SOME ISSUES ABOUT THE RH BILLS

In my column last week I ended with a postscript saying that this week I would write about the question whether a public official may impose his religious belief on those who follow a different set of beliefs. In response one of my readers wrote saying that he could not wait for what I had to say. And another suggested a piece on whether church can tell government what to do.

Actually, however, what I have to say is very simple; that is, very simple for those who accept that one of the fundamental tenets which our country lives by is the free exercise of religious profession and worship. I believe that freedom of religious profession and worship is a right of everyone no matter how bizarre his or her religious beliefs might be and provided that the externalization of one’s belief does no harm to any one.

Briefly, I would say that President Aquino should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.

I, and other churchmen I know, go by the teaching of the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Church which says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” I am glad, therefore, that President Aquino wants to bring non-Catholics into the dialogue.

In 2008 the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill was started but did not end. It was shelved for a while to give way to concerns about election. Now the debate has started again. I understand that there are now six or seven different bills filed in the House of Representatives all about reproductive health.

I sympathize with President Aquino who is being pushed into a corner by well-meaning people who believe that various provisions of proposed RH Bills are paving the path through which the Filipino people would be led to eternal damnation. What is my own take on the subject?

Of course, I am against eternal damnation for anybody. But I believe that we must be resigned to a long drawn out debate. Much as people would like their opponents to shut up, they will not shut up. The debate now is in media and in the House of Representatives. It is also beginning in the Senate. And even if Congress succeeds in crafting a bill which the President may be willing to sign, its various provisions will very likely take more time of the Supreme Court than the Cityhood laws have taken.

This should surprise no one because religion and the Constitution are very much involved in the debate. Religion and the Constitution are very much at the heart of the life of our people. Besides, debatable scientific terms and sociological issues are also involved.

In 2009 it was difficult for many, myself included, to be totally for or totally against the RH Bill because it had many facets. Today I am still awaiting the consolidated version of the various RH bills that have already been filed. I anticipate that what divided people then would still be present in whatever bill may finally come out for debate. The most that I would like to do now is to identify and enumerate some of the matters about which we will certainly disagree among ourselves.

I begin with the right to life. When does human life begin? We probably are all agreed that man must not destroy human life. Our Constitution protects life “from conception.” There is some indication in the deliberations of the 1987 Constitution Commission that this means “from fertilization”. But there are contrary views. Who will decide which view is correct?

The determination about the beginning of human life will also be relevant to the debate on abortion. Clearly abortion is prohibited and penalized by law. But when does abortion take place? At what stage of the reproductive process will interruption be considered an offense against life? At fertilization or only after implantation? Are there birth control devices or pills which are abortifacient? If so, in what way? There is debate about the abortifacient effect of some birth control means. Who is to settle this debate – Congress? Courts? Science? Church? Rallyists? I understand that the various pharmaceutical and medical literature on this are conflictive.

There is also debate about how and who should teach sexual morality to children. Sexual morality is very much an aspect of religion. But various religions differ in the their teaching about sexual morality. Should the state dictate what to follow and determine how this should be taught in schools, public or private? And what should be the role of parents in this? The Constitution recognizes the primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth.

Earlier versions of the RH bill also contained impositions on employers regarding the reproductive health of employees and also penal provisions. All these and more will need much discussion.

There are those who are threatening to mobilize groups into rallies against RH the bills. Rallies are good for election campaigns and other political objectives. But they are hardly the suitable vehicle for a rational examination of conflicting moral issues.

11 October 2010

SOME ISSUES ABOUT THE RH BILLS

In my column last week I ended with a postscript saying that this week I would write about the question whether a public official may impose his religious belief on those who follow a different set of beliefs. In response one of my readers wrote saying that he could not wait for what I had to say. And another suggested a piece on whether church can tell government what to do.

Actually, however, what I have to say is very simple; that is, very simple for those who accept that one of the fundamental tenets which our country lives by is the free exercise of religious profession and worship. I believe that freedom of religious profession and worship is a right of everyone no matter how bizarre his or her religious beliefs might be and provided that the externalization of one’s belief does no harm to any one.

Briefly, I would say that President Aquino should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.

