Long march to freedom

For once, the Presidents impatience is healthy. Day three that the neighborhood’s had no power. Elevator finally providing limited service as of yesterday. General grumbling among residents until the elevator service resumed. I believe some residents decamped rather than keep taking a long march to freedom every day.

Here’s a sociological question. They say affordable TV’s for the masses results in lowering the birthrate. Does it just apply to the masses? Will there be a spike in the number of babies born nine months from now? And what about apartments that have generators, so  lights for all, though not necessarily TV for all, since cable systems may be down (but you can watch DVD, I guess) – but not enough generator power for hot water? Do the cold showers have an effect on people or does the TV trump that?

The neighboring apartment complex has a menacingly World War II IG Farben style diesel plant with a correspondingly sinister smokestack belching thick, black smoke. Most unpleasant and by mid-afternoon one tends to feel vaguely oxygen-starved. The chicken inasal place (GI-sheet covered sheds to left of neighboring building) had intrepid staff rescuing tables and other equipment at the height of the typhoon: they were smoothly in operation by Thursday night.

Looking to Makati City yesterday afternoon. At night, Makati is an oasis of light -from the high rises, though the rest of the city still looks grim. Not all commercial areas back in operation. Last night, traffic choked Greenhills but many places were closed; heard Morato was worse off. Diners and servers all looking haggard. Too much cabin fever going around.

Looking to Manila yesterday afternoon. Neighborhood nunnery (with white dome) has a wrecked garden. Manila looking pretty gloomy.

At night high-rise buildings -including the one I live in- seem to mock the low-rise neighbors (though the most notable “up yours” has to be the Rockwell complex as immortalized in Inq7.net). Incidentally, the enterprising photographer who took this photo could probably make a mint from turning this photo into a postcard. Class war-oriented grumbling overheard from people last night: “of course, GMA7 and ABS-CBN have power but none of their neighbors do” and “Go figure, the Lopez development in Rockwell always had power while everyone’s waiting for theirs,” etc.

Flickr has some remarkable photos:

There’s structural damage that ought not to have occurred, period, as Madame Chiang’s observed.

And the toppling over of so many trees, one friend theorized, is that during road widening and other construction, builders tend to cut too close to the roots. Which means old trees have been shorn of over half their root network on average. The carnage when it comes to trees in major developments like Rockwell and official worries in Makati won’t mean a thing if old trees are doomed by cutting around their roots. In the New Manila area of Quezon City, where you have -had- many fine old trees, there’s been road widening over the years and as my friend pointed out, it’s no coincidence that trees toppled over along these roads and in areas with new construction.

More dead tree photos from baratillo@cubao. The PCIJ blog focuses on the billboard issue. caffeine sparks asks why draining remains a problem in cities like Manila.

A Nagueño in the Blogosphere here and here with photos and updates on Naga City in the aftermath of the typhoon.

A poignant vignette from Altar of the High Priest, on the enthronement of La Naval de Manila in the dark.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, milenyo, philippines

Unleashing billboard vigilantes

Nurses-to-be still on the verge of mutiny: unfortunately, retaking the exam seems the only solution. Government could, of course, cover the travel and accommodations of students from the provinces.

The papers all lead with typhoon Xangsane, Malaya (with the best headline: Trees fall, roofs fly) says Bicol was the worst hit; the most expressive article was Business Mirror’s:

The most graphic reflection of Milenyo’s strength was found in Metro Manila, often relatively unscathed in typhoons that wreak havoc on the countryside. This time around, the entire National Capital Region bore the full brunt of the storm, which, besides causing floods, felled trees that caused instant “blockades” in busy cities like Makati and Pasay, peeled off entire marble blocks from some buildings while tossing scaffoldings in others, twisted metal structures in airport warehouses, and hurled billboards down the main highway on Edsa. Besides the debris from countless felled trees, cut power cables dangerously dangled like spaghetti in the streets.

The Manila Standard-Today has a terse catalog of destruction while reporting the President’s plaintive plea, “Can I go home now?” (the typhoon basically blew away her the Philippines is now 2nd World propaganda push -but I thought “2nd World” was the old reference to the Soviet Union and its satellites? So we are now Gulag-bound?).

Grin and bear it: electricity restored by Sunday. According to the Daily Tribune, 43 million people affected by the power outage.  And here’s where the interweb hasn’t caught up with reality: Talkin’ Tech asks why Meralco doesn’t update its website.

As for me, since the elevator’s conked out I have to rely on mr. fuji meets manila to see what’s what -and yes, if only all the ad billboards and such weren’t replaced, the streets would be nicer. Speaking of billboards…

Senseless bureaucratic wrangle of the week: who, if anyone, can dismantle billboards? Public Works secretary suggests vigilantism:

But DPWH Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. said that the agency’s hands were tied because billboard owners were protected by law.

“What law will we use? We can only bring these billboards down in accordance with the law,” said Ebdane who admitted that billboard owners failed to heed the government’s warning for them to take down the structures before a storm.

He suggested that “vigilantes” do the dismantling of the billboards. “If you like, you can hire billboard vigilantes and they will be the ones to bring them down,” Ebdane said.

Either he was being flippant or deadly serious, but either way, this suggests why it’s not a good idea to keep staffing the cabinet with retired officers. See photos of fallen trees and billboards at iceuck’s blog.

Touching story at Sexy Rexy: people huddling for shelter in a bakery given free bread by the baker. A Bittersweet Holiday, after sniping at the storm, apologizes to it.

And bloggers take note: Bloggers chronicle typhoon’s fury in Metro Manila. W00t!
Overseas, New Caledonia sees rallies protesting the presence of Filipinos. America cuts off military aid to Thailand, even as the junta appoints a retired general as PM (not a good sign, but hope springs eternal, so he’s being urged to keep running after Thaksin and Co.).

In the punditocracy, the Senate President has a good ghostwriter.

When historians behave madly: Manuel Almario in parts one and two, and Augusto de Viana square off -was it conquest or colonization conducted by Spain? Almario suggests the National Historical Institute leadership is flawed because it’s friar-led, but forgets Ambeth Ocampo was a Benedictine (and thus, not a friar) and a former one at that (so even if a friar then, he’s not a friar now). I think Viviana de Viana defended himself well.

Brahma Chellaney on what the selection of Shinzo Abe as PM  signifies for Japan:

The most far-reaching but least-noticed development in Asia in the new century has been Japan’s political resurgence. Japan is set to formally break out of its pacifist cocoon by revising its U.S.-imposed Constitution and eliminating the military proscription enshrined in Article 9 — a goal high on Abe’s agenda.

Vanity Fair on Egypt’s riviera turned suicide-bomber central.

In the blogosphere, there’s an interesting discussion  between two comment-writers in the PCIJ blog.

blackshama and Tequila Geek both condemn the egg-throwing incident in the University of the Philippines. The former because it violates a cardinal principle UP is supposed to uphold (free, open debate) and the latter because it doesn’t -and shouldn’t- reflect the attitudes or behavior of the entire university community (some interesting comments in Tequila Geek’s blog, too, concerning the kind of student leaders being produced).

Compare the above with an email from R. Jitana (along lines similar to Crooning the Night Away, and bikoy.net but from an older generation’s perspective):

After reading Kenneth’s piece, Paolo’s letter and  the APSM’s letter re the egg-throwing incident, copies of which were sent to my email, I found it hard to  resist throwing in my one centavo’s worth of ideas. Granting, Paolo and the pol sci majors could already be my grandchildren, and it’s not for grownups to meddle in kids’ fights, but heck, I was a UP student, too, and part of the crop that struggled not only for academic freedom, but for our country’s freedom from military rule.

First, please bear with this Lola Basyang tale. The first organization I joined during my freshman year was…well, UPSCA (UP Students’ Catholic Action), that pious organization.  Those times,  young people my age were already in the countrysides, or in underground organizations in the cities, struggling every second from being arrested or killed by the dictatorship’ s armed forces. At that time when student progressives were fighting for the restoration of student councils, we in UPSCA were fighting against…dyaraan. ..hazing (such an important issue, ‘no?) because, we were told, “the body is the temple of the human spirit” which should not be violated.

Campus politics-wise, we were against the slogan-chanting bunch. There were ‘elders’ in the organization (now I realize, they all were getting their bread from the Marcos government then) who advised us that “a dead hero is a useless hero”, in reference to the militant side of the organized studentry – those unreasonable” ND’s who seemed always to be in a fighting, shouting, marching mood. We were UPSCA, the ones who were more “balanced”, “pragmatic”, “for peace.”

In one of the student fora organized by the “ND’s”, I even questioned the need for student participation in the restoration of the student council (my god, I bury my head in the sand whenever I remember that moment). Can anyone blame me? I just turned 16 then, impressionable, and like may other young students at UP, amusingly naive.

