The Trillanes Caper

[This came from a reader. Slightly edited]

There was really a planned mammoth rebellion scheduled for Nov. 30, 2007, to culminate in the toppling of GMA and take over of the government. It was supposed to comprise of ERAP minions, Bayan etc., Trillanes and other opposition groups. The inevitable church personalities were to put the church’s stamp on the attempted coup — Bishops Labayen and Antonio Tobias and running priest Robert Reyes. But then Trillanes with his messianic complex and believe sa sarili ego, feeling that on Nov. 30 he would be only one of those in the coup d'etat, decided to preempt his cohorts and staged that walk out [para sya lang ang hero] on Thursday. That's why nag iisa lang sya. The Philippine National Police was prepared for the Nov. 30 mass rally but was caught flatfooted by Trillanes' walkathon to Manila Peninsula. But ABS-CBN was tipped off, which explains the presence of Ces Drilon at the Regional Trial Court and Pinky Webb at the hotel.

Trillanes assumed that there would be negotiations again while he was holed out there but GMA gave orders to DILG Puno to finish this standoff. Thus the tear gas and the tank that rammed the door of Manila Pen [for impact].

Trillanes surrendered to tear gas!

Mini-Revolt

Thursday, Nov. 29, 2007

As this is being written, Gen. Lim and Sen. Trillanes, walked out of the Makati trial court with their armed military escorts to Manila Peninsula Hotel in Makati. Gen. Lim and Sen. Trillanes are under trial for rebellion.

Gen. Lim read a prepared statement calling for the overthrow of the duly constituted government under President Gloria M. Arroyo while ex-Vice President T. Guingona listened intently. Two Catholic bishops are reportedly on their way to lend support to the malcontents.

This “stunt” is insulting to the taxpaying public who pays their salaries. We have had enough of people like them trying to put our country in chaos and who think they know all the answers. We are for a healthy opposition but this is ridiculous.

Indecent Haste

“HLURB takes over BF homeowners’ group… based on the complaint of a former president who alleged that “there were missing funds and equipment and other anomalies during the current term of the current United BF Homeowners’ Association President Celso Reyes.” [PhilStar, Sunday, Nov. 4, 2007].

You have just read a big problem with media. What was reported, whether right or wrong, could not be taken back.

The media can inform or entertain but they can also shape your opinions. And they can be used by powerful people to seduce, persuade and often lie to you. That’s dishonest, to paraphrase a respected journalist.

Journalism is a business, and the business of business is to make money and those who can best do that are the charlatans and opportunists. Come across or nothing gets printed or broadcasted, that’s “envelopemental” journalism.

Let’s get the story straight.

The sanction against the board of directors and the forcible takeover of the United BF Homeowners’ Association clubhouse was effected by a sheriff, several Parañaque policemen, about 50 civilian security units from the office of the Mayor, and a bunch of Barangay tanods. The word “overkill” is not even appropriate for this outrageous incident.

It is unusual to observe law enforcers in record numbers; hindi na kailangan sunduin pa [no need to pick them up] by homeowners calling for assistance. Law enforcers are blind to frequent broad daylight robbery-holdups and break-ins in the commercial areas and residential enclaves.

Homeowners are learning to leave at home their wallets, credit cards, expensive jewelries and cell phones when dining out or going to hair salons, a risky proposition at this time. This deplorable situation is the consequence of the mayor’s action of opening the main gates of the subdivision to the general public and prohibiting the posting of security guards at the main gates. It is ironic that his own brother and sister-in-law were victims of motorcycle-riding criminals in broad daylight robbery-holdup while having lunch in a restaurant.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that the HLURB directive appointing a management committee over a duly elected board of directors was flawed. The disqualification of the complainant during the recent election precipitated the filing of the suit. The case against the Election Committee was an election controversy, pure and simple. How can the HLURB Arbiter issue any directive, let alone bind the Association and its Board of Directors, who are not even impleaded parties to the case?

The sheriff effected the takeover of the clubhouse without a writ of execution and the HLURB Arbiter practically re-wrote the rule in ordering his decision executory despite the perfection of an appeal. Section 4 Rule XVI of the HLURB Rules provide that the “filing of an appeal in accordance with these rules shall have the effect of automatically staying the execution of any decision or order of the Arbiter or Executive Committee, unless otherwise provided in these rules.”

Such indecent haste and “garapalan” [bare-faced] violation of the rule of law merits congressional investigation.

Like the soldiers in the Ninoy Aquino slay case who were criminally convicted, the classic defense of these modern Pontius Pilates is that they were “just following orders.” When will our law enforcers learn that following unjust or unlawful order is not a defense for a criminal act or an excuse for wrong doing?

A Sad Commentary On American Justice

The U.S. Supreme Court slammed the door on Filipino-Americans born in the Philippines. By its denial to review the appellate court’s decision, the Court closed the window of opportunity to address a wider issue of national importance which cuts to the very core of America, its loyalties and the allegiance of its citizens.

The case arose when the [former] Immigration and Naturalization Service [“INS”] decided after 2 years that they committed an “error” in issuing the certificate, and after protracted proceedings, cancelled James’s [not his real name] certificate of citizenship. After exhausting administrative remedies, James brought an action for declaratory judgment and the district court declared him a U.S. citizen.

James, a “natural” son [his parents married in 1958] of a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. national mother, was born in the Philippines in 1931 during the territorial period [1898-1946]. After his father died in 1966, James sought to establish claim to U.S. citizenship, being frustrated by the interpretation given by the Department of State. He finally prevailed and was issued a certificate of citizenship in 1992 and thereafter his U.S. citizenship passport. His wife was admitted as a lawful permanent resident and resides with him, as well as his youngest children who immigrated as minors.

On appeal, the appellate court ruled that “residence in the Philippines during the territorial period does not qualify as residence ‘in the United States’ and ‘the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States’ under Revised Statutes §1993,” effectively reversing the decision of the district court.

Revised Statutes §1993, originally enacted in 1855 when the U.S. was not yet a colonial power provides that “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States, but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

Under strict interpretation of the statute, children of U.S. citizens born in the Philippines during the territorial period were not born outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore, the statute does not apply. Yet they were not born “in the United States” under Article XIV, and could not gain citizenship in that manner. In other words, the absurd situation arises that these children, disenfranchised of their citizenship, could be considered to have fallen through a “statutory crack,” an aberration in law.

