Monday, October 27, 2008

Fr. Nebres' Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 5043

This is Ateneo President Fr. Nebres' response to some faculty's support of the RH bill. Of course the Jesuits will toe the line. But read the university memo carefully. Is it me or does he not endorse the continued debate on the bill?

Fr. Nebres is a wise, wise man :) 

Statement on Reproductive Health Bill 5043

Yesterday, the Manila Standard had a headline story entitled “Ateneo profs defy bishops, back family planning bill.” The article is based on an October 15, 2008 position paper issued by individual faculty members of the Ateneo de Manila, “Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience.” A shorter version of this position paper is attached.

In reply to a request for clarification from His Excellency Most Rev. Angel N. Lagdameo, D.D., President of the CBCP, I wrote him yesterday, October 22, as follows:

First, that “the faculty members clearly state that they are not speaking for the Ateneo de Manila and that this is their personal position.”

Second, that I was asked to respond to this concern a few weeks ago by Archbishop Paciano Aniceto and Bishop Gabriel Reyes and I wrote them on October 2, 2008 regarding our position on the Reproductive Health Bill 5043:

As in all matters that are connected with faith and morals, the Ateneo de Manila, as a Jesuit and Catholic university, stands with the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and the Philippine Province of the Society of Jesus.

I am familiar with the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.

I trust that this will help clarify our position. At the same time, together with the CBCP and the Philippine Province, we favor and encourage honest, sincere and mutually-respectful dialogue on the important issues taken up in the bill.

In my letter to Archbishop Lagdameo yesterday, I also said that several Jesuits would be meeting with the Ateneo faculty members yesterday in a dialogue on this important matter. The dialogue yesterday was forthright and mutually respectful and we pointed out that, while we respect their deep concern for the poor and appreciate our mutual dialogue with them, it is necessary for the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university, to state clearly our position on RH Bill 5043. The position of the Ateneo de Manila is as follows:

1) We appreciate the efforts of these members of the Ateneo faculty to grapple with serious social issues and to draw from Catholic moral teaching in their study of the bill.

2) We acknowledge their right to express their views as individual Catholics and appreciate their clear statement that their views are their own and not that of the University.

3) However, the Ateneo de Manila University does not agree with their position of supporting the present bill. As I said in my letter of October 2 to Archbishop Aniceto and Bishop Reyes, it is “the considered opinion of our moral theologians that, although there are points wherein the aforesaid bill and the Catholic moral tradition are in agreement, there are certain positions and provisions in the bill which are incompatible with principles and specific positions of moral teaching which the Catholic Church has held and continues to hold.”

We thus have serious objections to the present bill in the light of our Catholic faith.

4) Ateneo de Manila thus stands with our Church leaders in raising questions about and objections to RH Bill 5043.

5) It is also the responsibility of the Ateneo de Manila as a Jesuit and Catholic university to ensure that, in our classes and other fora, we teach Catholic faith and morals in their integrity.

6) At the same time, as I also wrote on October 2, we support continuing efforts on the critical study and discussion of the bill among Church groups including the University and in civil society.


Migrant Workers are Not Commodities

To add to the official discourse of governements meeting in the Global Forum on Migration and Development kicking off today, this is the declaration of the parallel civil society forum I attended last week, the People's Global Action on Migration, Development and Human Rights. Also read the Madrid Declaration during the 3rd World Social Forum on Migrations.

Peoples’ Global Action Declaration
on Migration, Development and Human Rights

Submitted to the Global Forum on Migration and Development - Manila, Philippines, 27 October 2008

A world of migrants

There are over 250 million people in the world today that are in various conditions of being a migrant. Throughout human history people have been migrants or descended from migrants – with the exception of indigenous peoples residing in their ancestral lands.

There are many root causes of migration, including armed conflict, persecution, discrimination, poverty, underdevelopment, forced displacement, environmental destruction, and a search for family unity. And in the last decades, migration flows have been intensified because of neoliberal, corporate-centered globalization such as that promoted by the World Trade Organization (WTO), including free trade agreements, reduction in publicly-provided social reproductive services, and the expansion of the rights of business, have created wealth for economic elites but have consistently widened the gap between rich and poor and deepened vulnerabilities of individuals and communities.

