As a first year student of law, I can’t help but notice that we live in interesting times.

For those of you who have been detached from the latest political circus that’s wracking the country, here’s what’s been happening: the President (PNoy) has been very vocal about his aversion to the Supreme Court Chief Justice (Renato Corona) — and for the longest time, the latter has been silent in light of the unrelenting tirades of the Chief Executive, but as of late, he has unleashed his own vocal arsenal as well.

The Judiciary’s main man has recently hinted, in a televised press conference conducted outside of the Supreme Court, that he is defiant, and should the antagonism continue from President Noy, he is more than prepared to fend off the bullying and defend the independence of the Judiciary.

I have two takes on this entire ruckus:

First, I perfectly empathize with the President — because every self-respecting citizen of this country knows that Chief Justice Corona was a midnight appointee of the past, shrewd President. He was appointed under dubious circumstances two days before GMA was to relinquish power, and moreover, it was the President herself who determined that it would be Corona who would be the Chief Justice.

It also needs mentioning that he was the Presidential legal counsel during her tenure, and for a couple of months, he also served the past administration as the President’s executive secretary.

If you do not notice anything fishy with this, then I don’t know what else will convince you that double-facedness and shameless political expediency exists, no — subsists, in this country.

However, even when I share Pnoy’s sentiments regarding Corona, I do not think his public tirades against the latter are called for.

For countless times during the past couple of months, he has been very vocal in calling the Chief Justice a puppet of the past government — and so consumed was he with this poison that he did not care whether the man that he maligned was sitting beside him in the Presidential table.

If I were Noy, I would have stuck to underhanded maneuverings, such as initiating impeachment proceedings against Corona, so he can accomplish two things: first, so he can pacify the insinuations of some quarters that he is out to get the Chief Justice; and second, so the separation of powers attribute of our republican democracy will have a semblance of order and tranquility.

Apparently, the President is still inept with making his political actions manifest without the possibility of a backlash. He needs to work on his finesse as a statesman, because even a nincompoop knows that image is everything when it comes to politics in this country.

Second, the executive camp has taken a disadvantageous position when it claimed that the Chief Justice should be sacked because the decisions of the state’s highest tribunal as of late were unconstitutional.

This, for me, is the biggest blunder that they could have made, because last time I checked, the test for constitutionality is still vested in the Supreme Court, and no one, not even the President, can question the mandate of the courts under the Constitution.

The mere insinuation of unconstitutionality of the Supreme Court’s latest decisions constitutes an aggression towards the judicial branch, and in effect, this translates into a minor abrasion unto the judicial bubble of immunity that the Constitution has so explicitly given to the Supreme Court.

Although I personally think the President is in the right track in ridding this country of political con artists and traitors, he needs to improve the methods that he employs in getting his message across.

He needs to be more subtle, implicit, and less vulgar — otherwise, he will perennially be frustrated that his vision for the country will not materialize: not today, not ever.

These past few days have been very interesting for international politics, Middle Eastern politics to be exact.

Egyptian President Mubarak’s claim to the presidency is widely challenged by protesters from all walks of life — with the spectrum cutting across various age, gender, and work demographics — and his only claim to power being supported by the Egyptian armed forces.

The series of protests came after widespread disenchantment grew from Mubarak’s failure to arrest the problems of inflation, widespread unemployment, and police brutality during his term. Of course, compounding this problem is the fact that for 31 years, Mubarak has ruled Egypt with impunity, unchecked in his propensity for abuse, and unbridled in his quest for continued political dominance.

Political commentators say that two things are propping up his regime: first, the tolerance (and to a certain extent, fear) of people to his autocratic rule; and second, the United State of America’s backing to his regime. Corollary to the second reason, Egypt is considered by America as its ally in the Middle East, and given the general feeling of hostility that the US has with most countries in that region, it cannot afford to lose Egypt as  its Middle Eastern  fortress.

But now, things have changed. Apathy has ceased to take control of Egypt, and its citizens are no longer intimidated by the threat of coercive subjugation by the regime. People are now flocking in public places and actively calling for Mubarak’s immediate ouster.

These are interesting times.

Not just for Middle East, but more so, for the international situation as well — because I sense major changes will be coming our way in the coming weeks, and months to come.

Last week, one of the news headlines caught my attention — not because I was amused by it, but because it was a little bit disturbing for me.

A traffic enforcer was suddenly catapulted to the limelight, and this was because he was able to flag down an erring driver who disregarded the red light and just sped on instead. The driver was apologetic and cordial, so the officer let the driver go.

He was not aware though that he was reprimanding the city mayor for beating the red light.

