House Bill 6595
- Category: Teachings & Articles
- Published: Sunday, 11 February 2018 09:21
- Hits: 1829
By: Augusto A. Kho
BISHOP DANIEL A. BALAIS
Chairman, Intercessors for the Philippines (IFP)
Dated: January 31, 2018
Updated: February 12, 2018
Committee Hearing on HB 6595 or Civil Partnership
Batasang Pambansa, Quezon City; January 31, 2018
(Photo by Peps)
House Bill No. 6595
“An Act recognizing the civil partnership of couples, providing for their rights and obligations.”
WE STRONGLY AGAINST THIS PROPOSED BILL for the following reasons –
FIRST, it is ANTI-FAMILY and UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Article XV, The Family, Section 1-2 states that:
“The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.”
In other words, no bill or law can be messianic to attack the family as unassailable institution.
SECOND, it is CUNNING and DECEPTIVE.
The proposed bill is “same-sex marriage” disguised as “civil partnership.” Section 5 (g) of the proposed bill states that, “.. A defect in the requirements provided under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) shall be a ground for the annulment of the civil partnership..”
Annulment is a 15th century term that refers as judicial or ecclesiastical pronouncement declaring a marriage invalid (Webster).
Thus it violates the Civil Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, Article 1 which states that,
“Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law ...”
THIRD, it is IMMORAL
As UN UDHR Preamble declares, "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
But according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived".
Natural law or in Latin “ius naturale, lex naturalis” is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source according Leo Strauss (1968). But human rights are moral principles or norms (James Nickel 2014).
In Moral Philosophy includes Moral Ontology, which is the origin of Morals and Moral Epistemology, which is the Knowledge of Morals. Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards or principles according to Johnstone, Megan-Jane Johnstone (2008) and Anita Superson (2009).
In other words, certain laws can hereby legislated but if it lacks moral substance then it would fall to what they say, “legal but immoral.”
Mahatma Gandhi puts it this way, “The things that will destroy us is politics without principle … knowledge without character … business without morality..” Morality therefore cannot be legislated says former Archbishop Laudencio Rosales in 2011.
FOURTH, it is UNETHICAL
Republic Acts 6713 also known as ““Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.”
Section 2, in the Declaration of Policy – “It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
Is it the bill is for the personal interest of the few? Or is it the proposed bill insinuates “conduct unbecoming” for any legislator who supports it? Ethics and morality are inseparable. Ethics simply means “a set of moral principles.”
FIFTH, it is ANTI-BIBLE.
In the Scriptures or Bible, such act is an abomination to the God (Romans 1:26-28, Jude 1:7, 1 Tim, 1:8-10, I Cor. 6:9, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13).
The bill is offensive to over ninety percent (90%) Christian Filipinos nationwide, be it Catholics and Evangelicals or Protestants. And perhaps it is ANTI-ISLAM as well.
The Holy Scriptures are highly recommended by the Philippine presidents:
Ferdinand E. Marcos, Presidential Proc. No. 1923, October 7, 1979, “The Bible is an excellent source of principles in the development of moral character and personal discipline …”
President Corazon C. Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation No. 44 in 1986, celebrating every last week of January in recognizing the Bible.
Fidel V. Ramos, declaring the last week of January of every year as National Bible Week under Presidential Proclamation No. 1067. “… it is fitting and proper that national attention be focused on the importance of reading and studying the Bible in moulding the spiritual, moral and social fibre of our citizenry …”
SIXTH, it is ANTI-GOD
The bill is not only unconstitutional but anti-God as well.
In the Preamble of the Philippine Constitution, it says, “We the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God….” Why the constitutionalists invoked Almighty God in our document?
Jose Laurel Sr., said that by, “Imploring the aid of Divine Providence now appear as ‘imploring the aid of Almighty God,’ to make reference to God more personal and direct. And by invoking God in the preamble, “ the Filipino people ‘thereby manifested their intense religious nature and place unfaltering reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and nations.”
