Should our next Constitution ban political dynasties?

[giddyboy]

---

Should our next Constitution ban political dynasties?
Updated April 07, 2009 12:00 AM
Philstar.com

some answers:

Jose Fabello Jr., Cagayan de Oro City: There’s nothing to worry or be wary about. Political dynasties come and go. When a name is known and trusted, it usually gets elected but when trust is breached, people would simply replace the name with a new one.

Alexander Raquepo, Ilocos Sur: By all means, political dynasties should be banned. This is the root cause of the preponderance of family interest first before the welfare of the country.

Joseph Aliviado, Cagayan de Oro City: A big yes, so that those who are competent and want to serve our countrymen can get their chance. Hopefully, this pushes through.

Ed Alawi, Davao City: I think it is in the Constitution, but is being circumvented. Notice the recent buildup of the Macapagal-Arroyo dynasty? There should be a stronger penalty for violators. The new Constitution should also dismantle the present dynasties. Give everybody a chance to serve.

Laurence Firmanes, Sorsogon City: It’s not the banning of political dynasties in our country that will straighten things up; it’s getting people to cast better votes.

Mario Tejada, Ilocos Norte: No, an anti-dynasty provision in the Constitution would be like insecticide sprayed on a vegetable field. It would kill pests and good insects as well. Responsible voting is the best antidote to undesirable political dynasties.

---000---

some arguments:

"Yes, others must be given a chance."
"Responsible voting is the best antidote."
"Yes, Dynasties run counter to progress."
"No, Not all political dynasties are bad."
"No, That’d be tantamount to political suicide."
"Parameters should be set."
"It will help fix our political system."
"Let’s hope it’s accomplished."
"Would it be Constitutional?"
"Politics is not a family business."
"Easier said than done."
"An antidote to evil governance."
"We need better candidates."
"Ban unproductive leaders instead."

---000---

KAMO, WHAT CAN U SAY?

[GOSPELofROCH]

bawal man jd nang political dynasties sa atong present constitution pero ang problema way gamit ang constitution.

[tom_book]

kabalo baya mo nga ang balaod sa pilipinas is merely a "suggestion" lang... hehehe

no matter how thick that constitution is, the problem is always with the enforcement...

[dukot_]

in short, bulok...

[diehard96]

next constitution...hmmm...so mag himo na pud og bag-o? hahay, in its short history pila na ba ka constitution ang nahimo sa 'pinas?

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

^^

1935 , 1973 and 1987

Anyways ... for me ok ang POLITICAL DYNASTIES if that leadership was proven as effective . Good example would be the Osmena's , if Margot will become the next mayor , we all know that still TOMAS who is gonna run office and all is good because we all know Tomas leadership .

[FKtemp]

Dynasties will not exist if the people will not vote them...

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

in what way can the new consti ban political dynasty? disallow another member to run for public... but that will violate their rights...

we can not ban political dynasty because its an invitable situation when the people become blind and deaf and fearful, and power corrupts another...

[JJstyles]

A big yes.... almost every city in phil have this dynasty.. and did it do something good .. Look at our country today for my answer....

[giddyboy]

in what way can the new consti ban political dynasty? disallow another member to run for public... but that will violate their rights...

By enabling a law where circumstances would make it possible i.e. Charter change. And parameters should be set so as not to violate any rights. as one argument said here, "Politics is not a family business." and Mayor Tomas can well agree w/ me on that. He did not buy the idea of Margot or his sister running for mayor but instead re-endorsed Mike Rama.

The present Constitution already disallows political dynasties, but it requires an enabling law. and because politicians a.k.a. Senators and Congressmen will never craft the enabling law in order not to lose their “family business” and their respective fiefdoms, best way I think is to go parliamentary, abolish the senate, and overhaul the whole legislative branch. let's remember that Congress, after the passage of 1987 Constitution, deliberately refuses to pass the enabling law for self-interest ad nauseam et ad perpetuam.

we can not ban political dynasty because its an invitable situation when the people become blind and deaf and fearful, and power corrupts another...

the Phils is having a semi-feudal kind of democracy where only 10% of the population controls most of the country's wealth while majority remain poor. It's not inevitable. It actually can be changed. but in time lang when we mature politically. and i think it has even started.

even MALACAÑANG admitted just few days ago that a social volcano due to social unrest is brewing, but insisted President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is not to blame for it.

the social volcano is a result of a semi-feudal setup where only 10 percent of the population control majority of the country's wealth.

As per Press Sec Cerge Remonde, "That is why Mrs. Arroyo made it a priority to alleviate the situation of the poor. He said the gov't under Arroyo is pushing "genuine peaceful social transformation," which should be the duty of all succeeding leaders. The present administration is likewise undertaking a moral recovery program under the Presidential Commission on Values Formation and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission. In the meantime, the gov't continues to invest in infrastructure and human development.

Mrs. Arroyo urged officials of banking institutions last Tuesday to be more active in lending especially for infrastructure projects", he said.

(source: Sun.Star Cebu, 6/13/09)

I will take that with a little grain of salt though...but we should not lose hope.

---000---

"Analysts and foreigners say that the Filipinos’ fixation on political families reveals the state of our political immaturity: we may now move in information superhighways but we have retained a remnant of our feudal state. In a primitive agricultural economy where the state is hardly present or too bureaucratic and remote, the community leans heavily on the richest and nearest family that’s willing to help in exchange for labor and loyalty." ~ Mayette Tabada, Sun.Star