Well, it’s in the news: please see MILF MOA added to impeach raps vs Arroyo: Intervention filed at House Earlier today and Groups want MOA-AD in Arroyo impeach raps and Bloggers comprise secod batch of complainants in new GMA raps. There’s also Impeachment and the MOA-AD in Filipino Voices. Also, Arroyo foes try for ‘online revolution’ (visit Oust the Imp).
The official (legislator’s) response came pretty fast for some: Intervention a new complaint -solon:
Representative Matias Defensor, chairman of the committee on justice that will hear the complaint, announced that deliberations to determine form and in substance would begin on November 18.
“Since the MOA-AD is a new issue, it should be treated as a new complaint against the President,” Defensor said in a phone interview when asked about the fate of the petition.
“We cannot accept it as an additional charge to the original complaint, otherwise, anybody can just file any motion and add a new charge to the complaint,” he added.
However, Defensor said the motion filed would have no effect on the original complaint.
A line echoed in this snipped from the Philippine Star report linked to above:
But the latest impeachment complaint didn’t sit well among members of the 28-man House minority bloc, particularly Bayan Muna Reps. Satur Ocampo and Teddy Casino, who both endorsed the De Venecia impeachment complaint.
“We who endorsed the first complaint respect the right of the proponents to include the MOA-AD, but we refrain from endorsing it lest it prejudices the complaint we endorsed,” said Ocampo, former spokesman of the communist wing National Democratic Front.
“This is because any addition or amendment to the original complaint will most likely be treated by the (House) justice committee as a separate complaint, as was done in prior cases,” he pointed out.
In the past I’ve written in my column about my belief that the BJE-MOA should have been included in the impeachment complaint. Together with some bloggers and other individuals, we decided to do something about it.
So this is what we filed this morning:
Final Complaint in Intervention MOA
Please read this document. We have signed it. We stand by it. We submitted it, today, to the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives so that it may fortify the impeachment case against the President of the Philippines. I cannot express the reasons why we had to do this, better than The Marocharim Experiment did, in his blog entry for today:
Clenched fists mean a lot of things, not the least of which is fighting. The clenched fist is a symbol of resistance. To clench your fist means to stand up for what’s right because you believe in it, not because you feel like it…
…I think that when you blog about political issues and social issues, you cannot treat citizenship, political participation, and social obligation from your blogging. When we say something or write about something, we should be able to act on it when the situation calls for it. Our words shouldn’t be empty; we should be able to stand by our principles. It’s not a matter of winning or losing, revolution or insurrection, cost or benefit…
…I was just doing what any free-thinking Filipino will do. I was just doing things out of principle. I signed that document because of my convictions, not for money, not for ambition. I’m just a twenty-something who makes an honest living.
I signed that document because I believe that it is right, and I believe that it is time. Revolution? To some, yes, but to me, it was a simple matter of doing the right thing.
It’s not easy to stand up for what you believe in. Sure, it’s easy to blog about your political beliefs, but it’s not easy to stand by them when the time calls for it. After all, people will just accuse you of being “used by power-grabbers.” People will call you names, people will look down on your convictions, perhaps even spit on it.— Or mock it. Or tell you to shut up, because you can’t do anything about it…
…The question is not who we will replace the President with, but to find the President guilty or not guilty of the charges pressed against her. Not the least of which is the charge that she deceived the public – and compromised the integrity and sovereignty of the Philippines – through the BJE MOA-AD. If she is, I believe that she should face the fair and just consequences of her actions. I believe that justice is not about personalities, but about doing the right thing.
Those are the things I believe/ I believe in doing the right thing. I may not do it all the time, but when I signed that document – even with painful hands – I knew I did the right thing. If I didn’t, what would be my excuse? It’s not because I’m a hero or because I’m a martyr, but because I am a Filipino…
…Had you been there, you would have felt the same thing, perhaps even made up an excuse to chicken out and forsake your responsibility to this nation. I know: I was that close to doing it. What motivated me was not a sense of blow-hard patriotism, but a sense of obligation. People lived and died that this country remain whole, united, strong, and be held under one flag. What, I ask, prevents me from doing the same thing?What’s my excuse? What makes me think for one second that only heroes and patriots, or politicians with official ambitions, have the right to speak out against the injustices and excesses of the regime?
Now, I think it’s time for our honorable Members of the House to do the right thing. It is not right to wait for the President to finish her term; what is right is whether she has two years left or two days left, she should be held accountable. The Members of the House should know that justice is not about numbers or pluralities, but about morals and sensibilities. It is about fairness, justice, and freedom: words and perspectives that Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo no longer represents, at least in my eyes.
Let me tell you about what transpired after the brief press conference concluded. We went to the Secretary-General’s office, but once there, a problem came up. She was, at first, reluctant to receive our document. Closed-door consultations took place, phone calls were made, at times, our legal counsel were asked to wait outside.
Everyone tried to keep themselves entertained.
The elder intervenors texted or chatted.
The media and I exchanged notes on House procedures, and I decided to have a bit of a look-see.
So much for the separation of Church and State!
But what I found most interesting were the items posted on the Secretary-General’s cork board.
Various official notices, and a page of statistics on the current composition of the House; and most intriguing of all:
This editorial cartoon on the BJE-MOA!
As media people hovered outside the Secretary-General’s door, the wrangling continued.
From what I gathered, the Secretary-General first asked for time to “read the document,” then a legal wrangle ensued over whether she had “jurisdiction” over the intervention. Now the Secretary-General is in charge of the secretariat of the House, and her job is to oversee the expeditious reception, filing, transmission and filing of documents. She is not supposed to make judgement calls about the documents themselves.
In the end, after close to 45 minutes of bringing our lawyers in, sending them out, consulting upstairs and sideways in the House hierarchy, the Secretary-General announced she would receive the document, as the intervention was “unprecedented,” and leave the fate of the document to the relevant committees of the House.
And so she received them, and everyone got to go home.
A word on the role bloggers played in putting this document forward for the consideration of the House.
Among those who signed this document are the following bloggers, who have decided to take their personal stands not just in the blogosphere but in the institutions of our nation.
PANAWAGAN
Ang Kongreso ay may dalawang bahagi – ang Kamara de Representates, at ng Senado.
Bilang mga pangkaraniwang mamamayan, bilang mga blogger, beterano, sibilyan, Kristiyano, at Muslim, kami ay naniniwala na obligasyon namin na patibayin ng husto ang mga paratang laban sa Pangulo ng Pilipinas.
Tinutulan ang BJE-MOA na ito ng maraming residente ng Mindanao – lalong-lalo na ang mga Kristiyano at ang kanilang mga opisyales; ang iba naman, tulad ng ating mga Kapatid na Muslim, ay umasa na may kongkretong usapan sila ng Pangulo ngunit sila ay basta na lamang tinalikuran. Maaaring wala talaga siyang intensyon na ipatupad ang kanilang usapan, at sinadya niyang itago ang kasunduang ito sa mamamayan upang masabi niya na hindi naman nya ito maitutuloy sa dahilang hindi pa hinog ang panahon.
Ang ibig sabihin nito ay ginawang laruan ng Pangulong Arroyo ang buong Mindanao dahil lamang sa paghahanap ng malulusutan upang isulong ang pag-amyenda sa Saligang Batas o ang Cha-Cha.
Kung kaya’t dahil sa mga ikinilos at ginawa niya; sa paglabag niya sa Saligang Batas; sa pagtalikod nya sa kanyang sinumpaang obligasyon na protektahan at depensahan ang Saligang Batas; sa paglihim niya sa mamamayang Pilipino ng mga patungkol sa mga probisyon na nais niyang isulong sa kasunduan; sa malinaw na panloloko niya sa mga kapatid nating Muslim; sa maraming nasawi or nabawian ng buhay na sibilyan at militar; at dahil sa kaguluhang idinulot nya sa Mindanao; ay pinaninindigan namin na dapat maisama sa impeachment complaint ang usapin na ito.
Ayun kay Atty. Neri Colmenares, kailangan lang namin ma-isumite ang interbensyon na ito, upang maaksyunan ng Kamara. Hindi na daw kailangan i-endorse ito ng sinumang diputado o kinatawan. Kami ay naniniwala kay Atty. Colmenares at sa mga kinatawan ng oposisyon sa Kamara.
Ngunit nananawagan pa din kami na kung maaari, sa darating na Lunes, ika-17 ng Nobyembre, ay i-endorse pa rin ng mga kinatawan ng oposisyon ang aming inihahain na dokumento na siyang pinagaralan namin at nilagdaan bilang pagpapatunay na ito ay ang aming panindigan. Kung kaya’t umaasa kami na sana ito rin ang maging panindigan ng mga kongresista sa oposisyon at ng mga kinatawan na miyembro ng mayoriya, na tumutol sa kasunduang BJE-MOA.
Sa paraan na ito, ay mawawakasan na ang bangayan sa ating lipunan, mabibgyan ng pagkakataon ang Pangulo na sagutin ang mga paratang sa kanya, at makakasiguro ang Kongreso at ang taong-bayan na hindi nagtatago ang Pangulo sa likod ng kanyang mga patakbuhin.
Ang impeachment ay hindi nasasakluban ng executive privilege. Walang executive privilege ang impeachment. Kung tatalakayin ng tapat at ng walang kinikilingan ang mga paratang na nasasaloob sa impeachment complaint, kung pakikinggan ng wasto ang mga testigo, at kung pag-aaralang mabuti ang mga ebidensyang inihain ng mga complainant sa Kamara, ay makasisiguro tayo na magwawakas rin ang alitan ng administrasyon at oposisyon at ang pagkakahati ng ating mamamayan.
Nananawagan po kami sa sambayanang Pilipino na sana ay suportahan ang aming interbensyon.
Nais po naming magpasalamat sa lahat ng mga tumulong sa amin, sila Joey de Venecia, ang mga bloggers na lumagada, ang mga kapatid naming Muslim na siya ring lumagda, ang mga taga iba’t ibang hanay ng oposisyon na tumulong upang maging masustansya at matibay ang interbensyon na ito.
Pagkatapos naming isumite itong intervention na ito ay padadalhan namin ang bawat miyembro ng oposisyon ng kopya ng dokumento.
Kami ay nananampalataya na sa Lunes ay i-endorse na rin nila, kahit hindi kinakailangan, bilang pagpapatunay na buo ang loob at sentimyento nila na panagutin ang Pangulong Arroyo sa kanyang paglabag sa ating Saligang Batas at sa mga katiwalian niyang ginawa at patuloy na ginagawa.
November ___, 2008
Hon. _________
Representative, ____ District, ________
House of Representatives
Quezon City Dear
Rep. ________:
Today, together with ____ other intervenors, I have filed an intervention to add the Memorandum of Agreement concerning the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity to the impeachment charges being considered by the House. Our intervention is based on the following premises:
1. That the House of Representatives, in deliberating upon the charges against the President of the Philippines, should strive to put together as strongand comprehensive a case as possible, in order to properly and thoroughly address all the issues that demand accountability from the chief executive.
2. That the citizenry is obligated to do its part to help fortify the case against the President of the Philippines.
We are of the opinion, and submit for your consideration and endorsement, that:
1. The President of the Philippines must be held accountable for violating her oath of office in authorizing and supporting an agreement that has been proven to be contrary to the Constitution. Any President is duty-bound to operate within the parameters established by the Constitution, and when a President deliberately disregards our Constitution’s provisions, there must be an accounting made to the citizenry.
2. The President must therefore be held accountable for what the Supreme Court has ruled to be an agreement that violated our Constitution.
3. That furthermore, the President must be held accountable for setting back the peace process; and for placing ordinary citizens, Muslim and Christian alike, in Mindanao, in peril because of the recklessness and faithlessness, with which she conducted the negotiations for the agreement. She has done grevious harm to the prosperity and tranquility of Mindanao and the entire country and her doing so is a violation of public trust and her Constitutional responsibilities.
She betrayed the public, and all the parties that participated in the peace process in good faith and with a historic resolution of ancient grievances in mind. We believe that we have made a strong case for including the BJE-MOA among the charges against the President.
We believe that this is a matter of such seriousness as to require the House of Representatives providing the President with an opportunity to explain herself to you, our representatives, and through you, to an alarmed and outraged public.
We further believe that the President will find it impossible to satisfactorily explain herself and that as a consequence, the House will find it necessary to include our intervention among the impeachment charges.
May I respectfully invite you, then, to endorse our intervention, so that ample opportunity may be provided for the President of the Philippines to air her side, and for the public to be informed, through you, once and for all, about the circumstances surrounding the agreement.
I am confident that you will respond to the overwhelming clamor of the citizenry, throughout the country but particularly in Mindanao, for public policy to be conducted in good faith, without recklessness and imprudence, and with the true interests of the nation at heart and not just partisan political convenience for the administration.
May I also invite you, on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Jarius Bondoc and William Esposo of the Philippine Star, Ellen Tordesillas of Malaya, and Manuel Buencamino of The Business Mirror, to state, for the record, your response to these two questions:
1. How do you intend to vote on the impeachment complaint already filed before the House? Will you be present at the committee level and plenary voting on these charges?
2. Are you in favor of including the BJE-MOA among the impeachment charges, and why or why not.
We trust you will give your answer to us by Wednesday so we can publish them.
And we further trust that you will find our intervention meritorious and worthy of your endorsement.
Respectfully yours,
Manuel L. Quezon III
mindanaoan :
“in the old or new criterion, government ENCOURAGEment doesn’t matter. what matters is if he or she is looking for work. discouragement is an excuse, but after six months of being unemployed and still not looking for work, he’s not a discouraged worker but a bum we’re dealing with and should not be counted in the labor force.
it’s not the government that wants to paint a better picture. it’s you who want to paint a worse picture.”
So you’re back for more.
Very well.
You yourself can gauge the quality of your issue once you’ve answered the question below.
We all know that people in prison are being taught livelihood projects.
So the question is DO YOU BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE IN PRISON SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO LOOK FOR JOBS ONCE THEY RETURN TO SOCIETY?
Grd,
One more time then.
32.384m + NOTHING = ______________
Anthony Scalia,
Since Grd and Mindanaoan came back with issues; your concerns will be dealt with tonight.
justice league,
we are discussing the definition of unemployment to use in gathering statistics. what the government should do with the unemployed, or with people in prison, is so far off-topic.
grd,
there’s a 21st century version of “Screw the Filipinos” –
by benignO, dodong, supremo, whenever each one posts here
GEO,
Your posts were not addressed to anyone so I skipped it. But I finally noticed that it may have been addressed to me.
I actually have no problem with the “availability†issue but more on the 6 months term on the “discouragedâ€Â.
Much of that has been discussed with Mindanaoan.
SO ALL OF MY POSTS FOR MINDANAOAN on Nov. 20, 3:48 PM, Nov 21, 11:40 AM, and including the one in here ARE NOW ALL ADDRESSED TO YOU.
Would you care to respond?
Mindanaoan,
“we are discussing the DEFINITION of unemployment TO USE in GATHERING STATISTICS. what the government SHOULD DO with the unemployed, or with people in prison, is so FAR OFF-TOPIC.
THAT IS FALSE!
Because it will have a bearing on the statistics itself.
And the statistics:
“The yearly observance aims to promote, enhance and instill awareness in the public about the need for statistics.
Statistics TELL decision-makers on where the country is, the rate it is proceeding, and whether targets are being met, Fusilero said.
Statistics HELP policy makers DRAFT THE RIGHT POLICIES in response to real problems, he said. “
“NSO commissioner leads Serbilis launchâ€Â
//www.pia.gov.ph/default.asp?m=12&sec=reader&rp=1&fi=p040917.htm&no=6&date=09/17/2004
Now that I have addressed that concern, will you now be answering the previous question?
Anthony Scalia,
“And your throat is not clear yet. MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET A SECOND OPINION.â€Â- justice league
already did. clear enough to record the vocals for an 18-song rock album. death metal pa!
So the first consultation wasn’t really right. You needed a second opinion. See how taking my advice is good for you?
“yehey! pour out the champagne! naka jackpot si JLA! bilis, where’s the media?! JLA put one over the great anthony scalia!â€Â
GREAT ANTHONY SCALIA?
I believe that’s called DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!
Seems you need a 3rd consultation. This time with a psychiatrist!
“And so HOW ARE CLAIMS 1), 2), and 3) CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER?â€Â- justice league
“ehem.â€Â
Oh man that’s bad. So your second consultation was no good after all. You should ask for your money back.
“again – i asked you specifically who are the capitalists who openly demanded “gloria resign†and once you supplied that, i will respond to your query “do i respect the JCOs?†since i said “the only opposition i respect is Satur et alâ€Â
then you gave proof that certain capitalists openly demanded gloria resign. since you supplied that info already, i was ready to answer your query “do i respect the JCOs†and i answered – yesâ€Â
“di ba i just answered your query – yes i respect the JCO. so i just ‘extricated myself’â€Â
No! You FLIP FLOPPED ALREADY.
From only one group of opposition that you truly respect; NOW YOU RESPECT 2 groups of the opposition.
