The oil keeps leaking on. Please help Guimaras. Visit Project Sunrise.
As for the title of this entry: Whenever Ferdinand Marcos surprised people, they would exclaim it was another case of Marcosian “political jujitsu.” He was always very good at doing what people least expected, not least because those supposedly in the know presumed it was impossible, inconceivable, or unthinkable.
As I pointed out after the 2005 State of the Nation Address, the President’s wrapping herself in the mantle of constitutional change did the whole effort a profound disservice. It has sparked public skepticism and hostility to both the purpose and details of the proposals being made. Furthermore, it ties Congress to the apron strings of the President and their future to hers. But congressmen well know presidents come and go. So what to do?
A couple of weeks ago, talking to Rep. Teddy Locsin, Jr., he said his colleagues resented the Presidential Commission for Charter Change, intended to reject its proposals, and didn’t look upon the “people’s initiative” with favor. But the problem was the inability of the House to work things out with the Senate, which had a united stance in favor of constitutional change through an elected convention -and which rejected the idea proposed by the House, that the 2/3 majority for approving amendments to be submitted to the people, should be determined by counting the members of both houses.
So now, it’s time to pay the piper. Poised as they are to dismiss, with finality, the surviving impeachment complaint, the House has announced it intends to seize the initiative and attend to constitutional change.
What are the options for the House, or both chambers in Congress assembled?
The House can finally muster enough votes to equal 2/3 of the entire composition of both houses of Congress, and attempt to bypass the Senate in approving amendments to be submitted to the electorate in a plebiscite. This is risky, because it could provoke a Constitutional crisis, and further strengthen the hand of the President. I suspect both the House and the Senate -the true beneficiaries, in the long run, of a parliamentary system- have been antagonized by the President, do not trust her, and do not want to keep themselves tied to her any longer than they have to.
Or, for the sake of peace, and a less extreme interpretation of the Constitution, the House can convince the Senate to pass the following:
a) by a 2/3 majority in each chamber, call for the election of delegates to a Constitutional Convention in 2007;
b) by a simple majority vote in each chamber, call for the electorate to be asked a question in the 2007 elections: “Do you want a Constitutional Commission to be appointed?”
The first is more difficult to achieve than the second; the second is easier to achieve, more novel, and opens up the opportunity to blunt the “people’s initiative” people by offering them seats in the Commission to be appointed. It offers up the possibility of a more plausible result, than if the “people’s initative” were to push through, and a referendum on its proposals becomes a referendum of sorts on the administration.
In other news, the President’s decision to establish a commission to investigate political killings comes in for predictable flak. Appeals are being made to keep the body credible. Columnist Luis Teodoro explains what, in the light of previous presidential commissions, would make for a credible process.
The question of the alleged German bank account of the First Family is interesting, part of a larger trend of placing the financial activities of the President and her husband under scrutiny. So the opposition asks for a waiver; the President’s son says he’d rather fly first class to Germany with the opposition to verify the existence of the account. But wouldn’t the money have been transfered by now, with the news?
Secretary of (in)Justice National (in)Security Adviser: Commies in the newsrooms! Fidel Ramos’s pet survey outfit: almost half reject bishops! (as many as don’t go to Mass or aren’t Catholic?)
The Tasaday are still with us.
Here’s something I’ve long wondered about: why hasn’t the use of vegetable oils for diesel vehicles, not received more official support?
In Thailand: besieged prime minister getting worn down; his own people might be his undoing.
In Taiwan: things getting uglier in the case of a besieged president.
In the punditocracy, the Inquirer editorial sets out the paper’s editorial position and hopefully, puts to an end to the controversy. Whether readers will agree is a different matter altogether. (Mamutong says it reminds him of things he used to hear in the Old South).
The Business Mirror editorial is on the impact of Executive Order 556 on foreign investments.
John Mangun says nuclear power for the Philippines should be reconsidered.
Emil Jurado has a love-fest with the President. Marit Stinus-Remonde says students being intimidated into joining rebels.
