THE FIL-AM PERSPECTIVE

TPS Status Update: May Pag-asa Pa!

By Gel Santos Relos

On Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Many kababayans continue to send me messages and emails, inquiring about updates on the requested Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the Philippines. Four months after the Philippines was ravaged by Haiyan (Yolanda), there are those who have begun to wonder if TPS for the Philippines would be granted at all.

If approved by the US government, TPS will provide visa relief for qualified Filipinos with expired or expiring visas, allowing them to temporarily live in America without threat of deportation. They will receive work and travel authorization as well.

The TPS was requested by various Filipino-American groups, in order to enable undocumented Filipinos in America to help in the rebuilding and rehabilitation of typhoon-ravaged areas, caused by Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda in November of last year.

Let me share with you the latest information shared with me by TPS’ primary proponent, The Migrant Heritage Commission (MHC). MHC is a Fil-Am organization based in Washington DC. Here is an excerpt of the email sent to me by Atty. Arnedo Valera, one of MHC’s executive directors:

David P. Arulantham , Philippine Desk Officer , Department of State called me today and gave me this update.   According to him: “TPS process is moving along, and they are getting closer and closer in regards to the recommendation for TPS for the Philippines. The facts have been laid out and it is now in the desk of Secretary Kerry for review and final decision, after which it will be sent to the DHS Secretary.”

My teleconference call meeting with David [was] very positive. And there is no doubt in my mind that Sec. Kerry will make a favorable decision, recommending TPS for the Philippines. My optimism [was] shared by Ambassador Cuisia, during my informal meeting with him two weeks ago at the Philippine Humanitarian Coalition assembly at the Phil. Embassy.

All organizations and individuals supporting MHC’s initial call for TPS should stay and remain positive that President Obama [and] the US Dept. of Homeland Security will do the right thing. MHC is calling all organizations to refrain from engaging in “rhetorical remarks “ and negative comments linking TPS approval  to President Obama’s visit in the Philippines. There are other important and significant matters involved in President Obama’s state visit in the Philippines that is mutually beneficial to the national interests of both countries.  

Let the established protocol and  process take its course. MHC strongly believes that [the] Philippines will be designated under [the] TPS program in due time. The Department of Homeland Security is authorized, under Section 244 (b) of the INA, to designate a country under TPS .

 In the history of TPS designation, all the countries now under the TPS program, the recommendations made by the Department of State have been followed by the Department of Homeland Security. MHC has always believed that [the] TPS designation of the Philippines should be an integral part of the humanitarian assistance by the US government to the Philippines.

TPS was initiated and pioneered  by the Legal Resources Program of the Migrant Heritage Commission (on November 11, 2013, 3 days after Haiyan /Yolanda) on separate letters to President Obama, Secretary Kerry of the Dept. of State and then Acting Secretary of DHS,  Sec. Beers.

  On November 10, two days after Haiyan/Yolanda , I presented the plan to my co-executive directors, Jesse Gatchalian  and Grace Valera-Jaramillo to call for TPS designation for the Philippines. MHC likewise convinced President Aquino to make [the] same request for TPS.  Since then, MHC’s  voice in the wilderness has evolved into a national clarion call for TPS by several organizations and individuals.

Our call for TPS is a collective effort of various organizations and individuals who believe that TPS designation of the Philippines should be an integral part of the humanitarian assistance extended by the US government to the Philippines.  Let us all stay positive and be united for  [this] TPS call!! Mabuhay and God bless our community.  

 Arnedo S. Valera, Esq.

Grace Valera-Jaramillo  

Jesse Gatchalian  Executive Directors,

 Migrant Heritage Commission

 

MHC 'S LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA:

 

 

 

BEWARE: You can be sentenced to 20+ years in jail for misbehaving in flight!

By Gel Santos Relos

on Asian Journal Op-Ed

 

Unruly Pinoy Passenger Aboard PAL (Photot credit: Balitang America)

 

MANY Filipinos in America prefer to fly Philippine Airlines (PAL) when visiting the Motherland, not only because of the shorter travel time, but also because they feel at home flying the flag carrier of the Philippines.

One kababayan felt so at home, he might just spend the next 20 years of his life in jail.

As Balitang America’s LA Correspondent Steve Angeles reported, a Pinoy passenger was arrested by authorities for an alleged drunken rampage on board a US-bound PAL flight.

The 53-year-old, California-based security guard Edgar Nonga admitted to federal authorities that he already had four alcoholic drinks at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) lounge before boarding PAL flight  PR 112 bound for Los Angeles.

Upon boarding, Nonga (who visited relatives in the Philippines with his parents) helped himself to a bottle of whiskey, which he saw in the plane’s galley. The PAL crew decided to cut him off, which caused an altercation between them and Nonga.

According to a witness testimony in a federal affidavit, Nonga began cursing at flight attendants in Tagalog. He even threatened to have one killed if they did not give him another drink.

Some witnesses claim Nonga then attempted to kiss the female flight attendant, who tried to make him stop drinking. A male flight attendant (identified as RL) came to the rescue and stopped Nonga from harassing his co-worker.

This enraged Nonga even more. He began punching the male flight attendant in the torso and head.One testimony claims Nonga was even holding a key as if it were a knife, during the alleged punching spree.

Crew members were finally able to restrain Nonga and have him return to his seat. Nonga’s mother, who was very frustrated with her intoxicated and misbehaving son, then spoke to the attendants and told them to “do what they have to do” because Nonga wasn’t listening to his parents either.

Nonga then came back for more action, eventually punching RL again. With the help of passengers and other crew members, Nonga was restrained again, until the plane reached its destination.

Nonga was arrested upon touchdown of flight PR 112 in Los Angeles on Sunday morning.

He now faces federal charges for disrupting a flight crew. If proven guilty, Nonga may spend the next 20 years of his life in prison  — the maximum sentence for this kind of offense.

During the investigation and according to the federal affidavit, Nonga admitted to being drunk on the plane and to helping himself to whiskey when he saw a bottle in the galley. However, he told investigators that he does not remember punching RL (the male flight attendant) nor does he remember trying to kiss a female flight attendant.

Nonga said that he recalls being pinned down, waking up handcuffed and sitting next to a big man for the final six hours of the flight.

Nonga is a former US navy man, who claims that he has no history of being diagnosed with any mental illness and that he was honorably discharged from the Navy. Officials, however, say Nongo was arrested for drunk driving in 2010.

His federal public defender declined to comment on the case.

Nonga has been set free on a $10,000 bail. He is scheduled to appear in federal court on April 1, during which time he is expected to plead guilty or not guilty.

WHAT Nonga did wrong  (and this would have to be proven in court during the trial) was to interfere with the duties of a crew member, when he behaved badly inflight. This in violation of federal law.

Federal Aviation Regulations 91.11, 121.580 and 135.120 state that: “No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated.”

The Federal Aviation Authority website even stipulates :

“The repercussions for passengers who engage in unruly behavior can be substantial. They can be fined by FAA or prosecuted on criminal charges.

As part of the FAA’s Reauthorization Bill (April 16, 2000) FAA can propose up to $25,000 per violation for unruly passenger cases. Previously, the maximum civil penalty per violation was $1,100. One incident can result in multiple violations.

So the next time you fly, be sure to behave well. If you cannot handle your alcohol well, don’t even drink. Let Nonga’s inflight misadventure be a lesson learned.

- See more at: http://asianjournal.com/editorial/you-can-be-sentenced-to-20-years-in-jail-for-misbehaving-in-flight/#sthash.JU9QdUM6.dpuf

Michael Martinez Highlights Need for More Philippine Government Support in Sports

By Gel Santos Relos 

Op-Ed article on the Asian Journal

 

Michael Martinez: Proud to be Filipino in Sochi Winter Olympics

Seventeen-year-old Michael Christian Martinez has put the Philippines in the spotlight during the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia — ranking 19th in the figure skating competition during his Olympic debut. Michael was also the only figure skater who made it to the Top 5 most talked about Olympic athletes on Facebook during the first week of Winter Olympics, and figure skating was the sport that attracted the most interest.

Before Sochi, Michael has won 19 medals in other international competitions. He made history,  being the first-ever figure skater from Southeast Asia to compete in the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics and in the 2014 Sochi Winter Games.

He may not have won a medal for the Philippines in Sochi, but Michael has already made his country and kababayans proud. He has defied the odds, given the very little support serious athletes get from the Philippine government — from early training to actual competition in the global arena.

 

Michael's Challenges On His Road to Sochi Winter Olympics

Photo Credit: PhilNews

Michael started skating in 2005 at the young age of 8, reportedly training in the ice skating rink of SM Megamall. Since he started competing internationally in 2009, his family has been covering the costs for his training and competitions.

Our homegrown star athlete wouldn’t have made it to Sochi without the help of people from the private sector, who believe in Michael. “We are truly thankful to Shoemart (SM), to the Philippine Skating Union, and to the Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) for their help,” said his mom, Maria Teresa Martinez, in a report by ABS-CBN News.

I just found out myself that the POC is a private agency, and not a branch of government.  It was through the assistance of POC that Michael was able to obtain a scholarship from the International Olympic Committee’s Solidarity Scholarship Fund. This scholarship would award $1,500 a month for eight months, until February 2014 , and would include the $500 fee for the Michael’s coach.The POC has reportedly already delivered the stipend from July to October, while the balance has yet to be given.

Mrs. Martinez also expressed gratitude for the financial support extended by SM Investment Corp. Since May 2013, Michael received P150,000 from SM for 10 months. Michael’s mom said that while this might seem like a big amount, it is still not enough to cover all the expenses in the very expensive sport of figure skating.

“From SM we are getting about $111 a day. That is already a big help but it is still not enough since, when we train in the US, we spend at least $400 a day just to cover the coaches’ fees ($100-$150/hour) and $40 for ice rink time ($10-16/ hour). That amount is just not enough to prepare an athlete for the Olympics. And it takes many years of training to be in the Olympics, not just 10 months,” she clarified with ABS-CBN News.

Mrs. Martinez disclosed that there are also additional expenses for international competitions. In 2013 alone, Michael participated in nine competitions in Europe and the US. After Sochi, Michael will proceed to Moscow where he will be preparing for the 2014 ISU Junior World Championships. Mrs. Martinez said the expenses for his preparation period at the Novogorsk Training Center in Moscow exceed $420 a day just for coaching fees, excluding accommodation expenses.

Michael’s mother said that they had finally received the pledged $50 daily allowance or $1,200 for 24 days for Michael’s sojourn in Sochi from the Philippine Sports Commission, which was delivered by POC executive secretary Gina Calaguas on February 13.

As ABS-CBN News reported, Mrs. Martinez confirmed that Calaguas had also given $7,200, but this was directly to Michael’s Russian coach Viktor Kudryavtsev on that same date, as payment for his coaching duties while in Sochi (covering the period Jan. 30 to the end of February). Mrs. Martinez said Kudryavtsev has been training the Michael since the end of December,  and will continue to do so until the last days of March.

Imagine how much more our athletes could achieve internationally, if they get full support from the government, as in the case of richer countries like US, Canada, Japan, and even Russia. This is why news about government officials pocketing tax payers’ money infuriates many kababayans. These funds could have been put to better use, if they were instead appropriated to finance better sports programs in the Philippines.

Kababayans around the world have now been expressing all out support for Michael Martinez and other Pinoy athletes, shelling out their own hard earned money to help them become more competitive in international competitions.

