GRAINS OF ALMIGHTY GOD

Roberto Siccuan De Alban Tumauini, Isabela

The Highest Human Law of the Land, The Cons ti tuti on of the Republic of the Philippi nes, does more than procl aim the Fili pi no peopl es c ategori cal recognition of the exi stence of Al mighty God it dec lares that the Fili pi no reli es upon the hand of GOD. We, the so vereign Filipino People, imploring the aid of Almight y God Beli evi ng i n, and rel yi ng on God is , therefore, not j us t a fun cti onal option or privil ege i t is the duty of every Fil ipi no to do s o. This is reaffi rmed when we, by the v ery s ame Constituti o nal Preamble, c ommi t ours elv es to:

* Author is the third child of Atty. Josefin De Alban (UST A.A. 1928, UST Ll.B. 1933) and retired Home Economics teacher Esteria Bautista Siccuan (Philippine Normal School, 1937). Their eight (8) children are all graduates of the University of Santo Tomas.

 x x x Secure to ourselves and our posterit y the blessings of independence and democrac y under the Rule of Law and a regime of Truth, Justice, Freedom and Love , Equalit y and Peace. x x x

And God is Lov e.

Public offic ers , high or l ow, in all three Departments of Government, are i ndubitabl y presumed to k now this si nc e none of them c ould have l egal l y ass umed office wi thout fi rs t taki ng thei r oaths of office whi ch procl aim thei r all egianc e to the Phi lippi ne Cons ti tuti on and with whic h they pray:

So help me GOD

It is i n this c ontext that we s eek to offer our partici pati on i n the c urrent disc uss ions on the s o c all ed RH BILL (herei nafter RH) .

Beli evi ng and rel yi ng upon God, and s ubmi tti ng to His will, the mother ques tion is:

thereby

Is RH in accordance w ith the w ill of God?

And what is the will of God?

The Almi ghty s peaks to us wi th His Commandments, thereby i mpos ing His will upon us all , by Hi s rev ealed v oice and through Jesus, The Hol y Spi ri t, His s aints and Prophets . W e l earn thi s from the Hol y Sc ri ptures .

W e do not propos e to giv e the reader uncondi tional ans wers . Our offer is to pres ent obs erv ati ons that might provok e refl ections that, in turn, hopefull y, c ould l end enli ghtenment to the c oncer ned.

The Al might y Discounts OVERPOPUL ATION In one great moment of deli ght God promis ed Abraham generati ons of desc endants as numerous as the grai ns of sand. But are we c ommissi oned to c ount the number of grains or limi t thei r quantity? Limi tl ess populati on was thereby regarded by the Lord as a reward to His c hosen people, as i n fac t, we, too, are or wis h to be.

I. II.

Di d God mean His reward to be a c ause of mis ery? Is not the reward acc ompani ed by reassuri ng prov isions for i ts sus tenance?

Cl earl y the Almi ghty never saw numbers as a threat to His people. A generous Gi ver, The Sourc e of thi ngs that happened and to come, the Lord s tack ed the Earth wi th goods providential l y abundant to meet the health requi rements of His grai ns of s and .

It has al ways been given to man to fis h and hunt; to s ow and h arvest; to have domini on over the l ands, the s eas, and the ski es and all nouris hments that c ome from them.

Yet i t was als o giv en to man to c hoos e: to be l ovi ng or to be wi thout l ov e; to be grateful for his s hare of bl essi ngs or to want to hav e much more -to be greedy, to o ver -cra ve .

In growi ng years we were a famil y of el even before we were ten, our parents incl uded.

On our table the conc ept of ov erpopulati on is al ways tes ted. Mama cooks a c hick en, whic h s he then divi des i nto ten pi ec es . I eat two an d one of us is depriv ed of his s hare.

