Bias committed by critiques of Philippine VP’s mistake

Why is it illogical to bash Leni Robredo as did the meme pointed to by the arrow in the image below?

This type of bashing is called “Halo and Horn Effect Bias” which is unethical and violates the rules of correct reasoning.

Halo & Horn Bias 2

Ang pinakamagaling man, pinakaastig ang estado sa lipunan ay may nakakaligtaang knowledge o wisdom.


Si Justice Serafin Cuevas, isa sa mga pinakamarunong na abogado ay nagka-knowledge failure. Sa impeachment trial kay Former President Joseph Estrada, bigla siyang nagpasaklolong nahihiya sa kasamang abogado kung ano ang isang bagay na kung tutuusin ay madaling paksa lang sa abogasya.


Si Robredo ngayon, nagka-knowledge failure sa tingin ng kaniyang bashers. Kaya, epal daw siya. Palpak. Sapagkat hindi raw dapat sumaludo sa oras ng flag ceremony ngunit kaniyang ginawa, imbis na humawak lang sa dibdib. Dahil diyan, lalong inatake ng bashers ang pagkapolitiko niya.


(Sa aming pananaw, maaaring atakehin ang pagkapolitiko’t pagkapanalo ni Robredo, pero sa ibang usapin, hindi sa usapin ng pagkakamali sa pagsaludo. Sapagkat kung ang isyu sa pagsaludo ang dadaganan, BIAS iyan – ang “halo or horn effect bias”.)


Ang “halo effect or horn effect” ay nangyayari kapag ang pangkalahatang tingin ng isang nagmamasid sa isa pang tao, organisasyon, o bagay ay umi-impluwensya sa kaniyang pakiramdam ukol sa partikular na detalye ng tao, organisasyon o bagay na iyan.


Ang “halo effect” ay nangyayari kapag ang positibong sentimyento ng isang nagmamasid sa isang bahagi o aspeto lamang ng isang tao o bagay ay ginagawang positibo pa kahit ang ibang kwestyonableng karakter ng tao o bagay na iyan. Kung siya na nagmamasid ay gusto ang isang aspeto ng isang tao o bagay, magkakaroon siya ng positibong pagkiling ukol sa lahat sa tao o bagay na iyan.


Ang kabaligtaran ng “halo effect” ay ang “horn effect”. Kung hindi gusto ng nagmamasid ang isang aspeto ng isang tao o bagay, magkakaroon siya ng negatibong pagkiling sa lahat ng aspeto ng tao o bagay na iyan.


Ayaw ng bashers kay Leni bilang politiko. Kaya ang mali niya sa ilang partikular na bagay ay kanilang dinadaganan. Bias ‘yan!


Heto kasi ‘yan: Kahit man ang ina-idolize at kinaka-die-hard-an mong tao ay maaaring magka-knowledge failure sa isang iglap lang.


Kami, ibinoto namin si Marcos at Duterte. Pero hindi namin iba-bash si Robredo sa usapin ng mali niya sa flag ceremony. Dahil si Marcos at Duterte man kahit anong galing ay maaaring magka-knowledge failure sa isang iglap.

Even the cleverest, the most well-known and the elite sometimes do falter in knowledge and wisdom.


Justice Serafin Cuevas, one of the most brilliant lawyers, had a knowledge failure. During the distinguished impeachment trial of the former president Joseph Estrada, he, in discomfit, demanded the succour of his team of lawyers for a certain legal concept that he seemed to have forgotten or not knowledgeable of but, in fact, just a simple subject matter in the law.


This time, Leni Robredo, has a knowledge failure as her bashers think. For that, she is criticized as an “epal” (Filipino street jargon for a show boat). She’s also criticized as “palpak” (slapdash) since she was not supposed to be saluting during the flag ceremony as she did but, instead, should just have placed her hand on her left bosom. For such a mistake, her being a politician got bashed.


