It's amazing how respectable traditions that preserve our cultural identity have gone to the dumps while traditions that undermine society linger.
Mano
While visiting family in Hawaii, I was rather taken aback when a young adult, whom I believe was raised as an American, suddenly took an elder's hand and pulled it to his forehead, a Filipino trait known as "pagmamano" or simply "mano." I felt ashamed even more when an adult took the elder's hand and did the same thing. At that time, I asked myself why of all things that need to die out, this treasured custom is fading away, even in my own ways.
Po
Another dying tradition I lament will soon be gone is the Tagalog's recognition of an elder's venerable status within the family and the community. "Po," "ho," and "opo" are, by far, some of the few words in the Tagalog lexicon worthy of continuing use and adherence; it is a distinctive feature unique even amongst other languages in the Philippines. It is of utmost importance that each of us endeavour to instill the use of these words in our children's daily diet of conversation.
Native Language
Last but not the least, given the age of English and Mandarin, it is of most pressing concern to teach younger generations the use of our native tongue and not sacrifice it for the sake of short-term expediency. Passing it down ensures the transfer of the unique ability to communicate our thoughts in our native tongue: a feat that enables the child to realize his ethnic heritage and thus, should be commended. I believe there are enough young Filipino-Americans here in Southern California whose manner of speech, behavior, and suggestive lifestyle testifies to the importance of having and practicing a native language.
But if we have traditions that needs to be preserved, are there any to the contrary? Of course we do. In fact, those traditions tend to last longer and survival seems to clearly favor these traditions vis-a-vis those aforementioned.
Family Politics
Although criticism should be laid on those who practice it, to say that the many who still subscribes to it are innocent is plain baloney. If we condone, support and sustain this practice, by what right do we complain of political dynasties controlling our lives?
The typical individual, whose complacent nature and desire to unburden himself from the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, surrenders his political life in exchange for a biological life fulfilled by family and material comfort. But in order to do so, they must first choose a benevolent leader, in the confucian fashion, who will be granted near absolute singular authority and eventually perpetuate his hold on power as the comfort of family and materialism do not satisfy himself once exposed thoroughly to power's embrace.
The people's desire to maintain material comfort for the family and their obsessive want to focus on material joy and its creation to achieve the former would discourage each to pursue vita activa in the public realm; it is no wonder why that men such as Peisistratus was allowed to exist in the very heart of ancient democracy.
Ampatuans, anyone?
Government of Men, not Laws
Once we "vote," we leave everything in the hands of our benevolent leaders without understanding that voting is one of the many duties of citizenship, not the only. We do not continually hold accountable those temporary delegates of the people and that is why one prolonged his rule for almost 20 years. We tend to go back to our old ways by voting on the same bloodstrain over and over and over even if they don't know anything about goodness according to the laws.
Hence, good is not about doing right based on the laws, but by what the leader believes to be good. Although there is no absolute good in the laws, arbitrary power starts when men define what is good, instead of the law defining what is good.
Please do not think of it as arrogance when I laugh as I observe. LOL
Mukha
We seem unperturbed when showing our likeness in the public realm without considering that public money is being spent. And even if public money is not spent, the fear of public acclamation does not make us pause and think twice even if it meant adoration amongst the many.
Praising a continual political bloodline, benign or not, should be a wake up call especially when that which the many proclaim to abhor is unmaliciously commended. Wait a minute, aren't we against political dynasties? Peisistratus's rule should not be cited as a good example.
When people support a candidate by acknowledging his family's charitable contributions, then it is time to ask those people not to vote for you because they are merely returning a debt of gratitude (utang na loob) as opposed to acknowledging your skills and acumen for governance.
More to come.
~
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
SK is a Waste of Taxpayers' Money
These kids are better off studying and not learning the way of corruption in their early years.
Exposing young adults to public positions in pursuit of public service may sound reasonable and full of good intentions. But these are the years when they need to go to college and be formally educated themselves.
CRITICAL THINKING is one of those rare things one, given enough effort and patience, may develop inside learning institutions.
Raising from the educational focus of intermediate learning institutions i.e., saturating high schoolers with facts and "what is" information, the value of critical thinking, among other things, lies in its capacity to allow interpretation of collected data through established theories, determining the proper context of circumstances or statements, and most importantly, encouraging individuals to inquire and to question long held assumptions, prejudices and traditional beliefs.
By exposing a young individual to a wide range of views, perspectives and ideas, one does not become easily compromised and readily susceptible to the wisecracks or rhetoric of some silly old fool acting as a fountain of wisdom.
The only education these kids will get if they join SK is how to become a traditional politician; devoid of a critical mind, skills in making distinctions and a principled conscience, these kids become masters of systemic graft & corruption and patronage: our very own TRAPOS.
~
Exposing young adults to public positions in pursuit of public service may sound reasonable and full of good intentions. But these are the years when they need to go to college and be formally educated themselves.
CRITICAL THINKING is one of those rare things one, given enough effort and patience, may develop inside learning institutions.
Raising from the educational focus of intermediate learning institutions i.e., saturating high schoolers with facts and "what is" information, the value of critical thinking, among other things, lies in its capacity to allow interpretation of collected data through established theories, determining the proper context of circumstances or statements, and most importantly, encouraging individuals to inquire and to question long held assumptions, prejudices and traditional beliefs.
By exposing a young individual to a wide range of views, perspectives and ideas, one does not become easily compromised and readily susceptible to the wisecracks or rhetoric of some silly old fool acting as a fountain of wisdom.
The only education these kids will get if they join SK is how to become a traditional politician; devoid of a critical mind, skills in making distinctions and a principled conscience, these kids become masters of systemic graft & corruption and patronage: our very own TRAPOS.
~
Truth Commission and Inquisitorial System
The Truth Commission, by going beyond its mandate, is about to turn into an inquisition run amok.
Peace bonds? Leave it to the Justice Department OR fire the current Justice Secretary and replace her with Davide as Justice Secretary! Since you did not trust the findings of the committee reports on the hostage taking, might as well be done with De Lima.
There is so much focus on the granduer of creating special investigative bodies these days, one forgets that the issue is not the government institution in charge of the investigation, but how will justice be served and how long will the people wait in order to see justice done.
~
Peace bonds? Leave it to the Justice Department OR fire the current Justice Secretary and replace her with Davide as Justice Secretary! Since you did not trust the findings of the committee reports on the hostage taking, might as well be done with De Lima.
There is so much focus on the granduer of creating special investigative bodies these days, one forgets that the issue is not the government institution in charge of the investigation, but how will justice be served and how long will the people wait in order to see justice done.
~
Lèse Majesté and the Philippine Supreme Court
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Thank goodness for impeachment or 70 years of age!
Oops. If no one files a suit on their behalf, the Supremes will just issue a Motu Propio decision to make the impeachment process unconstitutional.
In any case, why use "Motu Propio" as opposed to "Nostra Sponte?" The former sounds like an order from a sovereign while the latter is a plain and practical description of the nature of the judicial order.
The use of those two latin terms is indicative of what the SC think of themselves.
That is what we get when jurists are constitutionally granted the power to make their own rules.
~
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Lèse majesté...
Thank goodness for impeachment or 70 years of age!
Oops. If no one files a suit on their behalf, the Supremes will just issue a Motu Propio decision to make the impeachment process unconstitutional.
