What no one wished has come to pass: Two Filipinos die in Lebanon.
Response: House-to-house rescue of OFWs
It’s crunch time: referendum by November. Word is, the “people’s initiative” position might be filed by Monday. At the very least, the stage is being set for another big administration push.
Emil Jurado, who joins in the unfolding administration charge, can be answered easily with the following points:
1. He grants the point people will lose the right to vote for the head of state and the head of government; none of the proposals he defends eliminates big money or the role of power brokers: indeed it would easier for a gambling or drug lord to fund a prime minister; and if he really cares about cronyism, he’d better look at Japan and Malaysia to see it in parliamentary action;
2. a vote of no confidence is a rare thing in a parliament, and the proposed rules are such that what is envisioned is more of a permanent, one party state;
3. There are three proposals on the table, all of which are presumably in the running, and at least one of them has a loophole permitting an interim parliament to set the date for elections and do so by simply going on until 2010; of course Congress cannot legislate for its own benefit -as the Constitution stands, but it can be revised out in the future; besides which, it isn’t necessary for Congress to do it, the other proponents are doing so by extending terms from 3 to 5 years and removing term limits, which obviously serves incumbents and which they have neither opposed nor pledged to inhibit themselves from enjoying; and the position of president, on other hand, is not up for discussion: whether ceremonial or not, there will be a president, or perhaps he again doesn’t understand how parliamentary government works (the head of government is not the head of state: or does he propose replacing the presidency with a monarchy?);
4. There will be a super-president. It boils down to whether a future prime minister would be in a position to demand powers be delegated, and whether the incumbent president would deign to share anything but a minimum of powers;
5. Well, what’s wrong with those in power now holding it indefinitely? That demonstrates the big difference between Jurado’s ilk and those opposed. What’s wrong? Everything. Under any system, for whatever reason, indefinite power-holding is unhealthy and counter-productive;
6. No weakened supreme court, he says? He fails to understand how a parliament works, unless his frame of reference is the Batasan of Marcos: parliament is supreme and again, look at Malaysia, which is the model of behavior for many present-day congressmen, where parliament reduced the powers of the courts; a judiciary on equal footing with the legislature is not part of the parliamentary scheme of things.
Oh, and truth? What about One Voice not even having gotten around to radio ads, despite what he claims?
Manny Pacquiao reportedly recorded some sort of commercial for the government yesterday, possibly in support of amendments efforts. While his ad hasn’t come out, he’s now being surrounded by buzz over a possible bid for the vice-mayoralty of Manila, in tandem with one of Mayor Atienza’s sons. Pacquiao has petitioned to be consider a Manila voter. (a curious story on Pacquiao’s political loyalties can be found in a comment by a reader from Japan).
Scuttlebutt on the President’s liver makes the news.
In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial considers opposition to impeachment nonsense.
Mike Tan points to one of the latest cases -the murder of the wife of Dr. Constancio Javier (who was also shot) and recounts the shock and sadness of Dr. Mita Pardo de Tavera over a similar murder of a doctor in 1982.
Ellen Tordesillas sits back and watches the President’s people eat each other.
Jose Ma. Montelibano praises Gawad Kalinga.
In the blogosphere, a Nagueño in the Blogosphere recalls Raul Roco’s death anniversary (tomorrow) and wonders what might have been. At the time, this is what I wrote on what the man was: a minority of many.
Torn & Frayed on Filipino happiness.