COMFORT WOMEN: The elusive quest for justice (Part1)

On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court in Vinuya v. Romulo (G.R. No 162230) dismissed the petition filed by Filipino comfort women to compel the Philippine government to get a public apology from Japan and to secure reparation to victims of sexual abuse during World War II. Through the pen of Justice Mariano Del Castillo, the Court held, among others, that the Philippine government is not under any international obligation to espouse petitioners’ claims before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or any other international tribunal for that matter. Moreover, the claims for reparation put forth by petitioners against Japan are barred because they are deemed included in the waiver of claims by the Allied Powers, as provided mainly in the San Francisco Treaty of Peace of 1951. In other words, the Philippine government purportedly speaking in behalf of the victims, its citizens had already abandoned any claim for compensation as regards to Filipino comfort women ever since the signing of the Peace Treaty with Japan. I shall deal later with the merits of the position taken by the government.

It was in 1992 when we first heard the sad story of Lola Rosa, the first Filipina comfort woman to come forward publicly. Back then, she seemed to be alone in the wilderness shedding light on the ordeals of Filipina comfort women. After almost fifty (50) years, Lola Rosa finally revealed what it was really like to be a young Filipina held captive by the Japs during those fateful times. Even now, as I review the facts of Lola Rosa’s account, the rape, sexual slavery, torture and violence committed by the Japanese are truly disturbing and unthinkable for any human being. Imagine this, a scene of what appears to be her baptism of fire: at 16 years old, she was abducted and kept in a town hospital turned garrison. Suddenly, a Japanese soldier barged into the room. Armed with a bayonet, the soldier slashed her dress and stripped it open. Thereafter, he ravished her, her youth devoured whole. It happened for twelve more times that fateful day with 12 different soldiers. The little time she was left alone was almost unrecognizable and insignificant for only after 30 minutes or so, she bravely recounted, a new batch of hungry soldiers came to wolf on her jaded young body.

Such was the fate of Lola Rosa, a sex slave for the Imperial soldiers. But she was not alone in this plight. Lola Rosa at the time clearly represents the face of comfort women who were too ashamed to come out in the open. Soon enough though, inspired by Lola Rosa’s courage, many other Filipinas, erstwhile “comfort women” came out to speak the truth and recounted their own stories during captivity.

It is of importance to know that the crimes committed by Japanese soldiers were more than just series of rape or unconsented sex. There’s a lot more in it. In his article, The continuing agony of comfort (PDI, 07/22/10) women, quondam dean of the UP College of Law Raul Pangalangan made the following observation: we are talking about sustained and systematic abuse and debasement on a daily basis over months, if not years, of captivity. The UN rapporteurs have listed the following crimes, sexual violence, slavery, including sexual slavery and forced prostitution, crimes against humanity and cruelty, inhuman and degrading treatment.Here he tried to open the eyes of his readers into realizing that the repetitive stories of abuse of our local women was not, in reality, mere episodes of worldly desires, like most of us are aware of. Here he explained, the comfort women genre was in truth and in fact, a system crafted by the Japanese authorities to appease their soldiers’ sexual appetites in the course of their occupation. Like bones given to hungry dogs, our women were offered as hopeless preys. It was therefore clearly deliberate, fearless and unimaginable. It was a war policy out to keep them in war. In Vinuya v. Romulo, the Court ventured into the historical antecedents of the comfort women system.

The comfort women system was the tragic legacy of the Rape of Nanking. In December 1937, Japanese military forces captured the city of Nanking in China and began a “barbaric campaign of terror” known as the Rape of Nanking, which included the rapes and murders of an estimated 20,000 to 80,000 Chinese women, including young girls, pregnant mothers, and elderly women.

In reaction to international outcry over the incident, the Japanese government sought ways to end international condemnation by establishing the “comfort women” system. Under this system, the military could simultaneously appease soldiers' sexual appetites and contain soldiers' activities within a regulated environment. Comfort stations would also prevent the spread of venereal disease among soldiers and discourage soldiers from raping inhabitants of occupied territories.

Daily life as a comfort woman was “unmitigated misery.” The military forced victims into barracks-style stations divided into tiny cubicles where they were forced to live, sleep, and have sex with as many 30 soldiers per day. The 30 minutes allotted for sexual relations with each soldier were 30-minute increments of unimaginable horror for the women. Disease was rampant. Military doctors regularly examined the women, but these checks were carried out to prevent the spread of venereal diseases; little notice was taken of the frequent cigarette burns, bruises, bayonet stabs and even broken bones inflicted on the women by soldiers.

In 1991 a case for damages was filed by three former Korean comfort women before the Tokyo District Court. Others followed suit. However, as matter defense the Japanese government denied any involvement in the establishment of brothels or comfort stations during the war. It raised the issue that these brothels used for forced prostitution were set up and maintained not by Japanese soldiers as claimed by the victims, but private individuals. To this end, the Japanese government consistently invoked the same line of defense and thereby caused the dismissal of every suit in the domestic court.

But that is not the end of it. That seminal lawsuit made headlines and raised public awareness worldwide. Thereafter, serious efforts began mainly under auspices of the United Nations pressing among others, that Japan must issue a public apology admitting the establishment of comfort women system by the Japanese Imperial Army during the war, accept legal responsibility for that violation and pay the appropriate compensation to all their victims.

In 1992, faced with overwhelming evidence, the Japanese government finally succumbed to admission that indeed the military itself was involved in the operation of comfort stations during the war. A year later the much awaited apology came from no less than the Japanese government. In a statement issued by the Miyazawa government, the first explicit apology after fifty (50) years of denial, the government 'acknowledged' that the military had actively and forcibly maintained women sex slaves to satisfy the sexual urges of Japanese soldiers during World War II. The belated admission came as a direct result of a government investigation conducted since 1991 on the issue of wartime comfort women. Later on, concrete steps were taken by the Japanese government that eventually led to creation of the Asian Women Fund. Through the AWF, victims of the comfort women system may apply for monetary and medical assistance from the Japanese government. (Vinuya, supra) To this end, the Philippine government in 1997 signed an agreement with the AWF for medical and welfare assistance for former Filipino comfort women. Since then, these programs were gradually implemented by the government through the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

To be continued...

MAKING MORAL CHOICES DURING ELECTIONS

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

In pushing for relevant change in politics, I salute young advocates who are idealists in making a positive and reformed difference in our society. Pursuing change has its great potentials from young minds since they have not been tainted with empirical corruption. Despite the strong tempting inclination of most candidates to go along with the tide of traditional politics, cheating, and winning at all costs(mostly by devious design), our society does not lack few albeit rare species of noble souls whose moral backbone remains unbending and unbreakable to check bad politics gone haywire. Initiating reform in politics and governance has always been a long daunting task. Call it wishful thinking but one can always hope for better things to run the affairs of government. This writer is tired and sick of always hearing how corruption has long gone berserk in our country and elevated to a shameless level. Even those candidates whose platform is grounded on the word “change” has demeaned its true meaning. They just want to change the status quo but not their character.

Admittedly though, these young advocates, though they are not candidates, instead get stoned and crucified for their dogged principles simply because they paddle against the tidal wave of political indecency. It is even sadder but ridiculous that candidates who get piqued with constructive and objective criticisms retaliate by challenging critics to also run for public office. Running for public office ultimately is a personal decision and not anyone’s dictates. Public servants should be forewarned that they will never be exempt from public criticisms. Take it or leave it, it comes with the territory. Our imperfect democracy assures us our freedom of speech. I would unsolicitedly advice these elected officials to just be open minded to criticisms that are at least within the bounds of constructive and objective decency. Transparency and accountability, though very cliché already, are not empty principles of governance but is imbedded in our laws. “Kung sino ang pikon, talo” goes the common reaction.

Elected officials must be reminded that they owe their mandate to the citizenry who voted them and therefore must be accountable to them including responding to constructive criticisms. But sadly, elected officials don’t think that way because a good number of our populace are already paid hacks resulting from vote-buying. Thus, these officials have this mindset that they should be “exonerated” from any accountability. Ergo, the evil of vote-buying gives the elected candidate the self-proclaimed idea that they should not be accountable to the electorate because the voters were already given their due. “Bayad na kayo, reklamo pa kayo ng reklamo” so says the common reply of candidates. In this setup, it is the people who are ultimately the losers.