In any case, why use "Motu Propio" as opposed to "Nostra Sponte?" The former sounds like an order from a sovereign while the latter is a plain and practical description of the nature of the judicial order.
The use of those two latin terms is indicative of what the SC think of themselves.
That is what we get when jurists are constitutionally granted the power to make their own rules.
~
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Criticizing Cheekygadfly: Lost Opportunities and Living a "Normal" Life
The first impression one with normal capacity and delight for deep thought and critical thinking with regard to the title of this article is that I have gone mad that I now criticize my two months absence of sharing unwanted spoken nuisances.
That having lived what normal people do should be most commendable, given that it preserves harmony and prevents discord certainly did occur to me; as to its appeal, that is a different matter.
The joy of the unending cycle of sleep, taking a bath, work, going home, interaction with others, eating, again and again and again seems quite fulfilling; monotony has provided the meaning and given the purpose, for the many, of existence.
Life, as the many knows it, endures by satisfying our daily needs and our present wants, and seeks to maintain what it once was. Self-preservation, even the preservation of order in society, becomes directly related to shunning all things that would disturb the present scheme of things.
Unable to see the potential of uncertainty, or as Tolkien would always say "things un-looked for," we become afraid of seeking the unknown and fear the consequence of taking leaps of faith.
To the many these days, Abraham's journey to Canaan, following a nameless, unseen and violent Voice, commanding him to live in a place far away, to leave his family and away from the confines of comfort and safety as provided for by his homeland, the land of Ur, is none other than lunacy.
Indeed, change frightens us all. As such, we cling to the old; tradition is so ingrained in our minds that we cannot even distinguish it from what we profess to believe in and thus should aspire to most.
Worst, in order to preserve what gives us comfort and harmony, our beliefs must then be interpreted in a manner consistent with the demands of and must comport to a prescribed and predestined lifestyle.
Lo and woe to anything that challenges our present way of thinking, that offends our sense of peace and decorum, and that seeks to destroy life as we know it!
...
Under these circumstances, subsequent articles are to be written.
More to come.
~
That having lived what normal people do should be most commendable, given that it preserves harmony and prevents discord certainly did occur to me; as to its appeal, that is a different matter.
The joy of the unending cycle of sleep, taking a bath, work, going home, interaction with others, eating, again and again and again seems quite fulfilling; monotony has provided the meaning and given the purpose, for the many, of existence.
Life, as the many knows it, endures by satisfying our daily needs and our present wants, and seeks to maintain what it once was. Self-preservation, even the preservation of order in society, becomes directly related to shunning all things that would disturb the present scheme of things.
Unable to see the potential of uncertainty, or as Tolkien would always say "things un-looked for," we become afraid of seeking the unknown and fear the consequence of taking leaps of faith.
To the many these days, Abraham's journey to Canaan, following a nameless, unseen and violent Voice, commanding him to live in a place far away, to leave his family and away from the confines of comfort and safety as provided for by his homeland, the land of Ur, is none other than lunacy.
Indeed, change frightens us all. As such, we cling to the old; tradition is so ingrained in our minds that we cannot even distinguish it from what we profess to believe in and thus should aspire to most.
Worst, in order to preserve what gives us comfort and harmony, our beliefs must then be interpreted in a manner consistent with the demands of and must comport to a prescribed and predestined lifestyle.
Lo and woe to anything that challenges our present way of thinking, that offends our sense of peace and decorum, and that seeks to destroy life as we know it!
...
Under these circumstances, subsequent articles are to be written.
More to come.
~
Sunday, July 18, 2010
UNDP Van: Private Use of Public Property
What does UNDP stand for?
Possible answer: United Nations Development Programme
What is UNDP?
Based on the previous answer, a UN agency charged with "the UN's global development network: an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. It "strives to reduce poverty; increase literacy; create jobs; enhance technical cooperation between industrialized and non-industrialized nations" and help find solutions to "national development challenges."
In essence, it is a publicly-funded organization.
Why did I mention UNDP?
Answer: agency equipment, transportation assets not excluding, are not for personal use.
In case public assets have been used in a private capacity, what kind of repercussions may occur?
Answer: As an example, the United States have been known for withholding funds regularly allocated for US contributions to the UN budget until proper accountability has been taken.
The Oil-for-Food Program during the Iraqi Embargo, where the former UN Secretary Kofi Annan's son and close acquaintances were accused by the US of being involved, is an example of withholding funds and where a full blown US congressional inquiry into the matter was launched.
~
Possible answer: United Nations Development Programme
What is UNDP?
Based on the previous answer, a UN agency charged with "the UN's global development network: an organization advocating for change and connecting countries to knowledge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. It "strives to reduce poverty; increase literacy; create jobs; enhance technical cooperation between industrialized and non-industrialized nations" and help find solutions to "national development challenges."
In essence, it is a publicly-funded organization.
Why did I mention UNDP?
Answer: agency equipment, transportation assets not excluding, are not for personal use.
In case public assets have been used in a private capacity, what kind of repercussions may occur?
Answer: As an example, the United States have been known for withholding funds regularly allocated for US contributions to the UN budget until proper accountability has been taken.
The Oil-for-Food Program during the Iraqi Embargo, where the former UN Secretary Kofi Annan's son and close acquaintances were accused by the US of being involved, is an example of withholding funds and where a full blown US congressional inquiry into the matter was launched.
~
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Institution V. Person, the Office V. the Law, Constitutional V. Common Good
“I emphasized that more than anything, loyalty has to be to the institution, to the flag, to the Constitution, and not to any single person or personal interest.”
--- Philippine President Benigno C. Aquino III, Speech during the AFP Chief of Staff Change of Command
Personal Institutions
Articles with emphasis on the person loves to mention the "Arroyo Administration," as opposed to the "Executive Branch," "Executive Department (as stated in the Constitution)," "the administration," or even "the executive." I suppose being provocative in this case means more attention and marketability of news articles.
Thank you for that, journalists.
Mindsets convinced of the personal nature of government appropriations would allow the thought of "hihingi ako kay (Gov't Position + Official's Name) ng pondo para..." without acknowledging the institutional safeguards entreched in the processes of releasing public funds created to prevent imbalance and thus abuse of power.
Government projects and offices named after certain individuals. Integrating personal names into public development projects in a consistent fashion ingrain, "makes it okay," and brainwash the public mind in accepting the extent of institutional weakness of public institutions.
Importance of Office and Official vis-a-vis the Processes of the Law
The recent SC decision on the appointment of the Chief Justice (CJ) during an election period, its constitutionality notwithstanding, emphasizes: (1) the primus inter pares principle holds little sway given the crucial functions of the CJ; (2) the notion that the SC is unable to function as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) without its supposed "Chair."
Primus Inter Pares, in this instance, meant "the only one among lesser equals" as opposed to "first among equals." Without the CJ, the institution of the PET (SC), will cease to function as sole arbiter of presidential election issues and thus grind to a halt.
Indeed, it gives momentum to the notion that the CJ is not "among equals" but literally above other Justices, whose equality arises on the equal value of votes on SC decisions alone.
Here, one sees the utmost disregard for the processes of the law. Not only was the constitutional ban on appointments surrounding the election period ignored, but the law governing the assumption of the Acting CJ trampled upon.
