 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Trapos� Initiative
By Antonio C. Abaya Written Oct. 30, 2006 For the Standard Today, October 31 issue The eight members of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, who voted to dismiss the petition for a people�s initiative to amend the Constitution towards a shift to the parliamentary system, are to be congratulated for their wisdom, Special mention must be made of Justice Antonio Carpio who penned the rightfully harsh decision against the petition. As far as this non-lawyer can make out, the Supreme Court decision faults the petition on three major grounds. ONE. The 6.3 million individuals who signed the signature sheet of the Sigaw ng Langaw did not know what they were signing. There was ample anecdotal proof of this on television when citizens who had signed the petition admitted as much, that they did not know what they were signing, or that they signed because they were being given P100 or P200 each for their signatures, or that they signed because the barrio captain (or some other local official) had asked them to sign. The Supreme Court decision, penned by Justice Carpio, specifically faulted the petitioners for failing to attach a copy of their petition to the signature sheets when they asked people to sign, and cited the leading petitioner�s own admission before the Court that they had printed only 100,000 copies of their petition. The Court estimated, rather generously and credibly, that based on that slim total only one million signatories, out of the 6.3 million, actually had the chance to read what it was they were signing for. Wrote Justice Carpio: �For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing. They could not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes, among which are:� (And here I have to summarize): a) no more term limits for MPs, who can thus be re-elected indefinitely; b) the interim MPs, who are members of the present Congress, will determine the expiration of their own term of office; c) within 45 days of the ratification of the proposed changes, the Interim Parliament shall convene to propose further revisions or amendments to the Constitution. (Section 4[4] of the petition.). Thus, wrote Justice Carpio, �Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.� TWO. Justice Carpio calls Section 4 (4) an example of log-rolling, which, he says, is outlawed in American jurisprudence on people�s initiatives. Log-rolling is �when the initiative petition incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the same petition. This puts the people in a dilemma since they can answer only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing them to sign a petition that effectively contains two propositions, one of which they may find unacceptable. �Under American jurisprudence, the effect of log-rolling is to nullify the entire proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter.� The strategic goal of the subterfuge is apparently to get voters� approval for other, disguised propositions, such as foreign ownership of Philippine media. Carpio: �The people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their signatures would be used to propose an amendment mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution��. �The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and effect of the proposed changes. Certainly, such an initiative is not �directly proposed by the people� because the people do not even know the nature and effect of the proposed changes.� THREE. Section 4 (3) of the petition effectively shuts out all senators from becoming members of the Interim Parliament, but effectively makes all present members of the Lower House members of that Interim Parliament. Carpio: �The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the senators. The 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their signatures would be used to discriminate against the senators. They could not have known that their signatures would be used to limit, after June 30, 2010 (when the last senators� terms expire), the Interim Parliament�s choice of Prime Minister only to members of the existing House of Representatives. Concludes Justice Carpio: �An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendment is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people.. �In short, the Lambino Group�s initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dismally fails to comply with the requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that the initiative must be �directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.�� We congratulate Justice Carpio for his lucid mind that was able to see through the fog of deception deliberately generated by shameless politicians in order to perpetuate themselves in power. Many of us non-lawyers have always believed that this was no People�s Initiative, but only a self-serving Trapos� Initiative. Now we know for certain that it is. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |
| Reactions to �Trapos� Initiative�
