It begins

So it’s official: the Legion’s on the march. They’re going to the Comelec today, after it was repeatedly floated they’d do it last week and the week before. They will, however, encounter opposition. Among the groups prepared to do so is One Voice, to which I belong. The group submits that the “people’s initiative” is a government initiative, not a manifestation of a genuine grassroots effort; the process followed was legally flawed, and government-initiated. Furthermore, if a “petition” is submitted, the public has the right to examine all the signatures.

For those inclined, there will be a Mass at 6:30 pm today at the Ateneo de Manila college chapel.

Since all this might result in a referendum by December (great date; great weather; great smokescreen as all expenses are up and funds can be released to coincide with end of calendar year), the public’s being conditioned as to what to expect:

1. Palace will be moving heaven and earth and directing all government agencies to cooperate. Just yesterday I was with some public school teachers, and they fully expect all DepEd-sponsored writing contests to focus on the theme of Constitutional Change, for example.
2. Don’t be surprised if controversial counting machines are utilized to “speed up” the “counting” of “votes”.
3. Don’t be surprised if government says there are budget problems again (this justifies the switching of resources to the campaign). See, for example, how Bangketa Republique worries the National Anti-Poverty Commission’s going to be used for election and plebiscite purposes. Cerge Remonde, after all, has been appointed to head it.

Escudero: history will vindicate us (indeed it will). Palace: we have buried you. The President was sleepless during the voting (for an account of the complainants’ experiences, see this and this entry by Helga), Police issues a loyal warning.

President proclaims the Guimaras oil spill a national emergency. She asks for a nation-wide drive to collect chicken feathers and human hair for mopping-up oil. Let us appeal to the anti-impeachment congressmen to lead by example and pluck themselves. Let us appeal to Rep. Marcoleta to take the lead in donating human hair. If his toupee doesn’t count, it can be used as a mop or an artifical reef.

Estrada documentary rated XXX by government censors board. Estrada camp announces it will put the documentary on line. Even Palace acolyte Emil Jurado thinks the decision was counterproductive (he’s old enough to remember that when government censors banned the showing of the Marcos biopic Iginuhit sa Tadhana, the decision became a campaign issue in the Macapagal-Marcos contest of 1965).

Philippine diplomats have a tough time abroad due to human rights issues.

PM Thaksin claims there was a plot to kill him. Skepticism greets his claims.

In Taiwain, the depose the president movement -“one million people to oust President Chwen Shui-bian”- is gathering steam. The China Post explains what’s needed if the effort’s to prosper.

In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial looks at Palace threats against media. Luis Teodoro weighs in on the same subject.

Amando Doronila: House didn’t just kill impeachment, it killed public accountability. Rodel Rodis: the primary defect of Filipino leaders is that they’re more concerned with personal gain and only tactically concerned with doing wrong -it matters only when they’re caught.

Rina Jimenez-David points out the antipathy to some gay people is a reversal of the past, when they were viewed as the only “tolerable” homosexuals.

Patricio Diaz on the disunity that afflicts the Muslim leadership.

Raul G. Moldez has reservations on learning English at the expense of a person’s native local language. Mike Tan also points out the need to translate the law into Filipino.

In the blogosphere, Newsstand on a Washington Post article on Mong Palatino but which didn’t mention he’s a blogger (who suffered the indignity recently of fake comment-writers using his name).

Pulsar has an epiphany while riding a train: it’s an engrossing entry.

Shale feels let down by all leaders with the impeachment. So did s.i.l.i.d. while just plain paranoid worries about the military. Yosi Tayo Para Astig is skeptical about the parliamentary system.

Philippine Commentary has lunch with Carmen Guerrero Nakpil.

LAGABLAB is keeping track of hearings and developments concerning the anti-discrimination bill pending in Congress. Fats, Vitamins and Minerals discusses how the debate has been less productive than it could have been, and delves into the pyschological nuances of the issue.

[email protected] laments the lack of scientific views and statement concerning the Guimaras oil spill.

The Idiot Board on ugly Philippine book covers.

