TOPIC: WHY THINGS MATTER TO PEOPLE (A Look into Critical Sociology and the Implications of Social Science in the

Modern Times) Presentor: Fortuna, Shekinah Mae Objectives: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Give a brief look into the world of social science and its history, and its transition into critical sociology. Define the word critique when associated with sociology, and identify if it is solely negative in nature. Present the different conceptions and standpoints that are held in CSS (critical social science). Elucidate on how social science works as a whole in the pursuit of knowledge and explanation of society, and its evolution into critical social science. Conclude the presentation with giving an example of a case study to further support the ideas and concepts presented in the discussion of CSS and social science itself.

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION A short video on the emergence of critical theory from social science OR questioning of some students on their understanding of the world critique, with connection to previous discussion in relation to Bergers Invitation to Sociology and C. Wright Mills Sociological Imagination.

I.

II.

DISCUSSION CRITICAL SOCIAL SCIENCE (CSS) CSS as substantive social research rather than critical theory *Salient points in the discussion of CSS: a. CSS as a reduction of illusion b. Critical standpoints of freedom, discourse and ethics and c. CSS as identification of avoidable suffering and forms of well-being

Explanatory Critique Distinguish critique from mere criticism through 3 qualifications (critique vs. skepticism, CSS as being selfconsciously partisan, critique need not to be left-wing) Critique as De-Naturalization Critique = positivism Critical standpoints have to immanent in society

HOW DO WE DO SOCIAL SCIENCE? III. Discussion of interrelation and distinction of social science as a whole from critical social science (implications)

SYNTHESIS/CONCLUSION PRESENTATION OF CASE STUDY Fatal Imaginations: Death squads in Davao City and Medelln compared (case study attached in the email) Using critical social science to look into the rationale of death squads and extra judicial killings, and to explore how globalization takes part in the legitimization of such activity. EXAMPLE QUESTIONS:

1. 2.

Is the legitimization of death squads/ extra judicial killings essential to human flourishing and emancipation from ills of society such as drug addiction? (concept focusing CCS standpoint on freedom and critique on suffering and ill-being) How is suffering and constraint concealed in the concept of extra judicial killings?

SOCIO 313 READINGS IN SOCIOLOGY 1 COURSE CONTENT OUTLINE

Week/ Dates Week 1 June 10,14 Week 2 June 17, 19 Week 3 June 24-28 Topic /Activity Week 4 July 1 5 Week 5 July 8 12 Introduction and Orientation to the Course Goal Setting C. Wright Mills. The Sociological Imagination Chapter 1. The Promise. Peter Berger. Invitation to Sociology. Chapter 1. Sociology as an Individual Pastime Chapter 2. Sociology as a Form of Consciousness

Why Things Matter to People. Andrew Sayer Chapter 7. Critical Social Science and its Rationales (pgs. 216-245) Chapter 8. Implications for Social Science (pgs. 246-252) The Sane Society. Erich Fromm Chapter 1. Are We Sane? (pgs. 13-20)

Chapter 2. The Pathology of Normalcy (pgs. 21-28)

The Social Construction of Reality. Peter Berger Chapter Two. Society as Objective Reality (pgs. 63-146) Chapter Three. Society as Subjective Reality (pgs. 147-204)

Week 6 July 19 Week 7 July 22 26

PRELIM EXAMS

Monumental Ambivalence. Lisa Breglia Chapter 1. A New Approach to Heritage (pgs. 5-28)

Chapter 7. The Ambivalence of Inheritance (pgs. 207-212) Social Capital. John Field Chapter 4. Social Capital in a Changing World (pgs. 101-131) Chapter 5. Policy and Politics: Social Capital in the Real World (pgs. 132-155)

Week 8 July 29 Aug 2

Visualizing American Empire. David Brody Chapter 3: Disseminating Empire: Representing the Philippine Colony

(pgs. 59-88) Chapter 6: Building Empire: Architecture and Philippine Imperialism in the Philippines (pgs. 140-163)

31: Holiday (Feast of St. Ignatius) Week 9 Aug 5 9 Environmental Change and Forced Migration. James Morrissey

(pgs. 1-49)

8-10: Faculty Retreat Week 10 Aug 12 16 13-14: College Fiesta 15: Holiday (Assumption Day) The Social Body. Nick Crossley Chapter 6: Habitus, Capital and Field.

Embodiment in Bourdieus Theory of Practice (pgs. 91-119) Chapter 8: Reflexive Embodiment: Being, Having and Difference (pgs. 140-160)

Week 11 Aug 19 23

Sociology of Health and Illness. Kevin White Chapter 2: The Social Construction of Medical Knowledge (pgs. 14-31) Chapter 7: Foucault and the Sociology of Medical Knowledge (pgs. 117-129)

21: Holiday (Ninoy Aquino Day) Week 12 Aug 30 MIDTERM EXAM 27: Holiday (National Heroes Day)

Week 13 Sept 2 6

Between Facts and Norms. Jurgen Habermas Chapter 1: Law as a Category of Social Mediation Between Facts and Norms (pgs. 1-41) Chapter 2: The Sociology of Law Versus the Philosophy of Justice (pgs. 42-81)

Week 14 Sept 9 13

Social Frameworks of Knowledge Explorations in Interpretative Sociology. Georges Gurvitch Part One. Microsociology of Knowledge (pgs. 45-58) Part Two. Particular groups as social frameworks of knowledge (pgs. 59-88)

Encountering Development. Arturo Escobar Chapter 2: The Problematization of Poverty: The Tale of Three Worlds and Development (pgs. 21-54) Chapter 6: Imagining a Post-Development Era (pgs. 212-226)

Week 15 Sep 16 20

Made in the Philippines. James Tyner Chapter 2: The Discontinuities of Philippine Migration (pgs. 21-54) Chapter 3: The Making of Migrants (pgs. 55-84)

Week 16 Sept 23 27

Resisting Rebellion. Anthony James Joe Chapter 6: Establishing Civilian Security (pgs. 105-121) Chapter 17: Elements of a Counterinsurgent Strategy (pgs. 232-255)

Rethinking the Bangsamoro Crucible. Bobby Tuazon (ed.) Chapter 2: Multiple Colonialism in Moroloand (pgs. 28-37) Chapter 5: Ruminations on the Bangsamoro Struggle and Neoliberal Globalization (pgs. 66-78)

Week 17

Guns, Germs and Steel. Jared Diamond Chapter 4:Farmer Power: The roots of guns, germs, and steel (pgs. 85-92) Epilogue: The Future of Human History as a Science (pgs. 403-426)

Sept. 30-Oct. 4 Week 17 Oct 7 13

Third Wave. Alvin Toffler Chapter 27: The Political Mausoleum Chapter 28: Twenty-First Century Democracy

Our Posthuman Future. Francis Fukuyama Chapter 6: Why We Should Worry (pgs. 84-104) Chapter 12: Policies for the Future

(pgs. 203-218) Week 18 Oct 14-18 (Note: This scheduled outline is a general reference. There may be changes with the schedule due to unforeseen circumstances. There may also be additional inputs like films, and other materials and activities as the class progresses.) FINAL EXAM

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009

ANTERO J. POBRE, Complainant, vs. Sen. MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, Respondent. DECISION VELASCO, JR., J.: In his sworn letter/complaint dated December 22, 2006, with enclosures, Antero J. Pobre invites the Courts attention to the following excerpts of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiagos speech delivered on the Senate floor: x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x. To Pobre, the foregoing statements reflected a total disrespect on the part of the speaker towards then Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the other members of the Court and constituted direct contempt of court. Accordingly, Pobre asks that disbarment proceedings or other disciplinary actions be taken against the lady senator. In her comment on the complaint dated April 25, 2007, Senator Santiago, through counsel, does not deny making the aforequoted statements. She, however, explained that those statements were covered by the constitutional provision on parliamentary immunity, being part of a speech she delivered in the discharge of her duty as member of Congress or its committee. The purpose of her speech, according to her, was to bring out in the open controversial anomalies in governance with a view to future remedial legislation. She averred that she wanted to expose what she believed "to be an unjust act of the Judicial Bar Council [JBC]," which, after sending out public invitations for nomination to the soon to-be vacated position of Chief Justice, would eventually inform applicants that only incumbent justices of the Supreme Court would qualify for nomination. She felt that the JBC should have at least given an advanced advisory that non-sitting members of the Court, like her, would not be considered for the position of Chief Justice. The immunity Senator Santiago claims is rooted primarily on the provision of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides: "A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session.No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in

