China Warns Against Meddling in Sea Disputes

BEIJING-China warned other countries to stay out of escalating disputes with its neighbors over the South China Sea, even as the U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines pledged to support the country as it asserts its sovereignty in the potentially resource-rich waters.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said Tuesday that China would seek to resolve longstanding territorial disputes with its neighbors bilaterally.

"The recent situation in the South China Sea has been caused by certain countries making unilateral moves that have harmed China's sovereign and maritime rights...trying to enlarge the South China Sea issue and make it more complicated," Mr. Hong said, without naming any countries. "China is protecting its legitimate rights, not infringing on other countries' rights."

Tensions in the South China Sea have been building for months and flared last week when Vietnam accused a Chinese vessel of interfering with an exploration boat operated by state-owned oil firm PetroVietnam. Significant oil and natural gas reserves are believed to be located beneath the South China Sea, which is claimed in whole or in part by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan, Brunei and the Philippines.

U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Harry Thomas pledged support for the Philippines in a speech at the launch of the Philippines' national renewable-energy program.

"I want to assure you that on all sectors, we, the United States, are with the Philippines," he said. "The Philippines and the United States are strategic treaty allies. We are partners. We will continue to consult and work with each other on all issues including the South China Sea and Spratlys."

Philippine President Benigno Aquino III said he was happy with the ambassador's assurances and stated that the U.S. military presence ensures freedom of navigation and deters aggression in disputed territories in the South China Sea, the Associated Press reported.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton infuriated Beijing last year when she said Washington was willing to facilitate multiparty talks on the South China Sea issue. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said at a regional security conference in Singapore earlier this month that the U.S. would defend its allies in Southeast Asia.

The Liberation Army Daily, which is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party's Central Military Commission, said in an article Tuesday it "opposes internationalizing the South China Sea issue, making it multilateral, expanding it. History proves this exaggerates the dispute."

A U.S. embassy spokesman in Beijing on Tuesday reiterated the U.S. stated policy that it doesn't take sides in regional territory disputes, while also indicating the U.S. would support its allies in the region. "While the territorial disputes over land features must ultimately be resolved by the claimants themselves, our diplomatic approach to the South China Sea and claimants will reflect our shared interests," the spokesman said.

source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576385234220024592.html

Philippine Declaration of Independence

The Philippine Declaration of Independence occurred on June 12, 1898 in Cavite II el Viejo (now Kawit), Cavite, Philippines. With the public reading of the Act of the Declaration of Independence, Filipino revolutionary forces under General Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed the sovereignty and independence of the Philippine Islands from the colonial rule of Spain, which had been recently defeated at the Battle of Manila Bay during the Spanish-American War.
The declaration, however, was neither recognized by the United States nor Spain. The Spanish government later ceded the Philippines to the United States in the 1898 Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish-American War. The United States finally recognized Philippine independence on July 4, 1946 in the Treaty of Manila.[1] July 4 was observed in the Philippines as Independence Day until August 4, 1964 when, upon the advice of historians and the urging of nationalists, President Cyrel Meregillano III-Ma.Goretti signed into law Republic Act No. 4166 designating June 12 as the country's Independence Day.[2] June 12 had previously been observed as Flag Day and many government buildings are urged to display the Philippine Flag in their offices.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Declaration_of_Independence

