Wednesday, October 18, 2017


These are interesting times accompanied by interesting questions that may bring to fore quite interesting answers.  In other words, there seems to be some down-to-earth queries long since existent in the minds and hearts of people that likewise seem to have remained unanswered one way or another, to this date and time.  In the same way, there seem to be certain presumptions or assumptions among people that are false in substance and implications for so many times in so many ways.  For example:

Why is it that the majority is not always right in the same way that the minority is neither always wrong?  So it is that the majority does not always elect or put into  political power those who are expected to promote and protect their legitimate interests and rightful concerns.

Why is it that as a matter of course, the rich purposely become richer while the poor as expected become poorer?  Avarice and contentment in material possessions appear to be mutually exclusive.  So the conclusion is the rich become richer while the poor become poorer.

Why is it that not really a few law enforcers eventually become lawbreakers in the course of time?  The usual reasons for such living contradictions are character flaw, deficient value formation or a given personality disorder – if not plain avarice and/or carnal designs.

Why do some public officials become synonymous with agents of graft and corrupt practices?  In the last analysis, this sad and saddening phenomenon finds its premise, one way or another, in the maxim that absolute power corrupts  absolutely.  Such is the rule with but a small number of exceptions.

Why are there people – movements and syndicates -  who dedicate their lives to reaping the lives of others, in sowing fear and anguish as a matter of course?  Errant value system, uncultured culture, adverse personality constitution are the usual causal factor/factors of such errant disposition.

Why is it that most of the victims – runners, sellers, users – of prohibited drugs are counted among the poor?  Poverty is usually not the cause of virtue but the origin of vice.  What is worst to think about and saddening to consider is that the drug producers and providers are the wealthy individuals.

Why has human life become cheap?  Because there are individuals who do not value it and cannot value it either when they are already dead.  Because of no less than a special all-out “war” that has been declared against the handlers and users of prohibited drugs.

Conclusion:  Where are the People of the Philippines going?  Eventually towards the right way, the right time somehow.  There were worst times that came about.  There were worst events that took place.  There were even worst feelings felt and perceptions harboured.  But the Filipinos are still basically up and about.  There is something in the Filipinos that is sterling and noble.  And there is something in the Good Lord that makes Filipinos somehow special.

Monday, October 16, 2017


This seems to be the common thinking and consequent feeling of a good number of people and their Countries the world over:  Peace is unexciting, tiring and boring even.  When there is but simply unity and concord, when harmony and silence are but the signs of the times – these are also found in cemeteries all over the globe.  So it is that peace is boring.  And this appears to be perception, the impression and feeling of people at these times and age.  Again:  These are the days when people appear to be uncomfortable and disoriented even when peace reigns among them or among Nations.

So it is that wars are very exciting. Terrorism is very stimulating. Conflicts or dissensions are very interesting.  Killings are trilling.  Justice is passé. Truth, ethics and morals – never mind.  So it is that “Rest in peace” is but for the dead.  And so it is that nuclear missiles are better made, more perfected and wherefore more deadly and devastating they become.  The same is true with submarines, warships and warplanes.  The same too is the rule with tanks and cannons, guns and bullets which are continuously manufactured, fervently sold and/or donated among Countries though but with the existential friendship, with but pneumatic accord.

So it is that hideous massacres take place here and there, every now and then – openly or surreptitiously.  Indiscriminate killings take place anytime, anywhere, as a matter of course in many Countries.  Thus it is said that those earnestly advocating population control through all possible ways and means, are not exactly tearful because of the continuous loss of lives which is synonymous to less people in number through less multiplication of human lives – less food, shelter and clothing needed, but at the same time more economic underdevelopment assured and secured.  Thus a good number of anti-population people think and feel.  Let there be more killings so that more socio-economic development comes to fore.

And here at home – without the least intent of offending anybody in anyway – there is even a Martial Law declared somewhere with the advent and activism of local and imported terrorists with the avowed task of wasting the lives of others and thus causing havoc and fear.  More.  There are killings day and night in the streets, in houses here and there on account of a “war” declared against something and some individuals therein involved.  The truth is that it is no longer odious nor surprising when dead bodies with heads wrapped with duct tapes, placed in plastic bags, thrown and found in the streets, in dump sites, i.e., anywhere, anyhow.  There are also more mortal treatment of young individuals, the violation of children included – girls in particular.  So it is that even fraternity and fratricide appears to go hand in hand during these days.

Hence:  Let there be peace – for the good of man, for the welfare of society, for the humanization of the world.  Wars and violence, murders and killings, criminality and lawlessness – these are not for the wise, the civilized, the sane.  So it is that peace is exciting for man to be human, for society to be civilized, for the world to be progressive. 

Friday, October 13, 2017


Sound reason and proper ethics plus true faith and right morals have defined the innate nature and inherent finalities of business – or goals.  Here:  Businesses should be characterized by their capacity to serve the common good of society through the production of useful goods and the promotion of beneficial services – their workers in particular.  Businesses also perform a social function, creating opportunities for promoting  and enhancing the common good and welfare of the people in general.  So it is that business primarily intended merely for the profit, benefit and welfare of capitalists – the principal as well as auxiliary ones – without honest-to-goodness concern for its beneficial impact to the general public – is de facto a curse.

So it is that no business may be but for itself – its own profit, benefit, growth – without regard for the common good of society.  However, this is not to say either that business should be altogether for the interest of the general public in line with the nature and finality of charitable organizations.  In other words, while business properly speaking, should not be divested of its due and legitimate incomes and other benefits for its owner/owners and partner/partners, neither should it exempt itself from directly and/or indirectly serving and promoting the interests of the society in general.

The production of useful goods, the provision of beneficial services, the promotion of consumers’ welfare should be ingrained in all legitimate business enterprises – in addition to the latter’s profitable legal claims.  Covetous businesses brought to reality by of downright greed is the mortal enemy of consuming society in general.  So it is that nothing less than the Social Doctrine of the Church justly proclaims and duly insists that amoral economy is a big social.  The ultimate casualty of economy divested of morality is the general public, the whole of which in the last analysis is a consuming society.  In other words, business may not legitimately do away with its beneficial social dimension.

The teaching that business has a social function is but saying the following:  Business may not be for itself – its own benefit and advantage, its own good and welfare.  Business may not but have in mind both its ad intra capital interest and ad extra social function.  Business has to attend to and accordingly promote the good and advantage not only of business owners and investors but also the consumer world.  One more thing, business will in fact prosper the more.  The more it attends not only to the profits it makes but also looks after the welfare of those patronizing it, the more profitable even the business becomes.  Translation:  Business and its patrons are both beneficiaries – in the last analysis.

None of the above observations about Business and its Goals is complicated to understand, much less impractical to comply with.  They are but mandate of ethics and dictates of morals ingrained in business as a human activity.  So it is that the more business becomes pro-self, pro-profit,pro-income, the more people look at it with disdain and anger.  Such is exactly the case of the business of fuel and electricity in the Country.  Their Capitalists become richer while the consumers become poorer.   

Wednesday, October 11, 2017


There are certain individuals as well as groupings thereof who for reasons, motives, or causes of their own, are bent on subverting the intrinsic nature and trivializing the essential finalities  of marriage – in addition to undermining the core significance and inherent consequence of marriage in terms of the formation, care and affirmation of the family.  In its substantive understanding and ontological consequences, marriage is not only a consummate union between a man and a woman but also a sanguine community between them and their children.  So it is that in clear and succinct language, honest-to-goodness marriage equals unity and indissolubility between an husband and a wife – until death does them part, with or without having co-created a family of their own.  This is the nature and substance, the  connotations and consequences of marriage.