While children falling in the “statutory crack” may have been disqualified under the literal reading of the statute, the agency [INS] did not engage in the literal practice of disqualification for many years. Instead, U.S. agencies applied or interpreted or “constructed” Revised Statutes §1993 provisions to include those children as citizens. Likewise, residence in the outlying possessions was deemed sufficient to transmit citizenship to a child. James’s father, born and lived all his life in the Philippines, derived his U.S. citizenship at birth from his father [James’s grandfather] despite not being born outside the “jurisdiction” of the United States. R.W. Flournoy, Assistant to the Legal Adviser, Department of State, at the hearings before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee of the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 76^th Congress, H1073-6, Nationality Act of 1940, testified:

“We have been holding in the State Department for years that, notwithstanding the peculiar language of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, which relates to a child born outside the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, we have been holding that that is applicable to a child born in one of the outlying possessions; otherwise those children would be aliens.” [Revise And Codify Nationality Laws, pp. 55-56].

James’s entire life has been literally turned upside down by this event – cancellation or revocation of citizenship – when in truth and in fact the sole basis of the upheaval is a purported “error” that INS freely admitted in the application or “construction” of Revised Statutes §1993 which, if taken strictly, does not even apply to him. The liberties taken by INS in reading into the Statute a “construction” which excludes James from his citizenship is not only inequitable and unfair under the circumstances, but is at cross purposes with the substance and intent of the law itself. James in truth has no chance under the Statute, not because he is disqualified by it, but because it does not apply to him. What the INS asked the court to uphold is the application, interpretation or “construction” the INS itself gives to the Statute, which unfairly disqualifies James.

The Department of State since 1912 has held that Revised Statutes §1993 apply as of the date of birth, to child born out of wedlock in the outlying possessions of the United States, provided paternity is established. The Attorney General sustained the “construction” in an opinion of April 7, 1920. [32 Op. Atty. Gen. 162]. Ironically, the same Attorney General now holds that residence in the Philippines during the territorial period does not satisfy the residence of the Statute. Since the appellate court has sustained a new statutory “construction”, will the Attorney General cancel the certificate of citizenship “illegally” issued to illegitimate children born in the Philippines since 1912?

Within In re Mendiola [647 F. Supp. 839 (S.D.N.Y 1986)], the originator of the chain of citizenship was a U.S. born great grandfather. All subsequent generations lived only in the Philippines, and all were granted certificates of citizenship. Will the Attorney General now apply the court-sanctioned “construction” and cancel certificates issued to the generations of Meniola’s?

Acquisition of birthright citizenship is retroactive to birth – the citizen is considered to have acquired citizenship at birth and to have always maintained that status, even if that status is not confirmed until adulthood. While there are conditions precedent, for some categories, conditions subsequent or concurrent such as the modern retention requirements, once granted, there is no second class citizenship status recognized either under the constitution or in the statute.

Here, James was determined by the INS to be a citizen of the United States at the time of his birth. He was administered and voluntarily took an oath of allegiance to the United States at the time of that determination, effectively renouncing his Philippines citizenship. He applied for and obtained a U.S. passport. Upon his last entry to the U.S., he was admitted as a U.S. citizen. The Court’s decision has rendered him stateless, a cruel and unusual punishment, unable to obtain passport to travel and has been deprived peace of mind from fears of deportation and separation from loved ones.

Current statute provides for the cancellation of a certificate of citizenship for those who “illegally” acquired citizenship at birth, but clearly states that cancellation of the certificate des not affect the underlying citizenship status of the person in whose name it was issued. There is absolutely no process for the removal of the citizenship, the nullification of the oath taken, or a return to former status, since from birth the status of the individual was that of the citizen.

The absence of a de-citizenship process and the express inclusion of the provision that cancellation of the certificates does not alter the underlying status is powerful evidence that James’s case should have been accorded the absolute scrutiny by the Supreme Court. Congress has had ample opportunity to correct this situation if it deemed it to be a defect. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1966 was a comprehensive overhaul of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but did not include a provision to correct this alleged “defect.” James contends that this is because it is no defect in law, but rather a clear message that birthright citizenship, once granted, is not to be taken away.

It is clear that the court-sanctioned “construction” of Revised Statutes §1993 is flawed. Yet, the Supreme Court has declined to exercise its power of judicial review and takes issue with the narrow and myopic reading the appellate court gave to Revised Statutes §1993 in its adoption of the position of the Attorney General. As a result, the agency can now rightly lay claim to the enviable power to wield the unrestrained sword of bias and prejudice – today to interpret in favor, tomorrow, to interpret against. The many-horned hydra of arbitrariness, capriciousness and unbridled discretion shall rear its ugly head.

Water Blues

Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) provides water from the Umiray, Angat and Ipo river basins to Metro Manila’s private concessionaires Manila Water Co. Inc. and Maynilad Water Services Inc. for distribution. However, these water sources can barely meet current demand, let alone connect additional customers.

The proposed P47.93-billion Laiban Dam project is intended to supply 1,900 million liters a day (MLD), or 22 cubic meters a second, of water and address an existing gap of 1,122 MLD in the Metro Manila water supply.

The dam will be built at the Kaliwa River in Tanay, in Rizal province, in the central and southwestern parts of the Sierra Madre mountain range. It is to be an alternative to the Angat and the Ipo dams, and is expected to operate in 2016.

Enough water by 2016? Don’t get your hopes up.

Current census projection shows there will be 88.7 million Filipinos by year’s end. That number can double in less than 20 years. We’re back to square one by 2016.

Presently, there is water rationing in Parañaque. When Maynilad says that they are ready to supply water to 10,000 households in BF Homes, this means further rationing. Equal sufferance?

The developer allowed the village’s Maynilad connection to be cut off by refusing to pay its bills amounting to P5 million and also by refusing to allow the homeowners direct connection to Maynilad which would have been a cheaper option for homeowners instead of buying water in bulk and reselling it to the homeowners at a profit.

The wells in the subdivision have dried up when the United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc. (UBFHAI) filed a case asking, among others, the Housing & Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) to order the developer to provide 24-hour water supply to homeowners. Jurisdictional resolution took all of nine (9) years from the time the case was filed on July 5, 1995.

On September 27, 2005, the HLURB ordered “respondents BF Homes, Inc. and Philippine Waterworks Construction Corporation (PWCC) to provide a 24-hour water supply to the entire subdivision failing which to turn over the operation of the water system in the subdivision to the United BF Homeowners’ Associations, Inc.”

Unfortunately, the developer has taken steps to appeal that decision. With or without the foregoing decision, the provisions of Presidential Decree 1345 can be properly applied, the Association wrote the MWSS last February 28, 2006. The decree provides:

“MWSS, shall upon petition of the Homeowners Association … take over the operation and maintenance of centralized water systems of residential subdivisions within its territorial jurisdiction …” and “shall thereafter cause the system to operate at the desired level … The cost to render the system operable shall be chargeable to the subdivision owner/developer provided that the provision of adequate water supply has been specified or implied in the contract of sale or other forms used in offering the housing units within the project for sale. Otherwise, the cost to make the system operational shall be chargeable to the homeowners of the subdivision.”