Last Monday, he was pleasantly surprised when during the early morning flag-raising ceremony, his name was called, he was aptly recognized, and he was applauded by those who were there. The city mayor, no less, was praising him to high heavens, since apparently, he embodied the ideal working values that traffic enforcers ought to have: unfearing and non-discriminating.

He was even promoted, and those officiating the flag ceremony sent a clear message to all who were there that he was someone who was worthy of emulation and praise. That he personified the public servant that the country needs.

Hm. All is well and good, but I only have one question: What happens to the city mayor? Does he get out of the public’s eye scott-free? Why shouldn’t he be penalized for being a traffic violator?

This situation, I think, merits another close inspection, because this is clearly a representation of how public officials think in this country. He is city mayor after all, so there is nothing wrong with beating the red light. I’m in a hurry after all, so the basic traffic rules don’t apply to me. Plus, it helps that I am using a government-owned vehicle. So no harm, no foul.

This frame of mind, for me, represents what is inherently wrong with how people think in this side of the world — because if the city mayor disregards even the smallest of traffic rules, how will he get to make the ordinary lay people follow these rules as well? Indifference in the small things always manages to transcend into the greater situations, and right before we know it, we have all become apathetic to these basic rules that were established for ensuring societal order.

Yes, we should praise the traffic officer who was not intimidated by the prospect of flagging down a VIP — but let us not forget the city mayor who opted to disregard the most basic traffic rule right in his own turf.

Just like everyone else, I was pretty surprised with the Supreme Court decision that acquitted Hubert Webb, the son of a prominent politician, and his co-accused, in the gruesome killings of the Vizconde family back in 1991.

The grueling details of their death still send shivers down my spine, just like they’ve always had, and each time I read about the number of stab wounds that each family member sustained (including 7-year old Jennifer Vizconde), I cannot even start to describe the hurt and anguish that Mr. Lauro Vizconde must have felt.

For truly, we know that man is capable of goodness — but when we are faced with the disconcerting truth that at times, he is also capable of the exact opposite, we feel petrified by the prospect of unbridled evil.

And, during these times, we ask ourselves: what can we do against such reckless and obsessive evil?

The main reason why I got so disconcerted with this new development is that I feel that this particular outcome has basically betrayed the apparent perception of people that justice is tilted towards the moneyed few in this country.

And that if you are economically-disparaged and you only have the truth to prop you up, then you can very well expect to languish in the hopelessness of the law’s promises, and in the futility of the state’s law enforcement capabilities.

The truth, after all, can only afford you so few opportunities — so much so that sometimes, it would be more expedient for you to just go with the general tide, and abandon your claim to the genuinity of your established truths.

For in the proverbial battle between the the moneyed elite and the helpless layman, the recent SC ruling very clearly emboldened its stance that it sides with those who have the means to alter the landscape of the country.

This is most disconcerting — and I can only hope to cause a dent in the law profession when I will be formally starting my law education this June.

I just hope my idealism will not wane, nor will the system swallow me alive.

To Mr. Huber Webb et. al, I hope justice will be served in your afterlives.

And my heart goes to you, Mr. Lauro Vizconde.

Last Friday night, I was the chair adjudicator in the finals round of Foundation University’s annual university-wide debate tournament. Because the tournament’s convener thought thought it best to have a debate motion that was fairly recent, I opted to give this motion out to the finals debaters:

“This House supports the Catholic Church’s calls for civil disobedience in light of the Reproductive Health Bill’s passage into law.”

I knew then that this was a rather verbose motion, but I had deliberately phrased it like that so the discussion would not be limited to just a discussion of the RH Bill — but that rather, it should include the primary actors involved in this present-day issue. The Church and the state, for example.

Of course, as the debate dragged on from the first speaker up to the opposition whip, I had drifted with my musings on the motion as well.

I, for one, unabashedly admit that I generally side with the liberals on this entire problem — because come to think of it really, the premises of the ‘procreational purpose’ arguments from among the Church’s most staunch defenders are hinged on the very simplistic assumption of ‘having more children translates to greater joy in the home’.

For me, all these blanket and motherhood statements need to be contextualized within an actual and breathing third-world country that is nearing its suffocation from overpopulation and unreliable methods of birth control. It’s about time we digress from the intangible rhetorics of religiosity, and move on to something that actually translates into better and more efficient family planning methods, improved life conditions, and better opportunities for Filipinos in the long run.