Lawmakers like Tito Sotto and Manny Pacquiao have filed resolutions to honor Michael Martinez for the honor he has given the country in Sochi.  

While this is a good move from the government, what will be better is a clear government policy and program that supports sports for Filipinos from childhood, up until they compete in the global arena.

 

The Benefits and Importance of Sport in Society

The benefits and importance of sports in society go beyond fame and bragging rights.  As the United Nations states in its website: “Sport has a unique power to attract, mobilize and inspire. By its very nature, sport is about participation. It is about inclusion and citizenship. It stands for human values such as respect for the opponent, acceptance of binding rules, teamwork and fairness.”

Moreover, “Sport plays a significant role as a promoter of social integration and economic development in different geographical, cultural and political contexts. Sport is a powerful tool to strengthen social ties and networks, and to promote ideals of peace, fraternity, solidarity, non-violence, tolerance and justice.”

The UN website further states that according to the Sport for Development and Peace International Working Group, sport is seen to have the most benefits in: -Individual development -Health promotion and disease prevention -Promotion of gender equality -Social integration and the development of social capital -Peace building and conflict prevention/resolution -Post-disaster/trauma relief and normalization of life -Economic development -Communication and social mobilization.

But the UN warns that sport is not a cure-all for development problems. “As a cultural phenomenon, it is a mirror of society and is just as complex and contradictory. As such, sport can also have negative side effects such as violence, corruption, discrimination, hooliganism, nationalism [parochial], doping and fraud. To enable sport to unleash its full positive potential, emphasis must be placed on effective monitoring and guiding of sports activities.” 

Op-Ed article on the Asian Journal

Can the Next Pope Revitalize the Catholic Church?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

 

Who will be the next Pope? 

 

This has been the question many people have been asking after the surprise resignation of Pope Benedict XVI last Monday. 

 

Kababayans from all over the world even went as far as to ask: Could the next leader of the Catholic Church be Filipino? 

 

According to Reuters, Manila Archbishop Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle is among the list of potential candidates. While no official list has been made public yet, Reuters' list reportedly included the 55-year old Tagle, who has been reportedly compared to the late Pope John Paul II, in terms of leadership style.

 

The announcement of the Pope’s resignation (effective February 28) has fueled a lot of discussions about the present state of the Catholic Church and speculations about the organized religion’s future. 

 

A Pope's resignation has not happened in the last 600 years, prompting many people to ask: Why now, when the Church is facing a lot of challenges? When it is desperately trying to fulfill its mission, in a world that has increasingly become more secular?

 

The Vatican’s official statement about the Pope’s resignation, however, seemed to show that the Pope’s decision supports the greater mission of the Church. 

The 86-year-old Pontiff resigned due to lack of physical strength and his frail health -- impediments for him  to effectively lead 1.2 billion Catholics in this time of turmoil.

 

Though saddened by the news, faithful followers have accepted and respected the Pope’s decision. They praised him for his humility and courage in making that decision. They say that this proves that the Pope believes the papacy is bigger than him, and that he will not allow himself to get in the way of the Catholic Church’s fulfillment of its mission -- proclaiming the Good News about Jesus Christ’s salvation of mankind, and helping people around the world be saved through the Catholic Church.

 

The Pope has been accused of covering up sexual abuse of children by priests, when he was still Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. 

 

Critics -- especially victims of alleged sexual abuse by Catholic priests -- said that while Pope Benedict XVI may have sounded and appeared compassionate about their plight, he has not really done anything about the situation. 

 

Now, his detractors challenge him to do the right thing: open the records of the Church and expose the names of the clergymen, who have been accused of sex abuse. They ask him to turn these records over to secular law enforcement agencies and let the State (not the Church) put them on trial and make them pay for the consequences of their actions, as secular people are asked to do. 

 

This, they say is in line with the kind of justice, fairness and true compassion they expect from the Catholic Church.

 

With Pope Benedict's resignation, the Catholic Church faces a crossroad in its 2,000-year-old history. Many people wonder if this impending change in leadership will bring about reforms that many followers have been clamoring for. 

 

Will the still-to-be-named successor help the Catholic Church connect with the changing world, or will he carry on Pope Benedict XVI’s conservative and uncompromising position on social and theological issues?

 

Will he allow women to be ordained as priests? 

 

Will he heed the call to allow priests to be married and have a family? 

 

Will he bless the union of gay people in the holy sacrament of matrimony? 

 

Will he allow the use of birth control methods (other than abstinence and the calendar method)? 

 

Will he endorse the theory of evolution? 

 

Will he support embryonic stem cell research? 

 

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Pope Benedict XVI is expected to go into isolation after his resignation, so as not to influence the decision of the cardinals, as they elect a successor in a secret conclave. 

 

Lombardi said the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church could be elected as soon as Palm Sunday (March 24) and be ready to take over by Easter (March 31).

 

Who do you think will be the new Pope? Do you think Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle has a chance to become the first Filipino Pope? 

 

If you can have a say in the election process, what attributes do you want the new pontiff to have? How can he stop disillusioned and disappointed Catholics from leaving the flock?  How do you think can the new Pope revitalize the Catholic Church?

(My Asian Journal Column article)

Readers’ Feedback: Prison Term for Offending Religious Feelings

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

(From Asian Journal)

Carlos Celdran was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of "offending religious feelings," under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

This stemmed from a complaint filed against him by the Catholic Church  when he staged a protest inside the Manila Cathedral while an ecumenical service (not a mass, as reported by some) was being held.  

 

Dressed like Jose Rizal, he carried a sign that read “Damaso” and shouted that the Church should stop meddling in Philippine politics. This happened during the heat of the debate on the Reproductive Health Bill.

 

According to the Revised Penal Code: “Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

Celdran said he would  appeal his case, arguing that the court’s decision was in violation of his freedom of speech, which is protected by the 1987 Philippine Constitution. 

