MERGED: Charter Change

[ratilaboto]

---

There should be a charter change but the timing is somewhat not appropriate. Where in a brink of a global financial crisis this time

Ok let's just wait and see. And hear for another Kurakot issue, who's next? People's initiative is not unconstitutional because the people owns this country! not manila!

[cottonmouth]

Ahahahaha! mao jud diay ka! i thought sauna you're just expressing your very own opinion specially with regards to the controversial issues that hound the admin of GMA...
Damn... bisag unsa nlng basta GMA tu-a jud ka side..... hehehehe
hmmmmm.... suhol? bwahahaha!

Tulibaga gyud nimo george oi. Ug pabor diay sa Charter Change, die hard na gyud diay nga PGMA? Pagklaro oi.

Kaming mi-support sa Charter Change among nakita nga mas makaayo ni sa Pilipinas. Bisan pag si kinsa ibutang basta mag- Cha Cha. Wa man tingali ko nangumpanya ni PGMA...Kun nangumpanya pako miingon ta kong "Go Cha-Cha, Go PGMA"....ginoong gagmay baya nimo oi. Wa nakay laing ikasulti sa?

On the other hand, kaklaro ana nga mi-support ko ni PGMA...kailangan pa bang i-memorize yan. Aw kun si PGMA mahimong Interim PM...doble na ako daog unya...daog pa ko sa Cha-Cha, daog pa si PGMA. Meaning doble sad imo pildi hehehehe.

Unya kay karon majority man ang mopabor tingali sa Cha-cha so possibleng mag Cha-Cha mi before OH'TEN...eng, eng, eng.

Go CHARTER Change.

P.S.
Apil sad man diay ka nga mi vote sa poll nga "Yes. Unsconstitutional". Saon naman tawon mo oi.

[mannyamador]

It's pretty obvious some of the cha-cha dancers here only want to change the Constitution so their corrupt idol GMA can stay in power.

Just goes to show how they are willing to destroy democracy so they can get those brown paper bags.

Wake up, monkeyboys! All you're gonna get is a bagful of rotten bananas or a cow that won't fit you.

[cottonmouth]

Sorry @mannyboy
next stop will be Cha-Cha...eng..eng...eng. We have the numbers in the house...eng..eng. We'll wait and see but we're almost there at 150 signatories...almost there.

If Cha-Cha will proceed that will make you a two-time LOSER mannyboy. Kalooy.

[mannyamador]

Last time I checked the real LOSER was the monkey who ran away with his tail between his legs (short tail though)!

Right here.

Have a banana.

[cottonmouth]

I Like THIS, I love THIS...Go Charter Change.

Allow me to borrow the brains of this great columnist.

Quote:

Charter change is not about President GMA
FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa Updated October 12, 2008 12:00 AM


Recently, I was interviewed on Charter change by an academic. He wanted to know what I thought would make it possible. He also wanted to know why it was possible to do it 1986 and never again since then. The first question was easy enough to answer, the second more difficult.

In theory, if we simply follow the Constitution this could be done in three ways — a constituent assembly, a constitutional convention or a people’s initiative. But that is only in theory. In practice it is close to impossible, to implement Charter change through any of the three.

The reason is politics. And politics, as one political analyst wrote, is anything but simple. Politics is a maze of conflicting interests. And it isn’t a reality one can disentangle the knots because it is the very nature of politics. The only way one can break through the barriers democratically is to act and act boldly after all protagonists have had their say. Anything short of action is bound to be a stalemate sanctioned by theory and righteousness.

* * *

What is less talked about is that a stalemate favors the status quo. And that has been the situation since 1986. The stakeholders of the status quo need only raise their voices and the reformers wilt into the background, often shamed and berated as politically motivated as if those against were not themselves politically motivated.

Today’s reformists have been stopped from Charter change advocacy no differently from other such attempts in the past. I have seen it happen in two administrations and the pattern is consistent: demonize the incumbent. But since only an incumbent has the means and power to make Charter change possible, it is doomed from the start.

Charter change advocates were encouraged when President GMA actively supported their campaign at the beginning of her second term (That's why I LIKE PGMA...she's a tiger hehehe) . It definitely increased its chances of finally getting it done. But it failed just as well. She was accused of merely using constitutional reforms to ‘extend’ her term and that was not acceptable. It is a familiar refrain. In President Ramos’ case it never got to the point when he would have been condemned and vilified like President GMA (Oh man, sayang lolo Fidel). He buckled under the threat of a combined church-oligarchy threat led by Cardinal Sin and former President Cory Aquino. After 1986 any constitutional reform is simply tarred as a way to extend the term of the incumbent president as Marcos did. End of discussion.

