It is the same Lintang Bedol who allowed children to vote in Maguindanao. (“Child with an Orange” by Van Gogh). print from “Essential Van Gogh”, Cutts and Smith, Parragon Publishing.

A TV news story during the canvassing showed an interview of a child-girl whose identity had been concealed, she said that she was 15 years old and had voted in the last election; then cut to Lintang Bedol who said that it was allowed in Maguindanao under the Shari’a Law supposedly because children who have reached puberty according to him were given legal capacity.

Here is the provision of the Shari’a Law that refers to the age of puberty. It pertains to marriage. .

Presidential Decree 1083, “Code of Muslim Personal Laws.

“Art. 16. Capacity to contract marriage. — (1) Any Muslim male at least fifteen years of age and any Muslim female of the age of puberty or upwards and not suffering from any impediment under the provisions of this Code may contract marriage. A female is presumed to have attained puberty upon reaching the age of fifteen.

“(2) However, the Shari’a District Court may, upon petition of a proper wali, order the solemnization of the marriage of a female who though less than fifteen but not below twelve years of age, has attained puberty.

“(3) Marriage through a wali by a minor below the prescribed ages shall be regarded as betrothal and may be annulled upon the petition of either party within four years after attaining the age of puberty, provided no voluntary cohabitation has taken place and the wali who contracted the marriage was other than the father or paternal grandfather.” (downloaded from chanrobles.com)

On the other hand, the capacity to vote is established not just by any law but by the Constitution, which sets the voting age at 18.

1987 Constitution. ARTICLE V. SUFFRAGE.

“Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

 

( “Moro Woman Combing Her Hair” (Manila) by J. Pardo). print from the Vargas Museum

So, what may have happened in some parts? At least four election inspectors in a press conference by an opposition candidate during the canvassing, stated that in certain places in Maguindanao, the BEI’s were hauled off to a banana farm to fill up ER’s; there were no elections. And in some places, the polls were open and children were allowed to vote.

 

Do you try to determine which areas had BEI’s that were brought to banana farms and which areas had children-voters? Do you try to put them in different categories and then locate them on your map and put different colors on them for you to remember: here, we will look at each ballot to determine which voters’ records were thumbmarked by children; here, we will look at which precincts did not open and had their BEI’s hauled off to banana fields; etc.?

 

Or if no election officer shows up on Friday, do you declare failure of elections in the whole province, or conduct an ocular, or send a mission to interview the residents?

 

What did the Comelec do when the PPCRV reported to them that they were not being allowed to observe elections in 16 out of the 22 municipalities (they were allowed to observe only in 6 out of 22)? If the Comelec commissioners had just picked up their cellphones on election day to call up the election officers in those areas, to allow the citizens’ watchdog in, we would know now what happened and who were truly elected.

 

In other words, who should be on that cross-examination stand and who should be asked what they did and did not do on election day?

3 thoughts on “Multi-colored

  1. Good evening ma’am. I was a student in your several classes in journalism and media law the previous semesters. I came across an interesting and argumentative piece written by Rene Azurin of the School of Economics. He is making a case for the engineers, scientists and others in the “hard sciences” professions and is ranting about all the Philippine society’s (media, etc.) brouhaha over lawyers (“attorrnehs”).
    I had this piece through group email and I know you are averse to group emails but you might be interested in it (since you are a member of the profession Mr Azurin seemes to be “disparaging (?)”) so I copied it from my inbox to paste below:

    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVE
    René B. Azurin

    Why lawyers but not engineers?

    Let me admit, up front, that
    this piece may be at least partially
    motivated by the envy we engineers
    occasionally feel for lawyers who, as a
    group, make more money than we do even
    if they might have barely made it past
    introductory algebra. (Which indicates
    that there is no correlation between
    knowing algebra and making money.) It is
    triggered by media’s fawning over each
    new group of Bar exam passers, in stark
    contrast to the dismissive treatment
    accorded to Board passers in the
    engineering and physical science
    disciplines. That deepens, I think, the
    feeling among our technology graduates
    that they are not as important to this
    society as graduates of law. This may be
    one of the reasons why the country’s
    best and brightest in science and
    technology no longer even hesitate about
    taking advantage of opportunities to
    transfer their skills and talents to
    lands other than here. Love of country?
    That needs to be watered and fed.

    I am reasonably certain that
    media’s love affair with “attorrnehs”
    actually reflects the sentiments of the
    society in general. But the respect that
    our society has always accorded lawyers
    seems particularly misplaced considering
    that the legal profession has failed
    dismally in creating in this country a
    legal system that works properly. Such a
    system should dispense justice quickly
    and fairly. Now I do not know of anyone
    (other than amoral members of the legal
    profession who are actively engaged in
    corrupting it) who would make the
    ridiculous claim that the Philippines’
    judicial system is anywhere near being
    effective or efficient.

