Immigration Attorney

Prosecutorial discretion (in the context of immigration law) refers to the authority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, officers, and attorneys to not enforce immigration laws against certain individuals.  It authorizes ICE agents and employees to consider equitable factors in a particular case to determine whether to pursue or not pursue removal against a noncitizen.
Consider the stories of Mimi and Paul:

(Author’s Note:  Mimi and Paul are fictional characters.)

Mimi is a young undocumented woman who has lived in the United States since 1990.  She was 15 years old when she entered the United States illegally without going through a border checkpoint.  Last week, a police officer arrested her for driving without a license; ICE was notified.  ICE initiated removal proceedings against Mimi and she is scheduled to appear before an Immigration Judge early next year.  She has a 4-year-old son who is a United States citizen.  Other than the traffic infraction, Mimi has never been arrested.

Paul, a 34-year-old legal resident of the United States, is finishing a 6-year sentence for a federal drug-trafficking felony.  Paul, who has lived in the United States for 20 years, has a lengthy criminal history.

Will prosecutorial discretion be exercised in either case?  A June 17, 2011 memorandum issued by the director of ICE, John Morton, calls on ICE agents and employees to focus on deporting the “worst” offenders; they include criminal convicts, national security risks, and those who repeatedly violate immigration law.   ICE agents are encouraged to target these individuals for arrest and removal.  The Morton Memo classifies, among others, the following categories as low enforcement priority: minors and the elderly; those with a medical or mental health condition; those with family in the United States; and those who have made positive contributions to the United States.

In applying the prosecutorial discretion policy to Paul’s case, an ICE agent will likely consider him a high enforcement priority and pursue his removal case.  Paul’s drug-trafficking felony conviction is considered a grave offense in immigration law.   His case will also be categorized as a priority because of his lengthy criminal history.  Paul will likely lose his resident status and will be sent by ICE to his country of origin.

Mimi, on the other hand, should receive a favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  An ICE agent exercising prosecutorial discretion would look at her case’s compelling equities and determine that removing or seeking to remove her would not accomplish current immigration policies.  She does not have a criminal record.  (Being present in the United States without legal status is a civil violation–it does not constitute a crime.)  Mimi also has ties to the United States:  she has lived here for 12 years and has a son who is a United States citizen.

However, despite the compelling equities in her case, Mimi’s fate remains uncertain.  Reports show that prosecutorial discretion is being applied unevenly across the country–it is either not being exercised consistently or not being exercised at all by ICE agents.

To be clear, the concept of prosecutorial discretion was in use long before the Morton Memo.  The favorable use of prosecutorial discretion occurs anytime a member of law enforcement decides to not assert the full scope of enforcement authority available in a given case.  It involves the balancing of equitable factors and the recognition that sympathetic factors are present.  For example, a prosecutor balances compelling equities when he or she elects who to charge with a crime, what charges to bring, whether to drop charges, or whether or not to plea bargain; prosecutorial discretion is also exercised whenever the local traffic cop chooses whether to issue a citation.

Prosecutorial discretion is smart enforcement at a time when the nation’s 59 immigration courts are facing a backlog that is a new all-time high and each removal is costing the country at least $23,000. •

Attorney

Doug Matton, is an attorney who has been litigating in both federal and state courts throughout  Illinois  for almost twenty years.  He has been a featured guest and legal expert on both television and radio, including on the Filipino Channel show Pera Ko  Pera   Mo.   His column discusses the legal issues most people face in today’s society and is based upon his extensive experience in helping people solve a vast range of legal problems.  He can be reached at (312)236-6800 or through his e-mail at douglas.matton@me.com.

With so many people in foreclosure there is a definite need for a homeowner to know his options.  If he is going to lose his home to foreclosure a homeowner must have all of the facts available to him in order to properly choose what is the best option for him.  Only when the homeowner has all of the information can he make an educated decision as to which option he should choose.  Therefore, it is extremely important for a homeowner who is facing foreclosure to consult with an attorney in order to gather all of the information regarding his options.  Most homeowners who are indeed facing foreclosure tend to have the same questions regarding what their next step should be.  Those questions tend to be as follows:

Q: If I just walk away from my house and leave it, what will happen to me?
A:   Most likely you will get a personal deficiency judgment entered against you.

Q: What is a personal deficiency judgment?
A:  When a bank files a foreclosure case against you, it does not really want your house, but it wants your money.  So, when it cannot get the money it is owed from you, then it has the ability, under the terms of the mortgage and note you signed, to essentially repossess your house and sell it.  It sells the house in order to recover the amount of the money it is owed.  However, many people owe more on their house than that house is worth.  That means the amount of the loan exceeds the amount the house is going to sell for.  Then, when the bank sells the house, there is still an amount owed to it:  there is a balance.  That balance owed is called a personal deficiency.  It is that personal deficiency which you will have to pay to the bank even though you lost your house.

Q: Can you give me an example of how that works?
A:  Let’s say that you borrowed $200,000 to buy a home, but then you fall in to foreclosure.  The bank files the foreclosure case and then gets the ability to sell your house.  However, since the value of your house is now only $150,000, then when the bank sells your house it only gets $150,000 from the sale.  That means there is a balance of $50,000 that is still owed to the bank.  That $50,000 is a lot of money to owe, especially if you can avoid it.

Q: How can I avoid owing a personal deficiency to the bank?
A:  First, you should consult an attorney who deals with these types of matters.  An experienced attorney can negotiate with the bank in order to get the bank to waive, or forgive, any deficiency that results from the sale of the property.  These are complicated matters, and they are best handled by somebody experienced in them.