It is our prayer therefore that the House of Representative will have a self-reflection in the light of truth and justice, invoking God Almighty in their legislative agenda in relation to their Oath to God in connection with their Resolution No. 30 during the Tenth Congress’,
First regular Session, begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-fourth of July,nineteen hundred and ninety five that says:
“Resolved by the House of the Representatives, To express its support to the exhortation of President Fidel V. Ramos to the people to habitually mediate and made a minute of silent prayer at twelve o’clock noontime everyday and wherever you are, invoking God’s wisdom and guidance especially those in authority, and prosperity for the country; for the spiritual renewal of the Filipino nation and to use the Philippines as His Light in Asia,” (Excerpts)
Which was adopted by the former House Speaker, Jose de Venecia Jr., thus the Resolution was adopted by the House of Representative on May 23, 1996.
POSITION PAPER : EXPLAINED
HOUSE BILL 6595 or “CIVIL PARTNERSHIP”
By Augusto A. Kho
BISHOP DANIEL A. BALAIS
Chairman, Intercessors for the Philippines (IFP)
It is a two-words combined from “civil” and “partnership.”
“Civil “ according to Webster is “relating to citizens; civil duties; b : of or relating to the state or its citizenry civil strife; civilized; civil society; b : adequate in courtesy and politeness : mannerly a civil question; relating to, or based on civil law; relating to private rights and to remedies sought by action or suit distinct from criminal proceedings c : established by law; civil freedoms of, relating to, or involving the general public, their activities, needs, or ways, or civic affairs as distinguished from special (such as military or religious) affairs.”
In the Civil Registry of the Philippines, there are only three (3) information needed for data-gathering and record-keeping i.e. a person’s date of birth; a person’s date of death; and registration of marriage. However in this case, a partner of same sex and of legal age of eighteen (18) years old can register themselves as “couple” to enjoy their conjugal rights.
What would be the couple’s gender on the time of registry? Or they need a Court Order from the Department of Justice to change their gender? Or shall there be any gender other what the natural science provides through legislation?
“Partnership” simply means “a union” according to Webster. The word was first used in 1576 which also means relationship or tie-up. The full meaning is “a relationship resembling legal partnership and usually involving close cooperation between parties having specified and joint rights and responsibilities.”
Civil Partnership is Same-Sex Marriage
Since couples of the same sex will be registered in the Civil Registry is strongly suggest that it is “same-sex marriage”.
According to Merriam-Webster, “a union” simply means “uniting in marriage, a sexual intercourse”. The word “union” is also used as a “political unit” in England and Scotland in 1707 and in the United States of America in 1789. In other words, a union of the same-sex can be politically empowered like in the Legislative Body like the House of Representatives in the Philippines or Congress to craft laws for personal and political interests.
Combining the two words “civil” and “partnership” is a same-sex union which has a legal status by the virtue of legislation under HB 6595 thus legalizing “same-sex marriage/union” discreetly.
The Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209), Article I. MARRIAGE states that “Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulations, except that marriage settlement may fix the proper relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.’
Art. 24 of EO 209 states that: “The local civil registrar concerned shall enter all applications for marriage licenses filed with him in a registry book strictly in the order in which the same are received. He shall record in said book the names of applicants, the date on which the marriage license was issued, and such other date as may be necessary.”
Marriage licensing is being issued by only by the local civil registrar. And if “civil partnership” licenses will be issued by the same legitimate government agency then it is marriage in effect.
HB 6595, Sec. 7 states that, “Civil Partnership and Certificate.” – The requirements for and prohibitions relative to, as well as the procedures in the issuance of valid marriage license and certificate provided for under Articles 9 to 23 (i.e. marriage) and Articles 27 to 34 of the Family Code of the Philippines as amended, shall likewise be applicable in the issuance of a civil partnership license and certificate.
