Designed to fail and failing by design
November 21, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
My column for yesterday was Congressional feeding frenzy.
Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel of Akbayan sent me a clarification via SMS:
U wrote in ur col abt me “not lifting a finger, constraind as she is by A’s party positn, alignd w/Bayan’s, in favor of d Pres’s BJE-Moa scheme.” Kept lifting not just my finger, but my hand, 2 b recognizd by Defensor 2 speak, but he ignord me 4 d 2nd straight day; sinugod ko sya rt after d hearing 2 say that I was wearing a cloak of invisibility; he apologizd twice 2 me last nt during d plenary. Didn’t vote vs throwing out ur interventn only bec I’m not a mbr of d Justice Com, but I would have if I were. Our positn is not aligned w/ Bayan’s; they suportd d Moa-AD; we crit’zd d proceses atending it n GMA’s Cha2 agenda hitchhiking on it while suporting els of its substance such as d rt 2 self-determinatn.
(Above: scenes from the Committee on Justice Hearing at the Andaya Hall of the House of Representatives)
Blogger Et Cetera Et Cetera was there, and after the voting took place (see photos above), she mused on what the voting and her previous experiences said of how the odds are stacked against anyone attempting to work for change:
While waiting, I was having slow motion flashbacks of the time when I first started policy research and advocacy work. A few years ago, we were meeting with a group of big businessmen explaining why the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) should give a rate roll back on cargo handling rates after a series of arbitrary rate increases. We were trying to get them to make a position. So we were there explaining to them that it wasn’t about the rate increases per se but it was more of the fact that the PPA has never followed due process when it comes to cargo handling rate increases. In fact, they only rely on cargo handlers’ claims, which were mostly unsubstantiated, as the only basis for granting rate increases. We also explained that there was a conflict of interest in PPA’s persona being both a regulator and an operator. Why? Because PPA benefits from its own regulation. How? Well once a cargo handler asks for a rate increase, the PPA readily grants it to them because by law, the PPA is allowed to share at least 10% of the cargo handlers’ gross revenues. For international ports, it’s 20%. So if you were PPA, any increase would be beneficial to you, right?
While explaining that to the group, their President at that time asked us, “If we support your call for a rate rollback, how much would that amount to, (meaning how much will shippers save) as opposed to antagonizing the government (PPA)?” We told him that based on calculations that shippers would be saving few millions. Then he goes “So a few millions divided by how many businessmen? That’s not a lot. We’d rather not antagonize the government.” Then we said, but sir, it’s the principles. To which he replied “Principles don’t fly. What’s important are the numbers”. I could not for the life of me believe what I heard. I remember telling myself that I will not let people like him ruin whatever is left of my idealism.
Fast forward to yesterday. I felt sick to my stomach because that’s exactly what happened at the hearing. He was right. Principles didn’t fly. In the end, what was important was the numbers. It was indeed a numbers game afterall.
A fellow intervenor, New Philippine Revolution, explains the intervention from the point of view of Muslims, and also, other people supportive of a peaceful resolution to the causes of conflict in Mindanao.
The news yesterday summarized the events: Arroyo allies go for the kill: House panel quickly junks 3 more impeach raps. Blogger The Warrior Lawyer sees it for what it is: prelude to the throwing out of the impeachment complaint. What’s interesting is the process of elimination, supposed to continue Thursday and conclude Friday, has been postponed to next week.
Why?
It may be that other opportunities presented themselves. This morning the headlines screamed, Arroyo son leads Charter change bid: 150 solons sign on for constituent assembly. This immediately galvanized bloggers like Pinoy Law Student and the Warrior Lawyer who does the political math:
And she would only need 196 signatures, which represent the two-third votes of the combined membership of the Senate (23) and the House (238), should the Supreme Court rule that a constituent assembly (composed of both houses of Congress) would vote jointly and not separately. A friendly SC could pave the way.
This explains the confidence of the President’s son, even as he denied being the ringleader in the House:
Arroyo, however, denied that he was leading the signature campaign, saying he just signed it and discussed it with his colleagues in the House just like any other congressman.
“(I was) one of the signatories. I also asked some of my friends, like Congressman Raul Gonzales Jr, to look into the matter. That is how we are in Congress. We are a collegial body. We try to ask our colleagues who are close to us to look at the issues. There is nothing wrong with that, we are a democracy,” said Arroyo.
Arroyo said the proponent of the resolution calling for a constituent assembly, Kampi president and Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte, is the one heading the signature drive. House Speaker Prospero Nograles is also an author of a House resolution seeking to amend the Constitution’s provisions on foreign investments.
At least 163 lawmakers have signed Nograles’ resolution as of Friday morning.
“Hindi ako nagpapaikot niyan. If you look at the paper the main proponents here are Congressman Villafuerte and Speaker Nograles, and this is exactly the same piece of paper that circulated during the time of Speaker (Jose) De Venecia (Jr)… I’m not the one leading it. I don’t even know what level the signatures already,” said Arroyo.
Arroyo said he supports a constituent assembly because he wants Congress to thresh out issues about the Constitution “like scholars,” and dispelled rumors that he wants Charter Change railroaded.
The lawmaker said even if they succeed in calling for a Con-Ass, passing an amendment to the Constitution is still a long way.
“It is just calling for a Con-Ass. At the end of the day it will go back to the people for a referendum,” said Arroyo.
Arroyo said that once the House has mustered support from three-fourths or 175 out of the 238 congressmen and has created a justiciable controversy, they can compel the Supreme Court to decide on whether the Constitution should be amended by joint or separate Congress voting.
So the game plan’s all there, as the game plan’s been widely reported for some time now.
Within a few hours of the news breaking, Ellen Tordesillas was reporting on her blog the House majority was only 15 votes shy of their requirements. As of my writing this, the number of Representatives who’ve signed on to the Constituent Assembly resolution is 167. For the record, RG Cruz saw it coming and warned the public about it.
(This is a good time to review How a bill becomes a law, courtesy of The Manila Times).
The new big push goes against a rather brittle, to begin with, consensus reached in early 2007, that Charter Change was too controversial an effort to undertake for the remainder of the President’s term. That consensus then evolved into an even broader one, to simply let things be, by allowing the President to finish her term in 2010 so long as she didn’t take any overt steps to break that consensus.
That consensus has now been broken (whether or not the administration was serious about it to begin with, after facing a public rebuff in December, 2006, is debatable: some weeks back, The Lonely Vampire Chronicle wrote the Palace game plan’s two-pronged: 1. Charter Change; 2. emergency rule). The biggest obstacle to the ruling coalition’s ambitions -a Supreme Court majority not controlled by the Palace- has been taken care of, and will improve, from the Palace point of view, throughout the coming year. Only once or twice in our modern political history since 1935 has an administration enjoyed such a thorough domination of the Supreme Court. It would be political madness for the administration not to exploit -and continue to exploit- such a tremendous majority.
And there’s something in it for everyone. The President, in many ways, has built up an association with her ruling coalition based on giving her subordinates free rein in their duchies so long as they marshal themselves in her defense whenever her Queendom is threatened. Indeed, there’s something rather Elizabethan about her way of managing things. Two stories will suffice.
Earlier this year, someone told me that a Mindanao mayor recounted to him that the cost of a visitation by the President -and she likes to tour the country and drop in on local executives- was in the neighborhood of 3-5 million Pesos. That’s the cost of the security, housing, feeding, entertainment, etc. that officials have to shoulder, whenever the President and her court descends to show grace-and-favor to a local ally.
Add to this another story, by a former Treasury official, that the President travels with a government checkbook and is in the habit of whipping it out and filling out and handing out checks to officials, when she drops in on them. Among other things, it makes instant reimbursements possible, and the doling out of favors, besides, for project funding, for example. The President’s penchant for check-writing apparently drives Department of Budget and Management officials nuts, since they have to anxiously await the cashing of those checks, to find out how much the President has doled out and find ways to massage the figures into all the other government expenses being incurred.
The President, for her part, has a broad vision of the development of the country and it’s best expressed in this DPWH map:
But as for what goes on in these broad geographical divisions, she is less concerned so long as it is done by loyal allies. So even as she consolidates, for planning purposes, the national territory, at the same time, the atomization of that territory is taking place with her blessings.
Last last Tuesday, my episode on The Explainer was on the proposed division of Quezon Province. It was a scheme for which the local prelate has taken credit, and in pursuit of which the local Catholic Church has been mobilized. Much confusion has surrounded the plebiscite date, and the question has ended up before the Supreme Court. One of the leading critics of the proposed provincial split is Atty. Sonny Pulgar and three of his blog entries lays out the combination of local and national motivations for the gerrymandering he opposes. See No to Quezon division and Plebiscite Math and QUEZON del SUR: A Leap in Pitch Dark . Most interesting to me is his calculation that in a province with a voting population of 800,000 the fate of the province actually rests on a scant 100,000 voters, the expected turnout in a provincial plebiscite -which of course reduces the whole exercise to a battle of the political machines.
Honing the political machines and subordinating whatever authentic national development plans the administration has, to keeping those machines well-oiled and their leaders content, while starving all opponents, is not new. It’s simply a reality that has to be confronted. A report in Newsbreak: Mayors glad, sad over SC decision voiding 16 cities served to refocus my attention on this point. There’s a merry mix of motives and at times, the political class contradicts itself; but you can be sure that when push comes to shove, they know where their future prosperity lies.
It lies in nurturing -and there is no point nurturing something if you’re not going to trot it out and use it from time to time- the power of numbers where those numbers count. Those numbers count where they can be used in a manner that can be claimed to democratic because republican and representative: and used as a foil to popular opinion or popular sentiment. This allows the appearance of democracy to be maintained while defanging the population whose democratic sentiments contradict the instincts of the ruling coalition.
You could say that this has always been what sets representative, republican democracy from a purely plebiscitary democracy. Except you have the problem that the representative instincts of our political class clashes with the plebiscitary preferences of our broader political culture. The most effective leaders are those who have shrewdly used these plebiscitary instincts to validate and strengthen their representative claims.
An entry in Filipino Voices yesterday, by Dean Jorge Bocobo, Does the One-third Minority Rule Illegitimize Impeachment? makes me consider the flaws of the present Charter. It takes fewer votes by representatives to impeach a president than are required to rename a street. He asks if this is democratic. He says permitting a minority to impeach a President violates a cardinal principle of democracy: majority rule.
In a comment I replied that the problem he identified is only one of many problems brought up by a Constitution that was written by people who were backward-looking instead of being forward-looking; not least because the looking back looked only to their recent past, instead of the way constitution-writers have traditionally looked back, to see where the past can help in building a better political framework for the future.
In Bocobo’s entry, for example, he points to Hilario Davide proposing to reduce the number of legislators required to impeach the chief executive, based on his experience as an MP in the unlamented Batasan Pambansa. Yet Davide, by doing so, and trying to unshackle the legislature from the tyranny of numbers, ignored altogether the larger, richer, history of impeachment as a process.
Fr. Bernas, one of the authors of the Constitution, has himself suggested that one of their innovations, the Judicial and Bar Council as replacement for the Commission on Appointments as the vetting authority for presidential appointments to the Supreme Court, should be dispensed with. For all its limitations, the old way of vetting appointments to the Supreme Court seems to have been better.
So here’s just some, and I’m sure other have their own list, of the the things wrong with the Constitution: that a minority suffices for impeachment, substituting the Judicial and Bar Council for the Commission on Appointments, maintaining the Marcos era authority to automatically reenact budgets, instituting the military as guardian of the state, instituting a multiparty system without runoff elections for national office, electing the Senate in halves instead of thirds, all established a system designed not to function at all -or perhaps, to be more accurate about it, takes principles of checks and balances to extremes.
A critic of our intervention in the impeachment, blogger Seven Million Golden Fish, by pointing to the lack of a consensus on the appropriateness of the Supreme Court’s decision on the BJE-MOA, also tangentially points to an ongoing debate on the current Supreme Court, and the elimination, for all intents and purposes, of the Political Question doctrine, again an innovation introduced into the present Constitution by former Chief Justice, because of the Supreme Court’s shameful surrender to the chief executive in the Javellana v. Executive Secretary case, which provided the legal justification for the New Society.
For example, personally, I am a believer in a strong presidency. But a presidency armed with positive powers institutionally-ordained, and not wrested by means of subverting the constitutional order. And yet I do agree, to a certain extent, with the assertion of defenders of the President, like Alex Magno, that the presidency under the 1987 Constitution is condemned to fighting for its political life from the very start, which hampers the ability of any president to get anything done within their limited, six-year term (I also subscribe to the dictum put forward by Jose Yulo back in the 1930s: “six years is too long for a bad president and too short for a good one”). The presidency has to bear the burden of historical expectations of authority and dynamism, while being deprived of what makes that authority legitimate and arms the office with the ability to get things done: a firm mandate.
You could argue that a president who wants to achieve anything -and who has the combination of ruthlessness, fortitude, vision, and good luck any chief executive requires- has no choice but to bend the rules, circumvent them, or or flout them, to exercise the authority the public and political class both expect of the institution. That if the current President can claim certain achievements -and be condemned for institutional, constitutional, legal, moral, and administrative and political shortcomings- they are two sides of the same coin, which is, that the office has tremendous potential shackled by tremendous limitations, not in the personality of whoever happens to be chief executive, but in the way the whole politico-legal framework has been shakily established since 1987.
The citizenry then, is in a Catch-22 situation. Most everyone who takes the time to ponder the present constitutional framework finds its shortcomings to be so extensive, some sort of change is required -even a total overhaul. Only those who helped write the present Charter seem to hold it in some sort of affection. The problem, and this is at the heart of anything political, is timing. To make the necessary changes requires a great deal of trust in those in authority -and that trust simply doesn’t exist. So the dilemma is, make necessary changes yes, but making those changes will perpetuate the existing problems, or replace them with entire different, but quite possible, worse ones?
More on that in my next entry.
As for co-intervenor, blogger blog@AWBHoldings.com, the solution is very simple. Amend the Constitution to establish a hereditary monarchy:
I take offense at the prevailing culture of money and power not only in the House, but in all elected offices.
There is no use rebutting their arguments. As I have said earlier, they do not listen to reason. They have chosen to be deaf to the people’s voice. They have chosen to be dumb in exchange for whatever they want.
They have become subservient to the one who dispenses power and money. Which brings me to my next point.
From next week till they adjourn to enjoy the fruist of their kowtowing for the Christmas break, the House can deal with Charter change. With the recent breeding of a new mongrel in the Senate of the Republic, a Charter change in whatever mode is now possible. Since it is inevitable (if we believe Jesus Dureza and Gloria Arroyo’s supporters in the Intarwebs), I will swim with the current and support Charter change for one condition and one condition only: OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE, HEREDITARY MONARCHY WITH A SUBSERVIENT PARLIAMENT, COMPOSED OF A HOUSE OF LORDS AND A HOUSE OF COMMONS.
I have several reasons why I am making this condition.
1. Both Houses of Congress and majority of the elected officials of this country are acting as if Gloria Arroyo is queen anyway, so dispense with bullshit called democracy and establish an absolute monarchy, which is what is existing now.
2. Our elected officials act as if their offices are theirs and their kin’s, so dispense with the bullshit called elections and establish a hereditary monarchy with hereditary peerages, which is what is existing now, anyway.
3. Our officials act as if they derive their power from God, so dispense with the bullshit called separation of Church and State and instead establish a monarchy with a state religion, which is what is existing now, anyway.
4. Our officials love their titles so much, so dispense with the bullshit called leaders-as-servants-of-the-people and instead establish a monarchy with all the peerages and titles that we can bestow.
5. Lastly, our officials love acting before the cameras and pageantry. So dispense with the bullshit called republicanism and instead establish a monarchy with all the pomp and pageantry that it entails.
Oh well. The problem is some Palace bootlicker might just take the above entry seriously.
Until then, let me revisit this question posed last February: what to do, when When our representatives fail?
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
hvrds on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 1:09 pm
I have heard a notable observer once mention that the Philippines actually never did evolve with a full blown feudal social format.
The Americans imposed a pseudo cover of representative government.
That ersatz type of political format is busting at the seams so to speak.
Whether Big Mike and GMA seize the moment or someone other group the test will be in the the effect.
Let us forget the notion that we are a truly representative democratic country. We cannot afford it yet. It requires a a healthy material base on which to exist. That is the only way that civil society can come about.
One of the most amazing moments in recent history was the testimony and questioning of Alan Greenspan in the U.S. Congress.
That is the beauty of argumentation and communication of ideas. It was breathtaking. That had to be a seminal moment in the history of the last 20-30 years.
Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman: I will start the questioning. Dr. Greenspan, I want to start with you. You were the longest serving chairman of the Federal Reserve in history and during this period of time were perhaps the leading proponent of deregulation of our financial markets. Certainly you were the most influential voice for deregulation. You have been a staunch advocate for letting markets regulate themselves. Let me give you a few of your past statements. In 1994 you testified at a congressional hearing on regulation of financial derivatives. You said there’s nothing involved in federal regulation which makes it superior to market regulation. In 1997, you said there appears to be no need for Government regulation of off exchanged derivative transactions. In 2002 when the collapse of Enron led to renewed congressional efforts to regulate derivatives, you wrote to the Senate, we do not believe a public policy case exists to justify this Government intervention and earlier this year you wrote in the Financial Times, bank loan officers in my experience know far more about the risks and workings of their counterparties than do Bank regulators. My question for you is simple, were you wrong?
Alan Greenspan: I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, was capable of protecting their own shareholders and the equity in the firms, and it has been my experience, having worked both as a regulator for 18 years and similar quantities in the private sector, especially 10 years at a major international bank, that the loan officers of those institutions knew far more about the risks involved and the people to whom they lent money than I saw even our best regulators at the fed capable of doing. So the problem here is something which looked to be a very solid edifice and indeed a critical pillar to market competition and free markets did break down and I think that shocked me. I still do not fully understand why it happened and obviously to the extent that I figure out where it happened and why, I will change my views. As the facts change, I will change.
Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman: I’m going to interrupt you. The question I have for you is, you had an ideology. This is your statement. “I do have an ideology. My judgment is that free competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies. We have tried regulation, none meaningfully worked.†That was your quote. You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price. Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?
Alan Greenspan: I found a flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works”
hvrds on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 1:20 pm
The most severe economic contraction due to the present crisis is happening in the most open economic model in S.E. Asia. Singapore. (Over -5%)
Their savings which are invested all over the world have suffered tremendous contraction.
If one were to apply fair value accounting standards or mark to market value accounting to most of the major banks of the world they would be insolvent.
Obama’s assumption to the Presidency will herald a return to strong state intervention in markets in the U.S. and where the U.S. has a national interest.
In the coming months when economic pressures rise the form of government will matter less.
as a private citizen on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 1:46 pm
Finally, we now agree that there is a NEED to change the Constitution..
now, all that’s left to ask is: When?
hvrds on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 2:19 pm
“Finally, we now agree that there is a NEED to change the Constitution..”
There is no ‘we’ yet. There is only Big Mike and GMA.
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 3:29 pm
i hope it is made clear to the public -
what’s being floated around the House now is the attempt to form the Con-Ass, and not yet the charter change itself
PhilwoSpEditor on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 3:42 pm
as a private citizen,
“Finally, we now agree that there is a NEED to change the Constitution..
now, all that’s left to ask is: When?”
Tell that to the idiots who are our so-called representatives… I say, when is a matter of not having Gloria as the head on the sinking ark and having at least 30% of our officials as honest individuals.
then again, I think hvrds has it better… Only Big Mike and GMA can say when… reminds me of the Marcos / Imelda tandem. Even the first Gentleman has the powers of a illigit president.
mlq3 on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 3:46 pm
as a private citizen, there is no consensus on what should be changed, or how, or what the changes should be.
PhilwoSpEditor on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 3:51 pm
anthony scalia,
do you think it will be by the constituents??? Remember that blotched people’s initiative?
mlq3 on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 3:55 pm
anthony, that is as switik as a statement gets.
Bert on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:08 pm
the cauldron is boiling and they are not aware of it
so they keep on stoking the fire
when congress through with their bully shit
then that’s it, time for the barbwire
BrianB on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:09 pm
private citizen. Lots of laws not being applied.
For Constitutional ammendments we must first answer the all importan question: Should ALL laws in the Philippines be followed.
Some laws are only there as tokens, touchstones for our unique mind. But, alas, the Filipino mind is not the sole functionary of the Filipino culture so called.
Bert on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:30 pm
“what’s being floated around the House now is the attempt to form the Con-Ass, and not yet the charter change itself”-anthony
Heheh, that’s like saying “..they are dressing the chicken but they are not cooking it”
anybody wants to eat raw chicken?
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:33 pm
PhilwoSpEditor :
“do you think it will be by the constituents??? Remember that blotched people’s initiative?”
***fingers crossed***
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:36 pm
“anthony, that is as switik as a statement gets.”
sorry mlq3, pero di ko na-gets. di ba a “switik” is a scrooge?
KG on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:36 pm
Mlq3,
I remembered you asking me why I agree for quezon to bedivided into two, and I said napababayaan ang southern quezon,a nd you said it is just gerrymandering and gave sharif kabungsuan as an example..
I know that sharif kabungsuan being a province,with one of the reasons being that the RLA of the ARMM introduced it and unlike congress it has no power to create provinces.(or something like that)
But many say that creatingthe province and slicing Maguindanao was to serve a politica(moro)l warlord’s interest.
I still do not get why divison of quezon will be treated as gerrymandering. e sa totoo lang talaga namang malaki ang diperensya ng northern quezon sa southern quezon in more ways than one..
KG on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:39 pm
“I know that sharif kabungsuan being a province,”
I should have stated that sharif kabungsuan was not allowed to become a province separate from Maguindanao.
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:42 pm
Bert,
ehem
have you read the resolution being passed around in the House?
please tell me how the proposed amendments are worded. particularly how will gloria be allowed to continue as president or to run again in 2010
KG on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:45 pm
eto ang gerrymandering,if this ever happens :
slicing and dicing the province of Dato Arroyo and Nonoy Andaya(Camarines Sur).
How will nonoy andaya run for congress (in his old district) now that Dato is there????
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 4:57 pm
it seems a good number of posters here still believe that once the Con Ass proposes amendments, thats it – charter change effected already.
was it in 2006 or 2007? when JDV was still with gloria, the House tried to “whiff out” the Con-Ass without waiting for a similar move from the Senate. the people then thought that if the House succeeded, charter change effected already!
if Sigaw won in the SC, people also thought that charter change was deemed effective already!
lots and lots of misguided souls.
even sadder is the anti gloria school continues to fan the flame of a “charter-change-without-referendum” scheme of gloria
for one thing – expect a protracted battle in the Supreme Court even before a referendum on the amendments is deliberated by the COMELEC
Bert on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 5:39 pm
anthony,
eherm also
honestly, do you really believe they are dressing the chicken without the intention of cooking it? no spin please.
The EQualizer on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 5:41 pm
Reina Gloria Primera!
Her HIGHness?
madre mia!
mlq3 on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 6:09 pm
scalia, um no one is suggesting charter-change-without-referendum. read again. but then you will have a different opinion about the integrity of any election/plebiscite held by the present comelec.
KG on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 7:03 pm
Back to the Quezon division.
Reading the link “No to Quezon division”
I thought it would be make me change my views.
parang no to self reliance ang dating,parang pano maambunan ang south ng biyaya na galing sa north, puro retaso lang ang mapupunta sa kanila?
at anong klaseng dahilan ang pagkadehado ng south sa pag banggit na wala itong crown jewels tulad ng sa northern part.
I am interested because I trace my roots to Mulanay Quezon, I can see the forsaken coconut industry can be revived among other things, maybe in the near future that is what I will do.
I just think that del sur can stand on its own, if and when given the chance.
saxnviolins on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 8:03 pm
Even if the House gets a unanimous vote, there will be no Con-ass if the Senate does not pass a resolution to meet.
Remember the Congress must be in joint session assembled, in order to propose amendments or a revision.
Geo on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 8:12 pm
People of various political stripes and colors all agree that the present constitution is flawed and that changes are needed.
The first question is: When should it be addressed? (Conass vs Concom is the second question).
The only reason it’s not being dealt with now is that the anti-GMAs can only frame any discussions within the context of Gloria extending her term.
So, because of them, we all have to wait even longer for the remedies which are sorely needed.
But when will that be? Just who, exactly, is going to signal to the rest of us that’s it’s now “safe” to debate some amendments? What if Leah Navarro and Bishop Cruz don’t like the next President or VP or Senate Prez or whatever?
UP n grad on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 8:52 pm
Side-topic:
Danding and five other rich Filipino businessmen finally realized it was time to end the GMA reign, so they quietly let it be known to the senators that someone has to plant the Red-Kiss-of-Mars onto GMA’s cheeks. The touchy part was this is a one-man-, not a committee-project. Also that whoever plants the Red-Kiss-of-Mars onto GMA may not have a chance of returning to the Senate floor. Danding-and-group got the highest-ranking member of the CBCP (name will not be mentioned) to be interviewer.
The interviewer asked the first applicant, Gringo Honasan, how much he wanted to be paid for doing the Kiss-project.. “Fifty million pesos,†Gringo answered. “And I want to donate all the money to Baguio PMA – my alma mater..â€
The cardinal asked the second applicant, Richard Gordon, how much he wanted to be
paid for the Kiss-of-Mars.. “Two million dollars,†Gordon answered. “And I want to donate one million to Ateneo and one million to the UP Law School.â€
The last applicant was Enrile. When asked how much money he wanted, he whispered in the cardinal’s ear, “Five million dollars.â€
“Why so much more than the others?†the interviewer asked.
JPE replied, “You give me five million, I’ll give you one million, and I’ll keep two million. The other two-mil goes to Dick Gordon. Yes, Gringo may be cheaper but he’s an unreliable ass. Two-million goes to Gordon to put the Red-Kiss on GMA’s cheeks.”
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 9:29 pm
quezon,
“um no one is suggesting charter-change-without-referendum.”
oh really? that is what those paranoid about cha-cha are saying – its a done deal!
“read again.”
oh yes. by the way, im talking about the anti gloria school paranoid about cha cha.