Bangus Supremacy on an interesting project: a Wiki for law students.

Vincula promotes musical satire.

New Economist on how the British public doesn’t want to give Gordon Brown credit for economic growth.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

131 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. kimosabe, i hope you’re not calling me a nazi.

  2. Resignation for the disgraced Arroyo and calling for new elections is the best way to start the heaing of this divided land. It’s the right thing to do. the only honorable thing left for Arroyo to do.

    Even some of those who support her believe she stole the elections and is very divisive, but they prefer arroyo because they fear the opposition even more raw — which is the kind of attitude that allowed Arroyo to get away with it in the first place.

    She’s incapable of reconciling this country because she’s the main reason this country is so divided. And she lacks the credibility and sincerity to get it done, since she did little to unite the country from the moment she took office in 2001, even though we heard lot’s of similar “heal the land” and “reconciliation” talk from her.

    Her 2001-2004 term was a blown opportunity for true peace and unity, instituting economic reforms, and reducing corruption… Edsa Dos was a blown opportunity. Because she had other priorities at that time.

    Her first term will most be remembered for it’s obsession with destroying other potential rivals for the presidency and wasting most of it’s time focusing on the 2004 elections and the dagdag bawas operations run by rogue COMELEC/Military officials/operators.

    • Schumey on August 27, 2006 at 3:59 am

    cjv,

    There is jurisprudence in your query. Just recently, a barangay from Mindanao won a case against the administration for witholding their IRA. The Supreme Court had ordered Malacañang to give the barangay’s allotment in full. The IRA and CDF are both constitutionally assigned to local governments and congress. To use these funds to hold hostage a province or a congressman is illegal and unconstitutional. The administration is playing with fire here and could end up with a slap on the face.

    • cvj on August 27, 2006 at 5:09 am

    Schumey, thanks for the explanation. So how is it that the Executive Branch is still able to use the CDF as a carrot and stick? Either the GMA admin is blatantly ignoring the law or taking advantage of technicalities to circumvent the spirit of the law. How can we prevent this from being a factor again next year? I can think of two alternatives:

    1. Everyone gets equal CDF allotment to be released at the same time. No discretion allowed to the Executive.
    2. Remove the CDF.

    Personally, i favor the second option since i think Congress should concentrate on their legislative duties, but given the political culture, it may not be realistic option in the immediate term.

    In the meantime, those who belong to the 173 can still atone by revealing what they know about any instance of outright bribery.

  3. AW wrote:

    “Akala ko yung ingles lang ni Joselu ang pinagtataluhan. Bakit ngayon, pati yung galing ng mga argumento nya ang binubusisi? ”

    Hindi lang ang kay Juselu, sa lahat na nagpaparticipate dahil it is the very reason why we are here, to present our arguments and not to insult anybody.

    • kimosabe27 on August 27, 2006 at 6:46 am

    My apologies Comelecako, I’m not trying to insinuate that you’re a Nazi. I’m just trying to have a play on the argument about the morality of the “necessary evil”.

    Did Eichmann deserve to be hanged while it had been established by the Fuhrer that in order to attain Aryan supremacy, the lebensraum should be cleansed of undesirables, which included the Jews?

    Do we allow the hegemony of our bureaucratic superiors go unchallenged granting that their dictates conform to the letter of the law or policy but the overall impact of the judgement goes against the interests of society?

    Or to be more specific, should we continue defending Abalos and clique and their stay on Comelec while the integrity of the institution is being effecively dismantled?

    As I have suggested, there are creative and effective ways in demonstrating dissent. You dont’ even have to go to the streets and shout your throat hoarse. During the 1986 snap elections, it was the comelec employees who staged the walk out that in turn initiated events leading to the EDSA revolution. It was a totally unique kind of dissent. In the 1990s, environmentalists utilized the “spiking” method as a way of protecting the trees. In the present Iraq conflict, grunts who dislike their commanders have the latter fragged or be caught in friendly fire.

