Catholic and pro-RH?

Can you be Catholic and pro-RH, too? 

Even as the contentious RH Bill 4244 is undergoing amendment in Congress, the Church perseveres in its fight for human life.  Increasingly virulent attacks against the Catholic Church continue to be launched in media, especially social media, branding her as “the biggest stumbling block” to the approval of the bill that sees population control as the solution to poverty. 

Unable to resist the gravity of President Noynoy’s agenda, RH proponents voted to end the debate a day ahead of schedule.  They said it was a tiresome, repetitive exercise in futility, stubbornly refusing to see that questions had to be raised over and over again because their answers dismally failed to deliver the truth.

Through the RH debates, a glaring truth surfaces: central to the head-on collision is the difference in the way the two camps regard the human being. 

RH Bill sees the person (especially the poor person) as a number in the arithmetic of population statistics; the Church sees the person, any person, as a child of God.

RH Bill sees the human body as something owned, managed and used by its owner alone; the Church teaches that the human body is created by God and to be used according to a divine purpose.

RH Bill believes sexual pleasure is a human right that need not result in pregnancy; the Church maintains that sexual pleasure has its place in the divine plan, and that a new human being (unwanted or not) is always another gift from God.

RH Bill asserts that a person may freely resort to all scientific gadgets, drugs, services and devices that impede unwanted fertilization or bring pregnancy to a halt; the Church teaches that the human body, being the temple of the Holy Spirit, must be free from defilement brought on by inventions that interfere with nature’s life-giving processes.

RH Bill sees a new human being (especially if poor) only as another mouth to feed, clothe, shelter, a burden to the country’s economy, progress, and development; the Church maintains that the new human being should always be welcome in a nation that runs its affairs with justice and equality for all.

RH Bill implies that the person is an entity that can control his destiny by ordering his reproductive system—a little more than any animate species, actually; the Church is certain that every human being has a soul, and therefore may not be treated as a mere pawn in a population control game.

The above mentioned difference in thought is not readily grasped by all, as may be observed from public reaction.  If you pay attention to the exchange of comments tailing the news reports online, you might cringe from the fierceness with which RH supporters assault the Church.  They harangue the bishops, berate the priests, insult the ordinary anti-RH folks, and even rebuke the Pope for being outdated, narrow-minded and “like all other Catholics, hypocritical”.  For them, we are all stupid, ignorant, self-righteous, an impediment to progress, a curse on society.  Such frontal attacks are no longer the domain of legitimate mainstream columnists or radio-TV commentators; they are all over—Facebook, Twitter, blogs, forums of all sorts.  They even divide families, while friends avoid discussing them.

It’s even more saddening when the critics claim to be Catholic.  “I am a Catholic but I am all for RH” is their usual battle cry, emboldened, perchance, by someone who has said not a few times, “I am a congressman who happens to be Catholic, but I am not a Catholic congressman.”

How can one be Catholic and not let his faith inform his actions in the world?  How can one claim to be Catholic and not fight for the values that the Catholic Church upholds, particularly, in this case, the right to life?  How can one be at peace as a Catholic and pass a law exposing the poor to terrible danger by keeping them ignorant of the damage that contraception does to their health?  How can one be Catholic and blind the poor to the truth that they possess innate strength to help them overcome difficulties without endangering their children’s future?  How can one be Catholic and rob the poor of faith in themselves, in their fellowmen, and in a provident God?

A Catholic and at the same time fighting for a culture of death?

If there is one thing this brouhaha over a contentious bill is underlining, it is that the time is ripe, indeed, for the New Evangelization.  And that’s the truth.      

Mga Tanong at Sagot tungkol sa RH Bill 4244

Ni Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS

Tanong 1.  Wala po kaming panahong basahin at unawain ang kopya ng RH Bill na nasa kamay namin, pero napanood po naming pinagdedebatihan sa tv.  Ano po ba talaga ang kontrobersyal na RH Bill na yan?

Sagot:  Ito ang Reproductive Health Bill 4244, na naka-base sa paniniwalang labis nang lumolobo ang populasyon ng Pilipinas na siyang nagiging sanhi ng lubos nitong paghihirap.  Maraming ulit na itong isinususog sa kongreso ng Pilipinas ngunit hindi ito makapasa para maging batas.  

Tanong 2.  Bakit po hindi ito makapasa, samantalang sabi po sa debate ay mabuti daw ito?  

      Sagot:  Kung lubos na mabuti ito, di sana’y matagal na itong naging batas.  Marami pong mga bagay sa RH Bill ang tinututulan ng maraming kongresista, unang-una na ay yung pinagpipilitan ng Bill na gawing solusyon sa kahirapan ang pagliit ng populasyon.  Pakay ng RH Bill na magpamigay ang gobyerno nang libre sa mahihirap ng mga gamot at serbisyong nakapipigil sa pagbubuntis, tulad ng mga birth control pills, condoms, IUD, ineksiyon atbp.  Isinasaad sa Sec. 10 ng Bill na ang mga ito daw ay dapat ibilang na mga “essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units”.  Humihingi ang RH Bill ng budget na 13.7 billion pesos,  halagang manggagaling po sa kaban ng bayan—opo, sa ating mga mamamayang nagbabayad ng buwis.  Ang higit na makikinabang at tutubo sa ganitong sistema ay ang mga pharmaceutical companies pagkat gagawin nang batas ang pagbili ng mga produktong naturan.  Ibig sabihin, kapag nilabag mo, paparusahan ka dahil batas na siya.  Ayon sa mga tumututol, hindi tama na ilagay sa panganib ang kalusugan ng mga ina at kababaihan sa paggamit ng mga naturang gamot at serbisyong ito na ayon din sa mga pagsusuri ng medisina sa buong mundo ay nakakapinsala sa kalusugan ng gagamit.  Makabubuti pa raw na ang salaping iyon ay gugulin na lamang sa mga bagay na higit na kailangan at makakatulong sa pag-unlad ng Pilipino, tulad ng pagpapagawa ng mga eskwelahan, kalsada, balon ng tubig, ospital, at sa pag-ayuda sa pagkakaroon ng hanapbuhay ng mga maralita.   

Tanong 3.  Totoo po ba na sa RH Bill ay bibigyan ng sex education ang mga bata kahit Grade V pa lang?

      Sagot:  Totoo po.  Yun po ay nasa “SEC. 16.  Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education.”  Lahat po ng mga estudyante mula Grade V to 4^th year high school ay ipapailalim sa “sexuality education” kung saan matututuhan nila ang pagpaplano ng pamilya hindi lamang sa natural na paraan kungdi sa pamamagitan din ng paggamit ng mga makakapigil ng pagbubuntis tulad ng condom at pildoras.  Kasama din sa mga ituturo ay ang tinatawag nilang “safe sex” o pakikipagtalik nang hindi nauuwi sa pagbubuntis o sa pagkahawa sa sakit ng katalik (AIDS, halimbawa).

Tanong 4.  Anim na taong sex education?  Wala po bang exemption diyan?  Paano kung ayaw ng magulang?

      Sagot:  Opo, anim na taon, at wala pong takas ang bata dito pagka’t ipapaloob po ang sex education sa iba’t ibang subjects tulad ng Math, Physical Education, Social Studies, Values Education, atbp.  Hindi rin po masasabi ng magulang na ipuwera ang anak nila sa Sex Education, pagkat hindi ito “optional” o magiging bukod na subject kundi sangkap ng bawat subject, sa buong anim na taon.  At “mandatory” po ito, ibig sabihin, kailangan itong pag-aralan ng bawat bata pagkat lahat po ng eskuwelahan ay kailangang sumang-ayon dito, kahit po yaong mga pinatatakbo ng mga Muslim o Katoliko.  Kahit ayaw ng mga magulang, wala silang magagawa.

Tanong 5.  Mahaba-haba din yung anim na taon; ano po ang magiging epekto ng ganoong uri ng sex education sa pamilya? 

         Sagot:  Bagama’t ayon sa RH Bill, magsasanay sila ng mga guro at iaakma ang pagtuturo ng sex education sa edad ng mga bata, marami pong mga magulang ang nababahala dito.  Hindi daw tama na akuin ng estado ang karapatan at pananagutan ng mga magulang na magturo sa kanilang mga anak ayon sa kanilang paniniwala.  Hindi raw tumpak na dumiretso ang gobyerno sa mga bata.  Ayon sa ating Constitution, dapat suportahan— hindi pangunahan—ng gobyerno ang pamilya.  Papaano kung ang gustong ituro sa eskuwela ay taliwas sa nais ng mga magulang na matutunan ng mga anak nila?  Kung hangad ng gobyerno na tulungan ang mga anak ng mahihirap, dapat daw ay turuan nila ang mga magulang at hayaang ang mga ito ang pumili ng ituturo sa kabataan, pagkat sila ang nakakakilala ng kahinugan ng isip ng kanilang mga anak.  Tutol sila na anim na taong tuturuan ang kanilang mga anak tungkol sa sexuality na sisimulan habang mura pa ang isipan ng mga bata, pagka’t sa loob ng panahong ito, maaaring mapunta sa hindi maganda ang pagpapahalaga ng mga bata tungkol sa katawan nila, lalo na’t libre ang mga gamot at serbisyong pipigil sa pagbubuntis. 

Tanong 6.  Parang mali nga yata na ipilit yan sa pamilyang Pilipino, parang nababale-wala ang Constitution at ginagawa lang tayong gaya-gaya sa mga puti …

      Sagot:  Tama, at hindi lamang iyan, pati ang mga matatanda ay apektado din:  a)   Ang mga may-ari ng pagawaan o opisina (employers) ay mapipilitang magdulot ng “reproductive health services” sa kanilang mga empleyado, kahit na tutol ang konsiyensya nila dito; at  b)  ang mga “health care service providers” naman (doctors, nurses, midwives atbp.) ay kailangang maging handang magbigay ng mga gamot na kontra-buntis o magsagawa ng vasectomy o ligation (pagtatali  sa lalaki man o babae) kahit ito salungat sa turo ng kanilang relihiyon.  Kung hindi nila tutuparin ang hinihingi ng batas, makukulong sila.  Ang sistemang ito ay paglabag sa Art. III, Sec. 5 ng ating Constitution na gumagarantiya na “…The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.”

Tanong 7.  Paano po lalabag sa Constitution ang pagpapakalat ng contraceptive pills, libre pa naman ito?

         Sagot:  Walang birth control pills  na syento-porsyentong epektibo sa pagpigil sa paglilihi.  Kahit na umiinom na nito ang babae, maaari pa ring magtagpo sa pagtatalik ang itlog ng babae at semilya ng lalaki at bumuo ng bagong tao—ito ang “fertilization” at “moment of conception”.   Ngunit kahit magkaroon ng “fertilization” sa isang babaeng nagpi-pills, hindi matutuloy ang pagbubuntis pagkat pinapanipis ng pills ang “lining” ng bahay-bata na siyang kakapitan ng “fertilized egg” upang maghanda sa kaniyang pagsilang makatapos ng siyam na buwan.  Ito ang kahulugan ng “abortifacient effect” o “chemical abortion”—sa madaling salita, kinikitil nito ang bagong nilalang na nasa sinapupunan.  Pagka’t ipinagkakait nito ang likas na ikinabubuhay ng “fertilized egg”, hindi na ito makakakapit sa matres at bagkus, ay ilalabas na lamang ito ng katawan na parang namuong dugo (blood clot) kasama ng regla.  Sa katunayan, ang “namuong dugo” na ito ay tao na, miyembro na ng pamilya.   Ang “chemical abortion” na ito ay labag sa Art. II, Sec. 10 ng Constitution na nagsasabing:  “The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.  It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception…”

Tanong 8.  Kung hindi naman po contraceptive pills ang gamit ng mag-asawa kungdi pagpapatali, siguro naman ay hindi na ito labag sa Constitution pagka’t wala naman pong bagong taong kinikitil ang vasectomy o ligation? 

         Sagot:  Kapag naging batas ang RH Bill, kahit ang pagpapatali lamang ay maaari nang maging sanhi ng pagkakasira ng mag-asawahan pagkat ipapahintulot nito ang vasectomy at ligation kahit walang pagsang-ayon ng asawa.  Puwede nang magpa-vasectomy si mister o magpa-ligate si misis nang walang paalam sa isa’t isa.  Sa madaling salita, walang pakialaman.  Sa gayon, isinusulong ng RH Bill sa tiyak na panganib ang pamilya at ang pag-aasawahan, isang tahasang paglabag sa Art. XV, Sec. 2 of our Constitution na nagwiwikang:  “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”   Sa paningin ng Constitution ang pag-aasawahan ay isang sagradong pundasyon ng lipunan na dapat pangalagaan ng estado.  Sinisira ng RH Bill ang pundasyong ito, ang paggalang ng mag-asawa sa isa’t isa, ang pag-uusap, pagkakasundo at pagpapasiya nang maayos, bagkus ay ginagawa nitong tama ang “kanya-kanya mentality” na nakikita naman nating simula ng pagkakawatak-watak ng pamilya.    

Tanong 9.  Kung hindi po mapo-protektahan ng estado ang pamilya at pag-aasawahan, paano na po ang mga kabataan na anak ng mga pamilyang ito?

         Sagot:  Iyon na nga po ang napakasaklap dito.  Kapag pumasa po ang RH Bill, pati na po ang mga menor de edad na dalagita na inaabuso o nabuntis ay maaari nang makinabang sa mga “reproductive health services” nang hindi na kailangang humingi ng pahintulot sa magulang.  Kung magagalit at tututol ang mga magulang sa ibibigay ng mga “health centers” maaaring magsumbong ang anak at makulong pa ang mga “nakikialam” na magulang.   Kung magiging libre na nga po ang mga pampigil sa pagbubuntis at hindi na rin maaaring pakialaman ng magulang ang kanilang mga dalagita, malamang na ikapariwara na rin ito ng mga kabataan.  Kaya’t lalabagin po ng RH Bill ang likas at pangunahing karapatan ng mga magulang na palakihin at arugain ang kanilang mga anak upang maging mabubuting mamamayan, na nakasaad po sa Art. II, Sec. 12 ng ating Constitution:  “…The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.”

Tanong 10.  Nakakakilabot namang isipin na magiging parang sapilitan ang pagsunod sa mga patakarang iyan!  Ano po ang mangyayari kung hindi kami sasang-ayon kung sakaling maging batas na ang RH Bill?

         Sagot:  Paparusahan ang kahit sinong tao na maghahayag ng opinion o impormasyon na kontra sa hangad at nilalaman ng RH Bill kapag naging batas ito.  Halimbawa, mga komentarista sa radyo, kolumnista sa diyaryo, mga guro, mga nag-ra-rally o nagse-sermon—maaaring makulong sila kapag hayagan nilang kinalaban ito.   Samakatuwid, susuway ang RH Bill sa Art. III, Sec. 4 ng ating Constitution na nagsasabing “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press...”  Kaya hindi tama na ipasa ito at gawing batas sapagkat lalagyan nito ng busal ang mga tao at hahadlangan ang ating karapatang magpahayag ng sarili ng buong laya.

Tanong 11.  Ang ibig ba ninyong sabihin ay paparusahan ang kokontra sa RH Bill kapag naging batas na yon?  Ano naman po ang parusa sa mga susuway?

        Sagot:  Opo, ang sino mang sasaway ay maaaring makulong o mamultahan.  Halimbawa, nurse ka sa eskuwela, at may isang babaeng  high school student na hihingi sa iyo ng “morning after pill”—iyon bang pildoras na iniinom ng babae kapag nakipag-sex siya nang walang “proteksyon” laban sa pagbubuntis noong nakaraang gabi; sinisiguro ng “morning-after pill” na dadating ang regla niya, kahit nagkataong “fertile” siya noong gabing iyon, pagka’t kaya nitong patayin ang kahit limang-araw na gulang na bata sa sinapupunan.  Kung  ikaw na nurse ay hindi magbibigay ng pill sa humihingi dahil alam mong “abortifacient” iyon at nakakalaglag,  paparusahan ka—kulong o multa, dahil ang nasa Sec. 29 ng RH Bill:  “Any violation of this Act or commission of the foregoing prohibited acts shall be penalized by imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine of Ten Thousand (P 10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P 50,000.00)…”.   

Tanong 12.  Naku, ganoon pala, eh bakit po sa mga debate sa TV, lagi pong sabi ng mga sponsors ng RH Bill at ng mga artista sa panig nila, eh makakabuti daw yon sa kalusugan ng mga ina at kababaihan, at “women empowerment” pa daw iyon, kaya sino ba aayaw doon?

