Ereje y filibustero

Dialogue between Lady Gaga and Beyonce Knowles in the “Telephone” music video:

Lady Gaga:  “Sure you wanna do this, honey bee?”

Beyonce:  “What do you mean, am I sure?”

Lady Gaga:  “You know what they say:  Once you kill the cow, you gotta make a burger.”


In a week of turbulent events, the popular artist Carlos Celdran’s grand gesture of interrupting a holy mass at the Manila Cathedral dressed as the national hero Jose Rizal holding up a placard saying “Damaso” — in protest against the Philippine Catholic church’s vociferous condemnation of the government’s reproductive health program — and his subsequent arrest and incarceration today has gained incredible momentum worldwide because of social media and has certainly eclipsed the erstwhile controversial news of President Aquino’s threatened “excommunication” and even the terrible grenade bombing of law students outside the De La Salle University last Sunday.


Well Carlos, now that you killed the cow, you gotta make the burger.   🙂   🙂   🙂



  1. October 25, 2010 at 4:09 pm


    Please be reminded:

    From now on, comments with no real names, no email addresses that can be confirmed, and no reliable identity checks will no longer be allowed.

    Please upload your comment again with the pertinent information.

    Thank you.

    Toto Gonzalez

  2. John E. Ada said,

    October 9, 2010 at 1:38 am

    This RH bill is just about the wrong people having kids. Who in their right mind would be for poverty? The poor people are always a problem for do-gooders who love to keep occupied with how to control the reproduction of poor people. Who wants to look at the poor, they are so embrassing and to see them featured in US shows of the charity groups.
    How convenient for the administration to have this anti-poverty program by distributing pills and condoms, and say it has accomplished something. So when was the last time the gov’t got its hands into something and did not make a mess out of it? I’ve seen people gleefully salivating that the church would lose support and face over this issue. I guess it is good for the gov’t to increase its control of the minutiae of people’s lives. I mean this is the Philippines after all where gov’t after administration has been a success.
    How good that women’s health is a big deal now. Let us put the burden on this Final Solution to the problem of poor people, on women of course. Let their bodies be pumped with these pills and injections. Where will the resources be when the side effects come about? Of course the DOH is doing a great job with running the public hospitals. During one of those mega-AIDS conference a few years back, the attendants were asked if they would knowingly have sex with a HIV person with the use of a condom. Guess how many stood up and said yes? Maybe they know something that we don’t and God forbid the poor people know it too.

    It is interesting then that the elites are for this bill. Of course the Bill Gates would love this bill. The less children, the more money for consumption. Isn’t that what came out of his charity work in Africa and poor places. And let us not forget the drug companies with the beatings they are getting from the US health care reform. They must be salivating to churn out these drugs that will be dumped in the Philippines.

    The gospel 2 weeks ago was about the rich man and Lazarus who waited for scraps from his table. In today’s version, the Dives would dole out condoms and pills.

  3. Mike V. Jugo said,

    October 6, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Ipe: thanks! :).

    Personally, I don’t like how some people or groups, for or against the RH bill, are polarizing the issue.

    Btw, I have vague memories of talking to you when I was grade or high school.

  4. Ipê Nazareno said,

    October 5, 2010 at 11:18 pm

    I have never been prouder of my great aunt 🙂

  5. Ipê Nazareno said,

    October 5, 2010 at 11:17 pm


    I had dinner last night at my mom’s. It was a small dinner made in honor of my great-aunt (the youngest sister of my late grandmother) who recently turned 87. One of the guests was the former Parish Priest of the said parish who was seated directly across me.

    My great-aunt is 87. She is a deeply religious woman who never misses her daily mass. She is the Parish Council President of one of Metro Manila’s leading parishes (a post she has continuously held for years) and was former President of the parish’s Catholic Women’s League. One of her nephews (my uncle) is a high-ranking bishop.

    Imagine my shock and surprise when great-aunt started to speak about the RH Bill and the Abortion Documentary which was shown in several parishes last Sunday.

    Great Aunt went ballistic over the CBCP’s stand against contraception and was even more ballistic over the CBCP’s attempts to equate contraception with abortion. “Contraception can never be abortion. From its very meaning, contraceptives prohibit inception. So if there is no inception, how can that be abortion?” — she stated quite forcefully.

