Verification can only be achieved by reading the document? I thought verification means affixing the signature (confirming acknowledgement) of a declarant, the content being the sole responsibility of the declarant regardless of whether be it true or otherwise.
In any case, raise your hand if you have read your credit card agreement word-for-word before signing it. What about when you bought a car or house? Did you read everything in the document you signed, even the fine print?
Do all lawmakers read the bill they vote on? Last time I heard, the most recent US healthcare law comprised of a thousand five hundred pages. When majority opinions were published, did the majority read the dissenting opinion(s) and were the dissenting opinion(s) given the opportunity to be read and heard?
Due process takes course because the declarants need to defend their statements; the accused have a chance to face his accuser, call witnesses for his defense, and refute the accusation in an adversarial setting.
Last question, why on earth is a political process essentially operated by the Rules of Court? Because there is no originality. Mahilig mag-plagiarize.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Sunday, February 13, 2011
"Trial by Publicity"
It only takes for good men to do nothing, for evil to prosper.
--- Edmund Burke ---
When the first magistrate of the highest court in the land has a questionable constitutional appointment and lacks popular legitimacy in the eyes of the many, when a special prosecuting official charged with holding public officials accountable for their action's odds of conviction (winning cases) is no more than twenty percent, in a country where it takes years to indict public officials and arraign them for committing acts of treason against the people and their money, one should not be surprised if the people take matters into their own hands and give their imprimatur on the so called "trial by publicity."
Public Service and Courage
I find it hard to comprehend the gall of some public officials who, by their own words, admitted stealing the people's money but do not expect to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. These public officials will then cry foul and assert their constitutional rights and rely on the ever so slow and grinding wheel of justice, a legal system with so few judges, the Filipino people had the opportunity to witness one recuse himself because he was too afraid of taking a high profile and publicly scrutinized case.
In a country where the family holds a preeminent place even in the letters of the constitution, it is a proper excuse to recuse oneself from public service when circumstances threatens the life and limb of the public official and his family.
But what about the Filipino nation, sir? Do you know what harm you have caused? If judges can excuse themselves from public service when it is not convenient for them and the public allows such reason to hold, how can we expect other public officials to fulfill, with courage and determination, their SWORN DUTY to serve?
If it is inconvenient for politicians to act in the public's best interest, can't they say "well, I need to recuse myself from holding myself accountable when it comes to the people's money. After all, if other public officials can do it, why can't I?"
Due Process is meaningless if citizens acting as temporary delegates of their fellow citizens do not adhere to and does not have the courage to fulfill their sworn duty.
A public official's oath of office becomes "traditional," in the sense that officials do it for the sake of ceremony and pageantry: a mere preference for "making things official" and the feel good sensation it provides.
Honor vs. Reputation (Good Name)
A soldier's death in battle is one of the most honorable sacrifices a citizen can give to his country. But dying to save one's "honor" (I take it this means REPUTATION or GOOD NAME in Philippine English) is quite different.
It is dishonorable to take one's life if living means providing sworn statement that may help reduce the country's graft and corruption. By taking one's life, a great disservice has been done to the Filipino nation; the efforts to exorcise tolerance of a culture of corruption has lost a credible witness who has decided that his "honor" was found wanting.
As a matter of faith, it is a sin to take our own lives regardless of whether it is for the sake of escaping responsibility, public ridicule, and even deflecting what may possibly be an undeserved public shame (how are we to know the truth, now that he is dead?) upon one's family.
A life not guided by our beliefs, but what is convenient,(or has turned away from it) will be weak and exhausted because one cannot hold onto truth, the foundation upon which we are set free regardless of any powers that tries to limit our capacity and potential, be it family, tradition or public pressure, letting our minds be ravaged by the relentless criticism of oneself... our conscience.
In a culture where "guilt by association" holds true and a good name is everything, it is reasonable for individuals to think one's life is of less value.
But what I find hard to understand is if a good name is most important, why do we continuously associate with questionable individuals; why do we abide by, adhere and subscribe to the way these individuals act, which is to say the least, questionable?
Resign from your position! Public service is not only possible by enlisting, getting elected or appointed. Holding others accountable is not limited to becoming a politician, a judge or a soldier. How naive of those who think truth-telling is not public service. Small minds and traditionalists would make that mistake, no doubt.
Honor, in the realm of public service, is a reward the people give to deserving public servants. It is public acclamation bestowed only by the people, not some physical representations of commendations awarded by high public officials which one can accumulate overtime (such as plaques and medals).
It can be taken away even in the late years of a public servant's life, if the people so chooses. The public may be cruel and heartless, even tyrannical. But there is no reason to aspire and to hold democracy as dear if the people is not to rule, and who, as all are imperfect, can sometimes be tyrannical.
