I wasn't able to watch the actual video footage on TV but i was able to watch the video in Youtube.
My gosh!!! Pati ba naman ang Diyos eh isinasali pa nila sa kanila'ng makasariling interes? That prayer of Press Secretary Dureza (I wouldn't call him by his first name "Jesus" because he has already brought dishonor to that holy name of our Lord) was really abominable and outrageous. At any rate, I do believe that such prayer was inefficacious, and God would certainly not listen to that prayer, but what we gather from such utterances (slip of the tongue) coming from Sec. Dureza only confirms our suspicions on intentions of the present dispensation to hold on to power beyond 2010. It's now our turn to gather ourselves in prayer and ask Divine Providence for a miracle, that is, for an act of contrition from our present leaders to acknowledge their excesses in power and the humility to yield to the dictates of the Constitution. That at a definite point in time, they must relinquish power and not to desperately hold on to it, after all, this is the essence of a republican government. For the meantime, I pray that our well-meaning Senators and Congressmen and all sectors of society join hands together in forming a formidable front to oppose these devious initiatives in the House of Representatives to convene itself into a constituent assembly, on the pretext of amending the economic provisions of the Constitution . I am hopeful that the people's voice will prevail in the end. It is very clear that majority (about 64%) of Filipinos oppose charter change (at least, during this administration) according to the latest survey conducted by the Social Weather Station (SWS).
no matter how i try to view it objectively, i can’t figure out how public policy can be best served by legislating a “right of reply” bill in the Congress. First of all the proposed legislation is curtailment of press freedom in disguise and has a “chilling effect” on the mass media. The point is we already have libel laws to protect those who are maligned or defamated through publicity, so why still require media at its own expense to provide an equal space for a reply, isn’t that asking too much? if the aggrieved party is a public figure then it’s tantamount to a double whammy because aside from the media being taxpayers paying taxes to the government, another burden would be added, that is, a complimentary space for a reply, for whatever its worth, courtesy of media. The resulting effect of this anomaly is that media would now disengage from its traditional role of being a watchdog particularly of public officials in order to avoid incurring concomitant costs should the aggrieved party decide to exercise this right. The bottom line is we have now a media afraid to speak its mind on critical issues and wrongdoings of public officials will go unreported. Sounds really scary, isn’t it? My conclusion is: a free press with its occasional aberrations is better than a muzzled press.