VOTE-BUYING AND CORRUPTION

As a Christian, I tend to wonder how the moral values of some so-called Christian candidates are demonstrated. Oddly enough, what one can hear from them is “winning is the be-all and end-all whatever the means and the costs.” The means and the costs, in this regard, include vote-buying. This also means, as what a friend has relayed to me, “mas makapangyarihan pala ang pera kaysa prinsipyo.” There are candidates who are so obsessed in winning because this is the only thing that matters to them but on the other hand also consciously compromising their moral values and dignity. Gauging from the recent elections, this malady was so blatantly demonstrated. In the hollow minds of most candidates, it “seems” winning an elective seat obliterates their wrongdoings like vote-buying done during the campaign. My neighbor screams at candidates who won an elective position through immoral means and hopes that they will be “hounded and stigmatized throughout their term.”(makonsensiya sana).

Definitely, vote-buying is morally wrong. You can never reconcile vote-buying to one’s moral beliefs based on the moral teachings of the Scriptures. It is so diametrically opposite.

Where can we find a similar case of vote-buying in the Scriptures? Judas was “bought” with a few clinking of silver coins to “sell” his Savior to the political leaders of his time. Rhetorically, vote-buying is a betrayal of our sacred trust when we yield to its temptations. But many would arguably retort, “hey, we didn’t ask for it, they gave us money so what’s bad about it?” If one admits that he is not corrupt, how then should you call someone who consentingly accepted the bribe? Others argue that they would just receive the cash or goodies but will follow their “conscience” to vote the candidates of their choice. This kind of mindset however, still tolerates vote-buying to go on as a bad practice because one still consents to receive the bribe. Also from the point of view of the candidate, they can always lash out at voters that “pera lang ang katapat niyo at mukhang pera pa rin kayo.” Judas realized this and was so conscience stricken he hanged himself. Cash for your vote, anyone?

With corrupted elections, is the conscience of our corrupt elected officials and those recipients of vote-buying already numbed or devoid of any moral sense? I can only feel aghast as to what I have witnessed. On the other hand, I knew of a few friends who outrightly rejected bribes from candidates. The point to be driven here is that we, as morally conscious beings, can make a choice, including the choice to say no. Samuel Adams insightfully said and I quote “Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.” That solemn trust sadly has been damaged with rampant vote-buying. Thus, it is right for these young idealists to remind our conscience that vote-buying is illegal and immoral. If the so-called “senior” candidates who have engaged in such sleazy tricks could not exemplify themselves as models to the youth, where else will the youth look up to as models then? Regrettably though, even young candidates now would also mortgage their soul and follow the path of dirty politics. Corrupting our youth is corrupting our hope.

As a challenge, how many candidates who were re-elected can make an open declaration like this presidential candidate who said “hindi ako magnanakaw” and truly mean it?

VOTE-BUYING AS A DISHONORABLE ACT

A Roman Catholic priest (and PPCRV chairman in the recent elections) aptly described to me his observations that thousands of people went to the mayor’s house to “sell” their votes. Denying it to high heavens simply insults our intelligence. Both the vote-buyer and vote-seller were indeed shamelessly engaged in a happy tango. In a homily delivered by the Roman Catholic bishop in a barangay church, he presented this question to the parishioners during the campaign period: Anyone of you received 500 pesos from candidates? The parishioners were dead silent. One lawyer friend advised that we should not allow candidates to treat us as downright stupid by accepting their bribes but how many deaf ears heeded this advice?

Relatively, how can an elected official be respectfully addressed “honorable” by well-informed citizens when the means they employed to earn that title are brazenly dishonorable. Woefully, many of our candidates in my hometown (or elsewhere) engaged in such pusillanimous schemes like giving of cash, rice, sardines, noodles and tamban fish. Strangely also, one candidate’s selling point was promising free death insurance to voters if he wins. All these in the guise of an insulting plea: “tulong ito ha, hindi vote-buying.” This sort of problem spawns a “lazy” culture of the majority of Filipinos who look for leaders who can provide them with dole-outs. It also breeds a vicious cycle of patronage and corruption, more Juan Tamads in this modern era and beggarship attitude. Ergo, candidates who are into vote-buying are guilty of reinforcing a hand-out culture. Thus, Rizal’s description of an indolent Filipino people is prophetically true. The right thing to do would be not simply to give the poor fish, but to teach them how to catch fish.