By choice, Maynilad prefers to supply to PWCC instead of direct connection to homeowners so that it can charge the higher commercial rate instead of the cheaper residential rate and avoid system maintenance services. On the other hand, PWCC profits by reselling the water above its acquisition costs and operating expenses without the expense of drilling more water wells.

Obviously, the direct connection option by the enclaves suggested by Maynilad and city hall officials will not prosper at all. Why the empowered MWSS does not “take over the operation and maintenance” of BF Homes water system under the circumstances is anybody’s guess.

In the last election, subdivisions homeowners, comprising the majority of electorate in Parañaque, had the opportunity to elect a non-politician candidate who promised to provide water within his term of office if elected. He was willing to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak, by posting a P50 million performance bond once elected. If we are in this mess, it’s because the majority elected those who, like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of the responsibility of providing basic necessities of their constituents.

When will water become available to BF homeowners on “equal sufferance” basis is best summed up by Maynilad’s demand to BF Homes water administrator: Pay up.

BF Homes Holdup, Break-in

About two weeks ago, there was another daylight holdup in BF Homes. Carlo Reyes, a hair saloon beside Union Bank, near Bacolod Chicken House (where the brother’s mayor was earlier held up) along President’s Avenue, BF Homes, was held up by 2 men on a motor cycle. They stuffed in a sack the hand bags and goodies of the ladies and took off in one motor cycle. How about that!

The present dispensation has destroyed the residential character of our neighborhood, forcibly opened our gates to horrendous outsider traffic and exposed residents to criminal elements, and illegally constructed government facilities using government funds on a private property (Aguirre Park), including a covered tennis court.

The commercialization of the subdivision, we are told, is progress, and instead of tossing the blame to the local government for the destruction of the residential character of the subdivision, residents should be grateful.

And why not, considering that even within BF Homes, residents cannot seem to put their acts together on the subject of keeping the subdivision safe for their families whose welfare has been shoved aside by a persistent minority.

Let me put it this way: When a storm is coming, you close all your windows. After the storm and you see the mess, you don’t ask why. You ask who opened windows.

The following is a slightly edited email, with a request for dissemination to residents and visitors of BF Homes Subdivision in Parañaque:

At around 9pm last night, we (well, our car) were the victims of “glass breakers”.

We were parked along the main street of BF Homes (President’s Avenue) -- a parking lot in front of a closed luxury car shop right beside the entrance to Tahanan Village. A lamp post illuminated the area and it was only a few steps to the guard house. And at 9pm, it was still a very busy street. So without giving it another thought, we locked the car and crossed the street to where we were having dinner.

We came back an hour later to find our left rear window open—at least, that’s what I thought. At closer inspection we found that the window had actually been smashed. And they did a pretty good job of it—the whole glass lay inside the car unbroken, with only shattered bits around it. Maybe that’s why they didn’t trip the alarm. They knew what they were doing, as we were later told by the police that it wasn’t the first time this happened in the area.

Anyway, we realized that a bag in the back seat caught their attention. It wasn’t a flashy one, and we thought our car was darkly tinted enough to hide what was inside. Apparently we were wrong. The bag contained some cash, credit cards, atm cards, a phone, and house keys. So we immediately got on the phone to have the cards and phone line cut, and all that. We put a makeshift window made of dark plastic so that we could at least drive home without inhaling the polluted air of South Super Highway.

And we thanked God that it was just a bag that was stolen, not our entire car...that it was just a window that was smashed, and not us. We’ve all heard these stories before and have been warned, especially about leaving your laptops in cars, or when going to particularly dangerous areas. But when it happens to you, inside a busy, well-lit area inside a private subdivision, with only a simple bag as the trigger, you can’t help but think, what’s the world coming to? Hay.”

Bottom line—please, please be extra careful, guys. No matter where you go, or what you have, these people will always find a way to get what they want (or need—I keep telling myself that I hope whoever did it was really in dire need na lang). Otherwise, sana kainin sila ng mga malalaking pulang langgam. Don’t give them the opportunity.

Priestly Vestments

The Archdiocese of Manila reminded the faithful that there is a proper dress code for attending Mass. Wearing the proper attire when attending Mass, said the archdiocese’s Ministry of Liturgical Affairs, is an important part of showing respect to the sanctity of the house of God.

Well and good. However, if there is a dress code for the faithful for attending Mass, there are also priestly vestments for celebrating Mass.

Priests in our parish do not follow the General Instructions of the Roman Missal (“GIRM”) with regards to the proper vestment that all the priests should wear at Mass. Most of the time, the priest celebrant wears an oversized stole over what appears to be a plain white “chasu-alb.” The chasuble is supposed to be a robe of color suitable to the liturgy of the day and worn on top of the alb and stole. It’s usually green (for ordinary times), although it could be white, violet, red, rose or black depending on the occasion. What does the 1975 edition of the GIRM say?

“The vestment common to ministers of every rank is the alb, tied at the waist with a cincture, unless it is made to fit without a cincture. An amice should be put on first if the alb does not completely cover the street clothing. A surplice may not be substituted for the alb when the chasuble or dalmatic is to be worn or when a stole is used instead of the chasuble or dalmatic.” [GIRM 298]

The priest who is celebrating Mass normally is to wear an alb and a chasuble:

“Unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other rites immediately connected with Mass.” [GIRM 299]

The Ceremonial of Bishops [CB] also describes the priest’s vestment in this way:

“Unless otherwise indicated, the chasuble, worn over the alb and stole, is the vestment proper to the priest celebrant at Mass and other rites immediately connected with Mass. [CB 66]

Wearing the alb and stole only when celebrating Mass has been permitted in limited circumstances (such as during concelebrations when there is a limited number of chasubles available), and when celebrated outside a church or oratory. It is clear from the above that the minimum vestments for celebrating Mass are the “chasuble, worn over the alb and stole.” These vestments are obligatory vestments envisaged in Canon 929, which states:

“In celebrating and administering the Eucharist, priests ad deacons are to wear the liturgical vestments prescribed by the rubrics.”

As already noted above, the rubrics are found in GIRM nos. 298-300, and in CB no. 66. As pointed out above, the exception to these requirements for Eucharistic celebrations are limited to concelebrations and celebrations outside a church. Nowhere does it allow the principal celebrant in any Mass held inside a church building to vest only with an oversized stole over a “chasu-alb.” What happened to the alb, the symbol of purity? Without it, the priest’s street clothes and bare arms can clearly be seen. Isn’t the alb worn precisely for the purpose of hiding the priest’s ordinary wear? How can the laity be expected to dress appropriately for Mass when the ordained minister himself is dressed inappropriately? I have also seen instances of priests wearing an alb but with a plain white or cream-colored “chasu-alb” over it, and an oversized stole over the “chasu-alb.” Both practices are not in accord with the established norms.