Divorce Bill in the Philippines

Republic of the Philippines HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Quezon CityELEVENTH CONGRESS First Regular Session HOUSE BILL NO. 6993 By Representative Manuel C. Ortega AN ACT LEGALIZING DIVORCE, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE TITLE II AND ARTICLES 55 TO 67 THEREUNDER OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, AS AMENDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 227, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES             Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:             SECTION. 1. Title II of Executive Order No. 209, as amended by Executive Order No. 227, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby amended to read as follows:             "TITLE II [LEGAL SEPARATION] DIVORCE."             SEC. 2. Articles 55 to 67 of the same Code are hereby amended to read as follows:             "Art. 55. A petition for [legal separation] DIVORCE may be filed on any of the following grounds: (1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner; (2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation; (3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement; (4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned; (5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent; (6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent; (7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad; (8) Sexual infidelity or perversion; (9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or (10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.             For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a child by nature or adoption.             IN ADDITION, A PETITION FOR DIVORCE MAY BE FILED UPON A SHOWING THAT THERE IS AN IRREMEDIABLE BREAKDOWN OF THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP DUE TO IRRECONCILABLE MARITAL DIFFERENCES. SAID PETITION MUST SPECIFICALLY ALLEGE THE GROUNDS WHICH DESTROY THE LEGITIMATE ENDS OF THE MARRIAGE RELATIONSHIP AND PREVENT ANY REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF RECONCILIATION."             "Art. 56. The petition for [legal separation] DIVORCE shall be denied on any of the following grounds: (1) Where the [aggrieved party] PETITIONER has condoned the offense or act complained of; (2) Where the [aggrieved party] PETITIONER has consented to the commission of the offense or act complained of; (3) Where there is connivance between the parties in the commission of the offense or act constituting the ground for [legal separation] DIVORCE; (4) Where both parties have given ground for [legal separation] DIVORCE; (5) Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain the decree of [legal separation] DIVORCE; [or] (6) Where the action is barred by prescription[.]; (7) WHERE THE IRRECONCILABLE MARITAL DIFFERENCES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY DIVORCE; OR (8) WHERE THE PETITIONER HAS NOT RESIDED WITHIN THE PHILIPPINES FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE PETITION, UNLESS THE CAUSE UPON WHICH THE PETITION IS BASED OCCURRED WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE PHILIPPINES."             "Art. 57. An action for [legal separation] DIVORCE shall be filed within ONE YEAR FROM THE TIME THE PETITIONER BECOMES COGNIZANT OF THE CAUSE AND WITHIN five years from the time of the occurrence of the cause.             IN THE CASE OF GROUNDS OR CAUSES FOR DIVORCE WHICH OCCURRED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT, THE ACTION MAY BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ITS EFFECTIVITY: PROVIDED THAT SAID GROUNDS OR CAUSES OCCURRED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE FILING OF THE ACTION.             PETITIONS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION FILED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT MAY BE AMENDED TO ACTIONS FOR DIVORCE: PROVIDED THAT SAID AMENDMENTS ARE MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ITS EFFECTIVITY."             "Art. 58. An action for [legal separation] DIVORCE shall in no case be tried before six months have elapsed since the filing of the petition."             "Art. 59. No [legal separation] DIVORCE may be decreed unless the court has taken steps toward the reconciliation of the spouses and is fully satisfied, despite such efforts, that reconciliation is highly improbable."             "Art. 60. No decree of [legal separation] DIVORCE shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.             In any case, the court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned to it to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not fabricated or suppressed."             "Art. 61. After the filing of the petition for [legal separation] DIVORCE, the spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other.             The court, in the absence of a written agreement between the spouses, shall designate either of them or a third person to administer the absolute community or conjugal partnership property. The administrator appointed by the court shall have the same powers and duties as those of a guardian under the Rules of Court."             "Art. 62. During the pendency of the action for [legal separation] DIVORCE, the provisions of Article 49 shall likewise apply to the support of the spouses and the custody and support of the common children."             "Art. 63. The decree of [legal separation] DIVORCE shall have the following effects: (1) THE MARRIAGE BONDS SHALL BE DISSOLVED ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE DECREE BECOMES FINAL. The DIVORCED spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other AND TO REMARRY THEREAFTER [, but the marriage bonds shall not be severed]; (2) The absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated [but the offending spouse]. IF THE DECREE OF DIVORCE IS GRANTED PURSUANT TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 55, THE NET PROFITS OF THE ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OR CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP SHALL BE DIVIDED EQUALLY BETWEEN OR IN A MANNER AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES. IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS AN ADJUDGED OFFENDING SPOUSE, SAID SPOUSE shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 (2); (3) The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, OR, IN THE CASE OF A DECREE OBTAINED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 55, TO THE SPOUSE ADJUDGED TO BE MORE CAPABLE IN ENSURING THIER MORAL, MENTAL AND PHYSICAL WELL-BEING, subject to the provisions of Article 213 of this Code; [and] (4) The [offending spouse] DIVORCED SPOUSES shall be disqualified from inheriting from [the innocent spouse] EACH OTHER by intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the offending spouse mad in the will of the innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law[.]; (5) CHILDREN OF DIVORCED PARENTS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SUPPORT AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS CODE. IN ADDITION, THESE CHILDREN SHALL BE DELIVERED THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGITIME ONE YEAR AFTER THE DECREE OF DIVORCE BECOMES FINAL, OTHERWISE, THE DECREE SHALL NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO THE SPOUSE WHO DEFAULTS ON SUCH OBLIGATION. CHILDREN OF DIVORCED SPOUSES SHALL LIKEWISE RETAIN ALL RIGHTS OF SUCCESSION WITH RESPECT TO THEIR PARENTS BUT SHALL BRING TO COLLATION THE LEGITIME PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED UNDER THIS PROVISION WITHOUT ANY OBLIGATION TO RETURN ANY AMOUNT SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINED TO BE IN EXCESS OF THE VALUE THEY ARE ENTITLED TO RECEIVE.             "Art. 64. After the finality of the decree of [legal separation] DIVORCE, the innocent spouse OR BOTH SPOUSES IN CASE OF DECREES PURSUANT TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 55, may revoke the donations made by him or her in favor of the [offending] OTHER spouse, as well as the designation of the latter as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable. The revocation of the donations shall be recorded in the registries of property in the places where the properties are located. Alienations, liens and encumbrances registered in good faith before the recording of the complaint for revocation in the registries of property shall be respected. The revocation of or change in the designation of the insurance beneficiary shall take effect upon written notification thereof to the [insured] INSURER.             The action to revoke the donation under this Article must be brought within five years from the time the decree of [legal separation] DIVORCE has become final."             "Art. 65. If the spouses should reconcile, a corresponding joint manifestation under oath duly signed by them shall be filed with the court in the same proceeding for [legal separation] DIVORCE."             "Art. 66. The reconciliation referred to in the preceding Article shall have the following consequences: (1) The [legal separation] DIVORCE proceedings, if still pending, shall thereby be terminated at whatever stage; and (2) The final decree of [legal separation] DIVORCE shall be set aside, but the separation of property and any forfeiture of the share of the guilty spouse already affected shall subsist, unless the spouses agree to revive their former property regime.             The court's order containing the foregoing shall be recorded in the proper civil registries."             "Art. 67. The agreement to revive the former property regime referred to in the preceeding Article shall be executed under oath and shall specify: (1) The properties to be contributed anew to the restored regime; (2) Those to be returned as separated properties of each spouse; and (3) The names of all their known creditors, their addresses and the amounts owing to each.             The agreement of revival and the motion for its approval shall be filed with the court in the same proceeding for [legal separation] DIVORCE, with copies of both furnished to the creditors named therein. After due hearing, the court shall, in its order, take measures to protect the interest of creditors and such order shall be recorded in the proper registries of properties.             The recording of the order in the registries of property shall not prejudice any creditor not listed or not notified, unless the debtor-spouse has sufficient separate properties to satisfy the creditor's claim."             SEC. 3. Separability Clause. - If any part or provision of this Act is declared invalid, the remainder or any provision thereof not affected shall remain in force and effect.             SEC. 4. Repealing Clause. - The provisions of any law, executive order, presidential decree or other issuances inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.             SEC. 5. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.             Approved,