    The priest in front of me almost choked on his pesce caprese.

    If the CBCP cannot win over my 87-year old great aunt in this debate, the Bishops have a very very big problem. They are losing this debate and they do not even know it.

  6. Ipê Nazareno said,

    October 5, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    To Mike at No. 17, no problem to re-post 🙂

  7. Myles Garcia said,

    October 5, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    Ipe, thanks for posting Imierda’s speech…but two things:

    (1) I don’t really ‘hate’ (won’t expend all that good energy on her) her so much as I really trivialize and marginalize her. I mean to me, she really falls into a non-entity deserving of ridicule…which brings me to…

    (2) Sorry, I can’t read all that pablum from her. My eyes just won’t focus and I won’t force them to. My time is more valuable than whatever it has she said or will say other than: I am sorry, I stole from the people, I abused my position, and my family and I will wash all the kubetas of Bilibid and Muntinglupa for ten years to make amends for our 21 years of pillage. Only then will she have credibility and my serious attention.

  8. Sabin Arranz said,

    October 5, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    Come to think of it, I remember being vaguely aware of the phrase “family planning” when I was a little boy, growing up in Manila. I don’t remember how I became aware of that phrase, whether I learned about it in school or whether it was just one of those things that permeated the public consciousness thanks to the government media machine. But yes, this was during the height of the Marcoses’ power.

  9. Mike V. Jugo said,

    October 5, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Hello again, Ipe. 🙂

    Thank you for a wonderful response. That’s the kind of discourse I’ve been hoping for regarding this topic.

    May I repost your reply (comment 15) on my facebook wall? I’ll understand if you decline my request.

  10. Ipê Nazareno said,

    October 5, 2010 at 9:44 am

    And to you, Myles, it might interest you to know that it was actually the then Ministry of Human Settlements under Imelda Marcos which first formulated a genuine and comprehensive national family planning program.

    In January 1974, Mrs. Marcos delivered the keynote address at the First Asian Regional Conference on Family Planning. Myles, I know you HATE Mrs. Marcos but I urge you to read her address. Evidently, she did make a lot of valid points which are very much relevant today as they were in 1974. And Myles, when reading this, please try as hard as you can to forget your personal biases against Mrs. Marcos for a short while.

    Here is Mrs. Marcos’ speech:


    “It is my pleasure to keynote this Asian Regional Conference on Family Planning of the Medical Women’s International Association. I can think of nothing more appropriate and timely to usher in World Population Year 1974 than a regional conference on family planning. Allow me therefore to welcome to Manila our neighbors from the Asian region and our distinguished guests and speakers to this inaugural activity of our world population year program. I hope you will find your stay both fruitful and pleasant.

    The Malthusian solution to its own nightmare was—after abstinence—war, famine, and pestilence. We know now that this is no solution at all, as war, famine, and pestilence are the consequences of the population explosion.

    Our modern technological civilization has, therefore, devised the technique of planning and control.

    We are moved, as B. F. Skinner has said, to depend on our strength, which is technology. Thus population planning and control originated as a proposition from among the rich nations of the world, nations which have benefited and are benefiting most from technology.

    Some cynic has said that population planning and control is advocated for the poor peoples by the world’s rich in order to preserve their stability and insure their comforts. For if the world’s poor were to increase beyond measure, the rebellion of the poor will explode and imperil the security and well-being of the world’s rich.

    And, going farther, not us but the philosophers of the technological civilization have pointed out that a shift in the thinking of rich nations can, without great effort, convert their resources and technology for feeding, clothing, and housing all the peoples of the world. The expenditure in arms and space technology could have been, it is said, redirected to the welfare of all mankind on earth.

    For developing nations like the Philippines, the planning and control of population is of fairly recent awareness. For nations such as ours have experienced the painful reality of economic growth being canceled out by a high rate of population increase. Our rate in the Philippines is among the highest in the world. It is for this reason that we have taken the Western proposition for our own fundamental end—that of survival. As President Ferdinand E. Marcos has emphasized again and again, we need to depend on ourselves.

