What Can Christ's Resurrection Mean Here & Now?

The resurrection of Jesus is his glorification by the loving Father, who has given Jesus sovereign power and authority to establish and rule the new people of God. In Matthew’s gospel, there is only one appearance of the Risen Christ to the “eleven (male) disciples” (Mt 28:16-20) in which he proclaims: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

A hymn of praise to Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16 suggests that his resurrection, or his state of glorification or being “taken up in glory,” is the same as or parallel to his being “vindicated by the Spirit.” Thus, the New Testament allows contemporary Christians, in light of a particular context, to shift the emphasis in preaching and teaching the belief in Christ’s resurrection.

For Jose de Mesa (“The Resurrection in the Filipino Context,” in In Solidarity with the Culture, 1987), it is more relevant and wise to describe the resurrection in Filipino as pagbabangong-dangal (vindication or raising of dignity) rather than as muling pagkabuhay (return to life). Muling pagkabuhay suggests that the foundation of Christian faith is a spectacular return of Jesus to life or the resuscitation of a corpse. As pagbabangong-dangal, however, we focus on the vindication and glorification of Jesus, who was shamefully executed. Pagbabangong-dangal does not deny his bodily resurrection, but focuses on what happened to his dignity and significance in the eyes of the disciples and the merciful Father.

Jesus of Nazareth was betrayed and abandoned by his disciples and friends, rejected by the rulers of Jerusalem and Rome, and executed in a terrible manner. His resurrection is the divine vindication of his very person and the definitive raising of his dignity. Ibinangon ng Diyos ang dangal ni Jesus sa kabila ng kahiya-hiyang pagbitay sa kanya! (God has raised the trampled dignity of Jesus after his shameful execution!)

Irreversibly, God has raised the trampled dignity of Jesus. Irreversibly, God has taken the side of someone who, in his firm belief in a gracious God, chose to be in solidarity with the poor, the ill-educated, and the social outcasts. The resurrection is the divine vindication of his practice of sharing meals with sinners and outcasts, the vindication of his practice of healing the body, mind and spirit, the vindication of his boldness to publicly condemn harmful social practices, and the vindication of his proclamation that God’s Kingdom is near especially to the poor, the hungry, and those persecuted for their quest for justice. The resurrection is divine glorification of the whole person, practice, and life of the crucified Jesus.

For de Mesa, to promote the resurrection as vindication not only avoids the image of the resuscitation of a corpse but also indicates that faithful Christians are able to see the resurrection, fragmentarily but genuinely, whenever and wherever the dignity of the downtrodden is raised or vindicated. Ang pagbabangong-dangal ay maaaring mangyari at maisagawa ngayon, habang ang pagkabuhay ng mga katawang di-mabubulok ay mangyayari lamang sa katapusan ng sanlibutan. (The raising of the dignity of the downtrodden can happen or can be done today, while the raising of immortal bodies will happen only at the end of the world.)

The resurrection is witnessed today wherever a low-class prostitute finds enough courage and some supportive person(s) to enable her or him to earn a personal or family income in a dignified manner. The beautiful hands and feet of the Risen Jesus are revealed in the deteriorating body of the person with AIDS who faces death with the uplifting feeling of being loved rather than being abandoned. The resurrection is revealed wherever there is a tangible uplifting of the dignity and living conditions of the children of the streets, the daughters of the dumpsite, and the sons of the soil.

This is pagbabangong-dangal. It does not deny the belief in the resurrection of the body at the end of history, but emphasizes the commissioning of Christ’s disciples to proclaim good news to all the downtrodden, to heal comprehensively, to forgive sins, and to erase stigmas among social classes and sectors here and now.

Why Was Jesus Killed?

Critical historians are in agreement that the singular incident that made the Jerusalem officials resolve to hand Jesus over to the Romans for execution was his action of driving out those who were buying and selling in the temple (Mark 11:15-18; John 2:13-19). Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers, and he would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. The historian E.P. Sanders adds that the priests probably interpreted this action as a threat, on the part of Jesus, to destroy the temple. At the very least, Jesus warned of divine judgment against it.

In Mark 13:1-2, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. In his trial before the Jerusalem officials, according to Mark (14:57-58) and Matthew (26:59-61), some persons testify that they heard Jesus utter a threat to destroy it. At the foot of the cross, some passers-by insult Jesus: “So! You who are going to destroy the temple…” (Mark 15:29; Mt 27:40). In Acts 6:12-14, “false witnesses” accuse the deacon, Stephen, that they “heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place [the temple].”

For Sanders, it is highly probable that Jesus did predict the destruction of the temple, and this prediction reached the ears of the chief priests. The destruction of the temple would imply the end of the Jerusalem priesthood, for the primary social role of the priests was to offer temple-sacrifices. This destruction implied the eradication of the high “place” or the eminent social stratum that the priests occupied in Jewish society (cf John 11:47-48), for the temple provided the most prominent justification for priestly authority.

Jesus did not plan to lead a group or a mob to do the actual work of destroying the temple. His prediction showed his belief that God would soon allow the temple’s destruction. Why did he believe that it deserved to be destroyed? Below are the possible reasons:

(1) The temple diverted people away from living a life in the Spirit, a life of sensitivity to the immediate presence of the sacred through which people could worship and please God without the necessity of big buildings and complex systems of worship.
(2) The temple promoted ethnocentrism and false worship, and it would be replaced by an assembly of people with authentic faith and love in their hearts.

(3) The temple system had already been promoting harmful and self-delusive attitudes, and it provided legitimation to the unjust social system.

The first reason fits with the historical portrait of Jesus as a Spirit-filled person who wanted to help people live a life of deep love and spiritual worship of God. In John 4:21-23, Jesus declares to the Samaritan woman: “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain [Mt Gerizim] nor in Jerusalem….A time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.” In the new heaven and new earth, when God’s Victory over viciousness and sin becomes fully visible, there will be no more temple (cf Revelation 21:22), no more massive and complex cultic structures. In Acts 7:48, Stephen asserts: “The Most High does not live in houses made by men.”

The second possible reason for divine judgement against the temple was its promotion of ethnocentrism and false worship. The temple was an institution that excluded many people. Admittance to the inner courts was restricted to Jews and only to those Jews who were ritually pure. Foreigners were threatened with death if they entered the inner courts. Jesus opposed ethnocentrism, and in his action in the temple, he quoted God’s word in Isaiah: “My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah 56:7; Mark 11:17). Jesus also opposed the hypocrisy and blindness of those guardians of the temple who regarded the gold, gifts, and offerings in the temple as more important than acts of justice and mercy to the poor and the weak (cf Matthew 23:16-26).

Under the aristocratic priests, the temple promoted false worship. The chief priests and the Sadducees were indifferent to the worsening hunger in the rural areas of Judaea and the growing indebtedness and dispossession of the peasantry. The temple officials aggravated the misery of the masses by keeping a record of the debts of those who could not fulfil their economic obligations to the temple such as the temple tax, agricultural taxes, purification offerings, sin and guilt offerings, and offerings for the redemption of first-born sons and animals. In the war against the Romans in 66-70 CE, Jewish rebels took over the temple, and one of their first acts was to burn the records of debt kept there.

In the face of worsening rural conditions, the Jerusalem élite had a general attitude of business-as-usual. As long as there continued to be many burnt offerings and sacrifices in the temple, and as long as the Romans left day-to-day control of Judaea in their hands, the élite were indifferent to the accumulating burdens of the peasantry. What was worse, in the face of worsening rural conditions, the high priestly families lived lavishly in mansions, as shown by the impressive archeological remains of their Jerusalem residences (see Horsley and Silberman, 78-79).

The magnificent rituals in the temple blinded the élite into thinking that, as long as the rituals continued to be magnificent, and as long as the élite themselves felt that they were ritually pure and holy, all would be well with the rest of Jerusalem and Judaea, and systematic attempts were not necessary to help lighten the burdens of the peasantry. Jesus saw what most of the élite no longer could see: the temple system promoted harmful and delusive attitudes.

Because of his prophetic pronouncements and actions especially about the destruction of the temple, Jesus was perceived to be a threat to the social power of the Jerusalem élite. Jesus’ actions suggested strongly to the high priest that he was a dangerous agitator at such a risky period as Passover. At that time, Passover was a pilgrimage festival and one of the three festivals that all male Jews were supposed to attend each year in Jerusalem (see Deuteronomy 16:16). The spread of the Jewish population, both inside and outside Palestine, meant that fulfilling all three obligations was no longer possible. Nevertheless, a lot of people attended each of the major festivals, and Passover was the most popular. Although Jewish law required only males to attend, many men brought their wives and children.

