CPR Unconstitutional

[Freeza]

---

gareb

if the people as a collective body could never 'abuse' democracy, i couldn't define taking to the streets after being fed those brown ninoy aquino bills a true expression of the people's will for the progress of the whole nation.Â* in the solomon islands, it is unbelievable how, after the insinuation of a few politicians, citizens who go on a rampage, loot and burn establishments, call for a better change.Â* the two examples are what i define as abuse of democracy.Â* the legitimate protests are not in question.

arriving the day after the election, locals (pro-government and opposition supporters) have recounted of how fraudulent the previous day has been.Â* massive vote-buying was at its best with camps stationed in hotels.Â* firstly, the locals allow their votes to be bought off them. secondly, the newly-elected members of parliament take camps as to the highest bidder. come the new prime-minister and the people uproar!Â* shops have been looted and burnt to the ground.Â* locals, all of a sudden, had flat-screen television sets. some were even so proud to be brandishing shiny bicycles in the streets with a smile.Â* that is the real picture.

to end, my only concern is that we be realistic in everything that we do.Â* if we take it to the streets, let it be for the better.

if we go to theÂ* streets and haveÂ* a legitimate protest ,fare hike,oil price hike, against government policies etc..its a healthy democracy

BUTthis so calledÂ* people power is something else to the untrained eye it could be more just like any oridinary protest.but no sir many pinoys have perfected the art of it to the point we could actually send people abroad to be an adiviser for it i bet if aÂ* pinoy would have handle the Thaksin Shinawatra crissis he could be well living into exile in the US by now...

[filipinoako2000200]

all I can say "KEBER"! rally na pud ta. apil ko!!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[tolstoi]

mao na ni ron..mugara nasad ug rally2x ang mga rallyista kai magpalaban sa unconstitutionality sa CPR..lugmok nasad ekonomiya ani.

[wak_wak]

Right na sa taw ang mag rally :mrgreen: si Gloria na president because sa rally karun noon na naa na sya sa pwesto, di na sya mo sugot naa rally praning jud


@Gareb
puno na imo Inbox bai.. si Leigh ni.. nyahahahaha.. gi mingaw nako nimu Gareb
txt me 09158640050

[filipinoako2000200]

Right na sa taw ang mag rally :mrgreen: si Gloria na president because sa rally karun noon na naa na sya sa pwesto, di na sya mo sugot naa rally praning jud


@Gareb
puno na imo Inbox bai.. si Leigh ni.. nyahahahaha.. gi mingaw nako nimu Gareb
txt me 09158640050

bisag kinsa pa ang presidente diha, magrally pud mi. hahaha

[gareb]

PissKhanXXX:

by saying 'people as a collective body' i meant 'people as a whole' and not mere political pressure groups. in realistic terms though, one should be able to identify what the people want and need independent of what political wheel-dealing says.

the validity of what is being shouted in the streets is not dependent on who is shouting. rather, we should see political protest in the streets as a sign of distrust to the usual means of redressing grievances because they no longer work or that grievances are not being addressed.

even if it may be true that money becomes the motivating factor for some people to join certain street demonstrations, it would be very wrong to generalize and say that every street demonstration is participated by people who are only there because of lagresse. there are street demonstrations and rallies that expose legitimate complaints participated by people who are directly involved. we also have to realize that merely paying participants to attend a street demonstration and to incite wanton violence seldom get the support of the people. hence, it's really counter-productive if their aim is to gather the support of the people as a precursor for a power grab.

a street demonstration can degenerate into violence, but such violence cannot compromise the legitimacy of the issues being presented. a compromise such as this can only serve to reinforce the error that the street demonstration aimed to expose. but this does not mean though that violence such as what you have onserved is justified. it only means that the likelihood of violence and anarchy happening is greatly increased when the democratic institutions (in the case of the Solomon Islands, the elections) fail to represent and serve what the people actually want.

the scenario that you have described here of massive electoral fraud and under-the-table dealings at the high offices fits perfectly into this view of a political institutions' collapsing credibility. and with that comes the anarchy of looting and property destruction; the dark manifestation of a people's frustration at the establishment. since people see the eroding credibility of the establishment, people may feel that it no longer has the credibility to police them through its set of laws. with no other outlet for this tension, violence and wanton destruction of property emerges.

we must also understand that riots are largely social phenomena with very limited space for aspects concerning individual decisions. a mob does not stop, sit and ponder first if a rock should or should not be thrown at a phalanx of full-geared, anti-riot police ready to beat whoever it gets its hands on black and blue. destruction of property and burning of cars aren't actions that benefit the challenging political group marching on the streets, but it still does happen because the tension of the crowd needs a release. one does not question the rationality of a mob's action when it is in full swing. what one can do is to diffuse it before it reaches a critical point.

unfortunately, rallies and street demonstrations are often seen in toto in this paradigm. it needs to be dispersed before it causes destruction, without even giving importance to what this crowd has to say. dispersing a crowd with such justifications in mind, again, can serves the interest of those that do not want the crowd's voice to be heard.

that is why, as i have said, before we reach this dilemma, our political institutions must first be credible and accountable. we should not allow for a condition will arise that will facilitate this scenario into actually happening.

[gareb]

Freeza:

first off, both 'People Power' uprisings were not illegal; only extra-legal. there is a wealth of difference. please acquaint yourself with why the Supreme Court granted GMA the presidency after the EDSA II, and read about why the SC did not consider the EDSA uprising as 'illegal'.

and second, superficially national elections may gauge who the people want to lead the nation, but a seccond, more realistic look on the issue reveals how social standing (which equates to power and money) and prominence play major parts on who gets elected and who doesn't. as it appears, people usually elect not on the basis of the social contingencies that dictate their own interest, but on demonstrations of power and influence.

as i have mentioned earlier, political protest on the streets tend to get more frequent when the people see that there is really no use in going through the whole process of having their grievances heard when they percieve that these moves are really going nowhere anyway.

when the credibility of democratic institutions such as the Congress, the Presidency or even processes such as the elections or impeachments are questioned, there is this tendency that the voices of the people no longer flow through these channels. instead they flow on the streets. and when they do flow on the streets, nobody can declare that 'illegal'. this scenario pains a picture of 'representative democracy' faling due to compromises done by the elected. to redress this imbalance, 'direct democracy' informally takes its place, even for a temporary period.

that is a lesson that you and the others should learn from both EDSAs.

[wak_wak]

Agree ko ni Gareb :mrgreen:

[getitright3]

"Freeza" is on the right track here-no matter what, we have to support the sitting government because, despite what some like to say, we did vote them into power. Politics is politics and there will always be backbiting and plenty of conflicts-but that's a good thing right? That's how we avoid totalitarianism after all! Certainly, we should be thankful that we have a government that is well-oiled and functional, and IS making progress, contrary to what the doubters and disbelievers among us say. Freeza hit the nail on the head with her astute comment about us all being Filipinos in the same boat together. So we should pull together in ONE direction, otherwise, if the ship goes down, to continue the analogy, we ALL go down with it, so let's show some support for our captain and her crew if you please!

[baron]

Citizen's rights are being respected in a democratic country. As they say, this is a free country! I believe, however, that we should exercise our rights responsibly. If we want to express our sentiments in the streets, the police enforcers should exercise maximum tolerance over the rallyists. The rallyists, in return, should create a relatively peaceful assembly and not provoke the police enforcers. We know that when the rallies lead to disorder and inconvenience to the public, the police authorities may likewise exercise their authority over these rallyists.

When police authorities are present in rallies, they consider the safety of the commuting public and the public order as well. In so far as the rallyists are concerned, they are very much aware of the possibility that they might be infiltrated, otherwise, the activists’ minds may even provoke the tolerance of the police authorities. The public, the police authorities, and the rallyists should exercise responsibly their own rights, not exercising their own rights while prejudicing the rights of others.

By the way, newspapers today featured Congresswoman Baraquiel and police officers shaking hands while rallies are being conducted. Indeed, if peaceful assemblies are held, we should not be afraid.