There appear two readily-acceptable analogies given to the contentious House-initiated 1109 that we should make mention of. One, if we open the door for the tinkering, there is no guarantee that not everything could practically be changed. And two, agreeing on 1109 is standing on a slippery slope that everything else keeps sliding down.
Should people go for 1109?
What most observers saw as defect was the manner it was finally adopted when voted upon viva voce, with the ‘ayes’ muffling the ‘nayes’ in one smooth operation known as – tyranny of the majority.
Between 2nd of June 2009 and before PGMA’s State of the Nation Address on 27th of July 2009, a lot of scenarios are under construction. Or, so consider these:
1. coup d ‘etat
2. martial law
3. no election
4. hold-over government
5. lady wins
If PGMA had her way, she wants the present Constitution, amended or revised, upon the ¾ % votes of all the members of Congress, voting jointly. And this day is running in that 29-day time continuum. Until it happens, nothing is yet certain.
Since people truly embraced the belief that the ruling power bloc in the House of Representatives brazenly railroaded 1109, it only bolstered suspicion of an even darker agenda of a ‘Gloria Forever’, which means PGMA and her ilk will in fact – perpetuate themselves in power much against heightening public indignation.
And why would GMA want to be perpetual president or head of state? History raises the spectre that she may be jailed and be held accountable. In other words, all the articles of impeachment then lodged against her will rise into the surface plus more.
Can the people allow their politicians to sort of ‘ram things through their throats’? Maybe not, maybe yes.
Will Senate made good its promise to kill 1109? What if at least 3 to 5 of its membership will be in the joint session of Congress and vote affirmatively on 1109? Or, what if, in a joint Congress called for the purpose, no one appears thereby effectively allowing the House alone to approve to adopt 1109 in a Senate-less proceeding?
Signs all too indicate 1109 will be finally adopted by Congress. And even the plebiscite called for the purpose may simply be by viva voce and when this happens, such shall be the last act to seal the coffin, in a way of speaking. Can we let this happen?
If only perhaps there are existing surveys that indicate higher trust and higher performance ratings for the president, it should not be difficult to go through charter change. But precisely because, increasing number of people do not anymore trust the President, it is for this reason that 1109 shall be crashed by some other legal means.
So what are we going to do now? Whatever happens, a new 2009 Constitution must adopt the good elements of the 1987 organic law just as the 1987 Constitution also imported much from the 1973 Charter and so on. Since the 1935, it took 38 years to have a 1973, and 14 years again to have a 1987 and then 22 more years to build a new 2009 charter.
Problem is, a luminous mass movement starts to surface, identified the signing perpetrators of 1109, plans to tilt the ‘balance of power’ – between those who governed and the governed. Meanwhile, this sad sense of uncertainty is exerting a crippling grip in our economic life. How good this seeming nightmare could be solved, no one knows. But we do pray and hope that the country goes for the better before it goes for the worse.
If public pulse is any gauge, it looks like something has already been pre-ordained. The larger population seems inclined to give the whole circus a chance to perform at our own political coliseum. Where political entertainment is the name of the game, couldn’t people just want to be amused than lose life and limb in a violent mass upheaval? Simply – I don’t know.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Are you even hearing what you yourself are saying, dude?
You seem to imply that the plebiscite will still not CONVINCE you of what the people will decide. Sure, there will be coercion and persuasion involved in swaying the vote. But that’s the nature of the beast we choose to govern ourselves by.
If the charter is ratified in a plebiscite, are you and your people gonna go stomping around again crying bloody murder? When’s it gonna end?
Same question goes for a possible Erap win in an election. If he ends up in Malacanang again, are you people gonna shout him down AGAIN in another ocho-ocho “revolution”?
Protes kayo nang protes dyan. Mag-ISIP naman kayo for a change. You guys are the ones who insult Pinoys by convincing them that their brains are in their feet and fists rather than in their heads where it belongs.
“And even the plebiscite called for the purpose may simply be by viva voce…”
No, BeningnO, it seems he either thinks that a) Congress is the entity which votes in a plebescite…or that b) the rules of a plebescite allow a viva voce.
Neither understandings make sense to me; both a) and b) are wrong.
Can you please clarify that statement, Primer?
He is insinuating that the Plebiscite can be railroaded inasmuch as the HR 1109 resolution was railroaded by using viva voce.
Attempts can be made to railroad charter change, but whether such attempts will be successful or not are still open to deliberation.
Now, if he thinks Plebiscites are done via viva voce – heavens to megatroid :lol:
Congress is a bicameral entity made up of the Senate and the HoR. Without the Senate’s concurrence, HR 1109 cannot be deemed as adopted.
Plebiscites are conducted using ballots NOT viva voce. While there might be concern that the results can be rigged, results can only be rigged so much. It was so hard to rig the results in an election During Erap’s rise to the Presidency because of overwhelming numeric superiority of votes cast in his favor. Rightly or wrongly, Erap got the job.
The show ain’t over until the people have cast their votes and the counting is over.
And of course, the bigger question is whether the choices being made lead to prosperity or more of the same.
A plebiscite may be held via viva voce as what happened in 1973, if my recollection serves me right. Besides, if the COMELEC is not about ready for its automation and reverts back to manual mode, then it may be convenient that 1109 will be ratified in a plebiscite by viva voce (as mode of voting).
I never thought you can be misled into thinking that Congress is the entity that goes into the plebiscite area to shout ayes or nayes – the second time around? If you do some readings, maybe you’ll not be lagging too much.
This ain’t 1973 – it is 2009.
you will have 40 million voters vote viva voce?
I remember their stories regarding that viva voce plebiscite:
The question asked was:
“Sino ang gusto ng libreng bigas?”
Thus, the first and only viva voce plebiscite with unanimous ayes from 14 million people.
exactly. they ratified bigas. not constitution. :lol:
If we can revisit history, then it is clear a plebiscite can in fact be held by way of viva voce or voice vote.
Unless you think it can only be done by way of the ballot. But nope, plebiscite can go by viva voce if they so desire.
40 million voters with ayes and nayes – how… intelligent
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
WHAT?????????????????
:lol:
Cool!! Losers better demand a recount!!!! :razz:
mlq3′s article on the plebiscite scorecard – is a sample of a reply that has depth and substance.
viva voce my ass :lol:
BIG GOOD GENTLEMAN tells us not to use more words than necessary especially those uncalled for cliches.
Primer:
Pumunta ka na lang sabungan, doon ka mag viva voce :lol:
this hip-shooter is at it again. creating more stink balls to attract attention. it’s like a pest that never dies.
Benigno,
There are more well-meaning individuals who can see clearly through this rather shameless, immoral, and tyrannical act of the honorable men and women of Congress to effectively railroad 1109.
True enough, I would suspect that even if a plebiscite be held to ratify a new Constitution, it can happen that people will vote for it. But I do know, that they should not have done so, if and only if, they know the implications of voting yes.
Since they come from the C,D,Es, chances are, they can just be duped.
If given the chance, I will ask them to vote no to 1109. That way, you’ll find that their brains are right in their heads while the government police behave like their brains are in their feet that kick people and hands that shoot people.
Primer,
I think you are mistaken. The Constitution specifies a real plebescite and it can’t be repealed or replaced a la Marcos/1973. It certainly cannot be done viva voce.
How is this – would it be just like I thought, bong?
Are you forgetting that ‘history repeats itself’?
I just want to let you know that I resent your cliches and much more your arrogance but I will allow you to suit yourself, if that is the little happiness you can get.
I may not have to respond to your next fits of arrogance in fairness to our readers.
History repeats itself. when people do not learn the lessons of history.
For people who have learned the lessons of history, new history is created, not repeated.
In any event, keen observers are actually seeing in GMA a Marcosian nightmare. It can take a little more time for you to be able to see it that way. That is why we have ‘political scientists’ – they see ahead of us with the ordinary minds.
A Marcosian nightmare is how feudal serfs view it.
A challenge to be met is how free men view it.
Free men kicked Marcos butt before, free men can kick despots butt again.
It is perfectly safe to err in the context of scenarios. Please read Lakatos.
Answer with YES or NO.
Will viva voce work as a means for conducting plebiscite given 40 million registered voters.
If YES, please spell out how the results will be collected, O wise one :lol:
So, it’s not viva voce, is it?
Ok. And — if any of this ever gets as far as actually having a plebescite — the majority will vote and everyone will have to live with the results. Right?
If you are trying to laugh at 40 million doing viva voce, I simply expect that you must have died laughing when about only a hundred and seventy congressmen and women did vote viva voce equivalent precisely to the vote of 40 million??
If you don’t understand the whole implication of this statement, then there is really not much I can do to help. Our peculiar academic orientations are designed to draw the lines and this is why mine does not have to coincide with other lines of thought, especially your thought, bong.
O wise one,
if you didn’t notice the furor on the viva voce of 170 congressmen – i don’t think you will notice the furor on viva voce of 40 million peope voting directly (not through representatives) in a plebiscite.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I am not laughing. But I am not understanding.
The Constitution calls for a national plebescite by each and every qualified voter.
The Constitution calls for a House Resolution to be passed by a majority of Reps.
I don’t see how these realities imply anything else. Two different types of processes done by two different bodies.
Oh, I am afraid your own ‘mutual admiration club’ might go full swing again, bong? Please think always of BIG GOOD GENTLEMAN that expects us to be civil, to attack the article not the person, et cetera, et cetera.
Clear now, bong?
Stick to the issue:
HOW WILL YOU VALIDATE 40 MILLION AYES AND NAYES?
it’s no use, bongv. it’s like arguing with a punch-drunk alcoholic with too much to drink. each comment (including this one) inflates this comment thread and makes the guy thinks he has written a masterpiece of genius. i’m beginning to get convinced that he is purposely irritating people here to force them to come to his table of craps.
You can in fact say, that historically, it is possible that people kick the butt of GMA out of the Pasig. Only time can tell, though.
During the 2003 Oakwood, we were warned that martial law was imminent. Been hearing that ever since…..
Now, with a plebescite (plus the SC plus the Senate) clearly in the way of no-el and term extension and what have you…we will finally see martial law?
Why bother? Why not declare martial law today?
Or…if all of this ChaCha and 1109 stuff is so GMA can slyly perpetuate herself in power indefinitely by “ramming” through all of these processes (at warp speed, mind you) and getting to the plebescite stage…how will she actually get us to vote “yes”? Will she hypnotise us?
there are already folks “hypnotized” in lalala-land :lol:
I will not be surprised if someone comes up with voting via viva voce :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
to Primer: I will call attention to it so you can make adjustments if you think necessary :
f PGMA had her way, she wants the present Constitution, amended or revised, upon the ¾ % votes of all the members of Congress, voting jointly.
3/4% ?
Primer,
This blog post of yours was made less than four hours ago, and there has been more than 30 comments on it. I’ve noticed that quite recently your posts have invited a lot of strong reaction.
Hhhmmm. Do your pieces always attract commentors in the same manner like the bees to a flower because of a beautiful mind ? Or they attract flies because they dungerous? :)
Guess what, Primer: That’s what a democracy is.
If we are so scared of how the MAJORITY will vote, then why be a democracy? Isn’t it that what this whole ocho-ocho moronism is fighting for is a “threat” to democracy? Strange considering that it seems that it is the majority vote that you now paint as the “threat” to democracy?
Ano ba talaga?
Voters either (a) smarten up or (b) have their priviledges TAKEN AWAY for lack of demonstration of ACCOUNTABILITY.