I, and other churchmen I know, go by the teaching of the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Church which says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” I am glad, therefore, that President Aquino wants to bring non-Catholics into the dialogue.

In 2008 the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill was started but did not end. It was shelved for a while to give way to concerns about election. Now the debate has started again. I understand that there are now six or seven different bills filed in the House of Representatives all about reproductive health.

I sympathize with President Aquino who is being pushed into a corner by well-meaning people who believe that various provisions of proposed RH Bills are paving the path through which the Filipino people would be led to eternal damnation. What is my own take on the subject?

Of course, I am against eternal damnation for anybody. But I believe that we must be resigned to a long drawn out debate. Much as people would like their opponents to shut up, they will not shut up. The debate now is in media and in the House of Representatives. It is also beginning in the Senate. And even if Congress succeeds in crafting a bill which the President may be willing to sign, its various provisions will very likely take more time of the Supreme Court than the Cityhood laws have taken.

This should surprise no one because religion and the Constitution are very much involved in the debate. Religion and the Constitution are very much at the heart of the life of our people. Besides, debatable scientific terms and sociological issues are also involved.

In 2009 it was difficult for many, myself included, to be totally for or totally against the RH Bill because it had many facets. Today I am still awaiting the consolidated version of the various RH bills that have already been filed. I anticipate that what divided people then would still be present in whatever bill may finally come out for debate. The most that I would like to do now is to identify and enumerate some of the matters about which we will certainly disagree among ourselves.

I begin with the right to life. When does human life begin? We probably are all agreed that man must not destroy human life. Our Constitution protects life “from conception.” There is some indication in the deliberations of the 1987 Constitution Commission that this means “from fertilization”. But there are contrary views. Who will decide which view is correct?

The determination about the beginning of human life will also be relevant to the debate on abortion. Clearly abortion is prohibited and penalized by law. But when does abortion take place? At what stage of the reproductive process will interruption be considered an offense against life? At fertilization or only after implantation? Are there birth control devices or pills which are abortifacient? If so, in what way? There is debate about the abortifacient effect of some birth control means. Who is to settle this debate – Congress? Courts? Science? Church? Rallyists? I understand that the various pharmaceutical and medical literature on this are conflictive.

There is also debate about how and who should teach sexual morality to children. Sexual morality is very much an aspect of religion. But various religions differ in the their teaching about sexual morality. Should the state dictate what to follow and determine how this should be taught in schools, public or private? And what should be the role of parents in this? The Constitution recognizes the primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth.

Earlier versions of the RH bill also contained impositions on employers regarding the reproductive health of employees and also penal provisions. All these and more will need much discussion.

There are those who are threatening to mobilize groups into rallies against RH the bills. Rallies are good for election campaigns and other political objectives. But they are hardly the suitable vehicle for a rational examination of conflicting moral issues.

11 October 2010

SOME ISSUES ABOUT THE RH BILLS

In my column last week I ended with a postscript saying that this week I would write about the question whether a public official may impose his religious belief on those who follow a different set of beliefs. In response one of my readers wrote saying that he could not wait for what I had to say. And another suggested a piece on whether church can tell government what to do.

Actually, however, what I have to say is very simple; that is, very simple for those who accept that one of the fundamental tenets which our country lives by is the free exercise of religious profession and worship. I believe that freedom of religious profession and worship is a right of everyone no matter how bizarre his or her religious beliefs might be and provided that the externalization of one’s belief does no harm to any one.

Briefly, I would say that President Aquino should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.

I, and other churchmen I know, go by the teaching of the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Church which says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” I am glad, therefore, that President Aquino wants to bring non-Catholics into the dialogue.

In 2008 the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill was started but did not end. It was shelved for a while to give way to concerns about election. Now the debate has started again. I understand that there are now six or seven different bills filed in the House of Representatives all about reproductive health.

I sympathize with President Aquino who is being pushed into a corner by well-meaning people who believe that various provisions of proposed RH Bills are paving the path through which the Filipino people would be led to eternal damnation. What is my own take on the subject?

