Contact Details

Rm. N-411, House of Representatives, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 2 931 5497, +63 2 931 5001 local 7370

Press Statements
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 12 July 2011
  • Cell No. 09166406737

 

          If President Aquino truly wants Hacienda Luisita distributed to covered landless farmworkers, then he must prevail upon his kin to transfer ownership of the controversial landholding to the agrarian beneficiaries, instead of instructing government officials to interpose a reconsideration of the Supreme Court directive for the holding of another referendum.

           It is only when the President refuses or fails to convince his relatives that a motion for reconsideration should be seasonably filed.

           The Supreme Court’s recent decision does not prohibit or deter the Aquino landlords from complying with the constitutional mandate on the distribution of all agricultural lands to the landless tillers.

           Land distribution is the only constitutional and available mode of implementing agrarian reform in Hacienda Luisita.

           No amount of referendums can validate and enforce the stock distribution option in the sugar plantation for the following reasons:

           (1) No less than the Supreme Court in its decision declared that the stock distribution option has been repealed by R. A No. 9700 or the CARPER which has limited after June 30, 2009 land acquisition for agrarian beneficiaries to only two modes, namely (a) voluntary offer to sell and; (b) compulsory acquisition. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that “for all intents and purposes, the stock distribution scheme under Sec. 31 of Republic Act 6657 is no longer an available option under existing law.” Consequently, stock transfer has ceased to be an option;

           (2) The stock distribution option under Sec. 31 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) had likewise elapsed for failure of Hacienda Luisita to adopt a viable stock distribution plan (SDP) within the two year prescriptive period from the approval of CARL on June 10, 1988, as in fact the Supreme Court confirmed the scrapping by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) of the SDP for being onerous against farmer beneficiaries; and

           (3) Most importantly, under Sec. 4 or Article XIII of the Constitution, no other mode or option is constitutionally authorized or recognized except actual land distribution.

Press Statements
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 11 July 2011
  • Cell No. 09166406737
  • Tel. No. 4155455, 9315497

 

             The relevance of the reproductive health advocacy and the critical immediacy of enacting the RH bill are in focus with the escalation of the world population to seven billion people.

            The mitigation of the population growth rate (PGR), although it is not the principal objective of the RH bill, will be the essential consequence of adopting a nationwide and comprehensive policy on reproductive health with voluntary family planning as one of its salient features.

             The burgeoning of the population in the face of limited and exhaustible resources if not mitigated will aggravate underdevelopment, exacerbate poverty and further marginalize the disadvantaged sectors.

             The promotion of responsible parenthood in relation to the basic right of parents to freely and responsibly determine the number and spacing of their children will facilitate the government’s achievement of sustainable human development.

             It is for this reason that the RH bill is rights-based, consistent with the Tehran Declaration on reproductive health rights to which the Philippines was a signatory 43 years ago.

             The Catholic Church with its tenet on free will has no reason to demonize the RH bill whose central concept is freedom of informed choice wherein the option is given to parents and couples, more particularly to women who bear the brunt of pregnancy, childbirth and childcare, to adopt and have access to the family planning method of their choice which is legal, medically safe and effective.

             Out of the seven billion people worldwide, the Philippine accounts for over 94 million or even close to 100 million, making it the world’s 12th most populous country but with a human development index ranking of 97th among 169 countries, a mere one slot higher than Botswana and with Sri Lanka placing six ranks higher at 91.

Press Statements
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • Tel No. 4155455
  • Mobile No. 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
  • 05 July 2011

         

Pajero Bishops Committed

No Crime But A Moral Sin

 

          Solicitation or acceptance by Catholic bishops of motor vehicle or cash gifts from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) is not a crime per se, but is morally offensive.

           The Catholic Church is way too rich to be a charity case and has more than sufficient resources to finance its charitable work without competing with countless indigent patients and legitimate charity beneficiaries.

           There is no offense defined under the Revised Penal Code or any act punishable by special penal law which would criminalize the solicitation or acceptance by Catholic bishops of motor vehicle or cash donations from the PCSO.

           Likewise, there is no implementing penal statute which penalizes any violation of the doctrine of separation of Church and State as enshrined in the Constitution prohibiting the (1) establishment of a State religion and (2) appropriating or utilizing public money or property for the use, benefit or support of any religion or clergy.

           Nonetheless, acts violative of the separation of Church and State are unconstitutional and can be nullified by the courts, but no penal sanctions can be imposed in the absence of a corresponding penal statute.

           However, under Section 8 of the PCSO Charter (R.A. No. 1169, as amended) any officer or employee of a charitable institution who uses funds obtained from PCSO for purposes other than those authorized under the law shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and not more than three years.

           Accordingly, any bishop who uses a motor vehicle or cash obtained from PCSO for non-charitable purposes is criminally liable under the PCSO Charter.