Do or do not, there is no try
November 24, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Before…
…And after.
Ding Gagelonia’s recent entry in his blog, At Midfield, got me thinking. As well as some comments by readers for me to consider their view that there’s not enough time to pursue Charter Change (I think there is).
But both got me to reflect, once again, on this: Timing is everything in politics, the saying goes. Yesterday’s Inquirer editorial points to the political timing of oil price rollbacks, for example.
You can calculate your moves to be timed in such a manner as to throw your opponents off-kilter. You determine the timing of events.
Or you can time your moves to coincide or take advantage of events no one could preordained, but which you foresaw as being predetermined, that is, they would occur sooner or later, and once they take place, better-prepared, you can seize the moment.
Time is seasonal; for example, in terms of political time, impeachment has its season and other things, like Charter Change, have their own season.
What happens when two seasons coincide or their timing seems to operate at cross-purposes to each other.
After all, the only thing that can seriously derail the marshaling of forces for Charter Change is impeachment. Or is it?
What if you put it another way, the other way around? The only thing that can derail the marshaling of forces for impeachment is Charter Change.
The only checkmate on the President is impeachment, not the official end of her term; for her term expiring is at best, a moveable goal-post (create a new job, and the expiration of your term isn’t consequential; retiring isn’t a problem if besides an obliging Ombudsman and a friendly Supreme Court, you have a new President you swung the election to). Only impeachment means sudden death, politically. And things can happen very fast, when people see a check mate unfolding, for capitalizing on it requires only a committed and nimble minority with its eye on the prize.
The long, hard slog of trying to exact accountability through constitutional means since it was first attempted in 2005 has only served to sap the will of those attempting it and makes cynical those who favor it as a means of replacing a president above all others. As Cocoy wrote in The Political Machinery and Infrastructure Of President Arroyo:
But I submit, to you my dear readers, that the cases against President Gloria Arroyo, are strong, very strong, based on command responsibility, based on misappropriated funds, and so much more, but the smoking gun has never been found, except for one, which I mention in the next paragraph. Call it genius, I say it’s something else. You decide. And even when it led straight to the top, it has had to be based on testimony, for example, that of Romulo Neri. He told her about the alleged bribe attempt, she confirmed her knowledge about the NBN deal, in no less than on a radio show, but still, nothing came about.
Even, when the strongest case, election fraud, was brought to The Senate, in the whirlwind that we now know as The Garci Tapes, we still could not deliver a death sentence to this Administration, it was not only a failure of our government, and all those involved, but it was the death of the trust that our people had in this government.
President Gloria Arroyo, blame her all you want, because I certainly do, has built up so many safeguards, has made the political moves, and has the deep political team, and bench, that even in such a time in which Joc Joc Bolante is now testifying before The Senate, she may be a bit nervous, but in the end, she has to know, her machinery, and her political infrastructure will shield her from any form of accountability. Each and every time, she has been cleared, either by witnesses, by government institutions, or by providing another fall guy to take the fall.
It’s a sad realization. That even, while, I am sick to my stomach, watching the Joc Joc hearings, that, nothing seems be coming out of it, that it is important that The Filipino People realize, just as when Neri testified, the messed up system of procurement, appropriation, project planning, etc, that our nation is in.
But, when people close their eyes to such anomalies, declare a saint out of this woman, I take notice, and I take offense, because such denial, such defense, it can no longer can be based on logical reason, but on a mere partisan reaction.
So, we are in a quandry, the obviousness of the whole affair, this affair that we call The Arroyo Administration, as to how to hold her responsible. But we have not the political climate to exact the punishment that is due to her. The strongest hard evidence, The Hello Garci tapes, led to nothing, but a now popular term — “Notedâ€.
Hard evidence is there, I say, but even putting this aside, the most damning is when you take the bulk of these anomalies, add on to it human rights violations, kidnappings during this regime, and now a resurgent Fertilizer Fund Scam investigation, these all scream Arroyo, and political will is strong to bring her to account, but the numbers, however, and the machinery sides with Arroyo.
In light of the above, let me propose, further, that the only people really in a position to put teeth in the proceedings, are not her long-standing foes, but her more recent foes: those who were once very close allies and partook of presidential plenty during the happy days of old. And who was closer than Jose de Venecia, Jr.? Arguably three individuals spelled the difference between a breathing spell and a second wind, politically, and resignation and exile in 2005. They were: Fidel V. Ramos, Jose de Venecia, Jr., and Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, Archbishop of Manila.
FVR and JDV thought they’d saved the President in exchange for her bowing out gracefully by means of a transitional parliamentary being put in place by 2006. By the time that deadline rolled around, FVR had been publicly sidelined in his own party; the Speaker had been stalled by a last gasp of People Power summoned by the Catholic hierarchy in December, 2006. So in 2007 mopping-up operations took place courtesy of the NBN-ZTE controversy which led to de Venecia’s being deposed.
Every time de Venecia previously showed signs of spilling the beans, the Palace ferociously asserted there were no beans to spill at all; failing that, that they would be self-incriminating beans, too; and failing that, that the beans ought to be spilled “in the proper forum,” which the Palace of course controlled. In other words, a thick smokescreen is laid down, as the Palace checks and re-checks the chain of command, counts votes in the House, summons and obtains manifestos of support from governors and mayors, sends emissaries with sweeteners to the bishops, puts together cabinet and other clusters to game out scenarios, and so forth.
A smokescreen buys time, and time allows you to look for opportunities. Laying down that smokescreen -with its great, rolling clouds of appeals to “objectivity,” to “sobriety,” for “stability,” and the other noxious rhetorical vapors of the official media machine, has been perfected over time, as Write Rhythm recently pointed out, showing how the institution most people rely on to get their news and comprehend the topsy-turvy world of politics, can be gamed:
Aside from the number of issues to report about this administration, The Age of Gloria is a challenging time for Filipino journalists because of another characteristic of this era. The Age of Gloria… okay let’s be more specific, Gloria is known for her strategy of divert and obfuscate. Aside from diverting funds, Gloria is a master of diverting the public’s attention to another issue (i.e. usually the economy, national unity, etc.), thereby obfuscating the original issue by bombarding people with one issue after another. Unfortunately, this has worked to her advantage as the media and civil society try to keep up with the many issues tied to her.
The difficulty in setting the agenda is that the Philippine media has to consider both what is new and timely, and what is a matter of public interest. Sometimes, the two do not go together. especially with the administration’s expertise of burying issues in the past. Sometimes, they do but not to an extent that the choice is clear. And oftentimes, one has to yield to yet another consideration of choosing the other, sexier stories.
Let me suggest that there apparently may have been political rhyme and reason to de Venecia’s loudly proclaiming he’d spill the beans, but stepping back or never letting more than a stray little bean escape -a mere hint of the pork and beans he wanted to spill. He is by temperament and instinct, I think everyone agrees, a consensus-builder, an operator, not the kind who leads cavalry charges. It certainly exasperated those egging him on to come out swinging. Of course even as people thought they were taking the measure of the man, whether from the ranks of the Palace or the various factions of the opposition, he was taking their measure, too. Having been in politics longer than most of them, it’s entirely possible he held his peace and did his Dopey act to buy time and fend off the more aggressive among those importuning him to weigh in.
If you are up against a numerically and logistically superior enemy, you do not make a frontal attack at the time and place chosen by that enemy. If the spider and the fly had been politicians, the spider would have said “bring it to the proper forum!” instead of “welcome to my parlor.”
So what do you do, if you are, in Sergio Osmena Jr.’s words, “outgunned, outgooned, and outgold”? You probe for weaknesses. You foster, in the superior enemy, a sense of its overwhelming superiority, so that the enemy begins to believe its own propaganda.
You also marshal your own forces, whatever they might be, and do what you do best: build or re-build alliances.
Both take time, and craft, not boldness; or more craftiness, at least in private, and less boldness, at least in public. Both require biding your time so you don’t play entirely according to the game plan of the enemy.
Still, while things can happen pretty fast, plots require time to be hatched. One major strength of any administration is its access to information, aided by our national propensity to boast and gossip.
For months now, it’s been talked about that de Venecia consulted other disgruntled elders, such as Fidel V. Ramos, and others, all of whom are chafing at the interminable durability of the President, as well as other power players who are inclined as much to think one step ahead as the President, whether it’s potential presidential candidates like Manuel Villar, Jr. or people fully intent on continuing to play the role of king maker, like Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. One such meeting took place around September, where FVR is said to have received JDV in order to determine if provincemate really had the goods, and could really put up a fight.
The two supposedly reached a tacit agreement involving JDV throwing the bomb, and if it had the intended effect, it would provide the two -FVR and JDV- with a pretext to call for the scrapping of the Lakas-Kampi merger, and take an FVR-JDV loyalist rump into union with the NPC of Cojuangco and the NP of Villar. An application had been been filed with Christian Democrats International to accredit the NP as a Christian Democratic party, providing an ideological pretext for the new coalition, while the NPC could simply state that as a child of the NP, it was simply patching up the quarrel among partymates that dated back to Danding Cojuangco and Doy Laurel’s disagreement over who should have the party franchise.
All very neat, tidy, potentially formidable, a real game-changer, and one denying the President’s uncouth Kampi blowhards and the perpetual Opposition losers the satisfaction of victory. A true victory for the veterans. At least, this is the delicious scenario as they might see it.
In recent weeks, it’s been talked about that the NPC began to stall on Charter Change talks, and that the Palace decided to accelerate the killing of the impeachment complaint not only to forestall opportunities for new revelations, but also to maintain their political momentum and stampede representatives into joining the Charter Change bandwagon. The way things ebbed and flowed in the House going into the last Charter Change effort in 2006, indicates how congressmen can be mulish just when the mule drivers want them to trot. As it is, the Palace has had to give the impression it’s backpedaling a bit: Palace: No to lifting of term limits really says nothing, though. the Palace, procedurally and politically, can “exclude, dismiss, and reject” whatever it wants in public, but so long as the behind-the-scenes green light stays lit, the ultimate aim of something for everyone can be achieved. Part of the smokescreen.
And there are other leaders perpetually circling around, sniffing for opportunity. Which is why I’m inclined to think Uniffors is on to something. What do you think is a bigger motivation, and calculation, for someone like Juan Ponce Enrile? To wrap up his political career “para siempre un muchacho,” as his generation might put it, or as possibly, the transitional President of the Philippines, his portrait permanently on display in the presidential palace? Amando Doronila, who has had decades to observe his former jailer, Enrile, says a sudden toppling of a President who views him as an elderly toady is just the sort of thing to make the old schemer grin in anticipation.
Everyone knows timing is everything in politics. If everyone has begun to think of a post-Arroyo future, how do you, as Arroyo, keep yourself front and center, to continue enjoying a maximum number of political options? The President has always shown a marked preference for thinking tactically and not strategically. Her elders pride themselves on thinking strategically. The tactician has proven herself the mistress of the strategists so far.
The way to keep everyone off-kilter is not to wait for them to throw you off, but to throw them off, obviously.
How?
Start having the machinery you control belch out another smokescreen.
It seems Secretary Jesus Dureza confided to persons close to him that they were going to do “something” the next morning, to gauge the public pulse. The next morning, Dureza said his famous little prayer and what had been previously sewn up at Rep. Romualdez’s house, could begin to be delivered -Charter Change.
Charter Change primarily as smokescreen, but also, since there’s nothing to lose, as yet another item in the menu of presidential options.
Charter Change immediately swept the central story -impeachment, with all the accompanying side plots, from Bolante to the Eurogenerals, to NBN-ZTE-deal, off the table, as far as public attention was concerned.
Something beyond the Palace’s control had refocused the story not on the President’s insistence that all was well, but on everything that had made her administration unpopular in the first place. That thing was Bolante’s return, and impeachment season coming at its heels.
That thing includes reminders of all the many issues that have antagonized the public, including, I might add, the question of the BJE-MOA deal, which even the president’s critics didn’t want to touch with a ten foot pole.
Charter Change could have been resumed, with a lot of fanfare, two months ago or even two months from now. But why go great guns now?
Because it’s the only way to stop being on the defensive, and instead, go on the offensive.
But it seems the timing was not, exactly, right. Because the timing had been determined not by the Palace, from the start, but by other things.
Charter Change essentially remains a reaction to the embarrassment Bolante represents, and someone else proved capable of mastering the timeline, too.
Yesterday’s Inquirer reported on the revelations de Venecia’s already made -by means of his authorized biography- and which the House has to prevent being further elaborated upon and amplified in the House deliberations on impeachment. See JDV details secret Arroyo-ZTE meeting:
Again, timing is everything in politics. Those deliberations, at least in the Justice Committee, were supposed to be wrapped up last Friday. But the hearings on Thursday and Friday were canceled.
Timing is everything in politics. And it’s just as well that the gastrointestinal troubles of the President’s husband has him home in time to mind the store as the House of Representatives wrestles with what to do with its former Speaker, Jose de Venecia, Jr.
With the President absent (a benefit of her absences, if you’ve noticed, is that out sight means being out of mind: reducing the effect she has on public opinion, which is galvanize it, against herself), the man everyone, even her own loyalists, dislikes but needs, can take up the slack because he has nothing to lose. Ergo, First Gentleman: JDV a ‘liar’. Hey, it’s a crappy job but someone has to do it, and the President’s husband does it pretty well, in public and more crucially, behind the scenes.
JDV had wrestled with the problem of his lacking the numbers to prevent his being gagged by the House. Recall how he’d tried to do so, but coverage was cut off by the new House leadership. If one assumes he’s capable of a certain amount of introspection, he knows full well that among his many liabilities as a politician, is how he cannot make pithy remarks in front of media, he tends to meander and his rambling undercuts his effectivity. He is more suited to cajoling people in back rooms and, from time to time, making more carefully-structured speeches.
Which makes his decision to publish an authorized biography a pretty clever political move, one which undercuts his administration foes, and centers the discussion on his allegations. Critics would have to repeatedly make reference to the allegations, put forward in print; those references will make people curious; curious people will want to read what’s been written, and throughout the process, the debate will keep returning to the source document -de Venecia’s book. For this reason, I disagree with smoke who wrote, yesterday:
As far as bombshells go, this was a certifiable dud. Certainly didn’t reveal anything new, nor even added any sort of nuance to the story that’s been told over and over and over by everyone and his dog. JDV’s recollection of these events merely invites the reader to make the connections for himself – something which we’re all pretty good at; a strategy guaranteed to generate the most salacious conclusions possible.
There is a calibrated effort going on. Smoke’s entry was in response to his restating some of his original revelations. That’s just one story, in a book no one has had time to fully read, but whose contents are slowly -and surely, with timing in mind- being dribbled out by the one who authorized the book, JDV.
So, going into today’s hearing in the House, other revelations were made: JDV confirms P500,000 Palace bribe: Says cash for ‘weak’ impeach complaint. You can bet your bottom dollar that will dominate the morning news.
Again, not much by way of a revelation except it provides in-house confirmation, so to speak, of something everyone saw because the congressmen waddling out of the Palace in 2007 didn’t bother to hide their gift bags. And it confirms the testimony of Gov. Panlilio of Pampanga, another official on the Palace hit list.
But Joey de Venecia’s already said he expects his father to spill at least some beans on the issue everyone thought JDV would always remain mum on: North Rail.
We shall see how it unfolds today if it’s explosive or if it’s a dud. The Palace has to ride it out today and going into the rest of the week, trying to kill impeachment by midweek and ensure this by publicly ramping up Charter Change. JDV says he’s leaving Tuesday for Washington -where he has friends, unlike the President- which gives him a chance to peddle his book to foreign media, and leaves the Palace with no target to vent its ire on: it will have to face the accusations by its lonesome, when it’s usual tactic is to turn the tables on accusers by unleashing the attack dogs. But Washington is the last place to send those attack dogs, because the brunt of the asking will be done here at home.
Brilliant, if you ask me, true guerrilla hit-and-run tactics.
So if the de Venecias pull this off, and today turns out politically explosive, it should then be described as the day that revenge was truly proven to best be served cold. That’s another hoary old chestnut, but for some, it’s true.
If some of us would take inspiration from a Shakespearean call to sally forth, “Once more, unto the breach!” There’s the the little old prune who could just as much say, “Do or do not, there is no try.”
Update:
I find it interesting that the President’s husband had to sally forth and face the cameras. Flanked by his two sons. The President’s congressional allies have been rather subdued.
As Mon Casiple puts it in his entry for today:
Actual impeachment may be a lesser possibility based on the numbers in the House of Representatives but the political implications are certainly big enough. The revelation guarantees the focus on GMA’s foibles and constitutes further political pressure to make her resign.
The GMA majority in the House of Representatives actually rests on the fragile loyalty that money can provide. It is only feasible as long as the continued stay in power of the powers dispensing the largesse is assured. This is the reason why the current charter change move by Malacañang is being watched by all sides. When it fails, no money can dissuade the congressmen from seeking new patrons among the presidentiables. Their own survival imperative to stay in power will trump the money.
Before then, the pressure on GMA to resign is expected to increase. What is unspoken in this message is the “or else†clause. This is brought about by the interesting anti-GMA positioning of the de Venecias who are still very much a part of the ruling Lakas-CMD coalition party. Malacañang cannot anymore be certain of the loyalty of the majority in the ruling coalition, particularly the non-GMA Lakas-CMD, the NPC, House LPs, and other smaller groups. This was not present before in previous opposition initiatives.
This is an elaboration on the possible scenario I indicated above. And brings up all sorts of interesting permutations, including a cabinet declaration of presidential incapacity, which if contested by the President, leads to the question being thrown to Congress.
Blogger seven million goldfish in exasperation and alarm asks why not just shoot her? Those in a position or with an inclination to do so, are in jail. The truly big political players are not inclined to invest in or promote permanent solutions. And the question is not to eliminate her at all costs, but to save the Republic even if it means the President preterminating her term.
***
My column for today is, Congressmen respond, with the responses of Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel and Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin, Jr. to my my last column.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:14 am
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081123-173962/JDV-confirms-P500000-Palace-bribe
–i do not know how can those greedy pro gma tongressmen trash the current impeachment complaint in light of JVD’s revelations. play the number game mantra again?
what follows in the coming days will be very interesting, as well as dangerous as gma will be desperate, with her back against the corner. i would like to see how can the ermita, dureza, nograles et al can spin this one! they have underestimated gma several times, this time i hope the opposition will thread carefully and not get carried away with their emotions instead!
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:36 am
i how wonder how gma will take this current JDV revelations, and with an egg on her face standing in front of APEC members, it must be quite embarrassing! zero credibility! she could do us all a favor, seek asylum in the USA.
