Pinoy ka na ba? (Acquiring and choosing Philippine citizenship)

By Siesta-friendly

Newly announced candidate for Vice President, sometime-actor-and-sometime-politician Edu Manzano, was born in California, U.S.A. Although the Philippine Constitution requires that the Vice President, like the President, must be a natural-born citizen, there is no issue re Manzano’s citizenship qualification.

Why is that? Because Manzano had Philippine parents when he was born. And under Philippine law, that is enough to make him a natural-born Philippine citizen regardless of his birthplace.

Although under U.S. law he was also a natural-born U.S. citizen, the Supreme Court held that dual citizenship is not a ground for disqualification in running for elective office. It being beyond one’s control to determine one’s citizenship at birth.[1] Hmmm, birth and control, now that’s one major issue. But, let’s not digress.

Jus Soli vs. Jus Sanguinis

So why was Manzano deemed a natural-born Philippine and U.S. citizen in the first place?

It’s like this. The Philippine Constitution follows the principle of jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) or blood relationship in determining citizenship. Manzano’s parents being Philippine citizens at the time of his birth, he became a Philippine citizen by virtue of his immediate ancestry.

Thus, the current citizenship rules are as follows:

“Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;

(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and

(4) Those who are naturalized in the accordance with law.

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship...”[2]

On the other hand, the U.S. follows the principle of jus soli (“right of soil”) or place of birth in determining citizenship. Manzano having been born on U.S. soil, he was a natural-born U.S. citizen as well. And so the exodus to the U.S. of expecting mothers continues in observance of that one policy.

Filing the certificate of candidacy as a way of electing Philippine citizenship[3]

Dual citizenship notwithstanding, Manzano was deemed to have eventually elected Philippine citizenship when he ran for Vice Mayor since his certificate of candidacy contained the following statements made under oath:

"6. I AM A FILIPINO CITIZEN (STATE IF "NATURAL-BORN" OR "NATURALIZED") NATURAL-BORN

xxx xxx xxx

10. I AM A REGISTERED VOTER OF PRECINCT NO. 747-A, BARANGAY SAN LORENZO, CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, PROVINCE OF NCR.

11. I AM NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF, OR IMMIGRANT TO, A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

12. I AM ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED. I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILL MAINTAIN TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE THERETO; THAT I WILL OBEY THE LAWS, LEGAL ORDERS AND DECREES PROMULGATED BY THE DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND THAT I IMPOSE THIS OBLIGATION UPON MYSELF VOLUNTARILY, WITHOUT MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS STATED HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT OF MY OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.”

The Supreme Court thus held that Manzano’s “filing of such certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce his American citizenship, effectively removing any disqualification he might have as a dual citizen.”

Said Court summarized that –

“by declaring in his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so without mental reservation, [Manzano], as far as the laws of this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a dual citizen.”

Of course, with Edu Manzano’s candidacy, qualifications beyond citizenship would provide a more compelling discussion but that’s for another day or maybe another writer.

By the way, in case you’re interested in regaining your lost Philippine citizenship, check out our post Balik-Pinoy (How to re-acquire your Philippine citizenship).

---

[1] Mercado vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999

[2] Article IV, 1987 Constitution

[3] Ibid.

Psst! The rest is here ...

Hopenhagen

In 30 days, or on December 7 (and until December 18, 2009), leaders from 192 countries will gather at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to determine the fate of our planet. Let's turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen.

Hopenhagen is a movement, a moment and a chance at a new beginning. The hope that we can create a global community that will lead our leaders into making the right decisions. The hope that by solving our environmental crisis, we can solve our economic crisis at the same time. Hopenhagen is change - and that change will be powered by all of us.

Help lead the leaders by visiting hopenhagen.org today. Sign the petition. Become a citizen of Hopenhagen. Fuel the movement. More important, pass on the story of Hopenhagen to your friends and family. Encourage everyone you can to get involved and sign the petition. Because the more of us who do, the more our leaders will recognize the world is serious about change.

