Is it OK to Silence Mocha Uson?

Mocha Uson, Sass Rogando Sasot, and the Petition

All rights Reserved

Ahhh... now I have to deal with these two blogs, and others like it.¹ YUCK!

They are like the politically correct community. Instead of controlling how you interact with one another, these blogs sprout support materials for a president that is DESTROYING THE REPUBLIC!

First off, it is ok to support a CAREER politician. Be that as it may, you also have the responsibility to call him out whenever he does or says something that endangers OUR freedoms, and interests.

This duty to check the government, especially the politician you voted into office, springs from our right to suffrage, and free expression. We use these rights to control our government. So, if you do not check the government, then government will eat you alive! Fair right?

BUT... these blogs do not seem to care about checking #DU30. As a matter of fact, these blogs seem to be piggybacking on his fame to propel their own agendas, whatever that may be. Unfortunately, their acts unintentionally created a bunch of zombies, or those who believe in their materials regardless of its accuracy or fairness.

So when Sass wrote an article titled "Methaphysical Human Rights vs Real Human rights",² people read, liked, and shared that even though that piece is conceptually WRONG AND DANGEROUS because it tells people that human rights is conditional! Meanwhile, Mocha needs to fact check, and reveal her sources. YET, the zombies take her word as FACT, even when she is "satiring" the shitte out of a certain topic!

Imagine the power these blogs hold, and they may be using it in such a way that is compromising the very basis of the Replubic, or at the very least creating zombies who do not know how to argue and debate, fact check, or research.³

NOW you know why I am disgusted by these blogs.  I can tolerate a propaganda machine but these... these can be way out there irresponsible!

Ok, let's move on to the petition that is trying to bring the Mocha blog down.

The Sass blog shared statistics that shows the Mocha blog having a higher interaction rate than those of the media outlets. SO, THANK YOU Sass for giving me the ammo I need to defend the petition!

YES, the petition is a valid proposal because such a popular blog can be VERY dangerous in the hands of the Mocha Admins. They could easily spew materials that might cause people to lose faith in a certain entity, or slander an individual in the name of blogging! So, that is the pro-petition side of this opinion piece.

I understand the people's concern over the Mocha blog.  But, if you are the type that gets their news from blogs like these, then you deserve to be misled and controlled like a freaking puppet! So long as the blogs do not violate our laws, and I haven't done my research if they have, they should be left to the auto-correct function of free expression, that is to get "murdered" by those who know better.

Also, if they do cause a bank run, or a riot then we could easily send their glutes to jail, or bankrupt them to kingdom come.  Now, that is satire gold right there!

1Or are they satire blogs?

2

3Or maybe they are too lazy and trusting of their "source" and just spew them as if it is some magic wand!

The Tyrant

The Tyrant

All rights reserved

Earlier I wrote the piece "The Basis of the Republic", which explains why we created government. In a nutshell, we, as individuals, allowed those governing to govern us so long as they protect and advance our inalienable human rights.

The same basis for the creation of government also limit its powers, that the government cannot arbitrarily restrict an individual's human rights unless there is a constitutionally sound law, or as stated in the constitution. Once such a law is enacted and enters into effect, or once an amendment or revision of the constitution is ratified, then everyone, including the government, is bound to follow it.¹

This is the concept of the rule of law, a mechanism, a guarantee really, designed to protect the individual from the acts of other individuals, and from the strong hand of the government.

Pretty neat, eh?

Before we go further, do note that our freedoms exist because we, as a people, agree that each man is born free and equal to one another. Remove that tiny linchpin and Republic dies, taking freedom with it.

Now you know why I am writing this piece.

The Philippines is in an era of Lex Agraria, a hundred years before the fall of Rome. The era exemplifies how a democratic government spirals towards anarchy, that is when all the checks and balances against the "mob" has either failed or has been removed in the name of convinience.

We see public officials zelously pander the ideology that the people is collectively safer, or the common good is better promoted, if the government cut certain corners ala the Gracuss Brothers, and those who opposed them.

Say, heavily armed agents of the government would, out of the blue, visit the house of a certain individual that is on an arbitrary list, then make him sign a paper that states "I will not violate the law", or something to that effect, and present him as a self-confessed criminal afterwards.

