CULTURE OF FLESH

Receipt today of your letter brings joyful assurance that your ''three fingers remain truly efficient tools of a very engaging mind. It seems too much to ask of us to have the option of disregarding the thoughts of one who has irrevocably captured our respect.This response does not intend to disagree with any bias you may have on the current RH issues. This is more of an expansion of what a citizen, who just happens to be a Catholic, upholds. What you inspiringly described as spiritual writings were written not for any overriding assumption that suppositions were correct because they were Catholic. My premises may be,it is wished, Catholic since they could, hopefully, pass as righteously correct. Media have quoted some Justices as having hinted on their inadequacy for ruling on metaphysical and theological issues".That should disappoint those who, like me, believe that it is not only a right but the duty of the Supreme Court to rule on any issue under the sun. If a Justice senses his/her fear of failure to appreciate and resolve judicious questions because of lack of expertise on a relevant thesis, he/she may always avail himself/herself of the capacity of others. It is not expected of all magistrates to be experts in Ballistics. We do have government-recognized Excellencies/experts in the field of Metaphysics and Theology. Schools of Philosophy and Theology abound in this country. It certainly may not be invoked that theGovernments Commission on Higher Education has upheld related Doctoral Degrees in Theology and Philosophy just to justify imposition of fluctuating tuition fees. The Supreme Court may always consult the Churches /Temples/Mosques and their bevy of Bishops and Cardinals and Revered Imams and Pastors. And so it is, at least in that context, then, that some Justices now accurately find, in effect, that the RH Law has, by unnecessarily introducing provisions that necessarily provoke questions on metaphysical and theological matters, encroached on the domain of Religion in violation of the Constitutional doctrine of Separation of Church and State.

Still, how may the Highest Court excuse herself from interpreting the Constitution on theological premises when the Constitution itself, it is respectfully submitted, is in fact a Theological document? The Constitution speaks of environment, natural resources, family, persons, inherent private rights, etcetera. And what, then, of their creation? Even if there is room for alluding to a power other than The Almighty, as such power is generally perceived,would related issues not be theological, after all? Are the words We the Filipino People imploring the aid of Almighty God x xx a senseless incantation of national zealotry? It is humbly submitted that the doctrine of Separation of Church and State is a rule of respect for distinct, administrative tenets for governance. The Church may not meddle in the exercise by the State of governance through governmental implementation of laws on the use of Statal resources, human or material, for the temporal needs of the population ; conversely, the State may not meddle in the exercise by the Church of Evangelization through religious /ecclesiastical implementation of Catechetical teachings on the moral uprightness of the faithful for their entitlement to heavenly rewards. Nevertheless, the State, via the government ( the Executive, Legislative , Judicial Departments) , exists for the general welfare of the people; and "general welfare, to be at all meaningful, is not just physical welfare but moral welfare. That is why we have criminal and administrative laws that punish crimes and offenses against chastity, morals and even against religious feelings. It seems, therefore, very clear that as regards the duty of the State to its citizens and the duty of the Church to her faithful : all laws, either of the State or of the Church, are addressed to the same rational, human mind - dismissive of the immoral, as naturally repugnant, since time immemorial. The bad that issues from the RH Law (RHL) is not just that it trivializes on the Catholics adherence to the culture of The Cross ( by super-imposing what some say is the culture of the crotch), but that it is a subliminal promotion of moral weaklings, Catholics or non-Catholics, by blurring the equation that the mind that upholds the supremacy of pleasure over non-physical values is the very mind that would, thereby, withhold the virtue of self-restraint for the attainment of convenient criminal ends.
2

It may, arguably, be a violation of rules of literary refinement to adopt as an assumption what a random acquaintance described as the laws equivalence of the direct moral, and indirect physical, castration of this proud nation of Bonifacio and Rizal and of Lorenzo and Pedro.But it may be certain that one shudders at the thought that he could be forced to adopt the motto that the Filipino is worth being castrated for, patriotically (?) using public funds.

