"Critics do nothing but criticize," does sayeth his fellow critic. "They should all stop criticizing and start doing something, for their irritating complaints are no help at all," does sayeth the critic of critics. The critic being criticized then said to himself, "when would the one criticizing what I do realize that he had also became one of us (critics) the moment he criticized us? And so ended the story.
It is typical for anyone being criticized to kill the message by killing the messenger, while the object of criticism that motivated the messenger to articulate his critique is not addressed at all. Indeed, one of the great mysteries of human interaction is for the inability of some to distinguish the difference between the person who took action and the action of the person. What do I mean by that? For example, if I say "you are stupid, and you won't succeed in life," and "since you have not pursued your education, the chances of you succeeding in life is lesser," can we tell the difference?
"You are stupid," clearly is an ad hominem argument and "you won't succeed in life," for lack of evidence to validate it, is an unfounded statement and thus, not credible. "Since you have not pursued your education," represents a cause in which the effect is "the chances of you succeeding in life is lesser." The former makes a personal judgment and a declaration without a specified reason while the latter explicitly explains why one will not succeed. The latter example also points out that the action of the person is the object of criticism, i.e., having not pursued your education; the former lacks having action as the object of criticism but instead directly ascribed the person as the one being criticized. I hope that enlightens some of you regarding the difference between criticizing the person and the action of the person.
Going back to the critic of critics, one of the most common is that critics do not critique enough. Perhaps beholden to relationships that complicates their ability to criticize, due to a culture that acknowledge submission to any action of elders (regardless of whether those actions are wrong or not) as right, and customs that find inaction and silence as virtuous, critics are forced to make concessions to prudence, while prudence becomes tainted as an ally of wrong.
Another limitation of critics is the unavailability of absolute truth/s. Subjective facts and supposed objective perceptions of individuals are restricting factors, which seriously dampens the credibility of even the most credible criticism. We do not know anything more than what is exposed to us and whatever is exposed to us does not necessarily mean all are truthful. There is a certain degree of lie and a measure of truth to all that is said, whether it is because it was intended or by mere accident.
Last mentioned but not the last of such flaws, critics are humans too. They make mistakes, create unwanted divisions, challenge established institutions, and stir what need not be stirred. The last is debatable when it comes what ought and ought not to be stirred; but when it comes to the decision of the many to decide what is to be criticized, critics may or may not care. They are motivated by their belief that they are doing what is right, not because they have the approval of the many. As such, a true critic does not care whether he or she receives recognition for his or her actions as much as they do not care when the whole world is against their criticism.
For their strength lies in their knowing that what they do is for the common good. Courage comes from the ability to face reality and discuss issues as it is. Hearing only things that is pleasant to the ears is not a trait of critics. Thus, a critic ought to listen when he or she is being criticized, hoping that he or she would learn something from his or her critics.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Philippine Political Lingo as I Know It (haven't read Corruptionary YET)
Warning: Read at your own peril my perceptions on the "definition" of Philippine political terms
(1) Makisama (No English Equivalent) - (ibig sabihin) pakitigil ang pagpuna po, please.
- (English translation) please stop your criticism.
(2) Makibahagi (No English Equivalent) - sumama po kayo sa aming bulok na pamamaraan.
- please join us in our corrupt ways.
(3) Katunggali (Opponent) - kadugo na kalaban sa pulitika
- relatives as political rivals
(4) Kamag-anak (Relative) - pinaka-maaasahang kabalikat sa pulitika
- most ardent political supporters
(5) Halalan (Election) - pinaka-madugong panahon sa politika
- bloodiest period in politics
(6) Balimbing (Turncoat) - pinaka-matagumpay na uri ng politiko
- (English translation) most successful politicians
(7) Sumabak sa Politika (Join Politics) - umaasam ng malaking kapalit
- its payback time!
(8) Volunteerism - trabahong may kaunting kapalit
- job with little compensation
(9) Utang na Loob sa Politika (Debt of Gratitude in Politics) - utang na dulot ng politika na binabayaran ng mga nahalal na kandidato.
- Political loans paid by elected officials
Legend:
No English Equivalent - Only in the Philippines!; Proudly Philippine Made
English Translation - English translation
More to come.
(1) Makisama (No English Equivalent) - (ibig sabihin) pakitigil ang pagpuna po, please.
- (English translation) please stop your criticism.
(2) Makibahagi (No English Equivalent) - sumama po kayo sa aming bulok na pamamaraan.
- please join us in our corrupt ways.
(3) Katunggali (Opponent) - kadugo na kalaban sa pulitika
- relatives as political rivals
(4) Kamag-anak (Relative) - pinaka-maaasahang kabalikat sa pulitika
- most ardent political supporters
(5) Halalan (Election) - pinaka-madugong panahon sa politika
- bloodiest period in politics
(6) Balimbing (Turncoat) - pinaka-matagumpay na uri ng politiko
- (English translation) most successful politicians
(7) Sumabak sa Politika (Join Politics) - umaasam ng malaking kapalit
- its payback time!