In the same way, H.B 6595 is “same-sex” marriage because it has a “ground for annulment” as stated in Section 5, (g). Annulment is 15th century word which means “cancellation, dissolution, nullification, and voiding” according to Webster and it is a judicial and ecclesiastical pronouncement declaring a marriage invalid. Ecclesiastical is derived from Greek ekklesiastikos referring to the Church.
Anti-Family and Unconstitutional
Civil Partnership in effect violates EO 209, The Family Code of the Philippines. Family is defined as a group of persons of common ancestry (birth, clan, race, lineage) according to Webster. And if civil partnership is a relationship of same sex would that constitute ancestry according to the definition of “Family” and from the UN Human Rights “inherent rights” or Natural Law? HB 6595 in effect violates even Science or Natural Law which “inherent rights” is derived from.
If “Civil Partnership” is not marriage, why it will be registered in the municipal civil registry? Would that makes HB 6595 a legislation that can attacks EO 209 that defines marriage as “inviolable institution” which is the “foundation of the nation?”
That makes HB 6595 or Civil Partnership a “cunning and deceptive” that attacks Filipino Family by the virtue of legislation.
The Constitution provides a defense-mechanism to protect the family at all costs. It says in the Article XV, Section 1 and 2, “Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State”.
Contrary to the Philippine Constitution and the oath of public office by government officials, HB 6595 which is a legislative bill assails the very sacred document of the republic and legitimizing attack to destroy the “Filipino Family which must be protected by the State.”
Could this be the reason why there is a strong move to change the 1987 Constitution to fit in any dubious bill that has constitutional’s congenital infirmities?
As many put it this way, “No one is above the law.” Even the honourable lawmakers are not above the law. As they put it this way, “We are democratic and republican state and we are under the rule of law not the rule of men.”
HB 6595 violates parental custody
Marriage among Filipino applies only when the two parties, male and female are 25 years of age. In the event that the future couple are under 25 years of age, parental consent is necessary according to the law.
In the case of HB 6595, the provision in Sec. 5. Requisites of a Civil Partnership – No civil partnership shall be valid unless the following requirements are present: “(a) Legal capacity of the contracting parties. 1) Are at least eighteen (18) years of age.”
It violates the rights of the parent to have a legal custody of their child/children thus violating Administrative Order No. 1 Series of 1993, Rule 48 (3) :”Requisites Application for Marriage,” that says, “In case of either or both of the contracting parties, not having been emancipated by a previous marriage, between the ages of eighteen and twenty one, they shall in addition to the requirements of the preceding Articles, exhibit to the local civil registrar, to the consent to their marriage of their father, mother, surviving parent or guardian, or persons having legal charge of them in the order mentioned. Such consent shall be manifested in the writing by the interested party.”
The Civil Registrar is “data bank” of the status of Filipinos that serves as a record-keeping office that pertains to the birth of the child, death of a person or registry of married couples. In this case, the parties who enter to this Civil Partnership shall be issued by a “civil partnership license and certificate,” under HB 6595, Section 7.
In this case, HB 6595 or Civil Partnership, Section 5 (a) “Legal capacity of the contracting parties. For the purposes of this Acts, there is a legal capacities if the parties: 1) Are at least eighteen (18) years of age.”
Will this bill strips moral and legal capacity of the parents to have custody to their children? Will this be an intrusion in the Filipino Family as an “unassailable institution”?
Human rights must not be misrepresented
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007) by Stanford University. It says, “Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.”
Moreover, “Rights dominate most modern understandings of what actions are proper and which institutions are just. Rights structure the forms of our governments, the contents of our laws, and the shape of morality as we perceive it. To accept a set of rights is to approve a distribution of freedom and authority, and so to endorse a certain view of what may, must, and must not be done."
But reading between the lines, what they call “rights” must be addressed with “proper actions” with “moral considerations” because it shapes a nation or people. Thus human rights must not be misrepresented by legalizing the preference of the few like HB 6595.
