COUPLINGS AND UN-COUPLINGS IN A LAND WITHOUT DIVORCE

By Marivic Raquiza

It's funny, but in a land with no divorce, Aida has married three times. The first time was
when she was 16. It was 1936, and Aida's parents had agreed with Delfin's well-to-do
parents to wed their children, especially since Delfin, madly in love, wouldn't have it any
other way.

Fast-forward to around the outbreak of the Filipino-Japanese war. Aida and Delfin had a son,
Rudy. Delfin had, by then, a habit of frequenting nightclubs and seeking the company of
other women. After endless quarrels, Aida and Delfin agreed to divorce as this was allowed
under the Japanese occupation.

Upon her lawyer's advice, Aida did not ask for alimony to improve her chances of getting
sole custody of their son, which she was eventually granted. She moved to Manila with her
baby and allowed Delfin to take him out on weekends. One weekend, Delfin kidnapped the
3-year old Rudy and took him to the province. The next time Aida saw Rudy again was when
he was 15, and had gone to Manila in search of her.

Aida, however, already had three other children by Ricky, who she had met through friends
and who courted her intently. One night, after a party, he offered to take her home. She
agreed. He took her to a motel instead and forced himself on her. It took Andrea, Aida's
mother, to get Aida out of that motel room. But Aida became pregnant.

In her mind, and apparently everyone else's around her, to live with Ricky was the next
logical step. They had two other children but didn't marry because Ricky could not hold
down a steady job and continued to have dalliances with other women. Aida eventually
agreed to marriage after she realized that she was denying her three children legitimacy.

Tony -- the lawyer who had assisted Aida in her first divorce -- became Aida's and Ricky's
close friend. From the beginning, Tony, who was also married, was in love with Aida and
when he saw she had become thoroughly disenchanted with Ricky, he courted her. For the
first time in her life, Aida fell in love. They left their spouses, flew to California, and were wed
by a judge.

They returned to the Philippines, lived together for 17 years, and had five children. They,
however, also had a stormy relationship. Tony continued to see other women, and they
eventually separated.

In 1994, after 24 years of separation, Aida and Tony were married by a judge in Manila, with
their children as witnesses. Right after a celebratory lunch, Tony and Aida went to their
separate homes. They married not because they loved each other, but because their legal
spouses had died and they wanted to legitimize their children under Philippine laws.

Aida and Tony are my parents.

Now that the Senate Bill filed by Rodolfo Biazon and its counterpart House Bill filed by
Bellaflor Angara Castillo, which push for the legalization of divorce, are being debated in
congress, I find it all rather academic. The reality is, with or without a law, a significant
number of Filipinos are forging unions, separating and forming new unions. My mother's
story is simply a case in point.

According to Evalyn Ursua, former Executive Director of the Women's Legal Bureau, feminist
lawyer and advocate of women and children's rights, the separation of couples is so
common that many lawyers, in fact, have built their practice and earn lucrative incomes
simply from handling cases involving the declaration of nullity of marriages. "People will
separate regardless of what the law says," she avers, "when a marriage is over, it is over
and no law can make it otherwise."

Atty. Ursua goes on to say that we, in fact, have a de facto divorce law in Article 36 of the
Family Code. This provision states that a marriage can be voided if one of the contracting
parties is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations, even if
this incapacity surfaces only after the marriage is contracted. The Supreme Court has come
up with guidelines on the interpretation of Article 36, but the law is subject to abuse because
of the broad concept of psychological incapacity.

Atty. Ursua shares that some members of the Philippine Psychiatric Association have, in fact,
expressed concern about how the field of psychiatry has been corrupted by the forensic
requirements in Article 36 cases. According to her, the concept of psychological incapacity,
as interpreted by the Supreme Court, doesn't exist in psychiatry, but psychiatrists are made
to, and do use it, to nullify marriages. Little wonder then that some psychiatrists refer to
Article 36 as the cottage industry of their colleagues.

Yet, according to Atty. Ursua, Art.36 has given a lot of people another chance at happiness
as it is the only way in the Philippines to legally get out of a marriage. Although not many
people can afford to go through Art. 36 proceedings (payment for both a lawyer and the
psychiatric evaluation cost quite a sum), it has provided couples, particularly abused
women, a remedy.

One basis for divorce as spelled out in the pending House Bill is repeated physical violence
directed against the petitioner or the common child -- a relatively common occurrence,
according to existing data.

Two organizations working with abused women -- Lihok-Pilipina and Combat-VAW (Violence
Against Women) -- estimate that domestic violence affects 6 out of 10 women in the
Philippines. A 1994 nationwide survey reports that 10% of interviewees had been physically
harmed by someone close to them, while 3% were physically harmed while pregnant.

President Arroyo and Cardinal Sin, however, have strongly called for the rejection of the
divorce bills, claiming them to be "un-Filipino, immoral, unconstitutional and a danger to the
Filipino family."

The good Cardinal adds, "The strength of the nation is in the family. Destroy the family by a
bill like divorce and all other values will come crumbling down ... Divorce will bring more
spiritually impoverished children because their spiritually impoverished parents do not like
to keep their marital commitments."

Atty. Ursua has a different take. She says, "I believe the harm on children is even worse
when two people are at each others' throats, obviously very unhappy, but stick together for
the sake of the institution of marriage. I believe they can be better parents if they confront
their issues -- especially if these seem to be irreconcilable. But good parenting should not
stop with marital separation or divorce. In fact, it can even be enhanced."
On the charge that divorce is un-Filipino, Rep. Castillo has pointed out that divorce has
historical precedence and has been practiced by various ancestral tribes in the Philippines
such as the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadangs of Nueva Vizcaya, the Sagadas and Igorots
of the Cordilleras, the Manobos, Blaans, and Muslims of the Visayas and Mindanao. .

Atty. Ursua also pursues this point and argues, "In a position paper drafted on this issue, we
talked about unequal protection before the law. Muslims have divorce under the Muslim
Code of Personal Laws but we non-Muslims don't. If the Philippines is a secular, pluralist
state, why is it that it recognizes and protects the beliefs of Muslims but imposes a single
religious standard on non-Muslims?"

"I think the problem with the Philippine government is that it forgets that we are no longer
under the reign of the Pope via the Spanish crown," she continues. "It insists that it remain
the guardians of our souls although stated in political terms. The government should leave
the moralizing to the church and objectively address the reality of marriages breaking up, of
countless Filipinos having families outside of marriages, and all the social issues related to
this phenomenon."