Just one year at UP turned me into someone else, however. Maybe it was the bigger social ferment that did it. Maybe it was Malu Mangahas waxing eloquent about academic freedom, or Sonia Sotto leading the fight for a Magna Carta against police and military presence in the campus (that’s right- we couldn’t bear the thought of a single policeman’s or soldier’s booted foot stepping on campus grounds).  Maybe it was my professors – “Mad Marx” Ed Villegas, and Roland Simbulan who made me read Karl M. as part of our Devt Studies curriculum (though I admit the only insight I got then from my reading was – if Marx had written against the slavery of women and children, then maybe he was a good person!?)

Or perhaps it was the ‘Barrio Work’ program of UPSCA which made military and police abuse,  semi-feudalism and the desperation it brought to poor peasants something as concrete as the buildings and classrooms of UP were to me.

We were a bunch of curious kids then who spent two weeks in a barrio in Bulacan, on pretense that we were from Maryknoll and Ateneo. But then the local police learned we were actually UP students, so one night he sent some men in a tamaraw (not the animal, but the vehicle which preceded the FX) to the barrio, presumably trying to find out where the “UP kids” were staying. And since the local police have just “salvaged” two youthful organizers in a nearby barrio a few weeks earlier, our hosts decided that very night to “rescue” us.

A kindly, middle-aged man, I now forget his name, a military man himself but had resigned out of conscience, drove the jeepney that took us out of the barrio, but first advising us that should we be ever caught in a military checkpoint “tumakbo na kayo sa unang pagkakataong makuha ninyo.”  Gee wheez, and to think  the oldest in our group then was a guitar-loving pretty boy of about 20 years, maybe weighing 80 lbs, and couldn’t hurt a single fly.

So why do I tell this story? It might seem mababaw, and I might sound  just like your lolo or lola glorifying his/her days.

No, my message is really quite simple. In my UP days, and the years before mine, students didn’t just throw eggs. They threw molotovs and pillboxes. They didn’t spend days troubling themselves with the ’safety’ of their fellow students, knowing that harm does not come from the slogan-chanting rabble-rousers but from the ARMED elements of the government clinging, butts and all, to power.

UP students of those days troubled themselves with making their classmates realize the true meaning of wisdom, of being “a iskolar ng bayan”, of grasping the summed-up experiences of other peoples embodied in social theories, testing these in our country’s social waters, and thus in the process, sifting the chaff from the grain. That was the way we learned. Not just inside the classroom,  and certainly not by listening to someone who’s spearheading a campaign to kill political dissent. (You kill dissent, and you kill political discourse itself. Shouldn’t that be more troubling for a pol sci major?).

UP students then, as many other young people now, threw themselves into the struggle, AND MADE HISTORY as a result of it.  Think Edjop, Lorena Barros,  and other stellar names.

One of the greatest things I learned at UP was that  the middle stance as the correct stance, is well…a funny assertion. A blind man’s perspective. A joker’s.  “Middle” denotes balance and equality. Can the Right ever be equal with the Left? Only in mathematical equations. Never in social reality. The Right has arms and might, while the Left derives its might only from being on the democratic side. “Middle” is only for referees in a boxing fight.

Ensure the safety of the top military official of the land by searching students’ bags? Hello? is this UP?  Golly, I salute those who still attended the forum despite the searches. Why would I want the organizers to peep into my lunchbox or know how many coins I’ve got left in my bag ?

A student organization trying to ensure the safety of  the top military official? Has everyone in this university gone mad? I bet the General went there with enough bullets to finish off everyone who was at the UP campus on that day. When you’ve got a lot of enemies, you don’t walk around with just a sandwich in your bag.

My dear pol sci majors, you’ve got a terribly disturbing view of the world. Maybe you’re reading the wrong political science books. Or are listening to the wrong professors. Try reading Mao Tse Tung once in a while. He’s the demon incarnate to many people. But there’s at least a line or two in his writings that will make you cry. Read him to find out why.

Speaking of Maoists, via Weifang Radish via AsiaPundit: China’s People’s Daily proclaims Mao obsolete (but there’s a catch).

A Filipino visits Moscow: they offer Filipino Linguistics in Moscow State University, didn’t you know?

Read This and Die says: legalize marijuana. The Couch Kamote Reviews on stupid laws.  arnel cadeliña is skeptical about claims by the Social Security System that pensions are going to be processed faster. He also advises his readers: work as if you’ll never see your state pension, ever.

The Girl in the Mirror on vinyl (records). I object to the description of Baroque music as “too tinkly.”

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, history, ideas, milenyo, philippines, politics, president, Thailand

Sine Die

The Big Storm of 2006 brought life to a halt today. Personally, I don’t understand why we don’t use the international names for storms. As the effects of the storm are assessed, it will be a difficult time for relief agencies and the Red Cross.

I live on the 9th floor a building: leaves were blown in by the winds. Flying GI sheets everywhere but mercifully, no shoddy construction in my neck of the woods. Areas with tall buildings create all sorts of funky wind tunnel effects so at particular moments, the different gusts led to raindrops being suspended in midair for moment.

As a colleague puts it, “there’s a general consensus billboards have to go.” See the news of one dead -but also many stories of fallen billboards throughout the city. Manila in a state of calamity. Robinson’s Galleria loses its roof (well, part thereof, as did Market Market). I understand that in Lucena City, the water is waist-deep.  Luzon without power.

It’s a kind of milestone I think that bloggers like mr. fuji meets manila (latest, here; but the best heading in the series: oh crap) and Tech in Black live-blogged the storm! Leigh Reyes has a YouTube video up; myka’s site also links to a video of damage in a gated community. pinoysnapshots (familiar to readers of this blog as baratillo@cubao) has, well, snapshots: a snippet from his blog:

Then the building began to wobble. A subtle wobble: a horizontal shift from left to right. At first only one person noticed it. The others notice it as well. And another person noticed it. Like an aikido master the building was dancing and deflecting against the wrath of storm. At one of the points on the office floor one could hear the flexing sound made by steel and concrete as the building did its tango with Xangsane. At the point where the sound was strongest there was a disquieting feeling. Everything was quiet except for that sound. It was most disconcerting.

Talking about swaying buildings, etc… See Grace by which I stand (on awating the eye of the storm) The Galaxy According to BalatStar (relieved to be sent home eventually), Emotions, Chit-chat, Foodstuff and More (had to restart the computer five times; those who insisted on going home had to sign a waiver) and &nsbp, along with Ahhhhh and The Wandering Knight of Solitude (worried over appliances at home) and iceuck (vibrating floors) for small but remarkable observations from those forced to go to work during the storm. How people cope: Teluride had a playlist to tide her over; scribblings of a blue kind was armed with chocolate milk.

Droll statement of the day from Madame Chiang: “it would be a major understatement to say it’s kind of windy outside.”

A Nagueño in the Blogosphere points to a site to bookmark for future reference: Typhoon2000.com.

Anyway, in the news… The House leadership’s announced it will resort to a sine die session to pave the way for Plan B.

The classic account of a sine die session is, of course, Nick Joaquin’s 13 o’clock, in which then Senate President Marcos kept his position by surreptitiously turning the Senate clock back on. In those days, under the 1935 Constitution, the legislature met only 100 days out of the year. The present constitution mandates what is, officially, a year-round session.

Ermita spanks Defensor. President has ordered nursing exam retake and seems nervous of a mutiny among nursing students.

In the blogosphere, waiting watching wishing, a first year law student, was among those who witnessed the oral arguments at the Supreme Court (she found some of the questions irrelevant). Edwin Lacierda, an established law professor and practitioner, did too.

dennio series 2006 reflects on a Filipino director’s views on the decline of comedy shows.

some interesting blog posts on Thailand. A foreigner who seems to be studying there, in between scathing remarks concerning Thai classmates, says teachers warned them not to discuss the coup. A Malaysian hopes his country’s politicians learn their lessons from the Thai coup. A Thai tries to explain to a foreign audience the role and stature of the Thai monarch -and expresses dissatisfaction with media coverage of the coup. A different view’s in thoughtful entry from Left Flank, who thinks the King is the ultimate culprit. He shares the skepticism of The Economist when it comes to People Power but suggests,

As I argued before, what is important is not stability at any cost, as the New York Times seems to favor, but rather, that Thailand has a constitution and governments that can redistribute the fruits of globalization fairly to all Thais. And, within that constitution, there needs to be leaders who represent all Thais fairly, not just those useful for re-election. One would think, that, after six years of a divisive American executive, the Grey Lady would not support divisive leadership for the sake of some emergency, like a war on terror or investors’ needs. Cheap healthcare and subsidies should help all citizens and enrich the nation, not exist as planks in a populist platform. Most of all, those who subvert the law, even in the name of preserving it, should be punished. As Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

The blog also refers to epilogos, who thinks the Thai generals are stuck in a trap.

Feral Scholar uses a conversation on the Thai coup to promote the idea that a little pitchfork-wielding by angry mobs might be healthy (a defense of the Jacobin urge, she explains). He (a feminist) says, “the fear of disorder is a male-constructed fear”.