the Congress or in any committee thereof." Explaining the import of the underscored portion of the provision, the Court, in Osmea, Jr. v. Pendatun, said: Our Constitution enshrines parliamentary immunity which is a fundamental privilege cherished in every legislative assembly of the democratic world. As old as the English Parliament, its purpose "is to enable and encourage a representative of the public to discharge his public trust with firmness and success" for "it is indispensably necessary that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech and that he should be protected from resentment of every one, however, powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offense."1 As American jurisprudence puts it, this legislative privilege is founded upon long experience and arises as a means of perpetuating inviolate the functioning process of the legislative department. Without parliamentary immunity, parliament, or its equivalent, would degenerate into a polite and ineffective debating forum. Legislators are immune from deterrents to the uninhibited discharge of their legislative duties, not for their private indulgence, but for the public good. The privilege would be of little value if they could be subjected to the cost and inconvenience and distractions of a trial upon a conclusion of the pleader, or to the hazard of a judgment against them based upon a judges speculation as to the motives.2 This Court is aware of the need and has in fact been in the forefront in upholding the institution of parliamentary immunity and promotion of free speech. Neither has the Court lost sight of the importance of the legislative and oversight functions of the Congress that enable this representative body to look diligently into every affair of government, investigate and denounce anomalies, and talk about how the country and its citizens are being served. Courts do not interfere with the legislature or its members in the manner they perform their functions in the legislative floor or in committee rooms. Any claim of an unworthy purpose or of the falsity and mala fides of the statement uttered by the member of the Congress does not destroy the privilege.3 The disciplinary authority of the assembly4 and the voters, not the courts, can properly discourage or correct such abuses committed in the name of parliamentary immunity.5 For the above reasons, the plea of Senator Santiago for the dismissal of the complaint for disbarment or disciplinary action is well taken. Indeed, her privilege speech is not actionable criminally or in a disciplinary proceeding under the Rules of Court. It is felt, however, that this could not be the last word on the matter. The Court wishes to express its deep concern about the language Senator Santiago, a member of the Bar, used in her speech and its effect on the administration of justice. To the Court, the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in question were intemperate and highly improper in substance. To reiterate, she was quoted as stating that she wanted "to spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court," and calling the Court a "Supreme Court of idiots." The lady senator alluded to In Re: Vicente Sotto.6 We draw her attention to the ensuing passage in Sotto that she should have taken to heart in the first place: x x x [I]f the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of this Court and believe that they cannot expect justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos would be the result.1avvphi1 No lawyer who has taken an oath to maintain the respect due to the courts should be allowed to erode the peoples faith in th e judiciary. In this case, the lady senator clearly violated Canon 8, Rule 8.01 and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which respectively provide: Canon 8, Rule 8.01.A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper. Canon 11.A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others. Senator/Atty. Santiago is a cut higher than most lawyers. Her achievements speak for themselves. She was a former Regional Trial Court judge, a law professor, an oft-cited authority on constitutional and international law, an author of numerous law textbooks, and an elected senator of the land. Needless to stress, Senator Santiago, as a member of the Bar and officer of the court, like any other, is duty-bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court and to maintain the respect due its members. Lawyers in public service are keepers of public faith and are burdened with the higher degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than their brethren in private practice.7Senator Santiago should have known, as any perceptive individual, the impact her statements would make on the peoples faith in the integrity of the courts. As Senator Santiago alleged, she delivered her privilege speech as a prelude to crafting remedial legislation on the JBC. This allegation strikes the Court as an afterthought in light of the insulting tenor of what she said. We quote the passage once more: x x x I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. Iam nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio

Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots x x x. (Emphasis ours.) A careful re-reading of her utterances would readily show that her statements were expressions of personal anger and frustration at not being considered for the post of Chief Justice. In a sense, therefore, her remarks were outside the pale of her official parliamentary functions. Even parliamentary immunity must not be allowed to be used as a vehicle to ridicule, demean, and destroy the reputation of the Court and its magistrates, nor as armor for personal wrath and disgust. Authorities are agreed that parliamentary immunity is not an individual privilege accorded the individual members of the Parliament or Congress for their personal benefit, but rather a privilege for the benefit of the people and the institution that represents them. To be sure, Senator Santiago could have given vent to her anger without indulging in insulting rhetoric and offensive personalities. Lest it be overlooked, Senator Santiagos outburst was directly traceable to what she considered as an "unjust act" the JBC had taken in connection with her application for the position of Chief Justice. But while the JBC functions under the Courts supervision, its individual members, save perhaps for the Chief Justice who sits as the JBCs ex-officio chairperson,8 have no official duty to nominate candidates for appointment to the position of Chief Justice. The Court is, thus, at a loss to understand Senator Santiagos wholesale and indiscriminate assault on the members of the Court and her choice of critical and defamatory words against all of them. At any event, equally important as the speech and debate clause of Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution is Sec. 5(5) of Art. VIII of the Constitution that provides: Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of the law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. (Emphasis ours.) The Court, besides being authorized to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, exercises specific authority to promulgate rules governing the Integrated Bar with the end in view that the integration of the Bar will, among other things: (4) Shield the judiciary, which traditionally cannot defend itself except within its own forum, from the assaults that politics and self interest may level at it, and assist it to maintain its integrity, impartiality and independence; xxxx (11) Enforce rigid ethical standards x x x.9 In Re: Letter Dated 21 February 2005 of Atty. Noel S. Sorreda,10 we reiterated our pronouncement in Rheem of the Philippines v. Ferrer11 that the duty of attorneys to the courts can only be maintained by rendering no service involving any disrespect to the judicial office which they are bound to uphold. The Court wrote in Rheem of the Philippines: x x x As explicit is the first canon of legal ethics which pronounces that "[i]t is the duty of a lawyer to maintain towards the Courts a respectful attitude, not for the sake of the temporary incumbent of the judicial office, but for the maintenance of its supreme importance." That same canon, as a corollary, makes it peculiarly incumbent upon lawyers to support the courts against "unjust criticism and clamor." And more. The attorneys oath solemnly binds him to a conduct that should be "with all good fidelity x x x to the courts." Also, in Sorreda, the Court revisited its holding in Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel12 that: A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice." His duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to which he owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the administration of justice." Faith in the courts, a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to undermine the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the continuity of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the people." Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "[a]s an officer of the court, it is his sworn and moral duty to help build and not destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards the courts so essential to the proper administration of justice."13 The lady senator belongs to the legal profession bound by the exacting injunction of a strict Code. Society has entrusted that profession with the administration of the law and dispensation of justice. Generally speaking, a lawyer holding a government office may not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for misconduct committed while in the discharge of official duties, unless said misconduct also constitutes a violation of his/her oath as a lawyer.14

Lawyers may be disciplined even for any conduct committed in their private capacity, as long as their misconduct reflects their want of probity or good demeanor,15 a good character being an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for continuance of such privilege. When the Code of Professional Responsibility or the Rules of Court speaks of "conduct" or "misconduct," the reference is not confined to ones behavior exhibited in connection with the performance of lawyers professional duties, but also covers any misconduct, whichalbeit unrelated to the actual practice of their professionwould show them to be unfit for the office and unworthy of the privileges which their license and the law invest in them.16 This Court, in its unceasing quest to promote the peoples faith in courts and trust in the rule of law, has consistently exe rcised its disciplinary authority on lawyers who, for malevolent purpose or personal malice, attempt to obstruct the orderly administration of justice, trifle with the integrity of courts, and embarrass or, worse, malign the men and women who compose them. We have done it in the case of former Senator Vicente Sotto in Sotto, in the case of Atty. Noel Sorreda in Sorreda, and in the case of Atty. Francisco B. Cruz in Tacordan v. Ang17 who repeatedly insulted and threatened the Court in a most insolent manner. The Court is not hesitant to impose some form of disciplinary sanctions on Senator/Atty. Santiago for what otherwise would have constituted an act of utter disrespect on her part towards the Court and its members. The factual and legal circumstances of this case, however, deter the Court from doing so, even without any sign of remorse from her. Basic constitutional consideration dictates this kind of disposition. We, however, would be remiss in our duty if we let the Senators offensive and disrespectful language that definitely tended to denigrate the institution pass by. It is imperative on our part to re-instill in Senator/Atty. Santiago her duty to respect courts of justice, especially this Tribunal, and remind her anew that the parliamentary non-accountability thus granted to members of Congress is not to protect them against prosecutions for their own benefit, but to enable them, as the peoples representatives, to perform the functions of their office without fear of being made responsible before the courts or other forums outside the congressional hall.18 It is intended to protect members of Congress against government pressure and intimidation aimed at influencing the decision-making prerogatives of Congress and its members. The Rules of the Senate itself contains a provision on Unparliamentary Acts and Language that enjoins a Senator from using, under any circumstance, "offensive or improper language against another Senator or against any public institution."19 But as to Senator Santiagos unparliamentary remarks, the Senate President had not apparently called her to order, let alone referred the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for appropriate disciplinary action, as the Rules dictates under such circumstance.20 The lady senator clearly violated the rules of her own chamber. It is unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on her. Finally, the lady senator questions Pobres motives in filing his complaint, stating that disciplinary proceedings must be undertaken solely for the public welfare. We cannot agree with her more. We cannot overstress that the senators use of intemperate language to dem ean and denigrate the highest court of the land is a clear violation of the duty of respect lawyers owe to the courts.21 Finally, the Senator asserts that complainant Pobre has failed to prove that she in fact made the statements in question. Suffice it to say in this regard that, although she has not categorically denied making such statements, she has unequivocally said making them as part of her privilege speech. Her implied admission is good enough for the Court. WHEREFORE, the letter-complaint of Antero J. Pobre against Senator/Atty. Miriam Defensor-Santiago is, conformably to Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution, DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Antero J. Pobre vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago Antero J. Pobre vs. Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, A.C. No. 7399 August 25, 2009

