The Seven Other Deadly Sins of Rodrigo Duterte

[Photo source: CNN]

By Edgar Lores

We are all familiar with the Seven Deadly Sins (SDS). They are pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.

These sins are not generally considered to be mortal sins that separate us from God and lead to eternal damnation. No, they are more gateways to mortal sins. Greed may lead to theft, lust to adultery, and wrath to murder.

We know that Rodrigo Duterte, president of our hitherto ill-fated republic, is afflicted with the deadly sins. Yes, all seven of them. Four are quite obvious — pride, lust, wrath, and sloth.

In case anyone doubts the obviousness of these sins, let us state the obvious:

  • Duterte has great pride. He is easily insulted. A guy called him a colorful character, and he called that guy a “son of a whore.” [1]
  • Duterte is lustful. Not only does he have two wives, but he keeps two girlfriends in dormitories. [2] And did you see how, during the campaign, he kissed and fondled anything that moved? [3]
  • Duterte is wrathful. He claims the body count in Davao, when he was mayor, may have reached over a thousand and not just hundreds. [4] The death toll in the Drug War, at the end of November last year, stood at over 20,000 victims. [5]
  • Duterte is slothful. He wears denim and Barong Tagalog with rolled-up sleeves. [6] He looks like something the cat dragged in when he wears a camouflage battledress. [7] Oh, to have a leader as impressive and elegant as the sock-fashionista Justin Trudeau! [8] Would you not willingly give a West Philippine Sea (WPS) feature — or even two?  

As to the other 3 deadly sins:

  • We are not sure about greed; Duterte has yet to sign a waiver to his bank accounts. [9]
  • Neither are we sure about gluttony… although he has vowed to eat the liver of a terrorist, with salt and vinegar. [10]
  • As to envy, he did envy the jailbirds who raped that beautiful Australian missionary, did he not? [11]

We might well then ask, “Apart from the ecclesiastical deadly sins, what other seven deadly sins possess the soul of Duterte?” We will limit ourselves to seven because seven is a good number. And enumerating all of Duterte’s sins will take us forever and a day.

After some scratching and doodling, we have come up with a list of the Seven Other Deadly Sins (SODS) that beset The Mayor:

  1. Profanity
  2. Favoritism
  3. Misogyny
  4. Deception
  5. Illiberality
  6. Violence
  7. Treason

Pope Gregory ranked the SDS according to how they offended against love, with the first sin, pride, being the most offensive. Similarly, we have sorted the SODS according to how they offend against patriotism, the love of country. However, the sorting is in descending order, with the first sin, profanity, being the least offensive.

In the same way that the SDS may not be mortal sins, the SODS are not all crimes. Yes, some of these trespasses are contrary to law — and you could book Duterte and throw away the key. But some do not cross the line into illegality. For instance, hiring Mocha Uson as a communications specialist is not illegal; it is just insane.

Perhaps what can be truly said is that the SODS add up to “crimes of moral turpitude.” These are defined as crimes having “an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person’s duty to another or to society in general.” It includes, as Bouvier’s Law Dictionary states, “everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”

Many looking at The Mayor do see that he is possessed of that inherent quality of baseness. Strangely, many do not see or, rather, will not see.

Let us then take a look at the other sins that appear to be an integral part of the Duterte demeanor.

Profanity. Profanity is, firstly, disrespect for language and, secondarily, disrespect for the object of ridicule. In the large, the ultimate object of ridicule happens to be the people.

The duty of a president is to speak clearly, if not eloquently, and in complete sentences. It is improper for him to cuss. He is not a sailor. He represents the people.

Duterte has introduced profanity into political discourse on an international scale. For a politician, a witty tongue is an effective arrow to pierce the hide of opponents and, thereby, to win widespread admiration. Alas, Duterte’s idea of wit is cursing.

Recent studies show that profanity is a sign of honesty. But is it? Assuredly, profanity shows honesty in revealing emotions. In Duterte’s case, however, it does not corroborate mental honesty. Quite the opposite in fact. For, as we all know, the President is a liar of immense proportions.

What profanity truly reveals is an attitude of anger, the third of Buddhism’s three poisons. This is Duterte’s base mindset.

Anger is not only toxic but infectious. An angry person will spread his poison to the people around him. And the higher up that person is in the social hierarchy, the greater the number of people affected. An angry president will arouse citizens to anger, to fear and to confusion.

Is it any wonder that under Duterte the country is no longer fun?   

Favoritism. Favoritism, in the political context, is disrespecting persons with better qualifications in favor of the less qualified. By extension, hiring incompetents to lord over the citizens is an affront to the nation.

For the record, the Constitution provides the norm that appointments “in the civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness…” 

All presidents, perhaps without any exception, have made errors of judgment in filling high positions. Caligula is said to have made his horse a consul. Duterte has done him one better by appointing a Holstein cow to pose as a legal counsel. [12]

Duterte boasted he would hire only the “best and the brightest.” Perhaps what he meant was the best and the brightest rebels, ruffians, and reprobates.

The President, it must be remembered, raised high-ranking leftist rebels to lofty cabinet positions. Why on earth would he do such a crazy thing? Why hire people that are wholly committed to the destruction of the state… to work for the state?

Cayetano. Aguirre. Calida. Panelo. Roque. Andanar. Each makes a mockery of their high positions in government. Each convincingly portrays a villain in this train wreck of an administration.

Come to think of it, can you name one hero in this regime?

Misogyny. Misogyny is disrespect for women. In the UK, it is now being considered as a hate crime. As a deadly sin, it offends against half of the population.

According to Wikipedia, misogyny is manifested in various ways: “social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.”

Without a shadow of a doubt, Duterte has evinced all the above ways, notably with Senator Leila de Lima and Vice President Leni Robredo.

  • Social exclusion of Robredo from the inauguration, cabinet, and administration – check
  • Sex discrimination of De Lima in the fake sex video – check
  • Hostility in the incarceration of De Lima – check
  • Androcentrism in having just 2 women in the 20-member Cabinet – check
  • Patriarchy in having 2 wives and 2 mistresses – check
  • Male privilege in advising against the use of condoms – check
  • Belittling of women in the maltreatment of De Lima, Robredo, Fatou Bensouda (“the black woman”), and Agnes Callamard (“the thin one”) [13] – check
  • Violence against women in his rape fantasies – check
  • Sexual objectification in seeing women rebels as vaginas – check

Inside all misogynists is a little dirty boy who never grew up. The little boy holds his mother in deep reverence while the adult male exhibits chauvinism. It is theorized that the prejudice is not born of hatred but of fear. With little boy Duterte, there is ample evidence for this theory.

And yet, despite the deep-seated chauvinism, Duterte is completely dependent on women in caring for his health and welfare in the home, in the kitchen, and in the bedroom.

Do you think Duterte recognizes this fact?

Deception. Deception is disrespect for the truth. In a president, it is disrespect for the people.

Politicians may lie but a president must be a man of his word.

And Duterte, who has unmasked himself as a deceiver several times, is not a man of his word. No. A litany of his lies would fill a book. He has said:

  • I will eradicate heinous crimes in 3 to 6 months. I will resign if I fail. 
  • I do not have a BPI account. Yes, I have but I have a little less than P200M. 
  • I invented Trillanes’ Singapore bank account number.
  • If I become a dictator, shoot me. I am already a dictator. 
  • I will ride a jet ski and plant a flag in the West Philippine Sea. Naniwala pala kayo.

Deception travels in two directions. It travels outward to the audience, many of whom are fooled. But it also travels inward from the mind into the heart of the liar who deceives himself.

Self-deception, which is falseness to one’s self, is the root of falseness to others. Duterte projects himself as a caring president, but what president slaughters many citizens, some of whom are innocent children? By his words, he appears to be Hercules. But by his actions on the West Philippine Sea and the International Criminal Court, he reveals himself as a mass of quivering jelly.

Is Duterte yellow?

Illiberality. We use this term in the sense of small-mindedness, provinciality, and rustic ignorance.

Illiberality, in a president, is disrespect for knowledge, wisdom, and the people.

We Filipinos have little sense or regard of self, of our capacity, and of propriety. By even a middling measure of intellect and moral virtue, there are congressmen who should not be congressmen. Senators who should not be senators. Justices who should not be Supreme Court justices. And presidents who should not be presidents.

Presidents are supposed to have the vision thing. A vision to propel the country to a bright future and to bestow comfort and happiness to its people.

And what do we have instead? No economic platform. No social program of upliftment. No security of our borders. 

To be certain, there is a political vision of a Build-Build-Build program and Federalism, but both are ill-conceived. The first will burden future generations with paying off high-interest loans squandered to build low-quality infrastructure. And the second — given the warlord and dynastic mindset of regional politicians — will divide the country into a patchwork of Marcos, Garcia, and Ampatuan principalities.

Instead of a vision, what we have is a reality of intimidation, repression, and subjugation to a foreign power.

Quite simply, Duterte does not possess the knowledge and the wisdom to govern the country. Although chronologically old, he is psychologically immature.

In less than two years, the illiberality of Duterte has demolished the tenets of civilized society that have been hard-fought and hard-won in the last three centuries and that we have partially enjoyed for less than a century. These are liberty, equality, the rule of law, due process, and human rights.

Have we have regressed to a government of men and not of laws?

Violence. Violence is disrespect for the sanctity of life, human rights, and property. 

If anger is the lens through which Duterte sees the world, then violence is the key methodology of his governance. He is quoted as saying, “The ones who died recently in Bulacan, 32, in a massive raid, that was good. If we could kill another 32 every day, then maybe we can reduce what ails this country.” [14]

There are several types of violence: legal violence, economic violence, and physical violence. The authoritarian President has wielded all of these as an instrument of the State.

  • Legal violence against De Lima, Sereno, PNoy, and other officials of the past administration.
  • Economic violence against media companies Inquirer and Rappler, aviation service company Miascor and, in due time, Boracay businesses.
  • Physical violence against drug personalities.

Yes, the little bully boy has not shied away from applying violence in a ruthless manner. But only against opponents he deems are easy prey. Such as women, the poor, and incarcerated mayors. China is another matter. 

One definition of violence is “an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws.” Arguably from this definition, the use of power, not force, to physically restrain Pia Ranada and other Rappler reporters from attending presidential events is a form of violence.

As we see in Marawi, violence is a short-term solution and a long-term problem. Already, we can see the dire effects of violence in our society. People are abused and killed for the flimsiest of reasons.

Many rue the day they voted for Duterte. Many more rue the day he became president. And many, many more rue today as the river of blood flows from the streets, into the gutters and thence into the sea.

Will we rue tomorrow?

Treason: Treason is disrespect for — and betrayal of — the nation.

This is the gravest of Duterte’s sins. He has virtually made us into a province of China.

We will not discuss the treasonous acts of this traitorous President. There is world enough and time to let events play out. At this juncture, it is sufficient to list the three principal acts of treason:

  • Failure to assert the Hague ruling on Philippine claims to the West Philippine Sea
  • Chinese exploration and co-ownership of Benham Rise
  • Entry of Chinese telco provider

A fourth may be the suspension of the jobs and livelihood of the people of Boracay to make way for Chinese casinos.

The verdict of history on the Duterte administration is long way in coming. He has barely finished a third of his term. Nevertheless, I predict his legacy will be another shameful chapter in our history. Definitely darker than the legacies of Presidents Marcos and Estrada which triggered the Peoples’ Revolutions of EDSA I, II and III.

Do you agree?


Just one of the listed sins would make Duterte unfit to be the president and a candidate for impeachment. But 7 of them? We might turn the tables on the President and ask, “Is Duterte human?”

There is an air of unreality of what is happening in the world and in the Philippines. There is a continuous and relentless assault on any attempt to achieve a comfortable life and to be at ease with each other.

It were as if the fabric of space has been rent and a portal to hell has opened. And the denizens of hell have come forth to preside over the beloved country. 

















97 Responses to “The Seven Other Deadly Sins of Rodrigo Duterte”
  1. Zen says:

    Very well written, Edgar Lores, the world may very well thank you for this essay. It’s really facts that count, the Truth I mean. We have a lot of evidence ( resibos ) and you have used them in an essay that is not very comfortable to read especially by the intelligent Duterte fanatics. I do hope they get it this time and flick away that wool from their eyes. My thanks goes to Joe Am too, for this blog.

    • Thank you, too, Zen, for following and contributing to the dialogue.

    • edgar lores says:

      Zen, thank you.

      We should thank Jover Laurio for popularizing the idea of resibo. The idea though might have started with General Dwight D. Eisenhower who insisted that the evidence of the Holocaust be captured on film. He said, “I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.”

      He was right. I didn’t know but there is a Wikipedia list on Holocaust deniers.

      We see this state of denial with the crimes of the Marcos dictatorship and that was just 45 years ago. How soon we forget.