Technorati Tags: media, philippines, politics, Thailand

Shazam! at Supreme Court

It’s interesting how the battered morale of those questioning the so-called “people’s initiative” improved as the Supreme Court’s oral arguments went on, finally concluding around quarter to 11 in the evening. The impression began to grow that a razor-thin majority against the initiative was not only evident, but would hold. By this morning, the buzz among legal observers was that a unanimous vote against the initiative was a strong probability.

The conspiratorially-inclined will probably seize on this to prove either a failed whispering campaign by proponents of the “people’s initiative” to condition the mind of the public to a victory for them, or on the part of anti-initiative forces to add sheen to what was, for most of the time leading up to the hearing or arguments, considered a formidable case.

Hostility from the court was what got tongues wagging and what the papers seized on: see the accounts of The Daily Tribune, of The Manila Times, which also focused on Justice Gutierrez. One colleague described her participation as “especially caustic,” while a lawyer who attended the hearings recounted to me that at one point, Justice Gutierrez asked Rene Saguisag if the change of one word in the charter could be a revision of the constitution. She used this example: if, from the present “The Philippines is a republican and democratic state” it was changed to “The Philippines is a republican and communist state.” Saguisag said yes, that would be a revision.

The lawyer whom the justices liked to question, though, seemed to be former Gov. Pablo Garcia of Cebu (father of the incumbent Cebu governor and of the SSS administrator). Observers, on the whole, felt that Raul Lambino did badly, as did former Justice Pardo -though one mentioned that absolutely the worst (most ineffective) performance was on the part of the Comelec’s lawyer. Lambino et al. seemed quite droopy by the end of the proceedings.

The The Business Mirror quoted some other justices:

“It is not correct to say that there is no majority decision because the motion for reconsideration is lost in a tie vote,” Senior Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing told Sigaw ng Bayan counsel Jose Pardo, who was also former associate justice of the SC.

Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr. even declared in open court that in Santiago v Comelec, “the Court did not authorize the Commission on Elections “to authenticate signatures before a petition for initiative is filed.”…

Associate Justice Reynato Puno even asked whether the “abstract” of proposed amendments listed on the signature sheets that were distributed in various places in the country were written in English.

“I’m asking this to know whether the signatures were properly verified by the Comelec registrars and what proceedings were followed,” he said.

While most papers headlined the high court hearings, the Manila Standard-Today didn’t, but printed a (balanced) secondary story anyway.

Meanwhile, back at the House: debate set for the Constituent Assembly scheme. The Speaker calls it Plan B:

“We have plan B [which is] the constituent assembly (con-ass) approach, [a] joint session of senators and congressmen,” House Speaker Jose de Venecia said.

Majority Leader Prospero Nograles said that debates on convening Congress into a con-ass has been scheduled.

“We just approved the resolution’s committee report and I have calendared it [as] part of the business for the day. We want to finish this on or before October 12,” Nograles said.

De Venecia added that the Senate does not have to approve the proposed amendments as long as three-fourths of the House of Representatives or 196 lawmakers approve them.

“Right now we have 193. So now we are only short by three votes,” de Venecia said.

As Rep. Nograles puts it, “we cannot lose twice.” The legislative calendar may be revised in view of the emerging situation. I asked an administration-affiliated congressman whether he believed there’s a plan B and he said no, it’s premature -the House, according to him, has been told to not even talk about Cha-Cha because it would undermine Singaw’s case.

The Palace is said to be angry at Sec. Puno because he didn’t share resources provided to oust Pasay City Peewee Trinidad.

One thing’s sure: the Palace remains fearful of Estrada and has its own plans to neutralize him.

In other news: President’s anti-corruption adviser laments the lack of interest of his Filipino peers:

Kwok, who considers himself “25-percent Filipino,” has been helping the Arroyo administration in its fight against corruption and irregularities since December 2004. He assisted the President in conducting a Presidential Anticorruption Strategic Planning Workshop.

He said he has traveled to 14 countries in the world giving advice on eliminating irregular practices, but that it is only in the Philippines where the heads of corruption-encrusted agencies do not seem to be seriously concerned about the problem.

Factory production down for the 7th month in a row.

In the punditocracy, my Arab News column for this week is Lost Opportunities of the Past Needn’t Represent an Eternal Regret.

Bong Austero on competitiveness, the need for a grand plan, and plans that are working well.

The Inquirer editorial points out the absence of a government plan for housing its workers.

Overseas, Tom Plate argues that what took place in Thailand wasn’t a coup -which replaces a head of state- but instead, a restoration of the powers of the monarchy. Roland Watson challenges the view that Thaksin was ever democratically elected, and says the coup was necessary to prevent large-scale People Power:

Many foreign governments and other organisations denounced the coup. They either did this to be politically correct, to protect perceived economic interests, or because they did not fully understand the situation inside the country. Further, Thaksin was never “democratically elected”. This implies that the rule of law has been upheld – but in Thailand it was not. The Thai Constitution and its system of checks and balances first failed when he was found innocent in the assets concealment case. There should have been massive demonstrations or other strong steps at that time, rather than waiting five years. He should never have had the opportunity to drag Thailand to the bottom of the cesspool of political corruption. Everything he did was anathema to democracy.

How do prime ministers form cabinets? Daily Yomiuri in its editorial explains how: carving up patronage.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, law, One Voice, people’s initiative, politics, president, Thailand

Cabinet wars

While there have been depressing text messages and other scuttlebutt, the arguments will be joined at the Supreme Court soon enough. There are eight questions propounded by the Justices:

1. Whether petitioners Sigaw ng Bayan, through lawyer Raul Lambino, and ULAP, through Bohol Governor Erico Aumentado, are the proper parties to file the petition in behalf of the more than six-million voters they say signed the proposal to amend the Constitution;

2. Whether the petition for a people’s initiative filed before the Comelec complied with Section 2, Article 17 of the Constitution;

3. Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Santiago v. Comelec in 1997 bars the present petition;

4. Whether the court should re-examine the ruling in Santiago v. Comelec that there exists no enabling law allowing a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution;

5. Whether, assuming that Republic Act 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act is sufficient, the petition for initiative filed with the Comelec complied with the law’s provisions;

6. Whether proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision of the Constitution;

7. Whether the exercise of a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is a political question to be determined by the people, and;

8. Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitions for initiative filed before it.

Question 7, seems to me, the booby trap. Last night talking to a colleague and some friends in law school, I asked whether the Supreme Court’s ducking certain controversies, on the basis that they’re “political questions”  was still permitted. They explained the applicability had been narrowed, but the argument could still be used.

Read Chief Justice Panganiban’s thoughts on “political question” issues:

But what in the first place is a “political question?” Tanada v. Cuenco spelled out its classic definition as follows:

“The term political question connotes in legal parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the language of Corpus Juris Secundum, it refers to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of government. It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.”

As to source, there are two types of political questions: (1) those that are decided directly by the people themselves like the wisdom of electing movie stars, media practitioners and sports personalities; and (2) those delegated to Congress and the Presidency, like the wisdom of enacting more tax laws, or of pardoning certain convicts.

With the activist mandate firmly imbedded in the Constitution, is the “political question” principle no longer an available defense at present? Are the courts required to pass upon each and every act of the political branches of government?

To be sure, the answer to this question has defied a precise universal answer. Constitutional scholars depending on their orientation and philosophical moorings cite an equal number of cases, both recent and old, in which our Supreme Court has either acceded or refused to entertain political disputes.

Anyway, the latest update to the official timetable has been revealed: Charter plebiscite by January 2007 -De Venecia.

On to other news…

As far as I’m concerned, this official statement takes the cake:

The President’s appointments to key Cabinet and military posts are based on merit and fitness and must not be whimsically treated in this manner by the legislature.

The Chief Executive is responsible for executing the laws of the land and must not be unduly hampered in the selection of her subalterns who are supposed to implement her programs of governance.

Secretary Gonzalez and General Esperon have shown solid performance and courage from Day One in their respective offices.

Let us not allow personal or partisan reasons to prevent able and competent people from serving the people.

Both enjoy the confidence of the President and no amount of black propaganda and character assassination will prod her to drop their appointments.

Must? Must!? In a system with the separation of powers? And in the face of congressional disapproval she will insist on her appointments? And no one wonders how a president can go against 12 administrations’ precedents and the very idea of the executive having to submit its appointees to congressional scrutiny and possibly, rejection? And you still doubt we have authoritarianism waiting in the wings? No democratically-minded president, ever, would have permitted such a statement.

Anyway, the statement is in response to recent developments at the Commission on Appointments (and note that ours is unusual in that it’s bicameral; usually appointments are only vetted by the upper house). The CA has postponed a decision on the Justice Secretary’s confirmation; the promotion and appointment of Gen. Esperon is proving thorny or slowly coming to fruition, depending on your point of view.

Scuttlebutt for some time has been the political ping pong going on between Mike Defensor -and everyone else, it seems, in the cabinet, but headed by the Executive Secretary.