(8) Volunteerism - trabahong may kaunting kapalit
- job with little compensation
(9) Utang na Loob sa Politika (Debt of Gratitude in Politics) - utang na dulot ng politika na binabayaran ng mga nahalal na kandidato.
- Political loans paid by elected officials
Legend:
No English Equivalent - Only in the Philippines!; Proudly Philippine Made
English Translation - English translation
More to come.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Political Virtue - Cincinnatus
Today, we celebrate the 232nd celebration of American independence.
To commemorate such event, I shall cite the legacy of Lucius Quinctus Cincinnatus, a Roman stateman who, by surrendering the power he lawfully assumed as appointed Dictator of Rome merely sixteen days after his assumption of the supreme political office, became a symbol of political virtue in the ancient Roman Republic.
On the other hand, one of the main intentions of the founding fathers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution was the limiting of governmental powers among the equal branches of government found in the concept of Separation of Powers and System of Checks and Balances.
Indeed, political virtue to the American founders was not embodied in a single individual, serving and giving his best to the interest of the nation; on the contrary, it is in the effort of any individual serving the nation to commit to self-restraint when it comes to exercising, and extending derived power.
In short, STICK WITH TERM LIMITS. DO NOT THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE QUALIFIED. AND EVEN IF YOU ARE THE BEST, THE CONSTITUTION AND SOME LAWS MAY PROHIBIT SEEKING RE-ELECTION.
If you think you are the only one qualified, then you are full of yourself.
Democracy is not the rule of the best (that is aristocracy), it is the rule of the people.
And try imitating the one being described below.
Then perhaps you may know what truly being a stateman is.
To commemorate such event, I shall cite the legacy of Lucius Quinctus Cincinnatus, a Roman stateman who, by surrendering the power he lawfully assumed as appointed Dictator of Rome merely sixteen days after his assumption of the supreme political office, became a symbol of political virtue in the ancient Roman Republic.
On the other hand, one of the main intentions of the founding fathers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution was the limiting of governmental powers among the equal branches of government found in the concept of Separation of Powers and System of Checks and Balances.
Indeed, political virtue to the American founders was not embodied in a single individual, serving and giving his best to the interest of the nation; on the contrary, it is in the effort of any individual serving the nation to commit to self-restraint when it comes to exercising, and extending derived power.
In short, STICK WITH TERM LIMITS. DO NOT THINK YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE QUALIFIED. AND EVEN IF YOU ARE THE BEST, THE CONSTITUTION AND SOME LAWS MAY PROHIBIT SEEKING RE-ELECTION.
If you think you are the only one qualified, then you are full of yourself.
Democracy is not the rule of the best (that is aristocracy), it is the rule of the people.
And try imitating the one being described below.
Then perhaps you may know what truly being a stateman is.
In Forma Pauperis
"Equal Justice under the Law," thus sayeth the words on the front face of the marble roof of the U.S. Supreme Court Building.
But justice remains elusive when citizens "more" equal among their peers have greater access to the judicial system by virtue of their considerable means.
Although, at least in theory and in terms of political rights, we are all equal, to say that political equality necessarily entails economic parity has been the subject of philosophical debates since the beginning of recorded history, and the object of great disagreement among the ancient, medieval, and modern thinkers of all disciplines. Indeed, Plato's notion of a republic ruled by state-raised guardians certainly influenced Karl Marx's conception of "the worker's paradise" and the justification for an enlightened few which would lead a society of laborers towards a communist utopia.
More so, both were an attempt to solve human inequality in terms of sustaining human needs by bringing together and blurring what Hannah Arendt describes as the difference among labor, work, and action. By dissolving the boundaries of political and economic action, a society of equals was expected to be born. However, it was also an attempt which Arendt describes as a shrouded and tyrannical response to ease the "burden of rule" of citizens.
In the Roman Republic, citizens were divided between the patricians and plebians, the rich and the poor. The aristocrats, although they were few, held political power through hereditary succession in the Roman Senate, and through right by birth in the offices of the state such as the praetor and the sought-after consulship. Nonetheless, as Aristotle observed, since most of the times the poor are the many, and the many thus composes the majority, the poor, as the majority, can exert political influence and could become a force to be reckoned with.
One does not need to mention how the ancient Athenian democracy was founded to make my point. But by the end of the Roman Republic, the plebians established among themselves the office of the tribunes - officers of the state which came from the plebians and held tremendous power over the affairs of the plebians. The aristocrats, fearing the power of numbers, made considerable concessions to plebians, rights and powers not held by them under the republic since its conception; to appease the many who were threatening a rebellion, the few yielded to the many and thus, the republic found stability.
But what is the lesson of the story? Treat them fairly, or they may rise up in rebellion. Give them enough breathing space, and they will co-exist with you. The protection of individual rights cannot be realized when extreme social inequality exists in society; in extreme cases, it could threaten the stability of the republic, if nothing is done to mitigate the plight of the unfortunate.
