Change v status quo

The cat is now out of the bag.
Loose talks that Nacionalista Party standard bearer Manny Villar is the secret candidate of Malacanang have gradually been confirmed.
The governor of Cebu Gwendolyn Garcia, an administration ally, has confided that first gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo had called up other members of the Garcia clan to back Villar over the official administration standard bearer Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro.
Contrary to perceptions that the political landscape has been muddled, actually it has become clearer.
Leading to next months elections, it now turns out to be a one-on-one contest between Manny Villar, the candidate backed by the Arroyo administration, against Noynoy Aquino, of the Liberal party, who personifies the opposition.
What happens to Gibo Teodoro?
Sorry to say, he will end up bigo.
He will be junked by his own administration partners in favor of Villar.
Politics is cruel. But that is politics.
The people now have a clearer choice.
If you are for the status quo, then vote for Villar.
If you want change , because you do not like how this country is run, vote for Noynoy.
If you want to go back to the past, vote for Erap.
By the way, I really find funny Villar’s posturing that he swam in a sea of garbage.
For me, anybody who swims in a sea of garbage has some psychiatric issues.
Who is in right mind will even wade in a sea of garbage?
If you think that the Arroyo administration policies should be continued in the next six years, then vote for Villar.
If you want these policies to be recalled and rejected, then vote for Noynoy.
So as we head nearer to the elections, our choice as voters have become simpler and clearer.
Manny Villar for status quo.
Noynoy Aquino for change.
Pick your choice.

Manila Penn siege--- one year ago

It was one year ago today that Senator Antonio Trillanes led the siege of the Manila Penninsula at hte heart of Makati City.
It began with Trillanes walking out of his hearing at the Makati court of Judge Oscar Pimentel at at the 33rd floor.
He was supposedlly fetched by armed sympathizers, who were able to bring their guns to the courts despite tight security.
Co-incidentally I was at the Makati court at that time for a hearing.
With my cellphone camera, I was able to take video shots of as the drama unravelled.
Little did I know that while I was recording, Trillanes was already at the elevator going down.
If you notice the video there was shouting from where the elevagtors were located.
I was standing in front of the court of Judge Pimentel.
Below is that video.

A question of timing

The bountiful merits and lofty ideals of the proposal to shift to federalism have been skewed by strong suspicions that this move is really a means to perpetuate political power of overstaying politicians.
However attractive the objectives of federalism are, it is quickly engulfed by a thick cloud of skepticism.
Federalism is widely viewed as the instrument that will dismantle the concentration of power from the central government.
Federalism means people empowerment, in the regions, in the provinces, and in the cities and towns.
However, the shift to a federal form of government would require tinkering of the fundamental law.
Here lies the danger.
Any attempt to change the constitution at this time will largely be likened to a reckless surgery that will not heal a defective organ, but will destroy other well-functioning organs.
One of the basic and fundamental principles in our constitution, which is the imposition of term limits in elective office, is in grave danger of being shattered.
The inherent belief in a democracy is that in the hands of the sovereign literally lie the power to choose those who govern.
Shattering term limits among elective offices goes against this democratic principle.
It is a wicked pathway of maintaining political power.
It must not see the light of day.
We embrace the merits of federalism.
Federalism is a system seen to galvanize peoples’ hopes for a brighter tomorrow
We look forward to seeing it eventually enforced in the future.
But not today.

Senate hearing on charter change

The Senate conducted consultations from constitutional experts, in the same manner that the Supreme Court invites amicus curaei in resolving important issues before it.
The main issue in the hearing last Monday was to listen to constitutional experts on the matter of whether the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote separately in the process of convening a constituent assembly to propose changes in the constitution.
This was the Senate's response to the House's challenge to the Senate to pass within 72 hours a resolution calling for a constitutional convention.
Appearing guests included constitutionalists Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, Christian Monsod, both memebrs of the 1986 constitutional commission that draft the present constitution.
Also present was former Cebu governor Pablo Garcia, a member of the 1971 constituional convention.
They were one in saying that this is not the right time to even talk about changing the constitution because the atmosphere is so engulfed in intense partisanship and political turmoil that a rational decision on charter change would not be attainable.
The Senate met as a committee of the whole and held the hearing at the session session hall.
There were also other guests like Atty. Jovy Salazar, President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, former Senator John Osmena, Willy of the Kilusang Magbubikid ng Pilipinas, UP law professor Gwen De Vera, and some youth leaders.

Speaker's bluff

In a press conference this morning, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Jose De Venecia posed a challenge to the Senate to pass a resolution within 72 hours calling for a constitutional convention to pursue constitutional reform.
De Venecia hurled a condition, that if the Senate fails to pass such resolution, then the House will continue with their efforts to convene a constituent assembly all by themselves.
De Venecia is, by his own admission, turning the tables, on the Senate.
For me, this is all pure bluff.
The Senate should reject such foolish challenge by the Speaker.
First, The Senate is not under the dictates of the House.
Second, the Senate is an entirely separate constitutional component of Congress.
Third, the Senate sets its own agenda and should not be working on timetables and deadlines posed by a congressman whose mandate is only one district of one province. The Senate and its members have the mandate of the entire nation.
Fourth, it is too late for that resolution suggested by the Speaker as the Congress is due to go on Christmas recess.
Fifth, there is a need to debate that challenge of the Speaker, if at all the Seante will even listen and take on his challenge, to pass a resolution within 72 hours.
Sixth, assuming that a resolution is put on the Senate floor, it should go under the normal, legal process which is to refer the same to the committee on constitutional reforms, so that public hearings can be conducted and the people can be heard in these public hearings.
If I were to make an unsolicited advice to the Senate, they should reject this challenge by the Speaker which is bordering on desperatness and stupidity.
Let the House continue with their harebrained and unconstitutional undertakings to convene a constituent assembly, so they will face the wrath of the people.
Let the peoples' protests continue. After all, the House is not abandoning the constituent assembly mode.
The Speakers challenge today is all but an empty bluff.

A Preview of parliament

What is happening now in the House of Representatives is really a preview of what a Philippine parliament would be.
What we are seeing now in the lower house of Congress is a manifestation of the tyranny of numbers.
The majority in the House is ramming through like an express train their evil intention of changing the Constitution the unconstitutional way.
They seek to covene themwelves as a constituent assembly, even without the participation of the other component, the Senate.
Leading this immoral and illegal charge is the ambitious Speaker of the House, Jose De Venecia whose insatiable desire to be prime minister is unparalleled.
He wants to be prime minister because he can never become president.
De Venecia goes down in history as the presidential candidate who was resoundedly defeated by the winning rival, Joseph Estrada.
That is how unpopular De Venecia is, among Filipinos.
De Venecia is the best argument against a parliamentary system.
Even if their actions are absolutely devoid of logic, reason, and legality, De Venecia and his puppies still pursue it, for the sole reason that they have the numbers.
If their own rules pose a hindrance to their goals, they change it midstream.
They make proposals to change the constitution, yet the congressmen are the primary, beneficiaries of such act.
Shame.
Do we really need a parliamentary system?

Garapalan sa Lower House

For lack of better word, garapalan na sa House of Representatives.
As I am watching the television, the desperate crocodiles in the House of Representatives are bent on convening themselves as a constituent assembly in order to change the Constitution.
First, they are now going to delete a House rule which requires that asoption of resolutions propsoing amendements or revision of the constittions should be mande in the same manner as the enactment of bills.
If the Hosue succeeds tonight in deleting this rule, they will just file asimple resolution conveninga constituent assembly, with or without Senate participation.
If the Senators will not participate, trhe House will just convene by themselves.
The Senate expectedly will seek to restrain this unilateral "express-lane" act of the House.
I am appalled at this sight, as congressmen are hell bent in their dastardly act, for self-interest, and nothing more.
There is nothing in this exercise that will benefit the Filipinos except the congressmen themselves.
For one, it will extend their expiring terms.
Second it will erode their term limits and will run anew as members of a new parliament.
This greediness, selfishness--this evil---should be stopped.