EMPTY SEATS: Maybe it did not matter if the plenary hall of the United Nations was half-empty as long as it was half-full when President Noynoy Aquino read the Philippine statement to what was supposed to be the General Assembly last month.

The problem was, as evidenced by a photo (assuming it was not edited) of Mr. Aquino addressing the body, the hall was not even half-full. Only about 20 percent of the seats for the official delegates to the UN General Assembly looked occupied.

It is dismaying seeing our President talking to the empty chairs. Only the section for the Philippine delegation had a good number of warm bodies.

If you want a copy of the picture going the rounds in the Internet, please email me.

* * *

HYPE BURSTS: What’s the point? The point is that unwarranted hype has a way of bursting when the data start coming in.

The way his speech before the UN was overblown by the President’s propagandists, Filipino taxpayers may have been led to believe that that autumn day in New York was a momentous moment for him and these benighted islands.

But the only thing probably remembered about that speech was that the Philippine leader, son of the revered Cory Aquino, suggested that People Power be used by troubled nations to address some of their problems.

* * *

SPEECH SEASON: The speech did not cause a ripple. As pointed out in our Postscript the day after, if the head of government addressing the UN assembly is not a heavyweight, nobody listened.

That speech-making in the UN general debates, when country statements are read by visiting leaders, is routine. You should see the queue of speakers awaiting their turn.

Actually, presidents and prime ministers need not go to New York to read their country’s position on issues. Their permanent or resident representatives in the UN can do that job, just as well, at no extra cost to taxpayers.

* * *

WALDORF FULL: As for the President’s not staying at Waldorf-Astoria on Park Avenue, even if he had chosen that historic hotel, it was not possible since the better suites were already taken by the bigwigs, including the US and Chinese leaders.

It was not quite honest to tell taxpayers that President Aquino ruled out Waldorf in favor of Sofitel solely because he wanted to save money. (Btw, the curious might want to find out who is the beneficial owner of the Sofitel in Manila.)

He could have saved money even at Waldorf. He could have told his advanced party not to take the most expensive suites. He could have put a cap on who among officials and hangers-on may stay at that hotel with him.

But Waldorf was already fully booked.

Still on cutting expenses, he could have pruned the long list of radio-TV people accompanying his official party.

* * *

SORRY SPIN: Look what happened. The meeting of ASEAN leaders with President Obama and the US “millennium development” ceremony were held at the Waldorf, the venue of choice for such events.

Had Mr. Aquino stayed at the Waldorf like his predecessors, he could simply have walked from his suite to the ASEAN and millennium meetings. Imagine the convenience.

When the ASEAN talks were over, Mr. Aquino discovered he could not ride back to Sofitel because his limousine was not allowed by the US Secret Service to drive by Waldorf to pick him up. Nobody moved until President Obama left.

The sweating Philippine president had to hike several blocks to return to the Sofitel.

But if our President was happy staying in a cheaper hotel, okay lang. We just wish his communication strategists did not give the choice of address an unnecessary spin about economizing.

* * *

R.H. DEBATE: On reproductive health, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has just decided to uphold the right to conscientious objection of medical practitioners asked to perform abortion.

A resolution proposed by British politician Christine McCafferty calling for the abolition of this right was put to a vote and her report was defeated at the recent parliamentary assembly held in France.

In what the European Centre for Law and Justice called a “historic reversal,” the proposal was replaced with a new text titled “The Right to Conscientious Objection in Lawful Medical Care,” which affirms, defends and promotes this right.

The center’s director said last Friday, “The Council of Europe reaffirms the fundamental value of human conscience, and of liberty in the face of attempts at ideological manipulation of science and of medicine.”

* * *

LANDMARK: The new text said: “No one hospital, institution or person may be subject to pressures, or be held liable or suffer discrimination of any kind for refusing to perform, allow or assist an abortion, miscarriage or induced euthanasia, or for refusing to perform any intervention to cause the death of fetus or an embryo, whatever the reasons.”

The assembly invited member-states to develop their own regulations to guarantee this right to conscientious objection.

The director said: “The McCafferty Report was defeated because its primary objective was not only practical but also profoundly symbolic.

“It would have a bearing on the moral qualification of abortion, euthanasia and of the exercise of the conscience: the ‘right to abortion or euthanasia’ would become the rule and conscientious objection would become the exception.

“To reduce the fundamental right of moral objection to a mere exception amounts to a reversal in the moral relationship between abortion or euthanasia and conscientious objection. Conscientious objection would become in some way immoral because it is contrary to the ‘right to abortion.’”