Another example is when a public officer tried to incite the people to burn down the homes of a certain group of people on his mere say so.

Yeah, that kind of cutting corners!

I love to call these public officials for what they really are, tyrants.

Naturally, a tyrant, or tyrants, should NEVER occupy a public office for they erode the very basis of the Republic. The president is duty bound to IMMEDIATELY and publicly denounce such tyranical acts, and to PROMPTLY replace the public officer in question with a more level headed individual. Otherwise, the public is justified in entertaining the idea that he endorses the ideology, or the orders came from him.

A tyrant is always a tyrant no matter how he comes to power. Even if he got elected to office on the platform of tyranny, or if he got appointed because he is the Egor of the elected tyrant.

Fortunately, we can collectively keep a tyrant in check by calling him out, or to resist his oppressive and unlawful acts. Worse comes to worst, we will depose him either through legal or extra legal means.

But tyrants are common and the Republic can usually survive them. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for popular fascism.

Although fascism does not have a universal definition, we can safely assume that fascists abhor freedom and equality, like a tyrant. A public official becomes a fascist once he panders the idea that the individual's life and safety depends on adopting a policy of dehumanizing a group of individuals, say by denying them of human rights, and he uses the popular support for his reign and the government to implement the policy.

Obviously, we can deal with a LONE fascist in public office. But once fascism takes hold of a significant portion of the population, say seventeen percent,² then we have a candle inside the powder room.³ One wrong move and boom, Rome falls.

Thus, the reason why we are duty bound to always be vigilant against creeping tyranny and facism. We owe it to ourselves, and for the generations to come.⁴

1See Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edtion), Bryan A. Garner, p. 1448

2Assuming a population of 90 million.

3or a ticking time bomb.

4Remember, the Nazis, at the height of their power, were but a very small portion of the German population. Can you imagine, what seventeen percent can do?

The Basis of the Republic

The Basis for Government

All rights reserved

We, as individuals, are FREE. Man was free before he formed societies, and before he became the subject of those who rule. It took man eons, tears, TONS of blood, and sweat to realize and remember that he is naturally free.

Fast forward to the present, we, as free men, wrote in our Constitution the following words: sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.¹ Let that sink in for a moment.

Done? Good.

Now let me explain what those words mean.

Understand that the phrase "in the people" refers to the individual. So, YOU are the source of government's legitimacy and its political authority.² This is because YOU are free, and all men are equal. As EQUALS, no one can govern another man unless the latter consents to being governed. In this country, the agreement to be governed by those governing is evidenced by our Constitution.

Do you now understand the implications of sovereignty residing in YOU? Nope?

Let me spell it out for you.

In this State, we created government³ by limiting the exercise of our inalienable natural rights⁴ to to life, liberty, and property so we can enjoy whatever remains of those rights.⁵ We gave it powers to pursue the common good, that is for the protection and advancement of our natural rights, which we now call human rights.⁶ As such, the individual has every right to control how he is being governed by exercising all of his rights found in the Constituion.⁷

The same basis for government also defines the limit of its powers.⁸ Thus, in order to properly limit the individual's human rights, there must exist a constitutionally sound law, or indicated in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the deprivation of human rights amount to government oppression and tyranny.

Should the government undermine the reason for its creation then we can exercise our right to overthrow it;⁹ which in turn is the basis for the Second Amendment of the USA Constitution.¹⁰ But on our side of the pond, we all agreed to... errhmmm... be unarmed.¹¹ Essentially, should a tyrant come our way, we will be the lame ducks in his shooting gallery, or be a facing the wall, kneeling down in a shaddy basement, or laying down on pavement with a cardboard.

Que horror!

Anyways, it should be very obvious then that freedom is VERY fragile. It can easily be snuffed out by a number of things, from coup de etats to fascist governments.¹²

As a demonstration of how fragile freedom is, a certain misinformed portion of the Philippine population are clamoring to end criminality by using whatever means is necessary. They believe in the unjustifiable ideology that the natural rights of the innocent carries more weight than the human rights of the "undesirables".¹³ They would even go so far as to say that protecting the life of a single innocent justifies the DEATH of a million "undesirables", as well as riling up the misinformed mob to JUST burn the houses of these "undesirables".