Of course, I am against eternal damnation for anybody. But I believe that we must be resigned to a long drawn out debate. Much as people would like their opponents to shut up, they will not shut up. The debate now is in media and in the House of Representatives. It is also beginning in the Senate. And even if Congress succeeds in crafting a bill which the President may be willing to sign, its various provisions will very likely take more time of the Supreme Court than the Cityhood laws have taken.

This should surprise no one because religion and the Constitution are very much involved in the debate. Religion and the Constitution are very much at the heart of the life of our people. Besides, debatable scientific terms and sociological issues are also involved.

In 2009 it was difficult for many, myself included, to be totally for or totally against the RH Bill because it had many facets. Today I am still awaiting the consolidated version of the various RH bills that have already been filed. I anticipate that what divided people then would still be present in whatever bill may finally come out for debate. The most that I would like to do now is to identify and enumerate some of the matters about which we will certainly disagree among ourselves.

I begin with the right to life. When does human life begin? We probably are all agreed that man must not destroy human life. Our Constitution protects life “from conception.” There is some indication in the deliberations of the 1987 Constitution Commission that this means “from fertilization”. But there are contrary views. Who will decide which view is correct?

The determination about the beginning of human life will also be relevant to the debate on abortion. Clearly abortion is prohibited and penalized by law. But when does abortion take place? At what stage of the reproductive process will interruption be considered an offense against life? At fertilization or only after implantation? Are there birth control devices or pills which are abortifacient? If so, in what way? There is debate about the abortifacient effect of some birth control means. Who is to settle this debate – Congress? Courts? Science? Church? Rallyists? I understand that the various pharmaceutical and medical literature on this are conflictive.

There is also debate about how and who should teach sexual morality to children. Sexual morality is very much an aspect of religion. But various religions differ in the their teaching about sexual morality. Should the state dictate what to follow and determine how this should be taught in schools, public or private? And what should be the role of parents in this? The Constitution recognizes the primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth.

Earlier versions of the RH bill also contained impositions on employers regarding the reproductive health of employees and also penal provisions. All these and more will need much discussion.

There are those who are threatening to mobilize groups into rallies against RH the bills. Rallies are good for election campaigns and other political objectives. But they are hardly the suitable vehicle for a rational examination of conflicting moral issues.

11 October 2010

Some Issues about the RH Bills

In my column last week I ended with a postscript saying that this week I would write about the question whether a public official may impose his religious belief on those who follow a different set of beliefs. In response one of my readers wrote saying that he could not wait for what I had to say. And another suggested a piece on whether church can tell government what to do.

Actually, however, what I have to say is very simple; that is, very simple for those who accept that one of the fundamental tenets which our country lives by is the free exercise of religious profession and worship. I believe that freedom of religious profession and worship is a right of everyone no matter how bizarre his or her religious beliefs might be and provided that the externalization of one’s belief does no harm to any one.

Briefly, I would say that President Aquino should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.

I, and other churchmen I know, go by the teaching of the Compendium on the Social Teaching of the Church which says: “Because of its historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given special recognition on the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination within the civil or social order for other religious groups” and “Those responsible for government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community, including the minority.” I am glad, therefore, that President Aquino wants to bring non-Catholics into the dialogue.

In 2008 the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill was started but did not end. It was shelved for a while to give way to concerns about election. Now the debate has started again. I understand that there are now six or seven different bills filed in the House of Representatives all about reproductive health.

I sympathize with President Aquino who is being pushed into a corner by well-meaning people who believe that various provisions of proposed RH Bills are paving the path through which the Filipino people would be led to eternal damnation. What is my own take on the subject?

Of course, I am against eternal damnation for anybody. But I believe that we must be resigned to a long drawn out debate. Much as people would like their opponents to shut up, they will not shut up. The debate now is in media and in the House of Representatives. It is also beginning in the Senate. And even if Congress succeeds in crafting a bill which the President may be willing to sign, its various provisions will very likely take more time of the Supreme Court than the Cityhood laws have taken.

This should surprise no one because religion and the Constitution are very much involved in the debate. Religion and the Constitution are very much at the heart of the life of our people. Besides, debatable scientific terms and sociological issues are also involved.