While hugely profiting from the labor of migrants, the majority of countries in the world, have continuously adopted anti-migrant policies through scapegoating migrants for all social ills and perceived threats to national security. The adoption of simultaneous policies of being ‘open’ but at the same time ‘closed’ to migrants have led to the increased fragmentation of the working class, heightened insecurities for all migrants especially those in the grey zones like exiled peoples, amplified racial discrimination, and worsened the vulnerability to abuse and exploitation by organized crimes and corrupt officials, especially among women migrants. Meanwhile, the re-emergent emphasis on state-centered security as developed states secure their economic privilege has sharpened territorial divisions and pre-border surveillance as well as strengthened inward looking governance especially since the so-called ‘war on terror’ was unleashed.

The GFMD’s “migration and development” paradigm does not go far enough in affirming the human dignity of migrants and migrant workers, firmly placing their inalienable rights at the center of development and addressing their myriad insecurities. Moreover, such paradigm calls for the rendering of female migrant labor in specific gendered ways and is thus likely to reinforce inequalities between men and women.

Instead, the GFMD seeks to create an international migration regime that manages temporary workers for the benefit of global production and profit while at the same time institutionalizing more coercive and restrictive migration policies that penalize and lump together as one undesirable group all so-called ‘irregular’, ‘undocumented’ workers and all other migrants who fall in the grey zone.

As well, civil society including migrants’ organizations, trade unions, women’s organizations, and others have been severely restricted in their participation in GFMD debates, while the role of banks, financial intermediaries, and the corporate sector has been enhanced.

Obviously, the GFMD is not about respecting migration as a human activity in all of its varied forms, nor is it about protecting the rights of migrants and of workers. It is certainly not about realizing development for the majority of the world’s poor. Simply put, the GFMD is about protecting the security of states and markets. The GFMD and other new forums have been vigorously promoted, funded and controlled by developed countries together with a handful of developing countries. The result has been to further undermine an already weakened United Nations system where developing countries at this time stand a better chance of representation and participation.

Our challenge to governments attending the GFMD

Governments hold mutual obligations and responsibilities to respect, protect, fulfill, and promote the human rights of all peoples, migrants and workers everywhere included. In this regard, governments must ensure that the core UN and ILO conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and human rights treaties, including the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, ILO Conventions 97 and 143,and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and ILO rights-based Multilateral Framework on Labor Migration are enforced at every level.

Governments have also been called on “to protect the vital core of human lives in ways that enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment” especially in dealing with issues of conflict, poverty and migration (Commission on Human Security 2003).

Governments must not deviate from but rather build upon the normative rights-based framework-approach to development. We recall Chapter 1 of the Declaration on the Right to Development (UNGA Resolution 41/128, 4 December 1986) - “The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.”

Governments must ensure the genuine and meaningful participation of migrants and other stakeholders in international discussions on migration policy, and migration and development.

Governments must not differentiate between ‘regular’ or ‘irregular’ migrant workers in respecting migrants and workers rights. Regardless of their status, migrants are participants in contributors to and members of the community and country in which they live and work.

Governments must ensure that migrants enjoy equality of rights and non-discrimination in the places where they live. Discrimination based on any status, including national origin, nationality, migration status, race, gender, sexual orientation, religiousbelief and language, is prohibited by international law and human rights principles. Governmental policy must also address de facto discrimination (unequal conditions), and promote empowerment and equity for migrants.

Governments must protect and uphold the human rights of women migrants as subjects within a gendered history and context of migration. The vicious cycle of ‘poverty – human trafficking – poverty’ denies poor women their basic rights including the right to decent work and the right to security and justice. Policies aimed at curbing trafficking must address its myriad root causes and avoid pushing vulnerable women into deeper exploitation and abuse.

Governments must cease its implementation of state migration policies that constitute or cause violations of human rights. These include policies that: deny migrant workers decent work and the protection of their basic rights as workers; criminalize migrants, including the criminalization of migrants with irregular status; militarize borders and externalize migration control in international waters or in countries of origin and transit; discriminate against migrants based on nationality or migratory status; enforce collective deportations and deportations which violate any human right, including right to protection of the family, due process of law, right to security of person, and the principle of non refoulement; allow for arbitrary detentions and arrests, and all other deprivations of liberty of migrants in contravention of international standards on detention including on the reasons, conditions, procedures, and allowable time period of detention; and policies that fail to prevent and eliminate the exploitation and abuse of migrants, including trafficking of persons.

