22 November 2021
22 October 2021
01 October 2021
People's Draft: Maraming produkto, mababang presyo
Maraming produkto, mababang presyo
#PeoplesDraft
https://fb.watch/8mKexhnH6R/
https://youtu.be/zbhWiOLflaE
18 September 2021
They teach about martial law of Marcos, but not about Plaza Miranda bombing, Joma & Ninoy, nor about China supplying arms to NPA
"They would teach about martial law declared by the Marcos administration in September 1972, as a mere ploy to extend their terms in office, citing the arrest and detention of many political personalities. However, they would not teach about the Plaza Miranda bombing that terrorized and killed innocents in August 1971, that was initially blamed on Mr. Marcos but later pointed at the CPP-NPA under Jose Maria Sison, in likely collaboration with Mr. Ninoy Aquino, the presumptive presidential candidate of the Liberal Party. They also would not teach about the supply of arms by the Peoples’ Republic of China to the CPP-NPA, shown by the MV Karagatan incident in July 1972, and the widespread communist insurgencies in Southeast Asia at the time, where practically all neighboring countries were under martial law."
The Miseducation of the People's Power Generation
https://www.mainews.ph/features2/category/3-politics.html?download=67:the-miseducation-of-the-people-s-power-generation
They teach about human rights under Marcos & Duterte, but not about fatalities from NPA communist rebellion
"They would teach about human rights violations of the Marcos administration, which allegedly involved 3,257 extra-judicial killings during 1970s and 1980s, per Amnesty International and the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines. They also would teach about the 5,526 drug suspects killed from 2016 to 2019, as per data of the PNP and PDEA. However, they would not teach about the 43,000 fatalities between 1969 and 2008 from the armed rebellion of the CPP-NPA-NDF."
The Miseducation of the People's Power Generation
https://www.mainews.ph/features2/category/3-politics.html?download=67:the-miseducation-of-the-people-s-power-generation
They teach about Hello Garci & Pres. Arroyo, but not about the US Embassy, Hyatt 10, IFES & Smartmatic
3."They would teach about the Hello Garci scandal, where then President Arroyo was recorded calling Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to allegedly rig the results in her favor. However, they would not teach about the role of the US Embassy in instigating the Hello Garci and Hyatt 10 scandals, because of Arroyo’s alleged refusal to align Philippine foreign policy with US foreign policy. They also would not teach about the role of IFES (International Federation of Electoral Systems), a Washington based NGO funded by USAID and the US State Department, in securing the entry into the country of the Venezuelan company Smartmatic, to take full technical control of Philippine automated elections, characterized by the disablement of basic safeguards against fraud."
The Miseducation of the People's Power Generation
https://www.mainews.ph/features2/category/3-politics.html?download=67:the-miseducation-of-the-people-s-power-generation
They teach about Marcos ill-gotten wealth, but not about Cory's relatives & allies taking government assets, nor about Noynoy's unconstitutional DAP
"They would teach about the P171 billion of ill-gotten wealth recovered from the Marcos family by the PCGG during the period from 1986 to 2017. However, they would not teach about the questioned disposition by President Cory Aquino in favor of her relatives and allies, of shares recovered by the government in PLDT, PAL, Meralco and ABS-CBN. They also would not teach about the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) of President Noynoy Aquino, a secret budget declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, valued at P144 billion from 2011 to 2013."
The Miseducation of the People's Power Generation
https://www.mainews.ph/features2/category/3-politics.html?download=67:the-miseducation-of-the-people-s-power-generation
They teach about removal of CJ Sereno, but not about impeachment of CJ Corona
"They would teach about the removal of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno in May 2018, by the Supreme Court itself, as politically motivated simply because she was an appointee of President Noynoy Aquino. However, they would not teach about the removal of Chief Justice Renato Corona by impeachment in May 2012, who insisted “this (was) all about Hacienda Luisita” because he recently led the Supreme Court to rule against the Aquino family. They also would not teach about the alleged bribery of senators by the Aquino administration, to ensure Corona’s conviction, using public funds from DAP."
The Miseducation of the People's Power Generation
https://www.mainews.ph/features2/category/3-politics.html?download=67:the-miseducation-of-the-people-s-power-generation
11 September 2021
Civil society for constitutional reforms (Part 2) - Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas
Civil Society for Constitutional Reforms (Part 2)
Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas
06 July 2017
TanDem, a part of civil society organized by concerned citizens to promote inclusive growth through political reforms, has proposed to amend the Philippine Constitution of l987 by removing the restrictions, limitations and prohibitions against foreign direct investments. After consulting a group of experts over a period of six months, the members of TanDem summarized the major reasons for their proposed amendments. I enumerate their major arguments.
The Philippines has embraced massive poverty since the birth of the Republic until today. Out of the present estimated 104 million population, where some 65 million are in the labor force, about 4 million are unemployed while 12 million are underemployed. To address massive poverty, it is necessary to raise equally massive capital to create or support sustainable jobs. It costs about Php100,000.00 to employ a single employee for one full year, based on the lowest minimum wage and cost of business operations. It would, therefore, cost at least a staggering 400 billion pesos to employ all the unemployed for just one year.