Q: Are there other options available to me?
A:  Yes, of course.  One of the options is called a “cash for keys” option.  Which entails the bank actually paying you to leave the property.

Q: How am I able to get that “cash for keys?”
A:  Again, first and foremost you should consult with an experienced attorney.  If you are able to get that “cash for keys” option, then he will be able to assess that for you.  If that option is available, then your attorney will contact the bank on your behalf and negotiate not only the amount of money you would receive, but also when you would have to move out of the property.  Furthermore, your attorney should be able to negotiate what you can remove from the house and what has to stay behind when you leave.

Q: How much will the bank pay me in a “cash for keys” resolution?
A:   That all depends on when you are willing to leave, and in what condition you leave the house in.  Usually, the sooner you leave the more money the bank will pay you.  These amounts can range from as much as $7,000 to as little as $750.  However, the bank is going to want you to leave the house in clean, broom-swept condition.  That means, you cannot leave holes in the walls, or the carpet torn up or a toilet removed from the bathroom.

Q: With that “cash for keys” option will the bank waive or forgive the personal deficiency?
A:  That is something your attorney will be able to handle for you.  Obviously the most important thing is the waiver of that deficiency because if you have a “cash for keys” payment of $1,500, then that is essentially meaningless if you have a personal deficiency for $50,000.  So, you should get a complete and full assessment of your situation from an attorney in order to see if a “cash for keys” option with a waiver of personal deficiency will work for you. •

Aple.de.ap, aka Allan Pinda Lindo Jr., a member of the Black Eyed Peas, was named the BPInoy awardee for 2011. The BPInoy award is given annually to Filipinos who have garnered  attention world-wide for their accomplishments.
Lindo was chosen for his education advocacy ampaign.  According to an Inquirer News report, he donated a library and computer lab to his old school at the Sapang Bato National High School in Pampanga. He is using his fame to help raise funds to build more classrooms.

Young artist Arianna Ramos from Tauig Rizal, is considered a child prodigy based on her expressionist abstract paintings she makes at only three years old, according to an Inquirer News report.
Forty pieces of her work will be exhibited and sold to raise money for the  pediatric ward at the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). It was Arianna herself who chose to donate funds to the hospital after she was the children on TV, the report said.

Bad news…..A filipino grandmother who threw her grandaughter over a walkway at a mall was sentenced to 25 years, according to an Associated Press report. Carmela dela Rosa, 51 was angry at her  son-in-law for getting her daughter pregnant and accusing him of ruining her future.,the report added. dela rosa was also described as a spiteful,jealous person who didn’t want attention being taken away from her, the report added.

Filmmaker Marnie Manicad will be unlocking the mysteries of Malacanang Palace through her own documentary which will be featured on the National Geographic Channel (NGC).She has interveiwed President Beningno Aquino, met with the presidential photographer and the president’s personal security aide.
In an Inquirer News report, Manicad admitted that she  learned that the president had a food tester and that it was not an urban legend. Her documentary included getting to  visit the Palace kitchen,
Manicad said that she had to rely on trusted sources and her details were checked by NGC before being broadcast. Helping her along the way is her husband who is an anchor and reporter.

By Fr. Tirso Villaverde

Associate Pastor of St. Bartholomew Parish

Reflections

Recently on different occasions, several people have asked me if priests are allowed to be “freelancers.”  To be clear, there is no such thing as a “freelancing” priest.  All priests must be connected to a particular diocese either by his own affiliation as a diocesan priest or with the permission of his superior if he is a member of a religious order (e.g.—Franciscans, Jesuits, Paulists, etc.).  Without the proper permission of the appointed authority, a priest is not allowed to celebrate any of the sacraments or, in any way, function as a priest within a local parish or diocese.  The nature of Ordination does not allow any priest to be a “freelancer” acting on his own in direct contradiction to the local Church.

A priest, by virtue of Ordination, is a servant of the Church.  He does not act in his own name or by his own authority.  The authority given to a priest is one that is granted him by the Church as a whole.  A man is ordained to the sacramental priesthood to reflect the priesthood of Jesus Christ who is the true head of the Church and who was himself obedient to the will of his Father.  A priest acting on his own without the consent of the local diocese seriously disrupts the unity of the Church that was established by Christ himself.

Furthermore, a priest must be held accountable for his actions by the local superior either the bishop of the diocese or the superior of his religious order.  If a priest, acting on his own, celebrates a Mass without the proper faculties that grants him the privilege of doing so, he jeopardizes the life of the Church in many ways.  For example, if during an unauthorized celebration of the Mass, a priest has a collection taken up or is given a “donation for his ministry,” who is keeping a track of how that money is being used?  If the donation is for the priest’s ministry, then it should help to benefit the parish or religious order he serves. If a priest acts on his own as a “freelancer,” there is no accountability and there is no transparency holding the priest to his role of being a responsible steward of the goods of the Church.

At the time of ordination, every priest knelt before a bishop and heard the words asked of him, “Do you promise respect and obedience to me and to my successors?”  In this way, the priest makes a promise of obedience to the bishop.  In the case of diocesan priests, the promise was made directly to the bishop of the local diocese in which the priest will serve.  In the case of priests of religious orders, the qualification is added that he will respect and obey the bishop through the authority of his direct superior in the order.  For this very reason, all priests must be in good standing with the local diocese and act only to the extent of the authority given to him by his superiors as a privilege—not a right—of his ordination.  The Rite of Ordination itself prevents any priest from acting as a “freelancer.”

Anyone who has been ordained to the sacramental priesthood knows this to be true.  Acting otherwise seriously disrupts the unity of the Church or, worse, may cause a schism within the Church—a break that is irreconcilable which would leave the priest and those who follow him outside of the embrace of the faith community established by Jesus himself.