Tony Abaya on the wonders of the internet.
In the blogopshere, this blog entry in EpoyzBlog moved me greatly. Read his wistful thoughts on Patricia Evangelista.
james jimenez, who is with the Comelec, expresses his opinions on constitutional change.
Final roundup on the Justice Cruz debate: tristantrakand think the Inquirer editorial was a cop-out. Now What, Cat, doesn’t like the manner in which the debate’s been conducted. The Composed Gentleman, as well as Kaltehitze look at noth sides; spreading the sky, as well as Random Lives of Empress Maruja and keishiko and I’m a Devil in Haste or Inventing Memory don’t see merit in the Justice’s views; voyages sans movement is generally skeptical of the Inquirer and GMA network; Red’s Herring says this is a test of the Fourth Estate’s accountability to its readers; Calm Before the Storm cancels his subscription; interesting observations We All Need A Philosophy, shinydiscoball believes in collective action, and there’s the Sassy Lawyer.
Torn & Frayed and Madame Chiang praise the film “Kubrador”.
Technorati Tags: Blogging, CBCP, constitution, gay, impeachment, law, media, people’s initiative, philippines, politics, president
How can THAT Inquirer editorial put an end to the controversy? You must have said that tounge-in-cheek.
This issue isn’t about the Inquirer’s position on LBGTs.
The issue is: what are they going to do about multiple articles they published that clearly transgress the Inquirer’s own journalistic policies against writers ridiculing a segment of the community due to its sexual prefferences.
They, quite simply, have not addressed that issue.
Plus, it was a horrible editorial. I predict it will only inflame the issues.
nick, at the risk of being considered not a good soldier, i can only agree with you.
[…]The history of bloodletting is well-documented as a result of the Great Yellow Peril peddled by out of control scaremongers. Today, stirrings against the green peril are costing so many lives in the name of the metaphoric War on Terror. Should PDI tolerate a former Supreme Court justice to self-indulge in his cultural blues and launch a crusade against the “invasion†of the pink peril in the Philippines despite acknowledging one “study made in Sweden in 2005 (showing) that homosexuals all over the world are to a large extent subjected to violence, insecurity, isolation and exclusionâ€Â?[…]
re the commies in the newsroom, si Norberto Gonzalez ang nagsabi niyan, hindi si Sec of InJustice Raul Gonzalez.
Sassy Lawyer:
So MLQ3’s a bigot for criticizing a bigot? Are we also intolerant for not tolerating intolerance?
john, i don’t know why you bother with expecting her to be tolerant of anything if it dares to contradict her.
The Ca t:
If Sen. Robert Byrd or the late Sen Strom Thurmond, talked the way Mr. Cruz did about Niggers, do you think most americans would dismiss their remarks as “old school”?
john marzan,
I posed a similar question to sassy and she called me stupid. I replied that manolo was airing his opinion and Cruz, her uncle in law, was venting his homophobia so he was bigoted and manolo was not. She called me double stupid this time and then she insinuated that I was homosexual. I replied “I am not homosexual. Are you?” My reply is now awaiting moderation.
If I may make a suggestion, I think you should go to her blog with your question. I’m curious how she will react to it. I’m sure your exchanges will be fun to read knowing how she reacts to contrary views.
MLQ3
“But wouldn’t the money have been transfered by now, with the news?”
Doesn’t matter because it will have to be redeposited elsewhere and that transaction will leave a paper trail that will actually be more damning.
The curious thing is why Arroyo is being selective. Why is he willing to take Cayetano to Germany but not next door to Jose Pidal’s bank ? And why are the california and caloocan properties off-limits to scrutiny? Why spend for a trip when a general waiver of confidentiality over all bank accounts and properties will do?
Why does the pig sty smell like fish?
Isagani Cruz is just digging a deeper hole for himself. What a hateful obsolete moron. But on a larger note. I wonder what effect this will have on the inquirer because cancelling my subscription was my kneejerk reaction. First isagani cruz. then jim paredes. My family cancelled all their subscriptions as well. Homophobia and innuendo is just not worth the Php15.00. Well miss reading you but at least we can still get you online.
