Current Issues

 RH Law

Last january duterte signed an executive order to fully implement a law that was already passed last 2012 pa.
The last states na government agencies will provide modern family planning services, including free
contraceptives and prenatal care to all women and families. The measure also mandates that sex education be
taught in schools and that companies offer reproductive health services to their employees.

This law took 13 years to pass in the congress then 2012 lang naipasa pero hindi parin naiimplemwnt nga dahil
pinipigilan ng church

 Stand: To a certain extent I am pro and to a certain extent I’m also against RH Bill, I am pro because poverty
and population growth has long been a problem of our nation. It is just timely, that we implement a law
that focuses on fixing this problem. But I do believe that the method of distributing contraceptives is just a
band aid solution. It entails additional costs on the part of the government, at the same time it is not
addressing the core of the issue of unwanted pregnancies and pre-marital sex. A recent study has been
conducted, it states that unwanted pregnancies occur in poverty driven areas where most people are
jobless. Being an employed and doing nothing productive, causing this people to engage much more in sex
and the children of this couple seeing that kind of life style, has a high tendency of incurring the same
pattern and then the cycle goes on and on. I suggest therefore, that instead of purchasing condoms, the
government invest heavily upon keeping this people busy by providing more employment opportunities. It
 would be a matter of hitting two birds in one stone. And if the younger generations would see parents as
good models, if we’re gonna have parents able to provide good generation for their children, could you just
imagine how beautiful the nation could be?
o Extra-Judicial Killings (EJK)
“mos” = custom Morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong.
“ethos” = character Ethics The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions
or a particular group or culture.
Society says it is the right thing to do.
No it is not Morally correct at all. However it MIGHT be Ethically correct to the majority of the filipino
people. People often confuse the difference between being moral and being ethical. See a good breakdown
of the differences here: Ethics Vs Morals

The filipino people ‘for the most part’ condone what is happening in their country and think it is the right
solution, therefore it would be considered ethical but not moral within the Philippines. Outside of the
Philippines it is neither ethical or moral to the global community.

The pros of it happening is that (while i am personally against the method) things actually are improving in
a lot of ways throughout the country. People are more scared and respectful of the “law” now than they
have been in decades. Of course this is not the case everywhere but things have very noticeably improved
in many areas throughout the country. The improvements in safety for the majority of people has been
fantastic. There is a tinge of fear paired with it of course, but improvement none-the-less is good.
The cons of it happening is that it is illegal even by the laws of the Philippines. People are dying, some
innocent, some not, all without a trial or due process. The United Nations has scorned it, as have many
powerful nations, strongly encouraging the Philippines to be more respectful of human rights. For those
that support their country The Philippines, it has bred hatred against other countries (and the United
Nations for which The Philippines is a part of) as well as severe ignorance. Obviously this is not good at all
and from a global perspective shames the country to no end in it’s infancy and ‘terrible twos’ so to speak.

It should be noted that not only dealers are being murdered, users, and innocents have been murdered as
well. There is even a joke circulating facebook that says “After breakup of the relationship” and has a
cartoon on the phone “Hello, 911 i would like to report a drug user/dealer”. People think it’s hilarious. It’s
not because people are actually losing their lives.

President Duterte Is Repeating My Mistakes

In Quezon City, Philippines, inmates sleep on a basketball court at Quezon City Jail, one of the country’s
most congested jails on Oct. 19, 2016.
DANIEL BEREHULAK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
By CÉSAR GAVIRIA
FEBRUARY 7, 2017
BOGOTÁ, Colombia — Illegal drugs are a matter of national security, but the war against them cannot be
won by armed forces and law enforcement agencies alone. Throwing more soldiers and police at the drug
users is not just a waste of money but also can actually make the problem worse. Locking up nonviolent
offenders and drug users almost always backfires, instead strengthening organized crime.

That is the message I would like to send to the world and, especially, to President Rodrigo Duterte of the
Philippines. Trust me, I learned the hard way.

We Colombians know a thing or two about fighting drugs. Our country has long been one of the world’s
primary suppliers of cocaine. With support from North American and Western European governments, we
have poured billions of dollars into a relentless campaign to eradicate drugs and destroy cartels. I was
personally involved in taking down the planet’s most notorious drug trafficker, Pablo Escobar, in 1993.
While we managed to make Colombia a bit safer, it came at a tremendous price.

A member of the Colombian police shows several packages of seized cocaine taken from the El Dorado
Airport in Bogota 26 August, 1999.
MARCELO SALINAS / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE — GETTY IMAGES
My government and every administration since threw everything at the problem — from fumigating crops
to jailing every drug pusher in sight. Not only did we fail to eradicate drug production, trafficking and
consumption in Colombia, but we also pushed drugs and crime into neighboring countries. And we created
new problems. Tens of thousands of people were slaughtered in our antidrug crusade. Many of our
brightest politicians, judges, police officers and journalists were assassinated. At the same time, the vast
funds earned by drug cartels were spent to corrupt our executive, judicial and legislative branches of
government.

This heavy-handed approach to drugs did little to diminish the drug supply and demand in Colombia, much
less in markets like Western Europe and the United States. In fact, drugs such as cocaine and heroin are as
accessible as ever from Bogotá to New York to Manila.

The war on drugs is essentially a war on people. But old habits die hard. Many countries are still addicted to
waging this war. As Colombia’s current president, Juan Manuel Santos, said, “We are still thinking within
the same framework as we have done for the last 40 years.” Fortunately, more and more governments also
concede that a new approach is needed, one that strips out the profits that accompany drug sales while
ensuring the basic human rights and public health of all citizens.