Governments must institute a functioning international system with migration and development policies that guarantee the human rights of migrants, workers, and all peoples, and promotes sustainable, rights-based development. This requires that forums for multilateral discussions on migration and development policies ensure genuine civil society participation. It also requires that all developing country governments have equal participation and voice.. Governments in the South should not adopt policies or enter into agreements with Northern countries that increase forced migration of its population, such as free trade agreements, Neither should they make any multilateral or bilateral agreements that that does not fully respect and protect the human rights of migrants, such as many repatriation, border control, and temporary labor agreements. We call on governments to respond to these challenges and fulfill its obligations, and create new global mechanisms and processes that are genuinely democratic, transparent and accountable and which will meaningfully ensure each individual’s human rights, freedoms and sustainable development.

Endorsed by the Philippine Working Group

Akbayan, Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL), ASEAN Trade Union Council (ATUC), Asian Migrant Center (AMC), Asian Migrant Domestic Workers Alliance (ADWA), Atikha, Batis Center for Women, Building and Wood Workers International, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Center for Migrant Advocacy (CMA), Asia Pacific Forum on Women Law and Development (APWLD), Coalition Against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific (CATW-AP), Coalition for Migrants Rights (CMR), Daughters of Charity, Focus on the Global South, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW), Global Network Asia, International Gender and Trade Network-Asia (IGTN), Jubilee South-Asia Pacific Movement on Debt and Development, KAKAMMPI, Kanlungan Center Foundation, Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), National Union of Building & Construction Workers/BWI, Philippine Consortium on Migration and Development, Public Services International (PSI/PSLINK), Save the Children-UK, Solidaritas Migran Scalabrini-Philippines, Stop the New Round, UNI-PLC/UNI-APRO, Unlad Kabayan Migrant Services Foundation, Women and Gender Institute-Miriam College (WAGI), Women Legal Bureau (WLB).

The Core UN Conventions are:

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 1965
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) 1966
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)1979
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) 1984
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 1989
International Convention on Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICMRW) 1990
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPAPED) 2005
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) 200

Monday, October 20, 2008

Ateneo Faculty Declaration of Support for the Reproductive Health Bill

To those who left comments expressing their misgivings with regard to the prohibited acts provision of the bill, please read the Response to the Couples for Christ Ad. If you do not want your kids to attend sex ed class, you will NOT be jailed.


Declaration of support for the Reproductive Health Bill’s immediate passage into law from individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University

* This declaration of support is based on the 15 October 2008 position paper entitled “Catholics Can Support the RH Bill in Good Conscience” by individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, namely Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies), Raymond B. Aguas (Department of Theology), Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology), Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics), Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of Philosophy), Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy), Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology), Anne Marie A. Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Michael J. Liberatore (Department of Theology), Liza L. Lim Department of Sociology-Anthropology), Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology), Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology), and Agustin Martin G. Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy).

We, individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, speaking for ourselves and not for the University, strongly support House Bill 5043 on “Reproductive Health and Populatio Development,” and call for its immediate passage in Congress. After studying the bill’s provisions in the light of the realities of Filipino women, poor families, and our youth, we have reached the conclusion that the Philippines urgently needs a national policy on reproductive health and population development, as provided by the RH Bill.

A consistent, integrated, and comprehensive population framework guarantees budgetary support from the national government for reproductive health initiatives, and ensures their sustainability across local government units regardless of changes in national and local leadership. While curbing our rapid population growth rate of 2.04 percent will not, by itself, solve poverty in our country, addressing the population problem is crucial to overall economic growth and poverty reduction, along with asset redistribution, employment and livelihood opportunities, combating corruption, improving governance, and strengthening institutions.

We further believe that it is possible for Catholics like ourselves to support HB 5043 in good conscience, even as we recognize, with some anguish, that our view contradicts the position held by some of our fellow Catholics, including our bishops. Those who oppose the RH Bill have denounced it as “pro-abortion,” “anti-life,” “anti-women,” “anti-poor,” and “immoral.”

However, our reason, informed by our faith, has led us to believe and say otherwise. The RH Bill is pro-life and pro-women. HB 5043 categorically rejects abortion, which it deems a “crime,” in consonance with the 1987 Constitution. What it, in fact, wants to do is prevent abortions by offering couples an array of “medically-safe, legal, affordable and quality” family planning methods, from which they can choose the one that will work best for them. In so doing, the RH Bill seeks to avert unwanted and mistimed pregnancies, which cause mostly poor and married women despairing over yet another pregnancy to seek an induced abortion. We are alarmed that an estimated 473,400 Filipino women went for an abortion in 2000, and that some 79,000 of them wound up in hospitals for abortion complications. We consider it our guilt and our shame that so many of our women should be driven to such dire straits as to make abortion a family planning method, for want of information on and access to an effective means to prevent an unplanned pregnancy.