What is more, a priest who chooses to act in disobedience and those who choose to support him in that action also send a very wrong signal to the youth of today.  It tells our youth that it is perfectly okay to rebel against proper authorities.  To question authority is a different issue because it is an attempt on our part to understand the wisdom of the decisions of those in authority or even to hold them accountable to the responsibilities entrusted to them by virtue of their office.  But, to rebel against authority is a declaration that the ones in those positions mean absolutely nothing to us.

Then, by our own example, our youth will grow up believing that it is acceptable to break a local and federal law which leads to civil disobedience.  Children will come to believe that it is acceptable to go against their parents’ authority leading to family feuds that break the harmony of the family.  It may sound extreme but it is a definite possibility because, after all, if the adults are rebelling against authority, then the children ought to be able to do the same.

Granted, we must give the benefit of a doubt to a priest who does choose to go against the superiors entrusted with his ministry.  They may have had differences based on very real issues some of which may have been longstanding.  Regardless, though, of what those issues might be, every priest ought first to resolve his issues with his superiors before leading God’s People down a path that will lead to disharmony not only within the Church but even on the family level.

Ultimately, we must all remember the words of Romans 14:7, “None of us lives as his own master and none of us dies as his own master.”  Even St. Paul in chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians urged the first Christians to live in unity despite the differences among them reminding them that ultimately there is a certain structure that has been placed in the community as a way to promote the harmony and oneness that we all share in Christ.

Letter from Washington

jonmele@aol.com

During one of my visits to the Occupy DC encampment at McPherson Square , I saw a woman sitting alone by herself near one of the tents. Her Asian face caught my attention, provoking my interest to engage her in conversation. She was smoking a cigarette and reading a crime novel, “No More Dying Then.” When she told me she’s Filipino, I became even more curious.

As it turned out, she’s one of the homeless people in the District of Columbia who has been “residing” in McPherson Square long before the occupiers pitched camp last September. Fely Ybanez, 56, has quite a story. When she was 12, her parents moved from their barrio in Samar to Manila . “We were very poor,” she recalls. “My father wanted his eight children to go to school, but his job as a mechanic wasn’t enough to support us. I dropped out and started working as a maid. I was 17 when I met a U.S. Navy man walking down the street in Quiapo. I asked him for a cigarette. He took an interest in me and we started going out. A few months later, he took me with him to California where we got married. I went to vocational school to study computers. He was always away. We divorced four years later.”

Fely Ybanez feels welcomed at the Occupy DC camp site but she’d rather have a regular job and a permanent place to live. (Photo by Jon Melegrito)

Fely moved to the DC area with a friend but she can’t remember when and how. Not having any skills, she worked for downtown hotels as a cleaning woman, providing her with enough income to maintain an efficiency apartment. When she got laid off, she could no longer keep up with the $200/month rent. She lost her apartment. For the last three years, she has been in and out of homeless shelters, preferring to sleep in the park unless the weather is really bad.

When Occupy DC set up its encampment, she started hanging around the place, taking advantage of free food. Like the more than 6,000 homeless persons in the city, Fely has learned how to scrape together meals, keep warm at night, ward off predators and somehow manage to survive.

She says she’s welcomed by the occupiers. “They’re very nice to me,” she says. “I don’t know what they talk about but I like listening to their guitars at night. Their music makes me feel good.”

Fely would rather she was back in the workforce so she can have a decent roof above her head. She wants to resume her computer classes, learn new skills and increases her chances of getting a job. “I don’t want to be homeless for the rest of my life,” she says.

Returning to the Philippines , however, is out of the question. “There’s nothing to go back to there,” she explains. “Yes, I miss my family, but life is very hard over there. Here, I just take it one day at a time. I don’t dream anymore because it’s hard to dream if you don’t have a job. I guess it’s gotten hard here too.”

I am struck at the parallels in Fely’s life with that of an occupy protestor who ran out of college money after one semester and is just hoping Starbucks will not think she is too unkempt to be given a job. They both know they need to take a shower before going on a job interview.
The protestors also know that the homeless who are hanging around McPherson Square have run into all the injustices and inequities in life that the Occupy movement has sprung up in reaction to.

It’s true what these young protestors are saying. The American Dream is a reality only for those at the top. Many of the occupiers themselves are struggling with unemployment, student debt and unaffordable mortgage payments. They are now engaging us in an urgent conversation about social inequity. And with the growing number of homeless people at the Occupy encampments, it’s now impossible to separate homelessness from the movement’s struggle for economic justice. As author and sociologist Barbara Ehrenreich puts it, “Homelessness is not a side issue unconnected to plutocracy and greed. It’s where we’re all eventually headed … every debt-loaded college grad, out-of-work school teacher, and impoverished senior … unless the revolution succeeds.

As the American people prepare to elect their leaders, the economically depressed and distressed nation already has revealed a definitive issue of the 2012 presidential campaign: How can government best serve as the government for and by the people, considering the millions of jobless and homeless, not to mention the struggling middle class – the 99 percent.
What should happen to Fely Ybanez?

President Obama’s vision is one where those who are needy and vulnerable are entitled to government help during a time of extreme hardship, no matter the cost.

The Republican vision, on the other hand, is harsh. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, while expressing concern for the poor, has touted a tax plan that would continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and provide extra tax breaks that would primarily help the rich. At the same time, he’s all for cutting Medicaid spending, reducing food stamps and doing away with safety-net programs that would help low-income families.

