On Local Issues

Below were two of my commentaries on articles in the local newspaper written by Bobby Nalzaro: Capitol's tv ad and Playing safe?.

--oOo--

I became interested in the local media when Bobby Nalzaro accused Governor Gwen Garcia, who will be running for senator in 2013 elections, for using the TV Ad of the province of Cebu for her exposure at the national level. The TV Ad, focused on Gov. Gwen Garcia, will be aired on national television. For Nalzaro, the ad was not really intended to promote Cebu but to sell Garcia to the Filipino people using the people's money. I thought that was my first and last comment. However, his recent tirade against Congressman Osmena and criticism against the Catholic church call for another comment.

On Congressman Osmena: Playing safe?

His sour relationship with Cong. Tomas Osmena, as far as I recall, has a long history when the latter was then the Mayor of Cebu. I think his attack against the congressman is a continuing tirade and as such I need not react.

As reported, Cong. Osmena will abstain from voting of the RH Bill in Congress today. "I told Raul, I am in favor of the RH bill, but I value our alliance more, so I will just abstain,” he said.

Is deciding to abstain from voting for the RH Bill's passage to honor a political alliance (this is not merely a friendship or kumpare relationship as misconstrued by Nalzaro) an unprincipled decision? I don't think so.

The RH Bill debate has become a divisive bill in congress that transcends party affiliation. Since the issue is raised to ethical concern, the question of pro-life versus anti-life, politicians who may see the socioeconomic impact of the bill but are morally obliged to listen and follow the dictates of their conscience in accordance to the Church moral teachings. The Church has become more resolute in fighting against the passage of the RH Bill. The bishops have become actively involved in the lobbying to the lawmakers. The show of numbers, with less time to organize, in simultaneous prayer rallies in the major cities of the country last Saturday revealed the Catholic faithful are listening to their bishops.

Actually, there is no prohibition for the Church to tap the Catholic vote. With the network of the Church, the bishops can actually do the warning Archbishop Vidal: “See you on election time.”

Despite the strong stand of the Church, Cong. Osmena did not change his stand in favor of RH Bill. It is not true that Cong. Osmena became indecisive. His decision to abstain in favor of political alliance transcends personal likes or dislikes. His act cannot be interpreted as playing safe in order to escape the blacklist of the Church. If Cong. Osmena is afraid of the Catholic vote, he could have easily changed his position on the issue and make a public statement to appease the Church. The mere fact that he did not change his personal stand on the issue despite the pressure of the Catholic hierarchy and his friends, Cong. Osmena remains a principled politician.

On Contraceptives and Abortion

Bobby Nalzaro wrote: "As far as the church is concerned, taking contraceptives is abortion."

Does the Church teach that taking of contraceptives is abortion? Where did Bobby Nalzaro get this tsismis? This statement of Bobby Nalzaro is a blatant lie.

The Church clearly distinguished contraception from abortion. "Contraception," wrote Bishop Bacani, "happens when a person prevents sexual intercourse from resulting in conception, which is understood to be the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm. Abortion happens when the fertilized ovum is prevented from coming to term or being born alive."

The Church recognized that there are contraceptives (e.g. condoms for male, spermicides for female) that are purely contraceptives that “only prevent the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm. They do this either by inhibiting ovulation, or by preventing the sperm from meeting and fertilizing the ovum if ovulation takes place."

However, there are contraceptives that are abortifacients, like Postinor which was proven as abortifacient and was withdrawn from the market by the Food and Drug Administration. Bishop Bacani talked about the triple action of these birth control pills:

First, they are supposed to inhibit ovulation. However, they are not always successful in inhabiting ovulation. If, despite the use of pill, ovulation occurs nevertheless, these pills have a back-up action: they prevent the sperm from fertilizing the ovum.

They do not succeed, however, in preventing the sperm from fertilizing the ovum. Fertilization takes place despite the use of pill. So, to insure that no birth occurs, these pills have an in-built mechanism to prevent the fertilized ovum from nesting in the womb. And should the fertilized ovum succeed in embedding itself in the womb, these so-called contraceptive pills dislodge the fertilized ovum from the womb. Such pills thus have a very high efficiency in preventing births.

