All aboard!

The headlines blare:  Arroyo rides Charter change train (Inquirer), GMA: Stand aside for ChaCha train (Manila Standard-Today), GMA backs people’s initiative: De Venecia sees interim parliament in place by July (Malaya), JdV sees new form of govt by July (Manila Times), Serge bares documented Palace plot to rig Cha-cha: Senate threatens GMA on snap polls plebiscite (Daily Tribune).

Is it still a people’s initiative if the government, and not the people, do the initiating? Thus asks Sketches of a Village Idiot Savant who propounded the question to barangay officials, too. Dan Mariano says it’s a Palace, and not people’s, initiative.

Jove Francisco reports on how his fellow Palace press corps members have gotten information on just how thoroughly -and extensively- Constitutional change has been planned by the administration. And on how the President has weighed in with her open and full support for the effort, which cements the return to the fold of former President Ramos. The information Jove’s obtained and the sense he has of what’s going on helps confirm what I blogged yesterday (elaborating on a milder point I made in my column yesterday). The game is afoot and the Palace is playing to win big:

I was informed about a supposed “Grand Plan” weeks ago. I saw a “battle plan” Wednesday night. Other sources verified some of the details in the supposed plan last night and this morning. Then the President delivered a speech this morning, so my producers decided that we come up with a report about it in Sentro and Big News tonight.

The supposed Plan outlines SEVEN important turning points in the aim to convene a Regular Parliament. A plan that supposedly commenced when the drive for signatures began last March 25. A plan that supposedly would pass through certifications in different levels, pass through Comelec and land on the tables of the SC justices. A plebiscite is also included in the plan. And there is this aim to convene an Interim Parliament by July 24, 2006. (incidentally, JDV made a statement today about the July target.. connected? nagkataon? part ng plan?)( Whoa, imagine: July is just 4 months away! Napakabilis pala ng mga pangyayari if ever.)

Someone told us over dinner last Wednesday that there are two reasons why the plan is targeting a July 24 convening of the Interim Parliament. One: so that the new impeachment case versus the President will be pre-empted, Two: the possibility of postponing the May 2007 election.

So big are the plans, that efforts to block things in the House, as reported by the PCIJ, only serves to strengthen the President’s hand. If she managed to diminish Fidel V. Ramos’s stature, then the Speaker must be next on her target list: unable to get around the bicameral nature of Congress, perpetually worried about controlling unruly members of the House, the Speaker’s shepherding efforts are proving only a second act to the main one being undertaken by the Executive.

Bloggers continue to weigh in on the legalities involved. In response to my pointing out that she may have inadvertently overlooked an existing law, Sassy Lawyer explains that not only is she fully aware of the law, but bore it firmly in mind; and she further suggests that to her mind, the law was deliberately enacted to be so flawed, that it would be inapplicable (not solely her opinion; she points to a portion of the Supreme Court’s decision which she says, says so, too).

Atty. Edwin Lacierda also examines the law and Supreme Court decision in question, and thinks it will be difficult for the Supreme Court to reverse itself. Perhaps: though as I’ve noted, it seems the Speaker is laying the basis for limiting the proposed amendment to one: unicameralism.

There are those like An OFW Living in Hong Kong, who were cheered up by the recent Supreme Court statement saying an enabling law is required. I’m not, as I’ve also previously explained. The Four-eyed Journal even asks, is the Supreme Court playing possum? A story in Malaya: SC may yet reverse ruling, says retired jurist.

Unlike Ellen Tordesillas, I don’t think the President’s down to her last cards. She has a fresh deck and is dealing them out and the odds are heavily stocked in her favor. I do agree with Ellen though, that the exit, in the end, may not be particularly graceful; but it seems it will be much later, rather than sooner.

Yesterday I picked up a copy of Great Lives: A Century in Obituaries from The Times of London. Ironically, the last obituary in it, on page 666, is that of John Paul II. It’s a marvelous distillation of a life and that life’s ideas, which struck me as particularly apt in the wake of how either the irreligious, unreligious, or otherwise-minded are frustrated with Catholicism in politics at present. A good case in point being the views of The Filipino Mind, expressed in his blog today. His views on Catholicism would do well to be read in tandem with the Times’ explanation of John Paul II’s understanding of Catholicism:

For much of his reign, John Paul II was — not only for the secular world but also for many Roman Catholics — a figure of paradox. He was, it was said, a social progressive but an ecclesiological reactionary; a pastoral bishop who had been deeply influenced by the Second Vatican Council but who then — or so some critics volubly asserted — directed his entire pontificate towards a restoration of the Catholicism of the preconciliar period…

Partly, these conflicting perceptions were based on a tendency to judge him by criteria which were either theologically superficial or wholly secular. The paradoxes were more apparent than real…

Karol Wojtyla’s anti-communism was thus no merely ideological phenomenon but derived from the same source as his entire critique of modern secularist culture. His thinking had evolved both as a result of his professional career as an academic philosopher and from the circumstances of his pastoral experience as priest and bishop. He believed that the secular mind — in both East and West — had installed cultures deeply inimical to the flourishing of the human personality. The enemy, for him, was anything which obscured man’s nature as an essentially moral being — from relativism in moral philosophy to totalitarianism in politics. Man’s vocation was to become what God intended him to be: the drama of every human life was the struggle against evil, both personal and social…

…John Paul II sensed that the newborn democracies of Eastern Europe faced massive new challenges. The first task, he believed, was to build a free society upon solid ethical foundations. In a trio of major encyclicals, beginning in 1991 with Centesimus Annus (The Hundreth Year), he offered a blueprint. The encyclical argued that democratic societies had to be grounded in a respect for the fundamental freedom and dignity of the human person. A democracy without values easily turned into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism, John Paul wrote. Communism’s error was to reduce human beings to economic units. Without fundamental values, capitalism would do the same.

He further elaborated his vision in the landmark 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor (The Splendour of Truth), on the fundamentals of the Church’s moral teaching. The encyclical evaluated the modern crisis of moral relativism, linking the recognition of universal moral norms to democratic equality, the defence of the socially marginal, the just distribution of wealth and integrity in government.

His third effort to establish the moral basis of life in democratic societies was the 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), which argued that democracies risked self-destruction if moral wrongs were legally defended as rights. Democracies that denied the inalienable right to life from conception until natural death were tyrant states, creating a pervasive culture of death in which abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty were actively promoted. He appealed for the creation of a new culture of life, which defended the dignity of every human life…

The Pope’s greatest intellectual confrontation of this kind came in 1979 on his first visit to Latin America. With revolutionary tumult sweeping the continent, Catholic theologians were demanding that the Church ally itself with the poor in a Marxist- influenced struggle for justice. In a crucial and controversial speech to the Latin American bishops, John Paul argued that such liberation theologies reduced the Kingdom of God to a political, secularised kingdom. The Church was committed to the poor, but did not need to have recourse to ideological systems in order to love, defend, and collaborate in the liberation of man.

Sketches of a Village Idiot Savant also points to a letter in three parts ( part 1 here, and part 2 here, part 3 has yet to come out) in Eating the Sun, concerning the decline in Dumaguete’s famed writing culture. The letter and its concerns reminds me of a conversation I had with someone a week or two ago, as we discussed a potential project. The person pointed out that the literary establishment in this country is tiny and quite geriatric; he found it incestuous and sterile. I responded by recounting a conversation I had with the late NVM Gonzales. I asked him, why is it that Philippine novels tend to be unreadable? He chuckled and said, “You know, our novelists write so that they have to be sitting beside you to explain the meaning of what they’ve written.” Why is that, I asked. “Because they all end up writing for each other anyway,” he smiled.

Carlos Celdran recommends a surely fascinating round table discussion to come, and the exploration of what may Manila’s oldest restaurant.

Demosthenes’ Game points to the delightfully-named  Luli Arroyo’s Internet Brigade, which launches its own movement: Black Saturdays. First activity, have a drink and breathe for democracy.

Slate Magazine asks, Who’s more powerful, bloggers or governments?

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, flash mobs, law, media, people’s initiative, Philippines, politics

Plan perfect

Wherever you are tomorrow, you can do one of two things:

1. Simply wear black to protest. You can even make your own protest  t-shirt.
2. Breakfast for Democracy.

Going for broke is my column for today. I think the game plan is clear, and it’s achievable for the President:

1. Announce they have 4-5 million signatures by this or next weekend.
2. An obliging Comelec will say it will validate those signatures.
3. An obliging Supreme Court with either reverse its previous ruling or delay ruling on cases until the referendum is won.
4. A referendum on converting the presidential to parliamentary system will be held and won by the Palace.
5. The New interim parliament will convene before the end of this year, possibly as early as July or August.
6. Once in office, it will postpone election on the pretext that it has to convene as a Constituent Assembly for further amendments to the Constitution.
7. Instead of elections next year, there will be another plebiscite on many more Constitutional amendments.

The plan’s being revealed in stages. Sun-Star Bacolod reports, ‘Arroyo likely to cut term before 2007 if parliament pushes’: Coscolluela:

PRESIDENTIAL adviser for Western Visayas Rafael Coscolluela admitted Tuesday that the government is fast-tracking efforts to have a new Constitution ratified before the 2007 elections.

And if this happens, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo may cut short her term to become Prime Minister should the parliament form takes place.

This is contrary to House Speaker Jose de Venecia’s earlier pronouncements that Arroyo and Vice President Noli de Castro would be allowed to retain their powers and serve their full terms until 2010 even after the shift in the form of government.

“The probability is that the President will become the Prime Minister and will have to run for reelection in 2007,” Coscolluela said.

The Speaker is happy with what he’s always wanted: De Venecia: Charter change may be limited to gov’t shift. He seems convinced that the Supreme Court will only accept a people’s initiative if it tackles only one change. And if that’s the case, then the one that appeals most is, if course, shifting to the parliamentary system.

Just to point out the obvious: as one of my previous entries pointed out, Republic Act 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act signed into law in 1989, was meant to implement the Constitution’s provisions on initiative and referendum. However in the case Defensor vs. Comelec, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of the law on a people’s initiative and referendum are deficient (Sassy Lawyer unfortunately, seems unaware of both the law and the Supreme Court decision). Last night, the Supreme Court pointed out that it’s previous decision still stands -but people can bring the question to court:

Gleo Guerra, a director at the court’s public information office, said the Supreme Court’s March 20, 1997 decision on the insufficiency of Republic Act 6735 to allow charter change through people’s initiative still stands.

The high court handed down the decision in the Defensor Santiago v Commission on Elections (COMELEC) case.

“The court specifically said there must be a law to implement the people’s initiative provision in the constitution and unfortunately, RA 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act of 1989, was held to be inadequate to cover that system of initiative,” she told ANC.

In a separate ABS-CBN interview, Guerra said groups who will push for a people’s initiative should consider the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling.

“If they want to continue the initiative, have Congress pass an enabling law or bring it again [before the] courts and use the arguments of those who gave a dissenting opinion,” Guerra said.

The Palace gamble seems to be, to have the Supreme Court overturn its previous decision: the present Chief Justice and Justice Puno were the dissenters in that decision, and so would be in a position to validate, in a sense, their earlier dissenting opinions (the Justices who voted against the law’s provisions being applicable are all retired; PCIJ has the majority and dissenting opinions online). That is why in my proposal, I invoked the same law the Palace is invoking now; the provisions on resolutions and provincial initiatives remains valid while the provisions on Constitutional amendments by initiative is what’s being debated.

As far as the push for parliamentarism goes, I’ve argued in the past (in public fora, not here in this blog, from what I can recall) that what is being proposed now is nothing new, but rather, is the latest manifestation of a preference as old as the Malolos Constitution itself. Reading the provisions on the legislature will bring up striking similarities to the kind of legislative-executive relationship being proposed now.

