The People Have Spoken

Automated Polls

The people have spoken. Regardless of whether they cast their votes for the sake of common good or for their own self-interest or even just to alleviate the lightness of their pockets, the people have made their choice.

Although I wish to congratulate those who won the elections just as I did last time, the burden that accompanies the elected office has never been so light; much to say, that it is something that one should seek for the sake of achieving or attaining.

The first automated polls has ushered in a new era of Philippine politics, one which is fast and whose results/content is harder to tamper. And yet, far be it from me to say that it has no deficiencies.

For as long as individuals cheat and allow themselves to be cheated, no voting machine, however advanced, can produce results beneficial to all concerned.

Angono Elections

As for Angono, congratulations on those whom the people of Angono have elected.

Let it be known that the past administration has taken great strides in promoting the welfare of the community with due and proper regard to the laws that applies and must be adhered to by all, citizens and officials alike.

I expect the new administration to do the same or if not, my tongue will get inspired to be cheeky.

I wish newly elected officials good health and pray that wisdom be given from above to guide them in their decisions.

Issues

Let's get to business then.

* The past administration closed the dumpsite near the Laguna watershed area for the purpose of dumping and has relocated. The "transfer station" must be closed and the area completely rehabilitated. No further activity must be allowed in that area as per R.A 9003. If funding is available, build a park in it. Such an eye sore must not exist in the "Artist's Paradise."

* Public servants are not personal servants. Goverment employees work for the people and not for elected officials. The work/services they provide are not for elected official's personal use. Hence, it is unethical to order a government employee or anyone on government payroll to be told by an elected official to do something for his personal benefit. Exemptions are those who are designated as "personal assistants" and allowed by law and ordinance. Such personal assistants much not be in numbers to the point of competing with the Ampatuans.

* When outside the municipality, do not put relatives in charge. It is a violation of Sec 46 of R.A. 7160 (Philippine Local Government Code). If it is within 3 days, only elected or appointed officials of the municipality are allowed under the law to become OIC. After 3 days, the law demands that the vice-mayor takes over.

* It is unethical and possibly illegal for contracts that involve personal businesses of any government officials to bid in any government announcements/transactions. Biddings must take place on all public contracts unless permitted by law.

* Funeral flowers paid for by the municipality of Angono are to be addressed "on behalf of the Municipality of Angono" not "on behalf of Mayor... and family."

* Make sure none of an elected official's relatives benefit from being your relative when it involves government business.

* Abide by the Philippine Civil Service Laws when hiring government employees.

I am watching.

Who Will Cheeky Gadfly Vote For?

Cheeky Gadfly would vote for:

(1) those who abide by and respect the law. I will not support anyone who circumvent, and ignore (and are ignorant of) the law, regardless of how popular and publicly supported a candidate is. I will be a thorn to anyone who thinks they are above the law and criticize them to submission.

I will take note of candidates that subscribes to the notion of "Due Process." I commend and support candidates that ensure their decisions comply and are consistent with the law.

(2) those who do not use the public office for personal gain. I will not support anyone who uses public money to pay for funeral flowers if it is not named on behalf of the "Municipalityof Angono," but certain public officials. I will not tolerate candidates that take advantage of the poor by giving goods during the election period.

(3) those who do not base their candidacies on their parent's achievements. We will be measured by our actions, not by the blood that flows in our veins.

(4) those who do not base their candidacy as a leader of a church / denomination. Christians ought not to commit the Sin of Uzziah , King of Judah, and blur the separation that divides the church and state. Such action is contrary to Christ's exhortation that "my kingdom is not of this world."

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/464017/jewish/Uzziah.htm

(5) those who care for the environment. Awards have no bearing to me if I see with my own eyes that laws created to protect the environment are violated by the same individuals who claim they seek to protect the environment. I have the ability to assess who are compliant and who promote the environment, beyond awards, ceremonies, and pageantries. For I am a watchful citizen.

(6) those who employ individuals based on their political affiliation and support, not the individual's merit. Shun those who employ gov't employees and treat them as their personal alipores. I hate private armies funded by public funds. Those who imitate the Ampatuans will suffer the wrath of my tongue.

(7) those who are open-minded and seek the counsel of others. I discourage others to vote for those who think they only possess the answer to the problems of society. Stay away from delusional candidates.

More to come.

Cheekygafly's Political Spectrum Progression of Maturing Democracies with Political Groups as a Main Variable

Philippine phenomenon

(1) Infant: Clan/Family Rule

(2) Toddler: Politics of Personality and Minions

(3) Adolescent: Color/Party Coalition under Famous Public Figure

Potential Direction/Goal --->

(4) Adulthood: Party Politics (Political Party)

Ideal --->

(5) Twilight Years: Death of Party Politics and the Birth of the Deliberating Citizenry
~

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...

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
~

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.
~

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.
~

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.

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!

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.
~