Toinette, daughter of my mother, seemed to have imbibed the reality of separation of

couples only too well. Growing up in a tight network of families where brothers and sisters
have different parents, Toinette decided that, in spite of the fact that she married a good
man, marriage for her can only happen in a context where divorce is possible. Thus, she
married in the United States.

Toinette and her husband, who have no children, have managed a cross-Atlantic marriage
for the last ten years -- he based in the States, she in the Philippines -- with a lot of visits for
each of them in between. But they are both proud of their marriage. "I think my marriage is
one example that, despite the option of divorce, if two people love each other and are
responsible enough to commit, they stay together, " she says.

Aida, who has raised ten children and has outlived all her three husbands, is now 79. A
devout Catholic, she has this to say, "Divorce should be allowed in the Philippines because it
gives all of us another chance at happiness without sacrificing the legitimacy of our
children."

When asked how she reconciles this belief with the contrary stand of the Catholic Church,
she says, "I believe that our God is a very understanding and loving one. He wouldn't wish
unhappiness on any one of us. If you have been abused, why stay in a marriage?"

http://www.international-divorce.com/d-philippines.htm

Philippines' death penalty debate

By Sarah Toms
BBC News, Manila

In the Philippines, Congress is notorious for taking

months - if not years - to pass laws.

But earlier this month, both houses repealed the death

penalty in quick time, leaving many analysts wondering why Mrs Arroyo may have an eye
that bill got sudden priority while other items languish. on her legacy
The move was welcomed by the influential Roman Catholic Church and human rights groups
that had put pressure on President Gloria Arroyo and previous administrations to scrap
capital punishment.

But others questioned what triggered the urgency to repeal a law that was rarely applied.

"The unusual speed in a legislature constantly bogged down in gridlock raised cynical
suspicions that lawmakers are in dire need of the Catholic Church's approval and support.
For what, the public can only hazard a guess," the Philippine Star newspaper said in an
editorial.

Eight in 10 Filipinos are Catholic and the Church wields considerable power, having helped
to topple two presidents - Ferdinand Marcos in 1986 and Joseph Estrada in 2001 - in popular
revolts.

Mrs Arroyo, who survived an impeachment attempt last year, depends on the support of the
Church as she fights persistent allegations she cheated in the 2004 election, after taking
over from Mr Estrada in 2001.

But the Arroyo government has tested that support by pushing a revival of mining to bring in
foreign investment, cut debt and reduce poverty. Some Catholic bishops oppose mining on
environmental grounds.
This government is
siding with criminals and
"The abolition of the death penalty is one way of saying to
not the victims
the bishops I can't give you what you want over the mining
but I can give you something else, quid pro quo," said
Dante Jimenez, Volunteers
political analyst Earl Perrano of the Institute of Political and
Against Crime and Corruption
Electoral Reforms.

"The Church will still campaign strongly to stop mining operations but with the repeal of the
death penalty it's one less issue she has to worry about."

Other analysts say president Arroyo is also seeking support from bishops for her push to
change the country's US-style constitution and set up a parliamentary system.

Backlash

The change in the death penalty law has drawn angry

protests.

The Philippines is plagued by violent crime, with guns readily

available and used in even minor disputes. Besides
kidnapping and extortion gangs, there are communist and
Muslim insurgencies.
Seven people have been put
Anti-crime groups said they feared that scrapping the death to death since 1994
penalty would make matters worse.

"This government is siding with criminals and not the victims. Now some victims of heinous
crimes may resort to hired killers to get justice," said Dante Jimenez of the Volunteers
Against Crime and Corruption, a prominent group whose members are relatives of hundreds
of victims.
Mr Jimenez said he suspected the Arroyo administration rushed to abolish the death penalty
in an effort to please Pope Benedict XVI, whom the president met on Monday.

'Place in history'

The new law means that sentences for about 1,200 inmates on death row will be changed to
life in prison.

Joel Rocamora of the Institute for Popular Democracy said the abolition of capital
punishment was unpopular and saw the change in the law as Most of the convicted
a precursor to getting Dutch authorities to deport the are the poor because the
founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines, Jose Maria rich bribe their way out of
Sison. a sentence

State lawyers in Manila have filed murder charges against Mr Earl Perrano, Institute of
Sison over the death of a provincial governor in 2001. Political and Electoral
Reforms
But before Mr Sison could be returned to the Philippines from exile in the Netherlands, Mr
Rocamora said the death penalty first had to be scrapped.

"I think Arroyo herself has decided her place in Philippine history should be marked by
ending the country's insurgencies. Jose Maria Sison would almost certainly be jailed once he
reaches the Philippines, but he is a crucial part of negotiations, he still leads the Communist
Party and plays a major role," Mr Rocamora said.

The communist insurgency has killed more than 40,000 people since the late 1960s,
deterred investment and stunted rural development.

This is not the first time the death penalty has been abolished in the Philippines. It was
taken off the books in 1987 after President Marcos was removed from power.

Mr Marcos used the law to execute about a dozen people convicted of rape and drug
charges, but some analysts say it was revoked as a backlash against his abuse of power and
human rights during two decades in office.

But in 1994, capital punishment was re-imposed after a rise in crime. Under that law, seven
executions were carried out by lethal injection.

In 2000, President Estrada ordered a moratorium on executions after strong lobbying by the
Catholic Church, the European Union and human rights groups.

Mr Estrada said he would help to repeal the death penalty but was not able to fulfil his
promise as he soon found himself on trial for plunder, a capital offence.

Mr Parreno said the death penalty was an issue that would always divide the Philippines.

"There are often miscarriages of justice as police work in the Philippines is very sloppy and
technology is outdated," he said.

"Because the justice system is very corrupt, most of the convicted are the poor because the
rich bribe their way out of a sentence."
Background:

Due to the alarming upsurge of heinous crimes which has resulted not only in the loss of
human lives and wanton destruction of property but also affected the states' efforts towards
sustainable economic development and prosperity while at the same time has undermined
the people's faith in the Government and the latter's ability to maintain peace and order in
the country, death penalty is proposed to be imposed.

Pros:

1. The crimes punishable by death are heinous for being grievous, odious and hateful
offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity
and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of
decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society.

2. The interest of justice, public order and the rule of law necessitates the imposition of
death penalty.

3. To foster and ensure not only obedience to government's authority, but also to adopt such
measures as would effectively promote the maintenance of peace and order, the protection
of life, liberty and property, and the promotion of the general welfare which are essential for
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy in a just and humane society

Cons:

1. Imposition of death penalty will not in anyway prevent commission of heinous crimes. It
only reflects the failure of the government and the society to instill proper values to its
citizens.