If we are going to get drugs under control, we need to have an honest conversation. The Global
Commission on Drug Policy — of which I am a founding member — has supported an open, evidence-based
debate on drugs since 2011. We strongly support reducing drug supply and demand, but differ
fundamentally with hard-liners about how this should be achieved. We are not soft on drugs. Far from it.

What do we propose? Well, for one, we do not believe that military hardware, repressive policing and
bigger prisons are the answer. Real reductions in drug supply and demand will come through improving
public health and safety, strengthening anticorruption measures — especially those that combat money
laundering — and investing in sustainable development. We also believe that the smartest pathway to
tackling drugs is decriminalizing consumption and ensuring that governments regulate certain drugs,
including for medical and recreational purposes.

While the Filipino government has a duty to provide for the security of its people, there is a real risk that a
heavy-handed approach will do more harm than good. There is no doubt that tough penalties are
necessary to deter organized crime. But extrajudicial killings and vigilantism are the wrong ways to go.
After the killing of a South Korean businessman, Mr. Duterte seemed as if he might be closer to realizing
this. But bringing the army in to fight the drug war, as he now suggests, would also be disastrous. The fight
against drugs has to be balanced so that it does not infringe on the rights and well-being of citizens.

Winning the fight against drugs requires addressing not just crime, but also public health, human rights and
economic development. No matter what Mr. Duterte believes, there will always be drugs and drug users in
the Philippines. But it is important to put the problem in perspective: The Philippines already has a low
number of regular drug users. The application of severe penalties and extrajudicial violence against drug
consumers makes it almost impossible for people with drug addiction problems to find treatment. Instead,
they resort to dangerous habits and the criminal economy. Indeed, the criminalization of drug users runs
counter to all available scientific evidence of what works.

Taking a hard line against criminals is always popular for politicians. I was also seduced into taking a tough
stance on drugs during my time as president. The polls suggest that Mr. Duterte’s war on drugs is equally
popular. But he will find that it is unwinnable. I also discovered that the human costs were enormous. We
 could not win the war on drugs through killing petty criminals and addicts. We started making positive
impacts only when we changed tack, designating drugs as a social problem and not a military one.

A successful president makes decisions that strengthen the public good. This means investing in solutions
that meet the basic standards of basic rights and minimize unnecessary pain and suffering. The fight
against drugs is no exception. Strategies that target violent criminals and undermine money laundering are
critical. So, too, are measures that decriminalize drug users, support alternative sentencing for low-level
nonviolent offenders and provide a range of treatment options for drug abusers. This is a test that many of
my Colombian compatriots have failed. I hope Mr. Duterte does not fall into the same trap.

1. Morality
"[W]e reserve the death penalty in the United States for the most
heinous murders and the most brutal and conscienceless
murderers. This is not, as some critics argue, a kind of state-run
lottery that randomly chooses an unlucky few for the ultimate
penalty from among all those convicted of murder. Rather, the
capital punishment system is a filter that selects the worst of the
worst...
Put another way, to sentence killers like those described above to
less than death would fail to do justice because the penalty –
presumably a long period in prison – would be grossly
disproportionate to the heinousness of the crime. Prosecutors,
jurors, and the loved ones of murder victims understand this
essential point...
"As superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, I planned
and carried out that state's only two executions in the last 54
years I used to support the death penalty. I don't anymore...
I was charged with executing two inmates on the penitentiary’'
death row, Douglas Franklin Wright and Harry Charles Moore...
Regardless of their crimes, the fact that I was now to be
personally involved in their executions forced me into a deeper
reckoning with my feelings about capital punishment. After
much contemplation, I became convinced that, on a moral level,
life was either hallowed or it wasn't. And I wanted it to be...
Since I retired from corrections in 2010, my mission has been to

Perhaps most importantly, in its supreme gravity it [the death
penalty] promotes belief in and respect for the majesty of the
moral order and for the system of human law that both derives
from and supports that moral order."
Edward Feser, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College
Joseph M. Bessette, PhD
Alice Tweed Tuohy Professor of Government and Ethics at Claremont McKenna
College
"Why the Death Penalty Is Still Necessary,"
catholicworldreport.com
July 21, 2016
2. Constitutionality
"Petitioners, sentenced to die for the crimes they committed
(including, in the case of one petitioner since put to death, raping
and murdering an 11–month-old baby), come before this Court
asking us to nullify their sentences as 'cruel and unusual' under
the Eighth Amendment. They rely on this provision because it is
the only provision they can rely on. They were charged by a
sovereign State with murder. They were afforded counsel and
tried before a jury of their peers—tried twice, once to determine
whether they were guilty and once to determine whether death
was the appropriate sentence. They were duly convicted and
sentenced...
persuade people that capital punishment is a failed policy.
America should no longer accept the myth that capital
punishment plays any constructive role in our criminal justice
system. It will be hard to bring an end to the death penalty, but
we will be a healthier society as a result."
Semon Frank Thompson
Former Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary
"What I Learned from Executing Two Men,"
nytimes.com
Sep. 15, 2016
"[R]ather than try to patch up the death penalty's legal wounds
one at a time, I would ask for full briefing on a more basic
question: whether the death penalty violates the Constitution.
The relevant legal standard is the standard set forth in the Eighth
Amendment. The Constitution there forbids the 'inflict[ion]' of
'cruel and unusual punishments.' Amdt. 8. The Court has
recognized that a 'claim that punishment is excessive is judged
not by the standards that prevailed in 1685... or when the Bill of
Rights was adopted, but rather by those that currently prevail...
Indeed, the Constitution prohibits various gruesome punishments
that were common...
[N]ot once in the history of the American Republic has this Court
ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible.
The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional
that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates. The Fifth
Amendment provides that '[n]o person shall be held to answer for
a capital...crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury,' and that no person shall be 'deprived of life...without
due process of law...
Historically, the Eighth Amendment was understood to bar only
those punishments that added ‘terror, pain, or disgrace’ to an
otherwise permissible capital sentence...
I would not presume to tell parents whose life has been forever
altered by the brutal murder of a child that life imprisonment is
punishment enough."
Antonin Scalia, JD
Former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court
Concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross,
supreme.justicia.com
June 29, 2015
3. Deterrence
"Some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they
demand strict penalties – up to and including life sentences or
even death. Most Americans recognize this principle as just...
In 1976, the Court thought that the constitutional infirmities in
the death penalty could be healed; the Court in effect delegated
significant responsibility to the States to develop procedures that
would protect against those constitutional problems. Almost 40
years of studies, surveys, and experience strongly indicate,
however, that this effort has failed. Today’s administration of the
death penalty involves three fundamental constitutional defects:
(1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3)
unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s
penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within
the United States have abandoned its use...
For the reasons I have set forth in this opinion, I believe it highly
likely that the death penalty violates the Eighth Amendment."
Steven G. Breyer, JD
Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court
Dissenting opinion in Glossip v. Gross,
supreme.justicia.com,
June 29, 2015
"[T]here is not the slightest credible statistical evidence that
capital punishment reduces the rate of homicide. Whether one
compares the similar movements of homicide in Canada and the

