Writing features painlessly
15 years ago
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The MOA-AD, Dr. Vicki Belo, and the Duty of A Lawyer to Defend His Client
0 comments Posted by Team Adel at 3:43 AM
by Atty. Adel A. Tamano, A.B., J.D., MPA, LL.M
(Keynote Speech for Testimonial of New Lawyers of the University of Northern Luzon, July 25, 2009, City of Vigan)
Firstly, congratulations to our newly-minted lawyers and graduates of University of Northern Luzon. We honor you tonight for your success and the sacrifices that you have endured to obtain admission to the Roll of Attorneys. However, while we give you honor, it is but proper for us to remind you of one of your most important responsibilities as an Attorney: the duty of a lawyer to represent clients or causes that are unpopular and to handle cases where the reaction of the community may be adverse to the lawyer.
It bears repeating that the practice of law is a privilege that is granted to a select few in the Philippines. Out of ten bar examinees, only two or three are admitted to the bar. In order to insure that the practice of law takes on the nature of a profession instead of a mere business, this privilege is counterbalanced with duties of lawyers to the court and to his client.
In regard the lawyer’s duties to represent unpopular clients and causes, under Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court (Also Rule 14.01 of the Canons of Legal Ethics), it is stated that “(i)n defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.”
The right to counsel is regarded as so fundamental that it has been enshrined as a constitutional right and this right is given greater relevance when the person seeking counsel is deemed unpopular or the cause is contrary to current public opinion.
Let me give this discussion focus by sharing with you my own personal experience by handling to cases that is unpopular to some groups – the current Halili-Kho sex video case where I am counsel for Dr. Vicki Belo and the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) petition that I filed before the Supreme Court in 2008.
In regard the Halili-Kho case, my decision to handle the defense of Dr. Belo criticized by both friends and foes. People who cared about me and who were concerned with my political prospects warned that handling the defense of Dr. Belo would only give me negative publicity and that intelligent voters would be turned off by my handling such a scandalous case that involved sex, drugs, infidelity, and other elements were more fit for a tele-drama. My critics happily stated that my representing Dr. Belo, in this and other cases, was a death-blow to my political ambitions and a confirmation of my lack of political savvy. Some critics added that I should not even be practicing my profession since I was the President of the University of the City of Manila (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila).
My answer to both friends and critics was simple – I am, first and foremost, a lawyer. I understand my ethical duty to represent Dr. Belo regardless of political repercussions. In this regard, I am the opposite of a traditional politician or “trapo”. A trapo is a weathervane, a trapo has no real principle or stand on any issue, and a trapo will only support causes that will make him popular. Just last week, I received a text message that read, “You should not handle the Belo cases if you want to be a Senator.” I answered that I have an ethical duty as a lawyer to represent my client. He sent a text in reply that said, “so your choice is to be a lawyer instead of a Senator.” I answered finally that, if God is willing, I see no reason why I cannot be both. Most importantly, if I decided not to represent Dr. Belo because I gave more importance and weight to my political career than to my ethical duties, then I would not make a good Senator at all because our public officers should take their ethical and moral duties to heart.
In regard my practicing law, I obtained authority for limited practice from both the Board of Regents and the Office of the City Mayor of Manila. I did this for two reasons – firstly, because, candidly, the salary of a university president is insufficient to support my family and, secondly, I hold my being a lawyer to be so important and fundamental that I need to practice in order to stay mentally sharp and to kept abreast of the current legal trends.
As a guidance to our fledgling lawyers and to emphasize the imperative to handle unpopular causes, the comments of the IBP Committee that drafted the Code of Legal Ethics are especially relevant, “(r)egardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse. He should take comfort that history is replete with instances of distinguished and sacrificial services by lawyers who had represented unpopular clients and causes and who had received accolade for such services from his peers in the bar.”
In fact, personally, I do not need the accolade to feel fulfillment. I already take great comfort that I am fulfilling my duty as a lawyer, acting out my role in the dispensation of justice, and knowing from my own appreciation of the facts and the evidence, that my client, Dr. Belo, is innocent of the charges against her.
In fact, the criticism I received from the Halili-Kho case was mild compared to what I received from the MILF and the radicalized elements of the Filipino-Muslim or Moro community.
