The Shamcey Fever: A Philippine Pride

Issue 6 A.Y. 1112

Trending worldwide, this is indeed another remarkable year for the Miss Universe 2011, and for the Filipinos, another victory is celebrated. Our very own, Shamcey Supsup won the third runner up. But then we question:  Is this the real place for her? Why did not make it as Miss Universe 2011, where most of us argued that she gave the best answer among others? Some said that it's the judges’ decision that disappoint us. Even politicians expect more, international personalities cast their choice for her. But for awhile, how does this pageant enters the room and creates another discussion that matters?

For one thing, I am sure that die hard Filipino fans are now frustrated because of the disappointments they felt on the results. I can hardly see people who are so happy for the decision, most sentiments from corners to corners tell us that she could have won the crown or at least the first runner-up. Now, we can see how question and answer drives the competition and this value or essence of having an interpreter for one thing. This tells us that even in pageants, nuances do exist. For this matter, questions given are of same equal importance in picturing the society today. We can see that the ideas are coming from how a particular choice will change the world, how beauty can be powerful to be an effective tool for good cause, even to limitations and involvement of religion, and many other aspects of modern life.

Well, it is distinct that the very nature of a question and answer portion in any pageant is to assess who deserves to win the crown and to showcase the intelligence of those who make it for the final cut. In this context, most questions here are subject as to how they will make or break these questions just to get the title. It is indeed the doorway for success, for this will be their starting point, the beauty queen stardom.

During the last minutes of the competition and with the absence of any interpreter, Shamcey was confident in answering the question: "Would you change your religious belief to marry the person that you love?", “I would not marry the person I love because the first person I love is my God and if the person loves me, he should also love my God,” she said. And this answer paved way for her to rank first in the fan votes among the top five.

The discussion enters when people see how Shamcey performed well during the entire pageant and yet ranked third runner up in the end. And for this, it is time for us to look for commentaries and weigh them to see which will count.

It is given that people from Binibining Pilipinas and other bodies from the pageant world will be very proud of what Shamcey achieved. From them, entering the top 5 already signals victory. They believe that defeating countries like USA and Venezuela is also a milestone. And being the third runner up in the competition is really a great thing for them too. While, politicians like Miriam Santiago are vocal on their disappointment on the result. And as senator Santiago said: that if ever she can file a legal remedy, she could have done that. On one side, international personality like Oprah felt that it will be Shamcey who will win. And coming from these different commentaries, we can see the importance of the popular support and how it affects the shock of the event. It is then clear that having a pageant like Miss Universe, people are put to open field – a field where everyone can be heard.

The tie-back in our question of how worthy Shamcey for the crown is simple. At the end of the day, with all these arguments that we have, still, Shamcey Supsup made the Filipinos proud again. Second, we proved them how much competent Filipinos in answering questions without the benefit of a translator. Third, we showed the world that Filipina beauties are always good in and out. And for the last, we acknowledge and respect the views of the people without sacrificing our prestige to let the world see how worthy we are for the crown.

 - Neil Andrew Race, 11A

* Notice to readers: The views expressed in the Weekly Perspective do not necessarily reflect the views of the Academic Committee or of UP POLITICA.

Feast of the Faith

3rd Semester '10-'11 Issue 2

Pope John Paul II has achieved one big step towards sainthood as his beatification commenced in the Holy City on May 1. The crowd in St. Peter’s Square was the largest since his death in 2005, manifesting that the support for the pope has not waned in the past six years. Blessed John Paul II was known for being the most travelled pope and for his efforts to purify the history of the Roman Catholic Church when he asked for forgiveness for its errors in over 2000 years of existence.

Pope Benedict claimed that Blessed John Paul was an inspiring example of prayer and cheerfulness throughout his 27 years as the head of the Catholic Church.

