Rama vetoes controversial ordinance

CEBU, Philippines - Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama formally vetoed yesterday afternoon the controversial “Anti-Corporal Punishment Ordinance.”

Rama said a “valid ordinance” should be “just, fair, reasonable, non-oppressive,” and “non-confiscatory.”

In the two-page veto message he forwarded along with the unsigned copy of the ordinance to the City Council at 3:20P.M. yesterday, Rama called the ordinance unjust.

 “It is not just in the sense that parents are deprived of the right to discipline their children. It is unjust considering the fact that the constituents of the city are not ready for such a measure in the midst of poverty,” read a portion of Rama’s veto message.

He also added in his veto message that it is “not fair” as it reportedly exposes the offenders, especially parents, to “disrespect” and “abuse” by the children or anybody “who might maliciously accuse” them for corporal punishment.

Section 7 of this ordinance states that “any person, including the child victim,” can file a complaint against a parent, a guardian or any person who tries to inflict physical or verbal abuse to a child.

Rama said the ordinance is also not reasonable because while it supposedly promotes positive punishment, “it appeared to be a penal ordinance declaring unlawful the acts of parents in the exercise of parental authority which even the national laws have recognized and respected.”

He said “the issue of unemployment and poverty should be addressed first before penalizing parents for corporal punishment.”

Section 4 of the said ordinance dictates that an offender can be imprisoned for not more than six months or slapped with a P5,000 fine, or both.

“It is oppressive in a sense that underprivileged parents, being not spared, shall be penalized for their depressed situation wherein poverty usually makes home to anger and hate,” read Rama’s veto message.

He explained that a child in a family is “even more predisposed to the discomfort of life,” and that “the incapability of parents to fill the want in the family may irritate children who may cause trouble with parents.” The ordinance, he said, “protects the tantrums of children and punishes the rights of parents to discipline children who are notorious.”

He pointed out that the said piece of law is also confiscatory as it is “depriving the parents in general, of their parental authority.”

By denying his approval to it, Rama suggested that the ordinance has to be “carefully recrafted to properly enact the appropriate measure that shall not create a society of juvenile delinquents and a society that frowns on parental authority.”

And if in case the council would agree to make amendments on the said ordinance, Rama said the new one should “not be unmindful of the graduation of penalties conforming to a valid ordinance,” as the present one “could be handicapped in implementation no matter how well is the intention.”

But even before Rama issued his veto, the opposition bloc, which composes the majority of the council, had already considered the idea of overriding it. (FREEMAN)