The right fight at the wrong time?
December 9, 2008 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
Of the accounts and commentaries on the Pacquiao-de la Hoya fight, I enjoyed those of The Warrior Lawyer -first on the boxing of the thing (see the links in The Age of Brillig, too), then the economics of the sport and the match- and the broadside against the actual broadcasting of the match, by Bong Austero, the most. Former Socialist rebel and priest Edicio de la Torre (hat-tip, GlobalVoices) ties in the match with the death of a young actor that marred what was otherwise a morning of national rejoicing (see also A Filipina Mom Blogger).
No one has pointed out what a remarkable image, and what a remarkable campaign, this was:
Here in one image, all the the things that people think matters to people (including themselves):
1. Faith and Hope
2. Perseverance of the Underdog
3. The will to win of the Champion
4. Community & Solidarity
5. Material Success & its Manifestations
The website featuring this image, takes it even further. People were given the option of adding their personal “prayers, wishes or dedications” for Pacquiao. In one fell swoop, popular instincts were marshaled and put on display:
1. The Community Spirit
2. Patriotic Feeling (versus Nationalist Chauvinism)
3. Racial Vindication
4. Individual Empowerment
5. Religion’s Role in Everyday Life
In contrast to all the positive things above, take a look at this remarkable video:
All the negatives, in contrast, are on display:
1. Class Resentment
2. Mistrust of Officialdom and the Institutions they Dominate
3. The Language and thus, Educational Divide
4. Citizens’ Feelings of Powerlessness
5. The Absence of a Genuine and Legitimate Rule of Law
Both campaigns, mind you, are highly effective, and are brilliant messaging efforts. But to my mind, the power of the first -based on aspirations- trumps the power of the second, based on reality on the ground.
A proposed solution will always be stronger than a non-solution; by this I mean that a proposal for change will have greater drawing power than a stubborn insistence on the status quo.
Since 2005, let’s not forget that the House of Representatives has had a working draft of the Constitution, as it wants to see that Constitution after amendments are accomplished:
Matrix House Proposed Charter Amendments
Nothing suggests that these fundamental objectives have changed. Much has been made of the absence of any concrete document detailing the changes, particularly to the economic provisions of the Charter, but I think that there’s no reason for such a document to be released to the public, because the proposed changes have been clear to those interested in them, from among the ruling coalition, for some time.
As for public opinion concerning these proposals, take a look at this presentation, containing information on public opinion used during the 2005-2006 Anti-Cha-Cha campaign (at the beginning of the campaign, it seemed 44% of the public favored Charter Change, with only 40% opposed; but as Serge Osmeña, a firm believer in the use of survey information for strategizing campaigns pointed out, if you took a close look at the supposed 44% for Charter Change, a significant chunk was for it on the assumption that it would help remove the President; therefore, they were susceptible to being swayed to joining the ranks of the Antis):
If nothing fundamental has changed in terms of the aspirations of the ruling coalition (unicameral parliamentalism), I don’t think anything fundamental has changed in terms of the fundamental political preferences of the public (bicameral presidentialism), either. Economics remains a powerful argument, but that argument is weakened by questions over the political motives of the proponents of Charter Change.
This is where what helps foster Charter Change within the ruling coalition, harms its prospects when it comes to public opinion. It matters to members of the House, that the President’s sons are so conspicuous and that her pet party, Kampi, is taking such an active role; their prominence, however, leads to public mistrust of the proposals and the proponents.
In his blog, Mon Casiple details where the House effort is at and the long ways it has to go:
The GMA forces in the House are crowing about a 183-strong signatory to a House resolution for the convening of a Constituent Assembly. This particular resolution–reportedly being passed around by the Arroyo sons directly–has not even been filed and contained no particular provisions to amend. They are publicly proclaiming that the 196 three-fourths vote required to pass a constitutional amendment in a joint-vote Con-Ass will be theirs.
Of course, the passage of such a resolution is just the first round in a four-round Cha-cha bout.
The second round is the expected Supreme Court battle over the joint-vote Con-Ass. A February 16 retirement by SC justice Adolfo Azcuna is eyed by GMA political strategists as the golden opportunity to appoint a pro-GMA justice in order to firm up the shaky alignment in the current Supreme Court.
The third round is the convening of the joint-vote Constituent Assembly to actually pass the necessary amendment or revision of the 1987 constitution by shifting to a parliamentary system, extending the terms of office of elected officials, or by simply allowing the president to run again for reelection. This is where the 196 captive votes will come in handy, ramming through by brute force such an amendment or revision.
The fourth round is the conduct of the plebiscite on the GMA extension in power, possibly by corroding and influencing the Commission on Elections.
Like the Pacquiao steamroller win over de la Hoya, the GMA strategists imagine doing it over the Cha-cha opposition. The GMA congressmen are raring to do it in the next days to come.
The legal issues that have to be sorted out are explored by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ in The ‘ifs’ in Charter change and Speak tenderly to Jerusalem on Cha-cha (see also former Chief Justice Panganiban’s articles). Essentially, Bernas (rather glumly) admits the Constitution he helped write, has provisions on amendments written in such a manner as to require some sort of resolution by the Supreme Court to sort out it’s meaning (in marked contrast to Dean Jorge Bocobo’s strong belief the Charter is immune to being interpreted in any but a strictly bicameral way).
So what is the opposition to the House proposals up to?
On December 10, the hierarchy and the Catholic Schools will mount a protest at the gates of the House of Representatives, for Land Reform and against Charter Change at the present time. The hierarchy apparently shares the concern that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program will not be extended by Congress, as the landlord bloc in the House wants to end Land Reform.
On December 12 there will be an inter-faith rally in Makati City.
Here is a tactical question: both rallies require a turnout at least as large as the February 2007 Makati City rally. If neither rally -or if both rallies- fails to match those numbers, the Palace and the ruling coalition, at present spooked by the possibility of a massive turnout, will get their second wind. The President herself, if you’ve noticed, doesn’t seem to have unleashed a torrent of cash, which means she’s either hard-pressed to scrounge it up, or is holding back. But if the much-feared mobilizing power of the Catholic Church proves a dud, or the public shrugs off Charter Change by avoiding the rallies, then the President may decide to bet and bet big on Charter Change.
In December 2006, the House, lacking the votes to bring the Charter Change case to the brink of a full-blown Constitutional Crisis, blinked and folded in the face of a threatened Church mobilization. But the Church itself, suddenly getting cold feet because it was worried about a People Power situation, and inflexible in its determination to purge the Luneta rally of anything smacking of the “political,” declined to mobilize fully. A lot of finger-pointing and recriminations then took place within the ruling coalition, basically along the lines of “well, what do you know, they weren’t so strong after all”. Although to be sure, this was also meant to enfeeble Jose de Venecia, Jr.
The ruling coalition’s ranks already having been purged of JDV and his ilk, and with many more shepherds to guide the ruling coalition (a more effective Speaker, Nograles, the President’s two sons, and Rep. Villafuerte), with a hard-line cabal in the Cabinet composed of durable political operators, the President might just be inclined to see where this will go. Personally, I think the one to watch here is Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. and his empire-building efforts in the power sector. How his efforts prosper will clarify whether an alliance has firmed up with the President, making it more economically rewarding for him to pursue an extension of the current regime rather than embarking -and placing his bets- on influencing the next government.
But even as I point this out, something else is bothering me.
Both protest activities (December 10 and 12) make me think that we really ought to ponder whether camouflaging political action with the cloak of religion is healthy.
A couple of years ago, during a forum held by a foreign chamber of commerce, one Filipino expressed frustration over the timidity of the hierarchy and I responded by saying that perhaps this was a good thing, as reducing the political influence of the Catholic Church was better for the country in the long run. Since then I have become increasingly concerned with preserving the secular nature of our state (see The secular ideal) while ensuring freedom of conscience for practicing Catholics (see Faith and morals).
Making religious observance the central focus of political action dates to martial law, when public gatherings were hampered and regulated by the dictatorship, and when Communists needed to find a way to pursue their United Front tactics while dodging the accusation that they were promoting a Godless ideology. Religious rites helped keep political action focused on peaceful, non-violent resistance and kept the brutality of the martial law regime in check.
But the (unintended) consequence of all this has been to make the Catholic Church and in particular, the hierarchy, political players of consequence to an extent that would have been intolerable to past generations.
On one hand you have the Catholic Church effectively mobilizing to block the Reproductive Health bill, and on the other, mobilizing to keep Land Reform legislation alive. Tolerating the former because of the need for a force capable of mobilizing to promote the latter is a Faustian bargain. It only serves to underline the inherent contradictions in what’s going on, because it introduces the element of sectarian morality into the political sphere. Yet it may be the wrong place for that: after all, what is the political benefit of organizing around the celebration of the Mass, when the President can organize her own Masses, too? What is the use of one bunch of prelates if another will publicly support the administration?
For politicians, partisanship is not only to be expected, but natural; for bishops, the clergy, and their rites, it is, somehow, incongruous. At the very least, marshaling religion for one side only permits marshaling religion for the other; it does not introduce anything new nor does it offer any real opportunity to break the impasse the country’s been in, politically, since 2005. It only fosters the impression both sides are cynically using faith as a camouflage for politics, when the onus should be on those who should be in the dock for using official patronage as a means to court clerical support.
What makes me anxious, though, is that I think the President’s camp, if it decides to continue the brinkmanship Charter Change will entail, has latched on the right ingredients for successfully pursuing a campaign, while the opposition to the President and all her works will find the going tougher this time around.
But then again, there may be a reason why there is the perception that there is a conventional wisdom: and that is, that the gut instincts of those who believe that brinkmanship over the Constitution will truly mark the point of no return and defeat for the administration, are right.
Looking ahead, Congressman Ruffy Biazon thinks amendments are in order, eventually. That is assuming three things. First, that a real consensus concerning the need to amend exists (only within the narrow confines of certain groups does such a consensus exist, methinks). Second, that there are qualified people to ponder on and propose amendments (particularly if convention delegates are chosen by popular election). And third, that the amendments would accomplish some good.
The reactionary in me takes a skeptical attitude and would rather ponder what so many of our elders pointed out, which was, the desirability of restoring the 1935 Constitution, which worked without a hitch so that it took a dictator and a craven court to eliminate it, and which proved so difficult to replace an elected Convention bickered and squabbled its way into co-optation and scandal. As was eloquently pointed by the late Teodoro M. Locsin in Farewell, my lovely! in 1986.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
Alleba Politics » Blog Archive » Wanna Cha-cha? on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 11:51 am
[...] to MLQ3 for the heads up nuffnang_bid = [...]
The Buzz » Blog Archive » Manuel L. Quezon Iii: the Daily Dose » Today’s Dose » the Right … on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 12:46 pm
[...] If neither rally -or if both rallies- fails to match those numbers, the Palace and the ruling coalition , at present spooked by the possibility of a massive turnout, will get their second wind. The President herself, if you’ve noticed, …[Continue Reading] [...]
anthony scalia on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 1:44 pm
the need to amend the present constitution arose on 3 February 1987
manuelbuencamino on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 2:29 pm
And the problem with a pact with the devil is only the devil has the option to renege.
I agree, it’s dangerous politics to march behind the cross.
BrianB on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 4:25 pm
“Both protest activities (December 10 and 12) make me think that we really ought to ponder whether camouflaging political action with the cloak of religion is healthy.”
MLQ, Manuel,
You’re forgetting not every Filipino believes in absolute separation of Church and state in much the same way that Republican Americans don’t believe in it.
There’s nothing wrong with combining numbers with people who look at the church for guidance in most things. Anti-Gorias are not all liberals, hopefully.
Give Us This Day | Filipino Voices on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 5:02 pm
[...] recently praised this ad campaign in his post The Right Fight, The Wrong Time. He said: “No one has pointed out what a remarkable image, and what a remarkable campaign, [...]
The EQualizer on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 5:09 pm
Manny Pacquiao is a great sportsman who has brought great honor to the country. But if we look at at all the importance that Malacanang is giving him,we should seriously consider giving him the highest honors that a grateful people can give him…the Presidency.
DJB on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 5:13 pm
To establish their present Rules, the House and Senate each voted separately to adopt the same process they use for passing bills when proposing amendments or revisions to the charter.
Although the charter is silent on the matter, the Congress itself thus settled the ambiguity when the House and Senate each separately voted to adopt the present Rules on HOW they will exercise this power.
Both House and Senate Rules uphold the normal legislative process where House and Senate vote separately to propose charter changes for plebiscite.
In doing so, the Congress has obeyed the Constitution to the letter since the present Rules comply enirely, exactly and arithmetically with the Constitutional requirement.
Now, it is entirely conceivable that House and Senate could change their rules and, still in complete compliance with the Constitution, decide that henceforward, charter changes may be proposed by the Congress meeting in some special Constituent Assembly in which the distinction between locally elected Congressmen and nationally elected party list reps and Senators will be dispensed with and the Members of both houses will vote as individuals.
But even such a decision to vote jointly on proposed changes, must itself first be established by separate votes of House and Senate to adopt those new Rules! It cannot be imposed by a Supreme Court decision that the Congress ought to adopt “voting jointly”. even if “voting jointly” would not violate the Constitution, because “voting separately” also does not violate the Constitution!
The House by itself, cannot just change its Rules and impose its will on the Senate because it is precisely to the Congress, that constituent power to propose charter changes is vested, not the House. Otherwise the text should have said so.
Not even a UNANIMOUS vote by all of the House Members on a mere Resolution of the House of Representatives can call the Senate to a flag raising ceremony. They know it. The SCoRP knows it. The Palace knows it.
Only Villafuerte and the Kampisinos are insisting that what the plain language of the Constitution is actually saying is something like this:
Any amendment to or revision of the Constitution may be proposed by the House of Representatives, upon a vote of three fourths of all its Members plus eighteen.
In effect, the theory of Villafuerte is that the Constitution has vested the power to propose amendments and revisions of the Constitution in the Lower House albeit with a slightly higher than three fourths majority rule required.
Perhaps that is why all it took was a Minute Resolution to dismiss Adam Relson Jala’s recent prayer for an advisory opinion to be issued by SCoRP on “voting jointly” and “voting separately”.
Bert on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 5:56 pm
The palace is taking lessons from Manny Pacquiao on how to subdue the opponent. Where physical strength is present and sheer brute force is all there is necessary to accomplish a task then the next best thing to do is to make mincemeat of the opposition.
That’s the old reliable law of the jungle.
Fortunately the majority of the people is in the way.
Thank goodness!
Jon on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 6:13 pm
Some people though believe that it’s okay to do the Cha-cha now and just resolve the problems later when they come. (e.g. If Gloria manages to insert a provision so that she can stay in power beyond 2010, then we go to the streets and protest!)
I think that this reactive stance is no good.
Jeg on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 6:23 pm
Both House and Senate Rules uphold the normal legislative process where House and Senate vote separately to propose charter changes for plebiscite.
The other side will argue that this isnt ‘normal legislative process’ and is therefore not covered by rules regarding legislation. The ConAss isnt a legislative body anymore.
Geo on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 6:38 pm
OK…
The administration, from top to bottom, left to right, is corrupt, inept or both.
Here are all the other institutions that can’t be trusted:
1. Congress
2. SC
3. AFP (and PNP)
4. Ombudsman
5. JBC
6. Comelec
7. CBCP
—A message from your local, unelected, “we know best, as we will make sure to tell you repeatedly” NGO…faithfully delivered via the national media.
