Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Kapag binasura ang Diyos, ang Pamahalaan ay magiging Diyos.

"Once abolish the God, and the Government becomes the God. The fact is written all across human history; but it is written more plainly across that recent history of Russia; which was created by Lenin. There the Government is the God, and all the more the God, because it proclaims aloud in accents of thunder, like every other God worth worshipping, the one essential commandment: 'Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.'

"...Wherever the people do not believe in something beyond the world, they will worship the world. But, above all, they will worship the strongest thing in the world. And, by the very nature of the Bolshevist and many other modern systems, as well as by the practical working of almost any system, the State will be strongest thing in the world."

-- G. K. Chesterton, 1932


Removing religion from the public sphere, as per Chesterton, leaves a large hole for the State to fill. This is a decades-old warning that apparently has fallen on deaf ears, which is vexing, for those who fail to heed such a meaningful warning end up dooming themselves. Consider the totalitarian regimes of the previous century: inter alia, the Soviet Union, Red China, and even Nazi Germany (at least, when everything fell according to plan). In the case of the former two--both communist states--religion is held to be a counterrevolutionary, therefore subversive, force, a force antithetical to the State's grasp on power. And the Communist State will suffer no dissent. In the case of the last, it was all about the long game; when the Final Solution was delivered and the Jewish question "eliminated," the Nazis would slowly and surely subvert Christians, replacing faith in God with faith in the rule of the powerful, quoting Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI--the Sith Lord of Rome himself.

It is because we believe in something greater than ourselves that we can challenge our own creations and ultimately change the world. When belief is not an option, we end up worshipping the world in all its banality, but most of all, we end up gathering sacrifices to the Church of the State--some offering their very lives to it as human sacrifices. A world where the State is God would be more like Orwell's 1984. And Big Brother is the Almighty Father of this travesty.

The reason Church and State must be separated is because of the implications that would arise should the two be united: only a jackbooted, goose-stepping, totalitarian thug would seek to bind the two together in a union barely above the Twilight Saga (EXTRA HERESY! *BLAM!*) and thus consolidate power.

Those who truly value liberty know what to do. Tyranny demands Rebellion, after all.

LIBERTAS!

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

Dr. Lawrence Britt's Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism and how they apply to the Philippines

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism – Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. (*cough*Pinoy Pride*cough*)

2. Disdain for recognition of Human Rights – Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need”. The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. (Proclamation nr. 1081, vigilantism in Cebu and Davao...)

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as Unifying Cause – The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities, liberals, communists, socialists, terrorists, etc. (Generally, this refers to critics of the current occupant of Malacañan, those he calls "the noisy minority.")

4. Supremacy of the Military – Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. (Unsure--do we have something like that here? It's as if our military is good only for parades!)

5. Rampant sexism – The government of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. (No divorce, no abortion, but homosexuality isn’t suppressed at the macroscopic view.)

6. Controlled Mass Media – Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. (*ahem*)

7. Obsession with National Security – Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. (Unsure--can someone give an example?)

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined – Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion (Roman Catholicism, in this case--and I'm a filthy Papist!) in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions. (Do we need any explanation?)

9. Corporate Powers is protected – The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. (A.K.A. the 250 Families--better known as the Oligarchy--controlling the Philippines.)

10. Labor power is suppressed – Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. (*cough*Hacienda Luisita*cough*)

11. Disdain for intellectuals and the Arts – fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. (Politeismo, anyone?)

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Under the fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forgo civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. (Atimoanan? Most likely Atimoanan.)

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. it is uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. (We call that the Kapamilya, Kaklase, Kabarilan at Kaibigan of the current occupant of the Palazzo.)

14. Fraudulent Elections – Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against opposition or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. (Hocus PCOS! *hurr*)

CHANGELOG:

1. Added examples to #2.
2. Expanded #3.
3. Erratum in changelog fixed. Now shows "Expanded #3" instead of "Expanded #2."
4. Erased the unneeded smiley in #8.