Inherited rights cannot be legislated
United Nations (UN) said that , “Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, for they are regarded as established pillars of society and culture, and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development which is enshrined in the UN UDHR Preamble saying:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
Take note of the words “inherent” and “inalienable rights.”
James Nickel, with assistance from Thomas Pogge, M.B.E. Smith, and Leif Wenar, December 13, 2013, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Human Rights wrote: “Human rights are moral principles or norms. They are applicable everywhere and at every time in the sense of being universal.”
In other words, every human right must be in according to the moral standards. One’s rights must not trample another’s rights. Human rights must not dilute Natural Law. Otherwise it will become chaotic. Even the Preamble of the Philippine Constitution says that our government must govern for the “common good” or in more strongly worded statement, “ikakabuti ng lahat” in Filipino.
Page 20 of the Philippine Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Explained,” The rights in the Bill of Rights are sometimes referred as natural laws and as being founded on natural right (inherited, innate, birthright) and justice (Allen vs. Pioneer Press Co., 40 Minn. 117). “
Inherent according to Merriam-Webster means “built-in, inborn, inbred, innate, in one’s blood” to name a few. The 14th century word gender (Latin: gener) is innate or a birthmark according to Natural Law and should never be legislated by men because it runs in the blood (Science of Genetics). Thus civil partnership perverts the natural law of reproduction.
By legislating what is natural or inborn disguised as “civil partnership” is tampering the truth and covering up what is untrue or unnatural disguised as Human Rights or Inherited Rights.
HB 6595 is immoral bill.
Morality (from the Latin moralis "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper according to A. A. Long and D.N. Sedley (1987); The Hellenistic Philosophers: Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary.
Latin morālis or moralitas, lesson to be learned from a story or event; manner; character; proper behaviour; system of morality; set of moral standards of principles French “late.” Latin, “rectitudo”: or “rectus” means “straight, right,” 15th century.
In other words, Moral Science distinguishes what is proper and improper and what is moral and immoral. And every human right must have a moral substance of propriety.
Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness" according to the "The Definition of Morality, “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; Stanford University.
Can we now legislative wrong as right as well as to legislative right as wrong?
Hobbes says that in Natural Law theory, a natural reason is sufficient to allow all rational persons to know what morality prohibits, requires, etc.
Even in the legal profession, morality is a prime pre-requisite – Atty.Rodelio T. Dascil. He explained that Law, in its general sense, is defined as the science of moral laws based on the rational nature of man, governing his free activity for the realization of his individual and social ends, demandable and reciprocal.
According to Antony Flew (1979), “Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, which is the origin of morals and moral epistemology, which is the knowledge of morals. Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.".”
Similarly Megan-Jane Johnstone (2008) in “Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences” and Anita Superson (2009), “The Moral Skeptics” by Oxford University writes, “Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any particular set of moral standards.”
“Morality isn’t legislated or enforced by police or courts. It’s personal, stemming from your views of right and wrong,“ says by Michael Josephson. While Williams (2004) said, “The first line of defense in a civilized society is not the courts, law or the police, but customs, traditions and moral values.”
The Bill is unethical
The bill is ‘ immoral in doctrine’ and it is unethical for any lawmaker who will support for it.
In Article 201, (3) of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines states that, “Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows – The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon…(3) to offend any race or religion.”
Doctrine is canon or dogma. The full definition of doctrine is defined as “a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations,” (Webster). The HB 6595 is not merely a doctrine but it is a bill and once approved becomes a law.
The Preamble attests that our Government is founded on “rule of law, truth and justice”
RA 6713, Section 2 of the Professional Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees) Ethics teach what is morally right and wrong. Publics servants like our honourable lawmakers must be “competent” as the Code pointed out. Mediocre lawmaking therefore has no room in the hall of legislation.