In 2009 it was difficult for many, myself included, to be totally for or totally against the RH Bill because it had many facets. Today I am still awaiting the consolidated version of the various RH bills that have already been filed. I anticipate that what divided people then would still be present in whatever bill may finally come out for debate. The most that I would like to do now is to identify and enumerate some of the matters about which we will certainly disagree among ourselves.

I begin with the right to life. When does human life begin? We probably are all agreed that man must not destroy human life. Our Constitution protects life “from conception.” There is some indication in the deliberations of the 1987 Constitution Commission that this means “from fertilization”. But there are contrary views. Who will decide which view is correct?

The determination about the beginning of human life will also be relevant to the debate on abortion. Clearly abortion is prohibited and penalized by law. But when does abortion take place? At what stage of the reproductive process will interruption be considered an offense against life? At fertilization or only after implantation? Are there birth control devices or pills which are abortifacient? If so, in what way? There is debate about the abortifacient effect of some birth control means. Who is to settle this debate – Congress? Courts? Science? Church? Rallyists? I understand that the various pharmaceutical and medical literature on this are conflictive.

There is also debate about how and who should teach sexual morality to children. Sexual morality is very much an aspect of religion. But various religions differ in the their teaching about sexual morality. Should the state dictate what to follow and determine how this should be taught in schools, public or private? And what should be the role of parents in this? The Constitution recognizes the primary right of parents in the rearing of the youth.

Earlier versions of the RH bill also contained impositions on employers regarding the reproductive health of employees and also penal provisions. All these and more will need much discussion.

There are those who are threatening to mobilize groups into rallies against RH the bills. Rallies are good for election campaigns and other political objectives. But they are hardly the suitable vehicle for a rational examination of conflicting moral issues.

11 October 2010

Excommunication, Anyone?

The threat of excommunication may have been denied, but people are still asking about the what and how of excommunication. I hope the following can help.

First of all, what is excommunication. It is a penalty which excludes a person from communion with the rest of the church. Its effects can depend on the status or position of the person in the Church. For ecclesiastics, for instance, it can mean prohibition from the exercise of priestly functions and ministry, while for lay people it can mean exclusion from the reception of the sacraments. It is the severest penalty under Church law, but it is good to remember that excommunication is intended to be medicinal, designed to bring about the correction of a person’s behavior and his or her reintegration into the full life of the Church. In other words, it is not meant to destroy but to redeem.

There are two kinds of excommunication: automatic and imposed. Automatic excommunication is incurred when one freely and knowingly commits an offense to which church law attaches excommunication. This is called latae sententiae. It does not come cheap. It comes in connection with outstanding and malicious offenses.

The number of offenses punishable by excommunication latae sententiae in the universal law has been radically reduced. And the sentence is really not that automatic because, aside from the requirement of full knowledge of and consent to the sinful act, the offense must be gravely imputable by reasons of malice. Thus the offender must also know that an automatic penalty is attached to the offense. Priests who hear confessions know that many sinners do not incur excommunication automatically because they do not know about the attached penalty. How widely known is it, for instance, that deliberate abortion can be ground for excommunication latae sententiae.

The other kind is imposed excommunication. The books call this ferendae sententiae. It is a penalty that is prescribed by law for an offense and imposed by one who has both authority and jurisdiction to impose excommunication. For instance, a bishop has authority and jurisdiction to excommunicate a person of his diocese.

The basic law on both kinds of excommunication says: “No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or culpability.” The violation consists of both an objective element and a subjective element.

The objective element is the external act. It is one that can be perceived by someone who is present and it must admit of proof in the external forum. Thus a merely internal act of mind or will cannot be subjected to penalty.

The subjective element is present if the offense committed is “gravely imputable by reason of malice.” The concept of imputability must be understand clearly. It is not just imputability in the moral order, in the order of sin; it is imputability specifically in the juridical order. This means that the damage must be done in the public or social order. It is this damage in the juridical order which subjects a persons to the public authority of the Church in the external forum.

There are two important concepts that must be understood: malice and culpability. “Malice must be understood as the deliberate intention of violating a law or precept; culpability, on the other hand, involves the ‘omission of due diligence,’ i.e. the law or precept was violated through culpable ignorance or neglect of one’s own legal responsibilities.” The onus of establishing and proving malice and culpability belongs to the competent ecclesiastical authority.