Unfortunately, instead of making use of all available capital resources, whether local or foreign, for job generation, the 1987 Constitution—together with numerous congressional statutes and implementing rules and regulations—have instead chosen to restrict foreign direct investments in several sectors of the economy, to protect the monetary interests of Filipino business people belonging to the “mayaman” class, at the expense of Filipino workers and consumers of the middle and the “masa” classes, who are then systematically deprived of better job opportunities and cheaper goods and services. These restrictions curtail the fundamental right to employment, which is the most important labor right that gives life to all other labor rights, such as those providing for the minimum wage, working conditions, social security, security of tenure, and self-organization. Without the actual jobs, all other rights under the labor laws and social legislation mean nothing to the workers.
About 10.2 million Filipinos live overseas of which some 2.4 million are overseas Filipino workers. Common sense tells us that it is better to allow foreign investors to move into the country and hire Filipinos locally, rather than force Filipinos to move overseas, many of whom leave their families behind, and then work for foreign employers in a foreign land under a foreign government. The liberalization of foreign investments, to complement local investments, reasonably lead to job creation (by establishing new business enterprises or expanding existing business enterprises); consumer price reduction (by increasing the supply of goods and services); technology transfer (by adopting and improving foreign technology); access to foreign markets (by tapping foreign investors to sell Philippine goods and services in their homelands); and anti-corruption (by allowing the entry of independent foreign competitors that can counteract the monopoly power of existing Filipino cartels of government suppliers.
The fear of foreign investors taking over the Philippine economy is outdated. We are no longer in colonial times during which foreign investors came with their foreign colonial armies who helped them take control of the national economy. Foreign colonial armies have long gone, with only the Philippine security forces remaining to protect the interests of the Filipino people. It is furthermore proposed that a Foreign Investment Council be established to address the risk of foreign governments, cartels and other groups who may pursue agendas prejudicial to the basic securities (external, internal, food, water, energy, environmental, resource, etc.) of the Filipino people. The institution of a Foreign Investment Council may strike a balance between the need to liberalize foreign investments for economic and social gains, and the need to protect the basic securities of the people and the State. The existing inflexible legal framework providing for blanket restrictions and criminal liability for violations drive away the legitimate foreign investors while endowing Filipino business people the license to capture the local market for themselves, disregarding the divergent interests of the Filipino workers and consumers.
These arguments were not arrived at willy nilly. They were distilled from volumes of proceedings of many hours of discussion of members of the academe, government, business and civil society. The only guiding principle was the common good of society, defined as a juridical or social order that enables every member of society to attain his or her fullest integral human development. By being more open to Foreign Direct Investments, countries like China and Vietnam, have within the last twenty or so years attained higher levels of human development that we have. It is about time that we do amend the Constitution for the sake of future generations who will benefit most from a more open economy than the one we have lived with over the last thirty years. For comments, my email address is bernardo.villegas@uap.asia.
http://www.bernardovillegas.org/index.php?go=/Articles/723/
Civil society for constitutional reforms (Part 1) - Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas
Civil Society for Constitutional Reforms (Part 1)
Dr. Bernardo M. Villegas
06 June 2017
Reforming Philippine society to achieve sustainable and inclusive growth is painstakingly slow that sometimes one is tempted to give up. Even President Duterte realizes how difficult it is to promote good governance and fight corruption. In a less than a year of his Administration, he has sacked a good number of officials he appointed himself and whom he trusted as good and loyal friends because they were not beyond reproach. No society can progress very much without a clean and efficient State. When can we reach that desirable goal? Probably not in my lifetime, considering how other countries very much ahead of us in economic development like South Korea and Malaysia still have their shares of corruption scandals.
I console myself, however, that the Philippines is fortunate for having a civil society sector that is one of the most developed in the world. This civil society oftentimes compensates for the ineptitude and lack of integrity of government officials. There are really thousands of nongovernmental organizations that are assiduously working for the common good in fighting poverty, improving governance, educating the masses, preserving Philippine culture, protecting the physical environment, strengthening the Filipino family, overcoming gender and other forms of discrimination, fighting crime, and addressing human trafficking and the drug problem. And many more. Although some may disagree, I attribute this strength of Philippine civil society to two factors: the Christian culture we inherited from the Spanish colonizers and the spirit of voluntarism learned from the Americans. As documented by a professor of history at the University of Asia and the Pacific, Dr. Juan Mesquida, charitable foundations for the sick, for the poor and the needy founded by Catholic lay people, were already important institutions during the Spanish colonial times. I am not even referring here to the corporal and spiritual works of mercy that religious orders, especially of nuns, have put up very early in the history of Christianity. As regards the spirit of voluntarism in the United States, one can only read the writings of French social philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville about the dynamism of American civil society very early in their history as a democratic nation.