    • Carl on August 27, 2006 at 9:02 am

    These discussions only reveal that amendments to our fundamental law are needed. There are valid comments regarding retaining bicameral representation, although it can also be argued that the present set-up does not reflect regional and sectoral interests. mlq3 himself has suggested an upper chamber elected either by regions or via block voting, which also deserve consideration. There are also justifiable proposals to trim the powers of the Executive and give greater financial autonomy to either the regional councils or the national assembly. There may be some debate over whether to elect the head of state directly or through an assembly, but the wisdom of run-off elections has become increasingly evident.

    The desire to change or improve the present system is certainly there. Almost everyone agrees that the present system is flawed. The bone of contention seems to be the timing. When FVR broached charter change, it immediately became suspect. When Erap proposed it, those in the other camp, including FVR enthusiasts, opposed it. In our litigious and argumentative environment, nothing substantive can evolve because everyone is mistrustful. Ultimately, for there to be change, someone with the power, the guts and the will to carry it through will just have to plug away and “Just Do It”, as the Nike slogan says. Otherwise, nothing will happen.

    • vic on August 27, 2006 at 10:51 am

    Carl,

    I would like to add to your points that agreeing on something is a very hard thing to do. We even had that experienced during the drafting of our Amendment to our constitutions, The Constitution Act of l982, during the tenure of Pierre Trudeau. Most provinces have some arguments on some points and if you let the debate continue forever, we will be under the l867 constitutions which was framed somewhere else. So, what the Government did, or the particular administration of Trudeau did was to include in section 33 the “Notwithstanding Clause”. The section allows the federal govt. or the provincial or territorial govt. to Temporarily override a certain part of the law and be exempted from judicial review for the period of five years. This section can only involve the provision on fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights.All other rights are inalienable and can not be subjugated. The Province of Quebec used the “clause” to override the Federal language law, and so other provinces for other laws.
    But the fear that many, that the “clause” will be subject to outright abuse didn’t materialize at all, because of the overall strength and wisdom of the Charter. Had we not compromised, maybe until now we still be debating, arguing instead of having a charter which is Uniquely Canadian and now being embraced by most as perhaps a model for most.
    As we go, there is a plan to amend the ‘clause’.
    But the Idea of the clause in the first place is to Assert the Power of Parliament and the Lawmaker and not be subjected to the whim of judiciary, but by the voters. Like in the old British Way, if the Parliamentarians become tyrannical, Revolt.

    • justice league on August 27, 2006 at 11:04 am

    Timing of Charter Change is not the only thing.

    The Charter Change attempt during FVR as attempted by PIRMA was centered on giving him the ability to run for re-election. However interpreted,it cannot be denied that there is tinge of “remaining in power”.

    During the Estrada Presidency; they held school discussions too. In one of those discussions, a remarkable elderly asked a simple question. The proposals then were for liberalization of the economy to allow foreigners more leeway in investing in the country. The question was so simple. She asked in more or less the same terms “You propose amendments that will directly benefit foreigners and you state that those will benefit us. What amendments are you proposing that WILL DIRECTLY BENEFIT US?

    Anyone care to guess what the answer was? I’ll give it below.

    Now, in the present attempt for Charter Change, we have already seen what the proposals are. Some may seem good, some are utterly bad. The problem is that whatever of the 3 set of proposals (ConCom, People’s Initiative, House Resolution) are laid on the table, they are to be accepted (and therefore also to be rejected) in toto.

    “A spoiled dish ruins the entire feast”. That is no more truer than here.

    As for the Erap Chacha, the speakers were speechless. They had no answer.

    • justice league on August 27, 2006 at 11:09 am

    Vic,

    I’m curious and this might not be related to your article above. Is it true that there will be a 3rd attempt of Quebec to secede from Federal Canada?

    • cvj on August 27, 2006 at 11:34 am

    Carl, in previous posts, you have vividly described the kind of slithering reptiles these politicians are. Despite all this, you are inclined to just go ahead with the proposals of these same politicians with the expectation that something good will come out of it. Who is being naive?