While sexual preference is a personal choice, one’s inherited natural right like birthmark of your gender as male or female on the very day you were born cannot be legislated by men. Otherwise what we call inherited, natural rights where Human Rights is derived from will be perverted.
HB 6595 therefore perverts the Constitution under the Bill of Rights which is Natural Law to legitimize immoral laws. H.B. 3565 or Civil Partnership once approved by the Congress will make it “legal but immoral”?
Men cannot legalize Natural Law which is inherent or inborn which is also called constitutional. It is intrinsic and therefore non-transferrable and non-negotiable. The honourable legislators of the Congress cannot legislative the natural law of gravity or makes a law when the sun shines. In the same way, legislators cannot change the very gender of any individual by the time he or she was born (though it can be changed, amended, annulled, or perverted by the modern medicine, science and technology).
When we say natural (inalienable) rights, it is existed from the very time we were born. It is inherent, natural and original. It runs in your DNA as genes. Genes can be tampered however it can probably ‘changed”’ by our modern science and technology today. But you cannot change your origin (ancestry or inherited rights). Nothing exists without an origin or inherent history.
So when legislation changes if not perverts the Natural Science, would that be playing Messianic? Or abuse of authority if not a blatant violation of the Philippine Constitution with is ethical issue in RA 6713, the Ethical Standards and Professional Conduct of Public Officials and Employees?
“Every law passed and every spending decision is based on some moral system. All morality is based on a religion. So who says politics and religion don’t mix? The Bible says, ‘Thou shall not steal.’ That is the basis of law against theft. The Bible says, ‘Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour.’ That is the basis of laws against libel and slander … What we believe religiously will affect our political beliefs and practices,” writes Robert L. Thoburn; A.B., M. Div., Th. M.; Member, Virginia House of Delegates (1978- 1980)
The bill is anti-Bible, anti-religious and anti-Filipinos
Former President Ferdinand E. Marcos declared Presidential Proclamation No. 1923, on October 7, 1979 and said, “The Bible is an excellent source of principles in the development of moral character and personal discipline …”
Former President Corazon C. Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation No. 44 in 1986, celebrating every last week of January in recognizing the Bible.
And another former President, Fidel V. Ramos, declared the last week of January of every year as National Bible Week under Presidential Proclamation No. 1067. “It is fitting and proper that national attention be focused on the importance of reading and studying the Bible in moulding the spiritual, moral and social fibre of our citizenry …”
The Holy Bible says that relationship of the same sex or such act is an abomination to the God (Romans 1:26-28, Jude 1:7, 1 Tim, 1:8-10, I Cor. 6:9, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13).
“Human rights are moral principles or norms” according to James Nickel (2013) are “ moral principles or norms that describes certain standards of human behaviour, and are regularly protected as legal rights in municipal and international law.” In 2014, United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights said, “it commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights "to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.” And it is "inherent in all human beings" writes Burns H. Weston (2014).
The “inherent rights” which is derived from Natural Rights which is the concept of natural law was first documented in ancient Greek philosophy, including Aristotle according to Rommen, Heinrich A., The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social Philosophy trans. Thomas R. Hanley, O.S.B., Ph.D. (B. Herder Book Co., 1947 [reprinted 1959] ), p. 5. Natural Law was referred to in Roman philosophy by Cicero. It was then alluded to in the Bible, from which it was subsequently developed in the Middle Ages by Catholic philosophers such as Albert the Great, and Thomas Aquinas.
Inherent means “belonging to the basic nature of someone or something.” Gender is inherent right. While gender is generic, the sex of an individual on the other hand, be male or female makes one’s sex branded. Thus the Scriptures says, “male and female created he them,” (Genesis 1:27b).
Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal according
Strauss, Leo (1968). "Natural Law". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Macmillan.
So once the bill is approved, it insinuates that the law made by men is more supreme than God and the Scriptures. Thus making H.B. 6595 as anti-Bible, anti-religious and anti-Filipinos.
2015 Global Attitudes Survey of the United States-based Pew Research Centre says that “Nearly 9 in 10 Filipinos (87%) consider religion very important in their lives.” Of the 40 countries surveyed, the Philippines ranked 10th in the world in religiosity. And Filipinos also placed third among ten Asia-Pacific nationalities included next to Indonesians and Pakistanis.
Filipino intense religious nature is enshrined in the Constitution and freedom of religion is protected by the State in (Article III, Section 5; Philippine Constitution 1987). Our document affirms that, “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.”
In the Declaration of Principles of Policies, 1987 Philippine Constitution by Jose N. Nolledo (1992, page 11) it says, “While we recognize the separation of the Church and the State and that we adhere to freedom of religion, we have provisions on religious instruction in public school and employment of chaplains in some government institutions. Priests and religious ministers have increasingly invoked their rights as citizens of the country in criticizing the Government officials constituting violation of laws and human rights. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. observed that in matters pertaining to personal salvation and administration of sacraments, even heads of State obey the Church while at the same time, in matters pertaining to public order, even Bishops obey the law of the State.”
The bill is anti-God
Philippine Constitution, Section 2, Declaration of Policy states that, “It is the policy of the State to value the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights…”
Constitutionalist Jose N. Nolledo explained that, “A human person is created in the image of God. Every human life is valuable and must be uplifted,” in the same way that the Holy Scriptures writes that “God created man in his own image … male and female created he them.,” (Genesis 1:27).
Dignity is 13th century Latin word “dignitas” means “worthiness.”
In Religion, human dignity is a central consideration of Protestantism and Catholicism according Anthony O’ Hara (1999).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church insists the "dignity of the human person is rooted in his or her creation in the image and likeness of God." "All human beings," says the Church, "in as much as they are created in the image of God, have the dignity of a person."
In other words, inalienable rights are not subject for legislation. It is falls under the category of natural law as innate and inborn. Inalienable rights are theophanic from the divine order. The Almighty God provided us Natural Law to legislate the affairs of men and nation according to His divine principles, order and plan. Men cannot legislate God nor His divine and natural laws (Genesis 1:14; Romans 1:20).
Benjamin Franklin directed this message to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention, saying, “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: ‘That God governs in the affairs of man.”
That is the reason why Almighty God is being invoked in the Preamble of the Philippine Constitution as explained by 1987 constitutionalist Jose P. Laurel Sr. when he said, “
“Imploring the aid of Divine Providence,” now appear as “Imploring the aid of Almighty God,” to make the reference to God more personal and direct. And by invoking God in the preamble, Jose Laurel Sr. said, the Filipino people “thereby manifested their intense religious nature and place unfaltering reliance upon Him who guides the destinies of men and nation,” (Nolledo, Jose N.; The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Explained, 1992; page 2).
To legislate bill to “same-sex” relationship which is being ‘disguised’ as “inalienable, human rights” in order to protect the “human dignity” of every person is very misleading in the very context of its etymological meaning.
House Bill (HB) 6595 is grossly anti-God to the highest divine order thus perverting the inalienable rights of man and woman which is conventionally and constitutionally inborn as a birthright namely man and woman as ordained by Almighty God.
By approving the said bill is tantamount of saying that Almighty God is immoral in distorting the divine plan and purpose of marriage and the honourable members of the Congress will committing treason to God, to the people and to the republic in utter disregard of the rule of law.
My ardent appeal to the honourable members of the Congress is to carefully craft bills with divine guidance, wisdom and knowledge and refrained themselves in legislating ‘messianic,’ yet immoral bills that can tarnish their ethical standards as public officials otherwise, the Almighty God whom the constitutionalist invoked in the sacred document of the 1987 Philippine Constitution will become a fervent enemy of the State.
As Thomas Jefferson, the first drafter; Declaration of Independence 1887 said:
“I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just, We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Representative Michelle Antonio