A manufactured privilege
April 7, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Blogger Not Yet Sikat very kindly linked to The Philippine Diary Project. Just last night, I posted the December 23, 1938 entry from the diary of Francis Burton Harrison, which contained a passage that struck me:
At dinner that night, the President developed a theory in favor of representative democracy instead of “mob democratic rule.†“The people care more for good government than they do for self-government,†he asserted, adding that “the fear is that the Head of State may either exceed his powers, or abuse them by improprieties. To keep order is his main purpose.â€
I bring this up because today’s Inquirer editorial, Non-negotiables, endorses the Guidelines for Communal Discernment and Action to Address the National Crisis released by the Jesuit Province. It seems to me that the Jesuits are mainly concerned with how “to keep order.” They are not alone in this.
There are those who have been critics of the Jesuit guidelines. Filomeno Sta. Ana III, in The Black Priests, goes through the pros and then conclude with the cons of the guidelines:
The S.J. Commission fears people power because it “creates a dynamic where crisis situations continue to be resolved through extra-constitutional means.†Likewise, it believes that extra-constitutional means may harm democratic institutions in the long term.
The best response to this comes from a professor in a university that is a neighbor of the S.J. headquarters. Economics professor Raul Fabella (by the way, an ex-seminarian but not of the Jesuit variety) wrote an essay titled “The Constitutional Comfort for Impunity.†Its penultimate statement: “Whether for outright deposal or for defanging, these Filipinos now believe, rather as did the English barons at Runnymede, that only mounting direct action, increasing if it must the risk of extra-constitutional tectonics, is the only language Malacañang now understands and which alone can force it to come clean on truth and justice.†Its conclusion: “Waiting for the 2010 that will be forthwith stolen is ‘waiting for Godot.’â€
(You can -and should- read Fabella’s piece, in full, here: The Constitutional Comfort for Impunity).
Manuel Buencamino, in his Response to the Jesuits’ Guidelines, says the guidelines promotes an independent counsel and impeachment, both of which he characterizes as distractions (personally, I believe the former is necessary and the latter is a worthy fight that will only engage a large group of previously indifferent people now -and is only as far as they will ever go, unless the President sends a clear signal she’s not stepping down in 2010). There is one passage by Buencamino with which I wholeheartedly agree:
Section g. “Prioritize the poor.†reinforces a mistaken belief that justice etc. are luxuries only the well-fed can value: “If many Filipinos seem to be uninvolved or uninterested, it is primarily because of an overriding concern for economic survival during very hard times.â€
Filipinos have become apathetic not because they are more concerned about feeding themselves but because the system is unresponsive. They have given up on beating a dead horse. But that’s just me and that’s just them.
There is one criticism of his,
Section f (“Champion active nonviolence and protect human rights….â€) shackles the opposition more than it does the administration. It allows the “State†to defend itself through whatever legitimate means necessary. But if you believe the administration is illegitimate then no self-defensive action other than preventing wanton vandalism and violence is permissible.
-Which points to something I’ve noticed before, and which I addressed in a column back in December, 2007 in A limited and limiting consensus (in this passage):
If this means essentially participating in a fight with one hand tied behind your back, because the public wills it and doesn’t care if the government not only fights with both gloves on but horseshoes in its gloves, then so be it. You’re after the long term and that means recognizing that eventually, all the excuses of the tacit and overt supporters of the administration will be proven false. For example, all the yammering to “give her until 2010.†Well, you can’t rush it until 2008, 2009 or early 2010 rolls around, and they have no choice but to see that oops, she isn’t operating by that deadline, is she? This is the clear signal being sent by the revival of Charter change, after all.
At which point you have to bear in mind that people will be even more hostile because they were proven wrong, but it would be nice to be able not to wave fingers at them but to embrace them, even belatedly, as they join the fight.
And even if she steps down, at least you kept her on her toes until then, and who knows, it might just be that keeping her off balance prevented her exploring extension options. So, no regrets, either.
Therefore the Jesuit guidelines are useful in that they reveal how far a significant group are prepared to go -but also, however reluctantly, how far they are being pushed. Because while the Jesuit guidelines are addressed, it seems to me, to those who are fearful of the consequences of action, they have been made possible by those getting fed up with the inactivity that serves as a form of tacit support for the administration, on the part of the senior hierarchy or school officials. Critics of the statement focus on the guidelines being a delaying tactic: they will move the goal posts, time and again, until the magic date of June 30, 2010 has been reached, when they can then shrug and say that they had to do nothing, because things sorted themselves out.
But in the meantime, the feelings of a significant chunk of people have been soothed. The target audience of the Jesuits doesn’t involve those already in the fight, only those who are irritated but who would rather not go that extra step further: this entry by karlvendell, I think sums up the views of the constituency the Jesuits are cultivating, quite well.
My column today is A manufactured privilege.
It extensively quotes the following: “Executive Privilege,” in historian David Kaiser’s blog, History Unfolding. And Congressional Oversight: Rules of the Road Less Traveled, by Donald R. Wolfensberger. And this handy-dandy extract from the conclusion of Woodrow Wilson’s Congressional Government.
A cornucopia of readings is also available in History News Network: Executive Privilege. In particular, see What Is Executive Privilege and Why Do Presidents Like to Invoke It? by David Greenberg:
Dwight Eisenhower, despite his famous valedictory warnings against the military-industrial complex, did as much as any president to nourish this national security state. Before Ike, presidents had compiled a long list of reasons for refusing congressional requests: the safeguarding of secret foreign policy deliberations; the protection of confidences; the fear that innocents would be unfairly impugned; the need to resist partisan harassment. But they had always conceded, at least tacitly, that sometimes such requests were justified. Ike, on the other hand, sought to radically expand the purview of what his attorney general William Rogers labeled, for the first time, “executive privilege.”
In 1954, fending off one of Joe McCarthy’s fishing expeditions, Eisenhower insisted that “it is not in the public interest that any… conversations or communications, or any documents or reproductions” concerning advice from any executive branch official whatsoever be disclosed. Because he was stiffing McCarthy, most liberal opinion-makers cheered his resolve. Emboldened, the administration continued to deny congressional requests, at least 44 times from June 1955 to June 1960-more often than all other presidents combined. It was a dangerous precedent, but because of the political atmosphere, there was little outcry.
As the imperial presidency grew under John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon, however, outcry arose. Nixon, the first president in 120 years to face a Congress controlled wholly by the opposition, fought continually with Congress over matters of constitutional power, from his impoundment of congressionally allocated funds to his invasion of Cambodia. After the Senate began investigating Watergate, Nixon’s promiscuous use of executive privilege as a stonewalling technique became a chief point of contention. Nixon-who had earlier in his career attacked Harry Truman and Kennedy for invoking presidential prerogatives-himself used the claim to prevent his aides from testifying before Congress and then to withhold the tapes he made of his White House conversations. In an argument not heard since Jackson’s day, Nixon’s lawyers suggested that the courts had no power to compel the president to do anything at all. The president alone, they wrote, “must weigh the interest in prosecuting a wrongdoer against the interest in keeping all presidential conversations confidential.”
It’s interesting to note that Kaiser thinks the U.S. Supreme Court did the presidency an institutional favor by adopting executive privilege as a legal doctrine; Greenberg seems to think so, too:
Nixon often used to couch his defiance of Congress as a defense of “the presidency,” so as to suggest he was not just protecting his own hide. Ironically, United States v. Nixon, though it sealed Nixon’s fate, did shore up the presidency’s power in a significant way, because the court held-erroneously, it seems in retrospect-that the notion of executive privilege was “Constitutionally based.” As a result, the squabbles over executive privilege have continued, with Bill Clinton, during the Starr prosecution, invoking it with all of his delightful creativity.
What’s interesting to me is that William Rhenquist, recently appointed to the court by Nixon, abstained in the voting. In his column Motion for reconsideration yesterday, Justice Isagani Cruz points to one Justice who ought to have abstained, too:
All that is needed to change the majority ruling is to reduce it by only two votes in favor of the right side. Brion, who attended his first en banc session of the Supreme Court only on March 17, could not have participated in its deliberation on the Neri decision; hence, his concurrence should not have been counted at all. As for the other needed vote, I hope it will come from a conscientious justice who will realize that his or her allegiance is not to President Arroyo but to the Constitution.
Incidentally, in the same column, Justice Cruz says the high court has reversed itself upon a motion for reconsideration before:
In the present Neri case, the Senate will file a motion for reconsideration, which the administration even now haughtily dismisses as a useless pro forma effort that is sure to be denied. This brings to mind another case which did not follow the usual practice.
This is the case of Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 322 SCRA 160; 343 SCRA 377, where the United States requested the extradition of Mark Jimenez, who asked the Department of Justice for information regarding the criminal charges against him. When that information was withheld, he went to the lower court, which sustained him. The Secretary of Justice then appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed Judge Lantion’s decision by an 8-7 vote.
The majority ruling was penned by Justice Jose Melo, with seven other justices concurring. It was received with much public outcry in support of the dissenting opinion of six other justices led by Justice Reynato Puno. When the government filed the expected motion for reconsideration, it was not denied but readily granted, to much public acclaim.
The resolution of the Court, which held that Jimenez’s right to information had to wait while the Department of Justice was still evaluating the charges against him, was supported by a 9-6 vote. Two justices of the erstwhile majority had recognized the error of their original votes and shifted them to the new majority.
More curious is former Chief Justice Panganiban’s assertion in Are the Senate investigation rules valid? that unlike the premartial law Senate, the present Senate can’t be considered a continuing :
The Senate however argues that there is no need to republish, because “Nazareno vs Arnault†(July 18, 1950) has held that, unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate was a continuing body.
Justice Carpio, however, cogently observes that “Nazareno†was decided under the 1935 Constitution when only eight of the 24 senators were elected every two years such that 16 senators constituting two-thirds of the Senate “always continued into the next Congress.†Since only a majority or 13 of the 24 members were needed to constitute a quorum and do business, the Senate was deemed a continuing body.
In contrast, under the 1987 Constitution, the term of 12 of the 24 senators expired every three years “leaving less than a majority to continue into the next Congress.†Thus, the present Senate cannot be deemed a continuing body. Ergo, the rules must be republished after the expiration of the term of 12 senators.
But then the Senate then and now has been the only chamber not subject to the replacement of its entire membership in a general election, which is of particular interest during presidential election years when half the senate remains in office while the entire slate is wiped clean from President down to councilor. It may well be that what Panganiban points out, though, was a design flaw: the intention may have been to retain the stabilizing feature of a nationally-elected chamber capable of carrying out business even in a vacuum (when no officials have been proclaimed elected), but electing the Senate in halves, instead of thirds as from 1941-1971, represents a fatal flaw.
Which only goes to show that innovations can cause more problems than they solve: it would be interesting to see why the half-and-half system of electing the Senate was put in place when originally it was never contemplated for a nationally-elected chamber.
In the end, Red’s Herring points out,
Executive privilege encourages presidential unilateralism. When used against legislative oversight, the privilege serves to veto policymaking at its very inception. Why did the majority in Neri in the effort to uphold executive privilege choose to play blind to the clear language of accountability and transparency in the Constitution?
Amando Doronila explores the consequences of the decision further in Neri decision a rollback of Philippine democracy .
Red’s Herring’s views is along the lines of what those who will be marching from Adamson University to the Supreme Court, to accompany the lawyers submitting their motion for reconsideration to the Supreme Court, will be asking, too. See this statement:
The Ruling on Executive Privilege: A Threat to the Nation
The Supreme Court ruling on executive privilege is not only a grave threat to the Senate as a co-equal body but also to our system of government and democracy in general. This danger is most clearly seen in Malacanang’s recent pronouncement that without published rules, all Senate hearings in aid of legislation, past and present, may now be considered “null and void†and that executive officials can now ignore them.
In its ruling, the Court upheld the President’s claim of executive privilege and nullified the Senate’s order citing former NEDA chief Romulo Neri in contempt for not appearing in its hearings on anomalies concerning the NBN-ZTE project.
The decision, however, is not simply about the President being right in keeping certain information from the public. Some of the reasons used by the Court in reaching its conclusions have dangerous consequences for our nation and our people.
First, the Court’s view that existing Senate rules on legislative inquiries have not been duly published disregards Senate practice, severely limits its capacity to conduct legislative inquiries, and in Malacanang’s view, even puts into question all acts of the 14th Congress, including enacted legislation. Will Malacanang now also argue that the budget law is also “null and void�
Second, the Court’s recognition of a presumption in favor of the confidentiality of Presidential communications places the burden of overcoming it upon those seeking disclosure. This is inconsistent with the principle that all means must be used to seek for the truth, and that those who wish an exception must show the need. It violates the constitutional mandate for transparency in government and the people’s right to information on matters of public concern.
Third, the Court has expanded the coverage of executive privilege to include not only communications directly involving the President herself, but also communications involving her close advisors. The President is given advice by many known and unknown officials close to her. How far down the chain of command does the privilege extend? This expansion effectively keeps away from public view information in many areas of governance.
Finally, the Court has made it easier for the President to invoke executive privilege, for all she needs to allege is that the information demanded involves state secrets or presidential conversations. This will allow her and other officials to use executive privilege to hide misconduct in governance, in violation of the constitutional principle of accountability of public officers.
Because the government acts in a consistent pattern of concealment, the presumption in executive privilege must remain in favor of disclosure and against secrecy. Public interest in transparency, accountability and the people’s right to information must always be strongly upheld and zealously protected. We must not allow this interpretation of executive privilege to weaken our democratic institutions. The Supreme Court must reverse itself!
April 8, 2008
Watch, Pray and Act Movement
Buong Bansa Sumisigaw: Tama Na, Itama Na!
(Busina!)
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
cvj on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 5:28 pm
I agree with both Manuels. The sense of justice has little to do with income. There are people who, even if they’re already quite well-off, are still quite mercenary and imagine others to be like them.
BTW, why were you ’struck’ by MLQ’s statement?
BrianB on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 7:15 pm
Manolo, this People Power is getting to be too deliberate.
BrianB on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 7:29 pm
bd what happened to all the commenters?
XAX on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 9:37 pm
Many say that the Jesuits are too liberal. Many others believe they are conservative given their counter-reformation origins, during the century of the Council of Trent.
The call (or the non-call for more active measures)for more discernment is plain and simple. Let us wait-and-see.
Looks like hedging bets. As the CBCP?
UP n student on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 9:39 pm
redsherring aka Abe Margallo asks for impeachment of the “9″ Neri-majority-decision judges. I think somebody asked him if impeachment of the majority-judges is the same as overturning the Neri-majority-decision.
UP n student on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 9:46 pm
Side-topic: Parisian citizen protest has resulted in extinguishing (for a few minutes) of the Olympic torch during the relay from city to city. This almost happened in London with the strong anti-Beijing protests.
The Paris protests were so massive that nore than 3,000 French police lined the torch route along the Seine River and through the heart of the French capital in anticipation of demonstrators protesting China’s crackdown on Tibet and its human rights record in general. The head of the Norwegian Olympic Committee said Monday that officials should reconsider running the torch relay because of public protests.
“The International Olympic Committee may have a bigger problem when the torch relay continues, if we get more of these demonstrations,” Tove Paule told public broadcaster NRK after a meeting with Olympic officials in Beijing. “One will have to look at whether the plans need to be changed.”
————————
My perception is that the majority of Filipinos probably are annoyed, even angry at the Europeans for protesting against the Beijing Olympics. This is not to say that Filipinos do not sympathize with the “free-Tibet” movement. This is more that Filipinos feel a sense of pride that a non-white country is able to be on equal footing with the whites.
XAX on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 9:54 pm
@ UP n student, Vic
If the Philippine Senators are concerned about China’s bullying tactics, maybe they could pass a “sympathy” resolution. This was done vis-a-vis Myanmar.
Of course, closer to Filipinos’ hearts: ZTE/NBN, Spratleys/Kalayaan, etc.
Is a professional like Manny Pacquiao allowed to fight in the Olympics?
UP n student on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 10:12 pm
XaX:
Dirk Nowitski(Dallas Mavericks/Germany), Manu Ginobili (San Antonio Spurs/Argentina), Paul Gasol (Lakers/Spain) should be appearing with their national teams for 2008Olympics.
Pacquiao, though, may do badly in the Olympics. Reason –Olympic point-scoring system way different from the rules of professional boxing. Olympic boxing is more like fencing — light tap scores as much as a body blow to the kidney area.
Combination punches only count as a single point. One trainer commented: “Maybe the Olympic judges have slow fingers or they just don’t like clean combination punching. The fact is a fighter can land two or three consecutive punches and usually only earns a single point an overwhelming majority of the time.â€
XAX on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 10:17 pm
UP n student:
Thanks. I’m quite impressed with the details you provided.
Mabuhay ka!
UP n student on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 10:21 pm
Xax: Professional boxers still banned from the Olympics. [Which probably is fine for most --- first, they get famous being an Olympic boxer, then they make money being a professional boxer.]
XAX on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 10:29 pm
UP n student:
I asked for both tactical and political reasons.
If our champion, Manny Pacquiao, our best bet for a gold medal, will not be allowed to box, then we could have that Senate resolution and just send a token representation to the Beijing olympics.
UP n student on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 10:37 pm
Abe Margallo stretches the Neri-ruling — makes a propaganda statement, as it were.
He asks a question — “how far down the line?”
Gives his question his own answer…
then makes a conclusion based on his own Q&A.
“…. How far down the chain of command does the privilege extend? This expansion effectively keeps away from public view information in many areas of governance.”
A senator, wishing to get pogi-points, may still ask a department head (four levels away from the President) what his boss’s boss’ heard the President say when his boss’s boss talked to the President. A judge will need to pay little value to the answer.
nash on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 10:52 pm
@UP n
“My perception is that the majority of Filipinos probably are annoyed, even angry at the Europeans for protesting against the Beijing Olympics……This is more that Filipinos feel a sense of pride that a non-white country is able to be on equal footing with the whites.”
Really? Too bad the torch won’t pass through the Philippines.
We had a fun time watching the torch relay.
If you notice, the police were tackling the protesters to the ground but NOT ARRESTING most of them. When the procession passes, they are quickly released.
CONTRAST this to those who heckled GMA! They get arrested!
justice league on Mon, 7th Apr 2008 11:51 pm
Like I opined before, the Supreme Court changes in composition more readily than the Senate. It could have a change in membership several times in one year.
The existing Rules of Court were actually adopted in 1997. There have been several amendments to the rules of court and such amendments are published in at least 2 newspapers of general circulation before they take effect but the entire Rules of Court haven’t been republished with each change in membership of the SC.
I wonder why the present Supreme Court thinks the Rules of Court of the previous one still holds.
The Constitution doesn’t even say the “Senate of every Congress” in sec 21 Art. VI (those words came from the Office of the Solicitor General). If the entire outgoing half of the Senate were able to run again for the Senate (which is a possibility if they had not served 2 consecutive Senate terms) and won; what would the SC be saying about the OSG’s argument?
istambay_sakalye on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:14 am
it is very clear from the very beginning that neri’s claim of executive privilege is to hide a crime and not to protect national security and preserve diplomatic relations between china nnd philippines as claimed.
neri himself admitted in the senate under oath that abalos offerred a 200(of whatever bibe) and that he called the president to inform her of the attempt. also in the same testimony that neri stated neda’s power is only to recommend the offer and the office of the president has the final say or approval of the contract.
one can only conclude that the president despite being aware of this fact(attempted bribery) went to china to witness the signing of nbn-zte deal.
one has to be blind or deaf not to see that the claim of executive privilege in this case is solely to insulate gma from the crime that has been committed. if no crime has been committed why stone wall? to preserve diplomatic relations? the contract was cancelled as a result of public furor over the anomalies. no diplomatic animosity between china and philipines resulted from the cancelaton.
in the end the facts are there for everyone to see. plain and simple. to hide a crime committed against the filipino people.
vic on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:19 am
XAX : I believe it will resonate louder if the Head of the Government or the State will voice the country protest against China behaviour and Human Right Records, but then again, with the Philippines Records on Human Rights not that “sterling” itself, I don’t think anyone will have the guts to do the whisper..China can Bully anyone especially one which maybe dependent on her economic wise, and would not hesitate to tell anyone not to Interfere in her Internal Affair..She had done it during the time when she was not that strong and now that she is a giant both Militarily and Economically, the more so..
David on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 2:21 am
justice league: “Like I opined before, the Supreme Court changes in composition more readily than the Senate. It could have a change in membership several times in one year.
The existing Rules of Court were actually adopted in 1997. There have been several amendments to the rules of court and such amendments are published in at least 2 newspapers of general circulation before they take effect but the entire Rules of Court haven’t been republished with each change in membership of the SC.
I wonder why the present Supreme Court thinks the Rules of Court of the previous one still holds.”
justice league, did you read Justice Carpio’s decision? During the “several times” that the Supreme Court had “a change in membership”, was there a time it failed to have a quorum?
Bencard on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 3:09 am
manufactured privilege? isn’t everything in the constitution manufactured by human mind. the people, acting through its representatives, collectively adopted the constitution expressly granting the supreme court the ultimate power to interpret it. ergo, we, the people, are the “manufacturers”.
grd on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 4:08 am
i just read in today’s news the recent SC decision finding an entertainment reporter guilty of libel but as per its new policy on libel, opted only for a fine instead of a jail term. this may have set a precedence for future libel cases.
my question is, with this new policy of the High court, is there a need to further decriminalize libel since the SC virtually removed already the harsh punishment of a jail term for such an act?
vic on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 4:25 am
i just read in today’s news the recent SC decision finding an entertainment reporter guilty of libel..
grd, i don’t believe it is the duty of the SC of finding someone guilty, because an acquitted person case can not be elevated to the SC..maybe what you are trying to tell us is that the SC reduced the sentence to Fine only instead of Jail term ..for me Libel and Slander should not be a criminal offense in the first place, but a civil that could even cost the defendant more than just fines, but substantial penalty in rewards for damages to some one’s reputation and it could amount to millions..
Bencard on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 4:41 am
grd, i think you are referring to a certain convicted libeler, cristy fermin, the annoying gossip monger at abs-cbn who makes a living defaming people in the entertainment industry. while the sentencing, within statutory guidelines, is within the court’s discretion, i believe making the imposition of a monetary fine a matter of court policy, without jail time, is ill-considered and unwise.
i don’t believe the philippines is ready for decriminalization of libel. jail time is the only assurance the victim of libel can get justice, and the character assassins can be deterred. money, especially to a well-heeled perpetrator, or a moneyed institution with deep pockets, is no deterrence. what about judgment-proof, i.e. asset-less, convicts? they can go on their merry ways without fear of retribution.
Abe N. Margallo on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 5:23 am
UPn,
re your post of 4-07-08 @9:39 pm
Please let me rephrase the question. What would happen to the Neri ruling if the majority of the SC justices (nine justices) were impeached and found guilty of culpable violation of the Constitution?
The question is a difficult one that is why I have chosen to pass up on it. But since you brought the matter here let me then give my best shot at it. At the very least, the ruling would become an unenforceable decision if adjudged by a competent authority (the Senate as the sole judge in impeachment cases) to be the fruit of an impeachable offense.
At the worst, a ruling such as Neri if so found as a culpable violation of the Constitution would not be a law at all, thus conferring no right, imposing no duties and affording no protection. Being contrary to the Constitution, it would be null and void.
I have no recollection making the statements quoted in your post of 4-07-08 @ 10:37 pm. Please refresh me when or where I’ve made them.
Bencard on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 6:19 am
“But if you believe the administration is illegitimate, then no self-defensive action other preventing wanton vandalism and violence is permissible.” manuelbuencamino (as quoted with approval by mlq3).
since when did “self-defensive action” become permissible or impermissible depending on one’s personal belief on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the administration? what is this, just BELIEVE that the government is illegitimate and then you can prevent it from defending itself?
justice league on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 8:38 am
David,
The last paragraph of my previous post feels so lonely right now.
I don’t have enough with me to answer your query on the status of past/previous SC with regards to its quorum.
But Justice Carpio’s decision admits that the last Senate rules of procedure was published in 2006. How many of the Senate members in 2006 are members of the Senate right now?
mindanaoan on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 8:57 am
justice league,
Rules of the Senate,
SEC. 12. In the first session following every periodic election of Senators, the Senate shall proceed with its organization.***
SEC. 13. After the organization of the Senate in the manner provided in Rule IX, the following permanent committees shall be formed, ***
it should be obvious from those rules that the senate is not a continuing body. and if you argue that the same senators continue from one congress to another, then, the house can also become a continuing body if majority of its members continue from one congress to another?
saxnviolins on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 9:21 am
Justice league:
In 1986, Cory appointed an entirely new Supreme Court, after accepting the courtesy resignations of the entire Court. There was no quorum; there was no Court at all, until April 16, 1986.
mlq3 on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 9:23 am
bencard, i don’t know if anyone has said everyone hates the president. i know i’ve been careful to point out half the country doesn’t support the president, another quarter is sitting on the fence (implicitly supporting her) and another quarter will loyally support her to the bitter end. the one quarter plus the nominally nuetral quarter trumps the one half, because the one half is much more divided on the basis of options it supports, than the two quarters constituting the half that supports the president. these fractions have held remarkably steady since 2005.
as for a manufactured privilege, the point of the article was to bring forward the views of some historians and legal minds that executive privilege was a legal concept of recent vintage, and adopted unwisely by the american courts.
as for your other question, since when did “self-defensive action” become permissible or impermissible depending on one’s personal belief on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the administration?
since the cry of balintawak.
mlq3 on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 9:25 am
benign0, i’m surprised you have not considered how the rice crisis might possibly have been manufactured, as a means of accomplishing what the rice cartels really want: untrammeled importation.
hvrds on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 10:40 am
On the “manufactured” rice crisis.
Please note the following:
On the importation of 2 million tons of Rice.
2 million tons x $740 per ton (benchmark spot price for Thailand 25% broken rice as of April 4, Business World) = $1.48 billion. Please note that during times of surplus and good harvest projections contract prices or short term futures contract prices can be availed off by traders. However in times of supply pressures ( from whatever causes) futures respond accordingly. Hedge funds love these situations. You know blood in the streets and all that. In the international financial markets these business practices are perfectly legal. No laws against it. The unintended consequences of these prevailing realities are too numerous to detail, but it will make for interesting times for a de-facto President with a most serious credibility problem.
Converted to pesos at Php 41 = Php 60.68 Billion. Now you know why even a small change in the exchange rate has an effect. Even a fifty cent difference is already a Php 20 million gap. (I wonder if we could consult Abalos on the intricacies of the rice trade too?)
Translated to cost of imported rice at FOB that is already Php 30.34. Shipping costs and insurance still to be added plus the costs of distribution internally. The NFA will have to create a vast network of outlets to get this to the direct consumers.
It is clear that rice bought at this cost would come out close to Php 40.+ a kg. Let us assume that the government would like to peg the rice at Php 18.50 retail. That would entail a subsidy of Php 23.50 loss for consumers.
The bill will be close to Php Php 46 billion (2 billion kgs) is taxpayer funds the state does not have. That will be added to the total public sector deficit. Not to worry we will borrow the money for a consumption subsidy. Can afford. That is why our favorite financial analyst Joey Salceda has come back into the limelight. The E-vat + high oil prices plus a return to large budget deficits is in the offing. If you were to add the almost doubling of rice to that equation you would have a very combustible mix.
Question comes to mind why not instead borrow earlier for production subsidy to put in place sustainable productive capacities.
Apart from the corruption issues on the issues of subsides for either consumption and/or production this is a clear picture of an utter disgraceful failure of governance. Oh yes we do have a so called economist for President.
Somehow I do not think she knows the difference between the business of economics and the economics of business.
hvrds on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 10:52 am
“since when did “self-defensive action†become permissible or impermissible depending on one’s personal belief on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the administration? what is this, just BELIEVE that the government is illegitimate and then you can prevent it from defending itself?”
I could not help this. But kindly read the entire Declaration of Independence written by the leaders of 13 colonies declaring to the world their breaking of the contract between themselves and their government led by George III
What little spark created the conflagration – Tea.
cvj on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 11:24 am
Excellent question! It reveals that Gloria Arroyo is an empty suit more adept at manipulating economic statistics than delivering actual results.
benign0 on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 11:50 am
mlq3,
That may be the case locally. Who knows, anyway? One can argue that just about every “crisis” that grips the Philippines is “manufactured”.
Then again here is an example of what is being reported outside of the Philippines:
(my boldface to emphasize the point I am making)
Crisis or not doesn’t change the fact of the bizarreness of a culture with an ancient tradition of rice farming and host to the International Rice Research Institute now being “the world’s biggest importer” of rice.
Wow Philippines! nga naman talaga.
But then maybe sometime in the future, the tables will turn and there’ll be “labour supply” crisis somewhere around the world and it will be Da Pinoy’s turn to have the last laugh.
Then again, in such a scenario, “curbing exports” will mean forcing would-be OFW’s to stay put in the islands effectively depriving their family members of the needed dollars to purchase the latest celphone trinket imported untrammeled from China.
Even better, maybe then, the surplus domestic labour will be forced to take up rice farming for a living.
Doesn’t sound half as bad as it seems now, does it?
-
Acda on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:00 pm
benign0,
Ano ba yan! Are you holding us accountable? Its not our fault! Blame the IMF/World Bank/CIA’s (or insert another imaginary villain here) oppressive policies for decreased rice production!
magdiwang on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:11 pm
Commodities like rice, oil, steel, corn and others are subject to whims of the international market. Vietnam and China who are major exporters of rice limited their exports to tame inflation in their respective economies. The US is inflating its way to save its economy and this resulted in increased in price of all commodities. Even if you are the greatest economist in the world, how can you prepare on a rapidly changing 24/7 marketplace. How can the government be at fault on something that they have very little control of? Its like blaming the president of the US for the current high prices of wheat and corn. Im sure reasonable people will not do that as prices is dictated my market forces.
What is more important is the government has started programs to prevent this from deteriorating further. I believe all of us Filipinos should support their efforts instead of second guessing their initiatives.
benign0 on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:19 pm
Oo nga naman.
Everyone is at fault except the Filipino.
Everyone.
Filipinos are the real victims in any crisis.
-
cvj on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:39 pm
Magdiwang, contingency planning is Governance 101. Also, they should have thought through the implications of ceding control to the worldwide market. There are upsides and downsides to such a policy and it looks like they are not prepared for the downsides.
Liam Tinio on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:55 pm
@benign0
$ in importing rice < $ from OFWs
i think i can see clearly now, the Filipino’s role in the new century and a global economy is to cease doing menial jobs and start doing high-value technical occupations.
Philippines becomes a consumer country importing almost everything, skill and labor becomes our chief export composing of more than 50% of the GNP, and education will be the main industry in the country.
nino on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 12:58 pm
Why the Youth Should Oust Gloria
Leloy Claudio, Sharmila Parmanand, and Charisse Borromeo
(Claudio graduated magna cum laude and was Ateneo de Manila University’s class 2007 valedictorian. Parmanand, also of class 2007, graduated cum laude. Borromeo, class 2008, graduated summa cum laude. They are members of the Ateneo Debate Society.)
In recent months, we have been involved in various anti-administration efforts. In March, our organization came out with a statement entitled,â€Why We Should Call for Arroyo’s Resignation†(available at ateneodebatesociety.multiply.com). We are also doing work for the Green Ribbon Project (grnribbon.multiply.com), where we ask graduates to pin green ribbons on their togas as a sign of opposition to GMA.
As expected, we’ve received all sorts of feedback regarding our efforts, both positive and negative. As much as the negative feedback has dismayed us, we’ve also found it instructive. In university message boards and online forums, we’ve received vitriolic responses from people who felt it naive to call for an Arroyo ouster. We take these responses to reflect the opinions of those among the youth who believe it is futile and unproductive to oppose the administration.
The opinions betray a sense of pessimistic resignation, which we feel is the main barrier towards youth involvement in national politics. In addressing some of the concerns, we hope to encourage other young people to take an active stance against this illegitimate regime.
Here, we address three main issues on the call for GMA’s resignation.
(a) That the call for GMA’s resignation is not founded on accurate information, and that we need to resort to legal means to attain that information.
The ZTE scandal is only the most recent in a string of painful discoveries about the administration. Have we forgotten, for example, the irresponsible manner by which the GMA administration responded to the extrajudicial killings?
A nine-month investigation on the human rights abuses in the Philippines headed by UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, Philip Alston, confirmed that a significant number of the extrajudicial executions is the result of “deliberate targeting by the military as part of counterinsurgency operations against the communist rebels.â€Â Alston further explained: “The military’s insistence that the ‘purge theory’ is correct can only be viewed as a cynical attempt to displace responsibility.†The Human Rights Watch Report and Amnesty International Reports have echoed Alston’s findings. Even the administration-appointed Melo commission stressed the weaknesses in military investigations. If the military is engaged in deliberate targeting of civilians, its commander-in-chief should, at the very least, be blamed for gross negligence.
How did GMA’s subordinates react?
National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales said: “The enemies of our people, the enemies of the State have been very successful in showing as if we are the ones doing wrong when we’re offering our lives in the defense of what we know to be the best for our people, our freedom, our democracy…We are accused of extrajudicial killings. This cannot be allowed to happen.â€Â
Basically, Mr. Gonzales is saying that highly respected international organizations do not know how to conduct research.
Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez called the Special Rapporteur a “muchachoâ€Â of the UN, and also accused him of having been “brainwashed†by leftists, while Philippine Defense Secretary Hermogenes Ebdane called Prof. Alston “blind, mute and deaf.â€Â
How about the calls GMA made to a COMELEC official while electoral results were being tabulated and her admitting to this “lapse in judgment?â€Â Listen to the “Hello Garci†tapes and the illegitimacy of this regime becomes undeniable. As Conrado de Quiros always reminds his readers, Gloria doesn’t even have anything to resign from; the presidency was never hers to begin with.
These are not isolated incidents. EO 464, CPR (calibrated preemptive response), the traitorous Spratlys deal, and many other actions of this administration betray a disposition that is hostile to searching for the truth. Hence, the call for resignation is a response to the trends of deliberately silencing the truth.
While some of this information has not been verified beyond reasonable doubt (a legal criterion), we have enough information to warrant the belief that GMA has committed grave lapses as president and is thus unfit to lead. The reason why some evidence (i.e. Romy Neri’s knowledge about the president’s involvement with the ZTE deal) is unavailable is not because it doesn’t exist but because the cover-up has been so massive. Not calling for Gloria’s ouster means letting her get away with this cover-up.
