Democracy is a process. It is not an end-goal. It is a process in which a whole polity – the bureaucratic organs of the State and more importantly its people, participate. Democracy will not die if HR 1109 is not “eradicated.”
First, the democratic process is dying because a power bloc in the administration now enjoys a monopoly in two of the three branches of government. If we cannot agree about the motivations, nefarious or not, of HR 1109, we can at least agree that it is a show of force of this power bloc. It is a toss-up whether the Supreme Court’s few good men and women can be counted on to defend what remains of justice in this country. The democratic experiment is all about competition and equal-opportunity access to mechanisms of power and governance. If competition dies, democracy dies.
Second, the democratic process is dying because the majority of citizens, i.e. all Filipinos of legal age, are unable to constructively engage the State because it is costly – in financial and temporal terms. Politics in this country is a high stakes game. Only those with resources can afford to play with the high-rollers. While we have, throughout the years, managed to make Congress more accessible to sectoral interests by instituting party-lists for example, these have also been perverted by the same old entrenched traditional politicians. It is well-known that some party-lists currently enjoying seats in Congress do not actually represent sectors other than those who bank-rolled them.
The root of opposition is not necessarily term extensions. It lies in the way in which HR 1109 was, in the words of one from the opposition, “bullet-trained” in the House of Representatives. Let me reiterate what is in the records of the sorry excuse of an interpellation that went on in the plenary session of June 2, 2009.
While legal experts such as Fr. Bernas were invited by the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, their advice went unheeded. Only a third of the districts actually submitted their consultation reports to the committee, which means two-thirds did not hold consultations at all? Also, there were no debates held in the committee-level. Wham-bam thank you ma’am! The power bloc in the committee voted to let the resolution pass on to the plenary-level! Lastly, that sorry excuse of an interpellation. To give you a time frame, the Reproductive Health Bill has been on the floor since September last year. Thirty-three were slated to interpellate (i.e. interrogate) the contents o f this piece of legislation. The debate began in earnest in January. One representative took days, DAYS to fully exhaust his questions.
So, back to the resolution that would ostensibly give the power of convening the House in a body that would change the highest law of the land. Some SIX HOURS on the floor. SIX HOURS. And while 13 were slated to quiz the contents of the resolution, only two were able to interpellate, Reps Zamora and Golez. Rep. Guingona was cut short. Then Rep. Dilangalen, bless his heart, moved that the period of debate be closed. The power bloc voiced a thunderous ‘aye’. Oh, and by the way, there was an equally thunderous scream of ‘nay’ too – but those voices came from the gallery. Obviously, in this democracy, the ring of wood and cement separating the floor from the gallery does not merely serve an architectural function.
And after some scuffle and screams of “point of order Mr. Speaker,” some reps were allowed to sing the swan song of opposition. Some even went to read rules that were violated in the process of bullet-training the resolution. And what was the response of one of the sponsors Rep. Ortega? These are “insignificant procedural matters.” Oh, the unnecessary details of this functioning democracy. The unnecessary details! Due process indeed.
While it is true that the resolution explicitly states the terms of office of the incumbent President, Vice President and other elected officials will not be extended, does this same ‘promise’ hold if and when the form of government has been changed to a Parliamentary system? The resolution does not say. It also does not make any specific statements about what exactly will be changed in the constitution. The only other specific amendment that has been floated is that of Speaker Nograles’ – allowing foreigner investors 100 percent ownership of Philippine lands. Now I have already expressed my opposition against this specific amendment.
So yes, by all means, let us welcome House Resolution 1109. Let us stand by and let “due process” run its course. Allow our honorable representatives to open up the highest law of the land for tinkering. Since we elected them, they embody the will of the people. They must have our best interests at heart. Let the system work by god! Let the open, democratic and accessible institutions of this country carry us to First World status by 2020!
Popularity: 1% [?]
There will be more problems along the way, if the whole fiasco must proceed in the way it has been ‘officially’ contemplated. In short, there will be a Senate-less convening of the Constituent Assembly.
The Supreme Court, in case indeed, rules in favor of the ruling power bloc will not throw strone on the path of the consequent revision or amendment to the Constitution.
The plebiscite called for the purpose, quite again, will reflect patronizing vote for the ruling power bloc’s agenda – a parliamentary form – plus some ‘bonuses’ such as, but not limited to, term extension.
Then, a former president, will be so chosen as the Prime Minister making it even more difficult to oust GMA in the best tradition of EDSA.