(In our view, her being a politician and the doubt on her poll winning should be assailed only on other grounds, not on the issue of her mistake of saluting. Because if the issue of her saluting is taken as the big deal issue, then this is a BIAS – the halo or horn effect bias.


Halo or horn effect happens when the overall view of an observant on a person, organization or thing influences his feelings on the specifics of that person, organization or thing.


Halo effect is when the positive sentiment of an observant on an area of a person or thing is made positive on even the questionable characteristic of that person or thing. If he that observes likes an aspect of that person or thing, he will have a positive predisposition towards that person or thing.


The opposite of halo effect is horn effect. If the observant dislikes an aspect of a person or thing, he will have a negative predisposition on an aspect of that person or thing.


Her bashers of course dislike Robredo as a politician. In such a case, whatever mistakes she commits are taken as an opportunity by her bashers. That’s a bias!


(All our definitions above are paraphrased from Wikipedia)


Look: Isn’t it true that whoever he is that you idolize or you are die-hard for may commit a knowledge failure in a split second?


We, for our part, voted for Marcos and Duterte. But we will not bash Robredo for her mistake during the flag ceremony. The reason is that Marcos and Duterte, however excellent they may be in our standard, may commit a knowledge failure in a split second.

Illogical are those who challenge Paulo Duterte or anyone to show tattoo on his body!

GMA about Sara

The image is captured for editorial purpose here

The accusation may or may not be true. But the “challenge” is not legally and philosophically sound

Detractors of Philippine presidential son, Paulo Duterte, have been blowing a serious accusation that he has a tattoo on his back. That tattoo, they claim, can be a proof that he is linked to an illegal drug trade and that it bears a code indicating that he receives drug money. They demand Duterte to show the tattoo in public but he refuses.

Why are the detractors philosophically and legally illogical as regards the challenge?

In philosophy (logic) and in Law, Paulo’s challengers violate the argumentation, logical and legal rule called Onus Probandi or Burden of Proof.

Who is the holder of the burden of proof?

Answer: According to Wikipedia, “when two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.” Status quo means existing state of affairs or present situation.

Sara, Paulo’s sister, is philosophically and legally right

“Sa akin, kung ako ‘yan, of course not. Hindi ko ipapakita because I have the right to privacy,” the daughter of President Rodrigo Duterte told reporters… (We are quoting news)

We translate: To me, in my case, of course not. I will not show it because I have the right to privacy.

“Unless there is a case about my tattoo, sinasabi ng judge ipakita mo ang tattoo mo, then that’s the time magpapakita ako ng tattoo,” added Sara, a lawyer… (We are quoting news)

We translate: Unless there is a case about my tattoo, the judge says show your tattoo, then that’s the time I will expose some tattoo.

Our firm opinion

What we point out as philosophically and legally not valid and unsound is the challenge, not the accusation. We are not sure whether the accusation can be found true or not. It’s not for the accused to testify against himself, but for the accuser to carry the proofing burden.

Let’s understand Fallacies

We will refer you or redirect you to these discussions when we have certain blogs treating on logic and the definitions herein will be made as bases for scrutiny. Hence, this blog portion is reserved for upcoming discussions with reference to this.


Take note first :


What is our intention in creating the Page entitled Say It Right Logically or the Category Stand Ground Whén You Are Right?

Via this website, our intention is to relate ourselves, the readers and the community to the important social issues that may significantly affect our social living by some measure. It is thus important to determine the reasonability of these issues by screening or checking them on the basis of their logical elements or premises.

These important social issues that we mean may be pronouncements of political leaders and known public figures or even views, outlooks and understandings of ordinary citizens that have tremendous impacts.

What is one of the best bases by which to check if certain statements are illogical or not?

Since we attempt to be logical – but may not be perfectly so — in the way we attack or treat these issues, we need to rest on valid and solid ground.  The best way to do is to check them against the rules in reasoning. And the next best way is to see if they run counter to or fall in the elements of logical concepts provided by reliable sources.  The reliable source of concepts that we choose is the Wikipedia.