Well, it’s scuttlebutt no more. The contempt is obvious:

Asked to comment on the supposedly emerging slate, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita bluntly said: “There’s none.”

He added that he had no plans either to run for the Senate.

Asked why, he replied: “Because I don’t like (to), Mike (Defensor) is just inventing that. We haven’t even talked.”

“No one has talked to me, nobody. We don’t even talk about that in Malacañang,” Ermita said. “Not even” in the administration Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, of which he is an official.

So what’s the fallout? Is this a Punch and Judy act? Is Mike the designated liar, and Ermita the designated clarifier? My hunch is this: Defensor is a more reliable guide to the President’s thinking, and Ermita, to the rest of officialdom.

But the President’s woes -infighting in this case- don’t end there. Financial Executives are upset with the President’s repealing the Estrada-era limits on government loans; as a result, the Palace has had to make soothing noises about there being no new behest loans.

In the punditocracy, the Business Mirror editorial warns about the strengthening peso (isn’t the Central Bank intervening in the market to prevent overheating?). The Inquirer editorial comments on the Supreme Court’s intervening in the Senate-PCGG fracas.

I have to agree, for once, with Tony Abaya’s analysis:

There are lessons to be learned here by both the government and the opposition among our own urban middle class. A military coup d’etat would also gain support from the middle-class here if a) politicians were excluded from its list of interim leaders; b) an anticorruption commission is immediately installed to investigate allegations of corruption at the highest levels; c) democratic political rights are temporarily shelved; but d) the military promises to return to the barracks in two weeks; e) a new constitution will be drafted; and f) elections are scheduled in the near future.

Our middle-class would most likely also want to see the communist movement excluded from the nw government. This is not mentioned in the Thai laundry list of reforms because there is no more communist insurgency left in Thailand. The coup leader, Gen. Boonyaratglin, who is said to be a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy, cut his military teeth battling and defeating the communist insurgents in Thailand.

But the most important lesson to be learned from the latest Thai coup is that the parliamentary system does not immunize a sitting government from being overthrown by a military coup, contrary to the naïve claims of its champions.

So if the parliamentary system cannot dismantle political dynasties, cannot eliminate or even only reduce government corruption, cannot guarantee economic progress, cannot shield a sitting government against coups d’etat and people power uprisings, why are we being stampeded into changing our Constitution in order to shift to it?

There seems to be only one answer: To allow Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to remain in power beyond 2010, either as prime minister in a Westminster-type parliament, or as president in a French parliamentary model. ChaChaCha!

Juan Mercado and Patricio Diaz both

On Thailand and Thaksin, Gwynne Dyer opines,

Democracy is fine as long as the voters elect the right people, but they often get it wrong. The Palestinians elected Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, so the Israelis and their allies overseas have to persuade them of the error of their ways with bombs, bullets and a financial blockade. And in Thailand they were going to vote for Thaksin Shinawatra again.

“They” were the rural poor, still a majority in Thailand, who have been left behind by the economic miracle of the past twenty years. They elected the billionaire Thaksin three times in a row because he gave them cheap health-care and put money in their pockets. The Bangkok middle class despised him for his populism and his corruption, but the poor were almost certainly going to elect him again — so for the first time in fifteen years, the Thai Army rolled its tanks into Bangkok.

So much for Thai democracy — and the bizarre thing is that the rest of the world doesn’t seem to care…

Thaksin was no advertisement for the wisdom of Thai voters. It was the poor and the ill-educated who voted for him, and he won their support with cynically populist policies. He launched a “war on drugs” that saw three thousand cases of extra-judicial execution — officially sanctioned murders, in other words. He took a needlessly hard line on discontent among Thailand’s Muslim minority, concentrated in the southernmost provinces, that turned disaffection into open insurrection. He even hid the first outbreak of bird flu in Thailand in an attempt to protect Thai poultry exports.

He gave cash presents to village headmen who could deliver the local vote. He appointed a large number of his own supporters to the Senate, and then used his majority there to appoint cronies to the higher courts. However, Thaksin Shinawatra also did things that improved the lot of the poor: A moratorium on farmer’s debts, dollar-a-visit medical care even for the impoverished northeast of Thailand, village improvement schemes that actually raised farmers’ incomes.

He was a liar and a crook, but a majority of Thais voted for him in election after election. And they would have voted for him again if the army hadn’t intervened.

The middle class people of Bangkok who have been demonstrating against Thaksin for the past six months are right: You really can’t run a country like this for very long and stay democratic. Either the demagogue consolidates his power and becomes a de facto dictator, or he is driven out by people who have (or claim to have) the interests of democracy at heart.

Ramesh Thakur makes a very interesting observation, by way of an introduction to an essay on military government:

During a conference in Bangkok in August, signs of a three-way tussle among Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his political opponents and the military were already evident. For example, a former army chief who remains influential as an adviser to the king made a point of wearing the uniform while addressing serving army officers and telling them that their primary loyalty was to the king and nation, not to the government of the day.

Giles Ji Ungpakorn is disappointed in fellow democrats who have given in to the Thai coup. He says there were democratic alternatives (a news item says he will be leading protests in Bangkok tomorrow).

In France: Dominique Moisi dissects the leading candidates for the presidency. The Asahi Shinbun asks an editorial question: why hasn’t Tony Blair resigned yet? Most interesting of all, for those advocating the parliamentary system, is to understand the reasons behind Blair’s unpopularity -and unwillingness to budge:

Polls show that public support for Blair has plummeted to the 30-percent range. Furthermore, the Conservative Party led by a young David Cameron, who is only 39, has reversed the polls and got the jump on Labor.

With the next general election expected in 2009, it was inevitable that party opinion would demand a leader who can win.

To somehow make it through his party’s annual conference beginning Sunday, it seems Blair had to put his resignation card on the table even before the gathering got under way. Since he says he will hand over the party leadership before next year’s annual conference in the autumn, that inevitably means he will also stand down as prime minister. His loss of political clout will affect not just domestic policies but also his policies in the diplomatic arena.

Blair’s strength was his ability to explain political issues and ask for the public’s understanding in a clear-cut manner of talking. But lately it came to light that his government had manipulated public opinion by releasing information strategically so as to pursue the war against Iraq. For all his powers of eloquent speech and explanation, once public trust is gone then everything else falls apart.

Blair strengthened the prime minister’s office by increasing staff numbers and allocating more powers to them. That drew criticism and as a result, key decisions were made only by Blair or his close aides, which rendered his Cabinet meetings more or less meaningless.

And this is simply creepy: The eerie Weblogs of young murderers:

There is nothing like the World Wide Web for forging deep and meaningful bonds between anti-social outcasts. Whereas before the advent of the Internet, Kimveer Gill may well have lived out his days drinking whiskey and hating others in his parents’ basement, the Web site VampireFreaks.com afforded him the opportunity to reach out and touch thousands of other petulant misanthropes. “Can I go play with you?? I wanna go hunt down the preppies with you!!” wrote a 19-year-old Indiana member who called herself caranya in the comments section of Gill’s VampireFreaks page one day before the killings. Subsequent postings from visitors to caranya’s Web page aren’t kind: “Congratulations on inspiring a psycho to go on a murderous rampage killing innocent kids,” says one. “One has to wonder where he was able to get his moral support from,” mused someone else.

Technorati Tags: constitution, ideas, media, military, One Voice, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president, Thailand

The Long View: Referendum on Estrada

THE LONG VIEW
Referendum on Estrada
By Manuel L. Quezon III
Inquirer
Last updated 00:45am (Mla time) 09/25/2006
Published on page A15 of the September 25, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

THE LATE TEODORO M. LOCSIN SR. ONCE made an observation about power, and how holding it too long and without challenge dulled the mind, corroded the spirit and would eventually prove self-defeating. Not only that, questioning power, after it has been monopolized by a single person or a single group, was pointless because it is asking for too little, too late.

“The voice of moderation,” he wrote, “pleading for due process of law under an absolute despotism, arguing the possibility of persuading the tiger to change its stripes and cease to be a tiger, does not know the tiger. Asking the tiger and the lamb to lie down together in gentleness—as though it were possible—disarms the lamb and feeds the tiger. It is a form of pharisaism: doing evil with a good conscience. Ultimately, the tiger, grown dull and stupid from undisputed rule, fails to distinguish between friend and food and devours not only lamb but pharisee.”

The point is not to wait for a dictatorship or a one-party state to descend upon us, but to insist that not any of these two should ever be established at all. What Locsin Sr. wrote after a long life, his son, Rep. Teodoro Locsin Jr., underscored in a blunt privilege speech last week. The give-and-take of democracy, which provides “a sense of perpetual motion and perennial wide-open possibility, so that no one despairs of being permanently left out, every pig is able to hope for its moment at the trough, and every dog shall have his day.”

The best antidote then to the mind- and soul-numbing narcotic of power is a democratic system that assures everyone that no one, and no group, will ever hold on to power indefinitely. As Locsin Jr. put it, “To tell the people that with a parliamentary system our politics will be so stable, that they (people) will have to live with our faces in perpetuity, is to provoke them to the last extremity.” That extremity being rebellion or, at least, perpetual strife leading to exhaustion then death for the body politic. The human body does something similar when faced with starvation: it begins to consume itself, in a desperate gamble to function long enough to find food.

Here’s a question: can our country afford the continuing division? In her closest brush with statesmanship, President Macapagal-Arroyo said the country couldn’t afford to be permanently divided, and offered herself as a sacrifice. That period of sacrifice proved short-lived, and the division continues. The debate is now reduced to: which of three things—time, a new constitution, or bayonet—will put an end to that division?

The politically unconcerned or frustrated are relying on time to solve all things, with an eye to a mythical stepping-down in 2010. The administration hopes to keep itself in power through a new, oligarchic constitution. There are those who continue to dream of bayonets cutting through the political impasse, as the Thai army just did.

Since the Palace and its “pandering puppies of positivism”—as one pundit calls Ms Arroyo’s sycophants—have their winner-take all solution (which is no solution), and since whatever one says about the Estrada-oriented forces, they’re the only ones who’ve paid a real price (in mainstream politics, at least) for their opposition, then a way forward may depend on Joseph Estrada himself.

Some time ago I wrote that Estrada deserved a speedy resolution of the charges leveled against him. It seems clear, though, that the government can’t afford a verdict handed down either way (if Estrada is acquitted, administration allies will rebel; if he’s convicted, his mass base will be infuriated); so, paralyzed by the political dilemma presented by Estrada, its solution is to keep him in detention and drag out the trial. At this point, the country should have already known if it owed Estrada an apology or if he should stay in jail (where he could decide on accepting or rejecting a pardon). It still doesn’t, and I don’t see how our people will ever know—or whether, by now, anyone can still hold the opinion—that Estrada has gotten a fair trial.

Since Ms Arroyo can’t move on, Estrada should (and offer the country the chance to) move on, too. Forget the argument that Estrada is still President. His support for Fernando Poe Jr. proved that life is not like science fiction. Time cannot stop, it continues. But time is running out. The only thing that can stop Estrada from running for senator is a parliament, and the administration knows this.

Facing a people bitterly divided on the issue of officials who collaborated with the Japanese, President Manuel Roxas issued an amnesty which Congress approved. The amnesty covered people such as the head of the Japanese-sponsored republic, Jose P. Laurel. However, Laurel did not view it a particularly convincing resolution and tried to put closure to the issue, first by running for the presidency in 1949 and then by successfully being elected to the Senate in 1951. He considered it his political vindication, or at least, rehabilitation. For the same reason, when someone asked me my opinion on the election of Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Loi Ejercito, I said the public had spoken in their favor—in an ultimate and unquestionable referendum on the charges against them.

Former President Estrada should do the same. He should run for the Senate. The government cannot stop him from campaigning from his detention house. And since his trial has become a hostage to the political survival of the government, he owes it to himself and his supporters—and a country still divided—to be judged according to the jury of millions. Though in the end I think the best justification for this route is a humanitarian one: which is, that Doña Mary Ejercito deserves the chance to see the people render an unquestionable judgment on her son.

Referendum on Estrada

The administration plan is laid out in Newbsreak: no need to enlist senatorial candidates with no Senate by May next year; a referendum and parliamentary elections, instead (though the true feelings of the House are reflected in Rep. Pichay’s proposal to postpone the elections at least to October next year); and then parliament could then immediately do the real work at hand, which is to further amend the constitution. I have no argument with Dan Mariano’s take on things -but Kit Tatad as the source is unfortunate. Anyway the issues are joined tomorrow at the Supreme Court, and it seems the main argument will be, bayonet Bernas:

In their manifestation before the Supreme Court, Sigaw ng Bayan and ULAP stressed that the primary objectives of the petitioners in proposing the shift to a unicameral parliamentary system are: The removal of the institutional gridlocks between Malacañang and Congress and between the Senate and the House; improvement of public governance; and democratization of the process of electing political leaders.

On the oppositors’ argument that the adoption of a parliamentary system entails a “revision” of and not just an amendment to the Constitution, ChaCha proponents contend the Constitution does not actually make a distinction between the two.

Even if there is such a fine distinction, they say, the proposed reform makes up a mere “amendment” and not “a revision” because it only covers a “single subject,” which is a systematic change in government.

Moreover, they point out that the anti-ChaCha groups are only relying on the opinion of 1986 Constitutional Convention delegate, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, that the parliamentary shift requires a “revision” and not a mere “amendment” to the Constitution. If Bernas is right, they ask why the Jesuit constitutional expert has not cited any “supporting authority” or jurisprudence to prove his point that a parliamentary switch represents a “revision” of, and not just an “amendment” to the 1987 Charter.

All options remain on the table. Even the House calendar is being prepped. The deadline seems to be a floating one, ranging from December to March next year for a plebiscite.

In contrast to other articles claiming the Thai generals moved to prevent Thaksin-led hooliganism, the Times of London suggests the motive was far less far-fetched: Thaksin was being heavy handed and bungling anti-insurgency efforts. In Thai coup sparked by failed war on Islamists, the Times argues,

According to sources briefed by the army high command, Thaksin’s bungled response to the insurgency in southern Thailand, which has claimed 1,700 lives in two years, was a critical factor in the generals’ decision to get rid of him.

Military intelligence officers intend to negotiate with separatists and to use psychological warfare to isolate the most violent extremists, in contrast to Thaksin’s heavy-handed methods and harsh rhetoric.

The question of the military and it’s security concerns -and justifications- reminds me of a recently-published, unauthorized, biography of the Thai monarch, “The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand’s Bhumibol Adulyadej” (Paul M. Handley). I first read about it on the FriscoDude blog. Interesting observations on the book are also in the blog of Matthew Hunt, as well as links to other reactions to the book can be found in Bookish (and in baratillo@cubao, a link to a book on Latin American juntas available free, online).

Long before the present coup and the alarm presently being raised by journalists in Thailand over the military government’s censorship of the internet and of community radio stations (though so far, not the newspapers), the biography of the king received official hostility and the site of the publisher was blocked: an Amazon reader-reviewer says scuttlebutt in Thailand is that the book was commissioned by Thaksin!.

One way or another, the points for comparison keep popping up, as Roby Alampay pointed out in the Asa Times.

Randy David yesterday compares the Thai coup to Edsa Dos in the Philippines and says the lesson is:

In the way we normally understand democracy, the September coup is certainly a setback for Thai democracy. But who are we to judge Thai politics? Are we in the Philippines really better off being stuck with a President we resolutely distrust? Do rigged elections, damaged institutions, corrupt politicians and indifferent citizens constitute the essence of democracy? The lesson from Thailand, as I see it, is this: The only alternative to uniformed men seizing power for whatever reason is a virtuous and informed citizenry that fiercely defends its liberties and militantly refuses to be enslaved by corrupt leaders.

Let’s hope moving against officials who lined their pockets actually works for the Thais. The Nation focuses on one big case and the difficulties involved in unraveling it.

In his blog, Asia Cable, veteran journalist Todd Cromwell discusses why the Thai Constitution, “one of the most progressive documents of its kind in the world,” ended up being scrapped by the Thai Junta:

In retrospect it is clear that all political factions in the country set out to subvert both the letter and the spirit of the liberal document almost from the beginning. That includes, of course, the deposed prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and members of his party, known colorfully as the “Thais Love Thais” Party.

For example, under the constitution the elected senate is not so much a legislative body, as it is in the United States, as it is a kind of guardian council. But from the beginning Thaksin senators abrogated their role as watchdogs to secretly serve the government’s agenda.

The senate’s support made it possible for the government to subvert supposedly independent bodies, such as the Election Commission. Three members of the commission were earlier imprisoned for trying to manipulate the results of the April 2 general election.

But the not-so loyal opposition parties also failed the country when they determined to boycott a general election because they knew they would lose. That led to the election being annuled and directly to the current political impasse. It finally took the army to cut through the Gordian Knot.

As the Bangkok Post editorialized: “Democracy is not just about free elections Rather, the democratic process is difficult daily task of making authorities accountable to voters and reining in the politicians who abuse the agreed legal framework.”

In a commentary today, Kavi Chongkittavorn says Western diplomats remain ambivalent about the coup not because of democracy, but because of their bottom dollar -Thaksin signed to many big deals not to be fondly viewed by the diplomatic corps. The commentary goes on to stipulate which provisions of the now-scrapped constitution should be kept.

The Beijing correspondent of a Taiwan newspaper describes a debate on whether a similar coup could take place in China. The verdict? Corruption is so endemic everyone has a piece of the graft, so no chance of a coup.

Students in Bangkok defied the military (and will do so again this afternoon); students in Quezon City defied the AFP chief of staff.