After the elections, two elected councilors (not from the political party where I campaigned for) separately but personally sought my services as a speechwriter for them. I asked both councilors if ever they were engaged in vote-buying. Both said no. The first councilor, a longtime acquaintance in which I also wrote his profile, was invited for a speaking engagement in Las Vegas. I consented to write his speech but not after I gave my piece of mind how election was so shamelessly dirty in Isabela City. I gave the same acid lecture to the second councilor. After some negotiations with the second councilor, I likewise consented. To my dismay, I discovered a week later that the second councilor gave 500pesos to barangay kagawads, one of them who was my friend. I can only shake my head in disbelief. Disappointed, I told an emissary of the second councilor that I am withdrawing as his speechwriter.

MOLDING OUR MORAL VALUES

Let me dissect a bit on how we develop and mold the foundations of our moral values. There are three basic institutions that influence our moral conscience.

First institution is the home. I firmly believe that all mothers and fathers inculcate good morals to their children by teaching and reminding their kids, “anak, wag kang magsinungaling, wag kang malulong sa bisyo, wag kang magnakaw, wag kang manakit ng ibang tao, wag kang matigas ng ulo, papaluin kita.” For sure no parent would ever impart wrong trainings to their offsprings. And yet, bluntly speaking, how many parents were beneficiaries of vote-buying? What a sordid testimony to young minds!

The second institution is the school. As pupils, our teachers further molded our moral values with good manners and right conduct within the confines of the classroom. However, I was petrified when one of my workers enrolled in a college evening class informed me that teachers were also lining up waiting for their turn to received cash amounts in a candidate’s residence! (Let me categorically say that I am not making a sweeping generalization here because there are also teachers who were not blinded by money).

The third institution is the church which should help strengthen our core values, righteousness and faith in God. We go to church Sunday after Sunday, kneel, pray, sing religious songs as worship, make a sign of the cross but on the following day lining up, shoving, elbowing and barging through a candidate’s house hankering for the 500pesos like hungry wolves! One religious sect even endorsed a mayoralty candidate who engaged in vote-buying in past elections and still doing the same in the recent elections. I am not sure what the basis for their endorsement was. A leader (who also claims himself as a prophet) of a big church anointed a presidential candidate as the next president of the Philippines only to witness that candidate lost by a wide margin against the winning candidate. For whatever reason, can it be said that churches have also been penetrated with bad politics?

Every Christian has a moral duty to demonstrate righteous indignation at corruption and at reprehensible abuses of power. We do not have to wrestle with the angels on the question of whether we should tolerate crooks and cheats in our midst.

TIME RUNNING OUT

Outside of these three institutions, where else can we further fortify and find shelter for our moral rectitude in times of tests and trials? Or am I simply naïve talking to a blank wall here because I was never a receiver of any political bribe? I confess I am neither an angel nor a saint nor holier-than-anyone. I am an imperfect being still under process by my God to borrow the term of a Christian friend. All I can confess too is that my family was never a recipient of vote-buying and would not intend to be.

Is it possible for me within my lifetime to witness a genuine reform, secure an authentic mandate from an honest election? Time is running out on my generation. I don’t want my children to be witnesses of the continuous malady of corruption perpetuated through and through. I still want to see some guarantees in my remaining years in this world that my children are given safety and an opportunity for a dignified life vis-a-vis good governance even how flawed our democracy is. It gives me a light of hope when young minds come to the fore shouting from the rooftops telling our government leaders what the right and moral thing to do as a Biblical injunction instead of apathy that many of us can be faulted of. Lamentably, the reality is otherwise from the truth. Label me unrealistic whatever, so be it, but not untruthful to my convictions herein.

If it is of any least consolation for my children, I can say that I was not just a fence-sitter overtaken by a couldn’t-care-less indifference, that their papa’s integrity was not cheapened with bribe offers from candidates. In this country, the rule is if you have no clout, might as well shut up and rage in silence. But then, apathy and keeping quiet is tolerating evil to prosper. One adage goes that the sin of silence, when we should be protesting, makes cowards out of men.

