In the news, Malacañang circles the wagons on ‘Garci’ (see Newsbreak on The President’s Ad Hoc Style) even as Senators split on wiretap inquiry (the Inquirer editorial says an investigation’s in order). Political recycling continues: Arroyo security adviser to head legislative liaison office (so Gabby Claudio’s out; and Joaquin Llagonera?) On the Mindanao front, Sacked officer confirms aircraft were recalled.
This is interesting: More RP firms join race to set up stake in Vietnam.
This may become politically significant: Couples admits ‘divorce’ over Gawad Kalinga and Split rocks CfC; Meloto quits Gawad Kalinga. The debate seems as much about a more secular orientation for GK as it was an effort to maintain the exclusively Catholic orientation, perhaps even vaguely socialist orientation of the movement (a story like this, for example, goes to the heart of the leadership split: Call center training for Gawad Kalinga residents mulled). Anyway, end result: Split in Couples for Christ May Hurt GK Housing Projects.
Overseas, some nifty readings, indeed. Let’s begin with Thailand’s referendum: The long march back to the barracks, which takes a highly critical view of the country’s latest effort at constitution-writing (In Thailand: After the Constitutional Referendum takes a less obviously critical, but extremely cautious, look). A Thai newspaper op-ed piece points to A recirculation of elites in Thai politics (a necessary thing, and when the process is thwarted, it causes even more problems).
And there’s not one, but two, excerpts from “Asian Godfathers” (Joe Studwell) published in Asia Sentinel. Extra! Extra! Read all about it! The first chapter is How to be a Post-war Godfather:
In the Philippines another usurper, Ferdinand Marcos, demonstrated a similar response to Suharto’s with respect to the possibilities of godfather relationships. After winning two presidential terms in (distinctly dirty) elections, Marcos circumvented his country’s two-term presidential limit by declaring martial law in 1972. Like Suharto, he also looked beyond the established godfather elite — in the Philippines, traditional Spanish and Chinese mestizo families — to find some of his key business proxies. The archetype was Lucio Tan, a first-generation immigrant and one-time janitor who became, under Marcos’ patronage, the Philippines’ leading tobacco vendor, as well as having interests in everything from banking to real estate.
It is probable that — as with Liem Sioe Liong, who knew Suharto from the latter’s military postings in central Java — Tan and Marcos knew each other from Ilocos, the president’s home region where Tan had his first, small cigarette factory. Both Suharto and Marcos signalled regime change by promoting new, non-indigenous outsiders to godfather roles. Tan was a clear break in the ethnically more mixed and integrated Philippines because he represented the so-called ‘one-syllable Chinese’ — those who had not assimilated and adopted local surnames.
The promotion of new outsiders achieved two useful things for the dictators: it provided ultra-dependent, ultra-loyal sources of future finance for them and their families; and it served as a warning to the established, more integrated economic elite that it was not indispensable.
In the pre-Marcos Philippines, businessmen of every ethnic make-up had been increasingly successful in overrunning and manipulating a weak parliamentary system and thereby obviating the need to make deals with ultimate political power. Ferdy reversed this trend, though it remains a latent tendency in both the Philippines and Thailand whenever central leadership is weakened.
The second is, what those godfathers focus on: Core cash flow:
In the Philippines a tradition of political allocation of state offices and government largesse built up from the 1920s, under American colonial rule, until it reached its logical conclusion under Ferdinand Marcos. There were trading monopolies for major foodstuff imports, and marketing monopolies for the key local crops — sugar and coconuts.
Eduardo ‘Danding’ Cojuangco was one of the leading Marcos monopolists. (It is a reminder of the small and elitist world in which money and power resides in Southeast Asia that Danding is from the same landed family as Cory Aquino, whose ‘people power’ movement overthrew Marcos in 1986.) Danding, a Marcos favorite, benefited from a new levy on coconut production that funded the development of United Coconut Planters Bank. He was made president of the bank, which in turn bought up most of the Philippines’ coconut milling facilities. Danding’s coconut cash flows were strong enough to buy up much more besides. He became known as Mr Pacman, after the video game character that eats everything in its path.
Marcos monopolies set new standards in the powers they conferred. Lucio Tan’s Fortune Tobacco Co., which was given tax, customs, financing and regulatory breaks that were tantamount to a domestic monopoly on cigarette making, wrote a new cigarette tax code that Marcos signed into law. In the same period Tan is alleged to have printed his own internal revenue stamps to paste on cigarette packets. The cash flow from tobacco propelled him into chemicals, farming, textiles, brewing, real estate, hotels and banking. After Marcos fled to Hawaii in 1986, Tan wrote an open letter to new president Cory Aquino in which he asserted: ‘We can proudly say that we have never depended on dole-outs, government assistance or monopoly protection throughout our history.’
…The crudeness of the monopolies handed out by Marcos and Suharto tends to obscure the almost universal presence of monopolies, cartels and controlled Asian markets in Southeast Asia.
Of course these things aren’t new to Filipinos; but what will be new to Filipino readers is how similar things are in neighboring countries.
Elsewhere, relevant reading in terms of ongoing debates on the the Japan-RP free trade agreement: Indonesia-Japan EPA: Who’s getting the best deal? And In South Korea: “This is What Democracy Looks Like!”. In Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth C. Economy looks at China and asks if in environmental terms, it isn’t taking a harmful “Great Leap Backward”. The Economist asks whether President Putin isn’t building a “neo-KGB state” in Russia. In Australia, an ongoing debate on the nature of Federalism; one issue involves hospitals: Hospital plan puts focus back on ‘new federalism’. By the way,
Australian government caught editing Wikipedia.
The Magnificent Seven looks at American soldiers who’ve published an op-ed piece criticizing their government’s conduct of the war in Iraq; Sir, Can I Publish This, Sir! clarifies the circumstances under which soldiers can criticize their government. Ah, and The Credit Crunch in Financial Markets Remains Severe, says Roubini.
On a lighter note, Vanity Fair on how Ralph Lauren captured the public imagination.
Amando Doronila’s column today, is somewhat related to the above, in terms of the role coercion plays in politics (and by extension, business).
From Patricio Diaz of Mindanews, a two part series, Metamorphosis 1 and Metamorphosis 2, on the evolution of Filipino Muslim political thought.
In his column, Dan Mariano discusses Roberto Verzola’s suggestions for a more productive approach to election automation.
In the blogosphere… I remember that the President’s famous “I. Am. Sorry.” speech had people divided between those for whom it was far from being enough, and others who felt it was a breathtaking act of contrition. The clincher, of course, was that for some it was too little, too late, for others, more than enough. The same applies as news has begun to circulate Society columnist quits over OFW bashing (see also Manila Standard columnist quits after getting OFWs’ ire). For details on the actual letter of apology itself, see Ang Kape Ni LaTtEX. In Piercing Pens, there is more information, including People Asia saying it will publish the letter of apology in lieu of Malu Fernandez’s next column.
As An OFW Living in Hong Kong points out, this was a demonstration of political muscle by OFWs and their families. I am not convinced it was totally an achievement of the blogosphere: it’s still a small circle compared to the online media Filipinos congregate in, in truly significant numbers, and that’s e-groups (and e-mail: the magazine article was scanned, then circulated by e-mail, some time before it finally started being commented on in blogdom). The impact of a statement by press associations, such as the one issued by the Filipino Press Club in Dubai, is also the sort of thing media practitioners from the older generation get impressed.
So my observation is that the blogosphere has become fully integrated into established fora and information-opinion networks of Filipinos, at home and abroad; and that, furthermore, the blogosphere along with other online media now creates its own news and yes, it can rock the older media to its foundations, whether print, television, or radio; and it has become to serve as an effective check-and-balance, not only to the media, but to itself (see Nasty Me and Superblessed, and Tanuki Tales, who is glad it’s all at an end). Everyone got thoroughly scrutinized on this one, not just in blogs but in e-mail discussion groups. It’s not as if it hasn’t always been there, but Class Struggle suddenly got validated (or one step closer, anyway, see Ajay’s Writings on the Wall, which incidentally has the best Malu photo caption ever), and as with all revolutionary notions, it isn’t a picnic as Mao said.
Nonetheless, I think the combined letter of apology and resignation from the paper and magazine, were the proper form of atonement and Malu Fernandez deserves credit for it. An apology is never easy, resignation even harder, and both, combined, is an unusual yet potent combination -and an example of accountability (on her part, to be sure; and even People Asia’s, if and when it publishes her letter; the newspaper dodged a bullet without saying anything). But there will be those who will be watching with keen suspicion, for some time to come (see Taragis na Buhay to, for example).
[email protected] takes a look at the overall implications of the issue for bloggers (a pyrrhic victory, he says). For thorough look on our changing demographics, see Jove Francisco’s tribute to OFWs.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, economy, federalism, Gloriagate, Hello Garci, history, ideas, journalism, korea, media, military, mindanao, philippines, politics, president, Senate, society, war
Re: Thailand
Pleaase allow me to post an excahnge with Jaxius:
jaxius :
Karl,
I asked about that because the proponents of that law failed to introduce an integral component,i.e., taking out the CSAFP and the major service commanders from the chain of command and relegating them to advisory positions (the major service commanders shall also have the primary duty of training and equipage of their units).
Making the CSAFP a fixed term position may not be in all fours with the principle of civilian control over the military. Imagine the president disagreeing with the CSAFP whether in a matter of principle or in a matter of strategy?
As the recent debacles faced by the AFP in Basilan where issues of interoperability between various services and intra-service rivalry have been raised, some sectors have raised whether the so-called area commands are of any use. Having the ground forces answerable to their respective services and the area commands lends to confusion and finger-pointing.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Karl Garcia :
Jaxius,
Correct,(in my opimion).
Re:Confusion, there was confusion on National policy and what the ground forces,just an example the forces thought Basilan was not included in the claim of MILF’s territory,while the peacemakers have agreed it was.
To be honest,my father dared FVR to step don as CSAFP because he ws ovestaying,but it is a good thing it was not taken personally by FVR,and hired him as ASEC in the last months of his presidency.
In my humble opinion ,I don’t know you are the legal eagle;I think the fixed term is not a deterrent for the president to fire the CSAFP.
As to the the president and the CSAFP,disagreeing,even if it does happen,will that be a risk for overthrow or kicking out a president ala Thailand/Thakshin?
August 25th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Karl Garcia :
Civilian control over the military.
Your example of President vs CSAFP was clear,but is it not stated in the constitution,is it not supposed to be Civilian Authority over the Military?
Back to Thailand.
I sense a civilian control through political rivals and king makers,just like home.
So, the bottomline is; what happened was civilian control not civilian authority control over military,at least during the EDsas 1 and 2.
We need a Magna Carta for professionalism of the military,if we don’t have one yet.Obviously the constitution was not followed during the the second Edsa after declaring that civilian authoritry over the military. With the goings on,which is top level priority?Lahat priority One.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:20 am
Karl Garcia :
But again Jaxius,
I think A fixed term would be beneficial for the AFP, if the CSAFP has a particular program.
In general ganyan ang nagyayari sa atin kahit san,lalo na sa sports, no continuity.
Continuity not continuous,iba yon.
Or would you rather have a micromanaging president?(kahit sa corporate world,it is very dreaded(micromanaging ceos,svps))
August 25th, 2007 at 7:43 am
“Karl, maybe we should recommend him to the Manila Standard job position.”
does he also come by at alternick d0d0ng? considering the stylometric 0 [zero] he subs for O? just wondering. not that it totally matters to me.
inidoro, if i were to guess, i think d0d0ng is another person altogether.
cvj,
I think the answer is Yes, I stand by everything I said in various posts about religious assemblies being constitutionally indistinguishable from NGOs and even political parties representing marginalized sectors under the party list system.
That is because freedom of religion is a derivative of the freedom of opinion, and churches are nothing more than expressions of the freedom of assembly.
but are you asking me some kind of trick question. Surely an Islamic state, which gathers together all Muslims under a single political entity, which is what pat diaz is talking about cannot be mistaken by us for an NGO or political party list.
He’s talking about Bangsamorostan!
The weirdness of noneligibility is demonstrated in the fact, for example, that the No. 1 Party list this year was an El Shaddai controlled party list!
ouch!
“the gk ideological split” ? just another example of the impossibility of “unity” in any organization – from the smallest social club to a nation. personal interest, e.g., ambition, politics, power, popularity, applause, will always get in the way. pride and envy are a powerful engine of disunity leading to self-destruction.
I.N.E
I also think DoD0ng is another person,but who knows.
Sa tingin ko lumalabas lang sya pag malapit na election while visting his website,his contributors have 2004 in mind,even misprojecting the supposed annualu buddget of the nextb admin.(what a blueprint it turned out to be.
At dinare pa ng isang contributor kung if you call your self Filipinos you contribute. Does that contributor know that he is on your website benigs? By the way you shown it there is nothing Filipinos left in you..
If his contributors know who they are are representing,I wonder if they will continue to be getrealist.
Ang isa pa sa di ko matanggap, di ko lang matanggap ay ang pag espouse ng change getrealist daw.
back to the article of my cousin(my grand father,mother Jim Paredes,he said he bloged the article,he did not,he contributed that for the Philippine Star and the online version has a comment section. And becasue he questioned certain barriers to change,he now got suddenly adopted him as a celebrity getrealist.
Come on Benigs,what are you trying to celebrate? Get Real!
I was supposed to delete certain words,but then again I pressed submit like a trigger happy cowboy.
Now to the three year deadline,to get rid of insurgency.
Say what again,madamme. Tell that to the Marines!
Oh you just did,with matching boodle fight!
i think benignO is the real devil’s advocate here, with due respect to the first one who adopted that name, devilsadvoc8. it appears that benignO’s is a lonely voice representing the opposite view, the unpopular, the unconventional. his words often hurts in the same manner that truth can cause pain. in a world of one-tract thinking and band-wagon mentality, his voice is a necessary component of free thought that brings us closer, if not to, the truth.
i, for one, respect and admire courageous non-conformity, a willingness to be judged harshly for his conviction, and be subjected to what amounts to a verbal lynching. popular points of view are not necessarily true and, conversely, unacceptable opinions are not necessarily false.
DJB, thanks for the clarifications. I asked the above questions as a straighforward query to find out (1) whether your ‘Church as NGO’ concept applies equally to Christian and Muslim individuals and/or parties – to which you answered ‘yes’; (2) whether you would in principle, allow the participation of Islamic parties in the party list process – to which you also answered ‘yes’; and (3) to identify where exactly you draw the line between ‘Church as NGO’ and a ‘Theocracy’ – which is not clear to me at this point.
In a democratic set-up, it is theoretically possible for a religious party, either nationally or in certain regions, to dominate (to the point of replacing secular political parties) because of popular support. In that event, wouldn’t an administration led by that religous group (whether Christian or Muslim) constitute a de-facto theocracy? What, in your scheme of things, prevents ‘Church as NGO’ from becoming a (popularly-supported) theocracy once a relgious party assumes power?
On your accusing Patricio Diaz of advocating an Islamic Theocracy (aka ‘Bangsamorostan’), i think some clarification is in order. The passage that you quoted above…
…was a proposal made by Michael Mastura back in 1971 in his capacity as delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Patricio Diaz was just recounting what Mastura said.
Bencard, from the published accounts, the GK-split was brought about by disagreements in matters of substance rather than the ‘pride and envy’ that you mention. I do believe though that such disagreements fueled the type of personality politics that we observe more commonly in government institutions. This is something that those who sought to disengage themselves from political involvement and concentrate instead on GK-type activities should reflect on.
Has anyone noticed that most car drivers who have road rage have CfC stickers on their windshields?
Winnie Monsod’s column is titled, Get Real
I wonder…
naaah! couldn’t be. or could it?
could it?
cvj, “personality politics” is not a monopoly of government institutions. ask any ngo officer or former officer, or a private organization funded by public contributions. ostensible cause of split may be “matters of substance” to you but if you scratch the surface a little deeper, you may find that, ultimately, it’s not for the cause but for applause. btw, you are right that this happens more frequently in power politics, e.g. multiple factions within the same party; factions within npa, milf, even maybe abu sayyap, the katipunan (magdalo and magdiwang), the communists (maoists and bolsheviks), the president’s cabinet (the hyatt 10 vs. the loyalists), etc., etc. the rest of the people are usually the pawns and unwitting tool of the struggle for power, but seldom, if ever, the beneficiary of it
on malu:
the keyboard is mightier than the pen.
if the pen is mightier than the sword,
then, the keyboard is mightier than the sword.
…btw, i was not referring to the enclosure of a fatty livestock which is also a pen…but, come to think of it…it was a pig’s pen that succumbed to the keyboard…
Bencard,
I it still devil’s advocating when you say it and mean it and then rub it in and add insult to injury?
OK forget it, Benigs had more than enough attention he deserved,pag mawala sya dito,mababawasan ng entertainment and thought pondering,and lumalabas na dapat nga natin mahalin ang Pilipinas,kung tama si Bencard na he is just merely devil’s advocating..
And Bencard,in addition…
I agree that in any split even emotions and the so called professional split,emotions are involved.
When they say,don’t decide when you are angry,even if that decision pushed through after a hang over,emotions
are still a factor. That goes the same in resigning,or in organized sports; being asked to be traded to another team.
In short…TAO lang po.
Me mali na naman sa tinype ko,basta I get my point accross.bahala na.
About unity in organizations,some organizations last for centuries,but of course the founding members are already six feet under.
Re: the chinese,again if we are to believe the cinemas,the modern chinoy’s story (Mano po)is different from the chinoy’s of the old,they use politics more now,because of their numbers and as a result of thir hard labor theyu use money now even as bribery or ransom paying.
But the point is they were able to do that become rich,while being frowned upon,in the so called dysfunctional society because of self responsibility,di ba kaya din naman natin yun?
Dapat yata si Flavier ang next president..sa slogan nya na LET’S DOH IT!
(this is a bit late…)
on malu:
the keyboard is mightier than the pen.
if the pen is mightier than the sword,
then, the keyboard is mightier than the sword.
…btw, i was not referring to the enclosure of a fatty livestock which is also a pen…but, come to think of it…it was a pig’s pen that succumbed to the keyboard…
what about the sword? why bring the word up? the closer i can get to malu’s plight is a pork sword. you may not like to google its meaning but, suffice to say, she probably screwed herself to joblessness.
Personality politics….
Sa party system ng democrats and republicans ,where the so called issues instead of personalities, then whaat do you call,when it is time to to the last man/woman standing part,is the last man/woman standing the one with issues in mind,or of course personality. I am talking of the parties,not the presedential electoal colleges.
As to the brits parliaments,is it an issue based,parliament or the blame it on blair parliamien.and again Thailand,was it more on issues,than thaksinomics,thaksinwatchamacollits.
So Bencard,you are correct,in short.
But as i said politics is everywhere,no matter how we say to stick to the isues,it will still be personality based.
As to advocacies,it is no longer clear to me what that word is.
Me ipaglalaban ka tapos sa kompromiso at botohan din mapupunta.
That is why Devil’s don’t be offended by my term of lobbying,because what else can it be called.
Since I am now in research,I have discovered another animal meissing in our legislature,We lack a formal research department in both chambers.
Kaya lahat ng laws natin di pa nga tapos ina ammend na.
Yang HSA na yan tama si DJB,panahon pa ni Jamby yan, at ang daming mata pinagdaanan nyan bago naaprubahan,and yet Jamby is supposed to be scientific in her approach,bakit dispalinhago despite all the ammendments,that is because of lack of a formal research department.
It is not not just simply issues,it needs research,not just pure lobying and consulting non implementors.
and again it maybe due to tagakotta’s award called PNI, which is due to personality and PLEEEASE don’t tell me it is unique to the Philippines.At least dito hindi masyado nagsusuntukan ang mga legislators,Sa taiwan,sa and recently sa Bolivia and some untelevised and umpublished incidents ang mga legislators kaunting disagreement lang suntukan na,walang babaebabae.
karl, hindi nga nasuntukan, pero nagsaksakan naman sila patalikuran, buti lang yon suntukan tapos kamustahan pag talo or manalo man.
I fully agree with you that Research is lacking in legislature. Evey law proposed should be scrutinze against the provisions of the Constitution in order not to be in conflict with its spirit and later be declared in violation as soon as first challenge. that is the process. again every case that comes to the court, a very good lawyer will challenge the evidence for admisability for its constitutionality and could win a case just for a law so hurriedly enacted and that law becomes so unenforceable and go back for “repair”.
Bencard, no offense taken. i derived my name here from the movie of the same title, not from epitomizing the exact meaning of the phrase. the movie’s theme is my guiding principle in life. that all of our acts and decisions are a continuing struggle bet good and evil, and that no good act, no matter how supremely divine it is, ever finishes in its being “good.” our struggle with our conscience is a lifelong struggle. perhaps to complement this picture, i have the idea of myself as having a devil inside, always assiduously exerting its influence on me, and my protracted battle with it.
My motto: Decide with reason, act with conviction.
Bencard, with regards to your assertion that personality politics is not limited to government institutions, you are preaching to the converted. In fact (just like Karl) i would go further. As i told Rego around this time last year, politics is present even in private organizations that are not funded by public contributions but by profit:
I believe you should instead be addressing your message to Rego and the others who have decided to join the ‘Revolution of the Silent’.
As Manolo asked him in response:
The beneficiaries (or would-be beneficiaries) of GK are now about to find out.
Sabi na nga ba me isa pang nagbaback read dito si CVJ nga pala yon.
Vic, point taken,di nga nagsusuntukan pero backstabbibg ang dami,sa tingin mo suntukan na lang at least walang plastikan,tingnan ko magsuntukan si Bong Revilla at sino pa bang action star,ay wala na pala.
cvj,
all your points are granted, except one: that the line between theocracy and Church as NGO is not clear.
You are trying to muddle this line in order to claim that I actually support theocracy or do not know the difference with Church as NGO.
The line is drawn between the letters “N” and “G” in NGO, and it is defined by the Bill of Rights on religious freedom (confusingly by correctly called “Separation of Church and State”) which states that
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
America is predominantly Christian, yet Islam flourishes there better than Indonesia or Saudi Arabia, where of course it is a capital offense to convert out of islam.
I think there is a big difference between the Catholic Church and Islam.
Islam upholds theocracy explicitly and practices it, uhmm religiously in fundamentalist Islamic States, where the rule for Muslims is different from those in dhimmitude–certainly not the egalite of democracy.
By contrast, if you read Deus Caritas Est by Benedict, you find him quoting almost verbatim, as Church policy, the Bill of Rights of the US constitution.
I assert that for a very long time, the Christian tradition churches have adjusted to, and ACCEPTED the Separation of Church and State and the democratic principles of relgious freedom.
Islam has not!
DJB, as far as i know, Pope Benedict only speaks for the Roman Catholics and not the entire Christendom. Try explaining the concept of separation of Church and State to the Evangelical Christians, many of whom form the backbone your President W’s base. In the same way, certain strains of Islam like the US-backed Wahhabi rulers of Saudi Arabia as well as the Iranian Shiites in Iran do support and implement a theocratic system of government.
These are, however, not the only Muslim countries. Next door you have Malaysia and Indonesia. In the Middle East, you have Turkey and Lebanon and in Europe you have Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. These Muslim countries cannot be considered theocracies so a Muslim-run government doesn’t necessarily mean it will be a theocratic one. To associate Datu Michael Mastura’s statement (made in 1971) above with a call for a theocratic Bangamoro-stan is once again disingeneous and comes close to Benign0-style stereotyping.
I understand and accept that the line is clear between your idea of Church as NGO and a Theocracy. In that instance, the ‘N’ part is unmistakeable. What made it muddled is your support for religious parties to be included in the Party-list system which essentially removes the ‘N’. Once a relgious party is inside the government (via the legislature), it would be natural to expect them to support policies favorable to their religion. Beyond some threshold of support, it will get enough power to set the political agenda at the expense of secularism.
cvj,
Those democratic Muslim majority countries are precisely the societies being targeted for overthrow by the Global Jihad, which hates the fact that they have adopted democracy. I agree that any democracy can come to be dominated by Muslim majorities in the population.
Regarding the Christian Right, they are a part of
democracy’s diversity, just as the Islamic Right is part of some of those Muslim dominated majorities.
But you have skirted my main point that in general Islam does not accept the Separation of Church and State, while in general Christendom does. Not even the Christian Right would repeal the Bill of Rights even if they are fighting for more rights as Christians. That’s no different than labor unions or political parties, really. So in a sense they are like our party list politics!
Christendom has evolved beyond the stage of claiming “they are the one true Church (and ought to run the State)” in a political and material sense. The Catholic Church still claim that, but in an increasingly muted and clearly demoted way from the time of the Crusades. And only Islamic theocracies will arrest and behead you if you try to leave the religion now in the 21st Century.
Regarding Bangsamorostan, it’s not theoretical.
It’ll happen before we know it. Before people get even halfway as far this blog in understanding what is going on.
cvj,
What is the difference between a Church and a “religious party” as you call it? Do you think churches can call for political changes?
Do you agree that Churches are equivalent to NGO’s under the Bill of Rights? If not, what exactly is the difference?
DJB, i haven’t argued that the Muslim majority countries are being threatened by religous extremists (to varying degrees) so don’t make it appear that i’m doing so.
The American Christian Right’s advocacies include the continuing ban on Gay Marriage, re-instituting school prayer, overturning Roe v. Wade, supporting Israel (as a prelude to the Second Coming), promoting abstinence-only education, and downplaying the teaching of Evolution (via promoting ‘Intelligent Design’). All of these have the effect of imposing their sets of beliefs on the rest of America and involve the matter of separation between Church and State even if the evangelicals do not explicitly say so.
What is the point in arguing that Christendom (i.e. the Roman Catholic part) has accepted the principle of separation while Islam has not when you have acknowledged that democracy in countries with Muslim majorities does indeed exist? You do realize that historically, whatever concession Christianity has given to secular forces has been the result of years of struggle from the secularists. Separation of Church and State is not something that has been freely bestowed by the Church. Pope Benedict’s pronouncements are just a belated acknowledgement of reality. As a faith, Muslims are also trying to come to terms with coexisting with a plural and democratic world. Just like the Christians, there is a spectrum of conservatives (e.g. Wahhabis), moderates and liberals. To freeze-frame the entire Islamic faith as a monolithic religion that beheads apostates is as unfair as portraying Catholicism as it was during the days of the Spanish Inquisition.
As for Bangsamorostan, what would help bring it about is continuing polarization and radicalization brought about by a war that you support.
cvj,
I agree: I am the one saying that those democratic Muslim countries are threatened by Al Qaeda. You are the one saying they are not!
The Christian Right is entitled to its fantasies just as much as the American Left, and is the main reason that I welcome their existence: to define the great democratic middle with finer precision.
But you haven’t answered the question:
Do you believe churches are equivalent to NGO’s?
If not, what exactly is the difference.
CVJ,
And I remember my reply to Manolo, that time too…
The reason why we decided on the scholarship project over other suggested projects is that we believe that education better equip the benfeciaries with a good fighting chance in life. When they encounter such mess then they have they capability to fight or get out for themselves.
On the split , I remember our group encountered a very serious split 6 years ago too. The reason is actually very similar to the ones pointed out by Bencard. But the good thing is that out of that split the the project was born.
So Im saying that any split in whatever groups or organization should not always be perceieved as negative. Some positive thing can also come out from a split. That is the reason why I belive that the opposition is also very important in a democratic country suhc as ours. Check and balance. But what I really dont like about the oppsition is when they fall into teh “pare pareho lang system” . That is when they are actually doing the same “dirty trick” as the administration. E.g. Gloria is into political dynasty and so are the opposition…..that there is really no clear defining line betewen the two.
cvj,
The main reason Leftists and Liberals insist on characterizing what is going on in Mindanao as “an all out war” is they want to deny the moral obligation we all have for the Law to be enforced.
What is also ignored is that the Basilan PNP are hardly capable of taking on “lawless elements” that are actually capable of wiping out uniformed, heavily armed Philippine marines.
You consider this attempt at law enforcement to be “radicalization and polarization” by war mongers like me.
But the ambuscade and beheadings are just expression of Moro pride in their glorious past right?
I even believe that the peopel who do perfrm teh most affectiev check and balance is are not inteh oppsition but is in the administration. Like Joker, Gordon, Jun Magsaysay. They are actually their going against the the administration policies are teh ones that produces results. Like, Joker in the Venable contract, Gordon on the EO 464 , and Jun Magsaysay on the fertilizer scam…
CVJ,
It was Jeffeson who has coined the separation of church and state and first explained to it to the Danburry Baptists.
This is frrom Wiki, just correct me if I am wrong.
“The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878….”
We all know that that was not he official first ammendment btw.
Going back to wikipedia on separation, so the US historically claimed to be the first one to have practiced separation; let us go the France and Turkey, where the former is a Catholic nation and Turkey a predominantly Islam one.
“Two common examples of the most active type of separation are France and Turkey. The French version of separation is called laïcité. This model of a secularist state protects the religious institutions from some types of state interference, but with public religious expression also to some extent limited. This aims to protect the public power from the influences of religious institutions, especially in public office. Religious views which contain no idea of public responsibility, or which consider religious opinion irrelevant to politics, are less impinged upon by this type of secularization of public discourse. Turkey, whose population is overwhelmingly Muslim, is also considered to have practiced the laïcité school of secularism since 1923. While France comes from a Roman Catholic tradition and Turkey from an Islamic one, secularism in Turkey and secularism in France present many similarities.”
Point of digression,
A question for whom it may concern,
Why is it that when I search for ancestral domain,even if the source is american,the Mindanao issue still shows up somehow.
Does the international theater see the Mindanao issue as an an ancestral domain issue?
I am still agog at the IPRA Law and the Supreme court: Tagalogs and Pampangos are not indigenous peoples of the Philippines–meaning to say they own NO ancestral domains.
The total land area covered by the IPRA ancestral domain absurdity is one third of the total land area, according to Art Panganiban, who wrote the opinion for seven justices voting against IPRA. Reynato Puno wrote the opinion of the prevailing seven justices.
12 million “indigenous peoples” own one third of the philippines as ancestral domains.
But when you look at the History on which Puno bases this all, it’s a laughable mockery being an imitation of most public school elementary texts.
I caught the Gordon Interview for a few minutes.
I cvaught the last potrtion before asked about basilan..
That if SriLanka can do it,why can’t we?
There is nothing to conclude but let me try?
Sri Lanka has been war torn,but they can isolate it just to certain areas,so they can promote torism,tayo siguro hindi naman sa lahat as percieved war torn kaya siguro ituloy pa din natin ang laban sa turismo.
Ewan ko as my favorite person Benin0 calls it, it is a mere conjecture. di papasa ke BrianB yon,bakit di pa gawing guess or judgment na mas maikli.
Now on the Garci issue,about how can national interest be the issue,when it is public order which is supposed to be the issue, according to Dick. Another topic in passing is the HSA…
The HSA is stricter because you have to go to the court of appeals,etc.etc.etc.
He doesn’t want war,he wants development….comparing to other nations,again.
If he really wants that to happen, how can the good senator put a stop or initiate a stop, to the millions of pesos wasted to revolutionary taxes,explosions of cellsites. Oh he already answered that, even without hearing my question,with the HSA.
I know I am jumping topics,here but still how can development be achieved with so many constraints?
Now going back to the resarch department proposal for both chambers of the house.
Atty Lacierda,do we have enough constitutional lawyers around,so we could have laws crafted,with out its constitutionality being questioned afterwards?
IMO,if such a research department is to be found feasible (if anyone dares to initiate it),will we have enough cionstitutional lawyers scrutinize each proposal? Just asking.
Or why not make every proposal open to the public. online legislation,who knows?
I really should think and dream that one day our reps will we answerable to its constituents.
Speaking of officials answerable to its voters.
Sa ngayon matalo ka lang sa boxing wala na ang panagko ni GOV na ipasemento ang kalye…what can I say?
Is it enough to say that we get what we ask for when electing officials.
BTW, Jaxius,I never heard from you since our last “conversation”,did I bore you?
If IPRA were implemented in the United States, it would mean giving back most of the Western Time Zone to who ever are descendants of the native American indians “by self-ascription or ascription by others.”
Except that here in the Philippines, sometime next month, GMA and the Peace Processors will give the Maguindanao Warlords (Zubiri’s Benefactors), along with Eid kabbalu Al hadj murad and the rest of the milf capi di tutti capos the equivalent just of California right in the middle of the Pulangi River Basin!
That’s what I refer to as Bangsamorostan. Not some far in the future thingy. I bet the first consular office to open will be from South Waziristan.
KG:any law can be questioned on constitutional grounds if someone hates it enough, or has enough vested interests affected by the new law to justify the expense of taking the constitutional challenge to the SC. And the challenge doesn’t even have to be sound. All a lawyer has to do is to come up with a colorable excuse to call the law unconstitutional and he can tie up implementation long enough to sap the law of whatever vitality it might have had. No research department can help that. The solution, I think, is not to change the way laws are made or to call for more lawyers (gack!), but to improve the way constitutional challenges are resolved. Make it swifter, maybe.
On a similar note, online legislation does not address the constitutionality issue, but the desirability issue. Opening up law making to the public supposedly aims to ensure that laws people agree with are formulated. But that is a weak and populist stance that will cause more problems that it can solve.
“All a lawyer has to do is to come up with colorable excuse to call the law unconstitutional and he can tie up implementation long enough to sap the law of whatever vitality it might have had”. Rom.
so nicely written but so wrong. in the first place, a law can only be challenged by a real party affected by the law in question in connection with a real controversy with another party. a lawyer cannot just conjure up an issue out of nowhere and bring it before the sc.
in the second place, the law is VALID, until it is pronounced invalid by the sc. so there can be no delay in its implementation to “sap whatever vitality” it has. it has to be obeyed and complied with until its nullity is declared.
DJB, i don’t know how you can keep accusing me of denying that Al Qaeda/Jemaah Islamiyah is a problem when i just said above (at August 25th, 2007, t 1:00 am) that JI/AQ must be expelled (together with the American/Australian soldiers). In an earlier thread, i also responded to you (in a comment made at August 21st, 2007, 11:30 pm in Manolo’s ‘Shake, Rattle and Roll’ thread) that “there are those on the opposing side (me included) who likewise recognize that the terrorist threat is real. What you and i disagree on is the means to address the threat.”
I haven’t really given it much thought but i find nothing wrong in your ‘Church as NGO’ thesis. (If you explain where this is leading to, maybe i eventually will.) As i said above, what i find inconsistent is holding this view of Church outside government (aka NGO) side by side with Church inside government via party list representation which enters a grey area as far as Church-State separation is concerned.
As for your remarks at August 26, 2007 9:10pm, you are inventing a strawman again.
Rego, your observation on how political divisions are not necessarily a bad thing (as in the case of your group) is a good one and i hope that Bencard would take note of that before using what happened to GK to bash the political dynamics within Philippine Society. I hope the GK situation works out for the best as it did for your group.
Comments censored. Too Truthful.
Rom, one other way to minimize enacted law being declared unconstitutional by any level of courts where it is first challenged (and it is no longer enforceable unless reversed by the higher court on appeal)is for the legislature, when in doubt may ask the opinion of the SC as to the constitutionality by submitting a formal questionnaire for the SC opinion. It is usually reserved for some law that was referred back to the legislature for its provisions which were declared unconstitutional, but not the whole.
In reality court challenges have tied most of our cases here both in criminal and civil courts due to the “newness” of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Chief Justice has just spoken on that issue during the latest meeting of the Country’s Lawyers. But eventually, they’ll find a way of streamlining the process as the courts, the parliament and the lawyers are all working on the solutions Right Now…
PRC NUrsing exam results 2007. Philippine nursing exam.
cvj, before lecturing me on the matter of “bashing” politics in organizations, please read again and analyze the context of my comment. i did not say that the problem is “necessarily” a bad thing. there are definitely exceptions and rego’s group is apparently one of them. why do i always have to spell out to you the import of what i write?
vic, there you go again, “teaching” us on canadian law and practices. in the philippines, the sc has the sole jurisdiction to pass upon the validity or unconstitutionality of a statute or executive order. it is not an advisory body, and as i explained in my preceding post, it can only inquire into a law’s validity in an actual controversy properly brought before it by contending parties.
then one question bencard, what happened if the trial court declare an accused not guilty because of the defect of the law which he was accused of and the prosecutor decide not to appeal the ruling? that law as far as I know, which ever country now becomes unenforceable and therefor no longer valid. just about every law in any country has the same purpose and legal origin mostly that of the British Common Law and their not much difference, only the enforcement in a country which institutions are weak and so is the case in the Philippines.
not lecturing anyone here on anything and just like you I don’t present myself to be expert on anything and my posting are my observation as a long time resident here as maybe compared to other countries. if it is good here it could also be good somewhere, ain’t that reasonable?
Bencard, i think you’re the one who has to reread your own posts. Remember “just another example of the impossibility of ‘unity’ in any organization – from the smallest social club to a nation.“? What about “…not for the cause but for applause“? If you intended to convey the message that politics is not necessarily a bad thing, then you managed to hide it well.
cvj,
thanks, you are a true intellectual. Expel BOTH al qaeda/ji and Austalia/America.
VERY intellectual!
how in the world you can interpret those two quotes as saying “politics is a bad thing”, really escapes me. if, indeed, politics makes unity impossible, how can it be bad if as rego’s group exemplified, it’s split eventually redound to the benefit of many, if not all. but did it negate my premise that unity is not possible as long as there is politics involved? as usual, your logic doesn’t compute. again, if the motivation is applause, not the cause, does a split (politics) becomes “necessarily a bad thing”? again, as rego’s group shows, motivation of its movers and shakers in splitting is not “necessarily a bad thing”. btw, suit yourself -however you want to construe my comments, it’s your problem, not mine.
DJB, because of American presence, we Filipinos have been caught in the geopolitical crossfire once too often in our history. As to your calling me an ‘intellectual’, i’m looking forward to your explanation of what that’s supposed to mean.
Bencard, if i follow your line of reasoning above (at 3:48am), does that mean that you don’t consider it necessarily a bad thing when you said that “the rest of the people are usually the pawns and unwitting tool of the struggle for power, but seldom, if ever, the beneficiary of it.” (at August 26th, 2007, 1:53 am)?