Emancipation

Bea during the PATAS convention

I know a mother who allowed her daughter—17 years and 11 months old —to attend a convention of atheists and agnostics, and even gladly funded her registration fee.

Earlier in the month, this mother brought the same young woman to a coffee-shop meeting of a group whose members call themselves “free thinkers,” trusting her to work her way into the crowd, develop her own contacts and ponder the issues being discussed.

While the mother, the teenager, and the teenager’s brothers and sister are all baptized Catholics, they do not hear mass every Sunday. Their household has no religious icons. They don’t gather around an altar to pray the rosary.

On the mother’s night table, however, is a prayer book given to her by a favorite uncle (who has since died) 20 years ago. This prayer book stands beside another book, The Daily Reflections of the Dalai Lama, and the Tao Te Ching given to her by one of her best friends.

Okay, I am talking about myself.

I have been mistaken for being an atheist/ agnostic—I am neither—just because I write about, and sometimes critically of, the Catholic hierarchy in the Philippines. I have also written about the plight of atheists in this country (the two-part Believing in non-belief in August 2011). Those I interviewed said they felt discriminated against among their family and colleagues and had difficulty coming out. They suspected there were more in the closet.

That article explores the theme of last Saturday’s convention of the Philippine Atheists and Agnostics Society: “Godless Philippines: Are you ready for this?”

At first blush, these words are scandalous. “Godless” is not a word we would normally describe our country in. It brings to mind somebody who fears nothing and hence does as he or she pleases. It is scandalous because the Philippines pride itself in being one of the most pious countries in the world.

So what kind of parent allows a girl to wander into this territory, when there could be a pack of wolves just ready to pounce on her impressionable mind?

I subscribe to enabling our young people to think for themselves. Let’s not tell them what to think. Let’s guide them how to. Freeing is so much different from abandoning. The latter would be putting them on the road to perdition because indeed, the world— and the World Wide Web—are dangerous places.

Liberating young minds is exposing them to other ways of thinking, living, feeling, ways that were not immediately accessible to us because of mere accident of birth. We grew up Catholic, sure, but that is just because we happened to be born in the Philippines that was colonized by Spain for centuries. Had we been born somewhere else in the world, we would have grown up embracing other faiths—and this would not necessarily make us better, or worse.

Parents however must still be there to answer questions or just toss off ideas to. The job is to walk these kids through the array of possibilities—career choices, relationship issues, faith commitments. With a few laughs along the way.

Of course there are pitfalls. Kids could easily identify themselves with groups that portray themselves as “rebels” against the established order. How cool is it to be a rebel, much more so an intellectual one? Young or old, we must know that established religion as well as any group may be weighed down by the vested interests, narcissism and hypocrisy of its leaders.

Religious affiliation works if it makes you more self-aware, more purposeful, more compassionate to and more accepting of others. Then again, if you can be all of these things without the baggage of religion, what is to stop you, as well?

I remember that on Holy Thursday, I went to church to utter a brief prayer. My daughter stared at me in apparent disbelief. Needless to say, I am not known for religious piety around the house. “Mom!You went to church?!?!”

I said: “”Honey, if you judge me because I choose to go to church, what makes you different from all the other people who judge you because you don’t?”

So when she returned from the convention on Saturday evening, I asked her what the takeaway was. She said: “So these people don’t believe in God, or doubt the existence of God. What is the big deal? They are not monsters or serial killers. Now all of us stop obsessing about labels and find something to do.”

Perhaps my daughter would realize that my gift of emancipation—lovingly given, cautiously delivered, and timed precisely for her entry into adulthood— is what is the big deal.

Then maybe she would stop outrageously hinting about how nice it would be to have an iPod Touch or a debut party.

adellechua@gmail.com

The bar and bench on women

Lawyer Claire Luczon, executive director of Women LEAD, led a team that conducted a survey among 27 lawyers and six family court judges on how the Philippine legal system was addressing the issue of violence against women.

Luczon presented her team’s findings at the March 28 launch of “Justice and Healing for Survivors of Gender-Based Violence,” a program being implemented by the Women’s Feature Service, Women LEAD, Women’s Crisis Center and Assist.

According to Luczon, the legal profession is not too happy with too many laws supposedly protecting women in the legal system.

The survey shows, though, that awareness of the existence of these laws makes victims and survivors “feel better, knowing that they have rights.”

