How can 5th century thinkers implement 21st century plans?
November 13th, 2009 by Jayson Edward San JuanOn 11 November 2009, the Second Division of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) promulgated a Decision denying accreditation to Ang Ladlad, a lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT) partylist organization.
COMELEC denied the petition because in its mind, Ang Ladlad is an advocate of immoral values and pose serious risks to the children because it is an organization of homosexuals. COMELEC cited the Book of Romans from the Christian Bible and a passage from the Qur’an as bases of its Decision.
No surprise there. In his article Oppose COMELEC, Support the Ang Ladlad Movement, fellow FV contributor Ryan Tani lists the following members of the Second Division with their backgrounds, to wit –
1. Nicodemo Ferrer – Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister, Our Lady of the Purification Parish, Binmaley, Pangasinan
2. Lucenito Tagle – Past president of Christ the King Parish Pastoral Council in Greenmeadows, Quezon City
3. Elias Yusoph – an Imam or Muslim leader who has been linked to former commissioner Virgilio Garcillano
Akbayan Partylist Representative Risa Hontiveros is absolutely correct in asserting that the COMELEC’s duty is to implement the party-list law. “If Ang Ladlad was able to fulfill the requirements for accreditation, then the group should be accredited. The views of the COMELEC officials on homosexuality is (sic) absolutely immaterial, and their religious beliefs do not supersede our laws and our Constitution.”
Under Republic Act No. 7941 (Partylist Law), COMELEC can accept or deny an organization’s petition for accreditation based on any of the following grounds –
(1) It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association, organized for religious purposes;
(2) It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
(3) It is a foreign party or organization;
(4) It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;
(5) It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
(6) It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
(7) It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
Failing to prove that Ang Ladlad committed any of the infractions cited in the law, COMELEC’s role to accredit it should therefore be purely ministerial.
But no! The old fogeys of the Commission’s Second Division chose to follow their medieval and outdated beliefs. In so doing, these Commissioners committed palpable violations of the Constitution. Let me count the ways how –
Article II, Section 6: The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Article II, Section 11: The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
Article II, Section 26: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service x x x
Article III, Section 5: x x x No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
Article XIII, Sec 16: The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not be abridged.
How can we trust these people to bring us to the 21st century of modernized elections if they insist on their outdated, outmoded, and medieval prejudices?
November 13, 2009 at 8:05 pm
As with Magdalo, so with Ang Ladlad.
November 13, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Its not about separation of the church and the state. People can talk all they want about the separation of the two. All that blah blah about what the constitution guarantees mean nothing. In the end it’s the religious and moral beliefs of a person (or lack of it) that dictates how one does his job. Its about the separation of one’s religious and moral beliefs from what his job mandates him to do. The question is, can one betray his beliefs so he can do his job?
November 13, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Let Danton Remoto test the courts on that. However if you are a civil servant or official in a secular republic and you believe that your job violates your conscience, the law does provide conscientious objection. But you may not at any time or venue impose your conscience or your beliefs on anyone. I am very much aware of these limits since I teach at the secular UP.
In the Philippines I know not of any lawyer who has the balls or ovaries that has dared to test these perceived violations against the non-establishment of a majority religion.
November 13, 2009 at 11:27 pm
I may be wrong though. Claro M Recto did something similar by way of legislation in the Rizal Law.
November 14, 2009 at 4:21 am
The problem here is the imposition of a certain set of beliefs, esp from a collective that was not elected by the people. This is the same dilemma that courts face when they decide on cases involving social legislation. Are they to impose their own personal biases and prejudices, or rule in favor of the general welfare, their own belief system be damned?
November 14, 2009 at 6:27 am
darwin, they can continue to believe that they are sinners, or whatever. you are free to tell people what your beliefs are, convince them of the wrongness of other’s beliefs, etc. thats fine. but you cant prevent people from exercising political rights (not religious ones!) on a religious basis.
this idea protects the faithful’s political rights also — that is, you cant prevent a citizen from exercising political rights coz he believes in a certain religion.
November 15, 2009 at 12:57 am
Andun na ko. But the problem is that religion dictates that it should be applied and to not tolerate what it perceives as wrong. It doesn’t leave much room for tolerance, does it? Now how do you a problem like that?
You don’t understand where I’m coming from. I am not contesting what you guys are saying. What I’m saying is that what the law says and what their religion says is directly in contrast. The law says that they should do their jobs regardless of what they believe. Their religion REQUIRES THAT THEY SHOULD APPLY THEIR BELIEFS TO THEIR JOBS no matter what the law says. That is why there is the problem of the church meddling in the affairs of the state.
Mario has it right
“it is no exaggeration to say that the future progress of human society will be impaired by the continuing influence of superstition, pseudoscience, and religion in public and state affairs.”