 

His supporters likewise said they will file for a petition to free Celdran because he only exercised his right, invoking Section 4 of the Bill Rights: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

 

They will also start a petition for Congress to repeal Article 133, which they say is in violation of the separation of Church and State, invoking Section 5 of the Bill of Rights: “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

 

President Noynoy Aquino expressed sympathy for Celdran and said he hopes the Philippine Catholic priests will emulate the Pope and forgive Celdran, who has already apologized for what he did.

 

Should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?"

 

Here are some of comments from our readers:

 

"Our constitution is the most powerful law in our country. No Revised Penal Code can nullify its powers." - Critical Thinking Filipinos

 

"Tama lang ginawa sa kanya, labag na sa batas at pambabastos pa sa simbahan! Freedom of Speech -- doon sya sa labas ng simbahan magsisigaw! Pa-epal sya, kita naman sa actions niya sa camera. He deserves it." - Jun Cj Nofies

 

"If you changed the names involved, it would sound like you're talking about Middle Eastern countries. This shouldn't happen in any free and un-oppressed country." -- Dr. Edmond Yabut

 

"Why did he have to offend the Catholic Church in the first place, when our religion in the Philippines is really Catholicism? In the Middle East, there is so much respect for Islam, it is just right to have respect for Catholic faith in the Philippines though there are already some other new religions but still, the Catholic religion dominates the Philippines." - Anna Simpatica Rodriguez Villanueva

 

"If there is truly the notion of freedom of speech, as well as separation of church and state embodied in the Constitution, then the law in question is probably incompatible. Irresponsible though this person may be, any legal sanction against him should be solely on the basis of trespassing or disturbing the peace, if he refused to leave when asked to." - Karl W. Braun

 

"Freedom of speech should not be an act of degradation of one person, a group or an institution... freedom itself has boundaries." - Clinton Rey Mirabel

 

"Article 133 clearly violates Sec. 5 and should be declared as unconstitutional. What if a group of people don't believe in any religion? They would be left unprotected and exposed to offensive ridicule since they don't have any "place devoted to religious worship," or do any kind of "celebration of any religious ceremony!" That violates the Establishment Clause of Sec. 5 as the Phil. gov't would be favoring those with religions over the ones with none." - “Reply”

 

"If the Catholic Church can stomach and even defend the presence of sexual predators within its ranks, it should certainly be able to forgive and tolerate the occasional activist among its flock." - Tiny Defensor

 

"I think that CBCP already forgave [Celdran] but he must face the consequence[s] because he not simply offended religious feelings of people but also God, who is truly present in the tabernacle in the Manila Cathedral." - Inaqz Garz

"Mali eh, sana nilagay nya sa lugar ang protesta nya. Hindi yung ang [lumalabas] ay parang gumgawa lang sya ng eksena para mapag-usapan. Nothing is wrong with self-expression, as long as it is done with taste and a little bit of sensitivity. Nagplanking na lang sana sya sa EDSA." - Ray John

 

"OMG people,  what happend to forgiving and having mercy?  Isn’t that written in the Bible?"- Jonathan Jason Fabiala

 

"Sa Islam nga binibitay pa eh. Ganon lang yun. Kung puro kalayaan mo na lang ang gusto mong ipangalandakan sa mundo, maaari sanang makiramdam ka rin na hindi lang ikaw ang tao sa mundo. Matuto kang makisama sa [mga] taong nasa paligid mo at sa karamihan." - Paolo Delos Angeles

 

"Did Article 133 prevent religious strife in Mindanao? No, because in practice, the Phil. gov't. favors one over the other. That never happens in the US as they practice Sec. 5 to the letter; no need for an Article 133. The Philippines may have Sec. 5 and even an Article 133 to the pot, but in practice favors one over the other that's why there is rebellion in the Mindanao."- R.

 

"Article 133 is sound. It protects the right of people to practice their religion in peace. Section 5 of the constitution does not give favor to any particular religious establishment, it just says that anyone is free to practice whatever religion and the law protects everyone's right to do so. Nullifying Article 133 would allow the non-religious or even opposing religions to disrespect each other even at their own houses of worship. Many, including myself, admire what he did. But he will lose any respect he has earned by not facing the consequences of his actions." - John Galang

Prison Term for “Offending Religious Feelings” ?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

 

Could and should a person be imprisoned for “offending religious feelings?” In the Philippines, it is possible. That is exactly what the judge ruled in a case filed by Monsignor Nestor Cerbo of the Manila Cathedral (Catholic Church vs Carlos Celdran) over Celdran's violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code. 

 

On September 30, 2010, Carlos Celdran staged a protest against the Catholic Church for blocking the passage of the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill. He went to the Manila Cathedral dressed as Filipino national hero, Jose Rizal. Inside the cathedral and during an ecumenical service (not MASS but a meeting inside the church), Celdran shouted that the church should stop meddling in government affairs while holding a sign which read: “Damaso.”

 

The sign referred to “Padre Damaso,” the contravida priest in Dr. Jose Rizal’s novel, “Noli Me Tangere.”This anticlerical novel was written by the national hero to expose the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church friars and the Spanish elite during the Spanish era in 19th century colonial Philippines. 

 

In his ruling, Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 Judge Juan Bermejo Jr. stated: 

“Wherefore, premises considered, accused Carlos Celdran is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of Offending Religious Feelings under Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, he is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of two months and 21 days as minimum to one year, one month and 11 days…” 

 

Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code stipulates:

“Art. 133. Offending religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

 

As soon as this ruling came out, a fiery debate ensued among kababayans in the Philippines.