I gave my 5 cents worth of critical views against the evils of vote-buying and likewise supported candidates who did not engage in devious schemes even if my candidates lost. For all its moral worth, I can tell my children that there is still dignity in an honest defeat than one who fraudulently won through vote buying. Saying that this malpractice is incurable is a surrender of our core values and grossly debasing our human dignity.

In this imperfect world and imperfect system, a perfect God is not blind. As a Christian, it will be God’s holiness and righteousness that will ultimately prevail and defeat the follies of this world, the evils of vote-buying included.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article is written by Nickarter "Boy" Gonzalo, a fellow Christian writer and advocate of good governance.

THE PARABLE OF THE YOUNG TRAPO: The Final Sermon

"We have to protect the morals of our youth, for the corruption of our youth is the corruption of our hope." Salvador H. Laurel

He was awakened by the thud of crowd in front of his sturdy manor. They bellowed for words aren’t clear to him for the moment. As they continued to screech for more, the presence of them continued to stir mixed feelings upon him. Just days ago, he was elated to know that he won in the first ever automated elections. He was in utopia. Then several days after that, here they are bellowing at the top of their lungs…shouting of words he barely can’t understand. Are they mad at him? As far as he can remember everybody was good to him, all smiling and doing beso-beso. When finally he cleared his mind, he routed his eyes on the crowd in front of him. A weary woman, in her worn-out malong, carrying a small child on her arm and making a plea as if he has fathered her child; a middle-aged man with a slightly thwarted face shouting as if he had owed him something; and a bigger group of people asking for more!

He was in a state of confusion. Gradually though, the words are beginning to make sense, but he refused still to understand. He merely uttered to himself, “Who are these people? What are they doing here?” He suddenly did not remember anything or anyone. He tried to recollect thoughts but can’t recover anything. He tried hard. Hard enough to put into perspective why a wide group of people would gather in front of his mansion uninvited. His victory party was long over, he thought. He was lured back by a voice. They are asking for what you have promised, remember? He tried hard again to remember and refused once more. But their words are now clearer, more lucid and unavoidable: Konsehal! Asan na ‘yong ipinangako mong kapital para sa itatayo kong negosyo? Nasaan na po ang tulong na sinabi niyo noong eleksyon, ibinoto pa naman namin kayo dahil doon! With these all clear to him, still he hesitated to go down and face them. So unlikely of the past weeks when he was so willing and in all smiles shaking their hands. In his perplexity, he sought refuge from the concrete walls of his folks’ mansion and felt somehow secured. But instincts tell him, this won’t be the last. The words that lasted on his mind: IT’S PAY BACK TIME!

Allow me to share this short story about the aftermath of the recently concluded elections on a young politician who crafted his way to his post thru groceries and unconcrete promises to his constituents. This is fictional. And I sincerely hope that you do not in anyway find yourself in this short story, either as the “he” who suddenly turned deaf or the “crowd” that continues to cry out. Unfortunately however, this may be happening in the very near future if it is still not happening today somewhere out there…Isabela City perhaps?

What is the moral of the story then? The narrative has a great deal to do with the Biblical proposition: WE REAP WHAT WE SOW. In politics, when a candidate’s platform is rooted on money politics and personal interest, his eventual assumption to power signifies only two things: PERPETUATION OF POWER AND CORRUPTION. He has no choice really, sink or swim he needs to sustain the whims and caprices of his constituents. Empty promises and commitments ranging from “pangbinyag” to “pampalibing” are common practices which are deeply etched in our political culture. Political solicitation is from womb to tomb. Hence, for every handshake and “beso-beso” during barangay sorties, a deal is sealed. Literally, a politico so committed with traditional politics could never meet the demands of his evil practices without dipping his fingers in public coffers. Whatever it takes he has to give in to their demands at any cost if he wants political survival. What else could we expect from this vulture? Indeed power corrupts absolutely. In the long run, the dutiful taxpayers of this nation are at the losing end having to shoulder the burden of incessantly filling the monetary buckets of government.