(b) Removing GMA will not result in any tangible benefit because all politicians are corrupt anyway; removing Marcos and Erap did not lead to a better Philippines and therefore, removing GMA will do nothing.
The worst manifestation of the argument is: “mag-aral na lang kayo, kaysa gumawa pa ng gulong wala namang pupuntahan.â€
This is, of course, not only illogical, but it is also a dangerous way of thinking. Under this logic, we shouldn’t even work for reform because all politicians are corrupt. It is ironic that, having acknowledged widespread corruption, some simply want to reinforce it by disengaging.
Change occurs through small, gradual steps. Ousting Gloria is obviously not going to solve the problem of corruption; it is simply one of the things we have to do in order to counter it. Nevertheless, letting GMA get away with her crimes strengthens the culture of impunity in Philippine government, which is one of the major roots of corruption.
Unfortunately, a number of educated youths (although, we suspect, not the majority) are blinded by the convenience of simply focusing one’s time on one’s career or studies. As a consequence, they’ve constructed this fiction that the country is hopeless and that nothing can be done. It is this kind of thinking that makes people dismiss idealism as naivete.
The thesis that corrupt politicians will replace corrupt politicians will become a self-fulfilling prophecy if people like us do not stay vigilant.
(c) We do not have a qualified successor.
It is ironic that the same people who staunchly defend constitutional means shun the idea of Noli, GMA’s constitutional successor, taking over, in the event that GMA is convinced/forced to resign. However, we agree that the issue of a valid replacement is one that needs to be addressed. There are three ways we respond to the “Noli question.â€
First, replacing Gloria with Noli provides us with a crucial window of opportunity for genuine reform. Should Noli assume the presidency, he would feel beholden to those who ousted his predecessor. Indeed, Gloria herself felt indebtedness to certain groups for helping her assume the presidency. The folly of civil society then, which we cannot repeat now, was resting on its laurels. Few people were critical of GMA early on. This is something we can change this time around. A Noli presidency can work if we make it work.
Second, genuine efforts at exacting government accountability are virtually impossible at this point. It is not within the interests of Malacanang to fight corruption in government. Serious investigations have been and will be suppressed because these are likely to point to the misdeeds of the president and her cohorts. Noli, although far from perfect, is not covering up as many shenanigans as GMA. A de Castro administration would not have as big a disincentive to run after people like Abalos.
Third, as economic professor Mike Alba notes, corruption has a learning curve. So, assuming that Noli is corrupt like Gloria, it would take some time for him to make the necessary connections, appoint the proper people, and find the loops in the system that would allow him to steal our money. At the very least, an Arroyo ouster reduces the pilferage.
Lastly, and perhaps most fundamentally, Gloria has proven to be such an egregious president that even a mediocre one would be a better option. If there are two evils, we should choose the lesser one and deliver ourselves from the egregious other.
Madonna on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 1:15 pm
Thanks Benigno. I didn’t know that the Philippines is the biggest importer of rice in the world today!
The current rice crisis is just an indication that GMA’s horizon is mainly about the short-term, with nary a strategic grasp of what matters.
Talk about food security. Talk about rice being our food staple. In case of war or any catalysmic world event, we will be going down immediately.
We are getting screwed by the dark underbelly of capitalism, all with the approval and encouragement of our leader in Malacanang.
And madam Gloria (smart economist kuno) had done thing but left us to the mercies of the rice cartel. Because it’s more efficient to be importing rice (more efficient nga ba?). Or is it the clear case of being more profitable for a few?
Even FVR fired a shot against Gloria for her agricultural policies: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=114257
Madonna on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 1:25 pm
“i think i can see clearly now, the Filipino’s role in the new century and a global economy is to cease doing menial jobs and start doing high-value technical occupations.”
Claro ba Liam Tinio? Ano yan gamit mo ba ang bolang crystal ni Madam Auring? But wait, your predictions are even way stupider than Madam Auring’s.
Madonna on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 1:30 pm
“stupider” — more stupid
KG on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 2:13 pm
CVJ,
late ko na nakita yung exchange nyo ni JEG on food security as priority.
he is correct that we were overtaken by events like globalization.
but we have tried everything like price stabilization,government guarantee on credit to farmers,which was a bust.
Now on irrigation,which an interesting link by madonna on FVR questioning Arroyo because the irrigation project in his home province of pangasinan was not implemented,and also points to an issue of missing irrigation funds.
On poulation growth, Benign0’s contributor Manuel Gallego III had zero population growth proposals,which can be shocking to most of us,(myself included).Come to think of it sofftening some extreme proposals like forced sterilization of parents of street children would be helpful,kaya lang pag hindi natural method,the catholic church will always be there to shoot down that proposal.
By Benign0’s focusing on pinoy short-comings is once explained by him, that our problems(which he has a colection) go way before this administration and will probably go beyond it, yun nga lang ; I wish I could have a better comment than nothing new,alam namin yan.
inodoro ni emilie on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 2:37 pm
indeed. it also saddens me to see that right below the packaging of jasmine thai rice is the small print acknowledging, milagrosa, as its genetic source.
that said, these rice cartel members should be exposed. a brian gorell type of revelation is ripe for this taking.
vic on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 2:46 pm
From madonna FVR link:
Masakit mang sabihin, kung kalaban ka ng Presidente hindi ka talaga bibigyan ng project. That’s politics,†he said. “Why would the president give assistance to somebody who’s biting her and does not believe in her administration and program?” Statement of member of house Suarez, an administration ally:
Well, just imagine, granted the system is changed to Federalism and most regions or autonomous provinces leaders are “kalaban nang PMâ€, then there will be no downloading of federal funds to those provinces or regions?? Even the way it is, this is still Patronage Politics, which is Undemocratic, and clearly in violation of the equal treatment of all citizenry…I think and I believe it is still the Mentality of some politicians, other their insatiable greed that hold the country’s growth and development…remember it does not take that many Suarezes to bring a nation down…
j_ag on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 2:57 pm
“The US is inflating its way to save its economy and this resulted in increased in price of all commodities. Even if you are the greatest economist in the world, how can you prepare on a rapidly changing 24/7 marketplace.”
Wow, I did not know that the U.S. government is practicing the oldest most effective form of protectionism, devaluing or debasing their currency?
Wow, I did not know that since thew U.S. dollar is the worlds de facto world currency that this would send an inflationary surge in thw financial markets of the world that would eventually affect the worlds real economy.
Wow I forgot also that our economist GMA finaished her formal education and became a teacher way before Milton Freidman changed the face of economics for the last thirty years.
Is that why GMA forgot and got blind sided by the sudden surge in commodity prices which was responsible for the sudden surge in the mining business here that she said was because of her hard nosed reforms but now that has migrated to agricultural commodities (grains) it is the fault of the U.S. in protecting their economic interests?
She lived by the sword of rising commodities until the other side of the blade is now threatening to cut her.
Now we should all have the confidence to stick it out with her after all the probable lying, cheating and stealing (fertilizer funds) in this time of crisis.
At a minimum this calls for a coach and team change.
Sebastian get sacked for exactly the same thing. he thought he could go out and import anytime at low prices. His head got caught in the vise.
Sometime in 2005 Goldman Sachs called for oil at $100 a barrel. If one were to check the nominal dollar price of gas in certain parts of Europe today it is already based over $200 a barrel. $6-$7 a gallon.
But that is another sotry of another day.
nash on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 3:02 pm
@bencard
“I don’t believe the philippines is ready for decriminalization of libel. jail time is the only assurance the victim of libel can get justice, and the character assassins can be deterred”
WHY SO????? Are we ANY LESS enlightened than the rest of the world???? If you have a look at British Tabloids or or French Satirical TV for example, they would have been shut down for libel/slander ages ago.
cheers
PS. Pero tama ka, kung si Cristy Fermin ang pag-uusapan, naku, let’s lock her up and throw away the key.
benign0 on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 3:03 pm
But these grains traders have existed since time immemorial.
Why go after them now?
They serve their purpose as efficient consolidators of commodities because they have the capital to acquire, store, and transport these in economical quantities.
If da Pinoy trading approach were used, rice would be sold wholesale in thousands of little sachets and transported across provinces in tricycles.
What is actually happening is this system of traders’ capital structures responding to a market condition. The system has ALWAYS existed in a form that, BY ITS VERY NATURE, responds this way.
The NFA is there to artificially counteract market forces using commercial means of intervention (i.e. taxpayer-funded unprofitable buying and selling).
The minute Government decides to mount a non-commercial intervention in the market (i.e. curtailing otherwise legal commercial activities using special powers granted to its police and military assets), shouldn’t there be some kind of legal step that first needs to be made?
Isn’t it proper procedure to first declare, say, some sort of state of emergency so that the right powers may be granted to military and law enforcement agencies to physically intervene in what under normal circumstances is a free market?
benign0 on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 3:09 pm
Hirap sa atin e. Gusto natin ng “freedom” but are not prepared to be responsible for the consequences of irresponsible behaviour made under the guise of this freedom.
In the same way, a free market is powerful when wielded by cluey societies.
But in the hands of commercial morons, it tends to swing back with a crushing blow.
-
vic on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 3:25 pm
University of Waterloo President David Johnston, recommended to the Parliament that the Inquiry into the Affair of Former PM Mulroney, which I will call the “airbus affair†should be Narrowly focused as to its scope, and recommended that some parts of it will be held in Private.
(this is today’s headline 8 april 2008)
The Special Advisor rejected the call from Commons’Ehics Committee for a Broad Mandate, as demanded by the oppositions, saying that the Committee does not define what the mandate should be and provides no rationale for it’s recommendation.
Johnston had been asked by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to lay out the terms of reference for an independent investigation into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair.
Johnston stuck with the recommendation he first made in his preliminary report in January, urging the commissioner to stick with a narrow mandate.
Some pointers here of how to Dig, Dig and how to find that Elusive Truth so hard to find.
As I pointed before, for “aid of Legislation†and this one for the Ethics Reform Legislation, that the Mandate of the Commissioner or Inquiry Head should be defined clearly before it starts its very, very serious of job of Truth hunting…and the country is again ready to face the truth, not with shame but pride that adult men and women when times come are ready to confess their sins…
rego on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 3:42 pm
“Isn’t it proper procedure to first declare, say, some sort of state of emergency so that the right powers may be granted to military and law enforcement agencies to physically intervene in what under normal circumstances is a free market?”
=========================================================
But those noisy anti Gloria crowds will surely make a big fuss about that emergency power and will spread rumors that it is a prelude to extending her term… and then panibagong crisis na naman.
mlq3 on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 4:20 pm
discussions on nfa brings to mind this article,
http://philippinesfreepress.wordpress.com/2008/04/05/the-hand-of-the-government-april-10-1948-2/
the 60th anniversary of which is coming up in a few days.
istambay_sakalye on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 5:44 pm
“the hand of the government”, april 10, 1948, by; teodoro m. locsin
amazing how an article written some 60yrs ago still rings true today. how sad and depressing though to realize that nothing has changed in the philippine government and society. absolutely no progress or change.
we are stuck and still engaged in same system of government operation and structure. we are still operating under the thinking of 1948! this is very sad! thanks for the reminder manolo.
cvj on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 5:56 pm
That’s got to be the worst essay written by Teodoro Locsin that i’ve read although he does not have the benefit of hindsight so maybe he could be excused.
nash on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 6:29 pm
@benign-zero
“What is actually happening is this system of traders’ capital structures responding to a market condition.”
Yes, but are you CONDONING hoarding then to inflate the price and maximise profits? This is extreme capitalism.
KG on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 7:24 pm
Hoarding is a crime more than just extreme capitalism.
They create articficial shortages, to jack up prices then pag mataas na presyo sabay benta.
What is happening as of the moment is medyo nilalangaw ang mga commecial rice dahil mayaman mahirap NFA rice ang binibili (of course di lahat magtyatyaga maghanap ng nfa store kaya isali daw ang simbahan sa nfa rice distribution)
artificial shortages can jack up inflation,but unfortunately so does price stabilization or price control.price control may even cause hyperinflation.
The Ca t on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 7:24 pm
ALthough, I’ve been pointing out to the naive people that the rice supply and price problems can’t be blamed to farmers, I am saying now that the rice shortage is not only in the Philippines.
http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/200802212190/business/worldwide-shortage-of-rice-shoots-prices-soaring.html
XAX on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 9:41 pm
The global inflation in food prices and possible rice shortage may not have been this government’s fault. But talk of planning for the rainy days!
I know it’s part of the agenda of the cabinet’s national security cluster i.e. strategic stockpiling of critical materials including oil, water, vaccine, etc. In the current case, buffer stocks of rice.
DuckVader on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 10:35 pm
Benign0 says:
———————
But these grains traders have existed since time immemorial.
Why go after them now?
They serve their purpose as efficient consolidators of commodities because they have the capital to acquire, store, and transport these in economical quantities.
———————-
Grain traders do serve an important purpose, but there comes a point when they can control or collude in the the trade and pricing of a commodity. At this point, there is a need to scrutinize their operations.
Almost every Western country/democracy has some form of antitrust, anti-cartel regulatory framework that tries to limit the ability of private actors to constrain competition. That is why cartels are not looked upon favorably. The US, EU, and even your Australia all have antitrust legislation. The economic basis for antitrust legislation is hardly ever debated, it is more how to determine if there is anticompetitive behavior and the appropriate policies that is the subject of much of the discussion.
So, yes, if we do find behavior among traders that restricts competition, then there should be the appropriate regulatory framework to prevent them from doing so.
UP n student on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 10:35 pm
I don’t know if “strategic stockpiling” is feasible for the Philippines. Will Filipinos pay an extra peso per liter of gasoline so that the government can dig out a mountain, pour the concrete, bring in the steel pipes, and then buy EXTRA oil from Saudi Arabia for the stockpile?
Does Pinas even have a stockpile of N95 masks (much less a stockpile of amoxicillin) for when SARS or the flu pandemic breaks out?
DuckVader on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 10:39 pm
And furthermore, the NFA is actually an inefficient means by which to manage the situation. That agency should be abolished and a competition regulator be established and given real power. But given the corruption in the government, this would require a political system and political capabilities that will not exist for the next few years at least.
DuckVader on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 10:43 pm
UP n says:
———–
I don’t know if “strategic stockpiling†is feasible for the Philippines. Will Filipinos pay an extra peso per liter of gasoline so that the government can dig out a mountain, pour the concrete, bring in the steel pipes, and then buy EXTRA oil from Saudi Arabia for the stockpile?
————
We should have a reasonable stockpile of oil. Will Filipinos pay? It can be done, assuming the government knows how to communicate the idea. Filipinos accepted the VAT, grudgingly, but they accepted it. It is important that the stockpiler be credible and competent as well, (when to release, when to buy, how much to store, how to trade, etc.)
XAX on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 11:07 pm
“the government can dig out a mountain, pour the concrete, bring in the steel pipes, and then buy EXTRA oil from Saudi Arabia for the stockpile?” – UP n
The oil depots in Subic were very recently being offered, e.g. to Russia from Sakhalin Island, as possible strategic stockpile in this part of the world. But they were found too small; I think they went to Sinagpore.
David on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 11:32 pm
cvj: “That’s got to be the worst essay written by Teodoro Locsin that i’ve read although he does not have the benefit of hindsight so maybe he could be excused.”
cvj, why do you think so?
David on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 11:37 pm
Madonna: “Talk about food security. Talk about rice being our food staple. In case of war or any catalysmic world event, we will be going down immediately.
We are getting screwed by the dark underbelly of capitalism, all with the approval and encouragement of our leader in Malacanang.
And madam Gloria (smart economist kuno) had done thing but left us to the mercies of the rice cartel. Because it’s more efficient to be importing rice (more efficient nga ba?). Or is it the clear case of being more profitable for a few?”
Madonna, what do you propose should be the Philippines’ agricultural policy?
manuelbuencamino on Tue, 8th Apr 2008 11:56 pm
Special Prosecutor is just another name for Ombudsman, an office that didn’t even need to be created if the Department of Justice was doing its job in the first place. So it is a double redundancy. And it is insane in that doing the same thing in the same way and expecting a different result is insane.
XAX on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 12:03 am
@ manuelbuencamino
Isn’t the Ombudsman specifically tasked to investigate complaints versus government officials, which the DOJ is not trusted to be impartial?
Maybe, if we could have the NBI independent from DOJ?
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 12:04 am
David, because it’s way ahead of its time in terms of bad economic advice i.e. ‘government should get out of business‘. All our neighbors who became NICs had their governments involved in business in one way or the other i.e. they succeeded by becoming, in his terms, ‘Maximarchists’. If South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Malaysia took Teodoro Locsin’s advice to heart and took the ‘Minimarchists’ route, none of them would have become economically successful.
On the other hand, we did follow his advice (most notable in terms of effort is the Washington Sycip-led Asset Privatization Trust) and aside from failing to industrialize, our government is now moving from one fiscal crisis to the next. It’s clear that Locsin has no concept of market failure and he is actually not that far from Benign0 who extols rice hoarders as paragons of the free market.
David on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 12:33 am
cvj, thanks for the clarification. So you advocate some form of socialism for the Philippines. Which industries in your view should be nationalized?
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:16 am
David, i don’t advocate socialism in the sense of central planning and collective ownership because it is clearly a failed experiment. However, i think we should have a more balanced view in that if there is government failure, there is also such a thing as market failure. Locsin presents a one-sided picture that seems to say that only government can fail where in reality, the market can also fail. The case of the rice cartels is an instance of market failure. There is room for the market to work and there is room for government intervention in general, particularly in the form of industrial policy.