The group of Satur and Casiño and now the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign.
“nabutata na _ _ _ kasi ako in the pastâ€Â
You are obviously re-experiencing it all over again.
“tsk tsk tsk tsk thats the effect of seeing 1.024 million jobsâ€Â
“actually they are cringing at the thought of your arguments on the whiffing out of 1.024 million jobsâ€Â
“no problem with that. the problem is you concluded the creation of 1.024M jobs out of thin air, which is not the point of the studies you are citingâ€Â
“oh yes. sorry but i can’t say the same thing with you. because of your insistence on seeing 1.024 million jobs created from you must have read it less than twiceâ€Â
“are you kidding? in the first place- YOU ARE WRONG. YOU KEEP ON INSISTING ON THE 1.024M JOBS CREATED OF OUT A REDEFINED ‘UNEMPLOYED’â€Â
“just focus on our main issue my friendâ€Â
“ill just stick with what you said:â€Â
ALL OF THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY MY RESPONSE TO GRD on Nov. 20, 8 AM and Nov 21, 11:40 AM.
Yes. Let’s leave it to readers to evaluate ALL ARGUMENTS!
“ahem.â€Â
That’s it. You need an ENT SPECIALIST.
“sorry i can’t say the same of you – you don’t have any allies.â€Â
That is not true. Someone claims “purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went upâ€Â.
But no doubt Mindanaoan will continue to show his/her support for you by coming back for more.
“****FALLS FROM SEAT****â€Â
And now you might have to see an orthopedic too as well as undergo x-rays, etc….
“***yawn***â€Â
Now that is serious. Did you hit your head on the floor or something?
I believe sleepiness after head injury might indicate brain trauma. And now you might need to see a neurologist or even a neurosurgeon as well. You are the kind of person feared by HMOs.
“so….what’s….wrong….with….thatâ€Â
Because I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.
“if you will notice, your proof of “capitalist-oppositionists†is limited to the 71 who signed the manifesto. Cuisia and Purisima are not owners. Only Garrucho and Del Rosario are owners.â€Â
That is now irrelevant. Based on your post on Nov. 19, 9:36 AM, you only asked me to “name one or some ‘JCO’â€Â.
AND NOW YOU HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED 2.
This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask for such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.
“and you, you have been exhibiting that same mindset that prevented Hitler from discovering the incoming invasion of Normandy!â€Â
That is false. Hitler did not have the kind of evidence that I have.
Well unless Grd, Mindanaoan, and Geo come and raise issues; I will be moving on now.
Correction:
This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask THE OTHER SIDE to produce such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.
“32.384m + NOTHING = ______________†justice
Justice,
your formula is very wrong. the NOTHING that we are disputing is not equal to zero. In fact it has a value of 1.024m and should never be added in the Employed stats.
the correct formula for NOTHING can be derived from the complete Labor Force Survey for 2006.
here’s the complete Summary.
Jan. 2006 Labor Force Survey (using the new definition for unemployment)
1) 55.248m = 15 years old and over
2) 35,224m = Labor force
3) 32.384m = Employed
4) 2.840m = Unemployed
If you will analyze it, your NOTHING is way up there. it’s now part of the BIG NOTHING (my own term).
and what is BIG NOTHING?
BIG NOTHING = Unfit for work, people in prison, Ofw’s(?), UNEMPLOYED > 6MTHS)
formula: BIG NOTHING = item 1 – item 2 = 20.024m
of course our discussions will be irrelevant now if you say,
“Because I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.†justice league
then it’s all about your perception and according to your own interpretation of the stats. but isn’t our argument about dissecting the facts and figures here?
justice league, specifically, we are arguing whether the government is justified in using a time frame as a window for declassifying discouraged workers from the labor force, or if it is just whiffing jobs out of thin air. please note that the discouraged worker concept comes from the ILO, and that the ILO definition doesnt even have a time frame. so, tell me, how can our policy affect the international definition? if you believe it is whiffing jobs out of thin air, should you blame our government, or the ILO?
justice league :
“So the first consultation wasn’t really right.”
no it was. remember, the first consultation was on my over-all health.
“You needed a second opinion.”
no not really. the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards. i didn’t really need your reminder. but thanks anyway for the concern
“See how taking my advice is good for you?”
give yourself a round of applause
“GREAT ANTHONY SCALIA?”
I believe that’s called DELUSION OF GRANDEUR!”
no its not. by just reading your reaction on the JCO, you sounded like you JUST BEAT THE MAN
if were i not that great, you wouldn’t use, no , stress “BAD MOVE” “BLINDSIDED AGAIN” etc.
before our discussion, i felt i was just small stuff. but you, you just affirmed my true worth! THANKS JLA!
“Seems you need a 3rd consultation. This time with a psychiatrist!”
oh yes. because trying to further discuss your creation of 1.024 million jobs is dangerously hazardous to my mental heath
“Oh man that’s bad. So your second consultation was no good after all. You should ask for your money back.”
that time i almost choked because i came cross your claims on the 1.024 million jobs again. hence the ehem
“No! You FLIP FLOPPED ALREADY.”
pursuing your insistence on that – so what’s wrong with that?
and you can only use FLIP FLOP on me if i suddenly joined the anti gloria school
“From only one group of opposition that you truly respect; NOW YOU RESPECT 2 groups of the opposition.”
so what’s wrong with that?
“The group of Satur and Casiño and now the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign.”
ehem again. please be reminded who are those capitalists who openly demanded gloria’s removal. the fingers of your right hand are more in number!
“You are obviously re-experiencing it all over again.”
oh yes! Thanks to your reactions! The French call that deja vu right?
“Yes. Let’s leave it to readers to evaluate ALL ARGUMENTS!”
let me borrow one of your phrases – BAD MOVE!