Relying on judicial review without clear, convincing and established precedence, the process set forth by law with regard to the vacancy of the Office of the CJ has been substantially ignored; the majority opinion, overwhelming to say the least, clearly disregarded explicit provisions of lawful succession within the SC. Hence, the decision began establishing the perception that the Office of the CJ is more crucial than the succession (as established by law) in itself.
In congressional terms, lawmakers are more important than the law, because without lawmakers, there is no law. But how did the lawmakers become lawmakers without the "Supreme Law of the Land?"
The framers ought to have considered that the nation must not be held hostage just because of the failure to fill up the vacancy of the Office of the CJ. Learn from the executive branch. Follow the law of succession even if it is just a mere Republic Act. Where a precedent is absent, congressional acts, if they exist, must prevail upon judicial review without precedent.
The SC as an institution, and its members: the Justices and the CJ, must always be reminded that they are not policymakers, but interpreters. The judiciary answers questions of law and constitutional issues, not bark commands or orders, issue mandates and make laws.
Even if allowed to do so, such commands or orders must be based on established rules, which in turn, must be based on precedent or publicy policy crafted by policymakers. The Justices are jurists of the last resort; policy emanates from the representatives of the People, that is, Congress and the presidency.
I suppose in a country which does not emphasize the rule of law, but instead make persons in public office supreme (no pun intended) i.e. above the law, it is to be normally expected.
No wonder, the constitutional power of the SC seems "vested" in the Office of the CJ alone. Ergo, the SC is none other than the CJ. Leadership in a collegial body, an institution were the majority of member peers decide the fate of millions, ought not to depend on a single office whose absence creates dire consequences to the proper functioning of the SC, let alone to the interpretation of the letter and spirit of the laws.
Thank you, Filipino Supremes, for emphasizing that the OFFICE IS MORE SACRED THAN THE LAW, which makes officials "official."
Perhaps, a proposal where Justices of the SC will rotate on a consistent and timely basis (similar to the Swiss Federal Council) to fill up the position of the CJ is the answer to the imbalance of an overbearing office which dilutes the credibility and primacy of the SC as a collective and collegial institution.
This proposal, however imperfect it may be, gives solution to: (1) dependence to the Office of the CJ, especially during trying times and special exigencies, (2) prevention of what proponents believe as dilemmas caused by the vacancy of the Office of the CJ (whatever that may be) and (3) the full realization and return of the SC as a collegial body, a group of peers whose collective opinion decides the constitutional and legal questions of the Filipino nation.
Constitutional V. What is Good for the Nation
Does the SC tackle the issue of "what is good for the nation?" or what is constitutional? What if the two opposes each other? If it is unconstitutional for foreign ownership to exist in the Philippines, would "what is good for the nation" prevail?
~
--- Philippine President Benigno C. Aquino III, Speech during the AFP Chief of Staff Change of Command
Personal Institutions
Articles with emphasis on the person loves to mention the "Arroyo Administration," as opposed to the "Executive Branch," "Executive Department (as stated in the Constitution)," "the administration," or even "the executive." I suppose being provocative in this case means more attention and marketability of news articles.
Thank you for that, journalists.
Mindsets convinced of the personal nature of government appropriations would allow the thought of "hihingi ako kay (Gov't Position + Official's Name) ng pondo para..." without acknowledging the institutional safeguards entreched in the processes of releasing public funds created to prevent imbalance and thus abuse of power.
Government projects and offices named after certain individuals. Integrating personal names into public development projects in a consistent fashion ingrain, "makes it okay," and brainwash the public mind in accepting the extent of institutional weakness of public institutions.
Importance of Office and Official vis-a-vis the Processes of the Law
The recent SC decision on the appointment of the Chief Justice (CJ) during an election period, its constitutionality notwithstanding, emphasizes: (1) the primus inter pares principle holds little sway given the crucial functions of the CJ; (2) the notion that the SC is unable to function as a Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) without its supposed "Chair."
Primus Inter Pares, in this instance, meant "the only one among lesser equals" as opposed to "first among equals." Without the CJ, the institution of the PET (SC), will cease to function as sole arbiter of presidential election issues and thus grind to a halt.
Indeed, it gives momentum to the notion that the CJ is not "among equals" but literally above other Justices, whose equality arises on the equal value of votes on SC decisions alone.
Here, one sees the utmost disregard for the processes of the law. Not only was the constitutional ban on appointments surrounding the election period ignored, but the law governing the assumption of the Acting CJ trampled upon.
Relying on judicial review without clear, convincing and established precedence, the process set forth by law with regard to the vacancy of the Office of the CJ has been substantially ignored; the majority opinion, overwhelming to say the least, clearly disregarded explicit provisions of lawful succession within the SC. Hence, the decision began establishing the perception that the Office of the CJ is more crucial than the succession (as established by law) in itself.
In congressional terms, lawmakers are more important than the law, because without lawmakers, there is no law. But how did the lawmakers become lawmakers without the "Supreme Law of the Land?"
The framers ought to have considered that the nation must not be held hostage just because of the failure to fill up the vacancy of the Office of the CJ. Learn from the executive branch. Follow the law of succession even if it is just a mere Republic Act. Where a precedent is absent, congressional acts, if they exist, must prevail upon judicial review without precedent.
The SC as an institution, and its members: the Justices and the CJ, must always be reminded that they are not policymakers, but interpreters. The judiciary answers questions of law and constitutional issues, not bark commands or orders, issue mandates and make laws.
Even if allowed to do so, such commands or orders must be based on established rules, which in turn, must be based on precedent or publicy policy crafted by policymakers. The Justices are jurists of the last resort; policy emanates from the representatives of the People, that is, Congress and the presidency.
I suppose in a country which does not emphasize the rule of law, but instead make persons in public office supreme (no pun intended) i.e. above the law, it is to be normally expected.
No wonder, the constitutional power of the SC seems "vested" in the Office of the CJ alone. Ergo, the SC is none other than the CJ. Leadership in a collegial body, an institution were the majority of member peers decide the fate of millions, ought not to depend on a single office whose absence creates dire consequences to the proper functioning of the SC, let alone to the interpretation of the letter and spirit of the laws.
Thank you, Filipino Supremes, for emphasizing that the OFFICE IS MORE SACRED THAN THE LAW, which makes officials "official."
Perhaps, a proposal where Justices of the SC will rotate on a consistent and timely basis (similar to the Swiss Federal Council) to fill up the position of the CJ is the answer to the imbalance of an overbearing office which dilutes the credibility and primacy of the SC as a collective and collegial institution.
This proposal, however imperfect it may be, gives solution to: (1) dependence to the Office of the CJ, especially during trying times and special exigencies, (2) prevention of what proponents believe as dilemmas caused by the vacancy of the Office of the CJ (whatever that may be) and (3) the full realization and return of the SC as a collegial body, a group of peers whose collective opinion decides the constitutional and legal questions of the Filipino nation.
Constitutional V. What is Good for the Nation
Does the SC tackle the issue of "what is good for the nation?" or what is constitutional? What if the two opposes each other? If it is unconstitutional for foreign ownership to exist in the Philippines, would "what is good for the nation" prevail?
~
Friday, June 18, 2010
Iron Power Triangle - Philippine Phenomenon
Media - Politics - Showbiz
Q: What does the media, politics, and showbiz have in common?
A: Their members are always related to each other.