“but then you will have a different opinion about the integrity of any election/plebiscite held by the present comelec.”
um you seem to have forgotten the results of the 2007 senatorial elections, administered by that same COMELEC of the present
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 9:37 pm
Bert :
“honestly, do you really believe they are dressing the chicken without the intention of cooking it?”
my friend, amending the Constitution is already 21 years delayed!
“no spin please.”
ikaw lang naman ang nagsasabing meron spin eh
Bert on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 9:51 pm
The Filipino people are very discerning. They will know which politician are looking only for their own interests and which politician has the heart for the people even if they should look also for their own, for all of them always do.
In time everything will come to its proper place. We have been manipulated, intimidated and taken advantaged of by greedy politicians for too long already because of our high degree of tolerance and patience. But tolerance and patience have their limits. Now is not the time to test them.
Changing the form of government with the same set of people at the top is like transfering from one bus to another for no valid cause and reason. There are other priorities more pressing than changing the form of government.
There is no need to wait for any signal. We’ll just have to keep tab with our people and know their pulse then we will know when.
Bert on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 9:57 pm
anthony,
I’ve been looking for your answer to my question, can’t find it. Try again please.
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:08 pm
Bert,
“But tolerance and patience have their limits. Now is not the time to test them.”
don’t underestimate the Filipino
“There is no need to wait for any signal. We’ll just have to keep tab with our people and know their pulse then we will know when.”
you already know their pulse – no to “patalsikin na now na”
yet you still persist in it!
oh yes there is really no need to wait for any signal. the Filipino people already know the shenanigans of the always-trying-hard ‘united’ opposition they focus their efforts on nation-building and not on any “patalsikin na now na” ek-ek
up to now, you still haven’t figured it out, don’t you – gloria’s continued stay in the Palace is due to the competence of the ‘united opposition’
im still wondering why the present ‘united opposition’ does not have the unity and cohesion of the anti erap forces during circa EDSA II?
(not to mention the backing of the people!)
anthony scalia on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:09 pm
Bert,
i already did
Geo on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:24 pm
One thing I’ve always wondered: Why is it in vogue to think that Cha-Cha would be pursued vigorously for the benefit of Gloria?
The desire for a Parliamentary system, I believe, traces back to JDV, Ramos and Lakas. The loss to the populist Erap and the non-Presidentiability of JDV and Ramos reduced the options for the Lakas leadership down to one: Cha-Cha.
When Erap fell, going with the ally VP was easy. But then Cha-Cha never got off the ground before 2004. So Lakas stuck with GMA again and entered in a joint venture with Kampi. The idea, I surmise, was that GMA was supportive of the change and it was understood that, at some point, power would go from the Prez (her) to the PM (JDV, FVR, whatever they arranged).
When the Garci Tapes exploded onto the scene, FVR and JDV helped hold the fort…and probably expected/demanded an expedited pace towards Cha-Cha. And, yes, they all did try their best in several attempts afterwards. But as time wore on, GMA, her entourage and Kampi emerged to rival Lakas. After the failed referendum and 2007 elections, GMA seemed to further distance the palace from Cha-Cha.
Now, even with JDV out of the picture, the Kampi-Lakas Congressmen, Governors and mayors still want a parliamentary system. They are the dominant national “party” after all. A Federalist structure would also probably work, as the incumbents are entrenched locally.
And there are probably several players who are dreaming of being the PM. I don’t think they would want GMA to stay beyond 2010 either.
Bottom line — I find this scenario more credible than the “Gloria-for-ever!” doomsday scenario.
cvj on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:37 pm
Yeah Geo, in a parliamentary system, the politicians are freer to jockey among themselves for the post of PM since the post does not have to be directly elected by the people at large. Of course, GMA has the advantage of the incumbent.
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:47 pm
“Why is it in vogue to think that Cha-Cha would be pursued vigorously for the benefit of Gloria?”
–same as the reasons of JDV and FVR for amending the constitution then, for self serving interest to stay in power beyond the present constitution permits! hey if you could wait till 2010 to get rid of an illegitimate president to step down (if ever she does), then you can wait past 2010 for cha cha.
Geo on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:48 pm
Yes, cvj — we’re all aware of the theory that she wants to extend.
On the other hand, there are many valid reasons to believe that she truly doesn’t. So I offered an alternative theory…one that fits nicely with the facts that we have on hand. It’s the House and LGU’s who are now pursuing FVR/JDV/Lakas’ path…for their own political interests (and not GMA’s).
I realize that the anti-GMAs won’t like this scenario much, either. But I personally find it more credible.
The EQualizer on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:49 pm
Gloria Arroyo,Pride comes before the fall!
One Day In The Near Future:
Headline:”It’s All Over;The Pidals On Exile!”
cvj on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:52 pm
Geo, are you suggesting that Gloria Arroyo’s son is in league with the FVR/JDV/Lakas camp against her Mom? That’s even more contrived than your interpretation of Hello Garci.
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 10:55 pm
And there are probably several players who are dreaming of being the PM. I don’t think they would want GMA to stay beyond 2010 either.
HOHOHO.
Geo on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 11:05 pm
istambay,
ummm…the question is — why would the House go through so much trouble so that GMA could stay in power? It makes more sense for them to let her step down in 2010 and hope that one of them gets the Premiership. They don’t need her.
Meanwhile, various proposals have contained caveats (no one, in any position, will be allowed to extend), and the Senate isn’t about to roll over that easy either. The SC will probably have to get involved. This will take time.
The incumbents will be well-placed even if they step down and run again for a position, anyway. So I’m not so sure they need to do an overkill…they just need to keep moving things forward.
(By the way, I’m not personally for rapid political/structural changes, I’d just like to see the economic areas get addressed right away, right now.)
Bert on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 11:11 pm
istambay,
you are beginning to sound like Santa Claus, heheh, is Christmas that near already? Cheers.
anthony,
you don’t want to answer my question? ok lang.
Geo on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 11:11 pm
Don’t be silly, cvj. They don’t need to be against her…especially if she has no intention to stay longer.
NEWSFLASH — Mike Arroyo suffers a heart attack on a plane. No kidding.
And I was going to write that one of the big reasons I don’t think she has any interest is her family. Her husband can’t take much pressure and her daughter wants her out.
PS — your Garci interpretation has been proven false; mine correct. How convoluted can you now be, cvj?
Bert on Fri, 21st Nov 2008 11:52 pm
“my friend, amending the Constitution is already 21 years delayed!”-anthony
Ah, so that’s your answer to my question, sorry, mahina talaga ang pick up ko.
You are saying they will cook the chicken after all. That’s good. So, what were you saying the first time?
That:
“what’s being floated around the House now is the attempt to form the Con-Ass, and not yet the charter change itselfâ€-anthony
grd on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:17 am
haaaay! si bert talaga… hindi na ata nakakatulog.
one more time.
The sky is falling!!!
have faith my friend. the guru Enrile, with his generals in tow are ready for battle. just ask tongue…. just disregard the “prophesy”.
bpga on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:24 am
Manolo, what’s happening in Quezon is similar to our own…. divide and conquer strategy. They are even better than us, they will keep Quezon’s name….the constituents here have no idea of what is going on in one of our towns, not even tsimis. The law to divide has already been laid out in Congress, ready to be signed (you very well know the proposed name of town, heheheh). Few of us were lucky to read it in Pakeng Kidlat’s BB.
mlq3 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 3:52 am
scalia, yes, the same comelec that put in the senator from maguindanao.
the constitution is sloppily written regarding voting for amendments. it was written for a unicameral legislature and they forgot to edit it to conform to the procedure for a bicameral legislature. normally, reference to the concom proceedings might help but these aren’t normal times, and you have the administration’s leading, uh, lights, pushing the theory that the sc can compel both houses to vote together which would dilute the senate’s votes even if it voted unanimously against amendments, which it won’t.
geo, i’d concede that the president’s main interests might be to retire with grace, thereby proving her critics wrong and failures, while not going down in history as yet another ousted failure like fm and jee. and that the president thinks she might be better off swinging an election the way of someone obliging enough to ensure she retains a keep out of jail free card. but that’s as far as i’m willing to concede, based on what i consider facts in contrast to your own set of facts.
it’s also probable that there are many officials in the clover who enjoy the president’s unique situation of having justices and an ombudsman personally obliged and loyal to her, and that loyalty may be non-transferable. the president is also so widely disliked she serves as a convenient lightning rod for her subordinates, not all of whom are loyal -or loyal all the time. they certainly have a vested interest in keeping the current situation going or making it even more convenient.
congressmen could simply be myopic: most are content to be the local barons and so long as their fiefdoms are theirs, they couldn’t care less what happens nationally so long as they partake of the public purse. offer them term limits, a chance at both executive and legislative office without the bother and expense of national elections in which most would be uncompetitive anyway, and there you go, heaven. if you have a fairly good transactional relationship with the chief executive, you can also plan to keep her there for now and sniff around for opportunity, later. if you were manuel villar you’d be tempted to ponder whether the bother and unpredictability of a national election is worth it compared to aspiring to be pm, no different in the way it works from being speaker or senate president, both of which are positions villar has occupied.
don’t underestimate the motive power of lifting term limits, a cause for unescessary expense, family infighting, and out-from-left-field attacks from rivals who see an entrenched wily old patriarch giving way to a greenhorn; lifting term limits alone would make constitutional change and a continued arroyo presidency or rebranding as a premiership worth it.
so there are a lot of mixed motivations and motivations might even change from day to day based on the way the wind is blowing.
one discussion i’m hearing a lot now is whether the president gained by enrile’s becoming senate president or if the wily old coot is now giving her kittens. suddenly, he is third in line. if the senate presidency is a sweet achievement for someone of his generation, imagine the glitter of becoming president, even a transitional one. of course there is the inconvenience of the vice-president, but that’s only one obstacle in the way of say, the cabinet declaring the president incapacitated, which, if disputed by the president would then be thrown to congress -which the senate would heartily endorse and which the house would have to contemplate: this is where the man’s reputation for brute force might trump any residual loyalty to an isolated president arroyo.
a fanciful theory for now but that it’s being discussed along with the long-standing cojuangco-de venecia-fvr-villar combine (NPC, formerly a wing of the NP, plus Lakas FVR wing, plus the old NP, which incidentally recently applied to be recognized by Christian Democrats International) means that there are shifting alliances all smarting from being outfoxed and sidelined by the president. these aren’t oppositionists but the president’s allies, coalition scheming in true japanese factional fashion.
i wouldn’t even discount -indeed i believe- a jee-gma tacit alliance of sorts, where jinggoy can rise to his level of incompetence and the san juan duchy left untouched, and with jee wittingly or unwittingly playing the bogeyman to scare the bejeezus out of the middle and upper classes into clutching at the president’s skirts. all helped along by the rather uninspiring set of presidentiables at present.
the president has taken the measure of all her enemies and the only thing that catches her off guard are the truly unpredictable events, except she has more cabinet and other clusters to game scenarios and more resources to circle the wagons so she manages to regain her equilibrium each time.
interestingly enough she was at her weakest when she exiled her husband and when he had his heart attack. his being trundled off to a japanese hospital will surely cause friends and foes alike to start seeing what the political barometer registers.
mlq3 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:34 am
kg, gerrymander to produce a district that is going to achieve benefits for the entrenched parties and powers, from establishing a provincial government from top to bottom, separate deratchments of the pnp, satellite officies of national agencies, an a separatre slice of the national budgetarty pie.
my main beef is that the ones who ewill decide the province will probably be a small minority and that shiyldb;tr be the way to accomplish a major division in a major province. not to mention thst offficiallu, it’s a church-proposed and led political redrawing of the map.
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 7:21 am
quezon,
oh yes, the same comelec that put in the colleagues of that senator from maguindanao. your senators
the election of your senators put in by that same comelec who put in that senator from maguindanao guaranteed a 2/3 vote of conviction in case gloria gets impeached
until your senators put on their bright minds to work and engineered the installation of a new senate president
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 8:32 am
quezon,
hence the need to amend it (the constitution)!
“…pushing the theory that the sc can compel both houses to vote together which would dilute the senate’s votes even if it voted unanimously against amendments, which it won’t.”
rest assured the SC will not see it that way. each house must vote separately, both on the formation of the Con Ass and the approval of proposed amendments
even if term limits were extended, i don’t think it will benefit the incumbent. the extension will take effect on the term of the incumbent’s successor
i don’t see gloria being allowed to (1) run again in 2010 or (2) extend her term beyond June 30, 2010 whether as president or as interim prime minister. time is too short for amendments to allow those by 2010
what im unsure of is if gloria can run for a 2nd nonconsecutive term
The EQualizer on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 9:49 am
“As we sow, we reap somewhere and sometime, in this life or in a future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or in the past.â€
Can The Pidals Escape The Law Of KARMA?
KG on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 10:01 am
mlq3,
duly noted and thanks!
mlq3 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:47 am
scalia, you just don’t know how the system work. there are some obvius winners you can’t cheat. there are others, specially the ones who take up the rear, who get in not just on a wing and a prayer but a little help from their friends. but then of course you would refuse to see how he snuck in.
mlq3 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:49 am
scalia, one justice is already going to leave the supreme court earlier than scheduled because she does not want to become a party to her generation’s javella v. executive secretary. wtf are you talking about.
