Pacquiao-Bradley Part II

Posted in Manuel Buencamino by uniffors on the April 13th, 2014

It’s a good thing Freddie Roach put ear plugs on Manny. He could’nt hear his pastor screaming, “Turn the other cheek!Turn the other cheek!”

Manny wins the belt. Kim Henares takes the purse.

Comments Off

Misplaced fear

Posted in Manuel Buencamino by uniffors on the April 10th, 2014

The Manila Standard Today reported that the opposition United Nationalist Alliance was concerned about the administration’s purchase of high tech spying equipment for the military’s intelligence upgrade program.

    “At first it seemed like part of the AFP’s intelligence upgrading, but what bothered us is that it will be used to spy on civilians, particularly critics of the administration,” said UNA spokesman Rep. Toby Tiangco.

He added

    “We can only assume that the purpose of spying and monitoring the opposition is political. Someone in Malacanang would want to engage in political espionage to gain some advantage. We are again being taken for a ride right in front of our noses.” He recalled the Hello Garci scandal in which a conversation between then President Gloria Arroyo and an elections commissioner was illegally recorded and disseminated.

    “It’s like we are back in those times, except now, even the children of the administration critics are being monitored.”

GAGO! COA (Commission on Audit) ang katukan ninyong mga magnanakaw, hindi yung high-tech intel equipment na gagamitin ng military laban sa mga threats to national security…kung sabagay yun pagnanakaw ay threat to national security din naman.

Sige na nga matakot kayo. Hanggang 2016 lang naman ang takot kasi papasok na si Binay…kung seswertihin kayong mga hunghang.

Comments Off

We broke their fists with our faces – CBCPforlife.com

Posted in Manuel Buencamino,Philip Gilmore Cartoons by uniffors on the April 10th, 2014

Below is a press statement published in the cbcpforlife website

Added by mon on April 10, 2014
Saved under Independent Articles, News Articles


    Miracles indeed still do happen these days. After all the victorious claims made by the Pro-RH Law when Supreme Court (SC) spokesperson Theodore Te announced that the court ruled that the RH Law “is not unconstitutional”, a deeper look into the decision as excerpted by Te revealed that the Anti-RH group was the victor.

    Let it be noted that the SC did not say that the law is “constitutional”. It used the double negative term “not unconstitutional” because it said that it is “assumed” that it is constitutional. In other words, its constitutionality is merely assumed by the SC. But the SC was very clear and emphatic in declaring seven (7) significant provisions of the RH law as “unconstitutional” which clearly demonstrate the triumph of the Anti-RH group.

    This is so because it is not the “constitutionality” of the RH Law that was in issue at the SC. The substantive issues as defined by the SC in its guidelines before the oral arguments and as enumerated by the Solicitor General were limited to whether or not certain provisions of the law violated the right to life and health; freedom of religion and speech; right to protection against hazardous products; rights of parents in caring for their children; and right of families to participate in family planning.

    In resolving these issues, the SC practically said “Yes”, all these rights were violated. On the right to life and health protection against hazardous products, the telling blow against the RH Law is when the SC ruled that the word “abortifacient” does not only include contraceptives that “primarily induce abortion” which means that all contraceptives that have abortion as “secondary effect” will be illegal. Thus, before the Department of Health could even purchase contraceptives for distribution to end-users, it has to prove that they do not induce abortion whether primarily or secondarily. And the Anti-RH group could question any such purchase if it has evidence that such contraceptives have abortion as primary or even secondary effect.

    On the issue of freedom of religion and speech, the SC decision said that the law cannot penalize any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information nor any public officer which includes local elective officials who refuse or fail to support the RH program or shall do any act that hinders its full implementation regardless of their religious beliefs. Even medical schools owned by religious groups cannot be forced to provide family planning methods nor medical practitioners be compelled to provide free RH services to be accredited by PhilHealth.

    On the rights of parents to care for their children, the SC ruled that the RH Law cannot penalize a health service provider if he requires parental consent from minor in not emergency or serious conditions which is a recognition of the rights of parents to care for their children. The SC also decreed that minor-parents cannot be allowed access to RH methods without written consent from their parents.

    In other words, nothing of sort was mentioned as to whether or not the RH Law in its entirety is constitutional which is an admission that its constitutionality is not really the crux of the case. Perhaps what the decision conveys is the recognition of the constitutional right of Congress to enact a law, but that does not automatically guarantee that all its provisions are constitutional until it is so declared by the SC when their constitutionality is questioned.

    Las Pinas City


Comments Off

He wanted us to suffer like he did

Posted in Manuel Buencamino by uniffors on the April 10th, 2014

Upon losing the battle over the RH Law, Fr. Melvin Castro of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines said,

    “When we remember the Lord, when he suffered and died, before the human courts, he lost. Before the public opinion, they were crying out crucify him. And the Lord said, followers would suffer just as he did. We’re prepared to suffer. We’re very much prepared to suffer… What matters is to teach what is true and good,” .

Well, Melvin maybe you and your friends should ask the Lord how come he did not listen to your novenas and prayers? Why did he choose to give victory to those who were advocating a law that was against his teachings? Why did he want you to suffer as he did?

Comments Off

Sen. Revilla asks SC to stop Ombudsman from prosecuting him

Posted in Manuel Buencamino,Philip Gilmore Cartoons by uniffors on the April 7th, 2014

Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to immediately resolve his plea to stop his indictment for plunder of pork barrel funds.

    “The mental torment, anxiety and embarrassment of a full blown public trial… are injuries which Senator Revilla stands to suffer with certainty if the criminal proceedings before the ombudsman are not immediately enjoined,” the motion read.

Untitled 2

He threatened to run over the Supreme Court justices with his toy dump truck if they did not act favorably on his petition.

Comments Off

Which Catholics is he speaking for?

Posted in Manuel Buencamino by uniffors on the April 7th, 2014

Francisco Tatad, a columnist in the Manila Standard Today, warned Pres. Aquino and the Supreme Court about a Catholic revolt should the RH Law be declared constitutional.

    “He (Aquino) cannot afford to believe that Filipino Catholics, being unarmed, law-abiding and non-violent, are easily imposed upon, and will take anything from his government…The RH issue is not a simple constitutional issue. It does not simply involve the basic human rights. It involves the life of the soul and the salvation of faithful Filipinos…we cannot allow to lose our souls to the devil (the Supreme Court?) masquerading as friend and protector of the Aquino government. Some of us will want to defy the power of the devil and die as martyrs, if need be, in the only cause that gives us a chance to fight for something much bigger than ourselves.”


Seems like Tatad did not notice the legislative majority that passed the RH bill, the president who signed the bill into law, and the majority of Filipinos who support the law are Catholics.

Comments Off