Apparently, the Second Aquino Administration sees this as HERESY! *BLAM!*

For one reason or another, the original article in the Manila Standard Today's website redirects to an adult site unless you're reading from outside the country. Compare #6 of the 14 Defining Characteristics of Fascism (Controlled Mass Media). Feel free to copy and paste the following text, and give the 250 Families a pair of middle fingers while you're at it.

-----


‘Secret lunch story sparks angry voices’
By Francisco S. Tatad


MalacaÑang tried but failed on Monday to disprove this paper’s story about President B. S. Aquino III’s purported secret lunch meeting with Janet Lim Napoles at the Music Room of the Palace before the reputed pork barrel queen and former fugitive from justice “surrendered” on the evening of August 28.
As the story went viral online, angry voices in the social media began calling for Aquino’s impeachment.
It seems an improbable and wishful scenario, given Aquino’s virtual control of Congress, particularly the House of Representatives, which has the exclusive power to initiate all case of impeachment. But the call seems to show the anger of people who feel they have been betrayed. Absent any support from the “pork”-conflicted lawmakers, the angry netizens could simply turn to the streets and call for Aquino’s resignation instead.
This is not without precedent. Joseph Ejercito Estrada was ousted in a coup after a botched impeachment trial fueled by an “Erap resign” movement. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who succeeded him, had to survive ten years of continuing calls for her resignation and threats of impeachment.
On August 26, the so-called “Million People March” at Rizal Park and similar other marches in various parts of the country and abroad demanded the scrapping of the lawmakers’ Priority Development Assistance Fund and the President’s humongous “pork” presented as “lump sums” in the national budget. This was fueled by anger in the social media against Napoles’ and some lawmakers’ alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam over a period of 10 years.
But at the end of the day, some critics thought the crowds were not angry enough. This time, some people seem to believe Aquino’s reported secret lunch with Napoles could produce “better results.”
The Office of the Presidential Spokesman tried to deny parts of this paper’s story, which appeared under this writer’s byline, by saying —and using some footage, too—that at 10:00 am Aquino was addressing the 8th East Asia Conference on Competition Law and Policy at Sofitel, and at 1:30 pm, the 27th Apolinario Mabini Awarding Ceremonies at Malacanan’s Heroes Hall.
The conscript media swallowed hook, line and sinker the statement, which called this paper’s story “a tall tale” and its writer “a weaver of tales.” A modest attempt at analysis, however, should have shown that the official denial did not deny anything at all. Both the spokesman and the conscript media failed to consider that Sofitel is not quite 10 minutes away from Malacanang by presidential limousine, and that a president who delivers a short speech at 10:00 am and rushes out afterward could be back at the Palace by 10:30 am or 11 am, if he lingers a little. And that Heroes Hall is but a few steps away from the Music Room.
Above all, the official statement failed, and the conscript media failed to notice its failure, to dispute the story’s basic information that Napoles came to the Palace escorted by presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda at 10:30 am (not 10 am) and was immediately conducted inside the Music Room where she remained in “closed door” conversation with Aquino (obviously after his engagement at Sofitel), Interior Secretary Manuel Roxas II and Lacierda, and eventually Cabinet Secretary Rene Almendras, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, and Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa Jr., until 4:30 pm.
According to the story, Aquino left the room three times between 2 pm and 3.30 pm, and then finally left for good at 4 pm. According to the spokesman’s statement, the President was (or was supposed to be) at the Heroes Hall at 1:30 pm; at the Study Conference Room, a few steps away from the Music Room, for a meeting with Ochoa, Abad and Finance Secretary Purisima at 3 pm; and back in the same room for a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and Communication at 4 pm.
This paper’s story is confirmed, rather than contradicted, by the spokesman’s statement. The latter contains the President’s approved schedule for the day rather than what he actually did during the day. It is altogether possible that he went to Heroes Hall, a few steps away from Music Room, at 2 pm rather than 1:30 pm for no special reason.
The spokesman’s statement quoted Abad as saying he never went to Malacanang on that day. But the same statement said Aquino met with Abad, Ochoa and Purisima at the Study Conference Room at 3 pm. How did this contradiction find its way into the spokesman’s statement?