This casual mentality towards vesting diminishes the solemnity of the Mass. If people can afford to expend time to dress correctly to attend formal affairs hosted by mere mortals, surely, our Lord deserves no less.

Robbers struck in BF Homes Parañaque

Three armed men robbed the elder brother of Parañaque Mayor Florencio Bernabe at a restaurant in Parañaque City Wednesday afternoon.

Senior Superintendent Ronald Estilles said Dr. Renato “Boy” Bernabe and his wife Baby were among those who fell prey to the group of robbers who struck at the Bacolod Chicken House at President’s Avenue in Barangay BF Homes Parañaque.

Police said the robbers who were armed with handguns barged at the restaurant at around 1 p.m. and immediately announced the holdup.

Two of the suspects immediately went to the table occupied by the Bernabe family and divested them of their jewelry and cellular phones.

The suspects also took the valuables from about a dozen customers who were dining at the time. Taking advantage of the fact that there was no security guard posted at the restaurant, the heist took only about a few minutes to complete.

The suspects escaped without taking anything from the cash register of the restaurant, police said.

Surprisingly, members of the Parañaque police headquarters arrived at the crime scene ahead of the police personnel from a nearby police community precinct beside the Barangay BF Homes which is just a stone’s throw away from the restaurant.

Estilles said his men is now conducting follow up operation for the immediate capture of the suspects, who reportedly belongs to the FX Robbery Gang who are responsible for the series of robberies on public utility vehicles.

Police said they are now hunting down one of the alleged leaders of the gang identified as Bobby Baliber, whose picture, along with his other cohorts, are now posted in various business establishments BF Homes.

Baliber, a resident of Purok 5, Sampaloc, Site 2, Barangay BF Homes, had been arrested in November 26, 2006, along with two other accused Joel Lazarito and Cris Dadibas, on charges of robbery.

The subdivision residents had resented the move of Mayor Bernabe who ordered the force-opening of the gates of the BF Homes to public traffic, which has reportedly sparked a rash of crimes in the village, including pick-pockets, snatchers, car theft, and cellular phone robbers.

[Daily Tribune by Ben Gines, Jr.]

Face The Issue

1. Allegation: Romeo G. Roxas of Green Circle Properties and Resources, Inc. logged and cleared their area at Umiray-Dingalan wantonly.

The Facts: The 28,000 hectare Umiray-Dingalan area is a titled property bought from a former owner who have the area logged under an SPLTL (Special Private Land Timber License). The area as far back as the mid of the 18^th century was claimed and cleared by Inspeccion General de Montes and later, during the American Regime was titled under the Torrens System.

Since Roxas’ Green Circle is not a logging company but on realty and development, logging was stopped. The former operator applied for salvage and retrieval operations with the DENR and was the one responsible for logs coming out of the area.

Also, as the area is an alienable and disposable having been a titled property, Green Circle therefore has all the rights to develop their area subject to limitations and provisions of an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by DENR re: development activities. Hence, for al intents and purposes and as deemed required, Green Circle can cut-down all trees without any violations as per P.D. 705 – the Forestry Reform Code.

2. Allegation: Romeo G. Roxas is not an heir of a Philippine Veteran.

The Facts: The father of Romeo Roxas is an employee of the Commonwealth and is directly providing services to the US Government as a Teacher/ Superintendent. Hence the father is a veteran and therefore the son is an heir.

3. Allegation: He (Romeo Roxas) burns money and cut down trees

The Facts: Romeo G. Roxas is a monetarist who is well-versed with the Keynesian Theory. He doesn’t burn money but instead creates wealth through his development efforts. He implements or wants to implement theories and practices learned and experienced.

The writers/hackers of the undocumented articles in the internet are “journalist” of the AC-DC genre. Romeo G. Roxas proved he can never kowtow with their “extortions” and hence, earned their ire.

Numbers

30% Proportion of Filipino couples unaware that babies result from having sex, according to a study by the Philippine government.

2.36% Net population growth in the Philippines, among the highest in the world, with 4,000 babies born every day. [Source: Time Magazine, 03/14/05]

Leaders of the Catholic Church, the religion of 81 percent of the Philippine population, condemn birth control.[Source: Pulse Asia]

Ayan!

***

Thousands of Americans were marching on the 4^th year anniversary of the Iraq war, calling the killing of 3,500 American soldiers since the start of the war as “immoral!”

By comparison, since the start of the Iraq war, more than 5,000,000 (five million!) American babies have died by abortion.

It seems to me that the protesters are marching for the wrong reason.

Wake-up Call

A friend telephoned to disagree to my characterization of BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision. The commercialization of the subdivision is progress, and instead of tossing the blame to the local government for the destruction of the residential character of the subdivision, residents should be grateful.

And why not, considering that even within BF Homes, residents cannot seem to put their acts together on the subject of keeping the subdivision safe for their families whose welfare has been shoved aside by a persistent minority. This is eloquently expressed in Mayor Jun Bernabe’s February 15, 2006, letter to Muntinlupa Mayor Jaime Fresnide:

This is just a follow-up to our conversation last Sunday via our cellphones in which we discussed… the increasing number of complaints that my office has been receiving regarding the use of Tirona gate as a two-way access route for residents living in both Parañaque and Alabang, Muntinlupa sides of BF Homes.

To raise revenues for the municipality to qualify for cityhood being pushed by (re-electionist) Congressman Roilo Golez, public opinion was ignored, public preferences were disregarded, and public meetings were rigged!

In water-starved BF Homes, the 1997 re-zoning of subdivision’s main streets converted properties one lot deep along Aquirre and a portion of El Grande Avenues to commercial zones, allowing the construction of multi-storey structures, restaurants, beer houses, super clubs, liquor stores, gasoline service stations, supermarkets, banks, colleges and universities, including funeral parlors, mortuaries and crematory services and memorial chapels. Homeowners are outraged by the prospect of having such establishments as their next door neighbors.

The letter continues: Sometime in August last year, we implemented City Ordinance No. 00-15, Series of 2000 and opened the major roads of BF Homes-Parañaque to the public. In doing so, we effectively took over from UBFHAI the function and responsibility of manning the gates of the subdivision’s major roads in the interest of order and public service…

The local government cannot simply take over private property [the road lots are privately titled] without due process, but [re-electionist] Mayor Jun Bernabe, using SWAT power, forcibly opened the gates of the subdivision. In doing so, as his letter aptly articulated, he effectively let loose a huge influx of outsider traffic that includes commuters, short-cutting motorists, commercial vehicles of all types, and legions of squatters, carjackers, carnappers and even prowlers, thieves, rapists, and all sorts of criminals.

Over the objections of homeowners, and despite the constitutional proscription against the use of public funds for private purposes, the mayor appropriated yet another portion of Aguirre Park for a two-story Barangay Hall. For good measure, the park fronting the Resurrection Parish Church is also designated garbage segregation facility. [Follow your nose, you can’t miss it!]