    And so we pursue our population programme with enthusiasm and vigor, aware nevertheless of traditional ways and mores of our people.The main thrust of our programme is education, basically the re-orientation of our people to the complexities of modern life. Only in the Philippines do you find a tri-partite cooperation among the government, the private sector, which includes the religious organizations, and international agencies concerned with population control. We have adopted the technique in order to avert diffusion of time, effort, and resources.

    Education, not just pills and other palliative measures, is the crying immediate need. Government alone cannot succeed. The help of the private sector, specially of the religious organizations, is most critical.

    In a week we inaugurate the Population Center building where such cooperation of the private with the religious, government, and international organizations involved in population control will be formalized and housed.

    We must say that for the most part it is the Filipino male in the Philippines who holds the key to family planning. Traditionally, the Filipino looked to the child-bearing of his wife as a matter of prestige or male pride, while both husband and wife looked to many children as an assurance for their old age. And so children were born in expectation of a form of bondage, for in exchange for their rearing they should take care of their aging parents.

    I hold no strong brief against this attitude. It is one of the charms and proof of compassion of Filipino family life. But it is anachronistic in an age of social security.

    We need to understand now that we bear and raise children because we love them, not for any economic or selfish reason.

    Thus, if there were in the West political, social, and economic considerations in advocating population control for the poor peoples of the world, for us, in the Third World, the primary consideration is moral.

    Large families living in squalor strain the moral sense. Our experience of greed, graft, and corruption has largely been the consequence of large or even many families. Numbers have ethical implications: the qualitative change in the moral perceptions of a man who proceeds from three children to ten or more is rather evident. Aggression comes from pressure and population pressure, indeed, arouses the aggressive instincts of men.

    But more than this negative moral sanction is the positive one. To plan, to abstain properly, or to take measures breeds discipline and manifests maturity. Though we may learn that creature comforts await us at the end of the discipline, we are more exhilarated by the fact that we accept the responsibility for our own lives, that every step we take is the result of ethical deliberation.

    The boons of population discipline will take, at least, a generation or two to be felt and enjoyed by all. But the spiritual well-being that comes from the knowledge of self-abnegation and planning is immediately felt. Thus, we say that family planning leads to other forms of planning—to economic, social, and even political planning.

    We are at present involved in making a new society, a society that is compassionate no less than disciplined and progressive.

    We are aware that family planning is one of the pillars of the new society, undertaken not because we want to protect the wealth of the few against the explosion of the poor, bunt undertaken because we do not want to condemn unborn generations to misery and servitude.

    We want children because we love them, and because we love them, we want, as far as possible, the best for them, spiritually no less materially. But too many of them will surely diminish our love and deflect our attention: too many of them will strain our moral capacities. This I feel is the moral dimension of family planning in the Philippines.

    On this note, I welcome all of you to our country and may your seminar prove fruitful, may your discussions bring forth new insights and new ways of promoting the great moral change that will protect mankind from unregulated fertility.

    To all of you, thank you.”

  11. Ipê Nazareno said,

    October 5, 2010 at 9:19 am

    As an employer, yes I am absolutely fine with Sections 17 and 22 of the Bill. If the Bill is passed and made into law, an employer, has very easy responsibilities under the law. These are: (1) to not discriminate against women; (2) to respect the choice of employees regarding reproductive health including family planning and birth control; and (3) to provide free delivery of reproductive health care, supplies, and devices to employees.

    As regards no. (3), an employer need not really spend for these reproductive health care, supplies, and devices. The government, through the health centers, offer these care, supplies, and services for free. All the employer has to do is to refer their employers who wish to avail of these care, supplies, and services to the health centers.

    The penalty under Section 22 is really a penalty, or a punishment so to speak, for the lack of respect by an employer of a worker’s individual choice regarding reproductive health. Section 22 is meant to safeguard an individual’s right to be informed of his or her choices regarding reproductive rights and also such individual’s right to make a personal choice.

  12. Mike V. Jugo said,

    October 5, 2010 at 7:58 am

    Hello Ipe. 🙂

    That’s why I mentioned that I posted excerpts. Anyone is free to read the whole bill online. Also, I was hoping that Filipinos can discuss / debate this matter purely on the merits of the bill. I’m not quite sure if people can do that.