“…and there’s the Sassy Lawyer.”
manolo, that was like a home run there, without you saying much. 🙂
i don’t normally read her but i couldn’t resist.
she should hear herself say attack the issue instead of the personality…
hello manolo.
diliman72grad posted this on The Bystander’s blog:
“The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines states:
‘Article III – Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.’
“Notice that the Constitution has no requirement that the opinion held AND PUBLISHED by ex-Justice Isagani Cruz have to please the sensibilities of Manolo Quezon, Beatrix Guilas, Larissa de Ocampo, Teddy Boy Locsin, Bishop A. Lagdameo nor Satur Ocampo, much less Dubya Bush or Vladimir Putin.”
MY 2 RESPONSES:
(1)
No part of the constitution makes him immune from backlash either. He can cut up rough other people all he wants; and so can other people vehemently disagree with him. And people are free to come round to whatever opinion they find reasonable, take sides within the fray, and arrive at a consensus on the matter at hand.
Is the bone of contention here whether or not Cruz OUGHT to massage anyone’s sensibilities/ingratiate with readers and potential critics? I don’t think so.
(2)
“political equality” and “social equality” are two different things.
diametrically opposed views CANNOT be politically equal.
political equality, as a goal, is impossible to achieve, because politics will thrive for as long as relations of power exist. contestation enables the shifting of the seat of power.
social equality, as a principle, makes the levelling of social relationships and social positions equal. so assuming social equality can be achieved, can it eradicate relations of power and obviate the need for political contestation? in utopia perhaps.
equalizing AT THE VERY LEAST the social positions of and relationships between gays and straights can be achieved, e.g. in the juridical, legal and cultural domains. –and for that to be realized, the shifting of the seat of power from the traditional conservative to the moderately liberal (for instance) has to take place. and that’s political/power-relational.
ERRATUM: social equality, as principle, makes the levelling of social relationships and social positions POSSIBLE. –i mean.
manuelbuencamino, since when does anybody have to sign a general waver of confidentiality for a “ghost” the opposition is creating in it’s mega desperation.
why is he talking of one account then talking of other accounts?
what is he talking about or does he know what his talking about?
why does the lil kid cayetano need such an authority?
is it for him to go “fishing’?
it seems his bringing a non issue to a level of stupidity.
the late Senator Cayetano was an honorable man.
his lil kid is a disaster.
what’s he trying to prove?
is the “ghost” his creating catching fire or ever catch fire?
i guess the only audience the lil kid cayetano will ever have are his fellow desperate oppostion supporters that are chasing ghost!
joselu.
the alleged german bank acount is one among many alleged undeclared assets identified by Cayetano. That’s why he asked for a waiver not only for the German account but for the other assets too. Cayetano wants to know.
What I want to know is – why are you so afraid of ghosts? And you’re not even part of that family or a joint account holder.
Is it because you feel that your intelligence is on the line if it turns out that you were suckered by the Arroyos into believing in them?
You know it’s not too late for you to change sides. We will welcome you with open arms. And promise we won’t tease you for being so trusting and naive.
Social Democratic parties around the world should condemn Norberto Gonzalez and Fr. Intengan for their part in promoting GMA’s total war policy against the Left, and initiate an investigation on their role in facilitating human rights violations for possible referral to the Hague. All self-respecting social democrats should dissociate themselves from the Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas (PDSP) which is led by those two. And why doesn’t Ateneo expel Fr. Intengan?
“If I may make a suggestion, I think you should go to her blog with your question. I’m curious how she will react to it. I’m sure your exchanges will be fun to read knowing how she reacts to contrary views.”
i tried posting once. ang bagal bago lumabas yung comment ko.
really. you still subscribe to the tree version of newspapers? me, i don’t buy any newspapers anymore, i just read them all online.