In the punditocracy, my column for today is Referendum on Estrada. He’s not getting a fair trial. So let him settle the issue by running for office.

Bong Austero on heart disease treatments. Billy Esposo on an outrageous murder. Jojo Robles with a reader’s blunt questions: how much of the conventional wisdom’s based on actual facts?

Yesterday, Ramon Farolan pointed out two generals in  the Thai coup are products of the Philippine Military Academy. Patricia Evangelista offered up a reflection on General Palparan.

And in The New Kyoto Review of South East Asia: an audio recording of an interview with Ferdinand Marcos, 6 months before he fell from power (the beginning, complete with clinking cutlery, is Imelda Marcos as the opening act: then Marcos begins with a lot of table-thumping; it’s interesting to hear him talking conversationally and reminiscing about the war). You can see why, even at the end of the road, sick, ailing and with a brain dulled by illness, Marcos remained a formidable person and respected even by many of his critics (and how loony the dictatorship had become, with Imelda’s prattle). The moment Imelda leaves the room, Marcos slides into his tried and tested, smooth lawyerly persona. It’s rather charming how Marcos keeps saying, “don’t you think so?”

In the blogosphere, Thai coup fallout, thinking-wise, in unlikely places. Sun Protective wonders what would happen if there was a coup or martial law in the USA. The possible response: a couch potato rebellion.

Other places where prime ministers are in trouble: Wonkette quotes what the Hungarian Prime Minister said to provoke rioting (tongue firmly in cheek, she asks, he lied, but so what?).

One Man in Bangkok describes how he spent the coup and what it’s like living under martial law. Notice the Thais have something we don’t: tanks (well, they also have an aircraft carrier, albeit mothballed).

Another Malaysian irked by Lee Kwan Yew.

Philosophical Scratchpad takes a Malaysian and philosophical look at what Filipinos know as the bangungut.

And finally, via Perpetual Thursday, a link to what has to be one of the niftiest blogs around: Indexed. A life lesson, every day, on an index card, but online! Plus, lots and lots of a personal fetish of mine -Venn Diagrams!

Technorati Tags: constitution, history, ideas, journalism, law, Marcos, media, military, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president, Thailand

Laurel and Marcos

Weekend news flash from Newsbreak: swirling talk of unrest in the Philippine Navy amidst talk that Vice Admiral Mayuga will be replaced.

Anyway, as for today’s anniversary of martial law…

There should have been a national commemoration of martial law today, and the focus ought to have been on the Bantayog ng mga Bayani.

But that wasn’t the case.

In The Explainer Blog, there are links to quite a few readings on martial law. In addition,  I’d recommend three books:

Days of Disquiet, Nights of Rage, by Pete Lacaba: the classic reportage on the First Quarter Storm.
How Democracy Was Lost, by Augusto Caesar Espiritu, a diary written during the closing months of the 1971-73 Constitutional Convention, by a delegate, detailing the moral surrender of his peers.
The Making of a Subversive, by Hernando Abaya, a great eyewitness account of what it was like to be arrested and detained in the early hours of martial law.

Another thing: Jose P. Laurel and Ferdinand Marcos. My theory is that the strongest intellectual influence on Marcos was the Japanese Occupation and the Laurel Republic and its constitution. This constitution is often overlooked, not least because it was only briefly in force, and the regime for which it was drafted has never enjoyed anything beyond a grudging recognition of (limited) legitimacy.

However it has been studied and its most notable influence, I think, has been on scholars such as Dr. Jose Abueva who has raised hackles by his proposing the qualification of the freedom of speech with “responsible.” It was drafted by many of those involved in drafting the 1935 Constitution. It was this constitution that granted Jose P. Laurel the authority to proclaim martial law in 1944.

Filipino Librarian quite remarkably points out that Laurel and Marcos dated their martial law proclamations on the same day -September 21. While Laurel was truthful with his -dating it the 21st but officially stating it would take effect the 22nd; Marcos signed his on the 22nd, implemented it on the 23rd, backdated it to the 21st.

CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, 1943

PREAMBLE

The Filipino people, imploring the aid of Divine Providence and desiring to lead a free national existence, do hereby proclaim their independence, and in order to establish a government that shall promote the general welfare, conserve and develop the patrimony of the Nation, and contribute to the creation of a world order based on peace, liberty, and moral justice, do ordain this Constitution.

Article I. — The Republic of the Philippines

Section 1. The Philippines is a republican state. The government established by this Constitution shall be known as the Republic of the Philippines.

Sec. 2. The Republic of the Philippines shall exercise sovereignty over all the national territory as at present defined by law.

Article II. — The Executive

Section 1. The Executive power shall be vested in the President of the Republic of the Philippines.

Sec. 2. The President shall be elected by a majority of all the members of the National Assembly at the place and on the date to be fixed by law.

Sec. 3. No person may be elected President unless he be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, is forty years of age or over, and has been a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding the election.

Sec. 4. The President shall hold office during a term of six years and may not be re-elected for the following term.

Sec. 5. The term of the President shall end at noon on the thirtieth day of December following the expiration of six years after his election, and from such time the term of his successor shall begin. If his successor shall not have been chosen before such time, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the outgoing President shall continue in office until his successor shall ‘have been elected and qualified. In the event of the removal of the President from office or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the same shall devolve on the ranking Minister in the order of precedence established by law until a new President shall have been elected for the unexpired term. In the latter case, the election shall be held within sixty days after such removal, death, resignation, or inability.

Sec. 6. Before assuming the duties of his office, the President shall take the following oath or affirmation:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Republic of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.” (In case of affirmation, the last sentence will be omitted.)

Sec. 7. The President shall have an official residence and receive such compensation as may be fixed by law which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the government or any of its subdivisions or instrumentalities.

Sec. 8. The President shall have supervision and control of all the ministries, bureaus or offices, all local governments, and all other branches or instrumentalities of the Executive Department, and take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Sec. 9. The President shall be commander-in-chief of all armed forces of the Republic of the Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawlessness, invasion, insurrection, or rebellion. In case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, or when the public safety so requires, he may suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.

Sec. 10. The President shall appoint the Ministers and Vice-Ministers, and with the advice of his Cabinet, shall appoint ambassadors, diplomatic ministers and consuls, heads of bureaus and offices, officers of the Army from the rank of colonel, of the Navy and of the Air forces from the rank of captain or commander, provincial governors, city and municipal mayors, and all other officers of the government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law.

Sec. 11. There shall be a Council of State to advise the President on matters of national policy. It shall be composed of not more than twenty members to be appointed by the President from among citizens who may have rendered distinguished service to the Nation.

Sec. 12. The President, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all the members of the National Assembly, shall have the power to declare war and make peace, and, with the concurrence of a majority of all its members, conclude treaties. He shall receive ambassadors and diplomatic ministers duly accredited to the Republic of the Philippines.

Sec. 13. The President shall have the power to grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction, for all offenses, upon such conditions and with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose. He shall have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of the National Assembly.

Sec. 14. The President shall from time to time give to the National Assembly information of the state of he Nation, and recommend to its consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

Article III.—The Legislature

Section 1. The Legislative power shall be vested in the National Assembly.

Sec. 2. The National Assembly shall be composed of the provincial governors and city mayors as members ex-officio, and of delegates to be elected every three years, one from each and every province and chartered city. The date and manner of their election and the method of filling vacancies shall be prescribed by law, which shall not be subject to change or modification during the Greater East Asia War.

Sec. 3. No person shall be elected to the National Assembly unless he has been five years a citizen of the Philippines, and is at least thirty years of age.

Sec. 4.

(1) The National Assembly shall convene in regular session once every year on a date to be fixed by law, but no regular session shall continue longer than sixty days, exclusive of Sundays. It may also be called in special session by the President, for such time as he may determine, to consider general legislation or only such subjects as he may designate.

(2) The National Assembly shall choose its Speaker, a secretary, a sergeant-at-arms, and such other officers as may be required. A majority of all the members shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as the National Assembly may provide.

(3) The National Assembly shall be the sole judge of the election, returns and qualifications of its elective members, and may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. It shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts unless the National Assembly by adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall become a law unless vetoed by the President within forty days after adjournment.

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or  items of  an appropriation,  revenue  or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.  When a provision of an appropriation bill affects one or more items of the same, the President cannot veto the provision wit’hout at the same time vetoing the particular item or items to which it relates.

Sec. 10.

(1) No bill which may be enacted into law shall embrace more than one subject which shall be expressed in the title of the bill.

(2) No bill shall be passed or become  a law unless copies thereof in its final form shall have been furnished the members at least three calendar days prior to its passage by the National Assembly, except when the President shall have certified to the necessity of its immediate enactment. Upon the last reading of a bill no amendment thereof shall be allowed; and the question upon its final passage shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered on the journal.

Sec. 11.

(1) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds
of the government.

(2) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.

(3) No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.

Sec. 12. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform.

(2) The National Assembly may, by law, authorize the President, subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, to fix, within specified limits, tariff rates, import or export quotas, and tonnage and wharfage duties.

(3) Cemeteries, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenent thereto, and all lands, buildings and improvements used exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes, shall be exempt from taxation.

Sec. 13. In times of war or other national emergency, the National Assembly may by law authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out a declared national policy.

Sec. 14. When the National Assembly is not in session, the President may, in cases of urgent necessity, promulgate rules and ordinances which shall have the force and effect of law until disapproved by resolution before the end of the next regular session of the National Assembly.

Article IV. — The Judiciary

Section 1. The Judicial Power shall be vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may be established by law.

Sec, 2. The National Assembly shall have the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts, but may not deprive the Supreme Court of its original Jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, diplomatic ministers and consuls, nor of its jurisdiction to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal, certiorari, or writ of error, as the law or the rules of court may provide, final judgments and decrees of inferior courts in all cases in which the constitutionality of any law, ordinance, or executive order or regulation is in question, or in which the jurisdiction of any court is in issue or where only errors or questions of law are involved.

Sec. 3. Unless otherwise provided by law, the Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices.

Sec. 4. The members of. the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President with the advice of the Cabinet.  All judges of inferior courts shall be appointed by the President with the advice of the Supreme Court.

Sec. 5. No person may be appointed member of the Supreme Court unless he be a citizen of the Philippines, is at least forty years of age and has been a judge of a court of record or has been engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least ten years.

Sec. 6. The National Assembly shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of the inferior courts but no person may be appointed judge of any such courts unless he be a citizen of the Philippines and has been admitted to the practice of law in the Philippines.

Sec. 7. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior, until they become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. They shall receive such compensation as may be fixed by law, which may not be diminished during their continuance in office except in case of a general revision of salaries of all officials and employees of the government.

Sec. 8. The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Justice for the writing of opinion of the court. Any Justice dissenting from a decision shall state the reasons for his dissent.

Sec. 9. No law or executive order, ordinance or regulation may be declared unconstitutional without the unanimous vote of all the members of the Supreme Court.

Sec. 10. No decision shall be rendered by any court of record without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.

Sec. 11. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission to the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade and shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. All existing laws on pleading, practice and procedure are subject to alteration and modification by the Supreme Court.

Article V. — Impeachment

Section 1. The President and the Justices of the Supreme Court shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or other high crimes.

Sec. 2. The National Assembly, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Sec. 3. The Supreme Court shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of three-fourths of all the Justices of the Supreme Court.

Sec. 4. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the government of the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.

Article VI. — Citizenship

Section 1.  The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution and their descendants.

(2) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

Sec. 2.  Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

Article VII. — Duties and Rights of the Citizen

Section 1. It is the duty of every citizen to render personal military and civil service as may be required by law, to pay taxes and public charges, and to engage in a useful calling, occupation or profession.

Sec. 2. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Sec. 3. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.

Sec. 4. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Sec. 5.  No ex post facto law shall be enacted.

Sec. 6.  No person shall be imprisoned for debt.

Sec. 7. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Sec. 8. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or when the public safety so requires.

Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Sec. 10. Free access to the courts or administrative tribunals shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Sec. 11. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by law in the interest of peace, morals, health, safety or public security:

(1) The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.

(2) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall not be invaded.

(3) The right to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be infringed.

(4) The free enjoyment and practice of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall not be curtailed.

(5) The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired.

(6) The freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances,  shall not be abridged.

Article VIII. — Conservation and Utilization of Natural Resources

Section 1. All agricultural, timber, and mineral lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all sources of potential energy, and other natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State, and their disposition, exploitation, development, or utilization shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens, subject to any existing right, grant, lease, or concession at the time of the inauguration of the government established under this Constitution. Natural resources, with the exception of public agricultural land, shall not be alienated, and no license, concession, or lease for the exploitation, development, or utilization of any of the natural resources shall be granted for a period exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for another twenty-five years, except as to water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the development of water power, in which cases beneficial use may be the measure and the limit of the grant.

Sec. 2. No private corporation or association may acquire, lease, or hold public agricultural lands in excess of one thousand and twenty-four hectares, nor may any individual acquire such lands by purchase in excess of one hundred and forty-four hectares, or by lease of one thousand and twenty-four hectares, or by homestead in excess of twenty-four hectares. Lands adapted to grazing, not exceeding two thousand hectares, may be leased to an individual, private corporation, or association.

Sec. 3. The National Assembly may determine by law the size of private agricultural land which individuals, corporations, or associations may acquire and hold, subject to rights existing prior to the enactment of such law.

Sec. 4. The National Assembly may authorize, upon payment of just compensation, the expropriation of lands to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at cost to individuals.

Sec. 5. No private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines, or to persons entitled by law to inherit in case of intestate succession.

Article IX.—General Provisions

Section 1. The flag of the Republic of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by the Filipino people.

Section 2. The government shall take steps toward the development and propagation of Tagalog as the national language.

Sec. 3. There shall be a General Auditing Office to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues, receipts, expenditures of funds and properties of the government, its subdivisions and instrumentalities, as well as of such persons or institutions as may be provided by law.

Sec. 4. A Civil Service embracing all branches and subdivisions of the government shall be provided by law. Appointments in the Civil Service, except as to those which are policy-determining, primarily confidential or highly technical in nature, shall be made only according to merit and fitness, to be determined as far as practicable by competitive examination.

Sec. 5. All public officers and members of the armed forces shall take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

Sec. 6. No public officer or employee shall receive additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law.

Sec. 7. Public officers and employees shall not be engaged in the practice of any profession during their continuance in office; nor shall they, directly or indirectly, intervene in the management or control of any private enterprise which in any way may be affected by the functions of their office, or be financially interested in any contract with the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof.

Sec. 8. The promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people shall be the concern of the State.

Sec. 9. The State shall promote scientific research and invention. Arts and letters shall be under its patronage. The exclusive right to writings and inventions shall be secured to authors and inventors for a limited period.

Sec. 10. All educational institutions shall be under the supervision of and subject to regulation by the State. The government shall establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of national education, and shall provide at least free public elementary instruction, and citizenship training to adult citizens. All schools, colleges, and universities shall aim to develop moral character, personal and collective discipline, civic conscience, and vocational skill, secure social efficiency, and teach the duties of citizenship. Optional religious instruction shall be maintained in the public schools as now authorized by law. The State shall create scholarships in arts, science, and letters for specially gifted citizens.

Sec. 11. The State shall afford protection to labor, especially to working women and minors, and shall regulate the relations between landowner and tenant, and between labor and capital in industry and in agriculture. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.

Sec. 12.  The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate industries and means of transportation and communication, and, upon payment of just compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other private-enterprises to be operated by the government.

Sec. 13. No franchise, certificate, or any other form of authorization for the operation of a public utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or other entities organized under the laws of the Philippines, sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by citizens of the Philippines, nor shall such franchise, certificate, or authorization be exclusive in character or for a longer period than fifty years. No franchise or right shall be granted to any individual, firm or corporation, except under the condition that it shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal by the National Assembly when the public interest so requires.

Sec. 14. The National Assembly shall not, except by general law, provide for the formation, organization, or regulation of private corporations, unless such corporations are owned or controlled by the government or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof.

Article X. — Amendments

Section 1. The National Assembly, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, may propose amendments to this Constitution, but such amendments shall not be valid as part of the Constitution unless approved by the people at a plebiscite or convention especially called for that purpose and on the date and under conditions to be prescribed by law.

Article XI. — Transitory  Provisions

Section 1. This Constitution shall be ratified by the people at a plebiscite or convention especially called for that purpose. The manner of holding such plebiscite or convention shall be provided by law.

Sec. 2. The first National Assembly shall convene at the place and on the date fixed by law, and immediately after its organization shall elect the President of the Republic of the Philippines.

Sec. 3. The existing executive departments of the Philippine Executive Commission shall continue as Ministries of the Republic until the National Assembly shall by law provide otherwise.

Sec. 4. All laws of the Philippines shall continue in force until the inauguration of the Republic; thereafter, such laws shall remain operative unless inconsistent with this Constitution, until amended, altered, modified or repealed by the National Assembly, and all references in such laws to the government or officials of the Philippines or of the Philippine Executive Commission shall be construed, in so far as applicable, to refer to the government and corresponding officials under the Republic,

Sec. 5. All courts existing at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall continue and exercise their jurisdiction, except in so far as it may be inconsistent with the provisions of his Constitution, until otherwise provided by law in accordance with this Constitution; but all cases, civil and criminal, pending in said courts shall be heard, tried and determined under the laws then in force.

Sec. 6. All officers and employees of the government under the Philippine Executive Commission shall continue in office until the National Assembly shall provide otherwise; but all officers whose appointments are by this Constitution vested in the President shall vacate their respective offices upon the appointment and qualification of their successors.

