Amendment Proposals to the 1987 Philippine Constitution

ARTICLE 2

Section 19: change "effectively controlled by" clause with "beneficial to and considerably controlled by"

Once the global economic crisis subsides, I believe replacing this constitutional mandate will further encourage foreigners to invest in our country and provide much needed capital for economic development.

ARTICLE VI

Section 2 (1) How Senators are elected

If 3 or more senators will represent each state, I suggest a proportional representation system with a minimum qualification threshold as the most appropriate mode of electing federal senators within the state. A deciding factor for this suggestion is the strengthening of party politics away from personal politics. This way also, the lost of representation in terms of the minority vote is almost nil (less is better than none), which in winner-takes-all electoral systems may mean one party rule in terms of all senators elected within a state.

However, if the number of senators elected within a state is less than 3, first-pass-the-post system is more practical and most appropriate. We cannot have 2 senators always representing opposite sides, which is tantamount to contradiction and discord. Also, I suggest an odd number of federal senators be elected (1, 3 or 5); the essence of state representation, even within a proportional representation system, must be based upon majority number of casting votes and even numbers do not help .

If the winner-takes-all electoral system is inevitable, preliminary membership voting (primaries - elections within a party to pick the official party candidate) must be introduced into the Philippine electoral system and eventually required under the law. This means the choice of candidates presented by the party to the electorate will be decided by the many within a political party under penalty of law, away from the secret arbitration and negotiation of party leaders.

Section 5 (1) & (2) Lower House composition and manner of electing members

In General, the same as Section 2 (1) except that the party-list representation system instituted within the 1987 Constitution shall be expanded to cover all members of the Lower House. Given the expansion of such electoral system, sectoral representation now have a theoretical equal chance in obtaining legislative seats without fear of losing due to lack of financial capacity; the need to provide special election procedures for sectoral representation is moot. Through this, the advantage of candidates with considerable amount of spending power lavishing election periods with extravagant election campaigns shall be considerably lesser, resulting in the election of candidates based upon actual electoral legitimacy, not campaign war funds.

However, as a consequence of strengthening party politics, the registration of political parties in the Philippines must be closely guarded and heavily scrutinized by law to mitigate the issue of the relaxed nature of forming political parties, where traditional political parties unify under popular individuals or demagogues devoid of purpose, direction, and expertise. Indeed, a group of individuals intending to register their group as a political party must register their official manifesto (party platform) and be issue-based, disqualifying those groups whose main application are on the basis of their most popular or financially capable member.

Also, the number of seats in the House must reflect the current number of legislative districts in the Philippines. A certain maximum number of House seats must remain in effect; as representation is based on census, the issue of redistributing legislative districts ought to be in the discretion of the several states, as will be discussed in subsection (4).

(3) Qualifications of a legislative district

(4) Reapportionment of legislative districts

In order to maintain a federal form of government, the states ought to have the right to determine the composition of legislative districts within their boundaries. In the past, the Philippine Congress, based upon census, reapportions legislative districts as provided by the Constitution.

To remove the letter and spirit of centralization in the republic, one of the most important factors is giving the state a leading structural role in the reorganization of legislative districts. Delegating such considerable power to the states is essential to the federal structure in the sense that states without the power of reapportionment do not have the flexibility to respond to changing demographics and adapt to the demands of the times. If states cannot choose the manner in which it decides to be represented, the resulting consequence would be a federal legislature that, although may not under represent the people as a whole, misrepresent local constituents through past gerrymandering of legislative districts. Indeed, delegating such power to the states allows the existence of a district reapportionment system that tolerates the uniqueness of each state as a political unit.

All in all, if indeed we are serious in creating a federal system of government, power to reapportion legislative districts must be transferred to the several states.

Section 16 (3) Suspension of legislators

When a member of the upper and lower house has been suspended, his or her voting privileges are taken away with the suspension. Although prudence dictates that such legislators be punished, the unintended consequence of such corrective action is legislative districts or, in the case of senators, states losing their rightful representation.

But why should states and its residents be punished for an act that they were not responsible for? Why should they suffer for a crime which they did not commit? In response to this, I propose state legislatures ought to be allowed by majority vote to proxy vote in the federal legislature when federal legislators are suspended, provided that no election has occurred electing a representative or senator to replace the same. Such act of allowing transmutation of the majority vote of a state legislature to a federal legislative vote when a representation is suspended, treating it with the same effect and legitimacy of a vote of a federal legislator, solves the issue of non-representation during times of personal error in the part of a federal representative.

In this case, I must admit that full representation is more important than the efficiency and speed of delivering congressional duty.

Section 18 - Abolish the Commission on Appointment

In a democracy, certain officials of the state were granted the power to appoint officials in the name of practicality and expediency. Elected officials are mandated to nominate, confirm, and then appoint other officials because it is unthinkable for the whole citizenry to do so. Hence, representative democracy was born in modern times. However, the relationship between the pursuit of accountability and efficiency are quite inverse; the more wants to have accountability the more one should less expect smooth decision making.

This is the dilemma at the heart of the Commission of Appointment. Slow scrutiny, as demanded by accountability, is expected by the people while smooth and quick deliberation of confirming appointed officials are necessary for the proper functioning of government. The compromise then was the creation of a special commission within the legislative branch, specifically tasked on approving nominations made by the chief executive.

But the problem with this commission is its exclusive nature. Even though half of the Senate is represented and an equal number is reserved for House members, the commission neither carry the popular and institutional legitimacy which the House or the Senate enjoys nor is it representative enough given that a commission with so few members represent the entire mandate of the people to confirm to their offices essential officers of the state.

The fact that in Philippine politics appointed officials frequently state that they were "serving under the leisure of the President" (thus, disregard the legislative confirmation in the appointing government officials ) serves to give notice to our legislators how limited the view of appointed officials regarding the appointment process; it also shows the importance of having either the upper or lower House, voting as a whole, to confirm the officers of the state and thus have a recognizable stake in their appointment.

Thus, in the name of legitimacy and expediency, I suggest transferring to a particular legislative branch, voting as a whole, which will have the least number of members (the Senate perhaps) in the amended 1987 Constitution the full responsibility of confirming nominated candidates. The trick here is persuading the other House that their powers will not diminish even if such House does not participate in confirming potential officers of the state. That such powers were only exclusively due to the speed which a single legislative body with fewer members can possibly provide, without having to sacrifice the institutional legitimacy it can confer, must be emphasized. Perhaps it should be also argued that the there are some powers that are exclusive to each House and such delegation was determined by their function, without prejudice to the co-equal essence of each house.

Or if the other House is not open to curtailing their confirming power, have the two Houses, voting as a whole, make the confirmation of nominated individuals a congressional priority, with a newly created appointment committees on each House making the crucial recommendation.

Section 22 - Executive Privilege of government officials

Executive privilege is exactly what it suggests - an executive's privilege, i.e., a privilege. The meaning of the word "privilege" suggests that the word is a benefit granted upon the assumption of office, not a right which absolves the holder of any wrongdoing in the eyes of the law. Indeed, one must emphasize that it is not a license to circumvent constitutional restrictions on governmental power but an waiver rarely used in order to fulfill a duty which requires substantial infringement of the social contract for the common good.

More so, executive privilege is and will always be subject to due process. Due process, if it is properly functioning, is capable of determining the need to temporarily allow a constitutional infringement for the common good. An impregnable executive privilege is tantamount to granting absolute power to hide abusive and ultra vires tendencies of governments, which history testifies as common.

The need for accountability and transparency ought to limit executive privilege when credible evidence suggests that such privilege is not being used to perform an essential official duty that requires constitutional infringement but for the advancement of personal gain.

Hence, the argument that executive privilege ought not to be questioned is unheard of in a liberal democracy, but is acceptable only in illiberal democracies or authoritarian regimes.

Section 25 (5) Fund disbursement by High Officials

(6) Abolish Discretionary Funds

Section 27 (2) Remove Line Item Veto

One always wonder why appropriation of public funds requires de facto approval by the Philippine chief executive. If we are to be reminded of the past, lawmakers were once called "tongressmen" for being morbidly corrupt. Virtuous rule by a statesmanlike figure such as former President Cory Aquino ensured that such lawmakers were kept under leash or so help us, they would spend public money like there is no tomorrow.

Unfortunately, her reign did not last, as provided for by the Philippine Constitution. Chief executives after her were accused of corruption while one even got convicted of plundering the nation's wealth. Without a doubt, what was once an office that ensured adherence to the law has become the very office which became the source of patronage, corruption, and utter disregard for the rule of law.