2. Justice cannot be attained by killing the perpetrator of heinous crime. We must value life
and in the same vein, the government must not resort to imposing death penalty to find
justice to the victim. A civil society should not descend to the status of murderers by
preferring revenge over far better forms of justice.

3. Punishment is supposed to reform and rehabilitate the perpetrator of a crime. Imposing

the death penalty will not achieve said goal. Death penalty is an absolute judgment against
the life of a person.

Capital punishment in the United States varies by jurisdiction. In practice it applies only
for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder or contract killing.[1] Capital
punishment existed in the colonies that predated the United States and that were later
annexed to the United States under the laws of their mother countries and continued to
have effect in the states and territories they became.

The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and
have varied widely throughout time. Some jurisdictions have banned it, others have
suspended its use, but others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37
executions in 2008.[2] That is the lowest number since 1994[3] (largely due to lethal
injection litigation).[4][5] There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal
injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia). Texas executed the largest number, 24, followed
by Alabama with 6; Ohio 5; Virginia, Oklahoma, and Georgia 3; Florida, South Carolina and
Tennessee 2; and Missouri and Indiana
Who speaks for the victims of those we execute?

All over the country, news stories bemoan and hype the countdown to execution number
1,000. But where are the stories regarding the ripple effects of the heinous crimes that
these murderers were executed for committing? Who is counting the victims?

A conservative estimate puts the number of victims of these 1,000 murderers at 1,895. Why
do we hear so much about the killers and so little about the victims and their loved ones
who are left behind to pick up the pieces?

A small sampling of case histories will leave readers shaken.

Melvin and Linda Lorenz, and their son Richard were killed by Roger Stafford. Melvin stopped
on a highway near Purcell, Okla., to help what he thought was a woman whose car had
broken down, but instead was ambushed by Stafford and his brother, using Stafford's wife as
bait. Less than a month after these horrific murders, the trio killed six employees of a steak
house in Oklahoma City.

In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C.
Her killer was a neighbor who had already served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering
his half-brother Charles in 1970. Joe Atkins cut the Pattersons' phone lines, then entered
bearing a machete, a sawed-off shotgun, and a pistol. Karen's parents were chased out of
their home by Atkins. Karen's mom ran to the Atkins home nearby, where Joe then murdered
his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75, who had worked to persuade parole authorities to
release Joe from the life sentence.

When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked
away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on
parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her
to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced
underwater until she drowned.

Ruby Longsworth of Pasadena, Texas, met Jeffrey Barney through a prison ministry, then
helped him get paroled from an auto-theft sentence. Her kindness was repaid when Barney
raped and sodomized her, then strangled her with a cord. She had made the mistake of
calling Barney "a bum" after she had gotten to know him better.

In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a
follow-home robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify
against his accomplice. Massie's sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court
halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved second chance, Massie was paroled,
but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco.

Faith Hathaway was 17 when she was murdered by Robert Willie, whose story became the
inspiration for the film Dead Man Walking. Hathaway had just graduated from high school
and was leaving for the Army the next day. She was abducted after leaving a farewell party
in Mandeville, La. Willie and accomplice Joseph Vaccaro had been on an 8-day murder,
robbery and rape spree. Hathaway was raped by both assailants and stabbed 17 times. She
was raped again after she died.

Kenneth Boyd murdered his estranged wife Julie and his father-in-law, Dillard Curry in
Rockingham County, N.C. Julie and her children were living with Curry. Boyd entered the
home and shot them both in the presence of his own children, then ages 13, 12 and 10.

We must think about the lives that all 1,895 murdered victims affected. Every one had
families, friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors. The combined loss is incalculable.

There is no end to horror stories like these. Jurors, who represent us, hear about horrific
crimes and make tough but appropriate decisions. With a yearly average of 15,000 murders,
the fact that we are reaching 1,000 executions in only a little more than 30 years is proof
that capital punishment has been reserved for the worst of the worst.

The attention given to the execution of 1,000 murderers is repugnant, especially when the
loudest voices think the death of a convicted murderer is a tragedy. Yet the deaths and
suffering of countless victims is only an easily-ignored statistic.
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/

Capital Punishment: Is Man a Machine

or a Moral Agent?

Gregory Koukl

See how your view of capital punishment says a lot about your view of mankind.

I've been looking for an opportunity to comment on an LA Times letter to the editor from
mid-January. I think it's the right time now because of the recent execution of William Bonin,
the freeway killer. Though there are hundreds of people on death row, this is only the third
execution in California since the renewal of capital punishment. William Bonin was executed
by lethal injection, not by the gas chamber. There's a belief that this is more humane. I
thought it was interesting, in reading the accounts of the execution, that nothing was said
about the process or manner of death other than that it was by lethal injection. Generally,
there is a long, boring description of the painful process of death a person goes through in
the gas chamber. California now considers the gas chamber cruel and unusual punishment
so they have gone to lethal injection. I think that's fine. I'm for capital punishment. One of
the reasons is because I think it gives us an opportunity for moral clarity with regards to the
punishment issue. This brings up the piece I saw in the L.A. Times in mid-January. The writer,
Robert Finn, makes this comment: " Times " editors place the continuation of an article on
California's upcoming first execution by lethal injection right next to an article on Israeli
President Azar Wiseman's visit to a former Nazi death camp near Berlin. Now whether
intentional or not, this juxtaposition serves as a reminder that even legal execution is
murder, a fact that no amount of technological improvement can mask. Whether the
government kills millions of innocent Jews or a single vicious and unrepentant murderer, the
death penalty diminishes us all." Signed Robert Finn, Long Beach.

This was one of those pieces that stands out for me as an example of a lack of moral clarity
-- an inability to make valuable moral distinctions regarding behavior. Of course, I expect
such a thing in a culture that is run through and through with relativistic thinking, and has a
view of man that diminishes him to a mere machine. The language of this letter to the
editor, the juxtaposition of this article about capital punishment by lethal injection and the
other article about Wiseman's visit to a Nazi death camp, equates the two as if they were
morally equivalent. He equates the execution of a vicious and unrepentant murderer with
the killing of innocent Jews. Apparently, Robert Finn can't distinguish between guilt and
innocence, even when it is in his own writing.

