This poem is said to be inspiring and I can say that it is indeed an inspirational one. Rizal’s thought is for the Filipino youth to rise from laziness as labeled by Spanish people, and to let their genius fly swifter than the wind and descend with art and science to break the chains that have long bound the spirit of the people. The poem also urges that development be motivated by a noble purpose, that is, to free the people from their ignorance and subservience through persuasion. Rizal wanted the youth to seek freedom and human dignity that even though we were once considered lowly people, we can make a difference to one nation. Also, that though we don’t have the money to raise our self but at least we have this great competence (just like what Rizal did – he showed and shared to others his brilliant mind). Moreover, I think he intentionally wrote this poem to awaken the Filipino youth from all of the hardships that the Spaniards gave to them. That just like Jose Rizal, Filipino youth should also be heroic enough to prove to the Spaniards that they can struggle to them not through their braveness but through their cleverness; to fight with the use of their intellect and spirit, not with the use of their weapon and to battle without blood and soreness but with wise and merciful hand. Just like what Rizal did, he used his hand (expressing his thoughts by writing poems) and intelligence to fight.
With this poem, it made me realize that education is the only way to progress one’s self. I mean, an educated person who takes the risk, showing his courage by not easily giving up and by being too optimistic of the things that would happen to him. I can say that that we are blessed to have Rizal. He had shown to us his amazing passion for his fatherland. I hope that our country will be able to produce more youth the same as Rizal who can bring honor and glory for the Philippines and for God, but I believe that this would happen if the youth of today’s generation will work out of being a role model to other youths.
22
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
The 1987 Philippine BILL OF RIGHTS Art. III (TAGALOG)
Seksyon 1. Hindi dapat bawian ng buhay, kalayaan, o ari-arian walang angkop na proseso ng batas, ni ang anumang mga tao ay pagkakaitan ng pantay na pangangalaga ng batas.
Seksyon 2. Ang karapatan ng mga tao na magkaroon ng kapanatagan sa kanilang sarili,, papeles, at mga epekto laban sa makatwirang paghahalughog at pagsamsam sa ano ang kalikasan at mang layunin ay hindi dapat labagin, at walang search warrant o warrant of arrest dapat isyu maliban sa probable cause upang maging personal na pagpapasyahan ng hukom matapos masiyasat ilalim ng panunumpa o sabi ng nagrereklamo at ang mga saksi ay maaaring gumawa siya, at lalo na naglalarawan ng mga lugar na hahanapin at ang mga tao o mga bagay na nasamsam.
Seksyon 3. (1) Ang patakaran sa komunikasyon at pakikipagtalastasan ay hindi dapat labagin maliban sa legal na utos ng hukuman, o kapag ang kaligtasan o kaayusan ay nangangailangan ng sa kabilang banda, ayon sa itinakda ng batas.
(2) Anumang ebidensya na nakuha nang labag dito o sa sinusundang seksyon ay hindi matatanggap para sa anumang layunin sa anumang pamamaraan.
Seksyon 4. batas Hindi dapat lumipas abridging ang kalayaan sa pananalita, pagpapahayag, o sa pamamahayag, o sa karapatan ng mga tao mapayapa at magpetisyon sa pamahalaan upang ilahad ang kanilang mga karaingan.
Seksyon 5. batas Hindi dapat para sa pagtatatag ng relihiyon, o nagbabawal sa malayang pagsasagamit nito. Ang malayang pagsasagamit at pagtatamasa ng pagpapahayag ng relihiyon at pagsamba nang walang pagtatangi o pamimili Dapat ipahintulot magpakailanman. Walang relihiyon dapat kailanganin ang pagsusulit para sa pagsasakatuparan ng mga karapatang sibil o pampulitika.
SEKSYON 6. Ang kalayaan ng tahanan at ang pagbabago ng parehong loob ng mga limitasyon na itinakda ng batas hindi dapat bawalan maliban sa legal na utos ng hukuman. Ni ang mga karapatan sa paglalakbay maliban kun gpara sa interes ng pambansang seguridad, kaligtasan ng publiko, o kalusugang pambayan ayon sa maaaring itadhana ng batas.
Seksyon 7. Ang karapatan ng mamamayan para sa impormasyon sa usapin ng publiko ay kinikilala.Access sa mga opisyal na rekord, at sa mga dokumento at papeles ukol sa mga opisyal na gawain, transaksyon, o pasya, gayon din sa mga pananaliksik ng data ng pamahalaan na ginagamit bilang batayan ng patakaran sa pagpapaunlad ay dapat ibigay sa mamamayan sa ilalim ng mga katakdaang maaaring itadhana ng batas .
Seksyon 8. Ang karapatan ng mga tao, kabilang ang mga naglilingkod sa publiko at pribadong sektor, sa form ng mga unyon, asosasyon, o kapisanan sa mga layuning hindi labag sa batas ay hindi dapat hadlangan.
Section 9. Pribadong ari-arian ay hindi dapat kunin ukol sa gamit pambayan nang walang wastong kabayaran.
Seksyon 10. Walang batas impairing ang pananagutan ng mga kontrata ay lumipas.