Studies of the death penalty have reached various conclusions
about its effectiveness in deterring crime. But... the majority of
studies that track effects over many years and across states or
counties find a deterrent effect.
Indeed, other recent investigations, using a variety of samples
and statistical methods, consistently demonstrate a strong link
between executions and reduced murder rates... In short, capital
punishment does, in fact, save lives."
David Muhlhausen, PhD
Research Fellow in Empirical Policy Analysis at the Heritage Foundation
"Capital Punishment Works: It Deters Crime,"
dailysignal.com
Oct. 4, 2014
4. Retribution
US when only the latter restored the death penalty, or in
American states that have abolished it versus those that retain it,
or in Hong Kong and Singapore (the first abolishing the death
penalty in the mid-1990s and the second greatly increasing its
usage at the same), there is no detectable effect of capital
punishment on crime. The best econometric studies reach the
same conclusion…
[L]ast year roughly 14,000 murders were committed but only 35
executions took place. Since murderers typically expose
themselves to far greater immediate risks, the likelihood is
incredibly remote that some small chance of execution many
years after committing a crime will influence the behaviour of a
sociopathic deviant who would otherwise be willing to kill if his
only penalty were life imprisonment. Any criminal who actually
thought he would be caught would find the prospect of life
without parole to be a monumental penalty. Any criminal who
didn’t think he would be caught would be untroubled by any
sanction."
John J. Donohue III, JD, PhD
Professor of Law at Stanford University
"There's No Evidence That Death Penalty Is a Deterrent against Crime,"
theconversation.com
Aug. 8, 2015
"We have the responsibility to punish those who deserve it, but "No one can blame victims and their families for wanting
only to the degree they deserve it. Retributivists do not justify the
revenge, including through the death penalty. In their pain and
death penalty by the general deterrence or safety it brings us. loss, they are entitled to that desire. However, laws exist to
And we reject over-punishing no less than under-punishing. How prevent individuals from pursuing vengeance and their own
obscene that aggravated murderers who behave well inside vision of justice. If they do anyway (if, for example, a victim
prison watch movies and play softball. kills a perpetrator) then they become perpetrators and pay the
price, both legally and morally. Although we may feel empathy
Regardless of future benefits, we justify punishment because it's with such a victim seeking revenge, Nietzsche's warning—that
deserved. Let the punishment fit the crime… when fighting monsters you must take care not to become one
yourself—should be remembered. Killing by the state is wrong
Opponents [of the death penalty] wrongly equate retribution and as well, potentially even worse than killing by an individual...
revenge, because they both would inflict pain and suffering on
those who have inflicted pain and suffering on us. In my view, the death penalty is morally, socially and politically
wrong. Morally, killing is wrong. Killing on behalf of a state is
Whereas revenge knows no bounds, retribution must be limited, wrong as well. Some may believe that the death penalty is a just
proportional and appropriately directed: The retributive and moral punishment for the most serious of crimes; victims and
punishment fits the crime… their families are morally entitled to long for revenge. However,
the social, political and economic costs of such retribution are, in
We should only execute those who most deserve it. And not my opinion, too high...
randomly. Refine our death penalty statutes and review the
sentences of everyone on death row. Release into general No national interest can justify human rights violations such as
population those who don't really deserve to die. The rest we the death penalty or torture."
should execute — worst first."
Ivan Simonovic, PhD, LLM
Robert Blecker, JD Special Adviser to the United Nations Secretary-General on the Responsibility to
Professor of Law at New York Law School Protect
"Q&A: Death Penalty Proponent Robert Blecker,” "Introduction: An Abolitionist's Perspective," in Moving Away from the Death
dallasnews.com Penalty
Apr. 2014 ohchr.org
Aug. 31, 2015
 5. Irrevocable Mistakes
"Those in support of abolishing the death penalty point to the
possibility of an innocent person being executed... The innocent
can take solace in knowing that a unanimous jury of 12 citizens
must render the death verdict after an exhaustive trial where the
accused murderer is represented by two highly competent
attorneys and overseen by an independent judge who ensures a
fair trial.
Voters understand that the criminals on death row have been
convicted of the most heinous crimes. Voters also realize that
those left behind, grieving families throughout California and
their loved ones, don’t deserve anything less than justice.
Justice is a reformed, not eliminated death penalty."
Michele Hanisee, JD
Deputy District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles and President of the
Association of District Attorneys
"Justice Requires a Swift Death Penalty in California,"
marinscope.com
Sep. 27, 2016
"I want to get as many votes as I can to abolish this death
penalty...
[O]ver 150 people in the last few years have been taken off death
row because they were innocent. I know there are people who
want to believe that no innocent person has ever been executed in
this country. But when you have this many people conclusively
proved by DNA evidence to be actually innocent, there is no
escaping the conclusion that innocent people have been
executed...
There are cases where prosecutors withheld exculpatory
information. They knew that there were bogus pieces of evidence
introduced. They knew that there were defendants who were
coerced into entering a guilty plea to a crime they had not
committed."
Ernie Chambers, JD
Nebraska State Senator
Transcript of Nebraska legislature floor debate,
legislature.ne.gov
Apr. 16, 2015
 6. Cost of Death vs. Life in Prison
"Much of the cost, indeed, much of the criticism of the death "One of the most common misperceptions about the death
penalty, is attributed to 'decades of appeals.' It is unsurprising penalty is the notion that the death penalty saves money because
that the loudest complaints about death penalty delays come from executed defendants no longer have to be cared for at the state's
death penalty opponents who have created them... expense. If the costs of the death penalty were to be measured at
the time of an execution, that might indeed be true. But as every
Claimed 'cost studies,' often performed by or at the behest of prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge knows, the costs of a
death penalty opponents, are frequently so incomplete as to be capital case begin long before the sentence is carried out.
false and misleading. For example, they don't take into account Experienced prosecutors and defense attorneys must be assigned
the increase in the cost of life without parole cases if there were and begin a long period of investigation and pre-trial hearings.
no death penalty. Criminal defendants who are facing the death Jury selection, the trial itself, and initial appeals will consume
penalty — which today must be pleaded by prosecutors up front years of time and enormous amounts of money before an
— often want to make a deal by pleading guilty to first degree execution is on the horizon…
murder in exchange for a sentencing recommendation of life
without parole. The existence of the death penalty as a possible [A]ll of the studies conclude that the death penalty system is far
sentence leads to guilty pleas that save the money spent on trials more expensive than an alternative system in which the
and limit the opportunity for appeals." maximum sentence is life in prison."