November 15, 2009 at 6:54 am
this is what confuses me.
nothing in the RCC says that homosexuals should be shunned. correct me if i am wrong. RCC believes they are morally wrong, and should be shown love.
but what is the connection between THAT and the inability to run in an election? much of the consequences of being morally wrong comes NOT while living in this world (the political realities in it, etc), but by loss of the relationship with god.
in other words, its OK and RIGHT to say: “i think you are a sinner” while saying, “go and exercise political rights in this world”.
moreover — i agree — your beliefs inform who you are. but THESE SPECIFIC BELIEFS do not mean that the action should be to shut these groups out. the catholic response ought to be engagement and love.
November 15, 2009 at 11:34 am
It’s okay Gabby, it confuses most everybody else.
November 15, 2009 at 2:25 pm
more important is that the COMELEC group is confused also.
November 13, 2009 at 9:28 pm
You are supposed to do your job regardless of your beliefs. A job is a VOLUNTARY CONTRACT that requires you to carry out a list of duties for monetary gains. If you feel your beliefs will prevent you from properly executing your duties, do not sign up in the first place. Being a fundamentally religious judge is like being a pro-life doctor in a planned pregnancy clinic. It is irreconcilable and it is wrong. You will just be underserving the same people you are supposed to protect and advocate for.
November 14, 2009 at 1:50 am
The great physicist Albert Einstein plainly stated: “You cannot solve
any present significant problem on the level of thinking when you had created them”.
If you try to impose your way of thinking today; from a two thousand
years old way of thinking. You will ran smack to our 21st century
problems. In other words, you have to widen your perspectives . And
highten your level of thinking. Before you can solve our 21st century
problems.
This is the problem of Al Queda and Osama Bin Laden. The Al Queda
and Osama Bin Laden adhere to the 11th century way of thinking
based on the Islamic Koran. When tribes were riding on donkeys, camels, horses, etc…Radios, computers and democracy were not even
a vague ideas.
It is the same with the Catholic and any Christian Church. Those
dogmas, doctrines and teaching had produced the Inquisition. When
people called Heretics were burned on the stakes. I hope they will
not be burning Gays and Lesbians.
The Islamic Religion now produce: Suicide Bombers, people who believe in blowing themselves up and the infidels to get to Heaven. Also, religious extremists trying to impose their religious ways of life by terrorism.
SO MUCH INSANITY ALREADY IN OUR COUNTRY.
November 14, 2009 at 4:23 am
Correct. Let us not delude ourselves that culture is a fixed and stable matter, because it is not. It continuously evolves. It is dynamic. A culture that refuses to evolve will end up dead, or if not, will be deadly for the rest of the world especially if it’s intolerant of other cultural peculiarities.
November 14, 2009 at 4:43 am
“A culture that refuses to evolve will end up dead.”
And that in a nutshell encapsulates the Philippines’ medieval thinking in the digital age. Kaya hanggang ngayon, wala pa ring asenso.
November 14, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Ang aking Kababayan,
COMELEC, these guys are becoming more of a Foreign Bodies to me. Who are they to judge an individual. For that matter the people.
First, let’s find out who or what COMELEC is all about.
It says that: THE COMELEC AS GUARDIAN OF THE BALLOT
“Through the years, the Commission has managed to maintain its authority and independence in the conduct of elections. Actions and decisions of this body that appeared to strain the limits of its powers were, in most cases, sustained by the Supreme Court, thereby reinforcing its position as the constitutionally ordained guardian of the ballot.”
Or, are they becoming a Religious Fanatics. One must think!
Kindly let me introduced you to, “The Brights”.
As stated, these guys are bright in knowledge. Not all knowing, but well informed. That’s why they are called “The Brights.”
Brights do not deny the right of religious and other superstitious individuals and groups to freedom of speech and assembly, or any of the other civil liberties that we claim for ourselves. Their goal is not to use levers of social control to suppress them, the way we have often seen our worldview suppressed by them. Their goal is to defeat their program for social control, by gaining majority support for public policy measures untainted by their irrational beliefs. They will also initiate or support legal action to uphold and extend whatever secular principles of public life may be protected by existing law.
Every success we may gain in this project, however small, will have to be defended continuously with vigour and resolve against those who seek to reverse it, or it will inevitably be lost. We must be as determined and forthright as our opponents, or our cause will fail.
Failure is not an option. It is no exaggeration to say that the future progress of human society will be impaired by the continuing influence of superstition, pseudoscience, and religion in public and state affairs. Our task is difficult, but its success is essential if humanity is to thrive as a species.
November 16, 2009 at 4:16 am
One wonders whether COMELEC believes that its decision contributes to the peace and order situation of the country. Is that what they’re thinking by branding LGBTs as immoral? They’re still off, but I still wonder if there’s more behind this controversial decision.