Sec. 7. The prohibitions and limitations provided for in this Constitution, notwithstanding, the President of the Republic of the Philippines may enter into an agreement with any foreign nation for the utilization of natural resources and the operation of public utilities, which agreement shall expire upon the termination of the Greater East Asia War.

Sec. 8. All property rights and privileges acquired by any person, entity or corporation, since the outbreak of the Greater East Asia War, shall be subject to adjustment and settlement upon the termination of the said war.

Sec. 9. The provisions of this Constitution, except those contained in this Article and those which refer to the election and qualification of officers to be elected under this Constitution, shall not take effect until the inauguration of the Republic of the Philippines.

Article XII. — Special Provision

Section 1.  Within one year after the termination of the Greater East Asia War, the National Assembly shall by law provide for the election by popular suffrage of delegates to a Constitutional Convention, which shall meet not later than sixty days after their election in order to formulate and adopt a new Constitution which shall become effective upon its approval by the people at a plebiscite to be held for the purpose. After such approval the National Assembly shall’ forthwith provide for the election of the officers under the new Constitution and the inauguration of the government established thereunder.

During the 1930s, Laurel and many other Filipino leaders became interested in the Japanese warrior code of Bushido, as a means of counter-acting what they felt was the moral and ethical weakness and lack of a sense of identity and purpose of younger Filipinos. These ideas surely influenced some aspiring politicians.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, history, ideas, Marcos, media, military, ninoy aquino, people power, philippines, politics, president

Pleas for Pyro

My apologies to CaT and thanks to her for reminding me of my commitment.

There isn’t any point worrying about the world if we’re deaf, mute, and blind to the plight of an individual child.

in times of pain has the story and updates on Joseph Pyro, who is very ill and has gone through, in his three years on earth, more than most of us will ever have to suffer.

When I was a baby, I fell ill with viral meningitis. My father figured it out because he’d heard so many stories while growing up, of his sister, Nenita, who died of the same thing.

He recounted to me what his father, a man who had lost his faith at the time, had prayed: save my daugher, even if I have to carry her in my arms for the rest of my life.

For a child, the pain and suffering of illness is the entire world for that child; for parents, it is the horror of seeing their world collapse before their eyes.

The links in the blog with updates on Pyro point to Kythe, a foundation helping pediatric patients; as well as to Cancer Warriors. Wherever you are, you can help.

Read Pyro’s story for yourself, and help, if you can.

Technorati Tags: personal

Coup foiled self-coup

Newspapers around the world fell over themselves to editorialize on the Thailand coup. The Korea Herald and The Australian are generally mild, suggesting, on the whole, that Thaksin had it coming. The Age goes further than most in focusing on the role of the Thai monarch in the coup. The Nation in Thailand, editorializes on what kind of leader is needed by the country.

The most remarkable Nation (my favorite Thai paper and which Newsstand says is the best, but which Richard Parry of The Times of London condemns for military boot-licking)  story though is this. Sonthi outsmarted Thaksin at the eleventh hour:

However, an intelligence report reached General Sonthi’s camp stating that there would be bloodshed on Wednesday. The People’s Alliance for Democracy had planned to hold a political rally that day at the Royal Plaza in order to force Thaksin out of politics. Had that rally taken place, there would have been clashes between the People’s Alliance for Democracy and Thaksin’s supporters and blood would have been spilt on Rajdamnoen Avenue. If only Thaksin had promised that he would take a break from politics and allow a period of political reforms to take place, the PAD and other branches of the anti-Thaksin movement would have declared victory. All political confrontations would have subsided. Thaksin could have run for office once the Constitution was amended, and he would have been returned to the premier’s post, probably in the latter part of next year.

However, Thaksin never considered taking a break from power. Again, don’t be fooled by his “taking a break” story – the idea never crossed his mind.

The General Sonthi camp learned that during the PAD rally, Yongyuth Tiyapairat and Newin Chidchob were planning to rally their supporters to create an ugly scene at the Royal Plaza. During the ensuing commotion, there would be human casualties. Thaksin would then have stepped in and declared a state of emergency, placing the country under martial law.

Now you can understand why he had time to prepare his state of emergency statement and read it at 9.20pm on Channel 9 from his New York hotel room. You can also understand why Yongyuth and Newin are now at the top of this country’s most-wanted list and have surrendered themselves to the CDRM for interrogation.

Once the situation was under his complete control, Thaksin had planned to fly back yesterday in order to declare victory over anti-democratic elements in society. He had a military reshuffle list in hand that would have further consolidated his control over the military. With that accomplished, everything would have been easy. Virtually all institutions in the country would have been under his directive…

Members of the Thai elite and the PAD, however, would not allow this to happen. If Thaksin were to run in the next election, he would have won. With 12 million votes or so, he would have claimed a democratic majority and he also would have stayed on as prime minister. After that he could rewrite Thai history by turning Thailand into his own regime.

General Sonthi had to act fast to head off Thaksin’s coup. He staged a military coup on Tuesday, a day before the bloodshed was set to take place. He and Thaksin did have a telephone conversation on Tuesday evening, with Thaksin trying to buy time and negotiate a settlement.

He told General Sonthi that if he kept his cool, Thaksin would take a break from politics. He asked Sonthi to wait until he returned from New York so that the two could talk things out and said that he would reschedule his return flight to Bangkok to Wednesday, instead of yesterday as he had planned.

General Sonthi was polite, but told him that he had no choice, that he had to stage the coup…

Thaksin’s wife Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra was supposed to take a 12am flight to Singapore on Tuesday night. She quickly changed her flight to 9pm…

Twenty-five minutes later, knowing that his wife was safely on an aircraft bound for Singapore, Thaksin read out his state of emergency address from his New York hotel room, effectively sacking General Sonthi .

But an hour later, General Sonthi declared a counter-coup to overthrow the Thaksin regime and tear up the Constitution.

This story suggests the need for soul searching along the lines of When is the abhorrent practice of staging a coup justifiable?

If a democracy will legitimize a future dictatorship, should the people be allowed to anoint a dictator? Or should it be nipped in the bud, but in doing so, instituting a dictatorship, anyway? Apolinario Mabini once said “drown the constitution in order to save it!”
Here’s an interesting tidbit (from the story above) that bucks the conventional wisdom that Thaksin continues to be wildly popular in the provinces:

On the other hand, this coup is quite popular both in Bangkok and in the provinces. A survey conducted by Suan Dusit showed that the majority of Thais – 84 per cent – support the coup. Support was higher in the provinces at 86 per cent compared with 82 per cent in Bangkok.

Or suggests something I think our own Edsa II indicated: the masses can elect a leader, the middle and upper class can topple that leader -in large part because immense mass popularity does not translate into an active political defense. That suggests that the kind of popularity say, Estrada and Thaksin enjoyed was a passive, because patronage-based, one.

Reactions to the coup have been generally negative, in principle, so it’s interesting to read what a Thai who supports the coup has to say. Interesting Things, blogging from Bangkok, wrote an open letter to Western friends explaining the coup. Bangkok Pundit praises the democratic opposition for (belatedly) expressing unhappiness with the coup.

Meanwhile, Thaksin floats in a kind of political limbo in London; the United States makes some noises about the coup, mainly about its aid; but in Thailand, there is already a short-list of successors even as the interim regime prepares to investigate Thaksin’s wealth and as Bryanton Post says, the media continues under a clampdown.

Here at home the official jitters continue. The President bleats for democracy (and her cabinet oinks in unison); DFA tells Filipinos to be careful in Thailand (they may become monarchists and getting ideas); the military growls it’s in control. Raul Lambino, overnight, has become a “constitutional law expert” and warbles that the Thai coup shouldn’t make anyone’s parliamentarist feelings wane. Some obvious defects in his reasoning: parliamentary countries are overwhelmingly monarchical or post-monarchical; many constitutional monarchies have kings with moral authority and have used their authority or even residual powers; and he sidesteps the closest analogy of all: there is no use in invoking the benefits of vote of no confidence when the only party leader of this country ever to lose one was Estrada. But every majority has held firmly until overtaken by other events.

Mike Tan compares Thailand to the Philippines and suggests why the President shouldn’t fear a coup and why people shouldn’t want one: we neither have honest generals nor an uninterested moral authority to keep things in check.

In other news:

Supreme Court questions PCGG assertion of absolute immunity; in his column, Rasheed Abou-Alsamh discusses the question with a similar point of view.

JB Baylon went to Cebu to discuss press freedom. Satur Ocampo did an interesting experiment: an on-line press conference.

In Japan, the Dailu Yomiuri is distraught over a court ruling that says teachers don’t have to stand at attention when the flag is raised and the national anthem performed. From Malaysia, Screenshots reports Harry Lee (aka Lee Kwan Yew) is stirring up ethnic tensions with the Malays again.

Technorati Tags: Blogging, constitution, journalism, media, military, philippines, politics, Thailand

Next Page »