I would like to pay tribute in this article to an NGO that has been working for the improvement of Philippine democracy. I am referring to Tanggulang Demokrasya (TanDem), Inc., an association of distinguished professionals led by Chairperson Evelyn Kilayko and President Teresita Daza-Baltazar with the expert legal assistance of Atty. Demosthenes Donato. TanDem patiently and laboriously organized a series of Roundtable Discussions (RTD) in which they engaged experts on the issue of amending the 1987 Philippine Constitution to help the present and future Governments to promote inclusive growth, that is, growth that will improve the lives of the impoverished masses. Let me go for the jugular. After mustering some very powerful arguments culled from leading economists, political scientists, sociologists, philosophers, and legal experts, they are recommending the following:
a) The amendment of the 1987 Constitution and conduct of the required plebiscite on or about the next national and local elections set on the second Monday of May in the year 2019 under the term of office of the incumbent Duterte administration, to repeal ALL limitations, restrictions and prohibitions against foreign investments and services, to the end that the Constitution will embody only the general principles governing the national economy and patrimony, leaving specific economic policies to the wisdom of the legislative branch of government.
b) Pending the amendment of the l987 Constitution, the urgent repeal of congressional statutes that impose limitations, restrictions and prohibitions against foreign investments and services, to the full extent practicable and beneficial, subject to the principle of international reciprocity and the protection of the basic securities of the State through the institution of a Foreign Investment Council.
c) Pending the amendment of the 1987 Constitution, the immediate repeal of implementing rules and regulations that impose limitations, restrictions and prohibitions against foreign investments and services, notwithstanding the lack of any constitutional or statutory bases for the limitation, to promptly initiate the progressive pursuit of liberalization of foreign direct investments to augment local investments for national development and job creation.
With due respects to the other surviving members of the Philippine Commission of 1986 that drafted the Philippine Constitution of l987, some of whom are not in favor of amending the Constitution, I fully endorse the recommendations of TanDem. They capture very faithfully the personal opinions I held as a member of the Philippine Commission about the need to open the national economy to foreign investments. I was, however, constantly overruled by the majority of the Commissioners who held protectionist and ultra-nationalistic views that led to the restrictive provisions enshrined in our present Constitution. Having participated in the RTDs organized by TanDem I can attest to the fact that its members had nothing but the common good of the Filipinos, especially the needy and the poor, in mind. May their tribe increase. In the second part of this article, I outline the strong and lucid arguments that they presented for their recommendations. (To be continued).
http://www.bernardovillegas.org/index.php?go=/Articles/721/
Constitutional change - Ma. Isabel Ongpin
Constitutional change
September 10, 2021
IN last week's column I mentioned that some provisions of the Constitution like the party-list system and the anti-dynasty sentiment should be revisited. We have seen that in their present configuration in our society these two provisions have been manipulated to result in undemocratic and exclusive benefits for the very people already holding political power, shutting out the rest. Ironically, this is the class that the party-list and anti-dynasty provisions are meant to remove and make room for others. A travesty of the intent of the Constitution has been made, which cannot be left as it is.
Recently, the House of Representatives tried to pass certain economic provisions to amend the Constitution, but the Senate was not interested. Every so often a proposal for constitutional amendments is presented and shut down, usually by people in office.
There have been appeals during various administrations after 1987 to amend the Constitution of that year. We have had three constitutions in our history - the 1935 Constitution in the Commonwealth era, the 1973 Constitution during Martial Law and the 1987 Constitution after the EDSA Revolution.
It seems as we speak that there are organizations of citizens out there who are seriously pursuing amendments to the Constitution or even a new constitution from a people's perspective, aside from a few members of Congress. It may be germane to mention here that the 1935 Constitution was made by an elective assembly of citizens who were not all necessarily politicians. The 1973 Constitution was done by an elective assembly, but it was under Martial Law, which dilutes its standing as representative of a society's wishes. The 1987 Constitution was drafted by a commission consisting of appointed members who reflected the administration of the time.
Constitutions are the bedrock of laws and government procedures. They are considered the foundation of a society's way of governing and living. There is expected to be a certain sacredness, impermeability and timelessness in them.
But sometimes they need to be reviewed, particularly if new conditions and new problems come after they were adapted. The United States Constitution, famed and emulated as it is from the day it was formulated, has had many amendments over the years in keeping with the times.
Here there is a people's organization called Tanggulang Demokrasya (Tan Dem) that is a proponent for adopting a whole new constitution. They have come up with a crowd-sourced draft together with another group, Publicus Asia (a registered lobbying and campaigns group). The Tan Dem draft is a 10-page document that it claims would strengthen and defend our democracy. Tan Dem was organized in 2010 under the guidance of Romeo J. Intengan, the Jesuit activist, who devoted his life to fighting for an inclusive Philippine society. Tan Dem's crowd-sourced draft is from 2012.
This proposed constitution as drafted features a parliamentary democracy, transparent automated elections (they support the hybrid electoral system) and new economic, political and social reforms. It is entirely new and recalls our current constitution basically only through the same language and terms. But it is completely different.