  2. Sup says:

    Wow..nice read Edgar…

    I have only one comment…
    Ask people if they want to watch a discovery program about the sex life of an ant or they want to see Netflix with murder, shooting, robberies, nice cars, nice girls etc etc..
    What will they watch?
    Every time Duterte speaks the audience is ”waiting” for the dirty/naughty part…they want to be ”Entertained”

    • edgar lores says:


      Somewhere in the post, I used the term “immature” to describe Duterte. The adjective applies to a wide swath of our countryman. This is the reason I try to define the norm that is transgressed by each sin.

      Duterte and audience mirror each other. Duterte provokes and the audience laughs. If there were enough moral people who knew and practiced the norm such that instead of laughs there were boos or stony silence, then Duterte would wise up. Perhaps.

      • Sup says:

        It is like during the impeachment process of Corona there were hundreds of comments in Raissa her blog…Many discoveries of properties etc,
        Here a lot of comments during the Maine and Alden subject…
        It is like going in an empty shop where 5 sales guys follow you every step or in a crowded shop during super sale? Where do you feel more ”free”?
        What do you ”prefer”?

        • edgar lores says:

          I believe I know what you are talking about. People feel safer in a crowd. They do not want to stand out.

          This observation is what Joe Am was talking about in yesterday’s post — integrity. And Irineo chimed in with, “It takes integrity NOT to always go with the crowd.”

          Yes, integrity requires courage… and we must have the courage of our convictions.

          This reminds me of a story about an old friend who attended a cultural event at the Cultural Center, during Martial Law, that was “graced” by Imelda. In the post-performance convivial gathering, many people flocked to and around the First Lady. My friend, a handsome mestizo, stayed well apart, and he noticed that Imelda kept looking his way as though puzzled why he, unlike everyone else, was not attracted to her charms.

          People who live on the admiration of sycophants cannot breathe on their own.

  3. Jov Quio says:

    Well written truth and so factual you’ll never pause reading until to the last paragraph.

    • edgar lores says:

      Jov, thank you.

      The facts are weird, aren’t they? I didn’t think I would live to see the day of such an ignoble administration. Like watching a movie where the villains are the protagonists… except that it is real. Goes to prove that truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

  4. chemrock says:

    Most people are born with a little box in our brain called conscience. This little box makes us innately good beings. Where did this come from? There is nothing physical in our cranium that can point to where conscience lies. Science cannot explain this existence. Those with faith maintain this is God creating us in his image.

    Galatians 5:22-23
    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no Law.”

    That some possesses no conscience is a manifestation that the battle for our souls began at our birth. Edgar has described the ungodly behaviours that Satan desires. This is where we are now – a leader that does not follow God’s path, leading a nation to damnation.

    Galatians 5:19-21
    Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are : adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatory, socery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambisions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkeness, revelries, and the like, of which I tell you beforehand, just as I told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

    • edgar lores says:

      Chemrock, funny that you mention the word “conscience.”

      I have always thought of conscience, in Freudian terms, as the superego. This is the internalization of cultural rules as taught to us by our parents. (In my case, I do not adhere to cultural rules but by my secular code of ethics.)

      In Christian ethics, conscience is the voice of God internalized. Following conscience is doing God’s will.

      Conscience is also found in Islam, Hinduism, and Confucianism.

      Surprisingly, I find that conscience is not found in Buddhism. The explanation seems to be that morality is not divinely sourced, and it is therefore irrelevant whether actions are right because a deity commanded them. Moral and spiritual progress is to be measured by how skillful we are in practicing the moral Precepts and the Noble Path and recognizing the effects of our actions on ourselves and others.

      From a Christian ethic viewpoint, of the seven SODS, only Deception (lying) and Violence (killing) are ecclesiastical sins. Arguably, Profanity — specifically the blasphemy of taking the name of the Lord in vain — is also another.

      From a legal viewpoint, the SODS that can be interpreted as illegal are those that can be grounds for impeachment. In my view, these would include the items under Violence and Treason. I am not sure about Favoritism.

      • karlgarcia says:

        Even in this 17 page article entitled Buddhism and Conscience, I could not pinpoint the Buddhism equvalent for consciemce.

        Click to access buddconsc.pdf

        • edgar lores says:

          Karl, thanks. I have saved this article in my library.

          The gist is this: “The point that emerges from this story is that one should not accept the Buddha’s teaching simply on his authority, but rather should come to see the world for oneself in the same way as the Buddha did.”

          And also: “All this points to a fundamental distinction between Buddhist and Judaeo-Christian ethics. While the latter is prescriptive (that is to say, it is cast in the form of numerous imperatives which must be followed), Buddhist ethics is descriptive.”

          Broadly speaking, Judeo-Christian ethics is deontological and consequential by ends. Buddhist ethics is virtue ethics and consequential by motive and not by ends.

      • edgar lores says:

        Karl, thanks.

        The second article (dated 2015) contradicts the first (2014). And the first says “appear to have located” not simply “have located.”

        Personally, I go with the second article and its finding that conscience is domain-global.

        I wonder though whether the approach neuroscience of scanning and imaging the brain will lead to finding that the matrix of morality is in the brain. The typical religious convention depicts morality as residing in the heart. Genetics seems to be closer to the truth, that morality is in our genes.

    • josephivo says:

      The word conscience has many definitions. But in this context as moral behavior, science has a very good explanation, see Darwin. There is a continuum from pure reflexes over intuitive behavior up to complete rational behavior, the existence of the last is discussed.

      Most of our intuitive moral behavior we share with other primates and in a lesser degree with most other mammals. Good morals are morals that give a higher chance of survival for our genes, directly of indirectly, bad behavior will eventually die out. As the environment changes, morals change too.

      • chemrock says:

        As it stands now in Philippines, those lacking conscience are occupying most of the places in the Executive, Legislative and the Judiciary. Darwinism seems skewed to the dark side.

        • josephivo says:

          Natural selection doesn’t work a la minute, it needs a few generations (and the average age of a human generation doubled over the last 150 years, from 40 to 80 years.)

      • edgar lores says:

        Joseph, thanks. You have just brought out the argument of natural selection.

        Indeed, Darwinism teaches us to act selfishly in our self-interest. Natural selection has conditioned us to perpetuate the species and any act that preserves the species is “morally” good.

        But Darwinism is self-defeating because while the strongest survive, the quality of life is poor. This is what we see in the Philippines. The country is a microcosm of Darwinism.

        Thus, all the world’s major religions, which see compassion as the highest moral value, are a rebellion against Darwinism. Religions are the “dying out” of natural selection.

        • edgar lores says:

          I would add… for the human species, natural selection has been so successful that we are committing wholesale destruction on Mother Nature.

          We are past the inflection point of the optimum level for the sustainable perpetuation of the species. To the point that we no longer value life as much as we should.