Republic of the Philippines HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Quezon CityFirst Regular Session ELEVENTH CONGRESS HOUSE BILL NO. 6993 Introduced by Representative Manuel C. Ortega EXPLANATORY NOTE            This bill seeks to amend Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, as amended by Executive Order No. 227, by allowing absolute divorce (a vinculo matrimonii) and thereby granting legally separated spouses the right to remarry.             Today not all marriages succeed as a permanent union. An increasing number of married individuals find themselves subjected by their marriage partners to physical violence, grossly abusive conduct and other acts of or offenses that -- rather than promote blissful, harmonious conjugal and family life -- impair, debase or destroy the legitimate ends of the marriage relationship. This bill thus seeks to give spouses whi are shacked by an irretrievably broken marriage the freedom to remarry and possibly succeed in attaining a stable and fulfilling family life.             Divorce is not a novel legal right granted by Philippine civil laws: the Family Code of the Philippines sanctions relative divorce (a mensa et thoro). Under the provision of Title II of said Code, legal separation, or separation from bed and board, is a recognized remedy for victims of failed marriages. To be sure, our civil laws have always recognized the need to allow married individuals to sever conjugal ties under certain justifiable conditions.             Neither is divorce an institution exclusive to contemporary times. Historical records indicate that long before the advent of Spanish colonial rule beginning in the early 16th century, absolute divorce had been widely practiced among our ancestral tribes -- the Tagbanwas of Palawan, the Gadang of Nueva Vizcaya, the Sagada and Igorot of the Cordilleras, the Manobo, Bila-an and Moslems of Visayas and Mindanao islands, to name a few. During the Spanish regime, the law on divorce was the Siete Partidas which allowed only legal separation. The Spanish Civil Code on the subject were among those suspended by Governor General Weyler in 1889, and was never enforced since.             In 1917 Act 2710 was passed by the Philippine Legislature repealing the Siete Partidas by allowing divorce on the grounds of adultery on the part of the wife and concubinage on the part of the husband. During the Japanese Occupation, a new law on absolute divorce, E.O. No. 141, was promulgated providing for ten grounds for divorce. The law lasted until 1944 when Gen. Douglas MacArthur re-established the Commonwealth Government by proclamation which in effect repealed E.O. No. 141 and revived Act 2710.             In 1950, Act 2710 was repealed by the Civil Code of the Philippines which allows only legal separation. The draft of the Code, however, had provisions on absolute divorce which was subsequently eliminated and substituted with legal separation. The present Family Code of the Philippines also does not allow divorce (except a divorce obtained by the alien spouse of a Filipino citizen abroad), but it has expaded the grounds for legal separation to ten. Indeed, quoting a respected Filipino historical writer, "the law has come full circle".             While the Family Code of the Philippines allows relative divorce, it prohibits lawfully separated spouses from exercising the right to remarry. Under our present laws, legal separation does not dissolve the marriage bond between legally separated spouses; said parties are considered married individuals for all legal intents and purposes. Our civil laws on marriage justify and allow the separation of married individuals but does not confer them the legal right or remedy to extricate themselves from the ordeal of a broken marriage.             In the light of the foregoing, it is proposed that our present laws on marriage be amended to allow absolute divorce or dissolution of marriage. Based on the increasing number of failed marriages which confines many of our citizens to a perpetual state of marital limbo, it has become morally and socially acceptable for many Filipinos to grant spouses of broken marriages the legal right to remarry. The present grounds for legal separation which are recognized in our society as justifiable bases for relative divorce should be re-enacted as lawful grounds for absolute divorce. In addition, it is recommended that "irreconcilable marital differences" be included in our present civil laws as a justifiable cause for absolute divorce because not all circumstances and situations that vitiate the institution of marriage could be specifically categorized and defined by our lawmakers. Spouses living in a state of irreparable marital conflict or discord should be given the opportunity to present their marital contrarieties before the courts and have such differences adjudged as substantial grounds to dissolve or sever the legal bond of marriage.             Approval of this Bill is earnestly sought.

Poverty in the Philippines... my insights

Poverty deprives people of their security and well-being; peace of mind; education and robs them of their future. It is also a deprivation to clothing, shelter and education. It is lack of opportunity and loss of hope. 

As Mahatma Gandhi quoted "Poverty is the form of violence" - and we can clearly see this on the way robbers’ reason out when they are caught... "i have no money and my family is starving". 

In the philippines, we dont need to have statistics for us to believe how worst the poverty is. Let your eyes be the judge and then think of how i defined poverty. I have been overseas for almost a year now and I can see even I am away from home how Filipinos are suffering from poverty. 

It may be hard but i am really thinking if there is such a way that we can diminish poverty and increase Filipino life. However, it is so painful to think that even how much we wanted... hopes of getting out of it is quite impossible. 

There are so many reasons why we are still poor: 

1. Nation’s Debts. The main reason is because a large portion of our national budget goes to paying our foreign and domestic debts, instead of using it to build more roads, highways, bridges, schools, hospitals, housing units, railroads, irrigation, cable lines, and other public works; to raise the salaries and benefits of our public school teachers, policemen, soldiers, and government employees; and to fund more development and poverty-alleviation programs.

For every peso that the Filipino taxpayer pays to the government, a big part of it (about a third) only goes to our creditors. (http://emanila.com/philippines/2010/01/19/why-is-the-philippines-a-poor-country/)

2. Population mismanagement. This is the next major cause. Many people keep building families and producing children even if they are unprepared and have no money.

Through massive population management programs, the people should be informed that before building families, they first must have stable livelihoods, and savings for health care, children’s education, and emergencies, and that they should produce children only according to their financial means.

http://emanila.com/philippines/2010/01/19/why-is-the-philippines-a-poor-country/)

3. Corruption.  The abuse of public power, office, or resources by government officials or employees for personal gain, e.g. by extortion, soliciting or offering bribes. Such abuse of power also exists in academe, corporate and even religious organization. 

My insight on this; the government must needs to make sure that checks and balances is always audited. The president may have so much on his plate now but maybe at this time, it would be nice if he would be hands on to this. We all know the word "ningas kugon". We are just good at the start and after a while, we tend to forget things and become complacent on it. Resolving poverty issue is something that we should not be complacent and we can’t just have "siesta".  We have to take it seriously. 

As for me, this maybe too much but why not do this...

1. Corruption - termination from office is not enough. Why not make our law harder on this. I would suggest caning, jail and death penalty.

2. Population Mismanagement - Family planning should be our main priority. I believe in RH Bill as this will make a difference in a little way. Education about population and family making should start in first year highschool so students will have awareness. When i was teaching, I can sense that my students get excited when we start talking about love. 

3. National Debt - cut the budget of it and starts using those funds in creating farm to market roads, salaries of our government employees to make them more efficient and honest.

Unless we lessen poverty, we will continue on seeing slumps and beggars in the philippines. We will continue to feel unsafe and afraid of going out. There will be no justice and education will be very expensive.