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
~
Saturday, April 17, 2010
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!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Personal Criticism: The Maguindanao Massacre
I wish to express my condolences to the family of the victims of the Maguindanao Massacre.
I hope that their deaths would not have been in vain; by all that I hold dear, I shall try to give justice to those who subscribes to the principles of democracy, even at the risk of their own lives.
There are no words, no language too aggressive, no description so near to embody the utter disregard for human life.
It was a classic case of the madness that envelop men in their pursuit, desire and hunger to perpetuate their hold on power by any means and at all costs.
It is base evil. Relative or not, friend or foe, beloved or hated, whosoever subcribes to this kind of politics shall suffer the wrath of my tongue. I pray it remains sharp at all times.
One of the purposes of this blog was to criticize actions that would encourage and lead to this barbaric act, and deconstruct the operating mindset of the perpetrators who deserve the fullest application of due process of the law.
We shall teach this ignorant fools that the time for political clans in the Philippines is about to end.
We must also hold accountable a lousy and ineffective national government, an administration who benefitted from its alliance with this clan in term of votes in their favor. They too stand condemned.
The Philippines stands on trial in the court of world opinion, the international community has issued its strongest condemnation and the Philippines is again the most dangerous country on earth for journalist.
And to add salt to the wound, the stupidity with which the perpetrators have committed extends to immeasurable heights.
The party was escorted by representatives from the media and non-governmental organizations to ensure the safety of those who wish to enter the elections and thus defy the established political clans.
The contempt which these clans have to our democratic processes is beyond account.
If not for divine command and the rule of law, had I the strength to make them account, I would have used the Roman way of punishing these lawbreakers and disruptors of society's order.
I'll hang them to a pole and exposed them to the elements, shame them until they have no more desire for life, and feed their carcasses to the circling vultures... death to those who do not fear the law, those who seek to destroy our democratic way of life and those who have no regard for human life.
Since they do not hold life as dear, their lives are, by justice, forfeit and thus do not deserve to see the light of day.
We are watching you, the Philippine national government. Take each step carefully or you may end up liable for your inability to bring to justice your allies, however former they may be.
~
I hope that their deaths would not have been in vain; by all that I hold dear, I shall try to give justice to those who subscribes to the principles of democracy, even at the risk of their own lives.
There are no words, no language too aggressive, no description so near to embody the utter disregard for human life.
It was a classic case of the madness that envelop men in their pursuit, desire and hunger to perpetuate their hold on power by any means and at all costs.
It is base evil. Relative or not, friend or foe, beloved or hated, whosoever subcribes to this kind of politics shall suffer the wrath of my tongue. I pray it remains sharp at all times.
One of the purposes of this blog was to criticize actions that would encourage and lead to this barbaric act, and deconstruct the operating mindset of the perpetrators who deserve the fullest application of due process of the law.
We shall teach this ignorant fools that the time for political clans in the Philippines is about to end.
We must also hold accountable a lousy and ineffective national government, an administration who benefitted from its alliance with this clan in term of votes in their favor. They too stand condemned.
The Philippines stands on trial in the court of world opinion, the international community has issued its strongest condemnation and the Philippines is again the most dangerous country on earth for journalist.
And to add salt to the wound, the stupidity with which the perpetrators have committed extends to immeasurable heights.
The party was escorted by representatives from the media and non-governmental organizations to ensure the safety of those who wish to enter the elections and thus defy the established political clans.
The contempt which these clans have to our democratic processes is beyond account.
If not for divine command and the rule of law, had I the strength to make them account, I would have used the Roman way of punishing these lawbreakers and disruptors of society's order.
I'll hang them to a pole and exposed them to the elements, shame them until they have no more desire for life, and feed their carcasses to the circling vultures... death to those who do not fear the law, those who seek to destroy our democratic way of life and those who have no regard for human life.
Since they do not hold life as dear, their lives are, by justice, forfeit and thus do not deserve to see the light of day.
We are watching you, the Philippine national government. Take each step carefully or you may end up liable for your inability to bring to justice your allies, however former they may be.
~
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Anti-Corruption Month Bill is a Waste of Time; Instead, Support the Decriminalization of Libel or Reduce fines of Lèse Majesté Laws
Trivialities
There is one Congress of the Philippines and what do we see in the news? Lawmakers wasting their time on trivialities instead of taking action.
Declaring October as Anti-Corruption Month? Why just October? Why not, "♪ Enero, Febrero, Marso, Abril, Mayo, Hunyo, Hulyo, Agosto, Setyembre, Oktobre, Nobyembre, Disyembre, Lubi-Lubi ♪!"
