tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post3883264601903451561..comments2023-09-25T21:21:09.750+08:00Comments on My Adventures Everywhere: By Congressman Ruffy BiazonMsLeaSalongahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12751458896324484839noreply@blogger.comBlogger209125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-15857424746101327732010-06-22T16:40:34.000+08:002010-06-22T16:40:34.000+08:00Its for the best
elearning software solutionsIts for the best<br /><br><br /><a href="" rel="nofollow">elearning software solutions</a>rob nazariohttp://robnazario.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-89804982807810949542008-11-10T19:49:45.000+08:002008-11-10T19:49:45.000+08:00Travellingsuitcase, I visited your link - thanks f...Travellingsuitcase, I visited your link - thanks for the different perspective, I like how the author calls the bill "redundant." I do agree that there are bigger issues to be tackled, and that the DOH just needs teeth, not a new law.<br /><br />That's all irrelevant to our current discussion here, but very refreshing.<br /><br />"Journalism" was used loosely, and while it does literally cover both written and broadcast media, I intended for it also refer to any person disseminating information as an authority on the matter or from a position of moral ascendancy. My apologies if this was not clear or immediately apparent.<br /><br />I've repeatedly given my analysis of your provision in question, and it seems to be more of an opinion on your part that the passage of the RH bill will shut down the press and plunge us into a pit of censorship seen only during martial law. <br /><br />If it's a matter of principle and assuming you're right, I'd give up my right to gripe if that meant that I didn't have to be born to parents who neither wanted me, had not the first idea of how to raise me, nor the means to support me. It might be unthinkable to you and I, but there are some people out there who would rather never have BEEN, much less heard.<br /><br />In the end, it doesn't matter, as should the bill be passed and that provision found unconstitutional at a later date, the Separation/Severability Clause will allow that provision to be struck out. The rest of the bill will live on without it. It's also never illegal to question the constitutionality of anything for as long as there is sufficient cause.<br /><br />My position is based on (a little) education in these matters and I am confident in my statements. You certainly have the right to believe the provisions read otherwise. I respect your opinion while remaining resolute in my opposing stand. Thank you for the brisk interchange.<br /><br />It's time to move on to discussing other topics.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Thanks for this forum Lea, much appreciated :) Yeah, the Legislative is a frustrating place, Bob just may be on to something there. I'm thrilled at your positive advocacy, and hope that good things come out of this for all of us.Renzo Villalonhttp://santanderre.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-70687475168594125572008-11-10T18:31:50.000+08:002008-11-10T18:31:50.000+08:00Who are these guys! Let's name names and sham...Who are these guys! Let's name names and shame them into action!Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-69641874019633416642008-11-10T18:21:23.000+08:002008-11-10T18:21:23.000+08:00There is still room for discussion and debate in C...There is still room for discussion and debate in Congress, in order to whittle the bill down into a version that everyone (for the most part) will be happy with... without delaying tactics by certain members of the House. However, with what I've heard regarding some congressmen keeping things from moving forward... haaaaaaaaaaaaaaay, que frustrating.Lea Salongahttp://bigsis222.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-84744377947785431562008-11-10T13:58:44.000+08:002008-11-10T13:58:44.000+08:00The provision is there to protect the bill from pe...The provision is there to protect the bill from people opposed to the bill who are misrepresenting it and spreading falsehoods about it. It does not prevent people from airing their opposition to the bill, or stating facts supporting their stand. <br /><br />That seems to be very clear to everyone except those opposed to the Bill. Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-52510476107041779232008-11-10T13:11:17.000+08:002008-11-10T13:11:17.000+08:00To be clear, even if I happened to advocate the RH...To be clear, even if I happened to advocate the RH bill, no way would I let that provision be part of the bill. Something like that has no place in ANY legislative measure. Do you not see the implications and repercussions? As I stated before, that is giving too much power to the State. <br /><br />Santanderre, nowhere does it state that it applies only in the realm of written information. information (or disinformation) may be taken to mean something written, broadcast over airwaves, uttered in conversation... precisely because it is not specified in the bill. But then like I said, that provision should not be there in the first place, unless we're talking about life in a tyrannical form of govt.<br /><br />Punta na lang kayo dito sa isa pang discussion. It's pretty comprehensive and balanced, I think. It's more of a bird's eye view.