My Two-Cents Worth: Sex Ed and RH Law

PROVIDED! Provided that the teacher is one who is specially equipped with proper knowledge, training, and moral consciousness in properly teaching the course. FURTHER PROVIDED, that sex ed will be taught in school at the right or proper time ascertained by an expert in the matter.

Intellectual masturbation... Yes, masturbation--a stimulation. I mean an informative or intellectual discussion that gives cognitive satisfaction.

To start our cerebral orgasm firework display, say…

“Sex! Sex! Sex!”

Why many people can say it out loud? A crime? Wickedness? Nah… You're not violating any law when you say it... Nor you sin just because you say it.

Sex. A taboo for some, perhaps.

I read a tweet on sex education, so here I am.

There was a forum in my Alma Mater and some of the senatorial candidates were asked about sex ed being a school based thing.

One of the Reproductive Health (RH) Law's objectives is to properly educate the people, including the youth, on sex.

With the advent of recently approved RH Law, I think it's but fitting for the government to push through school based sex ed in Health subjects or classes.

School is a more, if not the most, comfortable, informative, responsible place, I presume, where this topic can be discussed with the students openly, honestly, and positively. I believe. PROVIDED! Provided that the teacher is one who is specially equipped with proper knowledge, training, and moral consciousness in properly teaching the course. FURTHER PROVIDED, that sex ed will be taught in school at the right or proper time ascertained by an expert in the matter.

Now that we have RH Law, we should implement it productively and effectively; and part of doing that is to utilize the appropriated money for sex ed properly. (If not, a huge chunk of the budget will just go to condoms and pills; or, god forbid, to the pockets of some public officers.)

Since RH is now a law, we cannot just go against it nor be unmindful of it just because we don't agree with it.

RH being a law now, we have to make ways on how to effectively implement it to live up to its purpose and embolden its wisdom.

On the aspect of sex ed, we have it since a looooong time ago anyway. So now, with the budget appropriated for RH that trickles to sex ed, then we should make sure sex ed get the attention it deserves.

Sex education is a double-edged sword. It can either soil the innocence of the youth and desecrate the supposed to be one of the best things, sex; or teach the youth what is beautiful and make them desire what is right (as Plato treated education).

Improve the old ways of teaching sex ed. Train a special set of teachers because it’s a sensitive topic for a [conservative] Christian country like ours; more than that, it will greatly affect the future of the youth. Print quality books. Come up with a well-thought of curriculum to precisely target the objective of the law.

I mean, not just teach it... But teach it properly with the guidance of authorities in the field. Yes plural. Authorities composed of experts in anatomy, biology, psychology, sociology, morality, and even a lawyer I believe. This is to make sure the students will have the right information they need on the implications of their every action--physical effects, social implication, legal consequences.

Not to mention, the relevance of having a set of responsible, ethical, professional, and willing well-trained set of sex ed teachers.

Common sense dictates that we shouldn't just depend on the educational institutions.

The family, especially the parents, have the fundamental and significant roles in shaping their children's character, personality, values, integrity...name it.

RH Law is now here. Now, what we need to do is use it for the good it is aimed at.

And oh, did I not say, "scientific learning can be taught, but character cannot"?

Character is built over time--starting from home when babies start to grow (parent's wisdom, actions, and guidance) to children's experiences out there in the open sometimes-cruel-sometimes-just-downright-honest world.

Parents’ active roles in guiding their children is very important.

School's supplementary yet equally important role in teaching the students the proper and right thing is undeniably as crucial as the parents’ role.

So I hope, rather than still ranting about the RH Bill, let us all move forward and breathe life into this law for the best interest of our posterity.

My Two Cents Worth: The New Cybercrime Law is a Virtually Illicit Act

I am sorry, but being passive/apathetic/safe silence is a far more unfortunate fate than dying after you take a stand and fight for a good cause.

The Internet is a doubled-bladed sword, which could be beneficial, on one hand; and harmful, on the other hand. The Internet has become a very powerful tool in making our lives better and easier in many aspects. Yet, it has also caused destruction and damages to many.