Anyway, In the League of Cities of the Philippines, there is an entire page choc full o’ stuff to push forward the administration arguments.

Here is the matrix prepared by the PCIJ comparing the present text of the Constitution to the proposed new wording drafted by the House:

(note: the House continues to further amend the amendments; for example, in the PCIJ matrix, the House draft doesn’t include the latest rewording, which grants the new parliament the latitude to decide when the first real elections under the new Constitution would be).

I’ve blogged in the past on Federalism, and proposed readings on uncameralism versus bicameralism. I’ve noted before, too, that just as we’re toying with parliamentary government, other parliamentary governments are becoming more presidential.

And once more, let’s take the measure of Congress.

In the blogosphere, Newsstand examines yesterday’s entry by Sassy Lawyer, and issues a rejoinder: disagreeing is nothing personal, he says.

Go Figure discusses the findings of a study which tackles reducing corruption: as an example, road projects in Indonesia were tackled: threats of an audit were more effective in lessening corruption than community-based watchdogs.

Ang Kape Ni LaTtex has an interesting entry on whether Filipinos have a bias against entrepreneurship. He points to remarks made by Sen. Manuel Villar, who says one shortcoming of Philippine society is what he describes as the “employee mentality”.

The question of entrepreneurship is at the heart of whether this country can move forward or not: entrepreneurs are the dynamo of the modern-day middle class, just as employees who aspired for comfortable careers within a corporate environment were the bedrock of society in the past. Since the 1970s, we have had a crisis affecting the middle class: crony capitalism and the excesses of the Marcos years gutted the confidence of a generation which saw no way forward under such controlled circumstances. Government offered a safety-valve in terms of officially supporting emigration abroad and the OFW phenomenon.

The problem since then has been the failure of society and the state to at least turn the hard-earned money of Filipinos working and living abroad, into a means for producing and investing capital here at home. At the same time, the traditional ills of big business -what the academe refers to as “rent-seeking,” that is, exchanging support for the powers-that-be for preferential treatment that gives business supporters an unfair advantage, hasn’t been curbed.

Personally, I’ve said I believe Ramon Magsaysay, Jr. would make a good transitional president, because he has that rare thing, genuine entrepreneurial experience. I understand there are those who support Villar for the same reasons.

Bunker Chronicles takes a dim view of RJ Jacinto.

baratillo books cinema@cubao enjoys how columnists sometimes inspire humor without meaning to.

Mongster’s Nest suggests Holy Week reading: “the politics of underdevelopment.”

Technorati Tags: constitution, people’s initiative, Philippines, politics

Palace spin challenge: charter change to kick her out

As my Arab News column for this week, Amending the Constitution:Where Do Filipinos Stand?, points out, Survey shows thinning anti-charter change lead (story from Malaya). Malaya’s story puts forward interesting numbers:

48% of those surveyed are against charter change.

43% are in favor of charter change (up from 36% in October and 29% in March of last year).

9% are undecided, less than last year’s 16%

Of those in favor of changes:

27% say it will solve the political crisis
26% say it will push economic development and progress
24% say it will reduce politicking between the executive and legislative
11% say it will be easier to change an administration no longer trusted by the people
11% say many provisions need to be changed

Furthermore, with regards to those in favor of changes:

52% say President Arroyo is not the most acceptable person to lead the country, regardless of whether the Constitution is changed or not

Of those against changes:

17% are opposed because changing the government would not be enough unless politicians change
16% are opposed because they think charter change is just a ploy to divert attention from the political crisis faced by President Arroyo
13% are opposed because they think there is no need to change the Constitution at all
11% are opposed because they think that politicians want it because they want to be in power
  9% are opposed because they think that the country is not ready for a parliamentary government
  8% are opposed because they think it is a way to give Mrs. Arroyo a graceful exit

Furthermore, with regards to those against changes:

41% say President Arroyo is not the appropriate person to lead the country.

However, 66% of those surveyed have little (53%) to no knowledge at all (13%) of the Constitution. 34% say they have sufficient to a great deal of knowledge about the Charter.

The Daily Tribune is more blunt: Majority of Pinoys clueless on Charter—Pulse Asia

But the show must go on! Gov sees 12M signatures for Cha-cha (well, where they’re at is “within striking distance” of the 5 million signatures they need. After that, it’s on to our incredibly credible Comelec. Money is no object, as the Inquirer reports: Arroyo ally says there’s fund for Cha-cha.

The Manila Standard-Today reports, Initiative requires law, Comelec says. Also, Comelec split on Charter change: Legality of signature drive in question says the Inquirer, in a story contradicted by the Manila Times, which says Comelec nominee Romeo Brawner’s done a somersault: Brawner flops on people’s initiative. Before the Commission on Appointments, he said if a people’s initiative were to be filed before the Comelec, it should be dismissed. Then he changed his mind, and has now taken on a position in conformity with the Comelec Chairman’s. This suggests Malaya’s story, Cha-cha seen as dead, is also outdated, like the Inquirer’s. Incidentally, Newsstand, in his blog, thought that Brawner’s statement might give administration congressmen a pretext for rejecting him; or did Brawner independently realize what Newsstand did?

In other news:  Rape trial moved to Makati. The March of Democracy continues: Mayor Bans Rallies During Arroyo’s Visit to Panabo City

The question of immigration reform has legal and illegal immigrants to the USA worried. The American media has been covering the issue, while the blog Ignatian Perspective has a pretty thorough discussion of the issue.

In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial says a Constitutional Convention is the rational choice.

Dan Mariano tackles the interesting history of one charter-change booster. Patricio Diaz takes a dim view of the whole people’s initiative effort. Amando Doronila suggests that the amendment debate, if framed in terms of a 2007 exit for the President, just might end the impasse.

Billy Esposo (who applies for bail today in the libel case filed by Atty. Mike Arroyo), explains how government advertising can be such a useful political carrot.

JB Baylon runs down the list of the President’s promises.

Mary Dejevsky dissects the Oraqng Revolution.

Ambeth Ocampo on Portuguese sardines that used to be canned especially for the Philippines (we’re an important market in all sorts of ways; someone told me recently the Philippines is the third-largest consumer of brandy in the world).

The blogosphere has Concerns of a Bystander using the Socratic method to examine questions used against people with particular political views like himself.

Sassy Lawyer puts forward the view that bloggers are a threat to journalists and so they’re lashing out at her.

Philippine Commentary and blog@AWBholdings both seem to have been bothered by the discussions between Atty. Edwin Lacierda and Solicitor-General Eduardo Nachura on ANC. The Solicitor-General seems too confident for comfort about the prospects of the Supreme Court upholding the ongoing “people’s initiative.”

An OFW in Hong Kong is aghast over officials defending patronage as a means to entice support for Constitutional change. Kumintang is ticked off with the proposed changes.

My Liberal Times discusses what he considers conservative people power: pitting forces that view themselves as representing modernity against more traditional, populist, forces. caffeine sparks blogs on French barricade power.

Neoblogger covers city council proceedings in Vigan: the topic? An ordinance covering beerhouses and videoke bars.

Disini on why the National Telecommunications Commission is not the right forum for intellectual property rights complaints.

Unlawyer on politicians as product endorsers.

Pine for pine collates the literature on the ongoing debate on the next person to be proclaimed a National Artist for Literature.

Thanks to a comment he left on this blog, I found out that noted cartoonist Roby Villabona has a blog. I remember well one of his cartoons from the snap election era. He continues to comment on political events such as Dinky’s arrest, and the rumored assassination plot against the President.

Tristan Cafe tackles future presidents.

chizjarkace writes on what it’s like to be a graduating student. desert view prays for the beatification of John Paul II.

Kwentong Tambay takes a hilarious look at dieting. McVie Show Season 4 recounts a funny story on bathroom lighting.

Technorati Tags: constitution, law, media, people’s initiative, Philippines, politics

Political ostracism in Thailand

The Manila Times headline says it all: New war erupts over assemblies. Davaotoday.com has a similar report, based on local allegations: Arroyo Scored for ‘Buying’ Signatures in Cha-Cha Drive; DILG, Comelec Wash Hands. The Daily Tribune screams  Poll officers bribed to ‘verify’ Cha-cha signatures. There are pluses and minuses aplenty. The Inquirer reports,  Ramos supports signature campaign, the Manila Standard-Today says FVR supports initiative: both say Ramos is behind the people’s initiative effort in principle but is unhappy with the way the Palace refuses to take center stage (the former president is still prickly: Walk the talk, Ramos tells Arroyo, according to Malaya). Senator Santiago goes on ‘indefinite sick leave’ amidst speculation the Palace wants her to disown her having previously derailed the Pirma scheme during Ramos’s presidency. And in Nueva Vizcaya, Crop planting postpones ChaCha drive.

Sad, even scandalous, news: Because of collapsed ceiling: Airport’s Cusi postpones March 31 opening of NAIA 3. See also, Terminal 3 ceiling falls; test run scrapped. At least no one was hurt and the airport wasn’t in operation when the accident happened.

An interesting article: 1935 law blocks drive against colorum buses. Authorities want to limit the number of buses on Edsa to about 1,000. The present law covering bus franchises allows franchise owners to sub-let their franchises, so to speak, to other bus owners. Personally, while i’m all for capitalism, I’ve always thought our public transport represents free enterprise at its worst: chaotic, unregulated, unresponsive, and dangerous. Buses, and jeepneys (which should really be replaced by more modern vehicles) should be either a state or local government monopoly.

The Nation of Thailand today has Society is the loser in Thaksin’s high-stakes gamble and Silom Soi 5 is only the tip of the iceberg: Perhaps Thaksin will finally have a clue about public sentiment, now that citizens are confronting him in public. The latter article seems to echo points raised by Randy David:

Is it all coming down to social coercion? After weeks of vociferous calls by tens of thousands for Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra to “Get Out!”, the first time he appeared publicly rattled was yesterday, when, lunching at a food court in Silom Soi 5, he came face to face with three – yes, three – hostile shopkeepers. The well-dressed but stern-looking ladies shouted the same words that have been the hallmark of the present campaign for his resignation, and the effect was surprising. Thaksin looked stunned, then turned a bit pale. He cancelled plans to shop in that area and, whether or not it had anything to do with the incident, abruptly decided to fly back to Chiang Mai, saying he needed a break.

Throughout his present crisis, the prime minister has spent much of his time in his personal comfort zones. While Thai Rak Thai political rallies, with enthusiastic supporters shouting “Go, Thaksin, Go!” can be very soothing, they can also delude him. His recent belligerent speeches have not shown Thaksin to be aware of how widespread public sentiment against him has become. He has described protesters surrounding Government House as having been organised or being stupid “mobs” who plan, plot and conspire.

When confronted with an impromptu reaction like those of the three lady shopkeepers’ when they saw him, Thaksin deemed genuinely taken aback. Shoppers who shouted back their support helped very little, and one reason could be his wife and children experiencing a similar ordeal at The Emporium recently; if the family considered that a one-off incident, then Thaksin’s first-hand experience yesterday must have changed that assumption. Those opposed to his rule seem to have found a new way to deal with what they consider his stubbornness: “Okay, if you think you can handle the political pressure, let’s see how well you cope with social measures.”

In the punditocracy, Scott Mcmillan writing in Slate reports on the first free parliamentary election in the Ukraine since their “Orange Revolution.” A familiar story: the depression and dissatisfaction that comes in the wake of People Power; and yet, the genuine restoration of freedom that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Filomeno Sta. Ana III writes in BusinessWorld that the fight against the President will be a long, drawn-out struggle.

Tony Abaya is firmly for extraconstitutional solutions -apparently his objection to past ones were that they included socialists and communists.

Juan Mercado bats for more writers to focus on science and technology (“S&T”). It’s not easy; a decade ago I did one on historical S&T and it was tough to do.

In the blogosphere, Mediashift discusses how, going into the 2006 campaign in the USA, email remains the most effective means for political action online, while blogs appeal mainly to the converted. As one expert he interviewed put it,

“The political blogs we read will echo the moves of campaigners and big [email] lists: sometimes to amplify a campaign message, sometimes to jam it with nasty feedback,” Cornfield told me via email. “Bear in mind that while bloggers get most of the media attention, to campaigners the blogosphere contains a much smaller, if more active, population than the population which receives campaign emails. Email remains the main channel for online politics.”

Online Journalism Review describes how Blogburst is trying to syndicate blog content for newspapers.

BuzzMachine points to a speech by the editor of The Guardian newspaper (“Newspapers in the age of blogs”), explaining how newspapers should adapt to blogs and online readers. He (BuzzMachine, that is), also presents this great description of what a blog fundamentally is and requires:

What is a blog? Well, there’s the most frequently asked question of the age. But the answer has nothing to do with the tools and technology that make this phenomenon possible. No, it’s quite simple, actually: a blog is a person in conversation. In this age when every message is manufactured, metered, spun, filtered, and flacked, that is precisely what makes blogs so refreshing: their humanity.

Cyberbaguioboy weighs in with his views from a Philippine journalist’s perspective.

Bloggers weigh in on the people’s initiative: Brains and Hands, as well as Alleba Politics don’t necessarily reject the idea of a people’s initiative, but wonder if a government-initiated one can be properly considered as coming from the people.

Reader vic has posted his questions concerning the version of parliamentary government proposed by the Palace. He lives in Canada, which has a functioning parliamentary system, and wonders why the Palace version doesn’t seem up to par.

Connie Veneracion debuts on Global Voices Online. The other regular Philippine observer there is Jose Manuel Tesoro who points to a discussion  on rent control in Another Hundred Years Hence.

The Idiot Board describes crowd behavior in Iloilo Bacolod.

My Life as a Nursing Student discovers a Filipino blog on theology:  Philippine Theo Law Gee.

Blag! has a marvelous little observation.

Fun, fun, fun! Check out Overheard in New York (real conversations people overhear in New York City: an example here, and here) and Overheard in the Office (which has contributions from around the world; here’s an example).

More wit and wisdom from captainaqua:

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, journalism, media, people power, Philippines, politics

Rule of the lawless

I called up my barangay on Saturday morning to find out when the assembly would be held, and was told it’s been postponed to a later date. When? Not sure, they said, we’ll let you know.

sketches of a village idiot savant attended the barangay assembly in his neighborhood in Dumaguete. Door prizes were given out to encourage attendance. Read his description of how the assembly itself went. Davao Today has an account of how things went over there:

In Talomo, the biggest barangay in this city, officials resorted to giving away rice porridge in order to attract people. And whatever questions the residents had about Charter change were easily drowned by the loud Yoyoy Villame songs being performed by a singer onstage, inside the S.I.R. Covered Court.

The songs and the porridge — instead of the scheduled open forum — followed the presentation of Celso Tizon, barangay captain of 76-A, on the benefits of Charter change…

Tizon, the Talomo official, denied earlier on Saturday that they would be gathering signatures during the assembly in support of the “people’s initiative.” According to him, the government would listen first to what people have to say about the proposed constitutional amendments.

“If we find out that people are in favor of pursuing the signature campaign, then we will push for it,” he said.

But what happened in the afternoon of Saturday was the opposite.

Participants were asked to sign three sets of papers. One paper was for the attendance, which they had to sign upon entering the S.I.R. Covered Court. Another set of papers was for “another attendance” while another set bore words that said, in effect, that whoever signed it was in favor of the “people’s initiative.”

The PCIJ Blog has a roundup of events, with a focus on the orchestrated assemblies in Antipolo City, as well as links to the documents carefully prepared by the administration and its allies. Citizen Watch reports administration justifications for mobilizing government resources for the effort.Ellen Tordesillas and atty-at-work and Peter Laviña in Davao see striking similarities between what’s underway, and the manner in which Ferdinand Marcos got around the 1935 Constitution’s requirement for a formal plebiscite to approve any new constitution (Interesting tidbit: Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte was offered, and declined, the defense portfolio).

Quotas are being met: Arroyo bats for Charter change; signature drive intensifies. Also, Palace body steps up info drive on Charter change. The Manila Times reports, 170 House members sign for Cha-cha.The Manila Standard-Today trumpets 4 million signatures secured for ChaCha while Malaya says 2M ink Cha-cha bid; Palace hand scored. Either way, Sec. Ronnie Puno should take a bow for a remarkable logistical achievement. As my entry yesterday pointed out, there’s a way to derail it, but as Serging Osmeña said bitterly in the wake of the 1969 elections which he lost to Ferdinand Marcos, any opposition can be simply “out-gooned, out-gunned, and out-gold.” Still, signature drives to counter the administration-sponsored one have begun.

My column for today is Rule of the lawless. I recognize there are those in favor of the President’s initiative not because they love the President or have anything personally to gain, but because they believe it’s the only way to move forward. I think they’re being taken for a ride, and their going along with the President’s strategy is doing a colossal disservice to their advocacy of federalism, parliamentary government and a unicameral legislature. The President and her party wants federalism, unicameralism, parliamentarism as defined by the House? Then pledge neither the President nor any member of the House who approves it will hold office once the amendments are approved. You would have overwhelming enthusiasm for their proposals then. But not under any other way. And since the President’s game plan is anchored on selling it to congressmen as a means for abolishing the Senate (to which their chances of election are slim), and to governors who now have no reason to fear either opposition from third termers in the House needing new jobs, and since the end result is that the President will get a get out of jail card free, then even those who are sincerely for the President’s plan will get tarred and feathered by the public. And rightly so.

And everyone seems to have forgotten the perfectly reasonable counter-proposal by the Senate: you want to change the Constitution? Then call for a constitutional convention, which the Senate would support.

blog@AWBHoldings.com proposes bloggers come together to debate constitutional change. Anyone interested?

Coffee with Amee has a Fr. Bernas story. Raul Gonzalez has baptized him “guru of destabilization.” In his column today, Fr. Bernas writes on the various, and it seems, presently improbable, ways to achieve a presidential election before 2010.

Keeping tabs on Thailand: the Nation’s editorial is Titanic struggle to save democracy. In Not a Pretty Picture, there’s a great -and applicable- analogy to bear in mind:

When Thaksin Shinawatra alleged recently that his political opponents and critics had resorted to “mob rule” in trying to oust him, Bangkok Senator Kaewsan Atibhodi shot back with a couple of hard-hitting analogies that may have unnerved the embattled caretaker premier.

“I think what has happened is more like a mastermind hijacker taking control of an airliner. When the passengers cry foul and loudly disapprove, this guy announces that everyone on board should behave and should not resort to mob rule. It’d be better for them to sit down and fasten their seatbelts, because this is a critical situation and the journey will be quite rough,” says Kaewsan, an outspoken and non-partisan member of the current Senate, whose term expires next month…

As a non-partisan senator, he has consistently charged Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party of parliamentary abuse.

“The checks and balances in Parliament did not work at all because the Thai Rak Thai abused its power via all the parliamentary committees,” he says. “For Thaksin, democracy is only the means, so Parliament is meaningless. That’s why the premier likes to have a big central-government budget with little or no details to be checked by Parliament or why the Lottery Bureau [after the legalisation of once underground lotteries] has been able to have multibillion-baht revenues at its own disposal without any parliamentary scrutiny.

“The mass media too have failed to make enough investigative reports to dig up dirt. Even the Federation of Thai Industries and Board of Trade have been heavily influenced by the government and its allies, so they’re afraid of taking a controversial position,” Kaewsan says.

In other people power news, Slate reports on government violence in Belarus.

After All thinks consolidating the government’s ad placements might just be good for provincial media. PCIJ suggests it might be a way to hit the media where it hurts -in their bottom lines. That may be so. As this Philippines Free Press editorial from 1909 points out, using government advertising to punish the media is an old, old trick. After Edsa, as a way of democratizing things, publishing laws and government ads for things like bidding for contracts was encouraged. That was before the days of the internet, and in the two decades since Edsa, the placement of government ads, notices, and announcements has become a way of subsidizing friendly media and punishing unfriendly media.

My personal view is that government advertising, as experience has shown, is too tempting to be permitted to continue. I have long been an exponent of fortifying the presently anemic Official Gazette as a means of promoting both transparency and accessibility to government issuances and records. I find it scandalous that I can find virtually every single executive issuance from Quezon to Macapagal with relative ease, and that includes finding out the various people appointed to government positions, and even track the day to day activities of the presidents as well as their important correspondence, but the same cannot be done for presidents since Marcos. Marcos wasn’t keen on the Official Gazette because an undemocratic government has no interest in providing -and publishing, for posterity- its own orders and acts. Presidents since Edsa have either been disorganized or unaware of the usefulness of the Official Gazette.

baratillo books cinema@cubao takes Winnie Monsod’s column and transforms it into an elegant, and informative, series of charts and graphs. Both make the point that with anti-Arroyo people so divided and fragmented on what they want (besides the President stepping down), the real majority in this country remains those inclined to letting her finish her term. This is an important thing to point out. Though my view of course is that even that group will be hard-pressed to remain cohesive, since between now and 2010, more and more people will see that the 2010 is a false deadline. Though of course, we will only see once June 30, 2010 passes and the President remains in office, or not. Uniffors reprints a Walden Bello opinion piece which says military intervention is “definitely a cure worse than the disease.” Newsstand takes a slightly different look at surveys.

livingplanet has a curious point to make when hitting opinion writers:

The fact is the media and newspaper columnists are both generally biased and malleable. To get a clearer picture of an event, one needs to read the reporter’s probably biased account, the pro-administration columnist’s viewpoint, and the oppositiion columnist’s version. By triangulating these three versions, one hopes to get a clearer picture of what is happening. This is too much effort and is unfair to the paying reader. In this aspect, media has failed its most important constituent, the reader. Thus, there is little sympathy when an opposition newspaper is invaded by the police or a columnist is arrested during a rally.

What I find out is that the age-old role of writer and reader has now become an unfair burden on the reader? Then reducing this to its basic level means: don’t read, it’s too tiring. Ignorance is bliss. Information requires too much effort. The entry is, if you read the whole thing, a variation on the “let us move on” set of arguments (based on a flawed premise: after four decades, including the Marcos era, the Hacienda Luisita people had managed some kind of modus vivendi with their unions; the Communists decided to stir up trouble at a time when Cory Aquino seemed inclined to support the President; their are serious accusations that they sacrificed some of their people in a series of confrontations, which even if not true, also brings up the question of an over-eager military anxious for its own confrontations with the Communists; and howling over it gets my goat because if you really care about land reform, there’s reason for as large and even a larger, howl over the haciendas of the President’s husband and in-laws and many others firmly in the administration camp -so why the selective outrage?). The outrage is selective because it plays right into the hands of the administration propaganda line. I agree Cory Aquino has been tarnished permanently for not summoning the will to deprive her relatives of their land; but you don’t see even a token stock-sharing option in the haciendas of the Arroyos, do you? And were you to implement urban land reform, in a country increasingly urbanized, the middle class would be baying for blood.

H. Marcos C. Mordeno on why the support of some officials for the President is surprising and the support of others isn’t.

Asuncion David Maramba explores why the middle class so far remains divided -and says things will not be resolved politically until its mind is made up.

