Erap has strong knees (He just can't stop running)

Say what?

So the COMELEC, the very same institution that banned ANG LADLAD from running because they think that the party promotes immorality is allowing ERAP and GMA to run for president.

Ha?

Lack of a backbone it is. From here.

Passing the buck
Philippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 22:12:00 01/21/2010Filed Under: Elections
MANILA, Philippines--The decision of the ever-more- controversial second division of the Commission on Elections to allow former President Joseph Estrada to run for president again is, in a word, spineless. It is bureaucratic cowardice masquerading as populist philosophy. We share the view of millions of Filipinos that the Constitution—and the Constitution alone—bars Estrada from running for the presidency again. But if the Comelec had allowed the former president, convicted but immediately pardoned of the crime of plunder in 2007, to run on solid legal grounds, we would have respected the reasoning behind the ruling.

Instead, we have this: “In the end, it is the Filipino people who would act as the final arbiter on whether they would have Estrada sit again as president. It is the electorate’s choice of who their president should be. The better policy approach is to let the people decide who will be the next president.” The basic idea in the second division’s decision is said three times, perhaps because, stated baldly, by itself, its thinness as an argument cannot be disguised. But repeated, it sounds almost reasonable.

There is just one problem with it: It undermines the Comelec’s own power to screen candidates for the presidency. If it is indeed true, as the division chaired by Commissioner Nicodemo Ferrer asserts, that the “better policy approach is to let the people decide who will be the next president,” why did the commission disqualify dozens of aspiring candidates? Set aside, for now, the question of qualifications imposed by the Constitution itself: Assuming that all aspirants who had filed certificates of candidacy met the basic qualifications, why allow only 10 to run if the “better policy approach” is to let the electorate decide?

The second division’s main justification for allowing Estrada to run again, therefore, does not justify anything. It merely passes the responsibility for deciding on Estrada’s qualification, under cover of a populist let-the-people-decide argument, to the Supreme Court.

But we also share the common view that it is in fact one of the Comelec’s most crucial responsibilities to screen presidential (and other) candidates. To follow the Estrada doctrine-in-the-making of letting the people decide on strictly legal or constitutional matters involving election cases is to weaken yet another political institution. (This undermining of institutions fits into the true Estrada legacy, but whether Estrada was a good chief executive or not is, strictly speaking, irrelevant to the legal and constitutional issue of a president’s reelection.) We need the Comelec, then, to qualify all candidates. That includes former presidents too.

The second division’s main argument for allowing Estrada to run again, therefore, represents an abdication on the part of the Comelec of its mandated responsibility to qualify all candidates for elective office. Whether because of Estrada’s celebrity, or because of the uniqueness of the case (nobody before Estrada had dared to run for reelection as president under the 1987 Constitution, although if the Supreme Court sustains the Comelec we can anticipate President Macapagal-Arroyo considering a reelection bid in 2016), or because the Comelec had earlier been embarrassed by reversals by the Supreme Court, the second division essentially followed the time-hallowed bureaucratic practice of passing the buck.

Its decision weighed two choices: an absolute ban on re-election, which is in fact how the Constitutional Commission of 1986 saw the issue and which explains why the restriction in the constitutional provision is on “any re-election”; or a limited ban, which is how Estrada’s lawyers argued the case and which explains their insistence on “The President” as the key phrase in the provision. But instead of deliberately choosing one or the other option, the second division opted to appeal to public opinion. It ruled, quoting existing jurisprudence, that “on political questions, this court may err but the sovereign people will not.”

Again, it all sounds reasonable, until we take a closer look. Why did the commissioners view Estrada’s disqualification case as a political question, and not as the legal and constitutional issue it really is? It comes down to backbone, or the lack of it.

Congratulations COMELEC!

aI really can't get over the COMELEC's insipid decision to prevent ANG LADLAD to run for office on the grounds of immorality. So I'm posting this, taken from here.

My dear Commission on Elections (COMELEC) of the Philippines,

I wish to congratulate you for doing such an act of pure love and piousness when you upheld God's Law in your decision regarding the petition of Ang Ladlad LGBT Political Party. Invoking Romans 1:26-27 was a brilliant idea! I feel so blessed that you guys are doing the job that the Constitution of the Philippines mandated you to do. And I feel so relieved that you guys are there to save my soul from being infected by the presence of a lesiban,gay, bisexual, and transgender political party in the 2010 elections.

I try to share the wisdom of your decision with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I'm really convinced that you are very right. You know, just like you, I take the Bible seriously in a very literal way because the Bible is the word of God and God is definitely very clear in whatever He's saying. However, I do need some advice from you regarding some God's command in the Bible. I will deeply appreciate if you tell me how to best follow them:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exo. 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? How much did you sell your daughters for? I’m really, really curious.

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. Do you allow your female staff in COMELEC to work during their menstrual period?

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this doesn’t apply to us, that only Chinese people can have us as slaves and not the other way around. Can you clarify? Why can't I have a Chinese for a slave?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exo. 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Oh, am I allowed to kill President Arroyo when she works during the Sabbath? And, YES, am I allowed to kill you if I caught you working during the Sabbath?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? I know a lot of our political candidates eat selfish! O No! Please the 2010 Elections can't be infested by them!

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. A lot of political candidates are wearing glasses, a lot of our former Presidents wore glasses. Are they immoral too?

h) Most of our male political candidates get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. Can we tolerate such immorality among our political candidates?

i) I know a political candidate who has a farm. I think he violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

j) A lot of Filipinas work as domestic helpers in other countries. A lot of them are beaten by their employers. Should I condemn their employers or should we just allow them to be beaten up as long as they can get up after a day or two as what Exo. 21:20-21 wants us to do: “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

k) Erap Estrada seems intent to run again as President. I just wonder whether you’ll approve his candidacy, specially that he is a well-known adulterer. The Bible said the punishment is death, why is he still alive? Is there something fishy going on?

l) Deut. 23:20 said that we shall not demand interest from our countrymen on a loan of money. Are our banks immoral? How should they be punished?

I know you guys have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. I still have many questions but that’s all for now. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Faithfully yours,
Juan de la Cruz

The sweet smell of fresh blood

Commissioners Nicodemus Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle and Elias Yusoph must have had brunch with Mr. Isagani Cruz.

You must have heard it all by now. In an 8-page decision signed by the 3 wise men of the Comelec or the Apocalypse, Ang Ladlad party's application for accreditation in the party list to run in the May elections was rejected on the grounds that "it tolerates immorality, which offends religious beliefs."

I don't even know where to begin.

Ang Ladlad, headed by Ateneo professor, Danton Remoto, claims to represent the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transegender (LGBT) community. The party seeks representation in the house to push for laws which would protect the rights of the LGBT community since they too are law abiding citizens of this country. And in this country, even non-law abiding citizens have rights.

Coming from an all-boys Catholic school in the province, I know for a fact that a lot of us are not very tolerant of homosexuals. There was this one incident where a classmate of mine got pushed into a canal simply because he was gay. The sad thing is, everyone thought it was funny. I thought it was funny. The sight of that boy drenched in black water. The stink. He deserved it. He was gay. How ignorant was I then. How common is this scene? The LGBT has been prosecuted for being who they are so many times that it has become a common sight and yes, accepted.

They're not even pushing for gay marriage, for godsakes. They know the country's not ready for that, said Danton Remoto in 2007, when they were also first rejected by the COMELEC for failing to complete the requirements. They just want to enjoy their rights mandated in the Philippine Constitution which states that in the eyes of the law everyone, including the LGBT, is equal. They deserve the same protection that everyone enjoys from the state.

For, ahem, credibility, the Commissioners quoted the Bible and the Koran. Following the logic that led to this decision: the Bible and the Koran says homosexuality is a sin and is immoral. Thus Ang Ladlad is immoral. And so let's not give them a chance of being represented in the congress.

Brilliantly, the decision also mentioned how they meant to protect the youth, you know, from the immorality of homosexuality. Because it spreads like a disease.

I am not going to go against the arguments of the Church or any other religion here. I have my own opinions on that, which will take up a whole other entry. (Although the way I was taught, my Church is a very tolerant and loving church. It would not want harm on anyone. ANYONE)

The question is not whether the Church, the Bible or the Koran is right. The question is, why is this government citing the Bible and the Koran when they should be looking into the Philippine Constitution. I don't recall having been taught in class that to be gay is against the law. I haven't seen anyone put in jail for being a lesbian. Though I have seen people punched in the gut for being one.

Even the Commision of Human Rights know what I'm talking about.

CHR said however that the poll body's decision "smacks of prejudice and discrimination."

"Homosexuality is not a counterculture. It is part of the diversity of Philippine culture.
Homosexuals are part of the Filipino family and unavoidably must be part of our politics," CHR chair Leila De Lima was quoted in the statement as saying.

"There is no governmental policy which characterizes homosexuality as illegal nor immoral," De Lima said.

"There is or can be no basis in law to deny the registration of the party, directly or indirectly, on the grounds of homosexuality, much less on homosexuality equated to immorality. To make assertions based on their homosexuality is patently discriminatory," she said.

The statement highlighted as its basis the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it said both focus on the equality of all peoples. from here

The COMELEC needs to wake up and smell the blood on their hands.

Let me end with a forwarded letter from my previous officemate.


LTTE ito ni Dr. Guy Claudio


Dear Editor,

Is there anyway to impeach the following Comelec Comisssioners: Nicodemo T. Ferrer, Lucinito N. Tagle and Elias R. Yusoph?

They must be impeached because they have openly decided to turn the country into a religious state instead of a secular one. I am referring of course to their decision to outlaw Ladlad on the basis of upholding religious beliefs. They quote the Bible and the Koran forgetting that they should consult the Philippine Constitution instead. Only in the Philippines would we have high government officials who state that obedience to religious beliefs trumps other more cogent legal provisions as a basis for policy.

If stupidity were a basis for impeachment, the proceedings would be quite short. Their display of ignorance of current scientific knowledge on sexuality is quite appalling. They should have taken the simple expedient of asking any psychiatrist or psychologist who upholds the standards of organizations like the World Health Organization or the American Psychiatric and Psychological Associations. They would have been told that homosexuality was delisted as a psychological pathology more than 30 years ago. They either did not bother to read for themselves or consulted the psychiatric association of the Taliban when they decided that homosexuality is an abnormality.

As a Filipino citizen who is neither Christian nor Muslim; as a practitioner and teacher in psychology and sexuality; as someone who cares that we do not look like backward bigots to the world community; I urge the impeachment of these men who have violated morals, scientific truths and our laws against discrimination.

I am so upset. I'm gay starting today and until Ladlad get accredited.

Sylvia Estrada Claudio, M.D. PhD.
Director, University Center for Women’s StudiesProfessor of Women and Development Studies
University of the Philippines

I couldn't have said it better myself.