If subsidizing justice means providing the poor with counsel or lowering the threshold of those eligible to free counsel, then so be it. The Philippines is still an industrializing country, not an industrialized one. When the time comes that they are able to afford access in the justice system, then that is the time to charge fees in order for them to access the courts of law. After all, the poor does not typically involve themselves in civil cases; what they do not have is money and property. They are more exposed to criminal cases, and criminal cases, in modern liberal states with common law traditions, recognize the right to free counsel of the accused.
All in all, we must reevalute current laws that pertains to the accessibility of the courts of law and see what can be done to give more access to those who cannot afford access to it.
For justice equates to equality. One ought not to say that the degree of justice one can attain depends on the means one can expend. As to the question of whether political rights necessarily entails economic rights, I leave the inquiry for philosophers to think about.
But justice remains elusive when citizens "more" equal among their peers have greater access to the judicial system by virtue of their considerable means.
Although, at least in theory and in terms of political rights, we are all equal, to say that political equality necessarily entails economic parity has been the subject of philosophical debates since the beginning of recorded history, and the object of great disagreement among the ancient, medieval, and modern thinkers of all disciplines. Indeed, Plato's notion of a republic ruled by state-raised guardians certainly influenced Karl Marx's conception of "the worker's paradise" and the justification for an enlightened few which would lead a society of laborers towards a communist utopia.
More so, both were an attempt to solve human inequality in terms of sustaining human needs by bringing together and blurring what Hannah Arendt describes as the difference among labor, work, and action. By dissolving the boundaries of political and economic action, a society of equals was expected to be born. However, it was also an attempt which Arendt describes as a shrouded and tyrannical response to ease the "burden of rule" of citizens.
In the Roman Republic, citizens were divided between the patricians and plebians, the rich and the poor. The aristocrats, although they were few, held political power through hereditary succession in the Roman Senate, and through right by birth in the offices of the state such as the praetor and the sought-after consulship. Nonetheless, as Aristotle observed, since most of the times the poor are the many, and the many thus composes the majority, the poor, as the majority, can exert political influence and could become a force to be reckoned with.
One does not need to mention how the ancient Athenian democracy was founded to make my point. But by the end of the Roman Republic, the plebians established among themselves the office of the tribunes - officers of the state which came from the plebians and held tremendous power over the affairs of the plebians. The aristocrats, fearing the power of numbers, made considerable concessions to plebians, rights and powers not held by them under the republic since its conception; to appease the many who were threatening a rebellion, the few yielded to the many and thus, the republic found stability.
But what is the lesson of the story? Treat them fairly, or they may rise up in rebellion. Give them enough breathing space, and they will co-exist with you. The protection of individual rights cannot be realized when extreme social inequality exists in society; in extreme cases, it could threaten the stability of the republic, if nothing is done to mitigate the plight of the unfortunate.
If subsidizing justice means providing the poor with counsel or lowering the threshold of those eligible to free counsel, then so be it. The Philippines is still an industrializing country, not an industrialized one. When the time comes that they are able to afford access in the justice system, then that is the time to charge fees in order for them to access the courts of law. After all, the poor does not typically involve themselves in civil cases; what they do not have is money and property. They are more exposed to criminal cases, and criminal cases, in modern liberal states with common law traditions, recognize the right to free counsel of the accused.
All in all, we must reevalute current laws that pertains to the accessibility of the courts of law and see what can be done to give more access to those who cannot afford access to it.
For justice equates to equality. One ought not to say that the degree of justice one can attain depends on the means one can expend. As to the question of whether political rights necessarily entails economic rights, I leave the inquiry for philosophers to think about.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
By What Right?
This is what I like about congressional oversight: it reveals and it inevitably criticize with the purpose of legislatively correcting the error or shortcoming of any government agency.
Although such fact-finding committees do admittedly make mistakes, the benefit of empowering such legislative institutions with investigative powers outweighs the cost of not having them.
Here we are again, discussing a crucial legislation that ought to have received its alloted funding but did not do so, for no apparent reason. Those who were supposed to appropriate the necessary funding as provided by law did not seem to comply with the most important factor which surely decides the effectiveness of an enacted legislation - the frickin appropriation of money!
I am quite puzzled, utterly clueless, and laughing myself to the point of skipping a heartbeat when it comes to the mysterious and unfathomable way of releasing public funding in our country, which ought to be in the hands of the national legislature. But is it? Renowned political theorists of the past, such as Montesquieu, certainly recognized the foolishness of leaving appropriation powers in the hands of the one who hold executive power unless the executive only has the right to give "consent" to its release. By the term consent, I find the constitutional veto over proposed legislations, which include appropriation bills, sufficient to satisfy the essence of such "consent."
In short, the holder of executive power ought not to have primary control over the time and manner of disposing public money. As a mere assent only withhold in times of congressional abuse of power or misappropriation harmful to national interest, this executive consent to public appropriation is a power used sparingly; that is, if our solons desire to enrich themselves, for their own selfish ends. Above all, the power of appropriation is not a power the executive branch should get used to exercising and flaunting. Perhaps we ought to be reminded that de facto executive appropriation only exist during periods of imbalance in the system of checks and balances within the three branches of government i.e., when the executive branch becomes tyrannical or in the aftermath of an undemocratic rule.
But what are political scientists in our country saying about this? Have they lost their power of speech and freedom of action to allow such perversion to prosper? What happened to the "gadfly" in ourselves? Have we sold this precious but crucial part of us to a master with the highest bid? Shame on those who do not raise the cause of legitimate and constitutionally approved opposition - the simple act of disagreeing when it is dictated by reason.
When it comes to appropriation, it seems that the Philippine government is leaning towards a strong presidency. And it is we, those who are capable but do not act, that deserve to don the livery of jesters for it is in our power to do what is right but do nothing about it.
Also, to the national executive establishment, by what right do you demand the enforcement of laws or environmental laws, to be specific, on local government units if the executive department does not appropriate funds in the manner consistent with the will of the representative of the Filipino people i.e., the Philippine Congress? Amend Martial Law era appropriation legislations that empower the executive branch to appropriate a significant amount of public money, if you do not wish to be so criticized.
For power comes with great responsibility and those who hold it is accountable for the consequences of its use. If the national executive establishment wishes not to be criticized for handling the people's money poorly, then it must devolve power back or better said, return what is not an executive prerogative in the first place, back to the representatives of the people.
Surely, a good POL SCI freshman classmate can quote Montesquieu as to why appropriation is inherently a legislative prerogative, not an executive concern.
Hint: it has something to do with liberty and democracy.
Although such fact-finding committees do admittedly make mistakes, the benefit of empowering such legislative institutions with investigative powers outweighs the cost of not having them.
Here we are again, discussing a crucial legislation that ought to have received its alloted funding but did not do so, for no apparent reason. Those who were supposed to appropriate the necessary funding as provided by law did not seem to comply with the most important factor which surely decides the effectiveness of an enacted legislation - the frickin appropriation of money!
I am quite puzzled, utterly clueless, and laughing myself to the point of skipping a heartbeat when it comes to the mysterious and unfathomable way of releasing public funding in our country, which ought to be in the hands of the national legislature. But is it? Renowned political theorists of the past, such as Montesquieu, certainly recognized the foolishness of leaving appropriation powers in the hands of the one who hold executive power unless the executive only has the right to give "consent" to its release. By the term consent, I find the constitutional veto over proposed legislations, which include appropriation bills, sufficient to satisfy the essence of such "consent."
In short, the holder of executive power ought not to have primary control over the time and manner of disposing public money. As a mere assent only withhold in times of congressional abuse of power or misappropriation harmful to national interest, this executive consent to public appropriation is a power used sparingly; that is, if our solons desire to enrich themselves, for their own selfish ends. Above all, the power of appropriation is not a power the executive branch should get used to exercising and flaunting. Perhaps we ought to be reminded that de facto executive appropriation only exist during periods of imbalance in the system of checks and balances within the three branches of government i.e., when the executive branch becomes tyrannical or in the aftermath of an undemocratic rule.
But what are political scientists in our country saying about this? Have they lost their power of speech and freedom of action to allow such perversion to prosper? What happened to the "gadfly" in ourselves? Have we sold this precious but crucial part of us to a master with the highest bid? Shame on those who do not raise the cause of legitimate and constitutionally approved opposition - the simple act of disagreeing when it is dictated by reason.
When it comes to appropriation, it seems that the Philippine government is leaning towards a strong presidency. And it is we, those who are capable but do not act, that deserve to don the livery of jesters for it is in our power to do what is right but do nothing about it.
Also, to the national executive establishment, by what right do you demand the enforcement of laws or environmental laws, to be specific, on local government units if the executive department does not appropriate funds in the manner consistent with the will of the representative of the Filipino people i.e., the Philippine Congress? Amend Martial Law era appropriation legislations that empower the executive branch to appropriate a significant amount of public money, if you do not wish to be so criticized.
For power comes with great responsibility and those who hold it is accountable for the consequences of its use. If the national executive establishment wishes not to be criticized for handling the people's money poorly, then it must devolve power back or better said, return what is not an executive prerogative in the first place, back to the representatives of the people.
Surely, a good POL SCI freshman classmate can quote Montesquieu as to why appropriation is inherently a legislative prerogative, not an executive concern.
Hint: it has something to do with liberty and democracy.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Igalang, Ngunit Huwag Tularan
What are we to do with corrupt elders? Or respected family members exposed to corrupt political practices due to a corrupt political system that has tainted and governed their lives since their were born or have joined this corrupt political system?
Scene 1
Elder 1: Kapatid, pakitulungan mo sa trabaho yung pamangkin mo. Kapag naikuha mo na siya ng trabaho, hindi ka na niya gagambalain sa trabaho at kunin mo na rin yung budega sa likod.
Elder 2: Sige, pag-iisipan ko.
Scene 2
Elder 2: Ipasok mo yung pinsan mo sa trabaho. Alam kong bawal ito pero ipasok mo na rin.
Related Government Official: Hindi ho naaayon sa batas ang ganito. Ano po ang sasabihin ng tao kung nalaman nilang ako ang nagpasok sa kanya?
Elder 2: Alalahanin mo, tumulong ako sa kandidatura mo, at hindi lamang sa pamamagitan ng pera.
Related Government Official: Ganito ba ang magkaroon ng utang na loob sa politika? Ang kapangyarihan talaga naman, sadyang napakamahal ang kabayaran.
Scene 3
Sa langit...
Elder 3: Ginamit ko ang lahat ng kakayahang ibinigay sa akin ng Diyos para ipagtanggol ang prisipyo ng katamaan at ipinaglaban ang nakakabuti sa lahat, hindi nang sa akin lamang, noong ako'y nabubuhay pa.
Subalit mukhang mahihirapan ang aking mga pinakamamahal sa pagtataguyod ng mga adhikaing aking ipinakita at itinuro sa kanila, ngayong ang ibang mga nakakatanda ay hindi tumanda sa pagiging tama hindi lamang sa salita kundi na rin sa gawa.
Ang Panginoong Diyos ang sanang manatili ninyong kataas-taasang patnugot sa lahat ng inyong desisyon at mga gawain. Alalahanin ninyo,
"Ang mabuting pangalan ay mas dakila pa sa anumang kayamanan."
- Proverbs 22:1 -
More to come.
Scene 1
Elder 1: Kapatid, pakitulungan mo sa trabaho yung pamangkin mo. Kapag naikuha mo na siya ng trabaho, hindi ka na niya gagambalain sa trabaho at kunin mo na rin yung budega sa likod.
Elder 2: Sige, pag-iisipan ko.
Scene 2
Elder 2: Ipasok mo yung pinsan mo sa trabaho. Alam kong bawal ito pero ipasok mo na rin.
Related Government Official: Hindi ho naaayon sa batas ang ganito. Ano po ang sasabihin ng tao kung nalaman nilang ako ang nagpasok sa kanya?
Elder 2: Alalahanin mo, tumulong ako sa kandidatura mo, at hindi lamang sa pamamagitan ng pera.
Related Government Official: Ganito ba ang magkaroon ng utang na loob sa politika? Ang kapangyarihan talaga naman, sadyang napakamahal ang kabayaran.
Scene 3
Sa langit...
Elder 3: Ginamit ko ang lahat ng kakayahang ibinigay sa akin ng Diyos para ipagtanggol ang prisipyo ng katamaan at ipinaglaban ang nakakabuti sa lahat, hindi nang sa akin lamang, noong ako'y nabubuhay pa.
Subalit mukhang mahihirapan ang aking mga pinakamamahal sa pagtataguyod ng mga adhikaing aking ipinakita at itinuro sa kanila, ngayong ang ibang mga nakakatanda ay hindi tumanda sa pagiging tama hindi lamang sa salita kundi na rin sa gawa.
Ang Panginoong Diyos ang sanang manatili ninyong kataas-taasang patnugot sa lahat ng inyong desisyon at mga gawain. Alalahanin ninyo,
"Ang mabuting pangalan ay mas dakila pa sa anumang kayamanan."
- Proverbs 22:1 -
More to come.
To Federalize or Not to Federalize
To federalize or not to federalize, that is the issue.
Recently, Senator Aquilino Pimentel presented Senate Resolution No. 10, which primarily revolves around the proposal to transform the Philippines into a federal republic.
But first, what is federalism? Although the term has many connotations, the essential feature of federalism, in simple terms, is the notion that national and sub-national levels of government are sovereign in their own right. Hence, in a federal government, functions are clearly specified. If foreign relations and national defense are exclusive functions of the national government, then garbage collection and zone redistricting of real estate property (whether a specific local area is commercial, industrial, and residential) belongs to the local government.
Each level of government then does not interfere in the actions taken and decisions made by appropriate government levels. The national government has no authority to dictate policy when it is clear that matters at issue are within the legitimate scope of local governments and vice-versa. The notion of centralized governance where frequent interference by national authorities were expected ought to be non-existent as determined by law. During the period of Spanish rule in the Philippines, this meant Madrid deciding whether Pasig river ought to have lesser number of boats in order to lessen the traffic in the canal.
This system of government certainly curtails the influence of the central government, especially with regard to one of the most important of all governmental functions, resource allocation. In a unitary republic such as the Philippines today, apppropriation of the public money, due to Marcos era decrees left unchanged even today, provides extensive appropriation powers to the Philippine President although under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it is clear that the Philippine Congress is the de jure government institution delegated with the "power of the purse."
The result being that local government units had to literally beg the central government for money and even use corrupt practices in order to access public funds. This system must be changed. Not only does it teaches bad government habits to young politicians, local officials, and future civil servants, but also destroy the system of checks and balances purposely enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.
For the reason stated above, I vote for a shift to a federal form of government. I may disagree with the final draft of the proposed changes. But it is high time to decentralize a dysfunctional system that perpetuates graft and corruption in the Philippines, a nation so gifted with educated, professional, and skilled individuals, but cannot even elect a government untainted even by "modest" corrupt practices.
More to come on this topic.
Recently, Senator Aquilino Pimentel presented Senate Resolution No. 10, which primarily revolves around the proposal to transform the Philippines into a federal republic.
But first, what is federalism? Although the term has many connotations, the essential feature of federalism, in simple terms, is the notion that national and sub-national levels of government are sovereign in their own right. Hence, in a federal government, functions are clearly specified. If foreign relations and national defense are exclusive functions of the national government, then garbage collection and zone redistricting of real estate property (whether a specific local area is commercial, industrial, and residential) belongs to the local government.
Each level of government then does not interfere in the actions taken and decisions made by appropriate government levels. The national government has no authority to dictate policy when it is clear that matters at issue are within the legitimate scope of local governments and vice-versa. The notion of centralized governance where frequent interference by national authorities were expected ought to be non-existent as determined by law. During the period of Spanish rule in the Philippines, this meant Madrid deciding whether Pasig river ought to have lesser number of boats in order to lessen the traffic in the canal.
This system of government certainly curtails the influence of the central government, especially with regard to one of the most important of all governmental functions, resource allocation. In a unitary republic such as the Philippines today, apppropriation of the public money, due to Marcos era decrees left unchanged even today, provides extensive appropriation powers to the Philippine President although under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, it is clear that the Philippine Congress is the de jure government institution delegated with the "power of the purse."
The result being that local government units had to literally beg the central government for money and even use corrupt practices in order to access public funds. This system must be changed. Not only does it teaches bad government habits to young politicians, local officials, and future civil servants, but also destroy the system of checks and balances purposely enshrined in the Philippine Constitution.
For the reason stated above, I vote for a shift to a federal form of government. I may disagree with the final draft of the proposed changes. But it is high time to decentralize a dysfunctional system that perpetuates graft and corruption in the Philippines, a nation so gifted with educated, professional, and skilled individuals, but cannot even elect a government untainted even by "modest" corrupt practices.
More to come on this topic.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Private Monopoly vs. Public Monopoly - the Case of Meralco
Although I believe in the concept of capitalism, private property, and market economy, the statement of Senator Joker Arroyo, "only the Lopezes now how to run Meralco" embodies the dismal situation of the Philippine economy, which only comprise of certain few families that drives the capitalist economic order.
Make no mistake, I have no complaints, merely disappointed. Although I agree that capitalism must be preserved as the primary means of resource allocation in society, a shift from the system's oligarhic tendencies ought to take place - which means small to medium businesses as driving the engines of the economy.
But enough of daydreaming. The question that lies before us is whether economic sectors where monopoly is arguably jusitified i.e., natural monopoly, should be taken over by public institutions to lower the average utility costs of consumers.
I believe the answer lies in considering internal and external factors.
First of all, is Meralco electricity rates higher than foreign electricity rates (preferrably compared to the average eletricity rates of other countries with similar economic conditions to the Philippines) ? One needs to compare utility costs around the region and based upon such comparison, in addition to the economic capacity of consumers, determine the most efficient utility cost.
As a natural monopoly, government intervention is necessary in an economic sector where market competition does not exist. Senator Arroyo himself said that "we shall allow matters... to be decided by the private sector based on good corporate management practices" and if and only "if the result for the consumer is significantly higher rates, then we just have to step in."
The problem now lies on what formula would be used to calculate whether Meralco is charging consumers more than it ought to. Although I recognize the necessity of the interference by public institutions, the two Arroyos must agree as to whether the utility company is charging excessive prices when it can charge consumers lower utility costs without sacrificing its potential for making profits.
Make no mistake, I have no complaints, merely disappointed. Although I agree that capitalism must be preserved as the primary means of resource allocation in society, a shift from the system's oligarhic tendencies ought to take place - which means small to medium businesses as driving the engines of the economy.
But enough of daydreaming. The question that lies before us is whether economic sectors where monopoly is arguably jusitified i.e., natural monopoly, should be taken over by public institutions to lower the average utility costs of consumers.
I believe the answer lies in considering internal and external factors.
First of all, is Meralco electricity rates higher than foreign electricity rates (preferrably compared to the average eletricity rates of other countries with similar economic conditions to the Philippines) ? One needs to compare utility costs around the region and based upon such comparison, in addition to the economic capacity of consumers, determine the most efficient utility cost.
As a natural monopoly, government intervention is necessary in an economic sector where market competition does not exist. Senator Arroyo himself said that "we shall allow matters... to be decided by the private sector based on good corporate management practices" and if and only "if the result for the consumer is significantly higher rates, then we just have to step in."
The problem now lies on what formula would be used to calculate whether Meralco is charging consumers more than it ought to. Although I recognize the necessity of the interference by public institutions, the two Arroyos must agree as to whether the utility company is charging excessive prices when it can charge consumers lower utility costs without sacrificing its potential for making profits.
Monday, May 5, 2008
An Open Letter to the DENR Secretary
Hon. Jose Atienza
DENR Secretary
Republic of the Philippines
Sir,
Good Morning.
I was wondering whether you are aware of the fact that the construction of the Angono Dumpsite was initiated under the administration of the former Mayor of Angono, who is now Assistant Secretary of DENR, Gerardo V. Calderon.
The dumpsite was recently closed (January 2008) by the current Mayor of Angono, Aurora Villamayor, after six years of continuous violation of certain provisions under Republic Act 9003 particularly Chapter VI, Section 37 and Section 48, subsection (9), (10), and especially (16) - the dilemma of the current Angono dumpsite near our precious Laguna Lake.
I find it disturbing that current news media reports inflict upon the new administration of Angono the whole blame of the Angono Dumpsite while the one who created it, who perpetuated the dumpsite's existence, goes unpunished. Correcting this injustice is one of the main reasons as to why I write this open letter, Honorable Secretary. If the current administration of Angono initiated the construction of the said Angono dumpsite, I see no reason as to why it should not be criticized. But such is not the case.
I also would like to ask, given the limited amount of money local governments get from the national budget pie, how can the local government of Angono bear the burden of cleaning up the Angono dumpsite given six years of unceasing collection and disposal of unsegregated wastes. Surely, one cannot expect to clean an open dumpsite after six years of accumulated and unsegregated wastes within six months, can we, Honorable Secretary?
Sir, I believe that you wish to promote the common good for our environment. But I pray that you do not surround yourself with incompetency and lack of care in the person of unqualified appointees that are supposed to protect our precious environment, not to mention allow no scrutiny of an individual's background regarding their stance towards eco-friendly waste management.
Former Angono Mayor and now Assistant DENR Secretary Calderon has received numerous cleanliness awards in the nine years of his leading Angono; that I cannot deny and yes, I wish to praise. Nonetheless, one must doubt his capacity of enforcing environmental laws if we are to look back into his management of Angono waste management system, which in his last two terms as Mayor failed to halt or even suspend dumping garbages near our precious lake - a clear violation of Republic Act 9003 chapter VI, section 48, subsection (16).
As such, I suggest more strict scrutiny on the credibility and appointment of officials in performing the office they will hold. It is unthinkable for DENR officials to have histories of violating an environmental law in this magnitude and for indeed, it does disservice to the mandate of the executive department tasked to promote and protect our precious environment.
Regards,
DENR Secretary
Republic of the Philippines
Sir,
Good Morning.
I was wondering whether you are aware of the fact that the construction of the Angono Dumpsite was initiated under the administration of the former Mayor of Angono, who is now Assistant Secretary of DENR, Gerardo V. Calderon.
The dumpsite was recently closed (January 2008) by the current Mayor of Angono, Aurora Villamayor, after six years of continuous violation of certain provisions under Republic Act 9003 particularly Chapter VI, Section 37 and Section 48, subsection (9), (10), and especially (16) - the dilemma of the current Angono dumpsite near our precious Laguna Lake.
I find it disturbing that current news media reports inflict upon the new administration of Angono the whole blame of the Angono Dumpsite while the one who created it, who perpetuated the dumpsite's existence, goes unpunished. Correcting this injustice is one of the main reasons as to why I write this open letter, Honorable Secretary. If the current administration of Angono initiated the construction of the said Angono dumpsite, I see no reason as to why it should not be criticized. But such is not the case.
I also would like to ask, given the limited amount of money local governments get from the national budget pie, how can the local government of Angono bear the burden of cleaning up the Angono dumpsite given six years of unceasing collection and disposal of unsegregated wastes. Surely, one cannot expect to clean an open dumpsite after six years of accumulated and unsegregated wastes within six months, can we, Honorable Secretary?
Sir, I believe that you wish to promote the common good for our environment. But I pray that you do not surround yourself with incompetency and lack of care in the person of unqualified appointees that are supposed to protect our precious environment, not to mention allow no scrutiny of an individual's background regarding their stance towards eco-friendly waste management.
Former Angono Mayor and now Assistant DENR Secretary Calderon has received numerous cleanliness awards in the nine years of his leading Angono; that I cannot deny and yes, I wish to praise. Nonetheless, one must doubt his capacity of enforcing environmental laws if we are to look back into his management of Angono waste management system, which in his last two terms as Mayor failed to halt or even suspend dumping garbages near our precious lake - a clear violation of Republic Act 9003 chapter VI, section 48, subsection (16).
As such, I suggest more strict scrutiny on the credibility and appointment of officials in performing the office they will hold. It is unthinkable for DENR officials to have histories of violating an environmental law in this magnitude and for indeed, it does disservice to the mandate of the executive department tasked to promote and protect our precious environment.
Regards,
Friday, April 18, 2008
Reducing the Executive Power to Appropriate Leads to a More Stable System of Checks and Balances
Funny, I was thinking of writing an article regarding this subject a couple of weeks ago; now it is in the news.
Nonetheless, I agree with Rep. Ma. Rachel Arenas.
But why should Congress takes its purse power back? What is the implication of delegating the power of the purse to the chief executive?
First, let me first establish the premise that without public funds, no government policy will take effect; public services will grind to a halt.
Without funds, even the most effective, ideal, and pressing legislation is useless. I will use the AFP modernization program as an example. There is concensus between congress and the executive branch that the Philippine military deserves the most advance equipment, tools, and weaponry. But reality dictates that without a reliable funding source, the primary duty of the government in terms of securing the stability of the state, that is, the security and welfare of its people, will have to be set aside until sufficient funding becomes available.
Simply put, money makes the world go around; well, at least as far as public policy goes. This leads one to state that whoever possesses the most visible and extensive appropriation powers has a greater chance of convincing the citizenry to decide which government branch is the most useful to them; hence, whom the people would greatly empower.
Since the citizens vote for those who benefits them, it is important that the House of the Representatives and the Senate virtually take back all governmental powers relating to the disbursement of the people's money, that is, If both houses of Congress wish to stay in the good graces and positive view of the Filipino people. For to be fruitful in their legislative endeavours, in addition to the all-important duty of limiting potential executive and judicial excesses, the Philippine Congress must take the initiative to take back its exclusive prerogative; there is no question that it has the power and authority to do so. The danger of being irrelevant is indeed related to inaction.
But unless the two houses combine their efforts into an overriding congressional action and stick with their traditional belongings, I admit I find it impossible for the national legislature to successfuly engage the veto-wielding chief executive.
If Congress remains indifferent to the unceasing presidential publicity and flaunting of appropriating public funds, especially since the Philippine media is quite used to the notion that the Office of the President appropriated, gave, provided, and released such money, then Congress has itself to blame for encouraging the perpetuation of a strong presidency, courtesy of congressional inaction to take back a stolen prerogative as a result of a Marcos era perversion of the separation of powers among the co-equal branches of the government.
Article VI, Section 29 of the Philippine Constitution stipulates that:
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
As the making of laws is the turf of the legislative branch of government, Congress must further exert its appropriation and oversight role in government spending or lose its position and relevance in the most important political arena - the court of public opinion. With such constitutional provision, it is up to the Philippine Congress to take back this essential legislative prerogative; it must, once and for all, decide whether it is worthy of being delegated the power of appropriating the money of the sovereign Filipino people.
It is time to bring balance to the separation of powers, which is the essence of a stable republican government, at least by a congressional act to take back what is in essence an exclusive congressional authority.
Nonetheless, I agree with Rep. Ma. Rachel Arenas.
But why should Congress takes its purse power back? What is the implication of delegating the power of the purse to the chief executive?
First, let me first establish the premise that without public funds, no government policy will take effect; public services will grind to a halt.
Without funds, even the most effective, ideal, and pressing legislation is useless. I will use the AFP modernization program as an example. There is concensus between congress and the executive branch that the Philippine military deserves the most advance equipment, tools, and weaponry. But reality dictates that without a reliable funding source, the primary duty of the government in terms of securing the stability of the state, that is, the security and welfare of its people, will have to be set aside until sufficient funding becomes available.
Simply put, money makes the world go around; well, at least as far as public policy goes. This leads one to state that whoever possesses the most visible and extensive appropriation powers has a greater chance of convincing the citizenry to decide which government branch is the most useful to them; hence, whom the people would greatly empower.
Since the citizens vote for those who benefits them, it is important that the House of the Representatives and the Senate virtually take back all governmental powers relating to the disbursement of the people's money, that is, If both houses of Congress wish to stay in the good graces and positive view of the Filipino people. For to be fruitful in their legislative endeavours, in addition to the all-important duty of limiting potential executive and judicial excesses, the Philippine Congress must take the initiative to take back its exclusive prerogative; there is no question that it has the power and authority to do so. The danger of being irrelevant is indeed related to inaction.
But unless the two houses combine their efforts into an overriding congressional action and stick with their traditional belongings, I admit I find it impossible for the national legislature to successfuly engage the veto-wielding chief executive.
If Congress remains indifferent to the unceasing presidential publicity and flaunting of appropriating public funds, especially since the Philippine media is quite used to the notion that the Office of the President appropriated, gave, provided, and released such money, then Congress has itself to blame for encouraging the perpetuation of a strong presidency, courtesy of congressional inaction to take back a stolen prerogative as a result of a Marcos era perversion of the separation of powers among the co-equal branches of the government.
Article VI, Section 29 of the Philippine Constitution stipulates that:
No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation made by law.
As the making of laws is the turf of the legislative branch of government, Congress must further exert its appropriation and oversight role in government spending or lose its position and relevance in the most important political arena - the court of public opinion. With such constitutional provision, it is up to the Philippine Congress to take back this essential legislative prerogative; it must, once and for all, decide whether it is worthy of being delegated the power of appropriating the money of the sovereign Filipino people.
It is time to bring balance to the separation of powers, which is the essence of a stable republican government, at least by a congressional act to take back what is in essence an exclusive congressional authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)