Thanks for the compliment sir. I decided to engage with you in a discussion on this issue because you can keep our debate within the bounds of decency. You always hold back using adhominems, especially character assassination not unless your foe draws first blood. I also admire your clarity and conciseness of your arguments. That’s why i enjoy your battle of attritions with MLQ in the market place of ideas.

Back to the issue.

I submit that the constitution is the written contract between the people and govt. by and large, it did not abrogate the right of the people to pressure the president through the call for her resignation. With the right of the freedom of expression granted by the constitution, i think it reinforced its validity.

On the other hand, I think you impliedly agree with me on some points. You conceded that the resignations of Estrada and Nixon, and the removal of Marcos from office were valid because in their desire of doing it, they were not under duress. Although their might had been pressure, yet it was still them who assessed and made judgment whether to continue fighting or not.

That is precisely my point. And this is the case of what has been going on right now in GMA’s embattled leadership. The people, who believe the president is no longer serving them but enriching herself and her family in tandem with her cronies, pressure GMA by asking her resignation. But leaving it to her own volition to decide voluntarily whether to step down or not. The same thing we did to Marcos and Erap. And the same thing the American people and his political opponents did to Nixon. The basis: The right of freedom of expression. As long as the people do it peacefully and within the parameter of the law to which GMA may crumble to the pressure and eventually resign because she sees she will lose the battle anyway. I believe, her resignation will be valid.

If GMA won’t heed the call, and the AFP and PNP, won’t jump into the fray and turn their back on the president, then the people who have been asking her resignation, including me, won’t have any another option but to wait until 2010.

Frankly, i believe GMA won’t step down even if the entire voting populace or 80 percent of RP’s population would join the rally. As long as she has the majority support of the Lower House so she can thwart impeachment; and as long as she has the backing of the most crucial element that holds the key of her candy store: the military and the police, she won’t resign. What im hoping to accomplish in joining the call for her resignation is for the military and police to see the true pulse of the nation.

I rest my case, sir.

I wrote an article/post about the other provisions that I pertain to and I entitled it “Constitutional Oligarchy”.

You might be able to search for it in a search engine though there is a copy of it here in this blogsite but its been a long time since so I can’t remember what thread it is.

I suggest you read it first then get back to me.

what could be those proposed amendments that are of ‘questionable benefit’ to the people?

in the British parliamentary system, the PM is an MP, so the PM is chosen from Parliament.

the chief executive not being directly voted into office is not a ‘questionable benefit’

Well I can’t really say much about your first paragarph.

I also hate to nit pick with you but since we are discussing the effects of specific changes in the Charter, I have to point out that the PM will not be selected only from the elected MPs. Because of the proportional representation of political parties wherein parties can appoint additional MPs depending on their parties performance in the elections; such appointed MPs may also vie for the Prime Ministership besides voting on it.

But there are other provisions in the proposed Charter regarding parliament that are of questionable benefit to the people.

yes, the people entrusted the power to the government (acting through duly-constituted “leaders” and agents) but with a written CONTRACT, i.e., the constitution which spells out the terms and conditions of the power grant and the limits of governance, including presidential tenure. political scientists and philosophers, e.g. rousseau, locke, montesquuieu) called it the “social contract”, a.k.a, the CONSTITUTION.

the term of office, and the involuntary removal, of a president is prescribed by the constitution. it also allows voluntary termination through resignation (with or without reason). nixon voluntarily resigned, on his own volition, because he knew his impeachment and removal was almost a certainty. that was his own call, and if there was pressure, it was from his own awareness that it was a fight he could not win. the same thing could be said about marcos and estrada. in their minds they were mindful of the futily of resistance. there is no duress in one’s own desire to surrender that could render a resignation invalid.

in the case of pgma, she is secure in her belief that, under the rule of law, there is no valid ground for her involuntary removal. by her declaration and judging from recent events, we know that she is ready, willing and able to defeat any attempt to “oust” her by hook or by crook. that’s why she is still in office and by so doing, she is preserving our constitution, our laws and our democratic institutions – giving us hope that they will endure for as long as our nation exists.

btw, the social contract between the people and the government, on one hand, and private employment contract between the employee and employer, on the other, are apple and orange, respectively.

As what was proposed, the PM will be chosen from among the Elected MPs,which again will be opened to Fragmentation among MPs by either “buying” or offering positions to the elected Members for their votes for the PM and again Loyalties to the sitting PM will be compromised by individual loyalties instead of Political Parties. And that will defeat the whole exercise of switching to Parliamentary Form..