In 2008, I filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the MOA-AD. The Agreement would have established a presumptive state independent of the Philippine republic, which would have its own territory in Mindanao, under the political control of the MILF, and its own ancestral domains not subject to the jurisdiction of the Philippine Government. Despite my being a Moro or Filipino-Muslim, I opposed the agreement for being unconstitutional, for undermining Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for being unjust not only to non-Muslims, both Lumads and Christian, in Mindanao who would be displaced by the Agreement. Additionally, I believed the Agreement was similarly unfair to Filipino-Muslims who were not allied to the MILF, such as the MNLF and the majority of Filipino-Muslims who are opposed to the creation of a separate Moro State.
MILF leaders called me a “coward”, a “non-Muslim,” and “a former Moro.” On the MILF website I was put in the list of most hated Filipinos. I even received death threats from the MILF and their supporters. But, honestly - and I do not say this to appear brave because I am not any braver than the normal person – I did not care nor worry about the criticisms and threats. It was very clear to me that my duty as a lawyer demanded – not merely persuaded but created the imperative – that I question such an unconstitutional agreement, despite the criticisms that I knew I would obtain from some sectors of the Muslim community.
Finally, my message to the new lawyers is a simple: your privilege to practice the law shall, at times, demand that you take on clients and causes that will make you unpopular and that will garner you criticism instead of praise. Remember that long after the praise or criticism have subsided, you shall be able to carry yourself with dignity knowing that you have fulfilled your vital and primordial role as a member of the bar in the dispensation of justice. Take heart that by your actions you are privileged to be, above all, the genuine article – a real lawyer.
It bears repeating that the practice of law is a privilege that is granted to a select few in the Philippines. Out of ten bar examinees, only two or three are admitted to the bar. In order to insure that the practice of law takes on the nature of a profession instead of a mere business, this privilege is counterbalanced with duties of lawyers to the court and to his client.
In regard the lawyer’s duties to represent unpopular clients and causes, under Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court (Also Rule 14.01 of the Canons of Legal Ethics), it is stated that “(i)n defense of a person accused of a crime, by all fair and honorable means, regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, to present every defense that the law permits, to the end that no person may be deprived of life or liberty, but by due process of law.”
The right to counsel is regarded as so fundamental that it has been enshrined as a constitutional right and this right is given greater relevance when the person seeking counsel is deemed unpopular or the cause is contrary to current public opinion.
Let me give this discussion focus by sharing with you my own personal experience by handling to cases that is unpopular to some groups – the current Halili-Kho sex video case where I am counsel for Dr. Vicki Belo and the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) petition that I filed before the Supreme Court in 2008.
In regard the Halili-Kho case, my decision to handle the defense of Dr. Belo criticized by both friends and foes. People who cared about me and who were concerned with my political prospects warned that handling the defense of Dr. Belo would only give me negative publicity and that intelligent voters would be turned off by my handling such a scandalous case that involved sex, drugs, infidelity, and other elements were more fit for a tele-drama. My critics happily stated that my representing Dr. Belo, in this and other cases, was a death-blow to my political ambitions and a confirmation of my lack of political savvy. Some critics added that I should not even be practicing my profession since I was the President of the University of the City of Manila (Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila).
My answer to both friends and critics was simple – I am, first and foremost, a lawyer. I understand my ethical duty to represent Dr. Belo regardless of political repercussions. In this regard, I am the opposite of a traditional politician or “trapo”. A trapo is a weathervane, a trapo has no real principle or stand on any issue, and a trapo will only support causes that will make him popular. Just last week, I received a text message that read, “You should not handle the Belo cases if you want to be a Senator.” I answered that I have an ethical duty as a lawyer to represent my client. He sent a text in reply that said, “so your choice is to be a lawyer instead of a Senator.” I answered finally that, if God is willing, I see no reason why I cannot be both. Most importantly, if I decided not to represent Dr. Belo because I gave more importance and weight to my political career than to my ethical duties, then I would not make a good Senator at all because our public officers should take their ethical and moral duties to heart.