Q: Can you give an example?
A: Ninoy (Journalist), Kris, and P.noy
Q: Media and Politics?
A: Noli, Mar and Corina
Q: Showbiz and Politics?
A: Estradas, Revillas and Lapids
Q: What happens to mediamen if they are related to politicians?
A: Mediamen praise politicians more than exposing them to hard truths. News become propaganda and the media becomes PR agents of politicians. On top of that, it's free!
Q: Do you have proof on this?
A: Sure, I am keeping tabs on a particular newspaper which always provide commentary space to a certain politician in a province I know. I certainly do not believe such media outlet should be commended.
Q: So, collusion amongst the three or between two is bad?
A: It is not bad if you believe that those who cannot become members are not worthy of making decisions of their own.
Q: What does the triangle imply?
A: The Philippines is not a democracy. It is ruled by an elite few.
Q: So?
A: Nothing. No problem at all.
~
Q: What does the media, politics, and showbiz have in common?
A: Their members are always related to each other.
Q: Can you give an example?
A: Ninoy (Journalist), Kris, and P.noy
Q: Media and Politics?
A: Noli, Mar and Corina
Q: Showbiz and Politics?
A: Estradas, Revillas and Lapids
Q: What happens to mediamen if they are related to politicians?
A: Mediamen praise politicians more than exposing them to hard truths. News become propaganda and the media becomes PR agents of politicians. On top of that, it's free!
Q: Do you have proof on this?
A: Sure, I am keeping tabs on a particular newspaper which always provide commentary space to a certain politician in a province I know. I certainly do not believe such media outlet should be commended.
Q: So, collusion amongst the three or between two is bad?
A: It is not bad if you believe that those who cannot become members are not worthy of making decisions of their own.
Q: What needs to be done then?
`
A: I don't know for sure. But I know that I would not stop minding the triad's business for starters.
`
Q: How does the triad affect the individual and the community?
A: Whoever is in power, they must be members of the triad. This creates a class system similar to an aristoracy (like 19th century Philippines).
A: Whoever is in power, they must be members of the triad. This creates a class system similar to an aristoracy (like 19th century Philippines).
Q: What does the triangle imply?
A: The Philippines is not a democracy. It is ruled by an elite few.
Q: So?
A: Nothing. No problem at all.
~
Republic Act No. 3019 - Commandments of a Good Public Servant
ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
Section 1. Statement of policy. It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.
Section 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, that term
(a) "Government" includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the Philippines and their branches.
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph.
(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a member of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his family or relative within the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless the context indicates otherwise.
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government.
Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
Section 6. Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the Congress during the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term.
The provision of this section shall apply to any other public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest during his incumbency.
It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty days after such approval to retain such interest.
Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. Every public officer, within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, or in the case of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their statements in the following months of January.
Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.
Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have given to the accused, or the value of such thing.
(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.
The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
Section 10. Competent court. Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the proper Court of First Instance.
Section 11. Prescription of offenses. All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years.
Section 12. Termination of office. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
Section 14. Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or occupation by any private person or by any public officer who under the law may legitimately practice his profession, trade or occupation, during his incumbency, except where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit any of the violations penalized in this Act.
Section 15. Separability clause. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.
Section 16. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect on its approval, but for the purpose of determining unexplained wealth, all property acquired by a public officer since he assumed office shall be taken into consideration.
Approved: August 17, 1960
Section 1. Statement of policy. It is the policy of the Philippine Government, in line with the principle that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons alike which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto.
Section 2. Definition of terms. As used in this Act, that term
(a) "Government" includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the Philippines and their branches.
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph.
(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a member of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or of any member of his family or relative within the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is under the circumstances manifestly excessive.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless the context indicates otherwise.
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval, even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving to the public officer the employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or untimely release of the confidential information referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together with the offending public officer, be punished under Section nine of this Act and shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified in the discretion of the Court, from transacting business in any form with the Government.
Section 4. Prohibition on private individuals. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close personal relation with any public official to capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary advantage from any other person having some business, transaction, application, request or contract with the government, in which such public official has to intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include close personal friendship, social and fraternal connections, and professional employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures free access to such public officer.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
Section 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. It shall be unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any business, transaction, contract or application with the Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the above officials to whom he is related, has been already dealing with the Government along the same line of business, nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing or pending at the time of such assumption of public office, nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
Section 6. Prohibition on Members of Congress. It shall be unlawful hereafter for any Member of the Congress during the term for which he has been elected, to acquire or receive any personal pecuniary interest in any specific business enterprise which will be directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by the Congress during the same term.
The provision of this section shall apply to any other public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress of the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution, and acquires or receives any such interest during his incumbency.
It shall likewise be unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer, who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for thirty days after such approval to retain such interest.
Section 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. Every public officer, within thirty days after the approval of this Act or after assuming office, and within the month of January of every other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or chief of an independent office, with the Office of the President, or in the case of members of the Congress and the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the amounts of his personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year: Provided, That public officers assuming office less than two months before the end of the calendar year, may file their statements in the following months of January.
Section 8. Dismissal due to unexplained wealth. If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section, notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary.
Section 9. Penalties for violations. (a) Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.
Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the amount of money or the thing he may have given to the accused, or the value of such thing.
(b) Any public officer violation any of the provisions of Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the Court.
The violation of said section proven in a proper administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal prosecution is instituted against him.
Section 10. Competent court. Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the proper Court of First Instance.
Section 11. Prescription of offenses. All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years.
Section 12. Termination of office. No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation, criminal or administrative, or pending a prosecution against him, for any offense under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery.
Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. Any public officer against whom any criminal prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on bribery is pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.
Section 14. Exception. Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or occupation by any private person or by any public officer who under the law may legitimately practice his profession, trade or occupation, during his incumbency, except where the practice of such profession, trade or occupation involves conspiracy with any other person or public official to commit any of the violations penalized in this Act.
Section 15. Separability clause. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.
Section 16. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect on its approval, but for the purpose of determining unexplained wealth, all property acquired by a public officer since he assumed office shall be taken into consideration.
Approved: August 17, 1960
Friday, June 11, 2010
Why it is Crucial for Politicians to Keep Voters from Becoming Active Citizens
In order for politicians to maximize their political control, it is most crucial for them to discourage active participation in the public realm; that is, politicians wish to drown the voice of the many (and out of the many, one) so that, in the end, whatever he utters is truth and shall be law.
He will then remind the people that, as the lone voice in the public realm, they are but sheeps that must follow the lead of the shepherd who will protect them from their own ignorance and fill up the political silence caused by their own apathy.
From libel laws curtailing a citizen's ability to voice his opinion to leading the public to believe that government projects are only possible under their own toil and effort, politicians will do everything in their power to make the citizenry believe that public duty is a private service that make them owe the politician; it is something that earns the politician the trust they so earnestly seek and self-gratifyingly believe to be their right as righteous benefactors above reproach and always adoringly praised.
As an example, the Ynares family of Rizal has presided over the province for almost 20 years. I doubt they will be replaced anytime soon as they seem to have a "good" grip of Rizal in the years to come. Grandiose goverment projects (such as basketball courts and goverment buildings, to name a few) named "Ynares" dot the province like wild mushrooms sprouting out of nowhere.
Would it not be prudent to at least share the naming of public works to others?
It's the taxpayer's money. Why do you selfishly name goverment projects to yourself?
In my hometown, a bridge and a school extension is named after a former public official who was related to another public official. Do you see what a political culture such as this would create? It even leads good people from committing the blasphemy of making earthly monuments for receiving praise on this world as opposed to earning imperishable praise (that is, treasures) in heaven.
They indeed have received their rewards. I wonder what praise awaits them beyond.
Let me make this clear. I have nothing against the Ynares. I do not know them personally. Nor do I pass judgment on their character and integrity.
I merely base my criticism on this simple fact: 18 years and counting of political rule limited to one family is detrimental to democratic ideals.
In this instance, the criticism of practicing traditional politics is not directed to the politicians; but to the voters who lazily and idiotically vote for the same, again and again and again.
~
He will then remind the people that, as the lone voice in the public realm, they are but sheeps that must follow the lead of the shepherd who will protect them from their own ignorance and fill up the political silence caused by their own apathy.
From libel laws curtailing a citizen's ability to voice his opinion to leading the public to believe that government projects are only possible under their own toil and effort, politicians will do everything in their power to make the citizenry believe that public duty is a private service that make them owe the politician; it is something that earns the politician the trust they so earnestly seek and self-gratifyingly believe to be their right as righteous benefactors above reproach and always adoringly praised.
As an example, the Ynares family of Rizal has presided over the province for almost 20 years. I doubt they will be replaced anytime soon as they seem to have a "good" grip of Rizal in the years to come. Grandiose goverment projects (such as basketball courts and goverment buildings, to name a few) named "Ynares" dot the province like wild mushrooms sprouting out of nowhere.
Would it not be prudent to at least share the naming of public works to others?
It's the taxpayer's money. Why do you selfishly name goverment projects to yourself?
In my hometown, a bridge and a school extension is named after a former public official who was related to another public official. Do you see what a political culture such as this would create? It even leads good people from committing the blasphemy of making earthly monuments for receiving praise on this world as opposed to earning imperishable praise (that is, treasures) in heaven.
They indeed have received their rewards. I wonder what praise awaits them beyond.
Let me make this clear. I have nothing against the Ynares. I do not know them personally. Nor do I pass judgment on their character and integrity.
I merely base my criticism on this simple fact: 18 years and counting of political rule limited to one family is detrimental to democratic ideals.
In this instance, the criticism of practicing traditional politics is not directed to the politicians; but to the voters who lazily and idiotically vote for the same, again and again and again.
~
Saturday, May 15, 2010
The People Have Spoken
Automated Polls
The people have spoken. Regardless of whether they cast their votes for the sake of common good or for their own self-interest or even just to alleviate the lightness of their pockets, the people have made their choice.
Although I wish to congratulate those who won the elections just as I did last time, the burden that accompanies the elected office has never been so light; much to say, that it is something that one should seek for the sake of achieving or attaining.
The first automated polls has ushered in a new era of Philippine politics, one which is fast and whose results/content is harder to tamper. And yet, far be it from me to say that it has no deficiencies.
For as long as individuals cheat and allow themselves to be cheated, no voting machine, however advanced, can produce results beneficial to all concerned.
Angono Elections
As for Angono, congratulations on those whom the people of Angono have elected.
Let it be known that the past administration has taken great strides in promoting the welfare of the community with due and proper regard to the laws that applies and must be adhered to by all, citizens and officials alike.
I expect the new administration to do the same or if not, my tongue will get inspired to be cheeky.
I wish newly elected officials good health and pray that wisdom be given from above to guide them in their decisions.
Issues
Let's get to business then.
* The past administration closed the dumpsite near the Laguna watershed area for the purpose of dumping and has relocated. The "transfer station" must be closed and the area completely rehabilitated. No further activity must be allowed in that area as per R.A 9003. If funding is available, build a park in it. Such an eye sore must not exist in the "Artist's Paradise."
* Public servants are not personal servants. Goverment employees work for the people and not for elected officials. The work/services they provide are not for elected official's personal use. Hence, it is unethical to order a government employee or anyone on government payroll to be told by an elected official to do something for his personal benefit. Exemptions are those who are designated as "personal assistants" and allowed by law and ordinance. Such personal assistants much not be in numbers to the point of competing with the Ampatuans.
* When outside the municipality, do not put relatives in charge. It is a violation of Sec 46 of R.A. 7160 (Philippine Local Government Code). If it is within 3 days, only elected or appointed officials of the municipality are allowed under the law to become OIC. After 3 days, the law demands that the vice-mayor takes over.
* It is unethical and possibly illegal for contracts that involve personal businesses of any government officials to bid in any government announcements/transactions. Biddings must take place on all public contracts unless permitted by law.
* Funeral flowers paid for by the municipality of Angono are to be addressed "on behalf of the Municipality of Angono" not "on behalf of Mayor... and family."
* Make sure none of an elected official's relatives benefit from being your relative when it involves government business.
* Abide by the Philippine Civil Service Laws when hiring government employees.
I am watching.
The people have spoken. Regardless of whether they cast their votes for the sake of common good or for their own self-interest or even just to alleviate the lightness of their pockets, the people have made their choice.
Although I wish to congratulate those who won the elections just as I did last time, the burden that accompanies the elected office has never been so light; much to say, that it is something that one should seek for the sake of achieving or attaining.
The first automated polls has ushered in a new era of Philippine politics, one which is fast and whose results/content is harder to tamper. And yet, far be it from me to say that it has no deficiencies.
For as long as individuals cheat and allow themselves to be cheated, no voting machine, however advanced, can produce results beneficial to all concerned.
Angono Elections
As for Angono, congratulations on those whom the people of Angono have elected.
Let it be known that the past administration has taken great strides in promoting the welfare of the community with due and proper regard to the laws that applies and must be adhered to by all, citizens and officials alike.
I expect the new administration to do the same or if not, my tongue will get inspired to be cheeky.
I wish newly elected officials good health and pray that wisdom be given from above to guide them in their decisions.
Issues
Let's get to business then.
* The past administration closed the dumpsite near the Laguna watershed area for the purpose of dumping and has relocated. The "transfer station" must be closed and the area completely rehabilitated. No further activity must be allowed in that area as per R.A 9003. If funding is available, build a park in it. Such an eye sore must not exist in the "Artist's Paradise."
* Public servants are not personal servants. Goverment employees work for the people and not for elected officials. The work/services they provide are not for elected official's personal use. Hence, it is unethical to order a government employee or anyone on government payroll to be told by an elected official to do something for his personal benefit. Exemptions are those who are designated as "personal assistants" and allowed by law and ordinance. Such personal assistants much not be in numbers to the point of competing with the Ampatuans.
* When outside the municipality, do not put relatives in charge. It is a violation of Sec 46 of R.A. 7160 (Philippine Local Government Code). If it is within 3 days, only elected or appointed officials of the municipality are allowed under the law to become OIC. After 3 days, the law demands that the vice-mayor takes over.
* It is unethical and possibly illegal for contracts that involve personal businesses of any government officials to bid in any government announcements/transactions. Biddings must take place on all public contracts unless permitted by law.
* Funeral flowers paid for by the municipality of Angono are to be addressed "on behalf of the Municipality of Angono" not "on behalf of Mayor... and family."
* Make sure none of an elected official's relatives benefit from being your relative when it involves government business.
* Abide by the Philippine Civil Service Laws when hiring government employees.
I am watching.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Who Will Cheeky Gadfly Vote For?
Cheeky Gadfly would vote for:
(1) those who abide by and respect the law. I will not support anyone who circumvent, and ignore (and are ignorant of) the law, regardless of how popular and publicly supported a candidate is. I will be a thorn to anyone who thinks they are above the law and criticize them to submission.
I will take note of candidates that subscribes to the notion of "Due Process." I commend and support candidates that ensure their decisions comply and are consistent with the law.
(2) those who do not use the public office for personal gain. I will not support anyone who uses public money to pay for funeral flowers if it is not named on behalf of the "Municipalityof Angono," but certain public officials. I will not tolerate candidates that take advantage of the poor by giving goods during the election period.
(3) those who do not base their candidacies on their parent's achievements. We will be measured by our actions, not by the blood that flows in our veins.
(4) those who do not base their candidacy as a leader of a church / denomination. Christians ought not to commit the Sin of Uzziah , King of Judah, and blur the separation that divides the church and state. Such action is contrary to Christ's exhortation that "my kingdom is not of this world."
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464017/jewish/Uzziah.htm
(5) those who care for the environment. Awards have no bearing to me if I see with my own eyes that laws created to protect the environment are violated by the same individuals who claim they seek to protect the environment. I have the ability to assess who are compliant and who promote the environment, beyond awards, ceremonies, and pageantries. For I am a watchful citizen.
(6) those who employ individuals based on their political affiliation and support, not the individual's merit. Shun those who employ gov't employees and treat them as their personal alipores. I hate private armies funded by public funds. Those who imitate the Ampatuans will suffer the wrath of my tongue.
(7) those who are open-minded and seek the counsel of others. I discourage others to vote for those who think they only possess the answer to the problems of society. Stay away from delusional candidates.
More to come.
(1) those who abide by and respect the law. I will not support anyone who circumvent, and ignore (and are ignorant of) the law, regardless of how popular and publicly supported a candidate is. I will be a thorn to anyone who thinks they are above the law and criticize them to submission.
I will take note of candidates that subscribes to the notion of "Due Process." I commend and support candidates that ensure their decisions comply and are consistent with the law.
(2) those who do not use the public office for personal gain. I will not support anyone who uses public money to pay for funeral flowers if it is not named on behalf of the "Municipalityof Angono," but certain public officials. I will not tolerate candidates that take advantage of the poor by giving goods during the election period.
(3) those who do not base their candidacies on their parent's achievements. We will be measured by our actions, not by the blood that flows in our veins.
(4) those who do not base their candidacy as a leader of a church / denomination. Christians ought not to commit the Sin of Uzziah , King of Judah, and blur the separation that divides the church and state. Such action is contrary to Christ's exhortation that "my kingdom is not of this world."
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464017/jewish/Uzziah.htm
(5) those who care for the environment. Awards have no bearing to me if I see with my own eyes that laws created to protect the environment are violated by the same individuals who claim they seek to protect the environment. I have the ability to assess who are compliant and who promote the environment, beyond awards, ceremonies, and pageantries. For I am a watchful citizen.
(6) those who employ individuals based on their political affiliation and support, not the individual's merit. Shun those who employ gov't employees and treat them as their personal alipores. I hate private armies funded by public funds. Those who imitate the Ampatuans will suffer the wrath of my tongue.
(7) those who are open-minded and seek the counsel of others. I discourage others to vote for those who think they only possess the answer to the problems of society. Stay away from delusional candidates.
More to come.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Cheekygafly's Political Spectrum Progression of Maturing Democracies with Political Groups as a Main Variable
Philippine phenomenon
(1) Infant: Clan/Family Rule
(2) Toddler: Politics of Personality and Minions
(3) Adolescent: Color/Party Coalition under Famous Public Figure
Potential Direction/Goal --->
(4) Adulthood: Party Politics (Political Party)
Ideal --->
(5) Twilight Years: Death of Party Politics and the Birth of the Deliberating Citizenry
~
(1) Infant: Clan/Family Rule
(2) Toddler: Politics of Personality and Minions
(3) Adolescent: Color/Party Coalition under Famous Public Figure
Potential Direction/Goal --->
(4) Adulthood: Party Politics (Political Party)
Ideal --->
(5) Twilight Years: Death of Party Politics and the Birth of the Deliberating Citizenry
~
Friday, April 9, 2010
TRAPO BELIEFS
When you are in a long line and a friend stopped by, asking you to let him "sumingit," and you let him in, is that wrong? Or you went to the municipal office and called to the side your "kakilala" to expedite your business, right? Perhaps, you need to finish a transaction and to achieve that meant the practice of "lagay" even if that meant violating laws? How about claiming we are a democracy and not being able to handle criticism but instead "makisama?" Or "Makiisa" to our religious and secular ways combined into one (church and state togetherness)? Or use public money to employ individuals who later will become your personal "alipores?" Or believe, "nasa dugo" is a valid credential of a democratic leader...ha ha ha.
Do continue your traditional manners...
Do continue your traditional manners...
Doing What You Believe...
If I truly believe in the principle of "rotation in office," abhor the concept of bloodline and dynasties, and I am still a Filipino Citizen who live in Rizal Province, I would absolutely vote for Cuerpo: even if he makes waiting sheds his most visible priority. ha ha ha ha
~
~
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Issues vs. Ad Hominem Arguments
Criticisms based on issues are fair game. Statements supported by evidence and made through valid reasoning are most welcome. Arguments based on the person (ad hominem arguments) shall suffer the wrath of my tongue.
~
~
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Philippine Supreme Court and the Approaches of Judicial Interpretation: A Matter of Judicial Discretion
Excerpts quoted from the recent Supreme Court ruling on the appointment of the Chief Justice during the election period.
Facial Contextualism (Contextualist)
(1) Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are obviously of the same character, in that they affect the power of the President to appoint. The fact that Section 14 and Section 16 refer only to appointments within the Executive Department renders conclusive that Section 15 also applies only to the Executive Department. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[84] It is absurd to assume that the framers deliberately situated Section 15 between Section 14 and Section 16, if they intended Section 15 to cover all kinds of presidential appointments. If that was their intention in respect of appointments to the Judiciary, the framers, if only to be clear, would have easily and surely inserted a similar prohibition in Article VIII, most likely within Section 4 (1) thereof.
Criticism: Presumptions. Intent of the framers. Interpret "as it is." Context. The structuralist flow of reasoning here seems inconsistent with the provision in the constitution where Congress is mandated to gather and deliberate the constitutionality of a marshal law proclamation and the SC to rule, by motion of any Filipino citizen, the factual sufficiency of the marshal law proclamation. If the Supremes are going to argue that marshal law proclamation is within the competency of the President (hence, it is structurally sound), then I would say, in a strictly structuralist sense that, the power of reviewing Marshal law by Congress should have been mentioned in the Legislative Department article and the factual suffiency review of the SC is in the Judiciary Department article of the constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textualist / Strict Constructionist
(2) However, Section 4(1) and Section 9, Article VIII, mandate the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy, and within 90 days from the submission of the list, in the case of the lower courts. The 90-day period is directed at the President, not at the JBC. Thus, the JBC should start the process of selecting the candidates to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court before the occurrence of the vacancy.
Criticism: If the constitutional mandate was directed at the President, then why is the JBC directed to submit a list of nominees then? If I apply the textualist argument, then I could safely state "the JBC was not mandated by the constitution; the president is; ergo, the JBC does not need to do anything."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costitution made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
Criticism: This is, by far, the most diverse argument the SC has ever made regarding SC nominees. The first sentence sought the "intent" of the framers as the foundation of their rationale; hence, an originalist point of view. Second, the structuralist argument that due to the location of specific provision in the constitution, "we thus interpret so." The third is the textualist argument of "if it is not mentioned, then it is irrelevant." The Supremes seem to have resorted to all available justification, instead of presenting a coherent line of reasoning: a market full of wares called approaches to judicial interpretation, where the supreme consumer seems to use his full discretion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structuralist
(4) As such, the JBC, the nature of whose principal function is executive, is not vested with the power to resolve who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice and, therefore, has no discretion to withhold the list from the President; [29] and (e) a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the JBC to include or exclude particular candidates as nominees, considering that there is no imperative duty on its part to include in or exclude from the list particular individuals, but, on the contrary, the JBC’s determination of who it nominates to the President is an exercise of a discretionary duty.[30]
Criticism: Granted that the JBS's function is executive. If that is the case, how can the Supremes claim that there is separation of powers between the presidency and the JBC if (1) the function of JBC is executive, that is, it is obligated to follow an order to submit a list of nominees from chief executive, (2) its constitutional mandate to screen nominees is ministerial, having no discretion to refuse and counter a supposed constitutional requirement of submitting to the president the list of CJ candidates, and (3) the JBC was mentioned in the supreme law of the land for the specific purpose of giving the council full autonomy required to perform its function without interference from any goverment branch. The constitution is clear in the sense that all SCCJ nominees are to be screened by the JBC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originalist
(5) In this connection, PHILCONSA’s urging of a revisit and a review of Valenzuela is timely and appropriate. Valenzuela arbitrarily ignored the express intent of the Constitutional Commission to have Section 4 (1), Article VIII stand independently of any other provision, least of all one found in Article VII. It further ignored that the two provisions had no irreconcilable conflict, regardless of Section 15, Article VII being couched in the negative. As judges, we are not to unduly interpret, and should not accept an interpretation that defeats the intent of the framers.
Criticism:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textualist
(6) A review of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII shows that the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices, who all shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy, which appointments require no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. With reference to the Chief Justice, he or she is appointed by the President as Chief Justice, and the appointment is never in an acting capacity. The express reference to a Chief Justice abhors the idea that the framers contemplated an Acting Chief Justice to head the membership of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they would have simply written so in the Constitution. Consequently, to rely on Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 in order to forestall the imperative need to appoint the next Chief Justice soonest is to defy the plain intent of the Constitution.
Criticism: The Supreme Court has become repetitive of its reasoning ("express reference" requirement), to the point it has become redundant. On the other hand, the "express reference" line of reasoning is a testament to the dominant influence of the codified laws we inherited from Spain (who in turn inherited codific tendencies from the Romans) as opposed to the English common law tradition. The Supremes seem unable to differentiate between the "intent of the Constitution" and the "intent of the framers of the Constitution." As it is, the Supreme Court has made the framers the Constitution itself. Such fallacy, indeed, accept the infallibility of the intent of the framers as always applicable to all circumstances and (whose all-knowing deliberations) covers all exigencies.
BS.
~
Facial Contextualism (Contextualist)
(1) Section 14, Section 15, and Section 16 are obviously of the same character, in that they affect the power of the President to appoint. The fact that Section 14 and Section 16 refer only to appointments within the Executive Department renders conclusive that Section 15 also applies only to the Executive Department. This conclusion is consistent with the rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, i.e. that every part must be considered together with the other parts, and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.[84] It is absurd to assume that the framers deliberately situated Section 15 between Section 14 and Section 16, if they intended Section 15 to cover all kinds of presidential appointments. If that was their intention in respect of appointments to the Judiciary, the framers, if only to be clear, would have easily and surely inserted a similar prohibition in Article VIII, most likely within Section 4 (1) thereof.
Criticism: Presumptions. Intent of the framers. Interpret "as it is." Context. The structuralist flow of reasoning here seems inconsistent with the provision in the constitution where Congress is mandated to gather and deliberate the constitutionality of a marshal law proclamation and the SC to rule, by motion of any Filipino citizen, the factual sufficiency of the marshal law proclamation. If the Supremes are going to argue that marshal law proclamation is within the competency of the President (hence, it is structurally sound), then I would say, in a strictly structuralist sense that, the power of reviewing Marshal law by Congress should have been mentioned in the Legislative Department article and the factual suffiency review of the SC is in the Judiciary Department article of the constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textualist / Strict Constructionist
(2) However, Section 4(1) and Section 9, Article VIII, mandate the President to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court within 90 days from the occurrence of the vacancy, and within 90 days from the submission of the list, in the case of the lower courts. The 90-day period is directed at the President, not at the JBC. Thus, the JBC should start the process of selecting the candidates to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court before the occurrence of the vacancy.
Criticism: If the constitutional mandate was directed at the President, then why is the JBC directed to submit a list of nominees then? If I apply the textualist argument, then I could safely state "the JBC was not mandated by the constitution; the president is; ergo, the JBC does not need to do anything."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costitution made explicit in Section 15, Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of Members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself, most likely in Section 4 (1), Article VIII. That such specification was not done only reveals that the prohibition against the President or Acting President making appointments within two months before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the President’s or Acting President’s term does not refer to the Members of the Supreme Court.
Criticism: This is, by far, the most diverse argument the SC has ever made regarding SC nominees. The first sentence sought the "intent" of the framers as the foundation of their rationale; hence, an originalist point of view. Second, the structuralist argument that due to the location of specific provision in the constitution, "we thus interpret so." The third is the textualist argument of "if it is not mentioned, then it is irrelevant." The Supremes seem to have resorted to all available justification, instead of presenting a coherent line of reasoning: a market full of wares called approaches to judicial interpretation, where the supreme consumer seems to use his full discretion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Structuralist
(4) As such, the JBC, the nature of whose principal function is executive, is not vested with the power to resolve who has the authority to appoint the next Chief Justice and, therefore, has no discretion to withhold the list from the President; [29] and (e) a writ of mandamus cannot issue to compel the JBC to include or exclude particular candidates as nominees, considering that there is no imperative duty on its part to include in or exclude from the list particular individuals, but, on the contrary, the JBC’s determination of who it nominates to the President is an exercise of a discretionary duty.[30]
Criticism: Granted that the JBS's function is executive. If that is the case, how can the Supremes claim that there is separation of powers between the presidency and the JBC if (1) the function of JBC is executive, that is, it is obligated to follow an order to submit a list of nominees from chief executive, (2) its constitutional mandate to screen nominees is ministerial, having no discretion to refuse and counter a supposed constitutional requirement of submitting to the president the list of CJ candidates, and (3) the JBC was mentioned in the supreme law of the land for the specific purpose of giving the council full autonomy required to perform its function without interference from any goverment branch. The constitution is clear in the sense that all SCCJ nominees are to be screened by the JBC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originalist
(5) In this connection, PHILCONSA’s urging of a revisit and a review of Valenzuela is timely and appropriate. Valenzuela arbitrarily ignored the express intent of the Constitutional Commission to have Section 4 (1), Article VIII stand independently of any other provision, least of all one found in Article VII. It further ignored that the two provisions had no irreconcilable conflict, regardless of Section 15, Article VII being couched in the negative. As judges, we are not to unduly interpret, and should not accept an interpretation that defeats the intent of the framers.
Criticism:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Textualist
(6) A review of Sections 4(1) and 9 of Article VIII shows that the Supreme Court is composed of a Chief Justice and 14 Associate Justices, who all shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the JBC for every vacancy, which appointments require no confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. With reference to the Chief Justice, he or she is appointed by the President as Chief Justice, and the appointment is never in an acting capacity. The express reference to a Chief Justice abhors the idea that the framers contemplated an Acting Chief Justice to head the membership of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they would have simply written so in the Constitution. Consequently, to rely on Section 12 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 in order to forestall the imperative need to appoint the next Chief Justice soonest is to defy the plain intent of the Constitution.
Criticism: The Supreme Court has become repetitive of its reasoning ("express reference" requirement), to the point it has become redundant. On the other hand, the "express reference" line of reasoning is a testament to the dominant influence of the codified laws we inherited from Spain (who in turn inherited codific tendencies from the Romans) as opposed to the English common law tradition. The Supremes seem unable to differentiate between the "intent of the Constitution" and the "intent of the framers of the Constitution." As it is, the Supreme Court has made the framers the Constitution itself. Such fallacy, indeed, accept the infallibility of the intent of the framers as always applicable to all circumstances and (whose all-knowing deliberations) covers all exigencies.
BS.
~
Saturday, February 27, 2010
To the Politically Uneducated: Democracies Require Active Citizens, Not Moral and Strong Leaders
Democracy does not subscribe to the Confucian belief of benevolent government run by morally superior leaders.
It flourishes with a citizenry that actively participates, hold accountable and scrutinize other citizens temporarily delegated limited authority always acting on behalf of the entire polity.
But unfortunately, as typical as other Asians want to believe, a significant number of Filipinos still believe that "good leaders" are the answer to whatever ails them.
That's why most of them made the mistake of allowing Ferdinand Marcos to usurp the very social contract which protects their rights as individuals.
Instead of putting all of their efforts to participate in the debates regarding what laws would benefit them most, they waste their thoughts and efforts in electing the "best" candidates.
Laughable!
Does it really matter which one is elected? Whoever gets elected and once they get elected, you need only pressure them constantly for them to act in the manner you wish them to act.
Filipino politicians, the majority of them, do not carry ideological anchors that prevents them from jumping from one party to another.
The Philippines does not have a strong political party system, where party discipline keeps politicians within party-line platforms and ideologies.
They only care that they will get re-elected!
Worst, since a significant portion of Filipinos are poor, they do not have the capacity to know the importance of being pro-active, as they worry everyday how they will get their next meal.
I encourage politicians who take advantage of the poor by handing out goods to influence their votes to HANG THEMSELVES and save other Filipinos of your stinking TRAPO nature.
It flourishes with a citizenry that actively participates, hold accountable and scrutinize other citizens temporarily delegated limited authority always acting on behalf of the entire polity.
But unfortunately, as typical as other Asians want to believe, a significant number of Filipinos still believe that "good leaders" are the answer to whatever ails them.
That's why most of them made the mistake of allowing Ferdinand Marcos to usurp the very social contract which protects their rights as individuals.
Instead of putting all of their efforts to participate in the debates regarding what laws would benefit them most, they waste their thoughts and efforts in electing the "best" candidates.
Laughable!
Does it really matter which one is elected? Whoever gets elected and once they get elected, you need only pressure them constantly for them to act in the manner you wish them to act.
Filipino politicians, the majority of them, do not carry ideological anchors that prevents them from jumping from one party to another.
The Philippines does not have a strong political party system, where party discipline keeps politicians within party-line platforms and ideologies.
They only care that they will get re-elected!
Worst, since a significant portion of Filipinos are poor, they do not have the capacity to know the importance of being pro-active, as they worry everyday how they will get their next meal.
I encourage politicians who take advantage of the poor by handing out goods to influence their votes to HANG THEMSELVES and save other Filipinos of your stinking TRAPO nature.
Good Intentions: Not Necessarily Always Consistent with Due Process and the Rule of Law
The nerve.
You may have, on your own toil and effort, raised yourself from rags to riches.
But nothing, as in NOTHING, gives any citizen, whether be you a Senator or President, the right to circumvent DUE PROCESS and the RULE OF LAW.
Does Senator Villar think that the Filipino people is stupid enough not to detect the underhanded way in which he conducts election campaign? Scholarships during election even if he did not ask those students to endorse him constitute a clear and blatant violation of the Omnibus Election Code!
It is either plain stupidity or outright scheming for a politician to hand out anything, as in ANYTHING, even if it is HIS OWN MONEY, that can be interpreted by anyone as favors within the Utang na Loob Filipino tradition.
WHY DID YOU NOT HAND OUT THE SCHOLARSHIPS BEFORE THE ELECTION PERIOD COMMENCED AND NOT STOP HANDING OUT YOUR GOODS DURING THE ELECTION PERIOD?
BECAUSE YOU ARE A TRADITIONAL POLITICIAN. YOU MAY HAVE BECOME RICH BY YOUR OWN EFFORTS BUT YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW (OR PERHAPS YOUR EFFORTS TO CIRCUMVENT IT) TESTIFIES TO YOUR OUTRIGHT NATURE AS A TRAPO.
This also applies to those who use the name and patriotic contributions of their parents to get elected. Naming our ancestors imply you wish to extend their rule to this day, however good their may be, and violates the principle of "rotation of office" in modern democracies.
Politicians who think themselves above the rules should be disqualified immediately!
You may have, on your own toil and effort, raised yourself from rags to riches.
But nothing, as in NOTHING, gives any citizen, whether be you a Senator or President, the right to circumvent DUE PROCESS and the RULE OF LAW.
Does Senator Villar think that the Filipino people is stupid enough not to detect the underhanded way in which he conducts election campaign? Scholarships during election even if he did not ask those students to endorse him constitute a clear and blatant violation of the Omnibus Election Code!
It is either plain stupidity or outright scheming for a politician to hand out anything, as in ANYTHING, even if it is HIS OWN MONEY, that can be interpreted by anyone as favors within the Utang na Loob Filipino tradition.
WHY DID YOU NOT HAND OUT THE SCHOLARSHIPS BEFORE THE ELECTION PERIOD COMMENCED AND NOT STOP HANDING OUT YOUR GOODS DURING THE ELECTION PERIOD?
BECAUSE YOU ARE A TRADITIONAL POLITICIAN. YOU MAY HAVE BECOME RICH BY YOUR OWN EFFORTS BUT YOUR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW (OR PERHAPS YOUR EFFORTS TO CIRCUMVENT IT) TESTIFIES TO YOUR OUTRIGHT NATURE AS A TRAPO.
This also applies to those who use the name and patriotic contributions of their parents to get elected. Naming our ancestors imply you wish to extend their rule to this day, however good their may be, and violates the principle of "rotation of office" in modern democracies.
Politicians who think themselves above the rules should be disqualified immediately!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)