Happy “Independence” Day
June 12th, 2009 by benign0Indeed, the politics of the “power elite” (as many self-described “activists” call our society’s leaders) do reflect the character of our society.
Take for instance this snippet of wisdom dished out by the esteemed Inquirer editor today:
The congressmen who voted for Con-ass think they know the real-world answer: Freedom is doing as you please. They did not say it outright, of course, knowing instinctively that naked self-interest has no place in a republic. Instead, they gave reasons like the need for structural reform of the governmental system or the need for more liberalized economic provisions. A few were bold enough to suggest the procedural truth: They called the vote on Con-ass because they had the numbers.
As always, a laughable irony escapes the vacuous mind of the Pinoy — even the Inquirer editor himself:
The above may as well describe the way the Average Pinoy Schmoe conducts himself.
Filipinos in general pretty much take broad liberties to do as they please under the banner of “freedom”. Take this moronism of dancing the ocho-ocho on the streets of Manila at the beck and call of shrewd politicians. The underlying hope there is a mustering of enough numbers to shout down a sitting President — to do a pathetic copycat of successful Edsa “revolutions” of bygone eras. President Joseph Estrada — duly elected by popular vote — was removed from office by a mob back in 2001 because the mob had the numbers.
You can turn just about any argument around in a society of vacuous minds.
For example: Ulterior motives among the “power elite”, daw? Well here’s one speculation on ulterior motives coming from the side of the fence opposite to the popular sentiment that favours ocho-ocho-ism:
For every protest “rally” that purports to be a “peaceful expression of indignation”, there lies an underlying hope in its organisers that a repeat of “people power revolution” will emerge.
How’s that? Takes one to know one, doesn’t it?
But of course any idiot can and will deny ulterior motives and claim that these are all just “expressions of indignation”. It’s simple, really: any bozo with an ulterior motive can deny it. It’s an endless he-said-she-said circle of vacuous debate — because no rational or objective construct underpins anything in a backward society such as ours.
At the end of the day we are all the same clueless bunch of Third World island-dwellers living within an intellectually-inbred community feeding off one another’s bullshit.
![american-flag-1[1]](http://filipinovoices.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/american-flag-11.jpg)
===============
Epilogue
Speaking of bullshit by the way, while we lament how…
The vast majority remain locked in their state of overwhelming dependence, unable to find the strength to stand on their own two feet. Economic deprivation defines the struggle of the Filipino, and the attendant ills of poverty and scarcity reflect in either subservience or rebellion.
… we celebrate an utterly bogus Independence Day today — an “independence” premised on a mere “proclamation” in 1898. It seems we find offense in the premise behind the REAL one celebrated on the 4th of July 1946, simply because it was one that was granted:
The last declaration of our freedom against the colonizers was on July 4, 1946, at Luneta, Manila. This date was observed as Independence Day every year until 1961. The date, similar to that of Independence Day of the United States, was the moment that they “granted the independence to the Philippines.” The Americans were the ones who chose July 4, not the Filipinos.
Kawawang bata. Somebody please shove a dummy into its mouth to stop its crying, please. Oh that’s right, somebody already did back in 1961 (or whatever the hell that year was ;) ).
Happy “Independence” Day folks! :D
============
Join us on Facebook!
June 12, 2009 at 8:17 am
You’d think, right, that benign0 will be among the last to initiate a blogthread about June 12/Independence Day.
June 12, 2009 at 8:33 am
“… a society of vacuous minds.”
Satire, irony, or ….
June 12, 2009 at 9:20 am
Given the many times benign0 has said it and argued against those who argued with him about “Pinas : vacuous”, why even think that benign0 is writing satire?
June 12, 2009 at 9:22 am
Tell me…
June 12, 2009 at 9:28 am
My man Ding, obviously my writing annoys you. Yet all you are able to show for your annoyance is a rather flaccid dwelling on finding the right label for me.
Kawawa nga naman talaga ang Pinoy. Even the staunchest “defenders” of whatever “dignity” remains in our people can’t come up with arguments more convincing than the quibbles you add to the “discussion”.
And we all wonder why our society remains stuck in obsolete thinking. :D
June 12, 2009 at 9:31 am
“Annoy” is inaccurate.
I’m way past that with you, Benny.
You are you.
June 12, 2009 at 9:32 am
As a reader, I have no qualms with Benign0 posting stuff on FV. I’d just like to know if there was a way to not have to scroll over his garbage via Google Reader?
June 12, 2009 at 2:56 pm
LOL
June 12, 2009 at 9:34 am
You are ‘held’ in esteem, be ‘assured’.
In the first place,my estimation does not matter or count, given the “vacuous society” I belong too, right?
June 12, 2009 at 9:36 am
Further your ‘writing’ IS you, so how can it be “annoying”?
June 12, 2009 at 9:41 am
http://filipinovoices.com/this-is-filipinovoices
June 12, 2009 at 9:46 am
I remember this story from Religious Studies class in elementary school.
Of these three servants, who do we think has a behavior that closely resembles our collective behavior as a nation?
What have we, as a nation, done with our independence?
June 12, 2009 at 9:55 am
My favorite part of the Bible. In fact, the most practical, simple, and logical of all the parables.
June 12, 2009 at 10:08 am
hey y’all:
MSM is bringing its media muscle into the equation
check this out – http://abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/10/09/abs-cbn-steps-ako-ang-simula-campaign
June 12, 2009 at 10:19 am
BongV,
But of course, campaigns like “Ako Mismo” and “Ako ang Simula” have a lot of advertising and merchandise opportunities! :P
June 12, 2009 at 10:22 am
Jon:
It gives merchandising a positive twist.
It is an Obamaesque campaign without an Obama. (yet?).
June 12, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Tumbok.
June 12, 2009 at 11:19 am
just another gaya-gaya. when will filipinos learn how to exercise their right to vote without having to get involved in these questionable “movements”? the fact that abs-cbn is its promoter makes one skeptical about its real agenda.
June 12, 2009 at 9:54 am
Hmmm, far as my history goes Independence day was changed in 1964. Diosdado Macapagal didn’t become president until December 30, 1961.
I’ll leave it to you blokes to jack-off over which date should be *it*.
June 12, 2009 at 9:58 am
Better yet, Jon, maybe I should add a disclaimer clause to the date as kind of an error trap (using a bit of codemonkey speak there) for the small minds who we can expect to swoop down into it. :D
Watch that space after “1961″…
June 12, 2009 at 10:14 am
I didn’t figure you would be the type who’d be worried about plagiarism. :P
June 13, 2009 at 12:51 am
didn’t macapagal have a 4-year term of office which ended in 1965? i personally remember the change, and it was macapagal who signed it into law. i was in law school at the time.
June 13, 2009 at 6:13 am
I was 7 years old then, but you are correct it was Pres. Dadong. Mano. po.
June 12, 2009 at 10:27 am
“Of these three servants, who do we think has a behavior that closely resembles our collective behavior as a nation?