Why not all 12 months?! You really make me laugh.
Has it become a typical pastime of lawmakers to declare months as this and that? Do you not have other important matters to attend to? Leave those blasted declarations to the Executive Branch and pass bills of crucial importance such as Agrarian Reform, Judicial Compensation Reform, Presidential Succession, Taxation Reform, and amendments to the Labor and Omnibus Election Code (to name a few)!
Why do you waste precious deliberation time on such petty matter?
Baloney
The premise that declaring October as an Anti-Corruption Month, and mandating "all heads of government agencies and instrumentalities to conduct activities that promote public awareness" will help the Filipino people become "informed and vigilant" citizens is absolute baloney.
Let me be clear on this: the bill will mandate government officials who refuse to acknowledge, apathetic to, and involved in corruption to act as fountains of virtue? More so, the same group of people will create programs to INSTRUCT the citizenry on how not to be corrupt?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Are you out of your mind?
IT IS BETTER TO ASK ROBBERS AND THIEVES TO TEACH THEIR VICTIMS NOT TO STEAL THAN PASS SUCH LAW, DIMWIT!
Why It does not Work that Way
The passage of such trivial laws testifies to the ineptness of some of the members of the government institution in which the Philippine Constitution granted considerable power and authority.
More so, it reveals the flaw of a political tradition that extols virtuous rule, a way of political thinking which have governed their lives since before they were born.
To a people under such condition, politicians with the best moral background are best to rule. Once politicians turn "corrupt," the people seek the next "good" politician to lead the nation.
Well, a republican democracy that does not work that way. The principle of checks and balances through the separation of powers only works if the fundamental premise revolves around the belief that all politicians are ambitious and self-seeking.
Ergo, a politican's incessant desire for fame and status ought to be contained by public censure; their hunger for wealth and fear of losing the ability to "have more" must be by discouraged by the putrid smells and crampness of Philippine jails; and their thirst to maintain and seek power regardless of the consequence must be quenched by the fear of losing it.
And only citizens that participate on our democratic processes, who demands that their voices be heard, who ensures that each and every politician is held accountable for his action can make these things happen.
Individuals whose mouthpiece and usual thought are, cooperation is key, criticism makes it worse and this politician can be good usually carry the disease of being more of a CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER BUT NOT A CITIZEN.
They (those consumers & customers) carry the disease of transferring all political responsibilities in the hands of politicians (a precursor to and tendency of aristocracy). Trusting in the supposed "goodness" of politicians they elected, they surrender their membership in the public realm, making them individuals incapable of assuming the burden and duty of citizenship.
Those individuals are no better than slaves whose lives are governed by the pleasure that the fruits of their labor produce and the things that their hands have made: a constant cycle of never-ending toil and happiness based upon their material creation.
Support the Decriminalization of Libel or Reduce fines of Lèse Majesté Laws
If one is really serious in attempting to reign in corruption, then one must allow the highest realization of accountability.
Dear lawmaker, if indeed you really wish the reduction of corruption, if not its elimination, then promote transparency by removing barriers imposed by lèse majesté, a concept devoid of democratic foundations, and hiding in the guise of and protected by libel laws.
Tyrants, ancient, medieval, and modern, abuse its use to justify their repressive acts to the detriment of liberty, freedom of expression and speech.
As James Madison, one of the architects of the concept of Checks and Balances through the Separation of Powers Principle, the political theory in which the federal government of the United States is based, surmised, the greatest threat to government abuse and indiscretion (i.e., corruption) is an effective system in which each government branch can mind each other's business.
But who shall mind the branches of government, beyond each other? And the entire government, who shall hold it accountable?
That prerogative remains, my dear lawmakers, as always, in the hands of and forever belongs to the Filipino people, your Sovereign.
Having no difference from stripping citizens of their inherent right to scrutinize government acts, libel laws discourage accountability in the form of speech acts by citizens (however politically correct they may be) such as internet & newspaper articles, blogs, etc.
Politicians should not be afraid of any kind of media if it is not based on facts, unless Philippine politicians think that the Filipino people are idiots and cannot distinguish lies from truth.
By actively doing nothing to amend Philippine lèse majesté laws, you protect government officials who commit graft and corruption, and become one of the corrupt. By turning a blind eye on the effects of this draconian law to freedom of speech, you become part of the problem, not of the solution.
Do not think we are not watching. Sovereign power belongs to the people. It would do you, politicians, well to remember that.
~
There is one Congress of the Philippines and what do we see in the news? Lawmakers wasting their time on trivialities instead of taking action.