During the whole day of August 28, Napoles carried a P10-million bounty on her head, set by the President himself, in connection with charges lodged by the National Bureau of Investigation for the alleged illegal detention of her cousin and former employee Benhur Luy. This prompted the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 to issue an arrest order, which in turn prompted her to go into hiding, from August 14. Yet Lacierda never denied having escorted the fugitive from justice to and from the Palace before they reappeared together at 9:27 pm for the formal “surrender” photo op with the President.
Malacanang’s laborious non-denial came late in the afternoon. Before that, this writer had been swamped with reports that his article had been blocked on the Internet and could no longer be posted on Facebook or forwarded to others. The first report came from Inquirer Radio in a telephone interview, then from an email from abroad, saying: “It seems your explosive piece today was censored by your ISP (Internet Service Provider). They may be putting a trace to all your bloggers. They cannot do this without the connivance of your ISP. Please investigate.”
Presumably Big Brother—the surveillance system originally imagined by George Orwell in his novel “1984” has become such a reality in our time, as Edward Snowden tells us. But if the story was entirely worthless, why should a government that sees itself above the law and all mores bother at all? And why all the invectives being thrown by the spokesman at this writer?
For most of the day there seemed to be no sign of Malacanang reacting. “They will probably not react officially,” said some loyal Aquino insiders. “But it has created quite a stir,” they added. “The lower and middle echelon guys are reacting, some positive, some negative.”
By late afternoon, however, the official statement came. It tried to build its case on the basis of the Sofitel and Heroes Hall engagements, but it made no effort to deny categorically that Napoles came to the Palace escorted by Lacierda and talked through lunch with the President and several Cabinet members, then left the Palace around 4:30 pm, escorted by the same official.
Apparently embarrassed by such mindless performance, Malacanang has now turned its attention on trying to uncover this paper’s “Deep Throat,” sources said. “Deep Throat” is the title of a 1972 American pornographic film, which the reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post adopted as a pseudonym to protect their source of the deep secrets about the Nixon administration’s involvement in the 1972 Watergate affair.
Watergate shook the US for years until President Richard Nixon resigned in 1974—the only president to do so in US history. “Deep Throat” was subsequently identified as Mark Felt, former associate director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 31 years after Watergate and 11 years after Nixon’s death.
This paper’s sources have since theorized that Malacanang first showed its inclination to protect Napoles as early as March when the NBI took cognizance of the complaint of Arturo and Gertrudes Luy and their children Arthur and Annabelle that Benur Luy was being detained against his will by Janet Lim Napoles and her brother Reynald Lim.
However, it appears Malacanang and the DOJ got their signals crossed, the sources said. After the NBI “rescued” Luy from a Napoles condominium in the South Wings Gardens of Pacific Plaza Tower at Bonfacio Global City on March 22, he started executing affidavits about Napoles’s alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam.
Napoles was alarmed. So on April 17, she wrote Aquino a letter, reportedly with the assistance of Ochoa’s former law office, denouncing the NBI for alleged “threats, intimidation and even physical harm being inflicted upon us by several unscrupulous individuals in cohorts (sic) with some ‘corrupt agents of the NBI.” The letter was reportedly handed to the President by Ochoa himself. She wanted the NBI to cease and desist.
Aquino promptly called Justice Secretary Leila de Lima about it, the sources said, and the next day she ordered the NBI to respond to Napoles’s complaints. The NBI denied the allegations. But powerful Liberal Party officials feared that the PDAF issue could involve valuable political allies. So they thought it best to let the matter “sleep” until after the May elections, the sources said. That would give them time to “clean up” the list of accountable politicians, they thought. They also thought they could also tap Napoles to “sweeten” their war chest, the sources said.
On June 10, the DOJ dismissed the charge of illegal detention against Napoles. But when the NBI moved for reconsideration, the DOJ had a change of heart and reversed its earlier ruling. This apparently did not sit well with some people in Malacanang, causing some friction between those who wanted to prosecute and those who wanted to protect Napoles.
This was why ultimately NBI Director Nonnatus Rojas had to resign irrevocably, the sources said. It is also why we could never be sure that Leila de Lima would long remain in her position, they added.
fstatad@gmail.com

Friday, June 14, 2013

CIC Cann. 96-123

TITLE VI.
PHYSICAL AND JURIDIC PERSONS (Cann. 96 - 123)
CHAPTER I.
THE CANONICAL CONDITION OF PHYSICAL PERSONS
Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.
Can. 97 §1. A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age has reached majority; below this age, a person is a minor.
§2. A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason.
Can. 98 §1. A person who has reached majority has the full exercise of his or her rights.
§2. A minor, in the exercise of his or her rights, remains subject to the authority of parents or guardians except in those matters in which minors are exempted from their authority by divine law or canon law. In what pertains to the appointment of guardians and their authority, the prescripts of civil law are to be observed unless canon law provides otherwise or unless in certain cases the diocesan bishop, for a just cause, has decided to provide for the matter through the appointment of another guardian.
Can. 99 Whoever habitually lacks the use of reason is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos) and is equated with infants.
Can. 100 A person is said to be: a resident (incola) in the place where the person has a domicile; a temporary resident (advena) in the place where the person has a quasi-domicile; a traveler (peregrinus) if the person is outside the place of a domicile or quasi-domicile which is still retained; a transient (vagus) if the person does not have a domicile or quasi- domicile anywhere.
Can. 101 §1. The place of origin of a child, even of a neophyte, is that in which the parents had a domicile or, lacking that, a quasi-domicile when the child was born or, if the parents did not have the same domicile or quasi-domicile, that of the mother.
§2. In the case of a child of transients, the place of origin is the actual place of birth; in the case of an abandoned child, it is the place where the child was found.
Can. 102 §1. Domicile is acquired by that residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless called away or has been protracted for five complete years.
§2. Quasi-domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there for at least three months unless called away or has in fact been protracted for three months.
§3. A domicile or quasi-domicile within the territory of a parish is called parochial; within the territory of a diocese, even though not within a parish, diocesan.
Can. 103 Members of religious institutes and societies of apostolic life acquire a domicile in the place where the house to which they are attached is located; they acquire a quasi-domicile in the house where they are residing, according to the norm of  can. 102, §2.
Can. 104 Spouses are to have a common domicile or quasi-domicile; by reason of legitimate separation or some other just cause, both can have their own domicile or quasi-domicile.
Can. 105 §1. A minor necessarily retains the domicile and quasi-domicile of the one to whose power the minor is subject. A minor who is no longer an infant can also acquire a quasi-domicile of one’s own; a minor who is legitimately emancipated according to the norm of civil law can also acquire a domicile of one’s own.
§2. Whoever for some other reason than minority has been placed legitimately under the guardianship or care of another has the domicile and quasi-domicile of the guardian or curator.
Can. 106 Domicile and quasi-domicile are lost by departure from a place with the intention of not returning, without prejudice to the prescript of  can. 105.
Can. 107 §1. Through both domicile and quasi-domicile, each person acquires his or her pastor and ordinary.
§2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or local ordinary where the transient is actually residing.
§3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place where the person is actually residing.
Can. 108 §1. Consanguinity is computed through lines and degrees.
§2. In the direct line there are as many degrees as there are generations or persons, not counting the common ancestor.
§3. In the collateral line there are as many degrees as there are persons in both the lines together, not counting the common ancestor.
Can. 109 §1. Affinity arises from a valid marriage, even if not consummated, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.
§2. It is so computed that those who are blood relatives of the man are related in the same line and degree by affinity to the woman, and vice versa.
Can. 110 Children who have been adopted according to the norm of civil law are considered the children of the person or persons who have adopted them.
Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
§2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.
Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:
1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;
2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;
3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.
§2. The practice, however prolonged, of receiving the sacraments according to the rite of another ritual Church sui iuris does not entail enrollment in that Church.

CIC Cann. 94-95

TITLE V.
STATUTES AND RULES OF ORDER (Cann. 94 - 95)
Can. 94 §1. Statutes in the proper sense are ordinances which are established according to the norm of law in aggregates of persons (universitates personarum) or of things (universitates rerum) and which define their purpose, constitution, government, and methods of operation.
§2. The statutes of an aggregate of persons (universitas personarum) bind only the persons who are its legitimate members; the statutes of an aggregate of things (universitas rerum), those who direct it.
§3. Those prescripts of statutes established and promulgated by virtue of legislative power are governed by the prescripts of the canons on laws.
Can. 95 §1. Rules of order (ordines) are rules or norms, which must be observed in meetings, whether convened by ecclesiastical authority or freely convoked by the Christian faithful, as well as in other celebrations. They define those things which pertain to the constitution, direction, and ways of proceeding.
§2. These rules of order bind those who participate in these assemblies or celebrations.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Protip for Election 2013

It's Election Year once more. This time, it's the midterm elections that we focus on. During this set, half of the current Senate will be replaced, as will elected officials from Congressman down to Municipal Councilor...or re-elected. Considering this, I only have one real pro tip for we who are about to vote: SUBSTANCE, FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Do not vote for someone because he/she/it/hermaphrodite is popular, vote because that person has a platform you understand. Vote for people with concrete plans...or those who have proven themselves, if that is the case, surveys be damned.

Remember: THIS IS AN ELECTION, NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST!

Yours truly,
Alistair Jephte Cabugsa-Migriño (Pe) Caseñas de Cebu

CIC Cann. 85-93


CHAPTER V.
DISPENSATIONS
Can. 85 A dispensation, or the relaxation of a merely ecclesiastical law in a particular case, can be granted by those who possess executive power within the limits of their competence, as well as by those who have the power to dispense explicitly or implicitly either by the law itself or by legitimate delegation.
Can. 86 Laws are not subject to dispensation to the extent that they define those things which are essentially constitutive of juridic institutes or acts.
Can. 87 §1. A diocesan bishop, whenever he judges that it contributes to their spiritual good, is able to dispense the faithful from universal and particular disciplinary laws issued for his territory or his subjects by the supreme authority of the Church. He is not able to dispense, however, from procedural or penal laws nor from those whose dispensation is specially reserved to the Apostolic See or some other authority.
§2. If recourse to the Holy See is difficult and, at the same time, there is danger of grave harm in delay, any ordinary is able to dispense from these same laws even if dispensation is reserved to the Holy See, provided that it concerns a dispensation which the Holy See is accustomed to grant under the same circumstances, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 291.
Can. 88 A local ordinary is able to dispense from diocesan laws and, whenever he judges that it contributes to the good of the faithful, from laws issued by a plenary or provincial council or by the conference of bishops.
Can. 89 A pastor and other presbyters or deacons are not able to dispense from universal and particular law unless this power has been expressly granted to them.
Can. 90 §1. One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause, after taking into account the circumstances of the case and the gravity of the law from which dispensation is given; otherwise the dispensation is illicit and, unless it is given by the legislator himself or his superior, also invalid.
§2. In a case of doubt concerning the sufficiency of the cause, a dispensation is granted validly and licitly.
Can. 91 Even when outside his territory, one who possesses the power to dispense is able to exercise it with respect to his subjects even though they are absent from the territory, and, unless the contrary is expressly established, also with respect to travelers actually present in the territory, as well as with respect to himself.
Can. 92 A dispensation is subject to a strict interpretation according to the norm of can. 36, §1, as is the very power to dispense granted for a particular case.
Can. 93 A dispensation which has successive application ceases in the same ways as a privilege as well as by the certain and total cessation of the motivating cause.