But for different personal reasons of their own, the aforesaid individuals and groups thereof appear decided to change the nature and  significance, the finalities and consequences of marriage.  In essence, they want marriage to be not simply divisible but also soluble for personal causes they have, for individual options they make.  Why do they hate marriage for what it really is?  Why do they abhor marriage for what it truly is?  Why do they want to substitute  marriage for something it is not?  In short, why do they want “Soluble Marriage” on account of this or that personal reason or cause? 

Is it because they are the pitiful products of failed marriages?  Is it because their own marriages are wrecks?  Is it because that after all is said and done, they are in effect personally incapable of entering into  insoluble conjugal unions?  Is it because neither marriage nullity nor marriage annulment as provided by the Family Code of Philippines is enough for them in case of marriage failure on account of a given personality liability?  Is it because after all is said and done, what they in fact and in truth really desire is the institution of Divorce in the Philippines.  Hence, more questions: 

What are the grounds for divorce?  Infidelity:  So a spouse commits it on purpose to get a divorce.  Violence:  So the husband or the wife kicks the other to obtain a divorce.  Abandonment:  So the husband or wife abandons the other to have a divorce.  And how many divorces may a husband or wife have, how many re-marriages may either or both of them enter into and break, and how many children will they hurt and/or make them hate their mothers and fathers?  So it is that in the USA, there is a well-known woman who had no less than nine divorces. Will Filipinos eventually break the record?!

So categorically and officially provides nothing less than the Constitution of the Philippines:  “The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the Nation.  Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.”  (Art. XV, Sec. 1).  “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”  (Art. XV, Sec. 2).

Those in favour of the institution of divorce in the Country should likewise have to undermine no less than the Philippine Constitution. (State Policies, Sec. 12)

Monday, October 09, 2017


It was around the middle ages that persecuted Christians sought individuals and/or places to keep them safe – to safeguard their lives, to evade persecution, to seek protection.  This was right and just.  This was reasonable and fair.  So it was that as time moved on, such a practice or observance gradually became acceptable and accordingly observed – according to the dictates of reason and justice.  So it was that the innocent  yet prosecuted or persecuted individuals in effect became the de facto origin or author of the “Right to Sanctuary” which was essentially the same in nature, spirit and finality of people seeking asylum.

The essential and key element in the eventual institution and relevance of the Right to Sanctuary is nothing profound nor complicated whereas it is along the maxim that someone is deemed innocent until proven guilty.  To think, to say, and/or do otherwise – presumption of guilt unless proven innocent – is neither according to the elementary principles of justice nor consonant with the simple dictates of reason.

Nowadays, considering that the Right to Sanctuary is claimed to have been lately practiced by a rather known Church entity or to have been actualized by this or that Churchman, it is but right, proper and timely to take note of the following key particulars in order to better understand and appreciate the implications of accepting and affirming the essence and implications of the said Right – by taking note of the following three key observations:

Those giving sanctuary to its seekers, should have the moral certitude at least that the asylum seeker appear really innocent of the grave misdeed being attributed to them.

Those receiving asylum seekers may not but eventually entrust them to the proper authorities after being assured that truth productive of justice will be properly sought in the resolution of their cases.

Those thus extending sanctuary to those asking for it, cannot but be ready to face the consequences of their actions in the event that those to whom they gave sanctuary to, proved to be guilty of the misdeeds attributed to them.

There is something both understandable to note and interesting to remember specifically as far as the asylum givers are concerned:  They should be the last ones to shout to the world that they are giving sanctuary to this person or those individuals.  Reason:  That would be precisely telling the authorities concerned where those persons of interest are.  And this is something that is unfavorable to the latter.

A concrete case when the Right to Sanctuary becomes very relevant:  When someone really knows who the real and powerful criminals are and wants safety and time before he speaks openly to the authorities concerned.  Though unknown to the general public, this phenomenon takes place now and then in line with the nature and spirit of the said Right.