No Pajeros, no luxury SUVs: Accusations hurled vs bishops backfire on PCSO

MANILA, Philippines – Accusations hurled by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office against Catholic bishops boomeranged on the agency on Wednesday after members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee quizzed the PCSO chief on why the prelates were accused of receiving Pajero cars when not one of them acquired the said luxury sport utility vehicle manufactured by Mitsubishi Motors using PCSO money.

As I expected, the truth eventually came out, and as a result the church-haters and pro-RH groups attacking the bishops over the PCSO donations now have egg on their faces. This was a shameless demolition job from the beginning designed to undermine the Church’s oppostion to the RH/abortion bill.

Well, the deception has backfired. While the bishops have been exonerated from any wrongdoing, the sheer malice of their detractors has become crystal clear. People know prejudice when they see it, and they will react. Online communities are now alive with ordinary persons — even non-Catholics — speaking out in defense of the Church. Even Sen. Miriam Santiago (author of the Senate version of the RH bill) has defended the bishops (at least on the issue on the constitutionality of the PCSO donations).

I also read one pro-RH person relating how he changed his mind on the RH bill issue after he saw how unfairly the bishops were being treated. Here is his comment on the Manila Bulletin website (http://www.mb.com.ph/node/326152/pope-no-rh-divorce#comments):

i was pro RH bill but the actuations of the senate against the bishops in the PCSO mess are so abusive! i can’t help but change my views about the whole thing. What is PNOY and senate trying to achieve? persecuting our bishops? the problem is very clear: there’s a defective policy in the handling of PCSO fund! PCSO should stop investing in the charity and health sectors! our country could not gain enough from the giving alms to the sick and the poor! why not INVEST in the education sector? invest large amount of PCSO monies to computers, INFORMATION TECH instead of ambulance! educate our children and youth by constructing classrooms and buildings! forget about helping the poor and the sick it will not do good to our country in the long run! Also, if the Senate wants to investigate, it should be fair enough to include all religions! what about the MADRASAH schools supported by the govt? isnt that against the constitution? let’s be FAIR!

That’s the decent Filipino talking!

The continuing hate campaign

Of course, the pro-RH camp and enemies of the Church won’t let little inconveniences like the truth or justice get in the way of their nasty hate campaign against the bishops. That’s why you have people like Jim Paredes making sanctimonious, self-righteous attacks against them on FaceBook and other online fora. Now that their accusations have been shown to be little more than hot air, I wonder if we will ever get an apology from their ilk.

I won’t hold my breath. Ordinary sinners may be deserving of a fair hearing, but it seems that the bishops are to be mocked and villified no matter what, and the truth be damned!

Maybe we ought to investigate these pro-RH NGOs and anti-church commentators for slander and impropriety. Will we find any skeletons in their closets? Oh, but they will whine that they are being oppresed! No way we can do that to ordinary citizens, but Catholic clergy (and faithful Catholics, apparently) are fair game. We are all sinners, but the bishops are to be presumed guilty of anything, even when proven otherwise!

Can anyone say, “D-O-U-B-L-E S-T-A-N-D-A-R-D”?

GABRIELA pulls the rug out from under Lagman

The first one show the bankruptcy of the overpopulation myth often used as a main argument in favor of the RH Bill (now known as HB 4244).

Two authors of the controversial bill have called for the removal of its population control provisions. This was reported by the GMA News website on June 1, 2011 (2 RH authors want population control provisions scrapped):

Two authors of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill at the House of Representatives on Tuesday appealed to their colleagues to scrap three population control provisions in the measure.

While this is a pleasant surprise, what I find more revealing are their reasons for doing so (as reported by GMA News):

Gabriela Women’s party-list Reps. Emerenciana de Jesus and Luzviminda Ilagan said these three portions of House Bill 4244 or the consolidated RH bill may “release the floodgate[s] for the State to carry out its population control program under the guise of pro-choice and poverty alleviation.”

“Ang kahirapan ng bansa ay hindi dahil sa paglobo ng populasyon kundi dahil sa hindi pagkakapantay-pantay at korupsyon. Ito ay health issue at hindi population issue. Ito ay usaping kalusugan,” Ilagan said in a press briefing Tuesday.

…

“These provisions must be deleted in the RH bill. Otherwise, the long saga of blaming the population, specifically women’s wombs, for the rising poverty in the country continues,” they said in a separate statement.

So poverty is caused by inequality and corruption, according to the GABRIELA reps. I agree. But I thought reducing population growth and family size in order to alleviate poverty was one of the main arguments in favor of the bill. That is the argument many people repeat ad nauseam. Where has it gone now?

Out the window, apparently!

The GABRIELA reps seem to have figured out that overpopulation is a myth, a convenient scapegoat to blame for poverty. The rest of the pro-RH gang, however, seem to be clueless!

The Angsioco gaffe

The real show-stopper, however, comes from Elizabeth Angsioco, who wrote a column entitled Unborn vs. Mother.

Angsioco was reacting to recent efforts in the Senate and the House to define abortifacients and to protect the unborn. In her column she stated:

First, all these bills speak of the unborn as a CHILD. I take issue with this because the Constitution does not call the unborn a child. If the framers meant to equate the former with the latter, they would have done that. An unborn can be anything from an egg, a zygote, to a fetus about to be born.

A child is someone who is born into this world, a complete human person like you and me.

A child is a citizen, and therefore, has human rights.

Calling the unborn a child to me is going beyond what the Constitution provides.

Is it just me or is it obvious that Angsioco is saying that the unborn are not persons and therefore have no human rights? If so, isn’t that the stance of pro-abortionists?

Apparently I am not the only one to have noticed this slip. WillyJ, in his blog article Angsioco versus unborn, notes:

With prominent RH bill proponent Elizabeth Angsioco’s latest tirade entitled “Unborn versus mother”, one is convincingly left without any iota of a doubt as to the main agenda of the RH bill: it is all about Abortion with a capital A. Unless the RH bill proponents disown Angsioco’s statements, her astonishing message reveals the strikingly clear motive. The title of her opinionated (and grossly erroneous) piece is in itself a dead giveaway.

WillyJ also takes issue with Angsioco’s interpretation of the Philippine Constitution:

So according to Angsiocotic philosophy, the unborn is not a complete person until it is “born into this world”. If the unborn is not a “complete person”, what is it then? A half-person? A quarter-person? Semi-person? A clump of inhuman cells? She attempts to bolster her argument by referring to the Constitution but I do not see anything in there that says the unborn is a partial human person. What I do see in there, is that the unborn is accorded by the State a presumptive personality from the moment of conception. A presumed person that merits protection by the State.

Granted, WillyJ is not a constitutional expert, but neither is Angsioco. WillyJ, however, buttresses his argument by citing a recognized constitutional expert and a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the Constitution itself: Fr. Joaquin Bernas (who, in his published columns, seems to have endeared himself to the pro-RH camp — what irony!):

If the state presumes the personhood of the unborn it does not consider it as an incomplete human unworthy of protection. She harps about the right of the mother (the unfettered right to abort, if that is not clear enough) and completely turns a blind eye to the right of the unborn. The records of the 1986 Commission flatly rejects her imaginations:

“Whats being affirmed in this formulation is the moral right as well as the constitutional right of the unborn child to life, If this should entail the granting of presumptive personality to the unborn befinning at the moment of the conception, then so be it. Xxx Respect for the rights of the woman with child and respect for the rights of the child in her womb are by nature intimately linked such that any deliberate harm that should come upon one will doubtless effect a corresponbding harm to the other. Conflicts of rights is fictitious. Xxx The conflict is only apparent. It is easily resolved by applying the following principle: When two rights come in conflict, the more basic right and/or the right concerning the graver matter takes precedence over rights involving the less basic or less serious matter. It is clear that the right to life is more basic than the right to privacy or any other posterior rights. Therefore, since removal of the fetus would most certainly result in violation of its right to life, the woman has no right to evict the temporary resident of her private womb.”

(Bernas, J.. The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), p. 119.)

It looks like WillyJ got Angsioco riught between the eyes with that one. He not only exposed her ignorance of the Constitution, he also pointed out that she inadvertently let us in on the hidden agenda in her RH advocacy: the eventual legalization of abortion in the Philippines.

I wonder if this has gotten the RH supporters to think hard about the kind of leaders they have chosen to follow.

Another analysis of Angsioco’s shoe-chomping can be found at the Filipinos for Life blog: Know What You Support: Recognize The Language of Abortion.

It’s about time those who slavishly follow the pro-RH NGOs in their push for the RH/abortion bill take a long, hard look at where they are being led.

They may be in for quite a surprise.

The Philippine Star (a publication partly owned by the Belmontes, related to the very pro-RH House Speaker Belmonte) has been running an online poll at: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=687349&publicationSubCategoryId=522.

I’ve taken some screenshots of the results. The first was on May 19, at 10:28PM. Here are the results:

I took another look at the poll on May 21, 1:54PM. The number of “votes” had doubled by then. Here’s the screenshot:

The fight is still close, but a clear trend has emerged: most participants in the survey — a lead by 14 percentage points — reject the RH bill.

Another, much smaller, poll can be found at Pinoysurvey.com (http://pinoysurvey.com/2011/05/rh-bill-sa-pilipinas/). I took a screenshot of the results on May 19, at 10:27PM. Here is how it was back then:

Pinoysurvey results as of 2011-05-19 (22:37)

On May 21, at 1:55PM, the number of “votes” had more than doubled. The results were as follows:

Pinoysurvey results as of 2011-05-21 (13:55)

Looks like it’s another pro-life victory here too. Four out of five participants are against the RH bill.

So, where’s the much-ballyhooed pro-RH majority now? Can’t they even get enough people to dominate these polls? One would think that at least on the well-publicized survey by Philippine Star, the supporters of the RH bill would at least get a small lead (if they actually were a majority), but they can’t even manage that!

Granted, these polls aren’t very scientific, but they do give an indication of the public mood in those niche audiences. It would seem that any claim of a pro-RH “majority” is not as well-founded or across the board as some propagandists suggest.

Update (June 2011):

For those interested in following these polls, here is an update.

As of June 20, 10:41PM:

As of June 20, 10:47PM

Looks like a very clear and consistent pro-life trend here. Let’s hope our politicians listen to the people.

• Ibasura: 65.38%
• Ipasa: 34.62

In other words, nearly two-thirds of the text voters wanted to junk the bill!

This was undoubtedly a veritable landslide victory for the pro-life movement in the Philippines.

Here is a screenshot from the ANC Alerts Twitter page:

Screenshot of the ANC Alerts Twitter page. Click to see the full-sized graphic.

Where’s the pro-RH “majority”?

Well, well, well… whatever happened to the pro-RH “majority” that the SWS and Cong. Lagman keep on crowing about? Looks like that “majority” couldn’t get their act together last night. In fact, they can’t even seem to get a decent-sized rally together at all! If so many Filipinos really support the RH bill, they sure don’t seem to be standing up for it.

In contrast, the rallies AGAINST the RH bill across the country have drawn tens of thousands. The March 25 rally at the Luneta may have drawn as much as 200,000 (although the media chose to report an estimate made early in the rally of 40,000). Even if we accept the 40,000 figure, can the pro-RH “majority” even get anywhere close to that many together in a rally? Nope.

The cat is out of the bag. The “majority” claimed by the bosses at the SWS is a phantom majority.

Our congressmen would do well to listen.

Notes:

1. It turns out that the ABS-CBN/ANC poll involved both SMS votes and online votes from the Internet. The ANC tweet at the time, however, did not indicate how many votes came via SMS and from the Internet.

Christ sanctified the womb and the innocent children who are its temporary residents. This artwork says it all.

Sadly, some of the proponents of the RH/abortion bill want to pretend that some unborn children aren’t even people. They say the fertilized egg must first be implanted in the uterus (which happens some three to eight days after conception) before it is considered a human life.

Some will even say that they become people much later than that. Worse, some even think they aren’t people until they emerge from the womb.

Worst of all, some don’t care at all whether the unborn are people or not — it’s supposed to be a “woman’s right” to decide to kill them or not!

Let’s not leave any doubt: abortion is murder (killing of the innocent).

Some contraceptives actually kill the unborn (for example, by preventing the fertilized egg — a newly-conceived human being — from implanting in the uterus. With nowhere to implant, the baby eventually dies. This is an early-term abortion.

Such contraceptives are called abortifacient contraceptives — meaning they can cause abortions.

HB 4244, the current number for the so-called “reproductive health/responsible parenthood” bill in the Lower House, will spend millions (or billions) funding these deadly abortifacient contraceptives. It should really be called the RH/ABORTION bill.

Abortifacients in HB 4244

Section 7, Access to Family Planning, of HB 4244 states:

All accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods, except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on optional basis…

Section 10, Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines, states:

Products and supplies for modern family planning methods shall be part of the National Drug Formulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines and supplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units.

Section 4 Definition of terms (HB 4244) states:

Family Planning refers to a program which enables couples, individuals and women to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, acquire relevant information on reproductive health care, services and supplies and have access to a full range of safe, legal, affordable, effective natural and modern methods of limiting and spacing pregnancy;

Take note that natural methods are differentiated from so-called “modern” methods. Obviously then, these modern family planning methods include artificial contraceptives (since they are not the same as natural methods).

Section 4 Definition of terms (HB 4244) states:

Reproductive Health Care refers to the access to a full range of methods, facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health-related problems. . . The elements of reproductive health care include:

(1) family planning information and services; . . .

Thus, artificial contracetpives will be funded by the bill.

The thing is, some of these contraceptives are abortifacient, as the Philippine Medical Association warned:

Doctors warn DOH on contraceptives

The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) has urged the Department of Health (DOH) to study the possibility that some abortion-causing drugs are present in inventories of the department’s family planning program.

. . .

“Life begins at fertilization, anything that prevents the fertilized ovum to be implanted in the uterus may be considered as abortive and therefore, if prescribed, may violate our solemn oath as physicians to save and protect human life particularly the unborn,”  said PMA president Dr. Oscar Tinio.

Larimore and Stanford (2000), in “Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent,” said that:

“It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.“

Just a note: “OC” means oral contraceptive; “COC” means combined oral contraceptive.

Anyone want to guess what a “postfertilization effect” is?

Barangay Ayala Alabang in Muntinglupa, followed by seven barangays in Balanga City, Bataan, have already passed such pro-life ordinances. More LGUs intend to follow suit.

Robredo’s blunder was pointed out by none other than former Senator Aquilino “Nene” Pimentel, Jr., the father of the Local Government Code that limits the powers of Robredo’s office. Pimentel’s response is reproduced below.

After reading Pimentel’s brilliant riposte, one has to ask: Does Rebredo even understand the Local Government Code?!!! As DILG Secretary he should!

Nene Pimentel replies to Secretary Robredo

1. Sorry to say, the Secretary talks out of turn when he warns LGUs especially the barangay not to enact ordinances that “prohibit the promotion, sale, distribution and purchase of contraceptives such as condoms and pills.”(a) The powers of the DILG which he heads have been emasculated by the adoption of the Local Government Code.

As secretary, he can no longer order LGUs around especially the barangay.

The LG Code provides for a seriated power structure that empowers a higher local government unit to supervise the next lower government unit.

To be a little more direct, the DILG has no power to sanction or even threaten any barangay for passing any measure to ban abortive drugs, chemicals or devices that may cause injury to the unborn or impair the health of his or her mother.

And to be even more direct, what will the Secretary do to punish the barangay officials who do not follow his unlawful “directives”?

(i) Suspend them?

That he cannot do. The barangays are not under his supervision or much less under his control.

(ii) Punish them for insubordination?

Neither can he do that. We are no longer living in the Roman Empire where Tribunes had certain powers to stop legislation and punish certain recalcitrant lower government officials.

(iii) Withhold their Internal Revenue Share?

That is certainly outside his power to do so.

(iv) Make it difficult for them to perform their functions?

By pulling strings with other government agencies which are following the anti-life agenda, he may succeed in making the barangay officials feel ostracized by the central government.

But that if implemented in the concrete that would be illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

2. Why illegal?

Because it would be an act that is outside of the powers of the DILG to perform.

3. Why unlawful?

Because it would be an act that is in violation of the devolution of powers mandated by the Local Government Code?

4. Why unconstitutional?

Because it would be an act that in effect bars the barangay and other local government officials from implementing in the concrete what the Constitution mandates in principle: “Protect the Life of the Unborn from conception” as well as the health of the Mother.

The recent outburst of the DILG Secretary follows on the heels of his illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional order for the barangays to conduct their barangay assemblies last December 11.That is a function that the Secretary usurped from the powers granted to the barangays under the LG Code.

5. It is not correct to insinuate that the Barangay Ayala Alabang Ordinance No. 1 that seeks to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and protect the mother from harm grabs the power of the FDA from its primary function to ensure the sale, distribution and delivery of drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines to the public.

A reading of the Ordinance in fact cites the FDA in its adoption of a provision of Republic 5921 that requires a duly licensed physician to prescribe the use of what might be drugs, chemicals, devices or contraceptives that cause or lead to abortion or acts that harm or injure the health of the mother.

(Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abolifecients or anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.)

If the Ordinance appears to have taken its concern for the protection of the unborn from conception and the shielding of the mother from harm a step ahead of the FDA, its ban on abortives or contraceptives that may cause harm or injury to the unborn and the mother is not arbitrary but is based upon available medical and scientific studies such as those complied by the MIMs, a duly recognized “hallmark” of information on drugs, chemicals, devices and medicines for the guidance of doctors in this country and, indeed, even by pharmaceutical companies in many parts of the world as authoritative.

6. The statement attributed to the Secretary that the FDA may permit the sale of drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines even without the prescription of a duly licensed physician runs counter to a provision of a law that is still extant in our statute books and that is Republic Act 5921.

(Section 25. Sale of medicine, pharmaceuticals, drugs and devices. No medicine, pharmaceutical, or drug of whatever nature and kind or device shall be compounded, dispensed, sold or resold, or otherwise be made available to the consuming public except through a prescription drugstore or hospital pharmacy, duly established in accordance with the provisions of this Act.)

(Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abolifecients or anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.)

That is the reason why some legislators are desperately trying to repeal the law.

7. As to the Secretary’s intimation that the Pharmacy Law (Republic Act 5921) intends to guide pharmacists alone, that is not so.

Section 37. Provisions relative to dispensing of abolifecients or anti-conceptional substances and devices. No drug or chemical product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician.

This provision sanctions “any person” who delivers or sells to any person a drug or chemical or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as classified by the FDA without a proper prescription by a duly licensed medical doctor.

8. It is illusory for the Secretary to assert that for barangays to enact ordinances that cause a more realistic regulation of the use, sale or distribution or abortive drugs, chemicals, devices or medicines to be valid, the barangays need a delegation of power from the Pharmacy Law.

Nothing can be a more bizarre rationalization of the “warnings” issued by the Secretary.Barangays do not need a delegation of power from the Pharmacy Law to do their duty to ensure the implementation of the Constitutional mandate to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and protest the health of the mother.

They only need to follow what the Local Government Code mandates them to do such as for example to advance the general welfare of their constituents and prevent them from harm or injury from the use of toxic, harmful and noxious substances as defined by the FDA, scientific experts and medical studies as mentioned above.

Moreover, the FDA is not yet in position to implement fully its mandate.

The Secretary of Health only a week ago announced the adoption of the Implementing Rules and Regulations to govern the new FDA law.And it has yet to upgrade its equipment and the training of its personnel to cope with the massive influx of all sorts of drugs, chemicals, devices and medicines that have the potential to kill the fetus in the womb of the mother and in the process injure the health of the latter.

9. What does the Secretary want the people in the barangay to do? Wait for eternity to deliver their constituents from harm?Barangay officials just like the rest of our officialdom have duties to perform while they are in office.And what higher duty is there than to uphold the life of the unborn from conception and in the process protect the life of the mother, too.

10. Finally, it must be remembered that “life” is the highest among the values that the Constitution upholds and protects.

That is why even in the sequencing of those values in the Constitution, life goes ahead of liberty and property.Indeed, without life, who can have liberty or property.

Even Patrick Henry could not have delivered his famous “Give me liberty or give me death speech” if he did not have life in the first place.

Note: This piece also appeared on the website of the Gold Star Daily, a Mindanao newspaper (Robredco Talks Out of Turn), and Balita (Local Government Code author disputes DILG chief’s contraceptives call).

The Metropolitan Cathedral in Cebu packed with pro-life supporters attending Mass

Thousands of pro-life Cebuanos, led by Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma, trekked some two kilometers on a wet, drizzly Saturday evening from Fuente Osmena to the Metropolitan Cathedral to pray for the protection of life and to dramatize their opposition to the RH/Abortion bill now being debated in Congress.

The March 19 “Penitential Walk for Life” was called for by the archbishop, which also coincided with his 61st birthday. The walk started at 6PM at Fuente Osmena and ended with a Mass celebrated by the archbishop and two auxiliary bishops, with some 5000 people in attendace, as estimated in an article by the Cebu Daily News, a local newspaper. Other observers estimated the total crowd that participated at different points along the route to be much bigger, with estimates ranging from 10,000 to as high as 20,000 persons.

Quite notably, Sun Star Cebu did not report on the event at all, at least not by March 24, a full five days after.

Other forms of mobilization against the RH/Abortion bill are being planned.

Photos

Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma walks down Osmena Ave. to the Metropolitan Cathedral

MEDIA RELEASE
For immediate release
Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

Marian Groups release statement opposing RH Bill

A national convention of leaders from Marian groups throughout the Philippines recently released a strongly-worded omnibus resolution opposing the RH bill. The statement was signed by over 1,400 leaders and members of the various Perpetual Dawn Rosary and Cenacle organizations that met in Carcar, Cebu, on February 12-13.

The Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL) in turn forwarded copies of the resolution to President Aquino, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, CBCP President Nereo Odchimar, and newly-installed Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma. The TFFL called on all parties to heed the heartfelt sentiments of ordinary Filipino citizens expressed in the resolution.

The Marian convention’s statement noted that the RH bill “has caused a deep division among our people,” and that the proposed measure now pending in Congress “in its entirety is about contraception.” It warned that its passing would bring about the propagation of a culture of death, promiscuity, and breakdown of families.

The attendees at the convention concluded that they fully agree and support all the points taken up by the Bishops in their recent Pastoral Letter entitled “Choosing Life, Rejecting the RH Bill,” including the rejection of the RH bill.

To back up their call, the signatories vowed to support the actions recommended by the CBCP, including civil disobedience should the RH bill be passed, and possible excommunication of legislators and national leaders who endorsed the RH bill.

In addition, the resolution also called for an Oratio Imperata against the RH bill to be read in all churches during every Sunday Mass all over the country, and a Church-led educational initiative on Natural Family Planning (NFP) and issues concerning the protection and nurturing of human life and the family.

The convention gathered together leaders and members of the Marian movement from all over the country, under the theme, “Marian Pro-Life Witnesses of Hope, Reconciliation and Peace in Our Times.”

About Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

The Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL) is an association of men and women who are committed to the protection of family and life, as mandated by the Constitution and specific legislations and by the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. It is a juridical entity duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

###

Media contact
DOUGLAS GACASAN
President
Task Force for Family and Life Visayas, Inc. (TFFL)

Sun Star Cebu estimated the crowd at around 5,000 people, which is fair enough from what I personally saw. I believe that is the largest number pro-lifers have gathered in Cebu City against the proposed legislation so far.

The crowd converged at Fuente Osmena were they were treated to music, fiery speeches, and information on the RH/Abortion bill. The response was enthusiastic!

Below are some scenes from the rally. Enjoy!

Pro-lifers gather at the Cebu Provincial Capitol

The march gets underway

Taking the heat

Various groups joined the march

Well said!

Even the weak and innocent count

The crowd cheers

Dr. Rene Bullecer, HLI Coordinator, being interviewed

Pro-life congresswoman Rachel "Cutie" del Mar

Another shot of the crowd near the stage

Former congressman Raul del Mar, Cutie's father

Former congressman and Baptist bishop Beni Abante gives a fiery speech in defense of life

The crowd was still going strong even late in the day

Cebu City mayor Mike Rama

CBCP attorney and Ang Kapatiran Party member Jo Imbong

Cebu Provincial Capitol

With the RH/Abortion bill being made ready to be railroaded through Congress, Cebuanos have had enough and are calling upon all to stage a massive protest action on February 11. The prayer rally is called “Cebuanos Unite for Life.”

Cebu Archbishop Jose Palma issued a letter calling on the Catholic faithful and clergy to hold the prayer rally at Fuente Osmena Circle this Friday to declare their opposition to the deadly and unconstitutional RH/Abortion bill. Filipinos of other faiths are also invited.

The details are as follows:

Venue: Fuente Osmena Circle
Date: February 11, 2011
Time: 2:00PM to 5:30PM (1400 to 1730)

Assembly points:

1. Beside CNU on Osmena Blvd. (for Catholic achools, youth organizations, parishes from the east: St. Rosario, Cathedral to San Nicolas).
2. Beside USC Boys’ High, on Maxilom Ave. (for Knights of Columbus, CFC, parishes in the north: Talamban, Mactan, Sacred Heart).
3. V. Rama corner B. Rodriguez (for senior citizens’ groups, AWROC, San Victene Sambag 1/11, Council of the Laity, Marian organizations, parishes from the south: Guadalupe, Naga, etc.)
4. In front of the Provincial Capitol (ASC, pariahes from the north and outside Cebu City: Mandaue, danao, Bogo, etc.)

Please brings rosaries and pro-life banners and placards. Bring the Philippine flag.

The rally in Cebu City will in turn be followed by another mass action in Manila, called Filipinos Unite for Life, on February 12, 4:00PM, at the EDSA People Power Monument, Freedom Park, on EDSA  corner Temple Drive, near White Plains. More protests are being planned in other cities throughout the country.

(UPDATE — 2011-02-11: The Manila action will be an Interfaith Prayer Rally against the RH Bill. The date and venue have changed. It will be on February 13, Sunday, 4:00 PM onwards, at the PICC Grounds, Roxas Blvd. Please let everyone know.)

There is no more time for pussyfooting around this issue. The culture of death is now in the Philippines. The enemy is no longer just at the gates; it is already inside the walls, ravaging the city. We have to rally around the flag and save our country, its families, and its freedoms. The time to stand up and defeat the RH/Abortion bill is NOW!

You can download a map of Cebu City at http://www.cebu-ph.com/cebu.pdf.