Arroyo allies plan Con-ass next month

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

let's take a brief history (read carefully):

The 1973 Consti originally provided for a multi-party system on the theory that w/ such a system, elections would be decided on issues of platforms and principles and not personalities. However, the 1980 local elections spawned several splintered parties which were only factions headed by personalities.

The 1987 Consti, although it eliminated the two-party provision of the 1973 Consti, does not expressly mandate a multi-party system.It merely removes the constraints on a freely evolved multi-party system. Neither does it prohibit a two-party system. In a "free and open party system", the people may prefer a two-party or three-party system later by supporting particular parties and their candidates.

The initial draft of the Consti was geared towards a parliamentary form of gov't but because of fear of the revolutionary gov't that political followers of Marcos might be elected and succeed to dominate the parliament, it managed to have the Constitutional Commission shift to the presidential form. In the process, the provision on the multi-party system which is more appropriate for the parliamentary form was overlooked.

and later on, we have also included a party list system under the Party list Law providing representation of marginalized sectors. it paved the way for a full operation of a multi-party system in our country.

What we have now is a multi-party system under a presidential form of government. This is an incongruency because a multi-party system belongs to a parliamentary system where the Prime Minister, the real executive, is chosen by members of Parliament in the same way that a two-party system belongs to a presidential system where the President is directly elected by the people. Where there are several presidential candidates, the probability is that the winner will not garner the majority of the votes cast (unless the Constitution provides for a run-off election) and this is not conducive to political stability.

so by correcting the system from a presidential nature to a parliamentary form would accordingly correct also the nature of how political parties work.

source: Philippine constitutional law
Ayon kay Hector S. De Leon, Philippines

hehehe.. what i emna is political culture.. how can a law change the way poltician think on political parties... if we have two political parties how can we be sure na dili sila parehas ug political ideas...

maganda sana yung multi-party because it present alot of politcal ideas from green, pro-labour.... conservative..

see when we speak of poltical parties we must at least able to identify their ideologies and asa gikan ila stand sa mga poltical issues... asa sila dapit are their liberal,conservative, communist, pacifist.. but wiht pour present kind of politics.. atong poltitcians kay bisan sila wala gyud ka kahibaw asa sila dapat ibutang.. depende ra gyud sa ilaha kaugalingon kabubut-on.. dili gyud sa party

kahit anong sysem pa yan if our political nature or culture is screwed... bati ra gihapon ang gawas... )

para nako unahon sa nato educate atong mga taw ug politician before we change...

we can have two parties or multi parties pero pare-pareho lng sial ng stand and ideas.. pare-pareho lang ng flovor ng icecream..

[butyokz]

murag strategy na sad nah nila dah para lang jud madayon ang con-ass.....

[worldwide]

dong, read sa mga daan namong posts before this.. tan-awa nganung naka ingon ko nga bogo ning tawhana.. kay murag ikaw man ga judge nako dong! ty

expert diay ka sa pag measure sa intelligence sa tawo nga imo man giingnan si Revolt na bogo sya? discuss lang gud diha sa issue, ayaw lang panaway

[giddyboy]

hehehe.. what i emna is political culture.. how can a law change the way poltician think on political parties... if we have two political parties how can we be sure na dili sila parehas ug political ideas...

maganda sana yung multi-party because it present alot of politcal ideas from green, pro-labour.... conservative..

see when we speak of poltical parties we must at least able to identify their ideologies and asa gikan ila stand sa mga poltical issues... asa sila dapit are their liberal,conservative, communist, pacifist.. but wiht pour present kind of politics.. atong poltitcians kay bisan sila wala gyud ka kahibaw asa sila dapat ibutang.. depende ra gyud sa ilaha kaugalingon kabubut-on.. dili gyud sa party

kahit anong sysem pa yan if our political nature or culture is screwed... bati ra gihapon ang gawas... )

para nako unahon sa nato educate atong mga taw ug politician before we change...

we can have two parties or multi parties pero pare-pareho lng sial ng stand and ideas.. pare-pareho lang ng flovor ng icecream..

ok. i know political culture is difficult to change. but which do u prefer? a flawed presidential system where people are slowly changing politically and hope for the best? or a more suitable parliamentary system where people are slowly changing politically and hope for the best? op kors kng akoy papili-on, ari gyud ko sa iwit nga choice.

and no matter how u look at it, a 2-party system is best suited for a presidential form of gov't while a multi-party system is best suited for a parliamentary form of gov't.

in our case, we got screwed up: a multi-party system in a presidential form of gov't. chop suey...faetz.

[semahj]

another fundings need nasad para nila... mao na musamot ka pobre ang pilipinas....

[worldwide]

another fundings need nasad para nila... mao na musamot ka pobre ang pilipinas....

mao gyud, samot na modako ang bureacracy. wala nay mahimong projects kay igo na lang pang sweldo. maayo lang kung i-sweldo, ibulsa pa gyud.

[worldwide]

ok. i know political culture is difficult to change. but which do u prefer? a flawed presidential system where people are slowly changing politically and hope for the best? or a more suitable parliamentary system where people are slowly changing politically and hope for the best? op kors kng akoy papili-on, ari gyud ko sa iwit nga choice.

and no matter how u look at it, a 2-party system is best suited for a presidential form of gov't while a multi-party system is best suited for a parliamentary form of gov't.

in our case, we got screwed up: a multi-party system in a presidential form of gov't. chop suey...faetz.

sa akong tan-aw. it is all up to us to change. it doesn't matter kung unsa nga system. if we want to have a change, we all have to change ourselves. sige man lang gud ta salig and depend sa uban, kita dili mag-usab. naa sad ta makit-ang sayop, dili sad nato badlongon. wala gyud mahitabo nato if we blame it on the system. kita mismo dapat maghimo change.

[giddyboy]

sa akong tan-aw. it is all up to us to change.

i know...the simplest approach here is 2-pronged: change from bottom to up (start from selves), and change from up to bottom (start from change in system).

it doesn't matter kung unsa nga system. if we want to have a change, we all have to change ourselves. sige man lang gud ta salig and depend sa uban, kita dili mag-usab. naa sad ta makit-ang sayop, dili sad nato badlongon. wala gyud mahitabo nato if we blame it on the system. kita mismo dapat maghimo change.

i think it matters also kung unsa nga system. but that doesn't mean magsalig nlng pud ta sa uban or sa atong system. a change from a centralized, unitary system to a decentralized federal system is one way nga dili nata magsalig sa uban like sa imperial Manila.

although we cannot solely blame our system, but a more efficient and effective one really helps.

besides, how can u even change somebody who is a follower and not a leader? a leader should attract change and the followers will just follow. if every Federal State will have equal representation (via voting their Congressmen), to vote their Prime Minister, and will be empowered to do their own thing, then every LGU will follow suit. every barangay will follow suit. every neighborhood will follow suit. everyone will follow suit. Hopefully.

[colossus]

Indeed, a better system will help our current situation. Some critics wanted to change the incumbent people around only to be replaced by someone who will not impose any change to the system they are complaining about. It will still be all the same, I suppose.

I don't think the current administration will do anything to promote charter change at this time. Everyone is too busy with the upcoming elections. How could anyone think of charter change right now?

[davanitz]

I don't believe PGMA want to extend her seats because she wants to protect their family interest. What I believe is that the people around her want to extend her seats so that they will be protected on whatever evil doings they had done.