There is a moral distinction. It isn't the same to kill an innocent person as it is for the state
to properly execute someone who is guilty. I have heard quite a number of arguments
against capital punishment. I've spent a lot of time discussing and even debating this issue. I
have noticed a couple of things about those who argue against capital punishment, per se . I
think there may be some arguments against capital punishment which question the way it is
executed, whether it is just and whether everybody has an equal chance. I understand that
people like Chuck Colson are against capital punishment because of certain inequities in the
system. But that is a different kind of objection. This objection is different from the person
who objects to capital punishment, per se . That is someone who objects to capital
punishment in itself, who believes there is no circumstance in any kind of situation in which
capital punishment is a justified form of punishment. Those who argue against capital
punishment, per se , argue based on a couple of different things. All of those arguments
make a principle error. The error they make is in their assessment of what it means to be a
human being.

As I read the account of the Bonin execution yesterday morning, there were comments
about Bonin's life -- his abuse-ridden childhood, the difficulties he faced growing up, his
experience as a Viet Nam war vet which suggested that might have influenced his behavior.
Similar kinds of arguments came up when Robert Alton Harris faced execution. One of the
strongest appeals made by the defense had to do with an alleged fetal alcohol syndrome of
Harris. Apparently his mother was an alcoholic and there was some evidence that her
alcoholic condition influenced his development as an unborn child. The underlying argument
was that if these are factors that compel a person's actions then they ought to be
considered mitigating circumstances in his punishment.

...human beings are free moral agents. They can make choices and they ought to
be held responsible for the moral choices they make.

I have two thoughts about this and each of them, I think, is very, very important. The first
one has to do with our view of man. Before we resolve the question of how we ought to deal
with human beings who do bad things, we have to ask the question, "What kind of being is
man?" I realize that some of you may think that is too philosophical. But, in fact, you have
already answered the question based on the kind of response you give to the capital
punishment question. If you are taken by these kinds of argument -- fetal alcohol syndrome,
bad environment, Viet Nam war, child abuse, things that may dispose a person to certain
immoral or antisocial conduct -- then that tells me that your view of man is very
mechanistic. In other words, you view human beings, by and large, as machines and not as
moral agents. What happens when a machine goes bad? Do we punish the machine? Of
course not. We fix the machine. If the machine can't be fixed, we discard it. Or, if in the case
of an animal, we will remove the animal or kill the animal. Not because it is guilty and it
ought to be punished because we don't hold them morally responsible since moral terms
don't seem to really apply to animals. But we remove it from any position of being able to do
harm to others in society. The underlying point of view or philosophy about the nature of
man is what seems to form our decisions about capital punishment. That's why people use
defenses against capital punishment like this one: "It doesn't do any good because, first of
all, you can't reform a dead man and, secondly, it is not a deterrent for other people
committing the crime in the future." You see, what this argument amounts to is a pre-
commitment to the idea that any action the state should take with regards to a person
committing a crime should be actions that fix the problem, repair the machine, or at least
influence other machines not to go bad in the future. That's why we have the idea of reform
at the heart of much of our penal system, at least philosophically. It doesn't work out that
way a lot, but rehabilitation is the idea. Michael Jackson -- talk show host in Southern
California on a secular station -- argued last week that if we are executing someone just to
get back at the person who committed the crime, then that is not justice, it's vengeance.
Furthermore, capital punishment doesn't work to deter crime. Therefore, since we shouldn't
be vengeful and since we should work to deter crime in the future, capital punishment is not
justifiable.
I don't think those arguments work. The reason I don't think they work is because I have a
different view of man. I do not believe that man is a machine. I think that human beings are
free moral agents. They can make choices and they ought to be held responsible for the
moral choices they make. This means two things. First, if people make good choices and
make a worthwhile, virtuous contribution to the world, then that means we ought to praise
them. And praise we do, oftentimes. I was on a show recently, a secular station, in which
others were talking with vibrant praise for Magic Johnson for his contribution to society, his
return to the sport and all the good that would do. He was a hero in their minds. Notice there
was no problem with attributing praise to Magic Johnson because it seems that when
someone does something good, he ought to be praised. That only works when someone can
choose their actions. Therefore they are praised for making the right choice. But these same
people who make bad choices ought not to be praised, but rather punished. Keep in mind
the praise is not just so other people will do good things in the future. We are praising him
as a good example to cause other people to act in a certain way. We hope that will happen.
We hold up other individuals who are noble and virtuous as role models. But the praise is an
end in itself because we think it is valuable to praise the individual for the good that he has
done.

Secondly, if that is true, then on the other side of the coin that person who was worthy of
praise for its own sake when doing something good is also worthy of blame, and therefore
punishment, when he does bad. Not merely reform, but punishment for what he did wrong.
And the punishment should fit the crime. We are not just to be concerned with rehabilitation,
fixing the machine and influencing other people not to do bad in the future. So when
somebody commits a capital crime, we are actually making a statement about the high level
of value of human individuals who were made in the image of God, but nonetheless have the
capability of choosing good and evil. We are acknowledging the meaningfulness of that
individual's choice when we praise them for good things but also when we punish them for
bad things.

If we release him from capital punishment because Jesus would forgive, then we
can't justify, based on the same reasoning, any punishment whatsoever.

My comments are meant to make the point that policy issues and ethical positions need to
be informed by deeper philosophic commitments. In this case, the view of punishment vs.
rehabilitation, retribution vs. rehabilitation, will ultimately hinge on how you view man. Is
man a machine or is man a moral agent worthy of praise and punishment? I think many
people are straddling those two views. They want to treat man like he's worthy of praise
then treat him like a machine when it comes to the issue of punishment, saying we shouldn't
punish people because it's revenge. Well, yeah, that's right. It is social revenge. No
apologies. Justice is a kind of revenge. It is getting back, but it is an appropriate getting back
when executed by the appropriate authorities. In this case, the state. The state has an
interest in getting revenge. God has given them that responsibility. He has extended the
responsibility to them to wield the sword on His behalf for the purpose of punishing evil
doers. It says that very clearly in the Scriptures. In Romans 13 it also says to praise those
who do right. What they want to do, though, is object to the punishment thing and say man
is not responsible for his actions because there are extenuating circumstances. It was these
extenuating circumstances that were the deciding factors that caused someone to do bad
when they could not have done otherwise. Since something else caused them, something
else is responsible, so we ought not punish them in this way. Of course, the argument
breaks down because when the time comes around for praise, then the rules change. Then
all of a sudden people are responsible for their behavior. It seems to me people either are
responsible or they are not. If they are responsible, then both praise and punishment make
sense. If they are not responsible, then let's get rid of punishment but let's get rid of praise,
too. This is why B.F. Skinner was at least intellectually honest when he wrote his book,
Beyond Freedom and Dignity, arguing that the environment controls all of our behaviors and
is ultimately deterministic. If that is the case then we ought not be praised nor should we be
punished. We should just be manipulated as machines so that we work better for the good of
all. Of course, then you've got a problem of defining what this word "good" means in a
mechanistic environment. My view is that man is not a machine. That is why it doesn't
matter whether someone is reformed or not. If they are properly punished then the goal of
punishment is fulfilled. Retribution. I think that it's noble in cases where there can be some
reform and moral training to make someone a better person. But I don't want the tail to wag
the dog. That's secondary to the question of punishment.