That is not all, however. There still is the legal component of the offense. An external violation of a law is punishable only if the law provides for a penalty. As lawyers always say, nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege. Moreover, as in the case of secular criminal law, church penal law is interpreted strictly, i.e., in such a way as not to enlarge the scope of its application

What can be seen from all this is that an important element of due process in church legislation is the recognition of the fact that, although penalties have an important role to play, they are not a substitute for ordinary pastoral approach. This fact must be kept in mind by persons administering the law. There is a distinction between the imputability of the objective element of the offense and the imputability of the subjective element of the offense. Either one can be focus of pastoral approach and determination of guilt.

Another indication of the pastoral thrust of church law is the enumeration of instances when violation of a law is not subject to penalty. There are many instances when the law exempts or excuses from penalties. These instances include lack of age, ignorance of the law through no fault of one’s own, duress, or mental incapacity. Moreover, even people who are not exempt from church penalties may be given a lower penalty if they are affected by a variety of extenuating circumstances. It is also good to remember that Jesus said that he came to save, not to destroy.

P.S. In my next column I shall write about the question whether a public official may impose his religious belief on those who follow a different set of beliefs

4 October 2010

Excommunication, Anyone?

The threat of excommunication may have been denied, but people are still asking about the what and how of excommunication. I hope the following can help.

First of all, what is excommunication. It is a penalty which excludes of a person from communion with the rest of the church. Its effects can depend on the status or position of the person in the Church. For ecclesiastics, for instance, it can mean prohibition from the exercise of priestly functions and ministry, while for lay people it can mean exclusion from the reception of the sacraments. It is the severest penalty under Church law, but it is good to remember that excommunication is intended to be medicinal, designed to bring about the correction of a person’s behavior and his or her reintegration into the full life of the Church. In other words, it is not meant to destroy but to redeem.

There are two kinds of excommunication: automatic and imposed. Automatic excommunication is incurred when one freely and knowingly commits an offense to which church law attaches excommunication. This is called latae sententiae. It does not come cheap. It comes in connection with outstanding and malicious offenses.

The number of offenses punishable by excommunication latae sententiae in the universal law has been radically reduced. And the sentence is really not that automatic because, aside from the requirement of full knowledge of and consent to the sinful act, the offense must be gravely imputable by reasons of malice. Thus the offender must also know that an automatic penalty is attached to the offense. Priests who hear confessions know that many sinners do not incur excommunication automatically because they do not know about the attached penalty. How widely known is it, for instance, that deliberate abortion can be ground for excommunication latae sententiae.

The other kind is imposed excommunication. The books call this ferendae sententiae. It is a penalty that is prescribed by law for an offense and imposed by one who has both authority and jurisdiction to impose excommunication. For instance, a bishop has authority and jurisdiction to excommunicate a person of his diocese.

The basic law on both kinds of excommunication says: “No one can be punished for the commission of an external violation of a law or precept unless it is gravely imputable by reason of malice or culpability.” The violation consists of both an objective element and a subjective element.

The objective element is the external act. It is one that can be perceived by someone who is present and it must admit of proof in the external forum. Thus a merely internal act of mind or will cannot be subjected to penalty.

The subjective element is present if the offense committed is “gravely imputable by reason of malice.” The concept of imputability must be understand clearly. It is not just imputability in the moral order, in the order of sin; it is imputability specifically in the juridical order. This means that the damage must be done in the public or social order. It is this damage in the juridical order which subjects a persons to the public authority of the Church in the external forum.

There are two important concepts that must be understood: malice and culpability. “Malice must be understood as the deliberate intention of violating a law or precept; culpability, on the other hand, involves the ‘omission of due diligence,’ i.e. the law or precept was violated through culpable ignorance or neglect of one’s own legal responsibilities.” The onus of establishing and proving malice and culpability belongs to the competent ecclesiastical authority.