Robert B.Evnen, JD Richard C. Dieter, MS, JD

Attorney and Co-founder of Nebraskans for the Death Penalty Former Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center
"Local View: Thoughts about the Death Penalty: Correcting the Record," "Testimony Submitted to the Nebraska Legislature,"
journalstar.com deathpenaltyinfo.org
July 11, 2015 Mar. 13, 2013

7. Race
"Death penalty opponents state it is inherently unfair and racially "There is a particular, fundamental flaw in our justice system that
biased. The facts, I believe, are otherwise... other candidates appear to lack the commitment to address -- our
failed reliance on the death penalty. This is a tragedy both
The racial breakdown for those sentenced to death since 1977 is because it is a racially biased punishment, and also ineffective in
as follows: 48.6 percent white; 40.9 percent black; 8.9 percent deterring crime...
Hispanic; and 1.6 percent other. The race of defendants executed
in the U.S. since 1976 is 56 percent white; 35 percent black; 7 Our nation's legacy of slavery and racial injustice find continued
percent Hispanic; 2 percent other. offense in our use of the death penalty. Our death row population
is more than 40% black -- nearly three times the proportion of the
The reason for the discrepancy in the execution rate between general population.
blacks and whites is that juries deciding whether to impose the
death penalty have concluded in more cases involving black Reforming our criminal justice system to save and redeem more
defendants that there were extenuating circumstances militating lives is not as simple as changing just one thing. But we should
in favor of a lesser penalty... be able to admit that we must do more of what works to save
lives, and we should stop doing things that do not work.
The American public still supports the death penalty,
notwithstanding the hammering capital punishment receives each As a prosecutor, I saw that the death penalty's racial legacy could
year... I’m glad the American public does." not be excused or explained away -- and that too many innocent
lives were being taken by this profoundly flawed practice.
Edward Koch, LLB
Former Mayor of New York City
"Statistics Show Death Penalty Not Racist,"
So I decided to fight for the death penalty's repeal."
newsmax.com
Sep. 27, 2011 Martin O'Malley, JD
Former Governor of Maryland
"Why the Death Penalty Needs to Go,"
cnn.com
Nov. 6, 2015
 8. Closure for Victims' Families
"Whatever your feelings are toward the death penalty, one thing "To me, the death penalty also is something else — a sad
most people will never know is the pain experienced when a reminder of how our justice system typically offers punishment
family member, or in my case, family members are brutally instead of healing for the survivors of violent crime…
tortured and murdered. In 1984, my mother, sister and two
nephews were cold-heartedly shot to death by an 18-year-old For a growing number of victims of violence, the thought of
gang member named Tiqueon Cox... honoring our loved ones by killing another human being is not
only counter-intuitive, but abhorrent. Perhaps more than others, I
Tiqueon was sentenced to death by a jury of his peers and has understand acutely that an execution would just visit pain on
been on death row for 30 years after exhausting all of his appeals another family.
at both the state and federal level... Cox, while on death row,
attempted a violent takeover of the Super Max Adjustment Moreover, the death penalty typically brings the opposite of what
Center at San Quentin with a goal to kill as many guards as survivors of crime most need: accountability, healing and
possible. closure…