Among their minor proposals is the lifting of restrictions on the entry of capital into the country for job creation, price reduction and tax generation subject to safeguards.
The government it envisions is one of collegial rule with power vested in a National Assembly and local councils, including regional empowerment where the decision-making is from the bottom up and not top down. It has detailed its proposals for a complete change of governance.
The point is that there are people-oriented, mass-based organizations that are not happy with the form of governance in this country today. Opportunities, they say, are limited for the general citizenry and skewed towards the elite - politicians, big business, some institutions. Our leaders are more interested in keeping themselves in office than governing for equality or the future for which there is very little interest in making changes in governance. Too much power is vested in certain offices without the necessary use of checks and balances. The constitutional reformers want a system change which they say will result in culture change. It sounds easier said than done even with a new constitution. In other words, there exists a demand for revision, addition or more explicit provisions for the constitution that make for more equality and opportunity for the general public.
While there are these sentiments and organized efforts for constitutional change, it must be realized that it would take a long, drawn-out effort to arrive at a new constitution, or even some crucial amendments. To be genuine and widely accepted, an elected constitutional assembly should be formed to undertake the amendments and not our current legislators making themselves as such.
Moreover, in the present conditions of political crises and polarization, moving towards something that demands unity to compose is not easily done. Patience, stamina, longevity must be present, and the right time for them.
But certainly, it is time in the coming elections to bring up the need for constitutional change and reach out to candidates for office to convince them that constitutional change is needed. The candidates should be made to think about Charter change. It would be the first step towards getting there.
Perhaps amendments rather than a totally new constitution is the way to go when things calm down to post-pandemic, normal economic times. We need to catch up from the present crisis just as much of the world has to.
But we must always keep an open mind for reform, for inclusion and for a better society. It can help to amend/change/reform our basic law accordingly in the right time of awareness, calm and introspection. And the main proponents should be ordinary citizens expressing the will of the majority. And they should be heard.
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/09/10/opinion/columns/constitutional-change/1814137
29 August 2021
22 August 2021
The Curse of August 21 - Mauro Gia Samonte
THE CURSE OF AUGUST 21
By Mauro Gia Samonte
August 21, 2021
We could recall that an extremely minuscule group began agitating for some happening around midnight of February 21, 1986 at the corner of Aurora Boulevard and EDSA in Cubao, Quezon City, to what later on evolved into the EDSA People Power Revolution (Edsa Uno).
The group was waving a singular flag on which were written the words: “August Twenty One Movement ATOM.” The group was calling for the downfall of the government of President Ferdinand E. Marcos. That augured what eventually Corazon C. Aquino would brag as the “bloodless revolt” that brought down the Marcos dictatorship.
Galunggong skyrocketed to P80 per kilogram from the low P28 immediately before Cory assumed the presidency. Meralco, which Marcos had placed in the name of the Filipino people all throughout his rule beginning upon the declaration of martial law in 1972, was restored to the private ownership of the Lopezes, together with the retrieval also by the Lopezes of ABS-CBN.
Meantime, immediately released were Jose Maria Sison, chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and Bernabe Buscayno alias Kumander Dante, chief of the New People’s Army (NPA), who were both captured and incarcerated by Marcos together with Ninoy Aquino since 1977. Since Sison’s release and bloody re-assumption of revolutionary leadership, the CPP-NPA-NDF (National Democratic Front) has shifted back to utter terroristic activities that in due time would divest its insurgency of any pretensions to a legitimate people’s uprising.
Come to think of it, the Sisonite insurgency has been the major factor contributing to the underdevelopment of the Philippines over the past more than half century. From being already second to Japan in economic terms, the Philippines fell into the cellar among Asean nations. It is this pitiful condition of the country which President Duterte has been striving to lift.
But where did this condition begin in the first place?
In the August Twenty One Movement!
Oh, the curse of August 21 upon the nation!
At the start of the colonization by America of the nation, the Thomasites arrived in the Philippines. What were the Thomasites? They were American teachers sent to, in the reckoning of US President William Mackinley, “civilize the Philippine natives.”
The American aggression, which claimed some 200,000 Filipino lives, actually not only subjugated Philippine sovereignty to the United States but also killed the civilization the brown race was already enjoying even long before the earlier Spanish colonization began in 1521.
It would be interesting to dwell on this topic elaborately except that it is not the topic for the day. What this discussion stresses for now was that the Thomasites succeeded in erasing from the Filipinos their ancestral roots and in their stead implanted the now continuing American culture, in words, thought and deed.
The Thomasites crushed the Filipino soul.
When did the Thomasites arrive in the Philippines?
Hold your breath, Aug. 21, 1901!
How ironic that in the progression of history, August 21 seems to be a harbinger of horror for the Philippines.
On August 21,1971, two grenades exploded in the Liberal Party miting de avance (final political rally) in Plaza Miranda, which killed two vendors and seriously wounded more than a hundred others, including the entire senatorial ticket of the Liberal Party – except one, the “star of the show,” the secretary-general of the Liberal Party, Sen. Benigno Aquino Jr.