Let's turn Copenhagen into Hopenhagen.

Psst! The rest is here ...

Inn and Out: Liabilities of Hotels and Inns

By Obiter07

One checks in to hotels, on vacation or on a business trips or on some other less than legal reason. How safe are you and your belongings while you are there? There have been occasions where a guest returns to a room only to have items missing. You may not be aware of it, but there are specific provisions of law governing the liabilities of hotels.

Personal Effects

Under the New Civil Code, hotels are supposed to be responsible for all personal effects brought in by their guests. However, the guest should give notice of the effects, and take the precautions that may be advised:

“ARTICLE 1998. The deposit of effects made by travellers in hotels or inns shall also be regarded as necessary. The keepers of hotels or inns shall be responsible for them as depositaries[1], provided that notice was given to them, or to their employees, of the effects brought by the guests and that, on the part of the latter, they take the precautions which said hotel-keepers or their substitutes advised relative to the care and vigilance of their effects. (1783)”

There is no need for an actual “deposit” as the responsibility covers all effects brought into the hotel [Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, Vol. VI, (1987), p. 604 citing De los Santos vs. Tan Khey].

Apart from your personal effects, vehicles, articles and even animals are supposed to be kept safe. The lone ranger’s horse, if he’s a hotel guest, should be safe as well too. The law seems dated and looks back to a bygone era of horse-drawn carriages and buggies (or perhaps merely lifted from US law):

“ARTICLE 1999. The hotel-keeper is liable for the vehicles, animals and articles which have been introduced or placed in the annexes of the hotel. (n)”

The hotel’s responsibility extends to losses caused by its personnel and even by third parties but stops at force majeure.

“ARTICLE 2000. The responsibility referred to in the two preceding articles shall include the loss of, or injury to the personal property of the guests caused by the servants or employees of the keepers of hotels or inns as well as strangers; but not that which may proceed from any force majeure. The fact that travellers are constrained to rely on the vigilance of the keeper of the hotels or inns shall be considered in determining the degree of care required of him. (1784a)”

However, there is a distinction between a robber who uses force or who surreptitiously commits robbery. The former is to be deemed force majeure and the hotel is freed from liability.

“ARTICLE 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who has entered the hotel is not deemed force majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or through an irresistible force. (n)”

But if the guest himself, his servants or his own visitors or the character of thing causes the loss, then the hotel has no liability.

“ARTICLE 2002. The hotel-keeper is not liable for compensation if the loss is due to the acts of the guest, his family, servants or visitors, or if the loss arises from the character of the things brought into the hotel. (n)”

And if some clever hotel owner posts notices that it is not responsible for losses or incorporates this in the agreement for your stay, this will not be effective.

“ARTICLE 2003. The hotel-keeper cannot free himself from responsibility by posting notices to the effect that he is not liable for the articles brought by the guest. Any stipulation between the hotel-keeper and the guest whereby the responsibility of the former as set forth in Articles 1998 to 2001 is suppressed or diminished shall be void. (n)”

But if you don’t pay your hotel bill, they can keep your things as security.

“ARTICLE 2004. The hotel-keeper has a right to retain the things brought into the hotel by the guest, as a security for credits on account of lodging, and supplies usually furnished to hotel guests. (n)”

It may be hard to imagine, but the necessity of having carpets at a hotel was the subject of an actual case. And the court ruled that the hotel can wax and polish floors without having to install rugs or carpets for the safety of guests while this is ongoing. It took notice that these are “luxurious innovations” that at the time were rarely, if ever used in Philippine houses and buildings [Ibid. p. 603-603 citing Evans vs. Manila Hotel Co., et al., 10 CAR (2s) 878.]. This may not hold true now.

Personal Safety and Security

With respect to your personal safety, what could be the rule? While the law covers effects, the person of the guest is not given similar express protection.

In a more recent case, a hotel has been made to answer for the harm that befell its guest. Court of Appeals held the hotel is responsible for the murder of a guest in his hotel room, on the finding that “it would not have occurred if the hotel had provided adequate security." The hotel was made liable to pay P52M in damages to the heirs of the deceased “who was found dead after being bound, gagged and then robbed in his hotel room xxx.”^[2]

There is no hotel room, no matter how luxurious, where one can lose everything or is to die for.

---

[1] ARTICLE 1972. The depositary is obliged to keep the thing safely and to return it, when required, to the depositor, or to his heirs and successors, or to the person who may have been designated in the contract. His responsibility, with regard to the safekeeping and the loss of the thing, shall be governed by the provisions of Title I of this Book.

If the deposit is gratuitous, this fact shall be taken into account in determining the degree of care that the depositary must observe. (1766a)

[2] Luxury Philippine hotel must pay over guest's murder: court By Agence France-Presse, Updated: 10/27/2009, http://news.ph.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=3671553

Psst! The rest is here ...

CONgress (The 14th Philippine Congress)

By Siesta-friendly

The verb ‘con’ is defined as ‘to swindle’. While ‘congress’ is ‘an association usually made up of delegates from constituent organizations’.

An association that takes money by fraud or deceit. Hmmm, what could that be?

While you’re thinking about it, let’s talk about our lawmakers, in particular their law-making activities. Click here for our review last year of the 13^th Congress.

This 14^th Congress, both Houses were given a total of about P6.8B for its general operations (P2.3B to the Senate and P4.5B to the Lower House). That doesn’t include the roughly P9.7B in the form of the Priority Development Assistance Fund better known as pork. So that’s a total of P16.5B more or less. Officially, at least.

Was all of that worth it? Let’s see what they accomplished with all that money.

Run-of-the-mill laws

It wouldn’t be an honest-to-goodness Congress without the garden variety laws like establishing, integrating and separating high schools. But this 14th Congress had a field day. There were 140 laws in this category. And there were only 219 RAs during the 14^th Congress. Go ahead, say it: OMG. Yes. We spent billions so that our Congress can, basically, set up high schools. High Schools. Maybe that’s the highest educational attainment for most of them that’s why high schools are close to their heart.

They did remember 2 universities and enacted a law designating the Philippine Normal University as the country's National Center For Teacher Education and another law strengthening the University of the Philippines as the National University. Whatever.

Anyway, where else did our Houses spend precious legislative time and money? Establishing and upgrading district engineering offices that’s where. 12 new laws. Must be some profit there somewhere, which escapes us at the moment. Might as well add here the lone law on reapportionment, which is that of the lone legislative district of Agusan Del Sur province.

Our Congress wouldn’t have done a complete job without naming and renaming roads (and 1 bridge). 8 new laws on that, thank you very much.

We wouldn’t be known for our festive spirit without our legal holidays and there are now 9 additional laws on days off for business owners and daily wage earners to detest.

Following closely are laws granting/renewing franchises: 7 in all.

And let’s not forget why they‘re making law in the first place: the General Appropriations Acts of 2008 and 2009.

Then there’s one law adding 5 regional trial courts.

So far, that’s 182 boiler plate laws funded by billions of our precious tax payments.

Amendatory laws

There were a few on-second-thought laws; you know, the product of lawmakers’ realization that the law they once deemed fit to pass now needs some changes. There were 21 of these corrective laws either amending or repealing previous laws. They are:

1. RA 9496 (An Act To Extend The Utilization Period Of The Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund) amending RA 8178 (An Act Replacing Quantitative Import Restrictions On Agricultural Products, Except Rice, With Tariffs, Creating The Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund);

2. RA 9499 (Filipino World War II Veterans Pensions and Benefits Act of 2008) amending RA 6948 (thereby allowing Filipino World War II Veterans To Continue Receiving Philippine Government Pensions And Benefits Notwithstanding Similar Pensions And Benefits Provided By The United States Government),

3. RA 9501 (Magna Carta for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)) amending RA 6977 (The Magna Carta For Small Enterprises),

4. RA 9503 amending RA 1125 (The Law Creating The Court Of Tax Appeals),

5. RA 9504 amending RA 8424 (The National Internal Revenue Code Of 1997),

6. RA 9510 (Credit Information System Act) repealing PD 1941 (Recognizing And Supporting The Credit Information Bureau, Inc.),

7. RA 9514 (Fire Code Of The Philippines of 2008) repealing PD 1185 (Fire Code Of The Philippines),

8. RA 9516 amending PD 1866 (Codifying The Laws On Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing In, Acquisition Or Disposition Of Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosives Or Instruments Used In The Manufacture Of Firearms, Ammunition Or Explosives, And Imposing Stiffer Penalties For Certain Violations Thereof)

9. RA 9520 (Philippine Cooperative Code Of 2008) amending RA 6938 (The Cooperative Code Of 1990),

10. RA 9522 amending RA 3046 (An Act To Define The Baselines Of The Territorial Sea Of The Philippines),

11. RA 9523 (An Act Requiring The Certification Of The Department Of Social Welfare And Development (DSWD) To Declare A 'Child Legally Available For Adoption' As A Prerequisite For Adoption Proceedings) amending RA 8552 (The Domestic Adoption Act Of 1998), RA 8043 (The Inter-Country Adoption Act Of 1995), PD 603 (The Child And Youth Welfare Code),

12. RA 9547 amending RA 7323 (The Special Program For Employment Of Students)

13. RA 9576 (An Act Increasing The Maximum Deposit Insurance Coverage, And In Connection Therewith, To Strengthen The Regulatory And Administrative Authority, And Financial Capability Of The Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC) amending RA 3591 (The PDIC Charter),

14. RA 9592 (An Act Extending For 5 Years The Reglementary Period For Complying With The Minimum Educational Qualification And Appropriate Eligibility In The Appointment To The Bureau Of Fire Protection (BFP) And The Bureau Of Jail Management And Penology (BJMP) amending RA 9263 (The Bureau Of Fire Protection And Bureau Of Jail Management And Penology Professionalization Act Of 2004),

15. RA 9593 (Tourism Act of 2009) amending or repealing the inconsistent provisions of EO 120 (Reorganizing the Ministry of Tourism, Defining its Powers and Functions and for Other Purposes); EO 292, as amended (The Administrative Code of 1987); PD 189, as amended. (Creating the Philippine Tourism Authority); PD 1448, as amended, (Creating the Philippine Convention and Visitors Corporation): EO 46 (Granting the Department of Tourism, Through the Philippine Tourism Authority, Authority to Establish and Operate a Duty- and Tax-Free Merchandising System); EO No. 30 (Creating an Executive Committee for the Development of Quezon Memorial, Luneta and Other National Parks); PD 37 (Creating the Nayong Filipino Foundation); PD 1616 (Creating the Intramuros Administration; PD 442, as amended (Labor Code); RA 7160 (The Local Government Code); RA 7722 (Creating the Commission on Higher Education); RA 9497 (Creating the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines);

16. RA 9640 amending RA 7160 (The Local Government Code Of 1991)

17. RA 9648 (An Act Exempting From Documentary Stamp Tax Any Sale, Barter Or Exchange Of Shares Of Stock Listed And Traded Through The Stock Exchange) amending RA 8424 (The National Internal Revenue Code Of 1997),

18. RA 9649 amending RA 5412 (The Charter Of The City Of General Santos),

19. RA 9679 (Home Development Mutual Fund Law Of 2009, otherwise known as the Pag-IBIG (Pagtutulungan sa kinabukasan: Ikaw, Bangko, Industriya at Gobyerno Fund) amending RA 7742 (Home Development Mutual Fund Law Of 1980), and

20. RA 9700 (An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary Reforms) amending RA 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988);

21. RA 9708 (An Act Extending For 5 Years The Reglementary Period For Complying With The Minimum Educational Qualification For Appointment To The Philippine National Police (PNP) And Adjusting The Promotion System Thereof), amending RA 6975 and RA 8551; and

22. RA 9711 (Food and Drug Administration Act of 2009), amending RA 3720 (Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).