Hence, it is but right for the government to regulate, through its police power, our utilization of the Internet and the computer devices.

Recalling the things I learned from my Constitutional Law subjects, police power is the power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property.

Did I miss saying PROMOTING THE PUBLIC WELFARE?

Cybercrime laws regulating the people’s activities using the Internet across the cyberspace could be beneficial and valuable if they truly mean to protect the rights of the people, promote the people’s interests for the good of most, provide safety, improve morals, and provide and/or improve exchange of or access to information in furtherance of the public weal.

It is important to note that the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175) is a special penal law, ergo it is a law malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited, like anti-wire tapping, anti violence against women and children, anti-hazing) as opposed to law malum in se (wrong because evil in itself, like those enumerated in the Revised Penal Code to wit murder, robbery, bribery).

For cases mala prohibita, there need not be criminal mind or bad faith or bad intention in order for one to be arrested. It is enough that one perpetuated the act prohibited.

Since Unsolicited Commercial Communication is prohibited by RA 10175, then sending Facebook Messages advertising/offering products and services to a person who is irritable at the moment and has no money, can use your act to your disadvantage, or you can already sue big companies for sending you unsolicited marketing campaigns. (Yay for the professional victims! They can make more money!)

Morover, since Libel is defined by law as a “public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead” and since RA 10175 also punishes any person willfully abetting or aiding the commission of any offense enumerated by said Act, then retweeting or reposting “unlikely” messages or simply liking them may already constitute a crime.

I am sorry, but being passive/apathetic/safe silence is a far more unfortunate fate than dying after you take a stand and fight for a good cause.

Section 19 of the Act deserves a good attention as this violates the fundamental right of every person against unreasonable searches and seizures (Section 2, Article III, Consti.).

I believe the sections under the Bill of Rights are the limitations to the power of the government and the safeguard of the people’s civil and political rights, which include:

1.       Right to due process and equal protection

2.       Prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures

3.       Freedom of expression

4.       Impairment clause

5.       Guarantees against injustice to the accused

As my professor pointed out, laws enumerated under the Bill of Rights are self-executing, meaning by themselves they are directly or indirectly applicable without the need of statutory implementation.

So what does this Section 19 of the Cybercrime law do now?

Without court order the DOJ can just order to restrict or block access to your computer and compel you to stop publishing your posts? Where then is the separation of powers between the executive body (DOJ) and the judiciary (court)? I thought the present Constitution sought to strengthen the power of the judiciary and to lessen the power of the executive to correct the bad experiences under the Marcos authoritarianism.

It is ironic that the Cybercrime Law which is supposed to protect the people and promote the common good is clearly violating the supreme law, which is the Constitution. But more than ironic, it is funny that some of our legislators who are supposed to represent the people and pass laws which are supposed to promote the welfare of the people don’t do what they are supposed to do and worse, don’t know what they are doing and the implications of their actions and omissions.

Am I ranting? Yes I am ranting now… I thought this would just be a Facebook Note, now this seems to be short story.

Four things:

1.       For the people, dura lex sed lex— literally, “the law is harsh, but it is the law” that even draconian laws must be enforced and followed. BUT, if anyone disagrees, one must seek to change the law.

2.       For the people, mala prohibita— these are special penal laws that the mere perpetration of the act prohibited already constitutes a crime. So the nobility of intention is insufficient to validate the act.

3.       For some legislators, salus populi est suprema lex— literally, “welfare of the people is the supreme law” so please, make Sotto este make sure to review the Constitution.

4.       For some legislators, Republican purpose is the promotion of the common welfare according to the will of the people you represent and not according to your personal vested interests. “The Philippines is a Democratic and Republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Section 1, Article II, Constitution)

My knowledge of the law is still scanty, but when I looked through the new law, which takes effect today, I felt small for some of the legislators. I am only an ordinary citizen, but commit to respect and follow law. So I hope the legislators know what they’re doing and uphold the mandate that the State gives them—PROMOTE THE WELFARE of the people.