The commercial area in Phase I has been converted into one big parking area with the “pito” boys, displaying the charms of modern Mafioso’s, licensed to collect “parking fees.” These “volunteers” are sporting “PNP-CVO” uniforms, cap and ID’s costing, I am told, something like PhP1,000. Not far behind are the security guards of the commercial establishments collecting “tips” for illegal parking.

Aguirre and President’s Avenues and Elizalde Street in the commercial district in Phase I are no on-street parking areas. Yet, despite repeated written appeals for enforcement from some 200 residents located at the end of President’s Avenue, the local authorities remain deaf. The commercial establishments continue with impunity to appropriate the roads and sidewalks at President’s corner Aguirre Avenues for parking, double parking and sometimes triple parking, making going and coming home difficult and hazardous for residents.

Obviously, our barangay captain, who is busy campaigning for a seat in the city council, is the problem, not the solution.

We are not against progress, but traffic, efficient garbage disposal and distribution of basic necessities are also primary considerations. Progress should be rational and for the good of the majority, otherwise, it is a brutalization of the quality of our lives.

The present dispensation has destroyed the residential character of our neighborhood, forcibly opened our gates to horrendous outsider traffic and exposed residents to criminal elements, illegally constructed government facilities on the park, including garbage segregation facility. Yet, many of those responsible are shamelessly seeking re-election, while some even have the gall and temerity to aspire for higher public offices.

We are saddled with officials who cannot grasp even the basic fundamentals of urban planning, who lack the creativity to increase the city’s coffers except to increase real estate taxes, and who exhibit total disregard for a healthy environment.

Clearly, our re-electionist congressman, mayor, councilors, and barangay officials are insensitive and unresponsive to the feelings of residents over the demands of outside speculators. THEY DO NOT DESERVE OUR VOTES!

We can make the difference

After having scrimped and saved and then spent our life savings for a house in BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision in order to enjoy a well deserved peace and quiet away from the madding crowd, so to speak, we find that we are to suffer the sad fate of having the same madding crowd practically in our front yards, complete with cars and vans to boot.

Our politicians have shove aside our families’ welfare in the interest of commerce, opening our main gates to a huge influx of outsider traffic that includes squatters, commuters, short-cutting motorists, and even prowlers, thieves, rapists, and all sort of criminals.

Criminals are now roaming free in and out of BF Homes to commit murder, armed robbery, “akyat-bahay,” carjacking, carnapping and snatching. Even our PCJ church parishioners within the confine of the church premises were not spared by the brutality of crime.

We have to queue up to get in and out of the subdivision. BF Homes is now the main artery for traffic to and from Cavite/Las Piñas and Parañaque, Pasay, Makati and points north. Foot traffic has drastically increased and we no longer know the background and number of strangers roaming our neighborhoods.

In a word, we have the distinction of having been chosen by the mayor of Parañaque to be fed to his constituents!

The commercialization cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be described as promotive of the health, safety, peace and order, education, morals, comfort and convenience, or protection of property – in short, the wellbeing and general welfare – of the greater number of residence of BF Homes. For the serenity, peace and quiet have been replaced by the chaos, turmoil and frenzy of commerce. Where there was no crowding, congestion, and air and noise pollution, these banes of the so-called “progress” now pervade and suffocate the environment. To characterize the re-zoning as an exercise of police power would be retrogressive.

To paraphrase a justice of the appellate court, part of the allure of subdivision living is the comparative privacy and exclusivity which the residents enjoy. Otherwise, we might as well have lived along the main road and spared ourselves the expense of paying a premium for our abodes. Perhaps Mayor Jun Bernabe and his obedient cohorts would not would not think too highly of their idea of general access through subdivision roads if it were they whose relaxation would be disturbed by the constant honking of horns and the screeching of tires, or if they had to live in constant fear of a wayward car plowing through their front doors, decimating the entire household, maids, children and all.

We are saddled with officials who cannot seem to grasp even the basic fundamentals of urban planning, who lack the creativity to increase the city’s coffers except by increasing real estate taxes and who exhibit a total disregard for a healthy environment.

We made the difference in the 2004 election with a voter’s turnout of 60% instead of the usual 10%. Let’s all go out in the upcoming May election to express our indignation by voting them out of office.

The Nativity Story

(Review of the film “The Nativity Story” by Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Heckenkamp of the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin).

On December 2, 2006, on the First Saturday of December, we went to the local movie theater to watch the movie “The Nativity”. Based on previous reviews of this movie that we had heard, and the fact that the Vatican2 held a premier showing of this movie, we were expecting a movie that at the very least held to Catholic beliefs. However, from the very beginning of the movie we soon realized our high expectations had to be thrown into the trash, for as the movie progressed, we became more and more disappointed. The overall conclusion of this movie is that it is not a catholic movie at all, but at best, a Protestant movie directed by men who did not even follow the Biblical account of the birth of Christ. At worst, it is a vile anti-Christian movie created by people who hate Christ and His Church and whose main motive was to defame the name of the Blessed Mother and warp the story of the Birth of Jesus.

As mentioned before this movie discredits our Catholic beliefs, beliefs that are so essential to our Faith that if we do not believe in them, the Church no longer considers us Catholic. What beliefs are these that have been maligned? It is those beliefs which we hold sacred: the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.

In one of the very first scenes of the movie, Mary is shown with her friends, sowing a field of what looks to be corn. These friends of Mary give sideways glances and smiles to each other after looking at a group of boys that are nearby. Then one of these girls runs to tackle one of the boys and what ensues appears to be a pile up of youths in the cornfield with Mary sort of participating in on the outer edges of this entanglement. Then from the house emerges Mary’s mother looking stern and upset. She calls to Mary and shakes her head “No.” The fact that Mary looks to have been participating in some kind of impropriety and had to be corrected by her mother is beyond belief but this is only one occurrence of “sinning” on the part of Mary. For throughout the first part of the movie, Mary is depicted as any normal 14 year old given to sullen, sulky moods. This movie shows her to be unhappy with the future marriage that is being arranged for her by her parents (which we know to be historically incorrect). She walks out of her house in defiance when her father tells her that she is now betrothed to Joseph. These scenes call into question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

It also was implied in the betrothal scene that Mary and Joseph planned on a large family as Mary’s parents indicated that they were to live as husband and wife in every way for one year except for that one act that would produce a family. Joseph began building the home for Mary and their future children indicating Joseph was planning on having many children. This is in line with the Protestant viewpoint that Mary and Joseph had many children after Jesus and counters the Catholic Church as it has always taught that both Mary and Joseph took vows of virginity and mutually consented to live as virgins in the married state.

The scene of Annunciation was not anything that a catholic would contemplate while saying the rosary. They depicted Mary reclining under a tree in the middle of the day while others were around her working. What is supposed to be the “Archangel Gabriel” is first shown as a hawk and then as a man with an Afro-like hairstyle and white robe looking as if he could be a son of Cheech or Chong. The “angel” had no mystical or holy appearance and he is shown at quite a distance from Mary. The portrayal makes you wonder if he’s truly Heaven sent.

The Visitation was portrayed as an excuse to run away from her “intended”, Joseph. A way out all of it – as if the whole idea of the coming of Our Lord and the idea of marriage was too much for her. The Magnificat was left out of this scene; however it was partially narrated at the end of the movie omitting the first half of this beautiful prayer:

“My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior; Because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; And his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him...”

You can be certain, upon looking at these omitted words, just why they were omitted and the intentions of the creators of this vile cinematography!

The birth of Saint John was very degrading. This scene is about two minutes long, depicting Elizabeth holding her upper body up off a chair by holding onto ropes, screaming from pain while two women are ready to receive the child. She delivers, while Mary, with a horrified look on her face, stands by watching. This scene is not suitable for children to watch.

During Mary’s absence at Elizabeth’s, Saint Joseph was portrayed as being upset that Mary left. Also were included, implications that Joseph did not expect Mary to come back, as in one scene where he was deep in thought pondering his future with Mary holding his carpenter tools – then suddenly with a look of frustration and anger, he throws his tools to the ground. Saintly behavior for sure!

When Mary had returned to Nazareth, Joseph was excited to see her. However, on lifting her from the wagon he discovered that she was heavy with child and walked away upset. Mary tried to convince her parents and Joseph that she was not pregnant due to another man but that “an angel” appeared to her and told her she was going to have a baby. There was no evidence of any of the three believing Mary. It was implied that Joseph was ready to stone Mary until he had a vision through a dream (with that “angel” again) that Mary was telling the truth.

The traveling of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the best of all scenes in the movie. But even during this trip there was an occurrence that was disturbing. While Mary and Joseph were walking through a market of a town, a palm reading woman offered Mary a small piece of cheese or bread which Mary accepted but then this sorceress read Mary’s palm and claimed she was going to have a son. Mary accepted this prophecy with a smile and Joseph shook the woman’s hand, thanked her and then they continued their journey. The implication was that Joseph and Mary had no objection to fortunetellers.

The scene of the Nativity was extremely heretical. Besides this grave evil, again we find it necessary to say that this movie should not be viewed by children. Mary was shown to be in labor while she was in the town of Bethlehem. Joseph rushed around carrying Mary in a frantic state trying to find a room for her as she groaned and breathed heavily as if she had taken Lamaze lessons. The worst of the worst occurs once they arrive at the stable with Joseph kneeling ready to deliver the baby. He partially lifts Mary’s dress putting his hands between her legs ready to receive the child. Mary is laboring, her face sweating and in extreme pain with all of the normal actions of a woman in a delivery room and then she gives birth. Joseph raises Jesus in the air showing the baby covered with blood and Joseph laughs for joy totally discrediting belief in the Virgin Birth. There is no sign of worship or adoration by either Mary or Joseph.

Therefore this was not only a Protestant view of the Nativity but also indirectly an act of disbelief in the Divinity of Jesus. There was no indication that Mary and Joseph believed Jesus to be God.

Meanwhile, the Archangel Gabriel (yes, that same “angel”) appears to one shepherd to inform him of the birth. There are no other angels that appear as stated in St. Luke’s Gospel “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying glory to god and the highest on earth peace among men of good will.”

One by one, the shepherds seem to be leaving their sheep in a “zombie-like trance” and seen walking NOT RUNNING toward the star as it would seem natural to do considering they received this great news from a heavenly vision of great beauty! There was no joy exhibited in this scene by these shepherds. It only looked as if these guys were told to walk to this cave and stare at something… When the shepherds arrive at the stable Mary is seen reclining and holding the child; he is not lying in the manger. None of the shepherds worship or adore the child and they arrived simultaneously with the three Kings. Who neither appear to be worshipping him. Then there is this GREAT pause in the movie as we look on at this living Nativity Scene. Some kind of cold, blue lighting is glaring on Baby Jesus that causes him to keep his eyes closed. Surely they could have done better than this!

This was to be the culmination of the greatest act of love – God becoming Man to die for us! And yet this movie could not convey even a hint of this profound act of God.

And so it is, with all of these facts exposed for your examination, we refute and condemn this movie, “The Nativity.”

Check in today, fly tomorrow!

It is easy to be deceived by Cebu Pacific’s budget fare from Singapore to Manila. The unsuspecting passenger will get a printed e-ticket showing the departure date of, for example, Nov. 11, at 0040. Normally, a passenger checks in at the date printed on the ticket and, in the case of Cebu Pacific’s flight 5J804 from Singapore to Manila, the time of departure is very tricky. My wife and I, like many other OFWs, fell into the tourist trap. The departure is actually past midnight, and considered by the airlines as the next day as far as booking is concerned.

We were told that we should have checked in on the 10^th of November in order to fly on the 11^th at 0040 (meaning, 12:40 am) and when we checked in around 10 pm on Nov. 11, we had missed our flight early that morning! To revalidate our ticket, we had to pay penalty charges of US$230 each for the supposedly budget fare. The Singapore Airlines male clerk offered the information that that it will only cost us an additional US$50 if we were to rebook the next day’s flight (meaning, we stay overnight in Singapore). Since we had been traveling for the past two weeks, and our connecting flight from Bangkok via Air Asia had already been delayed by two hours, we were anxious of going home that evening and not spending another 24 hours at the budget terminal of Singapore.

I asked the obviously irritated Singapore Airlines clerk (don’t they teach these guys courtesy?) how often passengers make this mistake. “All the time,” he answered indifferently, pointing to a line of OFWs who did not have the ready cash to pay the penalty charges. We felt immense pity for them as they languished in the airport. Is this how Cebu Pacific treats the heroes of the Philippines?

My wife and I are both senior citizens yet our complaints were met with indifference. My wife took out all the remaining cash we had and dashed to the ATM outside the terminal building for currency conversion. She was worried for my fragile health since my seven-arterial heart bypass in 2002. Ironically, since we had only forty pesos left after paying the penalty of $460, we couldn’t even buy a bottle of water inside the plane (which costs P50) for us to drink our medicines! The flight attendant was sympathetic, and offered a free bottle of juice instead. Sorry, no water.

It takes a seasoned traveler to realize the tricky time of departure, especially since this was an online transaction, with no advice from a customer relations staff and no word of caution or warning can be seen on the website as to the company policy on flights past midnight/dawn and the subsequent penalty charges. And why the usurious penalty charges of rebooking the flight on the same day (US$230) and the day after flight (US$50)? We find this deceitful, cruel and hurtful especially to the old and weak! We had a most unpleasant travel experience with Cebu Pacific and now we have to warn all our friends, neighbors and relatives of this tourist trap.

For us, it’s goodbye Cebu Pacific, hello PAL!

“Public funds unfit for private sidewalks”

The local government is disbursing public funds of Parañaque City for repair and maintenance of existing sidewalks of BF Homes Parañaque Subdivision and installing lampposts with the “JB” initials.

Also undergoing construction at the Aguirre Park is a two-story building addition to the existing Barangay Hall. The police and fire stations and a covered basketball court are also housed at the same park, all constructed without the consent and over the objections of the Association.

The mayor explained that the road diggings on El Grande, Aguirre and Elizalde Avenues were part of the city government’s lighting project which included all major roads of private subdivisions and dimly-lit national roads within the city limits.

The project was started without the knowledge and consent and of United BF Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (UBFHAI). Parañaque Mayor Bernabe said that if Reyes (UBFHAI president) would be able to show any document, like a Deed of Donation, proving that the main roads of BF Homes had been turned over by its developer to UBFHAI, he would stop the project.

“If he has nothing to show, he has no business telling the city government what project it can or cannot do in BF Homes Parañaque,” the mayor said [Inquirer|05/02/06].

The question to ask, as Clint Eastwood would put it is: Are the sidewalks “owned by the local government unit?” If not, then the use of public funds for privately owned sidewalks is unlawful and violates Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

Having paid for them when they bought their properties, homeowners claim co-ownership of the roads, sidewalks, parks and open spaces in BF Homes which are privately titled to the developer. Thus, no public money could be used on them.

In undertaking the projects, the mayor violated the constitutional proscription against the use of public funds for private purposes, as well as Sections 335 and 336 of RA 7160, and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Take the case of Aniano Albon vs. Mayor Bayani Fernando, et. al. In a 15-page decision penned by Associate Justice Renato Corona, the Supreme Court Second Division ruled that only the construction, improvement, repair and maintenance of infrastructure owned by the local government unit may be bankrolled with local government funds.

“This conclusion finds further support from the language of Section 17 of RA 7160 which mandates LGUs to efficiently and effectively provide basic services and facilities. The law speaks of infrastructure facilities intended primarily to service the needs of the residents of the LGU and ‘which are funded out of municipal funds,” the high court said

This means that the mayor and other city officials can be held liable for misappropriation or misuse of public funds, which can lead to the filing of graft and corruption case against them.

“Life In Your Hands”

One out of nine women in the United States will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. In fact, it is the second leading cause of cancer death for women (after lung cancer) and the leading overall cause of death in women between the ages of forty and fifty-five. For too long women have erroneously believed that there is little or nothing they can do to prevent this dread illness. Our major medical efforts are directed toward detecting and treating, rather than preventing, breast cancer. Professor Jane Plant, one of Britain's most eminent scientists, contracted breast cancer in 1987. She had five recurrences, and, by 1993, the cancer had spread to her lymph system. When orthodox medicine gave up and she was told that she only had three months to live, she determined to use her extensive scientific training and her knowledge of other cultures to find a way to survive. In her research, she was startled to find that in China breast cancer affects far fewer women than in Western countries. Plant considered that there could be a dietary trigger for the illness. As she continued her scientific investigations, she became convinced that there was a causal link between consumption of dairy products and breast cancer. Jane Plant finally defeated her breast cancer, in part because she used her training and knowledge as a natural scientist to understand it-- and then overcome it. Combining the diet her research had led to with traditional medical treatment, Professor Plant was not only able to triumph over her own disease but also to pass on what she had discovered to help more than sixty other women successfully fight their breast cancer. In this book, women will be presented for the first time with a compelling body of evidence strongly suggesting that consumption of dairy products may cause breast cancer. It will demonstrate the specific changes that women can make in their day-to-day lives to help prevent and treat breast cancer. With a clear statement of the scientific principles behind her discovery, Professor Plant includes detailed suggestions for ways to alter your diet by eliminating or reducing consumption of many suspected cancer-causing agents, especially dairy products, and replacing them with healthful alternatives. She offers as well detailed menus and recipes to help you make the transition and enjoy it. “Life In Your Hands” is a revolutionary book that will change the lives of millions of women.

“Why I believe that giving up milk is the key to beating cancer...”

[Extracted from Your Life in Your Hands by Professor Jane Plant]

I had no alternative but to die or to try to find a cure for myself. I am a scientist - surely there was a rational explanation for this cruel illness that affects one in 12 women in the UK?

I had suffered the loss of one breast, and undergone radiotherapy. I was now receiving painful chemotherapy, and had been seen by some of the country’s most eminent specialists. But, deep down, I felt certain I was facing death. I had a loving husband, a beautiful home and two young children to care for. I desperately wanted to live.

Fortunately, this desire drove me to unearth the facts, some of which were known only to a handful of scientists at the time.

Anyone who has come into contact with breast cancer will know that certain risk factors – such as increasing age, early onset of womanhood, late onset of menopause and a family history of breast cancer – are completely out of our control. But there are many risk factors, which we can control easily.

These “controllable” risk factors readily translate into simple changes that we can all make in our day-to-day lives to help prevent or treat breast cancer. My message is that even advanced breast cancer can be overcome because I have done it.

The first clue to understanding what was promoting my breast cancer came when my husband Peter, who was also a scientist, arrived back from working in China while I was being plugged in for a chemotherapy session. He had brought with him cards and letters, as well as some amazing herbal suppositories, sent by my friends and science colleagues in China. The suppositories were sent to me as a cure for breast cancer. Despite the awfulness of the situation, we both had a good belly laugh, and I remember saying that this was the treatment for breast cancer in China, then it was little wonder that Chinese women avoided getting the disease. Those words echoed in my mind. Why didn’t Chinese women in China get breast cancer? I had collaborated once with Chinese colleagues on a study of links between soil chemistry and disease, and I remembered some of the statistics.

The disease was virtually non-existent throughout the whole country. Only one in 10,000 women in China will die from it, compared to that terrible figure of one in 12 in Britain and the even grimmer average of one in 10 across most Western countries. It is not just a matter of China being a more rural country, with less urban pollution.

In highly urbanized Hong Kong, the rate rises to 34 women in every 10,000 but still puts the West to shame. The Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have similar rates. And remember, both cities were attacked with nuclear weapons, so in addition to the usual pollution-related cancers, one would also expect to find some radiation-related cases, too.

The conclusion we can draw from these statistics strikes you with some force. If a Western woman were to move to industrialized, irradiated Hiroshima, she would slash her risk of contracting breast cancer by half. Obviously this is absurd. It seemed obvious to me that some lifestyle factor not related to pollution, urbanization or the environment is seriously increasing the Western woman’s chance of contracting breast cancer.