In one hearing of the Senate in 1989, former CPP secretary-general Ruben Guevarra revealed that the Plaza Miranda bombing was ordered by Jose Maria Sison. Who is Sison? He conspired with Ninoy Aquino in the establishment of the CPP in 1968.
More than 10 years after the Plaza Miranda bombing, August 21 stood out again as a decisive point in the country’s history.
On that day in 1983, Ninoy, against all expressed warning from various sectors, executed his widely touted historic return from the United States to perform what could be the most ingenious magic in the history of Philippine politics: euthanasia (what the Greeks call “good death” for mercy killing) in order to achieve the heights of heroic martyrdom.
Yes euthanasia, for wasn’t it no less than Salvador Laurel who testified in his “Memoirs” that Ninoy sought him out at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy on the summer of 1981 in Boston, Massachusetts and confided to him he “had two more years to live?”
Since his heart bypass operation, his days have been numbered and that instead of dying in bed, he told me “I would rather die in my own country, meaningfully and with a big splash.”
Ninoy Aquino’s death in the tarmac, beside his alleged assassin Rolando Galman (in blue shirt).
So, a bullet to his skull snuffed out the life of Ninoy at the tarmac of the Manila International Airport, thus enshrining him as the hero who intoned, “The Filipino is worth dying for.”
It might be asked, of what use is one killing himself when he won’t live to achieve his obsession to be president of the Philippines?
Oh, yes? Not only the widow of Ninoy had become president of the land as fruit of that self-inflicted death. The son became president after her death. And now increasingly getting similarly aspiring is the youngest daughter.
Nation, beware. Today, Saturday, is another August 21.
What is particularly horrifying about this is that the bombing of Plaza Miranda took place on an August 21, more than just a year to the country’s next presidential elections, which then was slated to take place in 1973. Today is another August 21 preceding another presidential election, slated in 2022.
As Ninoy’s ambition to be president was forever frustrated by the declaration of martial law in 1972, an event that could take place today might just have the effect of frustrating forever someone else’s current presidential election. That declaration of martial law was preceded by the Plaza Miranda bombing on Aug. 21, 1971.
What will happen today that will force the hand of the President – or anyone so constitutionally authorized to do it – to declare martial law and thereby, albeit unintentionally, cancel the elections in 2022.
Time and time again, August 21 has done its historically destined part. What shall this part be this time around?
21 August 2021
20 August 2021
19 August 2021
18 August 2021
17 August 2021
06 August 2021
01 August 2021
Questions and Answers on Constitutional Reform
Questions and answers on Constitutional Reform
General questions about changing the constitution:
1. Why is there a need to change the constitution?
There’s a need to change the constitution because our problems are not only about how the laws are implemented. They are also about how the laws are made. This includes the constitution, the highest law of the land.
2. Why not just pass new laws if there are changes in our country we want implemented?
Laws will not be enough because the gravest problems in legal system come from the constitution itself. These problems are not only economic, but also political and social.
3. What are the major changes included in the People’s Draft?
The major changes include the following: to open the economy to foreign business, otherwise closed for local business only; to shift from “one-man rule” to “collegial rule;” to shift from “voting at large” to “voting by district;” to establish regional centers of government; to equally promote the tri-people for unity in diversity. At the local level, voting will be by single-member subdistricts. By tri-people, I refer to the Christians, Muslims and Indigenous Peoples.
About parliamentary system:
4. Why do you want to have a parliamentary system of government? Why what’s wrong with a Presidential system?
The presidential system is basically one-man rule. A single popular individual, not necessarily supported by majority of the people, controls the entire executive branch of government. On the other hand, the parliamentary system is based on majority rule, through a college or group of people’s representatives voted in multiple small districts nationwide.
5. Isn’t the USA a Presidential system, yet they are the biggest economy in the world?
The US system is not purely presidential. The president himself is voted like the prime minister, through a body of representatives elected in multiple small districts nationwide. The US system is also founded on a network of components state, each one with capability to be a country by itself. Thus, the US experience does not apply to us.
6. How do you answer the fact the Marcos created a parliamentary system and it did not turn out too well for the country?
Mr. Marcos did not create a parliamentary system. The 1973 constitution was a semi-parliamentary (or semi-presidential) system. It had an independent chief executive, and a cabinet dominated by members of parliament (or Batasan). More importantly, the 1973 constitution was not fully implemented, particularly the succession provisions for president. Instead, we had the 1976 amendments allowing Mr. Marcos to rule indefinitely w/o term limits. It also gave him legislative powers side-by-side the parliament (or Batasan). With the 1976 amendments, the system became a supra presidential system.
7. How can we assure that we will not end up with a dictatorship when we have a parliamentary system?
A parliamentary system can work better than a presidential system to prevent a dictatorship, because the former is based on collegial rule, while the latter is actually already one-man rule.
8. In a parliamentary system, it is like that it is congress sets the agenda for the country. Why do you trust congressmen too much when we think we cannot trust them?
