Reactions to Rodrigo Duterte's Profanity-Filled Proclamation Speech

*** THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN WORDS NOT SUITABLE FOR MINORS... OR WHOEVER ***

Putang ina. This particular expression was the go-to-move of aspiring presidentiable Rodrigo Duterte this November 30 when his party PDP-Laban proclaimed him as their standard bearer. It is an expression many find taboo and hurtful. That being said, it is a common expression being used by many of us Filipinos.

Aside from the constant appearance of "putang ina" or any of its varieties, Mayor Duterte also sprinkled some "Fucks", "Fuckshits", jokes about marijuana usage and a reference about masturbation in his speech. It was certainly a colorful, be it, disjointed speech. A portion of the crowd certainly thought so.

That being said, many were not pleased with the mayor's speech.

Gabriela did not appreciate how Duterte nonchalantly admitted having several partners. According to them, "womanizing and treating women as objects are an affront to women and it should not be flaunted".

People from the Roman Catholic church certainly did not appreciate him cursing the pope and making light of how he kills criminals in Davao. Archbishop Oscar Cruz was quoted in a report by GMA saying Duterte is dangerous. He says Duterte only acknowledges his own rights and he is worse than a dictator. As expected, CBCP president Socrates Villegas was also not pleased.

MAYOR DUTERTE?What the world desperately needs now is leadership by example. We have so many leaders in office and...
Posted by Socrates B. Villegas on Monday, 30 November 2015

Mayor Duterte was really on a roll yesterday. He made enemies out of a lot of people. He may have even turned off some of his supporters. It was crazy. Mar Roxas' own "PUTANG INA!" moment paled in comparison to this one. This profanity-laden speech was something special. I can't imagine anything like this happening again in the near future.

That being said, I find the reactions to Duterte even more reprehensible than his actual speech.

Duterte is a breath of fresh air. Here is a guy who doesn't give a damn about politicking. He's very vulgar like most of us. And like all of us, he has a basket full of flaws pulling him down. His style is certainly more palatable to me than the clean-cut trapos spewing generic gibberish in their campaign rallies.

In saying that, I will not endorse Mayor Duterte for president. It's not because he's a foul-mouthed old man who has four women satisfying his sexual needs. It's because he prefers to have bilateral talks with China and in doing so, killing our political leverage. It's because I can't see him handling International Policy effectively. It's because I don't agree with his style of enforcement where civil liberties are not respected. It's because his reasoning can be flawed sometimes like how he justified his adultery by saying if he can love an entire city, he can surely love four women. It's because he has yet to speak of certain issues I feel strongly about like the PPP law this administration is silently getting done. It's because he changed his stance on taxation from calling for the exemption of poor families in June to being against lowering tax rates in late November

Hopefully, people voting for him don't see a tough guy who will solve all our problems. Hopefully, they vote for him because of his stance on same-sex marriage or feudalism or iron-fist enforcement. Hopefully, they vote for him because they are willing to compromise some of their beliefs because in their view, Duterte's ideas can lift our nation instead of Duterte himself lifting our nation.

Mayor Duterte can call Pope Francis whatever the hell he wants. If there is a God and He decides to banish Duterte to hell for his remarks, that's on Duterte. But that should not have any weight on his style of governance.

Politics is the art of making people believe in what you are saying. It is up to us, the people, to judge ideas based on their merits and not on the merits of the ones who came up with them.

Filipinos Distrust the Justice System

With the influx of news regarding the INC movement calling for the separation of church and state, I can't help that one of the key issues here is being ignored; we don't trust the justice process here in our country. I can understand the calls of our INC brothers and sisters. Though, I don't see the rallies being caused by the violation of the constitution. I see it more of a fear of having the stability of one's religious institution in the hands of an ineffective judiciary. They may say it's the former that forced them to rally. But if you look at one of their statements, it's more because they think the DOJ is not doing its job properly since their prioritization is all out of wack.

This is just one example of our distrust of the due process here in the Philippines. A few weeks ago, 4 men suspected of raping a Maranaw girl in Marawi City were apparently killed after being released. They were released because there were no complainants. The killings of the suspects were done with consent from their respective families to avoid a family feud. This shows a complete lack of trust of the judicial practice from the victim's side. But you may say it is more about their culture than a distrust of the system we have in place. But further evidence of our distrust can be seen in the comments section of the reports pertaining to it.

They can't all be Maranaws, right?

But can you really blame our countrymen for having little faith in the system we have in place?

I mean, take into account several high profile cases that have been swept under the rug. Andal Ampatuan died even before being convicted/proven innocent. And this is after the president himself promised the case will be looked at with great interest and that the case will be resolved before he steps down. We have the Vizconde Massacre case that led to nowhere. Marlon Villanueva's case finally yielded a decision after 10 years. And of course, the extrajudicial killings/abductions that are still prevalent with Jonas Burgos' story at the forefront.

And I barely researched these. I just looked for proper links so you can check them out for yourself. I just remembered them at the top of my head. And for a guy like me who never attended law school to blurt out these deficiencies, it shows that these are normal occurrences. Atrocities are being carried out and the system seems to be unable to keep up.

