Supreme Court rejects people's initiative petition

[junmar4]

---

that just show unsa na klase na mga politiko ang naa sa Pinas, it's not the People's concern but the individual and the Party's concern..

[nunobone]

mao jud...
tingalig mamasol nasad si ate Glo ani sa congress... lawgan dayon na niya iyang mga batos..
pareha atong usa ka congressman na niingon "mas madali narelease ang budget para sa'kin ngayon nasa administration na ako..." <---- toinks...

[junmar4]

mao jud...
tingalig mamasol nasad si ate Glo ani sa congress... lawgan dayon na niya iyang mga batos..
pareha atong usa ka congressman na niingon "mas madali narelease ang budget para sa'kin ngayon nasa administration na ako..." <---- toinks...

mao lagi tawn... ang budget ra giapas para makabahin dayon...

[FK]

if congress will be able to get the 2/3 votes... onya pa decisionan sa SC, i doubt they will get a favorable response.

ga buhat ra na ang mga congressman og ilahang definition.

[boxingfan529]

this is a good thing that the SC didnt approve. otherwise, we will see ate Glo again for the next decade ruling this poor country of ours. after 2010, let another president rule and probably that's a good time for country to change to parliamentary. ex-presidents should not be allowed to run.

[FK]

Finally, the Court said that by fusing the parliament proposal with a change to a unicameral legislature and then a vague one for federalism, the proposals became fatally flawed. The Constitution requires proposed amendments to be specific, and not indivisible in the manner proposed. Thus, the Court focused on a term that will surely gain wide political currency: “logrolling.” Introducing a proposal requiring an interim parliament to convene as a constituent assembly to propose even more amendments represented an objectionable attempt to sneak in a provision that was politically favorable to a new parliament, but irrelevant to the central proposal to establish a parliament in the first place.

And so the Court threw out the plebiscite petition.

In the end, the Court remembered the shameful irony of the Marcos years, when the dictator insisted to “let the people decide” on his dictatorial rule. From 1973 to 1986, he thought the people spoke through ballots pre-written by his agents. The present Court now insists that that shameful period should never be repeated. Justice and fair play require the Constitution to be replaced by a new one strictly according to its provisions.

we should not be always faithful with anybody samot na sa mga people in power... you have a proposal like that, and take it whole heartedly?