The other problem with this view, and I hinted at it just a few moments ago, is that it seems
to prove too much. If man is not responsible such that he is not deserving of capital
punishment, then how is he deserving of any punishment whatsoever? Last time we had an
execution, Mother Teresa, I think, was misdirected on this issue. She called the governor's
office and pleaded with Governor Wilson for the life of Robert Alton Harris. Mother Teresa's
argument was that Jesus would forgive him. Well, I agree with her on that. If he fulfilled the
requirements for forgiveness, Jesus would forgive him. But I'm not sure what that has to do
with the question of how the government ought to treat a criminal. If it is true that Jesus
would forgive him and that is a good argument against capital punishment in his case, then
what are we to do with Robert Alton Harris, or William Bonin, or anyone else in a similar
situation? Mother Teresa's suggestion was to just let him stay in prison for the rest of his life.
This is what many people suggest as an alternative. My response to that is going to be
Mother Teresa's response. But Jesus would forgive him. Or the secular version, he had fetal
alcohol syndrome so he wasn't really culpable. Maybe he should just do 10 years. But he
wasn't culpable and Jesus would forgive. Maybe one year. Maybe one month. Even for one
day. If the man is not culpable because there are extenuating circumstances, he ought not
be in prison even for a day. If we release him from capital punishment because Jesus would
forgive, then we can't justify, based on the same reasoning, any punishment whatsoever.
This is the problem with most of these arguments. They prove too much. They apply with
equal force not just to capital punishment but to any punishment whatsoever. If those are
good arguments, they require that we simply dismantle the legal system. If we are going to
treat men as machines, or at best as sick animals who need to get better, then putting them
in prison certainly is not the way to heal them. We would rather then commit ourselves to
the kind of environment that would make them the most docile and most law-abiding.
Maybe we should just put them in a resort and provide for all of their needs and make their
lives wonderful and pay their way through college so that they are changed into law-abiding
citizens. Then they are no longer even tempted to do bad if they are mere machines to be
fixed, or non-moral, non-responsible animals to be rehabilitated. Why prison at all? Nobody
wants to do that for the same reason they feel comfortable receiving praise. They
understand deep within them that man is a moral animal who is responsible and who ought
to be praised when he does good, but who ought to be punished when he does wrong. ------

The Death Penalty: Morally Defensible?

Related Links

• Pro-Death Penalty.com
 • Open Directory
• What Would Jesus Do?
• Statement on Civil and
Constitutional Rights
Concerning Claims of Innocence
• Statement in Response to Critics
of the Victim's Rights Amendment
• We're Not Executing the Innocent

The death penalty has faced much opposition as of late. Can the death penalty possibly be a
morally acceptable punishment? A popular bumper sticker says, "We kill people to show
people that killing people is wrong." The slogan is short, simple, and to the point. But is
there really such irony in capital punishment as the slogan implies?

WORD GAMES

First of all, the slogan misses an important point. The death penalty does not punish people
for killing, but for murder. Killing is justified when it is done in self-defense. Killing means to
cause death. Murder, on the other hand, is defined as, "the unlawful and malicious or
premeditated killing of one human being by another" (for the less observant, this definition
cannot be applied to the death penalty, because the death penalty is lawful, non-malicious,
and is not carried out by an individual but by the government). "Kill," "murder," and
"execute" are not interchangeable terms. Death penalty opponents would like us to believe
otherwise. Just because two actions result in the same end does not make them morally
equivalent. If it were so, legal incarceration would be equated with kidnapping, lovemaking
with rape, self-defense with battery, etc.1 Therefore, the slogan is better stated, "We
execute people to show people that murder is wrong." Not quite as catchy, is it?

MORALITY

Morality is defined as "the principles of right and wrong." As moral creatures, humans
deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. Punishment may range from a
slap on the wrist to death, but the punishment must fit the crime. This is known as lex
talionis, or in common jargon, "an eye for an eye." Abolitionists often insist that if we argue
for lex talion justice we must be prepared to rape rapists, beat sadists, and burn down the
houses of arsonists. Certainly, this is the case if we take the lex talion literally, and the
criminals do deserve those punishments, but we needn't take it literally. The ancient Jews
did not.2 They allowed for monetary compensation for physical or property damage.

Why then, if it is not morally okay to rape rapists, is it acceptable to execute murderers? The
answer is simple. There is no redeeming value to carrying out the former punishment.
Raping the rapist will only cause someone else to degrade themselves by doing it. It will not
prevent the rapist from raping again. Executing murderers, however, prevents them from
committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. The good, therefore,
outweighs the bad, and the executioner is morally justified in taking the murderer's life. On
the other hand, if the abolitionist argues that killing is always wrong, then he must also
concede that killing in self-defense is unacceptable and should be punished. Few, if any,
however, are willing to do so. The abolitionist may choose to argue that the state should
never kill. But consider also the scenario of protecting someone else's life. Are police officers
(the state) justified in killing attempted murderers to save a victim's life? If the answer to
this question is yes, then the question is no longer if the state is justified in taking the life of
criminals but when.

Morally, it is wrong to simply incarcerate someone for murder. A sentence of life in an air-
conditioned, cable-equipped prison where a person gets free meals three times a day,
personal recreation time, and regular visits with friends and family3 is a slap in the face of
morality. People will say here that not all prisons are like the one cited. This betrays an
ignorance, however, of current trends. Eventually, criminal rights activists will see to it that
all prisons are nice places to go. But regardless of the conditions of a particular prison,
someone who murders another human being can only be made to pay for his actions by
forfeiting his own life. This is so, simply because a loss of freedom does not and cannot
compare to a loss of life. If the punishment for theft is imprisonment, then the punishment
for murder must be exponentially more severe, because human life is infinitely more
valuable than any material item.