If a piec e of c hick en is enough to meet the food needs of a famil y member there need not, defi nitel y, be a problem of overpopul ation of mouths outnumberi ng the quantity of c hick en inputs . But ev en when one eats more than his s hare the problem of

c onsequential deprivati on is not the fault of overpopul ati on but of unequal distribution of w ealth due to sel fis h greed, a varice or over craving .

But supposed the l ones ome chick en c annot meet the dietary needs of all of us, is overpopul ation appreci abl e as a root of the problem of depriv ation? Yes , i f it is impossible for M ama to produc e another c hick en or the equiv al ent of a s uppl ementary fowl in whatev er form.

Is it impossible for the gov ernment to hel p produce the extra chi cken? Is i t i mpossi bl e for the gov ernment to hel p the peopl e, the s o -call ed poor, to hel p thems elves to produc e c hick en?

Is it not the weight of over -c ravi ng wi th cons equent overstuffed abdomen that defi es the fulc rum of equality that overstrains the s i news of morali ty that, i n turn, .?

If overpopulati on caus es pov erty, is i t not digni fyi ng an abs urdity to ass ume that t he rev erse is, therefore, true that underpopulati on produc es wealth and prosperity. And what is wealth? W hat is pros perity?

One woul d be qui ck to reac t:

"But we s houl d hav e manageabl e/sustai nabl e popul ation !

W hat quanti ty of mouths to feed is manageabl e?

And i f one wi s hes for a Bal anced Popul ati on, meaning, perhaps , a si tuation where the number of mouths is matc hed by the quantity of nutri ents , do we hav e the abili ty to make s uc h determination giv en milli ons who hav e di fferent needs, tastes , preferences?

Still , even i f we as sume that overpopul ati on breeds pov erty, i t may be as ke d: So what?

To what extent is poverty tolerabl e and i ntol erabl e? W hat is the level of concern that it des erv es giv en that we are threatened by the now parall el problems of drug -abus e, human trafficki ng, murders, mass ac res, etc ?

W hat is s o c ompelli ngl y evil about pov erty that we hav e to us e all means to address i t ev en by measures that divi de the nati on? And c an we reall y be one under God by legisl ating di visiv e and c oerc ive cooperati on?

If RH is good, i s there truth and fai rness in ass umi ng, there fore, that thos e against i t are moved by motiv es against the will of God?

The i mplied insis tenc e on work abl e definiti ons is fai r. Is it not prudent to provi de l egis lated sol utions onl y to l egi slated defi ni ti on of problem s ?

May we agree on c onc lus ions bas ed on undefi ned premis es ?

Future Reduction of Population is Not a solution to Present Problems

RH is suppos edl y good bec aus e i t guarantees future reduction of the popul ation, which s uppos edl y results i n reduction of poverty thereby reduci ng the nati on s problems .

But how c an a future reduc tion of the poor do that?

Are the poor abl e, ready and reall y wi lling to i nitiate and mai ntain a drug-habi t, a d rug-s hop, fac tory or s yndi cate? Is it not said that the y are too inadequate to bu y their ow n condoms?

Are the poor abl e, ready and reall y wi lling to i nitiate, c ommit and maintai n, human traffic king, s muggli ng, mass ac re, among other hi gh profil e, mass damagi ng c riminal activ iti es ?

Bei ng i n fac t v ictims (rec ruited hoodlums, pi mps, and c ou riers as i nduced by i nc entives for thei r

i ntes ti nal needs ), s houl d the poor n ot be redeemed i ns tead of targe tted for reduc ti on? Is i t not a better pol ic y to reduce, and NOW , the rich and powerful c ri me -l ords and thei r cohorts i n government?

May we faul t our poor for not havi ng the hunger li berating power of ill -gotten weal th, for unexpl ained pov erty? How many poor are i ndi ctable for pl under; for l and grabbing; for non -payment or underpayment of wages; for poss ess ion of repli cati ng mac hi nes to vi ol ate the Intell ectual Property Law; How many poor c ould produce pornographic films or es tablis h red hous es ? How many poor c ould set -up ill egal rec rui tment agenci es ? How many poor c oul d mai ntain goons to terroriz e v oters and funds to buy v otes? How many poor c ould buy machi nes that could bury their vic ti ms ? How many poor c ould pay for the many s pears that c ruci fied Chris t?