As a pope, John Paul II broke the tradition of pomp, finding ways to make himself and the Catholic Church accessible and visible internationally. He travelled to 129 countries, talking of peace and denouncing human rights violations and is notable for his efforts to establish peaceful relations among the religions in the world. He was the first pope to pray in a synagogue, to enter a mosque in Syria, and to meet with different religious leaders in 1986. He is also claimed to have thawed the Communist presence in Central and Eastern Europe.

However, in light of the scandal of pedophile priests that tainted JPII’s pontificate, many criticized Pope Benedict’s decision to speed up the path for his sainthood. Pope Benedict permitted the traditionally decade-long process to start only weeks after Blessed John Paul’s death.

He will be most remembered by Filipinos who took part in the World Youth Day held in the Philippines in 1995 which mobilized 5 million people from all over the world. But he will also be remembered for his moral campaigns on family values, extramarital sex, homosexuality, birth control, euthanasia, and abortion.

Ironically, at this moment, the battle waged over the Reproductive Health Bill in the country is escalating. The Church however is at a standstill with critics and the faithful alike, waiting whether it will stand for the traditional tenets of the faith or heed the call of many social groups that argue for the bill’s passage.

Behind the festivities of what Pope Benedict claimed to be a “feast of the faith,” is the inevitable struggle that the Church constantly faces in the modern age: while it aims to preserve its teachings and the traditions that have kept it strong in over 2000 years, it also needs to remain relevant and responsive to the social realities of the day.

This call for a more relevant and responsive institution begs the question of whether such a challenge only facilitates the further politicization of the Church. In the country, the reality is that Church-State relations are essentially blurred. The political role of the Catholic Church is significant, but more importantly, it is rooted historically. Because of the Catholic Church’s hand in mobilizing the People Power, it has long been given a favored position in Philippines politics particularly in selected administrations. This has allowed the Church to deviate from its traditional role of simply serving as moral guidance for the people.

The challenge for the Roman Catholic Church here is to strike a balance. The Church’s strength lies in its unswerving adherence to tradition and to dogmatic teachings that have stood the test of time. However, its potency as an institution depends also on its ability to be an instrument of social change without necessarily intervening in the political sphere and its ability to be responsive to the context within which it is situated.

John Paul II’s beatification represents the persistence of millennium-long Catholic traditions. It manifests the Church’s recognition of his extraordinary devotion to prayer and to his many efforts for peace and religious tolerance; but it also indirectly represents an affirmation of the Church’s longstanding position on many issues concerning society today.

Pola Lia Celina Lamarca, 2009A

Of Means, Ends, and Divine Intervention

Issue 5 A.Y. 1112

"We assure you that the bishops concerned are ready to accept responsibility for their action and to face the consequences if it would be proven unlawful, anomalous, and unconstitutional. We assure you that their action was done without malice. Out of their sincere desire to help their people, they failed to consider the pitfalls to which these grants could possibly lead them. They have also expressed their readiness to do everything that is necessary to heal this wound so that we can all move forward in hope." - "A time of pain, a time of grace (A Pastoral Statement)" by NEREO P. ODCHIMAR, D.D., President, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, July 11, 2011

Most bibliophiles I know wouldn't admit to being a Dan Brown fan in public for fear of figurative flogging, but I am not ashamed to say that Angels and Demons is one of my favorite books. What Angels and Demons gives its audience is not just shock, but sacrilegious shock. A tale where the holiest of people do the unholiest of things to "urge their followers to turn back towards the light" is scandalous at best and deeply frightening at worst; imagine Saint Teresa possessed by Niccolò Machiavelli.

Stories like this play on the level of trust we ascribe to our religious leaders. This trust has been drilled into our brains by parents and grandparents, by years of socialization, by participation in our own religious communities, and for some of us, by Catholic Schools. Suggesting that they can be capable of something other than the true, the good, and the beautiful is not only difficult to accept, it goes against the very rules of the game we have grown up with. It is this complicated negotiation of meaning that the recent issue on the "Pajero Bishops" forced us to deal with.