I urge a no vote on Prop. 62 and yes on Prop. 66 to ensure the
worst of the worst killers receive the strongest sentence. A yes on
Prop. 66 brings closure to families while saving California
taxpayers millions of dollars every year."
Kermit Alexander
Former NFL player and President of the NFL Players Association who lost his
mother, sister and two nephews when they were murdered in 1984
"Letters to the Editor, Oct. 1,"
sfchronicle.com
Sep. 30, 2016
The death penalty also keeps us stuck in an angry stage of grief.
The death penalty requires all of us, victims and spectators alike,
to actively summon feelings of hatred and contempt in order to
justify the murder of another human being. I have felt all of those
things at various times towards my sister’s killer…
While not all murder victim family members feel this way, many
of us do. For all these reasons, I say to prosecutors who seek the
death penalty: Not in my name."
Tanya Coke, JD
Senior Program Officer for Criminal Justice at the Ford Foundation and the sister
of a murder victim
"Death Penalty Punishes Survivors Like Me: Column,"
usatoday.com
Aug. 28, 2016
 9. Attorney Quality
"The next urban legend is that of the threadbare but plucky
public defender fighting against all odds against a team of sleek,
heavily-funded prosecutors with limitless resources. The reality
in the 21st century is startlingly different... the past few decades
have seen the establishment of public defender systems that in
many cases rival some of the best lawyers retained privately...
Many giant silk-stocking law firms in large cities across America
not only provide pro-bono counsel in capital cases, but also offer
partnerships to lawyers whose sole job is to promote indigent
capital defense."
Joshua Marquis, JD
District Attorney of Clatsop County, Oregon
"The Myth of Innocence,"
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Mar. 31, 2005
"Perhaps the most important factor in determining whether a
defendant will receive the death penalty is the quality of the
representation he or she is provided. Almost all defendants in
capital cases cannot afford their own attorneys. In many cases,
the appointed attorneys are overworked, underpaid, or lacking
the trial experience required for death penalty cases. There have
even been instances in which lawyers appointed to a death case
were so inexperienced that they were completely unprepared for
the sentencing phase of the trial. Other appointed attorneys have
slept through parts of the trial, or arrived at the court under the
influence of alcohol. The right to an attorney is a vital hallmark
of the American judicial system. It is essential that the attorney
be experienced in capital cases, be adequately compensated, and
have access to the resources needed to fulfil his or her obligations
to the client and the court."
Death Penalty Information Center
"Death Penalty Representation,"
deathpenaltyinfo.org
(accessed Sep. 29, 2016)
 10. Physicians at Executions
"We expect physicians to offer comfort care to the dying, even if "No matter how one feels about capital punishment, it is
the treatment, like morphine to dampen end-stage cancer pain, disquieting for physicians to act as agents of the state in the
will inevitably hasten death. These physicians are not killing assisting, supervising or contributing to a legally authorized
their patients; they are comforting them in their final moments of execution. Physicians are fundamentally healers dedicated to
life... preserving life when there is hope of doing so. The knowledge
and skill of physicians must only be used for care, compassion
Death row inmates have certain parallels to dying patients. Death and healing. To have the state mandate that physician skills be
is coming. A physician can do nothing to change that. All that turned against a human being undermines a basic ethical
can be offered is professional care during the final moments of foundation of medicine – first, do no harm.
life. And that should be of comfort to the condemned...
The American Medical Association is troubled by continuous
The idea that physicians may participate in executions does not refusal of states to acknowledge the ethical obligations of
mean that they must do so. But it should be an option for those physicians that strictly prohibit involvement in capital
who believe that they have a duty to ease suffering and that this punishment. The AMA's policy is clear and unambiguous –
duty includes caring for those who will die at the hands of the requiring physicians to participate in executions violates their
state... oath to protect lives and introduces deep ambiguity into the very
definition of medical care.
Physician involvement in lethal injection can make capital
punishment less grotesque, more palatable, and even routine. But Oklahoma and other states that continue to authorize lethal
so long as the state uses the tools of the physician to kill its injections must honor the well-established principle of medical
citizens, those who wish to step in to ensure that executions are, ethics that prohibits physician participation in capital
at the very least, competently handled should have the option to punishment."
do so. Anything else is death penalty politics at the expense of
the condemned. And no matter where you come out on capital Ardis Dee Hoven, MD
Chair of the World Medical Association
punishment, no one should be sentenced to a botched "State Mandates for Physician Participation in Capital
execution." Punishment Violate Medical Ethics,"
ama-assn.org
Kenneth F. Baum, MD, JD May 2, 2014
 Partner at Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum, LLP
Julie Cantor, MD, JD
Attorney Of Counsel at Goldman, Ismail, Tomaselli, Brennan & Baum, LLP
"Doctors Can Ease Suffering, Even in Executions,"
nytimes.com
Apr. 30, 2014

Reasons Against Capital Punishment

Prison: It is often believe that prison is a viable alternative to executing a person. However as mentioned
above, even imprisonment for life with no chance of parole still has issues.
Not Humane: Killing a person is not humane, even if the criminal is not humane. What is humane is
subjective to a person’s upbringing, education, beliefs, and religion. Therefore different people interpret
what is humane differently. For instance, some people consider putting a pet asleep is humane if the
animal is in great pain, but doing the same thing for a person is often not considered humane. Other
people would not kill an animal even for food. In some cultures, mercy killings are honorable.
Fairness: The life of the criminal can not compensate for the crime committed. Basically, two wrongs do
not make a right.
Pain of Death: Executing a person can be quick and painless, or executing a person can be slow and painful.
The method, and therefore the pain, of capital punishment is also subjective to society’s norms. Some
cultures prefer suffering, others do not.
Violates Human Rights: Some groups of people deem death a violation of the person’s right to live. Other
groups of people disagree that the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment. There is no clear
definition of what human rights are, so there will always be disagreements with whether it violates human
rights.
 Wrongly Convicted: Some people executed were proven too late to be wrongly convicted of a crime that
they did not commit.
Playing God: Some people believe that all deaths should be natural. Other people believe murder is a part
of nature.
Salvation: Felons have less time and likelihood of finding spiritual salvation if they are executed. The
obvious question for this reasoning is salvation a valid concern for the state?
Forgiveness: Criminals have less time and likelihood to seek forgiveness for their crimes if they are
executed. Again, is forgiveness a valid concern for the government?
Amends: Executing someone decreases the time and likelihood for the criminal to repair any damage from
the crime. Should the state be concerned over this too?
Family Hardship: It is often said that the family members of the executed needlessly suffer too, yet the
crime itself has victims and family members too.