…and then she can keep bush company. misery loves
company. but then again she must be made to face the criminal and civil charges again and get the punishment she, gonzalez, ermita, palparan and et al deserves.
magdiwang on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:45 am
People here have just too much time on their hands. I can’t fathom their obsession on her demise. They have made up their minds on GMA’s culpability and their goal is to just remove her from power without even thinking of the dire consequences. While everyone should be outraged on anybody who commits a wrongdoing, they should also be open to the fact that their perception of her can be completely wrong. People are tired on all of this with anti admin politicians throwing everything against her then GMA haters salivating into a frenzy then only to be dissapointed again. So what else is new, opposition tactics are very predictable devoid of any imagination. No wonder GMA always beats them on every scrimmage. Peace.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 3:09 am
“People here have just too much time on their hands. I can’t fathom their obsession on her demise. They have made up their minds on GMA’s culpability and their goal is to just remove her from power without even thinking of the dire consequences. While everyone should be outraged on anybody who commits a wrongdoing, they should also be open to the fact that their perception of her can be completely wrong. People are tired on all of this with anti admin politicians throwing everything against her then GMA haters salivating into a frenzy then only to be dissapointed again. So what else is new, opposition tactics are very predictable devoid of any imagination. No wonder GMA always beats them on every scrimmage. Peace.”
–first, you should consider changing your pseudo name, it is not fitting. second, have you ever considered the consequence of gma’s extended stay? she has already over stayed for last four years! she has already admitted it in front of jp rizal’s monument, that she is the source of the country’s divisiveness. third, she was caught lying and actually apologized for her “lapsed of judgment”.
this is just to name a few of so many reasons why gma should go! and peace be with you also!
and your reason why she should stay is? and please don’t tell me that gma is good for pinas and not that silent majority. pro gmas are definitely not silent nor the majority!
vic on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 3:30 am
GMA like many of her predecessors believe in her invulnerability. Like that lady in the u-tube, who had the guts to tell her subjects to let them eat cakes. The Arrogance of Power knows no bound, only one’s mortality will put to end to such sin.
magdiwang on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 3:56 am
@istambay…..i always thought its too late to rock the boat at this time. You have a global deflation, there are more important things to address than causing more divisiveness. the opposition should be calculating enough and prepare for 2010. They had their chance to unseat her and they lost bigtime. their egos are just too big and cant wait for their turn.
its seems like the opposition are not really serious in proving the alleged anomalies. people like me were anticipating more regarding joc-joc and its highly anticipated appearance in the senate. well all the senators were stump on his testimony and no follow up on the alleged corruption. its just goes to show they are fixated in undermining the administration and not the corruption within the system. there is an obvious disconnect. dont you think that makes the opposition lose credibility. all fireworks with nothing to show for. same situation on all alleged shenanigans.
i dont know if gma is good for the country, but i do know she is at the right moment the best bet until we a get a new leader in lieu of the current economic worldwide conditions. who do you think will be better? hmmmmm im sure the next one will be the same mold as gma. its just goes on to show that our level of politics have not matured enough to rival those of working democracies in other countries. so its better to work within the system slowly but surely to attain what we aspire for. you surely dont want a game of musical chairs on our presidency and want them ousted whenever they dont conform to the ideal leadership that some people advocate.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 4:15 am
“hmmmmm im sure the next one will be the same mold as gma.”
–so what you’re trying to imply is why bother at all? let us just keep gma for life until we attain that political maturity? now talking about flawed premise. we have beat this argument to death over and over again, this was/is same argument used by pro-gmas to justify her continued stay in power. kabayan noli unwittingly ( i don’t know if he’s aware of this) gave the bogeyman a face, why to keep gma.
did her so called sound economic policy protected pinas from current global recession? gma’s economy policy is very dependent on OFWs remittances . take that away and pinas’ economy will surely tank worse than the rest.
magdiwang on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 4:41 am
@istambay…..we should exercise restraint on everything that we do. there are things much more important than trying to prove a point. you surely dont want to proceed on half baked accusations which cannot stand judicial scrutiny. you definitely dont want to file an impeachment if you know that it will not pass as you dont have the numbers. they are exercises of futility. they tend to make things worse. gma haters decides on emotions and not on solid arguments on how to convince people on their advocacy. no wonder they always get caught with their pants down when what what matters most is scrutinized.
the current worldwide economic turmoil has nothing to do with gma. our country dont have any control on external factors emanating from this implosion whoever our president is.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 6:11 am
again, “it’s a number game”! where did i hear that before?
it is to the highest bidder, for our tongressmen/kenoygressmen is the best way to put it. nothing have to do with facts and evidence. again, with JDV talking how can these tongressmen justify their numbers game this time.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 6:21 am
@magdiwang, i don’t see you refuting any of the charges hurled against gma. i assume you agree that she’s guilty and you are just contented to wait it out til 2010 when/IF gma steps down. i can’t believe you are willing put your and your country’s future on the sole words of a proven liar and cheat. it is like trusting your house to a known burglar hoping when you leave and come back your appliances and valuables you left would still all be there.
i admire your faith and trust gma! after all she’s all we got right? tsk tsk tsk. that’s taking belief in the inherent of human goodness to the extreme if not blind faith.
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 7:35 am
This is great, politican v politician. Country’ future decided on a sabong. Not because the president was caught cheating (game over) but because it’s game on.
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 7:37 am
Glad Locsin agrees with me on the appropriate Mindanao response.
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 7:40 am
Too bad his languish remains mentorish. He he.
rego on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 8:21 am
“@magdiwang, i don’t see you refuting any of the charges hurled against gma. i assume you agree that she’s guilty and you are just contented to wait it out til 2010 when/IF gma steps down. i can’t believe you are willing put your and your country’s future on the sole words of a proven liar and cheat. it is like trusting your house to a known burglar hoping when you leave and come back your appliances and valuables you left would still all be there “- istambay
if the american people can wait for bush to finish his term despite all his super terrible wrong doings . why cant the filipinos?
and why not refocus all the energy on the things to come. The presidentiables from both side should better start crafting out solutions now so that come election they can present it clearly to the people.
rego on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 8:31 am
present “them” clearly to th epeople
magdiwang on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 8:37 am
@istambay….i think we all guilty one way or another on the muck we are in politically. but to believe that when gma is gone will solve most of our problems borders on absurdity. why dont you hangout with your local kagawad and see for yourself the institutionalized corruption that is being perpetuated left and right. im sure you agree its not all gma’s fault but its all of us in one way or another responsible for it. we can only advance as a nation when people realized that our leaders are only as good as the people they govern.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 8:44 am
“if the american people can wait for bush to finish his term despite all his super terrible wrong doings . why cant the filipinos?”
–c’mon you are comparing g.bush to gma? if you can please contrast the lists of transgressions gma is being accused of from bush’s. makes bush look like a petty thief being compared to a murderer!
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 8:48 am
“@istambay….i think we all guilty one way or another on the muck we are in politically. but to believe that when gma is gone will solve most of our problems borders on absurdity. why dont you hangout with your local kagawad and see for yourself the institutionalized corruption that is being perpetuated left and right. im sure you agree its not all gma’s fault but its all of us in one way or another responsible for it. we can only advance as a nation when people realized that our leaders are only as good as the people they govern.”
–so is this a reason to raise your hands up in air and just give up, because everyone else is doing it? that line of thinking is one reason why we are where we are right now! one of the most if not the most corrupt country in asia.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 8:57 am
‘if the american people can wait for bush to finish his term despite all his super terrible wrong doings . why cant the filipinos?
and why not refocus all the energy on the things to come. The presidentiables from both side should better start crafting out solutions now so that come election they can present it clearly to the people.’
–the thing is, it is a guarantee as the sun sets in west and rises in the east that there be elections every 4 years on the first tuesday of november in US. here in pinas, we are not even sure if there will a presidential election come 2010, because the current government can’t be trusted to keep their word. add that to the back door maneuvers of gma’s allies to amend the constitution for their own benefit, we have a big IF, if she will actually give up her throne.
may kasabihan nga na action speaks louder than words. and gma’s actions doesn’t match what she says. add that to her annoying voice, can’t blame some people to not actually pay attention to whatever thing she says.
magdiwang on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 9:12 am
@istambay ….. we should do our utmost best to remove people who we find guilty of wrongdoing, but to hurl accusations without irrefutable basis does not do us any good. anti gma forces have already made up their mind on her guilt. no amount of reasoning can change their perception on her. when they lose they resort to name calling, make excuses and accuse everybody as paid hacks.
i believe most people want more than mere accusations. if she is deposed and we dont have solid evidence against her…. we as a nation will have our hands full trying to put out fires after her term. what is wrong on the old fashioned way how to seek justice? is that too hard to accomplish?
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 10:07 am
“@istambay ….. we should do our utmost best to remove people who we find guilty of wrongdoing, but to hurl accusations without irrefutable basis does not do us any good. anti gma forces have already made up their mind on her guilt. no amount of reasoning can change their perception on her. when they lose they resort to name calling, make excuses and accuse everybody as paid hacks.
i believe most people want more than mere accusations. if she is deposed and we dont have solid evidence against her…. we as a nation will have our hands full trying to put out fires after her term. what is wrong on the old fashioned way how to seek justice? is that too hard to accomplish?”
–what planet are you from?!
UP n grad on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 10:45 am
This is always to be remembered:
And there are other leaders as well as wanna-be leaders perpetually circling around, sniffing for opportunity. for gain or simply to be in the news.
Geo on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 11:03 am
mlq3,
I thought you told me you weren’t a novelist? But after reading your stuff, maybe I should have said “short story writer”?
Let’s look how you make things sound real:
“The only thing that can derail the marshaling of forces for impeachment is Charter Change.”
– Funny, this is, what, the 4th impeachment? And only Cha-cha will stop it?
———————————–
“her term expiring is at best, a moveable goal-post (create a new job, and the expiration of your term isn’t consequential; retiring isn’t a problem if besides an obliging Ombudsman and a friendly Supreme Court, you have a new President you swung the election to).”
– The paranoid delusion continues. Hurling baseless accusations at people and institutions — the “friendly” SC? Puuulease! Why do they often rule against the admin, then?
———————————-
“Palace: No to lifting of term limits really says nothing.”
– Only you seem to know who’s words are true and who’s are lies. Amazing.
———————————-
“a sudden toppling of a President who views him as an elderly toady is just the sort of thing to make the old schemer grin in anticipation.”
– Here you go: your fellow anti-GMA writer knows the Truth, eh? You guys can read Enrile’s mind…wow.
————————————-
“The President has always shown a marked preference for thinking tactically and not strategically. Her elders pride themselves on thinking strategically. The tactician has proven herself the mistress of the strategists so far.”
– Care to back these claims up with any credible evidence?
———————————-
“It seems Secretary Jesus Dureza confided to persons close to him that they were going to do “something†the next morning, to gauge the public pulse. The next morning, Dureza said his famous little prayer and what had been previously sewn up at Rep. Romualdez’s house, could begin to be delivered -Charter Change.”
– Please tell us to whom Dureza confided this to. Who is your source again? (I ask, since there is tangible proof that the Inquirer has a continuous history of legal/ethical problems due to its unprofessional use of “sources”). Because using a prayer like that to float a trial balloon has got to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard of! Dureza and the Palace — even you admit — are sharp political players…and out of a million ways to test market something, that has to be the millionth option to turn to. Those guys aren’t that stupid. Claiming that they are is, well, ludicrous at best.
—————————–
“Charter Change immediately swept the central story -impeachment, with all the accompanying side plots, from Bolante to the Eurogenerals, to NBN-ZTE-deal, off the table, as far as public attention was concerned.”
– I don’t think the evidence bears this out. Public attention to Cha-cha has been muted. Just like there is little interest in the impeachment (although JDV will spice things up today in front of ANC). The oust-GMA types still don’t understand that their words are not resonating with the rest of us.
——————————————————————
—————————————————————
Cha-cha as a smokescreen against the impeachment??? The only ones who will buy that are those who think that this impeachment complaint is a bona fide attempt to improve the Philippines. And that’s a pretty small crowd, nowadays.
By the way, mlq3, this quote from someone you cited is funny: “The strongest hard evidence, The Hello Garci tapes, led to nothing,”
You see??? There are still people who think that the Garci Tapes was hard evidence…they don’t even know that the SC opened the ballot boxes and verified that there were no meaningful anomalies!!!
So…I guess there is still an audience for the fairy tales you are writing.
hvrds on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 11:45 am
“if the american people can wait for bush to finish his term despite all his super terrible wrong doings . why cant the filipinos?”
“and why not refocus all the energy on the things to come. The presidentiables from both side should better start crafting out solutions now so that come election they can present it clearly to the people.”
In the midst of the ongoing creeping and crawling effective nationalization of the U.S. financial system which is a tribute to the post depression institutions – the FDIC and the more effective Federal Reserve. The executive department has been proven to be almost useless.
The Justice System in the U.S. ripped the attempt to initiate the unitary President. By the time Obama comes into office the Bush Doctrine is already torn to shreds. The elections sealed it.
Citiroup the mightiest of them all will herald the true state of affairs for everyone to see.
Nation states operate on faith based currencies as the ultimate safety net for economies. The taxpayer in the end pays the price.
In the Philippines it is clear we do not have that type of faith in institutions simply because they exist more in the breach.
Re-establishing and /or strengthening institutions are generational in nature.
But then you are back to the chicken and egg situation.
Point to one politico who has spoken in this manner about moving to put short terms measures in place but keeping the main focus on the long term effort at nation building.
The capture of state power by politicos is more like a corporate takeover battle.
Geo on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:02 pm
And that’s why, hvrds, it’s important to protect institutions. That’s why it is necessary to stay within the laws and processes.
It’s for the long term.
That’s why unsupported allegations, half-baked concepts for “saving the Philippines” and a call for unconstitutional (and potentially violent) confrontation have fallen on deaf ears.
Radical, short-term and unscrupulous attempts to create a government/corporate takeover is anathema to long-term institutional nation-building.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:08 pm
“The paranoid delusion continues. Hurling baseless accusations at people and institutions — the “friendly†SC? Puuulease! Why do they often rule against the admin, then?”
–i think what manolo is talking about when he referred to as friendly SC is about the coming year when several SC justices will be retiring and gma has the power to appoint SC justices who will have favorable attitude towards malacanang (favorable is just a term i picked to put it in a nicer way). gets mo man?
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:11 pm
“Here you go: your fellow anti-GMA writer knows the Truth, eh? You guys can read Enrile’s mind…wow.”
–reading someone’s mind has nothing to do with it. where have you been in the past years? if you don’t know enrile by now, you will never never know him ( the last line sounds familiar to you?).
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:13 pm
“– Please tell us to whom Dureza confided this to. Who is your source again? (I ask, since there is tangible proof that the Inquirer has a continuous history of legal/ethical problems due to its unprofessional use of “sourcesâ€). Because using a prayer like that to float a trial balloon has got to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard of! Dureza and the Palace — even you admit — are sharp political players…and out of a million ways to test market something, that has to be the millionth option to turn to. Those guys aren’t that stupid. Claiming that they are is, well, ludicrous at best.”
– and what planet are you from too?
mlq3 on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:17 pm
geo, you are welcome, once more, and yet again, to do your share of the homework and rebutt why you disagree with my view that the president is a tactical and not strategic person. that’s how i see it, that’s how some people who’ve worked for her see it (including me), that’s how i see others who i think think more strategically and how they see themselves if you talk to people close to them. why don’t you do your poll of people you know who have worked for our past presidents and take your own survey? i think the way she quite obviously zeroes in on every emergency to the exclusion of everything else, shows her tactical obsession.
re: supreme court:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/special-report/10/22/08/voting-pattern-supreme-court-justices-shows-they-play-politics
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/research/10/23/08/voting-pattern-supreme-court-justices
i will not reveal my sources. but i’m sure you have your own. if you don’t, too bad; if you’d rather not, i understand; if you don’t believe me, be my guest. as for their being not that stupid, what made you think this is a situation that calls for finesse?
rep. villafuerte, of the president’s own pet party, is explicit about charter change by means of bludgeoning the senate with the supreme court:
http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5605&Itemid=88889051
and as your perpetually trumpeting there is no evidence, you only say that because you know the president cannot be sued in court during her term and that impeacment is never allowed to get to the point of actual presentation of evidence.
and by voiding any efforts to piece the story together:
see hutchcroft
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1018&Itemid=31
on nbn-zte:
http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_magazine&func=show_edition&id=34&Itemid=88889432
Here’s thads bentulan’s ppt on how the cuts worked out to result in the eventual pricing:
Derivation of the $329 Million
on garci:
http://newsbreak.com.ph/index.php?option=com_magazine&func=show_edition&id=26&Itemid=88889438
here’s a small part of the study that took a couple of years for the FPJ supporters to put together:
PCIB Charts – Data 12
so of course even before the official counting the massaging of the numbers had taken place; garci was called in when the sophisticated cheating still wasn’t enough, and even after garci they had to doctor the documents in congress:
http://www.pcij.org/blog/?p=1127
the documents the supreme court looked at.
on oda:
http://www.pcij.org/stories/2008/oda.html
regarding public opinion, this is an internal ppt used during the anti cha cha campaign in 2006, it was never released to the public, the survey results were purely for internal use in the campaign:
SO2.0
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:17 pm
“So…I guess there is still an audience for the fairy tales you are writing.”
–but you’re one of the audience! why is that? and you still keep coming back to post and read manolo’s blog day after day! to refute the so called fairy tales? why is that again? oh for the good of the country! i get it!
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:21 pm
istambay,
only the President can appoint justices of the Supreme Court – its in the Constitution!
only the paranoid will insinuate that the SC appointees are beholden to their “appointer”
but for your peace of mind, try joining the Bantay Korte Suprema of Sen.Pangilinan so you can have some sort of participation in the selection of SC justices
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:27 pm
“i dont know if gma is good for the country, but i do know she is at the right moment the best bet until we a get a new leader in lieu of the current economic worldwide conditions. who do you think will be better?”
1. She has been in power since 2001. Haven’t you noticed the droves leaving the country looking for work, any kind of work? How come she has not been able to provide jobs at least to even slow down the emigration of job seekers?
2. How is it that after all her bragging about 8 years of economic management and people feeding on the fruits of her hard work more people are hungry now?
3. How are education and health care faring these days, after 8 years of poor oriented poicies and programs?
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:27 pm
“only the paranoid will insinuate that the SC appointees are beholden to their “appointer†”
–and what do you call brion to name a few? only in the perfect world or onli n da pilipins! and perfect example, neri’s conversation with president on NBN-ZTE deal being covered by executive privilege, a matter of national security.
HOHOHO.