We have serious and critical choices to make come November. And it’s all about a vision of government that will ensure the interest of the 99 percent of this country. •

Editor’s note: This is the editorial of the premier issue of PINOY published in February 2000. We are reprinting it on our 12th anniversary as a covenant with our readers and to the commitment for what PINOY stands for.

The decision to come out with another publication is greeted with considerable enthusiasm by people who truly believe the community deserves a press forum that truly reflects the aspirations and concerns of our growing community.

There are some who cast doubts on the long-term survival of this kind of publication. They seem to say: Embrace pocketbook journalism if you want to be around longer. Charge thousands for your stories without disclosing it properly to the reading public. (In short be pimps and prostitutes and pass yourselves as journalists?)

Is that really the smart way? If it is, why not just be pimps and prostitutes. The money is easier and better.

But then some like to play games. Power play. The fourth estate, as the press is sometimes called, has a vital role in a democracy. The press has power. Others see this as a pass to con people. They take it as a license to steal and to defraud the unsuspecting public.

PINOY takes the challenge to change things for the better. It is our great respect for the members of our community that prods us to take the risk of conducting this business the correct way. We owe it to them. The bringing of vital information should be attuned to the broader and important needs of our growing community.

PINOY believes in the ability of our people to bring out their collective excellence so their work and their involvement benefit the many, especially those still in need. PINOY takes on that added dimension of harnessing our rich cultural and religious heritage so it can be useful in building a bright future for ourselves and for our children.

The press must be a vital tool in bringing out the truth. PINOY wants to be a light that will illuminate the dark path of narrow self-interest and to make us effective people in all our involvement.

As our commitment to our readers and to the community, PINOY shares its mission statement to all of you:

PINOY subscribes to the commitment that its work of bringing the news to its readers is a public trust;

PINOY will be guided by integrity, accountability and fairness in performing its basic task which are to inform, to entertain and to advocate changes for the common good of the community.

PINOY will serve as a vehicle in the empowerment of the Filipino-American community so its members will get a fair share in the political process, economic pursuits, religious practices, cultural and educational upliftment, sporting events, and in the delivery of social services;

PINOY will seek to showcase the best in the Filipino-American community to inspire the rest of the community specifically the young and the underprivileged through a journalism that is not only interesting and engaging but also responsible;

PINOY envisions itself as a partner in the goal of building a productive and outstanding community in this nation of immigrants.

To all of these we commit ourselves.

Anita Cruz-Francisco, who celebrated her 100th year birthday last July 24, had passed on Jan. 19 in Bloomingdale, Illinois where her grand daughter, Bernadette Butchko and her great great grandson Bradley had taken care of her in the last years of her life.
A native of Bocaue, Bulacan, she was preceded in death by her husband, Feliciano.  She is survived by her children Epitacio (Pat), Zenaida (Pedro) Cruz, Edna Santiago, Norina (Alejandro) Alviar, Jaime (Lourdes) and Froilan. She is also survived by her 24 grandchildren, 45 great grandchildren and seven great great grandchildren.
A wake was held at Salerno Rosedale Chapels in Roselle on Jan. 22. Internment was at Asumption Catholic Cemetery in Wheaton on Jan. 23 after a mass was celebrated at St Isadore Catholic Church.•

Salvacion M. Guerrero, 66

Salvacion Manipon Guerrero passed away on Jan. 11 at the age of 66. She was a resident of Skokie, IL. Mrs. Guerrero hailed from Asigan, Pangasinan and worked as an elementary school teacher.
She is survived by her children Clarinda Guerrero Pascua, Chris Guerrero, Claudine, and Corine. She is survived by her grandchildren Christian, Nathan, Alakay, and Sophie.
Her wake was held at the Colonial-Wojciechowski Funeral Home on Jan. 14. Interment was at Maryhill Cemetery.

Teofista A. Santos, 86

Teofista Abrahan Santos died on Jan. 16 at the age of 86. She suffered from an aortic aneurism.
She is survived by her children, Ethel (Ernie), Celeste (Ed), Cheryl (Raygor), Rhoda (Timmy), Alwyn (Jackie) and Ferdie (Zina); grandchildren, Christy, Marie, Carlo, Francine, Jennifer, Miko, Eric, Josef, Edward, Isabel and Vincent; and siblings, Iluminada, Geraldo (Gerasima), Manuel (Adelaida) and Romulo (Rose). Her wake was held at Drake and Son Funeral Home in Chicago on Jan. 19. Interment is at Rosehill Cemetery.

Myrna C. Labatete, 62

Myrna Carabio Labatete passed away on Dec. 24 at the age of 62. She was a resident of Skokie and was from Dolores, Quezon City, Philippines. She is survived by husband Reynaldo ; her children Arnold, Erin Labatete, Agnes Labatete and Aura Labatete (Peter Goeppinger, fiance’); grandchildren Lucas Christopher Labatete and Lucy Jean Labatete; siblings Alex (Baby) Carabio and Benny (Rosemarie) Carabio. Her wake was held at the  Drake and Son Funeral Home in Chicago on Dec. 27. Interment is at Rosehill Cemetery.

Richard Butchko, 54

EDITOR:(Our sincere apologies to Grace Butchko for the error in our Jan. issue. The obit should read as follows:)
Richard Butchko of Glendale Heights, IL passed away on Dec. 6. Richard worked as a maintenance engineer.
He is survived by his wife Grace Cruz Butchko, their two children Anthony and Barbara, and sibling Walter.
His wake was held at the Salerno Rosedale Chapel in Roselle, IL.

Federico Payomo, Jr., 75

Federico Payomo of Elgin, IL passed away on Jan. 15 . He was 75. He was born in Pangasinan.
He was preceded in death by his wife Nelia nee Calicdan who died last October. He is survived by his children Maria (Paul) Mehl, Antonio (Rose), Jose, and Loulla (Percy) Paig, his grandchildren and siblings. He worked as an accountant. His wake was held at Colonial-Wojciechowski in Niles last Jan. 20. Interment was private.

Manolo A. Laqui, 56

Manolo A. Laqui died on  Jan. 5. He hailed from Laguna, Philippines. He was a resident of Chicago, Illinois. He was born in Majayjay, Laguna. He was active at Our Lady of Mercy in Chicago. Mr. Laqui’s wake was at Benson Family Funeral Home, and funeral mass at Our Lady of Mercy Church. He is survived by his wife Teresita, his only child Patricia and grandchild Devin. Mr. Laqui is  survived by siblings Bienvenido, Nelson, and Nora Tagle.

Rolando L. Callangan, 70

Rolando Lamorena Callangan,70, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, a retired US Navy interior communications electrician first class died in Tripler Army Medical Center on Jan. 7. He was born  in Quirino, Isabela on May 17, 1941.
He is survived by his wife Elizabeth (nee, Paler); sons Michael and Jeffrey; daughter-in-law May Idolor Callangan; only grandchild Jacob Callangan; brother Emmanuel (Rosa); sisters Teresita (Romy) Alcaraz, Remedios (Late Jose) Chua, Salvacion Barnum, Lilia (Jimmy) Syfu, Lourdes (Willy) Villaluna and Annie Callangan.
Wake and visitation services were held at Bortwick Mortuary. A mass at the Immaculate Conception Church in Ewa Beach preceded the military burial on Jan. 19 at Hawaii State Veterans Cemetery, Kaneohe.

Antonino O. Gavina, 65

Antonino Oriel Gavina died on Jan. 10 at the age of 65. He is survived by his wife and his two children Mark and Jean.  A wake was held on Jan. 15 at Smith Corcoran Funeral Home in Chicago.
Interment was at Maryhill Catholic Cemetery in Niles on Jan. 16 after a memorial mass was celebrated at Queen of All Saints Basilica in Chicago.

If P-Noy is anchoring his move against Corona on his crusade against corruption, the people will support him. But if he is seen as simply using politicians against a Chief Justice, he will lose the high ground…”
Impeachment is a process provided by the Constitution to remove Presidents and Chief Justices. When an impeachment happens, there is disruption, the kind that triggers dramatic and unexpected change.  (This) situation is bringing us towards drastic change. Nothing less can reverse the endemic corruption and massive poverty afflicting the Philippines.

The impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona is a welcome development. It affirms that co-equal heads can both be vulnerable to impeachment. Even the bid to impeach P-Noy by a lawyer known to be a Marcos loyalist can remind us that there are crucial unresolved issues concerning that dictatorship and the effort to extract justice for its victims. Corona is seen as a puppet of Gloria Arroyo just as Lozano is to the Marcoses. It is good to see where lines are drawn, where Filipinos can choose to be with or against.

Even more welcome is the first show of support by judges and court employees for Corona. We have paid so much attention to the corruption in the executive and the Legislative over the decades that the corruption in the Judiciary has been put in the back burner. Yet, the view of many Filipinos, if not most, is that the justice system, meaning judges and justices, including the Supreme Court, are themselves badly tainted.

Change can now be focused on the Judiciary as well. That makes all three branches truly co-equal when change can target all of them – especially on the issue of corruption or its promotion and protection. (This) offers an opening for change that is rare.

Constitutions do not determine what is right and wrong, human conscience does. Laws cater to what people believe is right and deter what people believe is wrong. Constitutions spring from the aspirations of citizens for security, for justice, for a bright future. What is constitutional cannot veer away from the common good as expressed by the people themselves.

The weakness of the Constitution of the Philippines, all versions of it, is that the majority of Filipinos have never read it, were not party to its formation, and cannot possibly understand the letter of its provisions. The strength of a democracy, however, is not in its Constitution. It is in the value system that is most acceptable or inspiring to the people if such is reflected in the Constitution.

More than laws, it is values that are most relevant to members of a society. It is values that determine daily behavior, and values that dictate collective standards.  From these values are formed the ethics of work, the ethics of business, the ethics of professions.

What is beautiful about impeachment is that it is a political process as much, or even more, as it is a legal one as well. Being political gives Filipinos a chance to participate. If it were just legal, how can citizens get involved? I remember that an impeachment trail was going on and affected Filipinos so much that they took to the streets when they thought that numbers would be more important than what was true, what was fair. Impeachment can lead to people power if it is abused.

Corona can be removed if the impeachment process finds enough senators voting that way. But so can P-Noy.  Estrada was impeached by a Congress where he had the majority in support of him.  People power is the ultimate arbiter, not the Supreme Court. In the cases of Marcos and Estrada, the Supreme Court was not the source of change, just a bystander to it. Its greatest participation was its Chief Justice swearing in the new president.

The impeachment of Corona will focus on his character, on his integrity, on his subservience to Gloria Arroyo. In his fighting speech on (Dec 14), Corona claimed P-Noy wanted to appoint his own Chief Justice “na hawak niya sa liig.” He did not mention that the opposition to his appointment was based on law governing midnight appointments. Trying to justify why a law can be subverted to accommodate his appointment is more difficult than to accuse P-Noy of being partisan. Corona will have to do better because that glaring accommodation will be a central public focus.

It will do Corona good to prepare to justify the Supreme Court’s decision to protect one of their own who was accused of plagiarism and could not find a valid reason for such dishonesty except to claim he meant no malice. Who is more dishonest, the thief or the court which declares him innocent of theft because he meant no malice?

And Corona will have to contend with the distrust of Filipinos for Gloria Arroyo whom he is being accused of protecting more than the Constitution. Gloria Arroyo is not just unpopular; she is suspected or judged to be a liar, a thief and a cheat.  This judgment has been reflected in surveys over several years and could possibly be the strongest reason why Filipinos voted for a candidate who, in their eyes, will not lie, will not steal, will not cheat.

On the other hand, P-Noy must run to the people, to his “boss,” and not depend at all on the superior numbers of the Liberal Party and its allies in Congress. If P-Noy is anchoring his move against Corona on his crusade against corruption, the people will support him. But if he is seen as simply using politicians against a Chief Justice, he will lose the high ground and it will devolve simply to numbers more than nobility.

There is no Constitutional crisis, only a moral and ethical one. Impeachment is a purging process, and there is so much need for it. Most nations became one and strong because they went through and survived great conflict. This may be our moment.  •

As of October 31, 2011 the world’s population reached the 7th billion, and will hit nearly 9 billion by the year 2040.

Philippine Star editorial cartoon

With up to 4,000 Filipinos being born every day, the Philippines is the 12th most populous country in the world. The country which has the approximate size of the state of Arizona at 116,000 square miles, has an estimated present population of 94 million and could possibly be at 154,000,000 in the year 2050 if the current annual population growth rate is maintained at about 2.0%.

The initial history of a “reproductive health policy” in the Philippines goes back to 1967 when the leaders of 12 countries (including the Philippines) signed the Declaration on Population, cognizant that population and poverty are among the inherent influencing aspects in the long-term socio-political and economic progress of a country. The Philippine Population Commission was then created to encourage a lower normative standard in terms of family size, and to provide information on reproductive health services and options.

Development Goals
In September, 2000 the United Nations General Assembly concluded the Millennium Summit by adopting a set of Millennium Development Goals or MDGs. Foremost in the agenda of the first MDG is the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; other concerns being that of the attainment of universal primary education, gender equality, reduction of child mortality, improving women’s reproductive health, combating HIV and AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.

Also on the table were proposed initiatives to maintain a sustainable productive environment, and last but not least the development of continued global partnerships between developing and developed countries. All 193 UN member states at that time and which included the Philippines as a signatory, plus at least 23 international organizations have agreed to achieve these goals by the year 2015.

Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money. Absolute or extreme poverty or destitution refers to being unable to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter.

There are about 2.7 billion people world-wide estimated to be living in poverty today with Asia and the Pacific region being home to two thirds of the world’s poor. When looking at the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of a currency, it translates for that currency how much is needed to buy the same things that a dollar could buy in the United States. The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US $1.25 (PPP) per day, and moderate poverty as less than US $2.00 (PPP) per day.

1.2 million Street Children
The daily income for 45% of Filipinos is less than US $2.00 per day. The poverty incidence is less than 10% for a family with one child, 23% for families with 2 children, and steadily goes up to a 60% poverty rate for families with 9 or more children. The poorest of the poor are the ones having more than 3 children. Among the poorest women who want to avoid pregnancy, at least 41% do not use any family planning method because they have not been educated on how to.

Induced and illegal abortion total to nearly half-a-million annually. It is estimated that there are about 1.2 million street children in the Philippines; about 50,000 to 70,000 alone are roaming the streets of Manila. These are children born into poverty and hopelessly mired in poverty.

The definition of “Reproductive Health Care” had undergone multiple revisions through the Philippine Senate and the House of Representatives in its many active debates in its plenary sessions these past 14 years, but essentially embodies in its contents the following:

“It refers to the state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, and in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies the rights of individuals and couples to decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; the number, spacing, and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion, and violence; to have information and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.”

Threat of Excommunication
On January 31, 2011 the Philippines’ House of Representatives Committee on Population and Family Relations approved the convergence of the six different bills or acts into a single bill (No. 4244), into An Act Providing For a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development, and Other Purposes, as sponsored by Representative Edcel Lagman of Albay. Vis-à-vis with this is Senate Bill 2378 on a National Policy on Reproductive Health and Population and Development as put forth by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Forthcoming plenary sessions will determine the fate of these propositions.
These two bills, which essentially have the same goals, have spawned a contentious and divisive debate between its proponents and veto groups as spearheaded by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines. The ill will that  has  been  generated  has  led  to the threat of ecclesiastical excommunication  of  the Catholic  Philippine President Benigno S. Aquino III and the Bills’ supporters, a call of the CBCP for massive civil disobedience, strikes,  and even for non-payment of governmental taxes.
A survey had shown that 41.3% of the 287-strong members of the Philippine Congress are in favor of the RH Bill, while 18.8 % are against it. In the Senate, about 60% or 14 of the 24 Senators support the Bill.

Holistic Contents
The Honorable Edcel Lagman and the other co-authors of their specified proposals capsulized the holistic contents of their Reproductive Health Bill as follows: Maternal, infant and child health, and nutrition, Promotion of breastfeeding, Information and access to Natural and modern family planning methods,  Prevention of abortion, and management of post-abortal complications,  Adolescent and youth health,  Prevention and management of reproductive tract infections (RTIs), HIV / AIDS, and other sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), Elimination of violence against women, Education and counseling on sexuality and sexual and reproductive health,   Treatment of breast and reproductive tract cancers and other gynecologic conditions,  Male involvement and participation in reproductive health,  Prevention and treatment of infertility and sexual dysfunction, Age-appropriate reproductive health education for the youth.

The linchpins of the Bill would be the Education and Access of the populace, especially of and for the poor and powerless.  As proposed, the Reproductive Health Bill therefore makes claim to the following:
1. It does not legalize abortion.   Abortion is a criminal act punishable by Philippine law.
2.     It is not only about pills and condoms. It is for the availability of choice for the Filipino couple of all family planning methods, natural or artificial.
3.   It is not to promote sexual promiscuity. The RH Bill is for the education of the youth about sex and sexuality, with the aim to promote correct and responsible sexual values.
4.   It is pro-life, pro-women, and pro quality of life. The RH Bill aims to educate couples with the proper knowledge to help them plan their family based on their preferences and life’s circumstances.

(To be continued next issue)

By Ramon G. Lopez, M.D.

L-R: Berth Salvador, Cultural Officer, Philippine Consulate General, Dr. Reagan F. Romali, President of Truman College, Philippine Consul General Leo M. Herrera-Lim and Dr. Ramon G. Lopez, direct descendant of Dr. Jose Rizal.

“How could this be?” we ask.  It COULD BE, for the circumstances and people had connived.  It COULD BE, for there was no other recourse.  It COULD BE, for the moth had burned its wings!  Twenty-four years after the garroting of the Filipino clerics, Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez, and Jacinto Zamora, the pogrom and intimidation had to continue. It had to continue for the dying Empire and frailocracy had now sensed its own death. It had to continue, for it wanted to display its final domination of a reawakened people.  However, it would not be completely so!  The man they had just martyred was a man whose politics and faith were unshakeable and timeless.  As we know, and as History recounts, it also projects.

To paraphrase the words of Dr. Rafael Palma the great Philippine scholar, patriot, and former President of the University of the Philippines regarding the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal, “the document obtained under moral duress and spiritual threats has very little value before the tribunal of history.”  Dr. Rafael Palma, a respected jurist of his time, was an author on the life of our hero and had studied the trial of Dr. Jose Rizal meticulously.  Of this he says in his book The Pride of the Malay Race about Dr. Jose Rizal, “His defense before the court martial is resplendent for its moderation and serenity in spite of the abusive and vexatious manner in which the fiscal had treated him.”  For in man’s own tribunal, the tribunal and trial that condemned Dr. Jose Rizal to die was a sham; his execution, a foregone conclusion.

A portrait of Jose Rizal as a Mason. His membership in the fraternity had caused his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. His retraction is a subject of controversy.

It is common historical knowledge that Ms. Josephine Bracken lived with Dr. Jose Rizal for three of the four years he was exiled in Dapitan.  He truly loved her.  They had desired a canonical marriage but were presented with a pre-condition retraction of Rizal’s anti-ecclesiastical writings and beliefs.  As we may know, he was never anti-God or anti-Church.  He was anti-cleric to those who abused their mission and hid behind their pretentious cloak of religiosity.  He knew there were those who practiced religion but did not worship God.  Neither the retraction nor the marriage occurred.  He and Josephine were parents to a son, though he sadly passed.  We know that Dr. Jose Rizal had immortalized Josephine Bracken in his unsigned and untitled poem which we now refer to as his “Ultimo Adios”: “Adios, dulce extranjera mi amiga, mi alegria…”  As Ambeth R. Ocampo, Director of the Philippine Historical Institute quotes, “To accept Rizal as having married Bracken is to accept his alleged retraction of religious error.”  From Austin Coates, British author and historian:  “Before God, he (Dr. Rizal) had nothing to retract.”  And from Dr. Jose Rizal himself, I quote: “I go where there are no slaves, no hangmen, no oppressors… where faith does not slay… where He who reigns is God.”

Fraudulent Premise
From 1892 to 1896, during his period of exile in Dapitan, the Catholic Church attempted to redirect his beliefs regarding religious faith, albeit unsuccessfully.  A succession of visits from Fathers Obach, Vilaclara, and Sanchez did not find his convictions wanting.  He had decided to remain ecclesiastically unwed, rather than recant his alleged “religious errors.”  Now, there seems to be a “disconnect”, or even a divide among historians as to whether Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his apparent errant religious ways as claimed by the friars and the Jesuits.  Since a retraction of alleged “religious errors” would have begotten a marriage to Ms. Josephine Bracken, let us look for evidence that will prove this premise fraudulent.  Austin Coates’ book entitled Rizal – Philippine Nationalist and Martyr gives many compelling facts as borne out from his own personal investigation, and with numerous interviews of the Rizal family.  To wit:

1.Fr. Vicente Balaguer, S. J., claimed that he performed the canonical marriage between 6:00 – 6:15 AM of December 30, 1896 in the presence of one of the Rizal sisters.  The Rizal family denied that any of the Rizal sisters were there that fateful morning.  Dr. Jose Rizal was martyred at 7:03 AM.

2. Nobody had reported seeing Ms. Josephine Bracken in the vicinity of Fort Santiago in the morning of the execution.

3. Considering the time it would take for the three priests (Fr. Jose Vilaclara, Fr. Estanislao March, and Fr. Vicente Balaguer) to negotiate the expanse of the walk to give spiritual care to the condemned Dr. Jose Rizal, why is it that only Fr. Balaguer could “describe” a wedding?  Furthermore, where were Fr. Vilaclara and Fr. March to corroborate the occurrence of a marriage ceremony?  Or was there really even one at all?

4. In Josephine Bracken’s matrimony to Vicente Abad, the Church Register of Marriages kept at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in Hong Kong made no reference that Josephine was a “Rizal” by marriage, or that she was the widow of Dr. Jose Rizal.