“That’s it. You need an ENT SPECIALIST.”
i had to ehem because i almost choked just reading your comment
“That is not true. Someone claims “purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went upâ€Â.”
oh? are you sure about that?
“But no doubt Mindanaoan will continue to show his/her support for you by coming back for more.”
oh yes! he sure will!
“And now you might have to see an orthopedic too as well as undergo x-rays, etc….”
oo nga eh. dahil sa yo owwwww
“Now that is serious. Did you hit your head on the floor or something?”
sa chair lang
“I believe sleepiness after head injury might indicate brain trauma.”
but brain trauma is no obstacle to an extensive discussion. you just showed that
“And now you might need to see a neurologist or even a neurosurgeon as well. You are the kind of person feared by HMOs.”
excuuuuzzzz me puh-leeeaaasssseee. i can pay in cash
(saka consultation lang naman di ba?)
“Because I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.”
oh really? yet you still insist on the creation of 1.024 million jobs from thin air!
“That is now irrelevant.”
nice way of skirting the issue. thanks for the lesson.
“AND NOW YOU HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED 2.”
OH MY. BIG DEAL.
“This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask for such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.”
ano kamo?
whatever that is, i can take that. obviously you are not in my profession. i can understand where you are coming from. someone light years away from my profession
“That is false. Hitler did not have the kind of evidence that I have.”
according to you
“Well unless Grd, Mindanaoan, and Geo come and raise issues; I will be moving on now.”
about time
Justice League,
Correction:
This was more of a battle of ideas than it was an exchange. I thought you belonged to a certain profession. It is obvious now that you do not. People of such profession DO NOT ASK the kind of questions or DO NOT ASK to be provided with certain kinds of proof like you did. People of such profession look for them themselves and do not ask THE OTHER SIDE to produce such WHEN THEY KNOW SUCH EXISTS.
————————————————————————-
again, obvious nga. you’re not in my profession. understandable
you know what my friend, if you were in my profession, and you presented your arguments the way you did, i don’t have to present a rebuttal. i’ll just do what i did -point out that you just failed to prove your argument, using your own facts!
Mindanaoan,
“justice league, specifically, we are arguing whether the government is justified in using a time frame as a window for declassifying discouraged workers from the labor force, or if it is just whiffing jobs out of thin air. please note that the discouraged worker concept comes from the ILO, and that the ILO definition doesnt even have a time frame. so, tell me, how can our policy affect the international definition? if you believe it is whiffing jobs out of thin air, should you blame our government, or the ILO?”
Our policy doesn’t affect the international definition.
But the ILO also provides for relaxation of the seeking-work criterion, and this is what the Philippines has adopted ever since.
The ILO criteria is (a) without work; (b) currently available for work; and (c) seeking work.
So we even have something it doesn’t; and that is OR NOT SEEKING WORK …………………………
Can you imagine what would happen if we simply do away with the NOT SEEKING WORK provision and totally follow the ILO criteria?
Those fitting in the NOT SEEKING WORK provision will be written off the labor force immediately.
So if you satisfy 1 and 2 but you are (b) awaiting results of previous job applications; (c) have a temporary illness/disability; (d) affected by bad weather; or (e) waiting for rehire/job recall; you are immediately cut from the labor force.
Simply adopting the ILO criteria will not automatically include the (b) awaiting results of previous job applications and (e) waiting for rehire/job recall to those seeking work because they are specifically included in the NOT SEEKING WORK provision.
And the new criteria has an impact on how the “discouraged” are likely going to be treated. And it is in the previous discussions we had.
SO YES! I BLAME THE GOVERNMENT.
Are you going to answer that previous question now?
Grd,
If you are referring to the 1.024m as persons; then those persons are real and you are correct in that they are now included in your BIG NOTHING.
But you were asking about the 1.024m FICTITIOUS JOBS. And that had a value of ZERO.
You can add zero anywhere and it wouldn’t make a difference in the final count. So I dramatized a point by the adding the value of the fictitious jobs to the REAL jobs held by those considered employed.
“then it’s all about your perception and according to your own interpretation of the stats. but isn’t our argument about dissecting the facts and figures here?”
Again, you were asking about the fictitious jobs and not specifically about the persons who got cut from the labor force because of the new definition.
And again, I’m not contesting the actual employment figures of actual employee count.
And I stated that “I’d say that’s 1.024 million persons with NOTHING”- did I interpret that wrong?
Anthony Scalia,
“no it was. remember, the first consultation was on my over-all health.â€Â
But your first consultation was supposed to be about your throat.
“no not really. the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards. i didn’t really need your reminder. but thanks anyway for the concernâ€Â
So the doctor gave you an assessment on your over-all health and the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards.
“no its not.â€Â
Yes it is.
“by just reading your reaction on the JCO, you sounded like you JUST BEAT THE MAN
if were i not that great, you wouldn’t use, no , stress “BAD MOVE†“BLINDSIDED AGAIN†etc.â€Â
Nope, could have used that on anyone.
Just because I thought you belonged to a particular profession doesn’t mean I thought of you as “greatâ€Â.
“before our discussion, i felt i was just small stuff. but you, you just affirmed my true worth! THANKS JLA!â€Â
Don’t let me keep you away from accepting your first feeling. Your true worth is that if this was a debate on stage; you’d be hounded by your allies off it.
“oh yes. because trying to further discuss your creation of 1.024 million jobs is dangerously hazardous to my mental heathâ€Â
that time i almost choked because i came cross your claims on the 1.024 million jobs again.â€Â
“oh really? yet you still insist on the creation of 1.024 million jobs from thin air!â€Â
Those jobs are again properly addressed by my discussion with Grd. If that is too hard for you mental health then you should consider rest.
so what’s wrong with that?
Nothing as long as you admit it.
“and you can only use FLIP FLOP on me if i suddenly joined the anti gloria schoolâ€Â
No, because you already flip flopped.