The problem is we’ve been sold to the moronic idea that democracy is about “freedom”. It is not. It is about RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY in the same way that maturing to adulthood is all about those two virtues that accompany a freedom from being told what to do by your parents.
Check out my brilliant article that explains it in a way that simple minds can grasp:
Three misconceptions about democracy that Filipinos were led to believe
Excerpt:
Click here to see the full artik!
Happy reading! :D
Bong, there is truth to which Primer writes about. Back in 1972, Marcos declared what was called as citizen assemblies, then in 1973, just in time for the national plebiscite, in a span of days, these assemblies were gathered, with much confusion, with much military intimidation, and all votes recorded as viva voce.
In a majority of cases, it was as simple as reporting voting in the aye from each of these assemblies, sometimes even if these assemblies did not take place. A week after this charade, the constitution was officially ratified.
So, it is indeed a possibility. You have to realize however, that a plebiscite is still far from reality, since we still have to wait either a COMELEC rulling, or a SUPREME COURT ruling on this current attempt to form a Con-Ass, then have changes made.. the submit for plebiscite.
But, if the debate here is viva voce of a plebiscite, there is historical background on this possibility.
Nick,
Will calling a cat “dog” make it a dog?
What I am merely pointing out here is that there is historical precedence, and that Primer’s assertion of viva voce to ratify the amendments and changes to a constitution is indeed possible, however improbable they may seem.
They will pass it off as plebiscite. But, the SCORP will still have the final say.
And if truly all the people disagree with the SCORP, they will replace the government through extra constitutional means. Then the new SCORP will affirm the new republic.
If that path is pursued, will the people really benefit from such a change?
Perhaps, freedom from a despot is a benefit enough because it allows the freedom to pick up the pieces and start all over again?
Will we learn from our mistakes and not replace a despot with another tyrant?
We did it before, we can do it again.
Bong, I am in agreement, and of course, I would not want a Viva Voce type of vote to occur as this is easily manipulated.
But, I just wanted to make clear, that the possibility is there, even if the probability is still lacking, that indeed there is historical precedence to concur with Primer’s assertion that Viva Voce is one such scenarios post 1109.
so, the main contention of the current debate here is whether or not there is a possibility of a vote via viva voce, and the answer is yes. The probability of it occurring is another question.
Still boils down to how people vote. In this case people voted no.
but Bong, here is where you are skirting the issue, something you wish Primer not to have done. The current debate as I am pursuing, and as you have pursued is simply whether or not Viva Voce can be applied to ratify the amendments of a Con-Ass.
The answer is YES.
The readers need to realize, that indeed, it is possible, and has been done.
I’m not saying it will happen, because as indeed, you have intimated, The Supreme Court is often the final arbiter in such matters. I wanted to state, again, I emphasize for the sake of the readers, that history has been made back in 1973, the most dubious of all strategies set forth by Marcos, to create these citizen assemblies in the undemocratic spirit of not having a paper trail and in the spirit of intimidation, that the ratification of these amendments back in 1973 was indeed carried out by a very unscrupulous viva voce count, that in all accounts was fraudulent.
On March 16, 1967, the Philippine Congress passed Resolution No. 2 calling for a Constitutional Convention to change the Constitution. Election of the delegates to the Convention were held on November 20, 1970 pursuant to Republic Act No. 6132, otherwise known as the “1970 Constitutional Convention Act.”
The Constitutional Convention formally began on June 1, 1971. Former President Carlos P. Garcia, a delegate from Bohol, was elected President. Unfortunately he died on June 14, 1971 and was succeeded by another former President, Diosdado Macapagal of Pampanga.
Before the Convention could finish its work, martial law was proclaimed. Several delegates were placed under detention and others went into hiding or voluntary exile. The martial law declaration affected the final outcome of the convention. In fact, it was said, that the President dictated some provisions of the Constitution. On November 29, 1972, the Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Philippines.
On November 30, 1972, President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No.73 setting the date of the plebiscite to be held on January 15, 1973 for the ratification or rejection of the proposed Constitution. However, on January 7, 1973, the President issued General Order No. 20 postponing indefinitely the scheduled plebiscite. From January 10 to 15, 1973, the Citizen Assemblies voted for (a) ratification of the 1973 Constitution; (b) the suspension of the convening of the Interim National Assembly; (c) the continuation of martial law; and (d) moratorium on elections for a period of at least seven years. On January 17, 1973 the President issued Proclamation No. 1102 announcing that the proposed Constitution has been ratified by an overwhelming vote of the members of the Citizen Assemblies through Presidential Decree No. 86.
The 1973 Constitution would have established a parliamentary government in the Philippines, with the President as a symbolic head of state and a Prime Minister as the head of government. This was not implemented as a result of the referendum-plebiscite held on January 10-15, 1972 through the Citizen Assemblies whereby an overwhelming majority rejected the convening of a National Assembly. From 1972 until the convening of the Interim Batasang Pambansa in 1978, the President exercised absolute legislative power.
http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=1973_Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_the_Philippines
and the debate still goes to primer in this situation, because this vote by the citizen assemblies was done by viva voce.
What is shown, and the point is made, and seconded by this article, that indeed ratification can be made by viva voce.
like I said Nick we can call a cat a “dog”, but it still isn’t a dog.
I agree with mlq3′s view that “As for the Marcos “plebiscites” from 1973 to 1984, they were conducted in a manner entirely different from the 1935-1967 plebiscites and that held in 1987. So they are not part of a piece.”
to cite mlq3 in his inquirer blog:
Of course, we agree that it was entirely different, I would even argue that it was illegal, that does not take away from the fact that viva voce was one of two scenarios played out by Marcos.
In the end, it is still a scenario, no matter whether the probability is .1%
I don’t want the readers to come away here, thinking that this idea of viva voce is something of make believe. We need to remember the strategies of Marcos, if only not to repeat the sad story of those lost decades..
That is the contention I wanted to convey.
An attempt was made to use viva voice but as far as the mainstream is concerned viva voce is not a valid way of conducting a plebiscite, an attempt can be made, but it still does not count.
we have finally come to an agreement.
the point being made is ratification via viva voce is questionable – therefore it is not even an option – but a perversion.
The present Constitution does not allow for the Executive to do what Marcos did.
Now, if GMA declares martial, that’s different. And like I said before, if she’s going to declare that, then why bother with all this other stuff like ChaCha and election preparations?
But a plebescite by viva voce? Nah.
Well of course, probability speaking, NO. Possibility speaking, YES. And that was the main contention of the argument set out by Primer, I believe, that viva voce was to be a possibility.
In all honesty, it is still an idea not worth entertaining, but even in 2004, what we though impossible, the mass election fraud, was indeed made possible. I don’t want to rehash my above arguments, but just wanted to make sure that our readers did not suddenly come to the conclusion that Primer pulled this idea out of thin air.
I disagree on the probabilities of it all, but hey, I could be proven wrong. Gloria’s been a worthy political adversary for most in the political battle for survival.
The procedure may be proper, but the ethic is not.
Joe
i think a viva voce plebiscite is absurd even in the context of possibility. legally speaking, it’s void and what is void cannot be a subject of sane argument. God help the mind that conceives the idea.
We agree Bencard. And guess which mind conceived of this back in 73?
MARCOS.
nick, a monkey by any other name is still a monkey. you can all an exercise a “plebiscite” but if it is not in the form prescribed by the existing constitution, it’s a complete nullity, i.e. never ever existed. what is this debate all about?
should read “call” (1st line, 2d sentence).
Agreed.
I don’t want to further this “debate” any longer, it was simply a matter of helping the readers realize that indeed a viva voce occurred back in 73.
It was illegal. It was unconstitutional. But the fact that it occurred did not rise out of thin air. And the fact that the Supreme Court chose to make moot the argument that it was unconstitutional because a new constitution had been ratified is something that we should remember as being one of the lowest points of Marcos’ dictatorship.
Indeed it was a monkey, but it still happened.
And this is the crux of the matter. Even if her legitimacy (owing to the cheating allegations in 2004) were in question, she still manages to mobilise legitimate (read: duly-elected) officers of the government towards her objectives. Politics after all is a battle for survival and relevance waged by every player.
Pikon lang nga talaga ang Pinoy.
When somebody is winning the battle, we change tack and appeal to emotion rather than strategise around how to play the rules and the cards.
It’s not too different from our balato mentality. It’s as if someone who wins big owes part of his winning to the spectators or even to THE LOSERS.
This is related also to an observation Rom made in her article The Seeds of Wrath where she analyses the pathetic behaviour of the wife of an OFW caught allegedly smuggling marijuana seeds through an airport somewhere in one of those desert kingdoms that are the choice employment destinations of Pinoys.
Rom’s observations were around the testimony of the suspect’s spouse which almost wholly revolved around appeals to pity — rather than an appeal to constructs grounded in The Law and their rights pursuant to said Law and on the processes around which those constructs can be invoked to appeal or defend your case.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? The concept is so brilliant as to be scalably applicable to the psychologies driving our ocho-ocho-isms on Manila’s streets.
She also draws on insights that abound around our feeling of entitlement to something good just because we are such hard-working sods (never mind the dearth of results from this “hard work”):
Everything about traditional Pinoy argumentation and thinking that underpins their not surprisingly moronic actions fall flat on their faces because they FAIL the crucial SO WHAT? test.
So Primer: Here is my question as to what you try to convey in this blog post of yours:
SO WHAT?
- :D
Nick,
No. The present Constitution will not allow for a viva voce plebescite or for a replacement of the plebescite by representative barabgay voting (a la Marcos).
GMA, like Marcos, would have to first declare martial law, then declare the constitution is invalid, and THEN she could do…whatever she wants (if she would live through all of that).
And again, if that’s the plan, why bother with 1109, ChaCha, ConAss or whatever? Just announce martial law and voila!
(By the way, the evidence showed that there was NOT any massive vote fraud in 2004. So that’s really not a good example of how a viva voce idea is possible. It’s amazing how people still claim the admin’s “lack of legitimacy” and others just accept it and repeat it despite the evidence to the contrary.)
Martial Law is too blatant a move, and the international community would not like it, most especially The United States.
In any case, as I said, The Supreme Court may be the deciding factor in all of this. These are scenarios worth considering.
Nick,
My point was that a plebescite by viva voce is not possible.
Unless, that is, martial law is first declared (and many people and key institutions go along with it).
B you also say that martial law won’t happen. Ergo that means a normal plebescite would be requires, without exception.
That’s what the debate was about, right?
—————
Meanwhile, I’m glad you see that the SC’s role is also a major impedimant to flying at warp speed from 1109 to extended terms or what have you.
From what I recall, the citizen’s assemblies did not exercise viva voce.
Rather, there were two sheets of paper – One paper was in the affirmative. The second paper was in the negative.
All in support of the affirmative, signed in the affirmative sheet.
All in in the negative, signed in the sheet for those in the negative.
That’s not viva voce.
Thus, to say viva voce as a mode of ratification having actually occurred is doubtful.
Honestly, Bong, I studied this back in college, and this was the specific report that I worked on.
JCC concurs: http://filipinovoices.com/the-philippine-constitution-must-be-viewed-with-sanctimonious-reverence
Manolo concurs: http://www.quezon.ph/2005/06/04/fifth-or-sixth-republic/
This book will concur (by bernas): http://books.google.com/books?id=JZi6nqjxQIQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0
And as we can see, of course it is unconstitutional, as it was back in Marcos’ time, but when taken to the Supreme Court, the argument was deemed moot because as argued, the new constitution that was “ratified” through this “viva voce” was in affect. And thus, this is why I reiterate that the supreme court may actually be the final arbiter in all of these possible scenarios.
In the end, after all processes are exhausted, the ultimate deciding factor is the people.
1) They will accept the SCORP ruling.
2) Reject the SCORP ruling, replace the constitution and replace government. Which is what People’s Power and the 1987 Constitution is all about.
They concur. I don’t. I have a dissenting opinion on the matter.
Bong, of course, we are of the same opinion that this viva voce would be absurd. And I agree, that the people would obviously have to be the ultimate deciding factor, if government institutions
But the crux of the current debate is simple, and this is not even in the realm of opinion, but in fact or fiction, it is whether or not a viva voce actually took place back in 73. And it did.
Nick, Prime,
GMA has Marcosian/Machiavellian characteristics.
But at this juncture I don’t yet think the mindless ploy os a viva voce plebiscite will fly, up and until they find acasus belli to declare Martial Law which was the situation obtaining when those barangay assemblies were held.
For now this will hopefully still be applied:
“ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.”
Humbly submitted.
All the comments below are, of course, comments from bencard and directed to no one but to Primer, and let us peruse very carefully:
“this hip-shooter is at it again. creating more stink balls to attract attention. it’s like a pest that never dies”
This comment is self-triggered, no comment precedes it that came from me. In other words, this is a crazy one-man hate movement.
“it’s no use, bongv. it’s like arguing with a punch-drunk alcoholic with too much to drink. each comment (including this one) inflates this comment thread and makes the guy thinks he has written a masterpiece of genius. i’m beginning to get convinced that he is purposely irritating people here to force them to come to his table of craps.”
Again, no comment whatsoever from me fans this self-deprecating comment of a near lunatic. It’s kind of weird to hear it from a man supposed-to-be his self-congratulatory stature.
“i think a viva voce plebiscite is absurd even in the context of possibility. legally speaking, it’s void and what is void cannot be a subject of sane argument. God help the mind that conceives the idea.”
The most stupid thing to say in relation to the just approved/adopted 1109. Can this stupid lunatic say this of 1109?
“nick, a monkey by any other name is still a monkey. you can all an exercise a “plebiscite” but if it is not in the form prescribed by the existing constitution, it’s a complete nullity, i.e. never ever existed. what is this debate all about?”
Speaking of monkey, this one not only behaves like one. Ha ha ha.
They flood me or us with brazen stupidities, inanities, and “craps” are all over the place with his nonsensical comments.
For a change, if you have nothing relevant to say, why don’t you shut up. Behave, sometimes.
Primer,
I don’t know about all those words re bencard, but this is what you wrote in the opening:
“Signs all too indicate 1109 will be finally adopted by Congress. And even the plebiscite called for the purpose may simply be by viva voce and when this happens, such shall be the last act to seal the coffin, in a way of speaking. Can we let this happen?”
You ignored the SCORP role and you incorrectly wrote that a plebescite with viva voce is possible…which it’s not, not unless martial law is first declared, that is.
There is no constitutional way to avoid the SCORP and a real plebescite.
So, you might as well have written that you expect martial law soon.
Reality,
I was actually saying that a plebiscite via viva voce is possible, a fact in recorded history. If you question the fact, you must be a fool – since it cannot be undone.
It is still legally possible that the SC cannot acquire cognizance of a ‘justiciable controversy’ unless the same is raised. Nene Pimentel already raised the argument relative to this.
What about writing on something else? Is anything stopping you from presenting yours in a blog? Shouldn’t you first read antecedent comments?
We agree that a viva voce IS possible…IF there is martial law declared first. Until such a time, though, viva voce is not possible.
So, we have laws to follow (like the requirement of a non viva-voce plebescite), unless martial law is declared. Like what Marcos did.
Whew! Glad that is settled. Thanks for making sure I’m not a fool.
Benigno,
A glass is either half- full or half-empty. I am inclined to take the former as an ‘outlook’. Of course, that does not make the latter any less true.
That so far, then.