Why do we need to base from independent reliable source of conceptual bases our attempt at checking if an issue is logical instead of just providing our own conceptual bases?


Because if we make our own conceptual bases, that will be self-serving. For example, we cannot declare that a certain statement of a public figure is illogical by saying that it runs counter to a certain definition if the definition is our own words. We cannot convince an audience if our references are our own definitions. Hence, we take to Wikipedia, quoting verbatim the logical concepts it provided in its site that we will in effect provide here as our conceptual bases in our discussions.  These conceptual bases are generally definitions and secondarily illustrations.

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or “wrong moves”[1] in the construction of an argument.[2][3] A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is. Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.[4]

We reiterate:


In case we have a particular blog on a special and relevant social issue where there is a need to check the logicality of that issue, we will quote herein the particular Wikipedia’s definition of a certain fallacy to check against it if something in the issue is violating logic and thus falls under such fallacy.


We will do so until such time that we are able to cover a number of fallacy definitions and applications.

Why are there arguments, disputes, misunderstandings, misinterpretations and misjudgments?


Solutions to: if not avoid or settle these, then defend yourself from these

Please pay attention to this personal experience to which, maybe, you can relate!



Back in college, I was the editor-in-chief of a university magazine. We placed on its cover a picture and a caption. Ironically, it shocked us why the same statement in the caption got us severely bashed and negatively criticized by some people yet at the same time earned us much appreciation from another people and group and even got us awarded! Whoa! A caption statement that was both condemned and praised! Shocking as it was but you can glean a reality here: people really fight in thoughts and in arguments. Now, who’s right? Who’s wrong? What’s wrong with some people’s argumentation? And how to detect the right from the wrong?



So what’s the relevance of a website?



It is for this concern that our website is born. But do take note: By our treatments in logic, we don’t present ourselves as the ones superior in it while the rest of you as deficient in it. In fact, we have gone through the same deficiency that triggered us to make up or redeem ourselves. This logical platform in our site is simply an attempt to generate collaboration, fellowship or relationship with the interested readers and learners aiming to cultivate, influence and nurture a logical community.



People don’t apply in the real world these that were taught in schools; studied these only to earn grades and comply with classroom requirements:



A teacher of mine in high school said during lecture that one needs to master figures of speech and try applying them as well as detecting them in the real world or in actual day to day interaction. She further said that it is in the use and misinterpretation of these that many people find themselves in conflict and controversy with each other in their civil life. Sadly, nowadays, it concerns me why many people do not seem to consider, apply and derive the relevance of these figures of speech in their daily interaction despite the fact that these were taught in schools. For such a reason, many people quarrel. In fact, I myself have encountered misjudgments several times because my bashers failed to detect figures of speech that I used. The irony is: I was bashed by some people for the very same expressions/statements which earned me awards and appreciations from other people or groups. Aside from Figures of Speech, there are few other factors to reckon. I discuss them in subtopics. Please just read on.



Our discussions will be effective if we get examples from issues that are popular especially if these are of well-known figures



Before I go on, let me clarify why my favorite to quote are those of President Rodrigo Duterte. It’s NOT BECAUSE I IDOLIZE HIM. It just happens that he is especially in the habit of using figures of speech. Figures of Speech are literary devices whose meaning and interpretation need logical analysis in order to comprehend. I just take SOME, take note, SOME, ONLY SOME of his statements. For the reason that he is popular, I take his issues for my discussion so that my article would be catchy or engaging. As a writer, I use this technique: Writers usually ride on the popularity of the relevance of a social issue or of an important social figure so that their blogs would be engaging or interesting.