    • vic on August 27, 2006 at 11:53 am

    justice league,

    Not for a long time. the present Provincial government in Quebec is lead by Premier Charest, a conservative who switched to liberal (Quebec is a fight between liberal and parti québécois only) just to unseat the last Separatist government and the Federal Counterpart, Bloc Québécois, although won the Majority Seats in the last Federal Election in Quebec lost a few riding and most importantly for the first time since its founding, garnered less than 50% of the popular vote. And during the last election, the Conservative Party which very unpopular in Quebec won an additional Ten seats.

    In order for the 3rd attempt to be even contemplated, first the Parti Québécois should win the next election and that could be possible because it has a very young charismatic admitted “gay” new leader (something new always). But Quebec now is so diversified, that any attempt, and this only my opinion, will be soundly rejected by the whole province as the other two was so close..

    • justice league on August 27, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Thanks Vic.

    Yes, I read that the last attempt for secession was defeated by only 2% of the votes counted. And there are rumours that diversification was indeed a strategy employed to defeat secession as a lot of new immigrants were allowed in that felt it beneficial that Quebec remain within Canada and that a sizable amount of disqualified votes (those eventually not counted for either side) were in favor of secession and were enough to sway the outcome.

    Of course nothing much came beyond those.

    But it is quite interesting too to read that the present Premier was a “floor crosser”. I read somewhere that a female MP on the Federal level also crossed the floor to become part of the administration cabinet then. Just can’t remember who.

    Its interesting to note because the proposed revision will prevent “crossing the floor”

    Thanks again.

    • Carl on August 27, 2006 at 1:52 pm

    Nitpicking and procrastinating will only lead to inaction. It is in the interest of some sectors to prevent the country from moving forward because it either makes their ideology obsolete or their hold on the people more tenuous.

    • justice league on August 27, 2006 at 1:59 pm

    Oh darn.

    Seems I typed too soon about the invalidated votes. Seems more of them were inclined for staying within the federation of Canada.

    Sorry about that.

    • cvj on August 27, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    While’nitpicking and procrastinating will only lead to inaction’, careful deliberation is needed to prevent us from going ‘out of the frying pan and into to the fire’. the trapos are in a hurry to change the system because they realize that under the present set-up, their hold on the people is becoming more tenuous.

    • justice league on August 27, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    Moving forward to what Carl?

    • vic on August 27, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    Yes justice league, we have floor crossers, and its perfectly ok, since ideolgy and principles changes. I started as New Democrat, switch to Liberal, now a card-carrying member of the conservatives. But it is different when the Politician was voted as a Party member or won the seat on the strenght of the Party. That Lady is Miss Belinda Stronach, a billinaire heireis daughter and was the CEO of Magna Auto Parts and now running for liberal Leadership. She lost the close contest of leadership to the current PM Harper of the conservative and to her lover MP Mackey, but I believe Ms Stronach is a Liberal from the start. it’s jsut that his dad is a conservative. But she vendicated heerself by winning her seat as a Liberal in the last Election. A plan is in the table that when a Party member crosses the floor, a seat should be declared vacant and a by-election should be called so the “Floor Crosser” can run with his/her new party. But we are a minority (my party) and we need more floor crosser meantime. thanks..

    • tonyo on August 27, 2006 at 2:36 pm

    comelecako,

    Your are right, I don’t know abalos, garci and any of his boys, personally. I know about them from the news. And you, comelecako, I don’t know anything about you, except from your posts and comments. I also agree that there is no point in discussing issues with you, particularly ACMs, since no proof is enough to convince you of anything. Why, as realist said, you seem to know better than the supreme court.

    It seems to me, and you need not agree, that seeing that it is raining outside, you need to be soaked and wet before you believe that it is, indeed raining.

    btw, as realist asked, are you by any chance a lawyer?

    • vic on August 27, 2006 at 2:42 pm

    One more justice league, we lost ms. Stronach, but we gained MP Robinson, a Liberal who croosed the floor to join the cabinet of PM Harper and his constituents want to crucify him (from BC) for his betrayal. Ms Stronach is a different story: she won the seat for the conservative that was a Liberal Stronghold. But again that’s where the Corporate Office of Magna Inteernational is Located.