 

Many question the constitutionality of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, arguing that it directly violates Sections 4 and 5 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which states:

 

“Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

 

As these provisions in the Philippine Constitution were patterned after the US Constitution, it is important to understand the spirit and intent of the law, as expressed by Thomas Jefferson:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

 

This would point to the “Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the same prohibition found in the 1987 Philippine Constitution. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” This is followed by “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” -- known as the “Free Exercise Clause.” 

 

The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted by legal experts to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or the preference by the US government of one religion over another, notwithstanding the right to exercise religion or no religion at all.

 

People ask:  Isn't it therefore a violation of the Constitution to suppress the right to free speech (Section 4 Bill of Rights)  because of Article 133 which could arguably be in violation of  another provision of the Constitution (Section 5, Bill of Rights)  which mandates that "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion"?

 

Kababayans who oppose the judge’s ruling also argue against the use of the clause “acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” Who defines and who decides what is “notoriously offensive”? 

 

Others also wonder if people from other religion (even atheists) enjoy the same protection under the law. And what about the secular groups or people? Can they also file a case against the Catholic Church, if they feel that their feelings are being offended by the religious institution? 

 

Is there a counterpart of the law for the non-religious? If none, then, isn’t this a clear violation of the clause, “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,” in the Philippine Constitution?

 

Those critical of the Catholic Church contend that priests who sexually abuse minors should be the ones sent to prison, as such transgression is a far graver criminal offense than protesting inside the cathedral. They point out that the act of protest is protected by the “Freedom of Speech” clause of the Bill of Rights. 

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, kababayans who support the complaint of the Catholic Church argue that no right is absolute -- that people should exercise their rights responsibly. They contend that the law just makes sure that exercising one’s right does not cross the line and offend other people -- in this case, the religious feelings of Catholics.

 

They say Celdran could exercise his “freedom of speech,” but he should have chosen a better venue. Staging his protest IN the cathedral (which is a place of worship for Catholics) is a clear violation of Article 133.

 

Celdran said he would appeal against the court’s decision, arguing that this uncommonly-used law is a threat to freedom of speech. 

 

“I am calm but I am going to fight this till the end,” Celdran posted on Twitter. And this legal battle may go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

 

Legal experts say unless the Supreme Court rules that Article 133 is unconstitutional, then Celdran will have to face the consequences of his action pursuant to the provisions of the Revised Penal Code.

 

After listening to both sides of the argument, what is your opinion? Do you think Carlos Celdran SHOULD go to prison for "offending religious feelings?"

 

 

 

New immigration ruling on provisional waivers for TnTs: Beware of scams!

By Gel Santos Relos

 

AFTER the announcement of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Nepolitano on a new ruling, which will give immediate family members of US citizens unlawfully staying in the United States provisional waivers so they can continue to live in the US while awaiting their green card, we have seen spikes of advertisements in both traditional and online media that promise to expedite green cards for TnTs.

 

These ads capitalize on the impression that the new ruling is a “backdoor amnesty,” and that it covers ALL undocumented spouse, children, or parents of American citizens.

Before you become victims of some unscrupulous vultures, who will jump at any opportunity to capitalize on peoples’ desperation to avoid deportation, please read on.

 

I interviewed Balitang America’s “Pinoy Panawagan” segment legal counsel Atty. Lou Tancinco on this, and she explained the fine details of this new ruling.

 

First of all, Atty. Tancinco clarified that this ruling is NOT amnesty, is NOT applicable to all TnT spouse, children or parents, nor does it enable the qualified TnTs to cut the line and be ahead of other immigration applicants who followed the rules. They need to have an APPROVED PETITION before they can even apply for the provisional waivers. They will not even be able get any work permit or advance parole may be applied for, while the provisional waiver is pending.

 

Looking at the bigger perspective, Atty. Tancinco said that even before this ruling (which is set to take effect on March 4) there have already been “traditional waivers” available to some immediate family members of US citizens and even lawful permanent residents, who may have some issues in the processing of their petition for immigration-based family relations.

 

How then is the new ruling different from the traditional waiver? Who are really covered and what are the limits to the benefits they will presumably enjoy as a result of this new ruling?

 

Atty. Tancinco sent me this scenario via email to explain the difference so our kababayans may understand the fine prints of this new ruling:

 

“JOSEPINE entered the United States through the US-Canada border. She did not have a valid US visa and took her chances of hitching a ride with family friends to cross the border from Vancouver. Upon her arrival in 2005, she engaged in unauthorized employment. She met her US citizen spouse at work and a petition was filed on her behalf.

The petition was approved but Josephine was told to leave the country to get her visa at the US Embassy in Manila. Josephine refused to leave because she was not sure whether she could return to the United States after departing. She has two US citizen minor children and one of them has a disability. Will Josephine benefit from the new provisional waiver? How different is this provisional waiver from the traditional waiver?

To distinguish the traditional waiver from the provisional waiver, the new rules now allows the applicant who is undergoing consular processing to file the waiver within the United States even prior to departure to get the immigrant visa in a US Embassy abroad. This helps foster family unity while the waiver process is pending.

Generally, an applicant for immigrant visa may obtain the visa either through (1) adjustment of status or (2) consular processing at the US Embassy abroad. Those who are in the United States and entered with inspection or were admitted, even if they are currently out of status,  MAY apply for their visas within the United States through the adjustment of status process.

On the other hand, those who are residing in the United States but were NOT admitted (like when they illegally crossed the borders or seamen who jumped ship), or fall under the category of those who are NOT eligible to adjust (like those who enetered the US with a fiance visa but ended up not marrying this fiance who filed the petition),  must obtain their visas at a US Embassy abroad, through consular processing.

Those who have no immigration violations or have not overstayed in the United States will not encounter the usual delay in obtaining the visa abroad if the immigrant visa is available. The problem arises for those who have incurred “unlawful presence” of more than 6-months and are required to do consular processing.