What is disheartening is that despite the existence of such laws, there remain certain mindsets, practices and biases that prevent these from truly protecting, much less empowering, women who have in one way or another experienced abuse.

Loopholes in the laws also frustrate their objectives.

Foremost among the findings is that in cases of abuse, there is over-reliance on testimonial evidence, especially of the victim.

Rape victims, for instance, are made to recount their harrowing experience in court—never mind if the courtroom is filled with litigants of all cases being tried during that session, and that the woman would rather not revisit the details of her abuse.

The challenge is now to build a case even without the participation of victims. The use of DNA evidence, for instance, must be promoted because it provides a fool-proof guide to determine the identity of the perpetrator.

Second, some of the laws have unrealistic evidentiary requirements which are difficult, if not impossible, to meet. For instance, Republic Act 9208, or the anti-trafficking law, has a provision on “intent to exploit” which must be clearly established in the arguments. Similarly, in Republic Act 9262 or the Violence Against Women and Children Act, “intent to control” needs to be proven under the provision on economic abuse. Cases have been dismissed because of the complainant’s failure to clearly illustrate the intent to control even as the economic abuse has been severe.

In sexual abuse cases, the victim is often given the burden to show there was absolutely no consent on her part. She has to prove she did not want the sex.

Luczon also observes brazen gender bias among the officers and employees of the court when it comes to dealing with victims of abuse. For example, they believe that a woman must come to court with clean hands. If a wife has been less than perfect, that virtually negates her credibility in complaining of bad treatment from her husband.

Careless remarks from court staff also show the bias. They say that women who want to get out of abusive relationships are just not willing to suffer (“ayaw magtiis”) or oversensitive (“maarte”). Some members of the staff are callous and impatient, asking why the case has not been settled yet.

Worse, they also condemn women who choose to withdraw their cases (“you are wasting the time of the court!”), not realizing that such decisions must be seen in the context of the psychological state of the victims who have been subjected to abuse by their intimate partners, the father of their children, over long periods of time.

And then, during hearings, a complainant must look the part—if she wants to prove she was a victim, she must look unkempt, disheveled, desperate. Any victim who fixes herself up or looks empowered is met with disbelief.

Many provisions of the VAWCA are also not being implemented. For instance, these cases are still not given priority among the many lodged in courts. While the courts could issue a temporary restraining order, they still hesitate to send the men out of the house. There is pressure to settle amicably. Privacy and confidentiality are violated because questioning is done in open court.

Among the family court judges, the consensus is that the laws protecting women are commendable only because women are the “weaker” sex.

There is misplaced priority on strengthening or preserving the family as an institution, even though its individual members’ (the wife’s or the children’s) rights are not respected. Courts also tend to trivialize women’s troubles, saying they are unwilling to bear the hardships of married life or are just vindictive after their husband’s infidelity.

Indeed the existence of laws for victims of gender-based violence is not a guarantee that they will be protected and their rights upheld. More needs to be done, especially by the lawyers and the judges who must be a step ahead of the rest of us on why these laws are even there in the first place.

Pawning the RH bill- conclusion

It is a rainy morning in late March and Ramon San Pascual has just finished drafting his resignation letter to the board of directors of the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development, where he has worked since 1998. He is leaving his job as executive director.

He will be moving to Bangkok May 1 at the latest, to assume the executive directorship of the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians for Population and Development—an umbrella organization of 26 member-committees from various Asian countries. San Pascual will be replacing an Indian who held the post for 19 years. He will be the first Filipino on the job.

But is there a sense of frustration, or a lack of closure, at leaving the PLCPD – the primary group moving for the passage of the controversial reproductive health bill—at this critical juncture? In my column last week I described this administration’s initial enthusiasm for the bill, an enthusiasm that fizzled out especially with the start of the impeachment trial in December.

The Philippines is only one of three Asian countries that do not yet have legislation for reproductive health—the other two being East Timor and Myanmar. So isn’t it odd that somebody from our country was chosen to head a group that works with lawmakers to push measures in issues of human development?

“Actually I believe it was a plus factor in their decision to hire me,” San Pascual says. “[The AFPPD] appreciated my experience working with lawmakers. We filed the first version of the RH bill in 1998, and despite its not having been passed yet, we have gone a long way. The whole world is watching us—if we have enough perseverance, enough tenacity.”