<br /><br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.filipinovoices.com/the-redundancy-of-rh-bill-5043">http://www.filipinovoices.com/the-redundancy-of-rh-bill-5043</a>traveling suitcase girlhttp://travelingsuitcase.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-67856586689302616572008-11-09T10:07:55.000+08:002008-11-09T10:07:55.000+08:00Thanks Santanderre. Those are precisely the points...Thanks Santanderre. Those are precisely the points we have been trying to make to the anti-RH side for weeks. The point has been restated in so many different ways and yet they seem to still not understand it. Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-50170884514968724532008-11-08T22:07:31.000+08:002008-11-08T22:07:31.000+08:00Travellingsuitcase, has the lawyer read the bill? ...Travellingsuitcase, has the lawyer read the bill? [EDIT: at the time of your writing, he hadn't, sorry - just noticed his statement that he hadn't] <br /><br />Just to get this out of the way, the last two points on the lawyer's discussion referred to (1) statements so broad that they can be interpreted in several conflicting ways, and (2) the severability clause. The first is a safeguard in the law against ambiguous statements, and there are cases where laws become unconstitutional when they are so vague as to cause confusion in interpretation. The second refers to the last clause in the bill - it just means that if any bit of the bill is unconstitutional, illegal or something of the sort, that bit can be taken out while the rest of the bill remains in full force and effect. It's handy, but I feel it's lazy legislation - the guys writing the bill seem like they can't be bothered to check if there's something that covers the topic.<br /><br />In any case, onward to your concerns on freedom.<br /><br />That provision you're so vehemently objecting to will only raise red flags when read alone and out of context of the entire bill.<br /><br />The bill prohibits disinformation on the topics covered by it. <br /><br />That's it.<br /><br />Those topics are found in the body of the bill. There are no "riders" on it that prohibit speaking against the president or voicing your displeasure of the government. It's all scientific: family planning, contraception, etc. All those are facts which can be quantified, verified and proven through accepted scientific methods.<br /><br />If someone doesn't want to be punished (whatever the punishment may be), all that needs to be done is to RESEARCH before he or she utters a word or picks up a pen. The provision doesn't curtail freedom, only sloppy journalism.Renzo Villalonhttp://santanderre.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-2457994509015793212008-11-06T19:13:57.000+08:002008-11-06T19:13:57.000+08:00If you have any info that indicates that certain f...If you have any info that indicates that certain family planning methods are abortifacient, then by all means, this information can be disseminated. There is nothing about our stand or about the Bill that says this should not be done. <br /><br />I do not have the monopoly on the truth about everything. But I do know if the Bill is misrepresented. I was chatting with Lea the other day and she said that in Hong Kong a Catholic priest said that HB 5043 was for the legalization of abortion. THAT is the kind of misinformation that we wish to prevent. We do not wish for any news blackout about information about potentially abortifacient methods. <br /><br />I hope I have made myself clear. Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-19539716224178629552008-11-06T16:31:17.000+08:002008-11-06T16:31:17.000+08:00bhobg said "What you cannot do is deliberatel...bhobg said "What you cannot do is deliberately spread falsehoods ABOUT THE BILL" <br /><br />Who is telling the truth? You or teavellingsuitcase? Who will judge who's telling the truth?You? Isn't it self-serving by asserting that only you and pro-RH people like you are telling the truth about the bill. If a person is against the bill s/he is lying about the bill. how would you know 100% that these supposed "essential medicines"--artificial contraceptives does not cause abortion or not abortifacients? You may believe that they are not abortifacients but others believe otherwise. What is the TRUTH? You may only have A truth but not THE truth. So please stop pretending to have the TRUTH and stop labellling the anti-RH people as spreading falsehoods. <br />There is a saying that "Politics is an art of compromise" because it implies that nobody holds the truth. Politics is also working for the common good, and how can we work for the common good if you reject outright ideas contrary to your views by labelling them as falsehoods. The legislative process have a period of interpellation and debate to listen to those that have other views, opinions and ideas. There is also a period of amendments to accomodate other ideas, etc. etc., etc. The legislative process is long and tedious just for this, it is not only a matter of numbers because it will only resort to a tyranny of the majority. We are searching for truths and what is beneficial to the majority of the people or for the common good.<br /><br />Labelling people with other opiniosn, ideas and views as spreading falsehoods is mariginalizing them. Marginalizajose descallarhttp://jad52358.