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?
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike