know how LAKAS-NUCD does it! make it work! take your society to the grassroots level!

hanggang manila lang kasi kayo..

the problem with the manolo complaint is that its full of good intentions.. its made without even laying the groundwork for lobbying at congressmen..

as i have said before, you cannot impeach the president if you demonize the very ones who are capable of doing it..

the complaint was a typical ‘suntok sa buwan’, a good and substantive work, but only failed because manolo et al failed to lobby for its support in the house..

but, i admire the act. sayang nga lang at hindi na capitalize into a coordinated action with civil society to force representatives to sign it.. you never exerted an effort to make the next step.. ung effort nyo hanggang dun lang sa paggawa ng intervention then bahala na ang diyos.. konsensya konsensya na lang eh alam naman natin na it doesnt work..

its typical “inciting for a public outcry”.. but that does not work anymore.. this is a post EDSA era..

I am also reacting to mlq3’s observation that what “we have a setup . . . promotes minority attitudes and does nothing to foster a majoritarian resolution to any question.” The sad consequence of this is the perpetual existence of underprivileged majorities in our country. If you haven’t notice it yet, what we have set up is actually a government of the privileged minority, by the privileged minority for the privileged minority. The formal structure handed down to us by our American mentors has been proven unfortunately to be a “system designed not to function at all” but to support minority rule.

I have also pointed out somewhere here in FV that the exercise by the SC of “judicial review” is in fact beginning to be a real problem for our democracy where the Court finds no compunction anymore to substitute its policy for those chosen by our elected representatives. And with our culture of utang na loob and a self-bestowed expanded power for the SC, there appears no need anymore (upon the President fully packing the Court in 2009) for a more-Marcosian-than-Marcos Arroyo to resort to martial law to establish her sultanistic republic where power relationship would not be defined by class or wealth but how close a friendship one has with her majesty, a relationship that could be extended one day and withdrawn the next at the queen’s will.

But going back to your post, the less than majority rule (1/3 of all the members of the House) to initiate impeachment is more than compensated by the qualified majority rule (2/3 of all the members of the Senate) to convict the indicted public officers. I therefore don’t see the majority rule being “muddled up” there.

My other concern is the lack of similar compunction on the part of the party in power in the Lower House to ignore majoritarian sentiments writ large to get at the root for instance of the Garci tapes controversy, or in response to the same sentiments to freeze the Cha cha locomotive that’s being revved up again en route to the sultanate of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

If you are comparing yourselves to the American Revolutionaries, then you have Delusions of Grandeur. Even Benign0 would not have such audacity.

But if you believe that you are the next John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, or Ben Franklin then by all means, have your silly revolt.

Whatever makes you happy man.

Let me paste your post:

Edsa 2001, which you refer to, has been admitted even by the SC to be an extra-Constitutional event (whatever that means!).

Come on guys, you know what that means. That means that the SCORP was joining the political fray! ! !

As T Jefferson said, these magistrates have their own party affiliations, their corps, and their taste for power.

In a related post I have said:

“One thing I found odd at this concept of constitutional triumvirate is the idea that where Congress and the Executive transgress the Constitution the people can go to the Judiciary and ask that it be declared void. But where the Judiciary perverts the Constitution we call it the law of the land and the people can go nowhere for its transgressions. Where the two branches which are supposed to be co-equal of the Judiciary are rebuked on this instance the people can boot them out of office comes election time. Meantime the jurists who perverted the Constitution still hold party all year round secured in the thought that they are life-tenured and can dish out their most atrocious constitutional enthusiasms free from censure from the other branches and from the people who is supposed to hold the sovereign power over these distinguished jurists”.

The Javellana doctrine which says that the ratification of the constitution can be made by “viva voce” in the barangay halls is the law of the land; That Ninoy does not have the legal right to ask for civilian trial despite the wholly functioning civil courts at that time does not have jurisdiction over his person because he was already being tried in a military tribunal whose membership are composed of Mr. Marcos retinue of sycophants, is the law of the land; That Senator Diokno can be imprisoned for “suspicion that he might join the rebellion” is the law of the land; That Marcos can abolish Congress and he can rule by Presidential Decree is the law of the land.

Guys, these are perversions of the Constitution! ! !

Edsa 2001, which you refer to, has been admitted even by the SC to be an extra-Constitutional event (whatever that means!). It has nothing to do with majority rule, except in the oblique sense that Davide+GMA+Angie Reyes reversed 1998 in a cleverly orchestrated coup d’etat. It has everything to do with the SC blessing that coup d’etat as “constitutional throughout” two months later, and therefore doing a Javellana (“fait accompli!”). Edsa 2001 had more to do with Separation of powers in that the SC in Estrada v. Arroyo hardly noticed that Joseph Estrada was on Senate impeachment trial and Davide had screwed the pooch. This has led to the compleat cuckolding of the congress and the cutting down to size of the power of impeachment.

In this post, I am pointing to the Principle of Majority Rule as it relates to the Constitutional provision on impeachment initiation. This is not “intentional” minority rule by coup d’etat mit SC benediction. This is pure “Intelligent Design” on the part of the 1987 Founding Fathers.

Therefore, what is going on in the House is not “minority rule” as you’ve portrayed it. But a sort of “immune reaction” of the Majority to the threat that if a One Third Minority gets used to the Rule underpinning impeachment, it could in fact spell the end of “majority rule” in the rest of the what the House does!