To economist Dani Rodrik, the key to a successful industrial policy is to approach it as a ‘discovery-process’ with government and business having a relationship defined as one of ‘embedded autonomy‘.
Rodrik also cautions in terms of defining industrial policy in terms of whole industry sectors. Rather, he says the scope should be narrowed to cleary identified ‘activities’.
In the above, nationalization is just one of the options. Anyway, to answer your question, in terms of what industries should be nationalized, IMHO the wholesale market for real estate (including Church lands) is a good candidate. Our entrepreneurs and businessmen should be rewarded for actually making stuff, rather than extracting rents.
manuelbuencamino on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:27 am
XAX,
kaya nga. the ombudsman is not immune from pressure, how will a special prosecutor be immune? And if it is at all possible to immuniza him, then why not just do it for the ombudsman instead of creating a special prosecutor’s office with its accompanying bureaucracy?
The proposal for a special prosecutor is nothing but a ploy by the 2010 Movement.
XAX on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:32 am
If I may advance a considered opinion, given present geo-political uncertainties (e.g. terrorism, financial meltdown, etc.), RP government should consider going back to the strategic sectors like oil, water, etc.
Admittedly, there would be inefficencies involved but better a cabinet meeting to decide the fate of millions than a board meeting.
justice league on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:58 am
Saxnviolins,
Your info is very much appreciated.
Mindanaoan,
I don’t think I have argued the concept of a continuing body for either the Senate or the House.
I just countered specific claims by the Justices. Justice Leonardo De Castro stated that the composition of the Senate changes by the end of each term so I gave an example where it won’t. Justice Carpio stated that the expiring term of twelve Senators every three years leaves less than a majority of Senators to continue into the next Congress yet we have a majority of Senate members of the Senate of 2006 also as Senate members as of 2008.
And the Rules of the Senate that you posted imply the continuing operation of said rules. For why should the Senate proceed with its organization in the first session following every periodic election of Senators if there are no rules that state such?
You seem to be admitting that said rules exist and operate by default (Well, at least till a new set of rules are adopted).
But if you follow what I’m implying with regards the SC’s Rule of Procedure; it would be more in line also with the default operation of rules till they are replaced, amended, revised, etc…
J. Leonardo De castro adopted the OSG’s statement in that
“The phrase ‘duly published rules of procedure’ requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.”
And that would impinge on all the Rules of a “new” Senate as the decision carries the weight that there seems to be no rules in default operation (Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit clause) and that each and every Senate (and House for that matter) must reiterate adoption of a set of rules.
What if by some quirk Mindanao is invaded by a large foreign army at noon of June 30th following a national election; when will the Congress be able to declare the existence of a state of war?
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 2:09 am
XAX, i would’ve agreed if the Cabinet were not allies or underlings of the Oligarchs. Sadly, that is not yet the case.
justice league on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 2:41 am
Oooppsss.
I meant SC’s Rule of Court.
saxnviolins on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 4:22 am
justice league:
If the Supreme Court was not in existence after EDSA, and only came to existence after Executive Order 12, did they need to republish the Rules of Court as well? Does that render all their decisions invalid?
magdiwang on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 4:32 am
J_ag, even the collective braintrust of the fed and brokerage firms in wall street are still at a lost on this rapidly deteriorating worldwide mess we are in. How can you expect our government to hedge its way out of this crisis when even the best and brightest miscalculated leading to the commodities bubble. The crisis precipitated by a falling dollar, short sellers, weather patterns, inflationary pressure from exporting countries is something that no one can prepare consistently considering the limited resources of our country.
Its so easy to cast blame on hindsight but the truth lies in the fact that market forces dictated what transpired. It will be a stretch to blame our government when any solution to the problem will entail billions of pesos in subsidies. I guess no matter where you stand on the rice issue, the fact is we cant produce the grain in a cost efficient manner thus leading to importing it. There are no easy solutions no matter who is the president.
Bencard on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 4:59 am
it seems to me that the escalating price of rice is largely fueled by panic buying by a public that is being driven into a frenzy by anti-government forces, with the help of the irresponsible media. when an average family who normally buys a kilo of rice, as needed, spends its life savings to buy a sack or two of “nfa” rice to be stored “just in case”, multiplied hundreds of thousandfold, no amount of government stockpile will be enough to “stabilize” the price, and there will surely be long-term shortages in the market.
it looks like the anti-gma forces has stumbled upon a sure-fire way to stir unrest, eventually hoping to ignite thereby a revolution. it would be a sad spectacle when the people start killing each other because those who can afford to buy only a kilo of rice at a time find the rice bins empty because panic-buyers have gobbled up what is available and stored “just in case”.
Bencard on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 5:08 am
edit: …HAVE stumbled…
Bencard on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 5:48 am
i think i know why cvj finds teodoro m.locsin’s philippine free press essay, linked by mlq3, “the worst”. it is because he thought all along that “corruption” was the invention of gma, and that he could not accept that charges of corruption were rampant in 1948, and before. talk about being one-tracked mind.
David on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 6:28 am
justice league: “I don’t think I have argued the concept of a continuing body for either the Senate or the House. x x x
But if you follow what I’m implying with regards the SC’s Rule of Procedure (sic); it would be more in line also with the default operation of rules till they are replaced, amended, revised, etc.”
justice league, it was the Senate that raised the argument that it is a continuing body and, thus, its Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation (adopted in 1995) are still effective despite non-publication during the present Congress. Justice Carpio showed why the Senate is not a continuing body under the Constitution because as the term of 12 senators expire, the remaining 12 senators do not constitute a quorum to discharge its legislative duty.
Perhaps you can propose to the Senate that it raise the “default operation of rules” argument in its Motion for Reconsideration to justify the continuing effectiveness of its Rules of Procedure.
justice league on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 7:16 am
Saxnviolins,
I think the transitory provisions of the Charter covers that. Again thanks.
David,
They have already filed a motion for reconsideration so I hope they have or at least thought of something better.
saxnviolins on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 7:33 am
“I think the transitory provisions of the Charter covers that.”
The Constitution took effect in 1987. What about cases decided between April 1986 to the effectivity of the Charter?
The point is, Carpio’s doctrine affects them too.
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 8:15 am
“The US is inflating its way to save its economy and this resulted in increased in price of all commodities.”
magdiwang, so the increase in prices was deliberate just to save the economy.
inflation was just incidental as a result of lowering the interst rates.The Fed never intended it to cause inflation.Reading your comment again, I guess that is also what you meant.
I think they are repeating what happenned to Japan in the nineties. lowering of rates lead yields of treasury to plummet and the economy grinding to a halt.
justice league on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 8:30 am
Saxnviolins,
I have to go to work so I have to defer an answer.
Pero naman, tanungin mo naman yung panig sa sinabi ni J. Carpio at wag naman lagi ako.
benign0 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 8:38 am
Exactly.
There are legislative steps that need to be taken before any intervention may be applied beyond measures currently available within the framework of the law.
Rather than focus on idiotic “inquiries” and inciting and participating in the street moronism that hijacks Pinoy political “wisdom”, Pinoy legislators should focus on their job of CONTINUOUSLY evaluating our legal/constitutional framework and identifying, anticipating, and mitigating risks to the future prosperity of the society that can be addressed by legislation.
Obviously food security and unfair trading practices (specially in times of crisis) were RISKS to our society that legislators failed to identify.
By the way, check out my latest short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xSTha2Y6X0
A kind of a “station ID” for my YouTube presence.
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 8:40 am
Now to the SC,
Sen. Pangilinan thinks that their motion is enough to covince at least two justices to reconsider.
Re:EP
I watched agovernment channel talkshow hosted by Dong Puno and he asked the cabinet secretaries,if they are allowed to disclose converstaions with the preseident even after they are already out of thir positions.
Nandon din si Enrile kaya ang sagot nya iba daw ang case nya becasue his life depended on it.
Si Secretary Teodoro lang ang cite ng executive privilege yung iba tinira lang yung mga ibang former cabinet members.
I guess next weeks SC decision kung next week nga talaga. will either lead to more questions, or finally resolve the issue ,or as I read the headline of the INQUIRER that RP is on the road to autocracy.
XAX on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 8:48 am
@ benign0
Checked out the Get Real Philippines station ID. Its good and tight.
The voice over at the start sounds familiar. Hmmm.
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 8:50 am
Re : youtube.
I heard from a relative through affinity(an Indonesian) that youtube is already banned in Indonesia, together with multiply and myspace.How unfortunate!
Now watch a youtube braodcast from a country very near to Indonesia from Benign0….
done!
hindi nga lang makikita ng Indonesian neighbors natin.
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:05 am
Benign0,
re:message to the youth.
kaya nga minsan na address kitang mr. or ms. benign0
me nakita kasi akong comment dito na naasabing “…benign0 is a woman, siguro dahil sa video na ito.
mlq3 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:05 am
b, the idea of the special prosecutor is modeled on ken starr, etc. neither ombudsman on doj invesitgate sitting presidents, the spec. pros. would be essentially doing the spadework for a proper impeachment.
mindanaoan on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:09 am
justice league,
“And the Rules of the Senate that you posted imply the continuing operation of said rules.”
it doesn’t imply, it says so in sec. 137 “These Rules shall take effect on the date of their adoption and shall remain in force until they are amended or repealed.” but the rules of the senate is different from the rules of procedure. the constitution requires ‘duly published’ rules of procedure in relation to legislative inquiry.
mlq3 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:16 am
re: senate as continuing body. i think it is designed to be a continuing body, and fair for the senate to assume it’s a continuing body, except it’s caught in the lack of logic of the way its currently set up.
one of my frustrattions with the present constitution is that it tinkered with all sorts of things that were well thought out in the past. don’t reinvent the wheel. the senate from 1941-1972 was nationally elected but after the first election in 1941, from 1946 onwards, a third of it was elected at any given time. that firmly left it a continuing body asd at any given time, 2/3 of the body was not up for election.
in the first post edsa senatorial election i believe 1/3 had 6 year terms, another third had 4 year terms, and another third had 2 years terms, leading to the staggered system -or maybe i’m wrong. it should have been designed that wa6y.
so what hapens now is you have a body intended to be, designed to be, and which should be, a continuing body but which is not, because of the valid argument that it never has a continuing quorum to do business.
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:21 am
Benign0,
pareho din pala yung reader sa message to Cory,etc.
to be honest I was expecting heavy words like small minded, moronic,asal aso and the likes.
And of course the undying catchphrase of it’s simple,really.
pero buti na lang wala, pero parang kulang.
hvrds on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:26 am
“J_ag, even the collective braintrust of the fed and brokerage firms in wall street are still at a lost on this rapidly deteriorating worldwide mess we are in. How can you expect our government to hedge its way out of this crisis when even the best and brightest miscalculated leading to the commodities bubble. The crisis precipitated by a falling dollar, short sellers, weather patterns, inflationary pressure from exporting countries is something that no one can prepare consistently considering the limited resources of our country.”
Based on my last reading of the charter of the federal reserve, it’s charter based on their constitution was given it by the U.S. Congress.
Thier jurisdiction only applies to territories of the United States of America. U.S. fiscal and monetary policy is only applicable to the U.S. The Fed has two mandates given by law. price stability and full employment.
The ECB and other Central Banks operating under a fiat (National currency imposed by state law) fractional reserve system have their own independent fiscal and monetary policies.
Please note that the finacial markets will react to opportunties or edges in the real economy. It is called arbitrage. When there are weaknesses in a physical supply chain the market will come in formally or informally. Bubbles are a part of markets. Brokerages, investment banks live and die precisely for these kinds of markets. They are necessary evil in a market economy as they spot imbalances before the government and ordinary people do. They exist to get the edge. (Hello anyone home out there?)
So why now balme the fact that the Fed is moving to correct a amssive disequilibrum by putting the entire resources of the state to backstop the economy of the U.S. That is their reason for existence. If they are exporting inflation that is for the so called independent Central Banks of the world to counter. The ECB is doing a very good job of exactly that. It has refused to lower it’s overnite rate. In a market economy only one thing organizes human behavior. Price.
The world tarders in commodites -Cargill, Continental Adm and others are all traders. They take physical postions because they make rational educated bets in the fuitures market. They have budgets for their weather forecasting larger than the Philippines government. They also spend for satelite tracking of areas to get an edge in placing future bets.
The worlds hedge funds also do the same. They have access to this type of information.
Anyone who wishes to engae in this type of trade better have budgets for research as its costs literally thousands of dollars to get information.
Mexico went thorugh their tortilla crisis sometime back. Why is everyone surprised when markets overact. That is the nature of bubbles. This thime the bubble reached the real economy.
But who made it possible for this to happen. The domestic productive capacity for rice to meet domestic consumption needs is short some 2 million + tons of rice.
Our de facto President who claims to be an ‘uber economist’ knows this to be a fact. She approves all rice importations. We usually import rice to fill the productive gap during the lean months.
However the world market is not so cooperative this time. Timing is everything. NFA rice is imported 25% broken rice. Everyone in the rice business knew that there were price surges early on. So snart people took up contracts and created pressures on the contract price for future deliveries. Just like in the oil business whne supplies are tight for whatever reason you take positions for quick profits. When interest rates are low and you do not borrow dollars you borrow in yen before the yen got stronger. That was the yen carry trade.
So what happens when our government goes to buy on the spot market. Prices have surged and no more contracts to be bought at the old price. That information gets to the traders domestically. The speculation starts there and works its way down the supply chain. If you know that the replacemnt costs of the rice that is selling retail at Php 18.50 is close to Php 40 why should consumers not also start to accumulate more rice for future use .. If you know that the price will double you buy. Then it becomes a matter of how deep the pockets (Treasury) are of Don Miguel and Dona Gloria.
That plain and simple how price information works. It becomes just like a bull market in a stock. Only this time it hits the gut squarely.
Why do you think the government lifted all quotas on private imports. They know the informal marekts – the smugglers will come in to fill the gap and stabilize prices. But prices will still be higher than that Php 18.50 retail. There is no where on this planet as of today where Don Miguel and Dona Gloria can buy rice to sell to the people of Hacienda Filipinas without getting into the piggy bank they control and subsidize the price.
What rice is being sold today was bought at last years prices. As they buy new contracts we pay higher and the state pays more for the subsidy. Just like the price of oil at $100+. When the oil bouhgt cheaper you will see prices move higher. That is the time lag effect.
But with rice doubling in price the time lag effect is multiplied by the sight of all those lines, soldiers guarding rice trucks raids of warehouses. That will only exacerbate the price crisis. Traders will move out of the markets and the markets will stall. The NFA cannot possibly substitute the private markets.
When you know the price is to rise – you know blood in the streets —–buy buy buy buy.
But mind you what you are seeing is the effect of broad liberal interpretation of free market dogma. Our ‘uber’ economist however missed the big picture in her laser like focus on the economy. Wow Mali!!!!
Tapos titirahin mo si Bernanke. Ang layo.
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:36 am
In 1988, in a Philgov subject my professor said that the constution was a reactionary constitution to the 1973 constitution.Come to think of it ,madami nga silang nireinvent na di naman kailangan.
re:”protector clause (role of the military)
per annecdote of my dad,about that protector clause ,he have talked to bernas himself, and bernas said that it was just a reaction to the military abuses of the past and might as well delete it. They argued about the deletion issue,although many people agreed that it should be deleted my dad stood his ground that it should not be the case.
———————————————–
personal opinion:
tulad ng sinabi ko Protector gusto palabasin na opposite ng oppressor or abuser. They were just playing with words then.
————————————————–
mindanaoan on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:46 am
mlq3, as i pointed above, the senate rules mandate an organization after every election. that’s not a feature of a continuing body.
mlq3 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:55 am
mindanaoan, a mandated election of new officers after every election isn’t necessarily an argument against -it’s part and parcel of congress itself being reorganized after every election. again, if you look at the declaration of past supreme courts, that under the 1935 constitution the senate was considered a continuing body, and a continuing body despite a similar practice of reorganizing its leadership after every election, your objection doesn’t hold.
after all, the leadership of either chamber is reorganized after every election but that doesn’t mean the leadership will change. and the leadership can be replaced at any time within their terms.
panganiban’s argument is that the old view of a continuing body doesn’t hold because of a design flaw in the present structure of the senate -you could point to a continuing body in the past, because at no time did the senate lose more than 1/3 of its members while in the past, the entire composition of the house was up for election, which theoretically made it possible to change 100% of the composition of the house, which also had a term coinciding with the president’s, who could also be replaced every term. the senate was always immune to such a total change.
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 10:38 am
Bencard (5:48am), i’ve already explained why i think it was Locsin’s worst essay (that i’ve read) above (at 12:04am and 1:16 am) and it has nothing to do with the conjecture you have offered.
hvrds on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:40 am
How will markets fill the demand for cheap rice:
Human greed will fill the gap to alleviate hunger –
35% broken rice is rice fit for lugaw.
That is the rice also bought here by lugaw shops. As of today if tariff were to be added to the price of 25% imported broken rice the price would be aorund Php 45/kg.
Thai and Vietnam 25% broken is as good as our local ordinary and that is why traders here sometimes mix the formerly cheaper imports with local.
Our domestic rice retails around Php 30- Php 40+ a kg.
Government needs cheaper rice to retail at Php 18.50
I am sure since the import trade has been opened w/o quotas but with 50% tariffs, the smugglers can start bringing in a mix of 25% and mostly 35%. There will be a wide gap in prices.
For the Philippines 35% broken could be a lifesaver. markets do not quote that standard since demand for that is weak. However this time it is valuable.
The problem is hunger and lugaw is a perfectly moral and practical option.
The market for lugaw shops would be viable.
Idea for a lugaw brand – Ate Glo’s Lugawan – The NFA could start the franchising move from their Tindahan ni Gloria……
UP n student on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:52 am
Lugaw is great stuff!!! Seriously, lugaw is a great way to lose weight with its lower carbo content and no-cholesterol zero-fat (if you use chicken breast, not dark meat).
Should be great comfort food this time of the year in Sydney, right?
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:56 am
UPn (at 11:52), i’d nominate that as the Marie Antoinette-comment of the day.
UP n student on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:57 am
to KG: There is a lot of pro-Islam pro-Quran anti-USA anti-Denmark broadcasts on YouTube. But YouTube is banned in Indonesia (and I suspect, many countries) because of one movie —— FITNA.
mang_kiko on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 12:14 pm
puede re-invented, dagdag pa ang foolproof anti-evidence detection device…ngayon ang invention ay perfecto miente….
UP n student on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 12:48 pm
Should Filipino students (in high-school and below) be taught to be proud of their country, or should they be taught to be self-critical? do thoughts like below belong in the classroom?
—————
An article sent by Dr. Arsenio Martin of Fort Arthur , Texas ..
THE DIFFERENCE
The difference between the poor countries and the rich ones is not the age of the country:
This can be shown by countries like India & Egypt , that are more than 2000 years old, but are poor.
On the other hand, Canada , Australia & New Zealand , that 150 years ago were inexpressive, today are developed countries, and are rich.
The difference between poor & rich countries does not reside in the available natural resources.
Japan has a limited territory, 80% mountainous, inadequate for agriculture & cattle raising, but it is the second world economy. The country is like an
immense floating factory, importing raw materials from the whole world and exporting manufactured products.
Another example is Switzerland , which does not plant cocoa but has the best chocolate in the world. In its little territory they raise animals and plant the soil during 4 months per year. Not enough, they produce dairy products of the best quality! It is a small country that transmits an image of security, order & labor, which made it the world’s strongest, safest place.
Executives from rich countries who communicate with their counterparts in poor countries show that there is no significant intellectual difference.
Race or skin color are also not important: immigrants labeled lazy in their countries of origin are the productive power in rich European countries.
What is the difference then? The difference is the attitude of the people, framed along the years by the education & the culture & flawed tradition.
On analyzing the behavior of the people in rich & developed countries, we find that the great majority follow the following principles in their lives:
1. Ethics, as a basic principle.
2. Integrity.
3. Responsibility.
4. Respect to the laws & rules.
5. Respect to the rights of other citizens.
6. Work loving.
7. Strive for savings & investment.
8. Will of super action.
9. Punctuality.
10. and of course…Discipline
In poor countries, only a minority follow these basic principles in their daily life.
The Philippines is not poor because we lack natural resources or because nature was cruel to us. In fact, we are supposedly rich in natural resources.
We are poor because we lack the correct attitude. We lack the will to comply with and teach these functional principles of rich & developed societies.
magdiwang on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:00 pm
hvrds, hehehe….you basically cut the work for me here. our government does not have the resources to predict what is in store in the near term. it takes significant amount of time and money to do it, much more to hedge against it as it will consume valuable resources we dont have. I guess we can be blamed for being poor and nothing more.
I dont blame the fed in pulling all the stops to save wall street resulting in an increase in price of commodities. what im saying that it is beyond anyones control on whats happening beyond our borders. Why blame then our government when they got caught on things not of their making.
im wondering how anyone could have handled the situation much better. Realizing her shortcomings, she came up a plan 40B to stimulate the agricultural sector.
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:09 pm
Upn, granting for the moment the validity of Dr. Martin’s flawed premise, even if there were such ‘education’ in the high school curricula, if the behavior of adults, especially the leaders (here in the Philippines, synonymous with the rich and powerful) is different from what is being taught in school, then such lessons won’t sink in or will be forgotten. The best form of teaching is still leadership by example and habit. Without this, any school education is no more than lip service.
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:16 pm
Forgetting the fact that the government seems to have the resources for stealing elections (or fund a National Broadband Network), presuming the lack of the resources to outguess the market (or the hedge funds), the government could have resorted to identifying risks and contingencies (i.e. what if the price goes up? or what if the price goes down?) Imagination is free so the excuse ‘lack of resources’ does not wash.
cvj on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:23 pm
From the very beginning, the late FPJ had ‘almusal, tanghalian, hapunan’ as his priority. I remember that Manolo once criticized him for that.
j_ag on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:28 pm
Funny but a country can only be successfull in exporting inflation if there will be a dumb counterparty to import inflation. There are choices that can be made.
Ang hihina ng ulo naman ang may hawak ng kapangyarihan sa Pinas.
Yung mga “Instik” galing sa PRC bumili sila ng kapangyarihan na mag-mina sa Diwalwal. Yung bumabasak na dollar na nasa kamay nila binibili nila and Pinas.
Matitinik mag isip yung mga yan. Alam niya mababaw ang kaligayahan ng mga alalaly ni Madam. Si Madam naman gustong gusto maging guest sa PBB. (Pinoy Big Brother)Ingit kasi siya kay Kris.
Tapos ang mga Instik ng PRC ay mag uupa ng milyon milyon hektaryang lupain sa Pinas.
benign0 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:43 pm
In other words, the root cause of the chronic poverty of countries like the Philippines is cultural. It is at the very fabric of what constitutes the character of a people that determines whether they are destined to collective greatness or whether they will forever be relegated to the bypassed, forgotten, and ignored basketcases of humanity.
That sounds strangely familiar now, doesn’t it?
benign0 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 1:57 pm
For that matter, why not promote kamote as the new staple for Pinoys.
Pinoys and kamote.
Perfect combination.
-
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 2:08 pm
UPN,
yeah, FITNA probably is the reason.
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 2:27 pm
UPN,
wrong grammar na naman ako, pero who cares?
=====================================================
here’s a link on our policies on agriculture,at least until the time of President Aquino.
http://www.country-studies.com/philippines/agricultural-production-and-government-policy.html
kahit na passe na to at least may understanding tayo kung ano nga ba ang naging policy dati.
nash on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 2:38 pm
@benigno
“In other words, the root cause of the chronic poverty of countries like the Philippines is cultural.”
Oh talaga? So there is one prevailing ‘culture’ pala in the Philippines. I must tell that to my tribe in Benguet…..how about the Tagalogs? is their culture similar to the Visayans?
You are not talking about the dominant Tagalog culture are you?
KG on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 2:39 pm
Sa totoo lang kahit na anong contingency planning at mga magic na nnagyari sa mga funds the power of the purse is still with congress. Does our budget need be projected for three years instead of yearly budgets na madalas naman nareeenact?
Three year budgeting can make contingency planning easier.
I also think the pork barrel has to go,no matter what the congressmaen say that no money goes to their pockets.
But, as I said, who cares ?
mindanaoan on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 3:32 pm
mlq3, i agree that the supreme court based its consideration of the senate as a continuing body solely on its ‘continuing’ composition, notwithstanding that
it reorganized its leadership after every election. still, we have to look at periodic reorganization, as well as termination of proceedings when congress expires, as ‘non-continuing’ features. if ‘continuing’ is a design specification, ‘filling-in vacancies’ should have been the feature.
on the other hand, is there something from the constitution, or records of the concom, indicating what the framers of the constitution have in mind with regards to this question of ‘continuing body’?
Madonna on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 3:52 pm
“im wondering how anyone could have handled the situation much better. Realizing her shortcomings, she came up a plan 40B to stimulate the agricultural sector.” — magdiwang
Keep wondering please. It will be good for all of us. Another case of pera, pera lang yan ‘no (and my, whose money are you parting away again here Madam).Tsk, tsk, there is no shortage to her utter incompetence or intellectual laziness (that’s what unmitigated greed and power does to you). Go read FVR’s take on that: people will be saying “di kainin mo pera mo! E wala tayong bigas e!”
Bless the soul of my departed maternal grandfather who was a farmer and a fisherman with the wisdom of a sage.
My mother related this story that is so apt for the current rice crisis. During hard times, she would be ordered to go and get rice or some other food items at the corner store as a young child and she would be ashamed to go because it would be on “utang”.
My grandfather would tell her, “naku, di malaking problema na wala tayong pera ngayon anak. Mas malaking problema at problemahin mo kung wala ka nang bigas or pagkain na mabibili.”
Now who makes more economic or even common sense, the PhD economist or my grandfather, a farmer and who only reached 3rd grade education?
mang_kiko on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 4:08 pm
aling Madonna, nakalimutan ata nang manga sikat na Ekonomistas “kuno” na sa simula, palatin lang nang produkto ang basi nang economiya, at dahil kumakalat ang manga tao at dumadami, masyadong impractical kong papasanin ko ang saging ko para ipalit sa bigas mo, kaya naimento itong “pera” para madali at hindi mahirap ang palitan..kaya kong Kulang talaga ang Produkto, kahit sang tambak pang pera ang Iprinta at ipamigay nang Palasyo eh balang araw gamitin lang yon na Toilet Paper…
Rob' Ramos on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 4:13 pm
Hey, Benigs, kamote can be nice too, you know XD
La lang, spam lang. Napagod ako dun sa sagot ko ke cvj sa isang thread eh. I’ll just make a more sensible post next time XD
@ UP n
Di ba pwedeng ituro both? That our students be proud of our history – and there ARE things to be proud of – and critical at the same time?
I think one of the problems is that so much “learning” in our high schools and the elementary level is rote. Having (a lot of) teachers that appear disinterested in raising the level of study from “drudgery” to “appreciation” doesn’t help either.
If my dad hadn’t bought me Marvin Perry’s A History of the World that summer before high school, and I had nothing better to do at the same time (this was the time before really good videogames, hehe), I doubt I would have developed an appreciation for history as much as I did. I barely remember anything worthwhile from “sibika” class in elementary. My HS was better, since I had teachers who made us appreciate history.
ryan maboloc on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 4:19 pm
In our country, you steal a goat and you will be sent to prison. You steal a jewel and you will be killed. You a million dollars – you just simply walk away…
ryan maboloc on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 4:21 pm
The point is, don’t steal a goat, never steal any jewel…the conclusion is obvious!
mang_kiko on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 5:31 pm
The point is, don’t steal a goat, never steal any jewel…the conclusion is obvious!
kaya pala si mamang Abalos, na alleged na humingi nang $130 milliones, hindi lang na Imbistiga..Point taken and will be taken by the next generations of Politicians and Public Servants.. and the cycle will continue…..
Dirk Pitt on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 6:53 pm
it seems to me that the escalating price of rice is largely fueled by panic buying by a public that is being driven into a frenzy by pro-government forces, with the help of the paid media. when an average family who normally buys a kilo of rice, as needed, spends its life savings to buy a sack or two of “nfa†rice to be stored “just in caseâ€, multiplied hundreds of thousandfold, no amount of government stockpile will be enough to “stabilize†the price, and there will surely be long-term shortages in the market.
it looks like the pro-gma forces have stumbled upon a sure-fire way to stir unrest, eventually hoping to launch programs that in reality will be goldmines for more oppurtunities for corruption. it would be a sad spectacle when the people start killing each other because those who can afford to buy only a kilo of rice at a time find the rice bins empty because panic-buyers have gobbled up what is available and stored “just in caseâ€.
mlq3 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 7:09 pm
dirk, you should always give credit to bencard for providing inspiration for your comments, including pointing out you prefer to reinterpet bencard’s original arguments as follows (then you proceed with your creative readaption of bencard’s arguments).
otherwise bencard has a point re: malicious plagiarism.
UP n student on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:27 pm
Thomson Financial News
Rice prices expected to climb on speculation Thailand to cut exports – UPDATE
04.02.08, 8:26 AM ET
HONG KONG (Thomson Financial) – World rice prices may be set for another sharp spike with leading exporter Thailand expected to cut supplies starting this month.
Domestic prices of the staple have surged 50 percent since January, and Thai farmers are reported to be hoarding rice on hopes of further increases, traders said Wednesday.
Thailand is the world’s biggest rice exporter but Thai producers are now reluctant to meet commitments….
Rice exporters who have suffered steep losses in fulfilling commitments made at the beginning of the year are expected to scale back supplies starting April. Traders in Hong Kong and the Philippines said they haven’t yet received official notification from exporters in Thailand warning them about lower exports.
‘What I know from our counterparts in Bangkok is that they too cannot get hold of any supply at the moment. Supply there is just too tight right now. I think most suppliers are focusing on their domestic market,’ said Guia Manay, rice trader of Daewoo International.
UP n student on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 9:38 pm
When the price of rice goes up 50% or higher, Filipinos will be disgusted. It’s a whole different story when rice is not available at all.
When the supply chain breaks down and the flow of rice to Divisoria from Bangkok gets stopped, the anti-GMA better rev up their engines!! Stoking up an already mad citizenry gets easier.
grd on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 10:01 pm
while it’s heating up globally, mlq3 is still entertaining the idea that the crisis is locally manufactured.
supremo on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 10:24 pm
‘in the first post edsa senatorial election i believe 1/3 had 6 year terms, another third had 4 year terms, and another third had 2 years terms, leading to the staggered system -or maybe i’m wrong. it should have been designed that wa6y.’
It’s actually six years for the top 12 and 3 years for the bottom 12.
David on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 10:29 pm
Madonna: “Another case of pera, pera lang yan ‘no (and my, whose money are you parting away again here Madam). Tsk, tsk, there is no shortage to her utter incompetence or intellectual laziness (that’s what unmitigated greed and power does to you). Go read FVR’s take on that: people will be saying ‘di kainin mo pera mo! E wala tayong bigas e!’”
Madonna, if you will indulge me, what, in concrete terms, do you propose the government do vis-a-vis the agricultural sector?
Major Tom on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 10:33 pm
In our executive department, a lot of agencies are functioning as semi-judicial bodies or quasi-judicial bodies, like LTFRB and DOLE bureaus, for it is of necessity, for order to appertain. To be sure, the SC would be so unwise to strip them of privilege to summon and to apply ‘contempt’, for they would be useless.
Now, in our legislative section, such quasi-judicial mode had been approached at, modelling after the necessity and efficiency of U.S. Senate Hearings, that had brought down mafias and tax evaders and drug lords and gun dealers. in our territory, a Senate iniated move had resolve a flawed Estrada Presidency, and it showed how senate inquiries could be of great importance to our population and society as a whole.
But without the ‘contempt power’ or the power to summon, even to a minimal extent, would lay these inquiries inutile and inefficient, negating the wisdom it had shown before—and further, future presidents and ministers would be emboldened to do malice for they won’t be perturbed by our lawmakers.
UP n student on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:12 pm
As the Thomson Financial News article makes evident, even the population of rice-exporting countries (Thailand, Vietnam) are affected by the rice-supply crisis. Abe, Bencard, supremo, Ca t can speak to how much the the 20-pound bag of rice in the US of A has gone up in price. However, the rice-exporting countries do not have a supply-chain problem! The Thais will be among the last to have stores without rice to sell. Thailand will take care of the Thais first, as well they should.
Bert on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:18 pm
“..the anti-GMA better rev up their engines!! Stoking up an already mad citizenry gets easier.”
UP n s, there is no need for the anti-GMA people to rev up their engines. The people follow the advice of their stomach, when the advice of their stomach is too much to ignore they will move on their own volition.
Then the anti-anti-GMA will rejoice…for Martial Law shall be then in place. Lucky Gloria talaga.
Madonna on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:18 pm
David, I am sorry this is the first time I encountered with a handle like yours here. So excuse me if I am kinda suspicious on the request.
Ikaw sa tingin mo? Everything rosy and dandy with our rice situation? Answer that and I may indulge you.
mlq3 on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:32 pm
grd, yes, when i wrote that reply i was reading this:
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=77619
and thinking there was that silver lining in the clouds of doom:
Madonna on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:35 pm
A tight world rice supply situation may be a reality — but do we have enough reason to really be in a tight rice situation ourselves domestically?
And UP n, how ironic, Americans are not a rice-eating nation and so an increase in price won’t affect them that much. But guess who are offering to save our stomachs?
In 1997, a law was passed to modernize agriculture and practically mandated rice self-sufficiency. And guess what happened to the funds for irrigation (and fertilizers (Joc-Joc or whoever he is, where is that fellow now)?
Billion and billions of pesos down the drain that could have not only helped our farmers and revved up the agri sector, made us rice self-sufficient and my, even pump our GDP even higher.
Now GMA magically comes with a P40B program right in the middle of the crisis and she expects us to applaud and be grateful?
supremo on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:41 pm
UP n student,
The price of elephant ang milagrosa are still the same. It they go up then we’ll just buy the long grain variety. Not the same but good enough for one rice meal a day.
Maginoo on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:43 pm
UP n “Stoking up an already mad citizenry gets easier.”
As I said in an earlier thread, talking of “the angriest firing up the hungriest.”
Galit at gutom, masamang combination. Summer heat pa naman. It’s a month of living dangerously.
Bert on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:49 pm
“Thailand will take care of the Thais first, as well they should.”
UP n s, are you implying the Philippines is not like that?
Maginoo on Wed, 9th Apr 2008 11:57 pm
In 1997, a law was passed to modernize agriculture and practically mandated rice self-sufficiency. And guess what happened to the funds for irrigation – Madonna
The law was called AFMA, or Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act. I understand there was not adequate funding.
But guess what was brought into the country tax-and-duty free under the provisions of the law by the oligarchs? Luxury helicopters, yatchs, etc.
Oo nga naman, kailangan ng helicopters for seeding/fertilizers; yatchs for marine research, etc.
vic on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 12:03 am
Supremo, No raise here yet too, but we’re expecting a 10% as announced by some Chain lately as soon as the current stock is exhausted, for how long we don’t know. We also import mostly from Thailand and US.
Bencard on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 12:13 am
mlq3, thanks for your wise admonition re “malicious plagiarism”.i hope that, since the subject has apparently some spark of intelligence (i.e., the ‘good’ taste of choosing my composition – words, syntax, punctuations and thought-organizations) to express his contrary rant), lol, it would somehow register in what he/it has for a brain.
i guess my main beef, as you correctly pointed out, is the obviously malicious omission of proper attribution/acknowledgment of original authorship, as most everybody in this blog doesn’t do. i really don’t mind my work being an “inspiration” to anyone, friend or foe alike, so long as the user doesn’t appropriate it as his own. there’s nothing more irksome to a writer than a simpleton wanting to appear literate by aping the former’s writing. “““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Madonna on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 12:22 am
Galit at gutom, masamang combination. — maginoo
The angry who think are usually from the richer classes and they will not probably go hungry. The hungry do not really get angry because anger for all its worth is a luxury in this country. They just go depressed, like Marianette Amper or they continue to smile like all those people living along the railroad tracks. And they will not get hungry for long because the government will be importing rice, even if they go by up by 100 pesos per kilo and then the government will sell this for P18.50 NFA price.
Except that several years down the road, let’s just expect more soaring public debts and our taxes screwed over another round of another merry mismanagement. Just perfect.
David on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 12:39 am
Madonna: “David, I am sorry this is the first time I encountered with a handle like yours here. So excuse me if I am kinda suspicious on the request.
Ikaw sa tingin mo? Everything rosy and dandy with our rice situation? Answer that and I may indulge you.”
Madonna, you have nothing to worry about. I only ask to be enlightened. To answer your question, clearly, with the rising price of rice (and of food, in general) and a looming decrease of global supply, there is a problem with the rice situation. And where there is a problem, we ought to try to find a solution.
mlq3 on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 12:40 am
I’m trying to think of when we were had indonesian-style rice riots. Ever? During Spanish times, perhaps, directed against the Chinese, there were several pogroms.
We like to channel our dissatisfaction where? elections? None on the horizon. And if there’s one thing the President is, she’s a skilled organizer in crisis situations. By hook or by crook she will find a way to keep this situation from escalating -although you really have to hand it to Mons. Dacay in Cebu, he’s afraid that the President’s brainchild of distributing rice through parishes might lead to the distribution of condoms; this, by a loyal ally of the President, which goes to show you the high opinion the President’s own allies hold her government.
Madonna on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 1:04 am
Madonna, you have nothing to worry about. I only ask to be enlightened. To answer your question, clearly, with the rising price of rice (and of food, in general) and a looming decrease of global supply, there is a problem with the rice situation. And where there is a problem, we ought to try to find a solution. — David
Thank you. Of course we need solution. I agree with manolo, GMA being tried-and-tested in crisis situation, would find a solution on this one. And there is no absolutely no need for stoking the fires for political purposes. Just saying, lay the responsibility where it is due because I believe that the tight supply in the world market is not the singular cause for our current rice crisis.
This problem could not have escalated into a case like this, if the government’s horizon is into long-term solution, long-term planning.
Look, rice being our food stable, has what you call an inelastic demand, and with a fact such as this, in addition to a growing population should clearly dictate policy — which is self-sufficiency with a priority on supply.
Obviously, we need to grow rice domestically and enough so that we don’t need to import. Rice is too close to our daily survival to leave it to the uncertainties of the global market. There was a time even that the Philippines was exporting rice and we were producing in surplus for our domestic consumption.
GMA’s government has not prioritize agriculture, rice growing most especially. The strings of alleged malversation of funds are additional causes that point to the mismangement of the sector (as even pointed by FVR).
Madonna on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 1:10 am
“food stable” — food staple
magdiwang on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 1:20 am
madonna, im not sure if i’ll go that length to point a finger to our government. its also too convenient to blame anyone for that matter. we have always been a net importer of rice for many years. the business model of importing rice have always work for us until this year. the fact is we cannot produce the grain competetively and consistently. there are many reasons why we cannot produce enough, but i assure you successive governments have tried to do it and all have failed.
We will literally have to spend billions of pesos to be self sufficient in rice. our government can go the way on how the US, EU and Japanese make themselves self sufficient on food by massively subsidizing it. i dont think we have the resources to allocate for that and we are not in the same league with them with spare funds to fund that entitlement. you might have some bright ideas, please share.
vic on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 1:27 am
I don’t what Genetically Modified Food role in Future Food Production and its significant in food supply as the demand for food will eventually outstrip the supply, but it is worth discussing in the future thread..do you guys think so??
Maginoo on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 1:28 am
Rice is too close to our daily survival to leave it to the uncertainties of the global market. – Madonna
Of course, Ms. M. The Japanese, with their huge foreign exchange surplus, could easily import the best variety of rice, at any price. But no, they will not!
Food shusi-curity.
Madonna on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 1:33 am
Magdiwang,
Sorry, can’t post a long a reply. Way past bedtime. LOL. Just please read on previous comments ( and esp. I had a reply for David) and you’ll see where my thought are. Thank you.
justice league on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 1:35 am
Mindanaoan,
Very well, at least we seem to be in agreement that the Rules of the Senate shall remain in force until they are amended or repealed.
If I’m not mistaken, only 6 of the Justices actually wrote that they saw this issue for the petitioner. Justices Corona and Carpio wrote their own take on this issue while Justices Tinga, Chico-Nazario, and Nachura concurred with the ponencia of J. Leonardo De Castro on this issue.
In deciding that the present Senate’s Rules of Procedure are infirm and that the “Senate of every Congress” is required to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation (and confining said rules to the Senate that “published” it); J. Leonardo De Castro took the OSG’s argument which reasons out that
-every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it.
-the composition of the Senate changes by the end of each term since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership.
-Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit.
So how are the Rules of the Senate immuned from being affected by those 3 points?
Will you be reasoning out that with regards to the Rules of the Senate
-every Senate is NOT distinct from the one before it or after it?
-the composition of the Senate DOES NOT change by the end of each term even though Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership?
-Each Senate may NOT enact a different set of rules even though it may deem fit?
The Senate didn’t write an “end” to its Rules of Procedure which is to be taken that it is continuous. Its the Supreme Court that is writng an “end” for it. So how is the Supreme Court NOT writing an “end” for the Rules of the Senate also?
mindanaoan on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 3:34 am
justice league, the problem is not so much as the senate as a continuing body as how to interpret ‘duly’ in the phrase ‘duly published rules of procedure’. we don’t have a problem with the rules of the senate, because: 1) there’s no procedure requiring its publication, afaik. 2) it contained an explicit ‘in force until amended’ clause. the rules of procedure on the other hand is required by the constitution to be ‘duly published’, and it has the additional requirement it imposed on itself in its effectivity clause, of publication in two newspapers of general circulation.
it was the senate in neri who pointed out that the senate is a continuing body to try to justify its non-publication of the rules of procedure, without explaining why they published it unchanged on december 2006.
since most already agree (some begrudgingly acknowledging a ‘design flaw’) that the present senate is not a continuing body, the senate should now just let go of neri and publish its rules of procedure immediately. clinging to this ‘continuing body’ argument is plain stubbornness.
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 3:37 am
The rice problem in pinas won’t go away, surely the govt is a contributor to its accelerating tendency. In Southeast Asia, the country is the only one with a world-class R & D on rive growing, with the IRRI there for decades experimenting and perfecting higher-yielding rice varieties, and complemented by Philrice, a govt run agency.
True, we were exporting rice to our neighbors before, until they learned the techniques that we proudly shared with their agriculturists who came to study at IRRI and UP Los Banos, later at Philrice.
Have we ever wondered why pinas has become a rice importer from Vietnam and Thailand, whose technologists are trained here? Something is wrong with our govt, particularly DA. Obviously, RP has not given agriculture the impetus to grow, thinking wrongly that import-substitution strategy is the key to industrialize and develop. It has eagerly globalized (thanks to FVR and his technocrats) without “thinking,” as Walden Bello puts it. It expected more returns and payoffs but instead reaped enormous losses and put itself in a weaker position than before.
Corruption has no doubt taken its toll, magnifying the already mounting problems that owe from our less-than-rational participation in a globalized world.
But the internal side of the problem would be easier to handle, if only the govt is serious – as all states should be – in promoting the welfare of citizens rather than the interest of its leaders.
Jocjoc Bolante’s case is a window into the gross mismanagement in the govt. The fertilizer scam, and the recently discovered piggery program, both worth billions of pesos going to the pockets of corrupt leaders, speak for the grand corruption since 2001.
The Vietnamese and Thai people just walk away laughing at Filipinos. (Or, it could be the other way, our leaders jokingly walk to the bank, happy with their loot and impunity.) At least, the Thai succeeded in “patalsikin si Thaksin,” while Filipinos are still shouting “Gloria alis diyan.” Funny.
Funnier still, Thailand, Malaysia, East Timor and the Philippines are the countries (out of 12) in Southeast Asia which are “partly free” – democratically speaking – in recent times. Yet, the country remains a laggard and always tails behind, truly living up to the iconic “sick man” of Asia.
The solution? Anwar Ibrahim has three words for it: “Change the government!”
mindanaoan on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 4:00 am
The solution? Anwar Ibrahim has three words for it: “Change the government!†— hawaiianguy
and when some people move to change our form of government to that of ibrahim’s, guess who will still be up in arms?
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 4:26 am
mindanaoan,
Anwar, the deposed Malaysian leader and symbol of UMNO, was NOT advocating that Malaysia should go communist or change to any form different from the current one. He simply means changing the ruling govt and purging it of the vestiges of “Mahathirism†and the nepotistic policy grounded on “bhumiputra-first†policy that began decades ago.
Anwar Ibrahim has been going around the US giving lectures on the political situation shortly after Mahathir retired from politics. He pointed out that Malaysia (ironically, it is doing much better than the lowly RP) has erred in its internal policy of favoring the bhumiputras (Muslim Malays) over and above its Chinese and Indian nationals. This preferential policy amounts to what Filipinos call “cronyism†since Marcos down to Arroyo. Instead of allowing the private sector to play its role in the market, the govt has intruded heavily into enterprise building, or allowing allies to monopolize business, even providing almost unlimited state guarantees to big projects run by Malays. That nepotistic policy only bungled the economy instead of promoting it under a protectionist system. The Malaysian Airlines is among the worst casualties.
But even without Anwar’s advocacy, Malaysia is now on the road to political change. Recently, the Islamic party gained more seats in the parliament and threatened the ruling party that gained prominence under Mahathir.
As Malaysia gets out of its more authoritarian niche, RP appears to have become the OPPOSITE of what it says it is, ludicrously, as “the most democratic country in Asia.â€
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 4:30 am
I mean, “the ruling party that rose to prominence under Mahathir, sadly with the help of Anwar himself.”
grd on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 5:11 am
mlq3, while it is expected that global rice production will increase by 1.8%, it is alarming to note that the global rice demand is expected to exceed the current season’s record harvest for this year as per the article written by Ms. Malou Mangahas.
http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2256#more-2256,
for the phil, Ms. Mangahas wrote:
grd on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 5:15 am
mlq3, while it is expected that global rice production will increase by 1.8%, it is alarming to note that the global rice demand is expected to exceed the current season’s record harvest for this year as per the article written by Ms. Malou Mangahas.
http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=2256#more-2256,
for the phil, Ms. Mangahas wrote:
Clearly, our growing population is the one big factor why we have this crisis now.
In Korina’s Show, UP Prof Ernesto Pernia again referred to the country’s population as the main culprit for our rice problem. He interestingly compared the Phils to Thailand where in the ‘70’s, we almost have the same population of about 36M. Comparing our population now of 90M against Thailand’s 67M, that’s about an increase of 150% against 86%.
According to Prof Pernia, what our previous and present govt failed to address is the “demand†problem. He said, if we have controlled our population like what Thailand did, our rice demand now would only be about 16 million tons and we could even afford to export some of our surplus rice produce.
The main obstacle of course for our population problem is the church as rightly said by Prof Pernia. The govt has always been held hostage by the powerful church over the issue of population control.
Bencard on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 5:21 am
the philippines has unique problems that require unique solutions. indulging in the usual blame game, ad nauseam, will not accomplish anything other than inflame passions to create a belief that unwanted results of failed policies were brought about either by the sheer stupidity or the evil intentions of the governing authority. that may be part of it but the more fundamental cause is the flawed society that we have as a consequence of our tragic failure to educate our people on the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility.
grd on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 6:29 am
hawaiianguy,
what made you think mahathir is bad for malaysia? just because he is anti-US? maybe you should ask the malaysians.
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 7:06 am
grd,
No, it’s not me saying that, Anwar does. And the PAS (Islamic Party).
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 7:11 am
But I do have something related to your post, grd.
“Clearly, our growing population is the one big factor why we have this crisis now.”
May I add one more very critical factor: land resources.
Supporting evidence indicates the gravity of land conversion problem, where prime agricultural lands (e.g., in the CALABARZON area) are converted into housing subdivisions. Also, a large part of these lands are supposedly covered by CARP, due for expropriation to landless tenants who work for hacenderos and other landed elite. But a convenient, good excuse to have them exempted and at the same time reap untold profits, is for these lands to be classified as “industrial” and fit for housing and other related purposes. Sadly, that practice doesn’t lead to “industrialization” but enrich further the moneyed families, or oligarchs as others call them, that benefit a few rather than the country.
Meanwhile, it’s a double whammy for those tenants: they get no land, and are displaced or driven to urban centers where no jobs await them. Can they farm in the cities?
Benjamin and Ledevina Carino, in their “Urbanization, Industrialization and Land Conversion in the Philippines” (2007), provide meat to this issue using data in all regions in the Philippines. They point to a range of problems arising from it, and diminished rice production is certainly one of them,
Citing official sources, the Carinos say: “the country had 2.1 million hectares of land for agric and food production in 1992. By 1999, this figure has gone down to 1.3 million hectares.” By 2008, that area must have been down to a million or less hectares, given the rate of conversion going on.
How can rice production possibly keep up with a doubling population, when the ricefields have been cut to half their size?
The Carinos have this to say:
“It is, indeed, unfortunate that land use decisions in the country to date have not been guided by a full assessment of these factors” (social displacement of farmers, agric productivity, environmental impact, etc.).
justice league on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 7:27 am
Mindanaoan,
Like I implied before; I haven’t used the concept of a “continuing body” to justify the effectivity of the Rules of the Senate nor the Senate’s Rules of Procedure.
The Senate believes that its Rules of Procedure has been duly published. The Senate didn’t write for its Rules of Procedure an end to its effectivity; only that it becomes effective after publication. What was done in 2006 was just a re-publication.
The SC is the one that is now saying that there is an end to its effectivity citing the 3 points I wrote above.
benign0 on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 8:44 am
Again, we go back to a simple principle:
Great nations were not built on good intentions. They were built on business sense. Real change in Pinoy society will never be achieved through the “sacrifice” of altruistic “heroes”. True change will be driven by people who find no shame in expecting a buck for their trouble.
Nothwithstanding the “heroic” unprofitable trading of the Government to put food on the tables of the poor or the generosity of some future respondents to the food appeals that the Philippines may probably resort to in the near future, the REALITY is that it is the Law of Supply and Demand that will eventually come to the rescue of the hapless (as always) Pinoy.
When rice prices rise high enough that channeling precious capital into developing land for rice cultivation becomes viable (more precisely, PROFITABLE), it is only then that this trend of cutting ricefields “to half their size” will be reversed.
No army of “heroes” nor any amount of “heroism” and certainly no amount of prayer will build that production capacity and food security for us.
Unitl then, folks, let them eat kamote.
-
benign0 on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 8:58 am
Someday, planting rice will be more profitable than building malls…
-
hvrds on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 9:05 am
When Pernia who is a doctrinaire “equilibrium scientist”
more popularly known as a neo-classical economist it is a simple math calculation. His entire perspective at looking at economic problems is through the narrow confines of his craft as it should be. But it is incomplete.
However he lacks the width and depth to analyze his quantitative conclusions with the also important qualitative analysis.
Jeffrey Sachs mas made a more interesting point re: population in low income economies. Every community is dependent on its factor endowments. (Natural resource base) This also includes weather patterns. He correctly pointed to the fight for water resources as the prime cause of the problems in Sudan. (Darfur)The struggle of farmers versus herders is a problem going back to Abel and Cain.
The main problem of the distribution of factor endowments and the stage of economic development will determine the culture of the community. Subsistence agriculture requires that families have many hands to help in the struggle for survival. Hence the need for large families. The Spanish word hermano and hermana comes from that. They also serve as the social safety net for the elders of the community.
Now in the Philippines you have the realities of communities of low income economies together with middle income and high income communities coexisting side by side all put in place by colonizers. You have differing perspectives or cultures. After the Illustrados came the Kanutos. Now we see the emerging Tsinoy culture. But the vast majority are in a low income cultural mindset (Indios). On top of that you have the Catholic Church. On one hand the more progressive amongst them insist that the State has no place in the bedrooms of couples. Most especially a captive state. Birth control devices are medical devices that require a sophisticated establsihed medical supply chain. Condom use is prevalent but even the cultural mindset in rural areas is still set in the old ways. But the demographics are quickly changing as the intrusion of mass media is fast changing attitudes. hence the migration from rural to the world to keep the family economically above water.
Again back to the entitlement regime. High growth rates are misleading and the fertility rate is a better gauge.
Pernia is still looking at the economics of business as he is supposed to do since he is a price equilibrium scientist. That is why the Philippines has the most competitive price for kidneys since the supply is plentiful due to huge numbers of people who have no choice but to sell body parts to survive.
They why is the more diffcult question since it would delve into the business of economics which is the continuing history of the business of economics. That would mean the relationships between the different agents in the economy predetermined by history.
We have been created by colonizers and continue to be economically colonized by more powerfull states.
It is also shown that the more urbanized a country gets birth rates tend to go down. However the move from rural to urban in the Philippines has been distorted which is another long story. The other factor that no one seems to look at is the fact that modernity and technology has extended life.
The U.S. social security system was geared for retirement at 65 as life spans then called for it. Off course life has been extended. In the 19th century life spans on the average reached 40 years of age.
The Philippine scenario has been further distorted by the use of socialism for election policies by the trapo electoral system. So price as the main organizing factor for organizng relationships has been distorted.
Dona Gloria being the worst offender of all.
The main prinicple of keeping the people barefoot and pregnant on the farm is an old political model.
hvrds on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 9:33 am
Take out the oil in occupied former Iraq and what do you have. Tribal communities living on the edges of the Tigris Euprhatis River. The superficial veneer of modernity brought about by oil which is turn was converted into modern standards of living. But the culture substantially is biblical. Hindi pa sila umabot sa individual rights kasi mahirap ang buhay sa dessert kung walang langis kapalit nang air con.
Op-Ed Columnist
A Network of Truces
By DAVID BROOKS NY Times
Published: April 8, 2008
The U.S. brought no shortage of misconceptions into Iraq, but surely the longest lasting has been what you might call: Founding Fatherism. This is the belief that peace will come to the country when the nation’s political elites gather at a convention hall and make a series of grand compromises involving power-sharing and a new constitution.
Skip to next paragraph
David Brooks
» The Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqis to make this sort of grand compromise for years — to little effect. The Democrats happily declare that there has been no political progress in Iraq because this grand compromise is the only kind of political progress they can conceive of.”
“The grand compromise model would be appropriate if Iraq were a Western country living in the shadow of the Magna Carta. But Iraq is not that kind of country.”
“As Philip Carl Salzman argues in “Culture and Conflict in the Middle East†(brilliantly reviewed by Stanley Kurtz in The Weekly Standard), many Middle Eastern societies are tribal. The most salient structure is the local lineage group. National leaders do not make giant sacrifices on behalf of the nation because their higher loyalty is to the sect or clan. Order is achieved not by the top-down imposition of abstract law. Instead, order is achieved through fluid balance of power agreements between local groups.”
“In a society like this, political progress takes different forms. It’s not top down. It’s bottom up. And this is exactly the sort of progress we are seeing in Iraq. While the Green Zone politicians have taken advantage of the surge by trying to entrench their own power, things are happening at the grass-roots.”
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 11:14 am
benigno, “When rice prices rise high enough that channeling precious capital into developing land for rice cultivation becomes viable (more precisely, PROFITABLE), it is only then that this trend of cutting ricefields “to half their size†will be reversed.”
Easier said than done. On the ground, big landowners find it more profitable to let go of their ricefields to whoever who can offer a higher price, not the farmers who can’t pay. And ordinary farmers will never enjoy windfall from increases in the price of rice contrary to what some pundits say, only those behind the rice cartels.
So what exactly is your alternative?
Have you tried farming a square meter of land? Or eating a bunch of kamote perhaps?
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 11:33 am
benigno: “No army of “heroes†nor any amount of “heroism†and certainly no amount of prayer will build that production capacity and food security for us.”
I bet it won’t. Food security? I doubt if it really figured into the govt decision to allow this relentless conversion, following the Carino study. Somebody wrote about it, but who understands what it means? It is so esoteric that you got to factor in not only the amount of lands minimally (or optimally) needed to produce enough food for the table for a number of persons, but also assume a lot of things that may never happen, or only make sense to economists.
One thing seems certain though. People know, esp. farmers and barrio folks, that giving away fertilizer money to Malacanan allies from urban centers pays dividends. It secures the mouth of hungry politicians, or those lusting for more power. Hope they don’t get FMD.
benign0 on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 11:37 am
As a matter of fact, I do like kamote.
Nothing beats rice of course, specially kapag adobo ang ulam.
Then again, not everyone enjoys the beneefit of making that choice, do they?
hawaiianguy on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 11:46 am
benigno, “Then again, not everyone enjoys the beneefit of making that choice, do they?”
In fact, many do. In far-flung areas in the south (e.g., Sulu and Tawi-Tawi), most Tausug and Sama people prefer kamote to rice. It’s an excellent companion for grilled fish, not adobo (esp. baboy, which is “haram”).
mindanaoan on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 12:41 pm
justice league, “The Senate didn’t write for its Rules of Procedure an end to its effectivity”. yes, but neither did it write in it for a continuing effectivity, leaving us to conclude that its validity ends with the expiry of the power of its author.
there is no escaping justice carpio’s “consequence … that the Rules of Procedure must be republished by the Senate after every expiry of the term of twelve Senators”.
justice league on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 3:13 pm
Mindanaoan,
We both assert that the Rules of the Senate shall remain in force until they are amended or repealed.
Aside from there being no procedure requiring its publication, afayk; you contend that it does so remain in force because it contains an explicit ‘in force until amended’ clause.
I however assert that the Rules of the Senate will remain enforced until they are amended or repealed BUT EVEN WITHOUT that ‘in force until amended’ clause.
And I submit that the effectivity of the Senate’s Rules of Procedure is also continuous despite the Senate NOT writing in it for a continuing effectivity and despite the Senate NOT writing an end for the effectivity of its Rules of Procedure. (Of course that is until they themselves replace, amend, repeal, etc.. it.)
You however submit that because the Senate did not write in their Rules of Procedure its continuing effectivity; you believe that it leaves you to conclude that its validity ends with the expiry of the power of its author.
I cannot share your view.
Because for me to share your view means that I also believe that the validity of the Rules of the House of Representatives ENDS with the expiry of the power of its author.
House Rules
-XXVI. EFFECTIVITY
Section 151. Effectivity. These rules shall take effect on the date of their adoption.
Adopted, November 20, 2007
But since you believe in such, the Rules of the House do not remain in force towards the next House. So that when the next House of Representatives comes along; it must first make its Rules; which runs counter to the present Rule- CONVENING AND ORGANIZING THE HOUSE
Section 1. First Meeting and Organization of the House. The Members shall meet and proceed to the organization of the House on the fourth Monday of July immediately following their election, at the place designated for the holding of their sessions.
And there being then no default operating Rules for the House of Representatives (in consonance with your view), what if by some quirk Mindanao is invaded by a large foreign army at noon of June 30th following a national election; when will the Congress be able to declare the existence of a state of war?
There is no escaping justice league’s comment “That the decision of the Supreme Court would impinge on all the Rules of a “new†Senate”! (just trying to be humorous there)
mindanaoan on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 8:35 pm
justice league, i’m sorry i can’t really find anything anywhere linking neri and the rules of the senate. nobody aside from you seems to be raising that issue. maybe it can become another matter the supreme court needs to clarify. for now, i find it pointless to theorize on the effectivity of the rules of the house, when the discussion is on the rules of procedure of the senate.
nash on Thu, 10th Apr 2008 9:15 pm
@bencard
I agree 100%.
“the philippines has unique problems that require unique solutions. indulging in the usual blame game, ad nauseam, will not accomplish anything other than inflame passions to create a belief that unwanted results of failed policies were brought about either by the sheer stupidity or the evil intentions of the governing authority. that may be part of it but the more fundamental cause is the flawed society that we have as a consequence of our tragic failure to educate our people on the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility.”
Bencard on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 1:46 am
thanks, nash.
justice league & mindanaoan, could it be that you are distinguishing apples from oranges? i think the rules of court are of the the same nature, and operate, as statutes. the only basic difference is that the rules are established by the supreme court while statutes are enacted by the legislature. the rules govern, not only judges and justices and other officers of the court, including attorneys, but also any and all litigants. until properly amended and promulgated (published), the rules remain regardless of the composition of the court.
on the other hand, the rules of each chamber of the legislative body govern their internal affairs and are enforceable against all persons conducting business there whether as resource persons, witnesses, lobbyists, propagandists, or “public relations” operatives.
i believe each legislative body is separate and distinct from its predecessors and successors. that’s why, for instance, they are normally referred to as 1st, 2nd or 3d
congress/senate, with their own set of officers/committee chairpersons. it makes sense that members of a particular legislative group be not bound by the rules of its predecessors/successors unless the incumbents expressly adopts (by republishing) the same rules under its own identity as a distinct group. in any event, outsiders or third parties should not be bound by such rules (especially its penalty/contempt provisions) unless properly adopted and published. one cannot be made accountable for a liability of which he/she has not been given at least an opportunity to know.
justice league on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 10:36 am
Mindanaoan and Bencard,
The series of brownouts here is hampering my ability to address your posts.
I’ll just get back to you as soon as I can.
mindanaoan on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 12:37 pm
Bencard, maybe you have something to say about this question of justice league (which i didn’t try to answer for being another issue): if the effectivity of the rules of the house ends when the congress expires, what does the new house follow before it has adopted a new set of rules?
justice league, i’ll hazard a guess. it follows the parliamentary practices of the Philippine Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Senate of the Philippines and the Batasang Pambansa, which are also mentioned in the suppletory provisions.
Rob' Ramos on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 4:02 pm
“This problem could not have escalated into a case like this, if the government’s horizon is into long-term solution, long-term planning.” – Madonna
Madonna, I think GMA’s governments lost much, if not all, of its ability and inclination to do long-term planning. It’s been in the middle of siege warfare almost since Day 1 of its existence in 2001 to do more than engage in surviving.
The longest presidency since, ah, Marcos (haha), and it hasn’t been able to think long term all because its too busy trying to survive.
Kinda sad, really.
cvj on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 5:02 pm
The inability to engage in long-term planning while dealing with issues of political survival does not speak well of GMA’s ability to multi-task.
justice league on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 11:14 pm
Mindanaoan,
The point will be clear when you give your conclusion regarding the validity of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
The Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation states
Sec. 24. Effectivity*
These Rules shall take effect seven (7) days after publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
*Adopted, August 21, 1995; Publication, August 24, 1995 (Malaya and Philippine Star)
Re-publication, December 1, 2006 (Philippine Daily Inquirer and Philippine Star)
While the Rules of the House of Representatives states
XXVI. EFFECTIVITY
Section 151. Effectivity. These rules shall take effect on the date of their adoption.
Adopted, November 20, 2007
You concluded that the validity of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation ends with the expiry of the power of its author.
So what is your conclusion regarding the validity of the Rules of the House of Representatives? Does the validity end with the expiry of the power of its author?
If you say YES; then it seems hazard your guess befell.
For how can you rely on the suppletory provisions of the House Rules when the entire House Rules will no longer be valid?
And so what I wrote previously follows.
If you say NO; how can you conclude differently from how you concluded with the validity of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation?
And so to your question to Bencard I will hazard my own guess; it shall be the Constitution.
Bencard,
Well definitely there is little ambiguity in your stand.
I however believe that the rules of both Houses of Congress should be treated in the same way as the Rules of Court as you elucidated.
The rules MUST carry over by default till they decide to adopt new rules otherwise the only default rules to be followed by both Houses shall be the Constitution (as far as I believe).
I believe that pertinent provisions of the Charter in this matter are as follows (though there might be some that I might miss or include some that are not):
ARTICLE VI- THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. …..
Section 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. ….
Section 15. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays. The President may call a special session at any time.
Section 16. (1). The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members. Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, …
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 23. (1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
(2) In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may, by law, authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such powers shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
ARTICLE VII
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. ……
Section 23. The President shall address the Congress at the opening of its regular session. He may also appear before it at any other time.
ARTICLE XVI
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 5.
(7) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall not exceed three years. However, in times of war or other national emergency declared by the Congress, the President may extend such tour of duty.
If it will be held that both or even one of the Houses of Congress will not be bound by the rules of its predecessors till they themselves adopt it or at least adopt a new one; there might not be any rules to follow except the Constitution between the noon of June 30th following a national election till they convene on the 4th Monday of July unless a different date is fixed by law. Last year, they convened on 4th Monday of July (July 23, 2007).
What if indeed an emergency arises between such dates that necessitates the action of Congress?
As based on section 18 Article VII, … The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, CONVENE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES without need of a call. …
House Rules
Section 84. Emergency Session. The House, if not in session, shall convene without need of a call within twenty-four (24) hours following the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the occurrence of any national emergency.
Rules of the Senate
Though Section 84 of the House Rules has no specific counterpart in the Senate Rules; there is enough to go by with:
SEC. 40. The Senate shall meet in session at three o’clock in the afternoon on week days, EXCEPT when the Senate decides otherwise. When the session is ongoing, no committee meeting or hearing under Rule XI shall be held.
SEC. 42. The Senate shall convene once every year for its regular session. It shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine in its legislative calendar, subject only to such limitations as may be provided by the Constitution: ….
Those Rules of both Houses are, I believe enough to allow Congress to convene even before the 4th Monday of July after a national election.
If the rules of the Houses do not carry over; what rules of Congress will Section 18 Article VII stand on?
Though section 15 Article VI provides the President the power to call for a special session of Congress; the section gives the idea that Congress initially convened already.
But even if such special session is sufficient for Congress to convene (which at this point I doubt); both Houses must first adopt a set of rules for themselves to address the situation if the previous rules do not carry over.
Or what if a President isn’t even intending to call for a “special session to convene†Congress?
What if a President declares Martial law (probably after a very very bad midterm elections for both Houses) between noon of June 30th and the 4th Monday of July?
The same section 18 Article VII states that
… Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. …
What if that President chooses to just write to the Congress?
Without existing rules carried from the previous one; even without a call, how will Congress convene itself outside of session in accordance with its rules WHEN IT HAS NO RULES YET?
I earnestly await your thoughts on these matters
justice league on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 11:17 pm
Darn, I didn’t realize it was that long on Wordstar.
justice league on Fri, 11th Apr 2008 11:18 pm
Ooooopppsss.
Microsoft Word pala.
Bencard on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 2:12 am
mindanaoan, justice league,
i think, following the classic rule of interpretation that apparent ambiguities be resolved in favor of giving effect to what is necessary and reasonable, each incoming house has, in emergent situations, the initial right to follow and apply the rules of the outgoing house. i think, it is of very limited duration and applicable only to the situation at hand. it cannot be abused under pain of invalidation of the acts taken under such abusive exercise. for instance, failure to formally adopt and publish its rules say one month after the first session is, i think, unreasonable and unjustified nonfeasance (which is criminal). i think, in the absence of overriding purpose of the highest priority, adoption and promulgation of the rules must be the FIRST order of business.
justice league on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 2:26 am
Bencard,
That appears to be something that will have to come from the Supreme Court.
In the scenario of Martial Law imposed by a President on such timing, would you say that Congress can thus be prevented from convening while (till the 4th Monday of July actually comes along) the Supreme Court decides on the matter?
Bencard on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 3:16 am
justice league, i think that is precisely the kind of “emergent situation” i have in mind wherein the “old” rules may be applied to convene congress for the specific purpose of receiving “in person” the president’s report, or in the alternative, without the need of convening, to receive the written report. the sc may not prevent it by issuing a tro, as that could be an impermissible encroachment, but it may rule on what is constitutional for future application, not to invalidate what has been done.
Bencard on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 3:51 am
btw, i think the evident difficulty the current senate is experiencing stems from the utter ignorance of some of its vociferous members, e.g., panfilo, jamby, jinggoy, mar roxas, etc.(all non-lawyers), and arrogance of some others, e.g., pimentel, biazon, etc., in the ways of the law and the constitution. these people, far from being statesmen that they ought to be, have no compunction courting constitutional crisis to advance selfish political ends.
in their to desire to have it all and then some, they found their over-sized wings clipped a little bit. i hope they learned their lesson well.
grd on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 4:47 am
Hawaiianguy,
I agree with you, one critical factor attributed to our rice crisis should be land resources with these ongoing land conversions from agri to housing subd, malls, etc. (mostly in Luzon), again, it must be due to our growing population.
aside from this, there are other conversions that are happening. in Mindanao there’s massive conversion of lands from palay to banana due to the profitability of the latter. this was proven true by a close friend whom I remember told me some 2 years ago that they have converted some 5 hectares of their family farm from rice to banana .
I think there’s something wrong with the above figure you quoted. I have read in more than 1 paper that there are 4 million hec of rice farm and not 1.3 million or less. this could be true for how can the country produce the estimated 16 million tons of rice this year if we only have less than 1 million hec of rice land (average production as reported ranges from 3.5-3.8 metric tons/hec for ordinary seeds while 5-6 hec for hybrid seeds).
taken from the philstar:
“Total land area planted to rice in the Philippines was estimated at four million hectares, excluding upland areas planted to rice. Of the total, only about 70 percent is irrigated and the rest is rain-fed.”
http://www.philstar.com/archives.php?&aid=20080329138&type=2&
how can we stop conversions? I think benignO just gave the answer below:
.
Indeed, it’s the profitability. I watched last week some ordinary farmers being interviewed about the increase in the price of palay and they say they are very happy, they were able to pay all their debts.
hawaiianguy on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 6:49 am
grd,
I appreciate your pointing out a possible error in the statistics. I have yet to look into the “correct” area devoted for rice production, although that should have been the concern of the Carinos who initially cited the data as coming from DA itself. In the absence of an explanation, I guess the data refer to areas under MAXIMAL utilization, not total areas devoted to rice production. By another land use criterion, what’s needed is, in fact, TWICE the area mentioned in that newspaper article to maintain adequate food security for the rapidly growing population in the Philippines.
KG on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 8:28 am
JL,
Thank you for pointing me back to this thread.
Parang nabitin ako, kaya hinanap ko ang continuation dun sa latest thread na may realated topic.
mindanaoan on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 11:13 am
justice league, yes, you might be correct. the constitution is where we begin. on one hand it it says “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings”. on the other hand it says “The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure.” the constitution gave the power to determine its own rules to each house, but made a ‘duly published rules’ requirement on inquiries in aid of legislation.
each house may determine the rules, it says. your problem of ‘no rules’ before it has adopted it own set of rules, therefore, seems to be really a non-problem at all! in an emergency, it can simply say, ‘we adopt the previous rules’, and voila! it has satisfied the contitutional provision of determining its own rules.
also, it seems congress has other sources of rules of proceedings when something is not covered in its rules, aside from those mentioned in the suppletory provisions. in arnault, the supreme court referred to Cooley’s Constitutional Limitations and Jefferson’s Manual.
in any case, you cannot say the house cannot conduct its sessions because it has no rules, because the constitutional provision of ‘may determine’ implies it may even choose not to have its own rules at all.
finally, dragging the rules of the house to preserve the effectivity of the rules of procedure of the senate is simply unreasonable. they are not in the same boat.
justice league on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 5:27 pm
Bencard,
Your recent statements that the new Houses of Congress be allowed to apply the rules of the corresponding previous one (at least for a limited time as far as you are concerned) is now more aligned with mine.
You gave an allowance of one month. Based on the history of the American House of Representatives however; there have been times when it took that House more than 2 months to adopt their House Rules (Of course, they never had a President Marcos like us who exploited whatever loophole can be found)
George Galloway, in his History of the United States House of Representatives (though certain pieces of information have been assailed like his claim that no amendments have been introduced to the House Rules for a certain period of years; much of it have been accepted) notes that at least 3 Houses of Congress took more than 2 months to adopt House Rules.
The present practice of adopting House Rules (nearly in the 1960’s) on the first day is claimed to be due to the caucus of the incoming or retained majority party. They already know what they want. (and that too has been assailed because it is claimed that in that way; it isn’t the House that chooses)
(In our parts of the world; one never really knows if his party will be the majority party)
But as to your claim on the non adoption of House Rules after a period of time; well, it does say “may”. Unlike “The President shall address ….” And as far as the Senate is concerned, they view their rules as having a continuing effectivity till repealed, amended, etc…
BTW, ex-Pres. Estrada sent his purported “temporary disability” letter to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House. It was received at their offices but they were obviously elsewhere.
Also, given the powers wielded by a President; he/she could very well padlock Congress also (much easier with Congress not having been convened). So I was more in thinking that it would be Congress going to the SC and not the Executive going to the SC.
Mindanaoan,
Yes. It does say “may” and if they choose otherwise (in consideration of the rules of the previous House not being carried over) it will be to their and our peril.
As to your assertion on the ‘duly published rules’, the decision that arrived that there were none is AGAIN the 3 points enumerated in the previous posts above.
As to your argument of the adoption of rules in an emergency; how can the Houses adopt rules when they have not been convened and so is definitely not in session?
So your non-problem is still a big problem.
Your voila! turns out to be wala.
As to your assertion of Congress having other sources of rules of proceedings when something is not covered in its rules; did you consider that such might have been included in the suppletory provisions at the time of Arnault like the Jefferson Manual being referred to in the Rules of the Senate? So again; how can you rely on the suppletory provisions of the House Rules when the entire House Rules will no longer be valid?
As to what you find as unreasonable, practically the same words yet different conclusions; (unless better arguments come along from you) one can more easily say that THAT is unreasonable.
justice league on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 9:55 pm
I might have given the impression that adoption of American House rules on the first day just occured in the 1960’s.
It was actually common also a long time before that but there came a time when Congressional members were amenable to discussing amendments on the first few days.
Now, adoption of House rules by the U.S. House of Representatives on the first day is practically the norm.
mindanaoan on Sat, 12th Apr 2008 11:57 pm
justice league, as stated earlier, the constitution gave
each house the power to determine its rules of
proceedings. however it does it is its own prerogative,
even to the extent of not having one at all. so if it
makes use of the rules of the previous house, for reasons
of practicality and for its own purpose, it can really do
so. it doesn’t mean the rules have extended effectivity, it only means the new house made use of its prerogative.
the fact that, in galloway you cited above, the
houses have been adopting the rules on the first day, and only 3 took more than 2 months, indicates their priority to establish their rules. it does not support your belief that the rules carry to the next house.
as what can be understood from arnault the house
of representatives, being a non-continuing body, cease to
exist upon the periodical dissolution of congress. and
further, “It is but logical to say that the power of
self-preservation is coexistent with the life to be
preserved.” coexistent means it expires with its
principal. it cannot, by any stretch, mean, carry over until supplanted.
as to “practically the same words”, how can you consider similarly the rules of the house, which the constitution gave each house to determine, with the rules of procedure, which the constitution rigged with a requirement? had there been no ‘duly’ in the requirement phrase, publication on the website, or in pamphlet form, would have been sufficient compliance.
mindanaoan on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 12:02 am
Darn, I didn’t realize it will come out like that from notepad.
justice league on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 3:51 am
Mindanaoan,
The Philippine Congress convened on July 23, 2007. The Philippine House of Representatives adopted their House Rules on November 20, 2007. So what Rules were they using in the meantime?
One of the times Martial law was declared in America (probably the last was after hurricane Katrina) was when Abraham Lincoln declared it during the Civil war. On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. It was challenged in court in ex parte Milligan.
Right in the middle of a bitter civil war; and Lincoln lost in the Supreme Court!
The Court resoundingly told him that “Martial law … destroys every guarantee of the Constitution.”
The SC delineated the confines of Martial law.
Like I said before, America never had a President like we had.
And as far as I understand, Martial law isn’t even in their Constitution while it is in ours. What they have like ours is a suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus under the Sections for the Article of the Legislative branch while ours is under the Article of the Executive.
The powers of the American Legislative branch according to the Constitution include:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The power of the American President according to the Constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; ….
Read again our own Section 18 on the Article of the Executive branch and you will see a difference.
The rules of our Houses must continue till they themselves replace, repeal, amend, etc…. it.
I asked this of Bencard so I think its about time I ask it if you. What if a President declares Martial law between noon of June 30th following a national election and the 4th Monday of July with the rules of the previous Houses having lost its effectivity?
Can the Houses convene on their own? How?
(If you’re planning to copy Bencard’s answers; then I suggest you answer the succeeding questions I asked him also.)
BTW, you left out many questions but I’ll ask this one again. How can the Houses adopt rules when they have not been convened and so is definitely not in session?
Now as to your question as to how I can consider the rules of the Houses in similar way as the rules of procedure of the Houses which the constitution rigged with a requirement; it was the way the Rules of Procedure was struck down.
The rules of procedure was considered infirm by striking NOT at the rules of procedure BUT by striking at the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate.
Do you think arguments like every “House” is distinct from the one before it or after it, the composition of the “House” changes by the end of each term, each “House” may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit, and the “House” is not a “continuing body” struck at the individuality of the Rules of Procedure?
justice league on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 10:03 am
Ooooppsss.
Lincoln was likely dead before the SC decided but everything else follows.
mindanaoan on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 10:27 am
justice league, Can the Houses convene on their own? yes. there’s no problem how each house functions with or without its own rules. it’s inane to think congress cannot convene because it has not adopted its rules of proceeding.
the senates rules of procedure was struck down not because of “the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate” but because of non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure. it was the senate who tried to differentiate itself from the house, claiming it is a continuing body, to convince the supreme court that the publication of the senate rules of procedure on december 2006 already complied with the constitutional requirement. this ‘continuing’ differentiator is where the senate hinge its argument that it need not republish its rules of procedure. if it fails to convince the court that it is a continuing body, then like the house, it needs to publish its rules of procedure for the 14th senate. again, nobody aside from you seems to be following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house.
justice league on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 2:48 pm
Erratum
The writ of habeas corpus is also in our Article III.
Mindanaoan,
How many times must I tell you that I have not argued about a “continuing body” for either the House and the Senate?
In Tolentino vs Sec. of Finance, while considering Osmena vs. Pendatun; the court said
“… as we have already ruled, “parliamentary rules are merely procedural and with their observance the courts have no concern.” Our concern is with the procedural requirements of the Constitution for the enactment of laws.”
Can you be SPECIFIC how Congress will be able to convene itself without having first its rules?
As to your argument on the non-compliance of the Constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure (Yes, there is a Constitutional requirement there just like there is one for Congress to convene itself and just as there is one for the enforcement of the anti-dynasty provision); what again is the basis of the Court in saying that the Constitutional requirement was not complied with?
You’re going to go back again on that “non-continuing body” argument, aren’t you?
The argument used was AGAINST the “body”, and you’re claiming the core individuality of THAT body wasn’t struck aren’t you?
And why do you keep PERSISTING on the idea that I alone am following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house?
I let it passed then, but if you use that argument again (and unless Bencard and David [or anyone else] make their presence felt again with regards to my issue) I’m going to start claiming that you are the only one who doesn’t understand the issue!
justice league on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 2:51 pm
Correction
I let it passed then, but if you use that argument again (and unless Bencard or David [or anyone else] make their presence felt again with regards to my issue) I’m going to start claiming that you are the only one who doesn’t understand the issue!
mindanaoan on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 4:16 pm
justice league,
I have not argued about a “continuing bodyâ€.what i said was “it was the senate who tried to differentiate itself from the house, claiming it is a continuing body.” i said it was the senate’s argument. i didn’t say it’s yours.
Can you be SPECIFIC how Congress will be able to convene itself without having first its rules? i already answered this above, they can make use of the previous rules. and it doesn’t mean the rules have extended effectivity, it only means the new house is using its power to determine its rules.
what again is the basis of the Court in saying that the Constitutional requirement was not complied with? You’re going to go back again on that “non-continuing body†argument, aren’t you? yes, non-continuing. but its not an argument. it’s the supreme court’s opinion.
The argument used was AGAINST the “bodyâ€, and you’re claiming the core individuality of THAT body wasn’t struck aren’t you? i did not agree the argument used was against the body. i said it was struck down because of non-compliance of the publication requirement.
from your earlier post: The rules of procedure was considered infirm by striking NOT at the rules of procedure BUT by striking at the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate.
i replied: the senate’s rules of procedure was struck down not because of “the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate†but because of non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure.
And why do you keep PERSISTING on the idea that I alone am following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house? i’m sorry if i missed someone but, who else?
justice league on Sun, 13th Apr 2008 7:30 pm
Mindanaoan,
As to your first paragraph; then reiterating that issue is hardly meritorious because I also stand that the Rules of the House (which certainly won’t claim to be a continuing body) remain effective towards the next one.
As to your 2nd paragraph-; if the House Rules didn’t have extended effectivity, then what House Rules were in effect between the convening of Congress on July 23, 2007 and the adoption of the House Rules on November 20, 2007? Answering that the House used its power to determine its Rules won’t avail you here.
As to your 3rd paragraph, an opinion by only 1 justice out of 15 members of the Supreme Court. Maybe you should ask what others think of that ratio.
As for paragraphs 4,5,and 6; you are getting way ahead of yourself. It’s already on your 3rd paragraph where you referred to the “non-continuing body†argument. So what did the “non-continuing body†argument allude to? I say it alludes to the core individuality of the Senate. But then you probably have a different opinion, don’t you?
As to your last paragraph; maybe you missed Bencard’s post on April 12 2:12 AM to wit he stated “…each incoming house has, in emergent situations, the initial right to follow and apply the rules of the outgoing houseâ€, “for instance, failure to formally adopt and publish its rules say one month after the first session is, …†(you did admit that afayk the Rules of the Senate need not be published, right?)
But just in case he clarifies himself on that one, you also missed out on Sen. Villar, Sen. Pangilinan, etc… They may have used another argument on the matter but they too believe that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house.
You didn’t have qualms asking for someone to intercede in your behalf previously; you seem to be having a problem so you might want to ask for intercession again.
mindanaoan on Mon, 14th Apr 2008 12:11 am
justice league,
first paragraph: how come i was reiterating? you said,
“
The rules of procedure was considered infirm by striking NOT at the rules of procedure BUT by striking at the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate.
”
i replied: the senates rules of procedure was struck down not because of “the core individuality of the House itself from where both rules emanate†but because of non-compliance of the constitutional requirement of ‘duly’ published rules of procedure. it was the senate who tried to differentiate itself from the house, claiming it is a continuing body. the point was, the decision considering the rules of procedure infirm was not concerned about individuality of the House at all. it was only concerned with publication. i was saying it was the senate who brought up the issue of individuality of the House, to justify its non-publication of the rules of procedure, by claiming that it is different from the house. and the difference is that the senate is a ‘continuing body’. why is that reiterating the issue when it’s part of my reply?
2nd paragraph: they were using the previous rules. but note carefully it doesn’t say anything about it’s effectivity. if the house uses its contempt powers related to legislative inquiries before it has published its rules of procedure, you will see (as in neri) it cannot enforce that power yet.
3rd paragraph: what kind of comment is that? you were just asking : what again is the basis of the Court in saying that the Constitutional requirement was not complied with? my answer: non-continuing. because in that one word hinges the need of the senate to re-publish its rules of procedure. that’s what you can get from this portion of the supreme court decision:
The phrase “duly published rules of procedure†requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem, fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.
your comment: an opinion by only 1 justice out of 15 members of the Supreme Court. Maybe you should ask what others think of that ratio. that portion came from the supreme court decision. are you saying all 14 justices have contrary opinion? in any case, what you are assailing is already the decision of the court, and not my answer.
paragraphs 4,5,and 6: So what did the “non-continuing body†argument allude to? I say it alludes to the core individuality of the Senate. didn’t i say i did not agree the argument used was against the body? this continuing-non-continuing issue is debated only to resolve whether the senate needs to republish the rules of procedure or not. to allude to ‘far reaching consequences to the Senate’ [puno] is to raise an issue outside the debate which exists independently of neri. it is a consequence of the current senate’s ‘design flaw’[mlq3].
Bencard’s post: each incoming house has, in emergent situations, the initial right to follow and apply the rules of the outgoing house. this is the same to what i said, that the new house can make use of the old rules.
Sen. Villar, Sen. Pangilinan, etc: please include references, how will i know you’re not just making it up? and why is the senate’s motion for reconsideration still using the ‘continuing body’ argument?
You didn’t have qualms asking for someone to intercede in your behalf previously; you seem to be having a problem so you might want to ask for intercession again. bencard already joined in the discussion when i wanted to pass up what i thought was an unconnected question. but i did take the question, didn’t i? and hey, justice league, you can ad hominem better than that.
justice league on Mon, 14th Apr 2008 1:24 am
Mindanaoan,
1st issue- You disregarded my stand on the Rules of the House which won’t be claiming itself as a continuing body as I frankly don’t vouch much for the Senate to use that argument.
Well, moving on.
2nd issue- So in other words the House was using the previous rules WITHOUT adopting it and WITHOUT admitting that the previous rules were actually “in effect” while they were using it.
Well, moving on.
3rd issue- Do you realize that the Supreme Court is a collegial body?
Again, 1 Justice out of 15 members of the Supreme Court and you claimed that as the OPINION of the Supreme Court. Do yourself a favor and ask a lawyer already.
Well, moving on.
4th issue- Didn’t you read the papers when Ermita claimed that further inquiries of the Senate were infirmed and Sen. Villar asked them to return the government budget because the rules used in deliberating that budget should also be held infirmed if Ermita was right as well as all the laws passed by the current Senate?
Well, moving on.
5th issue- So again, using the previous rules WITHOUT adopting it and WITHOUT admitting that the previous rules were actually “in effect” while they were using it.
Well, moving on.
6th issue- Maybe you should re-read the part which I quote now “And why do you keep PERSISTING on the idea that I alone am following the line that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house? i’m sorry if i missed someone but, who else?”
To which my answer included “They may have used ANOTHER argument on the matter but THEY TOO believe that the rules (both kinds) carry over to the next house.
Well, moving on.
Last issue- You really should have taken my advice.
Well, I think I have seen the best arguments that you can offer on this issue to which I will be moving on now.
mindanaoan on Mon, 14th Apr 2008 1:58 am
sayonara, justice league