The rest

And the remaining laws we can’t fit in the previous categories:

1. RA 9497 (Civil Aviation Authority Act of 2008)

2. RA 9502 (Universally Accessible Cheaper and Quality Medicines Act of 2008)

3. RA 9505 (An Act Establishing A Provident Personal Savings Plan, Known As The Personal Equity And Retirement Account (PERA) of 2008)

4. RA 9506 (Bacolor Rehabilitation Council Act)

5. RA 9507 (Socialized And Low-Cost Housing Loan Restructuring And Condonation Act of 2008)

6. RA 9509 (An Act Establishing Livelihood And Skills Training Centers In Fourth, Fifth And Sixth Class Municipalities otherwise known as the Barangay Livelihood And Skills Training Act of 2008),

7. RA 9512 (Environmental Awareness and Education Act of 2008),

8. RA 9513 (An Act Promoting The Development, Utilization And Commercialization Of Renewable Energy Resources And For Other Purposes)

9. RA 9515 (An Act Defining The Liability Of Ship Agents In The Tramp Service And For Other Purposes)

10. RA 9521 (An Act Creating A National Book Development Trust Fund To Support Filipino Authorship)

11. RA 9525 (An Act Appropriating The Sum Of Eleven Billion Three Hundred One Million Seven Hundred Ninety Thousand Pesos (P11,301,790,000.00) As Supplemental Appropriations For An Automated Election System)

12. RA 9646 (An Act Regulating The Practice Of Real Estate Service In The Philippines, Creating For The Purpose A Professional Regulatory Board Of Real Estate Service, otherwise known as the Real Estate Service Act of the Philippines)

13. RA 9653 (Rent Control Act of 2009)

14. RA 9709 (An Act Establishing A Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Program For The Prevention, Early Diagnosis And Intervention Of Hearing Loss, otherwise known as the “Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 2009"); and

15. RA 9710 (The Magna Carta Of Women).

What do you think? Did we really need that much money and that many people (legislators and their staff) to accomplish the above? Feel conned yet?

If we scrap Congress, how can it be worse?

Psst! The rest is here ...

Philippine government shows how not to manage relief efforts

By Siesta-friendly

When it rains, it pours. No, this is not about the 2 typhoons that really overstayed their welcome these past 2 weeks. It’s about the never-ending incompetence of our government officials. While typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng flooded our streets (and homes) with rain, the government has flooded us with ineptitude.

There’s enough incriminating evidence out there on government corruption that allowed the setting up of residential areas where there shouldn’t be thus making residences and human lives very vulnerable to floods. And there’s more material on the government’s lack of rescue efforts (boats, manpower, intention).

But now the government has gone on messing relief work as well. So there’s been no relief from government ineptitude as well.

Prohibiting importation of used clothing for typhoon victims

ABS-CBNNEWS online reported this week that donations to typhoon victims of used clothing set to leave Saipan were disallowed by a Philippine Consul General citing Republic Act No. 4653 (An Act To Safeguard The Health Of The People And Maintain The Dignity Of The Nation By Declaring It A National Policy To Prohibit The Commercial Importation Of Textile Articles Commonly Known As Used Clothing And Rags).

True, said RA 4653 prohibits the importation of used clothing BUT the law has exceptions and it specifically cites one exception as Subsection "v" of Section 105 of Republic Act 1937 (Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines) which reads:

“v. Food, clothing, house-building and sanitary-construction materials, and medical, surgical and other supplies for use in emergency relief work, when imported by or directly for the account of any victim, sufferer, refugee, survivor or any other person affected thereby, or by or for the account of any relief organization, not operated for profit, for distribution among the distressed individuals, whenever the President shall, by proclamation, declare an emergency to exist by reason of a state of war, pestilence, cholera, plague, famine, drought, typhoon, earthquake, fire, flood and similar conditions: Provided, That the importation free of duty of articles described in this herein subsection shall continue only during the existence of such emergency, or within such limits and subject to such conditions as the President may, by his proclamation, deem necessary to meet the emergency. [emphasis supplied]

There’s more.

Coursing all donations to the DSWD

In her Presidential Directive dated September 29, 2009, Gloria Arroyo stated that foreign donations coursed through the DSWD will not be taxed nor confiscated by the Bureau of Customs. Meaning foreign donations that go straight to the beneficiaries or relief organizations will be taxed or confiscated.

This new directive is contrary to Subsection “u” of the same Section 105 of RA 1937, which states:

“Section 105. Conditionally Free Importations. The following articles shall be exempt from the payment of import duties upon compliance with the formalities prescribed in, or with the regulations which shall be promulgated by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the department head:

xxx

u. Articles donated to public or private institutions established solely for educational, scientific, cultural, charitable, health, relief, philanthropic or religious purposes, for free distribution among, or exclusive use of, the needy.” [emphasis supplied]

There are just too many ugly possibilities with this scenario: 1) the Arroyo Government’s possible exploitation of the chance to make it appear the donations come from the government (or worse, any one of the Arroyos’ foundations); 2) the government’s control in determining the beneficiaries (contrary to the donors’ intentions); 3) the possibility of taxing or confiscating relief goods contrary to law; and 4) the delay, if not the holding back, of donations by donors already wary of government corruption.

Given these developments, the best alternative would be is to donate in cash. Foreign donors could also choose to just pay the tax to have control over their goods.

Foreign donors may also send donations directly by balikbayan box c/o OFWs to relatives or friends in the Philippines then have the latter deliver the goods to relief organizations or relief centers themselves. But the boxes could take about 2 months to arrive and would only be on a piece-meal basis at a time when volumes of relief goods are needed.

There’s a lot more to complain about the acts of government authorities nowadays (we’re still waiting for heads to roll for their contributory fault and negligence to 2 recent acts of God), let’s give them as less control of our acts as much as possible in helping one another.

Psst! The rest is here ...

The Nobel Peace Committee’s Audacity of Hope (On the decision to award US President Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize)

By Siesta-friendly

The Audacity of Hope is now more than the title of a Barack Obama book. It also defines the Nobel Peace Prize committee’s actions – or inspiration - in 2009. For on October 9, 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced its award of the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama for his:

“extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." [emphasis supplied]

To say that the announcement was stunning is an understatement for it is also bewildering.

Premature?

First, it may be good to remember that in 1973, Vietnamese leader and peace negotiator Le Duc Tho who was made Nobel Peace Prize recipient (together with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger) declined the award because Vietnam still had no peace agreement with the US.

Besides being the only recipient to have declined the peace prize, Le Duc Tho proved that if the Nobel Committee cannot acknowledge that the award is premature perhaps the recipient can be noble enough to do so.

Accomplishments

Anyway, if the award is for accomplishments (and not hope), let’s begin by noting that pursuant to the rules of the Nobel Prize nomination and selection process, all letters of nominations must be “postmarked no later than 1 February each year.”

Barack Obama was inaugurated as President only on January 20, 2009. Prior to said date, he had no experience, not even a reputation, for nuclear disarmament, multilateral diplomacy nor environmentalism. So all of Barack Obama’s work cited by the Nobel Committee as deserving of the peace prize must have been accomplished between January 20, 2009 (his inauguration) and February 1, 2009 (the deadline for submission of nominations). All within 12 days to be exact.

There have been no reports indicating those 12 days were filled with achievements worthy of the peace prize. In fact, within 3 days from his inauguration Mr. Obama ordered a military air strike on Pakistan killing more than a dozen people, possibly including children.