Tony, See below for how the deceptive style of the "people's initiative" affected the manner (but not the substantive results) of opinion polling. Mahar (Mangahas), [email protected], Oct. 31, 2006 Social Weather Stations THE �PEOPLE�S INITIATIVE� FAILED TO TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WERE SIGNING FOR By: Mahar Mangahas The lead-off argument of the Supreme Court�s majority decision on October 25 to reject the �People�s Initiative� is that the great majority of the signatories were not told what amendments in the Constitution they were supposed to be petitioning for. This is consistent with SWS�s report: �Six of every ten of those approached on a petition said that they were not shown the amendments which they were asked to sign� in its July 13, 2006 Media Release ��No�Vote In Cha-cha Plebiscite Rises To 67%; Only 6.8% Have Signed A Petition.� What the Supreme Court said The Supreme Court stated: �The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures � that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments.� [Bold in original] After showing the Initiative�s signature sheet, with the proposition -- �Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 constitution, changing the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in government and providing an Article XVIII as transitory provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another?� -- the Court pointed out: �There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino Group�s proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it.� [Bold in original] The Court stated that the Lambino Group admission that it printed 100,000 copies of the petition establishes that, �if ever,� not more than 1 million people (at 10 signatories per signature sheet) saw the petition before signing it, or far less than the 6.3 million signatories claimed by the Group. The Court said: �In any event, the Lambino Group�s signature sheets do not contain the full text of the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the signature sheet of such attachment. Petitioner Atty. Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds the Lambino Group. This fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature sheet. This omission is fatal.� ... �For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing. They could not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes, among which are: 1. The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and thus members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely; 2. The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its members, who are almost all the present members of Congress, decide to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will determine the expiration of their own terms of office; 3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments or revision to the Constitution.�[Bold in original] Relation to SWS opinion polling From the start of the signature-gathering campaign, SWS tried, without success, to find the exact text of the petition for constitutional amendment. The signature-sheet passed around Barangay Sikatuna Village in Quezon City , where SWS is located, was the same as cited by Supreme Court, with no attachment; the Barangay office had no further information. It was only after the Lambino Group had already filed its petition with Comelec that I first obtained a copy. Since we did not know the text of the petition, the June SWS survey simply asked those approached for signature: �Were you shown the exact amendments they favor, for you to read?� (�Pinakita po ba nila sa inyo ang eksaktong mga pagbabago na kanilang pinapaboran, para mabasa ninyo?�) Furthermore, in order to gauge the vote in case of a plebiscite, we simply referred to it as voting for �a new Constitution that the President wants� (�sa bagong Konstitusyon na gusto ng Pangulo�). On July 18, 2006 , a press release from the Advocacy Commission called the SWS survey �doctored,� alleging that our reference to �what the President wants� was meant to take advantage of GMA�s unpopularity. (They failed to notice that SWS�s Net Satisfaction Rating for GMA improved from �25 in March 2006 to �13 in June 2006. If it were related to GMA�s popularity, then the expected �No� vote in a cha-cha plebiscite should have fallen, instead of risen, from 56% to 67%, over the period.) In an internal memorandum to the SWS Board on July 27, 2006 , I explained: �The ideal way to phrase a question on a plebiscite is to use the exact proposition on which the electorate will be asked to vote. At this point, however, one still has to guess what the proposition will be. I used the phrase �what the President wants� only as a short-hand for what a survey respondent expects to be proposed by her or her allies. I had no particular expectation as to what her survey rating would be.