Imprudence

PRUDENCE has nothing to do with timidity or fear. Much less is a prudent person identified with someone who is unusually uncertain, meek or ambivalent. The virtue to discern well and to thereafter accordingly act pursuant to the dictate of right reason in a concrete or practical issue — this is prudence. Briefly, prudence is right reason in action. It is prudence that intimately guides conscience in deciding what to do and what to avoid doing — not really because the former is allowed or the latter is forbidden. Instead, prudence is choosing better than simply good, preferring what is honorable than what is merely permissible.

Imprudence then is the equivalent of indiscretion, tactlessness or insensibility “Who care?” “So what?” “Never mind.” These and similar expressions are the standard expressions of someone imprudent when advised to say and/or do otherwise — in the name of delicadeza. Indiscreet, insensitive or even egoistic and callous are the usual character traits appended to an imprudent person, This individual can be anything but dutifully concerned, considerate or altruistic.

Thus cores the question why is someone so in a hurry to appoint a new Chief Justice for the Supreme Court? Why is the person concerned willing to throw caution to the wind with the undue eagerness of already naming someone to replace somebody who is still in Office? With so many urgent socio-political agenda in need of immediate attention, why is precisely the same persona so eager to do something which someone else could rightfully and legitimately do instead? Why the manifest imprudence?
Such insistent move and inopportune desire against the dictate of prudence cannot but have a motive and design definitely other than love of justice for the good of the Country. This is precisely why there are not few people who harbor the conviction that it is exactly the opposite that is evidenced by such an imprudence, i,e, preparation for injustice in view of a selfish interest of the subject party concerned,

It is not altogether impossible that the so called “ first fully automated elections” in the Country scheduled for 10 May this year, could generate confusion and disorder on the day it is held, or might sow disgust and cause violence thereafter. In such an eventuality, the same someone long holding power and influence might, want to prolong such a tenure, and could later on eventually need the affirmation of the Supreme Court. Evidently, when this highest judicial body in the land were then headed by a thus appointed ally, then everything would be “in the bag”. Neat!

Read more...

Ten-year marriage contract

NOW that this matter of a proposed temporary marriage contract has somehow subsided in excited contemplation and spirited discussion, it might be but proper and just to look into the matter with more calm and prudence––in the light of on the ground concrete and practical realities.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Truth to say, such a demeaning look at marriage and consequent frivolous proposition on its temporary time frame, ultimately have one and the same victims, viz., the men and women who go for such a temporary conjugal union, specially so the children therefrom.

This is not to mention their negative impact on society as a whole when the adult and youth concerned respectively disseminate their unsound personal value systems and propagate empirical grave misfortunes in their respective communities––as Countries with Divorce Law amply prove.

Men and women who enter temporary marriages basically say that they are not serious about one another, that they take the human family lightly, and that consider marriage but some kind of for-the-moment diversion or a by-the-way option.

On the other hand, the children born of their exploratory union are not certain what future holds for them, which of their parents would get and have them, whom between their father and mother would they come to love or to hate.

A temporary marriage contract for ten––more or less––years, implies the following composite nauseating if not traumatic experience when the husband and wife decide to call it quits upon expiration of the spousal contract: One, division of the domestic abode––which is disturbing. Two, division of conjugal properties––which is troublesome. Three, division of the children––which is traumatic. At the same time, all these dividing ventures strongly implies division of affection and mental posture, division of affiliation and loyalty among the family members concerned.

It is both right and practical to forward the following concrete and rational principles: First of all, those who do not believe and/ or who cannot accept a lifetime conjugal partnership, should not get married at all. Second, those who subscribe to a more or less ten-year marriage contract, should be prepared to say how many temporal marriages are they prepared to contract, how many homes are they ready to break. Third, most important of all, those who accept marriage with a given time frame, should be prepared to say and decide how many children are they willing to divide.

By the way, to say that marriage is but a “contract”, is in fact, neither true nor right. Reason: As such, marriage would be no more, no better than a business contract, a lease contract, a car contract, and million and one other contracts. The truth is that marriage is a covenant, a compact, a vow––all of which immediately imply constancy, permanence, stability. This is why as a rule, men, women and children with a broken marriage behind them, usually do not become better persons for it. This is sad but true.

To say it lightly, marriage is not like a taxi that a man and a woman flag down, ride in, and thereafter leave it as a matter of course, when they no longer need it.

Read more...

VIEWPOINTS

Truth, justice, peace
THUS stands the tripod whereupon development depends from on and stands on. In the same way, deceit, iniquity and dissension guarantee and promote socio-economic retrogression.
The triumph of truth brings about justice. The reign of justice ushers in peace. These observations are not simply academically understandable but also empirically true.
When there is prevalent falsity, then there is a regime of injustice and thus come to fore all kinds of unending resentment and discontentment in different places, in different degrees and different manifestations as well.
Thus it is that even the Philippine Constitution provides: “The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national development.” (State Policies, Sec. 10 ). This signal and candid constitutional provision equivalently says: One, with social justice goes development. Two, deterioration goes with social injustice. Three, take a good look around and know how this Country fares in conjunction with the above cited not simply logical but also realistic State Policy.
To put it more bluntly, injustice is a social curse. When the powerful and the wealthy are above the law, when the poor and miserable are crowding local jails and prisons, when the law is used to oppress and not to liberate, then something is not merely wrong but also appalling and revolting. Injustice is the supreme guarantee of individual disgust and/or social discontent. Justice is such an elementary mandate that there is nothing like injustice to foment not merely division, not simply revolution but war even.
Take away but a candy from but a little child, and this will most probably cry as a matter of course. The child feels that the candy is his or hers. Thus when taken away, the child is offended by the injustice of losing it. If this is true with but children, it is not hard to imagine what injustice does to an adult, how does this feel, what the same will do. If one is poor because this is aware or knows that he or she is indolent and/or vicious, if somebody is prosecuted for a wrong doing, and if someone is jailed because of his or her proven wrongdoing, then the subject party knows in conscience that justice is simply served – even though the same may register strong protests every now and then.
The cardinal question that now comes to mind is precisely the following – a query that is admittedly shameful to think about, as well as embarrassing to ask: Is a dysfunctional justice system the main legacy of this no less than some nine year old reigning administration to the Country? A negative answer thereto would require much explaining to do, and would demand much more to make it convincing.

Read more...