He adds: “I have learned many lessons and I am ready to take these lessons with me to a higher level.”

He says that one of his objectives is to strengthen other national committees in working with their lawmakers.

Another objective is to make congress a congress of the people. The Philippines is currently classified as a low middle income country. But this does not reflect the gross inequity that weighs us down.

Inequity in health, for instance. Many women find themselves empowered, knowing what they must do in order to have a better life for themselves and their families. But the sad reality is that so much more do not. In fact, they are kept in the dark by convention, by religion, by the lack of access to information.

Alas, the RH bill, which would ideally bring empowerment through education and choice to these women— while it does not purport to solve ALL population and development issues—is held hostage by other factors that are more political than developmental.

San Pascual has a nagging feeling: “Nakasanla ang RH bill in favor of a bigger issue (The RH bill is being pawned in favor of a bigger issue).”

And when two years ago he was confident that President Benigno Aquino III is a president who knows what must be done and would actually do it, San Pascual now says: “I now doubt his capacity and his tenacity.”

When he thought he knew House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte through reproductive health programs in Quezon City, “[Now} I have no more respect for his determination.”

To be sure, determination is not a foreign word in this administration. After all, President Aquino is bent on convicting impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona at all costs—even if that cost comes in a convenient bargaining tool like a church-opposed piece of legislation. The Catholic Church still wields significant political power in this country—and the bishops know it and use it to the hilt.

San Pascual does not doubt that Mr. Aquino was sincere when he uttered the promises he made many years ago. Look at how hard he is working to make waves in the fight against graft and corruption, personified, in his mind, by his predecessor Gloria Arroyo and her allies like Corona.

But reforms in human development? Sincerity is one thing. Political will, strength of leadership, and perspective are quite another.

It is good to be determined to stop graft and corruption in high places. But it is not good to give in to an “un-presidential, debilitating obsession” to quash one’s enemies at the expense of other issues that need to be addressed.

“Impeachment is not the be-all of governance,” San Pascual says. There are many other things, equally important things, to attend to.

So what is the future of the bill under this administration? Controversial laws in this country were given attention to because of dramatic, supervening events, San Pascual says. It took the Mendiola massacre of 1987 to emphasize the importance of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. It took the tragedy of Ondoy and succeeding storms to pass the Climate Change Act.

What would it take for our leaders to act, finally, on the RH bill? San Pascual wishes they would not wait for another tragedy.

Modern families

The cast of Modern Family


My Lola and my Papa Edwin -- we had our universe back then. Sadly, both of them are gone now.


My kids and I in a studio shot taken in December. The pressure of raising them is tremendous but the rewards are overwhelming!

Thanks to cable television and the Internet, we have so many options for entertaining ourselves these days. These options also allow us to have a wide range of preferences on how to while away our time.

In the end, our choices reflect our values, our aspirations.

One of my favorite shows on Fox and Second Avenue is Modern Family. For the uninitiated, the show is about three families related to each other.

Jay, an old guy, has two children Claire and Mitchell from his previous marriage.

Jay is now married to Colombian native Gloria (played by the voluptuous and hilarious Sofia Vergara), who is about half his age. Gloria has a son, Manny, from a previous relationship in Colombia but Jay has taken over and treats Manny as his own child.

Claire is a suburban housewife/ soccer mom who has three children with her husband Phil, ever trying to show himself a cool dad. They have two teenage daughters and a younger son.

Mitchell is a gay lawyer who lives with his partner, Cam. They have adopted a girl from Vietnam.

The families are constantly brought together by traditional occasions like Halloween, Christmas and birthdays, crises, and simply by their familial ties. The conflict situations bring to the fore their issues both trivial and profound.

In the end, the problem is resolved and everybody feels warm and fuzzy towards everybody else.

The show has won several Emmy awards but I think its appeal is more basic. It reminds us that families do not have to take any prescribed, conventional form.

As long as people love and care for one another, and deal with the ordinary and extraordinary challenges with respect for the other members -- whatever age they may be -- there is a family.

I grew up in another Modern Family where there was only three of us. My grandmother, my gay uncle, and myself. My mother left me with my Lola when I was seven to start a family of her own. There was a time I felt insecure about not having a mother and a father and brothers and sisters (NOT half brothers and half sisters) with me in the same house.