I then discovered that whatever causes the huge differences in breast cancer rates between oriental and Western countries isn’t genetic. Scientific research showed that when Chinese or Japanese people move to the West, within one or two generations their rates of breast cancer approach those of their host community. The same thing happens when oriental people adopt a completely Western lifestyle in Hong Kong. In fact, the slang name for breast cancer in China translates as ‘Rich Woman’s Disease’. This is because, in China, only the better off can afford to eat what is termed ‘Hong Kong food’.

The Chinese describe all Western food, including everything from ice cream and chocolate bars to spaghetti and feta cheese, as “Hong Kong food”, because of its availability in the former British colony and its scarcity, in the past, in mainland China.

So it made perfect sense to me that whatever was causing my breast cancer and the shockingly high incidence in this country generally, has almost certainly something to do with our better-off, middle-class, Western lifestyle. There is an important point for men here, too.

I have observed in my research that much of the data about prostate cancer leads to similar conclusions. According to figures from the World Health Organization, the number of men contracting prostate cancer in rural China is negligible, only 0.5 men in every 100,000. In England, Scotland and Wales, however, this figure is 70 times higher. Like breast cancer, it is a middle-class disease that primarily attacks the wealthier and higher socio-economic groups – those that can afford to eat rich foods. I remember saying to my husband, “Come on Peter, you have just come back from China. What is it about the Chinese way of life that is so different?”

Why don’t they get breast cancer?’

We decided to utilize our joint scientific backgrounds and approach it logically. We examined scientific data that pointed us in the general direction of fats in diets. Researchers had discovered in the 1980s that only l4% of calories in the average Chinese diet were from fat, compared to almost 36% in the West. But the diet I had been living on for years before I contracted breast cancer was very low in fat and high in fiber. Besides, I knew as a scientist that fat intake in adults has not been shown to increase risk for breast cancer in most investigations that have followed large groups of women for up to a dozen years.

Then one day something rather special happened. Peter and I have worked together so closely over the years that I am not sure which one of us first said: “The Chinese don’t eat dairy

produce!” It is hard to explain to a non-scientist the sudden mental and emotional ‘buzz’ you get when you know you have had an important insight. It’s as if you have had a lot of pieces of a jigsaw in your mind, and suddenly, in a few seconds, they all fall into place and the whole picture is clear. Suddenly I recalled how many Chinese people were physically unable to tolerate milk, how the Chinese people I had worked with had always said that milk was only for babies, and how one of my close friends, who is of Chinese origin, always politely turned down the cheese course at dinner parties. I knew of no Chinese people who lived a traditional Chinese life who ever used cow or other dairy food to feed their babies. The tradition was to use a wet nurse but never, ever, dairy products.

Culturally, the Chinese find our Western preoccupation with milk and milk products very strange. I remember entertaining a large delegation of Chinese scientists shortly after the ending of the Cultural Revolution in the 1980s. On advice from the Foreign Office, we had asked the caterer to provide a pudding that contained a lot of ice cream. After inquiring what the pudding consisted of, all of the Chinese, including their interpreter, politely but firmly refused to eat it, and they could not be persuaded to change their minds. At the time we were all delighted and ate extra portions!

Milk, I discovered, is one of the most common causes of food allergies. Over 70% of the world’s population is unable to digest the milk sugar, lactose, which has led nutritionists to believe that this is the normal condition for adults, not some sort of deficiency. Perhaps nature is trying to tell us that we are eating the wrong food. Before I had breast cancer for the first time, I had eaten a lot of dairy produce, such as skimmed milk, low-fat cheese and yogurt. I had used it as my main source of protein. I also ate cheap but lean minced beef, which I now realized was probably often ground-up dairy cow. In order to cope with the chemotherapy I received for my fifth case of cancer, I had been eating organic yogurts as a way of helping my digestive tract to recover and repopulate my gut with ‘good’ bacteria.

Recently, I discovered that way back in 1989 yogurt had been implicated in ovarian cancer. Dr Daniel Cramer of Harvard University studied hundreds of women with ovarian cancer, and had them record in detail what they normally ate. I wished I’d been made aware of his findings when he had first discovered them.

Following Peter’s and my insight into the Chinese diet, I decided to give up not just yoghurt but all dairy produce immediately. Cheese, butter, milk and yoghurt and anything else that contained dairy produce – it went down the sink or in the rubbish. It is surprising how many products, including commercial soups, biscuits and cakes, contain some form of dairy produce. Even many proprietary brands of margarine marketed as soya, sunflower or olive oil spreads can contain dairy produce. I, therefore, became an avid reader of the small print on food labels.

Up to this point, I had been steadfastly measuring the progress of my fifth cancerous lump with calipers and plotting the results. Despite all the encouraging comments and positive feedback from my doctors and nurses, my own precise observations told me the bitter truth.

My first chemotherapy sessions had produced no effect – the lump was still the same size. Then I eliminated dairy products. Within days, the lump started to shrink. About two weeks after my second chemotherapy session and one week after giving up dairy produce, the lump in my neck started to itch. Then it began to soften and to reduce in size. The line on the graph, which had shown no change, was now pointing downwards as the tumor got smaller and smaller. And, very significantly, I noted that instead of declining exponentially (a graceful curve) as cancer is meant to do, the tumor’s decrease in size was plotted on a straight line heading off the bottom of the graph, indicating a cure, not suppression (or remission) of the tumor.

One Saturday afternoon after about six weeks of excluding all dairy produce from my diet, I practiced an hour of meditation then felt for what was left of the lump. I couldn’t find it. Yet I was very experienced at detecting cancerous lumps – I had discovered all five cancers on my own.

I went downstairs and asked my husband to feel my neck. He could not find any trace of the lump either.

On the following Thursday I was due to be seen by my cancer specialist at Charing Cross Hospital in London. He examined me thoroughly, especially my neck where the tumor had been.

He was initially bemused and then delighted as he said, “I cannot find it.” None of my doctors, it appeared, had expected someone with my type and stage of cancer (which had clearly spread to the lymph system) to survive, let alone be so hale and hearty. My specialist was as overjoyed as I was. When I first discussed my ideas with him he was understandably skeptical. But I understand that he now uses maps showing cancer mortality in China in his lectures, and recommends a non-dairy diet to his cancer patients.

I now believe that the link between dairy produce and breast cancer is similar to the link between smoking and lung cancer. I believe that identifying the link between breast cancer and dairy produce, and then developing a diet specifically targeted at maintaining the health of my breast and hormone system, cured me.

It was difficult for me, as it may be for you, to accept that a substance as ‘natural’ as milk might have such ominous health implications. But I am a living proof that it works and, starting from tomorrow, I shall reveal the secrets of my revolutionary action plan.