For the latter, who are required to depart to get their visas abroad, the process is usually terrifying because of the uncertainty of their ability to return, as well as the long period of separation from family for many months, if not years. This fear is alleviated by the ability of these individuals to file for a stateside or provisional waiver. This is DIFFERENT from the traditional waiver process.

In the traditional waiver processing application, the individual may either be the spouse, parent, child (adult or minor) of a US citizen, or a lawful permanent resident. A petition for relative is filed and the visa is available except that there are reasons for the denial of the visa. These reasons are referred to as “grounds for inadmissibility.”

Examples of such grounds (1) fraud and misrepresentation; (2) certain criminal offenses; (3) health-related grounds; (4) smugglers; (5) previous removal order and (6) 3-10 year bar. All these reasons for denial may be overcome by filing the I-601.

If this waiver is granted, the immigrant visa will be issued. The traditional waiver is filed within the United States for adjustment of status. For those consular processing, the individual applicant may only file the waiver after the interview with the consular officer when he is required to file the waiver before the immigrant visa is issued. With the provisional waiver, this waiver may now be filed within the United States prior to departing and applying for the visa abroad.

Unlike the traditional waiver, the new provisional waiver only applies to immediate relatives of US citizens. Immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents are NOT covered by this new rule. In addition, it is important to note that the NOT ALL the grounds of inadmissibility will be included in the provisional waiver. Only the “unlawful presence” or the 3-10 year bars will be waived. Also, there is no appeal to the denial of the provisional waiver application unlike the traditional waiver.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Services also made it clear in the published rules that no employment authorization or advance parole may be applied for while the provisional waiver is pending. The standards set for determining extreme hardship to US citizen spouse or parents will be the same for both provisional and traditional waivers.” Read more: How does USCIS define "hardship"?

 

GOING BACK to the case illustrated earlier, Atty. Tancinco said “since Josephine is not eligible to adjust, she may take advantage of the provisional waiver when the rules take effect on March 4, 2013. If the waiver is approved and that no other grounds for inadmissibility exists, her departure to the US Embassy in Manila to get her visa will assure her return within a reasonable time.”

 

Atty. Lou Tancinco reminded us that while the final rules on Provisional/Stateside Waivers released last week might have excited thousands of family members waiting for an opportunity to legalize, we need to be cognizant of this ruling’s limited applicability.

 

Please be guided by this information. Huwag magpapaloko. Kindly share this with family and friends who may benefit from this.

 

(My Asian Journal column article for January 16, 2013)

PHOTO CREDIT: The Blaze

Extreme Hardship Waiver: Good News for Fil-Am Families with TnTs

By Gel Santos Relos

 

THE start of new year has brought forth a new reason for kababayans to look forward to 2013 with a renewed sense of optimism in their seemingly elusive dream of being able to live with their family in America without fear of being prosecuted and deported.

 

On January 2, the Obama administration announced a new immigration rule that would shorten the time for undocumented immigrants to endure being separated from family members, who are already US citizens.

 

Beginning March 4, qualified undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of US citizens may already apply for the “extreme hardship”  waiver. To be granted this waiver, they  have to prove that their family in America would experience extreme hardship if they could not return to the United States from their country of origin.

 

This new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ruling will benefit about a million of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, who are spouses, children or parents of US citizens. This waiver will allow them to stay in the United States, while waiting for permanent residency status.

 

When their petition for “extreme hardship” is approved, they will still have to go back to their country of origin -- but only for them to pick up their visa, and then come back to the United States.

 

Under the old rule, those who have overstayed in the US will have to wait for at least 10 years, because of the “ten-year ban” immigration policy, before they could be considered for the privilege of setting foot in the United States again.

 

This new ruling will cut the waiting time and help families of US citizens be reunited faster.

 

How is “extreme hardship” defined? Who qualifies for this waiver?

 

According to the website of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), there are identifying broad factors that have been cited in existing precedent decisions as relevant to the evaluation of whether deportation would result in extreme hardship to the alien or to his or her qualified relative. These factors are:

 

1. the age of the alien, both at the time of entry to the United States and at the time of application for suspension of deportation;

2. the age, number, and immigration status of the alien’s children an d their ability to speak the native language and adjust to life in another country;

3. the health condition of the alien or the alien’s child, spouse, or parent and the availability of any required medical treatment in the country to which the alien would be returned;

4.  the alien’s ability to obtain employment in the country to which the alien would be returned;

5.  the length of residence in the United States;

6.  the existence of other family members who will be legally residing in the United States;

7.  the financial impact of the alien’s departure;

8.  the impact of a disruption of educational opportunities;

9.  the psychological impact of the alien’s deportation or removal;

10 .the current political and economic conditions in the country to which the alien would be returned;

11. family and other ties to the country to which the alien would be returned;

12. contributions to and ties to a community in the United States, including the degree of integration into society;

13. immigration history, including authorized residence in the United States; and

14. the availability of other means of adjusting to permanent resident status.

 

USCIS further noted that ultimately, “extreme hardship” must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis after a review of all the circumstances in the case, and none of the listed factors alone, or taken together, automatically establishes a claim of extreme hardship. Nor is the list exhaustive, as there may be other factors relevant to the issue of extreme hardship in a particular case.

 

And with respect to this new ruling, the government may come up with even more specific guidelines.

 

Already, kababayans and other immigrants who followed the rules and waited in line for a long time are questioning and opposing this new policy. They call this “backdoor amnesty” and contend that this is grossly unfair for law-abiding citizens and their families.

 

On the other hand, supporters of this policy explained that “it’s a way to streamline the extreme hardship process, in the best interest of families. The government accepted the extreme hardship cases of about 70 percent of applicants last year. But this would make the process actually work, turning an ordeal that lasts months or years into one that lasts days or weeks.”