Main discussion



Below are five factors why conflicts and misunderstanding arise. Please take note that our deficiency in these factors is the typical reason why in some cases we become a disaster to our neighbor, partner, colleague, group, family, or community. On the contrary, excellence in these factors can make us a godsend to anybody else:


  1. Figures of Speech (Not appreciating their relevance)
  2. Definition of Terms (Disregarding it)
  3. Application or Applicability of an Idea (Not considering the question about it)
  4. Slanting (Mistaking it)
  5. Context (Not determining it)
  6. Fallacies (Not Knowing them)
  7. Logic (Not applying or misapplying it)




Figures of Speech



The picture is a cover design of a college paper of a university several years ago. A basher of the editor-in-chief assailed the latter because the caption of the picture goes, thus, “Paglaki ko ‘tay, magiging sabungero din ako, gaya mo. Kasi aydol kita e. Itong tirador sa leeg ko, oke lang ‘to. Paglaki ko, magiging titrador din ako. Kasi aydol kita. Ang galing natin ‘tay ano?” (When I grow up, Dad, I will be a cockfight goer, just like you. Because you’re my idol. This slingshot on my neck, it will be just fine. When I grow up, I’ll be a hitman like you. Coz you’re my idol. We’re superb, Dad, aren’t we?)


The basher outburst, “Why such a sinister child for the cover page? Why such a cover page that is psychologically menacing for the readers? It is not a good influence. Why not a child with a book and a pen depicting a scene of one being studious?




Who is wrong?


It is not the editor who is wrong with the way he renders his caption for the picture. It is the basher who is wrong with his misunderstood grasping of the editor’s style of the rendition of the caption.


The basher seemed to have forgotten college lesson about Figure of Speech


Does the basher not get the point? Yes. The basher loses sight that the editor uses Irony, one of the FIGURES OF SPEECH in English along with Simile, Metaphor, Personification, Hyperbole, etc. Irony means the opposite of what is intended by the conveyor, user, writer, or speaker. Irony is one of the best forms of satire the purpose of the user of which is to catch attention, to correct one’s thinking, and to prod one’s thought purposely to make effective conveyance of the user’s view.


What is a Figure of Speech?


It is an unusual, essentially metaphorical mode of expression, used for effect in speech and writing and to clarify or deepen meaning by suggesting similitudes which provoke thought. (The New Lexicon, Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language)


What is the editor’s style?


So, obviously, the editor simply wanted to catch the attention of his readers and to prod the guilt of those who will be hit by the meaning of the caption in an effective manner of conveying his thought, being the opposite of his intention, thus, Irony. It was rendered in a satirical form. He used satire in the form of Irony. He is just prodding the conscience of any parent or would-be parent who would get the chance of reading the caption for the picture. So that, by Irony, he could convey the meaning that that is what is going to any child if they as parents will set up wrong patterns to emulate.


So, the editor’s style is a common writers’ style


The editor’s style is simply Irony. It is an effective satirical style of writing. It’s just Figure of Speech!


Please click on this related blog:

This image blog is an Allegory. — a story in which the characters and events are symbols that stand for ideas about human life or for a political or historical situation (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Allegory is one of the more than one-hundred types of Figures of Speech. To reiterate, a Figure of Speech is an unusual, usually metaphorical mode of expression, used for effect in speech and writing and to clarify or deepen meaning by suggesting similitudes which provoke thought. (The New Lexicon Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language)


Definition of Terms

Issue that we will take as example for our discussion


I would like to take as example here the August 2018 news about Karen Davila where she questioned why the Supreme Court penalized Carlos Celdran when, according to her, no less than President Rodrigo Duterte has cursed the church (Catholic).


Background of the issues


Activist Celdran was charged and then found guilty for the crime Offending Religious Feelings because he disrupted the religious activity inside the church when he entered and shouted “Damaso”. Duterte, on the other hand, severely criticizes the church in his public speeches.


Now, how should we determine and interpret acts?