Seksyon 11. Free access sa mga hukuman at mala-panghukuman katawan at sapat na legal na tulong ay hindi dapat ipagkait sa sino mang tao na dahilan ng kahirapan.
Seksyon 12. (1) Sinumang tao na sinisiyasat dahil sa komisyon ng isang paglabag ay dapat magkaroon ng karapatan na pasabihan ng kanyang karapatan na manatiling tahimik at upang magkaroon ng kakayahan at malaya na payo na mas mabuti ng kaniyang sariling pagpili. Kung hindi niya makakayanan ang paglilingkod ng abogado, kinakailangang pagkalooban siya ng isa. Ang mga karapatan Hindi maiuurong maliban kung nakasulat at sa harap ng abogado.
(2) Hindi labis na pagpapahirap, pwersa, dahas, pananakot, pagbabanta, o anumang iba pang paraan na mawalang-saysay ang mga libreng ay ay ginagamit laban sa kanya. Mga lihim kulungan, solitaryo,incommunicado, o iba pang katulad ng anyo ng detensyon ipinagbabawal.
(3) mang pagtatapat o amin na nakuha nang labag dito o Seksiyon 17 nito ay dapat hindi tinatagusan ebidensya laban sa kanya.
(4) Ang batas ay dapat magbigay ng para sa kaparusahang penal at sibil sa mga paglabag sa seksyong ito pati na rin ang kabayaran sa rehabilitasyon sa mga biktima ng torture o katulad na mga kasanayan, at kanilang mga pamilya.
Seksyon 13. Lahat ng tao, maliban sa mga paglabag na pinarurusahan ng reclusion perpetua kapag ang ebidensya ng pagkakasala malakas,, bago mahatulan, ay bailable ng sapat ng pyador, o maaaring palayain sa bisa ng panagot ayon sa maaaring itadhana ng batas. ang karapatan sa pyansa Hindi dapat bawalan kahit na kapag ang mga pribilehiyo ng writ of habeas corpus ay suspendido. Malabis na pyansa ay hindi kailangan.
Seksyon 14. (1) Hindi dapat papanagutin sa isang kriminal na pagkakasala walang angkop na proseso ng batas.
(2) Sa lahat ng kriminal prosecutions, ang akusado ay dapat ituring na walang-sala hanggang laban ay proved, at ay magtatamasa ng karapatan na narinig sa pamamagitan ng kanyang sarili at sa payo, upang bigyang-kaalaman ng mga uri at pinagmulan ng mga paratang laban sa kaniya, na magkaroon ng isang mabilis, walang kinikilingan, at hayagan paglitis, makaharap ang mga testigo, at magkaroon ng sapilitang kaparaanan upang matiyak ang pagharap ng mga testigo ng ebidensiya sa kanyang kapakanan. Subalit, pagkatapos paghahabla, maaring ituloy ang paglilitis kahit wala ang akusado:Ibinibigay, na siya ay gaya ng nararapat at aabisuhan ang kanyang kabiguang humarap di makatwiran.
Seksyon 15. Ang pribilehiyo ng writ of habeas corpus Hindi dapat suspindihin maliban sa mga kaso ng pananalakay o paghihimagsik, kapag kinakailangan ng kaligtasan pambayan.
Seksyon 16. Lahat ng tao ay dapat magkaroon ng karapatan sa madaliang paglutas ng kanilang mga usapin sa lahat ng panghukuman, mala-panghukuman, o pampangasiwaan katawan.
Seksyon 17. Hindi dapat pilitin ang isang saksi laban sa kanyang sarili.
Seksyon 18. (1) Hindi dapat nakakulong lamang sa pamamagitan ng dahilan ng kanyang paniniwala at hangaring pampulitika.
(2) Hindi sinasadya pagkaalipin sa anumang anyo ay umiiral, maliban kung kaparusahang kung ano man ang mga partido ay ay gaya ng nararapat na nahatulan.
Seksyon 19. (1) ang malabis na multa ay hindi dapat ipataw, ni malupit, imbi o hindi makatao parusa.Ni hindi dapat parusa kamatayan ay ipapataw, maliban kung, para sa mga nakakabighaning mga kadahilanang bunsod ng kasuklam-suklam na krimen, magtadhana ang Kongreso para sa mga ito.Anumang nang parusang kamatayan na ipinataw ay nabawasan sa reclusion perpetua.
(2) Ang mga trabaho na pisikal, sikolohikal, o nanghihiya kaparusahan laban sa anumang bilanggo o detenido o ang paggamit ng mga substandard o hindi sapat na penal pasilidad sa ilalim subhuman kondisyon ay dealt sa pamamagitan ng batas.
Seksyon 20. Hindi dapat ibilanggo sa pagkakautang o hindi pagbabayad ng sedula.
Seksyon 21. Hindi dapat makalawang masapanganib ng kaparusahan sa iisang paglabag. Kung kumilos ang isang pinarurusahan ng batas at ng ordinansa, matibay na paniniwala o pagpapawalang-sala sa ilalim ng alin ay bumubuo ng isang bar sa isa pang pag-uusig sa gayon ding kagagawan.
Seksyon 22. Walang ex post facto law o bill ng attainder ay enacted.
22
The 1987 Philippine BILL OF RIGHTS Art. III
section 1
I suppose that the technical term here is “without due process of law”. By “should not be deprived of..due process of law” a person should undergo the processes that would make a, for example, arrest, prosecution and conviction, just. For example, his case should be heard in court; he must have a lawyer. Or if searched, there must be a warrant; if arrested, he should be told of his rights (e.g, “you have the right to remain silent..”)
I suppose that the technical term here is “without due process of law”. By “should not be deprived of..due process of law” a person should undergo the processes that would make a, for example, arrest, prosecution and conviction, just. For example, his case should be heard in court; he must have a lawyer. Or if searched, there must be a warrant; if arrested, he should be told of his rights (e.g, “you have the right to remain silent..”)
section 2
section is concerned with search warrants. obviously, law enforcements (eg. the police) cannot just go about your things and properties. they must have a warrant do so – and that is issued by the judge, which in his good judgment is to determine the “probable cause”, that it is indeed necessary to search you because you might be hiding something, or something is with you (the evidence) that would probably link you to a, say, crime. What they do in malls and airports I think has certain permits issued. Of course, national security is at issue there, so there is no need to be very “constitutional” about that. But the point is that, they cannot just search, snoop, and touch about things whenever they feel to. They must have a warrant or certificate issued by a judge of a court.
section is concerned with search warrants. obviously, law enforcements (eg. the police) cannot just go about your things and properties. they must have a warrant do so – and that is issued by the judge, which in his good judgment is to determine the “probable cause”, that it is indeed necessary to search you because you might be hiding something, or something is with you (the evidence) that would probably link you to a, say, crime. What they do in malls and airports I think has certain permits issued. Of course, national security is at issue there, so there is no need to be very “constitutional” about that. But the point is that, they cannot just search, snoop, and touch about things whenever they feel to. They must have a warrant or certificate issued by a judge of a court.
section 3
this section is very related to section 2. What this provision means is that, again, we have the right to any means of communication, and the consequences of that, say, the actual conversation of two or more people (which might get recorded); or the exchanged letters of two lovers; all of them are to be private, and are inadmissible as evidence to a court hearing when acquired without any certificate (again) from the court. So wiretapping and such tricks are unlawful – except when courts would permit it. Now why would they permit it? Because, again, there is “probable cause” that this, say, exchange of letters, or telephone conversation, has something to do with acts of terrorism, or say, sedition, which, if not known beforehand, would have terrible consequences.
this section is very related to section 2. What this provision means is that, again, we have the right to any means of communication, and the consequences of that, say, the actual conversation of two or more people (which might get recorded); or the exchanged letters of two lovers; all of them are to be private, and are inadmissible as evidence to a court hearing when acquired without any certificate (again) from the court. So wiretapping and such tricks are unlawful – except when courts would permit it. Now why would they permit it? Because, again, there is “probable cause” that this, say, exchange of letters, or telephone conversation, has something to do with acts of terrorism, or say, sedition, which, if not known beforehand, would have terrible consequences.
Section 2 and 3 has this principle, in my opinion:
Surely, in some instances, the good of the public (the majority) is worth more than the privacy and possessions of persons. It is the judge of the court to determine which is more valuable in a certain instance. If he thinks that there is no probable cause of an unlawful act, then he won’t issue a warrant; otherwise, you’d be certain that their will be a thorough search. These three sections, and the bill of rights for that matter is concerned with ensuring the liberty of the individual while keeping the public safe and in order – forget one of the other, then anarchy or despotism would follow.
Surely, in some instances, the good of the public (the majority) is worth more than the privacy and possessions of persons. It is the judge of the court to determine which is more valuable in a certain instance. If he thinks that there is no probable cause of an unlawful act, then he won’t issue a warrant; otherwise, you’d be certain that their will be a thorough search. These three sections, and the bill of rights for that matter is concerned with ensuring the liberty of the individual while keeping the public safe and in order – forget one of the other, then anarchy or despotism would follow.
Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer nor a law student, nor a political science student. Whatever I’m saying, though, might be perverted and totally wrong; since it was quite sometime now when I took the course. Believe them at your own risk.
bill of rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state and not between individuals. if a search is made at the initiative of a private person for his own and private purpose, without the intervention of the police authorities, the right against unreasonable searches and seizure cannot be invoked because only the act of the private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
The right against self-incrimination applies to criminal cases as well as in civil, administrative, and legislative proceedings where the facts asked for, is a criminal one. It protects one whether he is a witness or party to the case. The purpose of this constitutional prohibition is to inhibit the use of force in order to extract unwilling confessions from the prisoners, implication them in the commission of a crime. The prohibition is simply against legal process to extricate from the defendant’s own lips against his will an admission of his guilt. It is to be noted that the refusal to produce a “specimen” of his handwriting is within this constitutional privilege. The privilege not to give self-incriminating evidence while absolute when claimed, may be waived by one entitled to invoke it.
22
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)