In the end, Opening Opposition won by a 2-1 split decision — but after I explained our decision to the impassioned audience members who were stirred by the fierce exchange of ideas early on, two things kept my mind busy:

First, I was very happy that we were able to coax people out from the relative comfort of traditionalism as we allowed them to think for themselves — bereft of moral damnations from orthodoxy, and free from the undiscerned manipulation of societal trends; and second, I loved the trophies that the organizing committee gave out.

I know that the second musing might have been relatively unimportant in light of what just happened, but I was just amazed by the general design of the trophy and its shiny luster. It was fashioned after the famous World Cup trophy — and I think the reason why partly I was drawn to it was because I have always liked collecting trophies myself. And I wanted to have that one for my collection.

Selfish, I know, but I can be selfish sometimes for the lamest of reasons.

Anyway, that being said, that was a fun experience for me, and I can’t wait for my next debate adventure in this sleepy, sleepy university town.

Sometimes, I don’t get the ways of the world.

We live in such a simple reality, but through time and with the introduction of complex yet unspoken acceptable behavior in dealing with certain situations, we have managed to complicate the simplicity of the sky being blue, or happiness being trivial.

For example, when we feel happy or when we are possessed by the sudden need to affirm our friends or loved ones, most of us are constrained by social norms to not be too expressive with our feelings.

Happiness that is subdued is much more preferred than the colorful, fiery, and bursting kind — because on the whole, people would much rather see you try to keep your happiness at bay, rather than making it more apparent and pronounced.

Life, as it is, is already complicated, and Bon Jovi captured it well when he said that it is no bed of roses. These sporadic, and oftentimes, much-needed infusions to the dreary experience that is living can actually do so many wonders for anyone.

Because I come from a family that intimated intimacy to me, I honestly believe that this world will be a better place if sometimes, we just say what we truly feel — stripped of inhibitions and bereft of shame, because really, if your words will shine amid the darkness of someone else’s life, then by all means, say them.

I know most people might be put off by too much optimism, and that darkness is a brooding respite when you want to occasionally shut out the world, but sometimes, you need to hear these affirming words to fuel you on and prod you to continue resisting the world, with all its sham and drudgery. (Thank you Desiderata)

I write this as my head throbs from a bad hangover, but just the same, I think the world needs to see more smiles, heartfelt laughters, and beautiful words.

Just my three cents worth. (okay, this is tacky.)

Yesterday was, unbeknown to me, World Animal Day.

It is supposed to be a day when we spend time with our trusted animal friends, bond with them, and make them feel special. Of course, this is easier said than done — because we typically need to attend to everyday, grown up stuff first before we can cozy up with our pets.

I actually did not know that it was World Animal Day, but for some reason, I spent time with some of my pets at home. And boy, when I tell you some of my pets at home, I actually intend to mean lots and lots of pets. You might wonder why. But it’s simple really:

Because I live in a rural area in one of the smaller cities here in the Philippines, I practically live with animals, since this is the typical situation here. I live with (and you have to pay extra attention here) the following animals:

5 dogs (two German Shepherds, one Dalmatian, one Red Doberman, one Dachshund, and one native dog)

this is carla, the red doberman.

me and carla.

this, meanwhile , is a picture of me kissing choi, our cute dachshund.

8 goats (one kid just died because his mom won’t let him have her breasts for feeding. booooo!)

3 cows

and 7 lovebirds.

Actually, this is nothing compared to when we had pigeons, turkeys, pigs, and at one point, a monkey even went inside our home area by accident. Not to mention the ocassional stray snakes that make their way here from time to time.

Given this mix of diverse animals, it is understandable (and expected too) that mayhem happens on an almost regular basis — but that’s life, you just have to deal with it. We have actually.

May the 2010 World Animal Day remind us all to take care of our pets more, pamper them more often (except for the goats and cows), and give them treats or take them strolling every once in a while. These animals, after all, deserve all the love and care in the world. Here’s to pets. Cheers.

I’ve had it with everything.

Yesterday, I had the worst internet connection. It was literally crawling on all fours, and I was so frustrated with my internet provider, Globelines. It boasts of the best internet service, yet when I tried to call up their customer service hotline, it was swamped with a lot of calls, so it suggested that I do internet chat with their help support desk instead. DUH. How can I do that if I don’t have internet connection?

I’m beginning to think that their service is not rain-proof. Because I recall that each time this had happened in the past, it was right after the heavens showered the dry earth with rain. Deducing from this assumptive observation therefore, can they not ensure that their services go on even with the occasional recurrence of rain? I mean seriously, I am paying for their services (my parents really, but still) and with their incessant campaigning that they are the best provider in town, they must at least live up to a quarter of what they claim to be.