i.e., Miriam Baliw vs. Supreme Court of Idiots

Are you in favour of RH BILL

Facts: Sa kanyang privilege speech sa Senado, sinabi ni Senador Miriam Defensor-Santiago ang: I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded. And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots. Iniinvoke naman ng aking paboritong senador ang kanyang constitutional rights bilang isang miyembro ng Kongreso (parliamentary immunity). May mga nakatala (tulad ni Pobre) na ang pahayag na ito ng senadorang may kaunting tililing ay bunga ng hindi pag-a-appoint sa kanya bilang Chief Justice. Issue: Kung si Miriam Baliw ba ay administratively liable dahil sa pahayag niyang ito, at kung abuso ba ito ng kanyang mga karapatan bilang isang senador. Held: Baliw si Miriam at talagang baliw siya; bitter na bitter rin siya nang hindi siya naging Chief Justice. Lol. Eto seryoso na. Isinaad ng Korte Suprema na ang Senadora ay indeed, may constitutional rights na makikita sa Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution, which provides: A Senator or Member of the House of Representative shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session. No member shall be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof. Ika ng Korte Suprema, isa ang free speech sa mga pundasyon ng demokrasya.

Ngunit kahit may parliamentary rights siya na naka-mandate sa Konstitusyon, pinagalitan pa rin ng Korte Suprema ang senadora. The Court wishes to express its deep concern about the language Senator Santiago, a member of the Bar, used in her speech and its effect on the administration of justice. To the Court, the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional conduct. It is at once apparent that her statements in question were intemperate and highly improper in substance. Ayon na rin sa Korte Suprema, nasa Senado na ang opisyal na hatol kay Miriam Baliw, dahil Rules of the House ang kanyang nilabag. Huling hirit ng Korte Suprema: It is unfortunate that her peers bent backwards and avoided imposing their own rules on her. i.e., #$%^&*&^%$#$%^&* dahil sa separation of powers, wala tayong magawa noong ininsulto tayo ng luka-lokang iyon dahil hindi natin siya saklaw. Nakanino ang huling halakhak? "I lied." *hysterical laughter* Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago is leaving this weekend for The Hague, Netherlands to kick-start her campaign as the countrys official nominee to the International Criminal Court as one of its judges. Santiago is also the author and co-sponsor of the Reproductive Health bill in the Senate. She and Sen. Pia Cayetano have teamed up to defend the bill in the Senate plenary. A survey conducted last June found that:

o o o

82% of Filipinos say the choice of a family planning method is a personal choice of couples and no one should interfere with it 73% of the respondents agree that if a couple wants to plan its family, it should be able to get information from government on all legal methods; and 68% agree that the government should fund all means of family planning, be it natural or artificial means Although these numbers are overwhelmingly in favor of the controversial law, Miriam is asking her fans, supporters, and also her critics of their position on the RH Bill: should or shouldnt it pass into law? Are you in favor of the RH Bill? Enter your vote in the simple survey form in the right sidebar and leave your comments in this post.

UPDATE: For those still looking for a copy of the bill, here is Senate Bill No. 2865 (per Committe Report No. 49) from the website of the Philippine Senate. (Visited 6,108 times, 5 visits today)

1.

COMMENTS129 Comments CATEGORIESLegislation, News AUTHORAdmin Vincent on September 28, 2011 at 2:38 AM said: Lets face the facts. Sexuality is a deeply MORAL issue. One cannot ignore the significance of conscience in this area. As we perhaps have learned by now, the Catholic Church affirms the intrinsic immorality of the use of contraceptives, where the spouses attempt to engage in the marital act but at the same time, in a manner that is objectively closed to the possibility of life albeit being its natural consequence. Such mentality is essentially anti-life, rejecting and preventing a life that should have been conceived by the marital act. Further, some contraceptives have been also scientifically proven to prevent an ALREADY FERTILIZED EGG from implanting to the uterus, killing a human life that has ALREADY BEGUN. Contraception is also anti-family and anti-marriage, as it favors and promotes immoral sexual relationships (eg. pre-marital/extra marital) that would otherwise be discouraged by pregnancy. It fosters a selfish practice of sexuality merely founded on the pursuit of pleasure, without the openness to the responsibility of parenthood, self-donation, and discipline. Its destructive effects to the family have been affirmed by studies confirming the correlation of increasing contraceptive use and escalation of divorce rates. These reasons are not sectarian or exclusively Catholic. They are accessible to common reason and should bother the consciences of Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Therefore, I STRONGLY OPPOSE the provisions of the RH Bill that are WITHOUT RESPECT the consciences of Filipino citizens who are convinced of the immorality of contraception, namely: that of forcing health workers or government officials to assist in promoting, instructing, or distributing contraceptives under fine and imprisonment; AND the use of public funds to sponsor contraceptive use. These disrespect the consciences of taxpayers who are forced to become accomplices to practices they hold to be immoral and harmful to the married life. They put health workers and government officials in a hard situation where one is given the choice to assist in immorality or be penalized. Contraception is NOT A RIGHT, for a person can never claim to deserve access to an immoral and harmful option. But the freedom to act according to ones conscience this is a universally accepted right and must be upheld to the fullest degree possible. I hope our senators would be enlightened to reject a bill that is oppressive to the consciences of Filipino citizens and essentially destructive to the Filipino family.

2.

Vincent on September 28, 2011 at 2:47 AM said: Further, as the survey in this article affirms: 82% of Filipinos say the choice of a family planning method is a personal choice of couples and no one should interfere with it Thus, the government should not interfere with this deeply moral issue. It should not force taxpayers to sponsor contraception nor force its citizens to assist in its practice by the strength of law. Being a PERSONAL CHOICE, let the couples seek the information on contraceptives by themselves and purchase them themselves. Let those who believe in contraceptives promote them, disseminate information on them, or sponsor them by themselves. Why force conscientious objectors to become accomplices to its practice through this oppressive law?

3.

Abraham Daniel C. Cruz, MD on September 28, 2011 at 5:45 AM said:

NO TO THE RH BILL!!! here are some questions that id like to ask our pro-RH lawmakers: 1. why are they so afraid of legislating defining that life begins at fertilization and that the fertilized ovum/zygote/embryo is a human being? 2. if contraceptives work only in preventing the union of the sperm and the egg, shouldnt defining that life begins at fertilizati on be constitutionally sound? 3. are they afraid that if we legislate that life begins at fertilization, drugs and devices such as hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine devices which have post-fertilization effects will be considered as having abortifacient effects and will therefore be deemed illegal?

4.

margaux on September 28, 2011 at 7:17 AM said: I am in favor of the RH Bill. Even Father Bernas of Ateneo Law agrees that in using contraceptive pill no abortion is committed. Reproductive health information and education is long over due to be accessible to Filipino women to better prepare for the future of their family.

5.