Bert on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:57 am
“haaaay! si bert talaga… hindi na ata nakakatulog.”
grd,
paano ka namang makakatulog, eh, ang gulo-gulo ni anthony.
Geo on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 12:04 pm
mlq3,
It’s funny that you can’t get yourself to just say: “I’ll concede that the president’s main interests might be to retire.” You just have to throw in your extreme partisan projections, don’t you?
You further demonstrate your lack of objective fairness by claiming that Gloria has justices (SC, i take it) who are “obliged and loyal to her.” The SC has ruled against her plenty. This is a misleading charge.
Your multiple political scenarios are possible, I guess, but I’m not sure I get your point.
My comment is: You seem to think that all politicians not aligned with Gloria are incapable of winning. Why can’t they win an open, local election?
Certainly — in a Parliamentary system, at least — strong parties are a must. So, yeah, even if no Cha-Cha is forthcoming, I’d expect mergers and partnerships to form now.
In fact, one of the opposition’s biggest weaknesses is that it can’t unify very well. If they could all swear allegiance to UNO, that’d be a different thing. But we haven’t seen that to date. Seems like their ranks are filled with selfish, myopic, arrogant trapos who would rather pursue their own agenda without cooperating closely with others.
See? Two can play that game, mlq3.
Look, the reality is that the political landscape will most likely change a lot going forward. The “GMA forever” is but one possibility…and a low probability one at that. It would be nice if some of the anti-GMAs could increase their scope of intellectual activity…..
Bert on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 12:29 pm
“It would be nice if some of the anti-GMAs could increase their scope of intellectual activity…..”
You mean you like that stuff, Geo. Like, maybe, the scope of “intellectual activities” of Da Apo Ferdie and Ate Glo?
You know they have lots of ‘em which endeared them to the people.
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 12:54 pm
Bert :
“paano ka namang makakatulog, eh, ang gulo-gulo ni anthony.”
hoy ikaw ang magulo
mlq3 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:00 pm
geo, i love it how everything i write is partisan and everything you write is objective. and how let’s say you can ignore the voting record of the president’s court appointees -or even the way the supreme court functions, particularly since the 1970s.
when was an election with guns and goons a factor ever considered open, geo? there will be non-administration affiliated candidates who can win upset victories, but they will be flukes like among ed. the odds are stacked against non-administration affiliated candidates except in areas where a particular family is so well entrenched it can trump more recent affiliations on the national level. then it doesn’t really matter, and doesn’t become an issue, because whoever is president will be supported by that family as a pragmatic policy.
regarding parties, there has only ever been one party in this country, the ruling party. this is nothing unique, it is also the way things developed in malaysia and indonesia, so thee might be a cultural aspect to it. the parliamentary system the ruling coalition envisions is consciously modeled on unmo, for example.
i do concur with your description of the mainstream political opposition and i’ve made that observation many times here, too. again this is not unique, it is there in malaysia and indonesia and even thailand, it is par for the course in being out of power in a political culture that puts a premium on “belonging.”
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:23 pm
“ummm…the question is — why would the House go through so much trouble so that GMA could stay in power? It makes more sense for them to let her step down in 2010 and hope that one of them gets the Premiership. They don’t need her.”
–the answer to your question is another question. why would you kill the goose that lays the golden egg? the gift that keeps on giving! the beauty of it all, gma takes all the blame. gma gets to be the bad guy! and everybody gets to eat their cake! except of course the filipino people who labors and pay their taxes and e-vat!
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:39 pm
“i don’t see gloria being allowed to (1) run again in 2010 or (2) extend her term beyond June 30, 2010 whether as president or as interim prime minister. time is too short for amendments to allow those by 2010″
–”marcos would not dare declare martial law”, guess what? it took us, filipino people 20+ yrs later to finally kick him out of malacanang!
you cannot blame those who have studied their history or have experienced martial law or it’s victims to be paranoid!
Geo on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:50 pm
mlq3,
I’m non-partisan because I listen to what the people say, see what tangible things they do and weigh things according to what facts and “known” things are on hand. That leaves a lot open for speculation…there is no monopoly of knowledge held by anyone.
You are partisan because no matter what some say, no matter what factual, tangible things are done and/or known, you make decisions based on your prejudgements…despite that they are not grounded with supporting evidence. Your “Truth” is omniscient…even in the face of contradictory evidence.
SC: I don’t want to ignore anything about the SC and its relationship with Presidents…especially between appointees and appointers. Pls edify me.
But it seems that the SC, today, is comprised of many GMA appointees already. So what can we say about this SC version? Has it demonstrated obvious favor towards Gloria? If yes, how can one explain the rulings against her and her allies?
Guns/Goons: So you are saying that all elections (save for a wild outlier now and then) are determined only by goons and guns? So, does that mean you don’t think we should have any elections?
If — in a new Parliamentary system — there are no incumbents and all elections will be open to registered parties, why do you think non-Lakas/Kampi types can’t win? What’s wrong with them?
Parties: You seem to actually be arguing for having a Parliamentary system with strong party affiliations. The PM would now need the rest of the party more than the party would need a specific PM. Meanwhile, the party’s actual deeds and policies would be clearly differentiated from others. Lastly, the general population would now successfully — and efficiently, peacefully — affect a change in leadership/party.
Anyway….a debate about how to improve things would be a welcome change to the long-running anti-progress stand of the anti-GMA crowd. Cha-cha must occur, like it or not.
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 1:52 pm
quezon,
“you just don’t know how the system work.”
***falls from seat***
look who’s talking!
“there are some obvious winners you can’t cheat.”
oh yes! oh yes!
“there are others, specially the ones who take up the rear, who get in not just on a wing and a prayer but a little help from their friends.”
your senators, right?
“but then of course you would refuse to see how he snuck in.”
yeah right.
you also refuse to see how your senators snuck in
obviously you are the one who is still clueless on how the system really works!
“one justice is already going to leave the supreme court earlier than scheduled because she does not want to become a party to her generation’s javella v. executive secretary.”
noted. who could that be? maybe you are just exhibiting the usual paranoia expected from members of the anti gloria school
i bet you have not read the text of Javellana case.
if you did, you won’t be paranoid.
“wtf are you talking about.”
i should ask you that. wtf are you paranoid about?
why don’t we make a bet –
if an amendment is in place that allows gloria to run in May 2010 or extends her term beyond June 30, 2010 – i’ll quit posting here (not that i’ll be missed, i know)
otherwise, you’ll create a thread with the title
“On gloria beyond 2010 – I was just taking to heart the title of Andy Grove’s book ‘Only the Paranoid Survive’ ”
and an acknowledgment that “the anti anti school are correct – gloria couldn’t run in 2010 nor extend beyond June 30, 2010 and that the anti gloria school just went through years of unncessary paranoia”
deal?
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 2:09 pm
istambay_sakalye :
“you cannot blame those who have studied their history or have experienced martial law or it’s victims to be paranoid!”
why? did you experience martial law? were you a victim of martial law?
bet john lennon was already dead when you were born
its obvious you have not read your history right!
for one thing my dear kababayan – magkaiba ang cha-cha sa declaration of martial law! nung panahon ni Macoy, kaya nyang i-declare mag-isa ang martial law.
not the same with cha cha, which can’t be effected by one person
napakaraming balakid sa cha cha.
kung sabagay, its your life so i can’t interfere with your decision to be paranoid
oo nga pala. i keep forgetting that the anti gloria school lives by the following principles:
a. the sky is falling
b. just because you are not paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you
wait, to articulate the issues on cha cha better, lets be clear:
our issue is whether the cha cha can be in place in time to allow gloria to run again in 2010 or to extend her term beyond 2010 (including serving as interim prime minister)
the paranoid anti gloria school believes its possible
the sober anti anti school says no its not
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 2:23 pm
“why? did you experience martial law? were you a victim of martial law?”
yes i experienced martial law and yes a family member was a victim of martial law! he was never the same again and he was ruined for the rest of his life! now that does answer your question?
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 2:26 pm
“bet john lennon was already dead when you were born”
–you can bet all your monies on this! john lennon was alive and smoking marijuana when i was born!
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 2:30 pm
“or one thing my dear kababayan – magkaiba ang cha-cha sa declaration of martial law! nung panahon ni Macoy, kaya nyang i-declare mag-isa ang martial law.
not the same with cha cha, which can’t be effected by one person
napakaraming balakid sa cha cha”
–are you just blind? can’t you see writing on the wall? my God i can’t a fellow can be this thick! i bet you weren’t even thought of when martial law was declared! i thought you are smarter than this!
marcos never mag-isa when he declared martial? you forgot johnny, tabaco, and the rest was with him?
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 3:03 pm
“the paranoid anti gloria school believes its possible
the sober anti anti school says no its not”
– it’s hard not be paranoid and sober when you have experienced how people and politicians drunk with power act. just like when the philippine constabulary and cis during the martial law years. you can just disappear and never to be seen and heard again. now please don’t tell me that macoy had nothing to do with those crimes.
pretty much the same today that, gma being well known to be a micro manager not be informed what her subordinates were doing during MOA-BJE negotiations! and same thing with everything else that she was not aware of the anomalies during the ZTE and north rail projects among other things. you don’t have to be rocket scientist or sherlock holmes to deduce that one plus one equals two.
Bert on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 3:08 pm
“why don’t we make a bet –
if an amendment is in place that allows gloria to run in May 2010 or extends her term beyond June 30, 2010 – i’ll quit posting here (not that i’ll be missed, i know)”-anthony
no deal, anthony. I don’t want you to quit posting here, will make manolo’s blog less interesting.
but maybe we can revise your betting statement, how about this: “if chacha succeeds and gloria stays in government….”
fair enough?
the bet: 100 pitik sa monitor
if chacha succeeds ikaw pipitik, if not ako.
parati kang panalo riyan sa betting na iyan, ako always talo, pero ok lang.
deal?
Geo on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 3:22 pm
OK. so wtf are you so paranoid about? That GMA will extend? How will that happen? Let’s see…
The House votes for Cha-Cha and claims 3/4 of Congress…even though the Senators overwhelmingly vote “no”.
The Senate takes it to the SC. The SC rules that it’s one Congress and 3/4 is 3/4…Cha-Cha passes.
The House reps vote to extend their and GMA’s terms, to have no term limits, to abolish the Senate and whatever else.
The institutions all happily support this. You know, the CBCP, Biz groups, the military and police.
All that will happen, eh?
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 3:30 pm
“why don’t we make a bet -
if an amendment is in place that allows gloria to run in May 2010 or extends her term beyond June 30, 2010 – i’ll quit posting here (not that i’ll be missed, i know)”
–this is a bet we don’t want you to lose. if you do we the filipinos also will all lose! that is why manolo and the rest of the anti gma are not being anti just because we like it. if your stand is your being anti-anti gma is for the good of our country that is you. but we also have our reasons for acting the way we do. that is why we are having such spirited discussions here and manolo is actually doing the walk not just the talk.
gma tried declaring some form of martial law and she was rebuked by the SC. she also tried to amend the constitution several times but the senate was against her. and if it wasn’t for the vigilance of a lot of anti gmas we probably won’t be having this debate if she would stay beyond 2010. she has showed that she had every intention to do that then, and if she has changed her mind and that is good. but as long as her minions’ and her shows signs of otherwise the anti gma will be there to cry foul.
and now that the prospect of gma having to appoint more SC justices can tip the balance of power SC to her favor when any argument get sent to the SC, especially the issue of the lower house and senate voting separately or joint.
now you see we do have reasons to be praning!
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 3:37 pm
trust me, i’d rather be proven wrong than right on this discussion. i couldn’t be more happier proven wrong, in fact i will be the happiest person in this blog site or the entire country, hell even of the universe!
but 2010 is still light years away in terms of political time continuum! in the mean time we the anti gma will be the crier in the desert.
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:08 pm
istambay_sakalye :
“yes i experienced martial law and yes a family member was a victim of martial law! he was never the same again and he was ruined for the rest of his life! now that does answer your question?”
oops, real sorry about that istambay. my sincere apologies
“–you can bet all your monies on this! john lennon was alive and smoking marijuana when i was born!”
***gasp***
you mean you were already in this part of God’s creation when Ringo Starr replaced Pete Best as the drummer of the Beatles?
kuya!
Geo on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:09 pm
Spare us this romanticism, istambay.
The anti-GMA crowd ran to the streets, screamed on tv, called for the President’s ouster, became violent, was armed and dangerous, broke the law repeatedly, created negative perceptions of the Philippines, created headaches for the local working population, formed huge bottlenecks in the Legislature, Executive and Judicial branches due to all the “investigations”, challenges and threats.
Why? Because the Garci Tapes show that Gloria cheated in the elections.
Turns out the Garci tapes were fakes and the elections were reasonably accurate.
Then we went through all the accusations which showed nothing. More wasted time and effort. Three years of hot air and empty boxes of evidence.
Now you claim you saved us from Martial Law. And all this paranoia about Cha-Cha is so you can continue to protect us from martial law.
Jeez, do me a favor and stop trying to help, OK? Enough is enough.
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:15 pm
Bert :
“no deal, anthony. I don’t want you to quit posting here, will make manolo’s blog less interesting.”
oy salamat for that
no, dapat the issue is – will there be amendments in place that will allow gloria to run again in May 2010 or be allowed to continue beyond June 30, 2010?
yan dapat ang issue.
deal?
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:17 pm
istambay_sakalye :
“marcos never mag-isa when he declared martial? you forgot johnny, tabaco, and the rest was with him?”
whose signature put martial law into effect?
the acts of johnny, tabaco, ver et al. would be illegal without Macoy’s signature on Proclamation 1081
hvrds on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:28 pm
“Nograles, however, said his original resolution only intends to amend the economic provisions of the Constiution which limit foreign ownership. He said the US-led global financial crisis can be an opportunity for the country if it is equipped to attract foreign investments.”
“Our strong economic fundamentals should be our best selling point in offering refuge to relocating American investments. However, we cannot maximize our potential as an attractive destination for investments which are now relocating out of the US because of our equity restrictions,” he said.
The country that has registered the largest amounts of foreign direct investments on the planet in the last five years has the most restricted protectionist rules on their national economy. They also have the most restricted rules on private land ownership.
The G-7 economies have constantly refused to grant them market economy status so punitive duties can be imposed on their products exported when safeguards are breached.
So why do we think that by removing some nationalist provisions in the constitution will help us through this oncoming crisis?
Something stinks!!!!!!
mlq3 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 4:42 pm
scalia, one does not undertake a wager that’s rigged. your wager is flawed by design.
there’s an anecdote from the english civil war where either cromwell or one of the parliamentarians warned what was at stake in a civil war. the king, the person warned, could lose a hundred battles but would ever be king; on the other hand, they only had to lose one battle to end up on the chopping block as traitors and rebels.
Geo on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 5:08 pm
hvrds,
Have you ever noticed how a few families control the vast majority of the land and economy here?
Ever wonder why there are high tariffs for imported goods? Even for products that aren’t made here domestically?
Ever think that the middle class here needs a meaningful boost in order to both increase its size and improve its financial status? That it might benefit by working for foreign firms rather than those controlled by the local elite? (See the export and BPO industries to find an answer).
Have you ever contemplated the notion that the influx of foreign competition in the domestic industry might make goods and services cheaper and better?
Or……are you saying that it’s better to be living in a martial law, one-party country like China???
grd on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 6:00 pm
“marcos never mag-isa when he declared martial? you forgot johnny, tabaco, and the rest was with him?†istambay
istambay,
of course what anthony scalia was referring to (differentiating cha-cha against martial law) when he said marcos did it all by himself, was that martial law was declared by the chief executive w/o help from the legislative and judiciary and w/o the approval of the people.
unless you are talking now of martial then no need to argue about cha-cha.
but then, oh you of little faith. why are you doubting your fellow filipinos for even thinking about martial law. you have forgotten the fighting motto after Erap’s ouster, “ Never again!â€
“We hope that the message of People Power II is clear for whoever would betray again the hopes of the Filipino people for freedom, social justice, peace and democracy.
NEVER AGAIN!â€
surely those people in Edsa 2 will rise once more when called. unless they think they are being MISLED again by people with selfish motives. (imagine Bert is now blaming Erap for not standing his ground).
“trust me, i’d rather be proven wrong than right on this discussion. i couldn’t be more happier proven wrong, in fact i will be the happiest person in this blog site or the entire country, hell even of the universe!†istambay
I guess you’re proven wrong with EDSA 2. you were not just proven wrong, you people even dragged the whole country down with your messianic delusional syndrome.
in the blogsites, some people are so paranoid. but check what ordinary people are thinking right now. they have a lot to worry about their livelihood in this trying time than pre-occupy themselves and get paranoid about the continuous squabbling of different forces of evil in the political arena… all declaring they have the country’s welfare in mind.
thanks but no thanks. as what Geo says,
“Now you claim you saved us from Martial Law. And all this paranoia about Cha-Cha is so you can continue to protect us from martial law.
Jeez, do me a favor and stop trying to help, OK? Enough is enough.” Geo
mlq3 on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 6:44 pm
geo, the danger here precisely is that charter change as proposed, will not move the country forweard except in the sense of making things cosier for the political class. and that if the current push fails, it will make any rational effort to amend or revise the constitution all that much more improbable.
Geo on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 7:09 pm
mlq3,
I have heard a variety of opinions coming from the Lakas-Kampi group, never mind the Reps from the Liberal Party, the Senators, et al.
I’m not too sure there is a concensus as to what exactly will be proposed and debated…in fact, there’s disagreements about Concom vs Conass.
So how do you know what will ultimately be voted on? And how did you come up with the knowledge that this is NOT a “rational effort to amend or revise the constitution”?
saxnviolins on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 8:22 pm
if an amendment is in place that allows gloria to run in May 2010 or extends her term beyond June 30, 2010 – i’ll quit posting here (not that i’ll be missed, i know) Scalia
Let’s revise the bet Scalia. If a cha cha convenes, and no proposal is made to extend her term, you win, I will contribute to a charity of your choice.
If a proposal is made to extend her term, I win, and you contribute to the Red Cross. Fifty dollars lang; I do not have your deep pockets.
baycas on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 8:52 pm
?
The EQualizer on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 8:57 pm
For I was hungry and ,you arrogantly said, “Even I have missed one meal in the last three months!”
I was thirsty and and you quickly put up streamers for “Patubig ni Pangulong Arroyo” project for election purposes.
I was stranger and you proudly posed with me for a “photo op” for the newspapers and then left me when the photographers went away.
I was naked and you proudly proclaimed, “Ramdam na ramdam ang kaunlaran!”
I was sick and you proudly placed in tarpaulins all over Metro Manila that you put up “11,024 Botika ng Barangay [Village Drugstore]”
I was in prison and tortured by General Palparan and his cruel cohorts and you said in the UN ,”We have no tolerance for human rights violations!”
grd on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 9:02 pm
“Let’s revise the bet Scalia. If a cha cha convenes, and no proposal is made to extend her term, you win, I will contribute to a charity of your choice.
If a proposal is made to extend her term, I win, and you contribute to the Red Cross. Fifty dollars lang; I do not have your deep pockets.” saxnviolins
can i join the bet? mine is for no cha-cha. not enough time till 2010.
UP n grad on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:13 pm
my bet : GMA still head-of-state on 14-February-2010 AND GMA is NOT head-of-state on 1-October-2010.
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:17 pm
quezon,
“scalia, one does not undertake a wager that’s rigged. your wager is flawed by design.”
??????????????
im flattered! i feel i could rig the outcome of my proposed wager
but if i could rig the outcome (i win), gloria does not run in 2010 nor does she stay beyond June 30, 2010 – the equivalent to a lotto win for the anti gloria school! gloria’s out! that’s what the antis want, right?
put differently – i win, you win also (because gloria is out)
ah wait, i get it. no deal
“there’s an anecdote from the english civil war where either cromwell or one of the parliamentarians warned what was at stake in a civil war. the king, the person warned, could lose a hundred battles but would ever be king; on the other hand, they only had to lose one battle to end up on the chopping block as traitors and rebels.”
and my proposed wager is something along those lines? whoa, im flattered again
there is some truth to the warning. the ‘warner’ thought the parliamentarians cannot match the might of the royal armed force. thus at best they can only engage in battles that will not come close to overthrowing the monarchy. yet the king, for him, can quell them in just one battle.
there’s nothing rigged nor flawed there. just the chutzpah of the ‘warner’
saxnviolins on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:23 pm
can i join the bet? mine is for no cha-cha. not enough time till 2010
Cannot bet against myself; I maintain that the Senate will block it. Even if the question goes to the Supreme Court and the pros win, there is still a legislative block that can be sprung.
I am wagering on the intent of the proponents. They say it is only about the economic provisions; I join mlq3 and say otherwise. That is the reason for my counter-wager against Scalia.
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:33 pm
saxnviolins,
“Let’s revise the bet Scalia. If a cha cha convenes, and no proposal is made to extend her term, you win, I will contribute to a charity of your choice.
If a proposal is made to extend her term, I win, and you contribute to the Red Cross. Fifty dollars lang; I do not have your deep pockets.”
as steps closer to closing a deal, some clarifications:
1. if a cha cha is convened, it meant the House and the Senate each voted separately to form the Con-Ass. if the House just proceeded on its own, that’s no cha cha
2. the proposal to extend gloria’s term beyond June 30, 2010 is not a mere proposal by a Con-Ass member but one of the approved proposed amendments by the whole Con-Ass which will be sent to the COMELEC for referendum.
3. such proposed amendment survives Supreme Court scrutiny, so nothing prevents its transmittal to the COMELEC for referendum
4. 50 new taiwan dollars
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:40 pm
“Spare us this romanticism, istambay.
The anti-GMA crowd ran to the streets, screamed on tv, called for the President’s ouster, became violent, was armed and dangerous, broke the law repeatedly, created negative perceptions of the Philippines, created headaches for the local working population, formed huge bottlenecks in the Legislature, Executive and Judicial branches due to all the “investigationsâ€, challenges and threats.
Why? Because the Garci Tapes show that Gloria cheated in the elections.
Turns out the Garci tapes were fakes and the elections were reasonably accurate.
Then we went through all the accusations which showed nothing. More wasted time and effort. Three years of hot air and empty boxes of evidence.
Now you claim you saved us from Martial Law. And all this paranoia about Cha-Cha is so you can continue to protect us from martial law.
Jeez, do me a favor and stop trying to help, OK? Enough is enough.”
–now talking about being delusional! HOHOHO. let me paraphrase you last line, “sobra na, tama na, palitan na!”
anthony scalia on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:47 pm
saxnviolins,
“I am wagering on the intent of the proponents. They say it is only about the economic provisions; I join mlq3 and say otherwise. That is the reason for my counter-wager against Scalia.”
that makes the bet different. me and the rest of the anti anti school do not discount the intent; we want to dispel the paranoia of some of our dear kababayans that such intent will become reality and effective
for such intent to be reality, a referendum should have been completed, with the extension of gloria winning, before the start of the period for filing of applications for presidential candidacy in late 2009
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:49 pm
“whose signature put martial law into effect?
the acts of johnny, tabaco, ver et al. would be illegal without Macoy’s signature on Proclamation 1081″
–that is exactly what i meant , series of illegal acts. the wheel is already put into motion, a long time ago. there were several stumbling blocks in past attempts. at present the condition is more ideal for the final push.
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 22nd Nov 2008 11:55 pm
“I have heard a variety of opinions coming from the Lakas-Kampi group, never mind the Reps from the Liberal Party, the Senators, et al.
I’m not too sure there is a concensus as to what exactly will be proposed and debated…in fact, there’s disagreements about Concom vs Conass.
So how do you know what will ultimately be voted on? And how did you come up with the knowledge that this is NOT a “rational effort to amend or revise the constitutionâ€?”
–are you being naive or just pretending? cha-cha proponents have learned from their mistakes. this time they are trying to get their true intentions ( change form of government to extend gma’s term), through the back door or somekind of trojan horse (not the condom kind). what the politicians called gamesmanship, is actually deceit.
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:06 am
istambay_sakalye :
sorry my dear kababayan. not to deny your brush with martial law, but the conditions when martial law was declared are absent now!
gloria cannot just declare martial law on her own.
Bert on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:19 am
anyone noticing the ironies here?
the pro-glorias are wagering against the chacha.
the antis are for the chacha.
I think reverse psychology is being played here by both sides. or just coincidence?
or maybe I’m wrong again.
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:19 am
“OK. so wtf are you so paranoid about? That GMA will extend? How will that happen? Let’s see…” geo
And if I may add…. if ever gloria extended her term, the anti gloria crowd will still be there anyway to speak as loudest as they can in teh streets , tv , blogs and anywhere and every where…..
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:20 am
istambay,
saka during Macoy’s time, martial law came first, then a new charter in place (though the Con Con was at work when martial law was declared)
let me quote part of my reply to saxnviolins:
for such intent (gloria’s extension) to be reality, a referendum should have been completed, with the extension of gloria winning, before the start of the period for filing of applications for presidential candidacy in late 2009
now just reflect on what should take place first for the event described by the previous paragraph to happen
let me outline the steps towards that:
1. the House and the Senate each voting separately to form the Con-Ass
2. Con-Ass formation survives Supreme Court scrutiny
3. Con-Ass comes up with several proposed amendments, one of which is gloria’s extension or gloria -can-run-again-in May-2010
4. one, some or all of the proposed amendments survive Supreme Court scrutiny
5. COMELEC deliberates and finalizes plans for and schedules the referendum
6. COMELEC decision to conduct a referendum on the proposed amendments survives Supreme Court scrutiny
7. Actual conduct of the referendum
8. Counting of votes cast
9. Proclamation of winning amendments
10. Winning amendments survive Supreme Court scrutiny
Take note – nos. 1 to 10 should all be accomplished in 13 months!
you still want to dwell in the paranoia of gloria beyond June 30, 2010?
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:24 am
“mlq3, I’m non-partisan because I listen to what the people say, see what tangible things they do and weigh things according to what facts and “known†things are on hand. That leaves a lot open for speculation…there is no monopoly of knowledge held by anyone.
You are partisan because no matter what some say, no matter what factual, tangible things are done and/or known, you make decisions based on your prejudgements…despite that they are not grounded with supporting evidence. Your “Truth†is omniscient…even in the face of contradictory evidence. ” Geo
Very very well said Geo. Ive read all the postings and you and Anthony Scalia are really doing a great job. I cant help but really thank you guys for doing so.
I have nothing more to add other share my sadness that after all these years we are still in the pathetic situtation. I wonder when will Manolo and his ilk ever get it. Will they ever get it at all?
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:35 am
TO ALL WHO ARE PARANOID ON GLORIA BEYOND 2010 -
For that to happen, the following must take place in 13 months:
1. the House and the Senate each voting separately to form the Con-Ass
2. Con-Ass formation survives Supreme Court scrutiny
3. Con-Ass comes up with several proposed amendments, one of which is gloria’s extension or gloria -can-run-again-in May-2010
4. one, some or all of the proposed amendments survive Supreme Court scrutiny
5. COMELEC deliberates and finalizes plans for and schedules the referendum
6. COMELEC decision to conduct a referendum on the proposed amendments survives Supreme Court scrutiny
7. Actual conduct of the referendum
8. Counting of votes cast
9. Proclamation of winning amendments
10. Winning amendments survive Supreme Court scrutiny
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:52 am
rego,
“Very very well said Geo. Ive read all the postings and you and Anthony Scalia are really doing a great job. I cant help but really thank you guys for doing so.”
thanks.
no, you can help also, especially now that the paranoia is intensifying
one sad truth about this paranoia is that it gets to be manifested in the wrong places – blogs, other websites, media – thus having an appearance of what it is not and cannot be: a reality
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:08 am
scalia, i don’t know if amendments themselves have ever been brought to the supreme court. what has been questioned is if the process of amendments conformed with the constitution; and whether the ratification of a new constituion conformed to the provisions of the old one. so let me suggest your list is too lengthy and not based on actual processes.
they might be as follows:
1. the House passes a resolution calling for a Constituent Assembly. Senate doesn’t or refuses to, respond. House proceeds by treating amendments as a law; on the day of the final voting some senators show up and vote with House to give a semblance of voting together. Somewhere in this merry mixup the Senate goes to the Supreme Court to challenge the process.
2. Con-Ass formation survives Supreme Court scrutiny (the SC cannot review the proposed changes themselves, since it would make it judge in its own cause, for example if the amendments include establishing a Constitutional Court separate from the Supreme Court as proposed by some)
3. COMELEC deliberates and finalizes plans for and schedules the referendum
4. Actual conduct of the referendum within 90 days of the passage of the law or Supreme Court approval.
5. Counting of votes cast: swift, because there are only Yes or No votes. (As in past plebiscites, the amendments are all or nothing: you cannot vote on single amendments as they are all intertwined in the Constitutional framework).
6. Questions on the plebiscite survive Supreme Court scrutiny.
7. Parliamentary elections in 2010. President runs for MP for Pampanga. Decorative President elected but with ceremonial role.
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:24 am
I will be here anthony. I will be here. to help out….its getting really really cold over here that I think I will staying home more often on the weekends….in my pc of course…
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:25 am
i mean in front of my pc.
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:30 am
i cant argue on specific details though unlik eyou and geo becuase I havent been updated my self so much on teh situations in Philippines. But the thing is what ever the issue is , this anti Gloria crowd has the same reaction all over again. It like its was programmed in them already that their reactions seem so automatic already. you know the Garci tape term extension. etc etc…..
leytenian on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:31 am
For political leaders who opposes CHA-CHA are those with personal agenda.
For those who are for it have a vision of what will happen to this country 10 to 50 years from now.
It may not be the right time but when is the right time?
cvj on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:35 am
Bert (at 12:19am), that’s called hedging.
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:44 am
“they might be as follows”:-mlq3
Might be , Manolo right? But what if its “might not be”? Can’t you imagine the damage that you are inflicting the nation if your might be will not happen?
And one more thing, you and your ilk has been talking out loud about your “power” over Gloria or any other public officials. Yet you have been very afraid of your might- be- scenarios. Doesn’t that show you are powerless after all?
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:54 am
rego, how do you propose to achieve a consensus on the following:
1. whether the constitution should be amended. a consensus that goes beyond those who like debating constitutional matters (which isn’t most people) and engages if not all ,then at least a majority of the public who are entitled to vote.
2. what amendments are best. and which you will prioritize (economic provisions only, legislative provisions only, executive provisions only, judicial provisions only, two out of three, three out of three, etc.), because there comes a point where you may decide so many amendments are required, you’re better off with an entirely new documents. this means:
a). congress debating and proposing amendments;
b). congress calling for a constitutional convention to do the job (a convention could start soon after delegates are elected, while some legal experts believe you can’t impose a time limit, it’s quite possible to write a new charter say before 2010)
3. whether incumbent officials will be covered or not covered by the proposed amendments/new constitution.
right now, some main proposals are:
1. lifting limits on foreign ownership of land and corporations
2. removing the provisions declaring the armed forces protector of the state, etc.
3. removing the supreme court’s power to intervene in any case where grave abuse of discretion is alleged and return to the pre-1987 principle of certain cases being political questions outside the province of the court;
4. abolishing the senate, retaining the house, but otherwise not changing the executive-legislative relationship
5. restoring senatorial election by district and not national;
6. establishing a hybrid french system with a parliament and an elected president with strong powers;
7. establishing a parliament where assemblymen hold legislative and executive functions in a cabinet headed by a pm and which elects a ceremonial president (or national election of a ceremonial president);
8. federalism, two kinds: federal republic with a presidency (USA, Mexico, Brazil), federal parliementary system, but unicameral; federal system, with a pm and parliament that is bicameral.
9. maintaining the presidential system with a bicameral congress but having runoff elections under a multiparty system to elect a president with a majority mandate; or a presidential system under the restoration of the two-party system.
these are proposals that i think can claim a fairly large constituency for each one. there are many other proposals but they aren’t widely discussed (e.g. fiscal federalism under the spanish model).
I’d further propose the least controversial possible amendments are economic ones. Followed by changes to the court system and then followed by changes to the legislature. The most controversial would be those pertaining to the presidency (including abolishing it altogether or transfering its powers to a premier).
Where do you stand, which would you prioritize, and which would you not prioritize? Which method would you adopt to debate and propose these changes?
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:01 am
“I have nothing more to add other share my sadness that after all these years we are still in the pathetic situtation. I wonder when will Manolo and his ilk ever get it. Will they ever get it at all?”
–what have been smoking lately???
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:05 am
rego, obviously you don’t act on something if you think the probability is very small or not serious. And obviously you think the dangers of a possible outcome outweigh the dangers from doing nothing. the only danger to the nation is that everyone in the political class finds they have to spend more time actually explaining issues to their countrymen and that real consensus are built rather than passing the buck upstairs; the danger is people will take their citizenship seriously and get involved in the political and legal life of their nation; the danger is having become empowered citizens we will then discover it was this lack of empowerment that built mistrust or defeatism in the first place which made those given responsibilty and authority abuse both in the first place.
the danger in destabilizing, as the government likes to call it, the intengan-gonzalez scheme of assassinations and abductions by people like palparan? the transformation of the legislature into an unthinking and mercenary bunch that makes the batasan pambansa look like a model of integrity? the danger in putting wild cannons and generally lunatic officials like raul gonzalez in their place? the danger in showing how dagdag-bawas has become virtually impossible to detect because so finely honed? the danger in skittish investors staying away rather than come here and lose their shirts to the piranhas in the ruling coalition, making it even more impossible to at least moderate everyone’s greed the way our neighbors still do and the way officials used to once upon a time until marcos showed them no limits can be the name of the game?
i don’t know where you got the idea of the power anyone claims. there is people power, that’s a means of political action going back to gandhi and enshrined in our constitution; there is the power of public opinion; these are powers though that can be neutralized by the 3 g’s : guns, goons, and gold. not for ever, but long enough to make the reclaiming of sovereignty by the people a much more difficult and potentially bloody thing, if allowed to reach the point where it’s lost.
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:05 am
“no, you can help also, especially now that the paranoia is intensifying
one sad truth about this paranoia is that it gets to be manifested in the wrong places – blogs, other websites, media – thus having an appearance of what it is not and cannot be: a reality”
–you don’t get it! we are preventing this paranoia of ours to turn into a reality, or rather from becoming into a nightmare!
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:06 am
leytenian have you talked to some of these congressmen? their vision is to be in power 10, 30, years from now instead of having to engage in musical chairs with their wives and children.
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:10 am
before macoy declared martial was there a lower and upper house of congress and SC? i bet there was, and did this prevented him from declaring martial law and changing the constitution to fit his needs? and back then, there were much better statesmen (note statesmen not politician), in the ranks of the opposition! were they able to prevent macoy? NO! what marcos had on his side was the MILITARY! and gma has been stocking her government with ex-gens who are not even qualified to fill any of the positions they hold! gma is not that stupid! she’s smart and i admit to that!
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:16 am
gma has no problem breaking the law and have it sort out by the SC later, and when she has the number it will be a lot easier!
SC is the last bastion of hope for the opposition and filipino peopel to have a fair hand shake, but that balance has been being tipped to gma’s favor lately the latest with brion! now tell me that brion is not partial to malacanang.
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:18 am
“Might be , Manolo right? But what if its “might not beâ€? Can’t you imagine the damage that you are inflicting the nation if your might be will not happen?”
–on the flipside, can imagine the damage if manolo is right?!
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 2:27 am
“http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081123-173809/JDV-details-secret-Arroyo-ZTE-meeting”
JDV trying to live up to the hype! HOHOHO!
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 3:29 am
the saddest part of this is that some of those in gma’s administration were same people who were fighting macoy before and during martial law years! now they are using same playbook from marcosian tactics and warfare to keep gma in power!
talking about slaying the green monster being the easiest part and becoming the monster itself in the end!
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 4:23 am
Manolo, it was luch time when your reply was posted.
Just a quick reply to your post. as I need to go out for a personal errand.
I believe as was clear in my reply to anthony that I was very busy with life here that I I was not able to keep my self updated with whta exactky is going on there. That is why I leave it to Anthony and Geo argue over the details.
Ask me about Obama and I m sure I cant reply to you with so much details. he he he.
I m sure i have posted some or most of my stand on issue before. Allow me to go over it in and I will give you my reply.
I just woudl wanted to point out one thing, what ever teh proposal is, I would definitely go with th eone that can move this country forward. What makes me sad though is that you and your ilks is senselessly blocking any posible ways that Gloria proposed to
leytenian on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 4:23 am
mlq3,
at least i can impeach my congressman and governor with local autonomy. I don’ t think they can go farther than 10 years or 30 years. The relationship between people and its representatives will plateau by 7 years. That’s when people get so sick of their leader especially if they are unhappy. One has got to give and i know , it’s not the people.
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 4:35 am
oops I posted I acccidentally posted an unfinished reply
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 4:51 am
“at least i can impeach my congressman and governor with local autonomy. I don’ t think they can go farther than 10 years or 30 years. The relationship between people and its representatives will plateau by 7 years. That’s when people get so sick of their leader especially if they are unhappy. One has got to give and i know , it’s not the people.”
–you think???
rego on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 4:53 am
“rego, obviously you don’t act on something if you think the probability is very small or not serious. And obviously you think the dangers of a possible outcome outweigh the dangers from doing nothing. the only danger to the nation is that everyone in the political class finds they have to spend more time actually explaining issues to their countrymen and that real consensus are built rather than passing the buck upstairs; the danger is people will take their citizenship seriously and get involved in the political and legal life of their nation; the danger is having become empowered citizens we will then discover it was this lack of empowerment that built mistrust or defeatism in the first place which made those given responsibilty and authority abuse both in the first place”.- Manolo
————————————————————
I believe one of teh problem too is that you and your ilke has been nudging Gloria even on things on very petty things. And you are losing that non partisan citizens is so as to what really is your real cause. Heck you woul deven make fun of her height. Yung mga gingaw nyo wala namng pinag iba na doon sa negative campaign na nangyari sa nakaraang eleksyon dito sa america eh..
Two things Manolo,
1. Calm down. Effective people abhor fear mongering and sowing paranaoia in the middle of a a problem or crisis . That will help much in sorting out a solution. or even consensus. Im not sure if there were ever a nation crisis in the wolrd that was effectively address by fear and paranoia.
2. Be objective. I remember you posting before that this very hard for you to be objective and suggesting that you will never be objective at all when it come to Gloria If that is the case, maybe you should stop trying to solve this problem. You may just be complicating it. Leave it to sober and objective people
baycas on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 6:10 am
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20081121-173659/Emergency-landing-Arroyo-husband-ill
Posted 22:58:00 11/21/2008
—–
http://services.inquirer.net/print/print.php?article_id=20081122-173769
Posted date: November 22, 2008
—–
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081123-173810/Ailing-Mike-home-Gloria-off-to-APEC
Posted 01:14:00 11/23/2008
—–
so, accurately speaking…
there were two (2) doctors and one (1) hospital president who fetched fg from Japan.