”
Independence is freedom from control. True but it was only enjoyed by a FEW. The connection of giving out independence “resources” to the entire nation was never equal in distribution.
Did Juan De la cruz receive his land? or property? NO.
SO DON’T ASK FOR ANYTHING IF YOU HAVE GIVEN NOTHING.
June 12, 2009 at 11:52 am
Are you kidding me?
I’ll take you to North Cotabato where thousands of hectares of lands planted to rubber where redistributed into 7 ha per beneficiary.
Some subdivided their lands and went into joint venture with developers.
Some continued selling raw tapped rubber cup lumps.
For the most part, the beneficiaries, instead of coming together as growers and evolving into a corporation that can process rubber, they sold their lands for tricycles!!!
JUAN DE LA CRUZ RECEIVED HIS LAND.
HE TRADED IT IN FOR A TRICYCLE BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO TILL THE LAND ANYMORE BECAUSE IT IS NOT “SOSI”.
June 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm
bong,
where did you get your facts?
what year and what was the economic trend at that time? yes there was a tricycad boom. To sell a 7 hectare will buy at least 20 tricycad in financing term. That will provide cash flow and send plenty of children to college. I bet these family may have at least 1-2 OFW’s or mail to order bride. Lots of options… :)
are you sure all juan de la cruzes got their 7 hectares?
Legislating a bill to implement agrarian reform suggest that there was a need of the State to distribute the land . History of agrarian reform..http://www.dar.gov.ph/ar_history.html
June 13, 2009 at 2:23 am
leytenian:
i’ll be glad to drag you down to kidapawan, makilala, pikit, malasila, mlang, let’s drink a gallon of bahalina tuba.
i got my facts from the first hand stories given by the actual beneficiaries – and they got their 7 hectares, and they sold it to pay their previous debts, get new appliances, buy tricycle and trisikad, they also partied and gambled like there was on tomorrow – today, what’s left of the 7 ha – barely 2000 square meters from the initial 7 ha.
kaya don’t be telling me, juan de la cruz didn’t receive it because he did. O baka gusto mo pang sumama sa mga Argrarian Reform Beneficiaries in Lake Sebu, in Suigao, in Tamparan, in Surallah, in Malita – I know because I was contracted by the public agency responsible for CARP to produce video documentaries on Agrarian Reform beneficiaries – I had full access.
Reality, actuality, real-live experience – it’s a lot better than your misinformed links.
o hihirit ka naman ng all – paano yung nakatanggap na – hindi nila natanggap because hindi pa natanggap ng iba?… ano ba yan… :lol:
June 13, 2009 at 2:23 am
nope… no OFWS… mao lagi na… mag patara ug sulti wa pa gani nakaadto sa lugar.
June 13, 2009 at 5:27 am
There are still a greater number of beneficiaries who have not received their land.
Facts: Qurico Ligmon, another of the pilgrims from Sumilao, said there are still 1.3 million hectares of “carpable” areas which have not yet been distributed and this would directly impact the country´s food security. “We are continuing our campaign for the welfare not only of our group but for all the country´s farmers.”
source: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/94422
Facts: The farmers were from Hacienda Bacan owned by the family of First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo in Isabela town in Negros Occidental and from Hacienda Yulo in Laguna province.Farmers in the 7,100-hectare Hacienda Yulo who are claiming 3,256 hectares that their ancestors had been occupying and cultivating since 1905, went to the House of Representatives.
source:http://www.gmanews.tv/story/137556/Farmers-stage-run-to-Senate-Congress-vs-2-influential-landlords
Here’s more: “This was the President’s response to the complaints aired by the local officials about the failure of DAR to coordinate with the local government unit when it recently installed land reform beneficiaries in a contested property.
The recent installation at Hacienda Velez-Malaga led to violent confrontations.” http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/regions/view/20070716-76859/Arroyo_wants_new_land_reform_plan
Spotting the issue from the bottom and the top will guide an individual with less knowledge to recognize the wider view. :)
Let me know if you want more facts. you can google it or you can read some of Sparks Blog about land issue. It’s here at FV.
June 13, 2009 at 5:29 am
Fact is some received it – and some didn’t – to say ALL did not receive is WRONG.
June 13, 2009 at 6:11 am
Did I suggest ” all” ? I was asking. But if you like me to say you are right and it tickles your gut then take it.
June 12, 2009 at 10:35 am
“Of these three servants, who do we think has a behavior that closely resembles our collective behavior as a nation?”
there were millions of servants not three.
bong, are you suggesting that pinoys are lazy? be careful.
June 12, 2009 at 10:36 am
are you putting words into my mouth?
June 12, 2009 at 10:36 am
*your words
June 12, 2009 at 10:43 am
The lazy can be the people in office. :)
June 12, 2009 at 4:20 pm
yap, they are lazy but they work hard and they are increadebly disciplined outside their own country, and why is that?
June 13, 2009 at 8:22 am
hi dawn.
“they are incredibly disciplined outside their country , and why is that? ”
very good question. In the US, there’s efficiency. Efficiency can be established thru “on the job training and employee development”. I remember my first job. My job orientation was for 1 entie week. It was the company’s policy. It’s a policy that defines the overall culture of the organization- The vision and Mission. In addition, there was a video of ethical conduct and customer satisfaction. First day of my orientation, I received a nicely hard bound manual containing all the policies involve. One area of the book was focused on Personnel Training and Development Manual.
Application to Philippine Government, for example.
Policy: It is the policy of Philippine Government to provide training and development for it employees designed to:
I do wish the policy of training government personnels can be executed in every division, branch, province (from the highest department to the barangay level). This policy manual is under the “Big Framework” , the Constitution , where our overall vision and mission defines our true culture.
People can be trained regardless of culture, ethnic background , race and gender. But it needs a role model and leadership skills. It’s an expertise and a skill that Juan de la cruz cannot find. How do we teach Juan? Seriously, it is not by exposing and insulting his negatives but by finding his true potential and talent.
wonder why I don’t like benigno? :)
June 13, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Leytenian,
Do you know if the government conducts periodic “performance reviews” of staff?
Joe
June 13, 2009 at 8:48 pm
wow.. so nice to look at… wo.. it’;s been there for 30 years… still looking at it..
wow… no one wants to be responsible to that nice thing… wait wait wait… let’s wait for “the one”
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
wait…
still waiting… :lol:
June 14, 2009 at 7:30 am
joe,
government periodic review on their staff?
If there’s such policy then it must have not been implemented. For government higher officials like the senators, congressman, governor and the head of each department, i don’t think there’s such policy except maybe the REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713- Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
“Declaration of Policies. — It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
B) The Civil Service Commission shall adopt positive measures to promote (1) observance of these standards including the dissemination of information programs and workshops authorizing merit increases beyond regular progression steps, to a limited number of employees recognized by their office colleagues to be outstanding in their observance of ethical standards; and (2) continuing research and experimentation on measures which provide positive motivation to public officials and employees in raising the general level of observance of these standards.”
