Archive for the ‘cha-cha’ Category
america’s boy 2010
na-confuse naman ako kay carmen pedrosa, kolumnista ng philippine star na panahon pa ni fvr ay kilala nang chacha-federalism advocate. inaamin niya na she has been / is critical of noynoy aquino’s candidacy, allegedly because he is the candidate of a “former colonial power” that’s against constitutional reform, i.e., chacha.
A number of readers have asked me why I am zeroing in on Noynoy. Why don’t I criticize Manny Villar or Gibo Teodoro or Dick Gordon? I could, but that would not help in exposing what I consider the most important aspect of this election: the intervention by a former colonial power.
The main objective of this intervention was to frustrate constitutional reform and to make sure that a candidate of their choosing should be elected. That candidate was Noynoy.
but really? america is against charter change? is not the opposite true? i was thinking more along the lines of lila shahani sounding off on filipino voices against anti-pinoy anti-noynoy bloggers who are pro-american and pro-chacha.
Ben’s a half-White guy trying to hustle a business who has a vested interest in endorsing Gordon: they’re related. Bong’s busy opening websites in Arizona, etc. His Dad hobnobs with US officials. They’re both neo-cons who r very pro-American and I suspect want charter change so foreigners can have 100% ownership of Philippine companies. There is a Gordon/Mindanao link because the US, among others, wants its hands on Mindanao’s endless resources. Note that Davao contributed a lot to the Red Cross during Gordon’s time.
They hate Noynoy because he won’t touch his Mom’s constitution. Their dislike of Noynoy is distinct from those of others here who simply prefer Gibo or Villar, etc, which is certainly not a problem. Noynoy has been their agenda from the get-go: 90% of the posts on Get Real r about Noynoy. Why? Because they stand to lose a lot if Noynoy wins. So it’s a concentrated campaign to demonize a candidate and his supporters. But the point is that Gordon is willing to sign off far more to the US than most Filipino patriots r willing to accept.
I, for one, am not against constitutional change as such, but think there should be a plebiscite and it should be discussed nationally outside the context of a presidential election. It should most certainly not be enacted simply to extend GMA’s stay in power. After all this noise that Bong and Ben have been making, I have started to wonder MORE about Gordon’s motivations, despite his flamboyant statements about Bangit and Villar. Like Enrile, I wonder if these hits r hard enough, or if they r simply for show to placate the general public. I find it odd to routinely see people in Makati sporting the green AND red bracelets on their wrists at the same time: what does that mean? I’m surprised they don’t even bother to be more subtle.
I for one am not willing to sign off this country to GMA and to greater foreign interests, which is why I am not for charter change right now. I believe the Filipino middle class desperately needs to grow, and needs to be given a chance away from the stranglehold of monopolies and foreign corporate interests. I think the Philippines should primarily be owned by Filipinos.
seems to me that america is pro-charter change (think mindanao) and probably supporting the likes of villar, gibo, and gordon even if these candidates swear they’re not raring to chacha, haha, who do they think they’re kidding.
Midnight CJ and the Four R’s
The framers could have said the position of Chief Justice (CJ) should be filled up immediately and that only the CJ could swear in a Prez. They did not. They said any judicial vacancy should be filled up within 90 days, which I suggest is even merely directory, not even mandatory. No way we can mandamus a Prez.
The case of Justice Minita Chico Nazario, where the vacancy was filled up six months later is instructive; she twisted in the wind that long before finally taking her oath and becoming a credit to the SC.
It took more than six months for CJ Querube C. Makalintal to replace CJ Roberto R. Concepcion. Thus, the virtue of collegiality. It also shows that when the Constitution gave the Prez 90 days to name a new Justice, the lack of urgency was seen. May the SC order the JBC, headed by the CJ?
When Marcos won, if my memory is true, I had at least two excellent teachers who had been named to the bench just before Macapagal himself was to step down. Seen as more than qualified, maybe, but no one in the judiciary, or elsewhere, is indispensable. The two had to go. In May, 1982, for a working week, we had no Supreme Court at all! All told, vacant days added together, we had no CJ for years. The nation moved on. There simply was no fire.