Clearly, the misinformed do not see the "undersirables" as their equals, thus, the latter are NOT entitled to human rights.¹⁴ In other words, they see the "undesirables" as sub-humans.¹⁵

(I am pretty sure Thomas More just turned in his grave.)

These misinformed "innocents", if you could call them that, cheer and defend those who parrot their idiology. An ideology which is so diametrically opposed to the very basis of OUR government!

Sad. Scary.

Source: 1) Tolentino v. COMELEC, 465 Phil. 385 (2004); 2) North Cotabato v. The Republic of the Philippines Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain, 589 Phil. 387 (2008); 3) Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Major General Ramas, and Dimaano, 454 Phil. 504 (2003); and 4) Manila Memorial Park, Inc. v. Secretaries of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the Department of Finance (DOF), G.R. No. 175356, December 03, 2013

1Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

2It is a basic postulate of our democratic system of government that the Constitution is a social contract whereby the people have surrendered their sovereign powers to the State for the common good. (Marcos v. Manglapus, 258 Phil. 479, 504 (1989)); See also the discussion of Puno, J. In Tolentino v. COMELEC, 465 Phil. 385 (2004)

3Government is but an element of the state. You can be a country in the Middle East, without respect for man's inherent equality, and still be a state.

4So called because these rights exists even without a state or government.

5See Puno, C.J.'s discussion in the sources

6"To obviate the danger that the government would limit natural liberty more than necessary to afford protection to the governed, thereby becoming a threat to the very natural liberty it was designed to protect, people had to stipulate in their constitution which natural rights they sacrificed and which not, as it was important for them to retain those portions of their natural liberty that were inalienable, that facilitated the preservation of freedom, or that simply did not need to be sacrificed." - Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Major General Ramas, and Dimaano, 454 Phil. 504 (2003)

7Free Expression, and Suffrage to name a few.

8See also the Bill of Rights, and other sources of constitutional rights under the 1987 Constitution; Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion, 379 Phil. 165 (2000) where the Court ruled that: "The individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis-à-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need."

9"Third and finally, individual subjects have a right of last resort to collectively resist or rebel against and overthrow a government that has failed to discharge its duty of protecting the people's natural rights and has instead abused its powers by acting in an arbitrary or tyrannical manner." - Republic v. Sandiganbayan and Major General Ramas, and Dimaano, supra.

10I often muse at how hard it took us to recover our freedoms. Weird that the only safeguard we have against its infringment is the TRUST we have for those in power, and our Constituional Rights.

11In this State, only those who are financially capable AND willing to go through the eye of a needle are legally armed. On the other hand, the government and the unlawful elements are armed to the teeth.

12Our current crop of "rebels" are terrorists, and they do not care about your way of life. Who among you can remember Pol Pot, or the dastardly acts of Chairman Mao, Stalin, and Che Guevarra? How about the on going human rights violations of the Middle Eastern States on its own people?

13Or the scum of soceity a.k.a. criminals

14SS is that you?

15 See the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas on the traditional natural law theory.

State and the Church (Part 2)

The concept of separation of church and state

Part 2

All rights reserved

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES! You have a flawed understanding of the concept of church-state separation.

Generally, the Constitution¹ protects the church from government.² It does not protect government from political action organized by the church.

Why? Because the separation clause must always be read with the freedom of expression provisions found in the Bill of Rights.

Understand that "[t]he individual citizen is but a speck of particle or molecule vis-à-vis the vast and overwhelming powers of government. His only guarantee against oppression and tyranny are his fundamental liberties under the Bill of Rights which shield him in times of need."³  In other words, the Bill of Rights limits the powers of government.⁴

So, if the Bill of Rights is there to protect the citizens from government, then by relating the separation clause with the provisions found in the Bill of Rights, we can conclude that the church, the physical manifestation of the exercise of religious freedom, is being protected against government intervention.⁵

Was that too much of a "stretch" for you? You still want to cling to your flawed understanding of the separation clause?

Wow, talk about fans serving their idols! Riddle me this: if our Constitution demands that the state be protected from the church, then why do we give churches, including their priests, certain benefits under our Constitution?

Answer: Benevolent Neutrality.⁶

This concept should be more than enough to fell your mental walls called bias. Still, if you want to (malisciously) cling to your (flawed) beliefs then that be your right. After all, freedom gave us the right to be (ir)responsible and (mis)informed.