Therefore, the time has come for the executive branch to be reined in.

If the executive branch is to be kept under leash, one must abolish or remove the constitutional power which perpetuate and reinforce executive dominance in terms of appropriating public funds.

That executive prerogative is called the line item veto.

In the hands of a chief executive that adheres to the rule of law, a line item veto is a tool to be reckoned with, especially in terms of legislative excesses. However, in the hands of an ignoramus or a shrewd and corrupt chief executive, such power is extremely dangerous; indeed, line item veto had become the chief executive's threat to a particular legislator's pork barrel fund, a legislator whose crucial vote may determine the success of a pending bill beneficial to the chief executive.

Indeed, if line item veto is the chief executive's leash to corrupt legislators' public spending, what on earth can hinder the chief executive from using such veto power to influence a fellow corrupt legislator from voting the chief executive's way? What constitutional restriction could stop a corrupt chief executive from threatening a particular legislator's (perhaps even legitimate) pet projects with a line item veto, unless the legislator kowtow to the chief executive's whim?

As of current, none.

Line item veto is an executive power that is beyond the reach of the system of checks and balances enshrined in the Philippine Constitution. The very essence of a line item veto power negates the use of (1) normal veto, (2) congressional 2/3 override of presidential veto (as explained by the long absence of (1) and (2) in congressional journals, and it (3) discourages legislators from reconsidering their vetoed proposal, as long as their interest remains intact in the enacted bill.

I dare say that line item veto is the most efficient form of the executive's power to check legislative excesses. But the consequence of such efficiency is the very destruction of the separation of powers among the branches of government, as it allows the chief executive to wield tremendous "power of the purse," by micromanaging the time and manner public money is spent.

Indeed, such veto is a tool that, when used for good, can effectively check legislative misappropriation; but when used for bad, can slyly supersede accountability and transparency vital to a government under the rule of law.

For this reason, I propose that the line item veto power of the chief executive be stricken from the letter of the Philippine Constitution.

In consequence thereof, I propose the inclusion of a pocket veto in the amended charter, right before congressional adjournment or recess, to give additional flexibility to the chief executive and his ability to restrain what may be considered bad legislation.

One must also point out that the chief executive has not been completely disarmed by removing that specific kind of veto power. Normal veto remains intact, and it is sufficient to counter legislative abuses.

As an example, unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Philippine Constitution is explicit in the sense that the previous year's budget appropriations can roll over to the next until a new appropriations bill is passed by Congress. If the legislative branch exceeded its appropriation authority (by going beyond the proposed budget of the chief executive (Philippine Constitution, Article VI, Section 25 [1]), then the chief executive may use normal veto in order to fulfill his constitutional duty of checking legislative over-appropriation.

More so, the Constitution requires the chief executive to explain his "objections" to Congress (Article VI Section 27 [1], second sentence); perhaps, the best way to publicly rebuke those who proposed to increase the budget beyond congressional authority would be to explain as to why he objected, such as a lavish pork barrel spending.

If Congress insists that such legislation is passed, it is arguable that the chief executive can appeal to the public through the press before such legislation is passed over his veto, which in political lingo translates to a threat of failed incumbencies hanging over the heads of those legislators, leaving to the people to decide whether such legislation is appropriate in their judgment.

(4) Replace "tax exemption" with "tax deduction"; "all members of Congress" with "both Houses of Congress"

Civic duty obliges payment of taxes by citizens and those under the responsibility of the state. Congress ought to have the power to grant exemptions, but the power to grant tax exemptions must be de-emphasized in comparison to granting "tax deductions." No state can survive without considerable resources. Unless pertaining to institutions that traditionally have been tax exempt (such as the church and charitable institutions), tax exemptions are inimical to the stability of the state; hence, tax deductions are much preferrable.

Section 32 (Initiatives and Referendums - Put to the ballot explicitly unresolved questions to be decided by the people)

ARTICLE 7

Section 3 ( eliminate "no" on the second sentence i.e., Vice President requires approval)

Section 4 (President and Vice President elected together)

Section 8 (presidential incapacity - inability of the president to discharge the duties of his office; not only through written notice)

Section 9 appointment of SC Justices without congressional confirmation

Section 16 (power to nominate government officials)

Section 20 (Borrowing/foreign loans require specific legislative resolution/consent)

The Philippine Constitution empowers the chief executive to borrow foreign loans on behalf of the Republic "with prior concurrence of the Monetary Board and subject to such limitations as may be provided by law."

Once again, one sees the extensive reach of executive "power of the purse," enclosed in the supreme law of the land; only this time, instead of hiding within an explicit description of public appropriation, the "power of the purse" is hidden within the capacity of the chief executive to ask foreign lenders credit in exchange for an undetermined interest rate, thanks to executive privilege.

Yes, consent of the Monetary Board and limitations demanded by law, which Congress makes, provides a certain degree of accountability to executive borrowing. But given executive privilege, how is it possible for transparency to flourish under this current constitutional conditions?

Without congressional inquiry, lawmakers are unable to hold accountable the executive branch. Although the legislative branch may limit the chief executive through the laws it enacts, laws are insufficient checks to executive excesses (1) when they are neither updated nor tuned to limit the different approaches or new ways in which the chief executive do business with foreign lenders and thus get foreign loans; (2) even if the chief executive is restrained by existing laws, Congress is not allowed, to a certain extent, to demand scrutiny of executive agreements which may include foreign loans, a situation which is shielded from congressional inquiry by virtue of executive privilege.

Let us not forget that accountability is only possible when transparency exists. Without congressional scrutiny and consent on executive agreements, laws that limits how and how much the chief executive borrows are useless.

As a result, I propose that a specific congressional resolution noting the limit and duration of such borrowing authority, with each house voting separately, is required before the chief executive borrows foreign loans.

The power of the purse is not limited to appropriations of funds found inside the purse, but also funds that emanate outside the purse. The danger of delegating borrowing authority to a single officer of the state, with few or insufficient restraints, is a danger that can leads us not only to economic collapse, potential abuse and dire corruption, but also to the lost of our liberty to decide how our money is spent, whether be it for self-interest or the common good.

Section 21 (treaty ratification; executive agreements must be in compliance with Philippine laws)

Section 22 (address to congress; remove second sentence)

ARTICLE 8

Section 4 en banc decisions (finality decided by en banc); supreme court's right to hear cases by its own discretion

Section 5 (venue change for place of trial)

Section 8 Abolish the Judicial and Bar Council

In the most exclusive and ex officio fashion, the Judicial and Bar Council is tasked by the Philippine Constitution to determine the qualification of potential candidates to the judiciary. The council is empowered to recommend and disqualify applicants based upon legal, moral, and merit qualifications.

Indeed, the efficiency with which a select few members, emanating from various branches of government, private institutions, and the citizenry, can provide is exemplary: provided that the ultimate purpose of such council is to abjudicate a candidate's qualification by virtue of the council's expertise, not by its representativeness or as a call it "democratic credentials."

Indeed, this council represents the most elitist institution in the Philippine government. Membership is limited to the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, Justice Secretary, a retired Justice of the SC, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a law professor, and a "representative of the private sector -all of them non-elected officials and nominated by the chief executive.

Although in the past the council and its function may have been said as practical, its composition as a public institution is too undemocratic, and indeed, in a sense, oligarchial. Without a doubt, its inclusion in the 1987 Constitution was a step forward from the 1973 Constitution, which enabled the chief executive unlimited appointment powers.

But as a democratic polity, the Philippines deserves better.

Beholden to the chief appointing authority, this council, however morally endowed and meritoriously qualified, is outdated and must be abolished. Its credibility notwitstanding, the council lacks the popular legitimacy which a confirming authority such as the Philippine Senate can provide.

Indeed, because the legislative branch does not participate in the confirmation of the members of the SC, I have no qualm in saying that the system of checks and balances in terms of appointing the members of the Judicial department is non-existent; hence, in that sense, I am tempted to say that there is no such thing as "separation of powers" between the executive and judicial branches; the judiciary is a mere executive department whose main purpose is to project its theoretical independence to allow the perception of being a separate department.

Indeed, there is no de jure and de facto separation between executive and judicial appointments except that the Commission on Appointments (CA) confirms potential candidates in the executive branch while the judiciary are de facto confirmed by the Judicial and Bar Council; hence, I am obliged to say that appointed members of the executive branch have more electoral/popular legitimacy than members of the judiciary, while also noting that the CA's capacity to confer electoral/popular legitimacy is also questionable.

