I’ll watch Google Webmaster Tools, and if the links don’t show up after a couple of weeks — I won’t go back to that blog again.

Another suggestion: you should have a Top Commentator widget installed.

Do Follow and Top Commentator will ensure that you have a successful blog with lots of readers!

The fact that they refused to leave Lanao del Norte and instead threw a murderous temper tantrum only proves how much they care for their potential constituents, and proves nothing but their lack of trustworthiness, and the fact that they are merely bandits and terrorists as opposed to being noble muhajedin as they claim.

Still the Court will likely rule “moot” citing Devanadera’s perfervid if largely incoherent and self-contradictory statements. It will spend a hundred fifty pages or so admonishing this or that patently impossible thing, including the nontransparency of the process, then rule “academic” but explicated.

Another perfect cutting of the Baby in half by our Dark King Sulayman in black robes on behalf of the False Mother of the Constitution. It’ll be a whitewash and GMA could try again.

But I too feel confident they will make the point I’ve made about Bernas’ transitive fallacy and once more clarify the manner and method by which the Constitution is properly revised or amended.

Which should come first, a new Constitution or a death-dealing MOA?

If an IP has religious practices involving human sacrifice, would you also be “morally certain” about Bernas’ logical position: that some abstract insinuation to change the Bill of Rights to life, liberty and security would make it right to promise them such respect for their cultural and indigenous practices in a MOA signed by the Executive Branch.

At this stage of the peace negotiation, the need for a judicial oversight is yet uncalled for because the process is still purely political (or “purely executive,” as you put it), not judicial. Congress or the people (especially those who are directly affected or disadvantaged by the MoA) are not expected to act favorably on the presidential peace initiative, if they consider it to be foolhardy in the first place.

Based on our constitutional system, the courts, the Supreme Court including, have no business dealing on the wisdom or folly of a political act (for instance, the decision to negotiate with the MILF, instead of the MNLF) except, like any other citizen, to vote out of office an unwise president or some silly members of the senate who would ratify such an initiative and then proceed to propose an amendment to the Constitution for the purpose. If you think you are aggrieved by these decisions by the political branches of the government, you are free to vote and campaign against them. Meanwhile, the duty of the court is only to allocate, delineate or acknowledge governmental powers including its own according to the mandates of the Constitution, no more, no less.

Dean, I can type with only two fingers so I hope this will suffice to answer some of your concerns too. I have however disagreed with Bernas when he’s wrong as when he had defined the word “initiate” in the amendment provision during the Davide impeachment (adopting his definition, the robed gang hailed their Chief) and then flip-flopped on the same definition during the Arroyo impeachment. I am however morally certain he is constitutionally on the money on this one.

Bernas is guilty of a transitive fallacy (cart before the horse), isn’t that obvious?

Here he displays pure hubris, since he was apparently the “Constitutional expert” who assured the Palace it was intro vires for them to make false promises and to allow Dureza et al to negotiate in utter bad faith.

That of course is why they did it in secret, as recommended to them by Tuminez et al at the USIP, in ill-advised emulation of the Sinhalese ceasefire with Tamil Tigers, which also has led to nothing but strife and bloodshed.

Of course dismemberment of the secular republic would suit the Catholic Church just fine, for that would surely lead to TWO theocracies: one run by the RCC, the other by the MILF and the Bearded Ones from Waziristan.

It would be like the olden days, when Spain and Portugal split the world in two. Damn Jesuits!