SMOKE » Politics » Get a grip
Get a grip
The fun of democracy is that it allows opposing views equal time to pollute the public mind. And that’s the case here. All the Congressmen did last night was to give themselves the authority to convene as a constituent assembly “for the purpose of considering proposals to amend or revise the Constitution, upon a vote of 3/4ths of all the Members of Congress.” The key word being “proposals.” In other words, they’ve given themselves the power to spitball. This Resolution does NOT sound the deathknell for the Constitution – much less democracy.
The trouble with the fear-mongers is that they didn’t want this step taken at all. They don’t even want to hear what the proposals are. That’s not democracy. People who call what happened last night a tyranny of the majority got it right. It was a tyranny of the majority, but then again, isn’t the rule of the majority what a democracy is all about? Is the majority supposed to be gentle? Better by far to have the opportunity to talk about the proposals through the flexing of majority muscle, than be eternally be bogged down by the debates of people who would rather have a tyranny of fear.
Because that’s all this is, the opportunity to talk about proposals and finalize them.
“Disingenious,” some would holler! “This Resolution makes it possible for the feared amendments to be railroaded!”
Of course it does. But even assuming that the feared amendments – term extensions and such – are included in the final bill of proposals, that list will have to weather the inevitable challenge before the Supreme Court, making it therefore, far less than final. And even assuming that it hurdles the Supreme Court, then it has to survive public opinion.
And there is where I believe the real battle should be fought.
Term extensions, by itself, is not an evil thing. It is perceived to be evil mostly because the public has been successfully conditioned to associate the concept with a hated president. Otherwise, there is nothing so objectively wrong with the possibility of a second term (altho term extensions may refer to additional years on top of the present 6-year term, I haven’t really heard of the term explained quite that way) that it should be kept out of the Constitution. Myself, I would favor a four-year term with one re-election allowed.
And then of course there are the other proposed amendments. I’d like to hear what those are before pumping my fist and waving blood red banners in the streets, y’know? Hearing before you condemn – that’s the sort of thing they do in a democracy.
Quaint, no?
So get a grip.
Like
Written by rom
Rom is a twenty-one year old experiment. She began life with the notion that she was a Filipino-Chinese Ilongga. Now, she just thinks of herself as Ilongga, having realized that she has failed at being Chinese. At least that's what her aku told her upon learning that she had fallen in love with a Filipino.
Filed under: Politics · Tags: cha-cha, con-ass, constituent assembly, constitution
38 Responses to "Get a grip"
Leave a Reply
SUBSIDENCE
FOR PRESIDENT
Recent Comments
- David on The Ballot
"The elite will always stay in power. The Philippines is no different than the U.…" - Tangama on It’s better automated
"Amen to this. But wat up with Dr. Manalastas? He just can't get enough! While co…" - Maria Elizabeth Embry on Rom
"(tweaked by Maria Elizabeth Embry) Hacienda Luisita, 42 years Blowin’ in…" - suburbandude on It’s better automated
"Aba, ayos yung logo ng Comelec sa huli ng video. (woot)…" - danton remoto on Candidates
"thank you for your kind words. and of course, i agree with what you said about m…"
Kung isa kang matinong tao, boboto ka ba sa isang proposal na amiyendahan ang Constitution na hindi man lang nakasaad kung ano ang proposed na aamiyendahan at kung bakit kailangang amiyendahan?
Basahin mo muna ulit yung reso, Paeng. The purpose is to “convene for the purpose of considering proposals to amend or revise the constitution.” sa madalaing salita, wala pang proposed amendments. Paguusapan pa lang.
It’s like calling for a meeting para pag-usapan kung ano ang pagmi-meetingan.
Ano ang implication nito? Ang implication nito, dahil ang Congress ay magiging ConAss (na hindi pa sigurado kung ano ang pag-uusapang proposals), maraming mga nakapending na bills ang maiisantabi dahil kakainin ng oras sa ConAss ang oras na dapat ay gugugulin ng mga nasa Congress sa kanilang normal na trabaho.
Why don’t they consolidate first the proposals to be discussed before calling for a Con Ass?
At ano naman ang pinag-iba nito sa mga hearing tungkol kay hayden kho? or tungkol kay jocjoc? or tungkol kay manny villar?
If you think any of those was worth the time, then why wouldn’t you give talking about possible amendments to the Constitution a chance?
It is debatable whether our representatives really ‘represent’ our interests. As anecdotal evidence, all 6 reps in the city of Manila were against the Reproductive Health bill, while SWS surveys showed their constituents were in favor. 2 reps of Paranaque, Golez and Zialcita are staunch anti-RH advocates. And again the SWS survey showed the people they’re supposed to ‘represent’ were for it.
Which speaks of volumes about the flaws of our ‘electoral democracy.’
As for HR 1109, there were no deliberations in the committee level, according to Rep. Golez. ZERO. NADA. KAPUT. The committee also did not heed the advice of the constitutional experts they invited at the hearings.
And last night’s ‘debate’ in the plenary was a farce. Those opposed were just given time to air what all of us think.
Only 66 districts(or about 1/3) submitted “consultation” reports. Given that they really had “consultations.”
Opposition reps were all saying not all sectors were consulted. Surveys show majority of Filipinos do not favor charter change.
And yet our Congressmen did it. And in such a nasty, nasty fashion.
I echo what Rep. Colmenares said, what kind of constitution will this congress fashion if there were no deliberations in the committee level and in the plenary?
Tyranny of the ‘majority’? More aptly named perhaps, a tyranny of the majority in Congress.
“It is debatable whether our representatives really ‘represent’ our interests. As anecdotal evidence, all 6 reps in the city of Manila were against the Reproductive Health bill, while SWS surveys showed their constituents were in favor. 2 reps of Paranaque, Golez and Zialcita are staunch anti-RH advocates. And again the SWS survey showed the people they’re supposed to ‘represent’ were for it.”
then people should campaign on this issue. thats how the system works.
Granting that Congress had the right intentions at heart when they drafted HR1109, why then was it only now that they thought about exercising the power of their collective to give themselves the authority to amend what a currently prevailing Constitution says?
The “need” to improve, make relevant, or correct was the logic behind it, some would say. Others argue that HR1109 is a cause for alarm as it is rather strange and convenient for Congress to choose this time, a year before a scheduled presidential elections season out of all the years available to them during their term, to make their power to empower themselves manifest. It is more the motive behind the act and the timing that made the entire process questionable, prompting my outrage.
Motive? Obviously personal gain. Timing? What’s wrong with now?
Net result: the proposals are put on the table and discussed.
After the proposals are discussed, they will be submitted for ratification by the people. Do you seriously believe that a term extension, f’rinstance, that will benefit GMA will be ratified?
There is much more to gain from a frank and open discussion of options than there is from stifling discussion.
getting the vote of 3/4 of all congress is tough and I’m all for true democracy. I’m with you on that. What’s wrong with now? Rushing everything a year before election and before a candidate, and GMA can be one of them, can run for a seat in congress? Perfect timing. Can’t be more perfect. Rather discreet, too, but not quite.
But GMA can run for congress with or without a shift to a unicameral parliament.
And I don’t know about the timing being perfect either. With all the hurdles laid out before whatever the Constituent Assembly proposes, it is hard to imagine how a pleb can be called until after the 2010 polls.
It was hard to imagine having the “hello garci” issue set aside. Same goes for all the alleged corruption issues that surrounded the government having the same if not more credence to be taken seriously. But set aside, they were. As of now, I find it hard to imagine finding it hard to imagine anything that may involve the President’s ambitions…
it wasn’t hard to imagine the hello garci ending the way it did at all. You remember how it ended? It ended when Garci said he would name all those he talked to. Haha. That shut EVERYONE – even would-be messiahs – up. It wasn’t hard to imagine that at all. LOL
It was hard to imagine because I felt inclined to believe in the illusion that in the end, right will prevail over wrong… Oh I was SOOOoooo wrong…
She can, yes, but the more important question is will she run for Congress without the ConAss (granting this is indeed part of the grand plan to lead a would be parliament)? Highly doubt it. With her alleged track record of greed, why not the Senate? Why not vice Presidenctial seat? Why the lowly Congress where you have a maximum of 249 other colleagues sharing/fighting with your voice UNLESS there’s a greater, grander plan serving an even grander self interest?
Paranoid much? I say we should have every reason to be.
I, too, highly doubt that there’ll be major changes in the Constitution before May 2010 happens, it being not the right time to tinker with anything yet unless her minions and herself would want more of the public to entertain and believe a “highly unfounded paraniod” theory like mine and some others’.
Easy answer? Easier to win a congressional seat in her district. Everyone still loves her there. Not so for a national position like the Senate or the VPcy.
But I agree that if she does run, it’ll be with a moist eye on the PMship. That’s self-evident. Not paranoid.
We’re not a village. While there may be a significant variance between what the people actually say they want, and what their elected representatives stand for, doesn’t mean that the system doesn’t work. For one thing, if we were to simply go by what the people actually want, the government would have to put everyone on the dole, stop collecting taxes, and start giving away solid gold toilets.
socialist paradise. woohoo.
Jeg says it best in this comment
Also, it is probably not your place nor mine to say that what “people really want is to put everyone on the dole, stop collecting taxes, and start giving away gold toilets.”
A ’socialist paradise’ will do away with the government in the first place. And I doubt anyone would be so extravagant as to fashion gold toilets.
Oh. I suppose you’re one of those who like paying taxes and don’t like free money. Well then, good for you. Try peddling that line on the streets tho. LOL. And as for solid gold toilets being too extravagant, well yeah. But who’d say no? Oh wait. That’s right.You would. ROFL.
As for Jeg’s comment, well of course we can bitch. Whoever said that we had no right to cry bloody murder? But seriously, do you honestly expect your elected representatives to think the same as you all the time?
At what point do you acknowledge that individual concerns are viewed from a different prism? What may be important to you as an individual – or to your clique or circle of acquaintances or group of like-minded individuals – may not be so important vis-a-vis the bigger picture.
Just because your elected rep isn’t your brain-clone doesn’t mean that the rep is wrong; that the system doesn’t work; or that the electoral system is flawed.
But that’s just in general, of course. In this specific case, you’re all up in arms because the House said it could discuss amendments? Are we so afraid of ideas now that we don’t want things to be talked about.
The essence of democracy is the freedom to air the most abhorrent views and still be vouchsafed that freedom. It is not to short-circuit the system and – just because you don’t like the apparent beneficiary of change – prevent even the sober discussion of the possibility of change.
If we all thought like that, we’d still be in the dark ages.
approve! good point. i like this.
Socialism is all about government.
Wow, you sure have a lot of (misplaced) faith that our lawmakers will do the right thing with a Con-Ass. While I do want to save my righteous indignation for when they actually put their proposals forward, I also have a sinking feeling that nothing good can come out of this. Which is why I’m very worried for our country. Also, what rock have you been hiding in all these years? In the Philippines, a term extension has always been a very bad thing.
Hi lauren. You do know that if people vote NOT to ratify their proposed amendments, then the Constitution stays as is? My point is only this: give the people the proposed amendments and let the people talk about it and let the people decide.I seriously doubt that you want the shape of your constitution – whether changed or made to remain unchanged – determined without your participation. That’s exactly what fear-mongers want to do. To scare the shit out of you so you’ll leave the constitution as is.
But haven’t you ever wondered whether this charter is as good as it’s ever gonna get? I don’t think that it is. So, I want to hear what changes are possible, and I want the freedom to agree or disagree when the time comes.
“I seriously doubt that you want the shape of your constitution – whether changed or made to remain unchanged – determined without your participation. That’s exactly what fear-mongers want to do. To scare the shit out of you so you’ll leave the constitution as is.”
EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY! Good call, Rom.
This sums it up real clear people!
Incidentally, term extensions have always been a very bad thing? Really? Or have we just had bad presidents?
Feisty.
Let’s hope they have something substantial to discuss.
Mad props for the pragmatism spiked with fairness.
I get your point here. But the reality on the ground is that there is regulatory capture of our system by vested oligarchic interests. Things would’ve been fine if the system is working as it should. Problem is, it doesn’t. Oligarchic interests dating back since the Spanish times have captured the centers of political and economic power.
Further, surveys consistently show how a large part of the people oppose tinkering the Constitution now. Absent such a mechanism to ascertain the will of the people (aside from the regular elections), scientific surveys using a representative sample of the whole will suffice to guide the lawmakers on what their constituencies want.
Are representatives then to be bound solely by what their constituencies want? Are elected representatives not allowed to use their own judgment as to what will benefit their constituents in the long run?
The problem with the argument you propound is that it reduces Congress to a populist body. What we need is a visionary Congress. One that will be able to look beyond what is popular to try to find solutions to the problems that plague us.
Admittedly, this Congress may not fit that description, but then this Congress will not be with us forever, and their prescriptions are not done deals. We ratify or we don’t, despite their agitations. So it’s up to us. And if it’s up to us, I’d rather know first what I’m supposed to oppose, rather than take the word of people who trade primarily on our fears.
Manolo states that the proposed charter amendments can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8735557/Matrix-House-Proposed-Charter-Amendments
the proposals have been laid out and unchanged since 2006.
Matrix House Proposed Charter Amendments Matrix House Proposed Charter Amendments mlq3 Existing provisions and proposed changes to the Constitution, as drafted by the House of Representatives in 2006. Publish at Scribd or explore others: Other How-to-Guides & Manu Law & Government Government-Asia
In 2006. Puhleeze.
P.S. Deleted all the duplicate posts.
OK, wait and see muna sabi ni ROM. Total, yung presidente legit nam eh at magagaling at mababait naman mga kongrsista natin. So wait and see muna, wag mag panic. It’s not as if we’re caught in a dark alley with a kadiri magnanakaw.
Any politician who agrees to amending the constitution merely wants to be a part of history and be remembered as having had a say in the making of the highest governing and honored document of the country. GUSTO LANG MAG PASIKAT! That’s the prevalent sickness that infests our government -SUPERIORITY and POWER. In essence and definition, they should be PUBLIC SERVANTS. But by the way they do things, KULANG NA LANG MAGPATAYO SILA NG MONUMENTO para sa sarili nila. AW! Modern na pala ngayon. BILLBOARDS and COMMERCIALS na ang uso. Ain’t that right, Madam Glo? Democracy kuno. Buti pa sa Monarchy, at least, kung bagsak ekonomiya ng bansa, matuturo ng SIGURADO kung sino ang ngkulang. PERO d2 sa atin, KADA election, ang nakupong President will claim GROWTH before exiting, pag pasok ng bagong president, ilalad lad na MANA lang sa previous administration ang growth -SA UTANG! And the cycle repeats itself, OVER and OVER and OVER and….
Oh no, it’s not because it was passed that I am pissed off. I am pissed off because they deliberately distracted us with the Revilla-Halili-Kho circus so that they can pull this off. This could have been stopped if proper attention had been paid. This manipulation is where the bull shit I take from my leaders has got to stop.
It had to stop since Hello Garci. We’re reaping the whirlwind we sowed from our indolence.
Well, true. But that was only one person. Here, I am convinced that every single one of those we elected do not deserve the power they wield and, therefore, should be the first to be against the wall.
[...] a final note, blogger SMOKE, provocative as always, [...]
Sometimes staying still works.. Still waters run deep.. Rom is right — it is a (somewhat ugly) tempest in a teapot..
1. nothing illegal or unconstitutional yet for convening. this is done with probably the thought of ‘feeling’ and ‘observing’ how the public would react. and as ‘democracy’ we get people who would call for mass action to vent their protests. nothing bad too. as long as both keep on their lines.
2. we have already heard what possible revisions. though nothing concrete, but we are not too naive either. a very simple question is: so with the revisions.. will it bring us better leadership and economy? without the revisions… is it any better? we can place the BEST and even MOST PERFECT constitution up there and worship it every day. but, would it lead us anywhere?
3. this is what ive always feared…. when congress has become so ‘lawyerly’ or ‘political’ or ‘detail argumentative’ or simple and plain immature and it finds its way to our school rooms and barangay halls and our homes. and even … never mind.