PS: If I go to jail because of this, feel free to visit me :-)

Punto de Vista

As I arrived home, the news on the proposal of the Kabataan (youth) Party List  greeted me... and so here's my two cents worth...

The news on Kabataan Partylist’s proposal to ban celebration of religious activities at public offices made me squint, drop my jaw, and grimace... Rep, please revisit articles 131, 132, and 133 of the Revised Penal Code—I think they’re clear enough to be understood by a law maker, and no need to spend the public’s money for amendment or passing of another bill prohibiting it.

As per news (on Bandila), your objective is to give equal opportunities to all religious affiliations to express their rights... but it think the bill you’re attempting to propose is doing the opposite—it would limit the rights of the people to express their religious rights and/or to peacefully assemble or conduct public meetings, if not religious worship.

This practice of holding religious activities have been long customarily done in the public offices… and these activities have not been proven to be injurious to the rights of the members of other religious affiliations… no need to exercise Police Power to regulate it then.

To provide equal opportunity and enjoyment among these religious groups, why not provide them prayer rooms like what our Muslim brothers and sisters in the public office are requesting for or rooms for other religious groups’ religious/spiritual/social activities.

Why abolish something helpful to the moral development and values formation of the citizens, especially the public officers, who are supposed to be the role models of the citizens and the youth?

These peaceful activities of the religious are helpful and healthful… Don’t deprive the people of their rights and privileges; nor regulate something beneficial to the general welfare of the people without even a sound legal ground.

I strongly believe the Kabataan Partylist can do better than this proposal. I strongly believe the youth can bring about a really wise revolution beneficial to the mental, emotional, and spiritual growth of our fellow youths…not to mention, our values formation, which has significant transcendence in shaping the next wave of responsible citizenry.

Education. Health. Sports development. Environmental awareness. Financial literacy. Volunteerism and service. These are the core areas that we, the youths, need to be involved in more and have an active participation and growth.

Let the fundamental law of the state be interpreted and applied in the light of the wisdom of the framers… so far, this set of laws is adaptive and it still keeps up with our times. Pass bills which our youths, your constituents, NEED more—not those you incumbent Rep think is appropriate now. Don’t be pressured by the nearing elections. There are more important matters concerning youth that need your attention and energy.  :-)

Sincerely and respectfully,

Your fellow youth

Side Comment: My Two Cents Worth…

Due to the flux of conjectures on the recent  frat-related violence at San Beda College of Law, I am suddenly actuated to vent my take on a sudden dash. Ergo, here’s my off-the-cut take on the issue…

I read quite a number of messages, opinions, and standpoints on the ill-fated death of Bedan Marvin Reglos.

On one hand, Marvin definitely deserves speedy and impartial justice. On the other hand, the fratmen are protected by the due process clause and their substantive rights.

We are all entitled to our personal opinions. People may engage in heated debates and some even compromise friendships because of their legal opinions or of their emotional outbursts, or a concoction of both... It is good that we know our law and have an informed appreciation of it.

I myself have a stand on the issue...considering my yet meager knowledge on RA 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law), murder, homicide, jurisprudence, the school policy, personal experience on initiation rites, Canons, and Atty. Rene Saquisag’s discussion on Natural and Positive Law, etc.

Despite all the hullaballoo and as a “neophyte” in the “brotherhood” of administrators of justice, I am reminding myself that the court is not a forum to plead for sympathy and of the Latin maxim “Dura Lex Sed Lex” (the law is harsh, but it is the law).

Marvin must be given an impartial and efficient trial, even while he rests on his grave, as the law operates from the womb to the tomb. Meanwhile, the frat members, being innocent until proven guilty, must manfully face (as what the frat head just did) the court to adduce their own evidence and shed light on the case.

Marvin eagerly wanted to be a brother to them. Now is the time for them to become a brother to the person who once gambled his life to be with them.