After defining a term, you need to outline the elements. For example, in the crime of Offending Religious Feelings, the definition is


acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful that are done in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony


Then the elements should be outlined this way:


The acts of the accused must be —


One) Notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithfuls; and

Two) Performed in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of a religious ceremony


Hence, between Duterte’s act and Celdran’s act, you can now determine which one falls under the offending religious feelings. It is Celdran’s, not Duterte’s. Duterte’s acts are made in public speeches and thus fall under the right of freedom of expression.


In the same discussion above, you can now assert that the elements of the acts of Duterte are not applicable to the definition of Offending Religious Feelings. Or, the other way around, the definition of Offending Religious Feelings is not applicable to the elements of the acts of Duterte.


Other related blogs:

Application or Applicability of an Idea

In the same discussion above, you can now assert that the elements of the acts of Duterte are not applicable to the definition of Offending Religious Feelings. Or, the other way around, the definition of Offending Religious Feelings is not applicable to the elements of the acts of Duterte.


What’s the problem with interpretation?


Sometimes, a communicator may have DIFFERENT INTENTIONS in his expressions/statements that are not bad at all, but you, because of your bias, maybe because you were enemies by other issue before that is different from the present issue, or maybe because he is not your choice in politics/elections, have a FORCED MEANING by your own about his expressions/statements. The problem that will come into play now is the SLANTING.


Slanting — the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas), words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator.


Newman P. Birk & Genevieve B. Birk, Understanding and Using English (New York,

1958), p. 51.


For our example, we will take up this related blog:



Sabi ng Commission on Human Rights, hayan umamin si Duterte

(Filipino translation of our blog)

Sabi niya kasi, ‘hindi ako nagnakaw, ang kasalanan ko lang ay yung extra-judicial killing’.


Huwag muna nating pag-usapan kung totoo ang extrajudicial killing at kung sino ang die-hard Dutertian. Nagkataon lang na sikat si Duterte. Sinasamantala nating may matutunan sa mga isyu niya.Tanga daw siya dahil sabi niya, di siya nagnakaw, ang kasalanan niya lang ay iyong extrajudicial killing. Kaya sabi ng nagkaso sa kaniya, hayan umamin siya. Ganito po: Noong ako’y bata pa, nagreklamo ako sa ate ko dahil pinagalitan ako na hindi raw ako naghugas ng mga plato at nagwalis. Sagot ko, “GRABE NAMAN, ANG KASALANAN KO LANG AY DI AKO NAGPAKAIN NG ALAGANG BIIK.“ Di nangahulugan na umamin ako. Ang point ko ay iyon lang di pagpakain ng biik na ikinagalit ng nanay ang problema, reklamo o isyung kinakaharap ko sa pamilya namin na siyang gusto kong harapin , pag-usapan at patunayang hindi ako sangkot. Nainis ako’t may idinagdag pa si Ate.


Sa Argumentation & Debate, may tinatawag na Qualifying the Point of Reference. May pananalita o terms kasi na iba ang sentido (sense) ng pagkakagamit ng communicator sa sense ng pagkaintindi ng listener. I-qualify means uriin at tiyakin kung ano (in what sense) ang pakahulugang nais palabasin ng communicator. Sabi kasi ng authors na sina Newman P. Birk & Genevieve B. Birk, ang pananalita ay may “slanting” — the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas), words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator. Kung magtatatalak ka sa isyung ang sangkot na pananalita o terms ay iba sa sense o intention ng communicator, malalabag mo ang logic at ang kasalanan mo ay FALLACY OF SELF-SERVING MEANING. Inilagay mo sa bibig ng ibang tao ang sarili mong pagkaunawa’t salita. Kasi dati ka nang may bias na gusto mo siyang idiin. Ang punto ni Duterte ay iyon lang ang kasalanan na pinupukol sa kaniya thru the legal process. Bueno, kung later ay umamin nga talaga siya, then, iaatras namin itong blog/comment ko and we will stand corrected here sa pagdepensa namin sa kaniya. Pero in the meantime, alam na ninyo kung estupido nga talaga si Duterte.



The Commission on Human Rights asserted that there he goes, Duterte made an admission!

(English translation of our blog)

The CHR’s reaction followed after Duterte said, “I did not steal, my only sin is the extra-judicial killing.” (In this article, we would like to appeal that let’s not talk about whether or not extra-judicial killing is true and who are the die-hard Dutertians. It’s just so incidental that Duterte is famous. So, we take this opportunity to learn from his issues. Lately, he is thought to be stupid because he purportedly admitted that although he did not steal yet he admits that his only sin is the extrajudicial killing. Now, did he really own up to the EJK?


Here, consider this reasoning: When I was a child I complained to my eldest sister for berating me that I did not wash the dishes and did not sweep the yard. I retorted: “How gross of you, sister! My only sin is that I did not feed the pigs. Now it did not mean that I owned up to the fault of not having fed the pigs. My point is that the non-feeding of the pigs for which our mother got mad at me is the only problem, complaint, protest or issue that I was facing with the family that I really wanted to face, talk about and prove that I was not involved. I got irritated that my sister added some more issues.


In Argumentation and Debate, there is that so-called Qualifying the Point of Reference. Be noted that there are statements, words or terms whose sense of usage by the communicator is different from the sense of comprehension of the listener. To qualify means to determine the sense of meaning that the communicator would like to impart or convey. That is because according to authors Newman P. Birk and Genevieve B. Birk, a statement, speech or expression has a slanting – the process of selecting knowledge (facts and ideas) words, and emphasis to achieve the intention of the communicator. Now if you rant on the issue involving a speech or statement different from the sense or intention in meaning of the communicator, you will violate logic and your fault in the process is the fallacy of self-serving meaning. You, in the process, is putting in the mouth of another people your own words and understanding. That is because you have, in the first place, your own bias by which you would want the other fellow to be nailed. Duterte’s point is that THAT (EJK) IS THE ONLY SIN BING HURLED AGAIST HIM THRU THE LEGAL PROCESS. That’s the logical point!


Note: Well, if later from today, he will finally admit or own up to the sin or crime of EJK, then we will withdraw this blog/comment and will stand corrected in our defense of his statement. But in the meantime, the question is, is Duterte really stupid for admitting guilt? Using logic, you now know the answer!


Please learn about understanding Context via the blogs outlined below.

(Context is the conditions or circumstances which affect something, The New Lexicon, Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language)



Not all possessions of prohibited drug are bad


Here comes an actual case where a student was caught possessing a prohibited drug. The teacher confiscated the drug. But she turned out later to be accused of possession of prohibited drugs. The accuser is illogical. She failed to consider the circumstances affecting the actual objective why the teacher possessed the drug. She possessed the drug for the purpose of confiscating, not for purposes of illegal possession.


Let’s go back to the sample discussed in Slanting about Duterte


In this case, Duterte is not in the state of defining or describing the real essence of God generically. Rather, he is in the state of rebuking those who use God wrongly and whose acts are equivalent to making any god that they believe as stupid; that is pertaining to the wrong or false god.


For our example, see these related blogs:


Fallacies are false notion, false reasoning or unsound reasoning but looking truthful because they are appealing and suit the biases of both the speaker and the listener.


What’s logic for?


Logic is not for professionals only. It is for everybody. This is what we need to apply in our everyday interaction.


For our example, we will take up this related blog:

In this blog, we will take up Duterte again. As we said, we do not idolize him. It’s just that we deem it best to take up some of the relevant social issues about him for purposes of writing blogs that are catchy, interesting or engaging.