But I’d counter the above and everything else peddled by those stuck in  the “let’s move on” mental trap, with what Veenarat Laohapakakul’s written in the Nation:

Here’s how to tell if people are under a spell of illusion. First, they fail to listen. They always think they can do no wrong. No criticism, no matter how loud or how often, can make them see their faults.

What’s more, they will retaliate with strong words and actions, such as filing defamation and libel lawsuits, but never ever answer any questions that have been asked. Silencing their critics is one classic tactic that they know very well.

Second, they lose their conscience. In their illusive world, all they care about is personal gain and not what would benefit the country. Indeed, the concept of “conflict of interest” is totally alien to them. They will always cite the law as a legitimate basis for their decisions but fail to look at issues of appropriateness and what’s morally right.

And finally, there’s no such thing as showing responsibility for one’s own actions. They are exceptional in their ability to come up with loads of excuses. Believe it or not, the recent court ruling on the selling of national assets can’t even make them repent. They still insist what they are doing is right.

Please be aware that those who fit the above description are not practising voodoo, because even black magic cannot compete with the power of illusion. What is scary is that followers of illusion will try to create an illusory world for everyone else too. They will project the most beautiful picture of the economy, promise grand projects and insist that the country’s development scheme is on the right track. But they will never say who gets the most out of all this.

At times it’s easy to believe these illusions, and a large number of people are still caught under their spell. The good news, however, is that more and more people have come to realise the truth. It’s an amazing phenomenon that brings people from all walks of life, young and old, together for a single purpose.

Of course, illusion loyalists hate it. What they fear most is facing the truth, and that’s why the most spellbound person today has resorted to playing hide and seek. He says he doesn’t want confrontation, so he’s been acting like a ninja lately, popping up here and there without prior notice, in order to avoid all of those pesky questions being hurled at him.

How can we break free of this illusory world? The only way is to stand united against corruption and wrongdoing. Some say the current political crisis has driven a wedge into society, but having different opinions is what democracy is all about. We should accustom ourselves to speaking out and not remaining quiet on controversial issues.

The path may be long and tiring, but we must never compromise over misconduct. Otherwise Thailand will always be cast under a dark spell in which people become indifferent to morally wrong and selfish actions.

Let’s not be bored, let’s not give up, and let’s keep in mind that only people with something to hide have to be afraid.

Randy David expands a point he made at a talk in the Polo Club: the time has come to ostracize collaborators and supporters of the President. This idea is nothing new. The late Sec. Jaime Ongpin pointed out in his time change would be impossible if Filipinos didn’t take it upon themselves to make support for the Marcoses socially unacceptable. Ellen Tordesillas was at the talk and describes ostracism as political action further.

Red’s Herring examines American criticisms of French “barricade power.”

Rational Choice has some choice words for those proposing a ban on certain professions finding work abroad. Over lunch with a retired diplomat and some other people, the topic came up. Why, someone asked, with Filipino doctors dying to become nurses just to go abroad, do you have hundreds of Indian doctors willing to come here to work? The retired diplomat said, well, we have more social mobility than in India; if you think our class system is bad, imagine being trapped in the caste system; they like our society because it allows them to flourish and do well for themselves. Another person said: yes, but then the law does not permit foreigners to practice their professions here, and so, we cannot even replace with foreign brains, the Filipino brains that decide to go abroad.

livingplanet points to Green Map Philippines (in the Beta phase), which is part of the Business and Environment Portal. The Green Map is an exciting project: check it out and link to it, if you like it.

In blogkadahan.com, a powerful entry in the series on poverty by the partner of a blogger.

Whispers in the Loggia not only has a blow-by-blow account of the Consistory in which 15 new Cardinals were created, but also runs down what cardinals are, and aren’t. Check out his various entries, complete with photos. Cardinals are the historical successors of the clergy or Rome, which is why Guadencio Cardinal Rosales has been made titular of the church Santissimo Nome di Maria on the Via Latina. What’s interesting is that according to Vatican Watcher, he did not get the church given to his predecessors (a notch down in prestige for him or the archdiocese, since Rosales is at best, a transitional archbishop?) By now, Cardinal Rosales has probably taken possession of his titular church:

The possession-taking has a series of rituals all its own. And it allows each cardinal to have an impressive Roman ceremony all his own for his friends, colleagues, and anyone else who wishes to show up.

The new cardinal, wearing his choir dress (the red cassock, mozzetta, rochet and biretta) is received at the door of the church, where he is given a Crucifix to kiss and the aspergium to bless himself and those around him with holy water. By custom, the cross is always offered on a red silk pillow. He then processes up the aisle toward the altar of reservation, at which is a predieu which, again, is swathed in red silk.

After spending some time before the Blessed Sacrament, he goes to vest and Mass proceeds. After its conclusion, he signs the requisite documents which confirm his reception of the church.

Also via Vatican Watcher, a link to In the Light of the Law, which asks, if the Pope has dropped the title of Patriarch of the West, could it also mean the patriarchates will find new life? What if there’s a Patriarch of Manila, for example?

Download some of the oldest recorded music in existence. Free. Here are three I found from the collection: Belle of the Philippines (1905: this particular song has survived, I have a recording from a few years ago), Manila (1910),  Manila (1920),  In Old Manila (1921). And ever heard the voices of William Howard Taft, or William Jennings Bryan or Teddy Roosevelt?

Carlos Celdran describes an interesting art project involving call center workers.

Thanks to Banketa Republique for posting the alliterative manifesto of V:

This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-a -vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me…V.

I’m turning into a big fan of captainaqua’s comics:

And the Mischievious Boys have broken up.

Technorati Tags: constitution, media, military, people power, Philippines, politics

Institutionalizing people power

In a comment, commenter Francis asked if anyone’s come up with a counter-signature campaign, a question seconded by commenter CJV. I’ve had such a plan, all the way since September-October last year, and even got legal advice from some lawyers. The problem is, none of the groups I presented it to, were keen on it, for logistical reasons. The primary reason being, no money to set up such an effort.

At the time, the code name given the effort was “Beauty Contest,” and as the primer will explain, the effort was designed to accomplish several things:

1. Enable the public to express its opinions in a legal, democratic manner.
2. Serve as a means to counter the political machinery of the administration.
3. Keep political engagement within what’s constitutional, to prevent public frustration from being channeled towards non-constitutional efforts.
4. Take the fight out of Metro Manila and undertake it on a nationwide basis where each province gets to be heard.

My view was to channel opposition to the President in terms of each province passing a resolution saying they want the President to go. The resolution could just as easily be a positive one -in favor of a Constitutional Convention, for example- as a negative one -against the present, Palace-sponsored “people’s initiative.”

Opposition from the many groups I consulted was based on the following arguments:

1. It engaged in a fight -numbers- the administration’s poised to win.
2. Those in favor of more extreme measures -transitional councils, etc.- felt it would impede their efforts.
3. Too expensive (those with organizational experience said such an effort would require something along the lines of 2.5 million pesos).
4. Too long.
5. Even if provinces pass a resolution, it has no real effect other than to express something everyone already knows.

The end result has been that it got nowhere, while a similar effort has been undertaken by the administration. I was proposing this effort as recently as last week, but people still aren’t keen. The experience has left me extremely frustrated, of course; I said time and again that if we wouldn’t even try, then we might as well fold up our tents, go home, and join in singing the President’s praises.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s the paper and the research. The details include what I felt was clearly coming at the time it was written last year. The research proposes two ways citizens could get involved: on an individual level, or according to their organizations (such as lawyers’ groups, etc.). Both would resort to the law on initiative and referendum. A proposed resolution would be filed with the provincial board or city council. If the resolution is rejected, the citizenry could then say it has the requisite number of signatures to require a referendum so that the entire city or provincial electorate could decide the question. At that point, the Comelec would begin the steps required to validate signatures and then schedule a referendum.

Primer on a “Beauty Contest”

I. Objectives:

Reclaim constitution and the law: the process is mandated by law, provided for by law, requires the participation, peacefully, of the people.

Define a new people power through legal power: direct democracy again, countering elite power, that is, the manifestations of support by mayors and governors.

Harness direct democracy and the preference for the ballot box over protests: people will vote. Nuns can strap themselves to the ballot boxes. Attempts to cheat can be thwarted on the local level.

Derail the Cha-cha schedule, particularly the Cha-Cha referendum, derailed by our own. Invade the Cha-cha commission meetings to solicit signatures.

Withdraw support from the provinces, culminating in Manila: the President will be forced to campaign for office again, and machinations can be exposed: every city she visits must be festooned with black mourning banners and wreaths to greet her. Every effort, whether by Comelec, Supreme Court, Congress, Malacañang, or local kingpins pits national institutions against the local electorate.

Declare holidays as each province reaches its quota: peaceful, defiant, doesn’t inconvenience the unconcerned.

Declare holidays as each city and municipality in Metro Manila reaches its quota.

Declare a holiday when the referendum is won. By this time, it will be world news, and the world will know the President has been rejected by her people.

The people will lead. The clergy will provide moral support. The armed forces will simply watch.

II. Proposed Resolution

Resolution

Whereas, under the Constitution the Republic of the Philippines, sovereignty resides exclusively in the people;

Whereas, under the Constitutions and the laws of the Republic, the citizenry has been empowered to initiate and approve resolutions as a basic means of expressing the sense and opinions of the people, whether on local or national issues;

Whereas, the President of the Philippines, by her actions and behavior, has disgraced her office, cast her position and legitimacy into disrepute, divided her people, and refused all reasonable petitions from the public to be held accountable for her actions;

Whereas, the time has come for the people to reclaim for themselves the power to be heard by those elected into office, from the humblest barangay official to the President of the land;

Now therefore be it resolved, as it is hereby resolved, by the people of _________ that we wish it known that,

We, the sovereign Filipino people, do hereby resolve and make it known to all, that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo no longer enjoys the trust and confidence of the people, and that we, the people of _________, hereby withdraws our support from her administration.

Note: A resolution for a Constitutional Convention would do just as well.

III. Basis in law

INITIATIVE

Under R. A. No. 6735, initiative is the power to propose and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose. There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:

a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution;

(With respect to proposing constitutional amendments by way of initiative, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miriam Defensor Santiago v. COMELEC that R. A. No. 6735 was inadequate to conduct an initiative on amending the Constitution.)

a.2 Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and

a.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance,

REFERENDUM

Referendum, on the hand, is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election called for the purpose. It may be of two classes, namely:

c.1 Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress; and

c.2 Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.

FORM AND CONTENT OF INITIATIVE

The idea is essentially to put forth a statement of No Confidence on PGMA.  In that case, that statement of No Confidence should be  in the form of a resolution.

In the case of Garcia v. COMELEC (G. R. No. 111230, September 30, 1994), the issue in this case was whether a resolution can be the subject of an initiative and referendum.  The answer of the Court was that a resolution can be the subject of an initiative and referendum.  The Court used the congressional deliberations to justify the inclusion of resolutions as subject to initiative and referendum.

As stated in the case, and contrasting it with an ordinance, a resolution is “used whenever the legislature wishes to express an opinion which is to have only a temporary effect while an ordinance is intended to permanently direct and control matters applying to persons or things in general”.

Why emphasize a resolution? Because, a resolution does not have to be  issued for the purpose of amending or proposing any law or ordinance. As defined, a resolution is an expression of an opinion. The COMELEC, if it is adversarial to your cause, cannot compel you to justify the relevance of your resolution to any proposed national law. What graver opinion is there than for the entire citizenry to come up with a people’s resolution stating we have no confidence on her.

Thus, the best form to express a No-Confidence Vote is by way of a resolution.

National or Local?