“From only one group of opposition that you truly respect; NOW YOU RESPECT 2 groups of the opposition.â€Â- justice league
so what’s wrong with that?
Nothing really EXCEPT that your REASON for respecting one group can’t be used as YOUR basis for respecting the other.
You even frequently stressed on the REASON why you respect the Satur and Casino group as the only one opposition group that you respect. Are you using THAT SAME REASON for respecting the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign?
“ehem again. please be reminded who are those capitalists who openly demanded gloria’s removal. the fingers of your right hand are more in number!â€Â
Irrelevant. You only need to respect one of those capitalists to put in doubt your basis for respecting members of the opposition.
“oh yes! Thanks to your reactions! The French call that deja vu right?â€Â
And déjàvu is a SELF EXPERIENCE. So you are experiencing it all over again on yourself.
“Yes. Let’s leave it to readers to evaluate ALL ARGUMENTS!â€Â- justice league
“let me borrow one of your phrases – BAD MOVE!â€Â
NOPE!
“That is not true. Someone claims “purpose of the new definition is to manipulate the stats and make it appear that the Employment rate went upâ€Â.â€Â- justice league
oh? are you sure about that?
I wanted to leave Grd out of this so I didn’t include a name. But if you have doubts; ask Grd.
“But no doubt Mindanaoan will continue to show his/her support for you by coming back for more.â€Â- justice league
oh yes! he sure will!
And so he did and he will no doubt continue that.
“sa chair langâ€Â
“but brain trauma is no obstacle to an extensive discussion. you just showed thatâ€Â
And now you can’t distinguish who has the problem. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HIT THE CHAIR, right?
“excuuuuzzzz me puh-leeeaaasssseee. i can pay in cashâ€Â
Good for you. But don’t you want an x-ray or something?
“you know what my friend, if you were in my profession, and you presented your arguments the way you did, i don’t have to present a rebuttal. i’ll just do what i did -point out that you just failed to prove your argument, using your own facts!â€Â
And how is that supposed to apply to your REASONING on respecting 2 groups of the opposition now?
Geo,
The new post for Mindanaoan is addressed to you too as well as the previous ones.
Well unless Grd, Mindanaoan, and Geo come and raise issues; I will be moving on now
Justice,
Sure, I’d like to take you up on your suggestion. Problem is: I have no idea what you are trying to argue anymore.
So far, you’ve been wrong about the whole (un)employment issue on about every topic. What’s left that you need explained/clarified?
justice league, the government criterion is more generous to your argument than the ILO one, and you still blame the government?
“Our policy doesn’t affect the international definition.” so why should i entertain your irrelevant question?
you should be moving on now. go on, beat it!
justice league
***Michael Jackson’s ‘Beat It’ playing in the background”***
“But your first consultation was supposed to be about your throat.”
no, for the entire body
“So the doctor gave you an assessment on your over-all health and the diagnosis for the throat came afterwards.”
yes, he said the info on the throat was to follow
“Yes it is.”
no it is not
“Nope, could have used that on anyone.”
yeah right
“Just because I thought you belonged to a particular profession doesn’t mean I thought of you as “greatâ€Â.”
asus, that’s not my premise for the “great” tag my friend.
“Don’t let me keep you away from accepting your first feeling. Your true worth is that if this was a debate on stage; you’d be hounded by your allies off it.”
tsk tsk tsk denial king. no, really i should thank you for bringing out my true worth.
if i were larry bird, you’re michael cooper
“Those jobs are again properly addressed by my discussion with Grd. If that is too hard for you mental health then you should consider rest.”
oh yes! im really resting now. thank you
“Nothing as long as you admit it.”
***FALLS FROM SEAT AGAIN***
then…why…are…you…making…an…issue…out ..of…a…supposed…flip flop…on…my…part (owww)
you…were…like…a…senator…who…just…got…Bolante…
to..admit…gloria’s…hand…in…the… 728M (owww)
“No, because you already flip flopped.”
that’s not flip flop.
“Nothing really EXCEPT that your REASON for respecting one group can’t be used as YOUR basis for respecting the other.”
of course!
“You even frequently stressed on the REASON why you respect the Satur and Casino group as the only one opposition group that you respect. Are you using THAT SAME REASON for respecting the group of the capitalists who openly demanded PGMA to resign?”
already answered
“Irrelevant.”
oh no that word again
“You only need to respect one of those capitalists to put in doubt your basis for respecting members of the opposition.”
no my friend
“And déjàvu is a SELF EXPERIENCE. So you are experiencing it all over again on yourself.”
that’s right. without your reaction, that would not have come out.
hey i admitted it to you di ba? that “nabutata din ako in the past”?
“NOPE!”
denial king
“And now you can’t distinguish who has the problem. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HIT THE CHAIR, right?”
but i recovered right away. thanks to a Logan-like power
“Good for you. But don’t you want an x-ray or something?”
if the doctor says so
“And how is that supposed to apply to your REASONING on respecting 2 groups of the opposition now?”
haay naku. really obvious that you are not in my profession!
in my profession, one can change how he looks at reality up to some point in time, and as long as he can back up this new look at reality
besides, in your immortal words, “Nothing as long as you admit it.”
i respect 2 opposition groups. so?
wait let me borrow a word from NSCB – i just redefined the “opposition people” i respect
Give it up my friend. The allies have landed in Normandy.
Here comes the cavalry!
Sa akin pa lang butata ka na. How much more with the far-more-better allies?
Well sooner or later someone’s going to cite the Philippine Constitution on this.
Anthony Scalia,
“asus, that’s not my premise for the “great†tag my friend.â€Â
That was just an addendum.
“no, really i should thank you for bringing out my true worth.â€Â
And you’re going to show that true worth by the amount of help you can extend to your allies, right?