1See Section 5, Article III, 1987 Constitution

2"faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship, ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church...are unquestionably ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts." Fonacier v. Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 417 (1955)

3Secretary of Justice v. Hon. Lantion, 379 Phil. 165 (2000)

4 See Yrasuegui v. PAL, 590 Phil. 490 (2008);

5 See Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411

6See http://iamv-con.blogspot.com/2016/03/state-and-church.html

State and the Church

The concept of separation of church and state

All rights reserved

   Is the principle of separation of church and state really inviolable?

    The short answer is no. The 1987 Constitution itself provides for exceptions to Section 6, Article II in Section 28(3) and 29(2), Article VI, and Section 3(3), Article XIV.

    You are not satisfied with the answer?  Well, we could arrive at a more detailed answer if we examine and differentiate the schools of thought involved in Church-State separation.

    The first is strict separation which believes that the Establishment Clause was meant to protect the state from the church, and the state's hostility towards religion allows no interaction between the two. According to this Jeffersonian view, an absolute barrier to formal interdependence of religion and state needs to be erected. Religious institutions could not receive aid, whether direct or indirect, from the state. Nor could the state adjust its secular programs to alleviate burdens the programs placed on believers.

    The second is strict neutrality wherein the state must be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers. "State power is no more to be used so as to handicap religions than it is to favor them." The strict neutrality approach is not hostile to religion, but it is strict in holding that religion may not be used as a basis for classification for purposes of governmental action, whether the action confers rights or privileges or imposes duties or obligations. Only secular criteria may be the basis of government action.

    However, there is a problem with the separationist approach, whether in the form of strict separation or strict neutrality. Although it "captures the spirit of the American ideal of church-state separation," in real life, church and state are not and cannot be totally separate. This is all the more true in contemporary times when both the government and religion are growing and expanding their spheres of involvement and activity, resulting in the intersection of government and religion at many points.

    The third is benevolent neutrality wherein religion is looked upon with benevolence and not hostility, it allows accommodation of religion under certain circumstances. Accommodations are government policies that take religion specifically into account not to promote the government’s favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance. Their purpose or effect therefore is to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion.

    From our discussion, it is obvious that the 1987 Constitution adheres to the principle of benevolent neutrality because it accommodates religion.

Religion and law

    Under the principle of benevolent neutrality, can religious beliefs be used as a base for law or government policy?  Again, yes.  

    It must be understood that that the constitutional protection of religious freedom gave religious equality, not civil immunity.  Its essence is freedom from conformity to religious dogma, not freedom from conformity to law because of religious dogma.

    Notwithstanding the principle of separation of church and state, if the state regulates conduct by enacting, within its power, a general law which has for its purpose and effect to advance the state's secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious observance, unless the state can accomplish its purpose without imposing such burden.

    In a case the Court ruled that the Government should not be embarrassed in its activities simply because of incidental results, more or less religious in character, if the purpose had in view is one which could legitimately be undertaken by appropriate legislation. The main purpose should not be frustrated by its subordination to mere incidental results not contemplated. This is because not every governmental activity which involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of church and state, freedom of worship and banning the use of public money or property.

    Thus, as a rule, certain religious beliefs may be used as a base for a general law which aims to advance the state's secular goals, or any government act or policy that take religion specifically into account in order to remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person’s or institution’s religion. After all, certain religious beliefs may also be motivated by secular, moral, and ethical considerations.  Objectively and to non-believers, the belief in question may have no religious bearing at all.

   Case in point are laws that define marriage; the rights, obligations, and duties attached to marriage; when and how to dissolve the marriage; and penal laws related to the protection of marriage.  Another example is the town fiesta, a socio-religious event which primarily aims to hold the fiesta and celebrate the town's devotion to a patron saint, if there is one.

   Finally, and to those who insist that the separation clause forbids religion from the sphere of law and government policy, can you explain why we have the Family Code and the Code of Muslim Personal Laws? Think about it.

   Caveat: Most of the what you have read are lifted directly from jurisprudence with some edits.

Sources: 1) Diocese of Bacolod v. Comelec, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015; 2) Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 411; 

Link: Part Two