———————————————————————-
The problem is that the Church doesn’t support an “oust Gloria” scenario, right?
And isn’t that what all of this anti-Chacha noise is about anyway? If not impeach, then oust…right?
Bert on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 7:15 pm
No, Geo, this anti-chacha noise is simply that…anti-cha, is all.
Bert on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 7:16 pm
anti-chacha pala, heheh.
Geo on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 7:39 pm
Well, Bert, just exactly WHO is anti-Chacha?
Bert on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 8:10 pm
Geo, all citizens who does not want GMA to rule beyond 2010 are the anit-chachas, that simple.
Bert on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 8:12 pm
anti-chacha pala. damn keyboard, heheh.
Geo on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 9:35 pm
Those who don’t want GMA past 2010 (90%?) don’t want a Chacha which will extend her stay.
That doesn’t make all those people anti-Chacha.
Many people from many sectors realize the benefits of Chacha.
Only a small minority is against any and all Chacha. But this is that screeching crowd (once again) that demands a lot of media coverage…and gets it. Gee, and what do you know? This is the oust GMA crowd.
What a coincidence.
mlq3 on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 11:46 pm
Geo,
here is the statement of CEAP, composed of the Catholic schools that are mobilizing tomorrow:
http://caffeinesparks.blogspot.com/2008/12/pro-carper-anti-chacha-pro-reform-rally.html
According to:
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/138235/Catholic-schools-to-rally-for-CARP-extension
The schools committed are:
Those who will join the protest are Dela Salle University, Adamson University, Student Council Alliance of the Philippines, College of the Holy Spirit, Don Bosco Technical School, Philippine Christian College, San Beda College, Concordia School, Miriam College, University of Sto.Tomas, Divine World Seminary and St. Paul Manila.
Also set to join the protest action are La Consolacion College-Manila; St.Joseph’s College-Quezon city;Sta.Isabel College,Stella Maris; Sta.Catalina College, Daughters of Charity, St. Pedro Poveda,St.Scholastica College, Sienna College, Order St. Benedictine College, Task Force Mapalad and farmers from Yulo, Hacienda Bacan, and Calatagan.
san beda, in particular, has a law school dean who has come to the president’s vigorous defense many a time. and so it would seem difficult to say these are the usual anti-arroyo people. i understand the ateneo de manila also intends to mobilize though assumption seems absent unlike february 2007.
regarding opinions on charter change, i assume you reject surveys. so i wonder how anyone expects to be able to say anything regarding public opinion that’s quantifiable. maybe you should write the president asking her to summon the “silent majority” to a rally.
mlq3 on Tue, 9th Dec 2008 11:50 pm
djb didn’t the rules get amended last 05-06 to prepare for unicameral voting? better double-check that, that seems to be what mon casiple’s saying.
justice league on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 1:17 am
Manolo,
I took a “scan” of the proposed House amendments; Martial Law seems to be more powerful in the proposed House changes than it it is supposed to be now.
I can’t say without a more detailed reading but it might even be more powerful than during ex-Pres. Marcos’ time.
And though I’m not sure yet; things that I frowned upon in the Abueva Concom recommendations seems to be incorporated as well.
They used the constructive form of a vote of no confidence; penalized turncoatism, they are going to strengthen political parties. Each one alone has its merit but together leaves the way for a “super party” to be elected.
If a “super party” gets to form a government; that super party is likely to survive the whole term of parliament being the party in power. (though I’m not totally sure since the Abueva recommendations were worded differently)
Pilipinoparin on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 1:44 am
Is UP included in the march? What about the previous front liners during marches and rallies…FEU, UE, PCC, FEATI, MIT,etc. and even high schools like PSHS, MSHS etc? Lumambot na ba ang backbones ng bagong student generation?
justice league on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 3:08 am
Manolo,
I don’t know if this is the same House proposals but CODAL came out with an extensive dissection of a House proposal for Chacha in 2006.
hvrds on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 5:35 am
I read somewhere that there are times when the winds of economic turmoil can make people switch their focus on wanting to be free from want (economic) rather than to be free from fear (political).
Big Mike and GMA are preparing the tools that can be used in the very near future depending on the severity of the oncoming deflationary pressures in the global economy. Those pressures seem to headed for the very sectors that is driving present growth in the Philippine economy. Our labor exports and export trade in goods and services. Our main “achilles heel” still remains to be a balance of payments problem.
In Asia Japan looks to be going into a more serious deflationary spiral. India and china will also have to recalibrate their domestic economies (no easy task) as both export markets in goods and services are headed downhill.
Here in the Philippines the land based owners of capital who have seen their assets multiply in valuations will be in trouble as they hunker down. Danding’s foray into the power and energy industries which are natural monopolies are a sure sign of the rush to safety. Big Mike and GMA are also probably involved with the Razon’s takeover of Transco. Fire , water, shelter and food. Danding’s companies also would like to incorporate the corporate form of land reform. This was the model of his favorite cousin, Cory…
This is the extent of our domestic frame that serves as the basis for our economic system.
hawaiianguy on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 5:42 am
“Only a small minority is against any and all Chacha. But this is that screeching crowd (once again) that demands a lot of media coverage…and gets it. Gee, and what do you know? This is the oust GMA crowd.”
If that statement points to the behavior of the Congressmen, then it’s true. How can you extrapolate that to most Filipinos, and on what solid basis? Just curious.
Bert on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 12:06 pm
“Those who don’t want GMA past 2010 (90%?) don’t want a Chacha which will extend her stay.
That doesn’t make all those people anti-Chacha.”-Geo
Gee, Geo. Surely it does make those 90% anti-chacha. Could be that you are one exception to the rule so that would make it less than 90%. Still that’s quite a volume, a vast majority, who don’t trust this administration not to tinker with amendments to the new charter that would allow them to perpetuate their hold on to power.
It’s a matter of mistrust, you know, and that mistrust did not come overnight. It came slowly about due to so many reasons known to all. That’s why she has very low popularity, approval and trust ratings. The citizenry do’nt want to take a chance anymore.
The Filipino people, her people, loved her once before.
Not anymore.
Is it that hard to understand?
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 12:54 pm
mlq3,
You wrote of the mixture of inter-faith and political rallies. Now we can also see a pro-Carp and anti-Chacha rally being merged.
“In an interview with Radio Veritas, Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) director Msgr. Gerardo Santos said the main purpose of the protest is to help the farmers call for the extension of CARP before Congress goes on a Christmas break on December 20.”
I wonder why an anti-Chacha rally needs to align itself with other rallies of seperate causes?
———————————————————
Meanwhile, recent surveys said that the people are against Chacha IF IT IS DONE TO EXTEND THE TERM OF GMA.
Look, there are many sectors who want Chacha. That’s a fact.
Almost the entire country (including me) doesn’t want GMA past 2010. That’s a fact.
The “oust Gloria” tiny minority (6% according to the last survey I remember) is trying to equate “Chacha” with “GMA extension”. That’s a fact…and that’s a lie.
For example, the Liberal Party, Oposition Senators, businessmen, and others who have no loyalty to GMA all want Chacha. They can easily differentiate between Chacha and GMA extension.
The problem is that even many of these pro-Chacha (anti-term extension) entities say that we can’t/shouldn’t try Chacha right now. Do you know why?
Because there is a small group making so much noise — and falsely stating that any Chacha is only for a GMA extension — that it is creating diviciveness and an unstable situation!!!
In other words, the nation cannot fix important things because a small group is hijacking the reform issue and blocking rational discussion and debate…and threatening destabilization.
Reasonable people can debate conass vs concon, 2010 elections for concon membership or later/earlier, federalism, economic provisons, etc, etc.
Just becuase the “Oust GMA” crowd is trying to reduce Chacha to being the equivalent of Martial Law…shouldn’t mean that the rest of the country needs to.
But, alas, the screechers are succeeding in doing just that. They are extorting, actually.
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 1:04 pm
Bert,
You present a perfect example of someone being confused by the false propaganda. “Chacha” is NOT another word for “term-extension”. Is that hard to understand?
Or do you think that Senators Roxas and Pimentel are pro-Chacha because they are pro-GMA extension?
I am trying to make a clear separation of two different topics. You have mistakenly merged them into one. There are some “leaders” who are purposefully merging the two.
If you are in the street yelling “No Chacha!”, and you are doing so because you hate GMA, you are misguided. You should yell “No term extensions!!!”, probably.
One can be anti-GMA and be pro-Chacha.
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 1:06 pm
I propose that it is the “Oust GMA now na!” minority crowd which is purposefully merging the two issues…..
mlq3 on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 1:46 pm
Geo, the tactical reason I guess for CEAP is that their rally coincides with a major caucus in the House, precisely on the future of CARP. On one hand those who have been lobbying for the extension are concerned over pressure building up (led by the sugar bloc) simply to scrap the law, and lobbying by some others (the Danding Cojuangco bloc) for corporate farming, and don’t forget the administration’s ongoing efforts to entice Chinese investments in farming.
As for the anti-Cha-Cha aspect, the CEAP statement explains their stand adequately enough.
Your distinction that not everyone anti-GMA is anti-Cha Cha in principle, is fair enough, just as not everyone pro-Cha Cha is pro-term extension for GMA, etc. But you do have to review the timeline of the present proposals. On one hand there is the Lakas proposal and the Kampi proposal, ostensibly concerning economic provisions, and those proposed changes can be gleaned from the work on revisions to the charter accomplished by the House two years ago.
Matrix House Proposed Charter Amendments
See Article XII changes and Article XVI Sec. 11 and proposed Sec. 12 for the changes.
The problem is there seems wide agreement among the lawyers that you cannot limit the changes that will be proposed once the process for opening up the Constitution to proposed amendments is begun. So then it becomes a question of political timing and the advantages/disadvantages the proponents will face institutionally, not just in Congress but in the courts, etc.
The timeline shows that the changes have been proposed by the ruling coalition; that they are being cagey about what, precisely, they want to propose; that they have not really done anything to limit their ability to go beyond the general changes they want; that within their ranks, there are several proposals that directly propose extending terms for all incumbents and even proposing the postponement of the 2010 elections, and it was only under public pressure that some of these have been withdrawn by those proponents.
The Palace itself has expanded the opportunities for the coalition by proposing an appointive constitutional convention as well (macalintal, the president’s personal lawyer).
it was in reaction to these that people like roxas filed bills proposing a convention, and again, their proposed timing sets them apart from the ruling coalition which wants the process accomplished before 2010, while the earliest other people open to Cha-Cha (including the Church) are willing to contemplate is the election of delegates in 2010.
hvrds on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 2:11 pm
Congressman Luis Villafuerte said on TV yesterday that his purpose in not filing a formal resolution for cha cha is simply first to get the House to agree to settle on the mode of amending the constitution around the conflcting interpretations of what 3/4ths vote of Congress voting jointly means.
He wants an unequivocal justiciable issue to be brought to the SC around the interpretation of that mode of amending the Constitution. No more no less. In other words create a legal pretext to challenge his interpretation on the mode of calling for a Con Ass.
Forget about the issue of what provisions are to be amended.
The game is to get that interpretation form the SC. Off course it would help if one would load up the court with friendlies.
Congressman Villafuete is a former Bancom Investment Banker and DTI maven before GMA entered the DTI whose wife is firmly ensconced in the Monetary Board courtesy of Big Mike and GMA.
He is one sharp trapo that makes JDV look like a shoplifter.
Only when the SC will rule in favor or against his thesis will he come out with what is to be amended. His deck of cards come out only when he is assured of victory.
So the rallies can go on and on but there will nothing clear cut on what the Big Mike and GMA pack are to do.
An SC decision over the interpretation of how Congress convenes itself in a Con Ass might just result in their favor. If that happens what then? I personally would like to see that happen.
hvrds on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 2:24 pm
It is interesting to note that the colonials splitting from their British government in the U.S. colonies were evenly split as there were as many people who were neutral as there were who wanted to split. Only 10-15% would have been considered loyalists.
The neutrals and those who wanted to split were evenly divided at 40-45% on both sides.
The so called revolutionaries were then forced to take over colonial governments to push for the eventual split.
The population then of the colonies was about 2.5m to 3M. The majority were not even involved in the fighting as they were scattered in the countryside. The British could only fight along the coast as they had limited men on the ground. They controlled the ports and seas until the French came in to the picture and that turned the tide.
Majority of populations are never involved in critical changes in governments. You only need a few committed ones.
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 2:29 pm
mlq3,
Yes, I know what the suspicions are. I think much of the population shares those concerns.
Yes, I read through that chart (I do read the attachments/links you provide during our chats, you know).
Yes, I’m glad you agree that Pro-Chacha does not equal Pro-extension and anti-GMA does not equal anti-Chacha.
No, many entities have proposed Chacha long before this latest brouhaha. Pimentel is pro-Federalism, for ex. The LP has talked of it this whole decade.
So, knowing that we can all agree that there can be no term extension for GMA, knowing that there are plenty of good reasons to improve the Constitution, knowing that we need to debate conass vs concon…why not start the process of public discourse?
The only reason being offered — along with the threat of street demonstrations — is that somehow, someway, GMA will get the Senate, the SC and the majority of the people all to allow her extension.
This is non-sensical. But if certain leaders scream loud and long enough, the media will oblingingly amplify this misplaced paranoia, the international media will pick it up…and we look like a bunch of fools again in the world’s eyes.
That being the reality, we all have to stop the debates because further damage to the Pinas reputation is too expensive a cost.
If you look closely enough, the leaders I refered to are the “Oust GMA Now Na!” crowd.
So…even if they know GMA won’t be ousted, even if they know Chacha is inherently needed, even if they actually expect that GMA can’t/won’t extend…they don’t want reforms to continue. Why not?
Perhaps they feel any positive news under GMA is bad news? And that any positive reform is bad reform? So it’s better to oppose reform?
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 2:34 pm
“Majority of populations are never involved in critical changes in governments. You only need a few committed ones.”
…unless, of course, the law specifies that the “critical changes” in this case requires a national plebescite.
mlq3 on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 2:47 pm
Geo, I appreciate your taking the time to go through attachments.
You raise a good point on what the attitudes of those pro or con amendments are. Definitely there are some whose only interest is to obstruct any and all change. There are others, though, who genuinely believe the ruling coalition is up to something fishy and are freaked out by that prospect. And there are others who oppose the proposed changes because they are interested only in other changes.
We probably differ on the extent of public interest in amendments to begin with. Among the upper and middle class, it may just be that opinion has solidified in terms of a broad consensus on some changes being required, and for those, economic changes are less controversial than political ones. but it’s a stretch, considering that the entire voting population will be entitled to participate in ratifying or rejecting any proposed changes, to think there’s broad public support for changes or the necessity for those changes.
though in terms of a campaign to mobilize public support, again, economic changes may be easier to pitch than political ones, considering political changes will require big changes to the political behavior people are accustomed to (voting for a president, voting for senators, for example) though i wouldn’t underestimate the broad public hostility that might manifest itself to proposals such as allowing foreigners to own land (but here my own view is there is a silent majority more open to allowing foreign participation in our economy, but the present economic downtrend may be harming that: let’s not underestimate the pain and hostility the unreported widescale firings in bpo is having in the middle class, who now face the painful side of globalization and a different corporate culture in the west).
whatever the basis for their fears, the fear of every means being found to accomplish congress formally proposing amendments for a plebiscite to be managed by an electoral body that more closely resembles the marcos era incarnation of that body, is there.
what remains to be seen is if those forces are capable of mobilizing the public. today’s rally at st. peter’s church on to the batasan mounted by CEAP was a dismal failure -1,000 people, from what i hear from those there- so there goes the damocle’s sword of church hostility so feared by the administration. if dec. 12 proves a flop, or turns off the middle class by having a lot of presidential candidates on the stump- surely it will give the ruling coalition a second wind. then the fight will be determined by the supreme court’s pliability or lack of it.