And I don’t think you ever gave out your reason for respecting the JCOs. Some criminal syndicates have legitimate businesses that provide jobs too so that can’t be the reason.
“How much more with the far-more-better allies?â€Â
No doubt they’ll be able to defend their stand on the criteria as ranged against the Constitution. But you’ll undoubtedly help them.
Geo,
“So far, you’ve been wrong about the whole (un)employment issue on about every topic. What’s left that you need explained/clarified?â€Â
That’s debatable.
“Sure, I’d like to take you up on your suggestion. Problem is: I have no idea what you are trying to argue anymore.â€Â
Then how about stacking the criteria against the Constitution? How does it measure?
Mindanaoan,
“the government criterion is more generous to your argument than the ILO one, and you still blame the government?â€Â
Yes. Because the ILO is not answerable to our Constitution. But our government is.
Our policy doesn’t affect the international definition. Neither would our Constitution affect the international definition.
But at the end of the day, the policies, rules, laws, etc… of this land must conform to the Philippine Constitution.
Article II- Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY through POLICIES that provide adequate social services, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life FOR ALL.
It should be obvious that the FOR ALL applies to all from provide adequate social services onwards.
So its …. Through policies that provide adequate social services for all
PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL
A rising standard of living for all
And an improved quality of life for all.
Article XIII Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT and equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.
Same applies there.
But compared to the similar provision in the 1973 Constitution which states:
Section 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relation between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.
The framers of the Constitution deliberately inserted FOR ALL in the present Constitution.
The DEFINITION of unemployment TO USE in GATHERING STATISTICS will have a bearing on the statistics itself.
“The yearly observance aims to promote, enhance and instill awareness in the public about the need for statistics.
Statistics TELL decision-makers on where the country is, the rate it is proceeding, and whether targets are being met, Fusilero said.
Statistics HELP policy makers DRAFT THE RIGHT POLICIES in response to real problems, he said. “
The new criteria at it is now runs counter to the wish of the Constitution for the State to promote full employment for all.
The very idea that a group of the “discouraged†are going to be cut from the labor force is not aligned with Constitution.
Since they have disappeared from the labor force, how can the State promote full employment for them?
The criteria itself serves as a disincentive for the State to lure the discouraged back to the labor force unless their jobs are assured.
Unless their jobs assured, these people once they seek jobs and fail to get one will bloat the labor force for the unemployed; bringing down the employment rate and raising the unemployment rate. Not a rosy picture.
It would be more in favor for a government wanting more to look good rather than fulfill the Charter to leave them as they are. Discouraged!
But criminal activities for gain are not legitimate jobs. But once caught and sent to prison, the government in turn teaches them livelihood projects. They are encouraged by the government to seek work upon re-entering society.
It’s as if it would be better for “discouraged†people to turn to a life crime.
Any thoughts on the matter from you three?
We at Filipino White Bloggers Group are advocates of PEACE. We condemn any acts that agitate fellow Filipinos to be violent against each other.
justice league :
“And you’re going to show that true worth by the amount of help you can extend to your allies, right?”
no need. i don’t need to help them. besides, they are much better than me, so they’ll do well on their own, they don’t need me
“And I don’t think you ever gave out your reason for respecting the JCOs.”
i did. they create jobs. your idols the ‘united opposition’ vaporize jobs
“Some criminal syndicates have legitimate businesses that provide jobs too so that can’t be the reason.”
i don’t know
“No doubt they’ll be able to defend their stand on the criteria as ranged against the Constitution. But you’ll undoubtedly help them.”
i don’t have to.
Anthony Scalia,
AND YOUR TRUE WORTH IS NOW EXPOSED!
Anthony Scalia,
I gave you your chance for a more graceful exit.
You should have taken it.
justice league,
***Michael Jackson’s Beat It playing in the background***
again – i know the feeling ng nabutata.
i empathize with you
***sound of Eddie Van Halen’s guitar solo in “Beat It”***
Anthony Scalia,
“again – i know the feeling ng nabutata.”
That is quite OBVIOUS!
A lawyer; even a dumb one wouldn’t make the kind of mistakes you made.
Well, unless Geo and Mindanaoan decide to come back to defend their stand; I’ll be moving on.
justice league :
“A lawyer; even a dumb one wouldn’t make the kind of mistakes you made.”
again. for the nth time – obviously you’re not a lawyer!
“Well, unless Geo and Mindanaoan decide to come back to defend their stand; I’ll be moving on.”
again – for the nth time, its about time
justice league, you are confused. the discouraged workers not counted as unemployed will not get lost from the statistics. it will decrease the unemployment rate but at the same time decrease the labor participation ratio. the criteria in fact gives better labor statistics, and hence lead to better policymaking.
Mindanaoan,
“you are confused. the discouraged workers not counted as unemployed will not get lost from the statistics. it will decrease the unemployment rate but at the same time decrease the labor participation ratio. the criteria in fact gives better labor statistics, and hence lead to better policymaking.”
Nope.
You are the one confused.
Either that or you are trying to replicate Scalia’s strawman tactic.
You are confusing getting lost FROM THE LABOR FORCE (which I claim) as getting lost from STATISTICS (which you claim that I claim).
And the Constitution still doesn’t back you up.
Well since you can’t defend your stand against the Constitution; only Geo’s return is relevant now.
Oooppsss.
May have misread your claim but you are still not defending your stand against the Constitution.
justice league, i was being generous. it’s illogical to think someone can be cut off from the labor force just by not being counted as unemployed!
sorry, but like geo, i don’t understand what you are arguing anymore. you’re all over the place!
Mindanaoan,
“i was being generous. it’s illogical to think someone can be cut off from the labor force just by not being counted as unemployed!”
You’re definitely confused now.
Grd actually used a matrix often and you likely didn’t read his/her posts.