    Going back to my original question: Are employers (including those with drivers and household help) OK with sections 17 and 22 of the RH bill?

    Again, you may read the whole bill online.

  13. Ipê Nazareno said,

    October 5, 2010 at 12:57 am

    I was at mass last Sunday and, after the reading of the gospel, the priest officiating the mass showed a documentary on abortion.

    Memo to the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines: Contraception is NOT Abortion!!!

    Stop muddling the issue!!!

  14. Ipê Nazareno said,

    October 5, 2010 at 12:53 am

    Mike, as a La Sallite, I expected more from you. It seems that you only chose to quote portions of the RH Bill to suit a particular agenda.

    You are making it appear that employers are mandated by the bill to give condoms and/or contraceptive pills to workers even if the workers don’t want these condoms and/or contraceptive pills and that employers are going to be jailed if they fail to do so.

    Here is Section 17 in its entirety:

    “SEC. 17. Employers’ Responsibilities. – Employers shall respect the reproductive health rights of all their workers. Women shall not be discriminated against in the matter of hiring, regularization of employment status or selection for retrenchment.

    All Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) shall provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers, more particularly women workers. In establishments or enterprises where there are no CBAs or where the employees are unorganized, the employer shall have the same obligation.”

    The Bill clearly provides that employers are mandated to provide health care services and supplies to their workers in accordance with the preference of such worker which the employer must respect. There is NOTHING in the law which states that employers must ram condoms, pills, and other “reproductive health supplies and devices” down the throats of their employees. It is only when the employee/worker wants to have these health care services and supplies is the employer mandated by law to provide such. And these must only be “of reasonable quantity.” Further, if the employee/worker prefers the “natural planning method”, the employer is mandated to provide such services (which means he/she can direct the worker to the nearest health center for appropriate consultation with a health worker — which is really free of charge).


    Let us NOT muddle the issue. The Reproductive Health Bill advocates respect in the individual choice of a person as to the methodology of birth control and reproductive rights.

    It seems CHOICE is a word our bishops are so afraid of.

  15. Myles Garcia said,

    October 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Ramon L.,

    But that’s the whole point. The Catholic Church still exercises its undue influence on the Filipino nation because they know that the majority of the people are naive and do NOT have minds or common sense of their own. They do in Europe, etc., which is why their influence there is marginalized.

    Therefore, in the case of the Philippines, other sectors have to band together and hush the CC because they do carry these shamanistic powers over the masses (and actually some educated masses who have been brain-washed by the institution).

    One untapped market that Planned Parenthood has not looked into is educating all the OFWs and Pinay domestics and nurses working abroad, on the evils of too much unprotected copulation and the benefits of regulated coitus. Their remittances home should include reminders to the beneficiairies, their kin in the provinces, to spread the word that “tingnan ninyo” — Look here– they are able to earn decent $$ in those countries because those countries (or at least the Christian ones) have marginalized the Catholic Church’s ignorant views about contraception; only have 2 or 3 children max…and thus are able to employ people from countries with over-flowing populations. Then these beneficiaries are to spread the word to their friends and social circles at home. I think this will reach a significant number of people–and honest, hard-earned money will carry a certain gravitas.

    Of course, another tactic is to scare the hell out of the Catholic Church that unless they shut up…all charges of pederasty and child molestation in all its years of existence will be retroactive, vigorously prosecuted and carry the highest penalties. See if they don’t tone down their hot-air rhetoric.

  16. Mike V. Jugo said,

    October 4, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Hi Toto! I’m hoping for an honest assessment of the bill, minus all the outside drama. I hope it’s possible for those for and against the bill to discuss it purely on its merits.

    After all, at the end of the day, we’re the ones who will need to comply with the law.

  17. October 4, 2010 at 4:44 pm


    As Lady Gaga asks Beyonce in the “Telephone” music video: “Sure you wanna do this, honey bee?” 😛 😛 😛

  18. Mike V. Jugo said,

    October 4, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Hi Toto!

    I wonder how many people have actually read the RH Bill.