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:31 pm
“‘if the american people can wait for bush to finish his term despite all his super terrible wrong doings . why cant the filipinos?”
Why can’t the Filipinos be as stupid as the Americans?
Anyway, they redeemed themselves with Obama.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:32 pm
“but for your peace of mind, try joining the Bantay Korte Suprema of Sen.Pangilinan so you can have some sort of participation in the selection of SC justices”
–yeah and malacanang can send that list back for names will have their choice in it. bet you’ve heard it before. it called stocking the SC. c’mon it’s too late to act naive in this part of game. i maybe older than most of you here, but i’m not senile yet.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:33 pm
“Why can’t the Filipinos be as stupid as the Americans?
Anyway, they redeemed themselves with Obama.”
–HOHOHO! cheers to that.
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:41 pm
“Charter Change immediately swept the central story -impeachment, with all the accompanying side plots, from Bolante to the Eurogenerals, to NBN-ZTE-deal, off the table, as far as public attention was concerned.â€
– I don’t think the evidence bears this out. Public attention to Cha-cha has been muted. Just like there is little interest in the impeachment (although JDV will spice things up today in front of ANC). The oust-GMA types still don’t understand that their words are not resonating with the rest of us.
GEO ANO BA ANG HEADLINES NG MGA DYARYO FOR THE PAST WEEK OR SO, IMPEACHMENT O CHA-CHA RELATED?
mlq3 on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:45 pm
folks, please review the entry. it’s about *political timing*.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:47 pm
sorry to digress from the main topic.
vic on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 12:57 pm
only the paranoid will insinuate that the SC appointees are beholden to their “appointer†Anthony Scalia Said:
You can tell to the late President Eisenhower on his appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren:
As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. In many cases, a Justice’s decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court’s history. Eisenhower later called the appointment “the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made.”
Orion on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:00 pm
“ANO BA ANG HEADLINES NG MGA DYARYO FOR THE PAST WEEK OR SO, IMPEACHMENT O CHA-CHA RELATED?”
___________________________
Baka walang pambili ng dyaryo ang karamihan ng mga pinoy.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:05 pm
manuelbuencamino,
“1. She has been in power since 2001. Haven’t you noticed the droves leaving the country looking for work, any kind of work? How come she has not been able to provide jobs at least to even slow down the emigration of job seekers?”
the exodus have been continuing since Cory’s time
its not the task of the president to create the jobs
“2. How is it that after all her bragging about 8 years of economic management and people feeding on the fruits of her hard work more people are hungry now?”
unabated population growth. thanks to the babies assembled during the times of Cory, FVR and Erap (and gloria’s early years). the pie isn’t growing as fast as the number of ‘eaters’
so yes, more people are hungry now
“3. How are education and health care faring these days, after 8 years of poor oriented poicies and programs?”
the poor oriented poicies and programs have been there for decades
“Why can’t the Filipinos be as stupid as the Americans? Anyway, they redeemed themselves with Obama.—
the Filipinos have redeemed themselves by not supporting that bumbling group called ‘united opposition’ who is to be largely credited for gloria’s continued stay in the Palace
it seems those who insist on one-impeachment-complaint-to-be-deliberated-by-the-justice-committee-then-to-be-referred to-the-plenary are beyond redemption
it never worked since 2005, yet it is still done today, hoping for a new outcome!
“…ANO BA ANG HEADLINES NG MGA DYARYO FOR THE PAST WEEK OR SO, IMPEACHMENT O CHA-CHA RELATED?”
mga dyaryo ba ‘kamo? ilan lang ba yang dyaryo? they had to put something in the headlines to sell copies. the media people had jobs to do.
as always, media people had to say something
magdiwang on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:05 pm
@mb, filipinos have been leaving our country for many years. the sudden loosening of immigration rules and the greying of industrialized countries accelerated the exodus. im not sure if any president can prevent that as population growth cant keep up with economic growth. we should attain 20% growth annually to provide all the jobs needed and not even china can do that.
the last time i check the current administration have attained the highest average real economic growth rate the last five years. Now just like emigration, gma was not entirely responsible for the growth as she benefited from external factors.
there is a disconnect if there are more people who are poor or not. self rated surveys are subjective at best, objective measurements like gnp per capita is a better data and that has been increasing the last five years.
infant mortality, maternal mortality, life span and clean water availability which are the best measures for health has not deteriorated under the current administration. im not sure what are you referring about.
on education, i dont have any opinion as i dont have any data.
yours are based more on opinion than facts.
vic on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:08 pm
In her Case (GMA) she will appoint (not nominate) individuals that will share her “ideologigal” views, in a political sense of Philippines Justice, and since there are few cases brought before the SC have direct bearing with the Personalities in the administration (Neri, Abalos, Garci, Bolante, etc, etc,) it will be very helpful during her terms and the terms of her annointed succesor.
saxnviolins on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:15 pm
and as your perpetually trumpeting there is no evidence, you only say that because you know the president cannot be sued in court during her term and that impeacment is never allowed to get to the point of actual presentation of evidence.
***************************
In addition to what mlq3 said,
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of wrongdoing). A boxer who brags that he is undefeated, but keeps avoiding a fight is making a hollow claim.
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:25 pm
MLQ3
Timing? Filipinos never learn. Everything to us is luck or miracles. Why can’t we just have reform because that we get that irresistible and ultimately undeniable urge to do what is right?
Why not just shoot her? « Seven Million Golden Fish on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:32 pm
[...] MLQ3 writes: The only checkmate on the President is impeachment, not the official end of her term; for [...]
mlq3 on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:38 pm
brian, it’s not luck though there is that element in any person’s life and career, including a politician’s. because doing right requires engaging in a plan of action when there are many others with their own plan of action. so politics and its continuation by other means, does involve strategy, timing, good fortune, etc. it’s like saying why can’t you write a novel in one go without outlining the plot or something.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:45 pm
saxnviolins,
impeachment attempts go nowhere because the bright minds of the anti gloria school, for whatever reason, do not and never follow the precedent of how Erap got impeached.
impossible now? it seems just as impossible then.
only 1/3 signatures are needed
“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of wrongdoing).”
but presence of evidence is the only way to resolve the issue of ‘is absence of evidence evidence of absence”?
stated differently – invoking “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (of wrongdoing)” is no substitute for presenting evidence.
” A boxer who brags that he is undefeated, but keeps avoiding a fight is making a hollow claim.”
as far as i know, no boxer will brag he is undefeated. Floyd Mayweather and Rocky Marciano never bragged about their spotless record.
saxnviolins on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:47 pm
Talk about timing. Miriam just joined Enrile’s “majority”.
Miriam also had perfect timing when she dumped Marcos and ruled in favor of JBL Reyes, Lino Brocka et al as an RTC judge, shortly before EDSA. Prior to that, she was a quiet little Marcos appointee.
Rats bailing out is a typical FVR tactic. Remember in EDSA, there was a constant stream of news about this and that military official defecting from Fabian Ver to the FVR/Enrile camp.
Hope springs eternal « smoke on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:48 pm
[...] Comments Jeg on I’m a greasemonkey!Jeg on The Out of town KillersManuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose » Today’s Dose » Do or do not, there is no try on JDV’s BeansCurrent » Do or do not, there is no try on [...]
US Election On Best Political Blogs » Blog Archive » Do or do not, there is no try on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 1:54 pm
[...] Do or do not, there is no try …retiring isn’t a problem if besides an obliging Ombudsman and a friendly Supreme Court, you have a new President you swung the election to). [...]
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:05 pm
MLQ3,
I think in a revolution, motive and opportunity are dichotomies as opposed to being elements that go together like sugar and cream. I want revolution/ reform that is all about MOTIVE, which is made up by the people. In a true revolution, opportunity is a non-element.
My formula is simple: 1) free flow of opinion, 2) the right idea, 3) people decide to adopt the right idea, 4) revolution.
This should be true in whatever circumstances. It’s not as if the democratic hoi polloi has enough information and business sense to delay reform just because the world economy is bad. So we can’t wait for the right economic environment, right? So why wait for these politicians, military men to come about.
mlq3 on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:12 pm
where did you ever find a revolution in which opportunity was not a factor -the motive of course being revolution itself? so you have the russian monarchy collapsing under the weight of its incompetence, but the real revolution happening because lenin managed to sneak back in riding in a sealed train; you had ninoy being shot when he could have been whisked off to jail; there has never been a revolution where organizing and skillful sensing of opportunity weren’t factors in the outcome.
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:16 pm
Not to be inscrutable again, I’ll restate.
Can’t we just make it simpler. Corruption does not pay in WHATEVER circumstance.
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:18 pm
“where did you ever find a revolution in which opportunity was not a factor -the motive of course being revolution itself? so you have the russian monarchy collapsing under the weight of its incompetence, but the real revolution happening because lenin managed to sneak back in riding in a sealed train; you had ninoy being shot when he could have been whisked off to jail; there has never been a revolution where organizing and skillful sensing of opportunity weren’t factors in the outcome.”
This is how historians and political scientists see it.
The EQualizer on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:24 pm
“In The Philippines, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the journalists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a journalist;
And they came for Jonas Burgos,And I kept quiet because Jonas wasn’t my son:
And they grilled Joey on ZTE in the Senate,And I remained silent because I wasn’t as brave as my son;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
Ding Gagelonia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 2:57 pm
Manolo,
Ang mapait na kayotohananan, sa pulitika natin, habang may mga pagbabago ay patulot lamang nanatili ang sitwasyong umiiral: ang pagka-api ng mga maliit na walang tinig. Pagkatapos ng headlines, pupusta ako na ang gagawin lamang nin Yoda ay ang tumakbo para sa Senado at sa huli ang mga paratang niya’s maibabasura lamang ng mga kaalyado ng pangulo.
Dapat bang itigil ang laban?
Hindi. Nguni’t walang silbi si Tenga KUNDI SA KANYA PA RING MAKASARILING AMBISYON
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 3:32 pm
Anthony Scalia.
1. “the exodus have been continuing since Cory’s time” -
I know. The point is if Gloria managed the economy well, she would have at least reduced, instead of increased, the number of people leaving for jobs abroad.
2.”its not the task of the president to create the jobs”
Well you better tell her that because everytime she opens her mouth and in every SONA she talks about creating jonbs. Didn;t she promise 10M jobs?
3.”unabated population growth.”
unabated population growth is a convenient excuse for the inept. More people are hungry now because there is less money to buy food because there are no jobs and when there are jobs the pay is unadequate. So yes there are more people hungry now because, in addition to unabated population growth, we have an inept and corrupt Gloria.
3.”the poor oriented poicies and programs have been there for decades”
So what has Gloria done to take advantage of them or to improve social services etc?
4, “Ilan llang ba yang dyaryo?”
Both Gloria and the opposition have to play in the same field of IILANG DYARYO so your point is irrelevant, The question is what dominated the headlines, CHACHA or IMPEACHMENT?
mlq3 on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 3:40 pm
ding, ako naniniwala sa plebiscatory aspect ng pulitika. kung pumusta si yoda at tumakbo bilang senador, at nahala dahil kumontra siya kay cruella, eh dapat lang. kesa naman may tumakbo dahil alipores siya ni cruella. kaya nga naging makasaysaysan yung mga mid term elections nung panohon ni quirino at fm kung saan natalo ang slate ng mga pangulong iyon. at kaya tumakbo si laurel bilang senador para patunayin na sa mata ng bayan. naging tapat siya sa kanila nung panahon ng hapon.
lahat ng politiko naman may ambisyon, lahat gustong sumakay sa isyu, problema lang hindi lahat ay may isyu at hindi lahat ay may kakayahang ipatupad ang kanilang ambisyon dahil wala ngang isyo o sobrang sira na sila. yun ang problema ni jdv. pero sa laban na ito better later than never. eh babanatan ba si jdv eh sino pa ba ang mas hopeless, tingnan mo lang sila gonzales at gonzalez etc.
di pa natin alam kung bomba talaga ang ihahagis ni jdv o hanggang kwitis lang siya. eh matagal na rin naghihintay ang publiko kong may tataya ba ng malaki o hanggang ingay lang. alam din naman nila ang unang babarilin at gugulpihin ay ang ordinaryong tao at hindi yung mga nasa itaas.
hvrds on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 4:05 pm
“Live bomb”
“It is easy to forget that using constitutional change as a formula to cope with crisis is a highly explosive element.”
“When the administration called for constitutional amendments seeking a shift to the federal structure as a means to defuse the Moro separatist rebellion in Mindanao—after the Supreme Court aborted the memorandum of agreement on an expanded Bangsamoro homeland—it ignited a firestorm of indignation.”
“This was so because the federalism scheme fueled suspicions that Ms Arroyo was using it to justify constitutional change as a cover for an effort to extend her stay in office.”
“The new Con-ass campaign is a live TNT in Ms Arroyo’s hands.” Armando Doronilla
Who has got the deadlier bomb, GMA or JDV. My bet is on GMA… Will she dare light the fuse?
The entire world is participating in the financing the bankruptcy process for the U.S. economy.. No choice as the dollars reserve system backstops the financial system of most of the world.
Asset inflation then debit deflation and now the real threat of price deflation in the real economy.
Countries will be busy directing their policies inward to their own economies…
The consumption based model of Big Mike and GMA dependent on foreign savings and OFW might not be enough……Allowing foreigners to buy land is not going to create jobs to any great degree.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 4:09 pm
manuelbuencamino :
“Well you better tell her that because everytime she opens her mouth and in every SONA she talks about creating jonbs. Didn;t she promise 10M jobs?”
naniwala ka naman!
“unabated population growth is a convenient excuse for the inept. More people are hungry now because there is less money to buy food because there are no jobs and when there are jobs the pay is unadequate. So yes there are more people hungry now because, in addition to unabated population growth, we have an inept and corrupt Gloria.”
excuse for the inept? yeah right.
“So what has Gloria done to take advantage of them or to improve social services etc?”
you’re faulting the policies and making it appear gloria originated them
“Both Gloria and the opposition have to play in the same field of IILANG DYARYO so your point is irrelevant, The question is what dominated the headlines, CHACHA or IMPEACHMENT?”
no its not irrelevant. you’re trying to rebut the claim of muted public response/interest with the presence of headlines in the newspapers. “ilang dyaryo” is hardly the public. so there’s some truth to a muted public response/attention
Ding Gagelonia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 4:15 pm
Manolo,
Wala tayong debate sa kung tutoo man o hindi ang isisiwalat ni Tenga.
Ang galit kasi ako ay ang pagiging oportunista pa rin niya dahil gusto niyang mapahaba ang kanyang buhay pulitika at ang ginagawa niya’y nililinlang pa rin a mga tao sa kanyang mabulaklak na mga pahayag.
Siguro romantiko ako… naghahanap ako ng tunay na mga makabayan tulad inyo na ang layunin sa pag-amyenda sana sa impeachment complaint ay hindi pansarili nguni’t dalisay.
Kaya nga lamang napapaligiran tayo ng mga taksil sa Bayan at mga maiitim ang kaluluwa.
anthony scalia on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 4:15 pm
“Allowing foreigners to buy land is not going to create jobs to any great degree.”
no it will. to a great degree. absence of foreign land ownership is what’s holding back a substantial amount of FDI from coming in
mlq3 on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 4:22 pm
personally i favor reciprocal rules. foreigners can invest to the extent filipinos can invest in those countries. what they permit us to do according to their laws and rules we should consider allowing in return. we have much to learn from the efficiencies and management style of the west and even our neighbors (think of all the filipino managers in indonesia).
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 5:09 pm
“Siguro romantiko ako… naghahanap ako ng tunay na mga makabayan tulad inyo na ang layunin sa pag-amyenda sana sa impeachment complaint ay hindi pansarili nguni’t dalisay.
Kaya nga lamang napapaligiran tayo ng mga taksil sa Bayan at mga maiitim ang kaluluwa.”
My observation is that you don’t have to be truly evil to be corrupt in this country. Punishment is rare for big-time criminals, which makes being one, given the opportunity, tempting. Criminals also have social superiority over law abiding citizens. Good politicians tend to have a lot of complainers and are easily intimidated by criminal opponents. Dates back to Spanish era when criminals, the few thousands sent here by Spain, lorded it over the peace-loving natives.
Jove on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 5:11 pm
Bravo, Manolo!
BrianB on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 5:12 pm
“no it will. to a great degree. absence of foreign land ownership is what’s holding back a substantial amount of FDI from coming in”
The conquistadors and taipans are in the way. But let’s think of CONDITIONAL land ownership. I can imagine foreigners buying land and setting up their expatriates-only enclave.
Geo on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 6:55 pm
“personally i favor reciprocal rules. foreigners can invest to the extent filipinos can invest in those countries.”
—mlq3
“I can imagine foreigners buying land and setting up their expatriates-only enclave.”
—BrianB
You guys mean like in California?
The EQualizer on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 9:23 pm
We now have all the evidence we need to indict “The Butcher” . We have mounds of testimony and memos and public statements. We have lines of witnesses and experts, photos and newsreels. We have everything we need to charge Palparan and his cohorts with some of the most heinous acts in our nation’s history. And yet, they all will get off scot-free, without facing a single charge against them.
Did the Arroyo administration file charges and order the arrest of Palparan to show its adherence to the Constitutional provisions of protecting human rights and the rule of law?
Geo on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 10:08 pm
mlq3,
To belatedly respond to your mutimedia extravaganza of a post (11/24 12:17am)…..
You forgot to respond to my challenge — that I questioned your overall claim that the “only solution” to impeachment is Cha-cha.
You can’t reveal your sources, OK. But then your “proof” is mainly links to anti-GMA personalities and something they wrote. For example, Doronila knows that for Enrile:
“a sudden toppling of a President who views him as an elderly toady is just the sort of thing to make the old schemer grin in anticipation.”
I dare you to walk up to Enrile’s face and repeat that claim.
You also cite ABS-CBN and Newsbreak articles as “proof” as well. C’mon, man. You probably helped write those stories!!!
I still don’t see any evidence that the SC has been noticeably pro-admin. Let’s go through those cases one by one and we’ll see that many decisions were basically no-brainers.
I think you need to show better evidence than that to condemn the institution. Though I know you said that I only want evidence because I want to protect Gloria (???? — I’m not going to go out of my way to protect any politician, thank you), you really need to show how they are crooked.
That’s one major accusation you are throwing around. Can you prove it? Or am I just trying to protect them as well?
Phil Manila on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 10:09 pm
The trouble with having the likes of JDV as star witness to impeach PGMA is Integrity and Credibility.
He may be an insider, but he’s probably as guilty of Graft-Laden Deals as he is Trapo.
So much for his late Rude Awakening.
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 10:10 pm
Anthony,
1. naniwala ka naman!
Eh ang punto ko dyan na hindi mo nakita ay ito: inako nya ang responsibilidad sa job creation. Hindi sya nakadeliver so inept siya.
Ngayon government can create jobs by creating a good investment environment. In the same way it can destroy job opportunities because its policies, programs, and practices drive away business
2. “unabated population growth is a convenient excuse for the inept. More people are hungry now because there is less money to buy food because there are no jobs and when there are jobs the pay is unadequate. So yes there are more people hungry now because, in addition to unabated population growth, we have an inept and corrupt Gloria.â€
Wala kang masagot.
3. “So what has Gloria done to take advantage of them or to improve social services etc?â€
you’re faulting the policies and making it appear gloria originated them
I am not making it appear Gloria originated them. I am faulting Gloria for not finding a way to make them work. And if they are really unworkable then it’s her responsibility and duty to introduce programs that work. Unfortunately she is inept.
4. “Both Gloria and the opposition have to play in the same field of IILANG DYARYO so your point is irrelevant, The question is what dominated the headlines, CHACHA or IMPEACHMENT?â€
no its not irrelevant. you’re trying to rebut the claim of muted public response/interest with the presence of headlines in the newspapers. “ilang dyaryo†is hardly the public. so there’s some truth to a muted public response/attention
The public gets its news from ilang dyaryo. The response you want to mute is the response the public has given pollsters. The response you want to mute is the beating Gloria’s senatorial slate got in the 2007 election. The response has been expressed in a civilized manner, the reaction of the administration to the public response has been to mite it in the most barbaric manner
The EQualizer on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 11:02 pm
GEO:
When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.Edmund Burke
The EQualizer on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 11:47 pm
“GMA’s [the President’s initials] critics claim that she is so unpopular and her endorsement or association is a kiss of death to a politician’s reelection. Do you think [that] if that is true, these congressmen will put their careers on the line to extend a supposedly unpopular president?†Mikey Arroyo
mlq3 on Mon, 24th Nov 2008 11:51 pm
geo, that’s what’s out there, and obviously insufficient for your bar of evidence which is so high, no one would ever be pinned down for anything, i guess, unless you were as incautious and uncomprehending of basic legal and financial precautions as, say, joseph estrada.
it would be jolly indeed to rewind the clock and see, had there been the internet in the 1970s, how you’d have vigorously defended marcos every step of the way with pretty much the same arguments.
you’re faced with research and hard work by a lot of people and your response is to pooh-pooh it. the natural reaction would be for you to go through those cases one by one yourself if you’re so confident, and rebut the research presented.
why wouldn’t i say that to enrile? or write that? i’ve hit him before and he’s enough of an old pro to be nice to me, the few times we’ve met. he belongs to that generation.
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 12:35 am
manuelbuencamino :
“Eh ang punto ko dyan na hindi mo nakita ay ito: inako nya ang responsibilidad sa job creation. Hindi sya nakadeliver so inept siya.”
again- naniwala ka naman. that’s just a usual campaign rhetoric
“Ngayon government can create jobs by creating a good investment environment. In the same way it can destroy job opportunities because its policies, programs, and practices drive away business”
excessive enjoyment of constitutional rights drive away business more than inconsistent policies, programs and practices
“Wala kang masagot.”
wala? tama. wala nga. kasi yung sagot mo tells it all – rason ng mga inept daw
“I am not making it appear Gloria originated them.”
oh yes you are
“I am faulting Gloria for not finding a way to make them work.”
the policies have been put to work
“And if they are really unworkable then it’s her responsibility and duty to introduce programs that work. Unfortunately she is inept.”
a good number of introducing programs that work meant requiring new laws or amending old ones and undivided attention of gloria’s cabinet people
sadly, these needed legislation could not be passed because one chamber of the legislature always chooses the creation of a committee report
“The public gets its news from ilang dyaryo.”
you’re already assuming that the numerous/majority that is the public believe the headlines!
only one thing is sure – the headlines get read. but not necessarily believed
“The response you want to mute is the response the public has given pollsters. The response you want to mute is the beating Gloria’s senatorial slate got in the 2007 election. The response has been expressed in a civilized manner, the reaction of the administration to the public response has been to mite it in the most barbaric manner”
i thought your issue with one poster is the whether public response to cha cha and/or impeachment is muted?
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 12:40 am
oops, should read
i thought your issue with one poster is whether public response to cha cha and/or impeachment is muted?
Cecil on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 12:46 am
i read somewhere (in facebook, i believe)…
“if it is a criminal that witnessed a crime, does it mean that what he witnessed wasn’t a crime?”
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 1:03 am
“it would be jolly indeed to rewind the clock and see, had there been the internet in the 1970s, how you’d have vigorously defended marcos every step of the way with pretty much the same arguments.”
good for you the clock can’t be rewound. because you’d be proven wrong – vigorously defending marcos? oh my the paranoia has reached that far!
“you’re faced with research and hard work by a lot of people and your response is to pooh-pooh it.”
you’re assuming that those “research” are credible, non-partisan, independent, and the products of detached observers! citing those “research” is like asking a communist what he thinks of capitalism
the hard work put into propaganda aka “research” is not denied
mlq3 on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 3:00 am
very well, scalia, where are your credible, non-partisan, independent, products of detached observers? lay them out here.
and i take my hat off to you for the most enjoyable line you’ve ever written: “excessive enjoyment of constitutional rights drive away business more than inconsistent policies, programs and practices.”
nash on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 3:18 am
Nice photo of First unGentleman Mike Arroyo with all the props.
St. Luke’s must be making a killing with the hospital bills.
First jocjoc and his phantom disease cured by gatorade, and another secretary with his tuseran capsules, and now Mike Arroyo with his diarrhea masquerading as a heart attack.
taxj on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 4:56 am
mlq3’s right. One issue after another, coming in rapid succession or almost simultaneously, keeps us off track. Our energies are sapped as we try to deal with all of them. Yet there is only one issue: too much power vested on one man or woman.
We expect him/her to put food on our tables, and keep us healthy and educated. And when he/she fails as to be expected under a highly centralized structure, we can only agitate for resignation/ouster or file futile impeachment raps. Nothing more.
A change of the system is an option: federalism. Another is a change in the system: lesser power and wealth for imperial Manila, more to cities and provinces through legislation. Simple as it may seem, the latter requires a revolution, no less.
Geo on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 9:07 am
mlq3,
First of all, you continue to forget to back up your statement: “The only thing that can derail the marshaling of forces for impeachment is Charter Change.” After all, that’s what your main point of this entry was, right?
I guess I’m demanding too much when I ask for a shred of evidence to support your claim.
My counter-evidence is: previous impeachments (and this one) didn’t need Chacha to be killed. Furthermore, Chacha headlines are mostly being generated by oppositionists who are screeching about imminent Martial Law (an easy-to-use, never-can-be-disproven, fear-mongering tactic).
—————-
Second, maybe Enrile won’t slap you, but your agreement that Doronila can read his mind is inane. Enrile would love to see GMA toppled because she thinks he’s an old toadie? Puh-leeaze.
I guess I’m demanding too much when I ask for a shred of evidence to support your claim.
My counter-evidence is: Enrile has been a pretty staunch admin supporter over the last few years, as can be seen from his many pronouncements and votes. Right now he is saying that JDV and son broke the law on several occasions. He doesn’t sound/look/seem like an anti-GMA’er.
—————
Thirdly,
OK, you won’t reveal your source who claims that Dureza told him the evening before he would float a trial baloon for Chacha by “slipping” during a prayer. Let me guess: Harry Roque? Dinky Soliman?
And yes, it’s a silly claim. Dureza did that as a secret wink to the House so that they could start getting signatures? Oops — they were already mobilized. Maybe Dureza and gang wanted to gauge the public…but then swung into action before some polls/feedback could be enacted? Backwards timing, no?
I guess I’m demanding too much when I ask for a shred of evidence to support your claim.
————————-
Fourth,
You are now going back to claiming Gloria cheated in the elections.
I guess I’m demanding too much when I ask for a shred of evidence to support your claim.
Your claims of cheating are based on various articles written by anti-GMA entities. The evidence you cite is all hearsay, not evidence.
My counter-evidence: The Supreme Court actually opened the boxes in the areas where the opposition claimed there was cheating. They looked at both the CofC’s and ballots. They officially stated that there was no evidence of meaningful cheating. This evidence is hard evidence.
———————–
Fifth,
You claim that I’m demanding evidence vs GMA because I somehow know that you can’t find anything tangible enough to prove wrongdoing. I think that you, the accuser, is the one with the burden of demonstrating proof.
So let’s look at your latest accusation and see if we can find a pattern.
You claim that Gloria’s term is a “moveable goal post” because of a “friendly Supreme Court.”
I guess I was demanding too much when I asked for a shred of evidence to support your claim.
When challenged, you cited anti-admin sources who claim there is a supposed “trend” of the court going Gloria’s way and list a slew of selected cases which somehow prove the point.
My counter-evidence: See my next post. I want to seperate that one topic because it will probably require much detail and much back-and-forth.
——————————–
In conclusion, it still looks like you and your peers have concocted a woven story of unproven accusations. You cite each other’s articles as “proof,” and build your accusations on the foundation comprised of your previous dubious accusations.
Dude, that is the very description of “propaganda.”
And your defense is? I have raised the bar of evidence so high that it’s impossible to satisfy. Gee, maybe it’s not supposed to be easy to throw around accusations without proof? Especially when the accused are the public sector’s top management, no? The system was actually designed that way (by your pals like Fr Bernas, Liberal Party luminaries, lawyers you like, etc)…wasn’t it?
OK, so let’s move on to your accusations against the SC and see what proof you have…or to see if my “bar” is raised too high again…..
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 9:27 am
quezon,
“very well, scalia, where are your credible, non-partisan, independent, products of detached observers? lay them out here.”
In my own survey of related “research” so far only your kind of “independents” have been doing those kinds of “research.” other than them, i don’t see any other “research” in the horizon
at least we are giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe someday you can come up with “research” from an independent source, one that is not yet tainted like ABS CBN, PCIJ and Newsbreak.
your “research” is not corroborated by “research” from the real independents
you won’t see me citing NBN Channel 4 or the PIA or anything from the govt
i hope you’re not following the usual media gambit to “just allege and let the person defend himself out of it”
(im afraid this will boil down into “scalia-since-you-don’t-have-research-to-back-up-your-claims……”)
“and i take my hat off to you for the most enjoyable line you’ve ever written: “excessive enjoyment of constitutional rights drive away business more than inconsistent policies, programs and practices.â€
oh thank you.
did it already occur to you who are always “excessively enjoying constitutional rights”?
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 9:36 am
istambay,
“and what do you call brion to name a few? only in the perfect world or onli n da pilipins! and perfect example, neri’s conversation with president on NBN-ZTE deal being covered by executive privilege, a matter of national security.”
the presidential proclamations, the Sigaw petition, the BJE-MOA
HOHOHO!
“–yeah and malacanang can send that list back for names will have their choice in it. bet you’ve heard it before. it called stocking the SC. c’mon it’s too late to act naive in this part of game. i maybe older than most of you here, but i’m not senile yet.”
in short. you don’t want peace of mind, and simply persist in your paranoia
kuya, gloria is limited to what the JBC sends her. gloria can’t send the list back. kaya nga bantay korte suprema ‘no? Sen. Pangilinan is a member of the JBC, he can influence who gets in the short list of SC nominees
HOHOHO!
Geo on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 12:21 pm
mlq3,
Re: the “GMA-friendly” SC you claim exists.
Right off the bat, I note that you cited an ABS-CBN in-house editorial as your source. Well, there’s an objective source!
The opening line of the article: “Sometime before the Supreme Court voted on the high-profile case of the homeland agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, two justices reportedly received calls from the Palace.”
Here we go again. Ummm, anyone have a source for substantiating these calls? I guess I’m demanding too much when I ask for a shred of evidence to support the claim.
Let me guess, Malacanang’s caller is the one who told ABS-CBN? No? Oh, then maybe the two Justices called up ABS-CBN? The Justices which the articles claim “were just taking orders from the Palace”??? Hmmm…….
And in journalism, I believe one needs at least a second source to verify or substantiate, no? The credibility of this article is already suspicious after only one sentence!
———————-
The article goes on to introduce us to un-named “court insiders”. They say that the admin’s LOSS (in the MOA case) is misleading, that the SC is truly pro-admin; pro-Gloria. “Under the Puno Court, there is a growing perception that the Tribunal is a co-opted rather than a co-equal branch.”
I guess I’m demanding too much when I ask for a shred of evidence to support the claim.
The article cites their findings “tend to support the perception that appointees of President Arroyo are protective of her.”
Well, the use of “TEND TO” and “PERCEPTION” already indicate the flimsiness of the accusation and any underlying evidence. Perhaps it’s a legal hedge vs libel?
But let us look at the 21 SC rulings which the article cherry-picked.
First, we can see that, in toto, 59% of individual Justice’s votes are “pro-admin” (according to the editor/author) while 41% is “anti-admin”. In the cases themselves, it seems the Government won them 12-9.
But wait…that’s pretty broad-brushed. Let’s look closer.
For example, here are some “pro-admin”, “Gloria-friendly” SC decisions:
1. ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO. Supported the CA which had dismissed Erap’s criminal charges vs the BIR and Citigroup.
2. EJERCITO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN. Supported the ruling allowing the production of bank account documents for Erap’s case.
Are these really pro-Gloria victories via a “friendly” SC? Or just reasonable rulings almost any court would make? Wouldn’t you?
——————-
There are also some “pro-admin” rulings which are actually less about the policy of the moment and more about the inherent rights of the government.
1. ABAKADA vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY. Upheld the constitutionality of imposing VAT.
2. PIMENTEL VS. ERMITA. Ruled that the the president can make ad interim appointments during the recess of Congress.
3. KILUSANG MAYO UNO VS. NEDA. Validated the government’s right to streamline the ID systems of the government.
———————–
Many of the “pro-GMA” decisions are tied-in to one overall law — The right to executive privilege…which all three branches enjoy.
1. GUDANI VS. SENGA
2. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ERMITA
3. NERI VS. SENATE
4. AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO (J-PEPA comms)
Obviously, the same basic right has been positively supported 4 times.
——————
So far, I can only see the EO464 rulings being — arguably — “pro-Gloria”…though one can argue that the SC simply upheld the law.
But there’s one other case I’m sure you will call “pro-Gloria” (even though it might be considered a tie):
1. DAVID VS. ARROYO. Upheld PP1017 and G.O. 605, though David’s arrest was deemed illegal.
—————–
Meanwhile, one case — which was supposedly an “anti-admin” victory — is a head-scratcher:
1. ITFP vs Comelec. Voided the 2004 automated equipment purchase contracts. This is anti-admin because Pimentel was the one to make a last-minute objection to the contracts? (And I thought GMA did NOT want the equip so that she could cheat easily????)
——————–
Last, but not least, let’s look at the “losses” GMA had:
1. TECSON VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS. Ruled that Poe is not a foreigner.
2. LEGARDA VS. DE CASTRO . Denied deCastro’s resistance vs using PET to determine if there was cheating. (Legarda eventually lost the recount, by the way).
3. LAMBINO vs. COMELEC. Effectively killed the People’s Initiative.
4. BAYAN VS. ERMITA. Effectively killed the CPR policy.
5. CHAVEZ VS. GONZALEZ. Ruled that the airing of the Garci Tapes can not be prohibited.
6. COTOBATO Vs. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. The Mindanao MOA-BJE was ruled unconstitutional.
Seems that many key rulings went AGAINST Gloria and her allies.
—————————–
There you go, mlq3. I have laid out some of the counter-evidence. Please try to now use these cases to prove that the SC’s “unmistakable voting pattern” is “GMA-friendly”.
To me, it seems that your charges vs the SC are as legally, factually, empirically without evidence…just like your charges vs GMA. Will you again say that my need for evidence is ill-placed? Is the bar too high with the SC, too?
Again…if you have two opinions about what the truth is…how does one determine which opinion is correct? The objective weighing of evidence, yes?
Geo on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 12:51 pm
By the way, the impeachment was on ANC all morning. Now, the coverage is the Senate’s investigation of Bolante. Oops, and now we go back to the House/impeachment.
Are you sure Chacha (which is on-going during all of this) is a “smokescreen” and is “The only thing that can derail the marshaling of forces for impeachment is Charter Changeâ€?
manuelbuencamino on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 1:07 pm
anthony,
excuses, excuses, excuses….
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 1:44 pm
manuelbuencamino :
“excuses, excuses, excuses….”
right
mlq3 on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 1:47 pm
what is the difference between the articles you dispute and deep throat during watergate?
and again, both of you can only dispute what is presented but not present anything of your own to support your assertions.
geo, there are cases the sc can be left alone to determine but look at the key, crucial, absolutely essential cases, on which so much hinges. e.g. executive privilege. you can live with bowing to international pressure on murdering socialists, you cannot yield on that. and in such cases the party line vote held in the sc.
anthony scalia on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 2:26 pm
“and again, both of you can only dispute what is presented but not present anything of your own to support your assertions.”
quezon, please be reminded that you are the one making an assertion, and you tried to back up that assertion with “research”
ours is actually a contra-assertion.
as told to you, the burden is on you, and not on us to prove otherwise.
rebutting “research” is no longer necessary if the underlying “research” for the assertion is weak
in some criminal court cases, the accused need not present evidence because the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient. that’s how Harrison Ford’s character in Presumed Innocent was acquitted
like gloria’s election. procedure was followed – the congressional canvass showed that she won. you say she didn’t win, so you have to show that.
the thing is, the only proper venue for proving otherwise is the PET. if the evidence of cheating is really that strong as its advocates would claim, how come the protests went pffft?
on second thought – the proceedings before the PET can be the “research” you are looking for.
well then. behold our rebutting “research” – the decision of the PET on the protests
im still awaiting your rebuttal on geo’s claims that the PET protests did not yield any evidence of cheating
“…there are cases the sc can be left alone to determine but look at the key, crucial, absolutely essential cases, on which so much hinges. e.g. executive privilege”
quezon, you don’t need the piercing of executive privilege to show that gloria gave the go signal on the ZTE deal with the full knowledge of Abalos’ bribe try.
remember, gloria had to cancel the project
the problem with the anti gloria school, especially the ‘united opposition’ is that they are still waiting for a repeat of a “chavit moment”
Geo on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 2:35 pm
mlq3,
You wrote: “what is the difference between the articles you dispute and deep throat during watergate?”
–There are differences between straight reporting, investigative journalism, muck-raking, propaganda, embellishment, etc, etc. I think they teach journalism students about that. Hence a whole bunch of rules and professional practices and procedures.
Guess what? One of the major differentiators is — is it a corroborated fact?
The other major difference has to do with the writer — what is the purpose of writing and printing the article?
You still need evidence, mlq3. Your and Pia Hontiveros’ opinions aren’t enough to warrant turning the country upside down.
Meanwhile….I just laid out my counter-evidence in my recent two long posts. How can you claim that I don’t support my assertions?
Lastly, that list of cases was cited by YOU; I only commented on them. Anyway, the one issue — exec privilige — is the one and only key issue? Oh.
So the rejection of The People’s Initiative wasn’t a big deal? I remember you making a very big deal out of it.
And I thought Chacha is the one big, bad, boogeyman that is strong enough (and needed necessarily) to fight back against impeachment?
And what about the ruling against the MOA-BJE? Gee, you seemed to think that was very, very important.
C’mon, mlq3, your evidence that the SC is beholden to Gloria — and rules according to Malacanang — is weak…and that’s a nice description to use.
(BTW, what’s this about killing socialists???)
UP n grad on Tue, 25th Nov 2008 11:36 pm
Woodward of “Deep Throat”-fame, back then and up to this day, Woodward still conveys that he searches for truth.
And then, there is Dick Cheney, having created his own truth about the US Constitution, managed to plunge the USA into a muck of trouble.
istambay_sakalye on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 12:55 am
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20081125-174361/Plan-to-zap-2010-elections-exposed
–talking about perfect timing to deflect the heat of impeachment complaint from gma. certainly it keeps people’s focus scattered with several issues being bombarding the citizens at the same time. by design or will it backfire and fuel more heat? paranoia maybe but attempts are being made to keep gma past 2010.
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 1:07 am
istambay,
oh yes its paranoia.
that resolution is as effective as the BJE-MOA (even without the SC decision)
attempts are made to keep gloria past 2010? expected na yan.
but is there cause for alarm? none!
the road to cha cha requires the cooperation of the Senate which will vote separately.
the Senate will certainly block any proposal for extension
istambay_sakalye on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 4:33 am
“the Senate will certainly block any proposal for extension”
–how can you be so sure? because the senators says so? how many balimbings and politicians for sale have you met lately?
certainly distrust of the politicians is not just common among those in the opposition movement.
istambay_sakalye on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 4:37 am
you’ll be surprise what a bagful of money can do and add that with a promise of more powerful position. when gma becomes desperate and this is getting close to desperate times i bet she’ll try anything to hang to power. is she fails the she could just say “see i kept my word, i stepped down”.
supremo on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 5:42 am
Is the coming weekend the correct timing? Ipaghihiganti ba ni Bonifacio ang pagsisinungaling na ginawa kay Rizal? Abangan!
UP n grad on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 9:00 am
The members of the Senate were selected by the people of the Philippines — they have the mandate to speak for the people of the Philippines because these senators were selected by the people of the Philippines.
Geo on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 11:07 am
The Senators get to “speak for the people”…regardless if that’s as a seperate or joint body of Congress…or whether in Concon or Conass. I’m sure they will fight hard for their seperate status, though.
There are also a few reasons to expect most Senators to resist a parliamentary system:
1. Their status as Senators is “higher” and more uniquely identifiable (1 of 24) than being part of a broader unitary legislature. Widespread and individual recognition is assured.
2. The road to the President’s office is much shorter from a Senate seat than a “mere” parliamentarian. Who would want to give up this significant advantage?
3. A PM would probably have to be strong inside a strong party. Not all Senators are in that position, so why give up their power?
I also think there are good reasons for the Senators to vote against Federalism. Once again, many may not have strong enough support in a region, in their province.
In sum, the Seantors will make a lot of noise and will ultimately turn the SC.
And…even if Chacha makes it through all of this, there still has to be a plebescite, no? I’m pretty sure the people will be getting bombarded with info, both for and against change.
Seems to me that paranoia of a skewed, lopsided, unfair (including term extensions) constitutional change passing through all of these obstacles seems misplaced.
Jon on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 11:30 am
How come there’s no call to amend the constitution to abolish the lower house? I would like that to happen.
Jon on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 11:33 am
Regarding paranoia and conspiracy theories: they remain as they are until the fear becomes reality, di ba? Now if you fear something and you don’t take steps to handle the possibility then you suffer the consequences!
E.g. you fear that Citibank will collapse after all (even with the bailout), aren’t you going to take some if not all of your money out if somebody calls you paranoid? Hmm?
Geo on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 11:59 am
Jon,
If you have an extreme fear — which later turns out to be misplaced — and you disrupt the lives of others and stall the progress of an entire nation…are you a hero or…or what???
Your Citibank example is irrelevant, since it’s your personal assets for your personal concern, not the general public’s.
Paranoia, btw, is defined (Webster’s) as such:
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
What happens when certain paranoid conspiracy theories DON’T ever become reality…as with most cases? Why should the rest of us be held back by an irrational minority?
Jon on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 12:37 pm
Geo, it’s so easy to play on semantics. When you go technical on the word paranoia, do you really mean that when we’re speaking of paranoia here in this thread?
It’s also so easy to declare an illustration as irrelevant when it doesn’t support your views. My point is, you need to do something when you think there’s some danger ahead. Now, if you don’t fear anything ahead, then fine you just sit back. Why would one tell people what to do or not to when when they’re acting on their fears and suspicions? Fear and suspicions against Gloria are not without basis: she’s capable on going back on her words, she’s capable of doing things that are unconstitutional (as declared by the court), she’s capable of disregarding what people say.
Also when you say minority, what do you mean by that? Which survey did you base that from?
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 12:41 pm
Jon,
“Regarding paranoia and conspiracy theories: they remain as they are until the fear becomes reality, di ba? Now if you fear something and you don’t take steps to handle the possibility then you suffer the consequences!”
oo nga pala. just because you are not paranoid, it does not mean they are not out to get you!
kaya the anti anti school will also come up with its own paranoia – the anti gloria school is bringing down the country to economic chaos with its “gloria beyond 2010 delusions”!
with the anti gloria school’s delusions, who needs a Wall Street meltdown?
“E.g. you fear that Citibank will collapse after all (even with the bailout), aren’t you going to take some if not all of your money out if somebody calls you paranoid? Hmm?”
the fall of Citi is very imminent! in today’s environment where the seemingly invincible Wall Street is crumbling, thats not paranoia!
but cha cha? gloria’s extension? as certain as Citi’s collapse? oh please!
we can see effects of the Wall Street meltdown. the effects can be independently seen. we don’t need the prophets of doom to help us see these effects!
Geo on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 1:51 pm
Jon,
Yes, I think the use of the word is apt here. Ane yes, the technical meaning of the word is instructive.
Now, if you want to maintain a healthy dose of scepticism towards any and all politicians, I’m with you…as are most civilians around the world.
In this specific case, the politician has broken a promise and sometimes disregards individuals or groups. Seems par for the course.
But, maybe Gloria is anti-Constitutional? After all, she lost (and won) cases in the SC. But…that’s not uncommon for a Chief of the Executive branch either. After all, someone has to implement the laws.
Regardless, should a nation go forward with Constitutional changes — which most agree are required, or should it sacrifice progress because of the paranoia of a few?
It is an irrational delusion to think that the Senators, SC and the people (via plebescite) will all vote for term extensions.
Barring an outright military-backed takover of the country (in which it’s probable that the entire population will take to the streets), the likelyhood of GMA staying on past her term is negligible.
It would be far more productive if Congress could start passing some needed laws and could start the debate on Chacha.
But if you, a citizen, wants to bang a pot and cry wolf — help yourself. I am primarily concerned about the continued lack of positive, helpful activity in the Legislature.
Jon on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 2:40 pm
Anthony Scalia, you’re not funny there in your last comment.
Geo, I am for constitutional change; at the right time and place. Right time is after 2010 when Gloria is gone so that the sitting politicians will not benefit (is that paranoia?, maybe it is, but it’s also prudent.). The right way is for a constitutional convention where each change is properly discussed, debated on, and finalized. Whatever change shouldn’t be done hastily.
If an argument is made to not go with the impeachment process (which by the way is already moot) because 2010 is almost here, then an argument can also be made on the contrary that why not wait for 2010 for the Cha-cha? Whatever changes in the constitution that will be put in place are not going to be instant “hits” anyway. It would still take years before palpable effects are manifested. Which again can either be negative or positive.
Geo on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 3:24 pm
Jon,
I am for change, prefer Concon and want it done asap.
I think the processes (and intermittent challenges) and the debates will take quite some time. I believe there are many checks and balances during all of this (as explained previously), and none of the parties involved want to see term extensions.
2010 is a good target date for a transition from one system to another. After all, the problem has been STARTING the process. The reasons cited for a delay now will be the same reasons for delays later.
If there are “normal” elections for 2010 and THEN we start the the process and debates for Chacha, why won’t people be suspicious of the NEW Congressmen and other officials of having the benefits of incumbency?
That said…if 2010 is nonetheless too aggressive a date (due to the logistics), then I agree with those who want elections in 2010 for the Concon membership (which would include non-politicians).
In any case, even deciding on how to have such an election, who would be allowed, etc, etc woud require time. So start now.
The only excuse not to is the paranoia being generated by anti-GMA types with their own agenda.
By the way, the economic amendments would most likely have immediate effectivity and results…..
Jon on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 4:19 pm
Haste makes waste. Go for Cha-cha at the right time, that’s my preference.
In the meantime, I’m also for Gloria’s resignation so that she and her cabal can’t influence the process. You see, I believe that Gloria plans to stay beyond 2010 (is that paranoia?, that’s a suspicion). What am I doing about my suspicion? I am supporting calls for her resignation, or impeachment. That I believe is a very logical stand on how I see things are going in the Philippines. Why don’t I like Gloria? Just click on the link of my handle and see the list…
As for an immediate economic effect of a constitutional change? That’s doubtful.
Geo on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 6:45 pm
Jon,
Well, I looked at your page. If you believe all that stuff, then I can see where you are coming from.
Your desire for GMA’s ouster is based on dubious information. Fortunately, though, you are part of a small minority. Unfortunately, that minority is disrupting the country’s progress.
Case in point — Due to the real (or manufactured) irrational delusions of this group, the ability of the country to address serious flaws in the Constitution is being hindered.
If the law for foreign ownership is passed in any given month, you will see the jump in investments in the very next month.
anthony scalia on Wed, 26th Nov 2008 9:15 pm
Jon,
“Anthony Scalia, you’re not funny there in your last comment.”
i can say the same to your entire post that i responded to.
Jon on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 9:09 am
Geo, a good leader would come clean and address the accussations against him/her squrely. This leadership measurement is not addressed by Gloria.
Now, if all information and accussations against Gloria are dubious then why were some of them confirmed by the Supreme Court and other government bodies? (e.g. Nani Perez by Ombudsman, Poll automation by Supreme Court, etc.).
Again, are you really speaking for the majority? Why do you keep on putting me and others in the minority? I don’t claim to speak for the minority or majority, I am speaking for myself.
Regarding amendments to the constitution, it’s not fair for you to put blame on those who don’t trust Gloria. Our constitution has been there since 1987, if leaders really want to have it changed it should have been amdended a long time ago. And if you’re really in the majority then you could make change happen even with our opposition, right? We’re in a democracy remember and the current administration is pro Cha-cha, so why can’t it make things happen? Because of opposition? That’s not very logical.
istambay_sakalye on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 10:38 am
jon, to think of it you are very right! if the few in the opposition are the minority and the majority is the pro gma or pro cha cha and they why is the majority in the congress can ram cha cha through like how they treated the impeachment complaints. afraid of the public’s backlash? well, gma said it herself, it is about popularity, but what is good for the country and pinoys.
if gma and allies really believe that cha cha will be best for this nation then why not go for it. forget that the surveys say the majority of filipinos surveyed opposed it. surveys are not reliable anyway!
is delaying cha cha is delaying our economic progress? then again, go for it. and why is it mikey arroyo would not admit in public that he is leading the signature campaign for cha cha? wouldn’t he want to be known as the one who finally made possible for our country to finally attain first world status?
for all the talk about cha cha being good for the country and that the so called silent majority supports it, how come they are so afraid of the few trouble makers or the minority?
istambay_sakalye on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 10:40 am
well, gma said it herself, it is about popularity, but what is good for the country and pinoys.
–should be, “well, gma said it herself, it is NOT about popularity…..”
istambay_sakalye on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 10:50 am
CHA-CHA! CHA-CHA! CHA-CHA! CHA-CHA! NOW NA!
i am now convinced that cha-cha is the best for us pinoys!
i now believe our congressmen in the MAJORITY only want the best for us! i now believe gma is innocent! did NOT commit any of the crimes she is being accused of! raul gonzalez is the best ever justice secretary our country ever had! palparan will solve our insurgency problem and was doing a great job before he retired. we should bring him out of retirement. we have the best government ever assembled, better than any nation. who needs obama when we have GMA and mike a.?
onward to first world status!!!
Geo on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 11:42 am
Jon,
Ummm…every accusation has been addressed, no? I think it’s more like you will not accept the denial of wrongdoing…even if the evidence supports those denials (and/or no evidence supports the accusations).
Take, for example, the Garci Tapes. I saw your blog and noted that there is no reference to the fact that the SC opened the actual ballot boxes and the CoC’s and actual votes showed no meaningful cheating.
This factual measurement is not addressed by you in any of the cases you listed..
Furthermore, GMA has nothing to do with the charges vs Perez nor the cancellation of the automated polls contract, so I don’t understand your references. Meanwhile, there has NOT been any consirmation of any evidence vs Gloria…after 4 years of shrill accusations.
The minority I was referring to is the crowd which wants GMA ousted. That is a single-digit portion of the population (6%, last I saw). So since she won’t be impeached and won’t resign, what’s your desire?
The failure to amend the Constitution is everyone’s fault. That’s sad, since the infirmities of the Constitution have been admitted by people of all different political and stripes. Even the opposition wants Chacha.
But the opposition is against Chacha NOW. And so they create a lot of noise and confuse the issues purposefully. Their main complaint is that they don’t want the changes to go into effect because the majority has incumbent positions.
Gee…maybe it would be OK once the oppositionists are incumbents? And then what will the other side say? You see the big problem. We need to get over this catch-22. Taking action is the solution.
How can the opposition stop Chacha? Well, the Senate can refuse to cooperate. The opposition can use fear mongering with the general public. Opposition NGOs and entities/personalities can help spread false information. Remember, even if the pro-Chacha group gets past the Senators and the SC, the people still must agree by plebescite.
So yes, this is a democracy and the opposition can block the moves of the majority.
So the disinformation campaign is underway. Look at istambay’s posts, for example –
He thinks that the recent SWS (pro-opposition, btw) survey says that the people reject Chacha. That’s just one big lie.
The survey asked if the people were supportive of Chacha in order to extend GMA’s stay in power!!! It didn’t ask if anyone was inherently for or against Chacha in general.
Funny how that’s not how ANC, INQ, etc spun it. That’s not how the anti-GMAs explained it. So you have istambays all over the place…who are either easily fooled or are purposefully distorting the truth to the people.
Actually, there’s nothing funny about this at all…..
istambay_sakalye on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 12:01 pm
“He thinks that the recent SWS (pro-opposition, btw) survey says that the people reject Chacha. That’s just one big lie. ”
–that is why i am proposing that the amendment of the constitution should include to declare any survey conducted by the opposition or results not favorable to the administration by punishable by law!
as i already have mentioned earlier that surveys are very unreliable, only the backward countries like USA believes in polls or survey. we are a better country than them. again who needs obama when we pinoys have gma!
Jon on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 12:14 pm
Geo, when was the IMPSA deal approved? Was it only Nani Perez who benefited?
On the Poll automation fiasco, who benefited? Who have been made accountable so far?
On the point of command responsibility, Gloria is responsible. My unsubstantiated accussation is that she’s also benefited from this if not her husband. She has not done anything about these. If she’s clean, she has to do better in unmasking who the real culprits are. Not doing anything like what the Ombudsman is doing is, to me, incriminating. If Gloria has managed to keep her hands “gloved” by her husband, she’s still responsible.
On the case of cheating, has the manifestations of the opposition been factually addressed? On the recent election, has the accussation of SAF’s special op been fully addressed? Not yet.
Geo on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 12:34 pm
Here is the actual question SWS asked:
“Do agree or disagree with a charter change that will allow PGMA to still be the chief official of the RP after 6/30/10?”
Unfortunately, the question is a stupid one. I don’t think there is much support anywhere or from anyone which is demanding term extentions.
So why did SWS — on its own; without being comissioned by any one — do this survey? Why ask the question in the first place? Perhaps it’s how the answers were used.
Read the headlines or look at posts by screechers like istambay — they have twisted things around so that they can claim the population is against Chacha. Then they go out and tell the population that everyone thinks Chacha stinks and its a sham.
And this is how progress can effectively be blocked…to the detriment of all.
anthony scalia on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 12:53 pm
“when was the IMPSA deal approved? Was it only Nani Perez who benefited?”
whats the connection of gloria there?
“On the Poll automation fiasco, who benefited? Who have been made accountable so far?”
again, what’s gloria’s role there?
“On the point of command responsibility, Gloria is responsible.”
on what?
“My unsubstantiated accussation…”
there you go. ’nuff said
” is that she’s also benefited from this if not her husband. She has not done anything about these. If she’s clean, she has to do better in unmasking who the real culprits are. Not doing anything like what the Ombudsman is doing is, to me, incriminating. If Gloria has managed to keep her hands “gloved†by her husband, she’s still responsible.”
the President has other, much better things to do. firefighting is not one of them
“On the case of cheating, has the manifestations of the opposition been factually addressed? On the recent election, has the accussation of SAF’s special op been fully addressed? Not yet.”
what matters is the decision of the PET. the case is closed. why belabor the issue? the ‘united opposition’ is just one big sore loser.
Geo on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 12:55 pm
Jon,
The IMPSA case is alive and moving (I guess. It’s fluid now, admittedly). Anyway, these things take time, unfortunately. Too much time. How long did it take to get past all the obstacles before Erap was finally convicted?
Who benefitted from the cancellation of the machines? I don’t know — Pimentel? After all, he was the one who stopped Comelec from using them at the last minute. Why did he do that?
Problem is — those machines were more than adequate; they should have been used. Anyway, Gloria can in no way be connected with that.
Apparently, you have an opinion that anything that happens can be traced to GMA via the concept of command responsibility. That’s not so.
Regardless, the charge of cheating (which necessitaded getting the equipment contract cancelled???) is wrong.
The opposition identified specific areas where they claimed cheating occured. Both sides and their lawyers opened the boxes with the SC and found…nothing much abnormal.