Hannah on September 28, 2011 at 2:42 PM said: Pabor ako sa RH bill. Kawawa ang mga batang naipapanganak pero wala namang makain at hindi mabigyan ng basic needs. Kawawa ang mga magulang na halos magpakamatay na mapakain lang ang limang (o higit pa) anak. The family is the basic unit of society. Kaya kapag malusog at maayos ang isang pamilya, maaari ito maging daan sa magandang pundasyon ng lipunan.

6.

Elvira L. Balabag Kim on September 29, 2011 at 8:53 AM said: I am definitely in favor of the RH/RP bill. I came from a family of ten, my parents and my 7 siblings. The number of family members really is a factor in the division of everything the family have. And during times of scarce resources, sacrifices and edgy adjustments happen which can be overwhelming especially if the parents are not responsible. It is always a case in every society that if its head is not sufficient in its duty to provide for the state, the consequences leads to a really huge problem. The birth of dissatisfaction and loss of freedom to live to ones ideals or goals due to pressed stretching of resources. The bill guarantees a chance for every Filipino family to act in accordance to their will to do something for themselves and the nations future. Religious beliefs should not be an excuse to deny progress and reality. How can a woman put into priority the joy of motherhood over that of a happy child? Isnt educating herself about her body and health a better way? Also, if a woman believes that it is a sin to re-educate and empower ones self then why would she even conceive a child that will be deprived of survival needs? She is just being plain selfish, and that is certainly un-christian.I have read the debates held about the bill in our country and have seen and heard about pros and cons done on national TV. The issues on poverty, morality and motherhood as directly related to the bill if ever approved. I must say that the moral aspect is between a child and that childs parents, values starts from the home. It depends largely on the parents while the baby grows up. Nurturing a child/a life cannot simply rely on Gods will, the parents should be responsible. Parents who will bloat their familys population without regard on how to provide and live for and with them cannot simply say its better to have many child, I dont want to plane cause its a sin to God and I dont want to sin cause Ill go to hellok! their childrens lives will be a living hell while the parents can go about day dreaming abour their promised heaven for not planning. So selfish!, so un-christian! Doing something out of fear over doing things for love are entirely different. Filipinos should face the responsibility, its time! Go madame senator, support the bill and have it passed!

7.

Rose Q. Swan on September 29, 2011 at 9:15 AM said:

Yes, I am very much in favour of RH Bill. However, I would like to hear Senator Revilla join the debate in Tagalog. And why not if that is the language he is comfortable with. I must admit that whilst I am a University graduate, I find that when it comes to polictical debates, I am sad to say that I miss out on a lot of points. 8. marianne on September 29, 2011 at 10:26 AM said: i am pro RH Bill.simply lang po ang dahilan ko.hindi lang po ang mga taong nandirito sa mundo ngayon ang may karapatang mabuhay ng maayos.pati na rin po ang mga susunod pang henerasyon.kung patuloy nating aabusuhin ang karapatan nating magparami hindi lang ang mga sarili natin ang pinapahamak natin kung d pati na rin ang ibang mga buhay.anong mas pipiliin nila,abortion?o ang mas mabuting pamamaraan na walang nilalabag na ano mang batas.sabi nga po ng panginoon,ano mang labis ay masama kaya hindi natin dapat abusuhin ang sagradong karapatan na ibinigay sa tin ng diyos.isa pa ang pamilyang may mas maraming anak ay siya ring mas nahihirapan sa buhay. 9. marianne on September 29, 2011 at 10:52 AM said: i am super pro sa RH Bill.Hindi nman kase ang simbahan ang nagpapakain at tumutulong sa mga mahihihirap.eh hindi nga sila kinakaltasan ng tax eh.try kaya nilang masisi sa tumataas na bilang ng mga mahihirap.people always blame the government for it.nasa tao na yun kung paano sila magisip.its just that the church is too impulsive on their idea.i may not be able to call my self as a good catholic but perfectly im a good christian.i believe in God but im not a fanatic of the church. 10. no need to mention on September 30, 2011 at 7:02 AM said: Ang RH BILL ay mabibigay daan na sa kahit na sinong di kasal o di ninanais ng ka-partner niya makipagtalik! Ang RH BILL ay sumasaklob sa legal abortion! ANg RH BILL ay nagbibigay ng kapangyarihan para macontrol ang kagandahang nilikha ng Diyos Mas nag mamarunong na kayo sa Diyos.. Purkit may point kayong lahat na possible tong makatulong.. Pero hindi 100% itong Mabuti para sating lahat.. At hindi man lang to makakatulong kahit kalahati ng kahirapan para matugunan.. Imbes na PAGKAIN ang ipalakad.. Kung anu-anung LOBO na pag pumutok ay wala din! HINDI YAN MAKAKAIN NG KABATAAN..!! ANONG KLASENG TAO BA KAYO? KAMPON BA KAYO NG KADILIMAN? nawalang gusto gawin o paningigan kung saan mas nakakagaan na walang kahirap-hirap?? Bakit napunta ba sa kahirapan ang Pilipino ..Di ba sa Ka-Corruption ng ibang namahala ng Kaban ng Bayan! Dahil sainyo pati ang Batas ng Diyos tatapatan ng Batas na di hamak na katulad nating nilikha lang ng Maykapal. 11. unknown on September 30, 2011 at 7:08 AM said: sus.. dapat hindi yan ipasa. bakit kami ng bf ko? ilang besis na may nangyari samin bakit marunong kami ng natural methods? Kahangalan yan.. Dapat ang patupadin lang ang SEX EDUCATION hindi kung anu-anung Bill! Ang Education na yan ay para sa bobong malilibog.. na dapat malaman nila ang RESPONSIBILITY ng gagawen nila Tayo mga tax-payers! Dyan lang mapupunta sa CONTRACEPTIVES.. Okay sana kung sa pag-kain at pagpapa-unlad ng mahihirap. magisip nga kayo. 12. wolfy on October 2, 2011 at 9:42 AM said: wag naman tayong mag pakakitid ng utak.. RH Bill is an option and tulong for us Filipinos to control our population.. ang simbahan numero unong tutol sa RH bill dahil hindi maka Dyos ang pamamaraan, education itself cannot save this country for having millions and millions of populations na hindi naman kayang buhayin.. we need assistance from the government to reach out and mag educate talaga with follow up.. 13. Froi on October 3, 2011 at 5:17 PM said: In one of the comments I have read, one said that the government should not interfere with this moral issue and should not force the citizens to fund it. I contend that poverty have forced our government to fund a lot of projects for the poor from taxes mostly paid by (