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 3:31 pm
mlq3,
So, if you can also see the complexity of the various positions re Chacha, the obstacles to moving forward quickly or easily and the unlikelyhood of the massa easily accepting anything thrown out there…
…then you must see that the mere opening of the topic is not tantamount to a blitzkrieg attack…
…just as I see that the fear exists nonetheless.
But fear is a bad reason not to progress in life.
Especially if it is an irrational or overblown fear.
I even believe that the fear is purposefully being magnified by the “Oust GMA Now Na!” crowd (a much smaller subsection of the broader anti-GMA population).
My hope would be that people will not listen to the “Oust GMA!” crowd (yet keep their anti-GMA perspective) and not reject the concept of Chacha. I hope they will maybe accpet the need for change…and also the need for action.
The first thing needs to be decided — what will the law allow? Until the SC rules on a case which answers the 3/4, nothing is clear. That said, I’m not sure that Conass will push through; many pro-Chacha types like Concon better (I lean that way, for ex).
The disagreements about just what to address, never mind HOW to address, are numerous.
But if there is no momentum moving forward now…when will there ever be?
Bert on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 3:42 pm
You said,
“If you are in the street yelling “No Chacha!â€, and you are doing so because you hate GMA, you are misguided. You should yell “No term extensions!!!â€, probably.”
Geo,
I find it so difficult making you understand such a simple matter.
If I am in the street yelling “No Chacha!” that is not because I hate GMA. No, not at all. I bear no hate for her, she is my president, the president of our country, and of our people.
But the Filipino people don’t trust her anymore, so do I, and I am for the people, not for her. That’s the reason why I am an ‘anti’, don’t you know?
If I am in the street yelling “No Chacha!” that is because I know what this gov’t. is capable of doing, and they will do it if given the slightest chance. That I will not give.
This is a matter of mistrust, Geo. Do you find that hard to understand?
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 3:58 pm
Bert,
Gee, I’ll try hard to understand…
You and many don’t trust GMA. You are now anti-GMA. You worry that any Chacha moves will open the door to her extension in power. You think she and her minions are capable of caring this out. You are now anti-Chacha. Right?
Now understand that not all anti-GMA types are anti-Chacha and that there are anti-GMA types who are pro-Chacha. Capice?
Jon on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 4:10 pm
I haven’t seen much discussion about the Nograles proposal. Pwede nga bang ang House of Reps lang ang mag-act para ma-amend ang constitution? Ano nga kaya ang sasabihin ng SC ano?
mlq3 on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 5:52 pm
geo, this is something iv’e been pondering on for some time, viz. my references to what might be confidence building measures to move debate forward and obtain what has been so sorely lacking, consensus (admittedly never total and not for all).
while i can see the objective necessity for finally obtaining clarity concerning the constitution’s provisions -because of the poorly written provisions of the constitution itself- provoking a confrontation in the courts carries political risks for all sides that square off in the courts. you have historical baggage -the courts have been craven before- and past precedent (our institutions are weak and vulnerable to efforts at executive aggrandizement) only arouses suspicions and further reduces trust.
all sorts of factors just muddles the situation -the president herself has more often than not proposed a convention, but the coalition over which she presides views a convention as the least preferred option- and so it’s interesting to consider why she did not push forward the convention option from the start. a convention elected last year could have been well on its way to writing a better or at least new chapter, and the opposition of those who want no changes period might well have been neutralized by the public’s marked preference for change only through institutional means.
any politician can resort to a messsage only if it resonates with the people or at least more people than who can be mobilized by the other side. so if there are those saying no cha cha now and maybe no cha cha ever, the survival of that message means it resonates with the public. and if a large chunk of the public feels there are many problems left to fix without tinkering with the constutition, we have to reckon with that.
but i do enjoy this exchange because it validates my opinion that there remains much more that can possibly unite us than divides us.
BrianB on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 6:20 pm
Feel ko lang matatakot si Gloria. Why expose her neck further with an extension (military nakaabang lang) when she can go scot-free?
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 6:46 pm
mlq3,
You wrote: “but i do enjoy this exchange because it validates my opinion that there remains much more that can possibly unite us than divides us.”
I enjoy it because all I want to see is the country moving forward together positively, intelligently and competitively…and to do so, we need rational discussions much more than heavy-handed, power-mongering from one side and screetching, non-stop attacks from the other. Thinking, talking and listening is good.
Confidence-building measures is a good start. So rather than a “political confrontation”, a presentation of the two sides can be made in the SC rationally and calmly, no?
But that is virtually impossible if the “Oust GMA Now Na!” riles everybody up. Opposition politicians (esp those out of power), the Far Left, the Far Right and media love this and push and scream. This makes the center freeze…and the whole thing can stop dead in its tracks.
This doesn’t have to be confrontational. But, as we both know, being anti-Chacha will resonate with the public if its framed as being anti-GMA extension.
Yes, if the admin goes Concon, that might be better. But you and I differ in that you believe Chacha has been pushed by GMA (and for GMA), while I think the drive has always come from the House. And its a lot more clear why some in the House would prefer Conass…..
That’s why being Anti-Chacha — because one is anti-GMA extension — isn’t that sensical.
The real question is whether or not lawmakers (who are representatives) should fix the laws or if representatives from many sectors should fix the laws. The real issue should be Conass vs Concon.
Why not see which one of those positions resonate? To do so, there’s a need for less static and more signal, less yelling and more info. It shouldn’t be this hard to do.
But as you said, there’s a lot of baggage…..
Free yourself from the chains of the past! Grow! Improve! Compete! Succeed!
DJB on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 9:02 pm
MLQ3,
The petition of Adam Relson Jala for the SCoRP to declare Rule XX Sec 140 unconstitutional was dismissed for “prematurity” just last October, 2008. This means the Rule stands and was in fact readopted by the present Congress from the one that was NOT repealed in 2006, It upholds normal legislative procedure when proposing charter changes.
The reason the Lower House could not have repealed this Rule is that is would have affected the counterpart rule in the Senate. And that is not something it can do willynilly.
DJB on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 9:15 pm
MLQ3,
Here is the link at SCoRP to the Minute Resolution dismissing the Jala petition:
http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2008/10/10100802.php
Rule XX Sec. 140 of the House says voting separately as in normal legislation.
Vivisecting Villafuerte | Filipino Voices on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 9:52 pm
[...] his views to Pia Hontiveros on ABSCBN’s Strictly Politics program last Tuesday. (MP3) Manuel L. Quezon III mentions 1935 Constitution with some nostalgia on his blog this week, noting how well it served the [...]
manuelbuencamino on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 10:28 pm
BrianB
I don’t mind marching with them. I just don;t want to march behind them. Amd it’s not about liberalism or wnat not, It’s about separation of church and state. We are a secular state. That’s why I agree with Manolo when he objects to prayers before official functions. A secular state has to respect agnostics and atheists too.
manuelbuencamino on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 10:37 pm
Geo,
the bottom line is those people who will constitute themselves into a con-ass. With or without GMA they can’t be trusted to do anything right.They are self servants not public servants. So if you really want cha-cha then campaign for a con-con. That way we have a fighting chance because we will choose who writes our new constitution
Geo on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 11:20 pm
mbc,
Well, I’m not that cynical. Or, to be more exact, I don’t think that the ratio of good/bad/other of Congressmen changes that much over time (see the US for reference). This bunch is as good/bad as any.
Nonetheless, I lean towards Concon for a variety of reasons. Political reality — as dictated by the minority “oust GMA” crowd — is probably the most prominent reason…i.e. Chacha doable this way (Concon), but much more problematic the Conass way.
A Concon might actually become a reality…and then produce results. That sounds good to me.
I also appreciate the argument that — although Congressmen are true representatives — this is not a simple change of laws, but a change in the rules of the game…a game in which the Congressmen are the primary players.
So yes, I’m for Concon…
…if it’s coming now (post 2010 elections) and it won’t run on for ever (the 1 yr idea sounds right).
vic on Wed, 10th Dec 2008 11:57 pm
From the pages of our History: How a country came about to agree for a CHA-CHA.( Bringing the Constitutions Home.)
The History of the Charter
Canada’s original Constitution, the British North America Act, was passed in 1867 by British Parliament. This Act, also known as the Constitution Act, 1867, founded Canada as a nation. It made elected governments the highest political and legal institutions in the country. The Constitution distributed power between the federal and provincial governments. Unlike the United States Constitution, Canada’s Constitution did not have a “Bill of Rights” that governments had to follow.
In 1960, the federal government passed the Canadian Bill of Rights. This law statute was not part of the Constitution. It had no more power than any other law. The Bill spoke of fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality before the law. But if a law itself was discriminatory, the Bill of Rights was generally not helpful. As well, the Bill only applied to federal, not provincial laws.
Because Canada’s original Constitution was an Act of British Parliament, it could only be changed by Britain. For many years, Canada’s Prime Ministers had been looking to “bring the constitution home.” Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau also wanted to include a Charter of Rights in the Constitution.
The Charter was significantly inspired by documents such as the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Other international influences included the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In the fall of 1980, the Canadian government set up a special all-party committee to hear what people had to say about a suggested Charter. With televised hearings, the committee listened to over 300 presentations from women, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, ethnic and cultural minorities, and others. The committee also considered 1200 written submissions about the Charter. From this, the committee made 123 recommendations to improve the Charter – over half are in the final document.
It was difficult for the provinces to agree to changes to the Constitution. On the night of November 4, 1981, in the kitchen of the Ottawa Chateau Laurier hotel, then Federal Justice Minister Jean Chrétien and the Attorneys General from Saskatchewan and Ontario, Roy Romanow and Roy McMurtry, came up with a plan – popularly referred to as the “Kitchen Accord.” The plan gave provinces a way of temporarily avoiding some parts of the Charter (see Clauses and Provisions – the section 33 “notwithstanding clause”). This led to stronger support from the provinces and opened the way for a Constitution that included a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter is a part of the Constitution Act, 1982; all of which is in the Canada Act, 1982. Receiving the approval of the Britain for the last time, on April 17, 1982 in Ottawa, Queen Elizabeth II signed the Canada Act, 1982. This gave Canada control over its Constitution. The guarantee of rights and freedoms in the Charter became part of the supreme law of the land.
The equality rights section of the Charter was delayed until April 17, 1985. This gave governments time to update laws to meet equality requirements.
Having a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution has brought Canada in line with other liberal democracies in the world, all of whom have bills of rights that can be enforced by the courts.
vic on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 12:14 am
In the fall of 1980, the Canadian government set up a special all-party committee to hear what people had to say about a suggested Charter. With televised hearings, the committee listened to over 300 presentations from women, Aboriginal people, people with disabilities, ethnic and cultural minorities, and others. The committee also considered 1200 written submissions about the Charter. From this, the committee made 123 recommendations to improve the Charter – over half are in the final document.
Now, my question is>>did it ever occur to the proponents of the cha cha to propose to listen to every segment of society including the minorities, the Aboriginal people, people with disabilities and even foreigners for their inputs on economics provisions or they are the forgotten?
mlq3 on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 1:21 am
geo, all i can tell you is that the president herself is interested in charter change, and particularly so as she must make provisions for her legacy one way or another. part of my job being her historical gopher was to do research on past administrations, and one of my early assignments was to look up her father’s advocacy of a new constitution when he was president. in fact her father’s speeches became one of the models for her own advocacy of constitutional change, including the particular mode she preferred, and mentioned she preferred, which was through a convention. this is partly the source of my own inability to understand why she’d insist on the more controversial way of a constituent assembly when it would be more in keeping with her public pronouncements, particularly before 2004 and during the campaign. but of course the visionary in every potential statesman always conflicts with the pragmatism of the practicing politician, for example she seized on my proposal to have her inaugural in cebu, to symbolize her commitment to federalism -but allowed her allies to degrade it by reducing it to a thank you for the landslide victory she achieved there (and she may have been right, when i criticized the decision being based on reward for votes, some cebuanos criticized me for it, saying why shouldn’t that be a good enough reason -to which i replied because it’s a shallow one when a much better and true reason existed).
anyway the point is, a constitution in our way of looking at things, defines an era. and the chief executive during whose administration the new charter was approved -and in every case, we have tailor-fit our constitutions with specific presidents or presidents-to-be in mind, that’s another unhealthy story right there- goes down in history indivisibly identified with that constitution. the 1987 charter will forever be the cory charter, just as the 1973 charter was the marcos charter, etc. imagine the historical -the legacy- weight a macapagal-arroyo constitution would carry in the books and in the public mind.
there is simply too much water under the bridge to divorce the issue of charter change from the political fate, whatever it will be, of the incumbent, just as her marshaling her ruling coalition’s forces has carried her through but always, in the face of a tacit and pretty broad public expectation that the public will save the country from the politicians (of all stripes) by limiting their mischief within the ambit of the constitution, whichever side wins or loses. that broad consensus is challenged every time the ruling coalition makes a move and insists on being cagey and ambiguous about it.
the president is not so daring as to personally submit a bill to congress, detailing a convention, and pledging to run for the position of constitutional convention delegate in her son’s district in pampanga. or quezon city, since her family home is in la vista. it would be a game changer. it would make everyone take stock -but she will not risk it because the instant she does so, she proclaims herself a lame duck.
mlq3 on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 1:26 am
jon, pa-palit palit din ang nograles proposal, lately open na siya sa concon. clever din naman, kasi ngayon, ang tinitira ng publiko ay ang kampi proposals. so walang bahid ng kolaborasyon kay madame para sa lakas.
justice league on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 2:40 am
Geo,
Jeremiah Opiniano presented an article at the 10th National Convention on Statistics (NCS) in 2007. In it he classified Filipino presence abroad as either Permanent, Temporary, or Irregular migrants.
Permanent migrants – Filipino migrants and legal permanent residents abroad. Permanent migrants may be Filipinos who are Filipino citizens, who are Philippine passport holders, or who have been naturalized citizens in the host country.
In 2006, there were about 3.5 million Permanent Filipino migrants.
In the article “Issues and Prospects on the Movement
of Natural Persons and Human Capital
Development in the Philippine-American
Economic Relations†by Tullao and Cortez; it states
“Filipino labor migration as to flows, destinations and remittances has been considerably
the subject of economic studies with the United States as the top destination of skilled,
professional and permanent migrants .â€
Sometime in October, the article “House wants Cha-cha to deal with financial crisis†came out from the Philippine Star.
The article stated:
Clearly, Speaker Nograles was equating those Filipino migrants as the naturalized ones and now former “Filipinosâ€; otherwise why belabor giving them the opportunity to invest in the country along with the idea of Charter Change when if they are Filipinos, Chacha is not needed for them to invest here.
I don’t know what came out of Speaker Nograles’ supposed summit but the current talk right now is Chacha.
But given Speaker Nograles’ issue on U.S. Filipino migrants , there is already a way to address such concern without going through amending the Constitution.
And that is to advocate such Filipinos to reacquire Filipino Citizenship and enjoy the rights of Filipinos.
They may even opt to have dual citizenship.
Dual Citizenship is allowed by the Philippines and also the U.S.
The U.S. is even lenient about it to the point that even if you take a so so routine Oath of Allegiance to another country; that does not totally mean that you relinquish American Citizenship.
Before we go inviting foreign strangers to invest here and buy and own our land, we should definitely approach our BLOOD BROTHERS AND SISTERS first whom the Speaker IMPLIES to have the funds to invest here and that the Constitution stands in their way.
But we need not revise the Charter for it for the means already exist via the Dual citizenship law.
The U.S. Filipino migrants may want to and then again they may not want to.
Butt there doesn’t even appear to be a half-hearted campaign for enticing them to reacquire Filipino Citizenship.
All we have is Chacha here and Chacha there so they can supposedly invest their money here.
This is turning out to be another example of
GUSTO NILANG GAWIN! KAYA NILANG GAWIN!
PERO HINDI NILA GINAGAWA!
KAYA ANG TANGING SOLUSYON AY PALITAN ANG SALIGANG BATAS!
BTW, I am not averse to amending the Constitution. If they are going to make the anti dynasty provision self-executing like persons of a degree of consanguinity or affinity cannot run for the office being held by their relative (or words to that effect); I’m very much interested.
Furthermore, you are definitely for amending/revising the charter but I can’t find what issue (at least not in this thread) you are in favor of.
I have had discussions on Federalism, Parliamentary form of government, and right now I just gave a view on the economic issue as far as the Speaker’s concern with U.S. Filipino migrants.
You have discussed Conass and Concon. But what specific changes are you clamoring for so it might be addressed?
supremo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 3:16 am
‘Dual Citizenship is allowed by the Philippines and also the U.S.’
Dual citizen Filipinos do not have the same rights as non-dual citizen Filipinos.
justice league on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 3:30 am
Supremo,
What was referred was regarding purchase of land and other properties and engaging in business .
So what precise rights are you referring to?
Political rights?
supremo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 3:54 am
justice league,
I’m referring to political rights.
Phil Manila on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 5:17 am
Nograles is either pandering to the Fil-Am vote or he is painfully clueless. Former Filipinos, not only dual citizens, can own real estate property. residential and agricultural.
Its not the constitutional restrictions that keep investors at bay. Its the day-to-day issues of safety and security of one’s person and property, enforceability of contracts, fair hearing in courts, etc.
hvrds on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 5:54 am
Historically an economic crisis will give rise to political upheaval. That is when critical changes come about.
The more advanced states have in place institutional remedies that can move without the need for the public’s approval. History taught them. The state institutions created and strengthened during the Depression is holding the global economy from tanking steeply.
The U.S. taxpayer never voted on the fact that the state institutions that handle fiscal and monetary policies have pledged, committed and spent up to $7 trillion of the public purse. Most American citizens are not aware of it. But it was done.
Here in the Philippines the ordinary taxpayer is also not aware that he never voted on the fact that his government has guaranteed all foreign investments to include loans including those to the private sector as part of the contingent debt of the Republic.
That critical fact was imposed on the Philippines in the past due to the repeating balance of payments blowouts. The net effect of that is the neglect by government of the domestic sector of the economy.
In the midst of the crisis in foreign markets the Philippines is left completely exposed as it does not have the resources necessary to compensate to depend on the domestic markets to continue growing. The government likes to talk up their capacities but in reality they are way way short of having the resources of getting it done.
Once again the dependency factor on foreign savings. Foreigners then in the present global environment will insist on ownership of the prime resource itself. (land) It is tangible and can be commoditized and monetized. Risk profiling for lending and investing has undergone a sea change. No more leveraged plays. It is back to basics time.
“The promised accelerated and increased public infrastructure spending is grossly exaggerated. Government authorities promised to pump-prime the economy to counter the global economic recession and to raise the level of public infrastructure spending to the Southeast Asian level of 5% of GDP.â€
“That’s a nice policy statement, but what’s the real score? I looked at “hard” public infrastructure — meaning roads, bridges, flood control, airports/navigational equipment, farm-to-market roads, irrigation, water supply — as percent of GDP. It was 2.2 in 2007, estimated at 1.8 this year, and proposed to be 1.9% in 2009. I don’t see 5% in any of these years. Is this modern math?â€
“One plausible way of supporting the 5% infrastructure spending-to-GDP ratio is by adding infrastructure spending for 2008 (1.8 %) to the proposed ratio of 1.9% in 2009. But the sum of 1.8% and 1.9% is only 3.7% — nowhere near 5%. But, of course, such treatment is mindless. Why treat the failure to implement the project in 2008 as an additional infrastructure spending of 2009? Why reward ineptness?â€
“The reality is that the government continues to underinvest in public infrastructure. Worse, the promise to front-load spending in 2008 in order to address the impending economic crisis never took off the ground. Now they promise to accelerate this December its infrastructure-buildup program. Government authorities have given “front-load” and “accelerate” different meanings.â€
“By delaying the implementation of sound infrastructure projects, the economy is deprived of the benefits at the earliest possible time and could affect the net present value of a project. Worse the delay in the project implementation is the perceived rent-seeking infrastructure projects. For what little amount is authorized for public infrastructure projects is lost through corruption.†Ben Diokno, Business World
hawaiianguy on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 6:20 am
Because of mistrust in this govt, any change in the constitution is almost always perceived as beneficial to the few (guess who are they) rather than the majority of Filipinos.
Joker Arroyo, an avid administration guy, argues vehemently against it. He said that once you allow a simple amendment to the constitution, who can prevent anyone from changing it wholesale to suit the interest of those in power? Saying it in Pilipino, “pag nabuksan na, tuloy-tuloy na yan.”
This is what many fear may happen, esp. so that lawmakers in the lower house prefer the con-ass to con-con. How can you dissuade ordinary folks from believing that those ass****es in congress have the people in their minds?
I still maintain that changing the constitution for economic reason (e.g., increase investments) can be achieved by other means. Doing the cha-cha now is a disservice to the country, when there are many more pressing and unresolved issues that confront a dying or already moribund nation.
justice league on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 8:56 am
Supremo,
Ok.
I think we can set that aside for another time since it doesn’t appear to be a main issue in revising the Constitution.
Phil Manila,
We don’t appear to be on different sides of the fence but I’m intrigued to ask what Nationality or Citizenship these people write when they prepare documents.
hvrds on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 10:23 am
“Its not the constitutional restrictions that keep investors at bay. Its the day-to-day issues of safety and security of one’s person and property, enforceability of contracts, fair hearing in courts, etc.”
In short political stability that would mean effective state institutions.
How do you tell those clowns in Congress that they are the problem….
Jon on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 10:24 am
Thanks for the link Dean, that’s very interesting.
As I understand it, the House needs to amend their house rules first. But their house rule actually tells us that in the beginning our congressmen actually assumed that voting separately is what the constitution meant regarding amending the constitution. And now that they want the constitution amended fast (purposedly for their own gain), they want to change the rules.
The constitution does not say “joint”, so it is for the SC to decide what the law (highest law of the land is the constitution) says. Nograles/Villafuerte moves to force the SC hand to rule on this issue just makes their motives ever more clearly. The next venue of battle is therefore in the Supreme Court.
This is very interesting!
vic on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 10:25 am
The Dual Citizens Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who wanted to take the Government by Coalition resigned and was immediately replaced by acclamation by Michael Ignatief, another Long Time American Resident (could be a dual citizens too) who parachuted himself and also wanted to take the Government comes January 27 by his Coalition with other Parties..Ignatief was a Harvard Professor and just recently returned to run for Parliament representing a riding in Toronto. The other two aspirant gave up the contest for Leadership to be held in May as Dion was booted out of Leadership by the Party Executives.
Well, it will be interesting turn of events as this new Leader is considered the only possible personality to be able to win a majority at this time, but Harper of the Conservative is a very stubborn man and also as intellectual as Mr. Harvard man.
taxj on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 10:27 am
DJB , well said. So whom does the scheduled anti cha-cha moves serve? At the very least, it assures Evil’s stay ‘til 2010 by drowning the bishops’ call for a change in government, the fertilizer scam and other issues. If it succeeds, what would Evil lose? The cha-cha doesn’t stand a chance anyway. However, if the rallies prove to be a dud, the forces of Evil might be emboldened to ram through whatever they want against a weary and disillusioned opposition. A diluted or corrupted SC ruling against rules, for one! Why not?
Geo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 10:32 am
mlq3,
Well, I think we might agree that:
1. Chacha has always been part of GMA’s vision (translation: what she hopes her legacy will include).
2. Chacha has been a goal of Lakas since before Gloria became VP and before Kampi existed.
3. GMA seems to have always preferred Concon.
4. Congress seems to prefer Conass (though there are some bona fide disagreements).
5. GMA, probably due to the demands of “practical politics”, is not publicly pushing Concon. The reasons are probably:
a) Congress is the more aggressive player and she opts to let them surge forward (and she can wait and see the developments).
b) Any hints of “Chacha via Conass” from GMA (which would, stupidly enough include a call for “Chacha via Concon”) is just too politically inflamable for her to get near…thanks to the “Oust GMA Now Na!” crowd, btw (Mr. BMW).
c) She doesn’t want to become a lame duck prematurely. (Thank you for mentioning this, mlq3. I didn’t because I thought I’d be ridiculed too much and the point wasn’t worth it.)
All in all, EVAT, the country’s Balance Sheet, economic growth, the success under the MCC vs anti-corruption and the transformation of the political infrastructure of the entire nation…those are her dream legacies.
Perhaps she’ll settle for a Concon elections in 2010. But she can’t say that yet. But maybe she’ll play that card (the way you described, maybe) once things have progressed and she is closer to her end date.
Geo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 10:42 am
justice,
I like a unitary Parliament and Federalism in general. I like to see the country open up for investments.
I’m open to a variety of ideas, but I’m basically anti-status quo and I want political and economic power to be more localized.
—————————————-
Phil Manila,
You wrote: “Its not the constitutional restrictions that keep investors at bay. Its the day-to-day issues of safety and security of one’s person and property, enforceability of contracts, fair hearing in courts, etc.”
Capitalism depends on the rule of law. The right to own private property is at the very core of the law.
supremo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 11:25 am
justice league,
Political rights should be taken care of first before economic rights. I’m particularly interested in being able to vote for local officials because they are more prone to corruption. I think local officials will be more responsible if they know that they have constituents who are beyond their ‘control’.
Bert on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 1:47 pm
Well, anybody, or everybody, can talk of/about anything, more so here in manolo’s blog. This is a free country, and here is a proper forum as any for talking about anything.
But when the functions of government is being sorely eroded due to something that is not as relevant to the need of the time, then something is amiss.
What I find it a bit nonsensical is this present discussions and proposals for a Chacha as if it’s a matter of utmost and urgent importance, when in fact almost everybody don’t want it to happen now that the 2010 election is so near.
There are more pressing problems facing the country now worth tackling first so why should those be set aside then waste so much energy on something that can be prefunctorily done later at the proper time?
As to a provision in a new charter removing restrictions on foreign investments and land ownership, here is what justice league has to say…and I agree with him:
“Before we go inviting foreign strangers to invest here and buy and own our land, we should definitely approach our BLOOD BROTHERS AND SISTERS first whom the Speaker IMPLIES to have the funds to invest here and that the Constitution stands in their way.
But we need not revise the Charter for it for the means already exist via the Dual citizenship law.”
hvrds on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 1:57 pm
Getting ready for the storm?
Moody’s just downgraded the outlook for domestic banks to negative from stable.
In a perfect example of fear exemplified short term rates for U.S. treasury bills were four times oversubscribed at zero to negative interest rates. From exhuberance to outright fear.
Now even DILG Puno comes out for cha-cha before 2010.
Big Mike and GMA have only till May of next year to make it happen.
After that Big Mike and GMA will have to pick amongst the candidates who will best protect them in exchange for government support in the elections.
Geo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 4:51 pm
mlq3,
A bit off-topic, but you wrote (above): “let’s not underestimate the pain and hostility the unreported widescale firings in bpo is having in the middle class, who now face the painful side of globalization and a different corporate culture in the west).”
Where did you get this idea from? Can you back up the claim with anything?
justice league on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 5:32 pm
Supremo,
Your reason is well stated but as I implied; it can be set aside in considering Chacha.
I believe your issue will not require revising the Constitution.
Maybe it’s best you concentrate on Congress just amending RA 9189 (Overseas Absentee voting).
Geo,
As based on the Speaker’s announcement at a minimum 1,000 dollar investment, 3.5 million permanent Filipino migrants translate to 3.5 billion dollars.
As based on the article of Tullao and Cortez, there were 1.4 million to 2 million Filipino permanent migrants in the U.S. (where Dual citizenship is also definitely allowed) in a 2003 survey. That would be about 2/3 of the National Budget already on a minimum 1,000 dollar investment.
Don’t you agree that we should entice our blood brothers and sisters first before you open up our country to everyone else?
Can you be more specific in the kind of revisions that you want?
Bert,
Cheers.
Bert on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 5:40 pm
Some rural banks in metro-manila and the provinces are closing shops now…they called it bank holiday.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the present financial crisis. Will somebody enlighten me?
Yes, hvrds?
Geo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 6:15 pm
Justice,
Sure 1 or 2 or $3B worth of investment from migrant Pinoys. But that still pales in comparison with the amounts available from classic FDI.
The country will benefit by opening investment to all.
Meanwhile, are not the changes I believe in — a unitary Parliament and Federalism — indicative enough of what I envision? Do you really need me to decide right now, for example, how many representatives should be from how many districts? Those are the specifics that I remain flexible with.
The main thrust is to eliminate the nationally elected offices which have no direct accountability to a local constituency. The goal is to empower more people, more of the time, in more places than the NCR.
Phil Manila on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 6:34 pm
justice league,
Here’s what I’m referring to:
“Land Ownership by Former Natural Born Filipinos”
“Under Batas Pambansa and Republic Act, former natural-born Filipino citizens are entitled to own a maximum of 1,000 square meters of residential land and one hectare of agricultural or farm land. ”
“For business purposes, a maximum of 5,000 square meters of urban land or three hectares of rural land may be acquired by a former natural born Filipino. ”
http://www.philippine-real-estate.info/philippine-real-estate-laws.html
supremo on Thu, 11th Dec 2008 11:07 pm
I read somewhere that Pacquiao’s wife is pregnant and might give birth in the US. That child will become a natural born Filipino and natural born US citizen. Is that child covered by the Philippine dual citizenship law?
mlq3 on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 2:09 am
geo, my only sources are people who have been left shellshocked by the firings going on in their places of work, and who are very upset their stories can’t get out because those who have been fired have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements. you hear these stories wherever anyone in the bpo industry is encountered. there’s culture shock because the abrupt firings and swift eliminations of jobs aren’t the sort of thing the middle class kids in these industries are used to.
mlq3 on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 2:30 am
Bert, you may find this relevant:
http://www.uniffors.com/?p=1637#more-1637
The demise of some rural banks seems to have been unfolding for some time, the column linked to above came out on September 3 but refers to a proposal in the House to loosen capital requirements for rural banks last August. I believe columnist Dean de la Paz was also writing about it.
The BSP tried to place a number of undercapitalized but munificent rural banks under receivership, but the rural banks, acting in concert, were able to stymie the BSP with a temporary restraining order (TRO) from a Manila Regional Trial Court and a Court of Appeals division taking its sweet time on the BSP’s urgent appeal for a reversal of the TRO.
mlq3 on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 2:32 am
Geo, you can check my guest book too, someone you might want to email since they thanked me for my column.
supremo on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 3:06 am
Layoffs in the BPO industry maybe due to mergers among the major BPO companies. These mergers are happening because of the ongoing mergers in the US financial industry. You cannot expect a company like JPMorganChase to retain the BPO services of Bear Stearns and WaMu.
hvrds on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 8:22 am
On rural banks – they are not connected to the West’s directly but there is an indirect link.
From my own knowledge of a bank that went down and an operator of a rural bank in MM.
In the near past when interest rates were diving when there was a glut even here short term rates went down to as low as 4%. Moneyed people always hunt for larger yields. The thrust to micro finance was the avenue. Yields were at 36%-48% per anum. However not only rural banks but lending investors got into the act. So rural banks raised their rates to attract investors thinking that yields on micro finance would hold.
That glut in liquidity then also dropped yields for micro finance to close to 20%. The spread between wholesale depositors rates narrowed. Naturally the rural banks that bet heavy with debt leverage got caught by the sudden shift when oil and food prices went up cutting back on consumption. Default rates rose amongst debtors in the informal sector.
That rural bank that went under in MM was giving fixed deposit rates in double digits.
Typical. But the problem of the major domestic banks are of a different nature. That is for another day. The kiting that saved the banks from the Asian financial crisis might soon lose their lift.
taxj on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 9:04 am
Our Constitution is not perfect. Nor could it be one, whether changed by a concon or a con-ass. We do not change an engine simply because it doesn’t work. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt much if we try to first explore what some kind if fine tuning can do.
taxj on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 9:37 am
Supremo: Political rights should be taken care of first before economic rights. I’m particularly interested in being able to vote for local officials because they are more prone to corruption. I think local officials will be more responsible if they know that they have constituents who are beyond their ‘control’.
I agree. More powers for local governments is not about trust. It is about the bayanihan spirit and a more level playing field. Other than concened constituents, also beyond their sphere of influence are the Ombudsman, the COMELEC, and the courts. Only the power of the Presidency was able to render them dysfunctional.
Geo on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 9:52 am
taxj,
Fine-tuning a Constitution is done via Chacha. The US Constitution has been amended many times. This is a normal procedure…at least, it should be.
The obstacle is politics and political noise (resulting in confusion).
You wrote: “We do not change an engine simply because it doesn’t work.”
How broken down do you need the engine to be before you replace it? There has been one peaceful transition of national power in 40 years! The nation’s economy — in relevant terms — has sunk downwards during that 40 year period. The social fabric is very torn apart.
The President’s office, wielding power by one person, has proven impossible to control. The Senate has been reduced to a platform to launch a Presidential bid. It is also not answerable to any specific constituency. Manila collects and spends the wealth of the provinces. It’s too expensive for “normal” people to run for office. And so on…..
hvrds on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 9:54 am
More on getting ready for a storm:
Kiting in Finance
Banking & Finance
BY MARIA ELOISA I. CALDERON, Senior Reporter
PDIC seeks sovereign guarantee
STATE-RUN Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. (PDIC), which is contemplating floating bonds to beef up its reserve fund, wants the debts backed by a sovereign guarantee.
The guarantee will essentially ensure the bonds against default as they will be considered unconditional obligations of the national government.
It will also allow the PDIC to borrow from the capital market at a cheaper cost, PDIC President Jose C. Nograles said.
Borrowing from the debt market has now become an option for the PDIC, whose bid for a P24-billion additional state contribution to its deposit insurance fund (DIF) hit a snag at the House of the Representatives.
The reserve fund — where insurance payments to depositors of failed banks are sourced — currently stands at only P54.3 billion and may not be enough to finance the existing P250,000 deposit insurance coverage, the PDIC earlier said.
A bill doubling the maximum deposit insurance ceiling to half a million pesos is set for approval this month, but the House and the Senate have yet to harmonize their respective versions.
Last Tuesday, Manila Rep. Jaime C. Lopez, chairman of the House banks and financial intermediaries committee, said the committee scrapped a provision raising the government’s share in the DIF to P24 billion from P3 billion to avoid roadblocks to the bill’s early passage.
That has forced the PDIC to seek other ways to shore up the fund.
“Part of the proposed amendments [to the PDIC charter] is sovereign guarantee on our debt issuances, bonds. We’re opening up that option as a source of funding. We will try to tap the capital market,” Mr. Nograles told BusinessWorld.
Republic Act 3591 or the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corp. Act allows the state deposit insurer, with the approval of the President of the Philippines, to issue bonds, debentures and other obligations to assist it in the settlement of insured deposits.
But while the law states that PDIC bonds are tax-exempt, it is silent on whether these debts are considered government securities that enjoy sovereign guarantee.
Beefing up the DIF has become crucial as the government firms up a quick-response mechanism to a long-dragging global financial maelstrom.
Manila Rep. Jaime C. Lopez, chairman of the House banks and financial intermediaries committee, in a separate interview said Congress is still considering an additional capital infusion into PDIC, albeit lower than the P24 billion the PDIC is asking.
He said a provision to this effect may still be inserted in the bill that will be tackled by a bicameral conference, provided the House and Senate versions muster third and final reading.
Mr. Lopez said a meeting with Mr. Nograles and Quirino Rep. Junie E. Cua, House appropriations committee chairman, has been scheduled next week.
Meanwhile, Senator Edgardo J. Angara, chairman of the Senate banks, financial institutions and currencies committee guaranteed the approval of the chamber’s version before Congress adjourns for a month-long Christmas break.
“I’ll stand up and sponsor it in plenary. I will try and get it approved on Tuesday or Wednesday,” he told reporters at the weekly Kapihan sa Senado forum yesterday, adding he is willing to call for a bicameral conference to reconcile the House and Senate versions during the break.
Congress will adjourn on December 17 and will return on January 19 next year.
The Senate version provides that half of the P500,000 coverage be shouldered by the PDIC and the other half by the national government.
Mr. Lopez said congressmen are “rushing” the approval of the House version, but he admitted that the passage of the chamber’s version on third reading before December 17 will be “very remote.”
“We are working very hard to pass it but it’s almost impossible to have a third and final reading on Wednesday,” he said in a mobile phone interview.
While he is willing to work with Mr. Angara during the break, the bill must hurdle final reading next week first. — with reports from Jhoanna Frances S. Valdez and Bernard U. Allauigan
——————–
Story Location: http://www.bworldonline.com/BW121208/content.php?id=021
Bert on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 10:00 am
Thank you, mlq3…and hvrds!
justice league on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 10:19 am
Phil Manila,
The website you linked has a disclaimer at the bottom which reads:
But I’ll try to verify your issue as soon as I am able.
Geo,
That is at a minimum of 1,000 dollars.
If they decide to invest 2,000 dollars, or 3,000 dollars, ………….
But still you didn’t answer if we should entice them first before opening the country to everyone else.
Do you agree with the idea or not?
No they are not. You did want a rationale discussion didn’t you?
We can do away with the issue of how many representatives from how many districts for another time.
But issues on “crossing the floor”, vote of no confidence , “shadow cabinet”, ……… would have been nice.
The issue of Chacha for a federal and parliamentary government has been going on since 2005 and probably earlier.
When did you decide to be “anti status quo”? A week ago?
Why didn’t you just recommend Chacha for the extension of the power of recall over nationally elected officials?
Geo on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 12:17 pm
justice,
You wrote: “When did you decide to be ‘anti status quo’? A week ago?”
As far as the devolution of power, about 30 years ago. More topical, check out my posts on this very site since I first wrote here in 2005 — I have been maintaining a continuum in my positions.
————————
You wrote: “Why didn’t you just recommend Chacha for the extension of the power of recall over nationally elected officials?”
As you probably know, that doesn’t address many issues that I enumerated in only a few posts above.
To wit, I wrote: “The President’s office, wielding power by one person, has proven impossible to control. The Senate has been reduced to a platform to launch a Presidential bid. It is also not answerable to any specific constituency. Manila collects and spends the wealth of the provinces. It’s too expensive for “normal†people to run for office. And so on…..”
————————————
You wrote: “But still you didn’t answer if we should entice them first before opening the country to everyone else. Do you agree with the idea or not?”
Sure, entice them first. It’s already been done, in fact. At least partially. But it still won’t be enough and the rules are still all over the place. We are talking about many kinds of investments, not just a barrage of small ones (think of infrastructure-related, for ex).
In my opinion, the country should embrace foreign investment. The extent of infused money and expertise/technology is enough reason alone. But there are other benefits as well…..
I envision the new blood and new players competing with the oligarchal monopolies. I see more jobs created more quickly. I see the influx of “Global Best Practices” as a new mind set for the working youth. And so on…..
——————————————-
Unsurprisingly, it seems like you know better than I do what topics you want to discuss (duh!). So go ahead…just what detail about which proposals are of interest? (And yes, I have had these discussions ad infinitum…including with mlq3 here…for years).
Geo on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 1:50 pm
mlq3,
Your latest article in PDI is either an exercise in amateurish investigative journalism or a well-done piece of propaganda which subliminally attacks a variety of positions held by the pro-admin types.
Why do I say that?
Firstly, the anecdotes (from the small sample of anonymous stories) are a poor replacement for empirical data. If more poeple are being hired for BPO jobs than are being fired (which is the case, I believe), than we needn’t feel the angst you are trying to arouse. In fact, experienced staff will be met with open arms at the BPO next door.
Second, how about getting the “other side” of the story? Why were these people laid off? How long did they work there? Were they paid the right severance? Did they sign a non-disclosure BEFORE they were hired? Was it any different than the paperwork now?
Third, what is the bigger picture? Are non-disclosures common in the BPO industry around the world? Why? What are they trying to stop, specifically? What do some countries’ laws actually REQUIRE the firms to do about non-disclosures? What are the precedents from actual similar cases?
No, mlq3, I think you want us to think that the economy really isn’t that good (the gov’s success is a mirage), that the foreign jobs that are supposed to save the country will not and that opening up to these Scrooge foreign firms will make Tiny Tims of everyone,
You are telling the politically neutral, job-seeking youth that their apathy (which B&W blames for the lack of “Oust Gloria” support) is misplaced and that they should rise up and fight for themselves…since no one else will. Or else Christmas and life will always remain so depressing; a dead end.
mlq3, I still like you, despite our differences in opinion. You often write well. But this is the shoddiest thing I’ve ever seen from you. Sorry. I still think you are an excellent writer with an intelligent and well-trained mind. But…….
justice league on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 4:05 pm
Geo,
Of course I do know better!
It would be a surprise if you knew better than I do what topics I want to discuss!
So how where they enticed to reacquire Filipino citizenship so they can invest back in the Philippines without needing to revise/amend the Charter?
That was my point wasn’t it?
What is stopping them from pooling resources and forming corporations?
We ended at 3,000 dollars investment each and that would be at 9 billion dollars. If that was 60% of new investments and followed up by 40%foreign; that would be about 15 billion dollars.
How much is enough for you?
Why don’t you clamor Congress to raise the IRA?
Maybe you should blame COMELEC for failing its job.
Since you are obviously referring to PGMA; I know a lot of people here would tend to agree with you.
But then how will it be different with the office of the Prime Minister?
And your answer to that will probably now lead us to the SPECIFIC provisions that will govern the Parliamentary government. Provisions which you have not yet divulged to us.
Why don’t you just point out to the Senate members that the last President to come DIRECTLY from the Senate was oh so long ago. Baka matauhan sila sa sinasabi mo.
Well they are answerable to the electorate of the Philippines just the same way each member of the House is answerable to the electorate of the district. (except the partylist)
And who are the partylist Congressional members answerable to?
You didn’t even recommend the power of recall over district representatives whether in the present set up or in a parliamentary form of government.
“Crossing the floorâ€, strengthening of political parties, partylist/political party membership in parliament, form of no confidence vote, “shadow cabinetâ€, number of political parties, ……….
Geo on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 6:30 pm
justice,
I just realized something (I think). Are you the poster who couldn’t figure out what the term “discouraged from work” means?
justice league on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 10:49 pm
Geo,
No. I don’t think so.
But there’s a lot of unresolved issues you are leaving hanging.
Phil Manila,
I think I found what you are referring to.
But I have to read more. I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.
anthony scalia on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 11:36 pm
Geo,
re your December 12th, 2008 at 6:30 pm comment:
touche
justice league on Fri, 12th Dec 2008 11:54 pm
Geo,
Someone else has acknowledge that he got hit by your comment.
That should settle your issue there.
shrapnel on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 12:47 am
mlq3, I still like you, despite our differences in opinion. You often write well. But this is the shoddiest thing I’ve ever seen from you. Sorry. I still think you are an excellent writer with an intelligent and well-trained mind. But…….- geo
supremo on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 2:23 am
Related news about the almost 900 BPO layoffs at ACS. PRC contracted ACS for some call center operations.
‘The company, formerly called Precision Response Corp., was stung by an unprofitable contract with a major customer, according to court papers. Chief Financial Officer H. Philip Goodeve told Bloomberg News that this year the contract would have produced $15 million in negative earnings before interest, depreciation and amortization.
PRC declined to name the customer. ‘
taxj on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 3:26 am
Geo: Manila collects and spends the wealth of the provinces. It’s too expensive for “normal†people to run for office. And so on…..
Mere legislation can address these issues. Distrust for local governments and power obssession, not the Charter, bars Congress from adopting a more realistic fiscal federalism.
Justice league says Congress can do it but doesn’t. Is a cha-cha the solution?
justice league on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 9:00 am
Phil Manila,
It is by inheritance and the other as transferee with several limitations.
All such limitations could be lifted by Chacha and/or simply re-acquiring Filipino citizenship as far as former Filipinos are concerned. I hope that settles that.
taxj,
Cheers.
justice league on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 9:18 am
Taxj,
I don’t want to necessarily nitpick with you on this one but I think its worth noting that Congress and the President signifying their approval of federalism means that they do want to increase the funds for the provinces so it should mean that they should be amenable to increasing the IRA.
So it should be taken that they want to do it, they can do it, but for some reason; they are just not doing it!
Cheers.
mindanaoan on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 11:28 am
taxj, “Mere legislation can address these issues. Distrust for local governments and power obssession, not the Charter, bars Congress from adopting a more realistic fiscal federalism.
like how? allocate the whole budget to IRA and nothing for national agencies? how much bigger can be alloted for IRA while still maintaining the national agencies?
justice league on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 11:43 am
Mindanaoan,
No doubt taxj can answer that but I’ll intercede anyway.
Internal revenue is not the only source of funds for the government.
Consider Customs as a source also.
And I don’t think taxj or anyone else from this side of the fence is considering the whole budget to the IRA.
“the whole budget to IRA” thing is from you.
mindanaoan on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 11:50 am
justice league, so how do you understand taxj’s “realistic fiscal federalism”?
justice league on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 2:51 am
Geo,
Well since there seems to be a dearth on what taxj really meant with regards to what a textbook would define “fiscal federalism†to be, it would have been better if you asked taxj to expound on his idea first before you asked me so we could have found out if he meant something similar or totally different from a textbook definition.
But that being the case and you are asking me how I understand it, I could present something totally different from what taxj meant and so taxj should not be bound by any mistake I might make.
I would have to say that “realistic†was only a modifier of “fiscal federalismâ€.
You obviously noted “realistic fiscal federalism†in relation to the power of Congress to decide on the allocation of the IRA as based on your post.
Given that “fiscal federalism†is sometimes used to connote “fiscal decentralizationâ€; I’d say that “fiscal federalism†is basically an issue of deciding on “who gets what, and who pays for it?†(Short version)
And that would be related to the power of Congress to decide on the allocation of the IRA by its power to amend the Local Government Code.
(Long version is (i) Who determines
who gets what revenues? (ii) Who is responsible for what expenditures? (iii)
How do intergovernmental transfers work? (iv) What degree of freedom do
subnational governments have with respect to borrowing? and (v) Who determines
the institutional setting within which the preceding questions are
answered?)
justice league on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 3:15 am
OH BUMMER.
Wrong address.
Sorry geo.
Mindanaoan, that’s supposed to be for you.
taxj on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 7:08 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_federalism
justice league,
I’m quite sure I posted a comment ahead of you, but somehow it didn’t get through. Worry not though. Your take is 5/5, as the above link will confirm.
mindanaoan,
I would place a rational FF anywhere near the 20/80 sharing of national income dangled about by Senator Nene Pimentel to get the support of local government officials for his federalism folly. Anyway, the general idea is to put wealth in the cities and provinces where the constituency has a better say and sway.
Don’t you know that when Congress devolve the functions of agriculture, health and social services it conveniently forgot to provide funds therefor. So what happened? Concerned personnel were virtually paralyzed while Jocjoc Bolante and company partied, as in partihan. Do we need a cha-cha to address this issue?
I do not have the statistics but the Pimentel 20/80 formula could be giving states a share that is much larger than the whole Internal Revenue collections. So? We can aim far beyond a mere increase in IRA without any fear of starving the national agencies whose existence and functions, under a highly decentralized unitary system, should be reduced to the barest essentials.
Now is the time to change a set-up that allows one man or woman to control our destinies. Now is the time enough for us to stop yearning for an Obama, a Darna or a Lastikman to move our bahay kubo. All our presidential wannabes can lift only a hundred kilos each. Heh, heh. Our bahay kubo definitely weighs more than a ton. So? Let’s put up a structure where more shoulders can carry the load that a few good men can’t, as in bayanihan. Our charter allows us to. Only Congress doesn’t. What to do then?
anthony scalia on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 8:29 am
Geo,
“Someone else has acknowledge that he got hit by your comment.
That should settle your issue there.”
our friend must be very humble.
he refers to himself in the third person
justice league on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 9:15 am
Anthony Scalia,
So it wasn’t an acknowledgement on your part that you got hit by Geo’s comment.
So the burden is now on BOTH of you to prove that I couldn’t figure out what the term “discouraged from work†means!
mindanaoan on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 10:31 am
taxj,
do you mean, the national government still generates the revenues and gives 80% to LGU’s? and the national government will have to operate its machineries with the remaining 20%? that’s your fiscal federalism?
Bert on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 11:15 am
“So it should be taken that they want to do it, they can do it, but for some reason; they are just not doing it! ”
justice,
They won’t do it now.
Their intention is to prolong the disease indefinitely.
So even with the presence of potent medicines already available they’re still wanting to introduce this chacha as a palliative and herbal cure.
Sheesh!
mindanaoan on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 2:35 pm
justice league, federalism is about autonomy. what kind of autonomy is this if lgu’s just wait for IRA from the national government?
taxj’s idea is bunk. i dont think he even tried to figure out how his system works. or even if he tried to punch in the numbers. he just wants to have something to say against federalsim.
justice league on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 3:44 pm
Mindanaoan ,
I don’t think taxj or anyone else from this side of the fence is advocating the LGUs to just wait for the IRA from the National Government.
All this idea of “lgu’s just waiting for IRA from the national government” is just again from you.
I gave you a lot advice during several of our discussions together.
One of them was for you to read the Local Government Code of the Philippines.
Obviously you didn’t follow my advice again.
Much if not all of your concerns can probably be alleviated by the first few initial sections of the LGC.
If you can’t understand the first few sections of the LGC, do copy paste what you don’t understand and mostly likely taxj and I will probably help you.
mindanaoan on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 5:19 pm
justice league, i’m not trying to propose anything here, so please stop saying anything is from me. i was just asking if that was what he meant. and don’t be patronizing that you can explain to me lgu finances. i have developed and maintain software for accounting, budgeting and treasury software for two provinces, a city and more than a dozen municipalities. what do you know that i don’t?
what i am asking taxj to explain is how his “realistic fiscal federalism” works. aside from saying national agencies should be reduced to barest essentials, and IRA be increased to 80%, there’s nothing much to go in his proposal. he gives us no idea how to run the already meagerly funded national agencies if we reduce maybe 200 billion from their budget.
the other point is that fiscal federalism implies autonomy, yet he doesn’t explain how internal revenue taxes can be collected by lgu’s without revising the constitution. it’s as if his idea of fiscal autonomy is the national government giving money to lgu’s and never mind if you can’t run a national government with the reduced funds.
there’s a principle in design that says, “form follows function”. if taxj is convinced decentralization is a good idea, why not adopt a form of government designed with decentralization as the central principle, the federal system?
justice league on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 5:43 pm
Mindanaoan,
I’d say a working understanding of the Local Government Code of the Philippines.
Then why are you asking me at your 2:35pm post?
I will volunteer/intercede on my own volition but if you want taxj to explain then by all means ask him/her.
Like I said, read the LGC first.
I’ll help you right now by saying its at Sec. 3 d )
I’ll put up a link for some of the early parts of the LGC.
AGAIN. I suggest you read it and copy paste what you don’t understand.
//www.comelec.gov.ph/laws/local_govt_code/lgc_b1t1ch1.html
mindanaoan on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 6:01 pm
justice league, it doesn’t seem you are helpful in clarifying taxj’s idea. maybe we should just let taxj explain.
justice league on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 6:10 pm
mindanaoan,
Very well.
I tried.
But consider this link as a final gift.
//www.comelec.gov.ph/laws/local_govt_code/lgc_b2t3ch1.html
taxj on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 8:05 pm
Mindanaoan:
The 20/80 sharing formula is not mine. I just mentioned it to underscore the fact that the importance of fiscal federalism is acknowledged by our lawmakers, yet they do not give it. They say they want to, but they don’t.
http://FeDecentralize.wordpress.com is about federalism, pro and con, by many commenters. It includes point by point rebuttal of the Abueva and Brilliantes treatises. It also has a piece on how federalism could negate our gains at local autonomy. We know of course that there can be local autonomy without federalism.
Anyway, I think I have said it all in my December 14, 7:08 am comment. Mindanaoan is fully free to refuse to get the message. Or distort it.
mindanaoan on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 9:49 pm
taxj, i’m with you in the importance of fiscal federalism, but i don’t agree with your assertion that lawmakers want to, but they dont. there’s simply a limit on how much can be given to lgu’s without compromising the operations of the national government. we are constrained by the system.
i’ve tried to follow your idea, but i cannot seem to find any explanation from you how to fund a unitary government if you give most of the budget to the lgu’s.
let’s leave other proposals for a while and talk about yours. have you really worked out a system, or is it all just a hazy concept?
justice league on Sun, 14th Dec 2008 10:25 pm
Taxj,
I would have handled things differently.
First, you might try to reiterate that the Local Government Code is a mere law and can be amended by Congress without needing to revise the Charter.
When you claimed that Congress devolved the functions of agriculture, health and social services but conveniently forgot to provide funds for it; you could have pointed to Section 2 A) wherein local government units shall be given more powers, authority, responsibilities, and resources. Those functions having been devolved; resources should have followed to wherever those functions were devolved to.
As to your claim of aiming far beyond a mere increase in IRA without any fear of starving the national agencies whose existence and functions, under a highly decentralized unitary system, should be reduced to the barest essentials; you could reiterate Section 2 A) again wherein National agencies can function with less funds since more powers, authority, responsibilities should have been decentralized already to the local government units.
(Though I probably would not have used the term “barest essentials†myself.)
Now if you were asked how the National Government will make do with just a 20% take from the Internal Revenue; well you could answer again its because certain powers, authority, responsibilities would have been decentralized to the LGUs and that there are other sources of funds for the Government like Customs, royalties from exploitation of natural resources, etc…
If you were asked about LGUs just waiting for the IRA, you could point to Sec. 3 d ) wherein “vesting of duty, responsibility, and accountability in local government units shall be accompanied with provision for reasonably adequate resources to discharge their powers and effectively carry out their functions; hence, they shall have the power to create and broaden their own sources of revenue and the right to a just share in national taxes and an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areasâ€.
If you were asked how to run the national agencies even if we have reduced maybe 200 billion from their budget, you could point again to Sec. 2 A as the national agencies will survive without those 200 billion because powers, authority, responsibilities have been decentralized to the LGUs from the National agencies and those LGUs will now need that 200 billion to perform those responsibilities.
If you were asked to explain how internal revenue taxes can be collected by lgu’s without revising the constitution, you could point out that IRA is determined by the Local Government Code which is in turn just a mere law by Congress and can be amended by them at will without requiring revising the Charter and then point to Sec. 284 which details the allocation/distribution of the IRA.
If you were asked if you are convinced decentralization is a good idea but why are you not adopting a form of government designed with decentralization as the central principle, the federal system, you could answer you believe decentralization can be achieved without the risk of another bureaucratic layer, risk of balkanization/fragmentation/dissolution, etc….
And then point out that these are doable with government officials (like lawmakers and even the President) who are actually supportive of decentralization like the officials that we supposedly have now who profess they are for Federalism.
But we obviously have a different way of doing things and it is obviously not my way that is of interest here.
Good luck. and cheers.
Bert,
Cheers.
taxj on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 5:51 am
mindanaoan,
I really don’t have to work out a system because I’m not presenting anything new. The concept is already spelled out in the local government code. It is just a matter of giving it more substance or practical application. Have you read the code as advised by justice league? Please don’t look at me for answers. It’s there too. And in your heart as well! I’m sure.
justice,
I highly appreciate your gesture. I couldn’t have said it better myself. It isn’t my way nor anybody’s that is of interest here though. It’s the country’s welfare.
I have looked into as many materials on federalism as I can get my hands into. My conclusion? It’s a formula for disaster for our country. It will bring out the exact opposite of its goals. It will hinder economic growth and worsen the Mindanao conflict.
Fortunately, much wisdom has already been written, yours among them, against this folly. I don’t think I need add anything more. I can only spread the gospel within my personal limitations. Of course! Heh. Heh.
Invariably, we pin our hopes in our leaders. Invariably too, we soon are obsessed with changing them. Indeed, elections and people power bring hope, but only false ones because, in reality, no leader can ever bring us out of this mess. Nor can a mere change in our character!
We have to establish the structure that will enable more of our us to carry the load. Unless we do so, we will forever be circling around in a hopeless situation. How do we get out of it? The lgc and people like you have the answers.
If only Senator Nene Pimentel would care to visit his own handiwork we could solve our rice shortage within a year or two. How? Amend the code so that the billions that are now in the hands of officials like Secretary Yap and Jocjoc Bolante will instead go to the cities and provinces where concerned constituencies like Geo can have some kind of control over them.
People at the grassroots have to be involved in planning the use of the money intended for their welfare. Jocjoc Bolante didn’t even bother to let them know that such funds were for them, and not for politicians.
For those who are not in this line of business, fertilizer alone accounts for 10% to 30% increase or decrease in rice production. And, Secretary Yap says that we already produce 90% of our needs. This probably served as a front for Jocjoc Bolante’s misplaced program.
mlq3,
Imagine what one simple amendment could do for us!
I know you that know how important and timely this subject is. I know that you alone can attract LG officials, practitioners and lawmakers. So, please open up a blog on it so we can have some fireworks even after the new year bangs.
justice league on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 7:52 am
Taxj,
What I meant to say when I said that its “not my way” that is of interest here; eventually it was that its “not my answers” that were of interest here.
Practically everything I provided last night can be found in the Local Government Code.
I even provided a link for it.
The other side just wasn’t interested in reading it.
And it was your answers the other side was interested in.
taxj on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 9:25 am
justice league,
Actually, we have a lot to thank mindanaoan for. How else were we able to expound on the cause without his prodding questions? However shallow though it may seem at times! However, If he doesn’t believe your lucid answers, any further explaination would be useless.
I don’t know what your take is but to me the luckiest evil is not the main culprit in our nation’s sorry state. Congress and the federalists are more to blame. The worst part of is that while she has a term limit, Congress and the federalists has none.
Congress did not do its job at not keeping the nation’s coffers away from Presidential abuse. Nor did it make said funds any closer to lgu’s. On the other hand federalists distracted it from doing a simple legislative task by proposing a complicated, expensive and dubious solution. How else was the desperate housewife able to do her thing with such impunity?
mindanaoan on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 11:19 am
taxj, i thought you have something new to say about “realistic fiscal federalism”. turns out it’s just hot air.
mindanaoan on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 11:23 am
justice league, i’m not interested in the local government code. i was interested in what i thought was a new idea from taxj. but it seems there’s no new idea after all
justice league on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 12:41 pm
Mindanaoan,
Your term of hot air is more applicable to the supposed support of government officials for decentralization.
That is obvious.
But working understanding of local government code beats “developed and maintain software for accounting, budgeting and treasury software for two provinces, a city and more than a dozen municipalities.”
mindanaoan on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 1:02 pm
justice league, new ideas are interesting. your blabber is a waste of time
justice league on Mon, 15th Dec 2008 4:30 pm
Mindanaoan,
Not that I’ll be admitting that mine is just blabber and a waste of time, but my ideas are based on the Philippine Constitution and pertinent Philippine laws.
What is your blabber based on?
taxj on Tue, 16th Dec 2008 3:47 am
mindanaoan:
Try opening your eyes, and see a new sun shine. Of course it’s been there for billions of years, but it helps seeing it as new everyday. Something may be old, but there’s always a new way of looking at it.
The lgc is old, but it could be new to those who have just read it. It might as well be non-existent to those who refuse to read it for lack of interest. Yet you say your ideas are based on the Philippine Constitution and Philippine laws! I might be missing something here. What do you think?
As an exercise in fiscal federalism, I say that the lgc is irrational because while certain functions were devolved the funds therefor were not given. It will continue being irrational for as long as the national government is awash with more funds than it can judiciously handle while local agriculturists stare helplessly at rice crops turning yellow for lack of nitrogen. I specifically refer to the billions of pesos earmarked for agriculture which some sectors fear would go the way of the infamous fertilizer scam.
Most of us cry for an end to CORRUPTION while I howl for rational fiscal federalism. Give the funds to people who would know how to handle it better… to those who could be more easily held accountable. I am saying that there is so much corruption in our country because the present government structure is a fertile ground for it.
New or not, I think this anomaly can be addressed by mere legislation. Based on the Philippine Constitution, what have you to say?
justice league on Tue, 16th Dec 2008 6:08 am
Taxj,
I think you did miss something.
The post above yours was from me. Cheers.
mindanaoan on Tue, 16th Dec 2008 8:57 am
taxj, here is the difference between federalism and your beloved “fiscal federalism”. the federalist ideals is anchored on the principle of autonomy and self-reliance. your FF is motivated by an entitlement mentality.
justice league on Tue, 16th Dec 2008 5:02 pm
Mindanaoan ,
You already implied that you want to remain ignorant of the Local Government Code but surely that should not be the case also for the Constitution that you want to revise.
Given that it is stated in the Constitution that the LGUs are to get their share of the IRA and are entitled to their equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas; but the Constitution doesn’t end there.
ARTICLE X
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Section 2. The territorial and political subdivisions shall enjoy local autonomy.
Section 3. The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization with effective mechanisms of recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsibilities, and resources, and provide for the qualifications, election, appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions and duties of local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation of the local units.
Section 5. Each local government unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy taxes, fees and charges subject to such guidelines and limitations as the Congress may provide, consistent with the basic policy of local autonomy. Such taxes, fees, and charges shall accrue exclusively to the local governments.
Taxj just wants the Constitution to be implemented with the idea of his “beloved fiscal federalism”.
Given the provisions of the Constitution, how can you say that taxj’s FF is motivated by an entitlement mentality and not with the principle of autonomy and self-reliance?
But don’t bother saying its because the Constitution doesn’t say that it “shall promote self-reliance” in the Local Government Article.
The Charter doesn’t say that it “prohibits abortion” either but everybody knows that abortion is indeed prohibited by the Constitution.
You claimed that you developed and maintain software for accounting, etc……………….
Do those concerned LGUs just wait for their entitlement?
This discussion is not going well for you.
You should consider ending this.
Bert on Tue, 16th Dec 2008 6:57 pm
Hehehehe!
mindanaoan on Wed, 17th Dec 2008 9:48 am
for heavens’s sake justice league, i just wanted taxj to expound on his idea of “realistic fiscal federalism”. i’m not interested, in this thread, of your blabber of WHAT IS in the constitution, or the local government code. what i want to know exactly is WHAT IS NOT in the local government code that taxj wants. evidently he wants to see new laws enacted when he said “distrust … bars congress from adopting a more realistic fiscal federalism.” it was the specifics of those laws that he wants that i want to know, and how he defines fiscal federalism.
i thought for a while that he is onto something by mentioning 20/80 IRA, and “barest essentials” national agencies. but it was disappointing that he was not able to hold on to it farther, because, it seems to me, he had not really worked out the details, especially the numbers to go with it.
now, can you discover taxj’s desire for “barest essentials”, or read the his definition of realistic fiscal federalism, from studying the constitution or the local government code even if you read them till your eyes jump out of their sockets? have you, for all your self-professed expertise, deduced them by yourself?
i do not really understand why you insist on inserting yourself when i already hinted it was taxj’s idea that i was interested in. maybe you just want to show off what you know about the local government code. unfortunately, like i said earlier, it is not what is in the local government code that i was interested in, but in what is not in it that taxj wanted. you can fantasize for all i care that you know more than i do, but please, you just muddled taxj’s nascent idea.
justice league on Wed, 17th Dec 2008 1:10 pm
Mindanaoan,
That is obvious by your claim that taxj’s idea does not hold autonomy nor self-reliance.
Are you still going to argue about autonomy and self-reliance?
Further decentralization that Government officials claim they support.
By supporting Federalism, lawmakers and the President claim they are for decentralization yet they are not doing that yet via new laws when they readily can.
More powers, authorities, resources, functions, etc…. decentralized from the National agencies towards the LGUs.
I don’t have to deduce it.
DECENTRALIZATION IS WRITTEN!!!
Can’t you read that for yourself?
More likely I’m just a better ally than your erstwhile one!
Taxj can always tell me to stop helping him/her.
Well for one thing; it is an 80% share of the IRA for the LGUs. Right now its at 40%.
Given how this discussion turned out, its not a fantasy!
justice league on Wed, 17th Dec 2008 4:45 pm
Mindanaoan,
Addendum
With regards to taxj’s claim of “Distrust for local governments and power obssession, not the Charter, bars Congress from adopting a more realistic fiscal federalism.”
Decentralization will undoubtedly empower LGUs more with greater power, authority, funds, etc… whether in a federal or in the present set up.
Do you think the likes of a Congressman Dy would actually be in favor of more powers for the likes of a Gov. Padaca who is threat to their hold of a political dynasty in their province?
mindanaoan on Wed, 17th Dec 2008 5:51 pm
justice league,
for all your blabber above, and all of taxj’s explanation so far, can you work out the figures to see if “realistic fiscal federalism” is viable through a “barest essential” devolution and 20/80 IRA, even if only with the roughest of figures? doesn’t it occur to you that you need more detail than just two bits of information to begin to evaluate a proposition? can you say if there is anything from your comments so far that has helped define what is “realistic fiscal federalism”, in terms that can be evaluated?
you see, i’m interested in system design. you are only interested in debate. to you, “decentralization” tells you everything. to me, it’s a useless word in determining funding requirements of national agencies that have been devolved. to you, “More powers, authorities, resources, functions, etc…. decentralized from the National agencies towards the LGUs.” are already specifics of laws that i want from taxj. to me, they are fuzzy nonsense that contain nothing to help us evaluate the original proposition.
to repeat, i just want to evaluate taxj’s idea. i can’t see anything worth debating with you, so let’s stop this already, OK?
taxj on Wed, 17th Dec 2008 8:11 pm
mindanaoan:
I think I have expounded on my idea of a rational FF well enough. If you still don’t get it, there’s nothing more I can do about it.
Now, can we move on to another point? Let’s start with one of your statements which I think is central to our respective positions.
You say that, “The federalist ideal is anchored on the principle of autonomy and self-reliance.†I agree. However, please note that the autonomy mentioned here is only for states. A state may or may not give local autonomy to its component lgu’s. Have you forgotten that states may adopt their own constitutions or by-laws?
How tragic that many local government officials were deceived into thinking that they are fighting for local autonomy through federalism when in fact, if they succeed, they could actually lose it! This is probably one reason why mlq3 says that federalism is messy.
Your reaction, please. I shall deal with some of your views within the hour.
justice league:
Though I find nothing objectionable with what you’ve said so far, I don’t think you are helping me personally at all. What for? Yet I can’t help thinking that you contribute more to the cause than I do. Whatever it is!
justice league on Wed, 17th Dec 2008 10:46 pm
taxj,
Yes. I am not helping you personally.
In fact if you look at the way I address you as him/her; that states that I don’t know you at all.
Why should I help you if not for the cause?
And that cause happens to be that we don’t need Charter change to have a decentralized and empowered local government as what federalists want.
For the record; are you male or female?
taxj on Wed, 17th Dec 2008 11:10 pm
mindanaoan: there’s a principle in design that says, “form follows functionâ€. if taxj is convinced decentralization is a good idea, why not adopt a form of government designed with decentralization as the central principle, the federal system?
taxj: This line is being used by federalists to deceive the unwary. Decentralization in a federal system goes only in so far as the states are concerned. It would be a mistake to assume that a state would automatically go for local autonomy.
mindanaoan: do you mean, the national government still generates the revenues and gives 80% to LGU’s? and the national government will have to operate its machineries with the remaining 20%? that’s your fiscal federalism? can you work out the figures to see if “realistic fiscal federalism†is viable through a “barest essential†devolution and 20/80 IRA, even if only with the roughest of figures?
taxj: “I would place a rational FF anywhere near the 20/80 sharing of national income dangled about by Senator Nene Pimentel to get the support of local government officials for his federalism folly. Anyway, the general idea is to put wealth in the cities and provinces where the constituency has a better say and sway.”
There is nothing here about who generates what. Near 80 is not 80. The second sentence should give us an idea on how near is near. Barest essential for the central government means that as much as possible all powers and functions that can be devolved should be devolved, with due funding.
mindanaoan: like how? Allocate the whole budget to IRA and nothing for national agencies? how much bigger can be alloted for IRA while still maintaining the national agencies?
taxj: You cannot allocate the whole budget to IRA. The whole budget is based on national income. Internal Revenue collections from which the IRA is derived is only a part of the national income. The 80% proposed by Sen. Pimentel is way beyond the whole IR income.
mindanaoan: evidently he wants to see new laws enacted when he said “distrust … bars congress from adopting a more realistic fiscal federalism.†it was the specifics of those laws that he wants that i want to know, and how he defines fiscal federalism.
taxj: I propose no new law. A realistic fiscal federalism can be done simply by amending the lgc. Here’s how I define fiscal federalism,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_federalism.
justice league on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 1:38 am
Mindanaoan,
First, like I said in a post above; I would not have used the term “barest essential”.
Second, have you taken a look at the proposed charter amendments by the House in the matrix provided above regarding Federalism in Article 2 Section 25 ?
All it says is “The State shall ensure the autonomy of local governments, or clusters thereof, towards the ultimate establishment of a federal system of government.
Can you cite any figures there?
How about in the House proposed amendments in the Local Government article; can you see any figures there?
Can you say if there is anything from the House proposed amendments so far that has helped define what is “federalismâ€, IN TERMS that can be evaluated?
I think that “decentralization” tells me what “Federalism” in the House proposed amendments tells you.
What does “Federalism” tell you about determining funding requirements of federal agencies? Can you cite anything specific about determining funding requirements of federal agencies based on the House proposed amendments?
Would you care to prove that we can’t achieve local autonomy, self-reliance, and decentralization UNLESS we revise the Constitution for a federal set-up?
mindanaoan on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 4:01 am
justice league,
if there are no figures in the house proposal, i cannot ask figures from taxj? what a silly argument! “federalism” is a kind of government system, the important feature of which is the power relationship between its central government and its subdivisions. i can have a good idea of what it is. now, what can you even picture in the words “realistic fiscal federalism”? how will i know if it’s a good idea or if its plain nonsense if i don’t know enough how it looks like?
I think that “decentralization†tells me what “Federalism†in the House proposed amendments tells you.
really? you can’t even agree with taxj’s “barest essentails”! can’t you see the word is begging for the question, “how much of it?”. we already have trouble funding the two devolved agencies, a source of taxj’s lament, and it doesn’t occur to you to ask how much more devolution we can go before the system go haywire?
“Would you care to prove that we can’t achieve local autonomy, self-reliance, and decentralization UNLESS we revise the Constitution for a federal set-up?”
if you mean lgu autonomy, no we don’t need to revise the constitution. we have the local government code already, like you said. not debatable.
mindanaoan on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 4:32 am
taxj,
I think I have expounded on my idea of a rational FF well enough. If you still don’t get it, there’s nothing more I can do about it.
yeah, i’m disappointed.
my problem with the general principle of your local autonomy is that it’s centered on increasing the IRA. you know of course it’s an entitlement. it’s based largely on population and land area. and no matter how lousy or corrupt the local leader is, he gets to use the same amount. not a good idea to promote self-reliance, efficiency and good governance.
i can’t understand though why you think local officials are deceived in fighting for federalism, as if thinking they’re fighting for local autonomy. listening to them speak, i think they understand the issues well enough. or maybe, your local officials over there are dumb?
justice league on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 7:48 am
Mindanaoan,
Oh yes you can ask. But if he/she can’t come up with them; I don’t think you should use it against him/her.
For all we know, taxj is probably just a private citizen with everything coming out of his/her pocket just to provide us with this information. (I am just a private citizen myself.)
Members of the House of Representatives are paid with government money and they even get to be “allowed six staff members, each receiving from P9,000 to P25,000 monthly.”
With a coterie of paid staff, even they didn’t produce figures.
//www.cibac.org/content/view/181/46/
BTW, I know you’re paid with government money.
You maintain software for accounting, budgeting etc………..
I picture the implementation of Sec 2 A of the Local Government Code. But then you’d ignore that so there’s little point in discussing further.
Yes.
And I’m glad that I don’t since I don’t have the burden of having to prove that.
If two agencies were devolved; why should the entire budget for them stay with the National government?
How about the self-reliance and decentralization issue?
mindanaoan on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 11:52 am
justice league,
Oh yes you can ask. But if he/she can’t come up with them; I don’t think you should use it against him/her.
why not? it’s the details that tell you if an idea is a workable proposition or just empty buzz words. and you don’t need a six-man staff to come up with rough numbers. doubling the IRA will deduct more 200B from the budget. that means you need to cut the budget of the NGAs in half, because total budget of NGAs is around 400B. is that hard? so now, is 200B still viable to run the NGAs?
and what about self-reliance and decentralization?
taxj on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 1:43 pm
mindanaoan: doubling the IRA will deduct more 200B from the budget. that means you need to cut the budget of the NGAs in half, because total budget of NGAs is around 400B. is that hard? so now, is 200B still viable to run the NGAs?
taxj: Wow! What genius! I was eyeing at the funds for poverty alleviation to fund the agriculture functions of lgu’s. And you come up with this brillant idea. Brace yourself. 200B in the hands of enlightened local officials could render the NGA redundant or unnecessary. With that amount we can attain self-suffiency in food within a year! This could be a new topic that I would eagerly participate in.
You just gave me an idea. it will help if we just concentrate on one bite at a time. Or one proposed amendment at a time. Let’s start with this: Amend the LGC by transferring funds for poverty alleviation as well as for food concerns to lgu’s. Accordingly, visit its provisions re fiscal accountability. See this simple amendment can entirely revolutionize our economy, and prevent the billion-peso scams in our national government.
mindanaoan: i can’t understand though why you think local officials are deceived in fighting for federalism, as if thinking they’re fighting for local autonomy. listening to them speak, i think they understand the issues well enough. or maybe, your local officials over there are dumb?
taxj: Do they understand? Do you? Federalism guarantees autonomy to its constituent states, but not to the constituencies of its states! In other words, cities and provinces may lose the autonomy that they now enjoy, after the transition to federalism. Is this clear enough? Agree or disagree?
justice league on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 2:44 pm
Mindanaoan,
Why not?
With great funds come GREAT RESPONSIBILITY!
The local governments will have to take over as much corresponding responsibility as they can, right?
By supporting “Federalism”, the Executive department is signifying its willingness to relinquish certain functions/authority and with it certain funds to the local government units.
And by indicating their support for “Federalism” ; LGUs are signifying their willingness to accept funds and corresponding responsibilities/authorities from the National government.
Why? Do you expect that only funds will change hands?
That is how it should be in a federal government and that is how it should be in a decentralized form of our government.
Would you care to prove that we can’t achieve self-reliance of local government and decentralization UNLESS we revise the Constitution for a federal set-up?
mindanaoan on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 3:55 pm
taxj,
you must be joking. i was arguing the IRA cannot be increased that much because it requires halving the budget of nga’s. on its face, thats not a reasonable proposal.
but even if you have an extra 200B, what makes you think lgu’s can spend it better than nga’s? what is the general principle why you think giving much of the budget to lgu’s is a good idea, given we have a unitary form of government?
mindanaoan on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 4:24 pm
justice league, how do you enforce responsibility? by putting controls on the source of funds, right? which means, still looking up to manila. so much for decentralization.
Would you care to prove that we can’t achieve self-reliance of local government and decentralization UNLESS we revise the Constitution for a federal set-up?
again, if you mean lgu’s, no need for revision. we don’t even need to go federal for that.
taxj on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 6:19 pm
mindanaoan,
I’m not kidding. I can prove that yours is a brilliant idea. It is very beneficial and doable. Half of nfa’s budget to lgu’s? WOW!
Basically, what does nfa do? It buys rice and sells it at a loss. It is losing money in importation by the billions just to stabilize the prices. Secretary Yap says that we import only 10% of our requirements because 90% of it is produced by farmers. Fertilizers alone account for an increase in rice production by up to 30%, so, if we our farmers use the right amount of fertilizers we would have no rice shortage. We will have no need to import. We would have no need for nfa. We can do this by spending much less than P5 billion for our fertilizer requirements alone. And this is only 2.5% of what you want to give to lgu’s!
You ask, “but even if you have an extra 200B, what makes you think lgu’s can spend it better than nga’s?” Ask a federalist the same question but replacing lgu’s with states. His answer would be my answer too.
With your brilliance, why are you so silent on a very crucial question, “A federal government guarantees autonomy to its states. Does states guarantee autonomy to its constituent cities and municipalities?”
mindanaoan: what is the general principle why you think giving much of the budget to lgu’s is a good idea, given we have a unitary form of government?
taxj: the same principle why you wouid give much of the budget to lgu’s in a federal form of government.
mindanaoan on Thu, 18th Dec 2008 8:46 pm
taxj,
maybe this shows why you need to work out details extensively before putting out a proposal, because it doesnt make sense. you were correct that nfa buys and sells rice, and that one of its tasks is to stabilize prices. for this very reason, it needs to have the economy of scale. you cannot replace its function at the lgu level.
and we would have no need of the nfa if you believe we wont have a rice shortage? what if we do? one of that agency’s purpose is food security. we need a government agency to ensure we have food supplies no matter what. we abolish it only at our own peril. when we go federal, nfa will probably be still there at the federal level.
(by the way, you are wrong to connect fertilizers and rice production to nfa. that’s the job of the DA.)
there is a whale of a difference between lgu’s in my question and states in a federal system. your answer would be off-tangent. states will have to raise their own revenue, while lgu’s just receive their entitlement. it’s the difference between one who earns his own keep and one who just receives his allowance. it’s not the same at all.
taxj on Fri, 19th Dec 2008 2:18 am
mindanaoan: …you are wrong to connect fertilizers and rice production to nfa…
taxj: Here’s the connection: nfa is about food security. Less shortages, less need for nfa. No shortage, no need for it. Too much fund for nfa could mean less for agriculture. Less money for agriculture results in food shortages.
Your blabber about revenue collection and entitlement is off-tanget. Your question is about spending. Who spends better? Isn’t it? What makes you think states can spend better than nga’s?
taxj on Fri, 19th Dec 2008 2:50 am
Geo: Fine-tuning a Constitution is done via Chacha.
Taxj: Fine-tuning an engine is making it work so that there will be no need to change it. The Constitution enshrines local autonomy. Congress doesn’t act accordingly. What needs to be changed is not the Constitution but Congress. Or the men that constitute it.
Geo: How broken down do you need the engine to be before you replace it? There has been one peaceful transition of national power in 40 years! The nation’s economy — in relevant terms — has sunk downwards during that 40 year period. The social fabric is very torn apart.
Taxj: Before you dump that engine which seems so broken down, please look more closely as to why it appears to be so. It might only need some major adjustments.
Federalists correctly diagnose our country’s illness: too much concentration of power and wealth in imperial Manila. The fault is in the medicine they prescribed. Federalists profess love for local autonomy, but, they fail to mention that federalism has nothing to do with it. While federalism guarantees autonomy to states, it says nothing about the extent to which states shall grant local autonomy. I hope this is clear enough.
Geo: The President’s office, wielding power by one person, has proven impossible to control. The Senate has been reduced to a platform to launch a Presidential bid. It is also not answerable to any specific constituency. Manila collects and spends the wealth of the provinces. It’s too expensive for “normal†people to run for office. And so on…..
Taxj: These concerns are well within the realm of Congress, an enlightened one.
mindanaoan on Fri, 19th Dec 2008 6:08 am
taxj,
“No shortage, no need for it.”
not exactly. food shortage is not its only lookout. and even then, it still should be “no probability of shortage”. but then again, you should listen to yourself. we should attain a no-shortage level first before we contemplate abolishing the nfa!
“Your blabber … is off-tanget.”
you said to replace lgu’s with states in my question. i said you cannot do that because they are not the same. states earn, lgu’s just receive. the question cannot happen in a federal set-up. that’s off-tangent?
taxj on Fri, 19th Dec 2008 7:51 am
mindanaoan,
With too much funding, nfa has ceased to function as a hedge against the impact of any food shortage. Instead it has assured us of permanent ones. I did not say anything about abolishing the nfa. But I think it’s not a bad idea. With such an agency around, we can never attain a no-shortage level.
Your question is, What is the general principle why you think giving much of the budget to lgu’s is a good idea, given we have a unitary form of government? This implies that it’s not a good idea to give much of the budget to lgu’s in a unitary system. Right? Where does earning and receiving come in here? Don’t you understand your own question?
justice league on Fri, 19th Dec 2008 12:26 pm
Mindanaoan,
YES!!!
AND THOSE CONTROLS ARE EMBODIED IN BOTH THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE!
Controls that must be followed.
WRONG!!!
As based on the provisions of the Charter and the LGC; ABSOLUTELY so much for decentralization!
A proposal is that the IRA be increased and that can only be done by amending the LGC.
The increase in the IRA then has the power of the law.
And the power of that law has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Presidency (executive department) previously sought to impose restrictions on the IRA of local government units.
On several occasions, THE PRESIDENCY LOST!
G.R. No. 152774 May 2004
THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS vs. HON. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Executive Secretary and Chairman of the Oversight Committee on Devolution; HON. EMILIA BONCODIN, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON. JOSE D. LINA, JR., Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government,
- Section 4 of AO 372 cannot, however, be upheld. A basic feature of local fiscal autonomy is the automatic release of the shares of LGUs in the National internal revenue. This is mandated by no less than the Constitution. The Local Government Code specifies further that the release shall be made directly to the LGU concerned within five (5) days after every quarter of the year and “shall not be subject to any lien or holdback that may be imposed by the national government for whatever purpose.” As a rule, the term “SHALL” is a word of command that must be given a compulsory meaning. The provision is, therefore, IMPERATIVE.
-Significantly, the LGSEF could not be released to the LGUs without the Oversight Committee’s prior approval. ………………………………………………
To the Court’s mind, the entire process involving the distribution and release of the LGSEF is constitutionally impermissible .
Indeed, the Oversight Committee exercising discretion, even control, over the distribution and release of a portion of the IRA, the LGSEF, is an anathema to and subversive of the principle of local autonomy as embodied in the Constitution. Moreover, it finds no statutory basis at all as the Oversight Committee was created merely to formulate the rules and regulations for the efficient and effective implementation of the Local Government Code of 1991 to ensure “compliance with the principles of local autonomy as defined under the Constitution.”
- That the automatic release of the IRA was precisely intended to guarantee and promote local autonomy can be gleaned from the discussion below between Messrs. Jose N. Nolledo and Regalado M. Maambong, then members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, to wit:
MR. MAAMBONG. Unfortunately, under Section 198 of the Local Government Code, the existence of subprovinces is still acknowledged by the law, but the statement of the Gentleman on this point will have to be taken up probably by the Committee on Legislation. A second point, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that under Article 2, Section 10 of the 1973 Constitution, we have a provision which states:
The State shall guarantee and promote the autonomy of local government units, especially the barrio, to insure their fullest development as self-reliant communities.
This provision no longer appears in the present configuration; does this mean that the concept of giving local autonomy to local governments is no longer adopted as far as this Article is concerned?
MR. NOLLEDO. No. In the report of the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles, that concept is included and widened upon the initiative of Commissioner Bennagen.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you for that.
With regard to Section 6, sources of revenue, the creation of sources as provided by previous law was “subject to limitations as may be provided by law,” but now, we are using the term “subject to such guidelines as may be fixed by law.” In Section 7, mention is made about the “unique, distinct and exclusive charges and contributions,” and in Section 8, we talk about “exclusivity of local taxes and the share in the national wealth.” Incidentally, I was one of the authors of this provision, and I am very thankful. Does this indicate local autonomy, or was the wording of the law changed to give more autonomy to the local government units?31
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes. In effect, those words indicate also “decentralization” because local political units can collect taxes, fees and charges subject merely to guidelines, as recommended by the league of governors and city mayors, with whom I had a dialogue for almost two hours. They told me that limitations may be questionable in the sense that Congress may limit and in effect deny the right later on.
MR. MAAMBONG. Also, this provision on “automatic release of national tax share” points to more local autonomy. Is this the intention?
MR. NOLLEDO. Yes, the Commissioner is perfectly right.32
-The concept of local autonomy was explained in Ganzon v. Court of Appeals33 in this wise:
As the Constitution itself declares, local autonomy ‘means a more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a system of decentralization.’ The Constitution, as we observed, does nothing more than to break up the monopoly of the national government over the affairs of local governments and as put by political adherents, to “liberate the local governments from the imperialism of Manila.”
-Local autonomy includes both administrative and fiscal autonomy. The fairly recent case of Pimentel v. Aguirre 35 is particularly instructive.
The Court declared therein that local fiscal autonomy includes the power of the LGUs to, inter alia, allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities:
Under existing law, local government units, in addition to having administrative autonomy in the exercise of their functions, enjoy fiscal autonomy as well. Fiscal autonomy means that local governments have the power to create their own sources of revenue in addition to their equitable share in the national taxes released by the national government, as well as the power to allocate their resources in accordance with their own priorities. It extends to the preparation of their budgets, and local officials in turn have to work within the constraints thereof. They are not formulated at the national level and imposed on local governments, whether they are relevant to local needs and resources or not.
- Indeed, the value of local governments as institutions of democracy is measured by the degree of autonomy that they enjoy.
- Our national officials should not only comply with the constitutional provisions on local autonomy but should also appreciate the spirit and liberty upon which these provisions are based.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
//www.yehey.com/news/print.aspx?id=115502
Give local govts their money
- The Court ruling stemmed from a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus that Mandanas had filed in May 2004 when he was Batangas governor. The decision is final and executory.
- In a ruling in Aquilino Pimentel Jr. v. Hon. Alexander Aguirre and Emilia Boncodin on July 19, 2000, the Supreme Court declared that the President could not withhold the IRA.
- Since the decentralization of the central government and the devolution of its functions, local governments have been saddled with increased responsibilities that require additional funds. They are therefore empowered to create their own source of revenues and given the right to receive the IRA and an equitable share from the national wealth within their boundaries.
-The Mandanas resolution on the release of the IRAs to local governments must proceed without delay and without conditions. It’s a matter of right and justice, not presidential prerogative.
Interesting, for someone who likes to proclaim support for “Federalismâ€, PGMA sure likes to tread waters on issues on the IRA that have already been ruled against such!
Very well.
We have previously discussed in long dead threads issues like “who is in charge of the welfare of Ilocandia as a wholeâ€.
You and taxj seem to have some unsettled business.
But since you accept that we need not go federal to achieve autonomy, self-reliance, and decentralization for LGUs (ARMM, CAR, Provinces, Cities, Municipalities, Barrios, Barangay, etc….);
I believe our issue is DONE!
taxj on Fri, 19th Dec 2008 5:44 pm
mindanaoan,
I’m really sorry about that dig. I just fancied saying it, but pressed the post key before I could edit. You don’t deserve such unwarranted arrogance considering that I learned so much from you. For instance, I realized from your comments that with federalism our lgu’s stand to lose the measure of autonomy they now enjoy.
justice league,
Your latest post should give lg officials an idea of how much they would be losing if we adopt federalism. I suppose that because of his silence on this issue, he has realized by now that federalism does not guarantee local autonomy, and that we can have federalism without local autonomy, but we can have local autonomy without federalism.
justice league: Would you care to prove that we can’t achieve self-reliance of local government and decentralization UNLESS we revise the Constitution for a federal set-up?
taxj: This question is rather misleading. It assumes that self-reliance of local governments is a feature of federalism. It is not. Actually, we stand to lose, not enhance, our gains at local autonomy if we federalize. A federal constitution grants autonomy only to states. It will be up to states to determine the degree of local autonomy they are willing to give. This will be decided upon when the state constitutions are drafted.
If the crafting of a constitution is a whammy, federalism is not just adouble or triple whammy because federalism may produce more Constitutions than there are states.
justice league on Fri, 19th Dec 2008 7:58 pm
Taxj,
I was actually hoping you would not have dragged me back.
I didn’t want to have to counter and water down whatever arguments you have already put forth.
But if we were to base it on the House proposed amendments; I believe local autonomy of provinces and even 2 regions down to the barangay would still be assured in a federal government because the Charter still says it so even though the manner of federalization would still have to be worked out.
As based on the House proposed amendments; Federalization would not negate local autonomy unless of course they re-write the local government article and state policy again and remove those provisions.
Even state Constitutions still have to follow the Mother Charter.
Sorry but cheers.
mindanaoan on Sat, 20th Dec 2008 8:21 am
justice league, taxj, i’m sorry i have to leave the discussion. i’m out of town, can’t sit down much. nice talking to you
justice league on Sat, 20th Dec 2008 9:09 am
Mindanaoan,
No problem though It would probably take you only a couple of minutes to read the latest replies.
But like I stated; I believe our issue is done.
I believe your concerns have been addressed. You can always resurrect it if you have concerns when you come back whether in this thread or in a future one.
taxj on Sat, 20th Dec 2008 7:24 pm
justice league:
Mindanaoan’s states are autonomous. Yours, obviously, is not. Your refer to specific proposals, but, how far will it go in the hands of con-con delegates who are in no way bound by any? .
“Federalization would not negate local autonomy unless of course they re-write the local government article and state policy again and remove those provisions.” If you can lose, you will!
Why take the risk of losing what you already have when you don’t have to? I’m sorry, but, didn’t this question come from you? Or should!
justice league on Sun, 21st Dec 2008 2:09 am
Taxj,
Where did you get that idea?
If you are concerned with the issue of State Constitutions having to conform within limitations of a Federal Charter; you are going to have to provide an example of one that doesn’t have to even though the Federal Charter says that it does .
Like say the Federal Constitution states that the right of citizens of Graymalkin to vote shall not be denied or abridged by Graymalkin or by any state on account of sex. And the proof of autonomy of States is that they can defy this provision? Is that what you mean?
Every proposed revision/amendment of the Constitution (House proposal, Abueva’s Concom, Senate resolution 10, even Sigaw ng Bayan’s) I found incorporated local autonomy. (Though with some less eloquent than others)
A Concon will likely follow suit.
But the fact of the matter is; you are the one who said my question was misleading.
In relation to your issue; I had basis for that kind of question and that basis is the House proposed amendments, and no amount of your spin is going to neutralize that basis.
You seem to be forgetting my post on Dec. 17, 10:46 pm wherein I stated;
“ And that cause happens to be that we don’t need Charter change to have a decentralized and empowered local government as what federalists want.”
And when I said that we don”t need Charter Change regarding this issue, it meant we don’t need to Federalize.
You seem to be spinning out of control.
You should know when to leave well enough alone.
Otherwise this is going to be the wrong fight at the wrong time.
justice league on Sun, 21st Dec 2008 2:15 am
Clarification:
Every proposed revision/amendment of the Constitution (House proposal, Abueva’s Concom, Senate resolution 10, even Sigaw ng Bayan’s) I found incorporated local autonomy in the final product. (Though with some less eloquent than others)