Philippine Political Commentary
Councilor Angela Trinidad-Librado’s Speech on the LDPC
This is just a clip from the privilege speech of Davao City Councilor Angela “Anging” Librado-Trinidad who is the Chairperson of the Committee on Women, Children, and Family. She is defending the passage of the controversial Local Development Plan for Children.
The LDPC is not promoting abortion, immorality, and no way aims to desecrate Christianity and human life. In fact, I could recall, there were questions about character-building, sports development… how do we address our children in conflict with the law. I hope the people of Davao City could have the time to read everything. It is there. It is stated in a detailed form how we could achieve all these things for our children. What it attempts to do is to highlight the need for the State or the govt and for the society to work in uplifting the quality of the lives of our children and their families…. Dili lang man simple nga ingon nato nga ato na lang na tanan isip gobyerno ato na lang tanan na iampo kay dili na siya madawat sa iyang constituent… kung mao to iyang tubag. (It’s not as simple as saying that as the government, we will just leave it all to prayer because our constituents cannot accept it if that is our only answer.) Siyempre (Of course), something must be done. So aside from the prayers, the government is mandated to do something.
This speech was delivered last April 8, 2008. The third and final reading of the resolution has been deferred.
29 Responses to “Councilor Angela Trinidad-Librado’s Speech on the LDPC”
Leave a Reply
28 years old from Davao City, blogging since 2004. :)
Loading ...
I read some excerpts of the LDPC, but these questions need to be asked:
1. What is development? Does LDPC consider development in a fully human way? If not, why call it a ‘Development’ Plan? One needs to distinguish between ‘growth’ and ‘development’. Why not empower the BCPCs instead? New laws do not necessarily carry with them the immediate results desired. It is always up to those who implement them.
2. What is the most urgent problem of our children? Gangsteerism is a sympton. Child hunger is another sympton. We need to identify the root cause of the problem in this case. Is it a population issue? If it is, then why not just call it a Local Population Development Plan? The real question is – what does a child really need?
3. Councilor Librado’s work is commendable. But being in a pluralist and a highly communal society (not really liberal in a way), people from the religious sector do have a point.
The LDPC is a resolution, rather than an ordinance. With the passage of the resolution, the city council adopts the current practices and actions of the local government with regards to children.
The resolution, with its supporting documents, state clearly what the problems are and how these will be addressed in short, medium and long term goals.
The main contention of the religious sector is that LDPC undermines parental authority and it will encourage promiscuity . They also oppose to it because it allegedly espouses abortion. No where in the resolution is it stated that parents are not allowed to inculcate values on their children. And no where in the resolution is it stated that abortion is permitted.
@PDO: You share the same problem as with these religious people. You didn’t read everything! Given that all your knee-jerk reactions and arguments are all based on “excerpts” and thus must be taken with a grain of salt.
reflection on the biblical truth on the matter should be done. we can’t afford to miss in this noble task all because we think we know everything.
“Given that all your knee-jerk reactions and arguments are all based on “excerpts” and thus must be taken with a grain of salt.”
Thank you. I appreciate that. But it would have been helpful if those questions are answered, and not to poison the well. I expect your reaction though. I know Councilor Librado and I am just suggesting to her to listen to some dissenting opinion. A critique is meant to improve on something. It’s not a knee-jerk reaction. I have worked with all those sectors Angging mentioned for 15 years. I know their problems.
“The LDPC is a resolution, rather than an ordinance. With the passage of the resolution, the city council adopts the current practices and actions of the local government with regards to children.”
Thank you for explaining Ria. I am not against it. What I am saying is, perhaps, a consensus can be worked out with the religious group, to make the proposal acceptable to them.
By the way, there’s something in the “Plan” about the promotion of the use of contraceptives. I am not against it. What I am not in favor of is to set aside the opinion of religious people because they are “religious”. That would be perilous to our democratic institutions.
Hinaut na makatabang ning LDPC sa atong kawad-on kay makalolooy na kaayo ang atong nasud.
@Ryan, the opinion of the religious were never set aside. They were, in fact, invited to the committee hearings. Archbishop Capalla was even invited to a city council session. In yesterday’s proceedings, the presence of him or his official representative was inquired about but they weren’t there.
“What I am not in favor of is to set aside the opinion of religious people because they are “religious”. That would be perilous to our democratic institutions.”
I think allowing the Catholic Church to dictate its own agenda on secular issues is even more dangerous to our democratic institutions.
Of course a compromise must be sought; in fact, upon reading the resolution, I think a suitable compromise has already been reached.
But by its actions the Catholic Church seems totally unwilling to accept anything that discusses contraception. Ever.
Now, who’s being unreasonable?
It depends on which side you’re at? To quote T.M. Scanlon, “reason is plausible if it is in favor of the thing in question”. I am not in favor of anyone. I am for the greater good. Now, who knows the greater good?
The poor. The deserted. The forsaken.
PDO, are you responding to my comment or to someone else’s? Please clarify your last two statements. What depends on which side you’re at? Are you saying that the Church’s actions can be argued as “reasonable” if you’re on the Church’s side? If so, that’s rather relativistic, isn’t it? I’m not sure Pope Benedict XVI would approve.
micketymoc is a self-professed atheist. But… is he a real atheist, or is he just angry with the Catholic Church in particular?
micketymoc, do you know what non-Catholic so-called Christian churches are doing to our fellow FIlipinos? Take Quiboloy for example. If you’re an honest atheist, you wouldn’t be singling out the Catholic Church.
Now that’s poisoning the well, Don. Not to mention an extremely leading question – I am not “angry with the Catholic Church”, and that’s on record.
I am angry with Church practices that do nothing more than shore up its temporal power while flipping the bird to ordinary human justice.
What’s been left unsaid in this debate is that the Church has a long history of opposition to government health initiatives, mainly because such initiatives intrude in territory long held by Catholic institutions. It’s not an issue of morality, it’s an issue of politics. It happened in Ireland (google “Mother and Child Scheme”), it’s happening here now.
Now, can you spin this into “hatred” for the Catholic Church? You can, but it would be a stretch. And it would be an unwarranted distraction from the discussion, as any ad hominem attack tends to be. Please stay focused on the topic at hand.
@ “It’s not an issue of morality, it’s an issue of politics.”
You are saying that this is about “realpolitik”, that politics needs no morals. How do you account for those in government who can corrupt power? Of course, it can happen in any church, ie. corruption/undue intervention. But it is realpolitik that governs this country we call the Philippines – 30.6 million people below the poverty line, 7.8 million poor families.
Eh? Straw man arguments are ill-fitting of an academic of your standing, sir. I never said that “politics needs no morals”, and I don’t agree with that sentiment either. I never said that it was about “realpolitik”, I said the Church’s actions are motivated by politics. If I were being uncharitable, I’d say that was an underhanded attempt at shifting goalposts.
If you want to argue this fruitfully, I suggest you begin by refraining from putting words in my mouth. It just makes you look dishonest.
(A more detailed discussion of my actual opinions on the matter can be found by clicking on my username above this comment.)
Sure, I will read them.
thank you for your debate here..
Hi, i thank you for lifting portions of my speech last april regarding the local development plan of our children in davao city. Perhaps the following points could enhance your view on the matter:
1. The Local Development Plan for our Children is not indigenous to Davao City as it is required in all cities and local government units in an executive order . The executive order stemmed from the Philippines’ Committment in its Medium Term Development Goals and Child 21 and ultimately in the international instruments where our country is a signatory.
2. The LDPC will not and should not isolate a single sector , including the religious sector. As the proceedings relating to the drafting of the LDPC would reflect , the religious sector , which consists of the catholic and other religious denominations , was part even of the 2003 LDPC. The document I defended is just the amended version.
3. One of the controversial concerns is reproductive health as reportedly it legalizes abortion, encourages contraception and promiscuity. So as not to sound defensive or abrasive, I encourage anyone interested to read the whole document and see for himself/herself if these things are true or just wild imagination.
There are so many things that I intend to discuss but I would rather answer questions than give a rather unsolicited lecture.
My profuse thanks for the space you have given this issue.
Note: I never read the resolution. I am commenting with the idea why the church opposed this resolution.
“One of the controversial concerns is reproductive health as reportedly it legalizes abortion, encourages contraception and promiscuity. So as not to sound defensive or abrasive, I encourage anyone interested to read the whole document and see for himself/herself if these things are true or just wild imagination.”
Of course it never encourages. It merely suggests. There is a large gap of difference between the words “encourage” and “suggest”. By “encourage” we mean, in this context, the government will “distribute”, say, birth control (e.g., condoms) materials. It could encourage by, say, using the media. An television ad might end with a note that “if you do not use, you will be at risk” – Now who wants to be at risk, unsafe?.
By “suggest” we mean that the government simply “will make it (the condoms) available/accessible” to the public. Say, a public health center would have a flyer which says “condoms available here.” It merely broadcasts information – no persuasion to use.
Whatever the “mode”, or the “tone” the Resolution takes on sexual/reproductive issues which concerns a “child” (under the legal age), whether “suggesting” or “encouraging” – my opinion is that it could have been better if neither of the “mode/tone” were taken.
An example:
Doing complex multiplication, when knowledge was still at the hands of the few, could have been only performed by mathematicians. Simply because, they alone _know_ that multiplication is simply a theorem derived from the axiom of addition.
With the invention of the calculator, even a man completely ignorant of the existence of the basic axioms of arithmetic could “perform” complex arithmetic operations. He is not asked to master in mind and heart such actions – what is needed is that he “knows when to multiply”, and of course he has a calculator.
What are the implications?
1.) A problem/need does not require deep theoretical knowledge for its solution. If a problem is simply pragmatic, why bother to know more? Thus, many are now “able to solve the most urgent problems (say, filing an income-tax return)”.
2.) This is the just the corollary of the first. When a man performs multiplication, chances are, he is completely ignorant of the foundations of what he is doing. He is ignorant in the sense that he does not REALLY know. In fact, there is a slight difference between him and the calculator he uses.
(To be sure, it is he who determines the operands of the operation. In this sense he is “deciding” the appropriate givens; i.e, he is deciding and thus exercising human judgment and perhaps applying some valuable insights of other fields of knowledge. For instance, if he is an accountant, when he performs multiplication, he is not really doing it, per se, what he is really doing is, say, “balancing some accounts”. That “balancing of accounts” is his specialty; and it can be argued, quite correctly, the he “knows” what he is doing.)
I will attempt to be very precise in my argument:
My assumptions:
1.) Any application requires some justification or body of knowledge as its foundation. Without that body of knowledge, there can be no application.
2.) If one does not know the foundations of an application, one is said to be ignorant of the application – if he does an “application”, it is merely under the pretense that he “knows” the foundation – i.e, “as if” he knows what he is doing. That “pretense” is what is despicable; i.e, it has a moral weight.
Aha! My assumptions were in fact my argument(s). Now, what is needed is a simple substitution of “givens”. The “act” could be “sex”; the knowledge required for the “act” would be “HUMAN responsibility, sexual acts and its theological significance, philosophical accounts of humanity, love and emotions – metaphysics, etc” ; the “calculator” could be, of course, the “condoms.”
It follows therefore that with the existence of condoms (the calculator) one could perform a sexual act (multiplication) even if without the knowledge of the true foundations – its metaphysical significance – (the mathematical axioms) of such sexual act (multiplication). And that is what is DESPICABLE.
This is, in my opinion, in the last analysis, what the Church is against. When an act, or application is promoted, or left unchecked, while ignoring its foundations. It is as if the government says: “be a lawyer – but you need not study law nor pass the Bar exam”; or: “whether you be a lawyer or not – surely, you need not pass the Bar exam”. That’s it – carried to its logical conclusion!
@micketymoc what is your comment?
Does this mean that I have to know metaphysics (as if it could really be “known” like mathematics) before I could be involved in a sexual contact? That is the question.
Obviously, if the object of Metaphysics is elusive, then surely the man who professes absolute certainty on his metaphysical claims mocks his own field of interest. I do not imply that this is relativism – I merely suggest that that question is elusive. elusive != relative, FYI.
What the Church asks, is that, given that the truths of Metaphysics are elusive, why not promote its study? I do not mean to send all these children to study philosophy – what I mean is to study the subjects and/or topics which Metaphysics has for thousands of years had dealt with – namely, freedom, human responsibility, morality, experience of the holy and transcendental (e.,g, love, God, sex, art). Are these too much? No. Do we value condoms more that these topics? If yes, then the old faith that man is over and above his (animal) nature is now dead. “God is dead. We have killed Him”, rings ever more true.
(p.s. @micketymoc. If you are indeed an atheist state your reasons. I bet it is because of truth – if so, you are one and the same with the most sacred and religious saint!)
Dude.
I want whatever it is you’re smoking.
I smoke ignorance and breathe contempt; however, it is unimportant: the point is I am not satisfied with your “reasons.”
I will try to reformulate:
What the Church wants is that the knowledge of the act and the consciousness as to the act’s consequences should be seriously considered and prioritised. If the government simply provides some tools and methods to skip “the knowing and consciousness ascpect of the sexual act” (e..g, by providing condoms), then, and only if, it is a government which betrays contradiction and consistency. It is like saying: “Be a lawyer, although it is fine that you didn’t study law;” or, “Engage in sexual acts, but you need not know/be-conscious of its Human Significance.” That is what is detestable.
Instead of “funding” these so-called “scientific and modern methods” why not, say, organise a catechism meant to discuss the topics of Human Freedom, Responsibility, the Society? Of course, since the intended audience here are young, these topics could be discussed in a manner which will be better appreciated by their frame-of-mind. However, the essential topics and issues should pointed out, albeit discussed in a different fashion/atmosphere using attention-holding (children have short attention-spans) tools and methods.
Or, instead of buying packs of condoms, why not use the funds to start livelihood projects; or even skills encouragement/building; the Baranggay could organise, say, a basketball clinic; or a music lessons specialising in teaching the guitar. Kids need something which their attention can be directed and held – something which interests them; it is surely and obviously not sexual act alone which can do that.
I suspect that the Council has some “kickbacks” from the manufacturers of condoms and these other instruments of “circumventing” the true/natural consequences of the sexual act. Though this is a mere suspicion, it is very probable.
first of all, my hats off to those who spent time to make their comments and give inputs to a very important concern , which is making a better and secure life for our childfren.
Second, i iterate my request for every davaoeno to read the local development plan for children and to understand it from where it is coming. Meaning, to understand the situational analysis which is the document’s prelude and to at least know and be familiar with the stakeholders and dutybearers involved in the crafting of the document. From there, you would know immediately if the issues raised are even issues at all or simply apprehensions from out of the blue.
Suffice it to say that i echo your observations that all programs, plans and projects should be studied well, most especially their implications,expected or otherwise.
Please bear with me if I have to say that:
1. The Situational Analysis will tell you whether the plan suggests contraception or promiscuity . Even if i am in the position to tell you what it exactly says, i believe it would be more prudent to suggest that we read it.
2. The plan takes on a rights based approach, meaning, we divided it according to the four (4) major rights of our children, specifically, survival, development , protection and participation rights. Candidly, I have to say that I am not tempted to adopt the “multiplication” analogy,neither bite the metaphysics etc. bait, for fear that I might shortchange the readers with my limited knowledge of life . Neither do I want to pretend that I have a solid moral foundation and thus, conversant and reliable on anything and everything about life.But what I am sure of is that the plan is an attempt to look at the issues besetting our children comprehensively . Please take a look at the development right portion and you will see that the plans, projects and programs are meant to do what you are strongly suggesting– building a solid foundation –. Please try to look at the dutybearers and stakeholders and you will see that the plan expects the faith based organizations and churches, including the catholic church to contribute IMMENSELY.
4.With due respect , it is dangerous to assume that suggestions are being made in the plan. On the part of thes dutybearers , they might think that by being mere suggestions, the plans and programs are dispensable and their non-implementation is negiligible, granting arguendo , that the plan respecting reproductive health has already been finalized . The fact is that while the plan indicates that the reproductive health issue of mothers and and adolescent should be focused on , no program , neither project has ever been finalized yet. THE DUTY BEARERS AND DUTY HOLDERS have to discuss them still. Unfortunately , during the Council for the Welfare of Children (CWC) assembly just this month, the discussion on this was not even started in the absence of significant dutybearers and stakeholders, specifically formations and groups alligned with the Catholic Church. Of course, invitations were sent and directly to the Office of the Archbishop of Davao.
I hope this updates could help . thank you again for your valuable thoughts.
oops sory, the last should have read, “…these updates…”
Ma’am Angging, I would appreciate it if you can give me a copy of the Local Development Plan for Children in digital form, which I could maybe upload and share here. Thanks!
I appreciate the clarifications made by our honorable councilor. Of course, the idea of a digital copy of this Plan is necessary to clarify things.
I would just comment on the nature of my comment: it was made to clarify why the Church and most Catholic Conservatives made such a fuss some months ago. The old topics of contraception, promiscuity, etc., were brought-up again; and so I found it necessary to explain to those who found the Church ridiculous on their ‘opposition’: specifically, to micketymoc, who, thinking that he has ‘conquered the “logic of Christianity”‘, cannot help himself reason badly against the Church
Again, of course, granted that our honorable councilor is truthful to her word that there is no such explicit mention of the use of morally controversial mediums on the planned further development of our children (e.,g condoms, etc); that such considerations are beyond the Document, is still a matter of discussion among the “Duty bearers”, then the Church is acting rather cynically. They are, at least, trying to anticipate what, according to them, has happened before to other countries: some plans of “development”, then the “implementation” were, well, “morally controversial”.
Again, to go back to my previous comment, its purpose is this: It answers the question “Why does the Church thinks that unnatural contraception is despicable?”