responsible citizens able to pay taxes. Taxpayers dont get free housing while most of the poor benefit from it through free healthcare, education, housing, etc. Our country could have been better off than Thailand if we have utilized our resources to a lesser population. It is simply like the law of supply and demand when we have more demand than supply then we get a shortage from the shortage comes increase in taxes and/or increase in foreign debt for our government to cope with the needs of its people. 14. rex villanueva on October 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM said: Bakit po pag may debate sa family planning palagi pumapasok ang phrase sa bible go and multiply??? e kung go and multiply bakit sinasabing immoral ang human cloning di ba multiplication naman yun exponential nga ung pagdami noon e. how do we define morality hmm by the book ba na few lng ang nakakaintindi or by faith to god who gave you the freedom of choice or by the laws of men or the laws of the church na sometimes selfish about information to its very core.. and i am catholic and i think this religion is great but the one who governs it is not same as the goverment but the goverment gave information not like the church some times gives personal opinion and why the church practice the phrase go and multiply?? and why dont act on child abuse and rape incident done by its member the let them free hmmmmm 15. butterfly on October 4, 2011 at 3:07 PM said: favor po ako sa rh bill.. napanood ko po ang ilan sa mga nakaraang debate tungkol sa rh bill at nabasa ko rin po ang mga nilalaman nito.. matibay rin po ang paniniwala ko sa relihiyon pero po ang rh bill ay hindi naman po matuturing na isang abotion katulad po ng laging sinasabi ng ilang anti-rh bill.. at ang rh bill po ay hndi lng sagot sa lumolobong populasyon kundi ito po ay tumutulong din upang pangalagaan ang kalusugan ng mga ina eto po ang isang patunay ayon po sa akin ding nabasa sa http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html 16. joanne on October 6, 2011 at 2:44 AM said: i believe that armed with the correct information people will understand what the rh bill is all about. if we target the people esp. those in the lower income strata they will appreciate what is in it for them.for our people to have a better future and for our country, we have to explain to them, educate them in the language that they would understand and appreciate. go sen. miriam please let them see the light! 17. ron on October 7, 2011 at 2:04 PM said: Sana lang mapansin nyo to, Maraming favor sa RH bill at isa na ako dun at sana maipasa ang batas nayan at huwag makialam pa ang simbahan este hindi mismo simbahan yung mamumuno pala sa simbahan opinion agad nila sa dami daming pedeng asikasuhin lagi nalang sila ang kontra ano yan KSP, kung yung pinagmulan nga na bansa ng religios na yan meron ng batas na ganyan satin pa kaya, Hindi na lang lotto yung asikasuhin nila.. bakit dun wala silang reklamo eh isang klase ng sugal yun bakit? kasi nakikinabang sila tama 18. Spide on October 8, 2011 at 10:29 AM said: Just my opinion: Di ako pabor sa pag-pasa ng batas na ito. Pero di ibig sabihin na talagang Anti-RH Bill ako. Ang RH Bill may maraming magandang mga mgandang programa, at panukala. Pero, meron din iilan dito ang di maganda. Aminado ako na mas marami ang maganda, at matutulungan, pero meron ding di magandang maidudulot. Di lang dapat basta ipasa ang isang bill, para sa akin, upang i-serve ang magagandang maidudulot nito, tapos may mga masamang epekto din ito. Kung sa mga mag-asawa, sa tingin ko walang masama kung gagmit sila nila. Choice nila yun. Tama ang mga nagsusulong na tulungan sila ng gobyerno. Pero isang masamang epekto nito ay yung mga kabataan. Although may sex education tayo na malalaman sa RH Bill, may mga possibleng masamang epekto ito sa mga kabataan. Laganap na ang premarital sex, o fornication ba yun, tingin ko mas lalaganap pa ito. Isa lang ito sa possible masamang epekto. Eto simpleng tanong, pag naituro sa mga kabataan ang Sex Education, kahit isang porsyento ba, di lalong maiisip ng mga kabataan na may condom naman pala eh, 15 anyos lang tayo, pwede na, di naman tayo mabubuntis? Kahit di ituro ang Condom, etc sa mga kabataan, IMPOSIBLENG di nila malaman yun. Although, sa tingin ko din, ituturo ang values education sa Sex Education, mahirap padin. Ang nakikita ko kasi ngayon, parang nagiging excuse ng mga magulang yung wala silang oras, etc, para di nila mapag-usapan ng mga anak nila yun. Na dapat sa school pa manggaling ang pagtuturo nga Sex Education. Diba dapat sa atin yun mga magulang?

I seek revisions, para kung kahit papaano ma-eliminate natin yung mga masamang epekto nito sa lipunan, lalo na sa kabataan. YES baba o di gnun tataas ang Population natin, Mas maganda ang Health Care sa mga Ina, pero kung maaapektuhan ay yung moralidad ng mga kabataa natin (hindi yung moralidad ng mga mag-asawa sa contraceptives), ibang usapan na yan. Im somewhat in the middle. Pero kung kailangan kong bumoto, Ill vote for Anti-RH Bill. Di ko ipapapasa ang batas na may masama ding epekto. 19. Mark Lester Baterna on October 10, 2011 at 7:45 AM said: yeah !!! simply yeah ! 20. ivan on October 18, 2011 at 8:58 AM said: kakatawa nman ang comment ng iba rito.halatang di binasa ang articles RH billsaklaw din po ng RH Bill ang Sex Education,in fact sa RH bill binibigyan pa nito ng diin..hay naku 21. Jefferson Sto. Tomas on November 1, 2011 at 7:36 PM said: I am in favor of the Reproductive Health Bill. With the current up-rise of population that is no more relative to the resources of the Philippines, proper management is not sufficient to solve the problem. I believe that compulsion of the RH Bill to the masses will regulate the proportionality between Filipinos and resources. It will not stop life nor regulate the same, it will only provide for choices that shall be enjoyed by a family beneficial them. It will help them opt for the structure of the family in congruence to their capacity. The RH bill will be the best instrument to shape the society. 22. pinoy pinoy on November 6, 2011 at 9:29 PM said: para kay no need to mention alam mo pre mahirap na ang bansang pilipinas practical lang dapat.. eto na ang daan para ma solusyonan ang kahirapan ng bansa, nasa tao naman yun.. ikaw ang mag dedisisyon para sa sarili mo RH BILL ay mabibigay daan na sa kahit na sinong di kasal o di ninanais ng ka -partner niya makipagtalik bakit ano ba ang nangyayari ngayon? mapipigilan mo ba? diba ganon rin nasa tao naman yun kung papayag siya or hindi na makipag sex,, kailangan lang din ay faith in GOD kung ano ginagawa mo at alam mo ang tama at mali, saka kailangan na talagang bawasan ang populasyon ng pilipinas, kung mababawasan mabibigyan ng tamang sapat na edukasyon ang mga bata.. dapat kay no need to mention mabigyan ng aral ni Sen. Merriam 23. Mang mang on November 10, 2011 at 11:36 AM said: isa po ako sa mga mang mang na hindi nagbabasa sa provision ng rh bill. isa rin po ako sa hindi nakaintindi sa pangkalahatang mensahe ng rh billl dahil hindo ako nagbabasa. isa po ako sa mga nagreact sa rh bill kahit hindi ko binabasa ito. At dahil nagawa ko ang isa sa mga ito, ako ay hangal at mangmang. kailangan kong magbasa ng rh bill at manood ng mga debate sa youtube. Mabuhay ang mga hangal at mang mang! 24. Kai on November 11, 2011 at 11:09 AM said: Hi! Kung sinasabi niyo na hindi malaking problema ang lumulobong populasyon ng Pilipinas, edi kayo magpakain sa kanila. Di naman pala problema sa inyo diba? Ang kapal ng mukha niyong sabihin yan ha. Sabihin niyo lang yan kapag kaya niyo nang pakainin ang buong bansa. Nagmamayabang kayo dyan, kitid naman ng utak niyo. Magsama kayo ng religion forever. Hindi lahat ng turo ng religion niyo, totoo. Please lang, be open-minded bitchezzzzzz. Saka karamihan naman sa inyo, dont practice what you preach eh. Wag makitid ang utak ppl. Nagmumukha kayong hypocrite. /KairitaForever #AngHypocriteLangNgIbangTao #ThisIsWhyIHateFilipinosSometimes #PleaseHelpThoseWhoAreAgainstRHBill Padagdag pala. Saka kung pro-life stand niyo, wag tanga ha. Kasi ang RH Bill, sinusuportahan lang ang pagkakaroon ng sapat na healthcare at kalinga ng mga babae. Tignan mo mga babae sa Pinas. Marami sa kanila, payat at mahina. DAHIL SA ANAK NG ANAK, DI NAMAN MAPAKAIN. BOBO NIYO PALA EH. PINAPLANO ANG PAMILYA, KUNG WALA KA RIN NAMANG TRABAHO EH WAG MAKAPAL MUKHA NA MAG-ANAK NG MARAMI HA KASI DAGDAG LANG SA TAO SAKA PAHIRAP PA. KAIRITA KAYONG LAHAT NG HYPOCRITE AT TANGA SA PILIPINAS PLEASE BE OPEN-MINDED PPL. PRO-LIFE KA DYAN, BAKIT ANTI-RH BILL KA KUNG PRO-LIFE KA? TANGA O BOBO? EW EW EW MGA TAONG KATULAD NIYONG TANGA, BOBO, CLOSED-MINDED AT HYPOCRITE EW

XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO WITH LOVE. 25. Kai on November 11, 2011 at 11:20 AM said: okay pa-comment ulit. This is for the Church. Okay. Ang kapal ng mukha ng church na sabihin na immoral daw ang RH Bill. Wow ha. Ang ingay niyo pag RH Bill, eh pag mga scandals ninyo, tahimik bigla? Maraming PEDOPHILE NA PRIESTS NGAYON, K ARAMIHAN BASTOS PA. WALANG MODO. PARI BA SILANG MAITUTURING? ANG KAPAL NG MUKHA NIYONG SABIHING NAPAKA-IMORAL NG RH BILL PERO KAYO MISMO DYAN SA SIMBAHAN, IMORAL DIN. PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH HA. PAG NA-EDUCATE ANG BUONG BANSA, MAWAWALAN KAYO NG DEVOTEES. DI NA NGA KAYO BINUBUWISAN DYAN EH. DAPAT I-TAX ANG PROPERTIES NG CHURCH. MAYAMAN KAYO TAPOS DI NIYO MAITULONG SA MAHIHIRAP? CHRISTIAN VALUES DAW HA. SAKA NASAAN NA YUNG SINASABI NILANG CHURCH OF THE POOR? NAGING CHURCH OF THE RICH AND POWERFUL NA BA? NAGING MATERIALISTIC NA RIN KAYO KAYA WAG NIYONG SABIHIN NA KAMPI KAYO SA MAHIRAP. HYPOCRITE CHURCH. HYPOCRITE HYPOCRITE KAYO CHRISTIAN AKO PERO ALAM KO ANG PINAGLALABAN KO. HATE THE CHURCH. HYPOCRITES. TAHANAN NA NG HYPOCRITES, PEDOPHILES, AT MGA BASTOS AT WALANG MODO ANG SIMBAHAN. WOOOO YES! KAPAL NG MUKHA FOREVER NG CHURCH XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXO 26. iamSECRET on December 13, 2011 at 4:09 PM said: LET US WAKE UP OUR MIND PEOPLE!!!!! LET US HELP OUR KABABAYAN AND COUNTRY MAKAANGATSOS! RH BILL WILL BE A GREAT CONTRIBUTION OR GREAT HELP FOR US PARA NAMAN UMASENSO TAYO! DONT WORRY. WALA NAMANG MANGYAYARING ABORTION DITO WHICH IS BAWAL KAY GOD. BASAHIN NIYO AT UNAWAIN KASI MAIGI UNG NILALAMAN NG BILL N ITOHAY! JUICE KO PO. 27. johnson on January 20, 2012 at 12:12 PM said: Approve RH Bill NOW although The Roman Catholic is so divided by this issue. Alalahanin niyo simbahang katoliko ang humabol kay Copernicus, sabi lang naman ng pobre eh that there is sun, it occupies the center place and all the planets revolve around it. He almost suffered all his life for this scientific declaration. Ngayon ipinanganak si Galileo isa rin, sinabi niya may araw at lahat umiikot dito. Pero ipinakulong siya ng katoliko, inassasinate natorture pa. ibig lang sabihin nagkakamlali rin tayo. Huwag naman nating isipin na tama ang lahat ng pinagsasabi nati. Bakit kaya ba ng katoliko iresolba ang moral issues like war and peace, poverty or corruption? Hay diyos Ko.. 28. I am no one on February 1, 2012 at 1:09 AM said: Its a coincidence na padpad ako sa blog na to .. naghahanp ako ng thesis related sa sex .. I read all the comments im a minor but Iam a citizen .. tingnan nyo po ang both parties ang simbahan at ang gobyerno .. dahil hati ang pilipinas sa kapangyarihan una po nating bigyang pansin kung sino ang gumagawa ng aksyon sa naghihirap nting kababayan sino ang apektado sa kahirapan? ako ay anak ng pastor kaya walang duda sa stand ko about god.. ang problema po kasi dito ay nagaganap na po ang mga ito hindi na po ito prevention ito na po ang solusyon oo at may part medyo related sa abortion at sex ito ang malaking point dito ay hindi ito pwersahan sa desisyon ng tao kung gagamit sila o mag papalaglag sila in the sense na ung desisyon pa lang kasalanan na.. medyo magulo nga po ang usaping rh bill but then himayhimayin nten ung positive sides wag lang puro mali .. 29. Jhay Tee on July 10, 2012 at 5:49 AM said: Yes to RH Bill. If only these people are fully educated on what the RH Bill stands for, theyre not going to be close-minded about it. First and foremost, Choices shouldnt be forced by Catholics or any religion..We have free will 2. If your beliefs are DEEPLY ROOTED on your beings then youre not going to be threatened by this.. isnt it the same for Religions who opposes it? 3. If contraceptives are used way hand, Sperm and Egg wont meet.. therefore, theres no conception..so dont be such a pushover saying it prevents the birth of a child.-NO CONCEPTION. 4. What is abortion? RH Bill does not legalize it.. so chill out. 5. Youre not putting your shoes on our fellow countrymen who cannot afford contraception.. child birth..moreover RAISING a/ANOTHER child. 6. RH BILL is a choice which is FREE. You may not liked it..but people NEEDS it.

You are browsing entries tagged with Davao Death Squad Kris-Crossing Mindanao So be it By Isagani Zarate So be it. A visibly irked but defiant Davao City Vice Mayor Rodrigo Duterte retorted during his Sunday television program Gikan sa Masa, Para sa Masa yesterday, when he was again asked about his alleged link to the vigilante -style killings of petty criminals in the city. This time, though, the question was raised in connection [...] Posted: September 12th, 2011 in Columnists,Columns,Inquirer Opinion | Read More Editorial Dirty finger The original sin could still be understood and even forgiven: Davao City Mayor Inday Sara Dutertes act of punching Sheriff Abe Andres for refusing to postpone a scheduled demolition was excessive but also comprehensible. She was venting her frustration. The sins of the Duterte family since the incident, however, cannot be understood except as the [...] Posted: July 11th, 2011 in Editor's Pick,Editorial,Inquirer Opinion | Read More Editorial Inday Sarado In street terms, a thoroughly beaten man is called bugbog sarado. After last Friday, we might expect Filipinos to riff on this phrase, when talking of Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte. The mayor, who is married to a Carpio but is more popularly known by the nickname Inday Sara, punched Sheriff Abe Andres four times after he refused to heed her request to defer a scheduled demolition order; images of the incident, caught on television, have since gone viral. Inday Sarado, the mayor who administers a thoro ugh beating, is the talk of the entire country. Posted: July 4th, 2011 in Editor's Pick,Editorial,Inquirer Opinion | Read More Kris-Crossing Mindanao Shiekas vindication By Isagani Zarate MURAG AKONG kinabuhi (It was like my life story), quipped Clarita Alia, tears welling on her sun -burnt cheek after watching last years Davao premiere of the seminal indie film Shieka, which tackles a mothers agony of losing her four children to the Diablo called the Davao Death Squad. Indeed, Shiekaa poignant tapestry of the anguish [...] Posted: May 30th, 2011 in Columnists,Columns,Inquirer Opinion | Read More

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/tag/davao-death-squad#ixzz2Y3ARkb00 Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook 1. the city remains a very unsafe place for criminals

The is far safer than any other known city in the country. And as long as Duterte is still our mayor, I wont have any doubts for my safety when roaming around the city even on late hours. LOG IN TO REPLY 2. jonasalbert20 PERMALINK November 6, 2009 2:04 pm Yes! I agree with you Noel. These are people who doesnt live here in our city and they dont know exactly how safe we are here. There are those times that our city is reign by terror. But when our mayor took it over, a lot of changes happen especially the peace and order. We prioritize peace and order here and I dont know what our other countrymen is prioritizing.

I have seen this link of forum that could also be interesting. Please register http://mayorduterte.zxq.net LOG IN TO REPLY

o
Fernando Gagelonia PERMALINK* February 27, 2010 7:32 am You are correct that I dont live in Davao. But the issue here is human rights not summary justice. Still I fully respect your view. LOG IN TO REPLY

marienel PERMALINK March 29, 2010 4:56 am criminal people dont have the right to live

Fernando Gagelonia PERMALINK* March 29, 2010 6:36 am Your second comment is essentially a repeat of the first. Im approving it not because I subscribe to it but because Iu respect your right tto say it. However we cannot allow the rule of the jungle to ever prevail. How would you want to be on the receiving end of an accusation based on possibl manufactured evidence or false testimony? You forget we have a Bill of Rights. 3. February 27, 2010 3:34 pm Heres the pathetic thing regarding human rights Criminals dont advocate human rights, they dont care of their victims. A single criminal could danger a dozen of innocent civilians or even more. Yet, the commission still protect most of the criminals because their right is violated. Huh! I cant understand. LOG IN TO REPLY 4. Noel PERMALINK March 3, 2010 12:01 am Yes, absolutelythats what Im also trying to say. And we are very lucky to have Mayor Duterte who also have the same sentiments as we MOST Dabawenyos have Criminals dont deserve human rights! We dont care for the lives of these few outlaws for the risk of the many. These are not just criminalsthey are proven in and out of jail and we dont like it. The people of Davao point a finger on them, Mayor Duterte takes the action. as he have saidSiya ang amung SULUGUON. ^_^

