#constitution


We’re Just Human

I see this “Anti-Dis­crim­i­na­tion Bill” being talked about ear­li­er in the news here in the PI, I say cool. At the same time, ques­tion: “It’s 2012? Is this just anoth­er act of pol­i­tick­ing? Etc.”

I won­dered why this isn’t already inclu­sive; as part of the PI’s Bill of Rights (Arti­cle 3)? A quick research of the Philippine’s Con­sti­tu­tion (been a while since I’ve seen this as you may know), ain’t these enough com­mon sense to abide by?

  • Arti­cle 3, Sec­tion 1
  • Arti­cle 3, Sec­tion 5
  • Pre­am­ble, “under the rule of law and a regime of truth, jus­tice, free­dom, love, equal­i­ty, and peace…”

You would also think for a pop­u­la­tion that is dom­i­nant­ly Chris­t­ian (90%+), a reli­gion that holds “Love” as the great­est com­mand­ment (all reli­gions and belief sys­tems do), wouldn’t this be instilled from the start of one’s upbring­ing and social inter­ac­tions. But I guess, that’s just part of the strug­gle.

We live to be our best self one day at a time. We’re just human.

On California’s Prop. 8

There is still lots of talk about this propo­si­tion. But if it comes down to what is right, I think it’s rather sim­ple. It can be seen in a piece of doc­u­ment writ­ten over 200 years ago which states the fol­low­ing:

We hold these truths to be self-evi­dent, that all men are cre­at­ed equal, that they are endowed by their Cre­ator with cer­tain unalien­able Rights, that among these are Life, Lib­er­ty and the pur­suit of Hap­pi­ness.1

Though one might find them­selves hav­ing mixed feel­ings of what the above should be or should not be inter­pret­ed as, they fall back on reli­gious views2. But to believe that this has arguable weight, and is enough to amend the State Con­sti­tu­tion (or The Con­sti­tion “peri­od”) is in itself an erred way of thought and process.

That is, it con­tra­dicts the “legal and polit­i­cal prin­ci­ple” of the sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State:

Con­gress shall make no law respect­ing an estab­lish­ment of reli­gion…

And if that is not enough, amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion with Propo­si­tion 8 makes us ques­tion if those self-evi­dent “truths” (that the Unit­ed States were found­ed and built upon) are still real or not. Per­son­al­ly, I know they are. Hence, my belief and faith in those “unalien­able Rights” led me to find that Propo­si­tion 8 is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al and there­fore, deserved my vote against it (“No on 8”).

  1. The Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence. July 4, 1776. []
  2. I hap­pen to find an inter­est­ing read while research­ing. Here’s an arti­cle writ­ten by Cog­i­to!, enti­tled “Propo­si­tion 8, Homo­sex­u­al­i­ty, and the Bible: An Excur­sus”. []