Yes, it is the congress of people’s representatives elected nationwide, that controls the agenda of the country. That is much better than one person, who does not necessarily have majority support, controlling the national agenda. Moreover, congressmen elected from multiple small districts, are better known to their constituents, compared to the president, vice-president and senators elected nationwide at large, whom the voters know only through mass media.
Under the People’s Draft, to promote political democracy, a similar selection process is adopted at the local level. Councilors will be elected from multiple small single-member subdistricts, where candidates are better known to the voters.
9. People suspect that congress would want this to perpetuate their terms, what do you say to this?
I have not seen any proposal from congress to provide for extended terms without need for elections. Anyway, to prevent this, our group of advocates came up its own crowd-sourced constitution called the People’s Draft, to clearly and strongly prohibit any extension of terms without elections.
10. Which countries are successful under a parliamentary system?
We have the United Kingdom and Japan, from both the West and the East. Closer to home we have Malaysia and Thailand.
11. What do you say to the idea that people will lose their capability to vote for their leader directly for president?
That idea is wrong. We simply need to follow the way US elections for electoral college are done. The ballots will indicate not only the candidates for the district, but also the nominee for the president. The voters then can choose who to vote for.
In the People’s Draft, a similar voting process is adopted at the local level. Here the ballots will indicate not only the candidates for the single-member subdistrict, but also the nominee for the mayor.
12. By the way, in your draft, how do you call the leader of the country? President? Doesn’t it make it presidential?
In the People’s Draft, the chief executive is called president, because this is the term understood by the people for the top executive post. Anyway, Congress may change the job title later.
13. If there is a popular personality who wants to become president, what is the steps he or she should take? Can he/she be President?
Under the People’s Draft, this popular personality should join or form a political party with a national constituency, because the parliamentary system is based on collegial rule, rather than by one-man rule. Here, it is a college or group of political personalities, acting together as one, that takes ultimate control of the government.
About terms and term limits:
14. In the people’s draft, will there be term limits? Are term limits good or bad? How about the argument that in a parliamentary system, it is impractical to have term limits because politicians rise from the ranks in the parliament before he or she becomes a leader of the parliament?
The People’s Draft provides for a 3-term limit, because it is a crowd-sourced constitution, and that is the feedback we got from the crowd. Personally, I think the argument for lifting term limits is reasonable and justified, particularly for a parliamentary system based on collegial rule, where party members move up the leadership ladder only through a considerable amount of time. For now, however, I think it’s more practical to go by popular sentiment, because of too much negativity in mass media. Anyway, the People’s Draft contains a provision allowing Congress to lift term limits later, say 15 years after its approval.
15. Why do you come up with a 5 year term? Why not 4, why do away with 6? Why not 3?
Based on general feedback, 3 years is too short. During the 1st year the pols learn, the 2nd year they work, and the 3rd year they campaign. Before the 1987 constitution, the term was 6 years. 5 years is therefore a compromise. Moreover, it’s 5 not 4, for consistency with economic development plans which are generally designed in multiples of 5 years.
On federalism:
16. Unlike in the USA, they have large states. Aren’t we too small for a federal republic? Do we really need federalism? What other countries are federal systems?
The People’s Draft does not impose federalism nationwide. Instead, it implements flexible regional decentralization, where the people have 3 choices, i.e. regional authority (like SBMA), autonomous region (like BARMM), and substate (like Sabah).
Since our country is composed of 3 peoples and cultures (i.e. Christians, Muslims, Indigenous Peoples) spread across 7,100 islands, I believe some regions may eventually choose to have their own substate.
Malaysia is a much smaller country, but it has federal form of government. In the end, it is not only about size. It is also about culture, politics, economy, and the choice of the people.
The best example applicable to us would be Malaysia.
17. How is it different to be under a federal system versus our present system?
Under the federal system, a substate will be sovereign, and will have its own legislative and executive branches, and later its own judicial branch. It will have its own internal security force to secure persons and properties, but not its own police or military. Secession will be prohibited, and legislative powers on taxation and business limited.
18. I understand that the People’s Draft is proposing a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down approach? Can you explain the difference between these approaches?
By “bottom up” approach, we allow the people of the regions to decide the type of government they will have. If they want an autonomous region or substate, they should work for it and win a regional plebiscite, in the same way that BARMM was created.
By “top down” approach, federalism or regional autonomy for the entire country is already pre-designed, and the people will be limited to a yes or no vote in a national plebiscite.
19. Why does the people’s draft prefer the bottoms-up approach?
We believe it is important to respect the people’s right to self-determination. Moreover, we are a nation of tri-people (Christians, Muslims, Indigenous Peoples), with different and even conflicting histories. Thus, we prefer the bottom-up approach.
On FDIs:
20. Do we really need to open our country to FDIs? Why do we want to have FDIs?
We need FDIs to augment local capital for job creation, price reduction and tax generation. The policy to close the economy to foreign business has been there for 85 years already. Now, we have 10% of the population living overseas, and more than 20% living in poverty. We urgently need to make use of ALL resources available, to address the very serious economic problems we face.
21. What industries do you plan to open up? How about ownership of land? Why or why not?
Under the People’s Draft, everything is open except land, small-scale mining and micro-enterprise. Nonetheless, all foreign investments will subject to regulation by a foreign investment council to protect national security. The President or Congress may impose reciprocity in investments, if the national interest requires it. Congress may by law also impose limitations later, if again the national interest requires it. For professional practice, reciprocity is required, which is the current practice.
For land, I think alienable public lands should be for Filipinos only, because this is like their inheritance to the national patrimony. For private land however, I personally think we should be more open. For example, owners of very costly industrial facilities would be more comfortable if they owned, instead of just leased, the small parcel land where the facility is built. For mass housing, I think it will be cheaper if you have more developers competing with each other. Anyway, Congress has the power to prohibit foreign ownership of land at any time, if national interest requires it.
Nonetheless, the People’s Draft excludes land for now, because it is a crowd-sourced constitution, and this appears to be the sentiment of the crowd. Anyway, Congress is given the power to revisit this issue later, based on national interest.
22. Why not just revise the old constitution by putting in “unless otherwise provided by law” on the economic restrictions?
We have a Foreign Investments Act approved way back in 1991 to declare the policy to promote investments. However, for the past 30 years, there was no substantial follow through, except only for retail trade and financing companies. Thus, based on the track record of congress, I think nothing much will happen if we simply add the clause “unless otherwise provided by law.”
23. Do you have examples of countries that succeed while their economy is open to foreign investors?
We have small and big countries close to us that successfully used foreign investments to grow and develop. There’s Singapore and China.
24. Are there countries where land can be owned by foreigners?
Based on an old survey by the World Bank on Investing Across Borders, about 20% of the countries globally prohibit foreign ownership of land. Thus, an overwhelming majority of about 80% allow it.
25. Are there countries that are closed to foreign investors that prosper on their own?
I understand that Japan, South Korea and Taiwan may have developed with local investors taking the lead. They were family-owned corporations that partnered with government. In the Philippines however, the large family-owned businesses here did not go into industrialization. They instead went to real estate development, retail and public utility services. Moreover, the prospect of a family-owned business partnering with government may only be pulled down here as a “crony” corporation. Thus, the experience in our neighbors in North East Asia, does not necessarily apply to the country.
On procedure to amend the constitution:
26. I understand it is hard to change the constitution because the manner by which to change it is difficult – made so by the constitution itself. So how do you go about pushing for this?
Yes, by our hard experience first-hand, it is almost impossible to change the constitution, because the forces opposing it are apparently much stronger than a sitting president. Thus, I have come to believe that only a whole-of-nation approach will finally succeed in changing the constitution. It’s like a “soft” people’s power where all sectors, peoples and regions come together to achieve a common goal.
With this mind, we are carrying out an information, education and communication campaign, in both social media and traditional media. We are also building a network of people’s organizations that believe in system change. Finally, we will be filing with the Senate and the House, a petition for indirect initiative to consider the People’s Draft for plebiscite in May 2022.
27. How about people’s initiative, why not push it this way?
The traditional people’s initiative needs at least 6M signatures. We do not have the capability to gather such a huge number of signatories. Thus, we will only go for building a network of people’s organizations across the different sectors, peoples and regions, to push for constitutional reform.
28. What is your take on Constituent Assembly? Why not Constitutional convention?
I do not believe that a constitutional convention will be any different from a constituent assembly. The members of a constitutional convention will be elected from the same districts where the present members of congress come from. Accordingly, I expect the same incumbent political forces, to dominate elections for delegates to the constitutional convention.
29. If the draft is passed, what then is the proposed way of constitutional amendment in the people’s draft itself moving forward?
Our petition for indirect initiative merely calls on the Senate and House to convene as constituent assembly, and consider the People’s Draft for plebiscite in May 2022.
30. Isn’t it dangerous to have the way to amend the constitution easier than what we have now? Is it not dangerous the change the constitution every now and then where politicians are like having their way?
I think it’s anti-democratic and more dangerous to have the constitution written stone, that cannot be amended even by the people themselves. The problems we have are not only about how the laws are implemented. They are also about how the laws are made. This includes the constitution, the highest law of the land.
31. What about the lingering issues on the integrity of the automated elections, considering that a new constitution will require voting in a plebiscite?
The People’s Draft addresses this problem by incorporating a provision that expressly requires a manual count or audit, immediately after the close of voting, and even if the system is automated. This is our hybrid election clause.
Interviewer: Mr. Arnel B. Endrinal
Interviewee: Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato
Date: 20 February 2021
16 June 2021
1972 Martial Law
1972 Martial Law
Juan Ponce Enrile, 16 June 2021
Much of what had been said against the 1972 Martial Law was fiction.
President Marcos became president of the country in 1965. The United States and
the Soviet Union were locked in a bitter Cold War. And the communist ideology
went on a rampage and set the world ablaze.
The Philippines was not spared. Two insurgencies were organized in the
country in 1968. The CPP-NPA in Luzon and the Moro National Liberation Front
(MNLF) in Mindanao. These insurgencies were on top of ongoing Datu Maffallen,
Datu Mampatilan, Datu Mabbalao, and Ilaga rebellions there. Beyond these were
also the heavily armed political warlords in many parts of the country. Such
was the status of law and order in the land at that time.
The CPP-NPA and the Moro National Liberation Front were organized by
three young men: Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, Nur Misuari, and Jose Maria
Sison. These three were former students in the University of the Philippines.
They were allegedly supported by a country in East Asia that wanted to keep the
Philippines busy.
The AFP then - which included the Philippine Constabulary - was a
military force of some 48, 000 men and women. Its combat weapons were Cal. 30
M1 Garand and Cal. 30 M1 Carbine rifles that the United States used in World
War II.
The CPP-NPA was armed with copies of Cal. 7.62mm U.S. M14 rifles, P-40
rocket launchers, mortars, and other lethal explosive devices imported from red
China. The MNLF was armed with modern European guns from Belgium.
The CPP-NPA and MNLF recruitment was quick and extensive. The CPP-NPA
for one penetrated all sectors of society: youth, students, teachers, academe.
colleges, universities, churches, professional and intellectual groups, media,
labor, farmers, fishermen, transport systems, urban and rural poor. Both also
targeted the military for recruitment.
The NPA started its violence in Metro Manila and Central Luzon.
Initially, its headquarters was in Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac. It built a
labyrinth of underground tunnels in the town of Capas. It terrorized the
countryside and murdered those that resisted it. During the national election
in 1969, about August or September, the NPA massacred twelve laborers in
barangay Sta. Lucia outside Clark Air Base.
In January, 1970, while President Marcos was delivering his SONA in Congress,
the CPP barricaded the old Congress building on P. Burgos Street in Manila. It
trapped President Marcos, his family, Senators, congressmen, Cabinet members,
Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, diplomats, other political and religious
dignitaries, and leading business leaders inside the Congress building.
A day or two after, CPP elements stormed Malacañang, burned a hospital
there, threatened the presidential residence. President Marcos had to evacuate
his family to his presidential (yacht) in Manila Bay.
With the help of barrio self defense units that it organized in Central
Luzon, the AFP was able to dislodge the NPA from there. It pushed them north to
Isabela in the Cagayan Valley. And from there the NPA spread to Region IV in
the south to the Bicol region to the Visayan Islands, and to Mindanao.
Meanwhile, in Metro Manila, the communists continued their destructive
work. First, they bombed the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG)
headquarters in Quezon City. They bombed the Liberal Party rally at Plaza
Miranda during the political campaign in August, 1971. Several people were
killed. Many were injured. Senator Jovito Salonga, among others, suffered
severe wounds on different parts of his body. He nearly became blind.
From 1970 to 1972, metropolitan Manila suffered weekly bombing. The
communist insurgents bombed Oil firms, pipelines of water utilities, Meralco
electric power systems, public and private buildings, business structures,
public and private markets. Even the US Embassy was not spared. So were the
Food Terminal Market, the Arca building, the Filipinas Orient Airways, the
Court of Industrial Relations, the Philippine-American Life Insurance Company,
to mention some of many.
Massive labor and transport strikes were mounted. The communists tried
to isolate and paralyze Metro-Manila. SLEX and NLEX were not existing yet then.
One of the transport strikes created a traffic jam that stretched from Los
Baños in Laguna to Manila.
The communists also captured UP Diliman in Quezon City. They established
a Communist Commune there under Erickson Baculinao as Chairman. For several
weeks UP Diliman was off limits. No one could go in and out of the place.
Permission from the Commune was required. UP President Salvador Lopez became a
virtual prisoner in his university. One person was shot and killed in that
incident.
In July, 1972, Defense Minister General Maraden Panggabean of Indonesia
was my official guest in Manila. When he observed what was going on in the
country, he said in one of our conversations: "You know, Johnny, what I
noticed about your country reminds of what happened to us in Indonesia during
the communist trouble there. Be careful!"
The final straw that broke the camel's back came from Ninoy Aquino
himself. In August, 1972, Ninoy asked me for an urgent meeting. I met him in
Urdaneta Village in Maketi in the house of Ramon Siy Lay, our common friend.
His brother Paul Aquino was with him. He told me that he met leaders of the
CPP, and they discussed a coalition between the CPP and the Liberal Party
should President Marcos declare Martial Law.
I made a written report of that meeting to President Marcos. When
President Marcos informed the public about what I reported to him, Ninoy denied
that he met me. President Marcos invited the Liberal Party leaders to
Malacañang for meeting with him, but the Liberal Party leaders refused to
attend. This incident made up the mind of President Marcos. history was made.
He proclaimed Martial Law throughout the land.
https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile
https://www.facebook.com/JuanPonceEnrile/posts/10159802919798783
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)