A mayor in of a town or a congressman may not have known that this ACT existed. Many of them own businesses and in conflict with the law. If the leaders cannot keep their ideals then juan de la cruz can only follow.
Obedience is better than sacrifice. :)
June 14, 2009 at 9:05 am
Thanks, Leytenian,
I ask, because in American corporations, review of performance is generally conducted routinely as a way to train, guide, and move people to proper positions, up or out. It is a rigor that I could not recognize if I visit a government office, for all the people unsmiling, not working so hard, and probably have no known place to advance to. In the US, there is usually a pay raise or promotion awaiting the ambitious and productive. On the other hand, I love the way the Jollibee staff greet me at the drive-up. It makes for a much happier transaction, and I am inclined to forgive if it takes 8 minutes to do my 4 peach mango pies, because of the smile.
Joe
June 14, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Joe,
Not only american corporations or private entities, most States have their own policies regarding personnel and employee development. The end purpose is customer satisfaction- people.
Here in the Philippines, many public officials want the public to satisfy them. If the public refuses, public officials buy them during election or fire them at work. The system is so disorganized that it hurts people economically. When people are economically poor , they have no extra energy to participate. To gain the people’s trust, the change must come from the top. It must continuously educate and train people.
Why Jollibee works? because there’s a system of efficiency of personnel to deliver the product fast enough with a smile. It’s a franchise system in the fast food industry. Jollibee is a copy cat of Macdonalds with a pinoy taste in it.
June 13, 2009 at 1:31 pm
thanx for the clear explanation leytenian, tho im not in US(just in Asia) and theres no traning here, people from pinas are diciplined kasi pag di sila nagtino sa kangkungan sila pupulutin at nasayang yung matagal nilang pinaghirapan para lang makarating dito.
“wonder why i dont like benigno?”
leytenian, you must understand, he (benigno) is not a human, he was made by machine, perfect, not commiting mistakes, thats why i always sed he doesnt have the balls.
June 13, 2009 at 7:59 pm
dawn,
you are right. there’s also punishment and rewards.
June 13, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Leytenian,
As I understand it, your Juan de la Cruz is a regular Filipino who works hard but is not engaged in civic matters. He sells his vote, doesn’t care much about what is going on in Manila, and is just doing what he does. The goal is to get him involved in democracy.
I say don’t worry about him. I suggest you expand your population, and I have recruited the following good Filipino citizens for that purpose:
DIANA ARROYOZ is the daughter of a deceased billionaire and sister of a landholding Governor of a large province in the Visayas. She makes over P 1 million a month through investments and ummmm . . . certain contacts she has with the builders of roads, and her brother the Governor. A lot of her money goes to Switzerland. She is very active in social circles and knows everybody who is anybody.
GERRY CARDINEZ is an attorney, a member of the professional working middle and upper middle class; he lives in Manila. His cousins own stores and franchises, or are attorneys, doctors and tech specialists, and they pull in anywhere from P 25,000 to P 200,000 per month. They don’t really need illicit side payments because they are happy with the money they make and the decent lives they live. They are making more money each year as the Philippine economy grows. They won’t do anything that rocks the boat.
BONG SANTIAGO is a professor at UP. He goes to the Catholic Church near his home in Manila and is close to Father Albenez. His cousin is a journalist. They are a part of the moral conscience of the Philippines, through their teachings, preachings and writings. They are paid modestly, but don’t mind because their rewards are of the intellect and heart. They don’t lie, cheat or steal.
DINA ALVAREZ is an office manager at the Bureau of Immigration. She has been at the same job for 7 years and makes P14,000 a month. She is not in a position to get illicit payments, is bored out of her skull, but has some satisfaction because she is helping her family improve their lot in life. With her husband’s income, she is on the lower cusp of middle class. They want to live in a subdivision.
JUAN DE LA CRUZ. He drives a tricycle and is happy to make P 200 a day. If he can skim an extra P 10 from someone for a long ride, he will do it. His cousins are fishermen who take their boats out all night, the taxi and jeepney drivers, and the rice workers who labor to keep the country fed. Politics is way down on the list of things to worry about. Juan is happy to sell his vote.
LUPE RENETO: She lives up by the Manila port in a converted industrial building jammed with thousands of neighbors and their noise and filth. She does not have a job, except for occasional day work. She mainly bums off of family members or neighbors for the next meal. She will do anything she can to survive. Lie, cheat, steal, or sell her body. She dropped out of school in the second grade because her mama couldn’t afford the fees. She has no vote to sell. In fact, she has no birth record and no known father.
To me, Diana is a cancer.
Ben and Bong carry the weight of the nation on their shoulders in economic, political and social terms. The responsibility for any failures of the people reside with them, as they are opinion leaders. They are educated, intelligent, and have means. Benign0 should be working on these dudes rather than beating Diana, Juan and Lupe about the ears. That is, if he himself has any compassion or honor . . . Same with respect to some of BongV’s and others’ dissing of Filipinos for selling votes, not taking responsibility, etc.. I think it is wise to diss where it can make a difference, not where people are locked into where they are because they lack power and means.
Dina is the economic hope of the Philippines, the future middle class. If she is given the opportunity to work hard and rise to positions of greater responsibility, she will blossom. She will thrive with proper training. She will vote enthusiastically and honorably. Even Juan will benefit from her ascending wealth. As Juan benefits, Lupe benefits.
I hope that some day soon, Lupe will have a job.
Joe
June 13, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Joe:
This is the bone of contention – I believe they have the power and the means – but they have to get off their butt, use their brain – and for some people, even using the brain seems hard – and then when they get the raw end of the deal – they complain.
They have the power. They have the means. But they have made themselves believe they don’t have it. I assert they do have it., But to get through that layer of apathy, you have to generate an emotional response. And as a Filipino myself, I know exactly which buttons to push.
June 14, 2009 at 9:18 am
I see the point, and think your participative government thinking is excellent.
Joe
June 12, 2009 at 10:49 am
Independence day should be based on Bonifacio’s declaration, simply because you become free at the very moment you realize that you are – regardless of the chains still hanging on your arms.
June 12, 2009 at 11:30 am
Sure Rom. But then it all depends on whose perspective you are taking.
Say you are holed up in a prison cell and then master the art of Zen or some kind of transcendental meditation, then from YOUR perspective you’d be free (your mind and “spirit”, that is).
But from the perspective of someone lying in the beach and soaking up some sunshine and the fresh sea breeze, you’d still be a jailbird.
All relative, Rom. ;)
June 12, 2009 at 11:01 am
…at the beck and call of shrewd politicians.
Talk about vacuous. Any of you who went to the rally at the beck and call of shrewd politicians, please raise your hand. The politicians are riding on the public indignation, man. They were entirely superfluous.
Benny, maybe you should take your message to the streets. How’s that for irony? Seriously, your message isnt getting anywhere in here. You may have better luck preaching your message of sunshine and hope to the Wowowee people you deride.
June 13, 2009 at 3:10 pm
A lot of people wanted to go to the rally. If I were in the Phil. I would have been one marching with a banner. Look at the numbers and comments in facebook, comments in blogs, Archbishop Lagdameo, Makati Business Club, there were so many people who really wanted to voice their indignation towards this HR 1109.
June 12, 2009 at 11:22 am
This is what most people would like to believe, Jeg.
There’s a difference between a spontaneous coming together of people and one that was organised and engineered.
The very fact that these ocho-ocho moronics have precedents alone already indicates that there is a template to follow that these “cause-oriented” groups now struggle in vain to apply.
Compare that with the original 1986 Edsa “Revolution” which was a spontaneous and unprecedented uprising that baffled even the Opposition of the time. Nobody at the time could’ve foreseen the sheer size and scale of what transpired.
Now it is the other way around. Bozos like those in Ellenville routinely trumpet the potential numbers first as a persuasion method and make claims that those who are with them are “true Filipinos”.
Pinoy nga naman talaga.
World class at corrupting otherwise noble ideas. :D
June 12, 2009 at 11:40 am
MLQ3 seems to have come up with a term for modern day “rallies” here (my boldface below);
Time to oversee the evolution of that piece of ocho-coho dogma infecting your mind, Jeg. ;)
June 12, 2009 at 1:13 pm
The era of the preprogrammed Big Rally is over; that much was proven yesterday, I think.
As with all experiments, when the data is in, then we can make conclusions. Perhaps it’s over, but that’s not the point of my comment. My point was youre giving politicians way too much credit in that they can sway *this* crowd, the crowd in FV. Youre wasting keystrokes with this crowd, mon ami. Hence the suggestion to take it to the streets. It won’t wash over here.
Time to oversee the evolution of that piece of ocho-coho dogma infecting your mind, Jeg.
Pfsh.
June 12, 2009 at 1:07 pm
There’s a difference between a spontaneous coming together of people and one that was organised and engineered.
There was a spontaneous coming together, my good man. Youre still living in the 80s when there was no internet and SMS yet. The spontaneous coming together was in cyberspace. It was in cyberspace that the one in real space was organized. And engineered? Again I submit, there was no engineering. The pols rode on the crest of the cyber-people’s indignation. Only the pols (and a few others, I must admit) were hoping that the indignation rally would result in the same regime change brought about by the two EDSAs. Pinoy ka talaga. The other kind, of course.
June 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm
see here benigno, seems like you are the one expecting so much from those protest gatherings..
being able to gather, voice out indignation at the brazen wrong being committed by those in positions of power, and make the perpetrators of perfidy think twice is a constitutionally protected right and are, in more ways than one, more effective than your vaccous, ego-filled blog threads.
who told you that the organizers of that recent protest actually expect a duplication of EDSA 1 or 2?
June 12, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“. . . because no rational or objective construct underpins anything in a backward society such as ours.”
I have not read your book and am not inclined to. I can only take so much linguistic trauma in one sitting, and I fear it would take me years to finish, by which time maybe things will have changed.
A rational/objective construct to me is like saying, okay, Asia is booming economically, let’s get a piece of the action (and the wealth and jobs that will come from it). Specifically, let’s look at the levels of trade and foreign investment now, and set 10-year targets for growth.
From that ambition comes a set of important “integrated” goals, mid-to long range: (1) we want competitive ports, (2) we want customs policies that encourage trade, (3) we want legislation that welcomes foreign investment in land and business (under some limits perhaps), (4) we want foreign policy that supports trade, (with China, US, others) . . . maybe a few others.
For each of the above goals, specific accomplishments are needed. For the “customs” objective, for example: (1) Streamline and automate approval/record/taxing processes, (2) eliminate duplicative or unnecessary local and regional approvals (by legislative action if needed), (3) adjust (reduce) tariffs to compete, etc.
Then measure progress, correct if lagging, and shoot any a**h*** who tries to dip into the government coffer for private gain.
That is a discipline. I don’t know if it is a construct.
Or a rational solution to corruption is to replace “favoritism hiring” practices with “performance-based promotional hiring”, so that government workers have career paths they won’t want to wreck by skimming money from the public.
That is a management concept. I don’t know if it is a construct.
If I am off-base, what the hell is a construct, as used in that sentence???
What are you looking for that you don’t see?
Thanks.
Joe
June 12, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Joe,
Do you realize that you just summarized the Lakas et al 2004, 2007 platform? Do you know that the recent admins and Congresses initiated many of those actual programs?
There are many forces which resist such change. But how can they? By painting the architects of positive change as being evil. By bending the truths and then putting them into public space via the media.
The first step to being “disciplined” is to refuse to be swayed by unsubstantiated claims and to look at the facts which can be verified. Agreed? (And yes, I ask you not to be swayed by me, either. Look for the facts and make your own understanding.)
June 13, 2009 at 1:23 am
are you advocating a return to dictatorship, joe? the entire government of the philippines is not a one-man/woman affair. if the government, let alone the entire body politic, is shot through and through with corruption, inefficiency, lack of discipline, non-productivity, mediocrity and lack of vision, how do you propose to remedy those problems through restricted leadership? a democratic president, as i have told you many times before, can only do so much. draconian measures are not possible under our democratic system. the law is not a perfect authority – none is, in human affairs. you can “kill” everybody accused of corruption but would that result in the utopia that you envision.
i say we have to go to the root cause – our lack of personal sense of responsibility and accountability. it is our inability to choose the good over evil, at home, at work, in every facet of our lives.
June 13, 2009 at 5:46 am
I’m for setting goals, and pursuing them forthrightly, to help the Philippines thrive. If a nation of laws under a democratic flag cannot do that because the laws create a network of cross-interests, nonsense and harmful activities, then, yes, a dictatorship would be a preferred method of government.
I agree that personal responsibility is paramount. Sometimes it takes leaders skilled at leading to get people to realize that.
I think corruption could be diminished if government used “performance” as the basis for promoting rather than “friendship/self-interest” as the basis for filling slots with acolytes. Career opportunity is a great incentive to work hard and stay straight. What do you think? (I have no idea what the laws say about government hiring, or whether regular performance reviews are conducted within government.)
Joe
June 13, 2009 at 7:21 am
joe, how does that old saying go? “you can lead a horse to the water but you cannot force it to drink”. the horse will follow its own instinct whether he will drink or not.
June 13, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Ben. Yep. Someone has to find the water first, though. Usually riding the horse.
Joe
June 13, 2009 at 9:18 pm
i understand from some desert cowboys, sometimes the horse is a better “finder” of water than the rider. apparently, horses have better instinct for survival than most people.
June 14, 2009 at 9:13 am
Ben, and cockroaches survive best of all living creatures. But people have decidedly more fun.