People will protest, alright. Some fractious segment of the military will try to break the chain, alright. Some bishops will agitate the flock, alright.
In the end, the lady wins – a ‘perpetual trophy’.
All these, from the p.o.v. of a devil’s advocate. What can we do?
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.
Sparks,
I don’t know you from Eve, much less familiar with your writing style. But really now, is it an understatement if I say that that there is sarcasm in the tone of the above piece? :)
Well, lookit, I believe people are still playing by the rule book we call the Constitution. Let the play run its course. We still have the fifteen umpires we call the SC to make the final call.
It may be a ‘stacked’ game to many right now, but it’s the rule book we agreed upon at the start of the game, no?
Agree.
Senate. SCORP. People Power. – Mahabang labanan yan.
And all through the process, let the people make their thoughts known to those who wield power. Yes?
sparks:
yes.i agree.
assuming the amendments are the same amendments cited by mlq3 – what’s taking so long to make this happen?
The first line of Battlefield is already in the Blogosphere,
CyberSpace, internet, etc…
I see the Batlefield shaping up already. Calling all Patriotic
Filipino Geeks. Join the Mother of all Battles…
Phil,
Yea, that will be the more balanced view.
I am in favor of allowing foreign investors 100 percent ownership. I like Taiwan’s approach (note Taiwan has a smaller land mass than the Philippines).
(Article 18, Land Law)
Types of Land: Lands for agriculture, forest, fishery, pasture, hunting, salt, mineral deposits, water sources, military areas and lands adjacent to the national frontiers shall not be transferred, encumbered, or leased to foreigners. (Article 17, Land Law)
Usage of Land: The usage of land leased or purchased by foreigners is limited for residences, shops, factories, churches, hospitals, schools for children of foreigners, diplomatic and counselor building, building of organizations for the promotion of public welfare, and cemeteries. (Article 19, Land Law)
There’s also the Singapore model:
Eligibility to Buy Private Property
In the year 1973, the Singapore Government has imposed restrictions on foreign ownership of all private residential property in Singapore. Such ownership is governed by the Residential Property Act.
The Act aims to give Singaporeans a stake in the country by being able to buy and possess their own residential property at an affordable price and also encourage foreign talent by allowing permanent residents and foreign companies who make an economic contribution to Singapore to purchase such properties for their own occupation.
The Residential Property Act (RPA) is then amended on 19 July 2005 to allow foreigners to purchase apartments in non-condominium developments of less than 6 levels without the need to obtain prior approval.
For restricted property such as vacant land, landed properties such as bungalows, semi-detached and terrace houses, prior approval is still needed if foreigners wish to buy. Landed properties is a special class of residential property that Singaporeans aspire to own, and should remain restricted. Foreigners need to apply for approval from Singapore Land Authority before buying.
If you are a foreigner (or expatriate) and you wish to purchase a restricted residential property, you need to download the application form at http://www.sla.gov.sg/htm/ser/ser0307.htm#d You can submit the form together with the relevant supporting documents such as your entry and re-entry permits and qualifications to:
Land Dealings (Approval) Unit
No. 8 Shenton Way,
#27-02 Temasek Tower,
Singapore 068811
What are the non-restricted residential properties?
Foreigners are not restricted from acquiring:
*
Developments approved as a condominium development under the Planning Act
*
A flat in a building of 6 levels or more including the ground level and any level below the ground level including HUDC Phase I, Phase II flats and privatised HUDC Phase III and IV flats
*
A leasehold estate in restricted residential property (refer to A) for a term not exceeding 7 years including any further term which may be granted by way of an option for renewal
What are the restricted residential properties?
Foreign persons (including natural persons, foreign companies and societies) are restricted from purchasing:
*
Vacant land
*
Landed residential property, such as bungalows, terrace houses, semi-detached houses
*
Residential property in a building of less than 6 levels
Other restricted properties
*
A HDB Shophouse
*
A HDB flat purchased directly from HDB
*
A resale HDB flat where HDB has consented to the sale
*
Executive Condominium bought under the Executive Condominium Housing Scheme Act, 1996
I don’t know about comparing the length of debates/discussion of a simple resolution to those of a heavy-duty law. After all, the resolution ultimately only says: “let’s all sit down for a ConAss…with or without the Senators”. (And with the complete knowledge, nay, aim) that doing so will ultimately require a ruling by the SC)
Meanwhile, there really wasn’t much of a need for real debate. Not because the outcome was obvious (how many names were already on the proposal — 120?), but because there’s no need to yet debate any amendments. There was a need to “go through the motions”, that’s all (and it happens all the time…just not with a screaming gallery and on tv).