Take, for example, a murderer who took the life of a teenager. The parents of the victim will
be among the taxpayers that pay for his meals and his cable television. Should he choose to
take advantage of college courses the prison may offer, the parents of the victim will be
indirectly financing those expenses as well. Nothing could be further from justice. It is of this
type of situation that the abolitionist approves. Somewhere along the line, their priorities
have been turned upside down.

BUT IS IT REVENGE?

Abolitionists claim that the death penalty is a means of revenge. It is not. One way for the
victim's family to get revenge would be to go out and murder a member of the murderer's
family in order to get him to experience the same type of suffering he put them through. If
the purpose of the state in executing murderers was retribution or revenge, then criminals
would be executed in the same way they that murdered their victims. The point of the death
penalty, however, is not to see how much pain can be unleashed on the murderer but to
bring him to justice.

THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES

In reality, the murderer actually gets off easy when he is sentenced to death in the United
States. There are five methods of execution used in the United States: lethal injection,
electrocution, lethal gas, hanging, and firing squad.4 The most commonly used methods
today are lethal injection and the electric chair. If a person is lethally injected, he is first put
to sleep with thiopental sodium, and then he is administered potassium chloride that will
stop his heart.5 The criminal dies from anesthetic overdose and respiratory and cardiac
arrest while he or she is unconscious. As for the electric chair, there is an initial jolt of 2,300
volts (9.5 amps) which lasts for eight seconds, followed by a low-voltage jolt of 1,000 volts
(4 amps) for 22 seconds and finally a jolt of 2,300 volts (9.5 amps) for eight seconds.6 The
murderer is rendered unconscious immediately, or within the first eight seconds at most, as
the initial high-voltage jolt kills the brain.7 The subsequent jolts stop the heart in case it is
still beating.8 Compare this to the heinous crimes of the murderer, where often the victim
will go through excruciating pain for minutes, hours, or sometimes days. The minute amount
of pain experienced by the murderer on death row does not even begin to compensate for
the pain of the victims.

FIVE REASONS YOU SHOULD SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY

The Campaign to End the Death Penalty gives five reasons on their website why the death
penalty should be abolished. Those reasons are quite commonly given, so I will address their
objections here.

1. The death penalty is racist.

2. The death penalty punishes the poor.
These are basically the same argument. What it boils down to is "the death penalty is not
applied fairly." This cannot be an argument against the death penalty. If it were, then it
would be an argument against all punishments. To argue that the death penalty is to be
abolished because it is not fairly imposed is to admit that if it were imposed fairly it would be
okay. This is not an argument against the death penalty but an argument to improve the
justice system. Is the system unfair? Fix it. What is unfair is not that the black and poor
prisoners get what they deserve. What is unfair is that the rich and white prisoners do not.

June 6, 2001- Justice Department finds that there is no bias in application of death penalty.

3. The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.

There is absolutely no proof for this statement. Before any person is executed in this
country, twelve members of a carefully selected jury have to decide -- beyond a reasonable
doubt -- that a defendant is guilty. The possibility of an innocent person being executed is
extremely small, and continues to decrease with the improvement of forensic science. It is
true that death row prisoners have been released, but it is not always true that they were
innocent.

Consider the following fact: A judgment of acquittal is final.9 Even if overwhelming evidence
is later uncovered, the prosecution can never appeal. A retrial would constitute "double
jeopardy" which is not permitted under the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.10 Likewise, if a conviction is reversed on appeal because the evidence of guilt
was legally insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant cannot
be retried. Furthermore, if a court decides that the evidence brought against the defendant
was legally insufficient, it is not saying that the defendant was actually innocent. By making
this decision, the court is merely saying that the prosecution did not prove the defendant's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.11

Dudley Sharp notes, "It is important to preserve the distinction between acquittal and
innocence, which is regularly obfuscated in news media headlines."12 The media often
overlooks this distinction, and thrives on causing widespread panic that an innocent person
was falsely convicted. Being acquitted, however, does not mean that the defendant did not
actually commit the crime. A jury must acquit "someone who is probably guilty but whose
guilt is not established beyond a reasonable doubt." Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 225
(1976).

Please see Innocence and the Death Penalty.

4. The death penalty is not a deterrent against violent crime.
The death penalty as a deterrent to crime is not the issue. Capital punishment is, pardon the
redundancy, a punishment for crime. As a punishment, the death penalty is 100% effective--
every time it is used, the prisoner dies.

Additionally, the death penalty is actually 100% effective as a deterrent to crime: the
murderer will never commit another crime once he has been executed. While there is no
proof that any innocents have been executed in this century, there is an abundance of
evidence that prisoners who either escaped or were released early murdered innocent
victims again.13 Professor Paul Cassell points out that

Out of a sample of 164 paroled Georgia murderers, eight committed subsequent murders
within seven years of release. A study of twenty Oregon murderers released on parole in
1979 found that one (i.e., five percent) had committed a subsequent homicide within five
years of release. Another study found that of 11,404 persons originally convicted of "willful
homicide" and released during 1965 and 1974, 34 were returned to prison for commission of
a subsequent criminal homicide during the first year alone.14

Even those who are not released but still serve life terms murder again. Cassell further notes
that, "At least five federal prison officers have been killed since December 1982, and the
inmates in at least three of the incidents were already serving life sentences for murder."15
Had these prisoners been executed, innocent lives would have been saved. The death
penalty is, without question, a deterrent to murder.

(Seven recent studies make it clear that executions deter murders and murder rates
increase substantially during moratoriums.)

5. The death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.

The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment. The framers of the Constitution
supported the death penalty, and in fact constructed laws in order to carry it out, so it is
ridiculous to claim that cruel and unusual punishment refers to the death penalty. Justice
Antonin Scalia observed,

The Fifth Amendment provides that '[n]o persons shall be held to answer for a
capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of
life...without the due process of law.' This clearly permits the death penalty to be imposed,
and establishes beyond doubt that the death penalty is not one of the 'cruel and unusual
punishments' prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.16

The American draftsmen were primarily concerned with proscribing "tortures" and other
"barbarous" methods of punishment.17 The U.S. Supreme Court noted in Gregg v. Georgia
that

In the earliest cases raising Eighth Amendment claims, the Court focused on particular
methods of execution to determine whether they were too cruel to pass constitutional
muster. The constitutionality of the sentence of death itself was not at issue... (emphasis
mine).18

The Senate Judiciary Committee once noted,

[m]urder does not simply differ in magnitude from extortion or burglary or property
destruction offenses; it differs in kind. Its punishment ought to also differ in kind. It must
acknowledge the inviolability and dignity of innocent human life. It must, in short, be
proportionate.19

The very notion that one could be cruel while punishing a guilty murderer for murdering an
innocent victim is laughable.