I fear I have lost the logic track.
Buy the way, your “one megaton utot” remark left me in stitches. Wind of change, indeed.
Joe
June 12, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Please be reminded that there were numerous protest actions prior to the culminating expulsion of the dictator. Numerous movements/organizations held protest actions after Ninoy Aquino’s assanination.
Juan Ponce Enrile’s botched opportunism to seize power catalyzed the converging of forces against Marcos.
EDSA 1 was not as spontaneous as you would want it to appear.
June 12, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Maria Ressa’s comments demonstrate the active political role the media has taken. ABSCBN and ANC are selling their views, not reporting from a position of dispassionate, objective detachment.
“If we all come together now, we will reach the tipping point when change becomes inevitable and irreversible. These are the ideas behind Boto Mo, I-Patrol Mo: Ako ang Simula, and there is no better time than now.”
A “tipping point”? To make, exactly, what change Ms Ressa? The “change” which YOU are pushing? That’s propaganda, not news.
Pretending that one is a professional reporter providing the people with unfiltered facts, while actually actively promoting a political agenda is deceitful. And it’s done on behalf of all kinds of colors from the political spectrum.
The 4th Estate has abandoned us and is manipulating us.
Why do you think that even oppositionists are pushing for the “Right To Reply” bill?
To be truly free, maybe the first step is to demand better information. For example, I’d love to see an independent, reliable, untainted “Truth Verifier” type of web site take root in Pinas. We could all use one.
June 13, 2009 at 12:43 am
i agree. one julius babao (which translates to “shallow”) describes the non event as “hindi mahulugan ng karayom sa dami ng tao” (lol).
June 12, 2009 at 3:50 pm
If we are hoping for a 1986 redux, then it means we haven’t learned the lessons of history. Why wait for more than 20 years, excluding the years prior to martial law, to boot out a dictator. Foreign observers said then that the nation was composed of 34 million cowards and one son of a bitch prior to that. I think Edsa 1986 should never ever happen again — it was a culmination of back-breaking “pasensya”, an outcome of baseless hope (that the son of a bitch would ever see the light). I think the Catholic Church which took a lot of the credit for its occurrence is also much to blame, for instilling the wrong kind of patience and a kind of “hope” that tends to kill the spirit. Edsa 2001 was a virus from 1986 propagated by self-serving liberal democrats who have a shallow view of democracy and how it’s supposed to work in the country and the upper classes leery of a President voted into office by the masses.
Our future or destiny lies within us collectively, the Filipino people, not in our leaders-cum-politicians who are so busy looking after their own vested interests to care enough for the what is good for the country.
I have no problem with street protests — street protests should just be that — street protests as a way to voice out one’s grievances, not as a means to attract more people (people will come if they want to anyway) and not to scare or make threats to the administration that they might snowball into a “people-power” type of phenomenon (which is pathetic).
Those in the opposition are dreaming in thinking that people power or street protests will be the way to defeat this onerous regime. The opposition is so fragmented and without a plan, or goals and strategies, the Palace Queen and her knights are way much ahead of the game. From the looks of it, she is so fortified by now that to check-mate her isn’t likely to happen.
Not in the mood to celebrate Independence Day. LOL
June 12, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Benigno,
Isn’t the latter half of that word what someone in MLQ3’s blog said you were full of?
If that should be true about Ding; why don’t you just point everyone looking for a right label for you to browse http://www.quezon.ph/2008/03/06/sent-back-to-the-supremes/#comments
Given your admission back then, there’s obviously an appropriate label in that thread that might be just right to label you with.
When does the Republic of Ireland celebrate their independence day?
The U.S. celebrate theirs on July 4 even though the signing of the declaration was carried on till August. And even after their declaration, Washington had to run away several times from the British. They even needed help from the French to beat the British back.
Lucky for them, the French didn’t turn on them like they turned on us.
RealityCheck,
Can you care to comment on the proposed removal of the 2nd paragraph of the 1st section of the Article on the Judicial department in the Constitution?
June 12, 2009 at 10:34 pm
RealityCheck,
Can you care to comment on the proposed removal of the 2nd paragraph of the 1st section of the Article on the Judicial department in the Constitution?
Benigno,
Isn’t the latter half of that word what someone in MLQ3’s blog said you were full of?
If that should be true about Ding; why don’t you just point everyone looking for a right label for you to browse http://www.quezon.ph/2008/03/06/sent-back-to-the-supremes/#comments
Given your admission back then, there’s obviously an appropriate label in that thread that might be just right to label you with.
When does the Republic of Ireland celebrate their independence day?
The U.S. celebrate theirs on July 4 even though the signing of the declaration was carried on till August. And even after their declaration, Washington had to run away several times from the British. They even needed help from the French to beat the British back.
Lucky for them, the French didn’t turn on them like they turned on us.
June 13, 2009 at 1:19 am
“the 2nd paragraph of the 1st section of the Article on the Judicial department in the Constitution”
OK, Justice. But I’m too lazy to look it up. Pls tell me the clause so that I can comment.
June 13, 2009 at 2:11 am
RealityCheck,
Very well, I’ll humor you this once.
The paragraph states:
“Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.”
If you have difficulty in discerning the importance of that paragraph, I suggest you look up the SC decision on PP1017 or the like or just talk to your lawyer.
June 13, 2009 at 9:45 am
RealityCheck,
It would be a better view in G.R. No. 141284 IBP vs. Zamora
“ The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of judicial review by providing that “(T)he Judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Under this definition, the Court cannot agree with the Solicitor General that the issue involved is a political question beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to review. When the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue of whether the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met or the limitations respected, is justiciable – the problem being one of legality or validity, not its wisdom. Moreover, the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to this Court. When political questions are involved, the Constitution limits the determination as to whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the official whose action is being questioned.
……….
When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review. “
June 14, 2009 at 4:57 am
Justiceleauge,
You did not care to explain that the phrase “subject to judicial review” does not automatically mean the reversal of the factual findings of the executive that there exist “rebellion, subversion, and other criminalities” that threatened the fabric of our democratic institutions and therefore would justify the suspension of the writ or the declaration of martial law.
Thus while these declarations may be looked into by the Court, (subject to review), the findings of the executive will bind the Court because the latter, unlike the executive, is “not equipped” with the machineries to determine the total atmosphere of hostilities being waged by the “NPA” guerillas, in the countryside, the “secessionist movement” at the south, and other criminal elements of the society waging their own wars in the heart of Metro Manila. The executive has the local governments, the civil and military intelligence outfit and other “cloak and dagger” elements which make him see the bigger picture of the problems while your magistrates were safely ensconced in their swivel chairs and inside the comforts of their air-conditioned rooms massaging their balls.
I was a political prisoner once, but I would prefer a despotic executive which I may be able to boot out of office during election or other extra-legal measure, rather than a despotic court whose membership is for life and willing to tango with whoever is the despotic executive.
June 14, 2009 at 5:05 am
and here is a realitycheck for you justiceleague.
should the court reverse the factual findings of the executive and found the imposition of martial law not justified, whom shall it call to serve the order for the President to desist from dispersing the army to quell what the executive considers a threat to the Republic?
June 14, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Wow. Nice job, jcc. I guess you are my (pro-bono) lawyer that justiceleague recommended I get.
Anyway, the topic was about journalists. I don’t know how that got us to the SC.
Thanks for humoring him, though. LOL.
June 14, 2009 at 8:26 pm
JCC,
I forgot to mention that other safeguards on the exercise of the power of suspension of writ of habeas corpus and declaration of martial law will also be deleted in the proposed Charter (Only the 1st paragraph of section 18 of the Executive Department will undergo modification to become the new section 12. All the rest of the old sec. 18 will simply be deleted). But I have already stated in another thread that the proponents of Chacha have previously admitted that the proposals shall be accepted or rejected in toto so that should cover that already.
Why should I? Shouldn’t any reversal be dependent on the arguments and evidence both sides present in court?
Once all those proposals are in effect; how are you going to work for the reversal of any factual findings of the executive …..?
Why? You expect the other side to do or present nothing?
What makes you ask that? Is a sitting President going to be a respondent in a suit?
Your reality check has been evaluated and deemed useless on my end and deemed more useful on yourself. It is therefore returned to you.
I already know that there are other powers that the President can exercise to “quell what the executive considers a threat to the Republic”.
It’s elucidated in IBP vs. Zamora itself. One is the “calling out power”.
If Martial law cannot be justified to “quell what the executive considers a threat to the Republic”; the President can always rely on his/her “calling out power”.
But lest anyone think that the “calling out power” is no longer subject to judicial review; the SC adds
“ …. But while this Court has no power to substitute its judgment for that of Congress or of the President, it may look into the question of whether such exercise has been made in grave abuse of discretion. A showing that plenary power is granted either department of government, may not be an obstacle to judicial inquiry, for the improvident exercise or abuse thereof may give rise to justiciable controversy.”
“When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. This is clear from the intent of the framers and from the text of the Constitution itself. The Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the President’s wisdom or substitute its own. However, this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.”
Maybe you’d benefit from a reality check right now.
The reality is that there is an age limit to remain as a member of any court here whether despotic or otherwise so membership is not for life.
RealityCheck,
Not that I have anything against the quality of pro bono work; but maybe you should consider paying next time.
You afforded the avenue for that when you claimed “positive change” so I presented the “changes” that they will enforce.
Yes he did but your lawyer better be back with a valid rebuttal otherwise the laughs are on you.
June 14, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Justice,
Re-read my post. My comments re the 4th Estate was generic, with the only specific reference was of Maria Ressa, who’s words I used as an example.
Other media channels and papers — which may be pro-admin, mind you — can and will do the same things: they distort, hypothesize and pass off their beliefs as “news”.
By the way, please don’t try to “humor me”. I don’t want to accept any favors from you. Oh, and the laughs are WITH me already…because I’m laughing. And regardless what jcc writes, that won’t change a thing. Best you worry about yourself and not about me. Thanks anyway.
June 16, 2009 at 9:35 am
Joe,
You do not owe me an apology. Compared to others, you are more civil.
June 14, 2009 at 9:07 pm
justiceleague,
You are smothered by your jurisprudence which explains why you cannot express your mind clearly.
During Marcos time, his suspension of the writ and the declaration of martial were all subjected to review and the SCORP, (with atleast two dissenting dissenters, Justices Zaldivar and Tehankee, or sometimes, Justice Antonio), concluded that the question was political and beyond the power of the Court to review.
Some jurists expressed the view that even if these questions are justiciable, the findings of the Executive as to the basis of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and imposition of martial law will bind the court because the Executive is equipped with the machineries to determine the extent of the threat to the Republic compared to the members of the Court who are safely ensconced in the comforts of their air-conditioned rooms massaging their balls. (italics is my paraphrasing of the SCORP’s inability to supplant the factual determination of the Executive).
So what is so sacrosanct about this “judicial review” if after all, these jurists will defer on the determination of the President as to the basis of the imposition of “emergency powers”?
BTW when I said that jurists are life-tenured it was contrasted with the Executive who submit himself for regular election, and apparently you lost the literary hyperbole in that.
You quoted Fr. Bernas, but he is not the Supreme Court. His views might have some weight but the Court is not bound by it.
My point is that the President had called the armed forces to quell the threat of the Republic after he had imposed martial law already but you were able to get a contrary findings from the SC that there is no basis for the imposition of martial law. Then whom will you order to serve the Order to the President or his Generals on the field to recall the dispersal of the troops to the quell the “insurrection and rebellion?”
Returning your ad hominem, I think I will not even consider you as my pro-bono lawyer.
June 14, 2009 at 9:25 pm
opps my fault… i thought it was justice league who will hire me as its pro-bono lawyer…
realitycheck, yes, I am willing to be your pro-bono lawyer, by all means. :)
June 14, 2009 at 10:04 pm
JCC,
What do you exactly want me to base my statements on?
That’s why “The 1987 Constitution expands the concept of judicial review by providing that ……”
And so like I implied above; you expect the other side to do/present nothing before the Supreme Court.
Given that you are in America where there is a different criterion/a for tenure in the Supreme Court, I reject your claim of literary hyperbole on your part.
And proof of that is when Fr. Bernas claimed that the power of calling on the Armed Forces by the President cannot be reviewed by anybody.
The SC obviously didn’t think so as they declared that even the power to call out the Armed Forces is subject to an examination by the Court of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.
WHY THE HECK DO YOU KEEP ON HARPING ON ORDERS TO THE PRESIDENT?
Is he going to be a respondent on a suit?
Why will there be a recall for the troops who are sent to quell the “insurrection and rebellion” when only Martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus has been found unjustified when it does not necessarily junk the calling out power of the President?
RealityCheck,
Yes I did. And I saw: http://filipinovoices.com/happy-independence-day/comment-page-1#comment-67814
“There are many forces which resist such change. But how can they? By painting the architects of positive change as being evil. By bending the truths and then putting them into public space via the media.”
So you don’t want to accept favors from me but you ask for it anyway. Quite an ingrate you are.
http://filipinovoices.com/happy-independence-day/comment-page-1#comment-67943
Laughing at yourself. Quite understandable.
You are welcome. But you are still an ingrate.
June 15, 2009 at 12:15 am
justiceleague,
WHY THE HECK DO YOU KEEP ON HARPING ON ORDERS TO THE PRESIDENT?
Is he going to be a respondent on a suit?
Why will there be a recall for the troops who are sent to quell the “insurrection and rebellion” when only Martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus has been found unjustified when it does not necessarily junk the calling out power of the President?
So whom do you expect to be the respondent, SC itself?
The probable respondents are the Executive Secretary and the Secretary of Defense who are the alter egos of the President and therefore the Order of the SC finding there was no justification for Martial Law and therefore no need to disperse the troops will be in effect an order to the President.
Are you sure you know what you are talking about? If not, then I can understand that you even missed my hyperbole.
June 15, 2009 at 12:25 am
“Quite an ingrate you are.”
OK. Didn’t take long to find out what you are like. Have a nice day. Good bye.
June 15, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Jcc,
Reference your remarks to justiceleague,
First sentence: “You are smothered by your jurisprudence which explains why you cannot express your mind clearly.”
Close: “Returning your ad hominem, I think I will not even consider you as my pro-bono lawyer.”
You make a good argument, but I find the quality of your argument diminished by your personal attack. Are you angry that he snips in his commentary and feel the need to get even? Or do you feel your arguments will not stand on their own merits, so you have to boost them by tearing down the opposition?
I see a lot of this on FV, from Bencard, Primer, and others. Even myself when I am sleepy or irritated by something (RealityCheck) might say.
I’m wondering what would happen to the tenor of the debate, and the receptivity of others toward your arguments, if your first line were replaced with: “Hey, justiceleague, you’ve made some good points. However, . . .”
The close was funny, but still disrespectful
I feel like an old lady lecturing (Bencard would say pontificating), but I think that when we all achieve the ideal of arguing the arguments whilst respecting the other contributors, we will somehow have achieved a higher plane of conversation. And all will benefit. Now many strut about like peacocks showing their manly wares whenever someone has the AUDACITY to offer an opposing view.
I have the same questions for justiceleague, and trust he will read this missive and cause me not to post it twice and waste all this valuable electronic space.
Next I will ask why no one here EVER changes his mind on the basis of what someone else says. That question plagued my sleep last night.
Joe
June 15, 2009 at 9:01 pm
joe,
the problem is that I don’t see any good argument in justiceleage the same way that he does to mine.
but let us leave each individual to his own devises. i can take an insult but i can dish it out to.
June 15, 2009 at 10:47 pm
JCC,
Yes I do. And I can cite the Constitution and a Supreme Court decision for it.
There was no hyperbole to miss in the first place.
Seems you already answered your own question.
It does not follow.
Just because a declaration of Martial Law was ruled unjustified, it does not mean that there is no need to disperse the troops or that the troops can’t even be sent out.
Like I told you above “I already know that there are other powers that the President can exercise to “quell what the executive considers a threat to the Republic”.
http://filipinovoices.com/happy-independence-day/comment-page-1#comment-68306
Article VII- Executive Department
Section 18. The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
***********
If you read IBP vs. Zamora; you’d realize that the SC upheld the calling out power of the President (which happened to be Pres. Estrada at the time of the initial order).
I already posted the following above but I guess you missed it. It comes from the same IBP vs. Zamora.
“ The reason for the difference in the treatment of the aforementioned powers highlights the intent to grant the President the widest leeway and broadest discretion in using the power to call out because it is considered as the lesser and more benign power compared to the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the power to impose martial law, both of which involve the curtailment and suppression of certain basic civil rights and individual freedoms, and thus necessitating safeguards by Congress and review by this Court. “
“When the President calls the armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion, he necessarily exercises a discretionary power solely vested in his wisdom. This is clear from the intent of the framers and from the text of the Constitution itself. The Court, thus, cannot be called upon to overrule the President’s wisdom or substitute its own. However, this does not prevent an examination of whether such power was exercised within permissible constitutional limits or whether it was exercised in a manner constituting grave abuse of discretion.”
Even if a Martial law declaration will be deemed by the SC as unjustified, I submit that it does not follow that the calling out power of the President has been nullified as well.
As based again on IBP vs. Zamora; it only took a verbal directive from then Pres. Estrada to call out the Philippine Marines. A memorandum only followed later.
And why did he send out the marines? Because of an alarming increase in violent crimes in Metro Manila, like robberies, kidnappings, and carnappings.
So again, I contend that if Martial Law was ruled unjustified by the SC, it does not follow that there was no need to send out the Armed Forces or that the Armed Forces can not even be sent out by the President.
The President still can.
My statements are based on the 1987 Constitution and a Supreme Court decision.
Obviously you will be arguing that the President can no longer send out the Armed Forces in an occasion wherein Martial law has been declared unjustified even if to quell what the executive considers a threat to the Republic.
It might be interesting to see what your arguments will be based on.
RealityCheck,
If that be true; you should consider that it took less time to find out what you are like.
If you re-read your post; you didn’t even contradict the basis used for calling you what you are.
Have a nice night and goodbye.
Joe,
I don’t write like this all the time.
First between him and I; maybe you should consider that mine was already a reply to his post.
Second, consider the thread we are in composed of words/phrases like “utterly bogus Independence Day”, “Kawawang bata. Somebody please shove a dummy into its mouth to stop its crying”. Quite a mood that was set by the author if you ask me.
People (bloggers) do. It as just that very few are probably amenable to admit it. Don’t lose sleep over it.
Cheers.
June 16, 2009 at 12:32 am
justice league,
you are really funny. discussion was centered on the ability of the SC to review the determination of the executive that an emergency situation arises, and therefore he declares martial law/suspends the writ of habeas corpus and pursuant to such declaration sends out the troops to quell the rebellion/insurrection.
Court said that there was no basis for the invocation the emergency powers because there was no “actual rebellion/subversion”. President believes otherwise and so he continues to order troops mobilization because according to you he is authorized anyway to send out troops to quell rebellion/insurrection under his other “emergency powers”.
So what are we discussing here? If the President can act the way he wants because he is allowed to do that under his oher powers, what is all this “judicial review” for?.
Or as I posited earlier, “what is so sacrosant about this judicial review” when after all it is not capable of clipping the alleged “abuse of discretion” and be able hold the President in check?
BTW, you asked why the heck should I ask if a sitting President be a respondent in suit before the SC. He/She is under the principle of command reponsibility. The suit against her alter-egos, Secretary of Defense/Executive Secretary is a suit against the President by legal fiction. If you order her alter egos to perform an act, it is in effect an order to the President.
If you do not believe that legal concept, you may read Marbury v. Madison.
June 16, 2009 at 1:50 am
yes, joe, you are PONTIFICATING in a condescending manner. mentioning my name in the same breath with that infamous author of “how do you solve a problem like benigno” – a very presumptuous piece of crap that proclaims benigno is a problem in disregard of the fact that he, the author, is the true problem (as many here could attest to) – is demeaning and offensive.
not all people are doormats, joe. you don’t expect people to treat assailants with courtesy and decorum, do you? i don’t know about the others but as far as i’m concerned, anyone who starts with me can expect that i will try to finish it with all the means at my disposal.
June 16, 2009 at 9:00 am
Jcc,
You are absolutely correct, my post to you was off topic, and does not respect the basic principle of letting people speak as they see fit. I am just noodling, and may try a separate blog myself to deal with the subject “blogging etiquette and winning the point”.
For myself, I see the dialogue you and justice league are having as one of the most germane issues that is possible to discuss today, being carried out by two bright people who are coming at the issue from their own perspectives. I tend to think the ideal blog issue would be concluded when two bright people hash at an issue striving to somehow arrive at an agreement, rather than beat the opponent into submission. This is difficult to begin with, and is made more difficult if the conversation deteriorates into personal slurs. Also, either or both parties may have to bend a little, something most of us find difficult.
[To Justice League, I understand on all points. Cheers back.]
[To Bencard, I have no expectation of getting you to behave kindly toward others.]
Anyway, keep up the good work; I’m learning a lot; and pardon the diversion.
Joe
June 17, 2009 at 6:35 am
JCC,
I didn’t pursue the matter after you rectified your statements already.
Let us say the President declares Martial Law in Luzon and all that can be shown is rebellion/insurrection in parts of 1 region.
The SC says there is no rebellion/insurrection in Luzon to justify a declaration of Martial law in Luzon. But the President still believes that he/she needs to send out the Armed Forces to quell the rebellion/insurrection.
Can she/he do it? I say he/she can.
Obviously you will say that he/she can’t. I suggest you tell why?
I disagree.
I believe there is graduation of the powers of the President for dealing with such issues.
I believe that power of suspension of writ of habeas corpus and Martial Law provides a greater power for the President than just the calling out power.
Obviously you believe otherwise; I suggest you tell why.
In the decision on PP1017 (which upheld again the calling out power of the President), the SC said that:
- It must be stressed that “an unconstitutional act is not a law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection; it is in legal contemplation, inoperative.”
- This Court rules that the assailed PP 1017 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants President Arroyo the authority to promulgate “decrees.”
-As this Court stated earlier, President Arroyo has no authority to enact decrees. It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore, cannot be enforced. With respect to “laws,” she cannot call the military to enforce or implement certain laws, such as customs laws, laws governing family and property relations, laws on obligations and contracts and the like. She can only order the military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence.
- Following our interpretation of Section 17, Article XII, invoked by President Arroyo in issuing PP 1017, this Court rules that such Proclamation does not authorize her during the emergency to temporarily take over or direct the operation of any privately owned public utility or business affected with public interest without authority from Congress.
-However, PP 1017’s extraneous provisions giving the President express or implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. The Court also rules that under Section 17, Article XII of the Constitution, the President, in the absence of a legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utility and private business affected with public interest.
-The warrantless arrest of Randolf S. David and Ronald Llamas; the dispersal and warrantless arrest of the KMU and NAFLU-KMU members during their rallies, in the absence of proof that these petitioners were committing acts constituting lawless violence, invasion or rebellion and violating BP 880; the imposition of standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, as well as the warrantless search of the Tribune offices and whimsical seizure of its articles for publication and other materials, are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
If this judicial review is not as sacrosanct as you imply it to be, why are pro Chacha proponents bothering to reverse it back to pre- Martial law- Martial law days?
June 18, 2009 at 12:49 am
“As this Court stated earlier, President Arroyo has no authority to enact decrees. It follows that these decrees are void and, therefore, cannot be enforced. With respect to “laws,” she cannot call the military to enforce or implement certain laws, such as customs laws, laws governing family and property relations, laws on obligations and contracts and the like. She can only order the military, under PP 1017, to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress lawless violence”. Justice League.
There you said it yourself. The authority of the President to order the military to enforce laws pertinent to its duty to suppress violence, is supreme and despite the pronouncement of the President of his “acts of declaring martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus” as being “unconstitutional” the Court is powerless to order the President to stop her from proceeding from what he thinks his authority to order the to suppress rebellion emanates from her of “martial law/suspension of the writ.
And I never hinted that the President is disempowered to order the troops to quell the rebellion/insurrection by virtue of the “unconstitutional” dicta of the court about his determination that such situation exists. I am in favor of a strong President as against a strong “despotic court”.
BTW, I did not rectify myself. The President can be sued through her alter egos. The suit against the alter egos is actually a suit against the sitting President because he is bound by the Court order through his alter egos.
“If this judicial review is not as sacrosanct as you imply it to be, why are pro Chacha proponents bothering to reverse it back to pre- Martial law- Martial law days”. Justice League.
You should ask the Cha-Cha proponents about that. But from my point of view, Cha-Cha is just trying to reallocate powers to the institutions that rightfully should exercise the power. Least you misinterpret my position, I wish to bring up my bias that between a corrupt executive which I can boot out of office during election and a corrupt court whose members are life-tenured, I would choose a corrupt and powerful Executive.
The literary hyperbole is best illustrated in this analogy. A life sentence imposed on a convict does not mean that he has to stay in jail until he dies. My remembrance of a life sentence is only up to 40 years.
June 18, 2009 at 7:38 am
JCC,
First you said “order for the President” and “Order to the President” then you said “will be in effect an order to the President”.
No I did not.
I would say that it would be based on the calling out power. The Constitution and the SC decision are already above to support my claim.
But since your claim is that they still emanate from “martial law/suspension of the writ” even though “martial law/suspension of the writ” have been ruled unconstitutional/unjustified/invalid/etc….. ; I suggest you tell why they still emanate from it.
I’ve been asking similar questions to that for more than 3 years and they’ve always remained silent.
It took more than 10 years before Pres. Marcos let himself be subjected to an election after declaring Martial law. And if he is to be believed, he didn’t lose his last election either so he was never booted out of office via an election.
And if you are going to go the extra legal measure route; what is stopping you from doing likewise with a “despotic court”?
If you are referring to reclusion perpetua; its 30 years.
June 18, 2009 at 9:26 am
justice league,
i can understand now why realitycheck has said goobbye to you earlier in this thread, and i should say goodbye to you too. :)
June 18, 2009 at 2:10 pm
JCC,
Well, I did have basis for my statements to RealityCheck and I did have basis for my statements to you.
So no one should be surprised that both of you share the same reaction.
But I respect your decision and I bid you goodbye.
June 13, 2009 at 1:51 am
We just voted for the wrong people. They made us all suckers.
If they think, they can get away with their “pang oonse, pang uuto
at pangloloko. Nagkakamali sila!”
June 15, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Vacuous minds of Pinoys and Pinas again, so what else is new?
This is aggravated by yet another flawedly wired notion from yet another who commented that the root cause of corruption is people’s utter lack of sense of personal accountability.
Very funny, it’s funny, really. This can only come from a mind ‘long overtaken by events’ and resistant to new knowledge. Pittance.
June 18, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Maybe you should try a different brand of deodorant, Mr. “justice league”. :D
June 19, 2009 at 9:39 am
Benigno,
Any substance in that assertion of yours is definitely applicable to yourself.