Look what landed in my desk. The whole class action suit filed by Jo Imbong vs DepEd. Read it!!! (In fairness, I didn’t include home addresses of petitioners since they might get not too friendly mail 🙂
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
National Capital Region
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Quezon City
Branch 88
| JO AUREA M. IMBONG,
JAMES M. IMBONG, IMELDA MANIGO, DR LIGAYA A. ACOSTA, DR. RENE JOSEF BULLECER, ARLINE HERNANDEZ, REYNALDO D. PACHECO, ATTY. DOMINGO ALIDON, ERIC BAENA MANALANG, MANUEL DAYRIT, NORMAN CABRERA, JOSE N. NEBRAO, ROSE NEBRAO, REGINO CALUB JR., CORAZON CALUB, DR.NESTOR LUMICAO M.D., DR.THERESE B. LUMICAO M.D., DR. ROD ALENTON M.D., ROSEMARIE ALENTON, PAULETTE LUMINARIAS, ANTHONY G. NAGAC, MARLENE D. NAGAC, ROMY N. NACES, LOVENIA P. NACES, DR. MARIA THERESA ECHAVES, TITO ALEX BESINGA, EDNA BESINGA, EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE, and JOSEPHINE ADALINE A. GAMBE,
Petitioners,
— Versus –
|
SCA Case No. A-10-67338 For: Prohibition, With A Prayer For Preliminary Injunction/Temporary Restraining Order
|
|
MONA VALISNO and RAMON C. BACANI, in their capacities as Secretary of Education, and Undersecretary of Education, respectively.
Respondents. X ——————————————————– X |
P E T I T I O N
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is a special civil action to prohibit the teaching of a sex education curriculum in both public and private schools as promulgated in:
Department of Education (DepEd) Memorandum No. 261 Series 2005 entitled “ Operationalization of the UNFPA-Assisted project ‘Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health (ARH) Through Lifeskills-Based Education (PHL6R306)”, (certified true copy attached herein as ANNEX “A”); and
The DepEd Project Enclosure entitled, “Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health (ADR) Through Lifeskills-Based Education” to conduct and administer a sex education curriculum for lementary school children and high school youth in all public and private schools (certified true copy attached herein as ANNEX “B”).
THE PARTIES
1. That petitioners are: JO AUREA M. IMBONG, Filipino, married, with address at Unit 304 Ivan de Palacio Bldg., 109 Malakas Street, Diliman, Quezon Cityy, while petitioner JAMES M. IMBONG, Filipino, married, residing at Unit 708, Eagle Star Condominium, Dela Rosa Street, Loyola Heights, Quezon City; IMELDA MANIGO, Filipino, married, with address at Road 7, Barangay Bagong Silang, Quezon City; LIGAYA ACOSTA, Filipino, married and is Director for Asia-Pacific & Oceania of Human Life International and residing at Tacloban City; RENE JOSEF BULLECER, Filipino, of legal age and is President of Aids-Free Philippines and the Country Director of Human Life International-Pilipinas with address at 3F Caritas Building, Padre Gomez St., Cebu City; ARLINE HERNANDEZ, Filipino, of legal age, married, residing at 21 Ocampo St., Corinthian Gardens, Quezon City; DOMINGO ALIDON, Filipino, of legal age, is President of the Department of Education National Employees Union, and with address at DEPED Complex, Meralco Ave., Pasig City; REYNALDO D. PACHECO, Filipino, of legal age, married, residing at 5 Flamingo St., Green Meadows, Quezon City; ERIC BAENA MANALANG, Filipino, married, residing at 2704 Cityland Shaw Tower, Mandaluyong City; MANUEL DAYRIT, Filipino, married, residing at 142 Swallow Drive, Greenmeadows 1, Quezon City; NORMAN CABRERA, Filipino, married, residing at 29 Guerrero St., Xavierville 1, Loyola Heights, Quezon City; JOSE N. NEBRAO and ROSE NEBRAO, Filipinos, spouses, residing at Regency Subdivision, Iponan, Cagayan de Oro City; REGINO CALUB, JR. and CORAZON CALUB, Filipinos, spouses, residing at Buena Vista Village, Patag, Cagayan de Oro City; DR.NESTOR LUMICAO and DR.THERESE B. LUMICAO, Filipinos, spouses, residing at Corrales Ext., Cagayan de Oro City; DR. ROD ALENTON and ROSEMARIE ALENTON, Filipinos, spouses, residing at Aluba, Upper Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City; PAULETE LUMINARIAS, Filipino, residing at ABP Hayes Street, Cagayan de Oro City; ANTHONY G. NAGAC and MARLENE D. NAGAC, Filipinos, spouses, residing at Lot 12 block 30 Phase 2, NHA, Kauwagan, Cagayan de Oro City; ROMY N. NACES and LOVENIA P. NACES, Filipinos, spouses, residing at PN Roa Subdivision, Canitoan, Cagayan de Oro City; DR. MARIA THERESA ECHAVES, Filipino, residing at Gingo-og City, Misamis Oriental; TITO ALEX BESINGA and EDNA BESINGA, Filipinos, spouses, residing at Mandumol, Upper Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City; EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE and JOSEPHINE ADALINE A. GAMBE, Filipinos, spouses, residing at Mandumol, Upper Macasandig, Cagayan de Oro City; ABRAHAM V. LLENA, Filipino, of legal age, residing at Block 1, Lot 37, Xavier Village Homes, Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City, all of whom are members of Family and Life, Inc., a non-government organization composed of heads of families, professionals, and community leaders dedicated to safeguard and defend life and the rights of families, parents, children and youth.
