The criminal investigation can only get underway if the political institutions cooperate. The whole point in having three branches of government is to have a system of checks and balances. A legislature that is beholden to Malacanang occupant for pork barrel has rendered this system inoperable.

The institutions of justice do need to be involved in this matter but this issue is more than a matter for the judiciary. Cheating is also a political question of who has the right to choose our country’s leaders – Garci/Bedol or the voter. Something this fundamental cannot be something our society can just delegate to a judge or group of judges.

As Manolo said, our Congress is not just about legislation. You can refer back to his previous ‘Ping Pong’ thread for a more thorough explanation.

Our people understand that Democracy is really about process. I can refer you to a couple of sources for your education on this matter. If you’re too busy to read, there is this video by Hans Rosling in ‘TED Talk’ with a good explanation on distinguishing means and goals.

Yes, I agree with all this (who wouldn’t?).

But cheating is an institutional issue. And the effort required to address it is an OPERATIONAL component of the COMELEC overseen by the judiciary and its law enforcement agencies.

As such, an election that is made to be all about cheating is shortsighted and (as is evident now), of no substance IN BETWEEN ELECTIONS.

If you think about it, all this moronic GMA-cheated-boo-hoo is really in essence a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION effort. And it is the justice system that needs to be held accountable for resolving it. If you recall the basics about our form of democracy as taught in Grade 5, you will remember THE WHOLE POINT behind having three separate branches of government.

If the justice system is dysfunctional and fails to prosecute election cheaters, then the problem is with INSTITUTIONS OF JUSTICE and should not be carried over into our elections. If there are rallies and street antics to be held, they should be directed to the officers of the juduciary and our national investigation services instead of being made into a blanket indictment of our politicians.

Elections are about selecting our representatives in government; representatives that will STEER the society to a goal or vision through MEANINGFUL legislation and leadership. It is NOT about prosecuting criminals. Mechanisms to do that do not reside in the election process.

See, this is what I meant by our society being sold on to the processes of democracy (and even THAT is questionable) yet is incapable of understanding what it is REALLY all about.

Cheating degrades social capital both in its execution and its after-effects. Just look at the recent case of the Senate elections in Maguindanao to see how cheating is accomplished, what is destroyed in the process and who are the ones who suffer.

And therein lies the tragedy of it all. Imagine the immense cost to society in terms of actual funds spent and disruption to day-to-day life of an election and the issue boiling down only to “Arroyo-cheated-therefore-she-should-be-ousted”.

On top of that, we make a breathtaking leap of logic by saying that this tagline embodies “the issues of accountability, integrity and fairness”.

I detect quite a bit of ROI on the investments of politicians on their spin doctors and publicists here.

What happens when the issue of Arroyo’s “cheating” is resolved? All we get left with is a bunch of morons we elected on the basis of this tagline. And even if it isn’t resolved, step back and regard the bigger picture. There are lots out there doing their job and ACHIEVING regardless of who or what moron is in office anyway. Don’t they deserve to have their issues considered in an election?

Really? You think this move and the subsequent electoral outcome for Sotto was about any sort of principles beyond partisanism?

What philosophically sets apart the adminstration camp and the “united” opposition then other than this tired old “Arroyo-cheated-therefore-she-should-be-ousted” tagline? MAybe the Pinoy voters changed Sotto’s fortune as a result of his move. But I doubt it was because of any understanding of any issues of national consequence whatsoever.

I think A fixed term would be beneficial for the AFP, if the CSAFP has a particular program.
In general ganyan ang nagyayari sa atin kahit san,lalo na sa sports, no continuity.

Continuity not continuous,iba yon.

Or would you rather have a micromanaging president?(kahit sa corporate world,it is very dreaded(micromanaging ceos,svps))

Your example of President vs CSAFP was clear,but is it not stated in the constitution,is it not supposed to be Civilian Authority over the Military?

Back to Thailand.
I sense a civilian control through political rivals and king makers,just like home.

So, the bottomline is; what happened was civilian control not civilian authority control over military,at least during the EDsas 1 and 2.

We need a Magna Carta for professionalism of the military,if we don’t have one yet.Obviously the constitution was not followed during the the second Edsa after declaring that civilian authoritry over the military. With the goings on,which is top level priority?Lahat priority One.

To be honest,my father dared FVR to step don as CSAFP because he ws ovestaying,but it is a good thing it was not taken personally by FVR,and hired him as ASEC in the last months of his presidency.

In my humble opinion ,I don’t know you are the legal eagle;I think the fixed term is not a deterrent for the president to fire the CSAFP.

As to the the president and the CSAFP,disagreeing,even if it does happen,will that be a risk for overthrow or kicking out a president ala Thailand/Thakshin?