  4. tonyo, i’ve asked alot of bloggers this. what proof do you have that you’re so convinced that the acm’s were illegaly purchased?

    cute metaphor – rain. but wrong conclusion. seeing the rain – that is proof, my friend. that’s called eyewitness testimony. so if you see the rain, then you know it is raining. but without proof (or to follow your cute metaphor, if you don’t see the rain) then who can fault you for not believing that it is raining?

    with regard to the supreme court, why does it seem so inconceivable to you that they could be wrong? didn’t panganiban himself admit that they were wrong in the case of echegaray? why can’t they be wrong in the case of the acms as well? better people than I have said it. Davide said it. Dante Tinga said it. Vitug said it.

    as for realist, i told him that i wasn’t a lawyer. what of it?

    • vic on August 27, 2006 at 3:19 pm

    Sorry, for my mistake, just found out ms. stronach is Not running for the current Liberal leadership contest. My apology to Belinda..

  5. I and Joselu go way back. We quite understand each other. We’re just having fun hurling potshots from time to time…

    Cheers guys.

    • justice league on August 27, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Thanks Vic. That was quite informative and good luck.

    • mc on August 27, 2006 at 11:26 pm

    change is not valid at this moment,,, wid the same faces we’ve seen for decades whom we cannot trust why should we giv it now,,, big no to the singaw group… f past elections are being questioned ? as high as public official moves heaven & earth to hold on to power & money now comes singaw group claiming they got ??? percent of signatures , the question s buhay pa ba pumrma dyan,, pinaliwanag ba nila sa tao kung anu pinapapirmahan dyann?? they just let the folks sign not understanding what the heck n it.. f cheating nowadays seems to be n system of filipinos esp.. the govt, how can be sure the signature s valid. no no no to cons, chnge . lets get away fist wid the trapo’s up there before we move to the level.. f the fundamental laws r violated n the people are beibg used for their benefit, poor folks doent get what s due to them why we go to a system that willl be decided by trapos not by the people,, we must change our people to a morally , honest & trustworthy b4 we move forward……

    • Carl on August 27, 2006 at 11:43 pm

    “Moving forward to what Carl?”

    I know that we haven’t been going anywhere for the past 20 years. Why don’t you tell me what you think moving forward is, justice league?

    cvj, I will wait to see the finished product before I make my conclusions. In the meantime, I prefer to see something being done instead of engaging in endless debates.

    • cvj on August 28, 2006 at 12:27 am

    Carl, what do you mean by waiting for the finished product? Where the trapos want to take us is there for all to see. The priority is to prevent them from moving us backward by doing further harm to our institutions. Personally, I prefer to wait for the current crop of politicians die off rather than entrusting them with something as fundamental as changing the Constitution. Even the Israelites found it necessary to spend 40 years in the wilderness to wait for their unworthy generation to exit the stage. By that yardstick, we’re just in the halfway mark. Those who are not as patient can join One Voice as they have a more well considered approach to Charter Change. As for the ‘endless debates’, that’s just an illusion you can blame on the politicians who keep distracting us by bringing up Cha-cha when there are other more immediate things to do to move forward.

    • justice league on August 28, 2006 at 1:54 am

    Carl

    Moving forward obviously connotes a development. You were already immersed in a Chacha discussion which included the “Just do it” slogan before you stated that. So I asked you what we were moving forward to.

    You referred to several ideas above in your assessment of Charter Change that obviously reveals that you still ponder what changes may be good or not.

    Consider this. Do you think your ideas will be considered for deliberations? The COncom has already submitted their recommendations, recommendations that the Executive branch apparently found favorable that they endorsed it to the Legislative Branch. (Whether the Legislative Branch considerd those recommendations or not are another matter)

    Do you see all your ideas in the ConCom recommendations? Do you see Bicameral representation in the Concom recommendations?