o Free higher education Philippines

Free higher education pushed
By Janvic Mateo (The Philippine Star) | Updated December 18, 2016 - 12:00am
2 118 googleplus0 2

Following the realignment of P8.3 billion in the proposed 2017 budget to remove tuition in state
universities and colleges (SUCs) next year, education advocates yesterday called on the government to
ensure that the policy would be institutionalized and implemented in succeeding years. File photo
MANILA, Philippines – Free tuition is not enough.

Following the realignment of P8.3 billion in the proposed 2017 budget to remove tuition in state
universities and colleges (SUCs) next year, education advocates yesterday called on the government to
ensure that the policy would be institutionalized and implemented in succeeding years.

Kabataan party-list Rep. Sarah Elago pushed for the passage of a comprehensive Free Public Education Law
to remove the burden of paying tuition and other fees from the students and their families.

She noted the

allocation, which was realigned during the budget deliberations in the Senate, would not cover
miscellaneous and other fees charged by schools.

“(These) have become a greater scourge than tuition. This is an issue that is not covered by Congress’
recent move, an issue that we should continue railing against,” the lawmaker added.

Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian – the author of the proposed Free Higher Education Act in the Senate – lauded the
realignment of the P8.3 billion, saying 1.4 million students would benefit from the move.

Headlines ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

He called on his colleagues to support the passage of his proposed measure to institutionalize the gains
made by the allocation in 2017 budget.
Calling it a game changer and a step in the right direction, Elago said students and the rest of the country
should continue pushing for the implementation of pro-people policies in the education sector.

“This development did not spring from benevolence. In fact, this is a victory for the youth movement which
has long fought for the right to education,” Elago said.

“This is a recognition of the long-standing clamor of the Philippine student movement for the government
to veer away from letting state schools to charge and profit from public higher education,” she added.

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) chair Patricia Licuanan said they were currently coordinating with
other agencies to craft the implementing rules on how to operationalize the P8.3-billion allocation.

“Logistically, it will be difficult. How do you share, how do you divide up P8 billion with 113 SUCs (and the
University of the Philippines)? What formula do you use?” she said in a television interview.

Senate Minority Leader Ralph Recto said there should be no problem for the CHED in implementing the
expanded free tuition SUCs despite squabbling among officials.

Recto, who introduced the free public college tuition provision in the P3.35-trillion national budget for
2017, also said the implementation of the program would not as complicated as Licuanan was making it
appear.
According to Recto, the CHED does not have to do anything but disburse the funds to the 114 SUCs based
on their respective claims for tuition.

He argued that the CHED would not even have to go through the individual records of every scholar in the
SUCs.

“This will not be retail spending on their part. All it has to do is to disburse to the 114 state universities and
colleges the amount that their students would have paid for tuition,” Recto said.

“So the reimbursement will be wholesale, so to speak, to 114 entities only. It’s not like they will have to put
an approval stamp on each and every enrollment form,” he added.

Recto said apprehensions from some quarters in CHED might have been prodded by its failure to spend
billions of pesos in scholarship several years ago.

He also aired his confidence that President Duterte would not veto the provision since he and every other
candidate in the May 2016 presidential elections made it a campaign promise to provide free tuition for
students.

“We ran the numbers and we saw that at this level of public spending, in this era of trillion-peso budgets,
this can be done,” Recto said.
The P8.3 billion that was added to the CHED’s 2017 budget was exclusively for the payment of tuition to
the SUCs.

The funds originated from the budget of the Department of Public Works and Highways for projects in the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

It was Sen. Panfilo Lacson who pushed for the removal of the P8.3 billion from the DPWH because it would
violate the Organic Act of the ARMM and it was inserted in the budget in pork barrel-like fashion, which he
said was unconstitutional.

The P8.3 billion that is now with the CHED will be distributed among 114 SUCs based on the amount of
tuition each school is projected to collect next year as reported in the Budget of Expenditures and Sources
of Financing (BESF) document. – Marvin Sy

Right to free higher education? 3

BY THE MANILA TIMES ON AUGUST 9, 2015 FEATURED COLUMNS, OP-ED COLUMNS

THE idea of a university as a community (universitas) of scholars and teachers who uphold academic
freedom to pursue truth is valid–at least conceptually–for all higher educational institutions (HEIs) in the
Philippines, be they public or private.

What separates higher education from basic education is the level of instruction that is “higher” than what
is deemed basic for all, and the constitutionally protected academic freedom with which an HEI conducts
its instruction, pursues its research and serves its community. In academic freedom, truth is pursued and
critical minds molded in an arena that is not pre-determined by ideology, religious belief or pragmatism.
Concepts crucial to human life on this earth such as “God,” “nature,” “humanity,” “development,” “utility,”
“happiness,” “human flourishing” and “the common good” are discussed and debated in higher education,
even as knowledge and skills pertinent to professions are imparted. In the higher education arena, the pros
and cons of the global economic system and the nation’s participation in or abstention from it is fair game
for serious inquiry. More important than the essential budgets that are used for university operations are
the members of the university community who pursue and share truth through their special competencies
and skills wisely. These competencies are priceless. To be part of a functioning university community is
invaluable.

The Constitution says: “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at
all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all” (Art. XIV, Sec. 1).
Consequently: “The state shall: (1) establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated
system of education relative to the needs of the people and society; (2) establish and maintain a system of
free public education in the elementary and high-school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents
to rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school age” (Art. XIV, Sec. 2).

Recognizing the right of all to education on all levels, education is to be accessible to all. But access to
education at all levels does not guarantee free education. The Constitution provides free education only in
the elementary and high school levels. Pertinent to higher education, the Constitution says “every citizen
has the right to choose a profession or course of study subject to fair and equitable admission and
academic requirements” (Art. XIV, Sec. 5, par.3). Among the admission requirements may be appropriate
intellectual skills and integrity as well as the responsibility to pay for the cost of higher education. Though
all may have access to it, higher education de facto may in itself not be for all. Unlike basic education, it is
not compulsory. It may be beneficial to individuals and society, but not required nor appropriate for all.
Wherever higher education is free, it is a privilege, not a right.

Rep. Sherwin Gatchalian of Valenzuela City (Metro Manila) understands the benefits of higher education. It
can pull individuals and families dramatically out of poverty. It can give the country greater
competitiveness in the current global shift toward knowledge economies. From this, however, he
concludes: “Given the individual and social advantages of higher education, it would be greatly beneficial to
the Philippines if higher education would be given the same level of importance as basic education and
secondary education. This would mean implementing a simple but revolutionary education reform– the
institutionalization of tuition-free tertiary education.” His House Bill 5905 therefore would institute
“tuition-free tertiary education in state universities and colleges (SUCs)” to “increase access to the
Philippine higher education system” just as in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Brazil and Chile.”

Gatchalian therefore proposes a fund of P10.5 billion to be administered by the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) to exempt “all Filipino citizens who are either currently enrolled at the time of the
effectivity of this Act, or shall enroll at any time thereafter … from paying tuition for any units enrolled in
any state universit[y]or college…”(Sec 3).

The proposal is revolutionary and thought-provoking. But possibly reckless. In our state universities and
colleges, which are supported by public funds, why should tuition, which is the lifeblood of private
education, be charged at all? Why should tuition at the University of the Philippines be higher than the
average tuition of HEIs in Metro Manila, even if there is a creative scheme of socializing tuition in place,
requiring those who can afford it to pay full tuition, and allocating tuition discounts to those who struggle
in paying it? Under CHED’s normative funding scheme, “maintenance and other operating expense”
budgets are determined by levels of performance according to CHED norms that may offend academic
freedom. Be that as it may, performance is also a matter of funding. Critics of the policy have pointed out
that the policy drives tuition of SUCs up in poorly-performing universities that need the funds to better
perform. In low-performing SUCs, students must then pay more to enjoy the schools’ relatively low-quality
education.

So is this the tuition that Rep. Gatchalian now wants legislation to pay for? Because of the unmanageable
number of students who want higher education through SUCs, the SUCs began charging tuition in the first
place–just as private universities and colleges that have no access to public money charge tuition. Wouldn’t
the free tuition drive students all the more to the SUCs and therefore drive the state budget for free tuition
far beyond the P10.3 billion that Rep. Gatchalian thinks can free SUCs from tuition payment? The effect of
course on private universities would be devastating. They would eventually lose their students and their
faculties to the state schools. They would close. The country would be left with an all-state higher
education system.

If the country wants this–as Rep. Gatchalian points out is obtaining in developed economies of Denmark,
Sweden and Germany–it must decide on it for the long term and allow private universities to phase out.
Personally, I believe that a monolithic all-state higher-education system would be prone to inefficiency,
complacency, corruption and decline. The private university plays a vital and complementary role to the
public university.
 There is no right to free higher education. Higher education in itself is a privilege. And free higher
education is a greater privilege.

K-12

What are the pros and cons of the implementation of K-12 schools in the Philippines?

5 Answers

Miguel Oroña

Miguel Oroña, Dentistry student that likes cars

Updated Dec 27, 2014

Let's start with the cons, because apparently, that's what matters most to the people affected, a.k.a. the parents.

The cons are that the parents have to spend 2 extra years for school, and if their children decide to enter college,
there's an additional 2-year spending that was never supposed to be there. As for those affected who are NOT
the students, the college professors will have to cope with the first generation of K+12 students. There would be
no college freshmen FOR 2 YEARS.

But that's it. Those are ALL the problems that they have to face.
For 2 years worth of sacrifice, these are what you'll get:

The students are more competent, they're not there to cope up with the world because they're up to speed. The
unemployment rates would plummet, because the K+12 program makes high school graduates eligible for MANY
jobs that previously required a two-year college degree. During the 2 year empty period, unemployed graduates
can start going out again, entering a LOT of job openings that the first generation of K+12 students made from
having no college grads for 2 years.

The extra 2 years also gives more time for students to think of what to become as a member of society. That's
more than enough time. It also reduces the risk of students shifting a lot due to a lack of contentment in school.

Vocational programs are also easier to access, like what Don Bosco is doing to its current students, giving them
practical lessons on mechanics and etc.

Think of it for the long term. More people who have jobs is what's important. K+12 allows us to have that.

Advocacy
-The act of pleading or arguing in favor of something, such as a cause, idea, or policy; active suppor

Read more at http://www.yourdictionary.com/advocacy#7rKT4SbFczEDE4Y5.99

transformational leadership as a process where "leaders and their followers raise one another to higher levels of
morality and motivation."

How to Become a Transformational Leader

We've distilled Bass' ideas into a process that you can use to become a transformational leader. This involves you:

Creating an inspiring vision of the future.