� As to the summary-proposition found in the signature sheet, I commented: �Art. VI and VII presently contain, inter alia, the provisions for term limits to the positions of President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives. SWS polls have shown strong public opposition to removing these term limits, most especially the limit to the term of the President. Thus the proposition is highly deceptive if one of its unstated implications is the removal of the term limits. I have seen a putative Art.XVIII (circulated by Sen. _____ ) letting the incoming parliament have authority to set the schedule for the next election, thus making the term of office of MPs indefinite.� I also informed the SWS Board: �On July 7, 2006, the General Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Bishops-Businessmen�s Conference for Human Development (which I attended as a member of the BBC Excom) included the topic of �Charter Change and Electoral Reforms,� with presentations by Vicente T. Paterno and Christian Monsod, and reactions by Archbishop Antonio R. Ledesma, Sen. Mar Roxas, and Rep. Constantino Jaraula. I was flabbergasted to hear Rep. Jaraula (Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments) tell the body that he himself did not know what exactly would be in the petition for constitutional change to be brought before the Comelec. I.e., he argued that the One Voice Movement is wrong to criticize something not yet finalized.� If, as late as July 7, 2006 , Rep. Jaraula himself was unaware of the contents of the petition, the most plausible explanation is that the exact petition had not been finalized by the Lambino Group. This is consistent with the Supreme Court�s conclusion that the signatories were not told exactly what it was that they were signing for. ***** wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Unedited) Dear Tony, The dismissal of Peoples Initiative is actually victory for GMA. The change from presidential to parliamentary is not GMA idea but of JDV and FVR. Only GMA compromise with them because she knows JDV (with his allies in lower house) can easily impeach her and senate conviction is already given. Of course to avoid this she pretend to support the people�s initiative but truly she doesn�t like this to be successful because she will lose the power to JDV which for sure will be elected Prime minister in the first parliament. Now, she must be laughing inside, because the hello Garci issue already died down and JDV still think she is for charter change. I am still for charter changes now because the next President will not for sure be threaten and no way he/she going to give up the presidency. The right timing is now because GMA is afraid of JDV. On the other hand if you think JDV, because frustrated, will rebel and agree to impeach GMA will not be a possibility. JDV will not do this; because he thinks if GMA is remove and NOLI / VILLAR replace her there will be no chance for his charter change. It is the classic case of scratch my back I scratch yours. Now if you are happy that PI was dismissed, GMA is much happier. I�m sure Panganiban vote was influenced by GMA. Alex Yalung, [email protected], Taiwan, Oct. 31, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Round 1 goes to the people. Future rounds may not, as the people are facing a very determined lot to reshape existing power structures to suit their self-serving agendas. And the future Supreme Court may not be as enlightened once Panganiban retires and is replaced by someone who could tilt the balance to the other side. It's Halloween every day for the Pinoy. Rafael Alunan III, [email protected], Oct. 31, 2006 Former Secretary of the Interior and Local Government wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi, Mr. Antonio Abaya, I�m not sure if I got to send this link to you. It�s my article which got published in the Letters section of the Philippine Daily Inquirer (Oct. 30) Claude Despabiladores, [email protected], Oct 31, 2006 NTO THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF Isagani Cruz�s column, �The blight of billboards� (PDI, 10/21/06 ), I was getting ready to stand up and applaud the retired Supreme Court justice, whose sentiments about billboards I share completely. However, after reading the very last sentence, I didn�t end up clapping; I ended up dropping my arms in disbelief, dismay, disgust. It was unkind of Cruz to have made a very spiteful comment about the model on an insurance company�s billboards. Why did he have to presume that the man with a �commonplace face� probably thought that he had �the same magnetism as a seductive starlet�? Why that uncalled-for nastiness in a column that otherwise would have been a strong educative write-up? Was Cruz jealous and very resentful that it was not his face on display on those towering billboards? It was sad that Cruz, who�s supposedly very learned and wise, abused and misused his considerable journalistic power, using precious space to insult another person just for the heck of it. �CLAUDE LUCAS C. DESPABILADERAS, via e-mail wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony: Let me join you in congratulating the Supreme Court for doing its clear duty to protect the interest of the Filipino people by foiling a clear Machiavellian design of the "trapos" to hoodwink them into approving something which they did not really understand, but which could have had very serious