As a member of the House of Representatives, he received P4.2 million a year for operational expenses, the so-called Representative’s Block Fund (RBF). Since they don’t have to report to Congress how the RBF was spent, you may actually say that it is their discretionary fund. That’s P12.6 million in one term, and that’s on top of his monthly P35,000 salary.

That’s nothing, of course, compared to unpopular pork barrel. Rep. Ledesma received at least P70 million a year for his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and his lump sum DPWH fund for hard or infra projects. I said at least because the pork barrel that you receive depends on your proximity to the powers that be, so if you are a member of the majority there’s a huge chance that you’d get more. You may also clinch more projects through congressional insertions, which means that while the annual General Appropriations Act (the national budget) is being crafted by the Executive, you insert certain items  in the budget of government agencies. There is just an agreement between the line agency and the representative that the allocation would be released to the solon because it was included at his behest. Since it is hard to determine if Rep. Ledesma got additional porks from Madam President or if he was able to insert any items in the past three budget cycles, let us assume that he got at least P210 million for the entire term.

(Do the PDAF and the DPWH lump sum fund go directly to the solons? Not really. But they have a say on how it will be used. Corruption happens when, in the case of hard or infra projects, the solons intervene in the awarding of the project to contractors that they favor and get a kickback from the deal. Soft projects are easier to pocket, since they are usually given in cash to local government officials close the solon thru financial assistance, livelihood projects, etc. How much actually goes to corruption requires investigation, but Budget Sec. Rolando Andaya once said that as much as 40% of the pork barrel goes to the pockets of politicians. Coming from a cabinet secretary, we can say that 40% is an underestimation.)

Rep. Jules Ledesma got at least P222.6 million for this term.

If he was only present thrice for the session, then the presence of his highness in the august chamber of Congress cost taxpayers P74.2 million a day. He said that he was actually busy performing his duty in his district. FTW, mister. In the Rules of Congress, it is clear that his main duty is to legislate and attend plenary sessions.

Our hard-working solon filed three bills, all of which are local:

• HB03057 – AN ACT RESERVING CERTAIN PORTION OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AND DECLARING THE SAME ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE FOR TOWNSITE USE OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF SALVADOR BENEDICTO, PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE
• HB04150 – AN ACT DECLARING A PARCEL OF LAND OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN AN AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR TOWN SITE PURPOSE OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SALVADOR BENEDICTO, PROVINCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
• HB06254 – AN ACT DECLARING THE 1ST OF JULY OF EVERY YEAR A SPECIAL NONWORKING HOLIDAY IN THE CITY OF SAN CARLOS, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL IN OBSERVANCE OF THE CITY’S CHARTER DAY

Taxpayers paid him P74.2 million per bill. Expensive bills. Grab a copy, they’re probably laced with unobtanium.

There you go, the perks of being Jules. Shocked? Don’t be. After all, Rep. Jules Ledesma is just one out of many.

You have to admit that 2009 was a strange year: it had 3 arms, an extra face, a 13th month that had 365 days. It was as if each day is always bent on eating the next one, each week cannibalizing the entire month, scattering red entrails on the floor: typhoons, floods, immorality, backhoes, Gloria, an almost eruption.

A pause then is important. 2009 deserves a proper burial. A comma is not enough, this year demands a period, a full stop.

From where I am I can see an ant pursuing a scent. It has no other agenda, no flash flood to worry about, no relief goods to pack. No Zen profundity to its movements, just the single-mindedness of a line.

We need to treat this year as if it were a line that unravels. Last year was a border.

I stretched and my feet touched China. A physiological feat, but what for? We only need to look around us, stare at each other, to know that we carry our own Great Walls.

Last year, I urged a few friends and some kindred spirits to pluck their hearts and wear them on their sleeves. I did. There was blood trickling down my arm, but it didnt give me love. Instead, my heart was yanked away, and all that remained was a bloody scribble on the pavement: I was here.