Here are the seven names: Bontoc-Lagawe Bishop Rodolfo Beltran, Bangued-Abra Bishop Leopoldo Jaucian, Cotabato Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, Basilan Bishop Martin Jumoad, Zamboanga Bishop Romulo Valles, Butuan Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos, and Ilocos Sur Bishop Ernesto Salgado. They were proven to have received seven million pesos from the PCSO during the Arroyo Administration. The money was used to buy “utility vehicles,” which were allegedly used to service the poor in their provinces. When the so-called PCSO Scandal broke out, they returned the vehicles. Last Thursday, the bishops were cleared of any and all responsibility, after which they asked current PCSO Chair Margarita Juico to resign for divulging the story to the media “without accuracy” and “inciting malice where there was none.” Article VI, Section 29, Paragraph 2 of the Philippine Constitution of 1987 will hold up, but against PCSO and not the bishops.

But then, as the Church has always reminded us, moral laws should always be in consideration. And in that context the true mistake of the seven bishops is much like Machiavelli's: they failed to see the real relationship between means and ends. Machiavelli believed that any and all means are acceptable as long as the desired end is realized. But reality is more complex than that, and we must not forget that ends are shaped by the means employed to achieve them. They claim that they used the funds to help the poor of their communities, but that is beside the point. The more important question is, at what cost? Did it buy their silence, their cooperation, their support? We can only speculate, but we have all lived long enough to know that money always comes with strings.

The senate has allowed this to pass, and pass quietly as so much has before it.  “Why concentrate on the P7 million given to the bishops when there are billions that were apparently abused or wasted? Why are we being led down this path? Who is manipulating the scenarios?” asks Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Let the men of God go with not even a slap on the wrist, there is no legal case, and there are more expensive fish to fry. What's seven million after all? Like Pajeros, Monteros, Stradas and Crosswinds, justice and time also have price tags.

Are the seven Bishops truly blameless? Can we take them at their word that the cars had nothing to do with exchanged favors? The affairs of these men of God are not divorced from politics, especially not here and not today. It would be more convenient to absolve them in all senses, and to humor them in their demands for Juico’s resignation. But we must continue to pursue this issue, debate upon it, understand its social implications, not because we want to "launch an anti-Catholic Church Campaign" but because we must learn to speak out against blatantly wrong methods. Ultimately, the means shape the quality of the end result, and unless we speak out, and do so soon, the only thing that will be able to lift our country out of its current predicament is divine intervention.

 - Mary Roseann Ramirez, 09A

* Notice to readers: The views expressed in the Weekly Perspective do not necessarily reflect those of the Academic Committee or UP POLITICA.

Justice should have no MERCI

Punchline

Issue 4 A.Y. 1112

Depending on who is talking, Sara Duterte, the lady Mayor of Davao City, is either a heroine or a goon. After being caught on camera by the major television networks while punching a sheriff who, despite a request for a postponement of two hours, ordered the start of the demolition of the shanties of some 217 families of informal settlers in Davao City, Sara Duterte became a YouTube sensation overnight. She became the topic of discussions in barber shops and conversations in coffee and deli shops.  Almost everyone has personal view about the incident.

Sara has been charged administratively with the Ombudsman by the Sheriffs Confederation of the Philippines. Another lawyer wants her disbarred. The DILG Secretary has ordered and conducted its own investigation and Malacañang has declared that it will observe a hands-off policy on the issue. On the other hand, Abe Andres, the sheriff who got the ire of Duterte, has stated publicly that he does not hold any grudge against Sara.  Judge Carpio, the judge who authorized the demolition, ordered a 10-day stay of the demolition.  Moreover, the people of Davao City held a rally in support of Mayor Duterte.