DEATH PENALTY YES, MURDER NO

I have tried to argue here that the death penalty is moral and just. We must never forget
that no one has to be executed; if no one murders, no one is executed. Murderers are not
innocent people fighting for their lives; that statement describes their victims. Let us work in
America to get back the mentality that victim rights are more important than criminal rights.

Martial law dilutes the Philippines’s human rights and democratic gains

After the country’s democracy was restored 23 years ago, the days
where the police and military were ruling over the civilian authority
were deeply felt again, most notably by the citizens of Maguindanao, a
province in southern Philippines, after it was placed under martial
law by Proclamation No 1959 last Friday, December 4.

The scenario of arrests, detentions and searches made without court

orders–a common practice during the late president Ferdinand Marcos’s
martial rule–unfolded during the police and military operation
against those involved in the Maguindanao massacre. The fundamental
principles of legality and due process have been abandoned, with
security forces having unprecedented powers given by the head of state
under this martial law.

Disclaimer | What you are reading is either a press release/ statement or a manifesto.
These materials do not go through the editorial process of PinoyPress and do not reflect our
policy or position.

Twenty eight years after Marcos’ martial rule ended, the notion of a
military solution remains deeply embedded, not only amongst the
security forces, but also within the civilian government. Martial rule
and suspension of writ of habeas corpus, which allows warrantless
arrests, detention and conduct of searches, have been a convenient
solution for the police force’s incompetence in enforcing their
rudimentary duties.

By giving the police and military unprecedented powers, Philippine

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has effectively compromised the
fundamental rights of the people of Maguindanao, who have suffered
from a decades-old protracted war in Mindanao. The police have become
subservient to and have ceded police powers to the military. Under
martial rule, the soldiers have cemented their de facto superiority
over the police in conflict areas.

The Philippines has passed a number of landmark legislations in terms

of legal protection for human rights in 2009, for example, the
enactment of Anti-Torture Law in November 2009 and the Magna Carta for
Women, a legislation which protects and upholds women’s rights, in
August 2009. However, it also gained notoriety of being the place in
which the highest number of journalists were killed in a single
incident, according to Reporters Without Borders, following the
massacre of 30 journalists on November 23 in Maguindanao. The massacre
has put the number of journalists murdered since democracy was
restored in 1986 to 109.

Apart from the murder of journalists, the country has also had an
unprecedented record of targeted attacks on political and human rights
activists. A local human rights group, Karapatan, claimed to have
documented 77 victims of extra-judicial killings between January and
October 2009. The murder of two human rights defenders and lawyers,
Connie Brizuela and Cynthia Oquendo in the Maguindanao massacre, have
added to the list of hundreds of human rights defenders murdered in
the country in recent time.

The number of cases of extra-judicial killings that have resulted in

prosecution and conviction of the perpetrators is nil. The widespread
impunity of security forces has its roots in systemic defects in the
country’s system of justice. Perpetrators and criminals are committing
crimes and getting away with these murders without fear of being
prosecuted.

To illustrate this, on the occasion of International Human Rights Day,

the AHRC published its 26-page annual report on the State of Human
Rights in the Philippines today. The report demonstrates that the
impunity of security forces and the lack of remedies for the worst
forms of human rights violations was a product of the defects within
the system of justice.

Please read the rest of the report by following this link:

http://material.ahrchk.net/hrreport/2009/AHRC-SPR-007-2009-Philip---

Martial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities over designated regions
on an emergency basis—usually only temporary—when the civilian government or civilian
authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, and provide
essential services), when there are extensive riots and protests, or when the disobedience of
the law becomes widespread. In most cases, military forces are deployed to quiet the
crowds, to secure government buildings and key or sensitive locations, and to maintain
order. Generally, military personnel replace civil authorities and perform some or all of their
functions. The constitution could be suspended, and in full-scale martial law, the highest
ranking military General would take over, or be installed, as the military governor or as head
of the government, thus removing all power from the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of the federal government.
Martial law can be used by governments to enforce their rule over the public. Such incidents
may occur after a coup d'état (Thailand 2006); when threatened by popular protest (China,
Tiananmen Square protests of 1989); to suppress political opposition (Poland in 1981); to
stabilize insurrections or perceived insurrections (Canada, The October Crisis of 1970).
Martial law may be declared in cases of major natural disasters, however most countries use
a different legal construct, such as a "state of emergency".

Martial law has also been imposed during conflicts and in cases of occupations, where the
absence of any other civil government provides for an unstable population. Examples of this
form of military rule include post World War II reconstruction in Germany and Japan as well
as the southern reconstruction following the U.S. Civil War.

Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law,
civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice
to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-
martial).---

In the November 11, 2009 2nd Division and the December 16, 2009 en banc decisions of the
Philippine Commission on Elections, Ang Ladlad LGBT Party was denied participation in the
upcoming May 2010 National Elections on the grounds that “petitioner tolerates immorality
which offends religious beliefs” and that “homosexuals are a threat to the youth”.

The party has now filed a case at the Supreme Court questioning the ruling and the Court
has issued a temporary restraining order telling Comelec to include, for now, Ang Ladlad in
the official list of partylist candidates but overall the Court has yet to release its final ruling
on the case. In the meantime, while the Philippines does not have laws criminalizing same-
sex desire and conduct, because of religious intolerance and the recent rise of religious
fundamentalism, there has been a great need to raise people’s consciousness about the
stigma, discrimination and violence against (Filipino) lesbians, gays, bakla, bayot, bantut,
bisexuals, tomboy, transgenders, transsexuals, intersex (LGBTI) and other sexual and
gender minorities (SGM) and to mobilize the LGBT community into action against
discriminatory views of society and the world.

Philippine Forum on Sports, Culture, Sexuality and Human Rights (TEAM PILIPINAS) is a
registered non-profit organization working on social change for and by young Filipino LGBTIs
and other SGMs from the grassroots. The organization believes that Philippine society’s view
on LGBTIs and SGMs as either being mentally disordered, freaks of nature, sinners or
immoral people is clearly wrong, blatantly oppressive and totally unjust and that there is a
need to raise people’s awareness on these issues and to mobilize public action against such
discriminatory views. http://diversityandequality.ph/index.php/2010/02/06/i-am-not-immoral/

MANILA, Philippines - The Catholic Church threatened Friday to urge its faithful to defy the
disputed Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill if it is passed into law.