And I think matagal nang tumaas ang presyo ng PDI at PHILSTAR to P18. 😉
It is 3/4 of the number of Congress. The House is standing on the premise that the 3/4 is of both houses combined. The Senate is standing pat that they vote separately on the matter.
“Isagani Cruz is just digging a deeper hole for himself. What a hateful obsolete moron”
Moron is a perojative term used by bigot. You use this term. Therefore you aree also a bigot?
John Marzan said”
“If Sen. Robert Byrd or the late Sen Strom Thurmond, talked the way Mr. Cruz did about Niggers, do you think most americans would dismiss their remarks as “old schoolâ€Â?”
Ca t sez:
When Byrd used the term white “nigger” in an interview with Tony Snow in Fox in 2001 he used the word white “nigger” which created immediate controversy, When asked about it, Byrd apologized for the language: ” ‘I apologize for the characterization I used on this program,’ he said. ‘The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today’s society.
As to the question whether the reason is acceptable or not, the public cannot be faulted to have the impression that he is a bigot because of his fight against Civil Rights 1964 and his being a member of the Klux Klux Klan when he was young.
This morning as I open my Tor Star Daily Paper, on page 4 cover A section a headline: “Law urged into ‘racist’ remark.
The story is about the remark of the Crown attorney in a private conversation regarding the case of NBA stars Gary Payton, Sam Casell and Jason Caffey who were charged of assaulting a male exotic dancer. His remark told as a joke is that the players would likely just sign basketballs in Regent Park (social housing for welfare recipients mostly blacks)as a punishment. But unknown to the crown prosecutor an undercover RCMP probing money laundering was among the group and overheard the ‘joke’. He’s now in private practice, and after the Law Society is done with him, surely civil cases including which maybe filed by the NBA players could be expected and a class action by the residents of the Regent Park and depending on the findings of the Society he still could be charged criminally under the Anti-hate Crime Law. Just because of one silly, stupid joke. For complete story you may go to this site. Thanks and good day, Mister Justice Isagani Cruz..
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1156197009927
Since you always politicize issues John, you should have also presented about Thurmond’s background about his anti-black sentiment.
Thurmond’s famous quotation advocating for institutionalized segregation.”I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.”
His change on his segregationist policy was more of a calculated political strategy rather than a change of heart like the claim of Byrd because of the growing advocacy for no-segregation-equality. For a politician to go against the era’s community social values is signing his own death verdict.
People regarded him as hypocrite when shortly after he died, his daughter from a black maid came forward.
I’m not sure but I remember that before Ninoy died, we had the Daily Express, Times Journal and the Bulletin Today. After Ninoy was murdered, my Dad started buying or subscribing to 4 newspapers a day. The Daily Express and the Times were junked and we had the Malaya, PDI, Philippine Star, Bulletin Today (Manila Bulletin now if I’m not mistaken).
Somewhere along the way, the Malaya turned us off. Sometime during the Estrada presidency, despite the classified ads, Bulletin got junked.
So now we only have the PDI and the Star. My Dad reads the Star very quickly in the AM so I can bring it to work and he reads the PDI to his heart’s content. Though we both can read both via the web, we enjoy the ability to be able to read it on the go.
Having contributed 3 non repentant commissioners (esp the lady columnist who writes only on weekends) to the ConCom; we have every reason to dispatch of the Star but then I’d miss the daily cable schedule. And besides, there is the adage of “keep your enemy closer”.
“Mbuencamino writes:
You know it’s not too late for you to change sides. We will welcome you with open arms. And promise we won’t tease you for being so trusting and naive.”
When your argument is valid and faultless, hard selling and arm twisting are not necessary.
Debate is just to present the other side of the coin and not to be able to put the coin in your pocket.
To be fair to sassy lawyer, I have disagreed with some of her views in the past and she wasnt at all dismissive nor contemptuous of contrary opinion in general. In fact the discussions were rather enjoyable.
There are however some commenters who raise her hackles perhaps due to some history with them. I think sassy lawyer doesnt take too kindly to being misinterpreted, or having words put in her mouth, which is understandable. I hate that, too.
Basta, starting Monday I will stop my subscription to Inquirer and switch to a “lesser” periodical. I believe in democracy as long it does not promote hate, prejudice, and bigotry that Inquirer clearly did.
Thanks for the plug btw. I so wanted to hug you.
Whatever happened to ‘The views of our columnists dont necessarilty reflect the views of this paper’? Is the PDI now to be punished for publishing one man’s column? If people succeed in bringing the PDI down, who suffers?
Ca T, i see nothing wrong with the use of the word ‘moron’ as long as it is used judiciously and in the right context. It is both an assertion of fact and a value judgement. Besides, the use of substitute words may fail to convey the intended message. Let’s not impoverish the discussion by imposing too many limits on language.
Cat,
Thanks for the two pennies.
the word moron when used to mean idiot, stupid is always perojative in nature no matter how you use it.
and this is exactly the reason for this controversy because of the use of terms that are derogatory.
I rather use intellectually challenged and other neutral terms to refer to mental capacity of an individual.
mbuencamino,
you’re welcome, it could have been one penny only but I am too generous today.
For me I just always used the term “you are wrong” or something to that effect. Because “moron, idiot and stupid” could be interpreted as Mental Disabilities and I could be in BIG TROUBLE.
manolo, you are too much of a gentleman to steer us towards that sassy girl. you could have spared us from having to read her hyper-personal drivel.
From the news today, Cayetano waffles on his German bank accusations:
“Taguig-Pateros Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano admitted yesterday that he could not prove his accusations that President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel had stashed away “hundreds of millions of dollars†in a bank account in Germany.
“I know what I said is not exactly foolproof,†Cayetano told a press conference yesterday, noting that he could not ask any bank to show him anybody’s account.
Cayetano also rejected an invitation from the President’s husbandâ€â€and a business-class ticketâ€â€to fly to Germany to verify his accusations.”
Regarding Cayetano’s insistence on a waiver that would allow investigators to look into the Arroyo’s local and foreign bank accounts, since there is no bank account in the first place, no waiver can be given.
Regardless of which side you’re on, the shallow gimmickry of people like Cayetano deserves ridicule. Obviously, this cheap politician is simply casting a moist eye on the Senate. Just because his sister, banking on catchy advertisements and the name recall of the father, managed to squeezed through, this guy thinks it’s a family entitlement.
isn’t the requirement for con-ass 3/4 and not 2/3?
manuelbuencamino, you sound so funny saying “..it’s not to late to change lines….”
you remind me of a salesmen selling condos that don’t even exsist.
like i said, it’s your “ghost” just keep it to yourself.
Normaly who accuses must be the one to prove things. Since when does the accused have to help the accuser?
obviously cayetano is just “grandstanding”.He must be in dire need of attention.
mbc, i think it’s you who has your ghost. it’s no wounder that sassy calls you so many names.
mbc, i never pretend anything, but as far as i can recal it’s been over a year that people like you have been making so much noise & your still at it, doing your “hard sell”.
you figure it out why i write what i write.
It’s funny to see some in the blogosphere (Sassy, Cathcath “Evil still triumphs when good men counters it with evil.”) criticizing Manuel for criticizing Cruz and taking it personally. Can you imagine what others might say kung tameme lang si kuya manuel dito o weak ang response niya?
JM,
It’s funny that it seems you and MB cannot comprehend the essay of Sassy about Cruz. She practically lambasted her uncle-in-law for his article.
Show me where I criticized MLQ3 personally. You do have a problem of comprehension. What I did not like was the overreaction on Cruz’ article and it applies to everyone who
criticised him as individual. You should thank me because i did not call people who vowed not to read inquirer anymore, peabrain.
My qoutation that you quoted was a retort to Julsitos comment. You should know me better. I do not have to use derogatory terms to express my disagreement.
BTW, i was expecting a response on Thurmond and Byrd, bakit personal ang attack mo, Erap forever fan?
Sipsip ka ba kay MLQ3 o sinisaraan mo lang ako kay Mlq3. No need, sira na ako as in loony. bwahaha
I posted this comment on Sassy Lawyer site, but I found out it’s still under moderation, so I decided to post the question here just in case it won’t see the light of day.
“My question is this: since Isagani Cruz opinion as written is considered a hate crime in Canada as it targetted a member of a group that is constitutionally protected the same as all others, then granted that the Jury return a verdict of guilty of the Crime (anti-hate is under the criminal code), following your reasoning that non-tolerance of bigotry makes one a bigot too, so the members of the jury could be labelled same as Mr. Cruz?”
It’s funny that it seems you and MB cannot comprehend the essay of Sassy about Cruz. She practically lambasted her uncle-in-law for his article.
And also called MLQ3 a bigot, C at.
@ jag – whatever happened to “self-regulation”, which PDI obviously didn’t follow? Besides, that disclaimer you stated is merely a statement to get themselves out of trouble, but in reality media people have their own opinions on issues.
Allowing that article to be published simply means that they agree with it in one way or another (or maybe to incite violent reactions and more subscriptions, but i’ll do the opposite come monday).
As in self-censorship, empress maruja? Would you rather have had old man Cruz silenced?
Allowing that article to be published means that they agreed with Justice Cruz’s right to say it, not that they agree with it. In fact they probably dont. They also allowed MLQ3’s response to it to be published, didnt they?
Well, I did not say you made personal attacks against MLQ3. But your blogpost is a criticism of MLQ3’s POV. Which is okay. People sometimes can disagree with one another on hot issues. If you don’t want to use term “criticize”, fine. Okay, you “disagreed” with him then.
Fine, then.
What kind of response re Thurmond and Byrd do you want from me, Cathcath? did you even “get” my byrd/thurmond comment?
Cathcath:
Jeg:
The only way to explain this is that sassy has two different personas: Sassy of the front page posts, and the more candid Sassy in the comments section.
Jeg, does that mean that you would allow people to spread hatred and bigotry all in the name of freedom of expression?
I mean, even SM has the right not to show R-18 films. Even owners of hate blogs are arrested and prosecuted (just like in Singapore). Does that mean that PDI doesn’t have the balls to screen their own articles? I sure they do, if someone is pro-government for instance.
Anyway, I cancelled my subscription to PDI.
And Mr. Isagani Cruz owes 10 million of us an apology (and I’m very sure that one of his “macho” sons is cruising around the brokeback cinemas of Quiapo).
empress maruja, Singapore is not exactly a good example of press freedom. Over here, the operative word is ‘restraint’ and the government has been aggressive in enforcing this. They have ‘Out of Bounds’ (OB) markers when it comes to sensitive issues like race relations. It’s a double edged sword since it can be used to suppress dissenting views that prove inconvenient to those in power. As for bigotry, it’s a tough call, but it is better to err on the side of free exchange of views. Better to have your adversaries where you can see them rather than lurking in the shadows.
As far as I know, there is a columnist of PDI that is rabidly pro administration.
Roger L. Simon defends Andrew Sullivan from John Derbyshire.
From a tax payer’s point of view, gay men shouldn’t be encouraged to be together. See, if a penis enter’s another man’s asshole, it would cause incontinence in the long run. Incontinence requires surgery, thus tax payer’s money.
Lesbians on the other hand are welcome to breed for as much as they like. Nobody ever got injured doing a little girl on girl action.
Maybe gay men should be required to take out private insurance before they marry. But then again private insurers would charge them high premium, knowing their assholes would be widened and would require surgery (thus claiming their insurance). In the end, only the very rich gays will be able to “formalize†their union. This in turn will make high achievers out of poor gays because being rich will be the only way they can be with other gay men legitimately.
When most gays are rich enough then, the lewd ones will be reduced.
So let us keep the status quo of discouraging gay men to marry.