 

Many, even among our own kababayans, took the risk of coming to the United States as tourists, and then stayed in the country even beyond the time period stipulated in their I-94. Some of these TnTs have pending petitions but could not wait for a long time away from their families.

 

Others enter the United States from the borders, without any legal documents that give them the privilege to be in the country even as visitors. Some are crew men or seamen who jumped ship.

 

They became out of status -- living in America without any legal “papel.” Many were able to work “under the table,” without work authorization. Others came in as single, and then found love in the process.

 

Whatever the circumstance, these undocumented immigrants have been living in fear or isolation for a long time.

 

They opted for “kapit sa patalim,” -- risking everything just to be with their family in the United States. This is especially true for fathers or mothers with young children. Each year away meant one year of missing out on raising their own kids.

 

This would also explain the decision of many undocumented children, who chose to take the risk of staying here in the United States just to take care of their old and ailing US citizen parents.

 

This would also be true for the lolos and lolas who have overstayed and have become TnTs, because they could not bear not helping take care of their apos while their children work hard for a living in this tough economic times.

 

If you think you or your loved ones qualify, it is best to seek the counsel of your trusted immigration attorney.

 

Happy New Year!

 

(My Asian Journal Column)

 

Bakit Natalo si Pacquiao? : The intersection of religion, politics and metaphysics

By Gel Santos Relos

 

If there is anyone who still has doubts about the powerful influence of our Pambansang Kamao Manny Pacquiao, particularly among Filipinos in every corner of the world, then the fourth bout between the Pacman and Mexican Juan Manuel Marquez must have already knocked that out for good.

 

After Pacquiao was knocked out by Marquez in the sixth round, we found our iconic boxing hero unconscious and motionless -- his face facing the floor. The Pacman lost, and so was the morale of many Filipinos. Trying to make sense of this painful defeat, kababayans from all over the world bantered endlessly for days, and there we find the testament to how Manny Pacquiao has that power to make religion, politics, and metaphysics collide!

 

Exhibit A: Metaphysics and the cosmic energy

 

Fil-Am Republicans find this absurd and crazy: some people blame the Pacman’s loss to Mitt Romney. And this theory has been talked about even in US mainstream media.

 

Mitt Romney was reported to have sat in the front row at the MGM Grand Garden to watch the bout along with his wife, Ann. Just two hours before Pacquiao walked to the ring to fight Marquez, Romney reportedly went to Pacquiao's dressing room, extended his hand to Pacquiao and said, "Hi Manny. I ran for president and lost."

 

Some Filipinos theorized that Romney must have rubbed off his bad karma to Pacquiao through that handshake. Moreover, the words Romney uttered to Pacquiao was said to have echoed vibrations of defeat, pulling down the Pacman’s winning energy.

 

As staunch Obama supporter and Fil-Am community leader Rodel Rodis wrote, “If Romney visits you before a fight and reminds you he lost the elections, is that pep talk from him going to inspire you to win?”

 

Exhibit B: Politics and sports? 'Tubig at langis'

 

Many kababayans (especially those who do not believe in Manny Pacquiao’s qualification and mettle to hold any position in government) present this recent loss, as evidence that boxing and politics do not mix.

 

They argue that Manny has become the greatest boxer of his time, because he was focused on his being a sportsman. He dedicated all his time and energy in training for his fight.

 

When he entered politics, many Filipinos said our Pambansang Kamao has lost his edge as a boxer. They also said he has also proven his detractors right- that he would be a mediocre, if not bad, elected Congressman of Sarangani. 

 

They contended that the Pacman has notoriously earned the dishonor of being one of the Members of the House of Representatives with the most number of absences. Moreover, he reportedly did not have any bills yet enacted into law that would help the people of Sarangani.

 

These Filipinos say Manny Pacquiao has to choose -- be a boxer or a politician. Even his own mother, Aling Dionisia, said after the fight: “Kung ako magdedesisyon, gusto ko magpahinga na si Manny, relax na lang siya. Politician ang anak ko, doon na lang siya magserbisyo.

 

Exhibit C : No separation between religion and sports

 

It is more fun in the Philippines, we all say. Everything is just interconnected. We cannot even separate religion from politics. What makes us think we can remove religion from sports? Not even Manny’s equally famous mother Nanay Dionisia thinks so.

 

Aling Dionisia (fondly called Mommy D) blames her son’s change of religion for his loss. Pacquiao is no longer a Catolico cerrado, and is now a Born-again Christian. 

 

After Manny’s two successive losses, feisty Mommy D passionately said in an interview with DZMM: “Gusto ko wag niyang iwanan ang sign of the cross kasi yan ang nakayaman sa kanya noon, ang dami ng panalo niya.” 

 

 
Manny used to wear his rosary when he enters the ring, makes the sign of the cross, kisses the crucific before taking it off just before Round 1 in every fight before he became a Born-again Christian. 

 

"Nalungkutan ko lang parang kulang ensayo ng anak ko, pirmi busy reading Bible sa bahay. Kulang ang ensayo niya, bising-busy talaga siya....Kailangan face-to-face ang ibigay sa Diyos na galing ng puso, na totoong-totoo na walang kapalit ang pagdasal natin," the mother lamented.

 

"Gusto kong ibalik niya ang dati niya. Tutal ang Catholic naman, wala naman naghihingi ng araw-araw magsimba, isang oras lang hiningi ng Diyos," added Mommy Dionisia. (Watch Mommy Dionisia unleash her sentiment about Manny's leaving the Catholic faith:)

 

AT ANO ANG SABI NI MANNY?

How Manny’s greatness as a sportsman shines even in his loss

 

After Marquez was declared the winner, Manny Pacquiao was reported to be the first Filipino in the MGM arena to smile. He reached out to Marquez and congratulated him. 

 

The Pacman also offered no excuses for his defeat, other than his self-deprecating statement that he must have been overconfident, that was why he lost.  