He/she actually made a good representation of the matrix on his/her Nov. 22, 3:53 am.
And it came from
//www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2006/lf0601tx.html
The labor force is ONLY COMPOSED OF THE EMPLOYED + THE UNEMPLOYED.
If you are considered as neither, you are not in the labor force.
There is a difference of 1.024m persons between using the old and the new criteria.
Try to find out where they went.
Unless of course you are equating NOT being counted as unemployed = being counted as employed.
And that was Anthony Scalia’s strawman tactic.
“sorry, but like geo, i don’t understand what you are arguing anymore. you’re all over the place!”
Why don’t you try the Constitutional stance of the criteria.
BTW, weren’t you the one who implied that definition of unemployment to use in gathering statistics was far off topic from what the government should do (policymaking)?
You seem to have had a change of heart.
BUT STILL NO DEFENSE OF YOUR STAND FOR THE CRITERIA AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
Unless you do so, only Geo’s return matters.
Can you state, in one sentence, what you are arguing?
Don’t ask me a question or refer to another entry…just tell me what you think is right/wrong about this/that.
justice league,
by lost FROM THE LABOR FORCE as against getting lost from STATISTICS i thought you mean, cut off from the labor force, not really available for work, which is illogical.
Try to find out where they went.
like i said, they will show up in the decrease of the participation ratio.
You seem to have had a change of heart.
BUT STILL NO DEFENSE OF YOUR STAND FOR THE CRITERIA AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION.
you were not paying attention. i said, the criteria gives better statistics (policymakers will notice the falling participation ratio, rather than the constant unemployment rate). better statistics leads to better policy. how is that not aligned with the constitution?
sorry, but i don’t find the discussion interesting anymore.
gtg.
Geo,
Very well.
I believe that the criteria doesn’t fulfill the wishes of the Constitution THAT THE STATE PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL THAT WILL FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY!
You may read further below if you wish that statement to be clarified.
Like i said, I believed the availability issue was valid.
But since I can’t find any data on how many will be cut by using either the availability and the 6 month term for cutting off those who did not look for jobs; I was forced to use the TOTAL cut from the labor force by using the new criteria as against the old criteria.
As indicated in the 2006 matrix; 1.024m persons were cut off from what would have been considered as unemployed if the old criteria was still used.
And hence those 1.024m persons are no longer in the labor force.
I shall copy paste now pertinent issues from a previous post so it will be easier for you to read without referring to the old ones and add further issues as I believe important.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
But at the end of the day, the policies, rules, laws, etc… of this land must conform to the Philippine Constitution.
Article II- Section 9. The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY through POLICIES that provide adequate social services, PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life FOR ALL.
It should be obvious that the FOR ALL applies to all from provide adequate social services onwards.
So its …. Through policies that provide adequate social services for all
PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT FOR ALL
A rising standard of living for all
And an improved quality of life for all.
Article XIII Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT and equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth.
Same applies there.
But compared to the similar provision in the 1973 Constitution which states:
Section 9. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race, or creed, and regulate the relation between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may provide for compulsory arbitration.
The framers of the Constitution deliberately inserted FOR ALL in the present Constitution.
The provision that includes the issue of full employment is even issued TWICE in the present Constitution while it is issued only once in the 1973 Constitution.
And that’s because then Commissioner and future CJ Hilario Davide jr. lobbied that the provision not only be in the state policies but also in the ARTICLE XIII SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS because of its importance.
Apparently the framers believed his view.
The DEFINITION of unemployment TO USE in GATHERING STATISTICS will have a bearing on the statistics itself.
“The yearly observance aims to promote, enhance and instill awareness in the public about the need for statistics.
Statistics TELL decision-makers on where the country is, the rate it is proceeding, and whether targets are being met, Fusilero said.
Statistics HELP policy makers DRAFT THE RIGHT POLICIES in response to real problems, he said. “
The new criteria at it is now runs counter to the wish of the Constitution for the State to promote full employment for all.
The very idea that a group of the “discouraged†are going to be cut from the labor force is not aligned with Constitution.
Since they have disappeared from the labor force, how can the State promote full employment for them?
The criteria itself serves as a disincentive for the State to lure the discouraged back to the labor force unless their jobs are assured.
Unless their jobs assured, these people once they seek jobs and fail to get one will bloat the labor force for the unemployed; bringing down the employment rate and raising the unemployment rate. Not a rosy picture.
It would be more in favor for a government wanting more to look good rather than fulfill the Charter to leave them as they are. Discouraged!
But criminal activities for gain are not legitimate jobs. But once caught and sent to prison, the government in turn teaches them livelihood projects. They are encouraged by the government to seek work upon re-entering society.
It’s as if it would be better for “discouraged†people to turn to a life crime.
Mindanaoan,
Obviously this will be just for information exchange.
April 2005 was the start of the implementation of the new criteria.
So I linked the labor force survey matrix.
April
2005- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2005/lf0502tx.html
2007- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2007/lf0702tx.html
in that link was already a comparison for the 2006 rates.
2008- //www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2008/lf0802tx.html
Based on the matrices indicated; the labor participation rate from 2005-2008 have been
64.8% – 64.8% – 64.5% – 63.2%
Well the Labor participation rate was indeed falling.
And whatever policy you claim would arise out of policymakers noticing a falling Labor participation doesn’t seem to work.
Mindanaoan,
And yes, those cut off led to a decrease in the labor participation rate.
But policymakers don’t seem to care about it as based on the April surveys for 4 consecutive years.
i havent really check this blog in a long time got tired of explaining to these people why impeaching pgma now is not the best thing to do.
this discussion is like converting a catholic to atheism and vice versa. kung sino ung catholic and atheist well up to you guys.
i just think that we all agree that the people trying to oust pgma are no better than her.
and when those people successfully ousted pgma then basically they will just go back to square 0.