Paguia’s cross-ex

 

From Ducky Paredes: Alan Paguia’s cross-ex of HB 5043 proponents. 

Seriously. There was a time when I thought that Paguia might be the shit, but after reading this cross-ex, I don’t quite know anymore. I don’t even know why he would bother to put this sort of thing out unless it were to position himself as some sort of HB 5043 killer – yeah *snort*! A killer who can’t make his point without using loaded yes-or-no questions. Sheesh. When did this guy become a barangay-league un-lawyer?

Anyway, just for the exercise, let me try to be cross-examined by the redoubtable Alan Paguia.

 

On the Preamble of the Constitution

Do you believe in the sovereignty of the Filipino people?

Yes.

Do you know that under the preamble in the constitution, the Filipino people believe in almighty God?

The preamble does say that the Filipino people invoke the name of the almighty God. It is therefore safe to presume that their is a degree of belief present. Whether that belief is of a degree sufficient to actually constitute a major factor in the average FIlipino’s decision making is a different question altogether.

Do you believe in almighty God?

No. I believe in a Higher Power, but I doubt that we have the same mental image.

Do you believe in the rule of law?

Absolutely.

Do you believe the government must operate under a regime of love among the people, including the unborn?

What does that mean, a ‘regime of love’? Sounds like flower-power, old dude! What is the legal weight of a ‘regime of love?’ How do you quantify a ‘regime of love’ such that it can have true legal weight?

 

On Article II Section 12 of the constitution

Do you believe in the sanctity of family life?

Defining ‘sanctity’ as the quality of deserving respect or dedication, yes. 

Do you believe sanctity means “holiness”?

Not in this context, no. (And I resent your trying to drag religion into this issue.)

Do you believe the state must protect and strengthen the sanctity of family life?

No. While the family unit is deserving of respect and dedication, the state has no business enforcing it’s interpretation of what that ‘respect and dedication’ should manifest as, at the expense of the rights of the individuals within that family unit. 

Do you believe the family, as a basic social institution, is autonomous?

Yes.

Do you believe that autonomy of the family must be respected by the state?

Yes.

Do you believe the state must protect the life of the unborn?

Yes.

Do you believe the unborn has the right to be born?

Yes, but that there are situations when the right of the mother gains primacy.

As a general rule, would you agree the unborn is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb?

Yes.

Do you believe the state must protect the life of the unborn from its beginning until it is born?

Yes.

Do you believe almighty God’s creation of man is replicated by man’s procreation of children?

No. God didn’t fuck Eve, did He?

Would you agree the birth of a human being is preceded by a biological process?

Duh … yeah.

Would you agree that process has a beginning and an end?

Yes. Seriously. This laying-the-groundwork shit is getting mighty tedious.

Would you agree that process is either natural or artificial?

Yes already.

Would you agree the natural process is the general rule and the artificial is the exception?

Yes.

Would you agree that process, whether natural or artificial, may be generally divided into two stages, namely: (1) the unborn stage; and (2) the born stage?

Yes.

Would you agree the unborn stage has a beginning?

Yes.

Would you agree “conception” takes place within the unborn stage?

Not within. Conception is the beginning of the unborn stage (as you call it).

Would you agree “conception” cannot take place without the sperm of a male fertilizing the egg of a female?

Oh lord, Yes. But I find it strange that you seem to, considering that Jesus was conceived without anyone’s sperm. Incidentally, can the sperm of a female fertilize the egg of a male?

Would you agree conception is, generally speaking, a natural effect of a prior sexual act between a male and a female?

No. Generally speaking, conception is only one of two possible outcomes of sexual congress.

Do you believe in responsible parenthood?

Yes.

Do you believe the state should encourage sex outside the context of the “sanctity of family life”?

The state has no business encouraging or discouraging sex, except where certain reasonable strictures apply, such as the rules on rape and adultery.

Do you believe the state should discourage sex outside the context of the “sanctity of family life”?

The state has no business encouraging or discouraging sex, except where certain reasonable strictures apply, such as the rules on rape and adultery.

Do you believe in the natural and primary right and duty of parents to develop the moral character of their children?

Yes.

Do you believe the government must help develop the moral character of children?

Yes.

Do you believe the government will strengthen the moral character of the youth by promoting the use of contraceptives?

Yes. Because by emphasizing the importance of contraception, the government will teach the youth discipline. It is requires far more self-control to refrain from sex because there is no condom available than to forget that God is watching you trying to get into some girl’s pants.

 

On Article XV of the constitution

Do you believe the government will promote responsible parenthood by promoting the use of contraceptives among the youth or unmarried couples?

Yes. Abstinence is not the only form of responsible parenthood.

Do you believe the family is the foundation of the nation?

No. The individual is.

Do you believe marriage is the foundation of the family?

Not necessarily.

Do you believe the government will strengthen the nation by strengthening the family?

Not necessarily.

Do you believe the government will strengthen the family by strengthening marriage as a social institution?

Not necessarily. 

Do you believe marriage, as a social institution, is inviolable?

No. The inviolability of marriage should remain a strictly religious concept. In law, a marriage should be a contract, and a contract should be revocable with the consent of both parties.

Do you believe the government will strengthen the inviolability of marriage by promoting the use of contraceptives among the youth or unmarried couples?

First of all, a marriage – as a legal contract – should not be considered inviolable. The question, therefore, is false.

Do you believe the government will strengthen the family by promoting the use of contraceptives among the youth or unmarried couples?

Promoting the use of contraceptives will neither strengthen nor weaken the family.

Would you agree a major substance of the bill refers to the criminalization of certain acts related to reproductive health care?

Yes.

Do you believe the title of the bill, stating in part the catch-all phrase “and for other purposes”, is a fair description of the criminal acts enumerated therein?

The Bill speaks of a National Policy, and as ‘Policy’ necessarily implies that some acts will be considered considered contrary to policy and therefore subject to penalties, then yes, it is a fair description.

Filed under: church and state, law and order, religion, sex, Alan Paguia, Reproductive Health, sex

Sex is Speech

From DJB, via Filipino Voices:

Five Points on Reproductive Health Bill
by Atty. Alan F. Paguia

1. Under the Preamble of the Constitution, the general objective of the Philippine legal system is “to build a just and HUMANE SOCIETY”. Such humaneness includes both the born and the unborn. Therefore, it would not be humane for Congress to promote the use of contraceptives since it is directed against the life of the unborn.

2. The life of the unborn constitutes the process of PROCREATION. It has its alpha and omega.

3. Procreation begins with the SEXUAL ACT. It ends when the unborn is born. Under Article 41 of the Civil Code, the unborn is considered BORN if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother’s womb. Why is the sexual act the alpha of procreation? Because without it, generally speaking, NO sperm would enter the female body. If no sperm enters the female body, conception becomes a physical impossibility. Therefore, procreation or reproduction begins with the sexual act and ends with the complete separation of the unborn from the mother’s womb. It follows that any discussion on procreation or reproduction – to be complete – must include the sexual act.

4. Under the Constitution, the FAMILY is the foundation of the nation, and MARRIAGE is the foundation of the family. These are the foundations of responsible parenthood. Clearly, marriage LEGITIMIZES the sexual act between the husband and the wife (Art. XV). In other words, under the Constitution, any sexual act outside marriage is ILLEGITIMATE or IMMORAL.

5. May Congress properly pass a law that would make the life of the unborn a physical impossibility? NO. It would be unconstitutional as it would violate the “guidelines for legislation” set out in Article II of the Constitution (Oposa v. Factoran, 224 SCRA 792; Kilosbayan v. Morato, 246 SCRA 540; Tañada v. Angara, 272 SCRA 18).

 

First, the Preamble has limited legal authority, serving only to outline the vision of the sovereign people. It’s contents, therefore, are in the nature of generalities and normally cannot be construed to limit the plenary power of Congress to enact laws that, in its wisdom, it deems necessary. 

What Paguia has set out to do with these points, is to try to establish the unconstitutionality of the Reproductive Health Bill, long before it becomes a law, let alone for any constitutional issue to arise. Worse, he is trying to do it by laying down a definition of humaneness that apparently includes even non-existent life.

Second, while it is true that procreation begins with the sexual act, it does not necessarily follow that all sexual intercourse is an act of procreation. Paguia’s entire argument hinges on sexual congress to be a condition sine qua non for procreation. Needless to say, it no longer is. His conclusion therefore, that “procreation or reproduction begins with the sexual act and ends with the complete separation of the unborn from the mother’s womb,” is flawed. But that is just a side note.

If we were to adhere strictly to Paguia’s tortured logic, then merely abstaining from sex would be unconstitutional as it prevents the possibility of conception – an act clearly “directed against the life of the unborn.” In fact, withdrawal – one of the more common alternatives to artificial contraception – would be felonious as well.

As this is patently absurd, it must be conceded that intent is at issue and that, as Paguia would have it, the intent not to make babies is excusable when you choose abstention, but unconstitutional when you choose protection. 

While there is still a great deal of controversy about when the ball of cells in the woman’s womb becomes vested with legal personality – and therefore entitled to the protection of laws – there can hardly be any debate that until that zygote comes into existence there is nothing to protect. 

Third, the freshman syllogism about family and marriage Paguia employs is a canard. It presupposes that the only purpose of sex is procreation, and that therefore, any sex engaged in for any other reason would be illegal. With one fell swoop, Paguia has turned every unmarried sexually active person – not to mention persons of alternative sexual orientations – into a criminal.

Sex is speech, and the right to have sex with anyone – hetero or homo -you desire should be protected as vigorously as we defend the right to speak our mind, subject of course to such reasonable limitations as the rules on rape – statutory and otherwise.

Worse, it adopts a definition of family that is archaic and – totally not in keeping with the changing standards of the community it seeks to govern. Of course, this should be the subject of an entirely separate discussion. 

And fourth, the question “May Congress properly pass a law that would make the life of the unborn a physical impossibility?” is a shameless misrepresentation; an act of pandering to the holier-than-thou crowd. As he formulates the question, Paguia is speaking of ABORTION, not the prevention of unplanned pregnancies which is, to my mind, the intent of the Bill.

Incidentally, the citation of Oposa is misplaced. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the locus standi of the petitioners to represent unborn generations heir could be sustained “based on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is concerned.” The underlying idea there is that existing generations aren’t the only ones who will be using the fruits of nature, and therefore there is the responsibility to preserve nature so that those who come after will be able to use those fruits as well. 

The decision did not establish unborn souls as legal personalities deserving of protection beyond the right to a balanced and healthful ecology. It merely took judicial notice of the fact that there will be more generations yet to come, and that they need to be guaranteed a chance to utilize nature and her fruits. It does not guarantee these unborn generations the right to live, just that when they do begin to live, it shouldn’t be in a barren wasteland.

Filed under: musings, Alan Paguia, Reproductive Health, sex