Regardless of misgivings either way our related pieces: Grains of Almighty God ( 12 June 2011), Ennobling Solidarity (12 June 2013), Robbing Heaven (2July2013), all posted on the Internets SCRIBD.COM., agree with this paper that the RHL among its other potentially-harmful intendments already treated somewhere:

A. Violates the Equal-Protection guaranty ofthe Constitution byofficializing governments offering of business profits, derived from disbursement of public funds, to contraceptive manufacturers, to the exclusion of pharmaceuticals that do not manufacture contraceptives. B. Violates the Equal-protection guaranty of the Constitution by use of public funds to buy contraceptives for use by unclassified, random persons who cannot observe self-restraint in expressing their sexuality , to the exclusion of countless many who wish to avail themselves of fertility pills in order to attain true reproductive health and responsible parenthood promised by the rearing of children. C. Violates the Equal-Protection guaranty of the Constitution by use of public funds for the purchase of contraceptives for random, unclassified pleasure-seekers, to the exclusion of those suffering from life-threatening ailments (as opposed to no-sex threatening longings) who are in urgent need of dextrose, injectable blood,
3

dialysis, TB drugs, vitamins, etc. but who have no access to a parallel government drug subsidy. D. Violates the Equal-Protection guaranty of the Constitution by use of public funds for the purchase of condoms,IUDs and other contraceptiveinjectables for the pleasure-needs of unclassified, random persons who cannot observe sexual selfrestraint using the taxpayers money of thousands who are in the menopausal stage and who have absolutely no need for contraceptives. E. Violates the Equal-protection guaranty of the Constitution by authorized use of taxpayers money for the purchase of contraceptives to satisfy the pleasure-needs of unclassified, random persons who cannot observe sexual self-restraint, thus "ostracizing" those who have the moral strength to observe sexual self-restraint; thereby, in turn , rewarding/ encouraging lack of self-restraint which is the common ingredient of all crimes. F. Violates the Constitutional proscription against undue Delegation of Congressional Power by its provisions authorizing the hiring of personnel tasked to inform/advice random individuals on so-called Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health without at all setting qualification standards for the hired; thus, in effect, authorizing LocaL Government Units (LGU) to set their own unique Qualification Standards, a rule-making power of Congress. G. Violates proscription against Undue Delegation of congressional power by its provisions authorizing LGUs to hire RHL personnel without appropriating funds therefor; thus, amending the Local Government Code (NB: Amendment is not subsumed by the title of the RHL) and,in effect, delegating congressional power of appropriation for the implementation of a national project/policy. H. Violates the Constitutional provision on the protection of the Environment since it unnecessarilyauthorizes use of public funds to stockpile condoms, IUDs and other non-biodegradable contraceptives, thereby unnecessarily contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer , resulting from the manufacture and disposition of used/unused and expired condoms and IUDs and the like, and the aggravation of flood problems resulting from clogging of canals and already-overstuffed waterways.

RHL defines "Responsible Parenthood" and "Reproductive Health" without any mention of "pregnancy". The law is consistent in that the only provision that refers specifically to expenditure of public funds is one that commands for the purchase of contraceptives. In total effect "responsibility" means, by RHL wisdom, possession and counseled (by hirelings without any legislated qualification standards) use by persons, inclusive of adolescents, of contraceptives : all for the dictates of physical pleasures.

It may be agreed that it is not the duty of the Church, much less of the State, to make Saints of everyone. In truth, we become Saints not solely by our wellintentioned efforts but only by accompanying divine grace. Still, there seems no reason for us to disagree that it would be a great disservice to humanity - everhungry for peace and selflessness- to discourage men and women from becoming holy by institutionalizing policies of governance that negate selfrestraint (and, by extension, self-respect) which is an indispensable nutrient for minimum blessedness.

Respectfully submitted, All for Almighty God Always.

Fraternally yours, in Jesus and His Mother Mary of the Immaculate Conception,

Roberto Siccuan De Alban Tumauini, Isabela 10 August 2013 s