          Yesterday, I googled the population of Vietnam and the first item Google presented was a line chart comparing Vietnam, Thailand, and the Philippines. The chart had an inbuilt slider that one could position at any year via the cursor.

          In 1970, two years before the start of Martial Law, the respective populations of these three countries were 42.73M, 36.88M, and 35.8M. Yes, the Philippines had the lowest population.

          By 2016, a span of 46 years, the respective populations were 92.7M, 68.86M, and 103.3M.

          o Vietnam had a little more than doubled its population.
          o Thailand had less than doubled its population.
          o The Philippines had almost tripled its population.

          This is part of the answer to intuitiveperceiving’s question of why other Asian nations have zoomed past us and we are left eating their dust.

        • josephivo says:

          This is a miss conception, selfishness is not the optimum for social animals. Selfishness of the group is. Survival of your genes partly increases with the survival of your siblings. Your survival an individual depends on the support of the group, reciprocity. Even for chimps the golden rule is also essential and demonstrated to exist.

          In chimp colonies two types of leaders exist, the strong macho and opposite the strong coalition builder. Groups lead by the second type last are more prosperous and last longer.

          • edgar lores says:

            Joseph, thanks for the clarification, if it wasn’t clear that we were talking at the group level.

            We have always said that Filipinos practice amoral familism and amoral clannism to the detriment of the nation.

  5. chemrock says:

    Treason does’nt quite cut it.

    Under Philippines Law, treason is a crime only during war times. You can’t pin that on him. Even during times of war, it is not easy to charge someone for treason.

    Art 114 Crimes Against National Security adopted the US legislation on treason log, stock, and barrel. Conviction requires :
    – 2 witnesses
    – or a confession
    Treason is shrouded in the narrowest terms. That is the reason why the US has never ever once levied this charge on anyone, even though there have been instances of treacherous acts in their history. Instead, charges have been brought under espionage or sabotage laws.

    Funny thing about this Art 114 is that it did not mention perpetrators as Filipinos, but anyone who is not a foreigner and who owes allegiance to the USA or Phils Govt.

    Art 115 makes conspiracy and proposal to commit treason a crime. This differs from the US where only the actual commission is an of treason. The planning part is not.

    • edgar lores says:

      Chemrock, that is interesting.

      You are quite correct in the Philippine legal definition of treason. And also correct that it is borrowed from the US.

      I am using the term, of course, in the moral sense and not the legal sense, which simply is “the crime of betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government.” – Google

      In the article, I define treason as betrayal of the nation.

      In this non-legal and simple dictionary sense, treason does cut it and I can pin it on Duterte as a sin… as I have.

  6. andrewlim8 says:

    On a side note, that wonderful culinary event, Madrid Fusion Manila which was supposed to run for five yrs has been cancelled by this govt after only three iterations. It had put Manila on the world map, highlighted Philippine ingredients and integrated it into world class settings by world class chefs.

    In its place is something called Karinderya Philippines, (to be handled by DOT and Cesar Montano) which if you ask me is a dumbing down of our culinary culture, because it seems to be saying, “Hanggang diyan lang talaga kaming mga Pilipino, pang-karinderya. Mura, pang-laman tiyan, pwede na.” No more ambition or vision to be world class!

    It is pretty much consistent with what is happening to our image abroad: a nation of fools, extremely gullible, liars, tribalistic, poorly informed, foul-mouthed, superstitious, poor learning and memory of history, etc.

    • edgar lores says:


      So we have become a world pariah not only in political matters but in culinary matters as well.

      Hopefully, Duterte’s specialty of Terrorist Liver Ceviche will not be added to the Karinderya Philippine menu.

  7. chemrock says:

    Oxytocin – The Moral Molecule

    Having offered a Sonny-like thought with Galatians, let me share a bit of science which Panelo might do well to study deeper in the event his mighty boss gets to ICC.

    Oxytocin is a natural hormone that is produced in the hypothalamus, a part of the brain. Females usually have higher levels than males. It is released during sex, childbirth, and lactation to aid reproductive functions

    Oxytocin causes the uterus to contract. In medicine, it is used to induce labor or strengthen labor contractions during childbirth, and to control bleeding after childbirth.

    Oxytocin also has physical and psychological effects. It affects a person’s behaviour and emotions. The hormone is released during sex, that is the reason why we feel euphoric.

    Oxytocin causes some neurochemical reaction when released and the emotional responses to this is all positive. It contributes to relaxation, trust, and psychological stability. That is why Oxytocin is sometimes referred to as the Love Molecule, or the Hug Molecule. Overall, it alleviates one’s moral sense. Tests have shown that people who are exposed to Oxytocin tend to respond favourably to requests for assistance. If you are trying to raise funds, give the guy a sniff of Oxytocin.

    What has this got to do with Duterte?
    There is no empirical evidence, but the suggestion is people with no Oxytocin have no conscience, has low trust levels of other people, is not empathetic to sufferings of others, has no feelings of love in him.
    Panelo can plead Duterte is Oxytocin-deficient. He is not in control of all his evil deeds.

  8. In Filipino terms, Duterte is not only bad. He is BERI BAD.

    In the moral universe of gray zones, he is very close to black.

    • edgar lores says:

      Hi Irineo,

      Indeed. Beri beri bad.

      In the sense that his depravity has awakened people’s moral sensibilities, one might say he is a source of good. But the price to pay is high and will affect the country for some generations.

      • The Filipino moral scale has been sliding (probably imperceptibly for Filipinos at home, but very perceptibly for those abroad who can see the different) for the past decades I think.

        This is because “a little bad”, “dirty white” is never much of an issue for most Filipinos.

        Trouble is, certain boundaries were crossed and the idea of what is still white was blurred – this is also my conjecture. Just like one can get used to a mess in one’s own place – until the mess has become to large to handle. The shock is when cockroaches start flying around.

    • karlgarcia says:

      That Grey movie of a sado-masochist.
      We already know that Duterte is a sadist, is he also a masochist?

  9. gerverg1885 says:

    The Roman Emperor philosopher, Marcus Aurelius, wrote about this kind of personalty that describes him to a T and which I quote verbatim: “A black character, a womanish character, a stubborn character, bestial, childish, animal, stupid, counterfeit, scurrilous, fraudulent, tyrannical.”

    • edgar lores says:

      Gerverg, perfect description.

      Except we no longer use “womanish” to describe effeminacy or indecision.