Instead of an all-out national initiative, consider taking a look at conducting a local initiative, i.e., on  a per-city, or per-municipality, or per-province basis and coming out with a resolution of no-confidence.

Of course, this would depend greatly on our ability to mount a nationwide referendum.  In addition, let us consider that the COMELEC may want to atone for their past sins, but if so, would it be the COMELEC as an institution and the Commissioners or to individual, regional COMELEC officers?

If we are referring to the institution as a whole and the Commissioners wanted to cleanse their image, then by all means, go national. At the very least, it would be the Commissioners themselves fighting to redeem their reputation and would obliquely be assisting us in the endeavor especially, the act of validating the signatures of the registered voters. We would assume that they will provide you the latest voters’ list used in the last elections or a more updated list since there is a continuous voters registration.

But if mounting a nationwide referendum would be difficult (although it would seem that in the PIRMA initiative, before they were stopped by the Supreme Court, they already had 4.2 million signatures out of the threshold 6 million or so required signatures.  Incidentally, they had 17 major donors to fund the campaign. The costs have gone up by now), then the clear alternative is to mount a city by city, by municipality and by province initiative.

Will a local initiative still cover a resolution? Absolutely. The Local Government only provides that “Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the sanggunian to enact”.  And under the Garcia ruling adverted to above, a resolution is within the legal powers of the sanggunian to enact.

But with respect to its content such as a no-vote confidence vote on the president which seems to be national in scope, It is still justifiable. We have instances of provincial, municipal or city resolutions praising the president or honoring someone who brought glory to our country. We also have local resolutions showing support for the president.  If these resolutions can contain matters of national scope, there is no reason why they could not be used to show our dissatisfaction with the president.

But if in the highly unlikely event that it will not be allowed, the loophole, is for the resolution to be couched in a manner linking the no-confidence vote to the difficult economic hardships, or the diminishing peace and order of that particular place….just about any woe they are suffering from can be conceivably  related to the continued stay of the president.

Initial Requirement

In the national initiative and  referendum, the initial requirement is that: “at least  ten  per centum  (10%)  of  the  total  number  of the registered voters,  of  which  every  legislative district  is represented by at least three per centum (3) of the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition  for the purpose and register the same with the Commission.” (Sec. 5 [a] of R. A. 6735)

The Commission  shall  call  and supervise the conduct of initiative or referendum. Within  a  period of thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, the  Commission  shall,  upon determining  the sufficiency of the petition, publish the same in Filipino and English at least  twice  in newspapers  of  general and local circulation and set the date of the initiative  or  referendum  which shall  not  be  earlier  than  forty-five  (45)  days  but  not  later  than  ninety  (90)  days  from  the determination by the Commission of the sufficiency of the petition.

In a local initiative and referendum, the initial requirement is: minimum of  1,000 people in provinces or cities, 100 for municipalities can file a petition to propose a resolution before the local legislature and if not acted upon within 30 days, the people will inform the local legislature of their intent to use the power of initiative in which case, you have 90 days for cities and provinces to secure their signatures, 60 days for municipalities and 30 days for barangays. You are required to secure the same number of signatures as the national initiative and referendum.

If the required number of signatures is obtained, the COMELEC shall then set a date for the initiative during which the proposition shall be submitted to the registered voters in the local government unit concerned for their approval within sixty (60) days from the date of certification by the COMELEC, as provided in subsection (g) hereof, in case of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities, and thirty (30) days in case of barangays. The initiative shall then be held on the date set, after which the results thereof shall be certified and proclaimed by the COMELEC. (Sec. 122 (h) of the Local Government Code of 1991 [R. A. No. 7160])

Explanatory Notes:

Q. Can a resolution be a subject of an initiative?

A: Yes, under the case of Garcia v Comelec (G. R. No. 111230, September 30, 1994) where the Supreme Court ruled that a resolution can be a subject of an initiative. As basis, they cited the congressional debates on R. A. No. 6735.

Q: Can we propose a resolution even without relation to any local law?

A: Yes, as defined under Sec. 3(a.3) of R. A. No. 6735, initiative  on  local  legislation  refers  to  a  “petition proposing to  enact regional, provincial, city, municipal, or  barangay law, resolution or ordinance”

Q: How is it different from referendum on a local law?

A: As defined under Sec. 3(c.2) of R. A. No. 6735, referendum on local law refers to “a petition to approve or reject  a  law, resolution  or  ordinance  enacted  by  regional assemblies and  local  legislative bodies”

The procedure for conducting an initiative and referendum was fleshed out in Comelec Resolution No. 2300 issued on January 16, 1991.  This resolution was issued in line with R. A. No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Law.

A reading of the Comelec Resolution suggests that a proponent can file a petition for initiative even while the signatures are yet to be gathered and completed.  While there are minor differences between a local and a national initiative, the thrust of both procedures encouraged the filing of a petition even without the required signatures.

However, that procedure was declared void in the case of Defensor Santiago v. Comelec (270 SCRA 106). The Supreme Court ruled in that case that:

“Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.  The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters.  Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered signatures and that the purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures.  Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated.

The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing.  The petition then is the initiatory pleading.  Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc.  The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative district; (3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’ identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.”

While this case declared unconstitutional the procedure of initiative in revising the Constitution, the general principle that the petition must be accompanied by the required signatures applies to local initiative as well because Sec. 4(d) of R. A. No. 6735 provides that like a national initiative, a local initiative is

“…… deemed  validly  initiated  if the petition  therefor  is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in  the province or  city,  of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per  centum  (3%)  of the  registered  voters  therein……..”

Since the definition of national and local initiative under R. A. No. 6735 are similar in that both are deemed validly initiated only upon the required signatures, this means we cannot file a petition for initiative until we acquire the necessary number of signatures.  Once we acquire the required number, we can file the petition with or without the verification from the election supervisor. The certification can come later but we run the risk of having the initiative dismissed if the supervisor rejects most of the voters’ signatures. Hence, the proponents or their representatives must be vigilant in observing the verification.

The safe course is to encourage as many people to sign the petition within the 90 day period even if the signatures already exceed the required number. Since, the supervisors will verify the signatures during the 90 day period, we will immediately know if we reached the threshold or not.  If we reached it and the signatures have already been verified, we can proceed with the filing.  If not, we mobilize and exhaust the 90 day period.

Roadblocks

1. There is a one-year limitation on initiatives.  Similar to an impeachment case, you can only file one initiative a year.  So, if the initiative snowballs, the governors of other provinces or pro-GMA congressmen  can immediately stymie the process by coming up with their own resolution supporting the president or just come out with any initiative in order to suspend the initiative process for at least one year.

To prevent the process from being hijacked by the other side, the proponents should immediately secure the 1,000 voters to sign the petition.  Since the provincial board has 30 days to decide, we can use those 30 days to consolidate the supporters in that province.

It would therefore mean expanding our spheres of testing. I am not so sure that they will even ignore the first few provinces or cities anymore since the president is on the defensive and she needs the public display of support.

2. On the province level, if the provincial election supervisor is close to the governor, the supervisor can reject the voters’ signature or that the signature of the voter appears more than once in the same forms.  Hence, vigilance is vital.

3. Since COMELEC in Manila will be informed of the initiative, assuming it is a hostile party, the Comelec or an opponent can oppose the petition in order to:
a. delay the issuance of the certificate of the total numbers of voters in a legislative district;
b. rule that the resolution expressing withdrawal of support from the president is not a valid subject for a resolution (this position is untenable because there are only 2 prohibited measures, namely, the initiative cannot cover more than one subject and statutes involving emergency measures which are reserved only to Congress. Still they may be used);
c. deny the initiative on the ground that the Comelec has yet to issue new rules on initiative in the light of the Defensor Santiago case declaring Comelec Resolution No. 2300 void. (This is not true. The Supreme Court did not declare the entire Comelec Resolution void, only those parts touching on the Constitution;

4. Since the signing of the petition will largely depend on the voters going to the signature stations, the proponents must mobilize the electorate on four occasions: (1) on the first 1000 voters; (2) on the signing of the petition in order for it to go forward; (3) during the special registration to be held 3 weeks before the initiative; and (4) the day of the initiative.

5. The proponents must also watch out that there are no “flying signers”. The proponents may be lulled into believing the big turnout of signers only to discover that the petition was dismissed because of falsified signatures.

6. Lastly, even before the initiative gets going, identify and form the legal team in each province that will fight all the legal dilatory tactics that may be employed.

IV. Procedures

A. ABBREVIATED PROCEDURE FOR A PROVINCIAL INITIATIVE

1. Secure signatures of 1,000 registered voters in case of province and 2,000 registered voters in autonomous regions;

2. File before the Provincial Board a petition proposing the resolution;

3. If no action or unfavorable action by the board, proponents notify the board that it is invoking the power of initiative;

4. Within 90 days from notice to the Board, secure the required number of signatures, which is 10% of the registered voters of the province, with each legislative district having at least 3% of the registered voters signing the petition;
5. As soon as required number of signatures are secured, file with the election registrar, the Petition for Initiative, witnessed by proponent and a provincial board member or their respective representatives;

The petition shall contain as follows:

(a) The preliminary requirement as to the number of signatures of registered voters for the petition;

(b) The submission of the petition to the local legislative body concerned;

(c) The effect of the legislative body’s failure to favorably act thereon, and the invocation of the power of initiative as a consequence thereof;

(d) The formulation of the proposition;

(e) The required period within which to gather the signatures;

(f) Proof of compliance with the required signatures obtained within the mandated period

6. The COMELEC verifies the signatures based on the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits and voters’ identification cards used in the immediately preceding election. If sufficient in form, COMELEC certifies;

7. COMELEC sets a date for the initiative within 60 days from the date of COMELEC certification;

8. At least 3 weeks before scheduled initiative, COMELEC sets a special registration day;

9. If the resolution is approved by a majority of the votes cast, it shall take effect fifteen (15) days after certification by the COMELEC;

Limitations on Local Initiatives.

a. The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.

b. Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the provincial board to enact.

c. If at any time before the initiative is held, the provincial board in toto the proposition presented and the governor approves the same, the initiative shall be canceled. However, those against such action may, if they so desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein provided.

Limitation on the Provincial Board  (Sec. 125 – LGC)

The resolution cannot not be repealed, modified or amended by the provincial board within six (6) months from approval, and may be amended, modified or repealed by the board within three (3) years thereafter by a vote of 3/4 of all the provincial board members.

———————————————————————————————

Sec. 11. Indirect Initiative. -

Any duly accredited people’s organization may file a petition for indirect initiative with the provincial board.

The petition shall contain a summary of the chief purposes and contents of the resolution that the organization proposes;

The legislature procedure on the initiative bill shall be the same as any legislative measure except that the initiative bill shall have precedence over the other pending legislative measures on the committee.

(Sec. 11 of R. A. 6735 in relation to Santiago et al., v. COMELEC et al., G. R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 where it held that indirect initiative applies likewise to local legislative bodies)

Note:

Indirect Initiative is far simpler than an initiative if we can assume that we have a friendly provincial board. It does away with signatures provided that we can secure an accredited people’s organization.  The beauty of an indirect initiative is that the initiative takes precedence over other local bills. The bad thing about it is even if the law says it can take precedence, an unfriendly majority whip can still delay the passage.

TIMELINE

a. Pre-October 1 – Secure the signatures of 1,000 registered voters

b. October 1 – Filing of petition for a proposed resolution with the provincial board.

c. October 31 – If no action by the provinicial board, file notice with it that you are invoking the right to a people’s initiative.

d. November 1 to January 29 – 90 days within which to collect the required signatures. This is the maximum period.

e. Unknown time it will take COMELEC to verify and authenticate the signatures.  If signatures are in order, COMELEC will certify.

f. Initiative will be held 60 days from COMELEC certification

g. But 3 weeks before initiative, COMELEC will hold a special registration.

B. PROCEDURE FOR A PROVINCIAL INITIATIVE (DETAILED VERSION)

1. At least one thousand (1,000) registered voters in case of provinces and cities or at least 2,000 registered votes in autonomous regions file a petition with the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (“provincial board” for ease) proposing the resolution; (Sec. 122(a) – R. A. 7160 [Local Government Code of 1991 `LGC')

2. When no action or favorable action is taken by the provincial board within 30 days from its presentation, the proponents, through their duly authorized and registered representatives, invoke the power of initiative by notifying the provincial board; (Sec. 122(b) - LGC)

3. The proponents have 90 days from the last day of the provincial board's non-action (60 days for cities) to collect the required number of signatures, which is 10% of the registered voters of the province or city, with each legislative district having at least 3% of the registered voters signing the petition; (Sec. 122(e) - LGC in relation to Sec. 5(d) of R. A. 6735 [Initiative & Referendum Law])

4. Upon compliance with the required number of signatures and within the required period, 90 days in case of provinces, the proponents shall file the Petition for Initiative in front of an election registrar, or his designated representatives, witnessed by a representative of the proponents, a representative of the provincial board in a public place in the province;

The petition shall contain as follows:

(g) The preliminary requirement as to the number of signatures of registered voters for the petition;

(h) The submission of the petition to the local legislative body concerned;

(i) The effect of the legislative body’s failure to favorably act thereon, and the invocation of the power of initiative as a consequence thereof;

(j) The formulation of the proposition;

(k) The required period within which to gather the signatures;

(l) Proof of compliance with the required signatures obtained within the mandated period (Sec. 122(f) – LGC in relation to Santiago et al., v. COMELEC et al., G. R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997)

5. The COMELEC will verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits and voters’ identification cards used in the immediately preceding election and certify whether the required number of signatures has been obtained. (Sec. 122(g) LGC in relation to Sec. 7 of R. A. 6735)

6. If the required number of signatures is obtained, COMELEC shall set a date for the initiative during which the resolution shall be submitted to the registered voters in the province for their approval within sixty (60) days from the date of certification by the COMELEC in case of provinces and cities. (Sec. 122(h) – LGC)

7. The Commission on Elections shall set a special registration day at least three (3) weeks before a scheduled initiative or referendum. (Sec. 6 of R. A. 6735)

8. The initiative shall then be held on the date set, after which the results thereof shall be certified and proclaimed by the COMELEC.  (Sec. 122(h) – LGC)

9. If the resolution is approved by a majority of the votes cast, it shall take effect fifteen (15) days after certification by the Comelec as if affirmative action had been made by the provincial board and the governor.  If it fails to obtain said number of votes, the proposition is considered defeated. (Sec. 123 – LGC)

Limitations on Local Initiatives. (Sec. 124 – LGC)

d. The power of local initiative shall not be exercised more than once a year.

e. Initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the provincial board to enact.

f. If at any time before the initiative is held, the provincial board in toto the proposition presented and the governor approves the same, the initiative shall be canceled. However, those against such action may, if they so desire, apply for initiative in the manner herein provided.

Limitation on the Provincial Board  (Sec. 125 – LGC)

The resolution approved shall not be repealed, modified or amended by the provincial board within six (6) months from the date of the approval thereof, and may be amended, modified or repealed by the board within three (3) years thereafter by a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all the provincial board members.

———————————————————————————————
Sec. 11. Indirect Initiative. -

Any duly accredited people’s organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect initiative with the provincial board. The petition shall contain a summary of the chief purposes and contents of the bill that the organization proposes to be enacted into law by the legislature. The procedure to be followed on the initiative bill shall be the same as the enactment of any legislative measure before the provincial board except that the said initiative bill shall have precedence over the other pending legislative measures on the committee.

(Sec. 11 of R. A. 6735 in relation to Santiago et al., v. COMELEC et al., G. R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 where it held that indirect initiative applies likewise to local legislative bodies)

V. Tactics

A. how to hasten the verification process of the Comelec.

Under the law, Comelec is supposed to verify the signatures upon filing of the petition.  But if there are sympathetic regional Comelec officers, they can be asked to authenticate the signatures on a piece-meal basis (an agreed minimum number of secured signatures) while the required number of signatures is being completed.  So that once the petition is filed, the signatures to be authenticated will be less by then.

Incidentally, as to the issue whether resolution is the subject of an initiative, Isee the relevant portion of the Initiative and Referendum Law, to wit:  “a.3  Initiative  on  local  legislation  which  refers  to  a  petition proposing to  enact regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance”. Clearly, an initiative can be conducted to propose a resolution.

What is being conducted is an initiative and not a referendum because local referendum, on the other hand, deals with the “petition to  approve or reject  a  law, resolution  or  ordinance  enacted  by  regional  assemblies and  local  legislative bodies.”  That is not the purpose of this exercise.

The Comelec bible for initiative is COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 adopted last Jan. 16, 1991.

However, in the case of Defensor Santiago v. Comelec penned by Davide, the Comelec, under that resolution, can verify the signatures already even before the petition is filed. The pertinent portion of the case:

“The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing.  The petition then is the initiatory pleading.  Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc.  The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are:

(1) to prescribe the form of the petition;

(2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative district;

(3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature stations; and

(4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’ identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.”

In effect, it is possible hasten the verification of the signatures well before the petition is filed. And even while the provincial board is deliberating on the proposed resolution, an inquiry with the Comelec can be made with respect to item (2) and seek their assistance with respect to item (3).

Technorati Tags: constitution, law, people power, Philippines, politics

Signature rodeo underway

What is wrong with the title of this story: Cardinal Rosales to get Red Hat in Vatican rites. Give up? The fact that until he receives the red hat, Archbishop Gaudencio Rosales isn’t a Cardinal yet. Since Cardinals are created, the moment of creation is when the Pope hands the red Cardinal’s hat to the person made a Cardinal at that moment.

Whispers in the Loggia is the premier blog for all things Vatican-related: the Pope’s gathering with existing Cardinals here and here, and the finery that Cardinals get to wear. A great blog on ecclesiastical costumes is Dappled Photos.

In today’s news, as reported in this blog the other day, it’s pretty much official: Charter change process gets going Saturday (Inquirer) Signature drive gets under way (Manila Standard-Today). The Inquirer story has provincial officials and a party-list representative saying government’s behind the move; the Standard-Today story suggests there is a civil society face to the effort. A sample of the Palace spin: ‘RP to earn as much as P10B under parliamentary system’: as a friend put it, “what a pandering puppy of positivism!” Bangketa Republique blogs about how the report’s ruining the weekend for some people.

The Inquirer editorial says we may be seeing an end to what the President called a “great debate.”

Cops slam CHR report: last night’s news had the Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments clad in combat fatigues (looking like he misplaced his glasses along the way) growling that civilians are unqualified to judge the military: he forgets he heads a civilian police force, and that he no longer works for Ferdinand Marcos. Like it or not, until he accomplishes the scrapping of the present Constitution, the Commission on Human Rights has a mandate to interfere -the only problem being it seems to interfere too little and too slowly.

Bangko Sentral cuts RP’s dollar surplus forecast.

Judge in Subic rape case pulls out; arraignment postponed

Palace balks at criticisms over order to regulate state ads. Of course. Many smaller papers, though, are kept alive mainly by government ads. Therefore, creating, in a sense, a government ad placement authority is a strategically clever move, and is quite politically useful. Such a move is not a blow to press freedom; but it is an enhancement of government’s financial clout with the media.

Garci a ‘jetsetter,’ says Osmeña

Good news: Naia-3 ready for ‘roll-out test’

Overseas, India’s Sonia Gandhi resigns from parliament out of what Filipinos would call delicadeza. Thaksin, rivals turn to spells, spirits to gain edge amid political turmoil. More seriously, Thailand assures embassies government’s still functioning: but when you have to make such assurances, well… Anyway, this think-piece, too: Royal intervention denies our history. Is royal intervention to the Thai crisis what military intervention would be in ours?

In the punditocracy, JB Baylon says the administration is feeling the noose tightening around its neck.

Dan Mariano tackles Jamby Madrigal’s electoral record -and questions concerning her mandate.

Emil Jurado doesn’t think ABS-CBN is serious about facing up to charges in court, and is convinced Charter Change will proceed, regardless of Constitutional obstacles.

In the blogosphere, Philippine Commentary takes a potshot at Juan Mercado and tackles last night’s interview of Bong Austero on Ricky Carandang’s show. I found the interview very engaging. Austero clarified what he felt were misunderstandings about his open letter, emphasizing that it was written in response to a particular set of events. His biggest condemnation is reserved for coup-plotting and extraconstitutional efforts. Efforts to either convince the President to step down or to remove her by impeachment are OK with him. He also clarified that by no stretch of the imagination can he be considered an apologist, supporter, or defender of the President, but that until a credible replacement can be found, and those opposed to the President publicly commit to sticking to purely Constitutional means, he will remain skeptical of efforts to oppose her. He also suggested that the President shouldn’t be the sole target, and that a broader opposition not just to her, but to her entire apparatus, would add credibility to those opposed to her (as would a concerted opposition to the usual suspects like the Marcoses and Estradas). Austero said his support for the President is conditional and temporary, or words to that effect. It will be interesting to see how the administration hostility towards its opponents, and critics, and even the way Austero himself was a bit miffed by his letter being used for government propaganda, will affect his stand; the clincher, to my mind, though, will be how Constitutional change is handled. Since my view (extremist even for many already opposed to the President) is that the President has no option to be president-for-life, I think events will bear out my point of view, and those giving the President the benefit of the doubt will eventually come around to realizing she has to be opposed.

Coffee with Amee and Newsstand (in a preliminary)and Concerns of a Bystander react to Sassy Lawyer’s views on opinion writing.

Philippine Politics 04 points to an interesting view of what’s going on in Belarus: sounds eerily familiar.

Uniffors on rural unrest in China.

When the Excrement Hits the Ventilation on the frustrations of calling up government offices.

baratillo books cinema@cubao on memories of Joseph Estrada.

WWF blog on dwarf giraffes.

Peter Laviña is a councilor from Davao: hopefully just the latest in more such blogs.

Black Friday Protest today (won’t be there: work to do). caffeine sparks isn’t too keen on the logo, though. stepping on poop has fun suggesting a fine print version (though a parody, actually more attractive than the genuine article).

Technorati Tags: constitution, flash mobs, journalism, media, people power, Philippines, politics

Vigil at the National I.C.U.

Where to get your Black T-Shirt in case you want to wear one or wipe your ass with it.

Details on the upcoming Black Friday Protest Movement activity.

In today’s news:

Garci’s passport was, well, not up to standards (well, one of them, anyway): Garci passport faked, says central bank.

Economist Ciel Habito’s account of how signatures are being gathered for Charter Change (and a photo of a Barangay assembly banner). Malaya reports, Cha-cha campaign shifts to People’s Initiative. In Mindanews, Patricio Diaz says forget about a timetable, it’s better for the Palace to keep everybody guessing. Palace seeks middle ground on Charter change impasse.

Yesterday, as he was giving a press briefing, Sec. Mike Defensor was startled when the Malacañan Palace sign behind him fell off the wall. Immediate response of those who saw it, live or on TV: ominous.

So which is it? Hagedorn out: All systems go for Small Town Lottery to kill ‘jueteng’ says the Inquirer; Palace Explains freeze on lottery says the Manila Times; Local lotteries to be allowed, eventually, says Manila Standard-Today.

P10b worth of defective P1,000 notes in BSP vault

Congressmen restore P70-M pork barrel

Senga warns of more coup attempts by Left, Right, rebels

Expect higher palay and corn production due to La Niña

In the Nation of Thailand, Suthichai Yoon says of Premier Thaksin, Don’t listen to his words, just read his trembling lips: He means “yes” when he says “no”. When he says: “Trust me, I am telling you the truth”, that’s when you should reach for a lie detector.

In the punditocracy, my column for today is Reconciliation.

Gail Ilagan says its clownish for the opposition to demand to talk to the troops. I agree.

Tony Abaya points out the built-in futility of the political alliances that have formed in the opposition -and what would happen if they won.

Manuel Buencamino wonders why some witnesses are more credible than others.

Connie Veneracion writes an exegesis and apologia for column-writing. Ben Lim tackles the ideal role of the National Telecommunications Commission.

The Inquirer editorial comments on witness-snatching.

Catch S.G. Austero tonight on Ricky Carandang’s show, “The big Picture,” on ANC at 9 p.m (Ricky might be in a bad mood because of Juan Mercado’s column today, though). Incidentally, I really, really, liked this entry by Bong Austero. He has a four-point recommendation which is great:

I think that first, we should get commitment from everyone – and I mean everyone – pro or anti, leftist or rightist, opposition or government – to respect democratic processes. No more extra constitutional solutions. No more coups. No more conspiracies to topple the government through extra-constitutional means. No more arrests without warrants.

Second, I think it is time to bring the discussion to the level of what is “the common good.” We can disagree on how to get there, we can disagree on what is the right course of action, but we should all focus on a more strategic goal – a better country in say, three or four year’s time…

Third and necessarily, I think that it is time to come to the table with a little more sincerity. I ranted about vested interests and selfish intentions in that letter. It is time to come clean and this is only possible in an environment that is free from moralizing and judging. For example, let us stop obfuscating about whether there was a conspiracy or an attempted coup last February because as the no-nonsense Professor Solita Monsod said on public television: meron talaga coup! And since the threats to stability has been reduced and it has been proven that the people are not wont to support such moves anyway, it is best for government to come clean now, rectify the mistakes, and stop all this senseless posturing.

Fourth, it is time for ordinary Filipinos to take the discussion and the crafting of the solution out of the hands of the politicians. For crying out loud, who actually listens to them? I know I reach for the remote control everytime someone of their ilk comes on television.

This is the sort of thing that helps push forward the idea that there remains more to unite us than divides us (if you look beyond the President). The difficulty though, is that it requires everyone’s cooperation (what happens, for example, if the arrests without warrants don’t cease? obviously, more of the kind of protests that drive those who disagree with them, nuts).

A couple of blog entries also worth devoting some quality reading time to. the first is by Big Mango, who  starts with a review of “V for Vendetta” and suggests what we need is to seriously reconsider the existing structures of our country. In a sense, thought not always when it comes to particulars, we see eye to eye on this. My personal frustration with what’s going on now, is that the present administration is like an accident victim on life support, with everyone desperately trying to postpone the decision on when to pull the plug. It does neither the patient, potential recipients of organs, or the family, any good.

The necessary and urgent changes are being postponed. A proper debate as to what those changes should be -though I think in many ways, there is actually a kind of consensus on what those changes should be, the difficult part is the speed and extent to adopt- can’t take place because it’s hopelessly muddled by the frantic desire to keep the patient artificially alive. The result is an artificial and unhealthy disconnect between those already moving forward in the provinces, and those reduced to trench warfare in Metro Manila. That patient, of course, is the President, and postponing the pulling of the plug is all that’s been accomplished by her in the past months.  In fact, Big Mango’s thoughts have a lot in common with those expressed by Bong Austero.

The second is courtesy of Coffee with Amee, in Concerns of a Bystander, thoughts on what democracy is and should be about. Great quotes, some provocative thoughts.

Carlos Celdran thoughtfully responds to Howie Severino’s thoughts on Filipino and English. The problem is really quite complicated and requires a rethinking of existing language policy, such as it is. In the first place, existing Philippine languages are either dying out, or are being displaced by Filipino; on the other hand, English is becoming far more of an elite language than at any other time previously. Both Filipino and English are also in danger of ceasing to be living languages, in that neither are fully stepping up to the plate as being vehicles for intellectual discourse -or if it is, it’s only serving this purpose among a dwindling few. Of course these statements are, to a certain extent, generalizations, but it should be of concern in a country which has high levels of literacy but which might not have such a high level of functional literacy. Carlos Celdran says we should promote bilingualism; I agree; a further effort should be made to bring back the original goal, long since lost and perverted, when a national language was proposed and adopted: trilingualism, competency in one’s native language, the national language, and a foreign language. The mistake of the past two generations has been to displace English with Filipino; and now, displacing other Philippine languages with Filipino, too. Is the solution abolishing Filipino? I doubt it. It is integrating Filipino in the teaching of English, and other Philippine languages in teaching Filipino and English -and diverting some of our meager government resources into making all these languages truly living ones (I would even go as far as supporting an already moderate proposal, considering how emotional the language debate becomes, to require Tagalogs to learn a non-Tagalog Philippine language, since non-Tagalogs have to learn Filipino which is basically Metro Manila Tagalog).

Two readings from the Philippines Free Press Online: And the January 30 Insurrection by Pete Lacaba (republished in his book, Days of Disquiet, Nights of Rage), and The Long Week, by Kerima Polotan, both from 1970, about the First Quarter Storm. Many of the figures and institutions in the articles are still familiar to present-day readers. Lacaba takes a sympathetic, even romantic, view of the protesters; Polotan casts a skeptical glare at everyone and everything. Incidentally, both writers would incur Marcos’s ire during martial law: Lacaba was imprisoned, and Polotan had to go into exile for writing a biography of Mrs. Marcos that displeased the Palace.

blog@AWBHoldings.com tackles Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,  and the Social Contract.

This, I didn’t notice: Philippine Politics 04 points to People Power in Belarus.

This, I found startling: Torn & Frayed says the Brits have very little national pride.

baratillo books cinema@cubao poetizes about Dinky.

And this, I just found funny (by captainaqua):

Technorati Tags: constitution, flash mobs, people power, Philippines, politics

Your taxes at work: Barangay assemblies on Saturday and Sunday! (updated)

The scuttlebutt today, concerns NGO sources confirm the gearing-up of the Palace effort to push forward Constitutional amendments. The preparations are being done stealthily, which is why no concrete confirmation can be obtained. But what is being said is disturbing enough  but not so stealthily that a plausible explanation can’t be made later on: for example, in Makati, a banner was spotted announcing a “barangay meeting” for Saturday, but no information on the banner as to what the meeting’s about.

A. On Saturday, it is expected that the President will announce that she is calling for synchronized, nationwide, Barangay assemblies to approve Charter change -and that those assemblies will instantly convene and pass whatever resolutions are required. The questions to be propounded or resolutions to be asked for might include support for unicameralism. The Department of the Interior and Local Government will take charge of the effort. I have received from one person in Quezon City that in the case of their barangay, the assembly will be on Sunday, March 26, at 9 am (as noted above, the sign in Makati says Saturday, so it seems its a weekend affair for the various barangays). Another barangay in Las Piñas, when called, said the assembly for March 25 has been reset to April 8 -Charter change though, according to that barangay, is not on the agenda. A barangay in QC has also confirmed their assembly is on April 8.

B. Provincial officials are already busy collecting signatures. A variation says provincial governors are undertaking the task of gathering signatures. The logistics involve 40 to 400 signature-gatherers per town.

An NGO describes the efforts as follows:

[W]e’ve also received info from Southern Tagalog and Panay that the DILG is in an all-out campaign for signatures for their cha-cha… they’ve assigned barangay coordinators and signature solicitors who are given the quota of 40 signatures each.  Depending on the number of voters, they have anywhere from 40 to 400 signature solicitors.

the copy of the petition to the comelec that they are circulating calls for a shift to a unicameral-parliamentary government with:

-the incumbent president (gma) and vp continuing to exercise their powers until 2010,
-the formation of an interim parliament to be composed of the incumbent vp, senators, congresspersons and members of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments,
-no set date for the election of the regular parliament; instead it merely states that “the interim parliament shall provide for the election of the members of Parliament”, and
-the interim Parliament convening within 45 days from the ratification of the amendments “to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy”.

The purpose of course, is to be able to argue that there is public support in the provinces for Charter change on the administration’s terms. There will be no debate. Only a parade of steamrollers. And the Constitution envisioned, as the loopholes above show, will ensure that the present third-termers in the House will have term limits lifted, and no one for the administration will have to face the public at the polls in the near or medium term future.

Update: a source says a foreign visitor in a meeting was supposedly told by DILG Sec. Ronaldo Puno that actually, what could be proposed in the assemblies is something as radical as abolishing the Philippine Senate. Then the by now unicameral Philippine legislature could modify the Constitution further at its own pace and pleasure.

Anyway, in the news….

Yesterday’s administration trial balloon -to establish a government monopoly on jueteng- resulted in a blood-curdling story by the Inquirer:
Interior chief to run gov’t ‘jueteng’ . Blood-curdling because, as the Interior Secretary is poised to lead the campaign for Charter Change, arming him with almost inexhaustible supply of funds sourced from gambling would simply have been too conveniently-timed. Other papers say the government’s backpedaled: Puno: DILG will not operate STL and Palace heeds anti-govt-jueteng calls so that Govt stops local lotteries.

Now this is the kind of story that gives media critics ammunition with which to take pot-shots at the press: Dress code used to browbeat press. The question isn’t why the Presidential Guards have to remind the press about the dress code, it’s why the press doesn’t have enough respect for the President and the Palace to obey the dress code. That dress code has been in force for years. And rightly so. Jove Francisco, part of the Palace Press Corps, blogs about it.

In Thailand: the other day, Thai protesters pour into Bangkok’s business district although Number of anti-Thaksin demonstrators “exaggerated.” In the Nation, this commentary: Premier is pushing for a late goal to take it into extra time. And this amusing story: Thaksin era beset by evil omens.

And just a sampling of Filipinos who have been charged with sedition in the past. Among other reasons, this is why I seriously believe sedition is a crime that’s incompatible with our present circumstances:

Fr. Jacinto Zamora
Fr. Jose Burgos
Jose Rizal
Andres Bonifacio
Aurelio Tolentino
Crisanto Evangelista
Diosdado Macapagal
Felixberto Olalia
Raquel Edralin-Tiglao
Rigoberto Tiglao

In the punditocracy, my Arab News column for this week is Black T-Shirts and the Political Controversy. In his column, Lito Banayo suggests everyone just wear blue.

Patricio Diaz argues that the role of media is unappreciated.

Greg Macabenta appeals to overseas Filipinos to follow the debate on Charter change, and warns that Filipinos abroad are about to be deprived of their hard-won ability to participate in elections from overseas.

Amando Doronila wonders why more people aren’t marching against the President.

Tony Abaya concludes his views on revolutionary governments -apparently, so long as they’re not Communist-led, or participated in by unreprentant socialists, they’re good and even necessary. Personally, at this point, I think the real question is not whether the country needs Socialism, but rather, how much.

The Inquirer editorial tackles the killing of dissidents; the Manila Times editorial tackles the raid on the 168 mall.

In the blogosphere and online, Pajamas Media points to an article by Stephen Hayes, Saddam’s Philippines Terror Connection. This is the latest round in justifications for the Iraqi invasion (and essentially, an indictment of the President’s pulling the Philippine contingent out of Iraq). An interesting article in Slate is Christopher Hitchen’s My Ideal War: How the international community should have responded to Bush’s September 2002 U.N. speech.

