Blogging Bill ANO RAW?!!

The first time I heard that someone was trying to pass a bill on regulating blogs, nabingi ako ng slightANO RAW?! This is the problempeople dont think about the stuff they say. Still, weve been blessed to be in a world that gives us the RIGHT to speak FREELY, especially since were in the vast realm of the internet. So pagbigyan. Tao lang. Its true, many people say many thingssome true, some false, some original, some passed on. Thats the beauty of the enormous source that is the worldwide web. People are encouraged to read, forced to think, and empowered to take sides. Information dissemination has changed over the course of time, and now more than ever, that information is within reach and interaction is so strong that it has created some of the most historical of revolutions that we have seen in our lifetime. If youre a blogger and you know it, raise your legs Before criticizing bloggers, know how it is to be part of this community. Bloggers are the voice of many, representing different views and sides about every issue imaginable, in and out of the country. Here you find a group of passionate, broad-minded individuals whomagkasabunutan na will get their message across. We may be technically faceless, but we are not lifeless. What scares some people is that they know that this group is never voicelessand is, if anything, relentless. I know, it rhymes.

With all due respect sir, I personally respect you and our countrys support for you. Please, find it within you to respect your countrys views. Dont be arrogant. Sometimes, an apology is all it takes. May I suggest eating a piece of Humble Pie? Its fat-free, calorie-free, and its good for your heart. Try it! Youll love it!

Best beware. Anyone who is in power to take away somethingdoes not necessarily stop a movement, especially when you have no knowledge of how powerful the revolution is. I am not against anyone. I am not against traditional politics, I am against careless statements que original, que kinopya. ESEP-ESEP NGA MUNA! Blogging Bill? Eh, Kill Bill kaya? HAAAAY! NKKLK. Thats EAT! Shoppingero/shoppingera, what are your views about regulating blogs? On Plagiarism, Anti-Blogging Bill, & Cyberbullying Comedian turned politician turned plagiarist. Is it just me, or Sen. Tito Sotto has gone way too much? Seriously, I dont even know what to say I am so physically mad at him for his idiocy and arrogance! Plagiarism may not be considered illegal (yet) in our country but it IS morally incorrect. You dont have to be a genious to know that. Like what Twitter user @superstarmariansaid, if its really okay to plagiarize like he said, then Indonesia couldve just copied Eat Bulagas format instead of franchising it, right? Bakit pa gagastos pwede naman pala kopyahin ng libre. His intentions may be pure in maintaining the sanctity of life but his means of proving his arguments are wrong on so many levels. I am certain that the anti-RH people are shaking their heads right now for having someone on their side with this way of thinking. I mean really Sen. Sotto, will it really hurt your pride to own up to your mistake, apologize and get on with your life? This issue can be buried a long time ago only if you admitted everything and stop making palusot. Manny Pangilinan took responsibility for lifting words from Oprah and JK Rowling in his commencement speech. Why cant you do that? Instead, you maintain that you did not copy because Bakit ko naman iku-quote yung blogger? Blogger lang yon. And youre surprised that you are being cyber-bullied? Also, any attempt to regulate blogging is similar to online censorship. Having a law that would establish, define, and identify the rights of bloggers will only contravene the very essence of blogging. Those who are in favor of such regulation are not bloggers, hence, they will not understand what is it all about. Ano gagaya tayo sa China wherein they cannot even Google the word Playboy because it is blocked in all search engines? With all due respect Mr. Senator, stop insulting our intelligence and have some manners. Nakakahiya na po talaga kayo.

Regulating that voice, and hiding it behind the guise of a bill of blogger rights only makes bloggers speak some more, and louder. My only commentare you sure you want to dive into something youre not an expert of, more so, not even actively participating in? Wag magmarunong. You probably dont even know what a blog is. You dont even own a blog. Im not sure you even do your own research. ANG TANONG: How are you finding out the voice of many? How do you understand the world beyond YOU. Bloggers are some of the most active and passionate writers and journalists, saying it as they see it, urging others to think and act. Amen? Sabi nga ni J.Lo, Lets Get Loud! Dont play the victim, be a survivor Sure, youre famous. Sure, everyone knows you. Your life is an open book. To be fair, you did take quite an online beating, but there is no way you can downplay how bad what you did looked. In school, kids are shamed to the wall when found cheatingyoure a full grown man with reputable position. Understand that simply by being a public figure, we have every right to watch your every move and in our community, which you know nothing of, we dont downplay things AT LALO NA bawal mangopya. We respect by quoting others and giving them credit. Kung may dapat iregulate, pangongopya ang simulan. You did wrong. You cant play the pity card here! Wag kang pabida! Lahat ng laws about you lang?! Ikaw na inapi! IKAW NA!

The Anti-Blogging Bill Well, I just read now that Senator Sotto is not pushing any anti-blogging bill. He will really put in super hot water when he do it just because he claimed he is being cyber bullied. That's the result of his discourtesy and even made a rude remark of "just a blogger". I am a mommy blogger though it is not my source of income because I am just doing it part time, it is not good hearing this comment from a well respected senator. It is painful that bloggers are of huge help to many people and advertisers. Admit it or not bloggers are very influential nowadays. I am not saying all bloggers