    Below are excerpts from the bill. The sections basically say that if employers are found guilty of not providing their employees with condoms, pills, and other “reproductive health supplies and devices”, they can go to jail for up to 6 months and/or fined up to PhP50K).

    Forget about the peripheral drama, are the employers (including those who have drivers and household help) really OK with those two sections?

    RH Bill Section 17: Employers’ Responsibilities. – Employers shall ………. provide for the free delivery by the employer of reasonable quantity of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers……

    Section 22: Penalties:……the accused who is found guilty shall be sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court…….

  19. Toffee Tionko said,

    October 3, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    I agree that CBCP is just doing its job. However, to publicly threaten, as if to hold hostage, our Head of State is absolutely foul.

  20. Ramon Lagtapon said,

    October 2, 2010 at 7:42 pm

    I’m a Filipino living in the US who has also lived in Spain, where I have friends from both the Socialist Party and Opus Dei. In this RH bill saga, the ball is not on the Catholic bishops’ side of the court, but rather with the politicians and the laity. In every Catholic country that has legalized divorce, contraception, and in some cases, even abortion and gay marriage, the Church hierarchy has always voiced its opposition, much in the same way that the Filipino bishops are doing right now. The bishops are simply doing their job. Now, it is up to the politicians and the laity whether they want to pay attention to the bishops or not. Do you know, for instance, that the Philippines and tiny Malta are the only remaining Catholic countries that have not legalized civil divorce? That abortion is legal in France and Italy? That gay marriage is allowed in Belgium, Spain, and Argentina? That in Catholic Europe and in Latin America birth rates are actually very low?

    My point is that one should not blame the Catholic Church for the millions of poor people in the country. Everyone is free to either listen to or ignore Church teachings. The bishops have no private army at their disposal to force people to obey their dictates. Sadly, however, due to the ineptitude and corruption of its politicians, the Philippines still pretty much operates as a superstitious and melodramatic “frailocracia”, where prelates are still treated as if they were 16th-century Prince-Bishops. And this makes the Philippines an exception rather than the norm compared to other Catholic countries.

  21. Jay Samson said,

    October 2, 2010 at 10:34 am

    Wish there was a Brewster’s Millions solution here. Brewster had to spend US$30 mn in 30 days – a lot in 1980s dollars – without accumulating assets or giving to charity. He can pay every Juan and Maria 100k to get a vasectomy or a tubal ligation.

  22. Myles Garcia said,

    October 1, 2010 at 7:07 pm

    Wow!! Just heard of that grand gesture of Celdran. Even from the hills of California, I will say VIVA CELDRAN!!

    And Larry, for the first time, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree and endorse your above post #2! (Altho, doesn’t the INK hierarchy live in equally lavish palaces, too?)

    Those friggin’ bishops should all be set adrift on a boat bound for nowhere.

  23. Sabin Arranz said,

    October 1, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    It’s been interesting to see –through my friends’ and acquaintances’ postings on blogs, Facebook, and Twitter — the demographics of who is for or against the RH bill. For the most part it seems to be pretty consistent that the wealthier and better educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to support the RH bill. Notable exceptions in my circle are those who were recipients of Opus Dei education. Almost everybody I know who attended Southridge or Woodrose is against the bill. Gee, what a surprise. lol

  24. October 1, 2010 at 7:57 am

    Let’s make mincemeat out of those pompous bishops. And served them on a silver platter.

    Celdran was the voice of millions of our countrymen tired of being condemned by an archaic church. Our population will be 100 million in a few years. Why shouldn’t the state help the masses curb this crippling problem with condoms, contraceptive pills ? The bishops say it is tantamount to killing. They are killing church attendance. Their flock go to Mike Velarde, Inglesia etcetera.

    Those bishops won’t give to the poor. They live in Palaces, they don’t pay taxes, some even accept bribes from drug and gambling lords. They launder the dirty money. And do not get me started with pedophile priests who are never excommunicated. They are simply transferred to another diocese.

    WE HAVE TO END centuries of oppression through the fear of hell and the guilt of sin that they keep on spouting. It’s about spirituality not religiousity. IT’S time to boycott these HYPOCRITES. They are big fat bullies.

  25. Ipê Nazareno said,

    September 30, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Carlos = SIMOUN

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: