

He said in the case of the Catholic prelates, there is no direct evidence proving that they indeed used the vehicles for religious purposes such as going to remote areas to hold mass.

and

Drilon added that the type of vehicles given to the prelates is also not an issue.

“Hindi [isyu] yung whether it is a Montero or a dilapidated pick-up. Ang isyu eh, eto ba ay ginamit upang tulungan ang simbahang Katoliko,” he said.

Ricky Gervais lies about being Catholic

Chutzpah

Ang kapal naman ng mukha ng mga obispong katoliko,  kamakalawa lang ay humihingi sila ng paumanhin sa ginawa nila.  Ngayon naman sila na ang gustong makakuha na paumanhin.  Para bagang hindi nangayari yung panghihingi at pagtanggap nila ng milyung pera galing kay Presidente Arroyo at sa PCSO.  Para bagang dahil sa sabi ng Senado ay wala silang ginawang ilegal ay wala na silang nagawang imoral.

Kapal

The Hypocrisy of Miriam

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago is quoted in the Inquirer today saying 

“The COA report said that this action was a violation of the constitutional provision that no public money should be appropriated, directly or indirectly, for the use of any church,” said Santiago, chairperson of the Senate constitutional amendments committee.

“Under the Constitution, the power of the COA is to audit government funds, not to settle questions of constitutional law. The power is granted only to the Supreme Court,” she said.

She said the COA, instead of declaring the donations to the bishops as unconstitutional, should have instead recommended that the constitutional issue be raised in the Department of Justice, the official legal adviser of the executive branch of the government.

Yet with a simple google search, we find her declaring several bills and actions unconstitutional.

In her blog she writes this

"If the House of Representatives passes the Nograles resolution by mere majority vote, then it will be unconstitutional. We are not allowed to conflate an ordinary bill with a charter change resolution. There is simply no correspondence between the two measures."

and this

"Last week, she released an opinion that it might be unconstitutional for the Senate to detain former agriculture secretary Jocelyn Bolante for the fertilizer fund scam, leading the Senate to release him."

 GMA News quotes her saying

Santiago said the bill is unconstitutional because it violates Article 2 Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which says that the state shall "equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception."

 and the TUCP quotes her saying

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago branded as unconstitutional and discriminatory a bill seeking to ban women from working for at least 11 consecutive hours during the night....Santiago said the bill would violate Article II Section 14 of the Constitution, which states: “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.”

So apparently, only blowhard senators are allowed to declare things unconstitutional.

Catholic Exceptionalism 3

Catholicism in the Philippines is so entrenched in our culture that catholics seem to think that what is good for catholicism is good for the country. I wrote 2 previous posts on how this kind of thinking is hurting non catholics by restricting freedoms to what is allowable from the perspective of catholicism.

Now we have Manoling Morato not seeing anything wrong with giving millions of pesos to catholic clergy and institutions for helping the poor.  I won't go into the question of whether the gifts awarded were actually used to serve the poor, but look at this post from TheNashman which mirrors my reaction, but go straight to what I think is the more important matter.

Will Mr. Manoling Morato not see anything wrong if the Philippine government gives vehicles to the Iglesia ni Cristo?  or to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?  What about Buddhists?  or Muslims? If yes,  why did they not give any to them?

Mr. Morato is blinded by his catholicism to think that giving to catholics is normal,  this is precisely the reason why our constitution gives Filipinos freedom of conscience, and restricts the government from favoring any one religion. Because if it doesn't catholics and catholicism will be favored among all others, and that can lead to tyranny, to the way the Philippines was ruled during the time of Rizal when every catholic priest was a law unto themselves,  which, judging from how some bishops got to acquiring their vehicle from the government, some still seem to think so.

One Day Old Chick

One Day Old Chick, Maria Victoria B. Choco

Bugok na Itlog, Jose Carlos B. Choco

Weclome to the world babies