    For this, I castigate the
    profession even as I applaud individual
    members of it, those who have been
    working for years against odds to try to
    make the system work as it should. I am
    aware that part of that effort involves
    trying to restore an “old-fashioned”
    sense of morality in those who practice
    – or presume to practice – “the law”.
    Sadly, I do not see the effort making
    much headway. Practitioners continue to
    use the law to exploit rather than to
    uplift, to oppress rather than to liberate.

    That causes immense harm to
    the country. The late Mancur Olson, a
    political economist famous for digging
    into root causes, concluded from his
    studies that two basic factors
    distinguished better performing
    economies from poorer performing ones.
    The first was the presence of a
    well-defined and effectively enforced
    set of property rights. The second was
    the absence of what he termed
    “predation”, by which he meant the
    predatory practice of those with power
    using it to appropriate what belongs to
    others (e.g., by demanding grease or
    protection money). I should not have to
    point out that both these factors have
    to do directly with how well or how
    poorly the justice system works in a
    country. In ours, it works poorly. Thus,
    we can, when asked, legitimately point
    to lawyers as a root cause of the
    country’s relatively poor economic
    performance over the years.

    It is significant to point
    out that economic powerhouse Japan
    probably has the lowest population
    density of lawyers and the highest
    population density of engineers in the
    world. That’s not an accident.
    Rebuilding after World War II, Japanese
    policy makers deliberately made two
    critical decisions. One was to
    concentrate the country’s scarce capital
    resources in the steel industry. The
    consequence of this decision was that,
    barely ten years later, Japan had the
    most technologically- advanced steel
    plants in the world and it was the
    world’s lowest-cost producer of
    high-grade steel.

    The other decision was to concentrate
    limited educational resources in the
    training of engineers. For those who
    wanted to become engineers and who
    hurdled tough competitive examinations,
    access to the best educational
    facilities and generous full
    scholarships were provided. In contrast,
    for those who wanted to become lawyers,
    educational resources were limited and
    extremely expensive. As a result, the
    best and the brightest of Japan’s
    post-war generation flocked to
    engineering. It is well documented how
    the proliferation of bright young
    engineers working right on the shop
    floors of Japanese manufacturing plants
    led to revolutionary innovations that
    allowed Japan, by the 1970s, to surpass
    the US and become the undisputed world
    leader in manufacturing process
    technologies.

    Those Japanese decisions did
    not require tremendous feats of
    reasoning and could have been similarly
    arrived at by us with just a little bit
    of common sense. Engineers create
    products and therefore jobs and
    revenues. Lawyers create obstacles and
    therefore costs. Which is more valuable
    to a society that wants to progress and
    prosper?

    Let me stress that it is not
    at all my intention to diminish in any
    way the achievements of the bright young
    men and women who passed and topped the
    recent Bar examinations. Far from it.
    That achievement is real and valuable
    and totally deserving of our cheers. I
    congratulate all of them and sincerely
    hope that it will be their generation of
    lawyers who will finally fix the legal
    system in this country before they are
    swallowed up by it.

    But, good lord, why does our
    media play up lawyers but not engineers
    and scientists? Are the decision-makers
    in media in effect saying that passing
    law exams are more notable achievements
    than passing engineering or science
    exams? By putting Bar topnotchers and
    their stories on the front pages of our
    newspapers and not publicizing similar
    achievements on the part of our young
    engineers and scientists, is this not
    sending the message to the high school
    students still on the verge of choosing
    course and career that taking law and
    not engineering or science is the better
    choice?

    And if media is really only echoing the
    feelings of the community at large,
    could it be that we are so lacking in
    common sense that we remain oblivious to
    the fact that our competitive progress
    depends not on our lawyers but on our
    engineers and scientists? Do we not
    consider it significant that it is these
    engineers and scientists – and not our
    lawyers – that other countries are
    hiring away from us? Can it be that
    others recognize what is valuable and
    we, so typically, do not?

    Do not go where the path leads you. Go where there is no path and lead the way.

    ———— ——— ——— ——— ——— —-
    ANTHONY G. LONGJAS
    Instrumentation Physics Laboratory
    National Institute of Physics
    University of the Philippines
    Diliman, Quezon City
    mobile # s: 092971861, 09184869827

    Like

  2. Hi Conrad! Were you my student? Did you pass my course? (just kidding! i think, when the student numbers were decoded by the assistant, you were one of those whose grade didn’t have curls.) thanks for sharing this with us. i’ll read it later. thanks again! — your wonderful professor, marichu

    Like

  3. ok, i’ve read it. Except for the first and second sentences, i agree with everything he wrote. in fact, in a perfect world, lawyers wouldn’t be necessary. if we had tribunals that adjudicate competently and honestly and if the language, pleading, practice, and procedure of law were accessible to litigants, we wouldn’t need lawyers to plead for us . The legal system and its guardians intentionally mystify the law to make it unaccessible.

    Like

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.