But who cares. Take it away, the heart doesnt grow still anyway. When excited it cavorts with the throat. When cold, it clenches itself. When broken it doesnt smash, it implodes and eats itself. When lonely, it wanders. Lonelier, it logs in, uploads, and updates its status.

Quote me if Im wrong, the heart is never still.

Last year, you jumped and I didnt follow. When I finally did I was already on my own. So dont blame me if I didnt welcome the new year with a jump: Id rather begin with a full stop.

On its face, the bill is both farcical and dangerous. I’ll explain why later, but let’s go through the bill’s salient points first:

• Over-all framework: In line with the constitutional declarations recognizing the sanctity of marriage, it seeks to criminalize the ‘highly immoral, scandalous, and detestable act’ of same-sex marriage.
• It penalizes several acts:

1. Failure to declare one’s true sex or gender for the purpose of securing a marriage license. The penalty is imprisonment from 7 to 12 years and a fine ranging from P50,000 to P100,000.
2. the issuance of marriage license to persons of the same sex or gender, which it seeks to penalize with imprisonment from 6 to 10 years and a fine from P50,000 to P100,000.
3. solemnization of marriage between persons of the same sex or gender (same penalty )
4. cohabitation between persons of the same sex or gender who live together as ‘husband and wife’. This merits the highest penalty: imprisonment from 10 to 15 years and a fine from P100,000 to P150,000.

• Offenders who are in public service shall be dismissed and barred from being employed by the  government. If the offender is legally authorized to solemnize marriage, then his license shall be revoked permanently.
• If the offender is a foreigner, he or she shall be deported immediately.
• If enacted, the bill would require the Local Civil Registrar to ascertain – thru the birth certificate – the true sex or gender of the parties applying for marriage license. Any marriage license issued or any marriage solemnized in violation of the law shall be deemed null and void.

Let’s make a distinction between the intention of the bill and the its substance. The intention is clear: it wants to prohibit commitment ceremonies for LGBT couples. These ceremonies are not legally binding, but for a bigot like Abante such an expression of love must be grating that he feels it should be criminalized.

That said, the intention is not reflected in the bill. It is actually a sloppy piece of legislation, and it is seriously flawed. How can it criminalize an act that it has not defined? What constitutes same-sex marriage, when no law provides for one? Same-sex marriage does not legally. The ceremonies that so riled up Rep. Abante are mere ceremonies: they are not legally binding. Criminalizing same-sex marriage would be a dilemma for this bigot-cum-legislator: in order to penalize same-sex marriage, he would need to define it first. In short, he needs to recognize that it exists.

Take, for instance, the prohibition on the solemnization of marriage between persons of the same sex. Abante has made public his opposition to the rites performed by LGBT-friendly religious groups that officiate commitment ceremonies for LGBT couples, and clearly this provision is directed against such groups. However, under the Family Code [Title I, Chapter 1, Article 7 (2)], marriage officiated by churches can only be solemnized by any priest, rabbi, imam or minister of any church who have registered with the civil registrar general. In short, unless the ‘solemnization of marriage’ is defined by the bill to cover the rituals officiated by those who are NOT accredited by the registrar, then Abante’s bill CANNOT run after the LGBT-friendly religious groups.

With the infirmities of the provisions relating to same-sex marriage, is Abante’s homophobic bill still a cause of concern?

I’m afraid so. For all its flaws, what the bill actually criminalizes in the end is same-sex relationships. This is what the last prohibited act does – penalize cohabitation of same-sex couples, even those that never went thru same-sex commitment ceremonies. If enacted, it means that couples living together can be rounded up the police, arrested, and imprisoned for more than a decade. “It is unlawful and prohibited for any person to live or co-habit with another of the same sex or gender as husband and wife”, the provision reads. Forget about the role-playing stereotypes that is evident in the provision, what it means is that once an LGBT couple settles down, they are already deemed criminal.

If enacted and left in the hands of unscrupulous and bigoted law enforcers, this could be used as an instrument to harass and arrest homosexuals, whether or not they’re in a same-sex relationship. It would deepen the climate of stigma that allows discrimination, abuse, and hate crimes to flourish. Law enforcers are already prone to use obscure and archaic laws to abuse LGBTs, so one could only imagine the cruelty they could inflict with the help of a law that says homosexual love is illegal.

Admittedly, the likelihood of this bill being enacted this Congress is very low. But with the forthcoming election, this bill could be used as an instrument of hate to rally anti-gay sentiments and to mobilize support for homophobic candidates. It becomes a platform to spread hatred. This won’t pass this Congress, but we can’t tell what would happen next term. Rep. Abante is running for congressman in the 6^th District of Manila again, and as an incumbent he has the advantage of being re-elected. He will surely re-file this bill.

That means we have one option: we have to fight back.

The decision was obviously penned by apes.

Signed by Commissioners Nicodemo Ferrer, Lucenito Tagle, and Elias Yusoph, the resolution quoted the Bible and the Koran to claim that Ang Ladlad tolerates immorality, and therefore should not be accredited. They said practicing homosexuals are a threat to the youth.

What these statements imply is that these commissioners have been denied something fundamental when they were still kids: love. I am sure that they were never hugged.

They find it perfectly acceptable to issue a resolution – a legal document – that sounds like a pastoral letter from CBCP or a manifesto from a fundamentalist group. They were quick to cite biblical verses or lines from the Koran, but forgot a basic tenet in our Constitution: that we are all equal, regardless of who we are.

They forgot that as commissioners, they are men of law, not men of faith. That the Commission on Elections is an institution of democracy, not a temple. That, as pointed out by an activist, they swore by the Bible to uphold the constitution, not the other way around. The issue is simple: use the law to determine whether a group should be accredited or not. There are no other standards – just the law.

How can we trust the COMELEC to modernize the electoral system when the commissioners still live in the Victorian era? Be wary, because those that that been mandated to automate the elections still believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. It is said that they weed out from the voters’ list women who are as outspoken as Etta Rosales, and they use tawas to make counting machines fool-proof and fraud-free.

But wariness is not enough. This bigotry is unacceptable. So I, Jonas Bagas, gay since birth, a practicing homosexual (occasionally during weekdays, but mostly during weekends), join my  fellow lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders condemning this farce. We won’t take this sitting down. I am a proud member of another LGBT-friendly party-list, AKBAYAN, and I will join Ang Ladlad in this struggle against bigotry in our ballots.

If you want to be part of this fight, then join us this Saturday, November 14, 2009, at 9 AM at the University Hotel of the University of the Philippines in Diliman, QC. We will fight back, and we will recruit more.

The issue sparked a debate in Twitterworld a few days ago after the Department of Health refused to accept infant formula donations from pharmaceutical companies. The law actually prohibits any government agency from promoting milk substitutes for infants, thus it cannot accept the donation.

In light of the Ondoy disaster, some relief aid groups feel that this is inappropriate. Even though that I see myself as a breastfeeding advocate (yeah, raise your eyebrows, but I am a breastfeeding advocate), I can understand where this frustration is coming from.

So what I did was ask for clarifications. Iona Jalijali, one of our legislative staffers and a breastfeeding supermom, explained that in disaster-stricken areas where clean water is inaccessible, infant formula increases the risk of exposure to diseases. Only when there are very young babies (6 months and less) and there are no sources of breastmilk or breastfeeding mothers should infant formula be used as the last resort PROVIDED that the distributed infant formula is accompanied by clean water and other supplies for safe preparation (clean bottles, etc.)

The ideal scenario is to make it easy for mothers in evacuation centers to breastfeed their children. A room may be designated for nursing mothers, and their own babies should be prioritized. If possible, after feeding their babies, they can wetnurse for other babies or express their breastmilk for other infants.

Infant formula is perhaps the most convenient way to feed infants in evacuation sites or disaster-stricken communities. But I agree with breastfeeding advocates: it is certainly not the safest.