are good because there's some who are using blogging to blackmail other people. But in general, bloggers do influence people a lot. I hope Senator Sotto will think straight and admit he has done a mistake. Bloggers just need an apology from him. I really don't mind if he don't apologized but just be careful next time. However, it seems he is not learning from his mistkae because just recently another clear plagiarism was done by him. If it were "just a blogger", he would not be affected that much. Our media-tv, radio, newsprint, are all controlled by some oligarch, and internet is the only medium left that can't be controlled. Silencing all bloggers is not the solution to errant blogging or even cyber bullying. They must do something, but clearly not ban all blogging. Whatever happened to democracy?! I am not a blogger, but I follow a lot of blogs, and you're right - they're helpful. You are right. If they will pass an anti-blogging bill then they are oppressing the freedom of speech. There are much important bills they should pass. Senator Sotto must move on if he is not affected with bullying as he claimed. He should just work and don't mess with bloggers as he pointed as "just". Thanks for the response. Im in the same boat as glorycam. I think the senator is becoming too much preposterous on his claims. The net is free from all kinds of censorship unless the blogger itself moderates his or her own blog. We are much freer online compared to traditional forms of media. Then again, I think this so called bill is just a smokescreen. Ah, I somewhat read about it and now I think I know why he says that. His first plagiarist work was on a blog by an American blogger. (I think that was sometime in August), hence, his statement that she was just a blogger. And the anti-blogging bill idea did not come from Sotto, but from Sen. JPE (in his defense). But, then, there's this latest issue about Sotto translating Sen. Kennedy's speech and so the plagiarism issue came up again. He really thinks that translating a foreign material into Tagalog is not plagiarism. I was thinking, what if some foreigner translated the Noli and El Fili and said that since it's in their language, it's been written by them? Plagiarism legal? Apparently, as of October 15 2010, Filipinos are allowed to plagiarize since it is "legal", as long as there is no "malicious intent". Doesn't it sound a bit.. insulting? Stupid? It all started with Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, who literally copied paragraphs from three sources when writing the decision regarding the case on comfort women asking for compensation who were "victims of sexual slavery by Japanese occupation during World War II" (Rodel, 2010) When Del Castillo was accused and proved of plagiarizing, what did the supreme court in the Philippines do? They accepted Del Castillo's "excuse" (something about not having a computer program to detect whether he was plagiarizing or not. I don't know about you, but my Microsoft word has no plagiarism alarm or anything, but I know how to cite and acknowledge someone else's work), and "legalized" plagiarism in the Philippines. My first reaction when I read this article was of anger. How can someone in his position do something like that? He, of all people, should know better. Also, it made me think, was this the first time Del Castillo plagiarized or did something similar? How did he even succeed in getting his position then if he did? And what greatly frustrated me was that the supreme court just shrugged it

off, even defended him, and then proceeded to declare that Filipinos can plagiarize as long as they "didn't mean it". I would admit, especially since I, myself, am a Filipino, that the Philippine government isn't the most... dependable or "clean" government. There are officials in the government who are corrupt and who are there for selfish purposes. However, I would still want to believe that a lot of people in the government are honest, and sincerely want a better future for the country. This incident really disappointed me. Also, coming from a student's perspective, this really frustrated and annoyed me. In my country (and am sure people around the world agree), education is so important that to many, it is considered a necessity, and one of the things that we (students) learn in school is how to cite because we acknowledge that this particular work and the ideas and knowledge in it is owned by someone else, and we are using it to help us learn more about a certain topic. In fact, ever since elementary, we were taught to cite, and failure to do this is equal to expulsion from the school. How can a grown man, who graduated and is now working in the government be excused for this? And why did the supreme court allow this? It also made me think how this will affect students all over the country, with the excuse to plagiarize. Whatever values we had when it comes to hard, scholarly work, will it all be reduced to laziness because of this new ruling? This incident made me realize that the Philippines has a long way to go. Call me an idealist, but I couldn't help but have hope for the country, and believing that it can get better. Especially after the elections, since, for the first time, our president may actually be an honest person. I guess this event was like a stab in the heart. Also, it made me notice the many "ills" that are present not only in the government, but also in the country as well. The fact that Del Castillo had the guts to literally "copy and paste" paragraphs must mean that this isn't the first time (nor the last) he did this and got away with it. It may mean that there were people who just ignored it and let him pass. It could have been his teachers, or his former employers, or other people, and not one of them stopped him from doing this. This shows that a lot of the problems of the country are not from the government but from the people themselves. The people who complain about corruption, dishonesty, and injustice. However, despite all these things, I still have hope for the country. Hope that things will get better and hope that people will learn. And, I have one small request for the Filipino people regarding this: We, Filipinos, are better than this. This incident does not define who we are, so I hope that none of us "pinoys" will actually use this as an excuse, whether it be plagiarism or other things. Plagiarism and copyright MINI CRITIQUE By Isagani Cruz (The Philippine Star) Updated August 26, 2010 12:00 AM Comments (0)

In 1994 I published a guide on plagiarism and copyright for textbook writers of De La Salle University. I reprinted portions of it in the column I had then in Starweek. Because plagiarism has been in the news (because of a graduation speech at the Ateneo de Manila University, a decision of the Supreme Court, and a claim by a popular writer that an equally popular film director had stolen her story), let me share with you portions of the guide, which I wrote in Q&A form:

Q: What is plagiarism? A: Plagiarism is passing off as your own somebody elses ideas or words.

Q: Do you mean that, as long as I acknowledge that somebody else thought of the idea first, I can no longer be guilty of plagiarism? A: Thats right, but you have to be sure that the reader knows exactly what you copied and from

Q: What is copyright? A: Copyright is the authors legal ownership of her or his own work. Q: Is plagiarism the same as copyright violation? A: No. First, copyright lasts only until 50 [now, 70] years after the authors death; plagiarism has no such time limits. Second, copyright violation is primarily a legal offense; plagiarism is primarily a moral offense. Third, as the Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) puts it, the fundamental principle of copyright law is that a copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself. Plagiarism refers not only to the expression of an idea, but to the idea itself. Q: Can you give a simple example? A: Suppose you pass off as your own words the sentence To be or not to be, that is the question. If Shakespeare were still alive or if this were still the early 17th century, you would be violating his copyright. Today, you would not be violating his copyright because he has been dead for centuries. In fact, even if he were still alive, if you said, To be true to oneself or not to be true to oneself is the question facing every person, you would not be violating his copyright because that is a different expression of the idea he had.

whom. Q: What do you mean? A: If you take a little paragraph or equation from Book A, and another little paragraph or equation from Book B, and a third little paragraph from Book C, and so on, and all you do at the end of your textbook is to list the authors and books you consulted (in something like References or Bibliography), you would still be plagiarizing, because the reader cannot tell which paragraphs belong to which source and which paragraphs are completely your own. Q: Does plagiarism have to be deliberate? A: Ignorance of the law does not excuse anyone, particularly in academe, where everyone is presumed to have an insatiable desire for knowledge. You cannot claim that you did not know that somebody else had thought of the idea before you, because the first thing you learn as an academic is to do a Review of the Literature, which simply means that you find out first what has already been said. Q: Are there penalties for plagiarism? A: In academic circles, plagiarists are banned for life from entering competitions, applying for

