I stand here today on a question of personal and collective privilege. Last July 4, 2008, you, Mr. President, had filed Senate Bill 2464, with the title “Anti-Obscenity and Pornography Act of 2008.” Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I find the said bill laudable, timely, and very much needed in order to maintain the moral fiber of the society.

However, I find the bill lacking. There is a growing malaise in our society that destroys our moral fiber, damages our youth’s sense of morality, and mutilates our country’s moral foundation. This malaise has not been addressed by this bill.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I therefore propose to insert the following additions to the said bill.

The bill defines obscene as follows:

“(a) “Obscene” refers to anything that is indecent or offensive or contrary to good customs or religious beliefs, principles or doctrines, or tends to corrupt or deprave the human mind, or is calculated to excite impure thoughts or arouse prurient interest, or violates the proprieties of language and human behavior, regardless of the motive of the producer, printer, publisher, writer, importer, seller, distributor or exhibitor such as, but not limited to:
(1) showing, depicting or describing sexual acts;
(2) showing, depicting or describing human sexual organs or the
(3) showing, depicting or describing completely nude human
(4) describing erotic reactions, feelings or experiences on sexual female breasts; bodies; acts; or
(5) performing live sexual acts of whatever form.”

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, I find the definition incomplete, specifically on actions that are deemed obscene by the said bill. For the malaise that I had talked about earlier is not included in this bill. Granting that the clause “such as, but not limited to” covers every obscene acts that human thinking can invent, is it not better form if we specify all obscene acts? Surely this will give little room for the judiciary to interpret this law, but we cannot have the spirit of this bill subjected to interpretation by a very liberal judge?

Saying that, I think that this malaise need to be be specified in this bill. I therefore propose to insert the following, with your permission, Mr. President?

* include “speaker” in the list of actors in an obscene act
* insert “(6) expressing political thoughts” in the list of obscene acts.

Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, our countrymen are tired of political speeches that meant nothing. These kind of speeches bring false hopes. Are not these speeches “contrary to good customs or religious beliefs, principles or doctrines, or tends to corrupt or deprave the human mind, or is calculated to excite impure thoughts or arouse prurient interest, or violates the proprieties of language and human behavior?” Are not political speeches delivered by government officials, appointed or elected, excite false hopes? Are not false hopes impure thoughts, because false hopes are untrue and impure? Are not political speeches of false hopes works to arouse prurient interests, expressing empty promises?

Our people are tired of holding empty bags, of hearing hollow words. It is high time we declare political speeches as pornography, and ban them immediately. Mr. President, distinguished colleagues, if we fail to insert this in the bill, we will appear to be hypocrites of the worst kind. History will then judge us harshly. The people will reject us with much joy. Our country’s morals will be in tatters. We must not allow these to happen. We must act now.