Life, death, and beauty

Photo by Don Farrall for Getty Images

Think your wedding is the most important day in your life? I think not. This may sound morbid, but I'm excited about my funeral. Not because I want to die, but because funerals are where your loved ones look back and echo "he was such a great person". At funerals people can only say good things about the dead, either out of respect, or out of fear of offending the bereaved. Funerals are the ultimate reflection of who you were: the more people show up and cry, the higher the value of your life. At least that's how I see it.

But really, how do we measure the value of each life? And don't give me that "all life is equal" crap. That's just not true. Some people were born with the skills to reach the top, while most people find solace in mediocrity. Some people become presidents, CEO's, actors, astrophysicists, and some people become waiters, construction workers, vendors, or call center agents. You can bet more people will grieve at the first list of people's funerals, with people remarking how "there will never be another" or how the deceased's "contributions to society will never be forgotten". You won't hear a eulogy like that for a janitor.

Which leads me to my main point of contention. What makes AJ Perez's death so newsworthy? Sure, he was way too young to die. He was a good kid. It's sad. It's tragic. But are the daily news updates really necessary? A lot of young, good people die unexpectedly every day. Well, I guess the difference is, they don't have the same fresh, innocent, well-proportioned face, and they don't usually have shows on one of the country's leading TV networks. My point is, AJ Perez wasn't special simply because he had a great personality, or that he had great potential as an actor. Even if those were true, at the heart of it all, AJ Perez was special because he looked good. That was what made him a star in the first place.

This unfortunate event has led me to wonder: just how much do people value physical appearance? Do people think less of us if we aren't aesthetically pleasing? Are we perceived as less intelligent or less capable simply because we don't look the part? And if we were more attractive, would we have better chances? If AJ's death is any indication, we probably would. He's practically a national hero, the way his death is being covered by the media.

I don't think it's wrong to judge people based on how they look. Hell, I do it all the time. It's just amazing to see just how much of our judgment is based on physical appearance, where it could mean the difference between a common high school kid and a well-loved actor. Sure, AJ may have been talented, and from what I hear on the news, was a very good-natured young man. But would the country have given him the same chance if his face was crooked?

Should we condemn beautiful people and rally to raise awareness for ugly people's rights? No, of course not. It's human nature to appreciate beauty. It may not be fair, but very few things in life are fair anyway. I guess it's just something we all have to deal with. So don't judge me if you see me lined up at Watson's holding a basket full of personal care products.

Death Penalty: The solution to nothing

(originally published in the January 2009 issue of The LaSallian, the Official Student Publication of De La Salle University)

Photo by Andrejs Zemdega for Getty Images

With the recent buzz on certain drug pushers from wealthy families dubbed the “Alabang Boys”, talks about the death penalty are scurrying about. Senator and majority floor leader Juan Miguel Zubiri attributes the alarming criminal activity in the country to the abolishment of capital punishment back in 2006. While it might be true that some criminals only did what they are convicted of because they didn’t deem squeezing into a tightly-packed prison as threatening, is the number significant enough to justify the reinstatement of a penalty which is essentially legalized killing?

The death penalty was repealed by the 1987 constitution, after the Marcos regime. It was brought back by former President Fidel Ramos in 1996, reportedly in response to rising crime rates. A decade later, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo once again removed it. Was the national crime rate affected significantly? Not exactly. In the years of the Ramos Administration, crime rates were steadily declining, regardless of whether the death penalty was enacted or not. Starting from 1993’s 145.7 crime incidence per 100,000 of the population, it went down to 112.8 in 1995, just before Ramos brought back capital punishment. It continued to decline steadily, only slightly rising in some years. The lowest crime rate reported in the National Statistics Coordinating Board (NSCB) website was in 2006, 81.9, even after the current president removed the death penalty. It rose significantly in 2007, but is mainly attributed to political turmoil. In fact, it seems that a more direct antecedent of high crime rates is the political and economic conditions of the country.

The highest crime rate in recent history was recorded in 1984 to 1986, which, according to the CIA Factbook, was approximately 310 per 100,000 people. Any Filipino would know that this was the time former president Ferdinand Marcos was losing the support of the people, inciting civil unrest. In 2007, there was a large number of politically-motivated killings all over the country. All of these lead to a very simple fact: crime rates are not significantly affected by the death penalty.

What then is the effect of the death penalty? Aside from a miniscule decrease in the population and a heightened sense of fear of committing “heinous crimes” for a number of people, there is hardly any benefit derived from killing criminals. What then is the solution to the banes of modern Philippine society? A better justice system: one that cannot be bribed. Let us not forget that the “Alabang Boys” didn’t gain notoriety just because of the gravity of their crime or their elite families. It is mainly because of allegations of bribery against the Department of Justice and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

Even if the law reverts to the barbaric penalties of the pre-Hispanic period, crime will still continue to thrive if the courts can easily be paid to get offenders off the hook. Only those who can not afford the prices will be put to death. In other words, the poor, who ironically are seldom the masterminds of the crimes they’ve committed, especially when it comes to drug trafficking. This reveals the real culprit that all Filipinos know so painfully well: corruption.

What the Philippines, not just the government, should focus on is trying to eliminate this cancer of society. And it doesn’t just entail running anti-corruption commercials on primetime TV. While there is a specific agency, the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, that focuses on the elimination of corruption in the government, these efforts are clearly not enough. Every single citizen should do their part in this fight. It might seem too idealistic to be realized in this modern world, but this is the only way to reverse the culture of corruption in the country. We are all victims, but what we don’t see is that we also contribute in cultivating this mindset in our own little ways. And no, the death penalty won’t help this cause.

While most reasonable people are afraid of death, especially if it’s in a prison, the death penalty would not improve the conditions of the country. If anything, it would only further dehumanize our already-downtrodden people. Before thinking about what punishment is fit for a crime, offenders should be caught effectively, and shouldn’t be able to bribe his way out. Senator Francis Pangilinan says in a statement published by Inquirer.net, "It isn't the harshness or severity of punishment but the certainty of punishment that will make would be criminals think twice before committing illegal acts."

On the passing of Cory Aquino

For the most part, I've been quite apathetic about former Philippine president Cory Aquino. There were, after all, some things that she didn't do right during her term. Her passing and the heavy media coverage, however, has caused me to re-evaluate my stand. It has reminded me, along with the millions of Filipinos around the world mourning her death, of how she stood up to the Marcos dictatorship, and how she brought democracy back to the Philippines. Sure, it happened after Senator Ninoy Aquino's death, and she only continued the fight that her husband started, but the simple fact remains: she led the nation to reclaim our freedom. Without her, we would have been left without a leader. Marcos would have stayed in his position, without a strong opposition to challenge Marcos' claim to the country's top position. She stepped up, despite her lack of political leverage, and became the hope of the nation. After Ninoy's death, Cory stood up and gave the Philippines a fighting chance against an oppressive administration. Now, after her death, the Filipino people is once again united, thanking Cory for her valuable contribution to the history of this country. We remember her courage, her leadership, her legacy which forever changed the face of this nation. We owe a lot to her, and it is only right that we acknowledge her leadership as we mourn. She will always be the symbol of hope and unity for the country. In these times, may we not only remember Cory, but be inspired and renewed, that despite adversity from the very institution that is supposed to uphold it, we must always value and fight for our freedom.