…they definitely don’t want to risk their prized patient – fg, the living example of what’s best in medical care present in the Philippines today (as attested by fg’s 30 or so attending specialists).
joc-joc bolante, who’ve recently been thoroughly examined (minus the pregnancy test) in the same center will also vouch for this excellent service.
as the institution’s ad says, “Give your heart the best of care go to St. Luke’s Medical Center.
…hospital-of-choice of the famous.
baycas on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 6:39 am
“Bless the president’s husband so he will have forebearance, good health, the tolerance to live up to 2010, and perhaps who knows, even earlier…to reach the great beyond.
Dureza’s latest prayer
…also in jest?
Bert on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 7:55 am
there are two categories of birds-of-the-same-feathers here in manolo’s blog, or even in my neighborhood:
1. the pro-gloria/anti-anti, move on,
pro-gloria-but-very embarrass-to-admit/I’m-no-
hypocrite-but-I-am, I’m-pro-gloria-because I
love my country group
2. the anti-gloria because I love my country group
mindanaoan on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 8:59 am
Bert , there three kinds of people. those who can count, and those who can’t.
UP n grad on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 9:11 am
there are 4 kinds :
— the hypocrites who are anti-gloria;
– the hypocrites who are pro-gloria;
– the not-hypocrites who are anti-gloria;
– the not-hypocrites who are pro-gloria;
Actually, six. Because Bush “you are either with us or against us” had always been wrong.
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 9:38 am
“2. Be objective. I remember you posting before that this very hard for you to be objective and suggesting that you will never be objective at all when it come to Gloria If that is the case, maybe you should stop trying to solve this problem. You may just be complicating it. Leave it to sober and objective people”
–like you kind? HOHOHO! let us all drink and be merry then,
because in heaven there is no beer! cheers!
mindanaoan on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 9:59 am
UP n grad, from your comment, there’s only one :
(x, y, gloria) ; where x, hypocrite or not and y, pro or anti.
left out are, of course, those who don’t have gloria-colored glasses.
hvrds on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 10:58 am
2.” Be objective. I remember you posting before that this very hard for you to be objective and suggesting that you will never be objective at all when it come to Gloria If that is the case, maybe you should stop trying to solve this problem. You may just be complicating it. Leave it to sober and objective people”
How does one become objective about politics? I am curious as to wonder if he/she understands what he/she knows about politics?
MLQ3 writes his commentary in the editorial page of a newspaper. Emphasis on his commentary. His perspective based on his belief system.
He obviously was given a spot on the op ed pages because the owners of the paper believe that he adds value to the paper through his commentaries.
Take the leading media outlets in the world – and point to one commentator or analyst that speaks with objectivity.
The value of free speech and the free press is the competition of ideas. Those ideas that are sustained generation after generation with historical facts become the prevailing reality.
Open societies with open communication of ideas lead to open markets and the history of the planet has shown that this had benefited billions of people.
Big Mike and GMA have shown the propensity to destroy the nascent stage of a Republic which I believe only a minority of people here appreciate.
Objectivity about politics is ridiculous. Only people without souls believe that one must be objective about politics.
mindanaoan on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 11:28 am
objectivity should always be in the mind of the opinion writer. he must not lose sight of his objective.
hvrds on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 11:48 am
“objectivity should always be in the mind of the opinion writer. he must not lose sight of his objective.”
Emphasis on the words “HIS OBJECTIVITY”
An opinion writer is at best a theoretician who has been given an opportunity to express his theories.
mindanaoan on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 12:01 pm
i think what was asked was fairness and truthfulness. who wants to read propaganda?
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 1:56 pm
it surprises me that some readers expect me to do their thinking for them. i’ll do my own thinking, present things as i see it, explain to you why i see it that way, assert your every right to hold a contrary opinion and advocacy, but you have to look at what i write and what others who hold a contrary opinion write, and make up your own mind. it’s not easy – nor should it be.
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 3:02 pm
quezon,
lawyers for the anti gloria school will keep the Supreme Court busy by filing cases in each step of the cha cha way.
that’s the job of lawyers – find a justiciable issue, make every/any issue a constitutional question
if amendments are questioned before the Supreme Court, what is questioned is both the merits of the amendment itself plus the process that results in such amendment.
allowing gloria to run again in 2010 as president is by itself invalid. the constitution follows a principle that the incumbent cannot enjoy amendments that redound to his/her benefit. the benefits will take effect during the term of the successor to the incumbent
also allowing gloria to extend beyond June 30, 2010 is itself invalid because that would violate the spirit of the constitution previous to the amendment. same argument with respect to allowing gloria to run for parliament in 2010 – the spirit of the constitution previous to the amendment disallows back-to-back terms of the chief executive.
“2. Con-Ass formation survives Supreme Court scrutiny (the SC cannot review the proposed changes themselves, since it would make it judge in its own cause, for example if the amendments include establishing a Constitutional Court separate from the Supreme Court as proposed by some)”
if the House proceeds alone, there’s no Con Ass.
of course the Supreme Court can review the amendments themselves – is the procedure followed? are there vested rights and principles violated? should the incumbent enjoy the benefits?
the SC will easily strike down amendments proposed by a ‘Con Ass’ composed of just the House
there’s also the issue of – assuming there’s a valid Con Ass, how should it approve a proposed amendment – voting separately also or just one body?
“5. Counting of votes cast: swift, because there are only Yes or No votes. (As in past plebiscites, the amendments are all or nothing: you cannot vote on single amendments as they are all intertwined in the Constitutional framework).”
voting on a per amendment basis can be allowed
“7. Parliamentary elections in 2010. President runs for MP for Pampanga. Decorative President elected but with ceremonial role.”
gloria as PM violates the principle of back to back terms as chief executive. what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly
at the earliest, gloria has to wait for the term of the winning MPs from the 2010 elections to end before she can try to be back as MP
hvrds on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 3:04 pm
“Have you ever noticed how a few families control the vast majority of the land and economy here?”
“Ever wonder why there are high tariffs for imported goods? Even for products that aren’t made here domestically?”
“Ever think that the middle class here needs a meaningful boost in order to both increase its size and improve its financial status? That it might benefit by working for foreign firms rather than those controlled by the local elite? (See the export and BPO industries to find an answer).”
“Have you ever contemplated the notion that the influx of foreign competition in the domestic industry might make goods and services cheaper and better?”
“Or……are you saying that it’s better to be living in a martial law, one-party country like China???”
LOOK AT ALL THESE SEEMINGLY BEAUTIFUL WELL THOUGHT OF STATEMENTS.
SIMPLE QUESTION?
IF ONE WANTS TO PROPOSE SOLUTIONS HOLDING BACK THE SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES WHAT WOULD BE THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY.
SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT TO MEAN ECONOMY, POLITICS AND CULTURE?
IF ONE CANNOT GIVE ONES OPINION ON WHERE THE COUNTRY IS SITUATED HOW CAN ONE PROPOSE SOLUTIONS?
IN MY PERSONAL HUMBLE OPINION THE EXTREME LEFT CAME OUT WITH A CORRECT ANALYSIS AS TO WHERE THE COUNTRY IS SITUATED IN SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT.
IN THE GREEK CITY STATES OF ARISTOTLE DEMOCRACY AND EQUALITY WAS FOR THE POLITY TO EXCLUDE WOMEN, CHILDREN AND SLAVES.
THE UNITED STATES STARTED OUT ALMOST ALONG THE LINES OF THE GREEK CITY STATES…..
CHINA IS RULED A SINGULAR PARTY LED BY A CENTRAL COMMITTEE WHO CHOOSES THEIR PRESIDENT AND PRIME MINISTER. DEMOCRACY IS CENTRALIZED….
THERE IS NO MILITARY RULE IN CHINA….
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 3:14 pm
scalia, your arguments were discussed in the 1973 convention with regards to the ban-marcos resolution. that resolution was introduced because there was no other way to prevent marcos from succeeding himself if the country shifted to the parliamentary system. the arguments were threshed out then, and there is no reason to see, even with the objections you raised, why on the general principles you argued it is actually quite possible for the president to succeed herself as prime minister. it’s also possible, as was argued in the case of the 1940 amendments, that a president’s term can be extended, so long as ratified both in a plebiscite for the constitutional amendments in question and in a national election.
it is entirely possible to vote separately on, say, amendment 1, then amendment 2, and amendment 3, etc. putting them individually to the vote in one ballot. but where could you find a constitution that could withstand the approval of one and the disapproval of another, considering they all form part of a whole? there is the practical question too, that for purposes of simplicity, efficiency, and political ease, it is completely in the interest of the proposing group to present it as an all-or-nothing proposition.
finally, please go back carefully to the various ideas being floated by the house majority. one of them includes the idea that you can propose amendments without convening a constituent assembly, treating the entirety of congress essentially, for this unique purpose, as a unicameral body with senators voting with the house. even if every single senator absented himself if a supermajority comprising what would be tthree fourths of the house plus senate the voting would be valid and binding. it’s a clever and not entirely unfounded plain reading of the way the constitution was written.
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 5:29 pm
quezon,
“scalia, your arguments were discussed in the 1973 convention with regards to the ban-marcos resolution. that resolution was introduced because there was no other way to prevent marcos from succeeding himself if the country shifted to the parliamentary system. the arguments were threshed out then, and there is no reason to see, even with the objections you raised, why on the general principles you argued it is actually quite possible for the president to succeed herself as prime minister. ”
you forgot that nobody brought that to the Supreme Court then.
“it’s also possible, as was argued in the case of the 1940 amendments, that a president’s term can be extended, so long as ratified both in a plebiscite for the constitutional amendments in question and in a national election.”
oh yes that’s possible! the thing is, should the incumbent of the time when the amendment took effect benefit from it? the 1987 Constitution would not allow it. beneficial amendments are always enjoyed by the successor of the incumbent
“it is entirely possible to vote separately on, say, amendment 1, then amendment 2, and amendment 3, etc. putting them individually to the vote in one ballot. but where could you find a constitution that could withstand the approval of one and the disapproval of another, considering they all form part of a whole?”
only if the issue in the plebiscite is the acceptance of a whole Constitution
not if amendments only are the issue
“there is the practical question too, that for purposes of simplicity, efficiency, and political ease, it is completely in the interest of the proposing group to present it as an all-or-nothing proposition.”
again, only if a whole constitution is up for ratification
the 1971 Con Con and the 1986 Con Com were convened to revise an entire Constitution.
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 6:35 pm
please review your facts, scalia.
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw19731.htm
will help you, which reviews the history of the convening of the 1971 constitution and the issues raised to the supreme court.
Bert on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 6:43 pm
“Bert , there three kinds of people. those who can count, and those who can’t.”
“UP n grad, from your comment, there’s only one :
(x, y, gloria) ; where x, hypocrite or not and y, pro or anti.”
mindanaoan,
it’s easy to see whom you are referring to. cheers!
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 8:43 pm
quezon, please don’t underestimate the creativity and capacity of lawyers to create jurisprudence
you’re a historian right? the saying “nothing is permanent except change” is applicable to the Supreme Court. The conditions prevailing in the declaration of martial law and the Javellana decision are absent now.
it seems you are more concerned with maintaining the paranoia than on seeking ways on how to stop gloria’s continued stay in the Palace via the SC
more basic, you have to consider all the facts. not just the facts that would suit your need to maintain the paranoia.
it seems you are the one who needs to review your facts quezon.
Harry Roque is your friend right? He will surely enlighten you on the legal strategies on how to block any attempt at extension/running again. let him assure you that the Javellana decision cannot be used as precedent in every issue of amendments before the SC
its true – nothing is more obscure than the obvious. the composition of the Supreme Court now is not the same as the Supreme Court of the early 1970s. don’t judge how the SC will judge now by how it judged in the 1970s, at least in ‘constitution cases’
re-read this again carefully
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw19731.htm,
or better yet, ask Harry Roque to narrate it to you, how the SC arrived at the decision not to block the effectivity of PD 73 and Proclamation 1102.
so you’ll get an idea of how the SC resolves cases.
so finally you will discover there’s nothing to be paranoid about
anthony scalia on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 9:01 pm
“IF ONE CANNOT GIVE ONES OPINION ON WHERE THE COUNTRY IS SITUATED HOW CAN ONE PROPOSE SOLUTIONS?”
we can worry about development in politics and culture later. lets prioritize the economy first.. its hard to come up with solutions to problems in politics and culture on empty stomachs
“IN MY PERSONAL HUMBLE OPINION THE EXTREME LEFT CAME OUT WITH A CORRECT ANALYSIS AS TO WHERE THE COUNTRY IS SITUATED IN SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT.”
i humbly submit that the Left is mistaken.
“THE UNITED STATES STARTED OUT ALMOST ALONG THE LINES OF THE GREEK CITY STATES…..”
but didn’t remain that way for long
“CHINA IS RULED A SINGULAR PARTY LED BY A CENTRAL COMMITTEE WHO CHOOSES THEIR PRESIDENT AND PRIME MINISTER. DEMOCRACY IS CENTRALIZED….”
maybe the more apt phrase is “democracy is limited to party members.”
and that’s something similar to the parliamentary form of govt – the heads of state and govt are chosen not by popular vote but by a select group
“THERE IS NO MILITARY RULE IN CHINA….”
really? if you mean the President and the PM aren’t military guys, then you are correct
Geo on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 10:25 pm
Too much water (read: verbiage) under the bridge; I don’t know where to start with my belated responses.
Perhaps the low-hanging fruit first —
“THERE IS NO MILITARY RULE IN CHINA….â€
Other than having extensive, pervasive economic and political power…and being ready to roll tanks over college students, no…no, the military is pretty passive and sidelined there….non-existent, even…..uh-huh, yeah, right.
Geo on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 10:36 pm
Seems like mlq3’s and anthony scalia’s debate proves that changing the constitution is:
a) needed
b) possible
c) complicated
d) worthy of debate
e) past-due
Other than the contentious claim that the only goal is to extend GMA’s stay, almost every other trend/belief/desire is to improve the Constitution.
So…should everything stop? Or is it wise to move forward knowing that we all agree that a term extension is unacceptable?
Geo on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 10:54 pm
istambay wrote: “–you don’t get it! we are preventing this paranoia of ours to turn into a reality, or rather from becoming into a nightmare!”
But when we slow down all the yakkety-yak and take a cold, hard look at the facts and the knowable, guess what? The paraoid nightmare doesn’t look very realistic or imminent.
And with so much to take care of…with so many problems (and opportunities) on hand…and within a deteriorating global economic context…what do you think should be the country’s top priorities???
Geo on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 11:05 pm
The probable numbers/ are:
* 6~12% — rabidly anti-Gloria
* 6~12% — rabidly pro-Gloria
* 75~85% — rabidly pro-growth
What should the Legislature be focusing on? What kind of programs should the Executive be implementing? Can the media help us digest and understand the competing proposals for improving the economy?
What should the national dialogue be about???
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 11:44 pm
oh for god’s sake, scalia, i pointed to javellana so you can review the process by which the 1971 convention was convened. and the issues raised because of it. i have been saying i don’t doubt the creativity of lawyers -they have been quite creative under the auspices of your dear leader. but there are some limits because there are some parameters to the process of constitution-making.
what i don’t understand is something quite simple. if there’s nothing to be paranoid about, if the entire process will bring forth a regime of teddybears and candy cane trees and cotton candy clouds, why do you and the geos of this world suddenly materialize and mount rear guard actions as your dear leader goes forward with what you consider the eminently unthreatening business of governing? you could be going fishing and dreaming pleasant dreams of the post arroyo era. instead, you are busy arguing that your partisanship is objectivity and that your vacuum of facts are actual facts. i can understand those ferociously defending the president because they confess to being undying admirers of hers. you claim otherwise, that you are a nixonian silent majority.
so what gives?
mlq3 on Sun, 23rd Nov 2008 11:53 pm
geo, i’d think a real game-changer, and i’ve said this before, is a convention elected and in place before 2010. what the country has not seen in a long time is the kind of leadership that surrenders something for the broader public good. or any stunning demonstration in the governed by the governors. outside of an impeachment, i’d fretted all along that if the president had held a plebiscite on her continued rule you might actually have had a situation where she would win it (by the skin of her teeth at worst, with a healthy majority if she’d played her cards right) as a more fundamentally democratic solution than impeachment.
if the president, as some of her own advisers have been advising her all along, had thrown her weight behind a convention, it would have perhaps offered a way through the impasse. but she is too conservative, perhaps, to run the risks of corraling delegates when she’s already safely accomplished that in the house.
conceivably, even though some lawyers say you can’t impose a time frame on a convention, if she’d thrown her support behind delegates pledged to writing a new constitution before the 2010 elections, it could have been done (and might still be done, one reserve option mentioned by the speaker is precisely a convention).
but who knows, maybe within a week or so the issues may be joined as the draft of the resolution seems to be circulating and it simply states that by virtue of the specific provision on amendments, the undersigned congressmen and senators who’ve signed it constitute themselves into a constituent assembly and propose certain amendments to the people. the issue could be settled by the supreme court after the holidays. we shall see what we shall see, soon enough.
while a broad consensus exists, i think, among people who are familiar with or at least engaged enough to care about constitutional frameworks, i am ot convinced a broader, cross-sectoral consensus exists. i believe the opposite exists -a stubborn, cross-sectoral, broadly national consensus that the concerns of people -for greater efficiency, less waste, more accountability and transparency, less insider trading and dealing, and less rank-pulling and influence-peddling, more honest elections, among many complaints- will not be addressed by constitutional change.
Bert on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:00 am
“And with so much to take care of…with so many problems (and opportunities) on hand…and within a deteriorating global economic context…what do you think should be the country’s top priorities???”-Geo
Change the form of gov’t., with the same politicians in it, that’s your priority.
Bert on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:22 am
My priority is to help in whatever small way possible to stop this attempt to perpetuate the rule of what the majority of the Filipino people consider an anomalous administration, and that the government should prioritized solving the more pressing problems of the country instead of changing the form of gov’t. due to perceived ulterior motive.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:08 am
quezon,
“oh for god’s sake, scalia, i pointed to javellana so you can review the process by which the 1971 convention was convened.”
thanks for the effort, quezon, but i don’t need to be reminded of it. because i already knew how the 1973 Constitution came into being.
and let me remind you – Javellana cannot be used as precedent anymore
“i have been saying i don’t doubt the creativity of lawyers
“-they have been quite creative under the auspices of your dear leader.”
oh how sad you can’t say the same thing on your lawyers! no wonder why the bright minds of the anti gloria school always fall short. then blaming the justices for their shortcomings, eh quezon?
maybe the anti gloria school should consider changing lawyers
but why should the anti gloria school lawyers be blamed? they’re just a reflection of the cause/people they are representing.
“but there are some limits because there are some parameters to the process of constitution-making.”
true! the present constitution has those parameters in place which should dispel your paranoia once and for all.
“what i don’t understand is something quite simple.”
oh don’t worry about that my dear kababayan. we can say the same thing
“if there’s nothing to be paranoid about,”
there is nothing , really
“if the entire process will bring forth a regime of teddybears and candy cane trees and cotton candy clouds,”
your words, not mine.
“why do you and the geos of this world suddenly materialize and mount rear guard actions as your dear leader goes forward with what you consider the eminently unthreatening business of governing?”"
excuse me my dear kababayan? who do you think has been sending out warning signs on the cha cha and what it will result to? me? geo? grd? rego?
if there’s nothing to be paranoid about, you would not be belaboring this “gloria-beyond-2010″ and “gloria-for-2010″ my dear kababayan
parliamentary elections in 2010? gloria running as MP in 2010? oh please
” you could be going fishing and dreaming pleasant dreams of the post arroyo era.”
oh yes! thank you! sorry the anti gloria school would lose its reason for being by then. hope its adherents can find a reason to move on. poor souls
“instead, you are busy arguing that your partisanship is objectivity and that your vacuum of facts are actual facts.”
and you? you’re not partisan? ***falls from seat***
oh come on my dear kababayan. you sound as if you have the monopoly of “actual facts.”
it seems you know a “vacuum of facts” when you see them. i forgot what the term is in psychology when a person projects in others a reality in his own life
and when did i ever use the word “objectivity”?
“i can understand those ferociously defending the president because they confess to being undying admirers of hers. you claim otherwise, that you are a nixonian silent majority.”
and that, my dear kababayan, already raises an issue on your objectivity. you still can’t accept the fact that
there are people of the silent majority, people who don’t like gloria and are content with seeing her go in 2010, much like the Americans who hate Bush but who prefer that the electoral process usher him out of the White House
you can’t blame the silent majority if they choose not to fully enjoy their constitutional rights to free expression.
by the way, your use of ‘nixonian silent majority’ is interesting. how come the anti gloria school cannot claim to have the backing of this ‘nixonian silent majority’ for the “remove-gloria-before-2010″ movement? because if it did, Noli would have been President now
or one of your bright minded senators from that tightly-knit and cohesive group called ‘united opposition’
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:02 am
“i think what was asked was fairness and truthfulness. who wants to read propaganda?”
–you must have been reading a lot of gma’s speeches and her minions’ too! i think it is called the power of suggestion!
repeating same lies over and over again until you start to believe it as the truth.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:05 am
“maybe the anti gloria school should consider changing lawyers”
–i initially thought we are after the truth here, i was mistaken.
i am actually getting law 101 lecture, technicalities and not the truth matters in the practice of law!
UP n grad on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 5:27 am
There is a difference between adherence to the truth and making things happen.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 10:18 am
istambay_sakalye :
“–i initially thought we are after the truth here, i was mistaken.
i am actually getting law 101 lecture, technicalities and not the truth matters in the practice of law!”
welcome to law practice, my friend
Geo on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 11:43 am
Bert,
You wrote: “Change the form of gov’t., with the same politicians in it, that’s your priority.”
Sigh. You see, Bert — that’s my problem with you…apparently, you can only see life in an anti or pro GMA paradigm.
My stated (and written, on these pages) priority is the economy. I would like to see immediate changes such as the opening up to foreigners.
I am against Arroyo extending her stay in any shape or form.
I think there should be new elections for Parliament…during which any party and any citizen has a chance. Local communities will be able to choose from the pool of local candidates.
I think the process of debate should start immediately, but I don’t think the entire process can be rushed.
So…since you keep trying to paint me in a blatantly false, agenda-driven way, I surmise that it’s probably a waste of time to discuss anything with you.
In fact, your unfair accusations towards me seem to confirm some of my observations — many of the vociferous anti-GMA types have reduced their view of reality down to a jingoistic world of caricatures. Its the heroes vs the villains…with us stupid citizens caught in a trance.
Bert on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:43 pm
Geo
I heard you, you want the gov’t. to do something about the economy. All of us do want the same because that’s more important than changing the form of gov’t.
Heard you too about your stand re: GMA. I believe you, though reluctantly. Reluctantly because you are insisting “I’m against Arroyo extending her stay in any shape or form” but you are quite persistent also with “I think there should be new elections for parliament”, which are two very contradictory statements, in my opinion. So, whether I’m accusing you unfairly is a matter of opinion, I don’t think so, and I’m a very fair person.
Geo on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:58 pm
Bert,
OK…that was close.
Actually, I specifically want to see the country take on an aggressive pro-globilization stance. One of the overdue acts, I believe, is to open the domestic economy to foreigners (barring some necessary exeptions). Cha-cha is needed for that.
On the political (and economic) side, I am for getting power better distributed. Parliament, Federalism, Unitary, PM only vs PM & Prez…are all on the table, as far as I am concerned. I am willing to be convinced about which approaches may be the best.
I reject the idea that Gloria can return to power, in any fashion, after 2010.
I’m OK with Con-con…it’s probably more doable…but most important is: Start the process already!
Bert on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 3:08 pm
Geo,
I know you have valid arguments for your stand regards this chacha. That’s alright. The Parliamentary form of gov’t. has its advantages, the same with the presidential form, or other forms of gov’t. But all of ‘em have disadvantages also depending on a number of factors prevailing in a certain environment or geographical situation. We can only speculate on the outcome of any form we want to replace this one, but there is no assurance it will come to be.
The crux of this, our discussion, is whether we want to underestimate, or overestimate, the capability of this administration to do what it wants to happen.
Me, I’d rather play it safe. For the sake of our country and people.
grd on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 5:45 pm
“So, whether I’m accusing you unfairly is a matter of opinion, I don’t think so, I’m a very fair person.”
really? bert naman. sige nga review your posts specially, November 23rd, 2008 at 7:55 am
but mindanaoan and UPn are right. you don’t know how to count.
Geo on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 6:44 pm
Bert,
I have had a lot of debates about the benefits and drawbacks of some of the proposals. I have room for more info and for further considerations; my preferences aren’t set in stone.
That said, I have analyzed things enough to know that the present system is kaput. Without going into all the arguments, suffice it to say that a centrally located, centrally powered, centrally controlled system run by a few is not working well and can’t be expected to going forward.
That’s my opinion, at least. Many seem to agree in general. The concepts need some national vetting.
BUT…because a minority of the country — whose accusations have proven empty, unproven or outrightly false — the whole process should stop? Because of their continued claim that we’re in a virtual state of martial law…and that the real one is coming via Cha-cha???
It’s been bad enough — the last two Congresses have sucked. Little is being done apace. The constant attack-and-defend-and-go-to-the-SC run-around makes me…makes me…makes me hyphenate!!!
Seems to me that the screechers have had their time and nothing positive came out of it. Time to focus on the business of improving the nation’s economic well-being.
And those who want, they can start preparing their candidacies for 2010. And parties can start preparing their platforms.
Time to be practical.
Bert on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 10:35 pm
grd,
you have to understand that mindanaoan corrected UP n’s math, and mindanaoan’s math regarding three kinds of people was similarly erroneous. so, it seems that math really is a difficult subject, heheh.
with regards to my post at 7:55am, those were statement of facts. I admit I was not able to mention the third kind, but the keyword there is “there are two categories”, which means I was not lumping the exceptions into the baskets of those two categories.
the exceptions, which is supposed to be the third kind I failed to mention, are those I most admire because they can walk the tight rope with agility, and are more civilize, also witty.
I hope that’s fair enough.