The distrust and the hesitation to go through the process may be justified. And this should serve as a wake up call to our leaders. We need to revamp our system of justice. I don't just mean the judiciary. Police investigations also need to be looked at. I mean, how can you file a drunk driving case if you don't have the breathalyzers with you?

I was in college when Noynoy promised that the Maguinadanao case will get a resolution by his term's end. Back then I thought that the impeachment of Corona and the installment of new Ombudsman would improve things. I subscribed to the idea that changing the people would prove we have great laws and regulations in place and the system would be proven to be adequate. Fast-forward five years and it feels like we're still in the same place we have always been. The names just changed.

In 2016, Noynoy's term will end. And with it, we elect a new leader. We are eager to watch debates and the news. It's crazy how some people rave about a guy who admitted he is connected to a vigilante group. It's further proof of how we detest the justice system. But I digress. Hopefully, the process of placing new names in elected offices isn't the only process we concern ourselves with.

Ask yourselves this: How can we be comfortable with a system that allows a rich old man to post bail on a non-bailable case while a poor illiterate suspect rotted in jail for falsification of public documents?

The Separation of Church and State in the Philippines and How I View It

These past weeks, we have been bombarded by news regarding the apparent rift within the Iglesia ni Cristo hierarchy. I’m not really familiar with the INC’s past and I was bent on not touching the subject with a twenty foot pole. But when this article popped up on my Facebook news feed, the phrase “separation of church and state” shot through my mind. Then another popped up and here I am. 

To be clear, I still don't care about the internal problems of the INC. 

Now, the phrase "separation of church and state" has been shoved down our collective throats for a few years now. I'm pretty sure the battle to enact or junk the Reproductive Health Bill is still pretty fresh in most Filipino minds. People kept pointing to Article II Section 6 of the constitution. But what does the separation of church and state mean? More importantly, how have I, a layman, been affected by it?

John Locke is thought to be the source of the need for secularization. Locke basically said that the state is a man-made group that was formed because without it, human nature will end man. It is bonded by an external need which is to survive in a pleasant environment. Church on the other hand is concerned with internal struggles. Its main goal is salvation and every individual chooses his own path to it. 

According to him, the state really doesn't have a voice in which path that person takes to heaven. This is still pretty true if you think about it. Summarizing his words, you can torture someone to convert to a religion. And sure, by the end of that torture he may accept baptism or whatever ritual you want him to take. But deep down inside, that person still has the option to believe in something completely different. It's like me. I am a baptized Catholic. But that doesn't mean I believe everything the Church says. 

Now, you may have observed how bad it would be if the state meddled in the church's business. But in the case of the Philippines, some have argued that the church is doing the meddling.

The church has always been a fixture in political discussions in the Philippines. Aside from the RH Bill, the Divorce Bill and the EDSA Revolutions come to mind. The Catholic Church is the not only one present by the way. The INC bloc voting is one of the things that urged me to write this. We saw Eddie Villanueva run for President. In 2010, Apollo Quiboloy's blessing was also sought after by the candidates.

If you think the church is only present in national politics, I am sure your haven't come across this.

Fr. Oscar Cruz wrote that the church can't sit idly by as the state leads the people to a life of poverty where rights are not respected. In a way I agree with him. I mean, priests and nuns or any other leader of a religious group has the right to voice out political matters.

I don't subscribe to the belief that since they don't pay taxes, they should be silent about political matters. The problem with that statement is that the people living in the streets don't pay taxes. But should they not have a say in politics? In any case, both still pay taxes indirectly since they still buy stuff.

The separation of church and state has been blurry in the Philippines. We're not like the Maldives. You can believe your toilet is God if you want and you won't have to worry about the police. But the church definitely has great influence in how we conduct politics. The question is, should this be the case? NO. 

By the way, I'm not a lawyer or constitutional expert so I'm not gonna reference the constitution in defending my answer.

You see, I subscribe to a lot of western political ideals. But aside from politics, there is one branch that I consider whenever I answer this question and that is Public Administration.

Public Administration is basically the study of the government itself as oppose to politics which studies how decisions are made. I am no expert but the Public Administration uses Accountability and Professionalism a lot.

My problem with the church influencing government is there is no professionalism. Politicians deciding to go against the RH bill because it's against their beliefs give no attention to their constituents who don't share their beliefs. That's like a member of a business partnership moving the location without consulting the partner.

Aside from that, how can we be sure that it is God's will? For every transaction with the government, we expect a receipt or any proof of the transaction. This is because the government tries to be professional and accountable. Is there any paperwork with God's signature that if we use condoms, we will go to hell?

Notice that I did not antagonize the church. That's because as citizens, they have the right to voice out their concerns. This doesn't mean that I don't think that voicing these political concerns during homilies is bad. It's just that I can always choose not to believe even if I'm a Catholic. If I get fed up, I can live church altogether. And if the church decides to threaten me, the state will be there to protect me... well they should be there to protect me.

The separation of church and state is on the state. It should be professional enough to make sound unpopular decisions and take into account every stakeholder no matter the religious belief. But then again, it's hard to imagine the Philippines having that kind of government. I mean big brother isn't setting a good example.