Whether or not you are violating his copyright, however, you would be plagiarizing if you said his exact words or if you paraphrased him. For example, if you now wrote that The question of authenticity or integrity is crucial to the mental health of a person, you would still be plagiarizing, because although the expression is different, the idea is the same. Q: Are you saying that paraphrasing or saying something in your own words is still plagiarism? A: Absolutely! As long as you pretend that you thought of the idea all by yourself, without getting it from somebody else, you are guilty of plagiarism. Q: How does that apply to the writing of textbooks?

grants, being promoted, getting tenure, publishing articles, and the like. There is also the matter of the seventh commandment [in a Catholic university]. Q: What are the penalties for copyright violation? A: Under Philippine law, if you are found guilty of using copyrighted material without written permission from the copyright owner, you will be fined and imprisoned. TEACHING TIP OF THE WEEK. Heres a teaching tip from a professor at Harvard University, which regularly asks its teachers to write down their best practices: I know from various studies that students cannot retain more than one or two concepts from a

A: If you write a textbook in, say, physics, and you say that energy is equivalent to the product of mass and the square of the speed of light, you would be plagiarizing if you did not say at the same time that you got that from Einstein.

class session. In my teaching, I try to cover one major issue and to keep the point simple. If you want to be a great teacher, teach only one idea a day. Cramming several topics into one class session is a waste of time for you and your students.

Sinotto Ive tried to keep my blog free of political statements on national issues as of late, thinking that perhaps this isnt a proper venue to discuss political convictions; thinking that perhaps it would be better to do something about issues rather than blog about it. In this instance, I believe that blogging will help my political cause. And it is this: SOTTO Resign! The Philippines is a country that inherently hates bullies. Our history is comprised of moments and events that talk of overcoming bullies and toppling regimes. And I truly believe that it is high time we fight to oust another bully, Senator Vicente Sotto. Some of you might think this to be merely a ploy to oust an Anti-RH voter in the Senate, or an opportunity to have a smoother passage of the bill into law. That may very well be the case, but Sottos actions as of late have warranted more than just political agenda, but more of a personal hate. This is no longer political, its personal. When you go about yourself with such arrogance and an exaggerated sense of audacity, you are not fit to be a leader. You are a bully. Defending and substantiating your political and moral convictions are fine. I applaud it, in fact. But when doing so, please carry yourself with grace and intellect. When your constituents challenge your ideas, do not welcome it with hostility. YOU are accountable to us. Everything that comes out of your mouth is considered a representation of my ideas, and frankly, I am ashamed of this kind of representation. You may very well have been hounded and overwhelmed by the media and social networking users, but you failed. You cracked under the pressure and showed that you are not the right man for the job. You are an idiot, bullying, misinforming, sexist, plagiarizing senator who should just go back to cheap television exploits. So my fellow Filipinos, if you feel as I feel, sign this petition and help me pass it on. Although the Senatorial Elections are right around the corner, this is an issue of justice and Lady Justice waits for no one. We deserve more. Cordi autonomy Ifugao govs concern if reelected Posted by Northern Philippine Times on Apr 13, 2010 in Cordillera autonomy, Elections 2010, Ifugao, More News | 0 comments By Juan B. Dait Jr. LAGAWE, Ifugao The grant of regional autonomy to the Cordillera Region will be the priority concern of Gov. Teodoro Baguilat Jr. should he be elected congressman of the lone district of this province in the coming elections. The governor, who is running for congress under the Liberal Party, said while the Philippine constitution provides for regional autonomy for the Cordilleras, the past years have not produced an inspired leadership among autonomy proponents in the region. Baguilat promised to provide the necessary leadership in the Cordillera peoples pursuit of regional autonomy when he spoke before delegates to the first regional assembly of the Cordillera senior

citizens at the newly-inaugurated Ifugao Provincial Senior Citizens Building at the Capitol compound here. The governor also said he would work for the recognition of the rights of the countrys indigenous communities whom he described as belonging to the countrys poorest of the poor sector and unfair victims of injustice and discrimination. The third priority concern announced by Gov. Baguilat should he make it to Congress would be the preservation of the rich cultural heritage of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines which sets them apart from the rest of the Filipino people. Some 70 leaders of senior citizens associations in six Cordillera provinces and the cities of Baguio and Tabuk attended the March 29 30, 2010 assembly here of the highland regions senior citizens federation. Topics discussed during the two-day assembly were the provisions of the Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2009 which was recently passed by Congress, and the election of party list representatives to Congress. The National Federation of Senior Citizens of the Philippines has been accredited by the Comelec as a party list organization and will participate in the forthcoming national elections. Northern Philippine Times Cordi autonomy to spur Cordillera development Posted by Northern Philippine Times on Jan 15, 2012 in Baguio City, Cordillera autonomy, Front Page | 0 comments BAGUIO CITY Regional autonomy will benefit Cordillerans because they will have greater control of the regions rich resources with lesser restraint from outside forces and a permanent regional autonomy which are instrumental in speeding up the development in the countryside, Mayor Mauricio G. Domogan said here following the filing of House Bill 5595 entitled An Act Establishing the Cordillera Autonomous Region. Autonomy is for our children and our childrens children. We do not want them to be continuously suffering the difficulties in life which we are currently encountering because we do not actually have the full control of our resources and the administration of government policies, Domogan said. The mayor, who chaired the Third Autonomy Act Drafting Committee that crafted contents of HB 5595 said self-governance will allow the autonomous regional government to control the exploitation, utilization and development of the regions rich resources. According to him, the key to the immediate passage of the autonomy law will be the unity of the Cordillerans towards the direction of self-governance so that President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III will be convinced to certify that HB 5595 is an urgent administration measure that must be passed by Congress. Originally, HB 5595 was principally authored by Baguio City Rep. Bernardo M. Vergara, Kalinga Rep. Manuel S. Agyao and Apayao Rep. Eleanor Bulut-Begtang. Ifugao Rep. Teodoro Baguilat, Jr. and Mountain Province Rep. Maximo Dalog later signed the bill. Aside from securing the Presidents certification that the autonomy bill is an urgent administration measure, Domogan cited all local governments in the region, particularly the 76 towns, 6 provinces