The argument that the appointment of SC Justices as being politicized when confirmed by a legislative body is inconsistent and baloney; the appointment of SC Justices is and has always been a political process; it is political because the people must have some say regarding magistrates who shall judge fairly among themselves; more so, it is very political because without the appointment of the chief executive, it is impossible for the Judicial Department to exist, if one has not noticed!

Regardless of whether such appointment has been politicized, politics end when a Justice (or Chief justice) assumes his position as a member of the judiciary, in which case, the separation of powers principle obliges the members of the judiciary to be impartial, whosoever favorably appraised or appointed them.

Oh, I am sorry, of course, in a society where debt of gratitude pervades in the political structure (which includes the judiciary), all of what I have said is irrelevant; what I have said only applies to democracies that seriously adheres to the notion of "separation of powers" and "checks and balances," not only dimwittedly profess or half-heartedly believes in such principles.

For this council to continue in its duty meant that the Filipino people is not yet ready to hold accountable and have a say on who shall judge over them, at least through legislators that act as representatives that confirm magistrates of justice.

Section 14 (requirement to explain refusal for judicial review)

ARTICLE 9

(A) Section 6 (make clear second sentence)

(C) COMELEC - gradual abolition of its natural essence; states shall, by their own election commission manage elections

ARTICLE 10 (delete)

ARTICLE 11

Section 3 (3) delete 1/3; replace with majority of House members

Section 9 appointment of Ombudsman; require congressional approval

Here is another constitutional office whose "independence" is questionable.

Perhaps the intent of the 1987 framers was the creation of an investigative body beyond the influence and control of the three branches of government, having the sole power to prosecute and suspend alleged corrupt government officials.

The lack of the need for legislative confirmation of the Office of the Ombudsman suggests that members of Congress at that time were among the targets of investigations by the Ombudsman, which can explain the need for an exclusive executive appointment, only constrained by qualification processes of the Judicial and Bar Council.

Indeed, the 1987 framers, in this sense, relied heavily on the chief executive to appoint an individual of outstanding capacity to fulfill the duties delegated to this office; having in mind that giving members of the legislative branch, who may themselves be potential targets of investigations of the Ombudsman, confirming powers to the occupants of the investigative body as inimical to the pursuit of justice against corrupt officials given the zeitgeist of corrupt practices at that time, the 1987 framers saw the necessity of weakening the system of checks and balances in favor of the chief executive, perhaps earnestly banking on a chief executive devoid of immoral and corrupt practices himself.

But what if the chief executive is himself, corrupt? How does the institutional mechanism within the Constitution address this problem? Given the array of exclusive prerogative granted upon the chief executive, how can he be held accountable for his actions?

Line item veto ensures congressional indifference and incapacity; near absolute appointing powers enable the appointment of government officials who are beholden to, influenced by and swear allegiance to the chief executive, rather than the Constitution; and appropriation powers of the chief executive is extensive to the point of the news media being accustomed to the Office of the President appropriating, giving, and releasing public money.

This is where, I believe, the 1987 Framers failed in their wisdom.

By forgetting that the system of checks and balances through an equal separation of powers by itself repairs institutional malfunction by fitting evil against evil, the 1987 framers relied too much on moral leadership to counter government excesses, forgetting what the American political philosopher/founding father/President, James madison, one of the architects of the U.S. federal system of government, meant when he said "ambition must be made to counteract ambition."

Indeed, Although the 1987 framers may have determined that a powerful but benevolent ruler (in the form of a strong presidency) is the answer to the corruption that ever cripples the government in the eyes of the general public; but how did they come to the conclusion that such an individual exists and more so, even if he does exist, he may continue his benevolent rule long after the Constitution so prohibits?

Thus, in a representative democracy, where the ruled and the ruler constantly rotate, moral leadership cannot replace in importance the concept that enables the branches of government to mind each other's business -- the system of checks and balances through equal separation of powers (hence, equal capacity to check each other's act) -- in order to remove the corruption that cripples government legitimacy and effectiveness.

By giving too much power to the chief executive, there exists an unequal separation of powers and the system of checks and balances is fundamentally and inherently ineffective to counter potential abuses by the chief executive because the Constitution itself is favorably leaning towards a strong presidency.

ARTICLE 12

Section 2 (abolish the 60 per centum Filipino ownership requirement for corporations that seeks to tap natural resources on public domain)

Section 10 replace "shall" with "may"

3rd sentence - delete

ARTICLE 14

Section 6 (no national language; english is lingua franca)

Avoid McCarthyistic Tendencies on the Use of Congressional Subpoena Powers; Due Process is Essential to Proper Legislative Oversight

During the height of the Cold War, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy became famous for questioning individuals who allegedly hold sympathy for and support communist ideals and pratices by using the subpoena powers of the U.S. Congress.

McCarthyism, or what became known as suspicion of Americans with alleged communist ties have become a nasty lesson in U.S history for those whose pursuit of public duty is unbound by established procedural regulations. Due process was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution to remove such arbitrary use of legitimate coercion in pursuit of preserving societal interest while protecting the right of an individual against the same; but indeed, it was blalantly ignored.

As history shows, lives were ruined, reputations were lost, and the livelihood of individuals questioned during the so called McCarthy Trials were threatened on the basis of hearsay and mere suspicion without credible evidence. It was a classic case of an abusive display of congressional power: a legislative investigation run amok, devoid of due process and in utmost disregard for individual citizens with inalienable rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

It may happen in our time and place if we let our zealousness to do what is right and to correct what is wrong go above our heads, allowing our ourselves to pursue public duty untempered by established procedures and neglecting adherance to the rule of law.

For what makes Mccarthyism distinct to current legislative investigations is merely the issue at stake; as opposed to communist suspicion, alleged corrupt pratices by former Filipino government officials are, regardless of whether be it the Fertilizer Fund or the Euro General scandal.

Article VI, Section 21 of the Philippine Constitution states that,

The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in, or affected by, such inquiries shall be respected.

Please note the second sentence. "The rights of the persons" being questioned "shall be respected." Even Pontius Pilate will be given a fair trial when the day of judgment comes, so whay not extend the same respect to those individuals?

I am not saying that the upper and lower house of the Philippine Congress have not given the citizens in question what is their due. My point is coming from the concern that the improper exercise of such congressional power will further exacerbate the distrust we, the common people, have in terms of elected officials wielding such considerable powers.

The Philippine Supreme Court has already limited the parameters of legislative inquiry by mere technicality because the Philipine Senate had not been able to satisfy the "duly published rule of procedures" requirement of the Philippine Constitution during the Neri Case.

Granted that a significant number of SC Justices were hand picked by the current Philippine president, but such fiasco could have been avoided had the Philippine Senate made sure that the individuals being questioned were made aware of the rights and expected duties a citizen have when being questioned before a Senate inquiry.

Nonetheless, make no mistake. I am not delegating blame here. The dilemma surrounding the current Senate investigations are growing pains natural to fledging democracies where missteps are to be expected.

The sluggish response in the sense of Senate President Villar's signature on the subpoena for General de la paz may be welcomed as taking the time to study the legality of the summon being served to the police official; hopefully, it is the case. If indeed such is true, it exemplies a thinking politician, assessing the ramification of a potential ultra vires action on the part of the Philippine Senate, the actual situation of which may have been another blunder on its part.

However, one must not be too slow all the time. Constant slowness is a trait of dysfynctional government and such may be interpreted by the public as ineffectiveness in the part of those whose authorization is required for the summons to be served.

The Filipino people is watching, dear legislators. Watch your steps and when exercising express powers granted under the Philippine Constitution, do so in a manner which complies with procedural rules created in order for the officers of the state to fulfill their sworn duty without prejudice to the rights of the citizens being questioned.

After more than two decades of autocratic rule, congressional oversight power, as embodied in its in aid of legislation inquiries, is a welcome and formidable tool against the abusive tendencies of all levels of government officials.

Use it well and shrewdly.

The Court may be packed; nonetheless, if there is will, there is a way. One thing the Court cannot overrule is public opinion. If public opinion is with you, the Court will think twice before it decides against your actions and it is more likely that even the Court will see your point of view. Should I mention the ancestral domain issue?

With the level of graft and corruption in our country, I expect committee investigations by the Philippine Congress to increase tremendously.

Do not hold back, as long as due process is adhered to.

Keep asking questions. Bother them until the fat lady sings.

In God We Trust: It's a Pity Money Can't Buy Renewed Trust in the Financial System

It is said that money can buy anything.

But given the current situation at hand, it would be more accurate to say that that holds true, if one would exclude money's buying power when it comes to purchasing renewed confidence in a weakened financial system.

To make it worse, it seems investing more money alone cannot induce more trust in the credit system.

Just as it is foolish to argue that the mind can be harnessed to solve a psychological illness given that the source of the problem is coming from the brain itself, I find it quite similar when it comes to literally pumping money being the main factor in solving a global financial meltdown.

It has been projected that the public debt of the United States will reach to new unchartered heights - pass beyond 10 trillion dollars - which is at least 72 % of the U.S. GDP (PPP 2007).

If the United States was a developing country, the IMF would already be breeding around our necks demanding structural adjustments which meant: reducing fiscal spending, striving for a balanced budget, increased privatization of government-owned and controlled equities, and liberalization of trade policies.

But it is not. The credit of the United states is the first guarantor of global financial transactions, using its supposed financial and political stability as its main assets; indeed, managers within the international banking system sleep well knowing that Uncle Sam would come to the rescue when the time comes, just as Don Quixote would rescue his Dulcinea; and last but not the least, sovereign states with growing economic potential invest in U.S. securities like salt water in the ocean.

So, how can the U.S. think that it is not invincible? Outside advice, past experience, dependence to external volatility, and common sense might have dissuade a typical country from pursuing the path of relatively extreme laissez-faire capitalism in terms of allowing the growth of fairly unchartered markets such as high-earning speculative hedge fund investments and the derivatives market, unsullied by federal regulation.

Now, one of the few promises we here from U.S. presidential candidates, democrat or republican, in terms of "fixing" the U.S. economy are regulation, regulation, and regulation. To them, the invisible hand is too slow to react and to reach equilibrium meant a turtle like return towards previous economic levels.

The American public is on a rampage because the U.S. Congress has bailed out public and private financial institutions, of which some corporate leaders may have contributed to the financial meltdown but none the less received hefty bonuses while the common folk still have to brace the impact of the financial calamity to trickle down upon themselves. The thought of a complete breakdown in the U.S. credit system, which tremendously affect how business is done in the U.S., have forced lawmakers to find a political solution to the economic problem, even in the midst of protests, for indeed the worst may come had such solution not been approved.

The question is, if such is the case, is there really an invisible hand and if there is, should one believed that it is self-repairing? Like the human immune system, are there limits to its capacity and if there is, what are they?

Well, whatever they are, many economists believe that time and more regulations are needed to solve this crisis in the financial system, in addition to the considerable amount of money already being infused. But the fact remains that the more regulation in the financial system, the more the existence of this invisible hand is less convincing.

In any case, the status quo in the global financial system is about to change. Full faith in the credit of the United States, although wavering but never the less steady, would remain the biggest insurer and holder of wealth for the forseeable future.

However, the ability of the United States to convince other countries to pursue unhindered liberal market reforms, through the IMF and other international financial institutions, would be seriously questioned especially by those from the East Asian Region.

The call for a creation of an Asian Monetary Fund as well as IMF's current advisory tendency during these troubled times, as opposed to a global institution with formidable lending capacity, in addition to the combined and coordinated monetary efforts by sovereign central banks to ease current interest rates, are signs of a paradigm shift in the balance of economic power which is moving towards a multi-polar world economic order.

Indeed, the time for state capitalism is nigh.

How to Quickly Destroy the Credibility of ASEAN and the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC): The Preah Vihear Temple Border Dispute

Article 2 of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia states that the signatories of the pact,

shall be guided by the following fundamental principles :

a. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations;

b. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coersion;

c. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

d. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful means;

e. Renunciation of the threat or use of force;

f. Effective cooperation among themselves. *

In a matter of 10 months, Cambodia and Thailand have embarked towards a journey that could discredit a vital instrument of peace within the Southeast Asian region and the path taken by both sides can possibly cause ASEAN to lose face in the eyes of the international community.

The border dispute surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple area is indeed a matter of national pride and security for both countries and must be approached from the perspective of cool-headed diplomacy; indeed, the issue must be taken away from the rhetoric of national and military leaders that could undermine not only Thai-Cambodian relations, but the stability and credibility of ASEAN as a successful and functioning institutional mechanism for dispute resolution.

Need the two countries be reminded that as signatories to the Southeast Asian regional peace treaty, ASEAN could become a laughingstock among interregional governmental organizations for its failure to neutralize or even reduce the tensions that could lead to a territorial conflict between Cambodia and Thailand?

Indeed, the policy-makers of the two countries ought to remember that the prevailing reason for ASEAN integration is that countries within the region acknowledge that peaceful cooperation is necessary for the notion of a regional identity and stability to prosper and progress.

The question now presented is can ASEAN move forward to the vision of a cultural, economic, and (possibly) political community if member states are unable to shed their extreme nationalistic attitudes towards territorial issues at the expense of pursuing regionalism?

Reducing barriers to free trade, setting up a regional socio-economic community with a binding legal charter, and announcing to the world the birth of the ASEAN way and identity are meaningless and miniscule achievements if the regional integrity of ASEAN is undermined by this long-standing border dispute, an issue which could lead to an unthinkable disintegration.

Simply put, if you want to cut ties with family, make sure to claim each other's real estate property and instead of exhausting the advise and council of fellow family members to settle the property dispute amicably, keep making threats that could further escalate the situation.

Thus, Preah Vihear, in a political sense, reflects the serious flaws of regional confederational governments when the issue of national territory becomes involved and where sovereign entities may take the path of reverberating back towards the isolationist cave of nationalism.

To encourage internal strife within the region in order to defend the integrity of the national territory, however significant such territorial issues may be to a particular nation, is a failure of national leadership, and its inability to coordinate policies within the context of regional consultation and consensus.

It must be noted that the issue of Sabah between Malaysia and the Philippines, not to mention the issue of Spratly Islands between China and a significant number of ASEAN countries, should have been a good example for Cambodia and Thailand to suspend territorial issues for the sake of regional stability and harmony.

Also, the facts attest to the issue of the border dispute as already decided through international judicial arbitration; indeed, for a country to have sought an international governmental organization for national recognition of such territory, regardless of whether it pertains to a specific cultural significance, is tantamount to declaring belligerent attitudes vis-a-vis the other state party involved in the dispute.

I suggest for the political leaders of the two countries to take the path of reconciliation and spare ASEAN further embarrassment in the international community. A win-and-win situation exists if national territory issues are not given priority over the issue of regional cooperation.

It is now in the hands of Cambodia and Thailand to decide whether both truly desire to achieve regional peace and prosperity for the entire southeast Asian region.

* - Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia Indonesia, 24 February 1976
http://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm

Proliferation of Online Angono Forums

Ah, yes.

Thanks to the world-wide-web, the far corners of the earth are but a stone throw away when it comes to disseminating news and tackling issues regarding our beloved town of Angono.

Provided that there is courage enough to deliver unwanted and sour truths, that each individual reporting is reasonably objective to the point of providing a somewhat unbiased opinion regarding local events, that there exist the capacity to pursue common sense beyond traditional sources of what is right or wrong, and that there exist a certain degree of accepting facts as it is, the people of Angono had shown to the world the importance of keeping in touch with family and had proven that identity is deeply connected to a shared sense of belonging.

From my perspective, the whole thing started with the creation of a government-sponsored website* in which the usual headlines involved the typical "kumustahan," who's who, and testimonials of longing for and the reminiscing of days long past in Angono.

Come election time, I find it quite fascinating that a single topic called "Ms. Au Villamayor" in that government-sponsored website garnered around 50,000 views, which was, by far, the largest number of hits on any single subject topic amongst all the Angono forum websites I have ever known; it even surpasses the number of views on all subject topics in all Angono forums combined as far as it is limited to the websites mentioned below.

Indeed, the triumph of the internet, when it comes to individuals rights, emanates from empowering the uninformed - the ignorant masses (us) - enabling the many to become informed citizens with the ability to hold governments accountable for its actions.

But what does the propragation of Angono forums imply? What does this mean? Are there consequences?

There is no simple answer to the question. But I believe one can expect new things and new beginnings where the people of Angono have greater access to diverse opinions and uncensored ideas which is, in essense, vital to our democratic principles; it also amplifies the voice of those whose voice does not reach the halls of decision-making, especially of those who are in diaspora.

And note, one must not forget that uncensored information means information not coming from the government but from independent private sources, however loaded or subjective they are. Indeed, even private forums with substantial government support implies substantial government intervention.

Why did I mention this? I must insist, again and again and again, that government-uncensored forums represent the proliferation that advancing technological democratic societies ought to have, not the opposite.

Although such forums may become the tools of status quo and propaganda in pursuit of selfish ends, this conduit can be used for the common good, if only those with good intentions and those who abide by the rule of law will not allow such actions to take place; for indeed, it only takes the indifference of those who have it in their capacity to help but do nothing for the bad to prosper.

I wish all such forums success, that is, more membership.

As of current, here are online forums devoted to the discussion of Angono and everything in it:

Active:

- Angono Rizal
http://angonorizal.suddenlaunch3.com/index.cgi

- Angono Rizal Community Board
http://angonorizal.com/

- Northern California Angono Association
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/angono/

- People of Angono (Proboard)
http://angono.proboards82.com/index.cgi

Inactive:

- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)*
http://www.angono.com/

- Official Website of Angono (government-sponsored)
http://www.angono.gov.ph/

- People of Angono Forum
http://www.angono.com.ph/

Cui Bono? Legislating an Adversarial System on Media Exposure: Right-to-reply Law and the Consequence of Meddling with Press Freedom

A conversation between the government and the press

"You comment first and then I respond," said the government.

"No way," said the press.

"Why?" asked the government.

"Because you did not ask me to do it; instead, you told me to do it," said the press.

The press continued,

"Need I remind you? The Philippine Constitution gave birth to me, after years of fearful silence and tyranny, intending to let me be as free as I can; hence, I am aptly called Free Press.

"On the other hand, the same Constitution limits your ability to govern as a public institution, through proper checks and balances established by the separation of powers, because of your inherent tendency to abuse and misuse derived powers from the people whom you beg consent from."

"I protect the masses from your excesses. I may be sensational at times and overreaction is a usual flaw of mine. But without me, who shall expose what recorded history has proven correct?"

"Who shall remind the people that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely?' "

"And now you are telling me I am required to air your side of the story?"

"Tell me, have you really consulted the constituents of your district / region when you made this specific decision or, in general, make decisions on their behalf?"

"Did you ever visited the voters in your district and solicited their opinions and grievances, even if it is not during an election period?"

"Did you ever consulted the people of the land before making a final deal that would affect their lives, the lives of their family, and future generations coming out their line?

"Did you always make yourself available and accessible to the poor, the sick, and those who are weak in order for their small voices to be heard or do you go to your clubhouses and meet your golf buddies to decide the affairs of the state?"

"Have you gone to great lengths by traveling throughout the far corners of the nation to provide the chance for all walks of people, from the remote mountain provinces to the squalor the squatter area in urban settings represent, and even deep in the jungles full of conflict and misery so that their inhabitants may be able to air their grievances and make their petitions, or do you only do so when you are carrying guns or collecting taxes?"

"Well, I have done such things and I have gone to such places," the press answered.

"Perhaps you should first remove the speck in your eyes before you notice mine," the press suggested.

"Once you have done so, you may then ask me to give you a chance to reply," the press finally said.

In Defense of the Press

Although I do not agree with the notion of an impregnable press, I have serious reservation when it comes to restricting the capacity of the press to inform the public in the manner it so chooses, regardless of whether their reports are one-sided or not.

After all, it is assumed that the public, as a collective of individuals, can think for itself, has the capacity to decide for its own, and is able to detect whether they are being lied upon, regardless of such lies coming from the press or the government.

Unless the press, as a collective entity, stifles dissent by making sure that only one opinion (perhaps its own) is publicized, I see no reason as to why it ought to be compelled to present the other side, given that other avenues of response are nonetheless available.

Surely, the congressman who authored this bill should know that if the press can present one side of the issue, he can make the other side known to the public by asking the same to present his perspective (ergo, press conference), and even perhaps take advantage of the rivalry between news networks i.e., if ABS-CBN reported the story, then go to GMA for the response.

Common sense, is it not? But if for some reason the other side cannot be expressed through the press, would not creative thinking leads us to harness the internet, text messaging, public meetings, or perhaps regularly meet the citizenry to explain your side of the story, instead of potentially suppressing a constitutionally protected institution in society?

In the United States, accusations that the media acts in a biased capacity certainly restricts the power of the press to influence public opinion, for the people, as individuals, are treated as rational beings and assumed as having enough intellectual capacity to make fair judgments of their own.

In the Philippines, politicians seem skeptical as to whether the citizenry is capable of making such decisions and I certainly would agree if it is said that, to a certain extent, that is not the case. For indeed, some still vote based upon blood ties, popularity, and given favors, not capability, integrity, and other qualifying aspects.

This maturity difference does not change the fact that the United States suffer the same problem the Philippines suffers. Corruption and political favors in Chicago alone seems to be in the same magnitude as what we may have in the Philippines.

Nevertheless, the fact that Americans are to be trusted in their capacity to decide what is good for them remains unquestionable: the notion includes the ability to discern for their own which are facts, lies, half-truths, and hurtful truths, wrong they may be in the end.

In essence then, those who accept the consequence of their actions, whatever it is, are thus considered responsible enough to make decisions of their own, regardless of whether it is beneficial.

I therefore ask our legislators to treat their fellow Filipino citizens as equals with the capacity to discern lies from facts, and not only act as protectors of an ill-informed and immature public. For once you treated them as equals, you will see that the public is not so susceptible to whatever the press tells them. There is no need to treat them as children; for if they are always treated as such, they might never grow up.

On the other hand, the press is bound to be subjective. To mandate objectivity in the eyes of the law sets a dangerous precedent in terms of press freedom. It is the right of each individual to make partial decisions, as long as they would own up to such responsibility.

If the press has become too subjective that it bends facts and employs lies to benefit its own, I surely believe that the people would not stand by and get itself lied upon, dear legislators. So please show a little bit of trust in the people, would you?

If push comes to shove, the constitutionality of this law must be questioned before the High Court, and thus finally decide whether the infringement this proposal would cause is substantial enough to constitute a violation of press freedom.

The Filipino press, for all its sensationalism and its zealous conviction to keep the public realm informed of news and issues that could determine the fate of the nation, will always be susceptible to make mistakes and thus make partial judgments. It is not unusual for firebrands to abound in journalism where doing your duty usually mean injury, ridicule, and death.

For how can you not expect Filipino journalists to be prosecutorial in their pursuit of doing their public duty, when time after time, their colleagues are gunned down just because they want to let the public know of what is going on?

Polticians expects the press to calm down when it comes to criticism them. But good gracious, how can you expect them to calm down when tomorrow, the only thing that needs to be done is to prepare for the burial of a deceased reporter? Have those granted with power to protect and serve did their job of protecting our journalists?

Urgency and sense of purpose seem to choke the air of tranquility and the traditional path of hushing up events in the wake of brutal assaults on the agents of the press.

Perhaps, the press is also frustrated because in whatever manner the report is given, a significant portion of the public just do not comprehend the danger of indifference, inaction, and maintains its blissful obedience to men in power, as opposed to adherance in the rule of law.

In this case, the public, no, more accurately a certain portion of it, deserves to be lied upon.

Where did Congress get the tenacity to demand from the press to be fair, when their actions as representatives of the people are far from being fair?

Countless times have the Philippines been named by various international non-governmental organizations (mind you, not only once, but recurring) as failing its duty to pursue the path of good governance; the most recent reports states that governance is "worst in East Asia."*

Corruption, indeed, is so rampant and thick, a mice - the common Filipinos - can hardly breed.

If corruption is indeed rampant, then there are so many fish to pry! It is only expected that the press be seen as abusive and partial by those in power because those in power have not experienced the full measure of what being a democracy is; that is, they have not experienced a formidable institution, as a private conduit of information to the general public, in society holding them accountable for their actions; ergo, the consequence of a free press.

The traditional political culture of the Philippines a quarter of a century ago provided Filipino politicians with unimpeachable standing in the eyes of the public, with some Filipino journalists going as far as calling the lack of criticism of politicans a duty to nationalist ideals.

What a bunch of kiss-asses.

What benefit does this new legislation has which is applicable to the general public, anyway?

The press does not generally act as an inquisitional group to the common person, but always focus on those who influence society in general. So, I ask again, cui bono?

Now that politicians are being subjected to close scrutiny by a press that does not kowtow to the old corrupt ways, a press which does not collude with those who are in power, it is only expected for the press to be restrained, in any manner possible.


* - "WB: Corruption in RP worst in East Asia," June 2008.
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080625-144628/WB-Corruption-in-RP-worst-in-East-Asia

The Problem of Secrecy in Public Appropriations - Inimical to Good Accountability and Transparency

Using the search engine google to check the latest news regarding the issue of "double-entry" inserted in the Senate bill version of the General Appropriations Act of 2008, I came up with this article in the Manila-Shimbun.

It has been stated by Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that as far as he and the Finance Committee are concerned, there has been no "wrongdoing" done on the part of Senate President Manuel Villar with regard to the "double-entry" of pork barrel spending allocated to a C-5 construction project.

Senator Enrile clearly stated that it was the Senate President who made the insertion but challenged Senator Villar's accuser to present their case against his embattled colleague during an interview and when a Senate Ethics Committee probe which Senator Enrile suggested be initiated to tackle the specific issue.

A motion to publish "insertions" made by Senators in appropriations bill was presented by Senator Manuel Roxas III, which was approved by the Senate Finance Committee.

The Two Sides of the Coin

From the perspective of those who side with the besieged Senate President, Senator Panfilo Lacson's use of his privelege speech was a moved the Senator Lacson has made to discredit, and thus dampen, Senator Villar's presidential aspiration in the 2010 election.

Senator Enrile argued that the act of inserting appropriations amendments (i.e., earmarks, "insertions,"or pork barrel spendings) had been a widespread and well-known practice* in the Upper House and that the "intent to profit" has not been established given the current evidence at hand.

He also stated that "human error"* emanating from the House version of the appropriations bill was to blame for the misreading and noted that it was in the Senate version did this problem surfaced.

The C-5 extension project "was not reflected as one road project in the final budget document," Senator Enrile said, and thus the issue of "double entry" is inaccurate, given that these are two separate projects.

One the other hand, Senator Lacson reiterated his call for the explanation of the double insertion made by Senator Villar and demanded an investigation whether Senator Villar's Brittany Corp. benefitted from the sale of its property, which the road project would have to publicly acquire in order to procede.

The issue of such earmarks attached to the general appropriations act for this year has raised the rancor on undetected and hurried public spending to the point that Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago warned of raising the issue to the Supreme Court.

Analysis

There is no doubt that Senator Villar's insertion of additional public funding to a project during the final stages of approving public spending, regardless of whether it is double entry, reflects the serious need for the complete reevaluation and perhaps overhaul of how our national legislature do business, especially with regard to how our legislators allocate taxpayer's money.

Senator Enrile himself said that such practice has been prevalent in the Senate and to accuse Senator Villar of wrongdoing meant to accuse the majority of Philippine Senators, past and present, guilty too.

Point well taken.

Nonetheless, tradition does not determine what is constitutional, legal and moral; to have the capacity to distinguish each separately, that is, to draw the line that separates those three distinctions enable each one of us to see with eyes unclouded the crucial point of the issue: having little or, worse, the lack of transparency and accountability in terms of spending taxpayer's money, whether be it in the Upper or Lower House.

The fact that the public is neither empowered with very accessible tools to scrutinize public spending (the Senate website is more accessible in terms of providing an electronic copy - pdf - of the proposed SB while the House have a website but the system is so outdated and rigid, it would take so much time just to peruse where those HB's are), even with the technological advances of the current age, nor is it interested in the dangers of pursuing the path of indifference towards how politicians spent public funds shows the immaturity which can threaten the stability of our republic and impede upon the quest for a careful balance among the branches of government.

Time and time again, history is a witness to a single solitary ruler being called upon by the people to fix a corrupt system only to be betrayed by such ruler by assuming and perpetuating his hold on absolute power. One of the classic examples that motivate such undertaking is the people's exhaustion in dealing with dysfunctional and corrupt ways in which a particular institution in the government handles its primary function; thus, in the end, as a last gesture of saving the republic, would turn to a virtuous man, who almost always turn into a tyrant.

The Senate, as a public institution that has control over the way public money is spent, must ensure that the way in which it does its public duty is pursued with full disclosure less be accused of being an oligarchial council bent on secrecy to benefit those who are privileged enough to be in it. The consequence of this possibility is too dire to be admitted: for it involves the shifting of the balance of power to another branch of government which the people percieve as reliable and trustworthy.

In the past, this meant a strong presidency, at the cost of having an irrelevant judiciary and a puppet legislature.

I pray we do not return to pay for the mistakes of the past; the price that must be paid for the lack of transparency and accountability may bring us back again to a period in which our civil liberties are in jeopardy, for secrecy begets nothing but more secrecy until the public is removed of its capacity to hold the government accountable for its actions.

* - "Villar named in P200m insertion," 2008.
http://www.malaya.com.ph/sep16/news1.htm

A Self-restricting Press is a Big Leap towards Tyranny

The first time I have heard of a self-restricting press was in a classic Japanese movie in which the police asked the press during a news conference to not only withhold the story of a kidnap-for-ransom case the police was trying to solve, but also print in the newspaper a convenient lie in order to catch the kidnappers once and for all.

No doubt, the cooperation between the press and the police, in the end, produced the arrest and the eventual detention of the culprits, and the eventual return of the kidnapped child. But there are two things that troubled my thought as I pondered on a scenario in which this situation is applied into a more serious intrusion on, or perhaps more appropriately - degradation of, press freedom by the press itself: what if the plan failed and the public was exposed to the fact that there were lied upon by press? Could the public again be able to trust the press?

And then another thought came up: suppose the press tried to cover up, in cooperation with the police, the mistake they both created, would it not lead to more cover ups and thus, a symbiosis between these two powerful institutions which have the means of projecting force and controlling information? What might this imply to the public that relies on the police to protect them from harm and the media to bring them news as it is? I suggest a big step towards tyranny.

It is said that information is power. If so, the one who holds information, that is, most information, is the most powerful. In a corrupt regime, if I know that a high official in the government has committed a crime, and I used such information to extort him, he will either get me killed or bribe me to keep my silence. In a regime that has some inkling towards the rule of law, information held by credible witnesses can bring down heads of states, even popular ones.

Through the dissemination of news, events around the globe are instantly provided to the public, which gives it a certain measure of becoming an informed collective entity that is to be reckoned with, even from the perspective of holding national governments accountable.

The "people," "public opinion," and "taxpayers" are some of the terms which one can use to portray this notion, the embodiment of which can only be projected from a platform of mass communication, that is, through newspapers, mobile phones, television, and the internet.

The press, as a medium upon which the notion of public sentiment can be brought to its fullest exposure, and thus act as the tamer extraordinaire of the Leviathan, has the great responsibility of being the most irreverent, if not the most critical voice in society; for there will always be fish to pry; more so, in the current state of our political maturity, big fish abounds to the point that we can invite a whole town without worrying whether there is enough fish meat to broil, chop, grill, or even put into a stake to show that we mean business.

In its duty to deliver factual news, it inevitably evolves into a galvanizing medium that provides forums for the discussion of issues that not only empower those whose voice cannot be heard but also act as the gathering point from which such small voices can direct the rudder of the republic, and indeed, cut the wings of any government branch going beyond its legitimate powers.

Once the press has decided to hold back on its primary function of disseminating information, it deserves the sought after title of "free" no more; indeed, the difference between an independent press and a PR company lies in the notion that news and facts are based upon unwanted and sour truths, not by sweet lies and savory but half-baked ear-pleasing niceties; if so, it would be better to dub the press as a bureau of propaganda within, as George Orwell puts it, the "Ministry of Truth."

Without a doubt, collision, not collusion, is the path which a free press is headed in terms of its relation with any institution in society, and in particular, the government.

The press needs to remind itself that it is the guardian of government-uncensored information and must protect such information even from "prudence" emanating within itself. For it is the price that must be paid in order to encourage the growth of diverse opinions and to prevent the suppression and decay of colliding ideas vital to a strong liberal democracy. Although the press acts as a keeper and presenter of facts, it must stay away, for the most part, from pruning too much what it ought to hold so dearly.

Exposing the truth has never been the most popular deed of all, but it certainly is the public duty of a free press to remain steadfast to its principles and stay in such path. For once it collaborates to curtail the free flow of information, it is high time for the public to find other sources of untainted information.

Public Finance of Elections May Enable Greater Public Accountability on Campaign Finance

I agree with Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño in the sense that the taxpayer's money being used as campaign funds is a burden to the Filipino people. I also agree that it may be possible that politicians may turn into thugs and use such money for their own good.

But in this case, common sense leads us to "see the other side of the coin," and assess the costs and benefits of enacting such legislation.

Hence, I ask Representative Casiño to lend his ear and to view the current legislative proposal from a different perspective.

First, campaign funds of Philippine politicians are primarily raised by the candidates themselves. What does this mean? It means that, by hook or crook, funds used in the election are obtained by the candidates themselves either through the public coffers (corruption), extortions (induced bribery, kidnappings, blackmailing, kick-backs from guaranteeing public contracts), contributions (special interests and thus, debts of gratitude to corporations), donation (by ordinary citizens), or their own money.

The question that I know put forth is, what if the people shoulder the financial burden of election campaigns from politicians? We already know the cost of this potential public burden. But are there benefits?

If it wouldn't eliminate corruption by directly handing the people's money to corrupt politicians, wouldn't it be true that those politicians would now feel they owe the public (yes, for the first time politicians would be beholden to the public for paying for their candidacy). Instead of these politicians cleverly and undetectedly stealing from the National Treasuary, the people and the media would in turn gain powerful tools to control their corrupt ways by being able to account for and thus limit, to a certain extent, how much they spend i.e., how much is being spent on elections. After all, some politicians, regardless of whether public funds are provided, would steal from the public coffers anyway.

So, why not make it legal and thus, instead of billions of pesos being lost to undetected graft and corruption, allow politicians to grab a piece of the pie and tie them to public scrutiny? If policymakers are shrewd enough, they would incorporate certain provisions i.e., conditions, that would turn this public burden into public accountability and transparency, that is, if only they know what conditions to include in the proposed electoral campaign legislation.

After all, I would rather choose that public money being loss to unexplained disappearances be spent with public knowledge and scrutiny which a properly scrutinized electoral campaign law can shed and expose.

In the United States, such thing is called Campaign Finance Reform.

Through legislative mandate, it can be mandated that as a consequence of using public money for the elections, politicians should be prohibited from accepting other forms of election contribution, primarily from the traditionally influential BIG CORPORATIONS. In this case, politicians would not feel they owe private corporations utang na loob anymore; rather, they would now feel they owe the Filipino public utang na loob. This is a debt of gratitude which I whole heartedly agree upon and encourage for this is how it is supposed to be: accountability and responsibility to the people.

I also disagree with Representative Casiño's assessment in the sense that such campaign finance reform "will be riddled by graft and corruption."

It can be riddled with graft and corruption; but if proper legislation is enacted, consistency with the law will certainly provide such reform with a certain amount of legitimacy. Also, thieves are smart enough to know their fellow thieves; no good thief would allow his fellow thief to steal that which they have legally acquired and thus, is rightfully their own.

As to the manner of spending public money during the campaign, perhaps provisions such as sticking to issues and not allowing ad hominem arguments can be mandated as prohibited uses of public money. As for the rest, I see no reason as to why politicians should not be given full discretion to spend public election funds, except for the conditions above or others that might be agreed upon in pursuit of a fair, free, orderly, and peaceful election.

I appeal to Representative Casiño, his allies, and other concerned legislators to use their wits in tweaking this potential legislation for the common good than use their tongues in opposition to what is obviously a financial burden, and turn this legislation into an opportunity to make his fellow politicians more accountable in terms of election campaign financing.

There is nothing free in this world. Even public accountability and transparency cost money. It would do you well to remember this.

Christian Good Work, Debt of Gratitude, and Public Duty

Apostle Paul, in his letter to the Romans, stated that the only debt that Christians should have for each other is the debt of love (i.e., to love one another).*

But if Filipino customs, such as the debt of gratitude (i.e., utang na loob), contradict this apostolic dictum, which one shall overrule the other? Christ himself stated that in pursuit of spreading the Good News, he or she should not expect anything in return,** but simply take joy in that he or she did good, as all Christians ought to do. Nonetheless, Christ also stated that if one is demanded to repay a debt, then one must repay it in full, not sparing a single penny until it is fully paid.***

When such things happen, a good deed becomes a debt and our Father in heaven will not consider it good work anymore. If the Lord allows me to remember the fundamentals of the Inspired Word during Bible study, I would say that good works are deeds that are done (1) in secret, (2) not as something in return, (3) out of the abundance of our hearts, and (4) with the purpose of pleasing Him alone, not for our own gain.

Hence, if someone has done a good deed for a Christian, the Christian ought to be thankful; if the one who had done a good deed asks something in return, then it must be repaid, no questions asked, at the cost of such good deed unfortunately becoming a debt, and in Filipino terms, may turn into a debt of gratitude.

But what about all kinds of money-lenders that ask not for monetary payment but demand political favors or ask in repayment to commit illegal acts? No doubt, it is not only in our capacity as law-abiding citizens but it is also our Christian duty to resist such acts of craftiness and immorality. I suggest going public and shame those that practice such despicableness.

If I may suggest in the name of shrewdness+ which Christ clearly encouraged, hide a listening device, perhaps a cell phone voice recorder, in order to obtain credible evidence of such act being committed (which is especially useful if such person decides to employ a lying tongue). It must be pointed out that we ought not to be scared of people not approaching us because of such listening devices; only persons who desire and actually employ despicable acts should be afraid and stay away from you, which is all the better.

After all, there is no need to prove that persons of integrity will deny that which they have said. In fact, they will blanlantly expose themselves to the dreaded consequences, if only to remain humanly truthful. I deny anyone that claims they have integrity if they do not have the courage to admit that they make mistakes, and more so, to actually make a specific confession of being wrong in the aftermath of taking a particular action.

And so I ask again. Which one do you hold most precious? Corrupted Filipino traditions or the Living Word? Should I remind Christians who practice "debt of gratitude" of Christ's exhortation about the "clean and unclean?" i.e., that traditions should not infringe upon the commandments of God? ++ By what right do you stand upright as a Christian after committing such despicable acts?

Nonetheless, debt of gratitude is not a custom that needs to be totally abolished. For I admit in some instances, tumanaw ng utang na loob has an element of reciprocity i.e., justice.

What needs to be abolished is the abuse of its use and its spilling over in areas of life which it ought not to be in or to exist, and in particular, where public duty is concerned.

* - Romans 13:8-14 (NIV)

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law."

** - Matthew 10:8 (CEV)

"You received without paying, now give without being paid."

*** - Matthew 5:26 (NIV)

"I promise you that you will not get out until you have paid the last cent you owe."

+ - Matthew 10:16 (NIV)

"I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

++ - Matthew 15 (NIV)

"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"

Greenpeace Strikes Again!

In its pursuit to keep our precious environment safe, I thank GreenPeace Southeast Asia for holding a local government, perhaps with notable particularity of the one in Angono, to its promise of closing its open dumpsites once and for all.

If anyone would clearly scrutinize their efforts, among the 713 open dumpsites in the Philippines,* Angono was fortunate enough to be singled out as the primary focus of the infamous environmental group in terms of targeting failed local government waste management, a fact that many in Angono ought to appreciate. Mind you, if one checks its website,** its Angono article is in the front page while no other news pertaining to the rest of garbage problems of local governments in Southeast Asia is featured!

Talk about being exclusive! I dare anyone accusing the renowned environmentalist group of being arbitrary to speak out, or else become the next target of the green wrath.

On the other hand, if it is true that a promise was made to close such open dumpsite within six months, I have to say that such promise must be kept. For if one cannot abide by a promise, it is better not to make one! It is stated above that one Lea Guerrero of Greenpeace Southeast Asia obtained a promise from the local government executive of Angono and was only trying to hold such official accountable to its promise.

As an organization, Greenpeace can neither be faulted for not understanding the appropriation/ funding issues surrounding such promise to solve a looming environmental crisis nor can it be expected to understand the slowness of government action for it only understands a promise to commit action; after all, it is unthinkable that they are politically motivated or influenced by those with political motivation. For if they are, then I am more than happy to write something about this particular organization who is supposedly protecting our precious environment.

Nonetheless, the fault lies on the one who made the promise, if it was made, that is.

Idealists do not daudle with politics nor should they interfere in it unless for the common good. By holding elected officials to keep their promise of preserving the environment, Greenpeace ensures that the people of Angono are being given an environment that promotes its well-being.

As one who is from Angono, I am heartened that Greenpeace South East Asia is giving Angono its full attention and thus, showing its concern for its residents. But I pray that it will not stop in Angono; after all, it has the whole South East Asia to worry about.


-------------------------------
* - "Govt eyes use of floating garbage landfills in RP," 2008.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/105537/Govt-eyes-use-of-floating-garbage-landfills-in-RP

** - Greenpeace Southeast Asia
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/en/

Candidates, Commercials, and Indecision

Professional politicians are so predictable.

They will try everything, as in do anything, and stoop so low to achieve their ultimate goal - power, fame, and if they can manage it, wealth.

Sure, they may seek political power to do what is the best for the people i.e., the common good; but in pursuit of acquiring power for the good of the many, is it justified for them to break laws that preserve order in society, to curtail our civil liberties and set aside the principles of human rights, or even pay, not of their own, but with the precious lives of our fellow men?

In deed, in this case, "the end justifies the means."

Moving on, by saying "professional," I mean those who have been so used to the machinations of traditional politics, who not only know what gray portions of the law that needs to be circumvented and tweaked to increase their chances of being elected, but also present their image as law-abiding citizens serving the republic, while making a living through private advertisements, perhaps in order to boost their campaign war funds; or worst, they do so in order to provide themselves a chance of an early election campaign in a country where fame, looks, and appearance may be enough to get a candidate elected.

If I am not mistaken, as of current, the law is vague as to whether appearing in media advertisements for the purpose of private gain may be deemed as violating the Philippine Omnibus Election Code which prohibits "early campaign activities."

Article 9, Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code states:

Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. - It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.

Hence, the legal issue at hand is whether media advertisements intended for commercial gain may be considered "election campaign... activity outside the campaign period" if public officials with aspirations to seek elected political offices became involved (thus, appeared in an advertisement to the public to support or encourage a particular product).

But even if it such were not the case, shoudn't those government officials, free as they may be to engaged in any activity that may increase their living, be afraid that may they trample laws that keeps our elections fair, free, and untainted by illegal or even unscontitutional acts?

Through this, one can see the inevitable opportunistic aspect of any politician, of which the measure of aspiration is proportional to the level of public office a politician aspires to hold.

The Inaction of the COMELEC

In this article, I would also like to criticize the inaction of the COMELEC to make a decision regarding the question put forward by Senator Miriam Santiago. It is plain enough that as an electoral constitutional commission, the COMELEC is empowered and is duty bound by the Philippine Constitution to decide matters regarding the enforcement of election laws and due to its quasi-judicial function, interpret to a certain extent the scope and application of election laws.

Even if a decision of the COMELEC was found by the Philippine Supreme Court, acting as an appellate court that may choose to intervene when a constitutional issue arises, as ultra vires, to have erred would have been better; the ramification of failing to act lies not only in the non-establishment of legal precedents emanating from the COMELEC as an independent constitutional body regarding such particular issues in question; but more so, in its potential exposure to the notion of being a weak and irrelevant public office due to its inaction and thus, the danger of losing its significance in the eyes of the public.

It is better to have tried than do nothing; for in trying, the virtue of courage and intent is becomes apparent. But to not have tried and thus to have erred not at all implies the notion of inaction, an act unworthy of decisive political action, however prudent it may be.

A Farewell Tribute to a Renowned Angono Muralist

My condolences to the family of Jose "Pitok" Blanco, native of Angono, and beloved folk muralist who may be said as a master painter after Angono's heart.

Famous in executing murals depicting the everyday life of the town he so loved when farming and fishing were still Angono's main source of livelihood, Blanco had proven his devotion to his beloved town through a vast collection of paintings celebrating the extensive storyline scenes of the life of Angono fishermen and farmers, and pivotal moments of Angono such as the burning of Angono during the Second World War, and the now famous Fiesta de San Clemente.

Without a doubt, Jose "Pitok" Blanco belongs to a select few among the great number of artists in Angono. It must be noted that most of his offsprings were indeed skilled painters themselves; his life was a testament to the path he was chosen for: to excel in the arts and to remind his fellow townsfolk to cherish a way of life so dear to him, a lifestyle which defined Angono ancestors' long forgotten ways, embodied by the simple but fulfilling life of once a upon a time Angono of the past.

Indeed, by reminiscing days long past, Jose "Pitok" Blanco had left an imprint in Angono; it is an imprint which encourages us to look back to our past as a guide to an ever-changing, growingly indistinct, and globally-connected future, in order for us to discover what makes us unique, as individuals and as a community, in this ever-shrinking world.

As one who claim belonging to Angono, it is with deep sorrow that I write this article but with solemn determination to give due credit and honor to one of its most outstanding citizens. His pursuit in the arts ought to be acknowledged as having considerably contributed to bringing our beloved town of Angono in its current place of renown as a town blessed in the arts.

We will miss our beloved master painter but none the less state that the works of arts he had created throughout the years of his life and the dedication he had shown in the arts will remain in our memories long after he has gone beyond the boundaries of his beloved town.

Farewell, native son of Angono. May you rest in peace knowing that you will always be remembered by those who know and love Angono by heart.

Territorial Conflict in Southern Philippines - a Constitutional Perspective

There are those that think that the ancestral domain issue surrounding the conflict between the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) is an issue that could be solved in a mere decade. In 1996, after more than 20 years of armed conflict which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands, the Philippines signed a peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) - the largest seccesionist group of its time - through the constitutional provision of creating the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).

It is good to remind those who want to rush the peace agreement between the Philippines and the MILF that the agreement between the Philippines and the MNLF has not yet been fully accomplished, but none the less the two sides had decided to deal with concerns regarding the implementation of the provisions of the agreement peacefully through the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), a global organization of islamic states, in which the MNLF has full observer status.

As a breakaway group of the MNLF, the MILF has been demanding recognition of their ancestral domain rights in southern Philippines and has decided to continue the armed struggle until the issue of the ancestral domain has been agreed upon by the two sides. There is constant fear in Christian villages near the territory under MILF control due to the intrusion of armed MILF combatants, which claims that those villages where once under Moro control. The cycle of violence seems relentless and the cessation of armed conflict impossible until the issue of territorial claim is resolved.

Such escalation may well be the effect of the growing inability of the MILF to control its rogue elements, which after more than a quarter of a century of waiting, I think may resort back to the means of a bloody struggle in pursuit taking lands that they consider as their ancestors and thus, theirs.

Foreign offers of mediation adds to the possibility of peace to a certain extent, but is plainly questionable as to whether it is effective in sorting out the critical issue of ancestral lands. An offer to mediate made by the United Kingdom (UK), through its experience in Northern Ireland and with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), may have been very helpful on the on-going negotiation.

Although I think it is more accurate to state such conflict as mere sectarian, that is, the conflict between Catholics and Protestants within the Christian religion and more appropriate if compared to the conflict between the Shi'ite and Sunni of the Muslim religion, the offer is nonetheless welcome, if it meant additional monitoring teams that would ensure the implementation of agreements and ceasefires.

From a constitutional perspective, on the other hand, one must be reminded that the concept of parliamentary supremacy enables the British government tremendous negotiating capacity (unless opposed by the electorate) while constitutional restraints imposed upon the three branches of government in the Philippines limit the Philippine government's ability to negotiate or agree with the terms of peace.

The Philippine Constitution prohibits the creation of political entities equal to the notion of a state within the national territory of the Philippines, and thus the negotiators of the Philippine government are wary of making agreements infringing upon or inconsistent with constitutional mandates protecting the national territory; ergo, the Philippine government does not want to pursue an agreement that cannot withstand a constitutional veto through a congressional non-concurrence or a judicial review.

If foreign governments and international institutions desire to mediate and establish peace in the Southern Philippines, I pray they consider the constitutional restrictions imposed upon government negotiators and realize the seriousness of seceding a part of the national territory. They ought to remember that the issue here does not only involve transfer of power but the crucial issue of territory, and sovereignty. Section 7, Article II of the Philippine Constitution states that

the State shall pursue an independent foreign policy. In its relations with other states, the paramount consideration shall be national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national interest, and the right to self-determination.

The Philippine Constitution does not provide for the Philippine government to give up its territory but only allows it to establish autonomous regions in so far as giving regions greater amount of independence from central government control. Proposals which include the notion of sovereignty or peaceful transfer of territory is inimical to the constitutional mandate of preserving the territorial integrity of the state.

The Constitution simply does not allow a constitutional secession of territory. Either the two sides agree to autonomy or wait for a constitutional change or resume armed conflict.