The incident involving Mayor Duterte is a study in local leadership –- because the squatter problem is very local. The incident can be viewed from two perspectives: legal and humanitarian. From the legal point of view, the demolition must proceed because according to the Latin phrase, dura lex sed lex:  the law may be harsh, but it is the law.  From the human consideration point of view, provide the squatters with a habitable relocation site before demolition.  Mayor Duterte however viewed the situation from the point of view as a leader. The leader has the responsibility to take care of his constituents. And responsibility is not always dependent on the law.  This responsibility must combine law, human compassion, justice, management and leadership together.  Mayor Duterte understands the need for the demolition.  However, on that point, she also knows that violence would erupt if the demolition is carried out without able leadership.  She thinks that she could provide that kind of leadership. She wants to protect the informal settlers as well as the law enforcers.

However, she had that well publicized outburst because as she said, she was quite tired attending to a very serious situation that Davao City has not experienced quite recently.  Lives have been lost in the city floods. However, such action should not be condoned because as a leader, she overreacted.  But, in investigating the incident, her superiors should not overreact either.  This is not a case of corruption or self- aggrandizement. She is loved by her bosses (as President Noynoy Aquino remarks), the Davao City constituents she is only responsible to. A minute of uncalled-for outrage cannot and should not overshadow a year of efficient and unquestioned leadership.  After all, no matter how good a leader she is, she is but human.

 - Carmela Fojas, 10A

* Notice to readers: The views expressed in the Weekly Perspective do not necessarily reflect those of the Academic Committee or UP POLITICA

Will you Divorce me?

Issue 3 A.Y. 1112

After the issue on the Reproductive Health bill, Filipinos are once more at odds with each other in considering another contentious and controversial piece of legislation, the Divorce Bill. After citizens of Malta voted for divorce in a referendum, only the Vatican City and the Philippines remain in the list of states that prohibit divorce - and it seems that Philippines doesn’t want to be  left behind. The debate on legalizing divorce in the country started when this news of Maltese referendum favoring divorce reached the Philippines recently; this eventually encouraged and provoked various groups to make a stronger call for the country to follow in Malta's steps and permit divorce in this predominantly Catholic state.

Comparatively, both countries are the last fortresses of Catholicism, Malta in Europe and Philippines in Asia. Malta is more predominantly Catholic, around 95 %, than Philippines with around 80 %. Also, both countries experience conflicts between the Government and the Church in many aspects.

Recently, the Philippine Congress started working on House Bill 1799, An Act Introducing Divorce in the Philippines, with Gabriela Representatives Luzviminda Ilagan and Emmi de Jesus as the principal authors. It gained supporters and opponents. House of Representatives Speaker Feliciano Belmonte threw his support, as well as Former Gabriela Representative Liza Maza and Akbayan Party Spokesperson Risa Hontiveros. On the other side, Saranggani Rep. Manny Pacquiao, echoing the sentiments of the Catholic Church, took a conservative stand on the bill.

We all know that family is the most basic social institution; a family must not be destroyed, and according to Anti-Divorce people, Divorce destroys the family. Well, for me, Divorce cannot destroy something that is already destroyed. Family members seeking divorce implies that for them, there is no more sense of being a family. Divorce does not destroy the family - only the members of the family can do that. We should recognize the fact that some marriages work, whereas some really don’t. And in cases like these – where a union of two people is more damaging than beneficial – a divorce can be a way of severing ties with your partner.

Physical abuse, irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities, sexual infidelity, and loss of affection are just some of the many other reasons why marriage doesn’t work. Keeping a couple together locked in their irreparable marriage, would not only mean suffering for them but for their children as well. People against the bill argue that the children suffer if their parents are not together anymore. However, I believe that it is more unhealthy and painful for the children to see their parents always at each other’s throats for the smallest reasons, rather than having parents who are perfectly fine with each other although they are separated and not married anymore.

Divorce offers us a choice. It is not a highway for immorality and degradation of Philippine culture and religious standards. We can legalize divorce here in the Philippines without being a nation composed of people who marry just because divorce is just around the corner in case it fails. We just have to remember and continue living with these culture and religious standards.