2. That respondents MONA VALISNO and RAMON C. BACANI are the Secretary, and Undersecretary respectively of the Department of Education, Republic of the Philippines with common address at the Department of Education Complex, Meralco Avenue, Pasig City.
3. That petitioners bring this suit in their personal capacities and as a class suit in the interest and in representation of all parents similarly situated, to protect their inalienable rights to raise and nurture their children according to the family’s moral, religious and ethical values;
4. That as parents and advocates for the protection of families, they have legal interest herein;
5. That on September 8, 2005, the Department of Education through Undersecretary Ramon C. Bacani issued:
DepED MEMORANDUM No. 261, series. 2005 entitled—OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE UNFPA-ASSISTED PROJECT “Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health (ADR) Through Lifeskills-Based Education” (hereafter referred to as “DepEd Memo 261”; Annex “A”);
–with its accompanying Enclosure entitled “A PROJECT OF AND BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health (ARH) Through Lifeskills-Based Education” (hereafter referred to as “Enclosure”; Annex “B”);
6. That said DepEd Memo 261 promulgated the teaching of sex education for pupils in the Grade School who are at least nine (9) years old and those in high school, both in public and private schools, as said subject is generally taught in the countries of Europe and America pursuant to their sex liberation ideology. This sex education program is funded and supervised by a foreign entity, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Said DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure read, in part, to wit:
“DepED MEMORANDUM
No. 261, s. 2005
OPERATIONALIZATION OF THE UNFPA-ASSISTED PROJECTS “INSTITUTIONALIZING ADOLESCENT REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH (ARH) THROUGH LIFESKILLS-BASED EDUCATION” (PHL6R306)
To : Undersecretaries
Assistant Secretaries
Bureau of Directors
Directors of Services, Centers and Heads of Units
Regional Directors
Schools Division/City Superintendents
Head, Public and Private Elementary and
Secondary Schools
- For the information and guidance of all concerned, enclosed is a copy of the Department of Education-United Nations Population Fund (Dep-ED-UNFPA) Project entitled “Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health (ARH) through Lifeskills-Based Education” (PHL6R306).
- The project is specially designed to address the various reproductive health concerns of a significant sector of the in-school and out-of-school youth population, the adolescents.
- Pursuant to the Letter of Understanding (LOU) between the UNFPA and the DepED for the implementation of the Annual Work Plan (AWP) approved as part of the 6th Country Programme of Assistance, the Project Coordinating Commitee (PCC) is established to act as the policy making body of the project and to oversee its day to day operations.”
x x x
“A PROJECT OF AND BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: “Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health Through Lifeskills-Based Education”
x x x
“The critical role of education in addressing these conditions and in developing capacities of young people to decide on positive life choices has been recognized. x x x
“It is therefore in this context that DepEd intends to integrate and strengthen RH-related concerns into its formal and alternative learning system through this project entitled ‘Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health Though Lifeskills-based Education.’ x x x
“The target young people will be those who fall under WHO’s definition of young people. However, due to early on-set of puberty, age nine (9) will be included. Thus, the project will involve participation of those in-school adolescents ages 9-19 and out of school young people from ages 9-24. The project will involve these groups regardless of sex/gender, sexual orientation, civil status, or sexual activity. Strategies, however, will vary in terms of their vulnerability such as those engaged in risky behaviour.” x x x
“This project will contribute to attainment of the overall goal of the 6th Country Programme of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that aims to improve the reproductive health of the people of the Philippines through better population management and sustainable human development through the following strategic interventions: reducing fertility, improving maternal health, promoting adolescent reproductive health, and preventing HIV/AIDS and violence against women especially for poor and vulnerable populations.
“Under the Reproductive Health component of UNFPA 6th CP, the DepEd will implement this project to contribute to the attainment of the 6th CP RH outcomes and outputs stated in UNFPA CPD (left column) and will be responsible to deliver translated project outputs (right column). x x x
“This strategy will link the in-school adolescents and out-of-school young people to reproductive health services in school and community clinics, including counseling and to right RH information. The DepEd and DOH will collaborate to ensure access of young people to ARH services either in school clinics or RHUs in the communities. x x x
“This project requires a strong intervention services also known as counseling and guidance services to address the adolescent’s psycho-social-emotional concerns. These services shall include a) testing and diagnosis; b) counseling on career, personality and relationship matters and other adolescent concerns; c) placement in appropriate educational programs; d) referrals to appropriate care-giving agencies; and e) individual profile. Intervention services shall be delivered through the homeroom guidance program of the school in the case of high schools where the Revitalized Homeroom Guidance Program (RHGP) has been installed as well as through the regular school guidance program of the elementary and secondary levels which are managed by the school guidance counselors. Likewise, counseling services may also be provided through the learning groups of the OSY. Furthermore, counseling services may be extended to adolescent peer groups upon provision of adequate training.” x x x
“The BCC strategy shall be used to communicate to claimholders the right RH information with the end intention of promoting behaviour change. It will specifically use the youth-to-youth approach through sustained peer education and role modeling though the co-curricular and other related supplementary/complementary learning activities specifically designed to enhance the teaching-learning experiences in the classroom. The scouting program, existing interest clubs in the schools, school sports program and other information/communication (symposium/contest/campaigns) activities will be maximized to become venues of exchange of ARH information, peer education and role modeling. Provision of these activities shall be the function of administrators, school health personnel and counselors and other services providers.