We believe in the sanctity and dignity of human life, whether that life is the mother’s or the unborn child’s. It is for this reason that we support the RH Bill’s intent to expand couples’―but especially women’s―access to safe, legal, and reliable family planning methods,whether modern natural or modern artificial. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)says that women’s access to effective contraception would avert 30 percent of maternal deaths, 90 percent of abortion-related deaths and disabilities, and 20 percent of child deaths. Thus, the RH Bill is not only pro-life (in that it aims to prevent the termination of an unborn child’s life), but also pro-women, because it enables them to plan the number and spacing of their children so
as to avoid frequent and closely-spaced pregnancies that imperil their health and lives. Moreover, given that our maternal mortality rate is a staggeringly high 162 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, the RH Bill aims to improve maternal and infant health by enjoining cities and municipalities to provide an adequate number of skilled birth attendants and hospitals rendering comprehensive emergency obstetric care.

In sum, because reproductive health is central to women’s overall health, fundamental aspects of women’s wellbeing are compromised when reproductive health is ignored. The conditions under which choices are made are as important as the actual content of women’s choices: the right to choose is meaningful only if women have real power to choose.

The RH Bill is pro-poor. Based on the Pulse Asia 2007 survey on family planning, an
overwhelming majority (92%) of Filipinos believe that it is important to plan their family, and most (89%) say that the government should allocate funding for modern artificial methods of family planning, including the pill, intrauterine devices (IUDs), condoms, ligation, and vasectomy. And yet only 5 out of 10 married women (50.6%) use any family planning method, whether modern natural or modern artificial. This suggests a significant unmet need for reproductive health services.

By treating contraceptives as “essential medicines,” HB 5043 makes contraceptives (including those requiring hospital services like tubal ligation, vasectomy, and IUD insertion) part of the National Drug Formulary, and therefore more accessible and cheaper for Filipinos.

This is a decidedly pro-poor measure, considering that the majority (58.1%) of those who use modern artificial family planning methods rely on the government for their supply of contraceptives. Our Catholic faith calls on us to embrace the preferential option for the poor and marginalized. We therefore support the RH Bill, which we believe will be especially beneficial for our poorest 20 percent who cannot afford family planning services, and therefore have the highest unmet need for family planning (26.7%), and 2.5 children more than they desire.

Furthermore, we uphold the principle of integral human development, which is why we want couples to be able to have only the number of children that they want and can adequately feed, clothe, care for, and send to school, so that they can attain their full potential as human beings, and contribute to the development of Philippine society.

The RH Bill is pro-youth. As teachers of our young people, we are deeply concerned that, over time, more of them are getting initiated into sex at increasingly younger ages. Based on the 1994 and 2002 Young Adult Fertility and Sexuality surveys of the UP Population Institute, not only did the proportion of youth aged 15-24 who are engaged in premarital sex increase (from to Declaration of support for the Reproductive Health Bill’s immediate passage into law 17.8% in 1994, to 23.4% in 2002), but the average age for their first sexual encounter declined (from 18 in 1994, to 17.5 in 2002). Even more worrisome is how their premarital sex act is often
unprotected, with three in four of them (75.1%) admitting to not using any kind of contraceptive during their most recent premarital sex act, primarily because of lack of knowledge on contraception. Our young people’s premarital and unprotected sex therefore places them at high risk for early pregnancies, and contracting HIV-AIDS and sexually-transmitted diseases.

We favor the RH Bill’s provision of mandatory age-appropriate reproductive health
education, believing as we do that much of our youth’s risky sexual behavior is linked to their lack of information and values formation on their reproductive and sexual health. We take exception to the opinion that teaching them about sex will make them prurient and promiscuous.

Rather, we hold the view that by providing our young people the information and values they would need to take care of their reproductive health, and by creating opportunities for them to articulate and clarify their questions and feelings about sex, we are empowering them to make responsible decisions regarding their sexuality and sexual behavior, whether now or in the future.

After all, Catholic social theology teaches us that the principle of human dignity requires us to uphold human rights, which include the right to education and appropriate information (Gaudium et Spes, 1965) and the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth (Centesimus Annus, 1991).

The RH Bill is pro-informed choice. In seeking to promote both modern natural and
modern artificial methods of family planning (with “no bias for either”), HB 5043 recognizes105 that couples, especially women, have the right to choose the family planning method that they consider to be the safest and most effective for them, provided that these are legally permissible.

Although natural family planning (NFP) which the Catholic Church promotes offers many
benefits, it is important to realize that pursuing an NFP-only population policy will be a disservice, if not a grave injustice, to women and couples for whom NFP simply cannot work.

We are thinking of women who find it impossible to predict their infertile periods; or couples who see each other on an irregular basis; or women who are trapped in abusive relationships with men who demand sex anytime they want it. Why is it morally wrong for such women and couples―and even others not encompassed by the above situations―to use a modern artificial family planning method that has been pronounced safe and non-abortifacient by health authorities, if their discernment of their particular situation has led them to conclude that such a method will enable them to fulfill the demands of marital love and responsible parenthood?

Catholic social teachings recognize the primacy of the well-formed conscience over wooden compliance to directives from political and religious authorities. Gaudium et Spes (1965) tells us: “In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged” (no. 16).

We respect the consciences of our bishops when they promote natural family planning as the only moral means of contraception, in adherence to the teachings of Humanae Vitae (1968). In turn, we ask our bishops to respect the one in three (35.6%) married Filipino women who, in their “most secret core and sancturary” or conscience, have decided that their and their family’s interests would best be served by using a modern artificial means of contraception. Is it not possible that these women and their spouses were obeying their well-informed and well-formed consciences when they opted to use an artificial contraceptive?

We therefore ask our bishops and fellow Catholics not to block the passage of HB 5043, which promotes women’s and couples’ access to the full range of safe, legal, and effective modern natural and modern artificial family planning methods, from which they can choose the one most suitable to their needs and personal and religious convictions. To campaign against the bill is to deny our people, especially our women, many other benefits, such as maternal and child health and nutrition; promotion of breastfeeding; adolescent and youth health; reproductive health education; prevention and management of gynecological conditions; and provision of information and services addressing the reproductive health needs of marginalized sectors, among others. In pursuit of the common good, or the “sum total of social conditions which allow people... to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Gaudium et Spes 1965, no. 26), we call on the Catholic Church to let the RH Bill pass in Congress, and to consider forging a principled collaboration with the government in the promotion of natural family planning which Humanae Vitae deems morally acceptable, and in the formation of consciences with emphasis on the value of responsible sex and parenthood.

To our fellow Catholics who, in good conscience, have come to conclude, as we have, that we need a reproductive health law: we ask you to declare your support for HB 5043.

Finally, we call on our legislators in Congress and in the Senate to pass the RH Bill. Doing so upholds the constitutional right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions; honors our commitments to international covenants; and promotes the reproductive health and reproductive rights of Filipinos, especially of those who are most marginalized on this issue―our women, poor families, and youth.

We sign this declaration as individual faculty of the Ateneo de Manila University, and speak for ourselves and not on behalf of our colleagues nor the University.

15 October 2008
Signatories (as of 15 October 2008)

Raymond B. Aguas (Department of Theology)

Liane Peña Alampay (Department of Psychology)
Fernando T. Aldaba (Department of Economics)
Remmon E. Barbaza (Department of Philosophy)
Manuel B. Dy, Jr. (Department of Philosophy)
Elizabeth Uy Eviota (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Marita Castro Guevara (Department of Interdisciplinary Studies)
Roberto O. Guevara (Department of Theology)
Anne Marie A. Karaos (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Michael J. Liberatore (Department of Theology)
Liza L. Lim (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Cristina Jayme Montiel (Department of Psychology)
Mary Racelis (Department of Sociology-Anthropology)
Agustin Martin G.
Rodriguez (Department of Philosophy)


ETA: Apparently this is not the final list. More signatories to come.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Cinemanila 2008 Screening Schedule

Hat tip to Pelikula76 who helmed the camera of one of the entries: The Amazing Truth About Queen Raquela. Please do see it. After 3 years, Raquela has come home to the Philippines.

Oct. 16-29, 2008
Gateway Cineplex 10
Araneta Center

Friday, Oct. 17, 2008

Cinema 1
6:00 p m West 32nd (Korea)
8:30 pm Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone (Japan)

Cinema 2
1:00 pm You, the Living (Sweden)
3:00 pm Sparrow (Hong Kong)
5:00 pm Sukiyaki Western Django (Japan)
7:30 pm I'm a Cyborg but that's OK (South Korea)
9:30 pm Love of Siam (Thailand) SEA Competition

Cinema 4
12:00 pm 12 Lotus (Singapore) SEA Competition
2:30 pm The Band's Visit (Israel) Main Competition
4:30 pm Noise (Australia)
6:30 pm California Dreamin' (Romania)

Cinema 7

12:30 pm Shahida: Brides of Allah (Israel) Docs in Competition
2:00 pm Dreams from the Third World (Singapore)
4:00 pm Sita Sings the Blues (USA)

Saturday, Oct. 18, 2008

Cinema 1
Digital Lokal Competition Films
6:30 pm Ala Pobre Ala Suerte (Briccio Santos)
9:00 pm Sisa (CJ Andaluz)

Cinema 2
12:30 pm Confessional (Philippines) SEA Competition
2:00 pm Invisible City (Singapore) (Q&A with director)
3:30 pm United Red Army (Japan) Main Competition
7:00 pm Love of Siam (Thailand) SEA Competition

Cinema 4

12:00 pm 10 Canoes (Australia) Part of 6th Australian Film Festival
2:00 pm Sukiyaki Western Django (Japan)
5:00 pm Evangelion 1.0: You are Not Alone (Japan)

Cinema 5

Young Cinema Night: Shorts in Competition (7:00 pm)

* Amihan (Joanna Vasquez Arong)
* Bunot (Ivy Universe Baldoza)
* Esbat (Carlo Obispo)
* Frou Frou… Shh, Wag Mo Sabihin Kay Itay (Michael Juat)
* Inday Wanda (Nelson Caliguia Jr.)
* Kalawang na Ginto (Vic Acedillo Jr.)
* Kamera (Mikhail Red)
* Surreal Randon MMS Texts Para Ed Ina, Agui, Tan Kaamong Ya Makaiiliw Ed Sika: Gurgurlis Ed Banua (Christopher Gozum)
* Tumbang Preso (Antoinette Jadaone)
* Undertakers (Emmanuel Quindo Palo)

Cinema 7

1:00 pm Vanished Empire (Russia) Main Competition
3:00 pm Sparrow (Hong Kong)
5:00 pm Noise (Australia)
7:00 pm I'm A Cyborg But That's OK (South Korea)
9:00 pm Night Bus (Iran) Main Competition


Sunday, October 19, 2008

Cinema 1
Digital Lokal Competition Films
6:30 pm Ang Manghuhula (Paolo Herras)
9:00 pm Carnivore (Ato Bautista)

Cinema 2
12:00 pm Storm Boy (Australia) Part of 6th Australian Film Festival
2:00 pm Sukiyaki Western Django (Japan)
4:30 pm 4 Minutes (Germany)
7:00 pm Blind Pig Who Wants To Fly (Q&A with director) SEA Competition
9:00 pm West 32nd (South Korea)

Cinema 4
12:00 pm The Photograph (Indonesia) SEA Competition
2:00 pm It's A Free World (UK)
4:00 pm Youth Without Youth (USA)
6:30 pm Lucky Miles (Q*A with director and actor) (Australia) Main Competition
9:30 pm Diving Bell & the Butterfly by Julian Schnabel (France)

Cinema 7
1:00 pm Sita Sings the Blues (USA)
3:00 pm Adela (Philippines) SEA Competition
5:30 pm PVC 1 (Colombia)

Monday, October 20, 2008

Cinema 1
12:30pm With A Girl of Black Soil (South Korea)
2:30 pm Boxing Day (Australia)
4:30 pm Shahida - Brides Of Allah (Israel)
6:30 pm Be Like Others (Iran)
8:30 pm The Amazing Truth About Queen Raquela (Iceland/Philippines/France/Thailand) Main Competition

Cinema 2
1:00 pm Sparrow (Hong Kong)
3:00 pm Diving Bell & the Butterfly (France)
5:30 pm Night Bus (Iran) Main Competition
7:30 pm Evangelion 1.0: You Are (Not) Alone (Japan)
9:30 pm I'm A Cyborg But That's OK (South Korea)

Cinema 4
12:00 pm Love Of Siam (Thailand) SEA Competition
3:00 pm The Mirror (Russia)
5:00 pm Not Quite Hollywood (Australia)
7:00 pm Susuk (Malaysia)
9:00 pm It's A Free World by Ken Loach (UK)

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Cinema 1
Digital Lokal Competition Films
7:00PM Next Attraction (Raya Martin)
9:00 pm Imburnal (Sherad Anthony Sanchez)

Cinema 2
12:00 pm California Dreamin' (Romania)
3:00 pm God Man Dog (Taiwan)
5:00 pm Noise (Australia)
7:00 pm Diving Bell and the Butterfly (France)
9:30 pm Youth Without Youth by Francis Ford Coppola (USA)

Cinema 4
11:30 pm The Amazing Truth About Queen Raquela Main Competition
2:00 -5:00 pm Master Class In Script Writing (Bing Lao)

Cinema 7
1:00 pm Vanished Empire (Russia) Main Competition
3:00 pm West 32nd (Korea/USA)
5:00 pm The Photograph (Indonesia) SEA Competition
7:00 pm Noise (Australia)
9:00 pm The Bands Visit (Israel) Main Competition


Tuesday, Oct. 21 Scriptwriting Master Class with Bing Lao
2:00 – 5:00 pm
Wednesday, Oct. 22 SEA Indie Filmmaking: With Lav Diaz (Philippines)
Amir Muhammad (Malaysia) and Raymond Red (Philippines)
2:00 - 5:00 pm
Thursday, Oct. 23 Cinematography Master Class
2:00 – 5:00 pm
Monday, Oct. 27 Editing Master Class with Miranamedina
2:00 – 5:00 pm


Saturday, October 25 Young Cinema Night II: Shorts in Exhibition 7:00 – 9:00 pm

* #cafe (Leo Valencia)
* Bulong (Pedro Valdes)
* Pass (Vicente Garcia Groyon)
* Walong Linggo (Ana Isabelle Matutina)
* Trails of Water (Sheron Dayoc)
* Pagtakas sa Kawalan (Richard Soriano Legaspi)

Thursday, October 09, 2008

On Prostitution

Corollary to the BBC brouhaha, Jeg writes a post on the world's oldest "profession":
Not one to pass on the chance to defend scantily-clad women, I asked why is it sexploitation. Those dancers were not being coerced. They freely chose their profession and are being paid for it. And with that I think it is time to come to the defense of what is called the World's Oldest Profession, the prostitutes, those purveyors of venereal services that society has maligned; indeed our legal system considers their profession illegal. A prostitute is here defined as one who engages in sexual services for a fee.
A slippery slope we have here. I can only think of more questions in response to this post. Does anyone willingly choose to become a prostitute? As a worker who engages in the labour market, what does a prostitute offer? Sex as a service? Her body as a commodity for consumption? Both? Can we compare services rendered by, say, a call centre agent to that of a prostitute? A call centre agent sells his time, his expertise, his skills as service. This does not include his body for exploitation (i.e. use) and consumption.

A prostitute's body is a fictitious commodity. It is is not "produced" for consumption in the market. Like bags and tupperware. When her body is consumed - like agriculture, her value is "renewable." Her body as commodity does not disappear. However it "depreciates" because her customers put value in pliable, wrinkle-free flesh. Is her body a public good then? Like clean air and public order? A private good by definition must only be consumed by one.

And what about the value of her service? Why do societies around the world normally equate prostitution with women? Do women not require sexual release without strings attached as men? There is a stastic somewhere that in the US at least as many as 60 percent of men who hire prostitutes do not engage in intercourse. They talk. He confides in her. She listens. In this case, what kind of service is she offering? Care? Attention?

We go back to the issue of motivation - is it her own free will to engage in prostitution? Can anyone think of any other work where a human being sells both his service (i.e. labour) and the use of his body in a transaction? Hm...acrobats maybe?

Cross-posted at Filipinovoices.

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Speak for the Subaltern

It's a short clip, but devastating nonetheless. In less than sixty seconds the BBC comedy show Harry & Paul normalises, even trivialises the hardships, indignity and abuses suffered by many Filipina migrants abroad.Domestic helpers have rights too. Speak for the subaltern. Sign this petition.

Friday, October 03, 2008

RH Bill Sponsorship Speeches

See the speeches here.

How not to deliver a speech, c/o Rep. Antonino-Custodio.
How to deliver a good speech, c/o Rep. Baraquel.