Although there are really some individuals who just wants to join with the DDS heat and kill like them. on my own opinion and observation These people who criticize Mayor Duterte just wants PUBLICITY and will soon be running for a place in the government. LOG IN TO REPLY 5. whoisdlbm PERMALINK March 14, 2010 2:09 pm More should read up on world history what inevitably happens to these so called peaceful and orderly states or regimes LOG IN TO REPLY 6. whoisdlbm PERMALINK March 14, 2010 2:10 pm Not to mention the very nature of vigilante groups that they will do everything to protect themselves collateral damage LOG IN TO REPLY 7. ilovedavao PERMALINK March 29, 2010 7:17 pm I might have to agree with whois if I understand correctly what he is implying. How about a reporter or a bystander who witnesses DDS in action? I guess he or she has to shut up and hide forever for fear of being taken out even if he or she is innocent and is not a criminal. Theres something wrong with this kind of peace. You feel it in your gut. LOG IN TO REPLY 8. jhimbhoy PERMALINK June 8, 2010 8:17 pm better yet, we owe what Davao now with Mayor Duterte i respect the human rights activitist, but it seems most of the time you are one sided. I rather let the criminals die than let them reign terror here in Davao if youre from davao and have been living there since the 70s till now, you can compare how safe the city is than before

he words and actions of long-time Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, some of which were quoted at the start of this report, indicate his support for targeted killings of criminal suspects. Over the years, he has made numerous statements attempting to justify the killing of suspected criminals. In 2001-2002, Duterte would announce the names of criminals on local television and radioand some of those he named would later become victims of death squad killings. Duterte claims that Davao City has achieved peace and order under his rule. But with killers roaming the streets with the comfort of state-protected impunity, the city remains a very unsafe place. Available information points to an increasing number of death squad killings, including of persons such as Jaypee Larosa who appeared to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Duterte and other local officials continue to deny the existence of any death squad. But in recent years, mayors and officials of other cities have made statements attempting to justify similar killings in their own cities. Sadly, Davao City is seen by some as a model for fighting crime.

Just as disappointing, there is an almost complete lack of political will by the government at both local and national levels to address targeted killings and take action against the perpetrators. Based on consistent, detailed, and compelling accounts from families and friends of victims, eyewitnesses of targeted killings, barangay officials, journalists,community activists, and the insiders, Human Rights Watch has concluded that a death squad and lists of people targeted for killings exist in Davao City. We also conclude that at least some police officers and barangay officials are either involved or complicit in death squad killings. Human Rights Watch believes that such killings continue and the perpetrators enjoy impunity largely because of the tolerance of, and in some cases, outright support from local authorities. The failure to dismantle the Davao Death Squad and other similar groups, prosecute those responsible, and bring justice to the families of victims lies not only with local authorities. The administration of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has largely turned a blind eye to the killing spree in Davao City and elsewhere. The Philippine National Police have not sought to confront the problem. And the inaction of the national institutions responsible for accountability, namely the Department of Justice, the Ombudsmans Office,and the Commission on Human Rights, has fueled widespread impunity. http://www.humansecuritygateway.info/documents/HRW_DeathSqaudKillings_Mindanao_Philippines.pdf For Duterte there appears to be no way to escape the accusation even as he has resigned from the Davao Task Force in charge of the peace and order situation and even gave up supervisory control of the Davao City Police Department. Ultimately it will not just be Rodrigo Duterte in the dock but the national government itself. Directly responsible for Duterte as his superior officer is Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno, the presidential alter ego. Will they, individually or collectively, simply act blind and deaf to the public outcry her at home and beyond our borders??? 1. DAVAO DEATH SQUADS: Killing petty criminals, drug users, STREET CHILDREN, and people with mistaken identity - brazen execution of "unwanteds" without due process Death Squads spreading to Cebu. Davao death squad killings make crime rates worse in Davao- crime increased 219% in the last decade. According to human rights groups, in the last decade over 800 people have been killed in Davao City by DS (death squads). http://globalbalita.com/2011/philipp...o-death-squad/ Last edited by sakiman; Jul 10, 2011 at 09:03 AM. Reply With Quote 2. Jul 10, 2011 08:59 AM#2 sakiman Location texas

atrocious! the exeuction of juveniles as young as 12 years old and what he calls criminals, is a clearly a work of a violent man! what a coward!! as i've been saying it is not a good idea to cross path with this man, unless one have his own private army. and to think that some intelligent and educated davaoenos in this forum call him a great mayor? Wow! i guess vigilante justice and eye for an eye are acceptable moral norms for davaoeno intellectuals!!

duterte's statements clearly is an admission that he is aware of the group and may have actual knowledge of how the DS operates. the tape had duterte short of admitting that he has a hands in the killings. this tape should be reviewed by the national government. the human rights advocates should demand for duterte's investigation. Reply With Quote

atrocious! the exeuction of juveniles as young as 12 years old and what he calls criminals, is a clearly a work of a violent man! what a coward!! as i've been saying it is not a good idea to cross path with this man, unless one have his own private army. and to think that some intelligent and educated davaoenos in this forum call him a great mayor? Wow! i guess vigilante justice and eye for an eye are acceptable moral norms for davaoeno intellectuals!!

duterte's statements clearly is an admission that he is aware of the group and may have actual knowledge of how the DS operates. the tape had duterte short of admitting that he has a hands in the killings. this tape should be reviewed by the national government. the human rights advocates should demand for duterte's investigation.
not that your mudslinging of a scenario that victimizing minors are approved among dabaw residents to make yourself smell good and them evil, but sorry to burst your bubble neither was it condoned and it did touch very controversial issues on the matter in the local affairs (that obviously you know nothing about) and criticized whoever was behind it. however why don't you get real at least once in a while and let's probe deeper beyond such hysterical reaction, the Mayor once said that he was rallying a "war against criminality" in the city that unfortunately in the process had vitimized children when otherwise would have been safer were it not for the negligience of idiotic parents. but then it's a "war" he was waging, now let's compare it to your host country US of A that's also waging a supposed "war on terror" for the liberation of Afghan pipelines, er people, and Iraqi pipelines, er people, when in actuality it's more like terrorizing Iraqi chidlren in the name of oil blessings. How many Iraqi and Afghan children did your host country kill, conveniently referred to as collateral damage, so that America will be oil-blessed? And how about the terrorist CIA Agent Michael Meirring with enough stupidity to prematurely explode his bomb in a Davao hotel when otherwsie it would have been intended for Davao chidlren just like what they did to the airport and wharf bombing to concoct pseudo-terror scenario in other countries as Philippines as more excuse for acquiring globally more oil blessings for their so called "war on terror" at the expense of minor collateral damage like children?

taga-texas ka pa naman, so what's your hand at acquiring oil blessings by terrorizing other children in other countries such as Iraq, Afghansitan and Philippines? Reply With Quote ^^ ok lang yan sa mga taga davao,, morally acceptable yan sa kanila kaya wag na kayong makipag debate pa

Reply With Quote Join Date Apr 2009 Originally Posted by visionarylink

not that your mudslinging of a scenario that victimizing minors are approved among dabaw residents to make yourself smell good and them evil, but sorry to burst your bubble neither was it condoned and it did touch very controversial issues on the matter in the local affairs (that obviously you know nothing about) and criticized whoever was behind it. however why don't you get real at least once in a while and let's probe deeper beyond such hysterical reaction, the Mayor once said that he was rallying a "war against criminality" in the city that unfortunately in the process had vitimized children when otherwise would have been safer were it not for the negligience of idiotic parents. but then it's a "war" he was waging, now let's compare it to your host country US of A that's also waging a supposed "war on terror" for the liberation of Afghan pipelines, er people, and Iraqi pipelines, er people, when in actuality it's more like terrorizing Iraqi chidlren in the name of oil blessings. How many Iraqi and Afghan children did your host country kill, conveniently referred to as collateral damage, so that America will be oil-blessed? And how about the terrorist CIA Agent Michael Meirring with enough stupidity to prematurely explode his bomb in a Davao hotel when otherwsie it would have been intended for Davao chidlren just like what they did to the airport and wharf bombing to concoct pseudo-terror scenario in other countries as Philippines as more excuse for acquiring globally more oil blessings for their so called "war on terror" at the expense of minor collateral damage like children? taga-texas ka pa naman, so what's your hand at acquiring oil blessings by terrorizing other children in other countries such as Iraq, Afghansitan and Philippines?
wow! what a sad pathetic excuse to justify the killing of minors. so ok lang ang ginagawa nyo kasi may mas masahol pa sa inyo ganun ba? give me a break Reply With Quote 3. Jul 10, 2011 01:29 PM#10 mega_bun ^^ ok lang yan sa mga taga davao,, morally acceptable yan sa kanila kaya wag na kayong makipag debate pa