Never mind arguments that Charter change addresses reforms at the very heart of the system, among which are the debilitating costly presidential elections which is at the root of graft and corruption so deplored, the lack of continuation of programs, a more effective structure for local autonomy, removing nationality as a basis for investments and so on. Each of these reforms is anathema to powerful interests but none more powerful than oligarchs who control media. As constitutionalist Jose Abueva said “a switch to a unicameral parliament would very likely facilitate other constitutional changes that would threaten their monopoly of the economy.” It will also be harder for business oligarchs to control government to suit their needs. [This is the flesh and bones why we need to change our charter...sadly some people cannot get past their little minds]

Charter change is not about President GMA. More correct is the observation that such political restructuring would be too risky for the elite that dominates this third world country. (EXACTLY!)

It is taken for granted that government should be strong enough to stand up to interests determined to hang on to the status quo. But the truth is that it is not. It does not matter that the case has been made that the present system is unable to address the problems of the country. (haaayy)

* * *

In other countries with an urgent need for constitutional reforms, the favored route would be the most expedient and least costly. That would be through a constituent assembly. But this is thumbed as self-serving for legislators. A convention which establishment groups champion as more representative and unselfish come from the same political pool and we have seen it equally corrupted as it was during the time of Marcos.

This leaves us with a people’s initiative. Again it has its drawbacks but these defects can be remedied. (One way is to treat the gathering of signatures as any election supervised by the Comelec. The signatures are immediately verifiable.). Once remedied, it would be the superior mode because it gives primacy to people’s sovereignty.

I would think in terms of combining the constituent assembly route with participation of the public. That was the intention of the 2005 constitutional commission. The body submitted proposals to Congress after nationwide consultations. Over 200 meetings all over the Philippines were held and these were debated and voted upon before it was finalized for submission to Congress. Alas, this was not acceptable to the anti-reform groups.

Neither was a people’s initiative. That, too, was turned down as fraudulent by the Supreme Court. A case could be made questioning how the Supreme Court arrived at its decision whose task is to rule on law rather than on fact. To quote a former chief justice who publicly coached those who were against the initiative. “All they had to do was come up with one fraudulent signature” and the people’s initiative was finished.” Now, really? What is the redress for such thinking from the powerful court of last resort?

* * *

Still, the same court led by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, conscious perhaps of the wrongness of its decision left the door open for a future people’s initiative. It accepted that there was, after all, an enabling law, R.A. 6735. The high court had denied this to put down the first people’s initiative.

In the debates led by its sponsor, the late Cong. Raul Roco on R.A. 6735, he included an important provision. The enabling law cannot be treated separately from the Comelec Rules and Regulations 2300 which provided the details for the conduct of a people’s initiative. These rules and regulations provide for an orderly and independent conduct of signature gathering in the same way it would an election. So can it be done? It can and it should. After all any such initiative is still subject to a referendum for those against to register their vote.

Sadly Charter change has been so successfully blocked even before it can be put before a national vote, courtesy of oligarch and church opposition. That can hardly be called democratic. For that reason alone reformists should not give up the ship nor be misled by alleged calls for debate. It is time to push for action.(This is the reason why we should hate Manila and the politically-rigtheous priest...damn them!)

Let's rock the boat...Go Charter Change!

[bcasabee]

I like the Cha-Cha but not at this time. After na sa 2010 kay murag lisud na. Nindot pud unta ma federal na ta para sayon ra kaayo ug monitor sa mga kurakot.

[cottonmouth]

Here's another GOOD column why we should rock the boat and go "Charter Change".

Quote:

Time to change
A LAW EACH DAY (KEEPS TROUBLE AWAY) By Jose C. Sison Updated June 16, 2008 12:00 AM


When our present Constitution was being framed in 1987, a single, unicameral legislative body that would effectively abolish the Senate was one of the major changes introduced before the Constitutional Commission tasked to come up with a new Charter. The proponents of unicameralism believed that with only one legislative body we could save a lot of taxpayers’ money not only because we will be getting rid of the useless, repetitive legislative process in enacting laws under a bicameral system but more importantly because we would be spared of the enormous expenses involved in the operation and maintenance of two Legislative Chambers. Besides, with a simplified set-up, the legislative process would move faster and more efficiently and it would be easier to pinpoint responsibility for the kind of laws coming out of the legislative mill.

But as it turned out, a slight majority of the framers (the voting could have gone either way) still believed that our country needs Senators who are elected nationwide to provide a national outlook on legislations as against the narrower and limited views of Congressmen who are elected by district. The constitutional commissioners thought that while the legislative process is more expensive under a bicameral system, it was worth the cost because we were at least assured of quality legislations since bills would undergo the careful scrutiny of an Upper Chamber manned by brilliant and more experienced lawmakers, before they are enacted into laws.

Furthermore, with the wisdom, statesmanship and independence of Senators who had previously sat in that august chamber, the framers believed that the principle of separation of powers would be better preserved if the Senate would not be abolished. In fact the past record of that body shows that most of its members could not be controlled by Malacañang. Indeed, the common view at that time was that every elected Senator is a Presidential timber because the Senate was the best training ground for national leadership.

During those halcyon years of the Senate, it was really awe-inspiring to see and hear the likes of Osmeña, Roxas, Laurel, Recto, Lopez, Tañada, Osias, Pecson, Rodrigo, Tolentino, Padilla, Puyat, Pelaez, Kalaw, Garcia, Macapagal, Aquino, and Diokno displaying their parliamentary skills and brilliance in the Senate session hall. This impressive roster of past Senators convinced the framers of the 1987 Constitution that our country still needs the Senate.

Unfortunately however, some Senators of today give us the very reason for the abolition of the Senate and why the Senate is no longer needed now. They have, to say the least, miserably failed to live up to the expectations of the Constitutional Commissioners who decided to stick to a bicameral Congress. The recent actuations and behavior of some of them at the session hall prove once and for all that the Senate should be abolished and that it is for the good of our country to have only one legislative body.

During my student days, I always made it a point to go to the Senate Session Hall whenever I had time to watch with excitement the proceedings of that body. It was truly a great privilege and very edifying to be there and witness the brilliant exchanges of arguments and the gentlemanly conducts of the Senators. I thought that I was learning as much as I learned in the classroom just being there, not only in theory but in actual practice. It was for me one of the best ways to be educated in good manners and right conduct as well as in unselfish leadership and dedicated public service.

Sad to say, gone were those days; and there are no indications at all that they will come back with the present composition of our Senate and the kind of electoral process that we now practice in choosing them. Not only have we elected celebrities whose main qualification is their familiar face on the big and small screens as well as their catchy and unforgettable names. We have likewise placed in that body certain personalities with bloated egos, inflated pride and offensive self righteousness. Never has there been such debilitating partisanship in that body than at present. It is composed of two groups only: the die-hard lackeys of Malacañang and the staunch oppositionists who have been at loggerheads and in constant word war.

The recent incident involving the members of the Joint Foreign Chambers of Commerce (JFC) clearly supports this observation. These foreigners may really have no business in meddling with our affairs especially in the enactment or amendment of our laws. But to invite them at a hearing and then brusquely reprimand them, bully or harass them and prevent them from speaking out, is simply unbecoming of a legislative body. This is quite “strange” indeed.

To be sure, this is not the first time that some of our Senators have displayed such kind of treatment of resource persons invited to their hearings. There have been so many incidents in the past when witnesses have been brow beaten, harassed and even insulted with churlish language simply because our “honorable” Senators disliked their answers or could not elicit what they want from these people in clear violation of their rights.

It would therefore be for the greater good of our country and people if the Senate is abolished. We could have a leaner and smaller but more efficient unicameral body composed of representatives elected by regions.

Unquote.


Oh boy, our senate now is a shame...really.

[mannyamador]

Just as long as we get rid of corrupt GMA and her coterie of brown-nosing thieves! And make sure their ilk do not control the government again. That's what really matters.

But that's something those GMA-loving monkeys can't see.

[cottonmouth]

Just as long as we get rid of corrupt GMA and her coterie of brown-nosing thieves! And make sure their ilk do not control the government again. That's what really matters.

You're changing your tune dude...seems like your running-out of gas and bleeding. Common! stand on your ground...you're anti-ChaCha remember? Prove that ChaCha is bane...don't dance with me.