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-46607378642377206492008-11-02T14:23:54.000+08:002008-11-02T14:23:54.000+08:00Well said. :)Well said. :)Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-14455516302702260232008-11-02T03:28:00.000+08:002008-11-02T03:28:00.000+08:00Freedom of speech includes being able to express o...Freedom of speech includes being able to express one's opinions about a certain person, place, event, etc... for example, it's okay to say that you hate my website's wallpaper because it does not conform to your personal aesthetic sensibility.<br /><br />To express your own distaste at something is one thing... to intentionally spread an untruth about anything or anyone is quite another. For example, it is truthful to say that there are birth control pills that can actually help to prevent ovarian cancers, but cannot be prescribed to patients that have or had breast cancer.<br /><br />As for the provision in question, there has to be "information" before there can be "disinformation". This information needs to first be laid out clearly before anyone can then be accused of maliciously engaging in disinformation. Example, let's say (example lang ha) that the condom's failure rate is about 5% (meaning, it has a 95% efficacy rate, when used properly). To maliciously engage in disinformation would... maybe... include intentionally saying that the condom's failure rate is actually 50%. Or that all women's reproductive cycles last 28 days (this is so not true).<br /><br />So exercising one's freedom of speech doesn't give one the excuse for libelous or slanderous behavior.Lea Salongahttp://bigsis222.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-50884579841641926242008-11-02T02:49:56.000+08:002008-11-02T02:49:56.000+08:00You can speak freely all you want. What you canno...You can speak freely all you want. What you cannot do is deliberately spread falsehoods ABOUT THE BILL. In other words, you can express your distaste all day about the bill but you cannot say that the bill is for something that it isn't. For example, you cannot say that the Bill is for the legalization of abortion. That is not true. <br /><br />I believe this has been debated already on this thread.Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-84030519091363365042008-11-01T22:10:55.000+08:002008-11-01T22:10:55.000+08:00First, why would you want freedom of speech challe...First, why would you want freedom of speech challenged? There are many other laws and some laws concerning taxation, for example, I don't like. And I am free to express my distaste (with limits, of course). If I go against the limits then I can be charged with libel or slander. But no law comes with a provision that people can't speak out against it. And this freedom is not about being Catholic or non-Catholic -- it's beyond religion. It's about freedom.traveling suitcase girlhttp://travelingsuitcase.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-46503083547926238802008-11-01T17:23:18.000+08:002008-11-01T17:23:18.000+08:00I read that the provision merely prevents people f...I read that the provision merely prevents people from distorting the truth about the bill. In other words it would be unlawful to say that the bill promotes abortion, for example, or forces Catholics to use IUDs. So if my understanding of the provision is correct, then I think the provision has merit. Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-14225589003880347512008-11-01T16:24:22.000+08:002008-11-01T16:24:22.000+08:00Very interesting :-)
Btw, I think the lawyer'...Very interesting :-)<br /><br />Btw, I think the lawyer's response is easy to understand, except for the last part (which I'm still trying to understand). <br /><br />I still think this provision doesn't belong to the bill and to any other piece of legislation because it goes against freedom of speech. Whether or not one can be prosecuted is beside the point. Dapat tanggalin talaga ang provision na iyan.traveling suitcase girlhttp://travelingsuitcase.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-53778194053641248222008-11-01T10:12:09.000+08:002008-11-01T10:12:09.000+08:00Wow legalese. When I have more time I will study ...Wow legalese. When I have more time I will study this post. <br /><br />BTW Carlos and I will be guesting on Juan on Juan this coming Monday, ten pm. It's a talk show hosted by John D Borra on Zoe Channel, Ch 5 on Sky, 33 on UHF and I think 98 on destiny. We shall be discussing this topic. :)Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-6616451323137467882008-11-01T00:07:33.000+08:002008-11-01T00:07:33.000+08:00Hi! Just a quick comment here. Got something on a ...Hi! Just a quick comment here. Got something on a lawyer's perspective on the "malicious disinformation" provision and I wanted to share it with you. Below is the query posed, followed by the lawyer's reply:<br /><br />I’ve been wondering about the implications and possible consequences of one of the provisions included in HB5043. To me the lawyer’s position regarding the bill is irrelevant since it’s interpretation of the law that matters. Here’s the provision, under Sec. 21. (Prohibited Acts):<br /><br />——————————–<br /><br />The following acts are prohibited:<br /><br />a)<br />b)<br />c)<br />d)<br />e) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.<br /><br />——————————–<br /><br />“Any person” would include civil servants, ordinary workers, teachers, parents, journalists, to name a few, am I correct?