^^ ok lang yan sa mga taga davao,, morally acceptable yan sa kanila kaya wag na kayong makipag debate pa

Reply With Quote 4. Jul 10, 2011 02:28 PM#13 Originally Posted by visionarylink

not that your mudslinging of a scenario that victimizing minors are approved among dabaw residents to make yourself smell good and them evil, but sorry to burst your bubble neither was it condoned and it did touch very controversial issues on the matter in the local affairs (that obviously you know nothing about) and criticized whoever was behind it. however why don't you get real at least once in a while and let's probe deeper beyond such hysterical reaction, the Mayor once said that he was rallying a "war against criminality" in the city that unfortunately in the process had vitimized children when otherwise would have been safer were it not for the negligience of idiotic parents. but then it's a "war" he was waging, now let's compare it to your host country US of A that's also waging a supposed "war on terror" for the liberation of Afghan pipelines, er people, and Iraqi pipelines, er people, when in actuality it's more like terrorizing Iraqi chidlren in the name of oil blessings. How many Iraqi and Afghan children did your host country kill, conveniently referred to as collateral damage, so that America will be oil-blessed? And how about the terrorist CIA Agent Michael Meirring with enough stupidity to prematurely explode his bomb in a Davao hotel when otherwsie it would have been intended for Davao chidlren just like what they did to the airport and wharf bombing to concoct pseudo-terror scenario in other countries as Philippines as more excuse for acquiring globally more oil blessings for their so called "war on terror" at the expense of minor collateral damage like children? taga-texas ka pa naman, so what's your hand at acquiring oil blessings by terrorizing other children in other countries such as Iraq, Afghansitan and Philippines?
Originally Posted by visionarylink

not that your mudslinging of a scenario that victimizing minors are approved among dabaw residents to make yourself smell good and them evil, but sorry to burst your bubble neither was it condoned and it did touch very controversial issues on the matter in the local affairs (that obviously you know nothing about) and criticized whoever was behind it. however why don't you get real at least once in a while and let's probe deeper beyond such hysterical reaction, the Mayor once said that he was rallying a "war against criminality" in the city that unfortunately in the process had vitimized children when otherwise would have been safer were it not for the negligience of idiotic parents. but then it's a "war" he was waging, now let's compare it to your host country US of A that's also waging a supposed "war on terror" for the liberation of Afghan pipelines, er people, and Iraqi pipelines, er people, when in actuality it's more like terrorizing Iraqi chidlren in the name of oil blessings. How many Iraqi and Afghan children did your host country kill, conveniently referred to as collateral damage, so that America will be oil-blessed? And how about the terrorist CIA Agent Michael Meirring with enough stupidity to prematurely explode his bomb in a Davao hotel when otherwsie it would have been intended for Davao chidlren just like what they did to the airport and wharf bombing to concoct pseudo-terror scenario in other countries as Philippines as more excuse for acquiring globally more oil blessings for their so called "war on terror" at the expense of minor collateral damage like children? taga-texas ka pa naman, so what's your hand at acquiring oil blessings by terrorizing other children in other countries such as Iraq, Afghansitan and Philippines?

not that your mudslinging of a scenario that victimizing minors are approved among dabaw residents to make yourself smell good and them evil, but sorry to burst your bubble neither was it condoned and it did touch very controversial issues on the matter in the local affairs (that obviously you know nothing about) and criticized whoever was behind it. however why don't you get real at least once in a while and let's probe deeper beyond such hysterical reaction, the Mayor once said that he was rallying a "war against criminality" in the city that unfortunately in the process had vitimized children when otherwise would have been safer were it not for the negligience of idiotic parents. but then it's a "war" he was waging, now let's compare it to your host country US of A that's also waging a supposed "war on terror" for the liberation of Afghan pipelines, er people, and Iraqi pipelines, er people, when in actuality it's more like terrorizing Iraqi chidlren in the name of oil blessings. How many Iraqi and Afghan children did your host country kill, conveniently referred to as collateral damage, so that America will be oil-blessed? And how about the terrorist CIA Agent Michael Meirring with enough stupidity to prematurely explode his bomb in a Davao hotel when otherwsie it would have been intended for Davao chidlren just like what they did to the airport and wharf bombing to concoct pseudo-terror scenario in other countries as Philippines as more excuse for acquiring globally more oil blessings for their so called "war on terror" at the expense of minor collateral damage like children? taga-texas ka pa naman, so what's your hand at acquiring oil blessings by terrorizing other children in other countries such as Iraq, Afghansitan and Philippines?

avao Death Squads do they deliver results or just more problems? July 4, 2011 by benign0 The alleged assault against court sheriff Abe Andres by Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte is now turning into a media circus. But one good thing that came out of this recent dragging of the premier city of the southern Philippine island of Mindanao into the limelight is the renewed interest in the spotty human rights record over there. The city is specifically known for the infamous Davao Death Squads or DDS. The fact that the centre of the brouhaha, Sara Duterte, is the daughter of Davao City Vice Mayor Rodrigo Duterte (figure that arrangement out!) makes it interesting considering that the Vice Mayor once joked about the D in DDS standing for Duterte in a TIME Asia article that ran with the title The Punisher. Whether Dutertes links with the DDS are true or not, he seems to find no reason to distance himself from the brand of West-of-the-Pecos style of justice that vigilante groups like it stand for Duterte is unapologetic about his willingness to venture beyond what legal niceties might permit. Criminals and rebels, he says menacingly from his perch at the bar, do not have a monopoly on evil. A long, hard stare leaves little doubt that this is n ot idle talk. One day his methods might be unnecessary, he says. But for now, he insists on what most people from this town have also come to believe: The only reason there is peace and order in Davao is because of me. Indeed, in a country like the Philippines where just about everything is a gray area, including The Law, there seems to be very little sound bases for making a summary judgment of governance style and approach to taming a part of the Philippines that is so far away from Imperial Manila. Despite all this, the elder Duterte seems to have set himself apart from most other Philippine oligarchs and warlords

Duterte suffers from none of the charges that dog most Philippine politicians: that he is beholden to vested interests, obsessed with retaining power, or bent on accumulating its spoils. He is accepted and welcomed because he has delivered Davao from the bloody days of the 1970s and 1980s when the city was known as the murder capital of the Philippines. One can argue that Duterte had delivered results under his watch and that its all good whatever works, so to speak. However, there is something disturbing about an approach that puts up assassination as a virtual official course of action when dealing with criminal elements. Duterte evenreportedly refers to the subjects of his anti-crime drives as legitimate target[s] of assassination. In a speech before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines in February of 2009, Mayor Duterte explained his perspective: If you are doing an illegal activity in my city, if you are a criminal or part of a syndicate that preys on the innocent people of the city, for as long as I am the mayor, you are a legitimate target of assassination. The trouble with law-and-order systems where officers are able to act as judge and executioner is that under such systems, there is none of the control mechanisms that allow any benefit of the doubt to be applied when delivering justice to the the subjects of said system. This means that you can be cheering swift justice one moment then suddenly find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun wielded by the very executioner you once cheered all depending on what could amount to nothing more than the roll of a dice. A black box justice system does not lend itsel f to scrutiny. And even when one can peer into such a box, the lack of any rules that govern action makes any effort to rationalise such systems utterly pointless. Indeed, a DDS execution can reportedly be bought for as little as Php5,000 (just a little more than USD100). So, in principle, the street value of the life of the average Davao resident, is not much more than a Diesel-branded t-shirt. The way that such tolerance for lack of due process can go was best described by the report You Can Die Anytime released by New York-based Human Rights Watch. ABS-CBN News reported on that report how [...] while petty criminals are still the main targets, news of mistaken identities has been rising and death squad members themselves have been targeted. It may as well serve as a warning to the sympathizers and financial backers of death squads because it shows they can be targets themselves. Because of the sympathizers silence, there is a perception that residents and businessmen in Davao City are supportive of the so-called mission of Davao Death Squad to eliminate criminality in the city. So whats the verdict? Just an ironic question there. Many Davao residents apparently like the Duterte approach to keeping th e peace. Perhaps this is not surprising in a society that consists of people who prefer to place their fates in supernatural beings, heroes, and amulets and statuettes rather than on sensible products engineered by their more earthly brains like rules, laws, and systems. Related Posts:

Bishop supports Duterte-style law-and-order and human rights Do Filipinos need iron-fisted leadership? Law and Order Philippine style Should Mindanao secede from what could be turning into a The problem of squatters in the Philippines cannot be solved