Fr. Joel Jason, director of Manila Archdiocese Ministry for Family and Life, said this would be
the Church's response to claims by bill author Rep. Edcel Lagman that Church resistance is
futile.

"Catholic Church's advocacy against Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill
might not have much effect, if some law makers claim so. But, the Church will educate people
not to follow anti-life laws on moral grounds," Jason said in a statement posted Friday evening
on the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines Web site (www.cbcpnews.com).
If it is needed, the Catholic Church can hold "national protests" against the Reproductive Health
and Population Development Bill, he added.

For its part, the CBCP and Manila Archdiocese will launch on Sept. 8 an "educational" DVD
screening program entitled "The Subtle Attacks on Family."

The CBCP said the DVD would be shown in parishes, schools, mission stations, church
organizations and like-minded people who are pro-life, all over the country.

As of now, orders for the video have already reached 3,000 copies, he claimed.

"This video screening program is aimed to educate at grass-root levels, among Catholics,
students, teachers, catechists and others regarding the dangers and immorality of measures
proposed by Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill," said Jason.

It would also be a great help for people to distinguish what is morally good and acceptable and
avoid evil laws and legislations such as Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill,
he added.

Aside from these, Jason said the Church has been intensifying its signature campaign against
Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill.

Jason cited reports quoting Lagman as saying at least 86 lawmakers now support his bill.
Lagman needs 116 votes for the bill to get past the House of Representatives.

He said the Church would continue to oppose against proposed Reproductive Health Bill that
calls for universal access to artificial contraceptives.

The Catholic Church is against all kinds of artificial contraceptives — birth control pills,
condoms, surgical interventions like vasectomy and tubal ligation — which it terms as anti-life
and immoral.

It promotes only natural family planning methods.

Jason said that if the Reproductive Health and Population Development Bill would be passed, it
will be an immoral law, and thus, people are not obliged to follow an immoral law. -
GPhilippines: Religious and Government Opposition to Anti-Discrimination Bill
12/23/2009

The Committee on Civil, Political and Human Rights of the Philippines Congress finally held the
first public hearing on the anti-discrimination bill (House Bill 956) on December 9, 2009. Rep.
Erin Tanada, the Committee chairperson, finally agreed to the hearing after pressure by lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) groups and media in the Philippines accusing him of
'sitting on the bill' for the duration of his term as chairperson of the Committee.
Authored by Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros, the anti-discrimination bill (download PDF here),
"An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis Of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and
Providing Penalties Therefore," has been languishing in Congress since it was filed in 1999
during the 11th Congress. It seeks to prohibit a wide range of practices and policies that
discriminate against LGBT people by ending discrimination in schools, workplaces, and public
spaces; denial of accreditation to LGBT groups, including political parties; and police and
military abuse and harassment.

The public hearing resulted in the formation of a technical working group to redraft the bill in
consideration of the information presented by 'resource persons' (key representatives of groups
opposing or supporting a bill) who were invited during the hearing. Given the upcoming national
elections in 2010, LGBT activists are not optimistic that the bill will be passed into law soon
because most politicians in both Houses of the Congress and Senate will likely avoid the
controversial bill in their bid to get re-elected.

LGBT activists in the Philippines nevertheless insist that a push for the passage of the anti-
discrimination bill is still necessary, despite setbacks and opposition from the government and
from mainstream society, particularly conservative religious groups. Representative Bienvenido
Abante, a Baptist pastor who won a seat in Congress, used his positions as chairperson from
2005-07 and vice-chairperson from 2008-09 of the House Committee on Human Rights to block
the passage of the anti-discrimination bill. During the public hearing on the bill, he vehemently
objected to LGBT resource persons speaking, and encouraged resource persons from various
church groups to dominate the hearings. His arguments, as well as the arguments of religious
groups opposing the bill, were that (1) since the laws in the Philippines protect human rights of
all citizens, there is no need for the anti-discrimination bill; (2) the bill will provide special rights
for LGBTs; and (3) if the anti-discrimination bill is passed into law, LGBT people will then ask
for the legalization of same-sex marriage.

The need for legal protections for LGBT people is particularly clear in light of the vehement
homophobic opposition to the registration of the LGBT political party, Ang LADLAD by the
Commission on Elections (Comelec), preventing the group from running in the national election.

"COMELEC is espousing that people with sexual orientations and gender identities other than
heterosexual are immoral and a threat to the youth, clearly demonstrating their cultural and
political biases stemming from bigotry and ignorance," said Eva Callueng, one of the resource
speakers and co-founder of Babaylanes, Inc., an LGBT education initiative focused on
developing the capacities of young LGBT people on campuses and in communities.

Jonas Bagas, Convenor of Project Equality and head of the Akbayan Gay and Lesbian Collective
added, "The public hearing provided a platform for activists to press for legal protection from
unrelenting attacks on LGBT rights including the Comelec resolution declaring homosexuals
unfit and immoral for public service and the continuing campaigns by the religious right to block
the recognition of equal rights for LGBTs."

"The religious groups mobilize church-funded ex-gay groups that claim that the bill is
unnecessary since homosexuality can be repaired and corrected. They likewise argue that the
state should rather support reparative therapies instead of criminalizing discrimination," explains
Jonas Bagas.

By June 2010 the Philippines will have a new set of leaders facing the challenge of leading the
Philippines to its goal of improved economic as well as social growth. LGBT leaders also see the
coming election as a new hope for the anti-discrimination to be passed into law since there are
politicians who can be potential supporters of LGBT rights who will be running for public office.
LGBT activists see this as a good sign since there is a possibility for a dialogue about the anti-
discrimination bill to potential supporters who can co-author the bill and who will vote for the
passage of the bill in both houses.

"Pointing out that this bill asks for no special recognitions and just an assertion of a basic human
right is a position that we all should stick to. Any argument against this bill will not stand. In the
history of the discussion of the anti-discrimination since the 11th Congress in 1999, the
opposition has never produced a single argument that could dismiss the bill's position," Eva
Callueng argues.

On the other hand, LGBT activists also acknowledge that there is a need to increase and
diversify LGBT community action, and that there is a need to re-strategize advocacy efforts.
Jonas Bargas points out, "Controversial bills can only pass if the community mobilizes its
constituents. Thus, community organizing is all the more crucial. We also need to broaden the
support for the bill from different stakeholders inside and outside the Philippines."
http://www.iglhrc.org/cgi-bin/iowa/article/takeaction/resourcecenter/1061.html