Duterte said this controversial “stupid god” statement


Filipino translation of our blog: When Duterte asserted “stupid God”, he was not blaspheming and insulting God and the entire Christendom (Christianity). Ang tinutukoy niyang estupidong Diyos ay ang maling Diyos na itinurong mali ayon sa kaniyang pagkaunawa. Gayundin, nang sabihin ni Duterte na ang kasalanan ay hindi namamana, tumpak siya ayon sa kanjyang pagkaunawa. Dapat marunong tayo sa definition of terms. I-define mo muna ang kasalanan. Well, the scriptures define sin as the transgression of the law of God (1 John 3:4). Wala pang nata-transgress o nalalabag ang sanggol sapagkat wala pa itong discernment (pagkaunawa) at liability sa mali o tama. Therefore, there is no such thing as kasalanang namamana, ayon sa lohikal na pagtasa ni Duterte.


English translation of our blog: When Duterte asserted “stupid God”, he was not insulting God and the Christendom. The stupid God he was alluding is the WRONG GOD that was wrongly taught to him (according to his comprehension). Also, when Duterte said that the sin cannot be inherited, he was correct according to his comprehension. You have to define sin first. Well, the Scriptures define sin as the transgression of the laws of God (1 John 3:4). The infant makes no transgression yet because it still has no discernment of and liability to what is right or wrong. Therefore, for Duterte, there is no such thing as inherited sin based on his logical treatment o the matter.


Note: This blog and this site does not and will not criticize a particular religion. The blog is incidentally treated here to give a chance to a political figure to have his logical view get a consideration. This blogger believes that the political figure in question has no intention to commit a blasphemy on the deity.


Why is the Anti-palo or positive and non-violent discipline of children bill illogical?


This news is quoted from


DUTERTE VETOES ‘ANTI-PALO’ BILL ON CHILDREN. President Rodrigo Duterte has vetoed a bill that would have prohibited parents from resorting to corporal punishment to discipline their children. The president vetoed the measure last February 23, documents released by Malacañang Thursday showed. The measure sought to promote “positive and non-violent discipline” and to protect children from physical, humiliating or degrading acts as a form of punishment.



The proponents of the bill are against corporal punishment


In layman’s term corporal punishment is “spanking” or “palo” in Filipino.


On the contrary, the Bible tolerates spanking of children


The following biblical verses are taken from the King James Version (KJV) as we quoted from 

bullet “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes (diligently).”


bullet Prov 19:18: “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.”

bullet Prov 22:15: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.”

bullet Prov 23:13: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.”

bullet Prov 23:14: “Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell (Shoel).”

bullet Prov 29:15: “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.”
 Our explanation in logic
  1. The nature of the principles on child discipline is basically moral and religious. Since it is moral and religious, naturally we have the corresponding moral and religious law from which we base our principles. And since we are Catholics or Christians, it is the Bible that is our moral/religious law.
  2. Every civilized society has its basis from which to measure up its norms and standards―the laws. They are the human positive law (enacted by the lawmakers) and the divine law (moral and religious) which in our case is the Bible.
  3. The dominant law that we should take in order to base the reasonability of the Anti-palo Bill is the Bible because the nature of the issue is moral and religious.
  4. The proponents of the Anti-palo Bill are Catholics/Christians (unless not) who are governed by bible-based Christian tenets and doctrines.
  5. Being governed by such, they are duty-bound to conform.
  6. If they will pursue their bill, they need to resign as Catholics or Christians because it is illogical for one to pursue a principle that is against the Christian tenets and doctrines and yet he or she, being a member of Catholic/Christian organization, is under these tenets and doctrines.
  7. But granting that they are already resigned as Catholics/Christians, or if they are already non-Catholics/Christians, still they cannot pursue their bill because the populace that are supposed to be covered by their proposed law or bill are largely Christians or Catholics who are under the bible-based tenets and doctrines and are thus duty-bound to conform to such.
  8. Now if the proponents are extremely persistent on pursuing the bill, then they need to change first the belief of the populace from being of bible-based Christian principles. It will be a mountainous task for the proponents. Can they do it at present?
  9. The non-Catholics/Christians are not vocally in favor of them.
  10. They are against the moral and religious principles of the Catholic/Christian organization of which they are members. They are illogical!