That is not all, however. There still is the legal component of the offense. An external violation of a law is punishable only if the law provides for a penalty. As lawyers always say, nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege. Moreover, as in the case of secular criminal law, church penal law is interpreted strictly, i.e., in such a way as not to enlarge the scope of its application

What can be seen from all this is that an important element of due process in church legislation is the recognition of the fact that, although penalties have an important role to play, they are not a substitute for ordinary pastoral approach. This fact must be kept in mind by persons administering the law. There is a distinction between the imputability of the objective element of the offense and the imputability of the subjective element of the offense. Either one can be focus of pastoral approach and determination of guilt.

Another indication of the pastoral thrust of church law is the enumeration of instances when violation of a law is not subject to penalty. There are many instances when the law exempts or excuses from penalties. These instances include lack of age, ignorance of the law through no fault of one’s own, duress, or mental incapacity. Moreover, even people who are not exempt from church penalties may be given a lower penalty if they are affected by a variety of extenuating circumstances. It is also good to remember that Jesus said that he came to save, not to destroy.

P.S. In my next column I shall write about the question whether a public official may impose his religious belief on those who follow a different set of beliefs

4 October 2010

Reviewing the IIRC Report

Someone asked me why the President should order a review of the report of the Incident Investigation and Review Committee (IIRC). Did he not give the responsibility of doing the investigation mainly to the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of Interior and Local Government, both members of his inner circle? Actually the answer to that question was given long ago by the Supreme Court.

Under our presidential system there is only one President and "all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive, presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive."

What this means is that a decision of a department secretary, when not expressly disowned by the President, is already the President’s decision. But this also means that decisions of department heads are always subject to review and even reversal by the President if he chooses to do so. Every person who accepts a position in the executive department accepts it on this understanding.

This principle flows from the President’s power of control over all executive departments. As the Constitution says, “The President shall have control of all executive departments, bureaus and offices.” Moreover, in the hierarchy of department secretaries, the Executive Secretary occupies a position of preeminence when acting “by authority of the President.” Thus, the Executive Secretary, even if not the smartest, or even an Assistant Executive Secretary, when acting "by authority of the President," may reverse the decision of a department head.

Will the President accept the IIRC’s report in toto? He may or he may not. And even if he does, that would not be the end of the report. The report, aside from containing a recitation of facts and conclusions, also contains recommendations of administrative and criminal charges against certain persons. These recommendations, if acted upon, will have to go through the rigorous requirements of due process. They will also be a test of the political will of the new administration.

The charges against individual persons are serious and certainly the people concerned will demand that they be given a day in court. But another delicate aspect of the report is what it says about media. Quite obviously the members of the IIRC, in preparing the report, were aware that media, as vehicles of free expression and information, occupy a special position in the hierarchy of rights. Hence, the IIRC Report did not have any specific recommendation. I just hope that, in reacting to the behavior of media during the hostage crisis, whatever action is taken by government will not have the effect of prior restraint on future media actions.

Who should be in charge of the House

I was surprised that a number of persons expressed concern about the fact that the President did not appoint a care-taker while he was away. Behind some of this concern, I am sure, was an expression of sympathy for the Vice-President who appeared to have been left out. But the Vice-President himself did not seem to be bothered at all. And rightly so.

The absence of the President from the country is not a basis for the activation of the order of succession found in the Constitution. The Vice-President takes over the functions of the President in an acting capacity only when the incumbent President is temporarily incapacitated to perform the functions of his office. In this age of sophisticated means of communication, the President is not really away when he is away on a trip. And he certainly is not incapacitated when he can relive his early youth and enjoy hotdogs in the streets of New York!

relocation of informal settlers

You might say that the constitutional command is clear enough: “Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner. No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.”

Does this mean that the validity or legality of the demolition or eviction is hinged on the existence of a resettlement area designated or earmarked by the government? That would be the ideal; but jurisprudence has answered that question in the negative. What is required is that “the person to be evicted be accorded due process or an opportunity to controvert the allegation that his or her occupation or possession of the property involved is unlawful or against the will of the landowner; that should the illegal or unlawful occupation be proven, the occupant be sufficiently notified before actual eviction or demolition is done; and there be no loss of lives, physical injuries or unnecessary loss of or damage to properties.”

As can readily be seen, legal pronouncements on the subject will not be enough to prevent the confusion and damage to persons such as those which happened in recent evictions in Metro Manila.

27 September 2010