Like Phil said, no rules have yet been broken, and 15 umpires can keep the play in-bounds. Plus every voter will then get to accept/reject every proposed change.
And throughout the process, various points of view will certainly get media time…that’s never been a problem.
This entire sure-to-be-drawn-out national discussion can be handled calmly and rationally. But it looks like that’s an impossibility. So here we go again — heightened tensions, fear, disruption, investment-chilling instability.
If this keeps up admin after admin (as it has to date), go ahead and open up 100% to foreigners…they won’t be so interested anyway. Leaving the much-too-little local investments/investors to fall short of solving the employment problem…the first true step to poverty alleviation. Too bad. Really.
reality, how i wish every filipino could be as perceptive as you and have the same grasp of reality. the misguided throng that rejects reason in favor of blind acquiescence to the voices of obstruction (mostly for self-serving motives), appears to be entrenched in philippine society. as usual, it looks like the naysayers will again have the day – even before any constitutional change is formally proposed.
It is not paranoia since it happened before. It is only by vigilance that we can prevent the repeat of what happened under Marcos. Did anybody ever ask themselves what could have been if we had a good President in the 60′s and onward? We could be like Singapore or even Taiwan or South Korea today since we were ahead of these countries way back then. Our country needs strong and good leaders who can uplift the lives of all Filipinos and not officials who enrich themselves while they are in power.
Rosa you state the qualities of leaders our country needs.
Apparently, the electorate disagrees with you and is stating that the country needs more morons.
It is not a process, if you buy Tongress People to assualt the
Constitution at night when everybody is sleeping.
The Author of this Blog Site article is another Media Dog of Gloria
Arroyo and her cahoots. They already have infiltrated and embeded themselves in the Blogosphere like dog ticks. To sow confusion. To desensitize us. So that they can easily and painlessly take away our Freedom and Rights. They will demonize their opponents for sure. Like
those who oppose the CHA CHA and CON ASS.
OUR CAUSE TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION IS A JUST CAUSE…
It is now a war in the Blogosphere, in the internet and in the cyberspace…
Toro — ia there an argument there?
I lean towards ConCon, myself. But I’m not rabidly anti-ConAss. I’m firmly against term extensions or no-el. But I’m not fearful, knowing the processes which must occur…including the ultimate plebescite.
You have the right to your opinion, but calling people dogs and speaking of wars is troublesome.
Anyway, “…to assualt the
Constitution at night when everybody is sleeping” is inaccurate. Most of it, including the first vote, was done on primetime tv. Meanwhile there was no “assault” (another war term) on the Constitution. A call to convene doesn’t change a thing. Not one thing.
You can blend with the color of your environments. But, I am looking
on what your intentions are. Sorry Dummy, I know your tactics.
When these officals act purely out of self-interest then to call them dogs is an understatement. I would call them vultures living off the flesh of poor filipinos.
Well the bozos should have worked harder at electing officials who are not after their self-interest.
But you can’t really do much and hold them accountable when you sold your votes to them for 30 pieces of silver.
Tough luck, grin and bear it. You reap what you sow.
I am in favor of cha-cha.
And if ( a really big IF) the amendments being pursued are those that mlq3 cited, I don’t have a problem with Con-Ass – if it works for my advocacy, why not. If it does not work for my advocacy, of course, I will stall and buy some more time :lol:
Right now, I have yet to read an explicit declaration from the current batch of congressmen if those are the amendments that will be made, thus, am holding off on being pro or anti Con-Ass
I don’t think the Senators will allow their offices to go away. It is a matter of self-interest, not statesmanship.
The upside is, the Senators have more influence and name recall in their bailiwicks than the current Congressmen, and presumably, the odds are in their favor if there is a switch to the Parliamentary system.
Provided further that with the switch to unicameralism, Congress is dissolved and new elections for MPs are conducted.
Hyden,
Here I will have to disagree. Your characterization of the author is misplaced as it is grossly incorrect.
I personally know her.
Methinks one cannot allow his or her opposition to Con-Ass obscure reason and thus fall into obstructionism as Atty. Ben, pro-GMA as he is, tags those of us who question Con-Ass, failing to understand that the reason some oppose it springs from out mistrust for and knowledge of the propents’ track record of mis-governance.
In a previous thread I’ve gone on record to say I favor fine-tuning the Constitution but that step should be taken at the onset of the next President’s term and not now in the final ll months of a grossly unpopular regime’s hold on power.
GMA has all but expended her political capital to make people believe that her cha-cha is not bundled with term extension.
Hell can freeze over before she and her cohorts con us with avowals of sincerity.
Ding:
I think term extension can work both ways.
With a lousy leader – one term is more than enough.
With a good leader – one term is too short.
Gotta bite the bullet sooner or later.
it’s impossible to argue against paranoia. it’s a job for psychiatrist or worst, exorcist.
I agree Hayden, it is plain as day that they want the Filipinos to do nothing and express nothing so that their Arroyo and her minions will have all the time in the world to cook up their plans without interference and later say see the Filipinos did not even react when we passed this bill. Bencard, Reality check, Primer are birds of the same feather and loves to sound like they are the voice of reason but underneath they are asking you to sell your Filipino soul. Never again are we going to allow dictators or would be dictators to be left unchallenged. No to Conass!!!
Exactly, you mount the challenge by selecting NO – in a plebsicite on charter change.
mount the challenge in a *plebiscite
Hi sparks.
Most persuasively tongue-in-cheek.
I almost want to second your motion. Almost.
July 27 is the date. I will give this serious thought.
Bong,
I don’t have a problem about “biting the bullet.”
But I sure don’t want my kids growing up under a regime controlled by bribers and ‘bribees’.
Postscript:
And unlike some who are smug and out of touch thinking their kayumanggi skin will turn caucasian some day if they adopt nasalized accents, I am ok with my single citizenship and ordinary passport.
I’ll be damned if I turn into a bigot against my own people.
Ding:
Our grandparents, parents, siblings, spouse, and us grew up under a regime controlled by bribers and ‘bribees’.
Our kids are already growing up under a regime controlled by bribers and ‘bribees’.
Call me an eternal optimist, then.
We can if we choose to become the change we want our society to be.
Ding,
Now you are talking.
I agree, we have the power to choose.
Moreover, if we are to choose, let us choose well.
This is one of those instances where concepts like the butterfly effect, domino effect, and causality pop into my thoughts.
i would like to know whether hr1109′s central idea is correct — can they propose changes for plebiscite without the senate?
that is a big question and needs to be resolved.
oh, and yeah, lets have a debate on the proposed changes! wooot! :)
GabbyD:
Took the liberty of converting the scribd document to PDF and upload it to FV.
The House Proposed Changes can be downloaded from here.
I have also converted the PDF to Word and HTML.
Anyone wanna split the task of cleaning up the Word/HTML documents?
Re your first question, the ‘vagueness’ in the provision on how Congress votes is what’s being exploited by GMA’s allies in that they claim the two chambers vote as one.
This is the question that will need to be resolved when the issue goes to the SCORP.
The lawyers I’ve consulted, including a former Con-Con delegate, and two former law deans told me the term Congress cannot be taken to mean just the House of Representatives but the two chambers voting separately.
Now showing on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rqWbNwuHpE
Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFpydAd_IOM
Bong,
That matrix is all it is, a matrix.
It means nothing until these are formally submitted and neither are they binding akin to straightjacketing the Assembly, assuming it gets convened with the Senate participating.
Another element is that such a body is clothed with plenary powers, mean it cannot be limited to that matrix even granting Nograles’s ‘vow’.
Just say NO during the Plebiscite.
bongv, with these people, i don’t think we’ll even get there. they will always find something to be afraid about to the point of making the idea of cha cha an absolute taboo, if not anathema.
From the wiki:
Sigaw ng Bayan’s People’s Initiative
The political process that would carry on the proposed amendments recommended by the Consultative Commission was campaigned by the Sigaw ng Bayan group (Cry of the People) and ULAP in 2005-2006. Sigaw ng Bayan was headed by Atty.Raul Lambino who was himself a former member of the Consultative Commission.The aim of Sigaw ng Bayan group was to gather enough signatures in order to call for a plebiscite on the proposed constitutional changes via the People’s Initiative mode.
Once again some organizations, politicians, religious sects, business tycoons, political groups such as One Voice opposed the “cha-cha” process based on various reasons and beliefs such as the so called untimeliness of the proposed amendments/revisions and the allegation that the incumbent President and her allies would directly benefit from the proposed changes. The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), an organization labeled by the United States as terrorist, denounced the cha-cha process as “anti-masses”; they called on their paramilitary group, the New People’s Army, and their left wing supporters to campaign against Charter change and intensify the destruction of what they viewed as a feudal, fascist Philippine regime backed by the imperialist United States.
On October 25,2006 the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, with a vote of 8-7, narrowly rejected Sigaw ng Bayan’s People’s Initiative; this time, on the grounds that the initiative failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative. The insufficient enabling law of the 1997 Supreme Court decision however was overturned by the same Supreme Court in the second motion for reconsideration by Sigaw ng Bayan; with the Supreme Court announcing in November 2006 that there is adequate enabling law for the people’s initiative mode to successfully propose amendments to the 1987 constitution.
This legally opens the possibility of a new people’s initiative that could seek a plebiscite on the issue of Charter change in the Philippines.
*******
Sigaw ng Bayan does not have a monopoly on “People’s Initiative”. ;)
fight ConAss with “genuine People’s Initiative”.
Question is are “the people” up to the task?
Bong,
A GENUINE People’s Initiative would be a good middle ground.
Oh good morning Atty. Ben.
Given how you’ve slammed those against Con-Ass as “paranoid” and no-nothings, I guess you will also fund this abhorrent:
http://midfield.wordpress.com/2009/06/10/of-stand-up-comics-with-no-standing-and-bad-timing-why-con-ass-will-not-con-me/
Incidentally by way of ‘promoting’ freedom of movement, policemen are barring provincial buses bearing ‘suspected’ anti ConAss protesters from entering the Metro.
Who’s paranoid, again?
They can spread out among all the buses, in threes
Synchronize ops using cell phone ;)
the last i heard, it is the police’s primary job to maintain peace and order. is it paranoia for the police to perform their responsibilities? is it paranoia to maintain a national defense force, or even an armed security guard in a bank’s premises? given the history of protest actions in metro manila, wouldn’t it be better for the majority of the people that law enforcers are able to do their job?
exactly. it is to save the people from themselves! :lol:
rioting, looting is a no-no.
Idol na talaga kita Atty. Ben:)
Consult you pro bono, may I?
What are the cornerstone constitutionally-protected rights again (wink)?
On another note, while people are chewin on Cha-cha.
There has to be something else that’s going on that people are not seeing :)
* Realignment of presidential candidates?
* More party mergers?
* another ZTE/NBN in the making?
* another Bolante-type ops?
remember, all of that is happening simultaneously in real time.
Ang saya saya.
ocho ocho spaghetti pababa spaghetti pataas :lol:
In infantile democracy, a plebiscite is generally used to sustain and maintain a regime. A plebiscite does not offer preferences, imposing voters to force a yes or no answer. This is not constantly a dreadful thing, particularly when the proposal is pure cut, but it can be used to skew election results. The proposal may be worded in such a method that representatives feel compelled to vote, one way or the other, or voters may be forced into making a fussy choice. 20 million can be 20 million and who knows? :) The regime utilizes the results of the plebiscite to imply that the citizens of the country are fulfilled with their current political situation. ( ahah)
Unprincipled powers have been known to use plebiscites to cement their authority, often in a way that tyrannies do. If the results of such a plebiscite seem strange and unusual, people worried about freedoms may want to consider reading the proposed measure carefully, or examining for tactics within fine prints.
Go Magic Go :)
focus on proposal is pure cut, be proactive.
you snooze, you loose :lol:
i’m almost certain these are not your words. where did you copy the comment from?
i have to raise the bar now beancurd… and i will change my name to Katrina…
and sparkie, who is that guy on a white cap at 35 sec on your video? LOL. BTW , are you going to blog about that “ordinary person” ? yeah ang saya saya niyo diyan magrally. It’s an adventure. I wish I’m there . I could be a good leader? LOL anyway, I have heard many “tsismis” here in the US and from different functions of this planet, that OFW are dispirited with what’s been going on. With 20 million each and a debt service of about 70% of the country’s revenue, countless emails are laughably :) interrogating, where did the money comes from?
Others irritated with such a secret momentum. :)
Umm, would anyone like to demonstrate even an inkling of proof that P20M or P2M or P200M was/will be paid for supporting ChaCha?
Cayetano said it…so it must be true, eh? But can anyone substantiate such a claim?
And since the vote was viva voce, how could the payer tell who was/wasn’t deserving of being a payee?
Oh so finally, anyway, sparks is pro-1109?
What a revelation now?