and two cities, and other groups pass the necessary resolutions supporting the immediate passage of HB 5595 so that it will serve as an added boost for Congress to fastrack the passage of the measure. WE have to give meaning and substance to the constitutional mandate of having an autonomous region in the Cordillera as contained in Article X, Section 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Vergara stressed, asserting that all sectors must now get their acts together and facilitate the frequent conduct of grassroots consultations and information and education efforts to inculcate in the minds of Cordillerans the real essence of achieving an autonomous status. The Cordillera autonomy bill is composed of 17 articles and 173 sections that evolve around five major principles such as the establishment of a permanent regional identity for the Cordillera, no reduction in the benefits and powers of local governments, nationally paid officials and employees will continue to be nationally paid, grant of a subsidy to the Autonomous Regional Government by the national government in the amount of P10 billion for the first five years and P5 billion for the succeeding five years and the continuous support of the national government to the Regional government after the expiration of the 10year subsidy period. The goal of a well-balanced and equitable development of the country, its various regions, more so the traditionally left out regions such as the Cordillera must be given the much needed attention it deserves and the same could be achieved with the establishment of an autonomous region, Agyao added. The Cordillera Administrative Region was organized by virtue of Executive Order (EO) No. 220 which was signed by former President Corazon C. Aquino on July 15, 1987 and it was meant to prepare the region for autonomous status. Begtang pointed out achieving self-governance will surely allow the development of poor provinces within the autonomous region because of the expected huge share from the subsidy that could be utilized to improve roads and bridges which are vital in spurring economic growth and instrumental in improving the lives of the people in the far flung communities. RDC needs to reveal how P45M autonomy info fund was spent Posted by Northern Philippine Times on Jul 27, 2010 in Cordillera autonomy, Editorials | 2 comments EDITORIAL The Cordillera needs at least P75 billion subsidy from the national government in the next ten years once the people will ratify a third attempt of the region to establish an autonomous government in order to spur socio-economic development in the countryside.

that the barangays, municipalities, cities will continuously receive their own share even with change in leaders. Apart from the subsidy, the local chief executive explained that after the lapse of the 10-year period, the national government will continue to provide its continuing financial and technical support to the regional and local governments so that there will be a continuity in the implementation of socio-economic activities that will improve living conditions of the people. The national government, he added, should guarantee in the autonomy law that the regional government will have greater control of the regions resources and manpower to establish its identity as a distinct region. Furthermore, the benefits that the region is enjoying through the grant of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and other inherent powers will continue to be enjoyed by the local governments plus the fact that every province, city or municipality will remain independent from each other. More importantly, he added, nationally paid employees should continue to be paid by their mother agencies and supervision and control will only be lodged by the regional governor while they will maintain to be under the secretaries of the concerned agencies in order to prevent misconceptions that the autonomous government will not be able to sustain their salaries. According to him, it is unfortunate that Cordillerans failed to take advantage of the two earlier autonomy laws that were overwhelmingly rejected by the Cordillerans in plebiscites on January 30, 1990 and March 7, 1998, respectively, which could have already resulted in better economic standing of all local governments in the six provinces, particularly Abra, Apayao, Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Kalinga and Baguio City. Domogans proposals may be worth taking into consideration as the 1987 Constitution mandates the establishment of autonomous regions in the Cordillera and Muslim Mindanao in recognition of the role of indigenous peoples in nation building. But then, is the Cordillera ready for autonomy at this time? Critics have been allergic to autonomy because of lack or lapses in consultation among the people when the previous proposed organic acts were crafted and subjected to plebiscites. These were deemed full of flaws that Cordillerans rejected these. Now, before the RDC talks of again reviving the quest for Cordillera autonomy, it should first bare how the P45 million government fund intended as information campaign was spent. The body, composed of top regional officials should be transparent in its finances like on what happened to the P45 million. If they cant be transparent on a much smaller amount as compared to the proposed P75 billion start-up fund, who will believe them when they push for autonomy? This early people are saying the P45 million was intonomi (burned by them for that matter.) Northern Philippine Times Missing public funds like P45 million Cordillera autonomy money Posted by Northern Philippine Times on Jul 19, 2010 in Cordillera autonomy, Corruption, Editorials | 1 comment EDITORIAL Lawmakers particularly those in in Congress and those in the executive department who have mastered the art of fiction writing in allocation and use of public funds are understandably cringing

This, according to Baguio Mayor Mauricio G. Domogan who said the 10-year subsidy must be part of the provisions of the Organic Act to be crafted once the Regional Development Council in the Cordillera ascertain Cordillerans are ready for self-governance. Under the proposed subsidy provision, the autonomous region will get P10 billion annually for the first five years and P5 billion per year for the last five years to fund implementation of vital development projects . In order to prevent the allocation of the funds from being politicized by the officials of the regional government, Domogan said distribution of the subsidy must be spelled out in the autonomy law so

after President Aquino ordered the publication of detailed reports on the utilization of the congressional pork barrel. To promote transparency, the reports must include an itemized list of materials purchased for construction or maintenance projects financed through pork barrel allocations. Amid long-standing resistance of lawmakers to any suggestion of promoting transparency in pork barrel utilization, Aquinos directive is a welcome development. Take the case of the Cordillera Regional Development Council. The former administration had released P15 million then another P30 million for the conduct of a so-called information campaign on Cordillera autonomy. What happened to the funds is still a mystery. The RDC, chaired by Juan Ngalob who is also director of the regional National Economic Development Authority could not explain where the funds went or how these were spent. Now, the RDC, on occasion of Cordillera Day last July 15, without making a detailed account of expenditures related to the funds, asked for another P30 million from the national government for another information drive on autonomy. Concerned agencies should start an investigation on the missing funds and charged those responsible for the magic acts of making these disappear. In the national level, a number of lawmakers belong to families engaged in construction and real estate development, benefit directly from government contracts awarded through the pork barrel system. Aggravating the corruption in agencies such as the Department of Public Works and Highways, lawmakers compel agencies to award deals to contractors or suppliers who do not meet qualifications set by the government. The Presidents order can put an end to these practices if the reports on pork barrel utilization can be checked for accuracy. Like ranking officials in the executive branch, most lawmakers have been accused of writing fiction in official documents that they are required to file. This, as the Commission on Elections observed, starts with the filing of statements of campaign contributions and expenditures. Once elected or appointed to public office, their annual statement of assets, liabilities and net worth are again, products of fertile imagination. Now that former first lady Imelda Marcos is back in the House of Representatives, she could once again emerge as the poorest member of the chamber, based on her SALN, with no one trying to establish the accuracy of her statement. It is possible, to a certain degree, to check the accuracy of the SALN, by scrutinizing it against the officials income tax declaration, but no one has bothered to make the effort. In statements on campaign contributions and expenditures, the Comelec has admitted that it lacked resources to verify the declarations. Will the same problem stunt the move to promote transparency in pork utilization? President Aquino should see to it that this will not happen or the magicians among lawmakers like those in Congress or in the executive branch would make numbers appear or disappear into thin air.

Northern Philippine Times Missing public funds like P45 million Cordillera autonomy money Posted by Northern Philippine Times on Jul 19, 2010 in Cordillera autonomy, Corruption, Editorials | 0 comments EDITORIAL Lawmakers particularly those in in Congress and those in the executive department who have mastered the art of fiction writing in allocation and use of public funds are understandably cringing after President Aquino ordered the publication of detailed reports on the utilization of the congressional pork barrel. To promote transparency, the reports must include an itemized list of materials purchased for construction or maintenance projects financed through pork barrel allocations. Amid long-standing resistance of lawmakers to any suggestion of promoting transparency in pork barrel utilization, Aquinos directive is a welcome development. Take the case of the Cordillera Regional Development Council. The former administration had released P15 million then another P30 million for the conduct of a so-called information campaign on Cordillera autonomy. What happened to the funds is still a mystery. The RDC, chaired by Juan Ngalob who is also director of the regional National Economic Development Authority could not explain where the funds went or how these were spent. Now, the RDC, on occasion of Cordillera Day last July 15, without making a detailed account of expenditures related to the funds, asked for another P30 million from the national government for another information drive on autonomy. Concerned agencies should start an investigation on the missing funds and charged those responsible for the magic acts of making these disappear. In the national level, a number of lawmakers belong to families engaged in construction and real estate development, benefit directly from government contracts awarded through the pork barrel system. Aggravating the corruption in agencies such as the Department of Public Works and Highways, lawmakers compel agencies to award deals to contractors or suppliers who do not meet qualifications set by the government. The Presidents order can put an end to these practices if the reports on pork barrel utilization can be checked for accuracy. Like ranking officials in the executive branch, most lawmakers have been accsed of writing fiction in official documents that they are required to file.

This, as the Commission on Elections observed, starts with the filing of statements of campaign contributions and expenditures. Once elected or appointed to public office, their annual statement of assets, liabilities and net worth are again, products of fertile imagination. Now that former first lady Imelda Marcos is back in the House of Representatives, she could once again emerge as the poorest member of the chamber, based on her SALN, with no one trying to establish the accuracy of her statement. It is possible, to a certain degree, to check the accuracy of the SALN, by scrutinizing it against the officials income tax declaration, but no one has bothered to make the effort.

In statements on campaign contributions and expenditures, the Comelec has admitted that it lacked resources to verify the declarations. Will the same problem stunt the move to promote transparency in pork utilization? President Aquino should see to it that this will not happen or the magicians among lawmakers like those in Congress or in the executive branch would make numbers appear or disappear into thin air. Northern Philippine Times Cordillera Autonomy Part 3? Posted by Northern Philippine Times on Jul 12, 2010 in Cordillera autonomy, Happy Weekend, Opinion | 0 comments HAPPY WEEKEND Gina Dizon This so-determined stance of the Regional Development Council to push through with regional autonomy for the Cordillera is already a boring campaign and has lost its flavor. Unless the RDC is going to make the issue as enticingly beneficial in the current scenario to gain attention by all sectors in Cordillera society, then the bid for the third attempt may see fruit. A flashback on the beginnings for a regional autonomy in the 80s began with a highly political setting calling for changes in the region. With the call for regional autonomy highly politicized, the public saw differing autonomy frameworks from two highly ideological groups that within a self- determining people within a nation sparked by the militant Cordillera Peoples Alliance(CPA) and the armed Cordillera Peoples Liberation Armys (CPLA) idea of federalism of a nation within a nation. The political scenario then showed a heavily loaded transition from the Marcos years to the Cory administration warranting the need for a change of political system then. Intense militarization and an equally intense insurgency and high incidents of human rights violations coupled with poverty marked the transition period before President Corazon took the leadership from then deposed President Ferdinand Marcos. The need for a responsive political system for the Cordillera was equally high.If the plebiscite happened during the intense political situation in the middle 80s, I guess, the plebiscite for regional autonomy may have been realized. With the plebiscite happening when the iron cooled and the political climate was dazzlingly smooth and comfortable already with the leadership of then President Cory, the quest for autonomy apparently sizzled with NO votes over whelmingly winning over the lone votes of Ifugao still hopeful that regional autonomy will make wonders for the Cordillera. And so it went until the second autonomy attempt was foiled in 1998 when the political administration led by President Joseph Estrada was equally not as politically polarized in the grassroots level to warrant a political change in government for the Cordillera. And more so under the term of former President Gloria Arroyo, she has established a mellowed government among heads and officials bringing the region under her control.

Seemingly too, at the same time, the people are pre-occupied with economic needs rather than going political such that getting out of the country to look for better jobs and opportunities was the more pressing and better thing to do under the time when GMA brought the country to utter impoverishment. Now comes RDC chair and NEDA Director Juan Ngalob inviting President Benigno Aquino 111 to be the guest speaker in the 23rd celebration of the birth of the Cordillera Administrative Region on July 15 marking the date when former President Corazon Aquino signed EO 220 creating CAR in July 15, 1987. Ngalob thinks that President Noynoy will support regional autonomy. Why will he not? In terms of allocating budget, I guess he will. Yet, it is a different thing when regional autonomy gets to a plebiscite. I believe so. At this times when the administration seemingly is promising and determined to rid the country of corruption and bring a better Philippines, rocking the status and calling for changes in the structure of CAR as well and vote for regional autonomy seemingly will not gain acceptance among the people. The present set up is good as it is. What is needed is to make existing beneficial and progressive laws work for the Cordillera and equally craft relevant and beneficial policies not there within the present system. For one, is a policy letting Cordillera provinces have their share from National Irrigation Authority collections on waters sourced from watersheds within Cordillera territory flowing to lowland irrigation. Surely, such proposed laws can be forwarded by our representatives in Congress. Or do we need a Cordillera assemblyman to do this? By the way, how is that bill already forwarded by former Baguio congressman now mayor Mauricio Domogan for local government units to have their share from taxes of national corporations doing operations in respective territories of LGUs? While national laws have a stronghold on the economic and natural resource base of the people, autonomy becomes a vacillating issue. So vacillating that autonomy gets half-bred and redefined on self-determination within the present system.

A look at the program of the 23rd celebration of the Cordillera Month makes me smile like a college student. Some of the activities- intercollegiate debate and a radio quiz aside from tree planting and ethnic hataw make up activities of the celebration. Perhaps, a sizable cut from the autonomy budget may as well be given to the Department of Education so they can craft consistent ways of letting students learn what autonomy is all about the whole year round. Meantime, what do the rest of the people of the Cordillera do to take part in this month long activity aside from the debate participated in by Baguio-based students and ethnic hataw by government entities? While the government has beautifully crafted development plans done by development planners and technocrats, I yet have to see sectoral development plans crafted by farmers, fisher folks, artists, teachers, youth, business people, media, women, and professionals in their own fields.

Unless if there is one already, I would like to know. Before we dream of regional autonomy for the third time and end up unpopular, consultations and discussions on common terms and aspirations is wanting. And then perhaps, we can tell President Noynoy Aquino what kind and what makes up the regional autonomy that we want. Otherwise, let the remaining P15 million budget information drive be allotted for livelihood programs among the rest of the Cordillerans before another batch will fly out of the country to look for better jobs and leave their families.

process of nation building and contributions to history, there were laws enacted and proclamations issued honoring these heroes. Even Jose Rizal, considered as the greatest among the Filipino heroes, was not explicitly proclaimed as a national hero. The position he now holds in Philippine history is a tribute to the continued veneration or acclamation of the people in recognition of his contribution to the significant social transformations that took place in our country. Aside from Rizal, the only other hero given an implied recognition as a national hero is Andres Bonifacio whose day of birth on November 30 has been made a national holiday. Despite the lack of any official declaration explicitly proclaiming them as national heroes, they remain admired and revered for their roles in Philippine history. Heroes, according to historians, should not be legislated. Their appreciation should be better left to academics. Acclamation for heroes, they felt, would be recognition enough. 1. SELECTION AND PROCLAMATION OF NATIONAL HEROES 1.1 National Heroes Committee On March 28, 1993, President Fidel V. Ramos issued Executive Order No.75 entitled Creating the National Heroes Committee Under the Office of the President. (ANNEX A) The principal duty of the Committee is to study, evaluate and recommend Filipino national personages/heroes in due recognition of their sterling character and remarkable achievements for the country. 1.2 Findings and Recommendations of the National Heroes Committee In compliance with Executive Order No. 75 dated March 28, 1993, the National Heroes Committee submitted its findings and recommendations. (ANNEX B) 1.2.1 Criteria for National Heroes The Technical Committee of the National Heroes Committee held a series of meetings on June 3, 1993, August 19,1993, September 12, 1994 and November 15, 1995, defining, discussing and deliberating upon the merits of the various definitions and criteria of a hero. The Committee adopted the following criteria as basis for historical researchers in determining who among the great Filipinos will be officially proclaimed as national heroes: CRITERIA FOR NATIONAL HEROES (Adopted by the Technical Committee of the National Heroes Committee on June 3, 1993, Manila. Members of the Committee included Drs. Onofre D. Corpuz, Samuel K. Tan, Marcelino Foronda, Alfredo Lagmay, Bernardita R. Churchill, Serafin D. Quiason, Ambeth Ocampo, then known as Dom Ignacio Maria, Prof. Minerva Gonzales and Mrs. Carmen Guerrero-Nakpil) 1. Heroes are those who have a concept of nation and thereafter aspire and struggle for the nations freedom. Our own struggle for freedom was begun by Bonifacio and finished by Aguinaldo, the latter formally declaring the revolutions success. In reality, however, a revolution has no end. Revolutions are only the beginning. One cannot aspire to be free only to sink back into bondage.

Autonomy, if forced, aint good, Cordillerans told July 31, 2009 22:13:00 Philippine Daily Inquirer BAGUIO CITYAn official of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao said autonomy for the Cordillera should not be force-fed to its people just because it is mandated by the 1987 Constitution. The aspiration of the people in Mindanao is autonomy, that is why we are not discussing its advantages and disadvantages. I am not selling autonomy. It is for you to decide. It is given to you through the Constitution but you do not know what to do with it. If this is force-fed, it is not good, lawyer Ishak Mastura, ARMM deputy executive secretary, said in a forum on Cordillera autonomy here on Wednesday. Mastura was invited as a keynote speaker by advocates of Cordillera autonomy. The forum was the culmination of the celebration of Cordillera Month that was organized by the Cordillera Regional Development Council (RDC). Move beyond force-feeding, the [call] for Cordillera autonomy has been diluted through time. People have been disillusioned. Autonomy is self-expression, he said. The quest to give the Cordillera an autonomous region has been revived after two failed attempts. Two laws creating the Cordillera Autonomous Region were rejected by voters in the six Cordillera provinces (Benguet, Mt. Province, Ifugao, Abra, Kalinga and Apayao) and Baguio City in plebiscites held in 1990 and 1998. Mastura said autonomy was one of the wishes of former President Corazon Aquino for the Cordillera. But she might be the only one who wanted this, he said. Juan Ngalob, RDC chair, said the quest for self-government is a struggle because Cordillerans are either uninformed or misinformed about autonomy. He said government officials should stop invoking the mandate from the 1987 Constitution (Section 15, Article X) in their information campaign so they could force people to endorse autonomy. Force-feeding and saying that the autonomy is a constitutional mandate is a shallow way of doing an information campaign, he said. He said the proper way of doing it was to explain to people how they would benefit from an autonomous government and solve poverty in the region. Several groups, especially those in the academe and militants, criticized the push for Cordillera autonomy, saying it was meant to benefit only politicians.

QUALIFICATIONS OF A NATIONAL HERO No law, executive order or proclamation has been enacted or issued officially proclaiming any Filipino historical figure as a national hero. However, because of their significant roles in the

2. Heroes are those who define and contribute to a system or life of freedom and order for a nation. Freedom without order will only lead to anarchy. Therefore, heroes are those who make the nations constitution and laws, such as Mabini and Recto. To the latter, constitutions are only the beginning, for it is the people living under the constitution that truly constitute a nation. 3. Heroes are those who contribute to the quality of life and destiny of a nation. (As defined by Dr. Onofre D. Corpuz) ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR HEROES (Adopted by the Technical Committee of the National Heroes Committee on November 15, 1995, Manila) 1. A hero is part of the peoples expression. But the process of a peoples internalization of a heros life and works takes time, with the youth forming a part of the internalization. 2. A hero thinks of the future, especially the future generations. 3. The choice of a hero involves not only the recounting of an episode or events in history, but of the entire process that made this particular person a hero. (As defined by Dr. Alfredo Lagmay) It was the fervent hope of the founders of our great nation that its government would not tresspass on the province of religion, and that religion would find neither refuge nor condemnation from a secular government. The founders' committment to this idea was unequivocal. The very first words of the Bill of Rights read: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Whether you interpret that statement as an originalist, papist, feminist, or any other -ist, exempting religious organizations from paying taxes is a clear case of our government "respecting an establishment of religion," precisely what the framers intended to prohibit. This is not to suggest that you abandon your church or your faith. For one thing, any religious organization that lives up to its commitments to its congregation and community would have nothing to fear from filing a tax return, just like every other non-profit. For another, when these institutions pay taxes like every other non-profit, each citizen's tax burden is significantly lessened and consequently he or she maybetter endow a worthy institution with individual support. It is the flip side of the same coin: as your right to practice a religion must be respected by government, it may not support churches by tax subsidies or any other means. WHY YOU CARE: Because it's unconstitutional. It will be obvious to rational people that exempting religious organizations from paying any taxes is a clear case of government "respecting an establishment of religion." But throughout history we have seen many otherwise-lucid thinkers insist otherwise, including Supreme Court justices who uphold biblical views when their taxpayer-funded jobs explicitly require them to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Because religious organizations are not accountable to the citizens who subsidize them. If churches engage in charitable work that benefits the community, do all citizens have an interest in supporting such endeavors with, say, various tax exemptions? Of course. This is the sound basis for tax exemptions for non-profit organizations, whose activities and finances are subject to IRS audit and public scrutiny. In the case of religious organizations, however, the books are closed. Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches. So what if churches do not engage in charitable work? Or do so far less efficiently, effectively - or charitably - than the many non-profits or government programs we do not subsidize in this way? Religious organizations can and do take great advantage of their tax-free status. Many amass great wealth and vast media empires - all of it off the tax rolls. The point is that religious organizations can and do espouse doctrines of intolerance and hatred, filter funds to foreign enemies, and cause far more harm than good in their communities. They are nevertheless entirely tax-exempt, their finances never scrutinized, because they qualify as "religious organizations." Tax-exempt status is a privilege - not a right - and churches should be held to the same standards as other non-profits - if not higher standards. Because it is easily and routinely abused. Consider the proliferation of phony churches as a tax dodge. An IRS attorney cites a brothel "church," where sisterly love is offered to male parishioners in exchange for donations. In Hardenburgh, New York several years ago, 235 of the 239 property owners in that town were granted religious tax exemption because the properties of the owners were made branches of the mail-order "Universal Life Church." In Wisconsin, hotels, pay parking lots, farms, and communion wafer bakeries are among the church holdings that are tax exempt. Overall, at least $4.2 billion in tax-exempt religious property now exists in that state alone. And the monumental moral corruption of the Catholic Church as evidenced by the many sexual abuse scandals is particularly galling when one contemplates the vast (and covert) wealth of that particular enterprise. It's a racket, and it costs taxpayers even more money to monitor, uncover and fight the abuse it invites - none of which would be necessary if such unenforceable loopholes in our tax code never existed. Because it costs you and me billions. We are not talking chump change here. Consider that for every tax dollar a religious organization does not pay, you and I pay it on its behalf. Many are among the wealthiest organizations in the world: by 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approx. $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $3 billion in 1989. A 1986 estimate showed religious income in that year of approx. $100 billion, or about five times the income of the five largest corporations in the U.S. All tax free. Because the founders got it right. These thoughtful men were conscentious students of history, many of them witnessing firsthand the bloody devastation wrought wherever religion entangled itself with government on foreign shores - and our own. The founders saw that without a strict separation between religion and government, the same tragedy would inevitably be replayed here. "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -James Madison Because it is fundamentally unjust. Not all religious organizations enjoys tax breaks, only those our government deems legitimate. Is government in the business of deciding what is or is not a legitimate religion? Doesn't every instance where government makes such a determination amount to "respecting an establishment of religion?" Should the taxes of non-religious citizens be higher to

subsidize every church, synagogue, and mosque in town? Should working women pay taxes to subsidize clergy and other employees' paychecks, when such positions are overwhelmingly - and legally - restricted to men? The current scheme is unfair and unnecessary. Churches can and should pay taxes, just like everybody else. Because our country is not supposed to be a theocracy. It is not a new idea: tax exemption for religious organizations has been debated since the birth of our great nation. istorically, far from the accepted status quo, the subsidy of religious organizations via carte blanche tax exemptions has troubled patriots and conscientious religious citizens alike. Since our Consititution was written our nation has witnessed an overall upsurge in the deliberate mingling of government with religion, to the point that the two institutions at times have appeared nearly indistinguishable. Perhaps emboldened by the cowardice and arrogance displayed by our nation's highest court and the apathy of so many citizens, religious zealots now hold our highest offices and have infiltrated every single branch of government, upholding biblical views when their taxpayer-funded jobs explicitly require them to uphold the Constitution of the United States instead. Because it makes no sense. To deny that tax exemption is a meaningful public subsidy is to put forth an absurd proposition: just consider what your personal financial picture would look like if you never paid any taxes. Yet it is exactly this type of ludicrous logic on which religious tax exemptions have been upheld time and again by our courts and congresses. See LAW for more. Ancient History of Church Tax Exemption The first example i have found of religious tax exemptions is found in Genesis 47:26 when the priests land was exempt from paying the Pharaohs tax.

Although the Church and the State no longer operate as one entity, these tax exempt laws seem to have been grandfathered into our common laws. David M Andersen in Brigham Young University Law Review writes, In 1894, Congress passed the first income tax on corporations but exempted from the tax those corporations, companies, or associations organized and conducted solely for charitable, religious or educational purposes. Now we see our government providing a unique status to Churches, but what is their reason for allowing this privilege? Were they afraid God was going to strike them with lightning if they didnt? The reason for providing tax exempt status may not seem obvious. Erik Stanley from LaTimes.com says, In general, governments believed that churches along with other types of community groups enhanced and supplemented government services such as feeding the hungry, housing those in need of shelter and in general using private funds for public good. (Although this is a debate for another time, I note that more and more religious groups are now asking for a government bailout through the faith-based initiative and to keep their tax exemptions.) The reason why the Church has been privileged with its tax exempt status is because the government expected us to supplement the need for humanitarian services. Basically our responsibility for the welfare of the people relieved this burden off of the backs of government. Questioning the Churchs Eligibility to be Tax Exempt I realize that there is no official list of social qualifications that we need to maintain in order to keep our tax exempt status, but one cannot wonder why our eligibility remains as the government takes on more of our social responsibilities? Is there any form of social criteria that we have to meet in order to keep our tax exempt status other than preaching out of some religious book once a week? If the Church does not provide for the poor, the indigent, the homeless, or the sick do you think Korea, Japan, U.K., or Canada would want to apply for that responsibility? Of course people run to their own government for help. Listen, somebody has to help these people. I dont care if you are a democrat, republican, or libertarian, marxist, or an environmentalist, these people need help. We can debate about whether their situation is their own fault. We can say that they chose their own path. I am not disagreeing with you, but that isnt an excuse for us to overlook their desperation. Their choices are never, ever an excuse for our negligence for their basic needs. It sickens me that as the government relishes the opportunity to take on more social responsibilities while the Church gladly passes on the torch. Now that we are free from taking care of peoples needs, we can spend more money on ourselves, on our church buildings, on our programs, on our stage design, and on our sound equipment. We relish the opportunity to beautify our image while the government relishes the more Godly response. While the government is taking on the responsibility of being a savior, and we spit in our the real Saviors face who once said, For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. and also Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Conclusion

And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt to this day, that Pharaoh should have one-fifth, except for the land of the priests only, which did not become Pharaohs This passage is by no means a biblical mandate to require tax exemption upon any religious institution. This is just an example of tax exemption in world history. There are many more examples of tax exemption in our ancient history, but lets move forward into the medieval ages In the medieval times the Roman Catholic Church and the English throne were in marriage with one another, so therefore, the Catholic Church was exempt from paying taxes. The Church and the government were essentially one organization, so if the Government were to tax the Church, they would be taxing themselves. The tax exemption that was imposed upon the Catholic Church would lay the foundation and traditions that we find in our modern laws today. Modern History of Church Tax Exemption The marriage of the throne and the Church is one of the main reasons our forefathers declared in our constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. They wanted the Church to operate apart from the state (although the phrase separation of Church & State is not found in the Constitution)

Im going to say it right away Take away the tax exempt status of the Church!

As the government takes on more and more social responsibilities, i am sick of seeing my taxes go up and up. If churches started paying property taxes, i wouldnt doubt if my taxes would actually decrease. Believe me, i wish i could say the opposite, the problem is that the Church is extremely ill. We have been sick for a long time. Giving statistics state that the Church spends 85% of the funds it receives on internal operations and only 3% of our money goes towards aiding and ministering towards the unsaved. Do i blame the poor for crying to the government? No Way! When they come crying to the Church, they get turned away, so where else should they go? Should they get a job? Why dont you go trying to get a minimum wage job as a single parent. Lets see how well you survive providing for your family while doing that? Look. I am a registered republican. i voted for the Bushs and McCain. I am a fiscal conservative, but i believe the Church should handle spiritual as well as social responsibilities. But the problem is that we arent, so im done fighting against social health care, and welfare. Let it happen. Republicans fight and fight about socialism this and socialism that, but we dont do a stinkin thing about it! Until the Church gets its act together and takes care of our responsibility theres nothing else for me to say. Right now, I am just furious! We have no right to be tax exempt! Should Churches Pay Taxes?

was giving that command to persons not churches. If a church will pay an income tax to the government are they admitting that the church is a business like the local pizza parlor? And what will be the limit of the tax? Sure, they could pay 1% of income but what will they plead when the tax is 10% or more? You can't plead convictions because convictions would not permit you to pay any percent. If the government is over the Church of God, I'd like to know when it took place. Someone will remind us that churches receive benefits from government such as police and fire protection, garbage pick-up, etc., but then the members have paid for those benefits as individuals. No, churches must not, under any conditions, pay taxes. After all, the power to tax is the power to destroy (or control). Wouldn't it be ironic for Bible-believing Christians to participate in an effort to dig out the foundations of the church in an attempt to "do the right thing"? The "right thing" is for churches to maintain their sovereignty and refuse to pay taxes even when church leaders are dragged off to jail, and when church buildings are sold at public auction to pay the illegal tax on God. Sounds tough, but Christ didn't promise us a rose garden only a cross but we have to pick it up.

When there was discussion about bringing churches under the new Social Security system in the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, he quickly replied, "But that would be taxing God!" And so it would. But those days are behind us. Public officials are more arrogant, asinine and audacious than ever, and they are desperately looking for new sources of revenue. Local, state and Federal governments are hurting for money since they have been spending it as if it grows on trees. Or put another way, they have been spending it as if it is someone else's moneyand it is! Because of this fact, entities of governments are looking for "cash cows," and they have noticed the steepled buildings on every street in town-churches. Make no mistake about it, the good, easy days are gone forever. Your church is in the bull's eye. Berkeley, California has already taken a shot at churches within its jurisdiction by demanding that all churches and non-profit organizations pay an annual $51.00 license fee and 60 cents for each $1,000.00 of receipts as an income tax. Even liberal Baptists refused to pay the tax at the advice of the American Baptist Churches of the West while the Presbyterian Church paid with a mild protest. Another protester was the local pastor of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Some of the protesters, while protesting the tax did so using nebulous arguments. The big pitch was that churches should not be taxed because of the contributions they make to the city in education, feeding the homeless, AIDS education, day care, etc. But that is not the heart of the argument. Churches should not pay taxes because the government does not have the authority to demand it! Does not the Constitution clearly prohibit the government from making any law restricting religion? Does not the ability to tax actually mean the ability to control or destroy? I thought most of us believed in the separation of church and state (but not separation of God and state), but if so, how can any government entity presume to tax the church? After all, a "higher" always taxes a "lower," and will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all. Will a Bible church take money given for Christian purposes and give it to Caesar? Well, Jesus did say to give unto Caesar what belongs to him and unto God what belongs to Him; however, Jesus