       Sagot:  Siyempre, sino nga ba ang hindi magkakagusto sa mabubuting puntos ng RH Bill?  Ang katawa-tawa po doon ay, ang matatawag na mabubuting bahagi ng RH Bill, yaong mangangalaga sa kalusugan at kapakanan ng kababaihan ay napapaloob na pong lahat sa tinatawag nating “Magna Carta for Women”!  Samakatuwid, batas na, at kailangan lamang ay maigting na pagpapatupad!  Ito’y buong giting pong ipinapaliwanag ng mga Kongresistang tutol sa RH Bill sa Batasang Pambansa kung saan masusing sinisiyasat ang RH Bill.  Wika nila, kung tutuusin, kapag inalis sa RH Bill ang mga puntos nitong sakop na ng Magna Carta for Women, wala nang matitira kundi ang mga hindi kanais-nais na parte na ating tinatalakay dito.

Tanong 13.  May magagawa ba kami para mahinto ang pagsulong ng RH Bill?

     Sagot:  Malaki.  Simulan natin sa pag-iisip para matunton natin ang katotohanan:  Bakit isinusulong ng RH Bill ang mga gamot at serbisyong napatunayan na ng medisinang nagdudulot ng higit na panganib kaysa tulong sa katawan ng babae?  Bakit gagastahan ng gobyerno ng bilyon-bilyong piso ang mga gamot at serbisyong ito para pigilin diumano ang paglobo ng populasyon—na para ba itong sakit o epidemic na dapat sugpuin?   Bakit sapilitang isasagawa ito sa pamamagitan ng pagpaparusa sa mga hindi sumasang-ayon?  Bakit nais simulan ng RH Bill ang pagtuturo ng pananaw nito sa ating mga kabataan?

        Ang paniniwala na ang malaking populasyon natin ang ugat ng ating kahirapan ay mula sa isipang banyaga na pilit ipinalululon ng RH Bill sa ating mga Pilipino.  Idilat natin ang ating mga mata at tunghayan kung ano ang sinapit ng mga bansang nagpasa ng sistema ng RH Bill: nakakagimbal na pagdami ng sakit ng mga babae dulot ng paggamit ng contraceptive drugs and devices; pagkaubos ng lahi at pagtanda ng populasyon pagkat ayaw o hindi na mag-anak ng karamihan; pagkalat ng AIDS at iba pang mga sexually transmitted diseases (STD, o mga sakit na nakukuha sa pagtatalik); higit na pagdami ng pagbubuntis ng mga dalagita at higit na pagdami ng kasong aborsyon (kapag pumalpak ang inaasahang contraceptive drugs and devices); pagtaas ng bilang ng diborsyo; patuloy na pagkakawatak-watak ng mga pamilya, at marami pang ibang hindi natin kailanman nanaising mangyari sa ating bayan.  Tayo lamang mga Pilipino ang magkapagsasabi kung paano natin iibsan ang ating kahirapan.  Nawa’y makita ng lahat ng ating mga namumuno at mga mambabatas na tayo ay may sariling lakas, yaman at talino upang unawain at umahon sa ating kinasadlakang kahirapan, upang sa halip na higit tayong pahirapan ng RH Bill ay magkaisa tayo tungo sa ganap na pag-unlad ng sambayanang Pilipino.

 

Filipinos, the truest of believers?

By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS 

    After the Philippines gets the flak from travelers worldwide for having “The Worst Airport in the World”—the Ninoy Aquino International Airport—here comes a survey that says Philippines is Number One.  Wow! 

A report on the survey, titled “Belief about God across Time and Countries”, was released on April 18, 2012 by the General Social Survey of National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago.  NORC is an organization whose mission is “to conduct high-quality social science research in the public interest.” 

Filipinos may rejoice to hear that in this study, the Philippines came out as the country with the highest belief, with 94 percent of Filipinos saying they were strong believers who had always believed in God.

The top four after the Philippines are Chile (87.9), the United States (80.8), Poland (80.2) and Portugal (78.9).  Taking the 6^th to the 10^th slots are: Cyprus (76.5), Israel (73.2), Italy (72.1), Northern Ireland (71.4), and Ireland (70.6).

It is interesting to note that Spain, the country that brought Christianity to the Philippines 491 years ago, ranked eleventh at 67.4.  And which country came out at the opposite end from ours? Germany (former East), with only 13 percent saying “I believe in God and I always have”.

The new poll which covered 30 countries in surveys from 1991 to 2008 noted that belief in God had slowly eroded since the 1950s  in most countries around the world, but developing countries and Catholic societies stood out as the truest, most consistent believers. 

Tom W. Smith, who directs the General Social Survey of the NORC/University of Chicago and who wrote the report, is thus quoted in Huffington Post: “The Philippines is both developing and Catholic; religion, which is mainly Catholic, is very emotionally strong there.”

While the findings may be morale-boosting for Filipinos who are likely to see this in the same light as Pacquiao winning or a Filipina beauty emerging as a runner-up Miss Universe—or for those still hung up on their EDSA euphoria—it is really nothing to celebrate with horn-tooting and victory parades.  I don’t mean to belittle the report, in fact I’ve posted it on Facebook.   I just happen to think that the result of this study which ran for 17 years should poke us into examining the link between this reported belief in God and the perennial problems besetting our country—widespread corruption, unemployment, defiance of urban settlers, abuse of power, ever-widening chasm between rich and poor, et al.

It is good to know that the Filipinos’ belief in God is established as a fact in a scientific and respectable survey for the world to see, but take note—these findings can also be used against us in myriads of ways by The Enemy who never sleeps.  Don’t we have wolves in sheep’s clothing everywhere we turn, befriending the simple believers in our flock in order to lead them to the slaughterhouse?  Don’t we have “Catholics” who preach a gospel of death and endorse a hedonistic mentality, Christians who make evangelization a lucrative business, fundamentalist believers who go into “sacred wars” and use devotion for political ends? 

Let this revelation then spur us on to reexamine our concepts of “belief” and “God”.  Do we see God as a loving Father to obey or as scapegoat for our failures?  Does our belief lead us to the best we can become, increase our compassion, fortify us for sacrifice—or does it make us arrogant, complacent, and slothful?  “By their fruits you will know them…” (Matthew 7:16).  True belief in God is efficacious—when all is said and done, it imbues believers with such light and grace that they can then declare “…yet I live, no longer I, but Christ lives in me…” (Galatians 2:20).

The Filipinos as the world’s strongest believers in God?  We ought to thank God and remain on our knees, brave our crosses, and thus remind the world Who created it, to Whom it belongs and to Whom it must return.  If the Filipinos’ remarkable belief in God bears no fruit in our daily life, the world will never believe that we know the difference between a crucifix and an amulet.  And that’s the truth.

Philippines, my user-friendly Philippines

By Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS  A nagging question hereabouts is: what causes poverty in the Philippines: corruption or overpopulation?  To justify corruption it is easy to quash “Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap” with “Kung walang mahirap, walang corrupt.”  And if you tell the “baby factories” that their “overproduction” is keeping the Philippines poor, they may squelch your arguments with “But our children are our wealth!”

We know that the greed of the corrupt is never satisfied, and that the supposed “wealth” of the poor are exploited as beggars, thieves and white slaves. Lest we think that the only cause of poverty in our country is either corruption or overpopulation, I dare say it is neither.  The real culprit is lack of love.  We do not really love ourselves and our country. 

Notice that hardly anyone sings the national anthem at the movie theaters?  People stand up when it is played but they don’t sing; some continue to chat, giggle, or eat.  Mine may be an unscientific observation but I think it indicates an indifference of some kind. 

We are gung-ho about selling the Philippines as a prime tourist destination without realizing that we have a responsibility to present a respectable country, culture and people to visitors by employing well-trained tour guides.  Like ambassadors, tour guides are a country’s call cards; what they say creates the first impression visitors have of us.

On those times I’ve accompanied international conference delegates on day tours, I’d cringe to see official tour guides at a loss when asked about something outside of their memorized spiels.  At a calesa tour of Intramuros I was appalled to hear the rig driver mention an underground tunnel that “in the Spanish time” connected a nunnery and a monastery “where the priests and the nuns would meet at night”.  A friend of mine who showed her Balikbayan relatives around Intramuros, too, said their tour guide was an articulate and engaging performer but he seemed to have a hidden agenda as he made comments to take digs at respected persons in our society.

In telling the world “It’s more fun in the Philippines”—without addressing the age old problem of uncollected trash, urban street dwellers, bus terminal toilets, ill-maintained resort facilities, and the peace and order situation, etc.—what kind of “fun” exactly are we trying to sell?

One big sore that continues to fester in our consciousness is the presumption that Manila is the Philippines, and that what matters most for the country is what the Manila media’s headlines reveal.  As divisive as that viewpoint is that which presupposes that the worthiest Filipinos are those who make decisions and pass laws.  Our preoccupation with the affairs of those headliners, in fact, could dull our sensitivity to the needs of our fellow countrymen in the shadows—those in remote barangays and far flung islands—they are Filipinos, too, and they are too poor to care about oil price hikes, politicians’ popularity surveys, the impeachment trial, even the blazing issue of the RH Bill.

Who really cares?  Politicians own islands big enough for their whole clan to live in while the island residents do not even have electricity and proper toilets.  It is no wonder then that their constituents would rather migrate to Manila to squat and sleep like sardines in hovels. 

And in the Big City, are we really expressing “solidarity with the poor” when we give them old toys and used clothes during Christmas?  What concept of charity would children of the rich have when from a tender age they are shown that discarded toys are good enough for the poor while they always have new ones?  What kind of love do the rich show when they invite orphans to their homes in exclusive villages to partake of their Christmas feast?  They feel nice about “doing good” but have they ever wondered how these orphans feel or think once they are back to their bowl of lugaw at the orphanage?  May not love move “charitable people” to want less, to be voluntarily poor, to say “enough” to themselves, in order to create more opportunities to spread the nation’s wealth more evenly?

The nation’s wealth in natural resources is more than enough to free every Filipino from want but who are benefitting from them?  Not our small kababayans.  When our miners who risk their lives for a measly pay are killed in collapsing mining pits, media cameras focus on the victims and the “charity” people extend to their grieving families—again another opportunity for do-gooders to shine—but where are the capitalists who should have invested more in the workers’ safety in the first place?  Why won’t the media expose them?  Does the public even get to know who they are?

Recently, a Vietnamese boat was caught off Palawan smuggling 39 (!) marine turtles (four of them dead).  We have laws protecting our Green Sea Turtle, a critically-endangered species.  The incident reached the local authorities’ ear but apparently not the media.  So, were the smugglers detained or fined, the boat confiscated, the turtles returned to the sea?  If anyone knew the answers, no one is saying anything.  Where is love of country here?  Whether it’s about a Taiwanese boat illegally fishing off Batanes or Japanese tropical fish traders behind dynamite fishing in Mindanao, the stories reflect a pattern of neglect on the part of our authorities to protect our territory and resources.  Are we simply being tolerant or are we selling our country cheap?

What happened to the Chinese nationals caught manufacturing shabu in Ayala Alabang?  How come nothing was heard about them anymore after the discovery?  Didn’t our media think it was newsworthy, as they did about the Filipino drug mules executed in China?  And speaking of drug mules, why is it that no one runs after their “connections” in China?  Do they want us to believe that our kababayans will peddle the smuggled drugs by themselves in Tiananmen Square?

“Foreign aid” is another item that goes unexamined in the Filipino’s vocabulary.  Such aid  never comes without strings attached; whether it is cash, goods, medicines or military support given in exchange for our natural resources and our cherished values as a people, we stand exploited, believing we are helped when in fact we are being used.  Sad to say, our leaders do not seem to know any better, and in fact, would even tend to take advantage of our people’s ignorance in entertaining “foreign aid”.  When those “Greeks bearing gifts” visit, along with “foreign investors”, we wine and dine them, put up “cultural shows” for them and with our world-famous smiles we persuade them to try Tinikling.  Shouldn’t we, instead of boasting we’re “more fun”, just call our beloved country “User-friendly Philippines”?

How many of those we elect to public office truly love our country and our people?  When they are bent on polishing their image, cosmeticizing history to make heroes of themselves and eternal villains of political enemies; when they substitute shallow slogans and publicists’ yarns for solid leadership; when their pursuit of truth is propelled only by vested interests; how can they unite us Filipinos to deliver ourselves from poverty and march on to genuine progress?

We need to unshackle ourselves from superficial thought habits in order to understand the true meaning of freedom, heroism, democracy, service, human life—and be humble enough to admit that we are our own oppressors.  Our national anthem ends with “Aming ligaya na pag may mang-aapi, ang mamatay nang dahil sa iyo.”  We claim to love the Philippines when our athletes and beauty queens win and hit the headlines, but we do not love our country enough to believe in it, fight for it, suffer for it, die for it.  And that’s the truth.  

(This article first appeared in And that’s the truth, my column in the CBCP Monitor, the official newspaper of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines.--Teresa R. Tunay, OCDS)