Now we have a golden chance for a transparent process in lieu of arcana. Justice Rene Corona must disclose in open hearing his suspicion that Justice Tony Carpio was out to smear him. Tony denied the charge, corroborated by Nanding Campos, who Rene had said tried to influence him improperly by using three ex-Justices to approach him (which those of us of the old school us would never do; it just was not and should not be done).
GMA acknowledged on December 30, 2002 that she divides our people. Now, she plans to continue in public life, and some salivate. Why? Are these but the noises of democracy we were glad to have again in 1986 after 15 years of coercive elimination of dissenters, leading to Jackson’s unanimity of the graveyard?
Charito Planas I first met in Washington, D.C. in 1982. She has chosen to be with GMA. The right to pick we cannot question, be it elixir or poison we choose. But, as in the case of Gary Olivar, what does she have to say about the Morong 43? The duo both courageously fought martial misrule. May God bless them both. But we in the human rights community need to hear them on the 43.
FOCAP (like our friend, Tony Lopez) could be naughty. Last Tuesday it held a forum entitled Who Will Fix the Mess? I saw no one take issue with the tendentious theme. All prez wannabes said No to operating the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Bravo! A Korean firm said it would need a billion pesos at least, which may yet double, or triple, to repair and upgrade it. But, we are pasable-OK-na-puede-na Pinoys. I hope Prez Cory and I would no longer be blamed for not operating the plant in 1986, when Chernobyl made it easy to mothball it. But, I had not realized I was so effective chairing the Cabinet and Senate Committees on it that here we are, 24 years after the event and no Prez or wannabe is for operating it.
This fact emerged with crystal clarity in the FOCAP affair. Nick Perlas was with me in the 1986-1992 effort.
Even Engineer FVR would not dare put the nuke plant on line (his home province is Pangasinan; I married one from there and it now welcomes nuke power in a nation where Murphy’s Law—if anything can go wrong, it will—prevails in rampancy: I am not sure we can be like Russia or Japan ably dealing with Chernobyl or Toyota’s recall). We need new energy plans. We need to know from the bets what their plans are, on top of their other sales talk, to pay public servants above the level of corruption by laying down the economic foundation of honesty. Dick Gordon would want school teachers to get P40,000 a month, less than the additional bonus of House employees last Christmas given by Congressmen: how much did they get for themselves?
There must be a better deal for employees, whether public or private, for them to compete for admission into public service.
On specifics, what do they have to say on senior citizens discounts where an employer’s profit is marginal and who will go under with the additional discount? Is this not confiscatory? Any subsidy? Else, the employer may fire employees to salvage the ailing business. There must be a health program too so one with a dollar (less than P50) can have dialysis monthly. More than Motherhood spiels we need from the leading bets. Those who have no chance should withdraw, to improve the chances of even a bad bet; else, by hurting him, we may get a worse, or even the worst one, in lying, cheating and stealing. Balzac said that behind every great wealth is a great crime. How many of the bets have no great wealth?
Anyway, I need to see in the text of the 1987 Constitution, or maybe, someone can show us that, in the debates, the intent was that in the judiciary “midnight appointments” are allowed, contrary to what the SC has nixed. I know how careful the JBC and SC are in observing the no-appointment rule during the critical two months. That was why the promotion of some RTC Judges created a hassle some years ago (even if admittedly, the nominees were good); there was static about antedating to make it appear as not falling within the interdicted two-month period. No transparency. Shielding the nomination process from scrutiny should go. If it would need a constitutional change so be it. Back to the Commission on Appointments? Noynoy I don’t recall ever having opposed any change in the 1987 Consti. He and his Mom, along with millions, simply wanted to do the Right thing in the Right way at the Right time for the Right reason.
Nothing says the CJ should administer the oath. Cory and Doy were sworn in on February 25, 1986 by “mere” Associate Justices, who used the rather unconventional formulation I rushed the night before in a rinky-dink typewriter. Indeed, an ordinary notary public can administer it. When we took power in 1986, I had no time to take it but then it was a risky revolutionary government we had inaugurated. Later, in a more normal time, I took it before a notary. It could not be said that I violated my Four R’s.
Today, what is not being violated in the violent time in the vilest possible way?
showdown 2010
grabe. sa halip na mapaghandaan natin nang maayos ang 2010 elections, lalo tayong nagaaway-away over issues that could have been put off naman, sa totoo lang, until after we would have elected na a new president with a clear mandate. manolo quezon is right, gma is Outflanking her enemies.
… we are seeing a dizzying number of possibilities raised, knocked down, revived, shelved, or what have you; the essentials, however, have been identified -primarily, an election in 2010- while everyone is still kept guessing, so that the resources of the enemy are dissipated while that of the administration is more cohesive; the military and police have been kept fat and well-groomed, the hierarchy remains divided, and everything is geared for resolution in the Supreme Court.
I know many people, both among her admirers and her critics, strongly believe the President’s bottom line is simple: she does not want to be disgraced by going to jail, and she wants to complete her term. I do believe that her stay in office has also convinced her that God put her in power to kick the country into shape. Therefore to be convinced of failure when it comes to the former, will only inspire her to pursue staying in power, as her self-preservation, to her mind, becomes a case of national survival, too.
So all options must remain on the table for the duration, if only to keep everyone guessing. It helps distract her leading opponents, but also, helps keep her supporters tractable.
and even if, in the end, gma gives it up, and by some stroke of luck the opposition unites behind one presidential candidate, things can still go wrong in 2010.
JPE warns of chaos in 2010
Next president to find govt coffers empty
By Rhaydz B. Barcia, Manila Times CorrespondentLEGAZPI CITY, Albay: Failure of the computerized elections in 2010 would cause “chaos” but, if the polls succeeded, the winner would find the government coffers “empty,” Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said over the weekend.
“I would like to urge the people through the [people of Legazpi City] to be very, very careful in this coming election of the leaders who will handle the Philippines in 2010 and beyond,” he said.
“I would like to tell you that we’re facing a critical period in our history. The elections in 2010 are very critical because, for the first time in our political history, we are going to change the manner of [conducting the] elections,” Enrile added, referring to the fully automated polls next year. He spoke during a program here marking the 50th anniversary of the city.
Enrile expressed fears that the electronic voting could go haywire.
“We’re going to use machines to record and count the votes, [when in the past] we were using human beings or teachers,” he said. “What will happen if the machines break down? What do you think will happen to our country? This country will be in a total chaos, there will be no government or leaders, no soldiers, no policemen, no Supreme Court. What will happen to our country? It will be the rule of the strongest among us. I hope that will not happen.”
Empty coffers
Enrile added that the successor of President Gloria Arroyo would discover that the government was broke.
“If President Arroyo, an economist, a very intelligent woman and a very determined person [has been able to] run the government despite the opposition and the obstacles that have been placed before her [but still] could not manage the nation as we want it to be, how much more the next President [who] will be confronted with so many problems and [who will be expected to] unify a fragmented force? How could he or she do it when the country’s coffers are empty?” he said.
and he goes on:
“So, if we want clean governance, it should begin at the kitchen of Malacañang because one of the [problems] in the country is corruption and if you clean up your backyard, the rest [stamping out of the other problems] will follow,” Enrile added.
what does enrile mean? that there is time to oust gma and her corrupt ways before 2010? is he advocating extra-constitutional action a la EDSA? is ping lacson’s call for civil disobedience, for a tax revolt, vs charter change a meaningless coincidence? because in february ‘86 it was cory’s civil disobedience campaign and economic boycott which coryistas took up that paved the way for EDSA. is it possible that enrile and lacson are on the same page these days? can honasan and lacson, former classmates, batchmates, pma ‘71, finally be on the same page too? nakakaintriga.
or is enrile just saying that we need to elect a president in 2010 who is without a taint of corruption? but wait, here’s more from him, about drawing inspiration from the china experience.
According to him, China used to be the doormat of the world but later became an emerging superpower through the will of the government and the people.
Enrile said that the Chinese had told him that their determination and that of their leaders brought about a modern China free from domination of other countries. The same resolve, he added, could see China outshining the United States.
“I will tell you, in this decade [China] will overtake America. China will become the superpower of the world, because [it has] prepared [itself for that role],” Enrile said.
He allowed, though, that China’s ascendancy entailed economic and political costs. Still, Enrile said, the price the Chinese people paid went to “freedom.”
“True enough, [the Chinese] government is a little bit rigid compared to our government, and I’m not trying to say [that we] adapt the [Chinese] system but, nonetheless, we must work together as a people in order to bring progress and to make our country really free,” he added.
Enrile’s visit to Legazpi City coincided with celebrations there commemorating the 111th anniversary of the proclamation of independence.
He said that his wish for the occasion was to see the country attain economic freedom and freedom from poverty.
hmm. will of the government and the people. determination. resolve. progress. freedom from poverty. freedom from domination of other countries. but with economic and political costs. paying the price for “freedom” . . . . sounds like a political platform. who’s the candidate kaya. siya mismo? sana hindi.
erap is right, there’s no hope of beating gma’s annointed in 2010 unless the opposition gets behind a single ticket. maybe enrile can be a uniting force. maybe the presidentiables will listen to him. sana he can inspire them to rise above self-interests for the sake of the country. sana together they can arrive at a consensus, agree on a platform and a ticket that would have a fighting chance against gma’s money and machinery. then 2010 might be worth dying for.
con-ass economics
promise ni nograles, reported by manila standard today june 8, charter change will be limited to economic provisions:
LAWMAKERS who will convene as a constituent assembly will be limited to easing the economic provisions of the Constitution to provide investors with the stability they need for their investment and allow them to own land, House Speaker Prospero Nograles said yesterday.
Under the recently-approved House Resolution 1109, the assembly “will tackle only the two economic provisions of the Constitution on foreign land ownership,” Nograles said.
…By focusing on economic provisions, the assembly would assure foreign investors that they could stay here for the long term since they could own the land where their factories and buildings were located, Nograles said.
…Nograles also criticized National Economic Development Authority director general Ralph Recto for warning that Charter change would cause more shocks to the economy.
“If Neda thinks that this could cause more shocks to the economy, it is also therefore correct that the reason why our economy has been suffering from shocks, since most of us can remember, is because of this Cha-cha issue,” he said.
on the same day, former neda director-general cielito habito, in his business column in the inquirer, blasted the house of representatives for sinking so low:
Lame excuse for Con-ass
By Cielito HabitoTHE BRAZENNESS with which the majority in the Lower House rammed the now-infamous House Resolution No. 1109 through is yet another instance of naked exercise of political brute force that properly earns them that monicker many of them despise–claiming “larger” to be more apt than “lower.”
… Indeed, many believe that this current Lower House has sunk the Philippine legislature to its lowest point ever in our nation’s political history.Economic provisions
Proponents of the resolution would have us believe that it has become so urgent to amend the 1987 Constitution that we now have to resort to the fast-track method available to effect Charter change (“Cha-cha”).
And this fast-track way is to convene the legislature into a constituent assembly (“Con-Ass”) to act on proposed amendments. The purported rationale–which as the last and relatively brief “whereas” clause in the resolution, comes across more as an afterthought–is that the economic provisions of the current charter need urgent revision.
To quote: “Whereas, there is a specific proposal that for the Philippines to be internationally competitive in attracting foreign investments and technology transfers that the economic provisions of the Constitution is proposed to be amended in an appropriate manner …”
The economic provisions being alluded to are those in Article XII on National Economy and Patrimony limiting foreign ownership in certain reserved economic activities to 40 percent.
Could easing up on these provisions really save our economy from recession at this time?
No urgency
There are two questions involved here: First, do we really need these amendments now? Second, do we even need these amendments at all?
The first is easier to set aside. The second is open to debate, and has indeed been debated for some time now.
Let’s tackle them one by one.
Are these legislators telling us that opening our economy even wider to foreign ownership cannot afford to wait until after the 2010 elections? Can foreign direct investments really lift our economy out of the current downturn?
Well, I have news for them (as if they didn’t know!). The UN Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) reports that flows of foreign direct investments (FDI) fell globally by 21 percent in 2008, and will likely fall even deeper in 2009.
For developed countries, the source of the global downturn, the decline is even steeper at 33 percent. Note that much of what is reported as FDI are in the form of mergers and acquisitions, where existing enterprises merely change hands; thus, no new production and employment necessarily result.
Greenfield investments, or those that start new production activities, are projected to fall even more steeply.
Will an urgent Constitutional amendment to permit full foreign ownership in the very few remaining restricted economic activities be the key to rejuvenating our economy at this time, then? (I could almost hear someone say … “Hello?!”)
Wide enough
This brings us to the second, more debatable question. Is a constitutional amendment to eliminate all restrictions on foreign ownership even desirable or necessary at all?
Consider the following:
First, investment in this country had been opened substantially to foreign participation as far back as 18 years ago, with the Aquino administration’s Foreign Investments Act of 1991.
That law turned around our foreign investment policy from a “positive list” mode-where foreign participation was only allowed in a limited list of investment areas-to a “negative list” approach.
Here, all activities were opened to foreign investment except those in a short list of strategic enterprises limited to Filipinos by the Constitution (e.g., public utilities, exploitation of natural resources).
This opening up led to the surge in foreign investments that the country reaped in the 1990s.
Second, even within the few remaining restrictions in law, the government has found creative ways to open the way for foreign participation, such as through coproduction, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements, or in the case of mining, through the controversial Financial and Technical Assistance Agreement (FTAA) mechanism, which virtually opens mining to 100 percent foreign-owned companies.
Some may disagree, but the door for foreign investors is wide enough.
Other things are keeping them away.
But why even bother debating this now? We’ve known all along that the economic provisions are only being used by the Palace sycophants as a smokescreen.
Clearly, the real agenda is to shift to a parliamentary system (forget about the “covenant” in the “whereas” clauses promising no term extensions; this all becomes inapplicable if the whole structure changes), thereby paving the way for perpetuating those now in power.
You think the Lower House has brought the country low enough? Think again.
matt defensor asks, “bakit magkakagulo?”
caught the the dzmm teleradyo program of henry omaga diaz and nina corpuz with political analyst joel rocamora and congressmen teofisto guingona 3 and matt defensor yesterday. they were talking of course about hr 1109’s con-ass and how upset people are, how it’s truly a sensitive issue pala, and defensor agreed, dapat ay tantanan na muna ng kongreso, as in, it’s not worth it if it causes instability and discord…
but towards the end of the show, after gracefully enduring, when not dodging, the anti-gma brickbats thrown his way by rocamora and guingona, who refused to believe defensor when he said that gma had absolutely nothing to do with the railroading of hr 1109, defensor suddenly raised the question:
what’s wrong, if we go through the process of electing gma again, and she wins. it means gusto siya ng taong bayan. so bakit magkakagulo?
rocamora quickly pointed out that for that to happen, the constitution would have to be amended first nga; guingona brought up the problem of cheating, as in 2004, and the question of gma’s legitimacy.
and then it was time to wrap up, nag-overtime na nga, which left me bitin and intrigued by defensor’s question that’s obviously a reflection of the kind of thinking that gma’s gang indulges in.
it tells me that hr 1109 was a case of congress testing the waters, testing the people’s limits, baka makalusot, maybe not enough people would be bothered to raise a hue and cry, or maybe people have realized that gma’s doing a good job pala, whatever the illusion, 1109 was worth a try, nothing to lose but credibility, and gma’s majority in congress lost that a long time ago…
so now they know better. the people say no to con-ass until after gma’s gone forever. and maybe the people would rather have a con-con, kung talagang kailangan.
on to plan b, i suppose. maybe start making ligaw , making gapang, the senators, under the table, one by one, until there are enough who will go for joint voting, or until there are enough to win in separate voting, depending on how the supreme court rules or doesn’t rule on con-ass.
clearly, okay lang kay defensor and his ilk the idea of amending the constitution to accommodate gma’s desire to stay in power beyond 2010, whatever her reasons, because, correct me if i’m wrong, they actually want to stay in power too, and, ilusyonado ones, they actually believe that the best of gma is yet to come. and if she can win in pampanga and win a future parliament’s votes to become prime minister, ibig sabihin noon she has the mandate of the people, so bakit magkakagulo?
bakit magkakagulo? because it’s a lie that gma is good for the country. gma is part of the problem. she’s been forever and will be forever on status-quo oligarchic mode, with all that it implies for our basket-case of an economy, agrarian non-reform, population non-control, graft and corruption, the debt cycle, inadequate educational services, no health care, high cost of basic necessities, low wages, environmental exploitation and degradation, and so on and so forth. the worst would be yet to come.
bakit magkakagulo? meaning, hindi magkakagulo? that can only mean na bawal na kasing magprotesta at magdemo. ibig lang sabihin, martial law na uli. nangangarap sila.