I recently realized that a day without an internet connection translates to a day when I am not able to work, since most of my moolah-generating rakets are internet-based.

However, as I was busy fiddling through phone numbers and trying to get through Globe’s service hotline yesterday afternoon, luckily the connection was resurrected back.

I logged in in one of my cyber-jobs, looked for a project assignment that will keep my busy for the next two hours or so — and then death. My computer screen turned black, the CPU suddenly stopped breathing, and my unfinished work was, naturally, unsaved.

It was plain torture to reboot my computer because unlike before, it took more time than usual. Then, there it was, the cuplrit staring at me right in the face, blinking and throbbing in red: VIRUS detected.

Seriously?

What is wrong with the world?

*an open letter to Mr. Macho Man, who hurled that pillbox on that random Sunday afternoon, all in the name of brotherhood.

Dear Mr. Macho Man,

Pardon the heading, but I honestly don’t know how to address you — probably because I would like to think that I am collectively talking to your kind, or it might be because you have not really showed your face after you threw that hand grenade in last Sunday’s salubong in Taft, Manila.

Please let me understand one thing: Why did you have to throw that hand grenade on that crowded place with that mass of expectant family members and law students who were manning the bar ops?

Was it because you had an altercation with another fraternity member (or another Mr. Macho Man) and you wanted to exact revenge on that random afternoon?

Did you even think about what your actions might do to those who were there? To those who were drenched not just with beer amid the celebratory mood, but with euphoria as well?

If in case you did not know what happened after you hurled that grenade, either because you were too scared to look at the news after, or you were too self-absorbed with your little victory, here is what happened:

Helpless people got hit by the explosion, 42 to be exact, and one young girl by the name of Raissa Laurel even needed to have both her legs amputated just yesterday morning.

She was, like most people there, a law student who was cheering her contingent on — but unlike everyone else there, the hand grenade that you threw landed directly in front of her.

I don’t get it, so please help me understand.

Was that your way of reinforcing your being macho, and was that meant to affirm your masculinity?

If your answer to both questions is yes, then I commend you for successfully stoking your ego at the expense of that oblivious young girl who was unaware of your masculinity struggles and gender insecurities.

Why, if I may ask, do you need to have violence in order to get your message across?

This was always something that I have been meaning to ask any one of your kind: what really is the direct correlation between a man’s sense of sexual security with the amount of mayhem and havoc that he has to wreak  in his lifetime?

Is this the end all and be all of brotherhood? Because if it is, then obviously, I still need to know more about how brotherhood works, and what pakikisama entails.

I just hope that, wherever you are, you are gloating just as any victor would, because you have proven to the world that you are macho in every sense of the word.

That you are dominant, indeed.

That you are superior, truly.

And that you are masculine, without a doubt.

I really do hope you are man enough to stand up to that helpless young lady whose life you had so carelessly compromised;

that you are masculine enough to smell and inhale the pungent stench of blood mixed with gun powder at the aftermath of your phallus-stroking;

and that you are superior enough to follow the trail of blood that will lead you right straight to your cowardice.

I sincerely, sincerely do hope that you believe in karma — because you would definitely be needing all the balls in the world when the universe exacts its revenge on you.

All the best,

Clyde

Last weekend, I was swamped with so many activities that, although tiring, were all worth it in the end.

For all those who have not ready my previous posts yet, when I was in college, I was actually an active varsity debater — loosely translated, my entire college life was highlighted by my constant travels all over the country as I represented my school in prestigious regional, as well as national, debate tournaments.

I officially stopped becoming an active debater last 2008, and after that, grown up life consumed most of my time.

These past few weeks however, I tried to revive my debate life by adjudicating in weekly debate practices in my old university, and imparting some of the debate tips that I have managed to derive from my own debate experiences in the past.

Last Saturday specifically, I was part of an awesome team that organized a tournament for college debaters in Foundation University, one of the local universities here.

Yes, it was very stressful. We were there at 8 in the morning, and after 5 gruelling rounds of intense intellectual duels, the tournament commenced with the Semifinals at around 8 pm. But my friend described the experience well when she said that: yes, she felt tired, but it was the ‘accomplished tired’ kind of tired.

I agree one hundred percent.

The finals will be on October 8, so the prospect of adjudicating for the final round is personally exciting for me.

To know that we have started debate ripples in this university town is reassuring to the heart; and to finally see these new debaters progress from their initial exposure to debate will even be more fulfilling, methinks.

If only to make myself relevant these days and to make me not forget my heart’s inner passions, I plan to sustain these activities and, in the process, hopefully impart my own version of ‘Clyde goodness’ to the world.

Wish me luck.