consequences to the fundamental political structure of the country and thus to the interest of the Filipino people. Once more, the Supreme Court proved itself the faithful and courageous guardian of the liberties and the well-being of the country and the Filipino people. Here is one clear instance where the constitutional system of checks and balances has worked, against the trapos and in favor of the Constitution and the people. My one lament is that most of those who were represented as having signed the "people's initiative" did not really know what they were doing. I must assume that they did not bother to try to find out what they were asked to sign, what the consequences of their signatures were. Or, if there were those who did bother, were told not the truth but lies simply to get them to sign. These people could very well have signed their own death warrants, not knowing what it was all about. And here, in essence, is the fundamental defect of democracy as it operates in the Philippines. Real democracy can work only when the majority of the citizens participate in the democratic processes, are well informed and knowledgeable, and are thus able to participate intelligently. Absent these requirements, democracy does not and cannot work as it should. And that explains why the "trapos" are easily able to effectively capture its institutions. And that explains why those "trapos" willy-nilly are able to fool 6 million people into signing on to a deceptive and illegal "people's initiative" and come close to getting away with it--except for a vigilant and courageous Supreme Court. Mariano Patalinjug, [email protected], Yonkers, New York, Oct. 31, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, Good comments on Trapos Initiative, being one of the non-lawyers. I read the SC decision on this case. Words and statements in the decision were too harsh as if prepared by non-lawyers as well. It seemed to me that the statements and words are un-supreme court.It could have been more welcome if statements used are like the learned ones. Regards, Rey Corpuz, [email protected], Oct. 31, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, How many among the 6,327,592 initiative signers have so far lodged a complaint, claiming that Sigaw had "mislead and deceived" them into signing the petition? If, indeed, this was a "gigantic fraud" committed, where are these angry signers Sigaw "defrauded" that provoked Justice Carpio to accuse--and hand down a "guilty" verdict "logrolled" into one--that: "Atty. Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation." The decision does not refer to even one disgruntled signer to justify the accusation and guilty verdict of deception or fraud. I wonder why. Domingo T. Arong, [email protected], Oct. 31, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Mr. Abaya, The most important action that the president should act on is to stop the pork barrel that is given for free from the people�s money This is the most rabish and the most dirty law that we have in the Philippines. The country is getting poorer because of the free money given to these government officials. I don�t understand why the President still allows this dirty law that we have. Can this be stopped and what is your opinion about this? Genny Ferrer, [email protected], Nov. 01, 2006 MY REPLY. Actually, pork barrel is not given out in cash to congressmen and senators, who merely identify the projects they want to be included in the government�s infra program. Some, but not all, of the lawmakers have favorite contractors who get the contracts to build the infra. This is where the corruption occurs: contractors give commissions to the lawmakers who succeed in getting the contracts for them. But if you remove the pork barrel from the lawmakers, you just transfer the commissions to the people in the executive department (DPWH, DOTC, DILG, AFP, etc). Which do you prefer, corrupt politicians or corrupt bureaucrats?. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, At last the Supreme Court has seen the light. Give the parliamentary system a chance to grow and prosper. Dr. Nestor P. Baylan, [email protected], New York City, Nov. 01, 2006 MY REPLY. On the contrary, the Supreme Court decision blocks the shift to the parliamentary system, at least through the People�s Initiative. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Yes, Tony Carpio has to be congratulated. In fact, I was surprised, taken aback, when I read that he did not just vote junking the People's Initiative, but he also wrote the "harsh" opinion himself. I was also surprised that the vote was close. I had always thought that the petition was a 'no-brainer'. With that out of the way, the political circus starts and guess what - we shall vote into office the same shenanigans! Wow, aren't we really rolling - deadly downhill. . Cesar Sarino, [email protected], Nov. 01, 2006 Former Secretary of the Interior and Local Government wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks , Tukayo for your no-stop sharing of your column and write ups with your opinion. Most of all, I like this one, about