Hence, for public officials who likes the idea of and worship having a good name as more important than life itself, that is, more important than divine command to value life, then whenever you make a decision or make policy, keep in mind, above all else, that the public must have a say at all times.
Unless, of course, one wants to be tried by the public.
~
--- Edmund Burke ---
When the first magistrate of the highest court in the land has a questionable constitutional appointment and lacks popular legitimacy in the eyes of the many, when a special prosecuting official charged with holding public officials accountable for their action's odds of conviction (winning cases) is no more than twenty percent, in a country where it takes years to indict public officials and arraign them for committing acts of treason against the people and their money, one should not be surprised if the people take matters into their own hands and give their imprimatur on the so called "trial by publicity."
Public Service and Courage
I find it hard to comprehend the gall of some public officials who, by their own words, admitted stealing the people's money but do not expect to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. These public officials will then cry foul and assert their constitutional rights and rely on the ever so slow and grinding wheel of justice, a legal system with so few judges, the Filipino people had the opportunity to witness one recuse himself because he was too afraid of taking a high profile and publicly scrutinized case.
In a country where the family holds a preeminent place even in the letters of the constitution, it is a proper excuse to recuse oneself from public service when circumstances threatens the life and limb of the public official and his family.
But what about the Filipino nation, sir? Do you know what harm you have caused? If judges can excuse themselves from public service when it is not convenient for them and the public allows such reason to hold, how can we expect other public officials to fulfill, with courage and determination, their SWORN DUTY to serve?
If it is inconvenient for politicians to act in the public's best interest, can't they say "well, I need to recuse myself from holding myself accountable when it comes to the people's money. After all, if other public officials can do it, why can't I?"
Due Process is meaningless if citizens acting as temporary delegates of their fellow citizens do not adhere to and does not have the courage to fulfill their sworn duty.
A public official's oath of office becomes "traditional," in the sense that officials do it for the sake of ceremony and pageantry: a mere preference for "making things official" and the feel good sensation it provides.
Honor vs. Reputation (Good Name)
A soldier's death in battle is one of the most honorable sacrifices a citizen can give to his country. But dying to save one's "honor" (I take it this means REPUTATION or GOOD NAME in Philippine English) is quite different.
It is dishonorable to take one's life if living means providing sworn statement that may help reduce the country's graft and corruption. By taking one's life, a great disservice has been done to the Filipino nation; the efforts to exorcise tolerance of a culture of corruption has lost a credible witness who has decided that his "honor" was found wanting.
As a matter of faith, it is a sin to take our own lives regardless of whether it is for the sake of escaping responsibility, public ridicule, and even deflecting what may possibly be an undeserved public shame (how are we to know the truth, now that he is dead?) upon one's family.
A life not guided by our beliefs, but what is convenient,(or has turned away from it) will be weak and exhausted because one cannot hold onto truth, the foundation upon which we are set free regardless of any powers that tries to limit our capacity and potential, be it family, tradition or public pressure, letting our minds be ravaged by the relentless criticism of oneself... our conscience.
In a culture where "guilt by association" holds true and a good name is everything, it is reasonable for individuals to think one's life is of less value.
But what I find hard to understand is if a good name is most important, why do we continuously associate with questionable individuals; why do we abide by, adhere and subscribe to the way these individuals act, which is to say the least, questionable?
Resign from your position! Public service is not only possible by enlisting, getting elected or appointed. Holding others accountable is not limited to becoming a politician, a judge or a soldier. How naive of those who think truth-telling is not public service. Small minds and traditionalists would make that mistake, no doubt.
Honor, in the realm of public service, is a reward the people give to deserving public servants. It is public acclamation bestowed only by the people, not some physical representations of commendations awarded by high public officials which one can accumulate overtime (such as plaques and medals).
It can be taken away even in the late years of a public servant's life, if the people so chooses. The public may be cruel and heartless, even tyrannical. But there is no reason to aspire and to hold democracy as dear if the people is not to rule, and who, as all are imperfect, can sometimes be tyrannical.
Hence, for public officials who likes the idea of and worship having a good name as more important than life itself, that is, more important than divine command to value life, then whenever you make a decision or make policy, keep in mind, above all else, that the public must have a say at all times.
Unless, of course, one wants to be tried by the public.
~
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Irreverence in the Media
Our papers have one peculiarity. . . They are irreverent toward pretty much everything, but where they laugh one good king to death, they laugh a thousand cruel and infamous shams and superstitions into the grave, and the account is squared. Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its only sure defense.
- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1888
If you expect news to always have and be told with a floppy, soft, cuddly, warm and pussy feeling, go work for a public relations firm. There, one may harness one's own bleeding-heart inclination and care-bear skills to your heart's content.