    THe House Resolution is already being peddled to be signed as the proposals for the new Charter. Do you think those will still be deliberated once they get what they think is the appropriate number of signatures? Do you see your ideas in the House Resolution?

    The Sigaw Petition will call for a Constituent Assembly in the interim parliament. A parliament that will be dominated by the former House Members who are currently pushing for their House resolution and along with them the Cabinet heads of the Administration who are obviously going to kowtow to either the House resolution or the Concom recommendations that the President previously endorsed?

    Do you think your ideas will see the light of day in either of them?

    If you are in favor of the present attempt to revise the Constitution then I suggest you stop espousing your own ideas and START DEFENDING the proposals already laid because if your ideas are different from what the Concom want, what the Sigaw ng Bayan want, what the House of Representatives want then your ideas DO NOT MATTER in the present attempt to revise the Constitution because your ideas will not be in the proposed Charter. IT WILL BE THEIRS!!!

    • tonyo on August 28, 2006 at 4:35 am

    comelecako,

    I’ll turn your question around, why is it so inconcievable to you that the Supreme Court is right? At least the Supreme court can admit its mistake. It seems, however, that you think you are always right. You ctiticize the Supreme Court and its workings a lot, as if you have some training in the field of law. You also talk a lot about automation and system processes. Do you have any expertise in the the field of IT? You criticize the Supreme court justice well enough to be incompetent in these matters. So what credentials do you have that makes you think you are qualified to do so?

    You are soaking wet from the rain. What’s the matter, got your blinders on?

  6. LOL, even if someone wears blinders he can still feel if he is soaking wet.Well,only horses were blinders,maybe you mean blinds.If you mean blinds,if he has his blinds closed ,he still has to be outside to be soaking wet.

    Your agument is leading nowhere, you are both correct,the supreme court maybe wrong or right.There is an oxymoron for believing what we want to believe and that oxymoron is SUBJECTIVE TRUTH!

  7. If a president will”Just Do It” then we are back to dictatorship!

    • leah on August 28, 2006 at 10:35 am

    the opposition needs to play hardball. The Bishops have to bypass GMA, Atienza , Bunye….. when they are in the line for communion (they did it to Kerry).
    how many grandchildren of those 173 old men attend Ateneo, La Salle, and other Catholic schools? EXPELL THEM
    why is ROTC still at Ateneo and La Salle, with their adminstrations even forcing it on some students? the top universities in the USA have kicked out this a long time ago.
    when JDV and his lemmings mention how great Singapore or Malaysia are counter that they are dictatorships with brutal consciption.

    • tonyo on August 28, 2006 at 10:50 am

    Karl,

    Maybe not even blinders nor blinds. Perhaps, the appropriate word is simply blind. Blinded by his own truth.

  8. Change topic, but still concerning Comelec and the Sc…
    With Abaalos saying that the SC ruling stays,will that mean that they will not entertain the petition of SnB,or is it only an opinion.

  9. I have seen Toots in ANC mornings showing the certification that in Davao there have been no verification of signatures.
    Toots,will that be enough to stop Sigaw?

  10. tonyo, my friend, before you turn my question around, answer it first. Then I’ll answer you. Again, what is your basis for believing as you do?

  11. cvj,

    re: “Personally, I prefer to wait for the current crop of politicians die off rather than entrusting them with something as fundamental as changing the Constitution.”

    ditto!

  12. Re MB’s “Gloria keeps offering her hand in reconciliation. Unfortunately, a sizable number of the population refuses to reconcile with her.

    “So isn’t simpler for Gloria to take herself out of the equation?”

    Or to shake her hand? Maybe, they should cut off her hand – they cut off the hands of thieves in other countries.

    • Carl on August 28, 2006 at 6:24 pm

    justice league, my ideas aren’t part of the present constitution, either. So what’s the big deal?

    But I do think that some of my ideas will find their way into a new constitution. Not, perhaps, exactly as I would like them to be. But at least it’s better than the proven failure we now see.

    • justice league on August 28, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    Carl,

    You are still pondering bicameral representation when the proposals no longer consider that. You are pondering whether the Head of State should be elected directly or via assembly even though the proposals mandate election via assembly.