      All SODS are stupid (lacking intelligence) and black or close to black (c) Irineo, but specifically…

      o Profanity is counterfeit (mental dishonesty), scurrilous (meaning abusive)
      o Favoritism is scurrilous, tyrannical
      o Misogyny is bestial, childish, animal, counterfeit (hating women while relying on them)
      o Deception is counterfeit, fraudulent
      o Illiberality is womanish, stubborn, scurrilous, fraudulent, tyrannical
      o Violence is stubborn, bestial, animal, scurrilous, tyrannical
      o Treason is stubborn, counterfeit, scurrilous, fraudulent, tyrannical

  10. Lilibeth Peralta says:

    Excellent! Very well written, Edgar Lores. Thank you very much and I hope many of our kababayans will read you essay. More Power!

  11. josephivo says:

    Does the devil need an advocate? Some arguments:

    1. Our leaders can lead due to their prestige, leaders of our opposition always lead by dominance. The more the others are wrong, immoral, short sighted, egoistic…, the more we are right, moral, far-sighted, altruistic….

    2. Profanity, but it is not always reveals anger, often it is a way of expressing belonging. One can show asocial behavior with a friend to express closeness. I could punch all my friends, but not a single stranger, use insults to welcome them, make risky jokes… behavior that is unacceptable with strangers. Du30 uses this profanity to express his closeness, his way of saying “you belong to my circle of close friends”.

    3. Favoritism, but R=QxA, a result is quality times acceptance. Thus 100%Q x 0%A = 0 and even then, people keep focusing on improving the quality of a decision and neglect the acceptance. Surrounding you with people you know can make acceptance easier, avoids negative bias.
    4. Misogyny, but it takes two to tango. Some women are attracted to macho even gory men and with Du30 they know what they will get far in advance.

    5. Deception. When convincing people you have to make sure you communicate on the same level, brain surgeons and priests can use a different language when talking to colleagues than when the talk to a patient or an average parishioner. Most people like concrete action words and don’t mind a little exaggeration. See also R=QxA

    6. Illiberality, but “KISS, or keep it simple, stupid”. Many countries are/were ruled by a minority and have a social fabric as in apartheid South Africa. (Chinese in the Philippines?). This resulted in great inequality. Du30 uses his “Illiberality” to convince that he does not belong to that class. He is a intuitive decider, not a deep thinker, his intuitions were confirmed as major in Davao, why change now?

    7. Violence, but desperate times require radical measures. Where is the optimum?

    8. Treason, but when playing poker, you do not always have to radiate that you have a strong hand. Wait until the end result.

    • edgar lores says:

      Joseph, thanks for playing the Devil’s Advocate.

      Without rebutting each point, I have stated the norm for each of the SODS. The norm is usually the current international standard of behavior — for Profanity, Misogyny, Deception, and Illiberality — or the Constitution — for Favoritism, Violence, and Treason.

      In each case, Duterte falls below the norm.

      Thus, in a sense, any argument that turns a sin into a virtue is a rationalization.

      The rationalizations seem to center around the level of interaction Duterte needs to effectively communicate with his underlings, the people, or the opposite sex. This is true for the first five of the sins — Profanity, Favoritism, Misogyny, Deception, and Illiberality. While effective communication is good, what is of greater importance is that the matter being communicated is for the good of the people and that people are not being deceived.

      The rationalizations for the last two sins are utilitarian in character. It so happens that these two sins are unconstitutional.

      As I noted with Irineo, Duterte’s depravity may be consequentially beneficial in awakening people’s moral sensibilities. This reasoning is also utilitarian in character. But, I contend, the price to pay is too high.

      The more interesting question to me would be: have I missed any greater sin than these seven?

      • Price is but a factor of returns over time. But of course, risks vs rewards now comes in. Thus, we’re now basically betting on the faith of the nation.

        But then again, it really isn’t betting as one can surely intuit a pattern.

        And Edgar, though it was in jest, you’ve said it yourself:


        Q: “How do you make the people fight for ‘them’ [benefits] then?”

        A: “By trampling on their benefits. Ahaha!

        Levity aside, by “institutionalizing” resistance. How societies institutionalize resistance is a topic worthy of study.”


        As much as I believe that Idealism has its part to play. So does practicality.

        In the end, the ends can still somewhat justify the means.

        And fearless forecast: A radical restructuring of the country is bound to happen within a year or two.

        So Simoun or Ibarra?

        (On a side note, I Just started reading “Why Nations Fail” by Acemoglu/Robinson as I stumbled upon it from Irineo. Let’s see what I can gather from it…)

        • edgar lores says:

          Hi IP,

          1. “As much as I believe that Idealism has its part to play. So does practicality.

          In the end, the ends can still somewhat justify the means.”

          Be careful. This is the most dangerous reasoning on the planet. With it, one can justify anything in the name of practicality, expediency, consequentialism, whatchamacallit.

          2. “And fearless forecast: A radical restructuring of the country is bound to happen within a year or two.”

          Hmm, you seem to be privy to something. But I would say that a radical restructuring has already occurred. As I have noted, the paradigms of civilized behavior have been overturned in the space of fewer than two years.

          3. So Simoun or Ibarra?”

          This is a recast of #1. In our times, the question could be rephrased as “Digong or PNoy?”

          My personal preference is the latter. Again, the journey is the destination.

          • 1. That is why I said ‘somewhat justify’. As you’ve said below, we must strike a balance. But in addition to that, we must also be dynamic. You can’t always convince people by appealing ‘ideals’. If anything, they mostly really couldn’t care less.

            2. Yes, the radical restructuring has already begun. But what I’m saying though is something significant and concrete will happen in the said time span. And that information is not really privy to anything. It’s been out in the open since Duterte started campaigning.

            3. And that was a trick question. Are those two really the two options?

            • edgar lores says:

              So why are you asking trick questions?

              Where is the sincerity and honesty of purpose that we seek to maintain in this forum?:

              • Because it seems that I have to swing things it all the way to the extremes first before I am able to reveal that there are two or more ways to look at a problem.

                So if I may ask again, are those two the only options? Are the given choices really logical?

                I just can’t think of any other way of breaking this dichotomy. But if it is still insincere and dishonest, I’d like to apologize for it and I won’t do it again. Sorry.

              • edgar lores says:

                Thank you.

                Let me walk you through the process of my thinking.

                When you asked “So Simoun or Ibarra?” my interpretation of the question was, “How do we change a corrupt government? By revolution (Simoun)? Or by reform (Ibarra)?

                The thought entered my mind that this was a false dichotomy. But I did not pursue the thought.

                Instead, I changed the question to: “What is the best way to govern? By dictation (Digong)? Or by consultation (PNoy)?

                And this is the question I answered.

                Why did I change the question? Because the original question made an assumption of a pre-existing corrupt (or non-responsive) government. If a government were not corrupt, if it acted in the best interest of the nation, then the original question (and original choices) becomes irrelevant. Thus, intuitively and not consciously, I changed the question.

                Going to the original question, as you say, the answers are a pendulum or spectrum. The extremes of the spectrum are not really a choice between reform and revolution. The choices are between total non-engagement to total engagement. In between are different forms of engagement from suffrage, blogging, joining groups, passive demonstration, militant demonstration, running for office, and to, say, joining the NPA.

                Each choice depends on the individual and the collective he may belong to according to their interpretation of the situation.

                Democracy is supposed to have insulated us from the vagaries of violent leadership successions through suffrage. But the successive leaders — Marcos, Erap, Gloria, Duterte — we have voted in have sought to destroy democracy and, thus, the nation. And there has been no lack of accomplices because of the pull of Darwinism.

                In the long-term, my suggestion of institutionalizing resistance may be the way to go.

              • Institutionalizing resistance. Nice phrase. I don’t see any institutional leaders, people of broad mind and pragmatic ability to organize and get funding and buy-in from the various power-brokers, who remain narrow and confined in their own little provincial/tribal groups. Even the elites are tribal. I recognized this when Senator Hontiveros’ staff dropped me from their mailing list because I opined that their bragging that the senator was the only one to vote ‘no’ on an issue in a preliminary vote was devisive. I said they were diminishing Senator Aquino and others who eventually voted no. They were more interested in bragging than building unity of opposition and obviously were irked that I had a suggestion that opposed that view.

              • edgar lores says:

                I would hope that Senator Hontiveros reversed their decision.

              • No, I think she is competitive, not consensus oriented or willing to concede principles to build success. Failure is a way of life for the hard-headed, I think.

      • josephivo says:

        My rationalization devil was awakened by the 80% of supporters. Exposing the flaws of their leader will not change their mind, it will only reinforce the conviction of the remaining 20%.

        People think in terms of adherence, belonging. They will give up a lot of objectifiable personal benefits to solidify their adherence. Look at independence fights, most Filipinos could expect better economic growth and even better education with the Americans in charge but they still supported Aguinaldo for some vague believe that a small ruling class would never include them. Isn’t the same happening now? A revolt against the “elite”? A feeling that they will never be economically prosperous, have access to the best schools, get the same protection as high walls and armed security guards guarantee. Aguinaldo selling the country for a few silverlings, who cares? Du30 killing a few thousands, and then?

        How to be more inclusive should question one, only then followed by how to be more morally correct.

        • edgar lores says:

          I fully agree about inclusiveness, equality being the raison d’etre of democracy.

          The collective mentality of adherence and belongingness though should be mitigated through social and educational programs that encourage independent thinking and incentivize individual excellence.

          We know that we are a collectivistic society. Thus in politics, populism is the name of the game. But knowing that, we must somehow turn that weakness into a strength.

          Hofstede Insignts notes of Japan: “While in more collectivistic culture, people are loyal to their inner group by birth, such as their extended family and their local community. Japanese are experienced as collectivistic by Western standards and experienced as Individualist by Asian standards. They are more private and reserved than most other Asians.”

          We must strike that balance.

  12. Wilfredo G. Villanueva says:

    Thanks, Edgar. The tragedy of Duterte is that he had wanted to present examples of a bad person—h’wag tularan—yet he has become the best example of the very character type he detests so much. Due process in law was put in place precisely to protect both suspect and law enforcer from the magnetic pull of evil.

  13. madlanglupa says:

    Offtopic (and back from vacation): wow, I’m sure this “Marawi” be more like one of those swanky Mainlander cities than one rebuilt with heavy consultation from Marawi residents.

    • edgar lores says:

      Hi madlanglupa,

      The lack of consultation struck me as well. And will foreign laborers be used?

      If this is a bottom-up reconstruction of a major part of the city, good planning should provide jobs for the disaffected, now and in the future, so that Marawi ceases to be a hotbed for rebellion.

  14. karlgarcia says:

    Multiple Russian porn web sites have been liking my comments. Am I the only one?
    My pornographic memory is too blame.

  15. madlanglupa says:

    Slightly offtopic:

    It’s like that Bolshevik poster which asked of the Cossacks where they should be allying themselves with: the Reds or the crumbling Whites. In this conjecture, the national democrats must be asked whether they should stick with orthodoxy or reality.

    • edgar lores says:

      US-Duterte? The Left are so blinkered that, if they were a horse, they wouldn’t be able to see not only what’s to the side of them but also what’s in front of them.

  16. Coolasas says:

    The essay explained the ills of the current administration but unfortunately 16M more or less Filipino don’t think the way you expressed why were in this dire situation as a country.
    My apprehension is not of the present but of the future … a lot of what if’s because we know this government, it’s minions and trolls will do anything to get what they want twisting and turning the truths to their liking.
    I am sad that it’s easy for many Filipino to disregard their values by following blindly a demi God forgetting that the real God had already liberated us from the tyranny of the past.

    But I am still hopeful because there are still people who never tire to keep the reality close to us through this blog.

    • edgar lores says:

      Hi Coolasas,

      It is the thinking that is wrong, isn’t it? The thinking leads to the bad deeds.

      But then I think, wait a sec, doesn’t the bad thinking arise from bad values? Or is it the bad values that arise from bad thinking?

      I don’t think we are taught bad values by our parents. On the contrary. But we see the world and we see the bad things going on and being done, and we begin to think, hey, I can do these bad things and do whatever I feel like.

      By all accounts, Duterte had a principled mother. So the corruption comes from the outside.

      In our case, we — you and I and many others — were able to fend off the temptations of corruption. And so through this blog, we analyze and think about what is right and wrong, and we gain strength that there are many others who agree with our analysis. In this way, we will overcome and endure. And reshape the world into a form that is closer to our hearts.

      • Coolasas says:

        There are no bad values. We were educated by our parents and our schools that our values and convictions are what shapes us as a person.

        Now whoever you become in that future is really of your choosing. Duterte had been lying to himself and the people around him that it became his very nature values or no values and any truth told to him by the people that’s supposed to care becomes the untruth because he doesn’t know the difference anymore. And it’s too late to change if it ever came tk mind even in passing … like bangngungot 😂 because of age and most importantly if he change he will lost his perceived cred as the tough liar demi god. The illusion will crumble.

        It may seem formidable force for now but anything that goes up must come back down airless. We just keep pushing forward … for the motherland

  17. karlgarcia says:

    The problem I gave with theopinion of the author Is thisis what all the Duterte advisers have been telling him.
    Not to anger China.
    Not to pursue claim to sovereignty,etc.
    Your thoughts.
    Any deadly sins amplified here?

    What China is doing in building forward military bases in the South China Sea is denying the United States a first-strike advantage – the only situation that can prevent the outbreak of a truly devastating third world war. Hirohito, in accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration, already foreboded that doom: “…it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”

    During his reign, which was at the height of the Cold War, Mao Zedong had contradicted this view. He contended that with its 1 billion population, in a nuclear confrontation, China will survive with half of its people intact; 500,000,000 is definitely a far, far better way of starting humanity anew than with just Adam and Eve there in the primordial time. Granting the earth itself survives a nuclear war, only Chinese stand therefore to stay peopling it. And this, thanks to the forward military bases China has constructed in the South China Sea which thereby prevents the United States from making use of the Manila Trench in, to borrow the word of Emperor Hirohito, “obliterating” the entire Chinese nation.
    Needless to say, in this scenario, the Philippines will be obliterated to the last Filipino.
    Golez does not realize it, but for all his Annapolis breeding, he was advocating his own personal obliteration by promoting the US side in the conflict. By pressing for the assertion by the Philippines of its so-called sovereign rights over certain areas in the South China Sea, he is perfectly playing into an obvious US scheme to get China out of its vantage position in the area in the event of a military confrontation. But China must have known this from as early as when Obama announced the US Pacific Century concept as soon he became US president. And as far back as 2012, the US Seventh Fleet intelligence arm disclosed certain reefs in the South China Sea already occupied by China and being developed as military installations. Having already built on those island features, China certainly won’t relinquish them. If the Philippines did what Golez is advocating it does, then that would be trouble, and as shown by the Scarborough Shoal standoff in 2013, the Philippines would be no match to China in that event.
    Certainly, Golez should know whereof he spoke, that by pressing Philippine assertion of the PCA ruling, he was serving the US design of getting the Philippines embroiled in a military confrontation with China and thereby get it turning to it for assistance within the purview of the various continuing military defense agreements the country has with the US. That accomplishes the objective of getting the US militarily intervening in the dispute.
    In the first place, the PCA ruling is unequivocal in stating that sovereignty was an issue in the arbitration case. So, all talk about Philippine sovereignty having been upheld in the PCA ruling is a lie. Indeed, how can sovereignty of one nation be settled in a dispute involving not just two but a host of other claimants to the area, like Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia?
    What a Philippine claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea serves is a sinister design to get the country warring against China and thereby give the US the reason to intervene militarily. It’s not a UN sanction that will get the US involving itself in a Philippine war with China over the South China Sea but a spark similar to the ostensible pro-democracy people risings known as Arab Spring in the Middle East that resulted in the downfall of US-unfriendly regimes as those of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Muammar Gadhaffi in Libya and Sadam Hussein in Iraq; only Assad in Syria stays ruling to this day, but at what terrible cost to lives of innocent civilians.

    • edgar lores says:

      Karl, I must confess I do not understand the article. I do not know whether the author is castigating Golez or praising him.

      I believe he is castigating but the last paragraph threw me off… unless it is sarcasm.

      Regardless, I think that in the matter of the WPS features, the Philippines must adhere to the PCA ruling and protect our rights. I take Carpio’s stance and think it is wrong, unconstitutional, and traitorous of Duterte to not even protest but to kowtow to Beijing.

      This is the first item of the seventh sin.

      In that sense, I think Duterte and the author are being pusillanimous.

      • karlgarcia says:

        I read the word from you before, now that I know what it means, I agree that they are pussilanimous.

        • No Edgar, Karl, I believe it is worse: the author is parroting the Chinese mindset 1:1.

          ” It behooves not China to forestall a similar fate for the American people but the Americans themselves to do so by prevailing upon their leaders to completely stop their military adventurism in domains that are not America’s.” is the sentence just before the one Karl starts with. Now what else does that sound like but something from a Chinese spokesman? There is an even worse passage some paragraphs up:

          ” If the US fires its missiles from Guam, the distance affords China the opportunity to neutralize that attack, what with all of China’s anti-missile capabilities. Those capabilities guarantee that China will destroy attacking missiles before those missiles destroy China. But fired from US nuclear submarines hidden in the Manila Trench, US nuclear warheads can get through to the Chinese east coast without being intercepted. That’s the only way the US can overcome the first-strike disadvantage it suffers against China. Without overcoming it, the US is at the mercy of an unstoppable Chinese first strike – the strike which, reaching as it will the very heartland of America, can be calculated to turn a war for total world annihilation as could result from a US dementia into one for preserving humanity – sadly – at the cost of the lives of the entire American people.”

          to read even more sharply “can be calculated to turn a war.. as could result from a US dementia into one for preserving humanity”..

          Translated into clearer words, it is saying “America is crazy and China will save the world”. That could come either from China or Kim Jong Pig, I mean Un – but is from Mauro Gia Samonte. Funny how quickly Filipinos absorb new fashions, new trends, new ideologies..

          • One more quotation: “Needless to say, in this scenario, the Philippines will be obliterated to the last Filipino. Golez does not realize it, but for all his Annapolis breeding, he was advocating his own personal obliteration by promoting the US side in the conflict. ”

            Remember Obed the Chinese troll and his clear language that “we can destroy Manila”. Also the clear either/or, them or us language, the language of “Vernichtung” (German term)

            The “Ragnarok”/”Götterdämmerung” = “final battle of races” mindset the Nazis also had.

            • karlgarcia says:

              Actually I first posted the link on the US-Philippibes update blog,but too many blog topics have past already for it to be noticed.

              A few days ago I was afraid of Pig I mean Un, but now with Xi’s as long as living rule, I am more afraid of Xi.
              Still there will no winner, all losers.

              • After the much-touted “Century of Humiliation”, China seems to be seeking revenge now – much like Germany after it felt slighted by Versailles and other events. I remember a long passage Francis posted which was also very much the Chinese POV. The POV I know is that the period of decay in China began after the Ming Empire was replaced by the Yuan or Manchu which was decadent – not after Western intervention. The first event that was an indirect effect of Western presence was an inflation in China in 1750 – caused by the flood of silver (in pieces of 8 or Mexican silver pesos) that the Manila galleon trade brought in. Too much of any currency (even silver) against goods and services causes inflation as we know. Even at that time, China was still the biggest economy in the world. But they slept, assumed their superiority was a given, while the other more aggressive powers caught up and then attacked them. Now it is as if China wants to get even, be No. 1 again like in the past. Even rule world trade, re-establish the Silk Road that European colonialism once made irrelevant.

          • edgar lores says:

            Thanks, Irineo.

            In the larger scheme of things, all this talk of first strike and victory by virtue of having a large population is foolish. It is Darwinian thought carried forward to its most extreme.

            It is exclusivity thinking where “we” is identified by race or nation. But it could be belief, sex, gender, status or any other criterion.

            The thinking should be that we are not separate and that we are continuous with all of creation.

            • One more loony passage from that article BY A FILIPINO, of all things: “..China will survive with half of its people intact; 500,000,000 is definitely a far, far better way of starting humanity anew than with just Adam and Eve there in the primordial time. Granting the earth itself survives a nuclear war, only Chinese stand therefore to stay peopling it.”

              Is this the vision, to have a world populated by “Sons of Heaven” (what the Chinese have called themselves for centuries or even millennia, almost a “Master Race” term)?

              And “What a Philippine claim to sovereignty over the South China Sea serves is a sinister design to get the country warring against China and thereby give the US the reason to intervene militarily.” is clearly the current (highly paranoid) Chinese interpretation of things.

    • Weird. So the Philippines is precluded from seeking US assistance in the defense of Philippine sovereignty because it would support US hegemony and could lead to military confrontation. It is better to be peaceful and cede the Philippines to China. I’m reminded of the term ‘gutless wonder’. The presumption that the Philippines cannot manage partnership with the US says Filipino leaders are incompetent. Horrible self-assessment.

      • karlgarcia says:

        It is weird and what is more weird is this is policy.

        • Yes. It says “we (Filipinos) are a weak and inutile people. Poor me!”

          • It is even worse than that.. it is stupid. One may be weak and useless – but still smart. It isn’t smart to ally with a nation that at this time seems to have caught the virus that infected Germany in World War 2 – the virus of paranoia combined with VERY racist thinking.

            Not if you love your children. Unless you are hoping to be considered as “Insular Chinese” – which will only be possible for the likes of Bong Go, I am convinced. There are Filipino Chinese families who don’t let their daughters marry anyone but other “pure” Chinese. I know of one case, Filipino-Chinese girl, Filipino guy, both Ateneans – forced to separate. And I think of what is happening to Tibetans and Uigurs, or even the marginalization of aboriginal Taiwanese who are similar to Ivatans or Ibanags. Mauro Gia Samonte won’t pass.

  18. Jinx Rivera says:

    Hi. I am a genuinely curious infidel & a cynic, jaded by everything I’ve seen & experienced in the 3 short decades I’ve been alive, thus far. I know I could be perceived as relatively old to most of the internet users, and relatively young to some as well. Although, yeah, it really doesn’t matter much on ur end anyway so I apologize for that brief detour. I just felt like I needed to emphasize my not being pro nor anti on the topic of ur essay, by way of citing an example of difference in perception. So all that aside.. My main Q’s are as follows:

    I. What is the objective of this essay?
    a.) Was it, to merely make your ‘SODS’ known (or popular?) to those who stumble upon this essay?
    b.) Was it, to simply elaborate & perhaps, broaden even more, Duterte’s well-known ‘sins’?
    c.) Was it, to establish a viewpoint solely based on religious teachings or an amalgamation of it with a scientifically logical reasoning?

    II. Does it really matter whether the sins are wrong according to whichever religion, seeing as the constitutional laws are what the state should follow? (ex: it is simply wrong to kill, we need not cite any scriptures to know that it is, in fact, wrong.)

    III. Does the country really follow ‘separation of the church & state’? (I honestly want to know, since based on what I’ve seen so far.. It’s really hard to tell)

    IV. Other reason/s (perhaps I am askin the wrong questions)

    I do hope you’d be kind enough to respond without any aggression or defensiveness. I am here to genuinely listen to diff PoVs & possibly learn something new about how people reason, in general. Also, I would like to stress on WHO it is, I am expecting an answer from.. The AUTHOR of this essay. (i apologize if anyone else finds it necessary to respond but the Q’s are for the author to address alone, no one else..)

    [my inquiries are grounded on the fact that I, myself, am a writer & is mainly on the ‘creative writing’ side of it. I do, however, find good journalism to be quite interesting, every so often.]

    Hoping to hear from you soon, kind sir. =)

    • This is an open forum, and there are no restraints on who may respond. Indeed, one of the main purposes of all articles is to promote active discussion, so your imposition of restraints would be an abridgment of purpose, and if you persisted in the demand, you’d not be able to post here. Blog rules also prohibit ad hominem comments, so no worries on that point, I think.

    • edgar lores says:

      Hi Jinx,

      Thank you for your questions.

      1. The purpose of the essay is to enlighten, to discern rightness from wrongness. To enlighten is bring spiritual light into darkness.

      2. I am sure you have heard the saying “What is legal may not necessarily be moral and what is moral may not necessarily be legal.”

      2.1. To discern wrongness we must first look at morality than at legality. Because what is legal may be morally wrong. And what is illegal may be morally right.

      2.1.1. For example, capital punishment may be legal but it may be morally wrong. Slavery was legal at one time, but the current consensus is that is it morally wrong. Many sexual acts, that are now in the current repertoire, were considered illegal at one time.

      2.1.2. Prohibition (of alcohol) was illegal at one time, but it may be, well not exactly moral but amoral. Increasingly, outlawed marijuana is also gaining acceptance in other countries. Same thing with same-sex marriage.

      2.2. It is necessary to refer to religious (and secular) morality because laws do not cover all that is immoral. The first five SODS, and even aspects of the last two are arguably not illegal.

      2.2.1. Misogyny is not — yet — a crime. In some religions, the status of women are presumed to be inferior to men. Therefore, we must go beyond what is legal and even what is religious morality.

      2.2.2. From my perspective, any prejudice that does not accept diversity or equality — by race, color, creed, sex, gender, status, etc. — is immoral. Obviously, there are certain exceptions.

      3. I do not think that the State follows complete separation of Church and State. This is a consequence of our Spanish colonialization.

      3.1. The Church is allowed to meddle in State affairs as in the suppression of a Divorce Law and the erstwhile RH Law.

      3.2. The State allows religious paraphernalia and the conduct of religious celebrations in government offices.

      4. You are asking the right questions. No serious question that puzzles one can be wrong.

      4.1. I would emphasize that moral questions are tough. I do not follow any religion and have my own moral guidelines, which are based on religion and the UHDR.

      4.2. More power to you. A writer is a seeker of truth.

  19. E Gamboa says:

    This essay makes the psychiatric evaluation look like
    a free coupon. Let’s see how the army of paid trolls will spin this, assuming they can get past a dictionary.
    Too bad Duterte missed the opportunity of confessing his sins to Pope Francis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: