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 [email protected], 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?
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”
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.
Finally, we now agree that there is a NEED to change the Constitution..
now, all that’s left to ask is: When?
“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.
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
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.
as a private citizen, there is no consensus on what should be changed, or how, or what the changes should be.
anthony scalia,
do you think it will be by the constituents??? Remember that blotched people’s initiative?
anthony, that is as switik as a statement gets.
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
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.
“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?
PhilwoSpEditor :
“do you think it will be by the constituents??? Remember that blotched people’s initiative?”
***fingers crossed***
“anthony, that is as switik as a statement gets.”
sorry mlq3, pero di ko na-gets. di ba a “switik” is a scrooge?
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..
“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.
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
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????
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
anthony,
eherm also
honestly, do you really believe they are dressing the chicken without the intention of cooking it? no spin please.
Reina Gloria Primera!
Her HIGHness?
madre mia!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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€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€Â
The last applicant was Enrile. When asked how much money he wanted, he whispered in the cardinal’s ear, “Five million dollars.â€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.”
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
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
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.
anthony,
I’ve been looking for your answer to my question, can’t find it. Try again please.
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!)
Bert,
i already did
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Gloria Arroyo,Pride comes before the fall!
One Day In The Near Future:
Headline:”It’s All Over;The Pidals On Exile!”
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
“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€Â-anthony
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
“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€Â
Can The Pidals Escape The Law Of KARMA?