In regard my practicing law, I obtained authority for limited practice from both the Board of Regents and the Office of the City Mayor of Manila. I did this for two reasons – firstly, because, candidly, the salary of a university president is insufficient to support my family and, secondly, I hold my being a lawyer to be so important and fundamental that I need to practice in order to stay mentally sharp and to kept abreast of the current legal trends.
As a guidance to our fledgling lawyers and to emphasize the imperative to handle unpopular causes, the comments of the IBP Committee that drafted the Code of Legal Ethics are especially relevant, “(r)egardless of his personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse. He should take comfort that history is replete with instances of distinguished and sacrificial services by lawyers who had represented unpopular clients and causes and who had received accolade for such services from his peers in the bar.”
In fact, personally, I do not need the accolade to feel fulfillment. I already take great comfort that I am fulfilling my duty as a lawyer, acting out my role in the dispensation of justice, and knowing from my own appreciation of the facts and the evidence, that my client, Dr. Belo, is innocent of the charges against her.
In fact, the criticism I received from the Halili-Kho case was mild compared to what I received from the MILF and the radicalized elements of the Filipino-Muslim or Moro community.
In 2008, I filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the MOA-AD. The Agreement would have established a presumptive state independent of the Philippine republic, which would have its own territory in Mindanao, under the political control of the MILF, and its own ancestral domains not subject to the jurisdiction of the Philippine Government. Despite my being a Moro or Filipino-Muslim, I opposed the agreement for being unconstitutional, for undermining Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity, and for being unjust not only to non-Muslims, both Lumads and Christian, in Mindanao who would be displaced by the Agreement. Additionally, I believed the Agreement was similarly unfair to Filipino-Muslims who were not allied to the MILF, such as the MNLF and the majority of Filipino-Muslims who are opposed to the creation of a separate Moro State.
MILF leaders called me a “coward”, a “non-Muslim,” and “a former Moro.” On the MILF website I was put in the list of most hated Filipinos. I even received death threats from the MILF and their supporters. But, honestly - and I do not say this to appear brave because I am not any braver than the normal person – I did not care nor worry about the criticisms and threats. It was very clear to me that my duty as a lawyer demanded – not merely persuaded but created the imperative – that I question such an unconstitutional agreement, despite the criticisms that I knew I would obtain from some sectors of the Muslim community.
Finally, my message to the new lawyers is a simple: your privilege to practice the law shall, at times, demand that you take on clients and causes that will make you unpopular and that will garner you criticism instead of praise. Remember that long after the praise or criticism have subsided, you shall be able to carry yourself with dignity knowing that you have fulfilled your vital and primordial role as a member of the bar in the dispensation of justice. Take heart that by your actions you are privileged to be, above all, the genuine article – a real lawyer.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Tamano denounces Abu Sayyaf kidnappings By : Julmunir I. Jannaral, Correspondent Manila Times27 February 2009 12:10 AM
COTABATO CITY: A known stalwart of the political opposition and a Muslim leader on Wednesday broke his silence to denounce even his fellow Muslims engaged in criminal acts like what the Abu Sayyaf is doing in kidnapping even innocent people engaged in humanitarian work like the three workers of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) who remains in captivity since January 15.
Lawyer Adel Tamano, spokesman of the United Opposition and a new breed of Muslim leader these days, said kidnapping innocent people like the members of the ICRC is un-Islamic and should be condemned in its strongest sense.
“This is a great disservice to our religion of Islam,” Tamano said.
");
//-->
Tamano told The Manila Times that “enough is enough” for Abu Sayyaf and all these kidnappings should stop once and for all as it has dragged the names of peace-loving Muslim Filipinos. He also sent a message to the Abu Sayyaf that if they are fighting in the name of Islam and for the sake of Bangsamoro people, they must not perpetrate kidnapping at the expense of the innocent.
“This act is more dastardly since the victims are members of an international organization which has been engaged for more than a century in non-sectarian humanitarian activities and along with the Red Crescent have long been recognized as a neutral organization which should not be harmed,” he added.
He likewise appealed to the kidnappers not to prolong the agony of the hostages in captivity, but to release them without further delay unharmed and unconditionally. He said the three ICRC workers, Swiss Andreas Notter, Italian Eugenio Vagni and Filipino Mary-Jean Lacaba should be turned over already to the authorities in Sulu, since after all the Abu Sayyaf as reported is not demanding anymore ransom money for the release of the hostages.