    Yet you are telling us that “ultimately, for there to be change, someone with the power, the guts and the will to carry it through will just have to plug away and “Just Do It”, as the Nike slogan says. Otherwise, nothing will happen.” And you said that in the context of Charter Change.

    You therefore advocate that changes wanted by someone else other than you to be effected.

    That would appear to be blind advocacy which is a big deal to me.

    Since your ideas aren’t part of the present constitution either, I would expect you to at least work for a mode wherein your ideas has a chance to be a part of the Constitution.

    The ConAss and the People’s Initiative are so related that I can say for a certainty that your ideas above will not be a part of either. Yet you favor the present attempt to revise the Charter that will employ one or the other.

    The new Constitution needs to be ratified IN TOTO!

    THE BAD WILL HAVE TO BE SWALLOWED WITH THE GOOD!

    Yes, that is also a big deal to me becuase I believe that the bad outweighs the good and that the bad even precludes the good from being attained. And I am willing to prove that.

    So you contend that some of your ideas will find their way into a new Constitution and that it would be at least better.

    Presupposing that the changes that you want that will find their way into the new Constitution is good; I will try to show you that the bad will so outweigh your good that it will be no better and that the country might even be worse.

    Are you up to it Carl, are you willing to prove that the present charter change or even your changes that will find their way into a new charter will be at least better?

    If so, I offer you the same discussion forum I offered James.

    Just sound off.

    • justice league on August 28, 2006 at 10:48 pm

    Carl

    You are still pondering bicameral representation when the proposals no longer consider that. You are pondering whether the Head of State should be elected directly or via assembly even though the proposals mandate election via assembly.

    Yet you are telling us that “ultimately, for there to be change, someone with the power, the guts and the will to carry it through will just have to plug away and “Just Do It”, as the Nike slogan says. Otherwise, nothing will happen.” And you said that in the context of Charter Change.

    You therefore advocate that changes wanted by someone else other than you to be effected.

    That would appear to be blind advocacy which is a big deal to me.

    Since your ideas aren’t part of the present constitution either, I would expect you to at least work for a mode wherein your ideas has a chance to be a part of the Constitution.

    The ConAss and the People’s Initiative are so related that I can say for a certainty that your ideas above will not be a part of either. Yet you favor the present attempt to revise the Charter that will employ one or the other.

    The new Constitution needs to be ratified IN TOTO!

    THE BAD WILL HAVE TO BE SWALLOWED WITH THE GOOD!

    Yes, that is also a big deal to me becuase I believe that the bad outweighs the good and that the bad even precludes the good from being attained. And I am willing to prove that.

    So you contend that some of your ideas will find their way into a new Constitution and that it would be at least better.

    Presupposing that the changes that you want that will find their way into the new Constitution is good; I will try to show you that the bad will so outweigh your good that it will be no better and that the country might even be worse.

    Are you up to it Carl, are you willing to prove that the present charter change or even your changes that will find their way into a new charter will be at least better?

    If so, I offer you the same discussion forum I offered James.

    • justice league on August 29, 2006 at 1:14 am

    Oh Hell. The post won’t generate so I tried several times to post it!

    DELETE DELETE!!!

    • antonio walanglaban on August 29, 2006 at 1:39 am

    hey jl. which forum is that?

    • bokyo on August 29, 2006 at 5:06 am

    I am just wondering why did the Supreme Court did not rule or has not issued any decision regarding the issue in the first amendment.

    • bokyo on August 29, 2006 at 5:07 am

    oops sorry, I mean first impeachment.

    • justice league on August 29, 2006 at 7:53 am

    Having seen that I’ve generated multiple posts here and in the next, I issued a requestfor deletion of the multiple posts.

    Heck, I can’t even see that request yet. The timing of my computer must be way off or something.

    AW, James never did take my offer so I never posted the site. There are many discussion fora but at least one I know where the mods who participate in the ChaCha thread are pro ChaCha is the Mukamo Forum. The mods will do their job in policing the site for both sides but just that they are leaning towards Chacha.I wanted to offer a site where at least the pro Chacha can feel that they will not be at a disadvantage.