It is absurd to lead others, let alone ourselves, to believe that events are absent of wrong deeds; that is why news are told! To expose wrong and put it in the light: that others may see and prevent such thing from occurring again.
Commendable deeds are rewarded in private; sometimes, one needs to expose wrong for the good to exist. Also, one cannot rely on a news correspondent alone to set the tone of one's opinion. Hence, it is impossible to make an informed choice based on the article or report of one individual.
A mature news reader would confirm, through an independent research (preferably your own), the basis of the article and if necesary, determine how the article came to a conclusion. This adversarial demand ensures that information is not particularly tailored to favor a certain bias.
Burdensome it is not? Perhaps, it is this burden that makes the average individual neglect their duty as rational beings capable of choosing for their own what is appropriate or ought to be. It is something that only those capable of assuming the burden of citizenship may realize.
In any case, news media that focus on commendable deeds all the time ought to start considering whether it should provide their services to those who wish to only hear and see what they wish to hear and see.
One of the worst kind of censorship, some newspaper stick with "positive news" or news which is not offensive to the subject of the news even if the object of the news is to reveal the subject's abominable, offensive or unlawful actions.
Stay away from them. It is bad for an individual's ability to stay with reality. It is only recommended for those who see society without hope, that is, in limited and prescribed dosage.
Truth intentionally told in a passion which prohibits offending anyone is not truth. Half-baked truths will not set me free; it will only free me partially and half-heartedly.
~
- Mark Twain, Notebook, 1888
If you expect news to always have and be told with a floppy, soft, cuddly, warm and pussy feeling, go work for a public relations firm. There, one may harness one's own bleeding-heart inclination and care-bear skills to your heart's content.
It is absurd to lead others, let alone ourselves, to believe that events are absent of wrong deeds; that is why news are told! To expose wrong and put it in the light: that others may see and prevent such thing from occurring again.
Commendable deeds are rewarded in private; sometimes, one needs to expose wrong for the good to exist. Also, one cannot rely on a news correspondent alone to set the tone of one's opinion. Hence, it is impossible to make an informed choice based on the article or report of one individual.
A mature news reader would confirm, through an independent research (preferably your own), the basis of the article and if necesary, determine how the article came to a conclusion. This adversarial demand ensures that information is not particularly tailored to favor a certain bias.
Burdensome it is not? Perhaps, it is this burden that makes the average individual neglect their duty as rational beings capable of choosing for their own what is appropriate or ought to be. It is something that only those capable of assuming the burden of citizenship may realize.
In any case, news media that focus on commendable deeds all the time ought to start considering whether it should provide their services to those who wish to only hear and see what they wish to hear and see.
One of the worst kind of censorship, some newspaper stick with "positive news" or news which is not offensive to the subject of the news even if the object of the news is to reveal the subject's abominable, offensive or unlawful actions.
Stay away from them. It is bad for an individual's ability to stay with reality. It is only recommended for those who see society without hope, that is, in limited and prescribed dosage.
Truth intentionally told in a passion which prohibits offending anyone is not truth. Half-baked truths will not set me free; it will only free me partially and half-heartedly.
~
Friday, November 19, 2010
Traditions: Never Ending Cycle of the Same Thing Over and Over
It's amazing how respectable traditions that preserve our cultural identity have gone to the dumps while traditions that undermine society linger.
Mano
While visiting family in Hawaii, I was rather taken aback when a young adult, whom I believe was raised as an American, suddenly took an elder's hand and pulled it to his forehead, a Filipino trait known as "pagmamano" or simply "mano." I felt ashamed even more when an adult took the elder's hand and did the same thing. At that time, I asked myself why of all things that need to die out, this treasured custom is fading away, even in my own ways.
Po
Another dying tradition I lament will soon be gone is the Tagalog's recognition of an elder's venerable status within the family and the community. "Po," "ho," and "opo" are, by far, some of the few words in the Tagalog lexicon worthy of continuing use and adherence; it is a distinctive feature unique even amongst other languages in the Philippines. It is of utmost importance that each of us endeavour to instill the use of these words in our children's daily diet of conversation.
Native Language
Last but not the least, given the age of English and Mandarin, it is of most pressing concern to teach younger generations the use of our native tongue and not sacrifice it for the sake of short-term expediency. Passing it down ensures the transfer of the unique ability to communicate our thoughts in our native tongue: a feat that enables the child to realize his ethnic heritage and thus, should be commended. I believe there are enough young Filipino-Americans here in Southern California whose manner of speech, behavior, and suggestive lifestyle testifies to the importance of having and practicing a native language.
But if we have traditions that needs to be preserved, are there any to the contrary? Of course we do. In fact, those traditions tend to last longer and survival seems to clearly favor these traditions vis-a-vis those aforementioned.
Family Politics
Although criticism should be laid on those who practice it, to say that the many who still subscribes to it are innocent is plain baloney. If we condone, support and sustain this practice, by what right do we complain of political dynasties controlling our lives?
The typical individual, whose complacent nature and desire to unburden himself from the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, surrenders his political life in exchange for a biological life fulfilled by family and material comfort. But in order to do so, they must first choose a benevolent leader, in the confucian fashion, who will be granted near absolute singular authority and eventually perpetuate his hold on power as the comfort of family and materialism do not satisfy himself once exposed thoroughly to power's embrace.
The people's desire to maintain material comfort for the family and their obsessive want to focus on material joy and its creation to achieve the former would discourage each to pursue vita activa in the public realm; it is no wonder why that men such as Peisistratus was allowed to exist in the very heart of ancient democracy.
Ampatuans, anyone?
Government of Men, not Laws
Once we "vote," we leave everything in the hands of our benevolent leaders without understanding that voting is one of the many duties of citizenship, not the only. We do not continually hold accountable those temporary delegates of the people and that is why one prolonged his rule for almost 20 years. We tend to go back to our old ways by voting on the same bloodstrain over and over and over even if they don't know anything about goodness according to the laws.
Hence, good is not about doing right based on the laws, but by what the leader believes to be good. Although there is no absolute good in the laws, arbitrary power starts when men define what is good, instead of the law defining what is good.
Please do not think of it as arrogance when I laugh as I observe. LOL
Mukha
We seem unperturbed when showing our likeness in the public realm without considering that public money is being spent. And even if public money is not spent, the fear of public acclamation does not make us pause and think twice even if it meant adoration amongst the many.
Praising a continual political bloodline, benign or not, should be a wake up call especially when that which the many proclaim to abhor is unmaliciously commended. Wait a minute, aren't we against political dynasties? Peisistratus's rule should not be cited as a good example.
When people support a candidate by acknowledging his family's charitable contributions, then it is time to ask those people not to vote for you because they are merely returning a debt of gratitude (utang na loob) as opposed to acknowledging your skills and acumen for governance.
More to come.
~
Mano
While visiting family in Hawaii, I was rather taken aback when a young adult, whom I believe was raised as an American, suddenly took an elder's hand and pulled it to his forehead, a Filipino trait known as "pagmamano" or simply "mano." I felt ashamed even more when an adult took the elder's hand and did the same thing. At that time, I asked myself why of all things that need to die out, this treasured custom is fading away, even in my own ways.
Po
Another dying tradition I lament will soon be gone is the Tagalog's recognition of an elder's venerable status within the family and the community. "Po," "ho," and "opo" are, by far, some of the few words in the Tagalog lexicon worthy of continuing use and adherence; it is a distinctive feature unique even amongst other languages in the Philippines. It is of utmost importance that each of us endeavour to instill the use of these words in our children's daily diet of conversation.
Native Language
Last but not the least, given the age of English and Mandarin, it is of most pressing concern to teach younger generations the use of our native tongue and not sacrifice it for the sake of short-term expediency. Passing it down ensures the transfer of the unique ability to communicate our thoughts in our native tongue: a feat that enables the child to realize his ethnic heritage and thus, should be commended. I believe there are enough young Filipino-Americans here in Southern California whose manner of speech, behavior, and suggestive lifestyle testifies to the importance of having and practicing a native language.
But if we have traditions that needs to be preserved, are there any to the contrary? Of course we do. In fact, those traditions tend to last longer and survival seems to clearly favor these traditions vis-a-vis those aforementioned.
Family Politics
Although criticism should be laid on those who practice it, to say that the many who still subscribes to it are innocent is plain baloney. If we condone, support and sustain this practice, by what right do we complain of political dynasties controlling our lives?
The typical individual, whose complacent nature and desire to unburden himself from the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, surrenders his political life in exchange for a biological life fulfilled by family and material comfort. But in order to do so, they must first choose a benevolent leader, in the confucian fashion, who will be granted near absolute singular authority and eventually perpetuate his hold on power as the comfort of family and materialism do not satisfy himself once exposed thoroughly to power's embrace.
The people's desire to maintain material comfort for the family and their obsessive want to focus on material joy and its creation to achieve the former would discourage each to pursue vita activa in the public realm; it is no wonder why that men such as Peisistratus was allowed to exist in the very heart of ancient democracy.
Ampatuans, anyone?
Government of Men, not Laws
Once we "vote," we leave everything in the hands of our benevolent leaders without understanding that voting is one of the many duties of citizenship, not the only. We do not continually hold accountable those temporary delegates of the people and that is why one prolonged his rule for almost 20 years. We tend to go back to our old ways by voting on the same bloodstrain over and over and over even if they don't know anything about goodness according to the laws.
Hence, good is not about doing right based on the laws, but by what the leader believes to be good. Although there is no absolute good in the laws, arbitrary power starts when men define what is good, instead of the law defining what is good.
Please do not think of it as arrogance when I laugh as I observe. LOL
Mukha
We seem unperturbed when showing our likeness in the public realm without considering that public money is being spent. And even if public money is not spent, the fear of public acclamation does not make us pause and think twice even if it meant adoration amongst the many.
Praising a continual political bloodline, benign or not, should be a wake up call especially when that which the many proclaim to abhor is unmaliciously commended. Wait a minute, aren't we against political dynasties? Peisistratus's rule should not be cited as a good example.
When people support a candidate by acknowledging his family's charitable contributions, then it is time to ask those people not to vote for you because they are merely returning a debt of gratitude (utang na loob) as opposed to acknowledging your skills and acumen for governance.
More to come.
~
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
SK is a Waste of Taxpayers' Money
These kids are better off studying and not learning the way of corruption in their early years.
Exposing young adults to public positions in pursuit of public service may sound reasonable and full of good intentions. But these are the years when they need to go to college and be formally educated themselves.
CRITICAL THINKING is one of those rare things one, given enough effort and patience, may develop inside learning institutions.
Raising from the educational focus of intermediate learning institutions i.e., saturating high schoolers with facts and "what is" information, the value of critical thinking, among other things, lies in its capacity to allow interpretation of collected data through established theories, determining the proper context of circumstances or statements, and most importantly, encouraging individuals to inquire and to question long held assumptions, prejudices and traditional beliefs.
By exposing a young individual to a wide range of views, perspectives and ideas, one does not become easily compromised and readily susceptible to the wisecracks or rhetoric of some silly old fool acting as a fountain of wisdom.
The only education these kids will get if they join SK is how to become a traditional politician; devoid of a critical mind, skills in making distinctions and a principled conscience, these kids become masters of systemic graft & corruption and patronage: our very own TRAPOS.
~
Exposing young adults to public positions in pursuit of public service may sound reasonable and full of good intentions. But these are the years when they need to go to college and be formally educated themselves.
CRITICAL THINKING is one of those rare things one, given enough effort and patience, may develop inside learning institutions.
Raising from the educational focus of intermediate learning institutions i.e., saturating high schoolers with facts and "what is" information, the value of critical thinking, among other things, lies in its capacity to allow interpretation of collected data through established theories, determining the proper context of circumstances or statements, and most importantly, encouraging individuals to inquire and to question long held assumptions, prejudices and traditional beliefs.
By exposing a young individual to a wide range of views, perspectives and ideas, one does not become easily compromised and readily susceptible to the wisecracks or rhetoric of some silly old fool acting as a fountain of wisdom.
The only education these kids will get if they join SK is how to become a traditional politician; devoid of a critical mind, skills in making distinctions and a principled conscience, these kids become masters of systemic graft & corruption and patronage: our very own TRAPOS.
~
Truth Commission and Inquisitorial System
The Truth Commission, by going beyond its mandate, is about to turn into an inquisition run amok.
Peace bonds? Leave it to the Justice Department OR fire the current Justice Secretary and replace her with Davide as Justice Secretary! Since you did not trust the findings of the committee reports on the hostage taking, might as well be done with De Lima.
There is so much focus on the granduer of creating special investigative bodies these days, one forgets that the issue is not the government institution in charge of the investigation, but how will justice be served and how long will the people wait in order to see justice done.
~
Peace bonds? Leave it to the Justice Department OR fire the current Justice Secretary and replace her with Davide as Justice Secretary! Since you did not trust the findings of the committee reports on the hostage taking, might as well be done with De Lima.
There is so much focus on the granduer of creating special investigative bodies these days, one forgets that the issue is not the government institution in charge of the investigation, but how will justice be served and how long will the people wait in order to see justice done.
~
Lèse Majesté and the Philippine Supreme Court
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Thank goodness for impeachment or 70 years of age!
Oops. If no one files a suit on their behalf, the Supremes will just issue a Motu Propio decision to make the impeachment process unconstitutional.
In any case, why use "Motu Propio" as opposed to "Nostra Sponte?" The former sounds like an order from a sovereign while the latter is a plain and practical description of the nature of the judicial order.
The use of those two latin terms is indicative of what the SC think of themselves.
That is what we get when jurists are constitutionally granted the power to make their own rules.
~
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Thank goodness for impeachment or 70 years of age!
Oops. If no one files a suit on their behalf, the Supremes will just issue a Motu Propio decision to make the impeachment process unconstitutional.
In any case, why use "Motu Propio" as opposed to "Nostra Sponte?" The former sounds like an order from a sovereign while the latter is a plain and practical description of the nature of the judicial order.
The use of those two latin terms is indicative of what the SC think of themselves.
That is what we get when jurists are constitutionally granted the power to make their own rules.
~
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Criticizing Cheekygadfly: Lost Opportunities and Living a "Normal" Life
The first impression one with normal capacity and delight for deep thought and critical thinking with regard to the title of this article is that I have gone mad that I now criticize my two months absence of sharing unwanted spoken nuisances.
That having lived what normal people do should be most commendable, given that it preserves harmony and prevents discord certainly did occur to me; as to its appeal, that is a different matter.
The joy of the unending cycle of sleep, taking a bath, work, going home, interaction with others, eating, again and again and again seems quite fulfilling; monotony has provided the meaning and given the purpose, for the many, of existence.
Life, as the many knows it, endures by satisfying our daily needs and our present wants, and seeks to maintain what it once was. Self-preservation, even the preservation of order in society, becomes directly related to shunning all things that would disturb the present scheme of things.
Unable to see the potential of uncertainty, or as Tolkien would always say "things un-looked for," we become afraid of seeking the unknown and fear the consequence of taking leaps of faith.
To the many these days, Abraham's journey to Canaan, following a nameless, unseen and violent Voice, commanding him to live in a place far away, to leave his family and away from the confines of comfort and safety as provided for by his homeland, the land of Ur, is none other than lunacy.
Indeed, change frightens us all. As such, we cling to the old; tradition is so ingrained in our minds that we cannot even distinguish it from what we profess to believe in and thus should aspire to most.
Worst, in order to preserve what gives us comfort and harmony, our beliefs must then be interpreted in a manner consistent with the demands of and must comport to a prescribed and predestined lifestyle.
Lo and woe to anything that challenges our present way of thinking, that offends our sense of peace and decorum, and that seeks to destroy life as we know it!
...
Under these circumstances, subsequent articles are to be written.
More to come.
~
That having lived what normal people do should be most commendable, given that it preserves harmony and prevents discord certainly did occur to me; as to its appeal, that is a different matter.
The joy of the unending cycle of sleep, taking a bath, work, going home, interaction with others, eating, again and again and again seems quite fulfilling; monotony has provided the meaning and given the purpose, for the many, of existence.
Life, as the many knows it, endures by satisfying our daily needs and our present wants, and seeks to maintain what it once was. Self-preservation, even the preservation of order in society, becomes directly related to shunning all things that would disturb the present scheme of things.
Unable to see the potential of uncertainty, or as Tolkien would always say "things un-looked for," we become afraid of seeking the unknown and fear the consequence of taking leaps of faith.
To the many these days, Abraham's journey to Canaan, following a nameless, unseen and violent Voice, commanding him to live in a place far away, to leave his family and away from the confines of comfort and safety as provided for by his homeland, the land of Ur, is none other than lunacy.
Indeed, change frightens us all. As such, we cling to the old; tradition is so ingrained in our minds that we cannot even distinguish it from what we profess to believe in and thus should aspire to most.
Worst, in order to preserve what gives us comfort and harmony, our beliefs must then be interpreted in a manner consistent with the demands of and must comport to a prescribed and predestined lifestyle.
Lo and woe to anything that challenges our present way of thinking, that offends our sense of peace and decorum, and that seeks to destroy life as we know it!
...
Under these circumstances, subsequent articles are to be written.
More to come.
~
Sunday, July 18, 2010
UNDP Van: Private Use of Public Property
What does UNDP stand for?
Possible answer: United Nations Development Programme
What is UNDP?
Based on the previous answer, a UN agency charged with "the UN's global development network: an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. It "strives to reduce poverty; increase literacy; create jobs; enhance technical cooperation between industrialized and non-industrialized nations" and help find solutions to "national development challenges."
In essence, it is a publicly-funded organization.
Why did I mention UNDP?
Answer: agency equipment, transportation assets not excluding, are not for personal use.
In case public assets have been used in a private capacity, what kind of repercussions may occur?
Answer: As an example, the United States have been known for withholding funds regularly allocated for US contributions to the UN budget until proper accountability has been taken.
The Oil-for-Food Program during the Iraqi Embargo, where the former UN Secretary Kofi Annan's son and close acquaintances were accused by the US of being involved, is an example of withholding funds and where a full blown US congressional inquiry into the matter was launched.
~
Possible answer: United Nations Development Programme
What is UNDP?
Based on the previous answer, a UN agency charged with "the UN's global development network: an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. It "strives to reduce poverty; increase literacy; create jobs; enhance technical cooperation between industrialized and non-industrialized nations" and help find solutions to "national development challenges."
In essence, it is a publicly-funded organization.
Why did I mention UNDP?
Answer: agency equipment, transportation assets not excluding, are not for personal use.
In case public assets have been used in a private capacity, what kind of repercussions may occur?
Answer: As an example, the United States have been known for withholding funds regularly allocated for US contributions to the UN budget until proper accountability has been taken.
The Oil-for-Food Program during the Iraqi Embargo, where the former UN Secretary Kofi Annan's son and close acquaintances were accused by the US of being involved, is an example of withholding funds and where a full blown US congressional inquiry into the matter was launched.
~
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Institution V. Person, the Office V. the Law, Constitutional V. Common Good
“I emphasized that more than anything, loyalty has to be to the institution, to the flag, to the Constitution, and not to any single person or personal interest.”
--- Philippine President Benigno C. Aquino III, Speech during the AFP Chief of Staff Change of Command
Personal Institutions
Articles with emphasis on the person loves to mention the "Arroyo Administration," as opposed to the "Executive Branch," "Executive Department (as stated in the Constitution)," "the administration," or even "the executive." I suppose being provocative in this case means more attention and marketability of news articles.
Thank you for that, journalists.
Mindsets convinced of the personal nature of government appropriations would allow the thought of "hihingi ako kay (Gov't Position + Official's Name) ng pondo para..." without acknowledging the institutional safeguards entreched in the processes of releasing public funds created to prevent imbalance and thus abuse of power.
Government projects and offices named after certain individuals. Integrating personal names into public development projects in a consistent fashion ingrain, "makes it okay," and brainwash the public mind in accepting the extent of institutional weakness of public institutions.
Importance of Office and Official vis-a-vis the Processes of the Law
The recent SC decision on the appointment of the Chief Justice (CJ) during an election period, its constitutionality notwithstanding, emphasizes: (1) the primus inter pares principle holds little sway given the crucial functions of the CJ; (2) the notion that the SC is unable to function as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) without its supposed "Chair."
Primus Inter Pares, in this instance, meant "the only one among lesser equals" as opposed to "first among equals." Without the CJ, the institution of the PET (SC), will cease to function as sole arbiter of presidential election issues and thus grind to a halt.
Indeed, it gives momentum to the notion that the CJ is not "among equals" but literally above other Justices, whose equality arises on the equal value of votes on SC decisions alone.
Here, one sees the utmost disregard for the processes of the law. Not only was the constitutional ban on appointments surrounding the election period ignored, but the law governing the assumption of the Acting CJ trampled upon.
Relying on judicial review without clear, convincing and established precedence, the process set forth by law with regard to the vacancy of the Office of the CJ has been substantially ignored; the majority opinion, overwhelming to say the least, clearly disregarded explicit provisions of lawful succession within the SC. Hence, the decision began establishing the perception that the Office of the CJ is more crucial than the succession (as established by law) in itself.
In congressional terms, lawmakers are more important than the law, because without lawmakers, there is no law. But how did the lawmakers become lawmakers without the "Supreme Law of the Land?"
The framers ought to have considered that the nation must not be held hostage just because of the failure to fill up the vacancy of the Office of the CJ. Learn from the executive branch. Follow the law of succession even if it is just a mere Republic Act. Where a precedent is absent, congressional acts, if they exist, must prevail upon judicial review without precedent.
The SC as an institution, and its members: the Justices and the CJ, must always be reminded that they are not policymakers, but interpreters. The judiciary answers questions of law and constitutional issues, not bark commands or orders, issue mandates and make laws.
Even if allowed to do so, such commands or orders must be based on established rules, which in turn, must be based on precedent or publicy policy crafted by policymakers. The Justices are jurists of the last resort; policy emanates from the representatives of the People, that is, Congress and the presidency.
I suppose in a country which does not emphasize the rule of law, but instead make persons in public office supreme (no pun intended) i.e. above the law, it is to be normally expected.
No wonder, the constitutional power of the SC seems "vested" in the Office of the CJ alone. Ergo, the SC is none other than the CJ. Leadership in a collegial body, an institution were the majority of member peers decide the fate of millions, ought not to depend on a single office whose absence creates dire consequences to the proper functioning of the SC, let alone to the interpretation of the letter and spirit of the laws.
Thank you, Filipino Supremes, for emphasizing that the OFFICE IS MORE SACRED THAN THE LAW, which makes officials "official."
Perhaps, a proposal where Justices of the SC will rotate on a consistent and timely basis (similar to the Swiss Federal Council) to fill up the position of the CJ is the answer to the imbalance of an overbearing office which dilutes the credibility and primacy of the SC as a collective and collegial institution.
This proposal, however imperfect it may be, gives solution to: (1) dependence to the Office of the CJ, especially during trying times and special exigencies, (2) prevention of what proponents believe as dilemmas caused by the vacancy of the Office of the CJ (whatever that may be) and (3) the full realization and return of the SC as a collegial body, a group of peers whose collective opinion decides the constitutional and legal questions of the Filipino nation.
Constitutional V. What is Good for the Nation
Does the SC tackle the issue of "what is good for the nation?" or what is constitutional? What if the two opposes each other? If it is unconstitutional for foreign ownership to exist in the Philippines, would "what is good for the nation" prevail?
~
--- Philippine President Benigno C. Aquino III, Speech during the AFP Chief of Staff Change of Command
Personal Institutions
Articles with emphasis on the person loves to mention the "Arroyo Administration," as opposed to the "Executive Branch," "Executive Department (as stated in the Constitution)," "the administration," or even "the executive." I suppose being provocative in this case means more attention and marketability of news articles.
Thank you for that, journalists.
Mindsets convinced of the personal nature of government appropriations would allow the thought of "hihingi ako kay (Gov't Position + Official's Name) ng pondo para..." without acknowledging the institutional safeguards entreched in the processes of releasing public funds created to prevent imbalance and thus abuse of power.
Government projects and offices named after certain individuals. Integrating personal names into public development projects in a consistent fashion ingrain, "makes it okay," and brainwash the public mind in accepting the extent of institutional weakness of public institutions.
Importance of Office and Official vis-a-vis the Processes of the Law
The recent SC decision on the appointment of the Chief Justice (CJ) during an election period, its constitutionality notwithstanding, emphasizes: (1) the primus inter pares principle holds little sway given the crucial functions of the CJ; (2) the notion that the SC is unable to function as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) without its supposed "Chair."
Primus Inter Pares, in this instance, meant "the only one among lesser equals" as opposed to "first among equals." Without the CJ, the institution of the PET (SC), will cease to function as sole arbiter of presidential election issues and thus grind to a halt.
Indeed, it gives momentum to the notion that the CJ is not "among equals" but literally above other Justices, whose equality arises on the equal value of votes on SC decisions alone.
Here, one sees the utmost disregard for the processes of the law. Not only was the constitutional ban on appointments surrounding the election period ignored, but the law governing the assumption of the Acting CJ trampled upon.
Relying on judicial review without clear, convincing and established precedence, the process set forth by law with regard to the vacancy of the Office of the CJ has been substantially ignored; the majority opinion, overwhelming to say the least, clearly disregarded explicit provisions of lawful succession within the SC. Hence, the decision began establishing the perception that the Office of the CJ is more crucial than the succession (as established by law) in itself.
In congressional terms, lawmakers are more important than the law, because without lawmakers, there is no law. But how did the lawmakers become lawmakers without the "Supreme Law of the Land?"
The framers ought to have considered that the nation must not be held hostage just because of the failure to fill up the vacancy of the Office of the CJ. Learn from the executive branch. Follow the law of succession even if it is just a mere Republic Act. Where a precedent is absent, congressional acts, if they exist, must prevail upon judicial review without precedent.
The SC as an institution, and its members: the Justices and the CJ, must always be reminded that they are not policymakers, but interpreters. The judiciary answers questions of law and constitutional issues, not bark commands or orders, issue mandates and make laws.
Even if allowed to do so, such commands or orders must be based on established rules, which in turn, must be based on precedent or publicy policy crafted by policymakers. The Justices are jurists of the last resort; policy emanates from the representatives of the People, that is, Congress and the presidency.
I suppose in a country which does not emphasize the rule of law, but instead make persons in public office supreme (no pun intended) i.e. above the law, it is to be normally expected.
No wonder, the constitutional power of the SC seems "vested" in the Office of the CJ alone. Ergo, the SC is none other than the CJ. Leadership in a collegial body, an institution were the majority of member peers decide the fate of millions, ought not to depend on a single office whose absence creates dire consequences to the proper functioning of the SC, let alone to the interpretation of the letter and spirit of the laws.
Thank you, Filipino Supremes, for emphasizing that the OFFICE IS MORE SACRED THAN THE LAW, which makes officials "official."
Perhaps, a proposal where Justices of the SC will rotate on a consistent and timely basis (similar to the Swiss Federal Council) to fill up the position of the CJ is the answer to the imbalance of an overbearing office which dilutes the credibility and primacy of the SC as a collective and collegial institution.
This proposal, however imperfect it may be, gives solution to: (1) dependence to the Office of the CJ, especially during trying times and special exigencies, (2) prevention of what proponents believe as dilemmas caused by the vacancy of the Office of the CJ (whatever that may be) and (3) the full realization and return of the SC as a collegial body, a group of peers whose collective opinion decides the constitutional and legal questions of the Filipino nation.
Constitutional V. What is Good for the Nation
Does the SC tackle the issue of "what is good for the nation?" or what is constitutional? What if the two opposes each other? If it is unconstitutional for foreign ownership to exist in the Philippines, would "what is good for the nation" prevail?
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)