Looking back, I can only be thankful for the unconventional, unpretentious, humble home that I grew up in. We had our quirks, but there was much love and sacrifice and generosity that went around, even if we did not have much.

And now my family is "modern" yet again. I am officially single, my marriage having been declared null in January, and I am raising four children ages 10 to 18 and worlds apart in inclination and temperament. I like to think we are doing well, notwithstanding my constant worries.

But back to the show. Modern Family is a comedy, first and foremost. It reminds us that being able to laugh out loud, a lot, with your family is just priceless. Never mind what the joke is about.

Pawning the RH bill - Part 1

In early June 2010, just after the election of President Benigno Aquino III and before his inauguration, I spoke with Ramon San Pascual, executive director of the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development, about the prospects of the reproductive health bill under the incoming administration.

At that time, San Pascual was confident that things would be different under Aquino. Under former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the bill was killed because the embattled chief executive used it as a bargaining chip to keep the Catholic church’s support amid her unpopularity and calls for her ouster.

San Pascual then felt that Aquino was a breath of fresh air, supporting couples’ right to exercise their free will about the manner in which to plan their families.

The impending speakership of just-elected Rep. Feliciano Belmonte was also, in San Pascual’s view, a boost to their cause. As mayor of Quezon City, Belmonte implemented reproductive health programs for his constituency.

But when I returned to the PLCPD office last week, San Pascual sounded anything but upbeat.

Indeed there was momentum in the beginning. The RH bill hurdled the committee-level discussions in record time. Building on Aquino’s vocal support of reproductive health (even as he preferred to call it “responsible parenthood”), lawmakers were ready with a committee report by March 2011. Voting and eventual passage seemed imminent.

In August 2011, the measure was included in the priority measures of the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council. Debates were begun in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The bill’s advocates welcomed the interpellations, hoping public awareness and a sense of urgency would prod congressional leaders to bring the bill to a vote by December. Advocates were confident they had the numbers.

But something else happened in December. The House of Representatives impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona. And then the Christmas holidays came and went. When Congress resumed in January, the impeachment trial began.

Ideally, the number of lawmakers participating in the trial would not affect the quorum at the House. But the House has become, according to San Pascual, dysfunctional—lazy, distracted and afflicted with low morale. “There is just no leadership to conduct normal business.”

This side of House Speaker Belmonte came as an unpleasant surprise to San Pascual and his group, who have all worked alongside the former mayor in RH programs in his city before. The advocates knew, too, that only a push from the President can get Belmonte out of his lethargy and muster the leadership and will to put the matter, finally, to a vote.

The best way, they figured, was to seek an audience with Mr. Aquino and remind him of his commitment to reproductive health—or responsible parenthood, if he wants to call it that, although there is no difference at all.

San Pascual and some of the bill’s authors went to see the President on two occasions this year. One meeting on Valentine’s Day, when the team included Rep. Kaka Bag-ao (a member of the prosecution in the impeachment trial), was particularly disheartening. The President immediately quizzed Bag-ao on developments in the prosecution of Corona, oblivious to the fact that the rest of the team were eagerly awaiting to talk to him about the RH bill.

San Pascual was not surprised when Mr. Aquino, despite reiterating his commitment, said it would be better to finish the impeachment first because he did not want anything to get in the way of congressmen in their efforts to secure Corona’s conviction.

Apparently, Mr. Aquino just does not grasp the urgency of the bill—remember the 11 mothers dying daily of pregnancy-related complications, which could have been prevented had they been made aware of their options—if he could afford to move it back in favor of another congressional action.

And then, how can the bill be voted upon when the impeachment trial isn’t through yet, and when Congress won’t even be in session until early May? Of course, by that time, everybody will be rushing to attain the desired outcome. Things will likely stay this way until Congress adjourns—and does not meet again until the State of the Nation Address in late July.

In another occasion, San Pascual and company asked Mr. Aquino whether it was possible that the debates could be ended and the matter voted upon towards end-March. The President replied: “Masyadong malapit sa Lent. Baka ma-offend ang bishops (It’s too close to the Lenten season. The bishops might be offended).”

Certainly there is something wrong when the President cares about the bishops’ feelings more than he does about the plight of millions of poor women who must be informed of the ways they can plan their families—and take charge of their future.

These developments have caused San Pascual to now say: “I am no longer sure what is in the President’s mind.”

Then again, is anybody?

Continued next week