It is time to move forward, away from the past and into the modern era. Divorce offers each and everyone the opportunity to start a new life - be it by remarrying or remaining divorced. The rest of the world has given this choice to their citizens; let us offer the same right and opportunity to our fellow Filipinos.

 - Emmalyn Escanilla, 10A

* Notice to readers: The views expressed in the Weekly Perspective do not necessarily reflect those of the Academic Committee or UP POLITICA.

Anniversary of P-Noy: 1 down, 5 to go

Issue 2 AY 1112

It has been almost a year since our country held its recent presidential elections. After the 9 years under President Arroyo, the people clamored for change. And with the recent death of Cory Aquino, Noynoy was pushed to the scene and immediately became a favorite and eventually won. With a promise to curb or even eradicate corruption, he was set to begin his term. Now a year has passed since that time when “Cory magic” still captivated the resolve of the people which resulted to another Aquino in the presidency. What has happened since then? Remembering the year makes one picture the hostage crisis, the Filipino drug mules, the RH Bill, Ombudsman resignation, price hikes, the recent Spratly issue and natural calamities to hit the country. And in a few days, the current administration will be celebrating its first year. Is there something to celebrate? 

Looking back at his platforms, there are many tenets to examine. The best area to examine is transformational leadership. This was his mantra, what supposedly made him stand out among other candidates. He has vowed not to tolerate corruption and to make those who practiced it accountable and also to possibly give a solution to the problem.  The impeachment and eventual resignation of the ombudsman was seen as a good stepping stone to his goal by the public. To make corrupt officials accountable (especially in the past administration), he tried to create EO1 or more commonly known as the Truth Commission, which was later on deemed as unconstitutional. Currently, GMA has yet to answer allegations regarding corruption. She was even criticizing Aquino for how he dealt with the Cotabato flood predicament and even compared her government to Aquino's .

People were also skeptical of his appointments to different positions, creating his own version of KKK(Kaibigan, Kaklase, Kabarilan). He was even accused of failure to discipline them and prevented them from being held accountable on cases of incompetence and illegal acts, contrary to his promise to strengthen institutions. To be fair, his logic behind it was to appoint people whom he was confident that could share his vision and persistence and only a few of these kaibigans, kaklases and kabarilans have been linked to controversies. But what could have been better for him was to immediately sanction or dismiss them out of office when the controversies hounded them.

On improving the situation of the people, there is yet a great progress to be seen. The rise in unemployment remains to be unresolved, as well as poverty, hunger, and housing among many others. The Philippines' dependency on remittances is still large. And these are just some of the economic challenges looming large over the Philippines. The government is taking extensive steps to ensure the even distribution of economic growth within the nation, by promoting overseas and home-bound investments in the Philippine Islands. Regardless of these, the country is facing significant decline in industrial production, gross domestic product, income and employment and sales, but people are still optimistic that things will (hopefully) change for the better.

Suffice to say that one cannot judge him yet, for it is still too early and that there are too many areas to discuss or debate on to grade him. Only a year has passed and P-Noy may or may not be blamed for most of the missteps that has happened. But he has to be accountable. He cannot use the same excuse over and over again of inheriting the problems from the past administration. What must be realized is that there is little room for mistakes with the public eye watching closely and the media ready to publish and report anything, whether good or bad. He has to remain steadfast in achieving his goal. His net satisfaction rating is still very high, compared to other presidents, which is a positive indicator for him. What he has done may be enough for him, but there are still areas for improvement. He has to realize that his duty is never to do just enough, but to exceed his own expectations of others and himself.  Another excuse for further incompetence cannot simply go unnoticed. The Filipino people are still hoping for some kind of miracle. He still has 5 years left to try and do something to that extent.

- Chris Erwin Alquizalas, '10A

* Notice to readers: The views expressed in the Weekly Perspective do not necessarily reflect those of the Academic Committee or UP POLITICA.