W e s eem to refer to poverty as a permanent s oci al s tatus vis --vis the s uppos ed rich; but c an the s o-c alled poor not bec ome rich an d the now ric h poor? Do the so-c all ed poor reall y des erv e their depriv ation? Do the ric h des erv e thei r opportunis tic weal th?

Is i t reall y good, especi all y for our s elfis h ends, that we reduc e thos e who s weat for our l ands and

10

bear h arv es ts to our doors ? W ho drive us to our fav ori te col ored spots and c asi nos ? W ho tri m our gardens ? W ho l aunder our shi rts ? W ho lay red c arpets for us to strut on in s pl endor? W ho polis h our fl oors so we c oul d dance seaml essl y wi thout fear wi th our paramours and mis tres s es ?

The poor s teal for thei r s urviv al but i n a s yndic ated, larger sc al e, for their manipul ators . The ric h do not steal for the poor but largel y from the l atter, rarel y from thei r c onspi rators and mostl y for thei r luxuri es and exces ses .

Could RH Breed the Moral Equi valent Of High Crimes ? Sinc e the RH propos es to use gov ernment money, the people s, i t may be ask ed Is the expendi ture nec ess ary? If not, what foll ows woul d be was te of gov ernment resourc es (ak in to mal vers ation) or undue benefi t to a fav o red party (aki n to vi ol ati on of the Anti Graft Law). We s ubmit that RH is neces sary onl y i f it is shown that it is the onl y ethic al soluti on to a probl em to the excl usi on of others al ready - tes ted.

11

Does RH have a monopol y of remedies i n li ght of the foll owi ng? A. Is i t not good that schools , gov ernment offic es, the churc h (all thos e wi th formal infl uenc es ) adopt/impl ement methods that disc ourage, ev en prohi bit, c asual , one -night stand, out -of-marri age, underage fornic ations ?

The iss ues of th es e i mmoral liaisons are pre branded vic tims of i rresponsi bl e and thoughtl ess c oncupisc ence. More unl ov ed than l oved they are potenti al sourc es of not onl y material but moral and ps yc hologic al poverty -wi tti ngl y or unwitti ngly c reati ng further and wi denin g ri ppl es of mis ery. They are i n the mill ions . Reducible.

By di stri buti ng c ondoms on the pretext of avoi di ng the suppos edl y otherwis e i nevi tabl e HIV i nfec ti on wi thout the plastic protecti on, are we not encouragi ng s uc h fornic ations that produce probl em of fs prings or, i n the c ase of c ymbal -s ex, threats of di vine wrath remi nisc ent of Sodom and Gomorrah -prec isely bec aus e we are maki ng i t easi er for fornic ators and

12

s odomiz ers? W hat is so caring about subsidizing immorality?

The pro -c ondom logic has the wis do m of a gov ernment pol ic y that woul d fund the wi de dis tribution of l ess -pai nful murder -weapons, sl eeping pills (for otherwi se traumati zed wi de -awak e rape vic ti ms ) and s tate -of-the-art pickl ock s - s o robbers c ould leav e door l ocks unsc ratc hed !

W e c an unders tand how a man c an succumb to the urgi ngs of his animal i ns tincts in moments of moral weak ness , but do we hav e to provide him wi th tool s to dimi nis h hi s strength to resis t debasi ng temptati ons?

W e read from yes terdays news paper a pi ece hinti ng that condoms /IUD are good for women who wi s h to av oid pregnanc y i nduced by thei r raping, drunk en hus bands .

Let us jus t be fai r. Do we expect our churc hes to teac h brides to c hoos e partners , after c ourts hi p, who s how parti ali ty for c ondoms /IUDs ? Do we expect o ur

13

priests to teac h brides to c hoos e husbands who are wi lli ng to have thei r priv ate parts j ack et ted wi th rubber tubes duri ng the dis order of a rape ri te? Mus t women be taught to acqui re expertis e in rapi d -IUD/c ondom fitti ng?

Let us remi nd our women of the i r nativ e gentleness , of thei r hands that can wash a thous and s mell y diapers . Let us s ugges t for them to be obedient, not obs equi ous but compassi onatel y tol erant. May not a s av age be tamed by a gentle Yes , for better or for worse?

Still , do not our c hu rc hes and parents teach us to meas ure our partners during c ourts hip?

B. Is i t not good that di ners (weddi ngs , fi es tas, parti es etc .) top thei r pl ates wi th jus t enough but less than a gl uttons mini mum s atiety?

Have the pro and anti RH, the churc h and gov ernment made a s tudy on the benefi cial effec ts of

14

s preadi ng the economic v alue of l eftovers among the needy?

C. Is i t not good that pet -owners temper their attachment to thei r expens ive animals ?

Have the pro and anti RH, the churc h and gov ernment mad e a s tudy on how much pet -l ov ers s pend for the c are and attenti on they l avis h on thei r dogs , c ats, monk eys , snak es ?

D. Is it not good that readers realiz e that reduci ng populati on i s an unnecessary dimi nuti on of human resourc es ? W e wis h to reduc e, for our c onveni ence, the burden of feeding extra mouths s o we s ucc umb to the suggestion of reducing heads .

Does s uc h mode of burden-avoidance not equal the wi s dom of c utti ng the head off to avoid a mosqui to bite on the fac e? No head, no fac e, no bite. Is i t not more prudent to s wat the mos qui to or prev ent its acc ess to the fac e? Is i t not more prudent to kill the want wi th an extra chi cken?

15

E. Is pos itiv el y hous es of hous e and

i t not good that members of Congres s reac t to a c olumnists pi ec e hi nting that both c ongress probabl y s pend too muc h on i n off -hous e c ommittee heari ngs ?

Have the pro and anti RH Gov ernment and Church made a study on how m uch c an be s av ed, and c hanneled to poverty -al levi ati on activ i ti es, from i nordi natel y-funded government -rel ated offic i al meetings , s eminars , foreign trav els , s oci als and other group activities ?

F. Is i t not good that c ol umnis ts use thei r talents to write and expound on s ugges tions for i mprovi ng quali ty of li fe instead of usi ng thei r s paces to c hronicl e and i nv entory th ei r bias percepti on of the i mperfec ti ons of others as though one rises by kic king others down?

Are we trul y deserving of prais e when we flaunt our tal ents ? Shoul d we not realiz e that i ntellec tual arroganc e is ludi c rousl y presumptuous and pointl ess ,

16

giv en that no one can ever be s uperi or to God or the Devil anywa y?

G. Is i t not good that s unshine -ev angelis ts and s el f-procl aimed bi shops c all attenti on to God instead of c alli ng attenti on to themselves and thei r pers onal vic tories?

H. Is i t not good for the Commissi on on El ecti ons to us e all i ts res ources to stop v ote -buyi ng which s teals from the v oter God s prec ious gi ft of c hoic e?

W hat c an be more impoveris hi ng than depri ving a pers on of his di gnity -weakeni ng his resis tanc e to hunger so his i ntesti n al comfort woul d c ommand his brai n to c hoose Barabas i nstead of J es us?

Gi ven s uc h opti ons are we not givi ng undue adv antage to manufac turers/dealers of abortifaci ents , c ontraceptiv es , s perm -kill ing drugs, IUDs , and li fe frus trati ng medici nes and gadgets ?

17

Legisl ated adv erti sement and payment for thei r products ?

Ar e w e not impo verishing the poor even farther w hen w e w hisper b y insult to them that the y w ould be healthier if the y d id not ha ve more of themsel ves?

God w ants Us to Uphold Human Dignity

A song, well intenti oned as i t might be, erroneous l y i nv okes mans humanness as j us ti ficati on for his trans gres sions against God and fel lowmen: Sapagk at k ami y tao l amang .

It impli es that humans are inherentl y weak and thereby i nvi nci bl y vulnerable to c orruption.

18

W e agree wi th our Thomasi an profes sors that man is c ompos ed of body and soul ; that man is a rati onal ani mal. W e al so agree that Gods i ncarnati on el ev ated mans nature by extensi on of earned di vinity to quali fy man for Gods many mansi ons.

W hat dis ti nguis hes man from pure ani mals is that they are not gi fted wi th free wi ll whic h s ubsumes the power to c hoos e between right and wrong.

W hen a man does wrong aga i ns t another he c ommi ts a c rime (v s. i ndividual or s tate) or a sin (v s. God) He does so bec ause he is part animal . The c ri mi nal or si nner des erv es punishment because unl ike a pure ani mal he c hooses to si nk to the l ev el of an ani mal; an ani mal c annot hel p b ei ng i tself. Man c an c hoos e to s ubordi nate his s elf to his rati onal c omponent.

W hen a man is depriv ed of his ri ght to c hoos e (as when he is forced or fraudul entl y -pers uaded to do wrong or prev ented /disc ouraged from doing what i s ri ght) he is dehumaniz ed. He is forced/infl uenc ed to bec ome an animal . He is depriv ed of God s precious gift whic h he wi thholds from pure animals : Free w ill -

19

the li ving badge of his s ov ereignty ov er thi ngs, ani mals and his s el f; he is deprived of human dignit y, the ess enc e of wha t makes him in the image of God

The pers on who depriv es anot her of hi s free will (as when the latter i s forc ed by pov erty to s ell his v ote and thereby losi ng his right to c hoose) vi ol ates Gods trus t. The vote -buyer c ommi ts an evil deed of the highest degree. W e beli eve that the Hol y Spi ri t, the Paracl ete, is the defender of our faith and, s ubsumedl y, o f human digni ty.

And it is written that a sin agai nst the Hol y Spi ri t is unpardonabl e.

Abetting Dehumanization Via Discrimination

The ques ti oned propos al is the s ubsi diz ed arres t of populati on growth. And who are the targets of this future reduc tion? Coul d i t be the ric h who have the l uxury of wealth that guarantees the sustenanc e of thei r offs pri ng?

20

The poor are c aj ol ed i nto believing that i t is for thei r good that they li mit the number of thei r mouths to feed so that they c an profit from the good health that emanates from the reduc tion of the burden of feeding more. But for whos e benefit?

W ho can guarantee and certify that the unc hos en unborn of the poor woul d c aus e human misery and the chos en born of the ric h would buil d a better s oci ety i n accordance with the will of God?

By entici ng the poor to the s uppos ed benefits of free us e of tools to ens ure unbridled s exual i nterc ours e wi thout fear of the responsi bili ti es of pregnanc y, the c harmed poor are brai nwashed i nto the hedoni stic c ult ure of pleasure wi thout acc ountabil ity. The entic ed poor are depriv ed of the ri ght to choose responsi bili ty over i rresponsi bili ty.

The poor are enc ouraged to lust wi thout fear; to regard orgasm as the ultimate good; to regard the

21

s ac red uni on between the sperm and egg c ell s as j us t a c hemi cal c oncocti on devoi d of the Breath of God.

The sperm and egg c ells are bearers of li fe and, therefore, of God, the sole gi ver of life.

Is i t not a measure of thei r s pecial s ac redness that s uc h nature i s not attac hed to the body s more numerous c ells that routinely di e after thei r i ndi vidual terms of s ev en years ? It is true that the s perm and egg c ells c an al so die but they have the potenti al power to giv e life from generati on to generati on. This potenti al does not c eas e to exis t when a union is not formed jus t as cel ibates do not c eas e to be men or women upon thei r ordination. The enticed poor woman is enc ouraged by l egi slati on to s ay to her mate: Let us hav e orgas ms but let us not all ow our c ells to hav e thei r s a cred uni on. Let us j ust kil l them !!!

The man is treated as a gl orifi ed produc er of orgas ms. But s oon he real iz es that docile beasts and mac hi nes can produc e more, and perhaps more s atisfyi ng, s ensati ons.

22

Man is pl ac ed on the l evel of his pl as tic c ompeti tor -the vi brator. W oul d humans be ennobled by a Nobel award for excell enc e in s exual performanc e?

Now free from dependence on the ol d -fas hi oned noti on of s ac red and romantic love, are not the enc hanted poor tempted to av ail thems elv es of the s ervic es of thos e who hav e better performance c ompeti ng with docil e beasts and state -of-the-art s timul ators ?

To regard the sperm and egg cells as disposable chemicals is to declare a repudiation of Gods gift, an unmistakable declaration of independence from God ! W ould that be in accordance w ith His w ill? How may we declare our independence from W hom we implore for aid?

W e are, today, the his tori c 12 t h of J une, c el ebrating the Independenc e Day. Coul d we also dec lare our i ndependenc e from the unfai rnes s of unequal dis tri buti on of weal th? ; from the s pel l of

23

greed, arroganc e, s elfishnes s, env y? ; from the i ndifference of l ack of lov e the v ery oppos ite of l o v e?

And faili ng to mak e s uc h unfounded decl arati ons are we v indicated by declari ng our independenc e from the Al mighty?

It is agreed, i n this nati on of Chris tians, that the human body is the templ e of the Hol y Spi ri t. Is it c onsis tent with the edif yi ng sens e of s uc h hol y thought that s uch divi ne edifice be utili zed as receptac le for murdered c ells ? For when we i nvi te the Lord to be with us c an it be His will to wis h to dwell i n a temple of des ec rated, orgasmic c ell s?

W e are not ready to adopt the h asty bigots vi ew that RH s tands for Road to Hell, Regressive Hys teri a, Rubbis h Hype, etc . But is it the w ill of God for man to increase his options for enriching his flesh yet impo verish his mind, his heart, his soul?

In these agi ng years we are now onl y s even from the original eleven. Mamas l ones ome chick en s eems

24

bigger but l ess tasti er. From our s ac red c ells we are now 38, all in j oyful antici pation of the 39 t h .

W e see ourselv es as of the dark ness of natures mi rac ul ous womb; we hunger and s tumble , journeyi ng towards Gods ul ti mate li ght, c onfi dent of His Unending Grac e.

Our Catholic fai th has giv en us a joyful promi se of the future and by that i t has gi ven us s trength to try to be competent i n our chos en professi ons; to be committed to ol d -fas hi oned i deal s of l oyal ty to God and Country; to be compassionate to/wi th our fell owmen, war ned by a meek , humbl e and The ki ndest King:

Whatsoe ver yo u do to the least of m y brothers that you do unto me .

That s ame catholic fai th has taught us to tr eas ure the words of a rumoredl y -si nful Presi dent w ho humbl y, and thereby nobl y, regis tered his God -dependent vis ion of true and las ti ng health:

25

 Have faith in Divine Pro vidence that guides the destinies of men and nations. And so we conti nue to teach our child ren what we l earned from our parents :

It may be true that one cannot eat his moral principles, but w hat sort of man is he w ho maintains an appetite to eat w ithout them - Papa It is a sin to not return excess change - Mama

We continue to l a bor, thank ful to be among Gods grains of sand.

26

And we pray to reac h as many hearts and minds as we c an touc h. And i t is joyful relief to beli ev e that we s ucc eeded in j oi ning wi th you bec ause we have wri tten and you have read all for:

Almighty God Always

Respec tfull y submi tted:

Roberto Sicc uan De Al ban Tumauini , Is abel a

27