This is in the realm of intentions vs realizations, in the sphere of fantasy vs actuality. Thus it is that there are concepts which are noble and inspiring - - with the realities however emerging therefrom that prove as not only undesirable but also shameful it not abominable. This is definitely not to say that all good concepts come out as bad realities. This is only meant to point out some three signal and lamentable realities in the Country today that readily show their marked dissonance with the concepts they started from.
First is the blatant distinction between the lofty concepts of the so called “Party Representative” intended to attend to the legitimate interests and concerns of marginalized sectors of Philippines society. I is but fair and even just that they should have congressional representations both to protect their rights and promote their welfare through needed and relevant legislations. The reality however that in general, it can be readily noted that the congressional figures elected are individuals who represent anything but the interests and concerns of the forgotten sectors in the Country. It is enough to think of most of the personalities thus elected vis a vis their actual status is far divorced from the depressed and/or oppressed sectors in the Philippines they are precisely meant to represent and stand for.
Second is the living opposite between the ideal behind the “Sanguniang Kabataan” (SK) and the dismay this brings to Philippines society as amply evidenced in the recently concluded elections. The youth should be concerned with, update about and active in their respective Barangays, particularly the needs and clamor of the young people therein. But look and behold what have they done, v.g., how many of their colleagues have they influenced towards what is right and proper if any and in the last elections, it is enough to take note of how they but copied precisely the devious and odious ways of traditional politicos.
Third is the so called “Truth Commission”. To seek the truth through a committee with a mission – knowing the huge and high pile of the stinking garbage of graft and corruption left behind by the past administration – is not simply right but also just. The complex difficulty in the concept is precisely there seems to be no functional Commission and truth is still nowhere to be found. Is the Commission constitutional? What authority or power has the Commission? And what happens to its eventual findings, if any?
What then? It is rational to continue holding on to the beautiful concepts when their realities are ugly? What is right and proper to do with both concepts and realities prove to be in fact antithetical?
OVCRUZ, JCD
05 NOVEMBER 2010
Friday, November 05, 2010
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
TRUTH COMMISSION
Before it could even formally and decidedly begin looking for the truth particularly about the perceived big falsities of the former national leadership specifically in terms of large scale corruption, it is anything but a secret that the “Truth Commission” has been meeting a good amount of reservations. The doubts about it specially touch about its nature and authority as “created” by the Executive Branch of Government, its rationale and finality vis-à-vis the official constitution and purpose of the Office of the Ombudsman, not to mention the competence of the Department of Justice now headed by a very able, dedicated and courageous Secretary.
This not to mention other uncertainties about the newly born “Commission” such as the following: The Supreme Court is treating the formal complaint against it in regard to its rationale and standing, with judicial prudence and caution. The preferential if not exclusive concern of the “Commission” to find the “Truth” about the perceived many and serious corrupt practices of the past administration, is such as if there were no other numerous and gross corrupt practices in the other sections of the previous government. Furthermore, there is that quasi omnipotent stance and omniscient posture of the “now” Malacanang on the findings of the entity specifically charged with looking into the big mess made by certain government officials in the now international infamous hostage-taking.
No, let it be herein expressly said that is not meant to question the capability and resolve of the named individual members of the “Commission” – but instead intended to question the competence and skill of the its creator with the latter’s one or two named legal counsels. This duly revealed “trinity” strangely and dubiously changed the major findings and pursuant key resolutions of the above said Review Committee that heard everybody concerned in the mess - - practically 24/7 - - to unravel the “who” and “what”, the “when” and “how”, behind the big mess brought about but by one disgruntled policeman. In fact, the blatant disregard and flagrant reversals made by the said “Trinitarian composite” on the conclusions of the Review Committee understandably moved the latter’s Chairperson – who happened to be nobody less than the Secretary of Justice – to contemplate the idea of resignation.
All major graft and corrupt practices authored and/or inspired by the now “out but not off” administration in the various agencies of the then ruling government, cannot but be assiduously investigated for eventual judgments thereon. There are loud cries for justice coming from the many sectors of Philippine society, considering that the ultimate victims of such large-scale misdeeds are the People of the Philippines themselves. But, questions: First, does the “Truth Commission” have the official standing and the required authority to do its given task? Second, can and will the “Commission” really find the objective “Truth” about the cases brought to its attention? Third and what again will the above cited three-men “composite” do with its findings and consequent conclusions? Just asking.
OVCRUZ, JCD
03 NOVEMBER 2010
This not to mention other uncertainties about the newly born “Commission” such as the following: The Supreme Court is treating the formal complaint against it in regard to its rationale and standing, with judicial prudence and caution. The preferential if not exclusive concern of the “Commission” to find the “Truth” about the perceived many and serious corrupt practices of the past administration, is such as if there were no other numerous and gross corrupt practices in the other sections of the previous government. Furthermore, there is that quasi omnipotent stance and omniscient posture of the “now” Malacanang on the findings of the entity specifically charged with looking into the big mess made by certain government officials in the now international infamous hostage-taking.