Father Joaquin Bernas, who is vocal in supporting the RH Bill, clarified that the primers of the Constitution understood “conception” as the fertilization of the ovum by the sperm. The Philippine Medical Society and Pope John Paul II shared the same understanding. “John Paul II says that life is so important that we should not do anything that will endanger it. We would be taking at least a very serious risk against life if we terminate development after fertilization."

“Before fertilization, there is no life,” said Bernas. Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s absurd theory that a sperm, on its own, already has life is unconstitutional. Senator Miriam Santiago was quick to smirk that those who masturbate and spoil their sperms for nothing would be charged with murder.

The implication of this understanding of conception as fertilization is crucial in understanding the mantra that contraceptives are anti-life. For Father Bernas, the married couple who practices abstention, the celibate young man who gives up procreation for a higher calling, and the use of contraceptives that only prevents fertilization are not anti-life in the sense of being an act of murder.

“The expulsion of the fertilized ovum at any time after fertilization is anti-life,” said Father Bernas. It “is abortion and is an act of murder. If life of the unborn is terminated at a stage of viability the crime is infanticide. For that reason the Penal Code and also the proposed RH Bill prohibits and penalizes abortion and infanticide."

Bobby Nalzaro must be cognizant of the nuances of phrases used by the Catholic church concerning contraceptives. The most controversial is its morality, the question being asked: Why is artificial contraception morally unacceptable? The discussion here is moral, philosophical and theological--more specifically from a Thomistic view of God as the source of life and the married couple are pro-creators or “free and responsible collaborators of God the creator.” I will not elaborate it here but it suffices to inform Bobby Nalzaro that this is a different sphere of discourse.

Another discourse was forwarded recently by Archbishop Socrates Villegas—“Contraception is corruption”. His “kung walang anak walang mahirap” is indeed a strong statement against the slogan of BS Aquino “kung walang corrupt walang mahirap.”

--oOo--

The said TV Ad was well-produced. It contained the key messages that the provincial government of Cebu would like to highlight for its 433rd founding anniversary as a province: Cebu has become number 1 in tourism, in business & investments, in job generation and in public service. The ad was not solely intended to invite tourists, foreign and local, to celebrate with the Cebuanos on their foundation day, but also to invite people, foreign and local, to consider Cebu as their home away from home-- a preferred place where they could build their career, raise their families, and establish their business enterprises.

The core message of its foundation day celebration to the Filipino people is clear: "the success of Cebu is the success of the entire Philippines." Bobby Nalzaro has yet to debunk its claim of success in terms of growth in tourism, in business and investments, in job generation, and in public service. These are four key and interdependent elements for the socio-economic growth of Cebu. If Cebu has managed these elements well for its development, other local government units can emulate, if not excel, in optimizing the potential of their tourist destinations by capitalizing their human and environmental resources; and in synergizing job generation for their constituents by providing competitive business environment and efficient public service.

I do not share the political bias of Bobby Nalzaro against Governor Gwen Garcia. However, I share his criticism on the vital issues like the overpriced Cebu International Convention Center and the controversial purchased of the Barili property. Since I am jobless I often stay at the airport lobby. I often met the governor with her faster than normal cat walk but she never fail to smile at me --a nobody who watched her from a distance. She didn't need my vote but she earned my respect and admiration as a leader of the province. She has a pure heart for people. As I watched her work and listened to her speaking engagements, I think she is an intelligent leader with a clear vision and an iron-will to make things happen. If there are employees in the province who have ill feelings against her, this is due to the demand of the governor's work ethic that expects these employees to excel in public service. Poor performers in government are most likely irked by her demanding presence that seeks excellence and productivity from them.

She has done well in the province of Cebu, and there's no reason why she can't excel in the senate. Gwen Garcia for senator? Why not? Nalzaro complained that she used the ad to make her known to other provinces, but who can better promote Cebu if not its transformative leader, Gwen Garcia? I think the promotion of the phenomenal success of Cebu, which other LGUs can and must emulate, is inseparable to the promotion of the phenomenal leadership of Gwen Garcia at the national level. Bobby Nalzaro missed this point because he is imprisoned by his myopic view of Cebu and its governor, Gwen Garcia. Transformative leaders are visionaries, and this truth separates Bobby Nalzaro from Gwen Garcia.