    If the pro ChaCha can’t win there; then there is something wrong with the present Chacha attempt.

    • Carl on August 29, 2006 at 8:51 am

    justice league, any discussion on how a new Constitution could be worse. . . or better, is just theoretical. I do not debunk your theories, but neither will I take what you say as Gospel truth. In the end, you have to be able to put these theories into practice, not just discuss them. That would be the only proof of the pudding. Unless you can do that, your ideas will only be in the realm of theory. Regarding a new constitution, I haven’t seen a draft constitution yet. But I have been privy to some discussions. Quite frankly, from what I’ve heard so far, it isn’t as bad as the new constitution.

    cvj said: “Personally, I prefer to wait for the current crop of politicians die off rather than entrusting them with something as fundamental as changing the Constitution. Even the Israelites found it necessary to spend 40 years in the wilderness to wait for their unworthy generation to exit the stage. By that yardstick, we’re just in the halfway mark.”

    – – – cvj, I’m sorry for the late reply. Been too busy to keep track of this board the past few days. OK, yes there is merit to what you say. But, at the rate trapos multiply, how, realistically do you propose to carry that off?

    The only way I can see ridding our country from the scourge of trapos is not to make politics so lucrative. The reason that politics is such fertile ground for breeding trapos is that it has been a very profitable way of life. So the trapos try to pass it on to their kin while, at the same time, new trapos keep cropping up. Even supposedly idealistic people, once they get a taste of politics and the trappings that come with it, get infected by the virus. It is human nature to make a beeline for a tasty morsel. Witness how, even in business, people immediately get into something that is perceived to be a hot seller. To the point that, in a few months, you have mutations all over the place.

    To my mind, for politics not to be so exceedingly corrosive, it must become less financially rewarding. After decades of making politics a business, how do you change all that? It would be very interesting to hear your proposals.

    • justice league on August 29, 2006 at 12:58 pm

    Carl,

    I wrote an article Titles “other People’s money”. In there I described the Chacha attempt as courting that when the girl accepts it goes straight to the wedding. THe divorce option is also controlled by the male side.

    Since you likend the Chacha to a pudding, consider it a special pudding wherein you cannot taste it but the options are only to take it and swallow it or reject it outright. Vomiting it out is hardly an option.

    the politicians are spearheading the charter revision and I can defend that the chahca attempt will be favorable to politicians and not favorable to the people. To assume that we can vomit the pudding out is to assume that the politicians will revert back to a system where they would have lesser power than in the proposed Charter.

    THe ingredients for your pudding must therefore be defended. Are you up to that?

    • cvj on August 29, 2006 at 2:39 pm

    Carl, thanks for your reply. Here’s what i can think of to manage the profitability of the political profession:

    1. Remove CDF from the legislators, this fund properly belongs to the Executive.
    2. Increase the salaries of the legislators, governors and mayors to the level of a Board of Directors of a private company. This should be indexed to the CPI.
    3. Upon taking office, politicians and their families should turn over all their assets and liabilities to a trust fund to be independently managed.
    4. While in office, politicians and their families cannot spend anything beyond the salary. For tracking purposes, they are not allowed to use cash or personal credit cards. Issue them with tokens and a government debit card for all their disbursements. Treating a politician out or any other gifts would be considered a bribe.
    5. Upon leaving office, a politician will not be allowed to receive employment for 5 or more years. He will instead continue receiving his salary and keep on paying using tokens and the government issued debit-card.
    6. At the end of the 5 years, the trust fund will be given back to them as long as no one in their family is holding office.

    The above measures will allow the politician and his family to live a reasonably comfortable life of an executive in the private sector, but without the excesses. Maybe the Catholic Church, the world’s oldest running institution, can give more tips on how they control the wealth of the clergy.

    • caloy on August 29, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    even if impeachment was killed in congress, let us not lose hope that truth and justice will prevail…

Load more

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.