And beyond those 12 days? Well, the Obama Administration is already on its 9^th month and the US:

• is still leading 2 wars: in Iraq and Afghanistan - and actually increased military presence in the latter,
• is still occupying Iraq,
• has increased air strikes on Pakistan,
• has not prevented Israel’s illegal actions (against other people’s sovereignty) and is continuously supportive of Israel (financially especially),
• regularly threatens Iran for the latter’s perceived nuclear threat - against Israel not the US - at the same time refusing to admonish Israel which actually has nuclear missiles,
• has not closed down its notorious prison in Guantanamo which holds prisoners of war deprived of rights to due process (and likely subjected to torture)
• nor ratified the Kyoto Protocol.

The death toll and the effect on the lives of people terrorized, scarred, hungry, sick, homeless, aimless, displaced, disabled, abused, tortured, and orphaned as a result of, war are immeasurable.

For the hope and inspiration (even eloquence) he brings, Mr. Obama deserves all the prizes out there (maybe the Nobel Prize for Literature?). But Barack Obama is not (at least not yet) a man of peace. Unless the Nobel Committee has in fact impliedly acknowledged that war is peace and hope is enough.

Psst! The rest is here ...

Let them take breast milk … only (on the DoH and WHO’s stand against milk substitute donations even during a disaster)

By Siesta-friendly

We had previously gotten conflicting information about the implementation of Sec. 6 (f) of Executive Order 51 ("National Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes, Breastmilk Supplement and Other Related Products.) which reads:

“Nothing herein contained shall prevent donations from manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope of this Code upon request by or with the approval of the Ministry of Health.” [emphasis supplied]

It was unbelievable, at first, to learn that the Dept. of Health (DoH) was withholding approval of requests for manufacturers and distributors to donate milk to victims of Typhoon Ondoy.

A tv news report had a disheartening interview of a mother deciding to give her infant diluted chocolate drink because she could not get milk anywhere. Worse, it was linked to official government policy.

There are many reasons why the children were not getting breastmilk: perhaps their mothers could not be located, had perished in the floods or could no longer provide breastmilk for one reason or another, or the children had already been weaned on milk formula.

What is most important is their nutrition and milk is the best source.

But we’ve finally confirmed that to the DoH and the WHO what is most important is promoting breastmilk.

DoH and WHO stand

“Explaining why the Department of Health (DoH) is calling on donors to abstain from donating non-human milk and other milk products to calamity victims, Health Undersecretary Alexander Padilla explains: “It has been proven that formula milk fed to infants and other milk products during emergency situations can cause adverse effects to children’s health. It lowers breastfeeding rates and triggers more illnesses.”

Top on the list of articles on the DoH homepage is one entitled “Who Backs DoH Over Ban On Milk Products For Ondoy Children” which reads:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) today applauded the Philippines Department of Health for its efforts to prevent donations of milk products to infants and young children sheltering in evacuation centres in the wake of Typhoon Ondoy.

In a statement, WHO said donations of infant formula and other powdered milk products, while well-meaning, endanger children’s lives. It was a misconception that in emergencies, many mothers could no longer breastfeed adequately due to stress or inadequate nutrition.

Dr Howard Sobel, acting WHO Representative, explained: "Stress is not likely to inhibit breast-milk production, provided mothers and infants remain together and are supported to breastfeed. Mothers who lack food or who are malnourished can still breastfeed adequately. Adequate fluids and extra food for the mother will help to sustain her health and well-being."

During emergency situations, the need for nutrition to maintain health increases, but structural damage caused by flooding jeopardizes clean water supplies, Dr Sobel said. "Contaminated water supplies increase the risk of water borne diseases. Diarrhoea, other infectious diseases and under-nutrition skyrocket. The younger the infant, the higher the risk..."

It seems the height of insensitivity to insist on something - though ideal - that is not accessible under the circumstances. Especially when lives – of helpless children (and not only infants) - are at stake.

Psst! The rest is here ...