this walang katapusang kalokohan ng mga trapo, they were the root cause of hardship and poverty in our land. Much better for them to establish their own nation in the middle and remote islands of the Pacific and name them as TRAPO REPUBLIC , para sila sila na lang mag-away away sa pansariling interest nila at pagpapayaman. Tony Dalagan, [email protected], Fairfax , Virginia , Nov 01, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, Thanks for your article. Am just curious, what is the difference between the millions of votes that ratified the 1987 Constitution without the electorate (at least most of them) having read the proposed constitution, vis-a-vis the six million who signed the People's Initiatives without having read what they signed. I was very much involved in the government campaign to ratify the Cory Constitution and was greatly surprised on the preponderance of Filipinos who voted for it without having read the proposed Constitution. Rick Ramos, [email protected], Nov. 01, 2006 MY REPLY: Your skepticism is well placed. The difference is that Cory did not use the 1987 Constitution to try to remain in power beyond one term. Gloria is using the People�s Initiative to do so beyond 2010. wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Amen, What is worrisome is that there are even seven Supreme Court justices who don�t have the same lucid minds as the eight, and presented dissenting opinions that sounded like twisted logic in tandem with self- vesting crooks! Jose Luis Yulo Jr., [email protected], Nov. 01, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Dear Tony, It gets clearer, coming from another non-lawyer, albeit a brilliant one. But I can't see how a lawyer like Raul Lambino (isn't he one?) can't get it clear. Or maybe he's blinded, just like Joe de V, by ambition; only Joe is doubly blind if he can't see that he'll never make PM, as long as GMA is alive. It's good that the other Raul has kept his mouth shut to keep more stupidity from coming out. Or did I miss out somewhere? Neither can I see how non-lawyers, like Alex Magno and Belinda Cunanan can dive into the niceties of legal reasoning and come out with the conclusion that Justice Carpio and seven other justices, and all their like-minded legal luminaries like Fr. Joaquin Bernas, are irrelevant. A little knowledge can be dangerous. This is how we all got into trouble: when Adam and Eve thought they knew everything! I only pray that God will send us a Redeemer. I can't see one among the oppositionists. Perhaps among the supporters, e.g., Sonny Belmonte. Manuel Q. Lim, Jr., [email protected], Nov. 02, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, on your comments regarding the Supreme Court's nullification of the Trapos' Cha Cha Sigaw ng Langaw initiative, we are indeed lucky to have dodged another bullet from the rapacious Malacanang crowd who are determined to entrench themselves in power at all costs, the people be damned. But I am surprised that there are actually well meaning, educated middle class Filipinos who think the change to a parliamentary system is good, because, according to their misguided view, (1) it will stop corruption, by (2) reducing campaign expenditures since there will be no national presidential elections, and no need to get campaign funds through corruption, (3) it bring us prosperity by citing the examples of our neighbors who are prosperous because they have parliamentary systems! They are so sick of the present corrupt, and poor, and hopeless situation that they are willing to try anything different. What a pity for our country. Perhaps you have already indicated in your past columns the parliamentary experience of Italy and France after the Second World War, when there was a constant change of government, resulting in economic hardships. In France, the situation improved only after De Gaulle was recalled from his exile, and he instituted a presidential form of government. Think what the parliamentary system will be like in the Philippines. Filipino politicians are not running on an ideology or program of government. They run because they have money to buy votes, and they want to make more money. With more money, they can have their wives and their children run for offices. With this mentality, shifting allegiances in Parliament will be the rule, depending on who can promise what to whom when he becomes the prime minister. Our neighboring countries are not prosperous because they have a parliamentary form of government. They are prosperous because their economic policies, run by honest and hard working politicians, resulted in increasing the wealth of the nation. In the Philippines, on the other hand, the failure of the economic policies resulted in mass migration of Filipinos to other countries to work to support their families back home. And the earnings of these OFW's are keeping the Philippines afloat. Let us hope that from the stable of senators, a president will be elected to lead us to the promised land of prosperity for our people. Fred Montenegro, [email protected], Nov. 03, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Mr. Tony� Actually, if you think about it, what�s the fuss about charter change? Why don�t we try something that may indeed change the political system. How can we say something is good or bad if it were not tried in the first place. I have no problems with the WHAT of it. What BUGS me are the WHO and the HOW. Who is behind this? Why not admit it that the government is pushing for it and it is using taxpayers� money. Are we paying for EVAT sa Meralco and gasoline just for this shit? (Naha-high blood na naman ako, ser) How it is channeled to the people by holding suspicious barangay meetings and gift-giving symposiums. Aminin na lang eh. I guess they started this wrongly and they will end up very wrongly. Mike Delgado, [email protected], Nov. 03, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You sound like a walking almanac. Can�t you suggest a thing to be done so that you and I can have more money in our pockets and food on our table; much more, how we can send our children to school, I can sense that you are wise and intelligent guy, but you keep on opposing. Perhaps it is time to use your brain, to guide us on what to do, and the time is NOW! As an economist, for sure you have something in your mind how poor people like me can survive for a living. Please, we beg you, please share just a little of your brains, to us and lead us to find a way. We are all fed up with Politics. What you are telling us are the same repeated by those big-mouthed politicians. We need an economist like you who might think and work MAGIC to lead us to a better life. Again, don't waste your time with politicians. Why give your precious time with animals, crocodiles, leeches, and dogs. Treat them like a PET, perhaps that is more appropriate. They amuse you, not threaten you. They are helpless, when you spare no time on them. I know you know they are powerless without us. It is better to turn your face with us and do concrete and tangible things that directly benefit people. With you and I multiplying, we can move the Earth, not just the Politicians, because they are nothing! Have faith and trust in yourself. Great changes start within yourself. Do something, right now and here. Start it with your neighbors. When was the last time you talked, ate, and shared food with them? Organize a few of them like what we are doing. This will multiply within a year. Then we fuse together our strength. We don't need the government of Politicians. We will create our own within Corporations, Associations, Foundations, Associations, Clubs, starting from a core group working for Advocacy. We invite you to be a member of our KAPAMUHAY, ASSN. INC. and share your peso to fight POVERTY. Rodolfo Cada, [email protected], Nov. 04, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Tony, If the Constitution remains as it is, then GMA stays till 30 June 2010. So I do not quite understand how the Charter Change will make her stay indefinitely unless the agenda is to make her Prime Minister in the Parliamentary system after 2010. If so, i do not think she stands a chance making it. Her peers, fellow Members of Parliament (MPs), will definitely NOT choose her as their Prime Minister. Besides, there is a Height Requirement - at least 5 feet tall or its equivalent in Metric scale! (Of course, that has always been the plan from the start: shift to the parliamentary system so that she can stay in power beyond 2010 as prime minister. JDV will be used to shepherd the process � perhaps he will be allowed to be interim PM - then he will thrown away like an old shoe. GMA holds all the cards. JDV holds nothing. ACA) Tony, the background of the 1987 Constitution is that it was rushed hoping it will give legitimacy to her stay in office and prevent further coup attempts. Of course, it did stop Gringo and Co. So in a way, Cory used the 1987 Constitution to stay in power for too long till 1992! It would have been better for the Philippines if the Constitution called for a presidential election in November of 1988. Marcos was no longer a threat since he was so sick and died in 1989. After the August 1987 coup and Gringo later captured, a forthcoming presidential election in a year's time will most likely NOT motivate another coup attempt. (But that�s water under the bridge that cannot prove or disprove anything. ACA) The problem was that Cory Aquino's term as president was just too long. She should have just served as interim president like the new Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont for only one year - or even two! Rick Ramos, [email protected], Nov. 05, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Hi Tony. It is very obvious that those in power wish to perpetuate their stay by whatever means possible, legal or illegal. Marcos did it with Martial Law. From FVR to the present regime, they tried to push for cha-cha. They all claim this is for the good of the nation and this is what the people wanted. But how could they gauge what the people really want when they ram their craziness down the peoples' throats? they never consulted the people, and even the Singaw ng Langaw campaign is nothing but a cheap ploy to gain signatures. But who are they fooling? All this hullabaloo is nothing but cheap baloney!!! JDV has been pressing for a shift to Parliamentary system to have a Prime Minister (in his case, Prime Sinister) who will be chosen by parliament from their ranks to hold power, and relegate the people's elected president to a decorative tenant at Malaca?an. He cannot win in a Presidential race and therefore he has no chance of wielding power. Ergo, a shift to Parliamentary system is an option where he will be elected by his henchmen. This is his only chance to run the country. Has anyone in Congress or Senate asked if we really want a change, and if so what should be changed? It is only they who want the change in certain provisions of the Constitution to suit their whims and ambitions. If they really want a change in our constitution and system of government, the only way they can have the people's support and trust is for all of them to resign and have the Supreme Court take over the government until the a new government is elected, have a referendum, then a plebiscite on what changes to be made before election of a new government. This may be drastic and huge, but that will be the price to pay. Otherwise everything will just be a perpetual circus full of amateur clowns. Felipe Rommel Martinez, [email protected], Nov. 06, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Even before the Supreme Court nullified the Petition of those Bright boys in the Sigaw ng Bayan, I knew already that it would faced uncertainty. The actuations of my fellow Dagupeno Speaker Joe de Venecia to barnstorm every nook and cranny of his congressional district here only showed that he himself, and Atty. Raul Lambino (his fellow Pangasinensi, and his former Chief of Staff at the House) knew that their scheme would face rough sailing. As a shrewd politician, De Venecia doesn't want to see himself defeated with his pants down against Congressional wannabe and mayor of Dagupan Benjie S. Lim. My hunch became stronger when Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban cried that there were pressures for them (Supreme Court Justices) to either to uphold or reject the petition. This suspicion became thicker when with all the gall, the Speaker shamelessly spoke before the country�s group of jurists and recommended desperately that Cha-Cha is the dose this country needs. However, there were groups who were offended by the faux pas of JDV. My goodness, as the fourth in rank in the succession to power, he should be the first to know the independence of the three branches of government! For the proponents of the P.I, who still believe the High Tribunal can reverse itself despite the 8-7 hair thin one-man vote plurality decision. My answer: Of the eight justices who junked the petition of the Sigaw ng Trapo,er, Bayan lead by my former mentor in Constitutional Law�the all-knowing Atty. Raul Lambino�no one among these justices will change his/her principle (especially with many of them had written their separate opinions ) 180% without thinking his/her and his/her family�s name integrity. Any deviation for now will be tantamount to sell-out. A very high price for one�s name in the annals of our history. For those who are hoping that something can be done to reverse this 8-7 status quo since the Chief Justice will retire on Dec. 7 this year to give way for the new Chief Justice and a new justice to be appointed by the President. My answer: If the decision was given by the Court last Oct 26, and Atty Lambino has 15 days to file his Motion for Reconsideration, up to Nov. 10, 2006, will the Chief Justice (the savior against Pirma�s deception) has 24 days more-than- enough- elbow room to whip his justices to decide and close once and for all the Motion for Reconsideration? Did I hear somebody shouting, Constituent Assembly as Plan B! Man, oh man. That plan is more illogical than the Pirma to get the nod even of the magistrates that sided with the petition. Imagine, a constitutionally mandated Senate will be rushed to merge with another independent legislative body for the sake of the whims of GMA, de Venecia, and the gang. Where in hell now is the bicameral dogma carved in our Constitution as a Republican System of government taught to us (as a wide eyed student) by Atty. Lambino? With this impossibility to shit once more on the Constitution, then I can only quip: Let�s get ready to rumble for this coming May 2007 election! Mortz Ortigoza, [email protected], Dagupan City , Nov. 08, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Thanks for the enlightenment. It�s consoling to know that there is still hope from our judicial department, especially from the Supreme Court. Maria P. Almeda, [email protected], Nov. 09, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Reaction to �Revolutionary Governments� ( March 19, 2006) I appreciate the way you analyze the situation and I am quite convinced that something must be done. But as we said, Never dare to struggle if you are not sure of winning. If we play by the rules and the ways of our enemy or oppositors, then we are bound to lose. May be we can adapt the method of : BRINGING DOWN OUR ENEMY OR OPPOSITOR TO OUR OWN BATTLE. What could it be that we have to discover or invent, and work for? Mere words would not change them, but WORDS PLUS ACTION, no matter how small, but all of us getting together, then it becomes BIG, with IMPACT, hence effective. Rodolfo Cada, [email protected], Oct. 29, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Reactions to �Foreign-Owned Media� ( Oct. 18, 2006 ) In one of Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism's (PCIJ) books, it noted that the President is the only who can appoint some 3,000 plus positions in a government office or government-owned and -controlled corporation (GOCC). Indirectly, the President can influence the appointment of another 100,000-200,000 positions in the bureaucracy throughout his/her administration. If only for that reason, we should amend or revise (take your pick) the Constitution. Media credibility is low in both the Philippines and in the US , hence the rise of alternative/independent media and the need to triangulate (look at different sources) information. The political actors involved and the responsiveness of the Constitution to the country's needs and realities over time are two distinct discussion points that we should not conflate. Who will do this for us? Thanks for caring, Hecky Villanueva, Oct. 29, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww (Copy furnished) I like to read foreign news publications only because I want to know what's going on in the foreign countries where the writers in these publications are accountable citizens and can vote., and therefore have a right to say something about their own country because they are stakeholders. However, I don't need foreigners in my country, who are not stakeholders by virtue of citizenship, to tell me how my country should be run and by whom. Aside from interfering in the internal affairs of my country, these foreign publishers are able to have their cake and eat it, too: they tell you what to do, and if it flops, you're saddled with the consequences and not them. Therefore if any foreigner wants to publish anything in my country, let him become a citizen first, so he can suffer, along with the rest of us, any consequence that his publications might cause. Charlie Borromeo, [email protected], , Oct. 30, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww |
| Dear Tony, You seem to have enjoyed your vacation to Cambodia. I've been following your account. Glad you're back and in fresh fighting form, it seems.
The sham People's Initiative depicts the character of our self-serving political elite. State policies almost always favor the few at the expense of the many. This is why our country hasn't gone far since independence. Exclusive state policies have effectively restrained the overall potential of the country from being realized. This in fact is the basis of the communist rebellion. But history has shown that their prescription to the problem is even more restrictive to human development. Now what else can be done? I've recently come across a proposal to do away with our unitary form of government in favor of a federal form of government with a unicameral parliament. Fifty percent of its members are to be directly elected in the existing political districts and the other fifty percent to be proportionately elected by sectoral formations. I find this proposal to be the best so far in correcting our highly exclusive political institutions. A federal form of government decentralizes governance and makes it difficult for narrow interests to prevail. Narrow interests at the local level may still attempt to influence governance but the proximity of government makes it easier for the people to safeguard their interests. Moreover, it would be impossible for narrow interests to influence sectoral representatives in parliament because they're accountable to their sectors. They can be yanked out of parliament anytime should they betray the cause of their sectors. Narrow interests would've to deal with the sectors represented in parliament and the task becomes impossible. It's so easy to influence our present political system. Narrow interests only have to deal with one president and 24 senators. The 200 plus congressmen and congresswomen, except for a handful of sectoral and principled district representatives, just say aye when the president says so. A case in point is the recently enacted expanded VAT law. While we ordinary consumers now have to bear an additional 2% VAT, the wine and tobacco industries have only been imposed an additional 1%. You know of course who're behind the tobacco and wine industries. They're known to be the most generous political contributors in the country. Giving a winnable presidential candidate one billion pesos and 24 winnable senatorial candidates 50 million pesos each wouldn't even make a dent in the representation expense of these industries. Gico Dayanghirang, [email protected], Davao City, Nov. 17, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |