Councilor Angela Trinidad-Librado’s Speech on the LDPC
April 12th, 2008 at 12:07 am (General, Health, Davao City)
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.
Related Posts:- Davao City Local Development Plan for Children
- Grounds for Opposition to the Local Development Plan for Children
- Is it Time to Re-dictrict Davao City?
- Militar vs Baluran
- Councilor Laviña on Climate Change
Philippine Democracy Online said,
April 14, 2008 at 1:11 am
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.
Maria said,
April 14, 2008 at 9:18 pm
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.
drew said,
April 14, 2008 at 9:29 pm
@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.
Fernando said,
April 14, 2008 at 10:21 pm
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.
Philippine Democracy Online said,
April 14, 2008 at 10:57 pm
“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.
Ryan said,
April 14, 2008 at 11:08 pm
“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.
Loaded said,
April 15, 2008 at 8:28 am
Hinaut na makatabang ning LDPC sa atong kawad-on kay makalolooy na kaayo ang atong nasud.
Maria said,
April 16, 2008 at 1:39 am
@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.
micketymoc said,
April 17, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“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?
Philippine Democracy Online said,
April 18, 2008 at 2:26 am
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?
Philippine Democracy Online said,
April 18, 2008 at 2:29 am
The poor. The deserted. The forsaken.
micketymoc said,
April 18, 2008 at 2:46 pm
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.
Don said,
April 20, 2008 at 5:55 am
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.
micketymoc said,
April 20, 2008 at 12:45 pm
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.
Philippine Democracy Online said,
April 25, 2008 at 9:26 pm
@ “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.
micketymoc said,
April 27, 2008 at 6:49 am
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.)
ryan said,
April 27, 2008 at 8:11 am
Sure, I will read them.