PCIJ covers former president Estrada’s appearance in court: Estrada takes the stand and Estrada denies receiving kickbacks.

Ellen Tordesillas discusses the new US Ambassador and reduced American assistance to the Philippines. She quotes extensively from a report in Manila Mail DC Online.

A splendid exchange of views on press freedom is taking place at Sassy Lawyer’s. Highly illuminating.

maetrics points to the forum Libertas, which in turn points to the fears of Warner Brothers that the film “V for Vendetta” might cause trouble among American youth.

Quote of the day:

During the debate on the Executive Power it was the almost unanimous opinion that we had invested the Executive with rather extraordinary prerogatives. There is much truth in this assertion. But it is because we cannot be insensible to the events that are transpiring around us, events which, when all is said and done, are nothing but history repeating itself. In fact, we have seen how dictatorships, whether black or red, capitalistic or proletarian, fascistic or communistic, ancient or modern, have served as the last refuge of peoples when their parliaments fail and they are already powerless to save themselves from misgovernment and chaos. Learning our lesson from the truth of history, and determined to spare our people the evils of dictatorship and anarchy, we have thought it prudent to establish an executive power which, subject to the fiscalization of the Assembly, and of public opinion, will not only know how to govern, but will actually govern, with a firm and steady hand, unembarrassed by vexations, interferences by other departments, or by unholy alliances with this and that social group. Thus, possessed with the necessary gifts of honesty and competence, this Executive will be able to give his people an orderly and progressive government, without need of usurping or abdicating powers, and cunning subterfuges will not avail to extenuate his failures before the bar of public opinion.
-Claro M. Recto
Valedictory address before the Constitutional Convention, 1935
[The Philippine Constitution  Sources, Making, Meaning, and Application, the Philippine Lawyers' Association, p. 540].

Technorati Tags: constitution, flash mobs, journalism, law, media, Philippines, politics

The time for dialogue has long passed -Thai newspaper

The politico-fashion debate continues:

Nachura’s take: It’s the wearer, not the shirt. His arguments seem to be the following:

1. For an ordinary citizen to wear a black T-shirt with the logo “Patalsikin na! Now na!” Is not wrong.
2. For an identified critic of the President to wear it is wrong.
3. For anyone to wear it in the company of other people wearing the same thing, is wrong and can possibly be considered seditious.
4. The sole judge of what is permissible assembly are the police. Perception is as important as any factual circumstances surrounding any gathering; hence “Round up the usual suspects!”. Or, the Minority Report principle of law enforcement.
5. People are free to distribute the shirts, but they are liable for the consequences of their actions, which begins with distributing the shirts.

Edwin Lacierda tackles the fashion police-obstructed event in light of the Public Assembly Law. Read his discussion of the law; which is why I said on ANC last night, what is in dispute is the interpretation of the law made by the fashion police. Lacierda, among other things, points out that:

1. Batas Pambansa 880 cannot abridge the freedom to peaceably assemble guaranteed by the Constitution. It can only impose time, manner, and place regulations in the interest of the broader public’s not being subjected to traffic, mayhem, or chaos.
2. The law is “content neutral,” which means the law cannot, and does not, have a bias against any particular kind of assembly, whether for or against the administration: indeed, from the point of view of the law and previous decisions of the courts, anti-administration speech is protected speech.

Palace supports Dinky’s arrest (naturally) but CHR probes Dinky’s arrest (which is a welcome surprise; my only question is why only this arrest and not the previous ones of other people).

ExpectoRants found the whole thing hilariously enjoyable. A Manila Bulletin commentary finds it funny, too: Dinky and the fashion cops.

Defensor: Palace is not paranoid, has no plans to muzzle media. Not plans they’ll admit to or disclose, anyway.

Palace welcomes positive assessments of RP’s economy. In other business news of sorts, Small town lotteries get Palace go-ahead (I’m actually for turning jueteng into a state monopoly like other forms of gambling; wiping out gambling is as futile as Prohibition was in America, and as harmful in the long run).

20-plus senators sign assembly resolution: so sorry, but nyet to the both houses vote as one argument of the House.

In Thailand, the Nation, in its editorial, says Democracy put to the ultimate test:

…Thaksin Shinawatra has launched an all-out offensive against his swelling ranks of critics. Portraying himself as a champion of democracy, Thaksin claims to be heroically abiding by the rules as an upright politician, in order to fend off “unprincipled protesters bent on subverting the Constitution and imposing a mob rule on society”.

The premier insists that the supremacy of the ballot box offers the best possible solution for settling, once and for all, the current political deadlock, which centres on the question of his legitimacy as a democratic leader, or his lack thereof. He expects the outcome of the April 2 snap election not only to renew his mandate to rule, but also to absolve him of every transgression he has committed against Thai democracy and the Kingdom’s citizens over the five years he’s been in power.

Taken at face value, Thaksin’s argument appears sound and consistent with one of the most fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy. But on closer inspection, his invocation of ballot-box democracy, as he chooses to interpret it, does not hold water. It fails to take into consideration a major fallacy of the concept, particularly in a less-developed democracy like ours, in which the impoverished, poorly informed masses are easily manipulated by people of his ilk…

Once Thaksin gained power as “chief executive”, he allegedly proceeded to subvert the Constitution by undermining independent watchdog agencies, including the Constitution Court, the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Election Commission. Their job was to ensure the rule of law, be a check and balance on government power, ensure sound governance, public accountability and fair competition among political parties.

After five years of abuse, these constitutionally mandated organisations have inexplicably lost their effectiveness to serve their stated purposes. They have begun to toe the Thaksin government’s line and become instruments through which the Thai Rak Thai leader can bend the rules, both to tighten his grip on power and advance the selfish interests of himself and his cronies at the expense of the public good. Not even the supposedly politically neutral Senate has escaped such an ignominious fate.

In virtually every single compromised watchdog agency may be found allegations of collusion between the Thaksin government and those senators charged with the nomination and appointment of members to those “independent” bodies, plus allegations of people friendly to the government being installed.

It should thus hardly come as a surprise that all of the alleged corruption cases and high-handed manipulation of democratic institutions by Thaksin and his cronies have gone unpunished. That is why the main opposition parties, led by the Democrats, are boycotting the election. And it’s also why the anti-Thaksin movement, encompassing the urban middle class, civic groups and a growing cross-section of society – indeed all free-thinking, law-abiding citizens – has become so worked up and decided to take to the streets. Protesters are demanding that any fresh election for a new government must be preceded by a thorough reform of the Constitution and weeding out of corrupt elements from key democratic institutions.

Returning Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai Party to power through the ballot box on April 2 under the existing seriously flawed political system can only seriously jeopardise Thailand’s democracy and imperil its destiny as a viable economy. It could possibly cause social cohesion to disintegrate. The stakes may be high as the confrontation between the two sides of this conflict of ideas heats up, but the ultimate outcome – as to which side’s idea of democracy will prevail – is not in doubt.

It sounds like complaints made over here at home: what is the Ombudsman doing? Why is the Supreme Court silent? Why did impeachment get stalled? Why did everyone else get the blame for the absence of a fact-finding commission, when the President could have appointed one, and can still appoint one? Where is Comelec reform?

A commentary in the same Thai newspaper insists, The time for dialogue has long passed:

The proponents for dialogue or a debate seem to believe – rather naively – that a compromise can somehow be reached. But under the current political circumstances, a compromise is probably the last thing we need.

In fact, it was Thaksin who effectively closed the door to the possibility of a compromise when he decided to dissolve the House last month and branded those calling for his ouster “hooligans” and “devilish people”.

Rejecting all of the grievances against him, Thaksin has gone on the warpath. Ignoring the growing chorus for him to resign, Thaksin has hit the campaign trail and amid the cheerleading at every stop is drifting farther away from political reality.

Apparently still convinced that those who are campaigning for his ouster are just a small bunch of troublemakers, Thaksin is leaning on rural supporters who have benefited from his populist programmes to catapult him back to power through the ballot box…

If Thaksin is interested in a dialogue with his critics, as Government Spokesman Surapong Suebwonglee is trying to suggest, his only motive is to buy time to ease off the pressure. For Thaksin, nothing is going to come in the way of the snap election.

But Thaksin might have forgotten one thing. Democracy is more than having elections. There is no doubt that Thaksin and his party will triumph unopposed in the April 2 poll, which is being boycotted by all of the opposition parties. But political legitimacy doesn’t always come with the votes.

The snap election may pave the way for Thaksin to regain his mandate but will in no way restore his legitimacy to govern – not when a sizeable number of the population still question his ethics and integrity. Thaksin may take comfort from his grass-roots support, but he should know that if the broad sectors of urban society are strongly opposed to him and ready to continue to challenge him on the streets, his post-election administration would be dysfunctional from day one…

A closer look at Thaksin’s ongoing tour of the countryside tells us that the prime minister is doing more than hitting the campaign trail to get people to vote for his Thai Rak Thai Party on April 2. His cheerleading and hate-filled speeches at every stop are not only driving a wedge between rural folk and urban intellectuals, but also setting the stage for possible confrontation between them, in the event he is pressured to relinquish power.

It would be foolish to believe, as some senior Thai Rak Thai figures have quietly suggested to journalists, that Thaksin might consider taking a break from politics after the election…

But everything Thaksin is doing and saying suggests that stepping down or taking a break from politics is the last thing he is prepared to do. Any debate or dialogue is, therefore, at best a waste of time and at worst a diversion from the real issue.

Thaksin has brought the country to the brink of a crisis that cannot be defused with a compromise. Nothing short of his departure – forced or voluntary – can prevent society from sliding into what many fear will be anarchy.

In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial dwells on George Orwell’s 1984, with its Newspeak:

War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.

The editorial sums up why it’s important to make noise now, before being reduced to the silence of the grave:

Many critics believe that in Orwell’s generation, no other novel than “1984” stimulated so much loathing for tyranny and so much desire for freedom. In our present stage of political instability and turmoil, when there is undeclared martial law and a creeping movement toward authoritarianism, it would be well for the people to keep the lessons of “1984” in mind and strongly resist the totalitarian actions and rules of the administration. If we remain too long in a state of apathy and inaction, we may wake up too late, when we have already lost our freedom.

Connie Veneracion explains how bias and distortion can either creep in, or be actively fostered, in media; she believes self-regulation is not enough to maintain standards in media or protect the consumer from the effects of bad journalism.

Tony Abaya asks, if the present political order must pass, how do we tackle the question of what kind of alternative to pursue?

Juan Mercado says every Filipino who migrates or works abroad has already voted in a referendum.

In the blogosphere, Red’s Herring continues his explanations of political theory and how it applies to our present circumstances. First, he tackles Edsas past, present, and possibly future in The people’s choice. He then weighs in on the question of impeachment in Taxing the People’s limits.

Vincula suggests the administration has too short and selective a memory of past events. The Citizen on Mars rather admiringly compares the President to the Road Runner.

Philippine Commentary points to Fr. Joaquin Bernas’ column which tackles how the Supreme Court legitimizes even the illegitimate from time to time.

Newsstand further dissects the surveys to probe into what he identifies as the “outrage gap,” the difference between those who want the President to go, and the far smaller subset that is willing to do something about it. (Newsstand wasn’t that impressed with “V for Vendetta,” though). Big Mango also analyzes the numbers, and comes to a quite interesting conclusion about the importance of “silent majorities.”

Blurry Brain tackles how unemployment figures can change, depending on how unemployment is defined.

Uniffors has startling photos of then-Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

Technorati Tags: constitution, flash mobs, journalism, law, media, people power, Philippines, politics, state of emergency

Next Page »