“This strategy will instill motivation and skills needed adopt and maintain behaviours and practices that are likely to improve their condition in society and quality of life. It is a support strategy to proactively adopt gender-sensitive attitudes and practices, make informed and educated choices, and change their personal behaviour and practices accordingly. This will include Training of trainers on Peer Education and counseling with integrated lifeskills approach on ARH concerns like HIV/AIDS/STI, VAWC, peer training, etc. A continuing TOT of peer educators and peer education and counseling sessions in school will be made sustainable in all schools by including this initiative as part of the regular school activities.
“To enhance the learning of OSY, youth organizations and clubs in the community may be tapped to provide the supplementary and complementary learning activities.”
x x x
“Strategy B: Provision of counseling and adolescent
reproductive health services in schools and communities
7. Establishment of working referral system between schools and communities
8. Regular peer counseling sessions in school clinics
9. Re-furbishing of RG Hubs/school-based Teen and Community Learning Centers (identified sites in provinces)
“Strategy C: Behaviour Change Communication (BCC) and IEC
10. Trainors’ training on Peer education (total of 4 batches)
11. Continuing peer education sessions
12. Radio and TV Broadcasts for distance learning and promotional purposes
13. ARH assemblies and fora in school and communities
14. Scouting, quiz shows, youth camps, interest clubs, etc.
15. Publication for students/learners and professionals
16. Youth advocacy training x x x
“Under the 6th CPA, the Department of Education (DepEd) will perform a dual role of an implementing and coordinating partner.”
“The Undersecretary for Programs and Projects will be the Project Manager who will have the over-all responsibility of coordinating project activities at levels of the DepEd. She will be assisted by a Project Coordinating Committee composed of the 4 Directors of Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE), Bureau of Secondary Education (BSE), Health and Nutrition Center (SHNC), Bureau of Alternative Learning System (BALS). The Project Management Unit will be headed by the Executive Officer who will be the Director of HNC and who will be in-charge of the day to day operations of the project.
x x x
“In accordance with the approved Work and Financial Plan for each year from 2005-2009, the UNFPA will provide the necessary funding requirements to enable the project to implement its planned activities and ensure that project funds will be utilized in all the identified project priority provinces and cities including those in ARMM. The DepEd, through its Project Management Unit will assume responsibility in the overall supervision and management of project funds and will be accountable to the UNFPA for all funds received for the project. As a requirement, the DepEd-PMU shall open and maintain a separate bank account for this purpose and must ensure that in no way shall there be co-mingling of project funds with funds from any other sources. The DepEd-PMU shall likewise manage the project funds following the guidelines and financial reporting set forth by the UNFPA.” x x x
“UNFPA shall provide for the cost of end evaluation of the project and technical assistance through its Programme Officer for Adolescent Reproductive Health and technical backstopping from the Country Support Team (CST) in Bangkok.”
.
7. That sex education under DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure will be implemented starting the school year June 2010 and onward;
8. That sex education under DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure is unconstitutional and illegal, such that in implementing them, respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and that there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except the present petition;
9. That great and irreparable injury would result to the petitioners, parents, children or families and society before the issues can be heard on notice, hence the issuance of a preliminary injunction/temporary restraining order is warranted.
GROUNDS FOR THE PETITION
Sex Education under DepEd Memo 261 and its Enclosure are unconstitutional on the following grounds:
1) SEX EDUCATION UNDER DEPED MEMO 261 AND ENCLOSURE ARE UNREASONABLE AND ARBITRARY, HENCE, VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS WHICH PROSCRIBES ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE POLICIES AND ACTIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICERS (Constitution, Article III, Section 1);
(2) THEY VIOLATE THE PRIMARY RIGHT OF PARENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF THEIR CHILDREN (Constitution, Article II, Section 12);
(3) THEY VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF FAMILIES OR FAMILY ASSOCIATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AFFECTING THEM (Constitution, Article XV, Section 4);
(4) THEY VIOLATE THE RIGHT OF SPOUSES TO FOUND A FAMILY ACCORDING TO THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (Constitution, Article III, Section 3);
(5) THEY VIOLATE THE SANCTITY OF FAMILY LIFE AND THE PROTECTION DUE THE FAMILY AS A BASIC AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION (Constitution, Article II, Section 12) AND AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION (Constitution, Article III, Section 1);
(6) THEY VIOLATE MARRIAGE, AN INVIOLABLE SOCIAL INSTITUTION AND FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY THAT MERITS THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE (Constitution, Article III, Section 2).
DISCUSSION
I. DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure Are Arbitrary And Unreasonable, Hence Violative Of Substantive Due Process.
——————————————————–
The Constitution provides, to wit:
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” (Article III, Section 1)
This protects the people against unreasonable and arbitrary policies and acts of public officers. Thus –
“Substantive due process.
“If all that the due process clause requires is proper procedure, then life, liberty, and property can be destroyed provided proper forms are observed. Such an interpretation, evidently, makes of the due process clause a totally inadequate protection for personal and property rights. Hence, the clause must be understood to guarantee not just forms of procedure but also the very substance of life, liberty and property. The due process clause must be interpreted both as a procedural and as a substantive guarantee. It must be a guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even when the power is exercised according to proper forms and procedure. In the language of Hurtado v California (110 U.S. 516, 536 (1884). ‘arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude.’ Thus, as Justice Harlan said in 1887: ‘The Courts are at liberty–indeed are under a solemn duty–to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the enquiry whether the legislature hasw transcended the limits of its authority.’” (Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed.)
x x x
“There is no controlling and precise definition of due process. It furnishes though a standard to which the governmental action should conform in order that deprivation of life, liberty or property, in each appropriate case, be valid. What then is the standard of due process which must exist both as a procedural and a substantive requisite to free the challenged ordinance, or any governmental action for that matter, from the imputation of legal infirmity sufficient to spell its doom? It is responsiveness to the supremacy of reason, obedience to the dictates of justice. Negatively put, arbitrariness is ruled out and unfairness avoided. To satisfy the due process requirement, official action, to paraphrase Cardozo, must not outrun the bounds of reason and result in sheer oppression. (Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849, 860)
This is but understandable, for the life of the law is reason. Thus –
“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that when the reason of the law ceases, the law itself ceases. This principle is expressed in the maxim, cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex. Another maxim expressive of the principle is ratio legis est anima or the reason of the law is its soul. It is a consecrated legal axiom that the reason of the law is the life of the law. A lifeless law is a dead law.” (Agpalo, Statutory Construction 1998 Ed p. 136-137)
And what is the test of reasonability of the acts of public officers? They are, to wit:
“Essential requisites for a valid exercise of police power.
First, That the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from that of a particular class, require the exercise of such power;
Second, That the means employed are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.” (Martin, Political Law Reviewer, Book I, 1965 Ed p. 412)
On this, it has been held, to wit:
“(1) Lawful Subject
The first requisite simply means that the subject of the measure is within the scope of the police power, that is, that the activity or property sought to be regulated affects the public welfare.” x x x
“(2) Lawful Means
Even if the purpose be within the scope of the police power, the law will still be annulled if the subject is sought to be regulated in violation of the second requirement. In Constitutional Law, the end does not justify the means. The lawful objective, in other words, must be pursued through a lawful method; that is, both the end and the means must be legitimate.” (Cruz, Constitutional Law 1995 Ed 47, 52)
We submit that DepEd Memo 2 61 and Enclosure do not pass the test.
We shall amplify.
As shown by the Enclosure (Annex “B”) to the DepEd Memo 261 (Annex “A”), sex education will cover the teaching of “Reproductive Health.”
“Reproductive Health,” as used by the various agencies of the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), includes family planning services, contraception, regulation of fertility and interrupting unwanted pregnancies or abortion, for countries which legalized it.
Thus, in an interview during the recent April 2010 G-8 Ministers Conference in Canada, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking of Reproductive Health, stated to wit:
“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health, and reproductive health includes contraception, family planning, and access to legal safe abortion.” [1]
This is the same meaning used by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the agency that sponsored and funded DepEd Memo 261. This definition appeared in the final document of an international conference held in Cairo in 1994. The document titled “Program of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development “ (ICPD) defined Reproductive Health as follows:
“Reproductive health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. Reproductive health therefore implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so. Implicit in this last condition are the right of men and women to be informed and to have access to safe, effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility which are not against the law, and the right of access to appropriate health-care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant. In line with the above definition of reproductive health, reproductive health care is defined as the constellation of methods, techniques and services that contribute to reproductive health and well-being by preventing and solving reproductive health programs. It also includes sexual health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations, and not merely counseling and care related to reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases.”
The abovementioned definition was used in House Bill No. 5043 (Reproductive Health and Population Development Act) of the 14th Congress sponsored by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman. In the said Bill, Reproductive Health is defined, to wit:
“Reproductive Health – Refers to the state of physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so, provided that these are not against the law. This further implies that women and men are afforded equal status in matters related to sexual relations and reproduction.
Reproductive Health Rights – Refers to the rights of individuals and couples to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the information and means to carry out their decisions; and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health.”
It also defined “family planning,” to wit :
“Family Planning – Refers to a program which enables couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to carry out their decisions, and to have informed choice and access to a full range of safe, legal and effective family planning methods, techniques and devices.”
These family planning methods and devices include the use of the intrauterine device (IUD), contraceptive pills, condoms and other similar devices.
The question now is: Is it appropriate and reasonable for these “satisfying and safe sex life,” family planning, condoms, IUD, contraceptive pills and other devices to be taught to our grade school and high school pupils? That early! For what purpose? To entice them to get sexually oriented at an early age? But why? To broaden the consumer base and increase the sales of condoms, contraceptive pills, IUD and other related gadgets? If DepEd is not out to make money from this project, why promote it at all. Can this square with the demands of substantive due process? Is this reasonable?
And now, on the test.
Does public interest demand it? Are the means employed, as stated in DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure, reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose? The answer is in the negative.
Every being has its own specific nature, its own law of being, the inherent law or that which governs its nature, its tendencies which naturally flow from its being towards the end and purpose of its being. In short, everything has its law of nature. Man, too, is covered by this. He has his own human nature, which includes sex.
Undeniably, sex is given to man for procreation, and for couples beyond child-bearing for the enhancement of their marital relationship. Of course, there is also pleasure in sex.
According to DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure, the reason for imposing sex education among pupils nine (9) years old and above up to high school is as follows:
“This project will contribute to attainment of the overall goal of the 6th Country Programme of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) that aims to improve the reproductive health of the people of the Philippines through better population management and sustainable human development through the following strategic interventions: reducing fertility, improving maternal health, promoting adolescent reproductive health, and preventing HIV/AIDS and violence against women especially for poor and vulnerable populations.
“Under the Reproductive Health component of UNFPA 6th CP, the DepEd will implement this project to contribute to the attainment of the 6th CP RH outcomes and outputs stated in UNFPA CPD (left column) and will be responsible to deliver translated project outputs (right column). x x x
“This strategy will link the in-school adolescents and out-of-school young people to reproductive health services in school and community clinics, including counseling and to right RH information. The DepEd and DOH will collaborate to ensure access of young people to ARH services either in school clinics or RHUs in the communities. (Annex “B”) x x x
Why the need to train our young kids as early as nine (9) years old about reducing fertility, preventing HIV/AIDS and the reproductive health components like family planning services, condoms, IUD’s and contraceptive pills?
Are they, especially the grade schoolers, already generally indulging in sex and are promiscuous enough as to warrant HIV/AIDS protection or the use of condoms, IUDs and contraceptive pills? Are the kids already copulating that soon such that they have to be targeted about reducing fertility and population control? The answer is NO. Our kids are not that sex-liberated. Essentially, they still have conservative sex values. We can only wonder where DepEd gets its data. The premises are baseless. The premises being faulty, DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure cannot be right. For in logic, the conclusion cannot be any better than its premises. For being baseless, DepEd Memo 261 is unreasonable and arbitrary unless DepEd is candid enough to admit that its real agenda is to transform the sex behaviour of our children towards becoming sex-obsessed.
Admittedly, DepEd Memo 261 comes from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), its sponsor and funder. Being foreign oriented, the premises of DepEd Memo 261 are hence, way off the mark. They are not yet true in the Philippines, although not for long if DepEd Memo 261 will have its way.
Is DepEd saying that there is a public need to transform our children from being conservative to becoming Americanized? But where lies public welfare there? Where are the empirical and scientific data to support the conclusion that being Americanized is better than what we are now, sexually speaking? Does not DepEd know that “Americanized” is coming to mean “adulterated, sodomized, contracepted, aborted and euthanized” that some Muslims call them “the great Satan” and see them as a necrotic tumor in the body of humanity? Is DepEd doing this change of sex behavior to their own kids? If not, why did they allow DepEd Memo 261 to come by? Is it because of the funding? Being totally baseless, again, DepEd Memo 261 is unreasonable and arbitrary.
DepEd enclosure (Annex “B”) also talks of “role modeling,” “sessions in school clinics,” “scouting” and “youth camps” to enhance the teaching-learning experience in the classroom. Will these include sexual exhibitionisms, condom and sex gadgets simulations? And why talk also of “scouting” and “youth camps” in sex education? Will the kids be called to do an “on the job sex training” in said camps away from their parents eyes? Does DepEd know what it is going into? What it is getting OUR kids into?
Is DepEd taking sex lightly? That sex is a picnic? Is DepEd ignorant of the fact that sex is a hot-button topic and emotionally inflammatory more than anything else in the world—inflammatory enough to bring conflagration and destruction to countless broken homes, not to mention the downfall of great kingdoms of the world in the past? Cannot DepEd easily imagine that because of their emotional immaturity and vulnerability, the youngsters can UNDULY be attracted to experience sex either out of curiousity, or plain human concupiscence and then slide down the cliff?
Has not DepEd heard of young kids in western countries responding to surveys, confessing that in sex education “they feel like touching their private parts or those of other people,” “that they are having sex feelings in their body” and that “they can’t stop thinking about sex”? Has not DepEd heard of Sigmund Freud saying that man is a bundle of sex drives?
In introducing DepEd Memo 261, is DepEd planning to start a sex revolution in the Philippines as America and Europe did in 1960s? Is DepEd aware of what happened to the American youth after the introduction of sex education which culminated in the sexual revolution?
In the United States, sex education has not only resulted in irreparable erosion of parental authority, it spread sexual immorality and delinquency among the youth, undermining their families and society. Citing U.S. Secretary of Education, William J. Bennett, author James Likoudis wrote :
“Statistics are plentiful regarding the increase in every index of sexual delinquency among American youth, but not enough attention has been paid to the impact of the amoral programs of sex education directed at the young in our public schools (where ‘education in human sexuality’ has been deliberately divorced from traditional moral teaching rooted in classical Natural law and Judaeo-Christian ethic). The radical innovation of classroom-curriculum sex education has reaped a bitter harvest. As the [former] U.S. Secretary of Education, William J. Bennett, recently wrote:
‘In all too many places, sex education classes are failing to give the American people what they are entitled to expect for their children, and what their children deserve.
Seventy percent of all high school seniors had taken courses in 1985 up from 60 percent in 1976. Yet when we look at what is happening in the sexual lives of American students, we can only conclude that it is doubtful that much sex education is doing any good at all. The statistics by which we may measure how our children – how our boys and girls – are treating one another sexually are little short of staggering.
-‘More than one half of American young people have had sexual intercourse by the time they are 17.
-‘More than one million teen-age girls in the United States become pregnant each year. Of those who give birth nearly half are not yet 18.
-‘Teen pregnancy rates are at or near all-time high. A 25-percent decline in birth rates between 1970 and 1984 is due to a doubling of the abortion rate during that period. More than 400,000 teen-age girls now have abortions each year. (James Likoudis, “Classroom Sex Education: Undermining Parental Rights”, In PARENTAL RIGHTS: The contemporary Assault on Traditional Liberties, Stephen M. Krason & Robert J. D’Agustino, editors, 1988: Christendon College Press, Fort Royal, Virginia).
A survey of high school principals in the U.S.A. in 1958 asked this question: What are the main problems among your students: The answer was:
- not doing homework
- not respecting property—e.g., throwing books
- leaving lights on and doors and windows open
- throwing spitballs in class
- running through the halls
The same survey question was asked a mere thirty years (one generation) later, in 1988. The answers were startlingly different. Here are the main problems of today’s high school students:
- abortion
- AIDS
- rape
- drugs
- fear of violent death, murder, guns and knives in school.”[2]
Notably, the top three (3) are all about sex.
This is what sex education has brought to America. Do we need to duplicate this in the Philippines? If more sex signifies more immorality, why the need for DepEd Memo 261? To commit cultural suicide or give our kids a joyride on the road to perdition where there is no turning back? Is not DepEd aware of these developments? Is DepEd not doing its homework?
In the United States and Europe, the most dramatic and tragic triumph of the sexual revolution is the rampaging abortions which is the willingness to murder for the sake of desire to copulate. Is DepEd setting us up to pave the way for eventual legalization of abortion here? Or is DepEd allowing itself to be used by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) towards this end?
Yes, early sex among our kids can mean more customers and more sales for family planning services, gadgets, condoms, contraceptive pills, IUD’s, and possibly anti-HIV/AIDS and anti-STD medicines. But is this public interest? Was DepEd drugged by UNFPA to agree to the promulgation of DepEd Memo 261?
There is one more reason why DepEd Memo 261 cannot pass the test of reasonability.
It may be recalled that Reproductive Health Bill No. 5043, entitled “Reproductive Health And Population Development Act,” failed to get the approval of the current 14th Congress. Said Bill No. 5043 covered the same Reproductive Health components which DepEd Memo 261 covers and wants to implement this June 2010 school year. Is this valid? Can DepEd substitute for Congress? No! In fact, the introduction of “Reproductive Health” through DepEd Memo 261 amounts to usurpation of legislative powers penalized under Art. 239 of the Revised Penal Code which provides, to wit:
“Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers. – The penalties of prision correccional in its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, shall be imposed upon any public officer who shall enroach upon the powers of the legislative brand of the Government, either by making general rules or regulations beyond the scope of h is authority, or by attempting to repeal a law or suspending the execution thereof.” (Revised Penal Code)
There being no public need, let alone the means employed being illegal and empirically without basis, DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure are hence violative of substantive due process.
II. Sex Education Is Better Left To The Parents Than The State.
———————————————–
The purpose of the State is to create a framework within which its citizens can lead a good life. The Constitution provides said framework and one such framework is the mandate of the Constitution that the parents have the primary right and duty on the development of the moral character of their children. Thus –
“The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” (Article II, Sec. 12, Constitution)
On this it has been held, to wit:
“The child is not the mere creature of the state. The ‘liberty of parents and guardians’ includes the right ‘to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control’. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510)
Under the provision above quoted, the State imposes a limitation upon itself as it defers to the parents when it concerns the moral development and upbringing of their children. This moral development can never be more truly present than in sex, which is a subject inextricably linked with morality.
The reason for this deference of the State to the parents respecting the moral development of their children is because morality is essentially based on religion or belief in God which the State may not interfere with under the Religion Clause of the Constitution. In fact, this spiritual dimension of human sexuality—marriage and family—is expressly acknowledged by the Constitution when it opted to use the word “sanctity”, to wit:
“The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution.” (Article II, Section 12, Constitution)
for “sanctity” precisely means holiness, sacredness, heavenliness, divineness and godliness. Thus –
“NOUNS sanctity, sanctitude; sacredness, holiness, hallowedness, numinousness; sacrosanctness, sacrosanctity; heavenliness, divineness; venerableness, venerability, blessedness; awesomeness, awfulness; inviolableness, inviolability; ineffability, unutterability, unspeakability, inexpressibility, inenarrability; godliness 1028.2; odor of sanctity.” (Roget’s International Thesaurus 4th Ed, 1026)
Clearly, therefore, respondents went beyond its authority when it promulgated DepEd Memo 261 at the expense of the parents.
DepEd Memo 261 is silent on the qualifications of teachers or guidance counselor who will be involved in sex education. Will they cover pedophiles? If not, how will the school or parents know that these teachers are not pedophiles? Years back we had a congressman convicted of rape of a 12-year old child. Can grade school and high school teachers be far behind?
On the other hand, to leave sex education to the parents is in line with the principle of subsidiarity, and the law on exhaustion of administrative remedies which both mandate that an act be left done by one who is in a better position to do it.
Thus, on the principle of subsidiarity, Human Life International based in Virginia, U.S.A. in its “LEXICON”, 1996 ed., opined, to wit:
“It is nature, not the authorities, which gives parents the first duty/right in terms of education. The warning of Aristotle, giving a pre-Christian expression to the incorruptible voice of nature, is still current. To the State belongs the necessary and meritorious work of helping, promoting and complementing, but by no means must it confer on itself this duty/right of parents.
“Parents are, by this fact, the first and primary educators of their children (GS) [Gaudium et Spes] 52; GrS 16; Gravissimum educationis, 3; FC [Familiaris Consortio] 36). In the warmth of the family home the first school of social virtues begins (FC 42), the first and cincomparable school of citizenship (FC37).
“By virtue of the principle of subsidiarity, the State and society must respect and promote the primacy of the family within the wide field of education, including sexual education (FC37).
“A good measure of correct or incorrect policy in education and in legislation, as a whole, is the respect or violation of the original, irreplaceable and inalienable right of parents to educate their children (FC36). x x x
“In the political arena, understood in its fullest sense, at all levels, the State in virtue of subsidiarity should open accessible channels so that families can participate in and become the main protagonists of family policy.” (LEXICON, pp. 335-336)
This principle is also reflected in the law on exhaustion of administrative remedies in administrative law which prohibits courts from taking cognizance at first instance of cases involving matters particularly within the competence of a lower administrative agency. Thus—
“The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies before resorting to the court means that there should be an orderly procedure which favors a preliminary administrative sifting process, particularly with respect to matters peculiarly within the competence of the administrative agency, avoidance of interference with functions of the administrative agency by withholding judicial action until the administrative process has run its course, and prevention of attempts to swamp the courts by a resort to them in the first instance. (Abe-Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524)” (Sibal, Philippine Legal Encyclopedia p. 306)
In fact, this is one reason why the Constitution mandates that families have the right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them as obviously parents and families have better competence on the moral development of their children compared with the State. Besides, sex is a topic that can be taught only with a moral perspective which only parents can better and safely provide. For if taught outside morality, sex can lead to moral corruption of the youth, which is itself a violation of the rights of children against all forms of abuse, exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their moral development (Art. II, Section 3 [2], Constitution).
Furthermore, common sense will tell us that sex is indeed better left to the parents, if only considering the sensitivity of the matter. Unlike mathematics and similar subjects, sex can hardly be discussed without the subject becoming emotionally charged or for the recipient to be carried away with personal sensitivities. That is why a survey in America reported young kids confessing that in sex education “they feel like touching their private parts or those of other people,” that “they are having sex feelings in their body” and “that they can’t stop thinking about sex” and other similar impressions. And has not Sigmund Freud precisely stated that man is a bundle of sex drives?
On the other hand, there is great danger for abuse if the teaching of sex done by strangers, considering the innocence and vulnerability of the child which invites exploitation by such strangers.
III. DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure Were Promulgated Without The Participation of Families.
—————————————————
On this, the Constitution provides, to wit:
“Section 3. The State shall defend:
x x x
5) The right of families or family associations to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them.” (Art. XV, Constitution)
As earlier shown, DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure are the product of the collaboration solely between the DepEd and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). There is nothing in the DepEd documents showing that families and family associations participated in the planning and implementation and that in fact there was no such participation at all before DepEd Memo 261 and its Enclosure were issued. Obviously then, they are unconstitutional.
IV. DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure Are Arbitrary And Violate The Religious Rights of Parents.
——————————————————————–
Under Article XV, Section 3 (1) of the Constitution, parents have the right “to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions.” This provision is violated by DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure, for the use of artificial birth control methods for family planning, like the IUD, condoms, and contraceptive pills, are against the religious convictions of Catholic parents. Thus
“The liberty clause does not merely denote freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of individuals x x x to establish a home, to bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.” Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)
V. DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure Undermine The Constituitonally-Protected Sanctity Of Family Life And Institution Of Marriage.
——————————————————————
Our Constitution recognizes marriage and the sanctity of family life and mandates their protection and solidarity, as the foundation of the nation. It thus, provides, to wit:
“Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. (Art. II)
“Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. (Art. XV)
“Section 2. Marriage as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. (Art. XV)
These provisions were not found in our previous Constitutions. In the 1935 Constitution, nothing was mentioned about the family. Not even a word. In the 1973 Constitution, a sentence was written about it merely as a matter of principle.
But why the change and the fighting words of the present 1987 Constitution? The answer is clear: the family has been under attack, hence, the call for help. Reports say that about half of our marriages result in broken homes. Why? The culprit? Disordered sex! Marriage is destroyed by loosening its glue—sexual fidelity. And sexual fidelity is destroyed by the sexual revolution. And still, we want our kids to learn early about sex? So far, in the Philippines, sex is propagated mainly by media, television, movies, the internet, pornographic magazines and literature. And now, DepEd wants to enlist the schools as well? Are we nuts, out to destroy what is left of our remaining marriages? Are we set to destroy our families and society?
VI. Petitioners Have No Appeal Nor Any Plain, Speedy And Adequate Remedy In The Ordinary Course Of Law Except The Present Petition.
——————————————————————
Indeed, prohibition is the proper remedy when one is acting without or in excess of authority. Sec. 2, Rule 65, Revised Rules of Court provides, to wit:
“Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition. – When the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered commanding the respondent to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified therein, or otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require.
The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.” (Revised Rules of Court).”
In Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, 85 SCRA 126, the Supreme Court held, to wit:
“The writ of prohibition has been allowed in the Philippines not only against courts and tribunals in order to keep them within the limits of their own jurisdiction and to prevent them from encroaching upon the jurisdiction of other tribunals, but also, in appropriate cases, against an officer or person whose acts are without or in excess of his authority. Thus, a writ of prohibition has been issued against the Director of Post who attempted to do an act that was offensive to the Constitution, or against the Commission of Civil Service who attempted to do an act that was offensive to the Constitution, or against the Commissioner of Civil Service who attempted to conduct an investigation that was violative of the Constitution, or against the City of Manila, which attempted to enforce an ordinance which was null and void.”
x x x
“Thus, prohibition would like against the Director of Posts should he attempt to do an act that is against the Constitution, or against the Commissioner of Civil Service should he attempt to conduct an investigation that is violative of the Constitution (Planas v. Gil, supra), or against the City of Manila if it is attempting to enforce an ordinance that is null and void. (Rodriguez vs. City of Manila, et al., 46 Phil. 171)” (3 Moran, 1980 Ed., pp. 184-185)
REASONS RELIED UPON FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
According to Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure:
Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. – A preliminary injunction may be granted at any time after the commencement of the action and before judgment, when it is established.
(a) That the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of, or in the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) That the commission or continuance of some act complained of during the litigation or the non-performance thereof would probably work injustice to the plaintiff; or
(c) That the defendant is doing, threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act probably in violation of the plaintiff’s rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. (Revised Rules of Court)
Since petitioners are entitled to the relief demanded, hence, preliminary injunction will lie pursuant to paragraph (a).
“The purpose of this provisional remedy is to preserve the status quo of the things subject to protect the rights of the plaintiff respecting, the subject of the action during the pendency of the suit (Calo, et al. vs. Roldan, et al., 76 Phil. 445; Delos Reyes vs. Elepaño, et al., L-5282, May 29, 1953; de la Cruz vs. Tan Torres, L-14925, April 30, 1960), and not to obstruct the administration of justice or prejudice the adverse party (Yu Tiong Tay vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 597). Because, otherwise or if no preliminary prohibitory injunctions were issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do or continue the doing of the act which the plaintiff asks the court to restrain, and thus make ineffectual the final judgment rendered afterwards granting the relief sought by the plaintiff. (Calo, et al. vs. Roldan, et al., supra)” (3 Moran, 1980 Edition, pp. 74-75).
Since preliminary injunction will lie, then temporary restraining order may be issued ex parte enjoining the implementation of DepEd Memo 261 and Enclosure pending hearing on the preliminary injunction.
“Restraining order defined. – A restraining order is an order to maintain the subject of controversy in status quo until the hearing of an application for a temporary injunction. (43 C.J.S. 415).”
“Purpose. – The purpose of a restraining order is merely to suspend proceedings until there may be an opportunity to inquire whether any injunction should be granted, and it is not intended to operate as an injunction pendent lite, and should not in effect determine the issues involved before the parties can have their day in court or given advantage to either party by proceedings in the acquisition or alteration of the property the right to which is disputed while the hands of the other party are tied. (28 Am. Jur., 203-204).
“Notice to the opposite party. – A restraining order is generally granted without notice to the opposite party, and is intended only as a restraint on him until the propriety of granting a temporary injunction can be determined, and it goes no further than to preserved the status until that determination. (Lewis and Spelling, The Law of Injunctions, p. 30).” (IV-A Francisco, Revised Rules of Court, Provisional Remedies, pp. 184-185)
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that:
1. Upon filing of this petition, a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction be issued, directing respondents to cease and desist from implementing Department of Education Memorandum No. 261 S. 2005 and its Enclosure entitled PROJECT OF AND BY THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION: “Institutionalizing Adolescent Reproductive Health Through Lifeskills-Based Education.”
2. That after hearing, judgment be rendered:
(a) making the herein injunctions permanent;
(b) declaring Department of Education Memorandum No. 261 series of 2005, and its Enclosure null and void;
Petitioners pray for such other reliefs that are just and equitable under the premises.
June 19, 2010, QUEZON CITY, PHILIPPINES.
IMBONG IMBONG & IMBONG
Counsel for Petitioners
Unit 304 Señor Ivan de Palacio Building
139 Malakas Street, Diliman, Quezon City
By:
(Sgd.) MANUEL B. IMBONG
Attorney’s Roll No. 22450
PTR No. 3289808, January 18, 2010, Marikina City
IBP No. 787005, January 21, 2010, Quezon City
MCLE Com. No. 0013216, issued on April 21, 2010
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
WE JO AUREA M. IMBONG, JAMES M. IMBONG, MANUEL DAYRIT, DR LIGAYA A. ACOSTA, ARLENE HERNANDEZ, ATTY. DOMINGO ALIDON, REYNALDO D. PACHECO, ERIC BAENA MANALANG, under oath state:
- That we are plaintiffs in the above entitled case;
- That we have read the allegations of the complaint and that the allegations stated thereon are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records;
- That we have not commenced any other proceedings involving the same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, of different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, and that to the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if we should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different Divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, we undertake to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other tribunal of agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom.
(Sgd) JO AUREA M. IMBONG (Sgd) JAMES M. IMBONG
(Sgd.) LIGAYA A. ACOSTA (Sgd.) ARLENE HERNANDEZ
DOMINGO ALIDON (Sgd.) REYNALDO D. PACHECO
(Sgd.) ERIC BAENA MANALANG
(Sgd. MANUEL DAYRIT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, this 19th day of June 2010, affiants exhibiting to me:
I.D. No. Place & Date of Issue
Jo Aurea M. Imbong Passport #XX402818 1-25-09/Manila, Phil.
James M. Imbong Driver’s License # 4-15-10/Quezon City
N02-95-276336
Dr. Ligaya A. Acosta Passport #XX0594554 2-22-08/Manila, Phil.
Arlene Hernandez Passport #XX0521800 2-13-08/Manila, Phil.
Atty. Domingo Alidon Driver’s License # 10-11-10/Manila
N02-94258363
Eric Baena Manalang Driver’s License # 2-11-10/Manila
N10-71-004444
Reynaldo B. Pacheco Driver’s License # 11-17-10/Manila
N14-58-020405
(Sgd.) ERLICH V. BARRAQUIAS
Notary Public
Until Dec. 31, 2010
PTR 117315 / 1-5-09 / QC
IBP 754371 / 1-5-09
Doc. No. 297 ;
Page No. 59 ;
Book No. XVIII;
Series of 2010.
[1] You can access this statement of Secretary Clinton thru the worldwide web, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLvnpo2QtFE and at http//www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1553/pub_detail.asp
[2] Peter Kreeft, Making Choices, 1990: Servant Publications, p. 1 .
Twentyonekilometers's Blog 