Two weeks ago, Abu Ali, senior leader of the Abu Sayyaf had clarified to The Manila Times in a phone interview on the reported demand of the kidnappers for a $10 million ransom. “We are not demanding any amount of ransom in exchange of the release of the hostages,” Abu Ali said. “The report is a lie and devoid of truth, but was made to derail the process of negotiation,” he added.
But Abu Ali admitted that contrary to the previous acts of kidnapping, this time they are just doing it to gain attention of the government since they are not asking any ransom money anymore. He said what they are asking and still fighting for is the self-determination of the Moro people and their rights to establish their own Bangsamoro homeland separate and distinct from the Republic of the Philippines.
However, a confirmed source from Indanan, Sulu who is privy to the situation also told The Muslim Times on condition not to be identified, said the release of the ICRC hostages would be prolong for a number days, or it could drag on even for months since both the military and the Abu Sayyaf do not trust with each other and does not give in to their respective demand.
The Abu Sayyaf is demanding for the pullout of the military cordon that is now with the aide of civilian armed volunteers before the formal negotiation could take place. But the military has made an outright rejection of the demand for the doubt that the kidnappers would transfer the hostages to other place.
On the other hand, the kidnappers are also suspecting that if the military would not be returned to barrack, all of them would be annihilated right away once they had turned over the hostages to the authorities...
Read more: http://www.yehey.com/news/article.aspx?id=235442
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
ANG TUNAY NA LIDER
ni ADEL A. TAMANO
Ang pamumuno ay hindi lamang kapangyarihan at karangalan, manapa’y isang tungkulin at pananagutan sa bawat taong sakop ng pamamahala ng isang pinuno o lider.
Mayroon akong natutunan sa tunay na kahulugan ng pamumuno sa ilang panahon ng aking panunungkulan bilang pangulo ng PAMANTASAN NG LUNGSOD NG MAYNILA at bilang tagapagsalita ng UNITED OPPOSITION, marahil din sa aking pagiging ama ng maliliit ko pang mga anak o kaya’y dahil sa kawalan ng mga lider na makapagpapabago ng sistema ng ating pulitika.
TATLONG katangian ang dapat taglayin ng isang tunay at tapat na lider, batay sa aking mga karanasan:
1.Kilala niya ang kanyang nasasakupan
2.May pangitain siya o vision
3.At mahigpit siyang kalaban ng katiwalian (corruption)
Bagamat, hindi bagay sa isang pangulo ng pamantasan, ayon sa tingin ng iba, ang aking ginagawa araw-araw na magtungo sa mga class room, rest room, mga pasilidad at buong bakuran ng PLM, mag-interview ng mga istudyante, professor,kawani at mga manggagawa, nakita ko naman na mabunga ang aking mga sakripisyo, sapagkat nakilala ko ang lahat na uri ng tao na aking pinaglilingkuran. Nakita ko rin ang tunay na kondisyon ng PLM, nalaman ko kung anu-ano ang mga dapat ipaayos, nabatid ko kung sino sa mga kawani, guro at pati na mga karaniwang mangagawa ang tunay na nagtratrabaho , nagkukunwari at higit sa lahat ang mga tamad. Napag-alaman ko rin kung ano pang mga bagay ang dapat kong gawin bilang lider. Lahat ng ito ay nakatulong nang malaki sa pagbibigay ko ng mga desisyon
At dahil sa pakikihalubilo na aking ginawa, ngayon ay napalagyan ko na ang PLM ng libreng INTERNET ACCESS, mayroon ng modernong pasilidad tulad ng air-condtioned class rooms, library, cafeteria, hi-tech equipment at iba pa.
Lubos akong naniniwala, na isa sa mga dahilan kung bakit bigo ang pamumuno sa Pilipinas, dahil ang ating mga lider ay hindi makapaglaan ng kahit maikling oras upang alamin kung papaano nabubuhay ang mga Pilipino. Paano ka mamumuno, kung hindi mo kilala ang mga taong iyong pinamumunuan o hindi mo alam ang kanilang pangangailangan?
May pangitain o vision ang isang lider. Kailangan, higit at malawak ang saklaw ng kanyang pangitain kaysa sa kanyang nasasakupan. Dapat, mayroon siyang nakikita na hindi nakikita ng kanyang mga tao, sapagkat kung hindi, anumang grupo o organization ay hindi susulong lalong hindi uunlad. Ang tunay at tapat na lider ay hindi lamang nakatanaw sa magandang kinabukasan bagkus naipapaliwanag pa niya ang kanyang mga magaganda at makabuluhang pangitain o vision sa mga mamumuhunan at tuloy maganyak na makamit, makamtam ng mga tao niya ang wagas na mithiin.
Maraming hinirang na lider na naging tau-tauhan lamang dahil sa kulang o walang pangitain o vision para sa bayan, kaya’t hindi nakapagtataka kung mabusabos ang bansang ito.
Malugod at labis kong ikinasisiya kapag naririnig ko na marami akong nagawang pagbabago at pag-unlad sa PLM, inuulit ko tulad ng magandang pasilidad, fitness center, shuttle service, bonuses at iba pang mga benipisyo para sa mga kawani,guro at manggagawa. Lahat nang ito’y naging posible dahil sa aming mahigpit na patakaran laban sa katiwalian o corruption.
Hindi tiwali ang isang tunay at tapat na lider, dapat lumalaban sa katiwalian.
Sa PLM ay ipinatutupad namin ng tahas ang “Law of Procurement”. Idinadaan namin ang lahat ng pamimili sa tamang proseso at tinitiyak na may nakalaang pondo sa isang makatwiran at malinaw na pamamaraan. May pera ang PLM para sa kanyang panagangailangan.
Ang totoo niyan, hindi naman ganoong kalaki ang aking nagawa, simple lang ang aking ipinatupad. Bawal magnakaw ng pera ng bayan.
Kitang kita ko na sa isang maliit na yunit ng organisasyon ay maaring umusbong ang katiwalian at kayang sirain nito ang buong institusyon. Ito rin ang eksaktong nangyayari nang malawakan sa ating bansa. Kailanman ay hindi makapagbibigay ng mga kaayusang infrastructure, kalusugan, edukasyon at mga reformang panginstitusyonal hanggat may isang lider na tiwali o corrupt.
Bilang pangwakas, lahat ng aral na ito ay bunga ng marubdob na pagmamahal ko sa aking pamilya, na kung tutuusin ay pangsarili lamang; ngunit bilang isang karaniwang ama na may maliliit pang anak na si Santi, 6 na taon at Mike 3 taon, nababahala ako sa kanilang kinabukasan, kung ang ating bansa ay hindi magkakaroon ng mga lider na makakapagpapabago ng anyo ng ating lipunan, mga lider na may puso at damdamin sa kanyang kapwa; lider na may pangitain o vision, at mga lider na matapat at malinis sa kanilang mga tungkulin na ginagampanan.
Ang aking dalawang anak, ang inyong mga anak, ang mga anak ng bawat Pilipino; saan sila patutungo kung walang tunay na lider na mamumuno sa kanila?
Marami pong salamat.
Repost from http://oppositeofapathy.wordpress.com/2009/02/08/ang-tunay-na-lider/
Sunday, February 1, 2009
BAGUIO CITY, Philippines—United Opposition spokesperson Adel Tamano said Muslims should publicly condemn the criminal activities of the Abu Sayyaf, which is suspected of kidnapping three workers of the International Committee of the Red Cross on Jan. 15.
“I’m a Muslim and what the Abu Sayyaf did was anti-Islamic, anti-Christian and immoral,” Tamano said in a press forum here on Friday. “They are destroying our name.”
He said the Abu Sayyaf had put Muslims in a bad light as many people tended to associate them with the bandit group.
A number of Muslim groups are drafting statements to denounce the Abu Sayyaf’s criminal activities, according to Tamano, a lawyer and the president of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila.
“It is time for all Muslims to speak out on this issue,” he said, adding that many Muslims could be considered role models because they were contributing to peace efforts and to nation-building.
