As I was reading the news today, I was full of bewilderment at the latest incident in Texas where 400 young girls were freed yesterday by police authorities out of a polygamists compound being operated by a religious sect known as the Fundamental Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Allegedly, the young girls were paired with old men in polygamous union, often by force and coercion or moral coercion, in accordance with the sect’s religious belief and practice.

It is of note that the above-mentioned sect is a breakaway cluster from the main Mormon religion formally known as the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, which had long ago negated on the practice of multiple marriages as a religious practice, where the U.S. Supreme Court had time and again decided against the practice of polygamy in America.

A landmark case on polygamy, one that is still being referred today as a leading case, is the 1879 U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled Reynolds v. United States where it was cited prominently how polygamy was (is) an “odious” conduct and ultimately contrary to “historic American values and culture”, even “from the beginning of time”, declaring farther how “marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law”

Yet, it is still an open secret in America, especially in locations within Utah and Arizona states, that polygamy have and are still being practiced and once in a while, such societal American phenomenon comes out in the open, like the Waco Incident of 1993 and now with this very recent detection of a polygamists compound in San Angelo, Texas.

Of immense interest now is the legal concept of freedom of religion, as to whether or not one’s belief and conviction allows one to practice his or her religion unabated and unhindered by any governmental restriction, as a matter of constitutional right?

Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion where the Bill of Rights, under Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, states that:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exervise and enjoyment of religious profession and whoship, without discrimniation or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be requires for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In the end, “freedom of religion” in our territory and in America, where our jurisdiction had mostly structured the form and content of our laws, as well as government system from, remains one constitutional right that is held with enormous weight and sanctity, just like “freedom of expression” that the law and the judiciary often bestows attention to it, resolving questions involving such question of religion and practice in the most prolific manner and in often public spectacle, for the community to relish and appreciate. (Read this very interesting case on marriage and religion - Estrada vs. Escritor.)

Yet, the point of final determination as to the question of ‘freedom of religion’ remains in the one singular rule that proclaims unambiguously how the right to belief is not tantamount to the right to practice, where in the 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296), applying the Belief-Conduct Distinction, it was deemed that:

“The Free Exercise Clause ‘’embraces two concepts– freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.'’ “

Similarly in our local jurisdiction, it is dogmatic that an individual has absolute freedom to believe in any form of religious belief, ‘he may even believe in the devil and worship Satan’, but once he or she puts this believe into action or outward conduct, then the State begins to interfere in the form of regulation and prohibition where in the present issue, as to whether or not freedom of religion allows one to establish highly anomalous and very scandalous polygamy compound such as the one in San Angelo, Texas where girls as young as 12 years old are compelled to enter marriages with much older men, and where there are persistent rumors of rape and physical harm.

Of course, American laws squirm at and reject polygamous union that despite that the leaders and members of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in such, the law does not allow them and they have in fact violated pertinent laws, criminal laws for that matter, and their ‘freedom of religion’ would in no way come in towards their protection or the justification of their conduct.

In the Philippines, jailed individuals get to become senators…or would become congressmen for that matter. But in America, a senator was actually arrested, handcuffed and according to Idaho Senator Larry Craig, he “was dragged down” by authorities for suspicion of undertaking lewd conduct in a Minneapolis airport restroom.

I’ve already seen boxing and barking legislators of the Taiwanese kind on TV, or a nude woman lawmaker somewhere in Italy—but in America, they have a senator that had been arrested and handcuffed for a misdemeanor just like any other citizen who had committed or under suspicion of having committed a malefaction.

In the Philippines, the whole Senate would be up in arms in defense of their comrade, invoking immunity from arrest, whether right or wrong. Nothing happens like that in America. In the Philippines, lawmakers are even trying to free a detained elect-senator. But in America, nothing sort of that happens for they even get arrested in the first place. In the Philippines, only opposition leaning congressman or congresswoman get arrested in the most upsetting manner. In America, nothing like that happens. They get arrested notwithstanding their political leaning. Nobody says “You are under arrest! By the way? Are you a Democrat or a Republican?” Enough of that “walang ganyan sa America” thing going on in the above-written paragraph.

(more…)

In my years as a law student, way way back into the nineties, I once imagined in my head a situation wherein a witness to a case failed to show up before the court that summoned him and got himself arrested as a result of this. The judge bellowed at him in a thundering voice about why he failed to respond to his order in the most convenient way, and thereby delaying the case that was at hand.

The man who failed to respond to the subpoena answered, “Your honor, I lived about 400 miles from the city. I couldn’t even afford to commute to the barrio market, how much more could I afford to come to the city?” And so the judge scratched his head and thought that the man got a point.

So perhaps nowadays, the law already provides that any person ordered to become a witness and who resides at least 100 kilometers away from the case venue shall not be punished with contempt or be arrested for failing to appear at the scheduled time and place for him or her to testify.

Section 10 of Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Court states:

Exceptions. - The provisions of Sections 8 (Compelling attendance) and 9 (Contempt) shall not apply to a witness who resides more than one hundred (100) kilometers from his place of residence to the place where he is to testify by the ordinary course of travel…

So if by any chance you are called to become a witness to a particular case, remember that one could not be held in contempt or be arrested for failing to appear in court when one lives at least 100 kilometers from the case venue. In fact, the court directs that any witness who lives in a relatively distant area from the court would be given kilometrage fees or allowance for travel. The last time I read it was pegged at 100 pesos. But what does 100 pesos afford now? Could one travel from Quiapo to Makati and then back to Quiapo at a 100 pesos travel allowance? It would be so tight as an amount.

Now if the kilometrage fees have already been given, the witness would not anymore be in a position to excuse himself or herself from attending court hearings in order to testify and may already be held for contempt upon such failure.

The above discussion on the compulsion and punishment for non-response to a court order to become witness to a case is in consonance with the general provision on subpoenas where Section 1 of Rule 21 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Subpoena and subpoena duces tecum. - Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition. It may also require him to bring with him any books, documents, or other things under his control, in which case it is called a subpoena duces tecum.

It is so sad thinking about what had happened over there in Blacksburg, Virginia and seeing how those who have lost their loved ones in the tragedy poured their excessive grief on international television. Reporters were asking how some of them feel about their dead brother or friend and it struck me that these sort of things still have to be queried upon publicly; it shouldn’t have to be asked anymore I must say. We all should know the answer in the first place, those reporters included.

Now numerous questions arose about what had actually happened there when 23 year-old South Korean Cho Seung-Hui took up a semi-automatic and went on a killing rampage inside the Virginia Tech University, killing 30 students and three professors as a result, becoming the deadliest incident of such kind in U.S. history. This of course reminds us of the 1999 Columbine massacres where 12 students were killed in the now very notorious incident.

Immediate reactions have focused on the personality of Cho and many have described him to be a loner and have been taking medications for depression. An Australian news agency had given details where Cho had previously argued with his girlfriend and had killed her and a man before proceeding with the shooting rampage. These reported facts have not yet been examined by other international news network like CNN or Fox News and it couldn’t be confirmed as facts just as yet. This could be a crime of passion rather than a loner’s let-off of personal resentments.

I see this focus to be inordinately inclined towards the personality of the assailant whenever this kind of thing happens in America, as this has become a kind of urban phenomenon over there, where over the decades a number of maladjusted individuals have resorted to the unthinkable and most unreasonable act, like embarking on a killing spree on people they barely know, and who are apparently unrelated to whatever personal debacles they have.

In my mind, maladjusted individuals are a fact of society that could never be hidden or denied anywhere in the world. Even in the Philippines, a portion of the population—very small as it may—could be identified as maladjusted. It’s a fact of life anywhere in the world and not only in America.

But in America, loners become mass killers and everybody is pointing at the kid’s personality and whose grownup years were noticeably unusual and forlorn. However in Europe or in Asia, lonely kids are everywhere yet they don’t go massacring just to set-off their resentments.

International media should instead focus on a long-standing issue that have haunted America and Abaniko have also noticed this. I did too. It is only in America where guns can be purchased on arms-length deal, like taking on a grocery basket and selecting the items from the racks—just like purchasing peanut butters and can goods. Limitations there is so unbelievably slack where those only under 21 years old could not be allowed to buy firearms and any old guy over that age could go ahead and imagine himself as Rambo and get armed to the teeth.

Apparently, the loose guns law in America emanates fundamentally from their very constitution itself, where there is this Second Amendment provision which guarantees every citizen’s right “to bear arms”, probably as a consequence of the civil war circumstance or the American Revolution there centuries ago, where in order to maintain a strong militia arm, the citizens are allowed to own guns in their personal capacity. Apparently towards this day, even after more than a century from the civil war, the legal tradition lives on and Americans are still allowed to purchase guns in a very unrestrictive manner. Consider this, in 1997 alone firearms claimed the lives of 32,436 in the United States, including 17,566 suicides, 13,252 homicides, 981 unintentional shootings, and 367 undetermined.(Gun Industry Watch)

Whether or not there is a scientific basis to this, I personally see that the high accessibility of guns over there had contributed greatly to the occurrence of such incident as the massacres in Blacksburg, Virginia and in Columbine five years ago. Even Australian Prime Minister John Howard had noticed this. Many in fact have noticed this before but U.S. lawmakers always keep a blind eye and deaf ears to this screaming issue.

Maybe it’s the lucrative firearms industry in America that’s holds sway over legislation for arms control over there. We should remember that America is the largest arms manufacturer in the world (second only to Russia in terms of export) and arms company there can easily lobby before U.S. Congress with billions of dollars as token of their regards—and get the desired result.

Whether they like it or not, firearms control or even firearms ban should be high on the list for U.S. Congress to tackle and should even be an issue in upcoming elections over there.

I HAD DISCOVERED this first-rate section from a famous news agency’s website some months ago and ever since that time, I have been coming to it every now and then, at times on successive days. Reuter’s Oddly Enough News section always gives me that transcendent leisure of reading news that are funny or extraordinary and often being both funny and extraordinary. It’s like discovering Ripley’s Believe It Or Not for the first time all over again with Jack Palance hushing that proverbial end-program quip, “Believe it…or not…”

I had long wanted to blog about so many topics from Oddly Enough before but I resisted for so long because at times the topics there were too funny for comfort and therefore lacking that amount of seriousness that I am always looking for in a blog post. Not that I consider myself as a very serious blogger, far from that. But you know, I feel that I can’t be so very funny lest I’d be bookmarked as a jokester blog, which I am not and shouldn’t be. Oddly Enough items could really be so funny and since these are based on true occurrences, they can be so extravagantly hilarious.

(more…)