Declaring October as Anti-Corruption Month? Why just October? Why not, "♪ Enero, Febrero, Marso, Abril, Mayo, Hunyo, Hulyo, Agosto, Setyembre, Oktobre, Nobyembre, Disyembre, Lubi-Lubi ♪!"
Why not all 12 months?! You really make me laugh.
Has it become a typical pastime of lawmakers to declare months as this and that? Do you not have other important matters to attend to? Leave those blasted declarations to the Executive Branch and pass bills of crucial importance such as Agrarian Reform, Judicial Compensation Reform, Presidential Succession, Taxation Reform, and amendments to the Labor and Omnibus Election Code (to name a few)!
Why do you waste precious deliberation time on such petty matter?
Baloney
The premise that declaring October as an Anti-Corruption Month, and mandating "all heads of government agencies and instrumentalities to conduct activities that promote public awareness" will help the Filipino people become "informed and vigilant" citizens is absolute baloney.
Let me be clear on this: the bill will mandate government officials who refuse to acknowledge, apathetic to, and involved in corruption to act as fountains of virtue? More so, the same group of people will create programs to INSTRUCT the citizenry on how not to be corrupt?
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Are you out of your mind?
IT IS BETTER TO ASK ROBBERS AND THIEVES TO TEACH THEIR VICTIMS NOT TO STEAL THAN PASS SUCH LAW, DIMWIT!
Why It does not Work that Way
The passage of such trivial laws testifies to the ineptness of some of the members of the government institution in which the Philippine Constitution granted considerable power and authority.
More so, it reveals the flaw of a political tradition that extols virtuous rule, a way of political thinking which have governed their lives since before they were born.
To a people under such condition, politicians with the best moral background are best to rule. Once politicians turn "corrupt," the people seek the next "good" politician to lead the nation.
Well, a republican democracy that does not work that way. The principle of checks and balances through the separation of powers only works if the fundamental premise revolves around the belief that all politicians are ambitious and self-seeking.
Ergo, a politican's incessant desire for fame and status ought to be contained by public censure; their hunger for wealth and fear of losing the ability to "have more" must be by discouraged by the putrid smells and crampness of Philippine jails; and their thirst to maintain and seek power regardless of the consequence must be quenched by the fear of losing it.
And only citizens that participate on our democratic processes, who demands that their voices be heard, who ensures that each and every politician is held accountable for his action can make these things happen.
Individuals whose mouthpiece and usual thought are, cooperation is key, criticism makes it worse and this politician can be good usually carry the disease of being more of a CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER BUT NOT A CITIZEN.
They (those consumers & customers) carry the disease of transferring all political responsibilities in the hands of politicians (a precursor to and tendency of aristocracy). Trusting in the supposed "goodness" of politicians they elected, they surrender their membership in the public realm, making them individuals incapable of assuming the burden and duty of citizenship.
Those individuals are no better than slaves whose lives are governed by the pleasure that the fruits of their labor produce and the things that their hands have made: a constant cycle of never-ending toil and happiness based upon their material creation.
Support the Decriminalization of Libel or Reduce fines of Lèse Majesté Laws
If one is really serious in attempting to reign in corruption, then one must allow the highest realization of accountability.
Dear lawmaker, if indeed you really wish the reduction of corruption, if not its elimination, then promote transparency by removing barriers imposed by lèse majesté, a concept devoid of democratic foundations, and hiding in the guise of and protected by libel laws.
Tyrants, ancient, medieval, and modern, abuse its use to justify their repressive acts to the detriment of liberty, freedom of expression and speech.
As James Madison, one of the architects of the concept of Checks and Balances through the Separation of Powers Principle, the political theory in which the federal government of the United States is based, surmised, the greatest threat to government abuse and indiscretion (i.e., corruption) is an effective system in which each government branch can mind each other's business.
But who shall mind the branches of government, beyond each other? And the entire government, who shall hold it accountable?
That prerogative remains, my dear lawmakers, as always, in the hands of and forever belongs to the Filipino people, your Sovereign.
Having no difference from stripping citizens of their inherent right to scrutinize government acts, libel laws discourage accountability in the form of speech acts by citizens (however politically correct they may be) such as internet & newspaper articles, blogs, etc.
Politicians should not be afraid of any kind of media if it is not based on facts, unless Philippine politicians think that the Filipino people are idiots and cannot distinguish lies from truth.
By actively doing nothing to amend Philippine lèse majesté laws, you protect government officials who commit graft and corruption, and become one of the corrupt. By turning a blind eye on the effects of this draconian law to freedom of speech, you become part of the problem, not of the solution.
Do not think we are not watching. Sovereign power belongs to the people. It would do you, politicians, well to remember that.
~
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Public Appropriations 101: Where to and not to Spend Public Money
In Philippines politics, one of the most bizarre phenomena (but also unabashedly common) amongst politicians is the appropriation of public money in things that has nothing to do with public expenditures.
But what is public expenditure? How does public expenditure differ from other "release of funds" from government coffers? Are there institutional mechanisms which must take place, processes to be followed, or approvals to be gained before public funds may be released?
Public expenditure is defined as money spent (or used) for the public good. Public good, on the other hand, refers to anything that benefits the public; it also pertains to acts performed on its behalf; examples are constructions of public infrastructures such as roads, bridges, and school buildings (to name a few); salaries of government employees because these employees provide crucial public service; it also includes local and national governments buying private property under just compensation provisions in the Philippine Constitution.
The bottomline of public expenditure is any government spending where the people is the exlusive beneficiary. The ones who appropriated the funds, the ones who hold the funds, and the ones who released public funds are NOT to benefit from it. No exemptions.
Government officials involved in the authorization of government spending may PRUDENTLY claim credit for being INSTRUMENTAL in releasing public funds to a certain extent; remember, appropriating public funds is your duty in the first place; it is not something to brag about because it is expected of you to do just that, nothing more. If one understands the meaning of the Tagalog word kawanggawa, I am sure one wuld not be foolish enough to consider it as "beyond the call of duty."
e.g., Events between Private & Public Schools
But what about spending on things that may be considered quasi-public good? Let us discuss, for example, graduation expenses in public schools. Parents are supposed to contribute money for the event; depending on how LAVISH the graduation ceremony would be, I must remind parents that their expectations must be equal to the amount of money they themselves will contribute.
It sounds fair, does it not?
The government ought not to collext taxes (and as far as I know, does not do so) to spend on expensive graduations and pageantries, taxes that could be better spent on books, class materials, and fixing dilapidated or building new school buildings.
Indeed, I have never heard that taxpayers money in the Philippines pay for graduation ceremonies and pageantries; PTAs are still in charge of gathering such sums from private donations. If those money came from government officials, then that is illegal especially if it came from government coffers.
I am sure I need not explain why graduation expenses in private schools have nothing to do with public spending. The circumstance is self-explanatory enough.
But what about in events where public and private schools are involved? In general, the amount of public spending for such occasion must be proportional to the level of participation by public schools. In an ideal setting, the extent of funding is primarily measured by the number of students with indigent status WHO CANNOT AFFORD to pay their contributions, that is, to the extent in which it is the case that no other source exists, but the government.
This means that parents with children in public schools who can afford contributions must do so.
Parents should not be uptight when it comes to contributing for the sake of their offsprings. After all, what would you not do for them? Do you not wish the best for your children? Then why do you, those who can afford to give, rely on government funds: funds that can be diverted away from those who are much in need than yourselves?
I find it strange that parents complain that there is not enough public funding during school events when they themselves can contribute. Of course, this does not apply to poor families, which public funding must obviously cover.
It is given that, even though public schools are open to anyone, it is more likely for families with low income earnings to send their children to public schools; hence, when events that involve private and public schools are held, public funding may be released TO A CERTAIN EXTENT; releasing public funds must be based on the number of indigent public school students participating.
Corruption
If one claims the government has enough funds and that corruption is the reason why there are not enough funds, then pray tell, when was the last time you scrutinized public funding by actually demanding from officials whom you elected how (in what manner) they spent public money?
Perhaps, you should ask elected officials when and where was it spent; or simply, where are the records for such spending?
Where could it be?
Since you claim that you knew there was corruption, WHY DID YOU NOT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? Even in petitioning the government to redress your grievances, are you so helpless that you cannot even make your voice heard?
Surely, having known corruption is the problem, one has tried to inquire and make them account? Or are you just plain cowards who keep your mouths shut in fear of those whom you elected?
Perhaps you deserve to be lied upon because you allow yourself to be lied upon.
THOU SHALL NOT of Public Spending
Public funds may not be used:
(1) for funerals unless (a) the person has contributed to the public good in a recurring or constant manner, (b) the name of the town / city / province / nation is acknowledged as the source of the tribute, not any elected or other government official. Elected and other government officials who wish to use their names may send their personal tributes in their own capacity, using their own money.
(2) for tarpaulins informing the public of publicly-funded programs and projects, which emphasize the face and name of elected officials than actual public information such as when a project will be completed, disruptions caused by such projects, or hours of a public program. Elected officials, local and national, ought to be ashamed that their faces are bigger than the information which the public must know. It becomes so obvious how corrupt a political culture of a certain country is, even with this simple but usually ignored signs.
More to come on the THOU SHALL NOT...
~
But what is public expenditure? How does public expenditure differ from other "release of funds" from government coffers? Are there institutional mechanisms which must take place, processes to be followed, or approvals to be gained before public funds may be released?
Public expenditure is defined as money spent (or used) for the public good. Public good, on the other hand, refers to anything that benefits the public; it also pertains to acts performed on its behalf; examples are constructions of public infrastructures such as roads, bridges, and school buildings (to name a few); salaries of government employees because these employees provide crucial public service; it also includes local and national governments buying private property under just compensation provisions in the Philippine Constitution.
The bottomline of public expenditure is any government spending where the people is the exlusive beneficiary. The ones who appropriated the funds, the ones who hold the funds, and the ones who released public funds are NOT to benefit from it. No exemptions.
Government officials involved in the authorization of government spending may PRUDENTLY claim credit for being INSTRUMENTAL in releasing public funds to a certain extent; remember, appropriating public funds is your duty in the first place; it is not something to brag about because it is expected of you to do just that, nothing more. If one understands the meaning of the Tagalog word kawanggawa, I am sure one wuld not be foolish enough to consider it as "beyond the call of duty."
e.g., Events between Private & Public Schools
But what about spending on things that may be considered quasi-public good? Let us discuss, for example, graduation expenses in public schools. Parents are supposed to contribute money for the event; depending on how LAVISH the graduation ceremony would be, I must remind parents that their expectations must be equal to the amount of money they themselves will contribute.
It sounds fair, does it not?
The government ought not to collext taxes (and as far as I know, does not do so) to spend on expensive graduations and pageantries, taxes that could be better spent on books, class materials, and fixing dilapidated or building new school buildings.
Indeed, I have never heard that taxpayers money in the Philippines pay for graduation ceremonies and pageantries; PTAs are still in charge of gathering such sums from private donations. If those money came from government officials, then that is illegal especially if it came from government coffers.
I am sure I need not explain why graduation expenses in private schools have nothing to do with public spending. The circumstance is self-explanatory enough.
But what about in events where public and private schools are involved? In general, the amount of public spending for such occasion must be proportional to the level of participation by public schools. In an ideal setting, the extent of funding is primarily measured by the number of students with indigent status WHO CANNOT AFFORD to pay their contributions, that is, to the extent in which it is the case that no other source exists, but the government.
This means that parents with children in public schools who can afford contributions must do so.
Parents should not be uptight when it comes to contributing for the sake of their offsprings. After all, what would you not do for them? Do you not wish the best for your children? Then why do you, those who can afford to give, rely on government funds: funds that can be diverted away from those who are much in need than yourselves?
I find it strange that parents complain that there is not enough public funding during school events when they themselves can contribute. Of course, this does not apply to poor families, which public funding must obviously cover.
It is given that, even though public schools are open to anyone, it is more likely for families with low income earnings to send their children to public schools; hence, when events that involve private and public schools are held, public funding may be released TO A CERTAIN EXTENT; releasing public funds must be based on the number of indigent public school students participating.
Corruption
If one claims the government has enough funds and that corruption is the reason why there are not enough funds, then pray tell, when was the last time you scrutinized public funding by actually demanding from officials whom you elected how (in what manner) they spent public money?
Perhaps, you should ask elected officials when and where was it spent; or simply, where are the records for such spending?
Where could it be?
Since you claim that you knew there was corruption, WHY DID YOU NOT HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE? Even in petitioning the government to redress your grievances, are you so helpless that you cannot even make your voice heard?
Surely, having known corruption is the problem, one has tried to inquire and make them account? Or are you just plain cowards who keep your mouths shut in fear of those whom you elected?
Perhaps you deserve to be lied upon because you allow yourself to be lied upon.
THOU SHALL NOT of Public Spending
Public funds may not be used:
(1) for funerals unless (a) the person has contributed to the public good in a recurring or constant manner, (b) the name of the town / city / province / nation is acknowledged as the source of the tribute, not any elected or other government official. Elected and other government officials who wish to use their names may send their personal tributes in their own capacity, using their own money.
(2) for tarpaulins informing the public of publicly-funded programs and projects, which emphasize the face and name of elected officials than actual public information such as when a project will be completed, disruptions caused by such projects, or hours of a public program. Elected officials, local and national, ought to be ashamed that their faces are bigger than the information which the public must know. It becomes so obvious how corrupt a political culture of a certain country is, even with this simple but usually ignored signs.
More to come on the THOU SHALL NOT...
~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)