<br /><br />“Maliciously engages” — who is to determine if the information (whether accurate or not) was engaged in maliciously? The Population Commission? The DOJ?<br /><br />Let’s say the bill was enacted into law as it is, and a journalist zeroes in on the government’s establishing an “ideal family size” of having 2 children as a subtle way of laying the groundwork for a 2-child policy, given the ultimate goal of population reduction. Let’s say he wrote an investigative piece and it was published in newspapers, and even blogged about the same topic.<br /><br />Based on the bill (which has henceforth become law), are the journalist’s actions punishable?<br /><br />The way I see it, the RH bill goes against the principle of “freedom” which some of its proponents have used in explaining why the bill is a good thing. And now this provision which, to me, seems to indicate muzzling the freedom of speech.<br /><br />(LAWYER'S REPLY STARTS HERE)<br /><br />you were correct in your insight that the bill somehow impacts the “free speech” provision of the constitution when it sneaked into the bill as one of the prohibited acts:<br /><br />“Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act”.<br /><br />So you and I can be prosecuted for “disinformation”.<br /><br />I have not read the entire bill, because I am discussing the moral issue of abortion/contraception in its generic sense, and not in regards to the House Bill in question.<br /><br />But you could be again correct because the provision you have just cited is “overbroad” and at the same time “vague”. The term “malicious disinformation” is very broad because there was no parameter by which it was defined and vague also because of lack of parameters.<br /><br />It may suffer additional infirmity of “unfettered discretion” where the determination of “malice in the information” is left to a particular official, Director of Pop Commission or the “Prosecutor”.<br /><br />But our legislators have the safety net for those kind of unwanted provisions. The court can purge them but those that are not infirmed, remain valid and effective.<br /><br />-------------------------<br /><br />There, that's it. Has anyone else consulted a lawyer regarding the same provision? If so, please do share his/her views here :-)traveling suitcase girlhttp://travelingsuitcase.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-50809284161851006772008-10-31T13:04:44.000+08:002008-10-31T13:04:44.000+08:00hi lea & to all - thank you for posting this b...hi lea & to all - thank you for posting this blog and all your very enlightening commentaries...long yet informative.<br />i am married w/ 1child, i practice natural method or what my husband & i called "galit-galit muna" =)Jo Ramoshttp://joramos89.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-63129462549134074012008-10-28T09:15:36.000+08:002008-10-28T09:15:36.000+08:00He he. Of course, THAT would solve everything!
I...He he. Of course, THAT would solve everything! <br /><br />I, for one, am glad that we glossed over Section 12. I rather enjoyed going through the fervent exchanges. ;-) We might have had a clearer discussion, but one that, I suspect, would have been less fun. John-D Borrahttp://juanmborra3.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-47271543163843346342008-10-28T04:12:17.000+08:002008-10-28T04:12:17.000+08:00There's a lot of great stuff here, hope it'...There's a lot of great stuff here, hope it's all right if I digress a little bit.<br /><br />There are two steps to the passage of a bill into law. <br /><br />1. Get the general idea through the legislation and approved by the president. (Then the publication, yadda, yadda)<br /><br />2. Have the relevant office issue implementing rules.<br /><br />The implementing rules are the down and dirty of the law - what things will be taught, which methods will be espoused, what risks are there of condoms with melamine, etc. This is all determined AFTER the law is passed. The Bill itself contains only guiding principles to point this bit of legislation in the right direction.<br /><br />A lot of what's being discussed here is food for the implementing rules which the POPCOM (i think) is going to put out. To find out what POPCOM is all about, check the Bill: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://jlp-law.com/blog/full-text-of-house-bill-no-5043-reproductive-health-and-population-development-act-of-2008/">http://jlp-law.com/blog/full-text-of-house-bill-no-5043-reproductive-health-and-population-development-act-of-2008/</a><br /><br />The only thing the Bill itself is concerned with is "Should Filipinos have the right to know about reproductive health?"<br /><br />Oh, and while you're there, do check out Section 12. These provisions were glossed over in our discussion. Had they been brought to light earlier, we might not have enjoyed the level of fervency showcased in the middle of this thread.<br /><br />My favorite (in light of these discussions) is Section 12 Item G: <br /><br />"Abstinence before marriage."Renzo Villalonhttp://santanderre.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-52189104483758834052008-10-28T01:19:14.000+08:002008-10-28T01:19:14.000+08:00You gotta love the internet. It truly is the most ...You gotta love the internet. It truly is the most democratic of institutions. ;-)<br /><br />Many character-based sex education programs, religious or secular, would be familiar with BOM. I suppose the relative anonymity of BOM has more to do with the fear of the unknown, or to be blunt, an ICK factor as opposed to any lack on the part of the people who advocate BOM.