In my article, “New Breed on the Block: Young trapos in local politics?” I warned the voters, mainly constituents of my beloved hometown, to examine carefully young candidates running for public office. I was appalled of the fact that trapos nowadays are not anymore imaged after some old and beer-bellied politicos but even amongst the good built yuppies. In fact, although I knew that my past post had lame targets, I never imagined that the said article would create a big fiasco over the net. The people on the other end did everything to argue with me except answer the very basic issue of the exposition I did. As I see it, the reason why this fiasco over the net got big is because they failed to be objective. Their plan of attack was simple: shy away from the issue then attack the writer. God! I just can’t imagine how much time they have devoted in seeing through me. They tried to explain why this writer writes the things he writes and why he writes the way he does. In fact, in defense of his brother, Roland Rodriguez had given me a needle-like lecture on sociology, trying it hard to explain why I was critical about his brother, Councilor-elect Mr. Abner Rodriguez. He discussed in that response all the sociological characteristics of the Filipinos, i.e., crab mentality, amor proprio, etc, trying to point out that I was unFilipino. But then again, we do not need all these terms to explain my political leanings and criticisms. We do not need so. And we do not have to. They merely should answer the question I laid down. That’s being objective. I would not attempt to be a self-proclaimed sociologist like him. You see, some people envision public office as something that will boost their egos, fame and influence on society. They often think highly of themselves so much so that they can never accept any kind of criticism. Not even an objective one. They instantly take umbrage and unleash the critics with senseless bickering and below-the-belt innuendos. Now why is this happening? I would like to believe that this has something to do with the wrong motivation and lack of understanding of what public office truly means. It seems that even at this point they could not harmonize the basics of free speech in relation to “public figure, public interest and governmental powers”. Clearly, they have a limited view of the entire democratic framework. In the scheme of things, there is nothing they can do about it. That’s how democracy works. This kind of elitist mentality, wrong motivation and all are the very causes of malfunctions under the present political system. I must say however that, in my opinion, being “not objective” is NOT a collective character of all Filipinos. I am in no better position to say that. Maybe the other man can for he devoted all his discourse in educating me as if I am reading a sociology handout in college. Nope, it’s not a Filipino like thing. It’s basically human’s way to escape things when everything else fails.

As far as I can still recollect, it all started with this query: Did he or did he not engage in traditional politics to win a seat in the local council by giving out noodles and cans of sardines? Firstly, let me clear that the name of this public official never came from me. It was his supporters who flaunted his name. So they must, I understand, defend him at all costs even if it means coming out of the real issue. I can’t think of a better explanation for their behavior but this: How on earth can you find the right words to defend something or someone you know is wrong? The answer is simple again: Go out of the box and shy away from the issue. Their first strike: Our supposed familial ties. On my part, that should have never been brought forwarded. It was and should never have been an issue. They did not realize that by bringing that familial thing, they created a scenario that convicted their ‘public official’ more. Their message was clear: I should stop writing about my observations in our recently concluded elections, especially that regarding our local elections in Isabela City, because we are family after all. This was to me, the lamest mean to escape the situation because in the end, their defense ended as a plea. NAGMAMAKAAWA PARA TIGILAN NA PARA NA LANG SA DAHILAN NA MAGKAPAMILYA. It would have been different if they have told me to cease writing because I am wrong and not because we are simply related by blood. My respect would have been easily bought, este, gained in that way. Kidding aside, I must stress that the saying that “blood is thicker than water” finds no application in politics and governance. For if it does, you, as a public official, exposes a kind of governance that encourages corruption and palakasan. I also remember the brother saying to me that his brother will never succumb to corruption if elected as city councilor because from his very words, “they have always lived a luxurious life because of his family’s hardwork.” The term “luxurious” struck me in a different light. On my part, he should have at least used the term “comfortable” or even “contented” which to me are more innocuous terms in light of the discussion. The word scared me, really! Luxuries should always give in to public office and service. Otherwise, it’s dooms day. Public service, in its honest sense, can never live up with the luxurious life he has. Reality however bits us hard, wounding us deep. Luxury and public service are congruent terms in a corrupt political setting. Anyway, let us give him credit for his truthfulness. I hope they were as truthful when confronted with the sardines and groceries issue, lol. Just a thought! Now you may say, "C'mon, give this guy a break and let him prove his worth in the council." Yes, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but on one condition: NO MORE BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AND SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT! Did you or did you not? I can read your mind and I agree. It certainly takes a great deal to admit one’s shortcoming. But that honesty does not make you less of a man. We all have our shortcomings. In fact, history has unfolded several times that reviving a besmirched reputation starts from honesty. It must not end here though. What matters is what we do after a fault. Remember, a bad beginning emulates a worse middle and figures a worst ending. It’s a vicious cycle that only we can stop.
.
To end this exposition, I would emphasize again that this phenomenon of young trapos joining politics is far more dangerous because they are more likely to stay in power for the longest time by merely replacing the old players in the system. I’m a hopeless idealist alright, but something tells me that my ideals would in a way reflect the common sentiment of the silent minority that change must come from the outside. But what happens if those who are tasked to instill noble reforms in the old system are merely heirs of the traditional system-operators? Here I would like to suggest that the system is not the problem. The system was meant to serve as a medium to bridge the chasm, forge consensus between the people on one hand, and government on the other. But our government officials, the operators in the system manipulated it to suit their personal agendas. Again, similar to a philosophical assumption, when the starting point is flawed everything is bound to be wrongheaded. It is best then, that we should not expect too much from the incoming young “Honorables” whose mandate to rule stems from the evil practices of trapo politics. This is not an omen but a warning to our fellowmen to choose the people they want to run the system. It’s also a challenge, a brave challenge to run counter the present political maladies in the country.

Reference: To Build Upon A Rock: Excerpts from Public Discourses 1967 to 1987 by Salvador H. Laurel (1987)

Why I Am Still A Christian?

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God;because if there be one, he must more approve of the homeage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."- Thomas Jefferson

Allow me today to write about my Christian faith and how I wrestled with recurring doubts to satisfy my intellectual curiosity and worldly urges through the years. At the outset, let me stress that I was born a cultural Catholic. However, upon reaching the age of six (6), I was exposed to an entirely different belief. It was my mother, a dedicated elementary teacher, who opened our eyes to the teachings of the bible and Christianity. From then, the whole family shifted devotion and became born again Christians. As the words imply, we felt being born again into this world, with a new faith to hold on to. Our new faith catalyzed the irreversible changes in our family. I witnessed first hand how my father changed his life instantly, from habitual drunkard to a living saint. He was in a state of total transfiguration. Meanwhile, the rest of us vowed to spread the gospel in our community. On my part and so with my two older siblings, we ventured into the realm of reading bible stories and other gospel anecdotes. I can say that this exposure has honed me to be the writer and reader that I am today. Since then, I can beastly say that my reading skills and comprehension hyped unimaginably. Although admittedly I was an inconsistent honor student in school, but when it comes to bible quizzes I always emerge as the ultimate victor above anyone else. As my spirit is languished with a fresh faith, my tot brain was flooded with bible characters and scriptural verses one after the other.

Later, my desire to read the bible became monotonous until the passion dwindled to ground zero. It was not abrupt, though. Gradually, as I discovered the wild edges of secular thoughts and practices, I began to question the very faith I turned down the other one for. At the age of twelve (12), I became obsessed with rock music and learned to play the guitar as fast as I could. My fondness for bible characters dramatically shifted to rock icons like the Beatles and later to a much heavier stuff. How, un Christian-like of me! I turned deaf to all criticisms, especially of my mother who was very against it. Unheeding her authority, together with my high school buddies, we formed a rock band to satisfy our rock n’ roll fantasy. Now, we felt like certified rockstars! Suddenly, I was being reborn again! This time I was embracing another passion …

For quite sometime, we enjoyed local popularity like appearing in local television shows and radio programs. Humbly, we won the much coveted battle of the bands contest. The perks and porks of slight popularity elevated our minds to a nearly euphoric level. Being the popular guys we were, flirting with girls was much easier. Add in all the mischief we seemed licensed to do so, undoubtedly, this new passion has moved me further away from my Christian faith. It was on the brink of destruction and no amount of biblical passages could save it from ruin.

My unchristian journey continued until college. Way passed through it however, I was beginning to see an unclear direction for my future. This time however, my desire to turn my life into the path where it should be was abrupt. I suddenly realized how education could lift me from the emptiness I am feeling. I completely abandoned my foolishness and decided to devote more time in my studies. But reviving my faith was never put into issue. My Christian faith remained dormant in many ways except that by this time I regularly attend Sunday service in our church. Thus again, did not revive my Christian faith even in some little way. The next lines would illustrate why.

Please give me this chance to make these admissions. The sermons delivered by our pastor never arouse my intellectual hormones let alone strengthening my Christian faith. Going to church every Sunday became more of a routine rather than a sacrosanct duty for every devout Christian. These made me crave for an unorthodox or radical perspective of the bible. I hail for a teaching far from the usual evangelical sermons which to me were purely rhetorical and conventional. These things however were not done without a little sense of remorse for my slowly weakening faith. In fact, I feared that one day I may not be able to defend my Christian faith against other religious dogmas. To counter this, I made a commitment to pursue the truth at all cost. Thus, I began to ask serious questions regarding origin of life, morality and ultimately the very existence of God. As mentioned, the conventional evangelical teachings failed to provide persuasive answers to these critical questions. Thus, I remained a nominal Christian for quite sometime. So it must have been fate (that’s contextual), that I entered law school…the battleground for logical thinking and academic discipline.

In law school we were thought not to take anything at face value. Facts must be supported by convincing evidence otherwise you can't justify your theory to win a case. Having this kind of training and thinking, I started to test my Christian faith using my training as a law student. I contemplated whether most Christians are really indeed Christians in the truest sense of the word. Do they have the right reasons to support their belief? This is where the distinction between faith based on reason (reasonable faith) and faith guided by blind assumptions deserves critical precarious considerations.

Here there should be a clear delineation between cultured Christians and authentic believers or followers of Christ. And so I search deeper and deeper, asking questions about faith and the existence of God. To satisfy my intellectual curiosity, I read books on secular worldviews. Having proclaimed myself as a fledgling Christian apologist, I started to conduct my own research and ended up with Bertrand Russell's essay on "Why I am Not A Christian." I must admit though, that Russell's objection to Christianity is a bit shallow and mostly couched in an open-ended language. Nonetheless this essay however bolstered my curiosity and decided to search deeper on atheism and agnosticism. Finally I devoured books authored by militant atheists Sam Harris (e.g.The End of Faith and Letter to the Christian Nation) and Christopher Hitchens (e.g. God is not great), both are staunch defenders of atheism or should I say hard core atheists. Most of their objections, except for their incessant anti-God tantrums, are valid and intellectually stimulating so to speak. I then entered into the realm of metaphysics which I found amusing but very difficult to understand in first reading. By this time I was partly convinced that the anti-theist theory is bereft of any logical arguments as to the non-existence of God. Embracing atheism as a way of life is like succumbing to a life of perpetual emptiness, a life without meaning. But still questions exist in my head. If atheism is a farcical worldview, does Christianity provide authentic answers to all questions pertaining to meaningful existence- a life based on morality? Again I searched for answers carefully weighing everything and anything that Christianity has to offer as the gospel of truth. Then I came across Ravi Zacharias’ book on Christian apologetics entitled Can Man Live Without God. (e.g. The End Of Reason) This work tackles on the philosophical aspects of Christianity and deals squarely among others, with Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” on the issue of morality and happiness. Then I resorted to Lee Strobel’s outstanding book, The Case for Faith, a very interesting book which answers almost all my questions and doubts as to what faith really is in essence. My further readings obviously expanded my understanding on faith and reason, between theism and anti-theism, and more importantly the essence of being a true Christian. I always thought that God gave me the absolute freedom to navigate uncharted waters so that I may be able to appreciate Him more. To do otherwise, I guess is to depict God as a lesser Being.

The pursuit of truth is a never ending journey for us Christians. My journey so far has brought me satisfaction both intellectually and spiritually. While I do not wish to discuss Christian philosophy or apologetics in this writing, the message I want to convey is two fold. First, it is a normal thing for us human beings to question or to have doubts regarding our respective faith. By encountering doubts, we pursue the truth, we search for a deeper explanation about life and meaningful existence. That is the essence of free will. Freedom to think is a God given right, use it to know your creator by heart. Second, by pursuing the truth you may be able to defend your Christian faith in any given forum, and in the end convince others to be followers of Christ. Knowing the truth is the decisive answer to the question on why I am still a Christian all this time