5. In the legal register of Hong Kong, Josephine used the last name “Bracken” instead of “Rizal” to be married to Vicente Abad.

6. In Josephine Bracken’s litigation versus Jose Maria Basa for the possession of Dr. Jose Rizal’s valuable library, a certification from the British Consulate from Manila stating that she was indeed Rizal’s widow would have bolstered her claim.  She did not pursue this.  Why not?

7.  In 1960, inquiry at the Cardinal-Bishopric of Manila for evidentiary proof of a Rizal-Bracken marriage was not fruitful, or possibly, the issue was simply ignored by the religious.  Likewise, we ask the question, “Why?”

“Unconfessed” Martyrdom”
From the dark days of exile in Dapitan, to the even darker days of imprisonment at Fort Santiago, the Catholic Church had demanded from Dr. Jose Rizal a retraction before a canonical marriage could be performed.  In this Inquisition-like setting of the Spanish regime, it was always proclaimed that “the Indio always retracted”, as he walked to his execution.  Austin Coates states in his book: “The Spaniards publish the same thing about everyone who is shot… Besides, nobody has ever seen this written declaration in spite of the fact that a number of people would want to see it…. It is (always) in the hands of the Archbishop.”  I say that if there was no marriage, there could have not been a retraction, and Dr. Jose Rizal met his martyrdom “un-confessed”:

1. Indeed, at the Paco Cemetery, the name of Dr. Jose Rizal was listed among those who died impenitent.  The entry made in the book of burials at the cemetery where Rizal was buried was not made on the page for those buried on December 30, 1896 (where there were as many as six entries), but on a special page, as ordered by the authorities.  Thus, Dr. Jose Rizal was entered on a page between a man who burned to death, and another who died by suicide – persons considered “un-confessed” and without spiritual aid at the time of death.

2.    Father Estanislao March, S.J., and Fr. Jose Vilaclara, S.J. (who had accompanied Dr. Jose Rizal to the execution site) could have ordered a Christian burial, but they did not.  They must have known that no retraction was made.  Dr. Jose Rizal was laid to earth bare, without a sack, without a coffin.  This was the onus of the “un-confessed.”

3.   One must also remember that Dr. Jose Rizal wrote a short and final note to his parents dated December 30, 1896 at 6:00 in the morning, with no mention of an occurred or intended retraction and/or marriage.  A message with that important information would have been of great consolation to Dona Teodora Alonso and to Don Francisco Mercado, whom he loved and respected dearly.

4.   Despite numerous immediate supplications from the Rizal family after the execution, no letter of retraction could be produced.

5.   The Rizal family was informed by the church that approximately nine to eleven days after the execution, a mass for the deceased would be said, after which the letter of retraction would be shown the family.  Though the family was in attendance, the mass was never celebrated and no letter of retraction was shown.  They were told that the letter had been sent to the Archbishop’s palace, and that the family would not be able to see it.

6. The Jesuits themselves (who had a special liking for their former student) did not celebrate any mass for his soul, nor did they hold any funerary rites over his body.  I take this as a repudiation of the Jesuits against the friars, loudly hinting to the Filipino people that their esteemed pupil did not abjure!

7.   The apparent “discovery” of an obviously forged autobiography of Josephine Bracken claiming marriage to Dr. Jose Rizal, showed a  handwriting that bore no resemblance to Josephine’s and had glaring errors in syntax, which revealed that the perpetrating author’s primary language was Spanish (not Josephine’s original language), thus  proving that the document was  manufactured and disingenuous.

8.  Confession in August, 1901 of master forger Roman Roque that earlier in the year, he was employed by the friars to make several copies of a retraction letter.

9.       In 1962, authors Ildefonso T. Runes and Mamerto M. Buenafe in their book Forgery of the Rizal Retraction and Josephine’s Autobiography, made an exposé of six different articles and books that purportedly presented Dr. Jose Rizal’s “document of retraction” as copied from the so-called “original” testament of retraction.  Intriguingly enough, even to this day, the claimed “original” document from which the facsimiles have arisen have not been seen by anybody.  Blatant in these six different presentations were differing dates and notes that had been doctored, traced-over, and altered, when these facsimiles were supposed to have come from the same “original” document!  This book of Runes and Buenafe was published by the Pro-Patria Publishers of Manila. The book is extant but unfortunately, out of print.

Though the issue of “Retraction” remains contentious for some people, it is my personal opinion that there is no controversy; that Dr. Jose Rizal did not make any recantation of his writings and beliefs.  The arguments to the contrary made by his detractors are all smoke screen and “retreads” of the dubious accounts of the sycophantic Father Balaguer and his gullible minions.  Let us not allow for the sands of time to cover the blunder of this ignoble and impious event.  Let not the conspiracy of silence keep us chained to this fraudulent claim.  As had been vigorously proposed then, and again now, let the document of retraction be examined by a panel of the world’s experts in hand-writing, and let a pronouncement be made.  Let this hidden document come to the eyes of the public, for they have the greatest of rights to see, and to judge, and to know what is truthful.

When this comes to pass… in this 21st century, in this age of an “evidence-based” society that demands transparency and full-disclosure, it can be stated that with the now enlightened and reformed Catholicism, and in the spirit of Vatican II, if Pope John Paul II can apologize to the Jewish people for the millennia of misdeeds by the Church, if Pope Benedict XVI can, in Australia at the 2008 World Youth Congress, apologize to the victims of pedophilia and other ecclesiastical sexual abuses, then it should not be beyond the Catholic Church to NOW admit the pious fraud it had committed in saying that Dr. Jose Rizal had abjured his writings and beliefs, when all evidences point to the fact that he did not!