Read Full Article http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20090201-186741/Tamano-Abus-destroying-our-name">hereThursday, January 29, 2009
| Written by Zaff S. Solmerin / Correspondent |
| Thursday, 29 January 2009 23:22 |
| THE United Opposition (UNO) yesterday warned about the implications of recent reports of a P100-million cut in the budget of the Commission on Audit (COA). “It sends a wrong signal to graft busters in the government. It will indicate that Malacañang will not hesitate to defang an agency crucial in keeping an eye on how the government uses its resources,” UNO spokesman lawyer Adel Tamano said. Tamano cautioned, “The development, if true, will further erode the public’s confidence on whether the Palace is really serious in adapting a policy of transparency and accountability in its affairs.” A recent report quoting a COA official said the cut in the office’s budget, if approved by the President, will have a significant effect on how State auditors’ function. Read Full Article here |
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tamano: President Arroyo and her allies should feel guilty..
0 comments Posted by Team Adel at 10:42 PMCritics use Obama speech to score Arroyo, allies
01/21/2009 | 12:29 PM
By: Sophia Dedace, GMANews.TV
MANILA, Philippines – Political opponents of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on Wednesday highlighted parts of US President Barack Obama's inaugural speech to criticize President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's administration.
In a text message to reporters, United Opposition (UNO) spokesperson Adel Tamano said President Arroyo and her allies should feel at fault after listening to Obama’s speech.
“Firstly, [President Arroyo] and her allies should feel guilty and fearful after listening to Obama’s inauguration speech. Truly, the days of [President Arroyo] and her allies are numbered in history – and in due time, the Courts – which will judge them harshly," Tamano said.
In his speech, Obama said “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
Tamano also said the Filipinos should find inspiration in Obama’s victory in its pursuit of leaders bringing “genuine and meaningful change" to the country.
For its part, militant group Anakpawis said President Arroyo must sense that she was among “corrupt leaders" referred to in Obama's address.
Read Full Article here
By: Sophia Dedace, GMANews.TV
MANILA, Philippines – Political opponents of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on Wednesday highlighted parts of US President Barack Obama's inaugural speech to criticize President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's administration.
In a text message to reporters, United Opposition (UNO) spokesperson Adel Tamano said President Arroyo and her allies should feel at fault after listening to Obama’s speech.
“Firstly, [President Arroyo] and her allies should feel guilty and fearful after listening to Obama’s inauguration speech. Truly, the days of [President Arroyo] and her allies are numbered in history – and in due time, the Courts – which will judge them harshly," Tamano said.
In his speech, Obama said “those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
Tamano also said the Filipinos should find inspiration in Obama’s victory in its pursuit of leaders bringing “genuine and meaningful change" to the country.
For its part, militant group Anakpawis said President Arroyo must sense that she was among “corrupt leaders" referred to in Obama's address.
Read Full Article here
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Adel Tamano’s Speech for UNO at December 12 Rally
MAGKAISA TAYO!
- ni Atty. Adel A. Tamano
Bismillah Hi Rahman Hi Raheem. Asalaamu Alaikum.
Isang mainit na pagbati ng kapayapaan sa ating lahat.
Halos hindi ko magbikas ang aking kasiyahan dahil nagkaka-isa tayong lahat sa ating pagtutol sa Charter Change.
Maraming nagsasabi na watak-watak ang oposisyon. At gusto ni GMA na magka-watak-watak tayo. Divide and conquer ika nga. Ang mayaman kalaban ang mahirap; Muslim laban sa Kristiyano; Edsa Dos laban sa Edsa Tres.
But today we have shown GMA that on this issue of charter change, we can unite and stand here – for this brief shining moment – as one nation and as one people.
Do not forget this moment because if we can unite against charter change, then we can unite against the other problems that are destroying nation - Corrupsyon. Kahirapan. At ang bulok na sistema at gobyerno ni Ginang Arroyo.
Kailangan natin ng pagbabago. We need change, pero hindi charter change. Ang kailagan natin ay CHARACTER CHANGE. Pagbabago ng mga namumuno at pagbabago nating lahat.
If the Filipino people can unite as one family and one country, then nothing – absolutely nothing – can stop us from becoming a great nation.
Dahil Muslim man o Kristiyano, mayaman o mahirap, tayo ay isang dakilang bansa at tayong lahat ay Pilipino na naghahangad ng tunay na pagbabago.
MAGKA-ISA TAYO AT MABUHAY ANG PILIPINAS.
(From: http://oppositeofapathy.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/adel-tamanos-speech-for-uno-at-december-12-rally/)
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Note: This speech was delivered at the 2005 Commencement Exercises of Harvard Law School -
Dean Kagan, the faculty and staff of Harvard Law School, the Graduating Class of 2005, our family and friends – Good Afternoon:
We begin with a caveat: If you believe that the praise and celebration are the only remarks that are appropriate for a graduation ceremony, then what I have to say will be a big disappointment.
This is not to belittle the hard work and sacrifice that we have undergone in order to be here today. For all of this and more, we deserve the warmest congratulations.
However, it would not serve us well to focus solely on our personal achievements: that would merely serve our vanity. What is more, it would be untruthful. Today’s graduation belongs as much to us as it does to our parents, spouses, relatives, and loved ones. They have sacrificed as much as we have, if not more so. They deserve equal praise for their support, love, and encouragement.
Furthermore, we must remember that our education is a great privilege. For someone like myself, a Filipino-Muslim, studying at Harvard was an unbelievable opportunity. In the predominantly Muslim areas of the Philippines, out of 10 grade-school students, only 2 will be able to complete high-school. Those in the developing world know, firsthand, that education is a truly precious commodity.
This is why our commencement today should not only be a time for self-congratulation but, more importantly, a moment for deep and sincere reflection. We must ask the essential questions of a graduate: 1) What have we learned?; and 2) Where do we go from here?
Today, we leave the comfortable and secure confines of Harvard Law School and enter the real world. It is a world of growing unilateralism, of heightened volatility in the Middle East, of mounting threats to security, of unrelenting degradation of the environment, and an ever widening gap, in economic terms, between the developed and developing nations.
What is more, we depart knowing that we have a responsibility to address these global issues. It should be emphasized that we, the members of the LL.M. Class of 2005, were not chosen from the thousands of applicants to the Graduate Program solely because of our academic or professional achievements. Instead, the choice was made with the prospect that a Harvard education would enable us to become future leaders and policymakers. Very simply, much is expected of us.
Accordingly, in order to address these global issues we must ask: what have we learned? Certainly, from the 250 courses available in the Law School, we have learned much in terms of legal theory and the substance of the Law. However, the most valuable source of education was our exposure to the diverse beliefs and cultures of men and women from over 60 nations. Indeed, the real genius of the Graduate Program is its embrace of multiculturalism and diversity.
In fact, it is this multiculturalism that will prove to be of the most benefit not only to each of us but more so to the Law School itself. This is a vital point: the very existence of the Graduate Program and the presence of legal scholars from over 60 nations is a powerful symbol and a clear reminder that no single country, race, or religion has a monopoly on good will, knowledge, or wisdom.
So where do we go from here? This is a question that each one of us, the 162 members of the LL.M. Class of 2005, will have to answer on our own and in our own time. We all desire to succeed and success itself can be defined and achieved in myriad ways. But one thing is certain - if your graduation becomes the high-water mark of your life, then you have failed to achieve the hopes of this institution. More importantly, you will have failed yourself. Again, we must never forget that much is expected of us.
I must confess that there is a personal reason for framing this speech in terms of poverty, terrorism, pollution, and world peace. I am a husband and a father of a two-year old son and when I think about the enormity of the global problems that we face, frankly, I am filled with fear and doubt. This is why I have such a personal stake in the success of our class and of the LL.M. Program itself.
Ultimately, the real value of our education will be assessed in terms of our making the world a more just, peaceful, equitable, environmentally sustainable, and tolerant place for our children.
Finally, in this world that, at times, seems so determined to destroy itself on the basis of differences in ideology, race, religion, or ethnicity, I have, nevertheless, witnessed 162 people from over 60 nations meet, initially, as strangers, then come together as classmates - who argued, debated, and, at times, vehemently disagreed - and, ultimately, become united as genuine friends. In this I find my optimism, hopefulness, and confidence. It is upon this bond of friendship and the spirit of understanding and humanity that I entrust my hopes for our future. I am truly proud to be a member of the LL.M. Class of 2005.
I thank you. I honor you. Congratulations.
-Repost from The New Infidel: Adel's Blog
;;
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)