Meanwhile, in the recent election, the opposition won!
anthony scalia on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 1:04 pm
istambay_sakalye,
may kasabihan – nothing is more obscure than the obvious
yung mga survey na pinagmamalaki mo, good for one week lang.
kung gusto mo talagang makuha ang (supposed) pulso ng bayan, kelangan every week ang survey.
kaya yung pinagmamalaki mong survey result ay ayon lamang sa isang week of survey. you want to get the “public pulse” again? conduct another survey.
you must have a survey weekly for 52 weeks to really get the trend of the “public pulse”
pero sorry ka na lang. the richest anti gloria school member cannot afford to commission a weekly survey for 52 straight weeks! siyempre di sya tanga ano? payayamanin lang nya sina Mahar at Felipe, just for propaganda purposes
eh ang hirap sa iyo eh you keep on citing surveys more than an eternity old!
at saka sa “backward na country na USA” ay napakaraming survey companies. di lang dalawa.
Jon on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 1:24 pm
Geo, Anthony, I would like to see all these cases come to a conclusion. I say, my unsubstantiated accussation because I wasn’t there when those deals were done.
Were you there to say that no hanky-panky happened?
Was it only 2 million US$? Why was the IMPSA deal only approved when Gloria kicked Erap out of Malacanang? Aren’t you interested to know?
The SC said that the poll automation contract was anomalous and disadvantageous to the the Filipino people. The Ombudsman said, yes, but nobody’s to blame? So who’s responsible for that now? Aren’t you interested to know?
Were you there when Romy Neri talked to Gloria regarding the bribe Ben Abalos offered him?
Were you there when the PET saw some questionable ballots that made Zubiri win?
I say that Gloria has a hand on these things.
anthony scalia on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 1:48 pm
Jon :
“Were you there to say that no hanky-panky happened?”
me, no. were you?
“Was it only 2 million US$?”
i don’t know.
” Why was the IMPSA deal only approved when Gloria kicked Erap out of Malacanang?”
i don’t know. but one thing for sure. the process for the IMPSA deal’s ok started during Erap’s time.
“Aren’t you interested to know?”
i am
“The SC said that the poll automation contract was anomalous and disadvantageous to the the Filipino people. The Ombudsman said, yes, but nobody’s to blame? So who’s responsible for that now? Aren’t you interested to know?”
i am. im also interested to know how is gloria connected to that!
how did she? you seem to know
“Were you there when Romy Neri talked to Gloria regarding the bribe Ben Abalos offered him?”
no.
Neri said that during the Senate hearings. i heard him.
the “united opposition” are real bumbling stupid fools. its already obvious that gloria gave the go-signal to the ZTE project even with the knowledge of the Abalos bribe try. but for whatever reason, they did not it pick it up from there, and still chose to insist that Neri tell them what gloria said when advised of the bribe try.
“Were you there when the PET saw some questionable ballots that made Zubiri win?”
me, no. were you?
Zubiri’s win? in 2004?
“I say that Gloria has a hand on these things.”
you yourself said it – unsubstantiated allegations
Jon on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 2:20 pm
Anthony, that’s good that you’re interested to know what really happened. I assume that you’re also interested to see those who are responsible punished.
I can see that you’re satisfied with the status quo and you’re not pointing your finger to the person who’s ultimately responsible.
For me, I place the responsibility in Gloria’s hand. She’s the president, she’s responsible for not solving these cases. I don’t have proof, so do you on the contrary that she’s got her hands tainted. I don’t have trust in her.
Geo on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 3:46 pm
Jon,
Politicians, as a rule, should not be trusted and should be watched. If someone gets caught doing something wrong, they should face the punishment.
The key, though, is that there are processes, procedures and laws to be followed. That is the mark of a mature democracy.
Conversely, chronic breakdown of these laws…and of political stability…is the mark of a banana republic.
Considering the economic status of the Philippines, it is inherently self-defeating to create a negative international image of the nation’s political stability.
If one wanted to bring grave damage to the country, he could reject things like “evidence”, “due process”, “facts”…then call for a general rejection of the institutions, take to the streets and refuse to operate within the context of established and agreed parameters.
He would then find a “higher authority” to justify his revolution.
The end result? Less jobs, more poverty, less progress, more illiteracy.
Nice.
So anyway, Jon, you never answered — if impeachment fails and GMA refuses to resign, what next?
And if Chacha is long overdue, what should we do?
anthony scalia on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 3:51 pm
Jon
“I don’t have proof, so do you on the contrary that she’s got her hands tainted. I don’t have trust in her.”
but you are the one making the assertion, which places the burden of proving on your shoulders. he who alleges must prove
istambay_sakalye on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 4:04 pm
i already just accepted it that no matter what proof or evidence will be presented, the majority in congress will just kill the impeachment complaint.
even the blind can see what is going on. let us just do the cha-cha, now na!
Jon on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 5:15 pm
Life goes on Geo, at least I’ve done what I believe I’m supposed to do as a citizen. As an individual, there’s not much I can do that is why when there are actions I believe in, I join.
When impeachment for this year is finally junked and Gloria refuses to resign, then my options are open. If Cha-cha is rammed thru our throats I’ll be part of those against it, may it be succesful or not.
Anthony, this is not a court of law if you haven’t noticed. I don’t have to prove anything. If Gloria needs to convert people like me, then she’s got to come clean.
Geo on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 8:29 pm
Jon,
OK, I appreciate those who maintain sobriety.
With the highly politicized, partisan impeachment dead, perhaps the country can now focus on progress and reform (passing overdue legislation, for ex, would be nice…).
So — understanding that Chacha can not really be rammed down anyone’s throat (since a plebiscite is required to pass any changes) — let us contemplate a scenario….
Imagine that everything goes rather smoothly, the issues get hammered out, and the country can have Parliamentary elections in 2010.
Gloria is stepping down and there have been restrictions enacted which prohibit her from getting a leadership position.
Is there any more problems then? Can individuals/parties compete for votes and win/lose? And everyone agrees with whatever are the results?
Are you OK with that?
Jon on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 9:45 pm
Parliamentary elections? Is that a Freudian slip?
Why do you think is a parliamentary form of government good for the Philippines?
But of course, I’m for change (the right way) and for the betterment of the Philippines. I would like to go back home and retire to a better home.
My question is, what would you do if Gloria goes back on her word and stays on? If that happens, no amount of “I told you so” will correct that problem!
Geo on Thu, 27th Nov 2008 11:11 pm
Jon,
No, no slip at all. One of the prominent proposals is to shift to a Parliamentary system. Why do you think we’re talking about Chacha in the first place??? Sheesh.
You ask what if GMA tries to stay on….
How? Ceratinly Chacha wouldn’t prescribe it. So how would that come about? Military on the streets??? Can you describe a plausible scenario?
My friend, 98% of the country would take the streets in a Martial Law situation. Barring that, I’m not sure how Gloria will “go back on her word and stay on.”
Come back to earth and let’s discuss non-partisan, serious proposals for improving the nation’s well-being.
After all, that’s what Chacha is about…..
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 9:12 am
istambay_sakalye :
‘i already just accepted it that no matter what proof or evidence will be presented, the majority in congress will just kill the impeachment complaint.
even the blind can see what is going on. let us just do the cha-cha, now na!’
sabihin mo, napakatamad talaga ng mga impeachment proponents. ayaw mag-lobby para makuha ang 1/3
wag mong isisi sa buong Kamara ang kakulangan at kaengotan ng mga ‘united opposition’
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 9:28 am
Jon,
“Anthony, this is not a court of law if you haven’t noticed.”
oh yes i’ve noticed.
i also hope you also noticed that you are making accusations without proof. you don’t need to be a lawyer to know that is wrong
as if the making of the accusation is already the proof of the accusation
wait till you are at the receiving end of an accusation, and the burden of showing otherwise is on you!
“I don’t have to prove anything.”
same thing with whoever accuses you
“If Gloria needs to convert people like me, then she’s got to come clean.”
same thing with whoever accuses you
and sorry to say this, gloria need not convert people like you. whether people like you are converted or not, her job as president continues
but lets pursue your notion that you don’t have to prove anything, the burden is on gloria.
gloria does not lift a finger. what do you do then?
file a case? you yourself said it – you have unsubstantiated allegations. then the case is dismissed, you will accuse the courts of “blind” “deaf” and “mute” when in the first place the accusations were unsubstantiated!
incite another people power? you yourself said it – you have unsubstantiated allegations. what would make people go to EDSA once again? where’s the proof of the accusations? then if another EDSA attempt goes pffffft you will accuse people as “blind” “deaf” and “mute” and all those trying to maintain peace and order as “oppressive” and “repressive”
asking for proof to support an accusation is not being legalistic.
it is being fair
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 9:35 am
Jon,
“My question is, what would you do if Gloria goes back on her word and stays on? If that happens, no amount of “I told you so†will correct that problem!”
if you only knew what would it take for gloria to stay beyond June 30, 2010.
time is too short for an amendment to be in place that allows her that
besides there is still the question can gloria benefit from any term extension.
any term extension can only benefit the incumbent’s successor
Jon on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 9:42 am
Anthony, in a democracy people can punish the politicians who don’t come clean by not voting for them. That’s what I’m going to do. In other places like Thailand they do the coup, and recently they’re doing what’s on the news. In places like India, they kill (just like what they’ve done recently). You see, people have options. That is one reason why politicians should convert people like me.
And I noticed that you didn’t answer my question on what you will do if Gloria goes back on her word. It is a hypothetical question and your answer shouldn’t be taken against you, don’t worry.
Jon on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 9:58 am
As for accussations against me, I will prove their accussations wrong. For example, if somebody accusses me of rigging elections, i’ll simply say I’m not a politician and I’ve never even ran for office. As simple as that. My answers are verifiable, I have cleared my name.
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 10:10 am
Jon,
You don’t understand. It seems that the only possible way GMA could go back on her word — successfully — would be via Martial Law.
Can you describe another scenario in which she stays on past 2010?
If she declares Martial Law (while not being attacked during her official tenure, that is) so that she can extend, I’ll be out in the streets with everyone else. The US and international community would reject her action.
The screechers keep yelling about how Chacha is a cover for extending her stay…but they haven’t explained how that would actually occur.
If she simply wants to declare Martial Law, there’s no need to go through the Chacha process…she can just order the troops.
Conversely, it seems logical that — if she wants Chacha, she doesn’t want to declare Martial Law.
Oh…and there’s absolutely no evidence or indication that Martial Law is imminent. Gee, maybe the reason to have Chacha is to improve the Constitution.
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 10:15 am
Jon,
That’s a ridiculous comeback to Anthony.
What if someone in your neighborhood claimed that you have been molesting young boys and girls.
Say you are a young bachelor and people than talk about how they’ve never seen you with a female (or male, even) date.
Oh, and the accuser covets your position as Barangay Captain.
OK…now prove that you still don’t molest children…..
Bert on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 10:18 am
“Gee, maybe the reason to have Chacha is to improve the Constitution.”
Gee, Geo, that’s quite a big maybe, don’t you think?
Jon on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 10:25 am
I purposedly answered that way because I had the same conversation here in MLQ3’s blog. With exactly the same line as you gave, maybe it was you too who used the same line.
It’s been done before (wrong accussations against innocent ones), but there were also valid ones like that of Jalosjos. Now because it is difficult to prove your innocense, should be stop making accussations? In the end, the truth prevails.
Why Geo, if it was you who was accused of being a pedophile, what would you do? Wouldn’t you work to protect your good name? Or are you just going to keep quiet and continue doing your job?
Jon on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 10:35 am
Geo, Gloria has history of going back on her word. If you’ve done it before, there’s a big chance you’ll do it again.
Why, did you foresee all the EOs and PDs that she’s declared before? Some of them has been declared unconstitutional by the supreme court. Do you remember?
Why do you think that only Martial Law is her way to remain in power? In doing so you’ve eliminated all other options. I give Gloria more credit than you do.
Bert on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 10:48 am
“If she declares Martial Law (while not being attacked during her official tenure, that is) so that she can extend, I’ll be out in the streets with everyone else.”-Geo
Will you be out in the street too if this chacha allows her to hold on to power as expected of her to do?
Answer yes and we will call it a draw, or, we can even concede you win.
Jon on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 10:55 am
I guess I’ve made my point clear: I don’t trust Gloria that’s why I support moves to get her out of the office now and in addition, I support moves that will not allow her to remain in office. I’ve got to leave this thread.
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:22 am
“wag mong isisi sa buong Kamara ang kakulangan at kaengotan ng mga ‘united opposition’”
–c’mon my friend. will you always have an excuse for everything? nothing will be good enough for you or the kengkoys and tongs in the congress. the minority could lobby themselves to death and still nothing will ever happen. it seems to me that manny’s fight in las vegas is more important to them.
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:25 am
Jon,
You still don’t understand (or you are being disingenuous).
I believe that the Jalosjos case was decided on the basis of HARD evidence. But if I were accused, how could I prove my innocence? The accuser offers no substantive evidence; yet I have no evidence that proves I didn’t do anything wrong. In the meantime, friends of the accuser are now joining in the call for my dismissal from the Barangay Captaincy.
When the other Baranagy officials say that this should be handled according to Barangay rules, the accuser and pals call the officials “accomplices”, “whitewashers”, “in the pocket of the Bgy Captain”, etc, etc.
The officials are being made to look bad in front of the other residents. The easy way out is to give the accuser what he wants. If so, I will lose my reputation, my post, everything. The truth will not prevail.
That’s why there must be a fair trial. That’’s why the burden of proof is on the accuser.
But you state that the right thing is for me to go out and convert/convince someone like you — a regular citizen in the barangay — that I’m innocent! Again — how can I??? All I can do is repeat to you that the accuser’s proof is lacking.
Worse yet…you state that — even if the judicial process determines I am innocent — the burden is STILL on me to convert/convince you of my innocence! Wow.
Finally, one neighbor believes me, while you don’t. How will a third person know whose “Truth” is the truth?
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:26 am
Jon
wait!
“Anthony, in a democracy people can punish the politicians who don’t come clean by not voting for them.”
true
“That’s what I’m going to do.”
noted.
“In other places like Thailand they do the coup, and recently they’re doing what’s on the news. In places like India, they kill (just like what they’ve done recently). You see, people have options. That is one reason why politicians should convert people like me.”
noted
“And I noticed that you didn’t answer my question on what you will do if Gloria goes back on her word. It is a hypothetical question and your answer shouldn’t be taken against you, don’t worry.”
my goodness! did i tell you something about amendments?
there is nothing gloria can do because the constitution will not allow her to extend in whatever form! its too late to have an amendment!
besides, even if the term of the president is extended or allowed a 2nd term, gloria won’t enjoy it! her successor will enjoy it!
don’t you get it?
so we are not worried that gloria will not stay true to her promise of not running again!
oh yes im not worried!
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:30 am
Jon,
You wrote: “Gloria has history of going back on her word. If you’ve done it before, there’s a big chance you’ll do it again.”
Duh. There’s a big difference between a politician making a pre-election promise…and then breaking it (like Obama did, for ex), and breaking the law and bringing guns to the street in order to illegally take over a country by force.
Really….are you pretending to be this unaware???
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:37 am
Jon,
For my position about the SC cases involving “political matters” and constitutional issues, see further up this very thread. I touched on virtually each case. Perhaps you can take a look….
Anyway, it is extremely common for constitutional issues to make it to the SC. GMA has “won” and “lost” some case. Same with many Presidents. It doesn’t say much other than the SC seems to rule fairly and their rulings are thereafter implemented as the law.
The SC’s record during GMA’s tenure is useless in this discussion about Chacha. If and when they rule, we’ll all have to live with it…including GMA…as she has repeatedly done.
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:41 am
istambay_sakalye :
“–c’mon my friend. will you always have an excuse for everything? nothing will be good enough for you or the kengkoys and tongs in the congress. the minority could lobby themselves to death and still nothing will ever happen. it seems to me that manny’s fight in las vegas is more important to them.”
oh come on my friend. the House in 2000 was Erap controlled, just as the House of 2008 is gloria controlled.
yet erap was impeached. via Art. 11 sec. 4.
anong ‘nothing is good enough for you?
I am already telling you how to do impeachment right!
Follow how erap was impeached!
kung sabagay, human nature na yang maghanap ng excuses.
excuses. excuses. blaming the whole world except themselves (the bright boys of the ‘united opposition’)
no wonder nakaupo pa rin si gloria.
my friend, no amount of name calling will produce that needed 1/3 vote. that is worked hard for.
anong “the minority can lobby themselves to death”?
in the first place, ginagawa ba nila yun? no! since 2005, no!
saka laymen can do the lobbying. have a prepared complaint, then lobby each congressman to get his signature. hanggang maka 1/3.
pero ginagawa ba yun ng anti gloria school? hinde!
since 2005, hinde!
anong nothing will happen? remember how erap was impeached!
kung sabagay, mas madaling magtatatalak na lamang kaysa mag-lobby
pero ang di ko pa rin ma-arok, since 2005 pa, di ma-realize ng anti gloria school na lobbying to get the 1/3 is closest to removing gloria than pagtatatalak!
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:49 am
Bert :
“Will you be out in the street too if this chacha allows her to hold on to power as expected of her to do?
for the nth time, cha cha cannot allow gloria (1) to run again in 2010 or (2) to extend beyond 2010
even if an amendment is in place allowing a 2nd term or a term extension, that will be enjoyed by gloria’s successor
“Answer yes and we will call it a draw, or, we can even concede you win.”
you. concede? on this matter?
you have been bombarded with endless posts and constitutional proof that gloria cannot run again nor extend. yet you still persist in that paranoia of gloria still around beyond 2010
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:52 am
Jon and Bert,
Have you guys read what I wrote several times in this very thread? Do you actually read anthony’s words? Do you have any idea about the process required for Chacha?
For Chacha to become law, the following must happen:
1. The Congress would register 75% “yeas” in favor of either a Concon or Conass.
– That would mean that the Senate voted seperately (and also passed the motion), or (more likely)….
2. The SC ruled that the Congress only has to vote as a unitary body.
3. Conass/Concon meets, debates and creates a proposal.
4. A plebescite supporting the amendments is supported by the majority of the population.
Now, add to this your fear that one of the clauses will call for a term extension for GMA (or that there will not exist any clauses that DISALLOWS it).
All that woould be needed would be that everyone would agree with the proposals. That’s 3/4 Congress, the majority in the SC (even though the law already prohibits it), and a majority of Filipinos.
Oh. And this all has to happen before 2010.
Sounds impossible, doesn’t it? So…the only plausible way for GMA to extend is by force. Which is unlikely…unlikely to happen, unlikely to succeed.
So again — you people are being irrational or are purposefully being untruthful and are actually just trying to cause confusion, anger and self-destructive national policies.
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:58 am
impeachment is an exercise of futility on part of the minority, although not entirely a waste of their time and effort, for one thing the filing of impeachment does is remind the citizenry of how corrupt and void of morality our politicians in the administration are. otherwise no amount of proof or backdoor dealings will ever get it to progress in congress.
even if Jesus Christ will materialize in front of the tongresmen to convince them. They can always say it is not sufficient, where’s the beef? he is only an actor. also even after Jesus turns the water into wine in front of them, in majority, their reply would be, “it is just magic, surely david blaine or kris angel can do that in las vegas”.
even if they can have a picture of gma holding the money and handling it over to the tongresmen, “the picture is doctored”
even the garci tape, “i spoke to a comelec official but not garci”. ha! nothing will ever be good enough for them. the only proof or evidence they will take is what the malacanang is giving them, a bagful of monies, a promise of more money every filing of impeachment and election, and promise to keep them in power and more money.
if the minority can do that maybe they will stop and pause to consider those evidence. and why should the minority will do that anyway?
and those of you saying lobby your congress in the province, ha! have you tried that? have anyone tried that? unless you are filthy rich or one of the backers of that tongresman, then he will listen to you. otherwise it is what they say “suntok sa buwan”.
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 11:58 am
Jon,
You wrote: “I don’t trust Gloria that’s why I support moves to get her out of the office now.”
Ahhh…so after we take the time to look at reality using the tools of intellectual thought, you just throw up your hands and spit out the “Now na!” line. What a phony!
So the point is that you don’t care about the truth, about justice, about fairness or about what might be the best thing for the country. You just want to break the law and be a part of national suicide, eh? You want to reject democracy and you think that your opinions somehow justify whatever outcome you choose?
So which dictator are you interested in installing, Jon?
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 12:02 pm
is erap’s case was entire a different atmosphere. erap has that sense of over confidence and even then the impeachment was sent to the senate, erap did not lost. it was the people power movement that finally topple him from the throne. and this is where gma is smart, she learned that lesson from her predecessor. kill it early, don’t let people mass up, hence the CPR (which was struck down by the SC, but was also late because gma has already achieved the needed effect).
1/3 is suntok sa buwan.
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 12:10 pm
Erap controlled the Senate…he was right when he figured his allies in there would protect him.
I disapprove of the illegal method of removing Erap.
That’s why the Anti-GMA ran to the streets and screeched their brains out and became violent — they wanted to manufacture a quick and thoughless “People Power” based on emotions, inaccurate info and faulty accusations.
I disapprove of any illegal method of removing GMA.
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 12:15 pm
istambay,
what we are talking about is how to get the complaint to the Senate! the needed 2/3 to convict gloria is available in the Senate!
1/3 suntok sa buwan? thats how it looked before erap was impeached
di lang masipag, resourceful, diligent at creative yung mga idolo nyong ‘united opposition’
“and those of you saying lobby your congress in the province, ha! have you tried that? have anyone tried that? unless you are filthy rich or one of the backers of that tongresman, then he will listen to you. otherwise it is what they say “suntok sa buwanâ€.”
teka teka, sino ba ang gustong mag-impeach?
yun nga eh, wala pang gumagawa.
besides, kaya nga the need to lobby! paano na-impeach si erap nuon?
take note my friend, 1/3 is not even a majority! even if the 2/3 say otherwise, a 1/3 vote to impeach is enough!
talagang di lang masipag, resourceful, diligent at creative yung mga idolo nyong ‘united opposition’
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 2:55 pm
“talagang di lang masipag, resourceful, diligent at creative yung mga idolo nyong ‘united opposition’”
–scalia, maybe the minority should have retained your services and expertise on this impeachment. there will be next year and i bet manolo will be sure to tap your talent. and how dumb are those in the minority not to think of things you already knew!
maybe JDV is losning his touch on those backroom dealings. or maybe they just did not try hard anough and done their homeworks as you have suggested.
there will be next time as long as gma is still in malacanang, and if she does not declare some form of martial before 2010.
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 3:09 pm
“I disapprove of the illegal method of removing Erap.”
“I disapprove of any illegal method of removing GMA.”
– i guess you also disapprove of marcos’ method of removal? the EDSA I is actually bad? never thought of that! hey maybe we would have been better off with imelda running pinas at present. never thought of that too! MARCOS! MARCOS PA RIN!
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 3:17 pm
“In other words: With the President’s crafty refusal to be held to account in any serious form, and with her regularly spending as much as P100 million to buy what former House speaker Jose de Venecia Jr. calls “legal protection,†the sword of impeachment turns out to be made of plastic.”
from:PDI editorial 11/28.2008
Geo on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 3:34 pm
istambay,
I’m really wondering about your abilities.
In case you didn’t know, the country was under a military dictatorship during Marcos and was/is under a functioning democracy during Erap and GMA.
Gee — a PDI editorial that comes up with a P100m figure and cites JDV as their credible source. Whew! Powerful stuff…..
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 3:58 pm
“I’m really wondering about your abilities.”
–hmm…let us worry about yours and not mine please! marcos times we were under military dictatorship? reallyyyy??? never thought of that!
thanks for the reminder, will keep that in mind.
and i’d rather belief PDI over gma and her minions.
now i bet you’d rather have it the other way instead.
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 3:59 pm
ooppps…”rather believe” ……
anthony scalia on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 4:51 pm
istambay_sakalye :
“–scalia, maybe the minority should have retained your services and expertise on this impeachment.”
yes, they should have.
pero knowing the ‘united opposition’ wag na lang.
“there will be next year and i bet manolo will be sure to tap your talent.”
i doubt it. pero no need to tap my services. they just have to read my posts here to get ideas
“and how dumb are those in the minority not to think of things you already knew!”
oh yes they are really dumb! nakaupo pa rin si gloria!
why don’t you blame them, just for once? for consistently blowing impeachment chances. starting with ‘Hello Garci’
“maybe JDV is losning his touch on those backroom dealings. or maybe they just did not try hard anough and done their homeworks as you have suggested.
oh yes. JDV is supposed to be producing a Chavit result, but what happened?
pero malay mo. may milagrong mangyari sa plenary
“there will be next time as long as gma is still in malacanang, and if she does not declare some form of martial before 2010.”
again – read the constitution. its more difficult to declare martial law now
istambay_sakalye on Fri, 28th Nov 2008 5:02 pm
“again – read the constitution. its more difficult to declare martial law now”
–again i don’t underestimate gma and co.. nothing is impossible. she has already pulled off so many things that seemed impossible to many. talo pa ni gma si david blaine, master magician and maybe Jesus Christ! gma and her minions already performed so many miracles that I am starting to believe pablo garcia that gma is like Jesus Christ. di ba dati gusto lang ni ate glo macompare kay ate guy, the superstar? ngayon Jesus Christ superstar na!
wala na talagang kapa-kapanalo ang mga idolo ko sa united oposisyon! k lang.
Geo on Sat, 29th Nov 2008 10:01 pm
I just wanted to make sure that this headline got the attention it deserves.
“At least six out of 10 Filipinos disapproved of Charter change.”
I hope we can all know that PDI is lying here.
The questionaire asked if people agree that GMA should extend her term past 2010 by using Chacha to do so.
Duh. Gee, we all agree that this is not acceptable.
But why do these groups keep saying that poeple don’t agree with Chacha? Why do they want to pretend that the majoirty is anti-chacha?
Why be anti-progress???
Just what is the driving force for these people after all???
istambay_sakalye on Sat, 29th Nov 2008 11:31 pm
the real problem with cha cha is not with cha cha itself but with the people behind, pushing for cha cha. they have zero credibility! people just do not trust gma and her minions.
it is gma that is holding the county’s progress hostage. as long as gma is in power cha cha will be opposed by the citizenry.
again, zero credibility! worse than marcos!
and some of you still wonder why people are opposed to cha cha. DUH!
Bert on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 1:01 am
Geo and anthony,
I find it so difficult to communicate with you guys. I asked you questions, you answer the question with your favorite spins which we heard already, repeatedly, its becoming so boring, and they’re not even answers to the specific question at all but explanations of your views not related to the question I was asking you.
Geo, since their is no yes answer from you as to whether you are going out in the street if chacha allows gloria to hold on to power then you forfeit your chance to be a winner, heheh.
Which means your answer is no. You are not going out in the street if chacha allows gloria to hold on to power. Which means you are in favor of a gloria-forever scenario.
That’s the beauty of dialogues in forums like this. It makes things clearer and clearer.
anthony scalia on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 7:00 am
Bert,
no no no. for the nth time i am not saying that i won’t go out if gloria extends.
because its very very certain that gloria will not stay beyond June 30, 2010
so I chose not to answer a very hypothetical question, since it won’t happen in the first place
just because i didn’t answer your question does not mean that i am already what you want to think i am – for gloria beyond 2010. ano ka ba?
please don’t put words into my mouth (or words into my comments)
you are really paranoid, aren’t you? that fact gets to be clearer and clearer
istambay_sakalye on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 8:59 am
“no no no. for the nth time i am not saying that i won’t go out if gloria extends.
because its very very certain that gloria will not stay beyond June 30, 2010
so I chose not to answer a very hypothetical question, since it won’t happen in the first place”
–talking about being hypothetical! any proof that gma will not stay beyond 2010?her words?the constitution?when was the last time she respected the law of the land. yeah, when it’s to her side or convenience.
Geo on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 11:07 am
Bert,
Sorry, but you don’t ask very good questions sometimes. And you don’t seem to understand simple answers. So what am I supposed to do?
You are asking me if I’ll go to the street if Chacha is passed and if GMA stays on past 2010, right?
That’s a bad question. The only way that would happen is if the people — via plebescite — VOTE TO SPECIFICALLY HAVE GMA STAY ON. (And the people won’t do that!)
So why would I take the street if the majority of Congress, the majority of the SC and a majority of the population all actually vote for something? (But the people won’t do that!)
Another question might be (I’m trying to figure out what you are aiming for) –
If GMA stays on past 2010 via illegal, unconstitutional methods, would I take to the streets? The answer is yes.
Since a GMA-extending Chacha proposal will never pass, and since that means that GMA would have to stay in power only through illegal means, I can say that I would take to the streets if GMA stays on past 2010.
Is that want you wanted me to say so desperately???
Bert on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 2:17 pm
Geo,
We are going full-circle with this chacha discussion, and nothing is resolved.
Pls. don’t try so hard figuring out any hint of an aim…there is no aim.
It’s as simple as these:
I’m not in favor of chacha now for reasons very clearly stated already. I am opposing it now, and I will vigorously oppose any such attempt to ram it into our throat later.
You are in favor of it, asap you said, for reasons which are the same as that being spoused by some administration people who are the main pushers of this chacha attempt. It will not be too hard for you to swallow. I’m sure you are going to push vigorously for it as well.
As to whether what role GMA will be playing in this chacha ballroom we have yet to see. Suffice it to say that I think she’ll be dancing in it, while you think she’ll just be a bench-warmer.
Let’s wait for events to unfold so we can see how this matter will be resolved. Ok?
Geo on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 3:26 pm
Bert,
We’re not going in circles, Bert, you are.
In your previous post, you accused me of wanting “gloria forever”. It was once again a mischaracterization of my stance. — I do not want GMA after 2010.
Now you are calling me gullible, easily swallowing some stories from the admin types.
I must reiterate that the calls for amending the Constitution have come from many different quarters and for many years. Chacha isn’t an admin idea…it’s a good idea with wide acceptance.
I also remind you that I’d like the PROCESS to start asap…but that I’m not in favor of rushing anything through. I am also open to the idea of a Concon.
What I am AGAINST is the distortion that the vocal minority is creating and the continued anti-progress actions which they take. In my opinion, they are causing confusion for Filipinos and are damaging the country’s image abroad.
So while you and I may wait and see what happens in the future, there are some who are using this bogus “Gloria-Forever!” fear-mongering in order to justify their calls for ousting GMA unconstitutionally. And they are going to the streets.
anthony scalia on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 11:12 pm
istambay_sakalye :
“–talking about being hypothetical! any proof that gma will not stay beyond 2010?her words?the constitution?when was the last time she respected the law of the land. yeah, when it’s to her side or convenience.”
Exhibit A of paranoia.
We are talking of the Constitution here, my friend.
Not just a mere law of the land.
The Constitution.
The past is past my friend. You are resurrecting the ghosts of martial law on your own.
Anyway its your life. I have no right to compel you not to be paranoid
Geo on Sun, 30th Nov 2008 11:44 pm
anthony,
It’s comforting to not be standing alone. I’m grateful for your presence…
…and for your presence of mind…..
anthony scalia on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 12:02 am
Bert,
“I’m not in favor of chacha now for reasons very clearly stated already. I am opposing it now, and I will vigorously oppose any such attempt to ram it into our throat later.”
again, for the nth time – if you really knew what it would take for an amendment to be ratified by 2009, you will not be paranoid
and to stress the point – cha cha is not just about term extensions! you have been reminded of that so many times!
“Let’s wait for events to unfold so we can see how this matter will be resolved. Ok?”
Exactly! That’s precisely for you and the rest who are paranoid on gloria-beyond-2010!
Take note, you are the ones insisting that gloria will stay beyond 2010.
We are very certain that gloria will go in 2010, as that is commanded by the Constitution
Again, a chacha can extend a President’s term, but only gloria’s successor, not her, can benefit from it! (not that an amendment of extension can be in place before 2010)
oh yes, lets wait and see! for the meantime, please stop manifesting your paranoia
read the Constitution
oh yes! cha cha will continue, but any amendment for extensions will not be enjoyed by gloria.
to repeat – cha cha is not just about term extensions
to repeat – read the Constitution, so you’ll see that it needs amendments as early as the day it was ratified in 1987!
anthony scalia on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 12:32 am
Geo,
thanks.
im just as grateful that you reminded a historian that he is going beyond a mere chronicle of events
grd on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 2:46 am
“Let’s wait for events to unfold so we can see how this matter will be resolved. Ok?” bert
now bert you’re getting confused again. you’re not supposed to say that. you’re in category no. 2 remember?
“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”
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 8:56 am
“We are talking of the Constitution here, my friend. ”
–are you sure you are not gma? because i’m pretty sure you, my friend, and gma have a very different take on what a constitution is. for you it is the supreme law of the land, while for gma and her minions its just one of the obstacle, that’s she has to overcome to rule past 2010. and that will be taken care of when several justices retires and she gets to appoint, from the nominees JBC will send her. of course, she will appoint someone who share her so called ideology, or someone with close ties to her or mike. not just one but several, enough numbers to tilt the balance and objectivity of the institution to her favor.
so as much as you probably treat the constitution as the bible of lawyers, i doubt gma and her minions shares your attitude. just look back how she would try and try to go around the constitution to serve her own convenience and purpose.
istambay_sakalye on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 9:32 am
“3:41AM Officials quit over India attacks” –PDI
–will a or any filipino official will ever do this? just thinking out loud. someday maybe.
Bert on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 10:01 am
Don’t worry, grd, they have the number…but we have the people. I think that’s comforting enough.
Do you really think Geo is right on this? And we are wrong?
Just the same, I believe our people and country still worth fighting for. We are not giving up just yet.
Bert on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 10:18 am
btw grd, which category do you belong?
as you know, there was that fable about the birds and the beasts and the bats in between.
no, please, there is no insinuation here, just pure curiousity. with all honesty.
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 11:15 am
So Geo and Anthony are still ramming everybody with the idea that Gloria has no chance to stay beyond 2010?
These two should be commended for their dogged determination!
What will you do if GMA stays beyond 2010? Their answer is: cannot be! The constitution is just too difficult to change for that! Right.
How about saying, “then I will have been proven wrong”? We’re in a way the same, I would like to be proven wrong too but I would like to err on the side of caution.
Geo on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 11:35 am
Jon,
You wrote: “I would like to err on the side of caution.”
And your solution, as you have written, is to oust the President and install someone you like.
Boy, that sure is being “cautious”!!!
Yeah, a minority shutting down a country is a good idea…just look at Thailand!
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 11:47 am
In the beginning, I had high hopes in Gloria (she’s a bright economist, already rich so no more stealing, etc.), but she changed for the worse. If my girlfriend also cheated on me, then I’ll definitely dump her just like how I dump Gloria.
I can see you still trust her, there’s nothing shameful in that Geo.
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 12:10 pm
Btw, I won’t mind if Gloria resigns and Noli takes her place as the constitution says.
Geo on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 12:11 pm
Jon,
Wanting reforms — including with the Constitution itself — has nothing to do with trusting GMA or not.
Senate Minority Leader Pimentel and Communist Party List Teddy Casino also want Chacha.
You already tried — and failed — to distort my views earlier in this same thread. No need to go there again.
BTW, you never answered a bunch of my questions…one of which was: So who do you want to take over?
Geo on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 12:18 pm
Jon,
Ahh, Noli…and you note the constitution as if you are respecting it.
But GMA will not resign, as you know. So, as you have already said, you would therefore like to oust her. Which, of course is unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, the minority group you would ally with to topple GMA contains many elements who don’t want Noli, nor Enrile, not Nograles. They have their own solutions. Will they listen to you? Are they committed to the Constitution?
Seems to me that Chacha is just an excuse for you; you’re only interested in “oust na, now na!”.
Bert on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 12:39 pm
“BTW, you never answered a bunch of my questions…one of which was: So who do you want to take over?”-Geo asking Jon
Geo,
That’s quite a question, Geo. Does that mean there is no one deserving to be president but GMA? Is that one reason why chacha is necessary?
Now we are really asking bad questions, heheh.
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 2:27 pm
Geo never answers what he will do if Gloria goes back on her word and remains in power beyond 2010 (same with Scalia). They just point at how difficult it will be to do so.
But I, different from them, answers questions honestly and I express my beliefs straightforwardly.
Who to put in there to replace Gloria? I’ve said it already, I’ve got no solid preference. Somebody who would respect the constitution, I guess. Noli, Enrile, Nograles, Chief Justice?
Gloria does not respect the constitution, as pointed out in this thread and many others, she tries to skirt around it. So why should people give her the protection of the constitution?
Geo on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 3:49 pm
Jon,
I’ve answered the question already. I must once again wonder why you are so…so…inattentive.
I repeat: I do not support GMA staying past 2010. I would take to the streets if she did. I am against breaking the law…is that difficult for you to understand? I would like to see institutions strengthened for the long term benefit of the country.
You, my friend, are the one who has no respect for the Constitution, as you are calling for an elected official’s ouster by force. An ouster by a minority, on top of that.
And you don’t even know what would happen after that. Good thinking. Good planning. That ought to make the economy better. Sheesh.
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 4:00 pm
That’s a very good reaction Geo. When Gloria manages to subvert the constitution, you will have a lot of companions!
On the other hand, I would like to be pro-active. I support the removal of Gloria who has no respect for the constitution. She doesn’t deserve the protection the constitution provides for a president.
In my previous illustration, if you fear theat Citibank is going to fold, are you going to do about your money in there or just wait? If you’re not worried, then it’s your decision just to sit back.
I worry that Gloria is untrustworthy, that’s why I do what I do. You don’t worry because you believe it’s too difficult to do (for Gloria to stay beyond 2010) that’s why you say what you say in this thread! That’s quite clear to me.
anthony scalia on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 5:54 pm
Jon,
again, for the nth time – if you really knew what it would take for the amendment of extension to take place, you would not be paranoid
again, even if the amendment is in place for 2010, gloria can’t enjoy the extension or the right to run again. those can only be enjoyed by gloria’s successor
and just to set the record straight – when we say we are for cha cha, its not that we are for gloria’s extension (we are not), but we are for the other amendments which have been much delayed since 1987!
anthony scalia on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:03 pm
Jon,
“When Gloria manages to subvert the constitution, …”
please do not underestimate the defenders of the Constitution!
gloria can subvert the constitution? oh my! the paranoia has taken all of you!
“In my previous illustration, if you fear theat Citibank is going to fold, are you going to do about your money in there or just wait? If you’re not worried, then it’s your decision just to sit back.”
again – Citibank folding up is (was) imminent!
gloria staying beyond 2010 is manifestation of paranoia!
(for one thing, its only 2008! where’s the imminence? not that the amendment for extension is sure)
for your peace of mind, please read the constitution
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:06 pm
Anthony, why are you so paranoid about having the Cha-cha before 2010? How about supporting the con-con move at the same time as the 2010 election? We can definitely wait, can’t we?
Having the constitution changed today won’t do us immediate good anyway. Systemic change will not bring in magical gains instantly. I believe we can wait a few more years for Cha-cha. If you can wait out Gloria’s 1.5 years, you definitely can wait Cha-cha in 1.5 years also. Don’t be silly in trying to deny that.
anthony scalia on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:13 pm
Jon,
“These two should be commended for their dogged determination!”
***clears throat***
excuse me, the paranoid (which includes you) are more dogged in determination!
guess who have been making noise about a gloria extension?
guess who started making the noise?
guess who makes the loudest noise?
so who’s got the “dogged determination”?
we are just reacting to these manifestations of paranoia!
because for us, we just let the constitution take its course (and it will!)
i hope you got that distinction
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:13 pm
Do you remember PP1017? That was a proclamation by Gloria Arroyo which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. How about E0 464? Some parts of that were also deemed unconstitutional.
If Gloria can do that, she can also do some other extra-constitutional things in the future.
I admire your trust in Gloria! But, I beg to differ.
grd on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:18 pm
Con-con elections in 2010 together with national & local positions. this should be acceptable to all. at ng mawala na ang paranoia.
Jon on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:23 pm
grd,
Geo and Anthony keeps on using the word paranoia but it’s actually distrust in Gloria which is the reason. And Con-con election in 2010 is very good.
anthony scalia on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:43 pm
Jon,
“Anthony, why are you so paranoid about having the Cha-cha before 2010?”
well well look who’s talking! who is noisy on a gloria extension? and for those who are noisy on a gloria extension how can that extension be made possible? for those who are noisy on a gloria extension, only by an amendment before 2010!
“How about supporting the con-con move at the same time as the 2010 election? We can definitely wait, can’t we?”
oh that’s a different tune now!
con-con elections to coincide with the 2010 elections is not a bad idea
“Having the constitution changed today won’t do us immediate good anyway.”
ah no. as geo stated, if the limits on foreign ownerships are relaxed, FDIs will pour in right away!
“Systemic change will not bring in magical gains instantly.”
you are assuming that cha cha is all about term extensions. wrong
“I believe we can wait a few more years for Cha-cha. If you can wait out Gloria’s 1.5 years, you definitely can wait Cha-cha in 1.5 years also. Don’t be silly in trying to deny that.”
my goodness! you’re singing a different tune now!
“Don’t be silly” is actually for you
take note you just mentioned deferring cha cha for the first time
my friend, let me restate to you the ideas you have been bombarded with repeatedly – an amendment cannot be in place before 2010. even if a cha cha is validly convened before 2010, its too late for an amendment for extension to be in place for the 2010 elections!
stated differently – it is possible that the Con Ass is still deliberating on the amendments during the May 2010 elections!
anthony scalia on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 6:46 pm
Jon,
“Do you remember PP1017? That was a proclamation by Gloria Arroyo which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. How about E0 464? Some parts of that were also deemed unconstitutional.”
you don’t get it!
you just witnessed the superiority of the Constitution!
its because the Constitution is superior that the PP107 and EO 464 are declared unconstitutional!
so gloria did not subvert the constitution!
Geo on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 9:24 pm
May our brothers be enlightened
Bert on Mon, 1st Dec 2008 9:32 pm
Amen
istambay_sakalye on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 1:25 am
a question for everyone…why would a reasonable person of sound mind, body and health would trust gma and minions with their own and children’s future? and whose track record is at best spotty? is gma the only one who can run this country? is there no one else?
anthony scalia on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 8:34 am
istambay_sakalye :
“a question for everyone…why would a reasonable person of sound mind, body and health would trust gma and minions with their own and children’s future?”
welcome to democracy. remember erap won and many were wiling to vote FPJ!
why would reasonable people of sound mind body and health would trust those bumbling stupid idiots called ‘united opposition’ in removing gloria before 2010?
“and whose track record is at best spotty?”
at best spotty? are you sure about that?
check the numbers.
as if the previous presidents had “unspotty” records!
yes yes the benefits have not trickled down yet, that we know
“is gma the only one who can run this country? is there no one else?”
oh there are many! we will know in May 2010!
anthony scalia on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 9:20 am
Jon :
“Geo and Anthony keeps on using the word paranoia but it’s actually distrust in Gloria which is the reason. And Con-con election in 2010 is very good.”
i wonder who keeps on barking “gloria beyond 2010″?
Jon on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 9:44 am
Anthony, you actually think that when the economic provisions in the constitution are amended that instant gains will be achieved? That’s funny. It is as if business who want to be in the Philippines haven’t found loopholes. Just look at Boracay and who do you think protested when ownership of land was “taken away”? Many from Hong Kong did! Why is that? Because foreigners are not allowed to own land in the Philippines?
Your blinders are on that you don’t understand what people like me are asking. It’s quite simple actually.
1. We have lost trust in Gloria. So if she’s thrown out of Malacanang, we’re not going to mind. Whoever replaces her is another question. There’s somebody out there: and I’ve mentioned Noli, Enrile (Villar before he was taken down from the senate presidency), Nograles (JDV before he was taken down of House speakership), or the Chief Justice.
2. If Gloria is not thrown out of Malacanang before 2010, I would like to put in place provisions that she can’t pervert our laws and stay. This is the reason why I don’t support Con-con or Con-Ass before 2010. What looks good is Con-con delegate election together with the 2010 elections.
3. Even if any of these preferences/goals are not achieved, life goes on. At least I/we have done our part. The difference between us is that you’re quite happy with status quo which i/we believe plays in the hand of Gloria. Of course you believe differently. That’s life, everybody can’t agree on everything. Do you actually understand that?
istambay_sakalye on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 10:17 am
“why would reasonable people of sound mind body and health would trust those bumbling stupid idiots called ‘united opposition’ in removing gloria before 2010″
–because it is the right thing, morally and any decent person with right reason will not want to be ruled by a cheat, murderer and plunderer just to name a few. again let us not go to,” where’s your proof?” it is front of your face! i don’t need a law degree to tell right from wrong, and you definitely don’t need to go law school to get a sense of morality and decency!
anthony scalia on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 11:00 am
istambay_sakalye :
“because it is the right thing, morally and any decent person with right reason will not want to be ruled by a cheat, murderer and plunderer just to name a few. again let us not go to,†where’s your proof?†it is front of your face! i don’t need a law degree to tell right from wrong, and you definitely don’t need to go law school to get a sense of morality and decency!”
my friend, your love of gloria has clouded your judgments!
its just my way of saying – look to and rely on other people to lead the oust-gloria-before-2010 movement!
you know, people who have the credibility and can deliver!
anthony scalia on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 11:25 am
Jon :
“Anthony, you actually think that when the economic provisions in the constitution are amended that instant gains will be achieved?”
oh yes! people in business have been saying, for over 2 decades already, that once the limits are relaxed, FDIs will ‘downpour’ in
“That’s funny. It is as if business who want to be in the Philippines haven’t found loopholes.”
if the limits are lifted, there would be no need for loopholes
“Just look at Boracay and who do you think protested when ownership of land was “taken awayâ€? Many from Hong Kong did! Why is that? Because foreigners are not allowed to own land in the Philippines?”
my friend, precisely that’s the purpose of the amendment – to allow foreigners to own land.
“Your blinders are on that you don’t understand what people like me are asking. It’s quite simple actually.”
oh no my friend. you just don’t get it. its that quite simple
“1. We have lost trust in Gloria. So if she’s thrown out of Malacanang, we’re not going to mind. Whoever replaces her is another question. There’s somebody out there: and I’ve mentioned Noli, Enrile (Villar before he was taken down from the senate presidency), Nograles (JDV before he was taken down of House speakership), or the Chief Justice.”
my goodness! gloria will go in June 2010! that’s what we have been ceaselessly telling you! no amendment will be in place for 2010!
but you keep on getting spooked by ghosts you yourself created!
so what blinders are you talking about?
“2. If Gloria is not thrown out of Malacanang before 2010, I would like to put in place provisions that she can’t pervert our laws and stay. This is the reason why I don’t support Con-con or Con-Ass before 2010. What looks good is Con-con delegate election together with the 2010 elections.”
my friend, you have been repeatedly bombarded with posts that say gloria will leave in June 2010 because no amendment can be in place by 2010!
Jon, the constitution is different from a mere law. gloria can pervert the law, as you say, but she cannot pervert the constitution
its the constitution, not the law, that tells her to leave in June 2010
take note – you are the one who keeps on barking gloria beyond 2010
Feel free to support the Con Ass. It will still be deliberating on amendments during election day in May 2010!
“3. Even if any of these preferences/goals are not achieved, life goes on.”
well, for us, yes. but for those paranoid on gloria beyond 2010, its like the end of the world
“At least I/we have done our part.”
done? you keep on barking ‘gloria beyond 2010′!
“The difference between us is that you’re quite happy with status quo which i/we believe plays in the hand of Gloria.”
my friend, you really don’t get it. gloria is entitled to finish her term till June 2010. thats the status quo!
and to tell you frankly my friend, the anti anti school is so busy in helping the economy move forward that gloria is a non-factor in its efforts.
you want to remove gloria before 2010? fine. what can you do?
people power – though past people power attempts have gone pffft, feel free to attempt it again. be sure to have the majority with you, as what is believed in vain by bert
impeachment – do it right. follow Art. 11 sec. 4.
one unsolicited advice – do not trust the ‘united opposition’ as they are really the reason why gloria is still president
“Of course you believe differently. That’s life, everybody can’t agree on everything”
oh yes, especially if one side is powered by paranoia!
“Do you actually understand that?”
oh yes! sadly, you don’t
Jon on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 11:44 am
Hahaha! You’ve just beaten David Letterman Mr Scalia! You’re very funny.
istambay_sakalye on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 1:05 pm
“my friend, your love of gloria has clouded your judgments!”
–my friend it is more than love! it is an adoration!
anthony scalia on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 3:17 pm
stambay_sakalye :
“my friend it is more than love! it is an adoration!”
okay let me rephrase that:
my friend, your adoration of gloria has clouded your judgments!
anthony scalia on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 3:24 pm
Jon,
“Hahaha! You’ve just beaten David Letterman Mr Scalia! You’re very funny.”
***takes a bow, acknowledges the cheers***
thank you, thank you. im flattered by that. you just noted that im intelligent. it takes intelligence to be very funny, you know. and Mr. David Letterman is a very intelligent man
sorry i don’t find you funny
***utters the nickname of Jocelyn Bolante twice***
Jon on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 4:01 pm
more laughter!
istambay_sakalye on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 7:14 pm
” Mr. David Letterman is a very intelligent man”
—and i believe he also known be an as***le too. reason why jay leno go the tonight show and not him! thought you might find that funny too.
anthony scalia on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 8:43 pm
istambay_sakalye :
“—and i believe he also known be an as***le too. reason why jay leno go the tonight show and not him! thought you might find that funny too.
”
my friend, being an as***le is not inconsistent with being intelligent
being an as***le is subjective, being intelligent can be quantified
Letterman is an institution himself, though he considers Carson his idol.
istambay_sakalye on Tue, 2nd Dec 2008 11:19 pm
“Letterman is an institution himself, though he considers Carson his idol.”
–too bad again my friend, because johnny carson did not feel the same way toward letterman. who got the job? jay leno! who got bitter? letterman! why ? i guess you the answer to that and it has nothing to do with being intelligent or being an institution! too bad a person can’t be judged alone by his intelligence, there other things to consider too.
anthony scalia on Wed, 3rd Dec 2008 9:16 am
istambay_sakalye,
“too bad again my friend, because johnny carson did not feel the same way toward letterman.”
my friend, Carson is much ahead of Letterman, so the letter considers the former his idol.
of course Letterman does not and did not expect Carson to idolize him!
“who got the job? jay leno! who got bitter? letterman!”
my friend, set your facts straight.
Letterman never wanted to replace Carson in The Tonight Show.
Letterman wanted his own show, Late Show with DL, to take over the time slot of Carson’s The Tonight Show.
In other words, Letterman never wanted to leave his own show, but wanted an earlier time slot for it.
I hope you got the difference.
Letterman is already an institution by himself, so why should DL just be a replacement to Carson in The Tonight Show when he (Letterman) already had his own show!
of course he got bitter that his Late Show did not take over the time slot of The Tonight Show!
Leno is simply riding on the goodwill established by Carson
Letterman got to where he is now by himself!
“i guess you the answer to that and it has nothing to do with being intelligent or being an institution! too bad a person can’t be judged alone by his intelligence, there other things to consider too.”
im actually surprised why you brought that (DL, JL etc) up in the first place
i hope you don’t miss out the fact that Letterman still makes America laugh
mlq3 on Wed, 3rd Dec 2008 11:37 pm
scalia, please consult:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/asia-paci/philippine/epa0609/letter2.pdf
and
http://www.miriam.com.ph/2008/10/jpepa-flawed-but-ok-with-charter-sen.html
and ponder why the senate would ask for such things and why our dfa would then ask the japanese mfa for the clarifications provided.
anthony scalia on Thu, 4th Dec 2008 2:17 pm
quezon,
my issues with you:
1. you said the jpepa was renegotiated, that is, the ‘constitutionally infirm’ provisions amended, making it sound that the jpepa as submitted to the senate was amended.
and making it appear that your senators saved the day for the Philippines!
it was not renegotiated. the jpepa was ratified as it is
2. the length of time for your senators to ratify a mere bilateral treaty – more than a year!
im not disputing the right of your senators to investigate before voting on concurrence. but taking them more than a year? on a mere bilateral treaty?
that’s the problem with your senators. not content with the media mileage from the making of committee reports, they had to find a way first how to ride the jpepa wave to earn pogi points.
Jon on Thu, 4th Dec 2008 3:06 pm
Even with Scalia’s disregard for the senators, I still believe that we should do away with the House of Representatives. Let’s have a unicameral legislative body, but let’s retain the senate.
anthony scalia on Fri, 5th Dec 2008 3:30 pm
Jon,
wrong. you do away with the senate.
all legislators should be elected by area or district. even senators in the US are elected by state.
rego on Sun, 7th Dec 2008 3:46 pm
Manolo,
I still dont agree with what you ve said in your replyies but Im definitely very impressed with your calmness in it. Keep it up!
Geo on Sun, 7th Dec 2008 6:48 pm
ditto
anthony scalia on Sun, 7th Dec 2008 9:11 pm
d3
Jon on Mon, 8th Dec 2008 4:46 pm
Just think of the savings the Philippines will have when the House is abolished! In addition, street names will be left alone.
Rob' Ramos on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 12:38 pm
Excellent post, MLQ. I love the way you explained the whole situation.
Also saw your Inquirer column for today (Thursday, 11 Dec. 08). It was… eye opening, and makes one deeply concerned.
Sophristicated on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 1:45 pm
Having trawled through the arguments above; I have not seen a single, direct straightforward answer from any side regarding the issues. Much as many here have indulged in the same muckraking that they allegedly hate coming from BOTH the government and the opposition. The challenge I now provide to each and everyone here is:
Create a simple question on a SINGLE topic:
Ex. Do you believe in the need of Charter Change?
Answers should be in a YES or NO only, and a short one sentence summary. I suspect that none of your are engineers or in the field of information technology that the need for a clear, specific DECISION TREE to explain your views is an alien concept. This would serve to clear up your argumentation instead of descending towards evasive and “pliable” answers that sometimes may be perceived to “beg the question”.
Geo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 4:37 pm
Sophris,
Maybe you should trawl around a bit more before jumping to conclusions…..
Your suspicions are actually poorly formed theses based on a lack of data. Can you say “small sample size”? Try reading some other threads.
After all…the first rule in proper analysis is to gather enough relevant evidence, no?
In order to satisfy you, though:
Yes, to bring more economic and political power to the local level via a unitary Parliamentary Federal system.
anthony scalia on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 9:55 pm
Sophristicated :
“Ex. Do you believe in the need of Charter Change?”
the problem with that question is this -
a majority of people here equate cha cha with term extensions.
what they don’t know is that the 1987 Constitution needed amendments as early as Feb. 3, 1987.
Nograles has said it – only economic provisions need to be amended
many people here are still paranoid on term extensions. what they don’t know – or still refuse to admit – is that any amendment on term extensions will not benefit gloria. even a transitory provision of extension will not benefit gloria
so even if the cha cha proponents only have economic provisions in mind, the paranoid regulars here still spook themselves into believing any term extension will benefit gloria.
even if con ass proposes term extensions, if approved, such extensions will start with the term of the successor of the incumbent
kingdon on Thu, 30th Jul 2009 11:14 am
we are really tretened with the black propaganda if what are administration will opposed the best thing we should do is to focus are eye in this admin. to control and to stop the negative things that she’s doing now! oust glooooooooooria this is the right time for you to end your term .. being the worst president of the philippines..