Motivating people to buy into and deliver the vision.

Managing delivery of the vision.

Building ever-stronger, trust-based relationships with your people

When we encounter trails and hardships,

We shall give you honor and fame,

For nothing but these show our loyalty clear

To our Alma Mater’s name.

Bring out the challenges, we’ll win them all

And fear neither fire nor blood

Bedans will answer the clarions call

For San Beda, our country and God.

HALLMARKS OF BENEDICTINE EDUCATION

Love of Christ and neighbor

Prayer: A life marked by liturgy, lectio and mindfulness

Stability: commitment to the daily life of this place, its heritage and tradition

Conversatio: the way of formation and transformation

Obedience: a commitment to listening and consequent action

Discipline: a way toward learning and freedom

Humility: knowledge of self in relation to God, others and creation

Stewardship: responsible use of creation and arts

Hospitality: openness to the other

Community: call to serve the common good

Categorized | Politics, Secularism

Know Their Stand: Gringo Honasan, Senatorial Candidate

Posted on 03 May 2013 by the Editors. Tags: Gringo Honasan, Know Their Stand 2013

gringohonasanElections are coming. If you are a voter, you should know who you are voting for and where they
stand, especially when it comes to issues of secularism. Here are senatorial candidate Gringo Honasan’s
responses on nine important issues, based on GMA News’ Mga Isyu ng Bayan.

Reproductive Health – AGAINST

“Because you do not combine the variables that are included in reproductive health, responsible parenthood, and
population management. We cannot even feed our children between the ages of 0 to 5 properly. Here we are
taking on more than we can swallow or chew so I think my reason for voting against is at the right time, with the
proper circumstances I would support separatelt or together a more responsive reproductive health bill,
population management bill, responsible parenthood bill because any decision we make as we have already
made a decision will impact on the future generations of Filipinos not next year or next month, not even within
the next 10 years but decades from now. China is realizing that, Hong Kong has realized that, Singapore has
realized that and they have been proactive about this. Who are we to be less than how they are responding to
this?”

Sin Tax – AGAINST

“Because there are more variables that we can manage or hope to manage even considering the avowed public
health objectives. What about not the health, the lives of the displaced tobacco farmers and growers? What
about the displacement in our local tobacco industry? What about the possible impact on peace and order if
smuggling syndicates begin to be active again it will be the problem of our law enforcement agents and
considering the very porous, very physical, political and policy boundaries — I don’t know if we can manage this.”

Cybercrime – FOR

“Natindihan ko naman kung ikulong mo yung mga nag-lalibel although during our last meeting when we were
discussing not only the FOI but yung right to reply. We talked about decriminalizing libel not only for journalists
but for the citizenry. Npt even the President and the collective judgment of Congress and the Senate is infallible,
I’m glad that the people raised this issue through 20 petitions and the Supreme Court, the highest tribunal in the
land, has made a decision. Now it’s up for oral arguments, some senators are poised for corrective amendments.
I’m happy that this is taking place.”
Freedom of Information – FOR

“Transparency, daang matuwid, convergence. We are bringing government back to the people. Kaya nga POGI bill
kami dahil People’s Ownership of Government Information, government including all the information with certain
temporary exceptions, for the people, by the people, and of the people.”

Political Dynasty – AGAINST

“This was certified as urgent under the president of former President Ramos. I don’t know why it did not take off.
In the absence of an enabling law, I will go back to the ultimate collective wisdom and judgment of the Filipino
people. With or without a political dynasty law, an enabling law, although it is in principle part of the Constitution
let the people decide, let those who are members or non-members of perceived political dynasties face the
people, the electorate, this coming May and let them accept the judgment.”

Divorce – AGAINST

“To me, the Filipino family and the institution of marriage are sacred to me. Any intervention in that regard to me
is not only immoral but criminal, I don’t know if the time will come. I hope I’m dead at the time that we can look
at this more liberally, but until other institutions are repaired, damaged institutions and there are many of them,
are repaired and made stronger, I think we have to be more imaginative and creative about our approach to long-
term policy making.”
Death Penalty – AGAINST

“It’s not the penalty that will deter the crime. It is the swiftness and the certainty and efficiency of the justice
system, not the penalty. In more developed countries they are killing each other by the hundreds and thousands
as part of their justice system. China, ‘di ba, they execute people by the dozens everyday? China still has the same
drug problem.”

Same-Sex Marriage – NO STAND

“Are we ready for that? Let’s provoke a national debate para we can settle down on even a short or medium
policy direction… I reserve all doubts in favor of caution and prudence for policy purposes. I am not ready to vote
on a same sex marriage bill.”

Total Gun Ban – AGAINST

“Why don’t we penalize the one percent who do not follow the law, engage in criminal activities using
unregistered or unlicenses firearms? Why do we penalize the 99 percent because of he actions and doings of the
one percent? We had a hearing two weeks ago, police, customs, DTI, DOJ, and licensed gun distributors to come
up with a consolidated information that we will use to make or to make a committee report to the plenary for a
more comprehensive proactive long-term firearms regulation law.So total gun ban what about the president of
the Philippines, what about members of legitimate gun clubs, what about gun collectors? What about members
of shooting teams? What about judges and fiscals and public officials and members of media who are receiving
death threats for breakfast, what about them? Yung gunless society, they said they’re not for the total gun ban so
it means the policy environment all we need is the information backup is starting to be more liberal, more open-
minded. hindi na katulad nung dati basta ayaw namin. Tell us your argument para your committee can
consolidate and report preparatory to a more responsive long-term firearms regulation law. I’ve been the one
performing duties and I’ve been on the receiving end also.”

***

politi-koW