<br /><br />Please check <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.woomb.org/index.html">http://www.woomb.org/index.html</a> for more details. :-)John-D Borrahttp://juanmborra3.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-32868515648432770442008-10-28T01:14:58.000+08:002008-10-28T01:14:58.000+08:00Thanks. Regardless of position on the RH bill, I b...Thanks. Regardless of position on the RH bill, I believe that it is access to the proper information that will eventually make a difference in the lives of our people. That's really what we ought to aspire for: that if you give people the facts they need to make an informed decision, they will decide what's best for them.<br /><br />Perhaps this can be introduced as some sort amendment to the more problematic sections of the RH Bill.John-D Borrahttp://juanmborra3.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-69466680663350245472008-10-27T22:15:06.000+08:002008-10-27T22:15:06.000+08:00This is from Attorney Clara Rita Padilla from Enge...This is from Attorney Clara Rita Padilla from Engenderights.<br /><br /><br />The Poor Women and Adolescent Girls in Tondo Need the RH Law<br /><br />“We need the reproductive health (RH) care law. We simply cannot have cities like Manila where former Mayor Atienza was able to restrict women’s access to contraceptives under EO 003 (Series of 2000),” says Attorney Clara Rita A. Padilla, Executive Director of EnGendeRights. <br /><br />“In my work with the community women from Tondo, I interviewed women who wanted to undergo ligation during Atienza’s term but they were completely denied access by the local public hospitals. They were told that such services were prohibited because Manila was ‘pro-life’. As a consequence, some of them ended up having two to eight more children than they actually desired. While the national average would only show that women usually have one child more than they desired, the disparity between desired and actual number of children is greater for poor women,” added Atty. Padilla.<br /><br />Atty. Padilla stressed that, “The impact of the lack of reproductive health information and access to health care services is grave especially to poor women who do not have money to pay for their own contraceptive supplies and for counseling from private doctors.”<br /> <br /> “The impact of such restrictive policies is also pervasive and damaging to the lives and health of adolescent girls. I have interviewed an adolescent who, due to lack of access to sexuality education and lack of access to reproductive health information and services, already had six children at the very young age of 21. There were also many adolescents who started childbearing at 14-18 years of age and continued childbearing successively,” continued Atty. Padilla.<br /><br /> “If we have a comprehensive RH law, we will not have these restrictive policies in place. We will have more women having access to sexuality education and reproductive health information and services,” says Atty. Padilla.<br /><br />It is the obligation of the Philippine government as cited in the 2006 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Concluding Comments on the Philippines to “strengthen measures aimed at the prevention of unwanted pregnancies, including by making a comprehensive range of contraceptives more widely available and without any restriction”; “give priority attention to the situation of adolescents and that it provide sex education, targeted at girls and boys, with special attention to the prevention of early pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.”<br /><br /> “Our representatives in Congress must realize that our very own Constitution states that, ‘Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.’ Elected officials must be reminded that they are mere representatives of the Filipino people and that their obligation is to the Filipino people and not to the Catholic Church and its bishops who are against the passage of the bill into law,” said Atty. Padilla. <br /><br /> “Elected officials must respect plurality in our society. They must uphold access to reproductive health information and health care services and give primary importance to a person’s right to reproductive self-determination. Our legislators should immediately pass a comprehensive reproductive health care law. That’s what we need.” Atty. Padilla added.<br /><br /> <br />Bob Guerrerohttp://bhobg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5807177005602102709.post-54643853470756047222008-10-27T21:59:19.000+08:002008-10-27T21:59:19.000+08:00Every method of birth control (and yes, BOM is one...Every method of birth control (and yes, BOM is one of them) should definitely be talked about. The method itself isn't difficult to follow, and doesn't take very long to master.<br /><br />Is there any entity teaching the Billings Ovulation Method (Church-backed or privately funded) to couples before they get married, or is there even widely distributed literature in health centers that teach this method in great detail? I had to learn about this on the internet.Lea Salongahttp://bigsis222.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.com