Sanders estimates that Jerusalem accommodated about 300,000 to 400,000 pilgrims during Passover. The large crowds meant that the festivals were possible occasions for civil unrest. Thus, the Roman governor, who usually stayed in the coastal city of Caesarea, would come to Jerusalem with extra troops for the occasion. Passover was always a risky event, as Jewish crowds gathered to celebrate their liberation from Egyptian oppressors, while they were aware that they were presently under Roman imperial rule.

The high priest would have been informed that Jesus was being hailed as a king by some people during his joyful entry into Jerusalem. That in itself would have been a serious cause for concern, for to allow some Jew to be acclaimed king could provoke the Romans to suspect that the high priest was allowing the agitation of a rebellion against Roman rule. The Roman governor would hold the high priest ultimately responsible for any breakdown of peace and order in Jerusalem. Also, if a riot broke out because of a carpenter who had pretensions to kingship, the Romans would be provoked to intervene militarily, and this in turn would provoke patriotic Jews to fight back. Such a situation could easily spin out of control, and many Jews could get killed.

The aristocratic priests had Jesus arrested. There is no agreement as to what exactly happened after the arrest and before the crucifixion itself. Some historians think that a trial before the Sanhedrin, the formal council of the high priest, could not have happened as related by Mark (14:53-65) and Matthew (26:57-68), for it was against Jewish law to hold a trial at night. In Luke, the trial was held “at daybreak” (22:66-71). In John’s account (18:19-24), there was no trial but an interrogation by Annas, the former high priest and the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the reigning high priest.

A brief consultation between Caiaphas and Pilate either before or after the arrest of Jesus would have been enough to secure his execution. Caiaphas was the longest-reigning high priest during the 1^st century. Since from the year 6 CE onwards the Romans appointed and could easily replace the high priest, the lengthy reign of Caiaphas (18-36 CE) implied that he had good relations with the Romans.

According to Martin Hengel (Crucifixion in the Ancient World, 1977), crucifixion as a penalty was widespread in antiquity. It was a political and military punishment. The Romans inflicted it on political rebels and criminals from the lower social strata such as rebellious slaves and rural bandits. By the public display of a naked victim at a prominent place, crucifixion represented the utmost humiliation of the crucified. This shameful spectacle was aimed not only to deter others from rebellion and crime but also to magnify the power of the ruler who approved the execution. The shame was aggravated further by the fact that, quite often, the victims were never buried. It was standard practice to leave the hanging corpse to serve as food for wild beasts, scavenger dogs, and birds of prey.

Jesus and two others were taken outside the walls of Jerusalem, nailed to crosses, and left to die. It seems that a few of his female disciples watched from a distance (Mark 15:40), while his other disciples were in hiding. After the shameful execution of Jesus, his remains might have been buried hastily by some of his sympathizers or even by his enemies (cf Acts 13:28-29).

Sources Consulted:

Horsley, Richard and Neil Asher Silberman. The Message and the Kingdom: How Jesus and Paul Ignited a Revolution and Transformed the Ancient World. New York, 1997.

Sanders, E.P. The Historical Figure of Jesus. London, 1995.

Ways & Means Forward on Charter Change

1. This period before the 2010 elections is a wrong time to undertake Charter Change primarily because (a) there is lack of time to work for a consensus among competing elite groups and (b) the President has insufficient political capital and credibility to exercise leadership that can achieve a consensus on the specific changes and the method of change.

2. If a "surgical" change of the Charter were to be attempted by means of the regular legislative process, a prime candidate for amendment would be Article XVII, the procedure for amendments and revisions, in order (a) to specify the method and manner of voting of the members of Congress as a Constituent Assembly and (b) to institutionalize people empowerment by making the People's Initiative process realistic and less cumbersome for ordinary citizens and their organizations. It is sheer wishful thinking to expect ordinary citizens organizations to be able to gather millions of signatures that contain those of at least three percent (3%) of voters in each and every legislative district nationwide, besides the requirement of 12% of total voters, in order for an Initiative process to be recognized as officially initiated.

3. In light of Philippine history, the primary actor for the success of a Charter Change process is the Presidency. Thus, it is imperative for individuals and organizations that are convinced about the necessity of change to actively engage with prospective presidential candidates in order to challenge them early enough to make Charter Change a major campaign issue and to explain publicly their views on the specific changes they will target to attain or to oppose.

4. It is imperative for various Charter Change stakeholders and their organizations to exercise leadership by continuing and deepening the discussions among themselves and their networks and intensifying the education of citizens, especially the youth, on the importance of the Charter, its potentials, and its limitations. Academic and research institutions should undertake and finish studies on particular processes and attempts at Charter Change in Philippine history and in comparable circumstances in other countries.

These were my synthesis points from the discussions at the Charter Change Seminar organized by the Ateneo School of Government with the support of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Tagaytay City on 29-31 October 2008. There were 25 prominent participants among whom were Dr. Jose Abueva, Atty. Butch Abad, Mayor Constantino Jaraula, Commissioner Rene Sarmiento, Dr. Joel Rocamora, Dean Marvic Leonen, Atty. Camilo Sabio, Atty. Raul Lambino, Dr. Edna Co, Dr. Clarita Carlos, ex-Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales, Lito Lorenzana, Amina Rasul, & Ramon Casiple. Dean Antonio La Viña was the main facilitator.

If I may add, it appears urgent to attempt a “surgical” Constitutional amendment that will require a runoff presidential election with only 2 candidates in case no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the initial run with several candidates. The runoff election will greatly increase the probability that the electoral system will produce a strong national executive who can claim to possess a clear mandate from the people so that s/he can have the political capital to deal with vested interest groups and to implement difficult reforms as well as unite our nation especially during times of crisis. If allowed to continue, the current plurality system will eventually lead to a situation wherein a candidate could get him/herself elected president with a mere 20% or even less of the vote in an election with eight or more solid contenders.

What's Happening to Our Country?

What’s Happening to Our Country? The Life and Times of Emmanuel Pelaez is a recently launched book of Nelson Navarro, a journalist and political analyst who has worked with several Philippine and international media entities. Pelaez (1915-2003) served the country in various offices as Vice President (1961-1965), Senator (1953-1959, 1967-1972), Misamis Oriental Representative (1949-1953, 1965-1967, 1978-1984), and Ambassador to the United States (1986-1992).

“What’s happening to our country?” was expressed by Pelaez as he was being wheeled into the operating room owing to six gunshot wounds from a failed assassination attempt in 1982 which was probably intended to stop his active opposition to the coconut levy that benefited a cartel headed by Danding Cojuangco, the top crony of President Ferdinand Marcos.

The question of Pelaez is one that continues to be relevant today, and ought to be asked by every Filipino in every generation. To have no interest in the question is to be indifferent if not unpatriotic. Pelaez was a patriot, as he expressed his heartfelt concern about our country, even as he was in physical pain and mental anguish in the immediate aftermath of the cowardly attempt on his life.

We can seek the answer to his question with less difficulty, if we read and reflect on the story of his long and colorful life. This story shows us the deep roots of our trenchant national problems such as our weak governance institutions, which are weak especially in terms of upholding the rule of law and holding high officials accountable.

Throughout his public life, Pelaez opposed unlawful violence, more so when he became a victim. He refused to support plans, whether from friends or foes, to take the law into their own hands and resort to violence when they were aggrieved or cheated, for he firmly believed in the principle of justice, which is impossible in a democratic society without the rule of law.

Furthermore, Pelaez envisioned justice as equal opportunity especially for the poor and the rural folk, in the spirit of his model and mentor, President Ramon Magsaysay, who said that those who have less in life should have more in law. Thus Pelaez, the legislator, championed rural community development through the 1954 Barrio Charter Law and the 1969 Rural Electrification Law.

Besides the principle of justice which guided his life in public service, Pelaez pursued excellence in whatever he undertook from his elementary days at Cagayan de Oro, where he graduated valedictorian, his secondary schooling at the Ateneo de Manila in Intramuros where he graduated valedictorian again, his attainment of the number 1 slot in the 1938 bar examinations, and the list can go on and on.

Justice and the pursuit of excellence are two of the core ethical principles that, for the Ateneo School of Government, should be communicated in word and deed and promoted through appropriate systems and practices by contemporary and future leaders in governance and public service. Thus, it is a happy coincidence or a timely development that this book on Pelaez has been launched this year when the Ateneo de Manila University celebrates its Sesquicentennial or 150-year Anniversary with the threefold theme of “Celebrating Excellence, Deepening Spirituality, and Building the Nation.”

The Hon. Emmanuel Pelaez was certainly a nation-builder who pursued excellence in the spirit of his Lord, Jesus Christ, who humbly washed the dusty and dirty feet of his disciples including the feet of his betrayer and the other feet that ran away quickly when their teacher and friend was arrested.

Pelaez himself suffered painful betrayals especially when Marcos broke their gentleman’s agreement to shun the buying of votes at the 1964 Nacionalista Party Convention, which eventually chose Marcos as the standard-bearer against President Diosdado Macapagal. Many convention delegates who initially pledged their support for Pelaez switched to Marcos for thousands of reasons.

The initial bitter feeling from the betrayals, however, did not stay and consume Pelaez, primarily because of the deep Christian faith and values that were nurtured by Jesuit mentors like Fr. John Delaney and Pelaez’s adviser and friend, Fr. Pacifico Ortiz, the first Filipino President of the Ateneo de Manila University.

Pelaez kept to heart what Fr. Delaney told his high school class: “If I had my way, I would put in the office of every public official the picture of Christ washing the feet of his disciples…This must be the symbol of service for all public officials.”

The Ateneo School of Government, the graduate school of leadership and public service which operates from the Pacifico Ortiz Hall in the Loyola campus, congratulates the author, Nelson Navarro, and the Emmanuel Pelaez Foundation for a useful and timely book. I recommend its inclusion as instructional material for one of our core courses, "Leadership in Public Service," in our Master in Public Management program, and I expect that other institutions that offer courses in public administration and political history will find this book useful and instructive.

The Ateneo School of Government has entered into a partnership with the Emmanuel Pelaez Foundation to launch the Emmanuel Pelaez Leadership and Campaign Program in which leadership and campaign seminars will be conducted to prepare reform-minded neophytes especially but not exclusively from Mindanao to organize ethical and effective campaigns for the 2010 elections. We need to put in elective office more reform-oriented politicians. Thus, if you are interested to help us, please let us know by email dgonzalez@aps.ateneo.edu

I encourage everybody to read the book, learn its lessons as we look backwards to the times of Emmanuel Pelaez, move forward individually, and collectively move this nation forward in light of the lessons of his life.

Ethical Campaigning in Philippine Elections?

How does one conduct an ethical campaign for elective office which, for the reform-minded aspirant who wants to win, has to begin in the form of organizational meetings and informal campaign activities as early as 6-12 months before the official campaign period in our country?

Following the description of "transformational leadership" by James MacGregor Burns (see my Feb. 6 blog entry), the ethical campaign is transformational and not merely transactional, for it raises the candidate and the supporters “to higher levels of motivation and morality.” The unethical campaign dehumanizes the candidate, the supporters and even the opponents.

Examples of unethical acts in campaigns are cheating, fraud, unlawful violence, and deliberate misinformation about the track record, accomplishments, and mistakes of the candidate or the opponent(s). Acts of cheating and deception dehumanize, as they disregard the will and rights of the voters.

What are major reasons for the unethical campaigns of many candidates?

1. Weak campaign finance & political party systems (which make candidates vulnerable to unprincipled businessmen, tax evaders, drug lords, gambling lords & criminal syndicates as campaign donors)

2. Bad role models among “successful” candidates & campaigners

3. Pressure from kith & kin (to win at all costs)

4. Difficulty among candidates & campaigners in defining what is ethical

5. Low risk of punishment for violators of election laws

6. Culture of dependency among the masses (for whom the ideal leader is a parent-like authoritarian figure)

Given these major reasons and conditions that characterize the conduct of elections in our country, how can a reform-minded candidate undertake an ethical campaign and win? Is an ethical campaign self-contradictory or an oxymoron in this case?

Ethics is both a goal and a process with higher levels. “Ethics is Pagpapakatao (Humanization): being true to oneself as a human being, being true to the concept of humanity profoundly held by one’s culture, being true to the human in the widest and most universal sense” (Dionisio Miranda, SVD). Humanization itself is a process that takes a lifetime, as the saying goes: Madali maging tao, mahirap magpakatao (It is easy to be born human; it is difficult to become fully human).

As Fr. Miranda, the University of San Carlos President, reminds us, it is not easy to become a mature person, who uses and develops his or her isip (reason) and bait (sense or intuition of the morally good). Morality can be considered a process with levels of morality, maturity, or wisdom.

Thus, in locales where campaigners have been motivated primarily by their candidate’s offer of money, jobs, or patronage, the reform-minded candidate pursues an ethical campaign when he clearly and persistently raises the motivation of campaigners and supporters to, for example, the expectation of projects that will alleviate poverty and raise the quality of life in the whole community or locale. If possible, the motivation ought to be raised higher to that of a shared vision about the locale or the nation and the firm belief in the capability of the candidate to exercise leadership towards the attainment of the shared vision of, for example, a “progressive,” “happy,” or “globally competitive” community or nation.

In locales where traditional politicians have accustomed the average voter to expect money from the candidates, how should a reform-minded candidate conduct an ethical campaign? By simply rejecting the practice of offering money to voters? By adapting the practice and applying it in a selective and tactical manner especially towards the very poor among the voters? Is it possible to raise this practice to a higher level of meaning before it can be eradicated?

New Structures for Creativity

In "The Power of Words" (in Magis, ed. Queena Lee-Chua), Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, SJ, has expressed the hope that Philippine literature will develop fully to become the third "jewel" of our poverty-stricken nation, whose two original jewels, according to the late Fr. Horacio de la Costa, SJ, are our music and our faith. A full body of literature can bring forth a people of great works and a strong nation, while poverty in literature makes it much harder to overcome poverty in governance, capital, and technology. Fr. Nebres says, "If we still remain a fragmented people, it is perhaps in part because the words (or Word that is to create us) have not been fully uttered or written."

A new structure to enable Philippine literature to flourish is the new law for authors which was signed at Malacañan last March 5. Republic Act 9521 establishes within one year a Book Development Trust Fund for Philippine Authorship in the amount of one hundred fifty million pesos the interest of which will be distributed as grants to veteran and budding authors in all regions of our country. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the law will be formulated by the National Book Development Board. Authors and publishers will be invited to a public consultation on the IRR to be announced through the website www.nbdb.gov.ph

The new law brings us closer to the day when a critical mass of Filipinos will have become full-time authors who can secure for themselves and their families a decent standard of living whether as freelancers or as writers attached to institutions or enterprises. Most veteran and new authors find it too difficult to sharpen constantly their skills or to reach the cutting-edge of their disciplines, while they are preoccupied with earning a living through other means. Many potential writers are discouraged by kith and kin who warn that writers rarely or barely earn enough.

Other structures that can contribute considerably to the growth and improvement of both literary and non-literary works are a sound copyright law and its effective enforcement. Without adequate protection of copyright, authors cannot hope to obtain sufficient and fair remuneration from those who use and reproduce copies of their works.

If every author received fair remuneration for each photocopy and digital reproduction of his or her work from every individual or group that made or obtained the reproduction, there surely would be a great increase in the number of full-time writers who would be able to concentrate on their craft, as they would be able to support themselves and their loved ones primarily through practicing and honing such craft. In Australia, copyright-holders receive two (2) cents (approximately 84 Philippine cents) for every photocopied page. Imagine how rewarding it would be for our writers to receive even 10 cents for every photocopied page. Our literary field would bloom with a thousand flowers.

Unfortunately for our authors, fair remuneration for the reproduction of their works is elusive because the 1998 IPC or Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293) lacks specifics in its description of what constitutes "fair use" of copyrighted works. Section 185.1 of the IPC states: "The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright….In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include: (a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit education purposes; (b) The nature of the copyrighted work; (c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

In section 187, the IPC states: "the private reproduction of a published work in a single copy, where the reproduction is made by a natural person exclusively for research and private study, shall be permitted, without the authorization of the owner of copyright" except when, in the case of a book, "an entire book, or a substantial part thereof" is what is reproduced. In other words, for research or private study, one is permitted to reproduce or photocopy only a non-substantial portion of a book.

The IPC is silent on what specifically constitutes a substantial portion of a book. Is a whole chapter such? What if the book is a collection of articles, essays, or poems of one author or several writers? Is a whole article, essay, or poem a substantial portion? What if it is a short poem that occupies only one page?

I agree with those who maintain that a whole chapter is a substantial portion. In an anthology, a whole article, essay, or poem, no matter how short, is a substantial portion. But what if a user photocopies one page less than the entire chapter, article, essay, or poem? What if a user photocopies 50% of the chapter today and 50% tomorrow? These are only some of the difficulties in specifying "fair use" and then enforcing it.

The NBDB has drafted a set of “fair use guidelines” that the agency will circulate to educational institutions in order to encourage them to produce and enforce similar guidelines of their own. The NBDB has also helped organize the Filipinas Copyright Licensing Society (FILCOLS), Inc., to collectively manage the reproduction rights of authors and publishers, to protect these rights, and to ensure fair remuneration for the rights-holders. All authors and publishers whose works are being used fairly or unfairly in the Philippines are strongly urged to join FILCOLS. Visit http://filcols.blogspot.com

With FILCOLS, copyright-holders should discuss the matter of working for the amendment of the copyright section of the IPC in order to specify further the concept of fair use and perhaps to legislate fair remuneration especially through a collective copyright licensing scheme that is similar to what is done in other countries.

A Law for Authors

Philippine authors and publishers and the reading public have great reason to celebrate.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has just signed into law the National Book Development Trust Fund To Support Philippine Authorship after both Houses of the 14th Congress have passed Republic Act 9521. A milestone piece of legislation in local book development authored by Iloilo City Rep. Raul T. Gonzalez Jr., Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, Marikina City Rep. Del De Guzman, and co-authored by several members of the House as well as Senators Edgardo Angara, Allan Peter Cayetano, and Jinggoy Estrada, this law will provide authors from all regions of the country a reasonable amount to complete their manuscripts for publication.

This law will benefit veteran and promising authors working or researching on topics in which local books are either few or non-existent. There are many subject areas in which local books are insufficient in number and variety, and most of the books in our libraries and bookstores are foreign publications.

According to data gathered by the National Book Development Board, the United Kingdom exported £2.23 million (around Php 155 million) worth of books to the Philippines in 2007. The United States exported US$18.89 million worth of books to this country in the same year. Total US book export to the Philippines in 2008 (US$19.20M) was bigger than its book exports to New Zealand (US$12M), Malaysia (US$9.95M), Thailand (US$10.10M), Taiwan (US$15.06M) and Hong Kong (US$18.88M).

With its enactment into law, a Trust Fund of Php 150 million will be established within a period of one year, and the interest from the Fund will provide annually at least fifty (50) grants to authors in all regions in order to spur creativity and support the completion of local manuscripts or research works for publication.

The NBDB shall be the administrator of the Fund and shall appoint a government financial institution as portfolio manager, subject to guidelines and decision-making mechanisms promulgated by the NBDB.

The Trust Fund will assist authors to produce books especially on science and technology, local history, indigenous children’s stories, and translations of classic works into local languages. This will motivate and support veteran and budding authors to produce new titles or complete their manuscripts.

The first Book Trust Fund bills were filed by Deputy Speaker Raul M. Gonzalez and Senator Loren Legarda in the 12th Congress in 2003.

We thank the President for her competent and active appointees to the NBDB, viz. Executive Director Atty. Andrea Pasion Flores, Dep. Exec. Dir. Frances Jeanne Sarmiento, and Governing Board members DTI Usec. Elmer Hernandez, NCCA Chair Vilma Labrador, DOST Asec. Malou Orijola, CHED Commissioner Nona Ricafort, UP Vice-President Cristina Pantoja Hidalgo, Ateneo Professor Queena Lee Chua, and publishers Alegria Limjoco, Alfredo Ramos, and Roland Robles.

The NBDB hopes that the next President in 2010 will also appoint competent and responsible members of the Governing Board who shall be the ones who shall award the initial grants from the interest of the Trust Fund for Philippine authors.