San Beda being a Catholic Law School…

“There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. This is my command: Love each other.”--John 15:13, 17

“We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.”-- 1 Timothy 1:8

“Do not withhold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act.”--Proverbs 3:27

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.”-- Zechariah 7:9

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”-- Leviticus 19:15

Ease With Legalese: Invoking a Valid Self-Defense

"It is good that we may be freed from criminal and civil liabilities; but it is always better to be cautious and prudent to avoid unfortunate events, or at least minimize inevitable circumstances; and it is best to know the law and our vested rights and obligations in order that we may apply well the common sense God has planted in every one of us and develop it into wisdom."

 

A playmate throwing his hand upwards, then Gigi suddenly fling her Chun Li stunt at his chest.

A brother foot-kicks Juan, then Juan suddenly gives his brother a clout.

A friend shocked you from behind, then you grab his shirt and spat him hard.

A suspicious looking guy leans at Roy while in a crowded train, then Roy suddenly lands a whack at his back.

Many times we say or hear the words, “What I did was just a self-defense.” And we think we are already justified. Our guilt would just evaporate and we then feel relieved.

The concept of self-defense has become very popular to us, that even children use them as an excuse to justify their behaviors. We think self-defense is, as the word says it, a measure to protect ourselves.

I remember when I was in college, friends belonging to fraternities even bring their pipes or clubs, or even ballpens, to use as their “self-defense” tool.

In the language of law, self-defense is man’s natural instinct to protect himself, repel an attack of aggression, and a lawful means to save himself, his property, or right from impending danger. Self-defense is treated by law as an act justifying our [supposed to be] punishable act but due the concept of self-preservation incurs no criminal liability. Self-preservation is a basic impulse born to every man and part of his nature as human being.

But using self-defense as a justification for our actions is not as simple as we think it is.

Invoking self-defense as a rationalization for the act requires one to admit that he really committed the supposed to be punishable act.

It is incumbent upon the one who defended himself/ his property or right/ another person to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in honest defense, meaning his act is free from any vestige of deliberate or planned aggression. It is also important to note that self-defense is different from retaliation. As in retaliation,the aggression that was begun by the offended person already ceased when he (accused) attacked him back. While in self-defense, aggression begun by the offended party was still existing when he (accused) protected himself.

                                                                   Hence, it is very important to prove that:

1. There was unlawful aggression by the offended person;

2. There was reasonable necessity of the means you used in preventing or repelling the unlawful aggression; and

3. You did not provoke the person who attacked you

All these three elements must concur to establish that your act was really based on self-defense.

There are still other things that one should consider to establish his act of self-defense. Among them is that the aggression done to you must be in the nature of immediate and imminent danger. One may also point out where he hit the person and what tool or means he used relative to the means by which other person used to attack him first, and the degree of force you employed.

However, since one has to admit that he committed an injury to the other person as a result of his self-defense, if he is not able to sufficiently prove that he acted in lawful defense, then he will be held liable for the injury suffered by the offended party.

But if he is able to establish a clear and convincing proof, the law recognizes his act as justified and he deemed not to transgress the law, hence, free from both criminal (restriction of liberty or imprisonment, fines) and civil (eg. hospital fee, damages) liabilities.

It is good that we may be freed from criminal and civil liabilities; but it is always better to be cautious and prudent to avoid unfortunate events, or at least minimize inevitable circumstances; and it is best to know the law and our vested rights and obligations in order that we may apply well the common sense God has planted in every one of us and develop it into wisdom.

Law of society, law of nature, Divine Law… you can do well with common sense.

PS: I hope this article helps you somehow to better understand the concept of a valid “Self-Defense” as provided by the provision of the law (Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code). This is my first installment on my series of “Ease in Legalese” write-ups—my simple way of sharing what the law says in a laymanized manner so more people will be acquainted with our law and appreciate and exercise its provisions for their benefit, and incidentally, for the benefit of others as well.

Seems like yesterday...

I so miss filling up the pages of my blog and unfolding my thoughts and feelings through writing.

The past few months were full of colors and stories to share.

One thing i can say right now...

When you submit to God, He will meet all your needs and wants in His perfect timing... and nothing is lost in Him, for he is the great Restorer, even of what you think is lost time.

I submitted myself to His Ministry of Justice.

For the coming stories, articles on the goodness and benefit of His law will be added to our story list :-)

Have a great and meaningful life!