 

Indeed, our Pambansang Kamao, Manny Pacquiao, has once again showed us why he is the greatest boxer of his time. He has demonstrated how he can be gracious in defeat, as much as in victory. 

 

While the KO loss of Pacquiao to Marquez may have dampened the morale of many Filipinos, let us look at the big picture and remember all the honor he has earned and offered to the Philippines. As Wikipedia summarized: He is the first eight-division world champion in which he has won ten world titles, as well as the first to win the lineal championship in four different weight classes.

 

He has been named “Fighter of the Decade” for the 2000s (decade) by the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA), World Boxing Council (WBC) and World Boxing Organization (WBO). 

 

Manny Pacquiao is also a three-time The Ring and BWAA “Fighter of the Year,” winning the award in 2006, 2008 and 2009, and the Best Fighter ESPY Award  in 2009 and 2011. He has also long been rated as the “best pound-for-pound boxer” in the world  by some sporting news and boxing websites.

 

Amid all speculations and disappointments, Pacquiao issued the following statement: “First and foremost I would like to thank God for keeping Juan Manuel Márquez and me safe during our fight on Saturday night. I want to congratulate Juan Manuel. I have no excuses. It was a good fight and he deserved the victory. I think boxing fans, who watched us, were winners too."

 

“To all my fans, I would like to thank you for your prayers and assure you that I am fine. I am looking forward to a nice rest and then I will be back to fight. On behalf of Jinkee and our family we would like to wish everyone a joyous Christmas and a happy and healthy new year,” Pacquiao further said.

 

 

 

 

 

Do You Agree Christmas Displays Like the BELEN Should be Banned in Public Places?

By Gel Santos Relos

 

ONE of the rituals many Fil-Am families enjoy doing during the Thanksgiving holiday weekend is putting up a Christmas tree and decorations, for that early Christmas feeling.

 

Our friends and family, business establishments, public parks and places back home in the Philippines do that even earlier – some even as early as September (the start of the “Ber” months). The Christmas holidays, after all, is longer and more fun in the Philippines!

 

That is why we try to capture the same spirit here in America, and are happy to participate in Simbang Gabi andPaskong Pilipino gatherings. We also love going to places that feature our favorite Christian displays, like theBelen, which showcases the nativity scene. For Christians, images like this put “Christ” back in the Christmas celebration.

 

But this is also precisely the reason why this  Belen (a life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display of Holy Family -- Baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph -- the three kings, shepherds, and angels) has no room in a Santa Monica park in the Los Angeles area. It created quite a stir in the Christian community, including Filipinos.

 

US District Judge Audrey B. Collins rejected a motion from the Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee to allow the religious display this season, while their lawsuit plays out against the city.

 

Christians said this decision effectively ends a 60-year Nativity tradition, “after atheists stole the show with anti-God messages.”

 

They were dismayed that the city decided to ban it rather than do measures to referee this messy religious dispute that began three years ago, when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.

 

As Balitang America reported, Collins explained the rationale of her decision: “the city was within its constitutional right to eliminate the exemption that had allowed the Nativity at the oceanfront Palisades Park because the change affected all comers — from Christians, to Jews, to atheists — and provided other avenues for public religious speech.”

 

Judge Collins pointed out that the decision was not meant to squash religious speech, but because “they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views.”

 

Note that in America, public places like public parks are maintained and funded by taxpayers' money. Taxpayers include people of all faith, even those who do not have faith in any God, like the atheists.

 

The Associated Press reported that the issue in Santa Monica between Christians and Atheists began in 2009, when atheist Damon Vix applied for and was granted a booth in Palisades Park, alongside the story of Jesus Christ’s birth.

 

Vix reportedly hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: “Religions are all alike — founded on fables and mythologies.” The other side of that sign read, “Happy Solstice.” He repeated the display in 2010 but then upped the stakes significantly.

 

Furthermore in 2011, Vix recruited 10 others “to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays, such as an homage to the ‘Pastafarian religion’, which included an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

This secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. Two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

 

The atheists used half of their spaces to display signs that are offensive to Christians, such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil, saying: “37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?”

 

Most of the signs were vandalized, and with the uproar that followed,  the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and which earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames: the “City of the Christmas Story.”

 

Atheist Vix said while he was pleased with Monday’s ruling, he was also saddened by the anger being directed against atheists, since he hung his first anti-God sign in 2009.

 

“So many people don’t understand atheists,” Vix lamented. “If you read the signs we put up, one said, ‘Love is all around you.’ That’s really a better understanding of who most atheists are.”

 

William Becker, the attorney for the Christian group, compared the city of Santa Monica to Pontius Pilate -- the Roman official who authorized the crucifixion of Jesus.

 

“The atheists won and they will always win, unless we get courts to understand how the game is played and this is a game that was played very successfully and they knew it.”

 

The Associated Press reported further that Becker said he expects the case will be dismissed at a hearing on Dec. 3, based on Monday’s proceedings and plans to appeal.

 

We asked our viewers via our daily online poll Isyu Ngayon on Balitang America if they agree with the judges’ decision to ban this “Belen” in Santa Monica. An overwhelming majority -- 95 percent of our respondents disagreed on grounds of religious freedom and the need to respect each other’s religious beliefs and religious practices.

 

On the other hand, five percent argued on upholding the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of  the US Constitution, which rules that there should be a separation between church and state.

 

While it can be debatable how this "Establishment Clause" contradicts the “Freedom of Religion” also guaranteed by the Constitution, this clause is interpreted to rule that government should be neutral with regard to religion -- that government should remain neutral, neither favoring nor disfavoring any religion or even those who do not believe in nor practice any religion.

 

What do you think? Do you agree with the judge’s decision to ban the Belen display in a public park?

 

(My Asian Journal Column Article November 24, 2012)