No, let it be herein expressly said that is not meant to question the capability and resolve of the named individual members of the “Commission” – but instead intended to question the competence and skill of the its creator with the latter’s one or two named legal counsels. This duly revealed “trinity” strangely and dubiously changed the major findings and pursuant key resolutions of the above said Review Committee that heard everybody concerned in the mess - - practically 24/7 - - to unravel the “who” and “what”, the “when” and “how”, behind the big mess brought about but by one disgruntled policeman. In fact, the blatant disregard and flagrant reversals made by the said “Trinitarian composite” on the conclusions of the Review Committee understandably moved the latter’s Chairperson – who happened to be nobody less than the Secretary of Justice – to contemplate the idea of resignation.
All major graft and corrupt practices authored and/or inspired by the now “out but not off” administration in the various agencies of the then ruling government, cannot but be assiduously investigated for eventual judgments thereon. There are loud cries for justice coming from the many sectors of Philippine society, considering that the ultimate victims of such large-scale misdeeds are the People of the Philippines themselves. But, questions: First, does the “Truth Commission” have the official standing and the required authority to do its given task? Second, can and will the “Commission” really find the objective “Truth” about the cases brought to its attention? Third and what again will the above cited three-men “composite” do with its findings and consequent conclusions? Just asking.
OVCRUZ, JCD
03 NOVEMBER 2010
Monday, November 01, 2010
ALL SAINTS’ DAY
It is always phenomenal to behold how practically all roads lead to the cemeteries, how people flock to the burial grounds in order to be with their dear departed. Neither much rain nor real storms can stop them. Come November 1, “All Saints’ Day”, cemeteries and other burial sites are filled with people who are much alive, much spirited and much decided to be there - - notwithstanding any inconvenience, despite all arguments to the contrary. But come November 2, “All Souls’ Day” and most of them are elsewhere, preoccupied with many things and worried about many facts of life - - but their “dear departed” are then out of their minds and hearts. It might be worth asking: “Why?”
Why are those left behind by their loved ones, exert all effort to be with these on “All Saints’ Day” - - but definitely not on “All Souls’ Day”? Do these not have souls that precisely fit the finality, the significance and implications of this one-day after commemoration? Who taught the living that they remember their dead on the one-day before memorial? No matter how such a particular - - if not peculiar – observance is closely considered and assiduously explained, there seems to be one over-riding rationale behind it.
This: The living want to sincerely believe and thus they accordingly act, that their dear departed are in fact counted among the “Saints” - - not simply among the “Souls” who are one notch lower, so to speak, compared to the spiritual status held the former. Taking into account the maxim that only good things may be thought of and spoken about the dead, it is definitely good and even great for both the dead and the living, for the latter to consider the former as “Saints”: Sanctified and sanctifying figures! That is to neither say, nor mere “souls” who are neither officially held as “sanctified” nor formally looked upon as “sanctifying”.
Strictly speaking, such a way of looking at the souls departed is not really devoid of doctrinal premise and without practical basis. In simple language, it is said that there are in fact two categories of said departed individuals: One are those with a capital “S” as in “Saints” - - and all the others with but a small “s” as in “saints”. It goes this way: Those with a capital “S” are individuals who are with God and who are thus categorically considered “Saints” and therefore venerated as such in the Church. And those with a small “s” are individuals who are also with God but who are not specifically canonized. Considering that the “Saints” are relatively very few in number compared to those who passed away, it is both cruel and unjust to conclude as a matter of course, that all these departed are damned.
Conclude: Let the cemeteries and other burial places are frequented by the living to honor their dear departed on “All Saints’ Day”. Such a practice is not only understandable but also reasonable.
OVCRUZ, JCD
01 NOVEMBER 2010
Why are those left behind by their loved ones, exert all effort to be with these on “All Saints’ Day” - - but definitely not on “All Souls’ Day”? Do these not have souls that precisely fit the finality, the significance and implications of this one-day after commemoration? Who taught the living that they remember their dead on the one-day before memorial? No matter how such a particular - - if not peculiar – observance is closely considered and assiduously explained, there seems to be one over-riding rationale behind it.
This: The living want to sincerely believe and thus they accordingly act, that their dear departed are in fact counted among the “Saints” - - not simply among the “Souls” who are one notch lower, so to speak, compared to the spiritual status held the former. Taking into account the maxim that only good things may be thought of and spoken about the dead, it is definitely good and even great for both the dead and the living, for the latter to consider the former as “Saints”: Sanctified and sanctifying figures! That is to neither say, nor mere “souls” who are neither officially held as “sanctified” nor formally looked upon as “sanctifying”.
Strictly speaking, such a way of looking at the souls departed is not really devoid of doctrinal premise and without practical basis. In simple language, it is said that there are in fact two categories of said departed individuals: One are those with a capital “S” as in “Saints” - - and all the others with but a small “s” as in “saints”. It goes this way: Those with a capital “S” are individuals who are with God and who are thus categorically considered “Saints” and therefore venerated as such in the Church. And those with a small “s” are individuals who are also with God but who are not specifically canonized. Considering that the “Saints” are relatively very few in number compared to those who passed away, it is both cruel and unjust to conclude as a matter of course, that all these departed are damned.
Conclude: Let the cemeteries and other burial places are frequented by the living to honor their dear departed on “All Saints’ Day”. Such a practice is not only understandable but also reasonable.
OVCRUZ, JCD
01 NOVEMBER 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)