The Long View
The phoney war
To creatively reuse that well-known and well-worn Zen riddle, what is the sound of one chamber clapping? Constitutionally speaking, it’s silence. It’s meaningless.
For all the political flatulence that took place in the House of Representatives
Tuesday night, it would do us well to think of our undistinguished reprehensibles as reenacting Lord Raglan’s Light Brigade as it made its famous charge in the Crimea in 1854. Watching the British charge to their death, the French Marshal Pierre Francoise Joseph Bosquet remarked, “It is magnificent, but it isn’t war.”
To be sure, it is easy to be upset over the way the Frankenstein majority in the “Bastusan Pambansa” stomped on the pipsqueak minority to pass House Resolution 1109. However, what transpired in the House was nothing more than a manifestation of the crude sentiments of the Frankenstein majority: they are entitled to their opinion. But the public is, too.
While the media were caught napping by the goings-on in the House, enough citizens made the effort to follow what was going on, to get angry and indignant over the late-night majority fart fest.
So yes, even if the sound of one chamber clapping is silence, it still stank to high heavens because of the “fartyness” of the ruling party. The question, though, is whether irritation over the alimentary crudity of the House majority’s actions should trigger a pell-mell response from the public.
A kind of charge of the Light Brigade – indignant citizens, filled with bravado but doomed to fail, galloping hell-for-leather straight into the chambers of the Supreme Court – is precisely what the Frankenstein majority wants.
Sober legal observers, like professor Teddy Te counsel that running to the Supreme Court would play right into the Frankenstein majority’s paws, because from Day One the majority has growled that all it wants is to present a cause for a “justiciable controversy” in the courts.
Whether or not the Supremes would actually tailor-fit a decision to suit the Frankenstein majority is beside the point; since politics is perception, the perception that would be fueled by the Supremes actually tackling a complaint concerning the House’s constitutional flatulence would provide the Frankenstein majority with a legal deodorant. You see, it will declare, we didn’t fart. We smell like roses.
This is the dilemma confronting the Senate, for one. No one wants to be the Oliver Lozano of this issue, although the lesson of the past few years is that even if Oliver Lozano isn’t around, someone would invent one. Ask Roel Polido.
The House could have called the Senate’s bluff and passed a proper bill, proposing a constitutional convention every bit as open-ended as HR 1109 is. Instead it is proposing nothing but an excuse to get the Supreme Court to say the House, if it has the numbers, can ignore the Senate in proposing amendments.
That’s what’s wrong with what the Frankenstein majority did on Tuesday. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with proposing amendments, except that the House hasn’t proposed any amendments. What it has proposed is that it can go it alone, never mind if public opinion and our experience with bicameralism for generations says this is impossible.
And yet, the Frankenstein majority pleads for the issue to be joined, saying it is undemocratic and even cowardly to back off from fighting it out. But it is a phoney war the Frankenstein majority wants to fight.
I’m not saying indignation is misplaced, or that we should just shrug off what took place in the House. But as Napoleon Bonaparte advised, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
So what should we do? Between now and July, the Frankenstein majority should be subjected to a rigorous quarantine. It should be ignored, legally; isolated, socially; left to its own devices, politically.
It wants a justiciable controversy? Let no one do them the favor, though there’s always the risk some paid hack of a lawyer will do so; but at least no one with even the tiniest bit of credibility did the majority any favor.
They think we won’t make noise? Let’s make noise – a lot of it! – but not in the manner and along the lines expected by the House.
They want to prove they’re the biggest party? They want to be proven powerful? Their Frankenstein majority is not the people by any stretch of the imagination.
Then let’s simply refuse to break bread with any majority congressman, and decline to attend events at which they appear. They’re powerless to get us to even shake their hands. Let us ostracize them, for once. For much smaller sins the British are booing their members of parliament in public and throwing stones through their windows.
An appropriate message is one Douglas MacArthur famously quipped: “We are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction.” Instead of the streets, why not directly to congressmen’s doorsteps or faces?
We can make that direction a positive one: that the rule of the real majority must prevail. Support efforts to get the young to register so they can vote. Keep public pressure on the Comelec to do its job. Insist that issues of real public concern get discussed by those who want to be national and local candidates come 2010. And yes, by all means, demand that candidates and parties clearly express their stand on the issue of constitutional amendments.
Most of all, head in the direction of informing more of our friends and acquaintances of the issues involved in Charter change, so that whatever the President and her Frankenstein majority plan and hope to accomplish between now, July, and beyond, they will be confronted by an inflexible public opinion that sends a single message, loud and clear.
“Game over.”
i don’t get why a SC decision is a bad thing
1) if the provision is vague, isnt it the SC’s job to resolve the interpretation?
2) if its not vague, then the SC will interpret it correctly — no problem then.
so why not ask the SC’s input?
GabbyD,
There is no right way or wrong way between “voting jointly” and “voting separately”.
Both modes can be made to comply with the Constitutional requirement that any proposed change be “upon a vote of three fourths of all its Members”.
The important point to grasp is this: which mode the Congress uses–joint or separate voting–is purely a matter of discretion of the Congress. Not the Supreme Court!
In fact since 1987 the Congress has already chosen the route of voting separately, ie the same as for passing ordinary laws. This mode is perfectly constitutional and workable.
The Congress already IS a Constituent Assembly. That is why 1109 is also superfluous and MOOT.
As MLQ3 reported yesterday (re PDI) Oliver Lozano has reportedly filed a case with SCoRP questioning the Constitutionaly of 1109.
The insuperable fact–unfortunate for the chacha proponents–is that when the Congress is proposing chacha, it must do so, uhmm as the Congress, which is a bicameral body.
In the sense that the Congress has only two “Members”–the Lower and the Upper House– we may say that the Congress always acts on the basis of a unanimous decision between these two Members. No law, for example can be passed without the consent of both chambers. That’s the beauty of the scheme however. We make it hard to pass legislation to make sure it is good legislation. Thus chacha proposals should also be held up to such standards.
Why is getting a SC decision on the matter a bad thing? Because there really isn’t anything for the SCoRP to decide other than that the decision–to vote separately or jointly–is a matter of Congressional discretion.
There is no unconstitutional choice. As long as the arithmetic result is 3/4 of all the members approve, its constitutional to make such proposal for plebiscite.
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” Abraham Lincoln.
Are We Really A Nation of 82 Million Cowards And One 4’11 LIAR?
Why are you so frightened by the prospect of the Supreme Court deciding the constitutionality of a joint Constitutional Assembly, Manolo? Is DJB correct to state that “the decision–to vote separately or jointly–is a matter of Congressional discretion”? Is DJB spot-on in his opinion that “There is no unconstitutional choice. As long as the arithmetic result is 3/4 of all the members approve, its constitutional to make such proposal for plebiscite.”?
Quite frankly, DJB’s statements are news to me. But I know that he studies these matters very keenly, so he must not be talking through his hat. If DJB speaks the truth, I would be much more pissed at the people who crafted that divisive, regressive and putrid piece of crap that is the 1987 Constitution than I would at those buck-passing pussies in Congress.
Wouldn’t it be better to let the Supreme Court speak, and put this controversy to rest once and for all? If we don’t allow the Supreme Court to decide on this matter, our country will be like a homosexual who never comes out of the closet. Better to come out of the closet and come clean. Besides, I don’t really buy the rush to judgment that the Supreme Court will decide in the Congressmen’s favor. I don’t think the SC is bakla. It will decide the issue wisely.
Is there a list out (including their constituencies) on who exactly supported the Conass move? I certainly agree that, for once we could at least ostracize the guilty ones. It would be unfair to erroneously include in the list those who actually opposed the move, as well as exclude some of those who supported it.
The Resolution may indeed be ill-fated, but it has exposed ( i hope the viva voce manner of voting was not enough for them to hide) those who will not hesitate to mutilate the Constitution for personal benefit and for their patron;s benefit, and against public opinion. Let’s at least use this and hit these ##@@%$% where it hurts the most – in the coming, and succeeding elections. Banish them from Philippine politics !
to Gej: be sure to double-check what you get from the web, but…
but FilipinoVoices has a list:
http://filipinovoices.com/the-congressmen-who-signed-hr-1109-are
Carl, the point is, there is no controversy to bring before the Supremes. Only an effort to create that controversy. Since the effort to create that controversy will create even more problems, it is best to ignore the attempt to create controversy. Not least because the controversy is based on a lunatic premise.
Hello, Manolo! Barok Biraogo here. In case you forgot, I filed the petition in the Supreme Court questioning Department (of Finance) Order No. 17-09 on the customs duties imposed on books in violation of the Florence Agreement. I do not think that filing a petition to question House Resolution No. 1109 in the Supreme Court means that we will playing into a trap. Just this afternoon, I filed a petition in the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of H.R. NO. 1109. It’s a taxpayer suit and the petition consists of 16 pages and two annexes, including a 2005 article by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. where he discussed why the House cannot exercise the constituent power (the power to propose amendments to the Constitution) without the participation of the Senate. I do not see how a 4-page petition could plausibly argue against
the validity of H.R. No. 1109 unless that petition is pro forma. Anyway, I think that the House of Representatives ought to know that they are not going to get away with their attempt to railroad charter change without a fight. If it’s a legal fight they want, I will give them that fight. I have filed court petitions in the past to question anomalies in the government. Everyone who wants to join the fight may do so by either filing a separate petition (which is quite expensive) or intervene (which is affordable). I welcome anyone and everyone who wishes to join this fight against a brazen attempt to force charter change in the midnight hour.
@mlq3
OK. what is the reason for the fact that there is no controversy?
1) is it coz there is no ambiguity about the constitutional provision? (ala DJB’s comments?
2) or is that there is an ambiguity, but this HR is not “enough” or is flawed, for some reason?
DJB: The insuperable fact–unfortunate for the chacha proponents–is that when the Congress is proposing chacha, it must do so, uhmm as the Congress, which is a bicameral body.
There is no unconstitutional choice. As long as the arithmetic result is 3/4 of all the members approve, its constitutional to make such proposal for plebiscite.
Comment: DJB never was my mentor. I’m glad.
HR 1109 is just it, a resolution. It is a mere manifestation of a tyranny of numbers which an infamous lawyer asks the SC to rule on. Will it be so stupid enough to load the last straw by playng Gloria’s hand? I don’t think so. I agree with mlq3. We have been crying WOLF too often enough.
The effort to create that controversy will create more problems only if the controversy itself has merit. If the controversy has no merit, and is based on a lunatic premise, the SC should see through that. So I see no reason to fear this H.R. It’s much ado about nothing.
My personal take on this H.R. is that it’s an attempt by Nograles to deflect pressure being put on him to initiate charter change. In Nogie’s mind, it’s a brilliant maneuver which passes on a red-hot potato, which he would prefer not to get embroiled with, to the Supreme Court. At the same time, he hopes this sleight of hand placates his patrons and he continues to remain in good graces.
It looks to me like a lame attempt by Nograles to disentangle himself from any cha-cha controversy, without antagonizing his superiors. If people give it credence, it only makes Nograles look as if he pulled off a brilliant caper.
I never gave much importance to this resolution. However, if DJB proves to be correct, then there may be more to this H.R. than meets the eye.
Watch video of Rep. Teofisto ‘TG’ Guingona III describing how the ConAss congressmen betrayed our republic! — http://www.filipinowriter.com/the-judases-of-our-republic-conass-es
Carl: “…if DJB proves to be correct.
Which ex-cathedra pronouncement are you referring to?
This? In the sense that the Congress has only two “Membersâ€â€“the Lower and the Upper House– we may say that the Congress always acts on the basis of a unanimous decision between these two Members. No law, for example can be passed without the consent of both chambers.
Or this: There is no unconstitutional choice. As long as the arithmetic result is 3/4 of all the members approve, its constitutional to make such proposal for plebiscite.
Carl except that the Speaker of the House does not have the political clout to maneuver the house into doing this unless he has the support and encouragement of the chief executive.
Of course, Nograles had the necessary backing from his superiors in order to get the resolution approved. Nograles wouldn’t set his ploy into play unless he had a green light. But it remains a ploy until something substantial comes out of it, which would be a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of a joint Constitutional Assembly. That looks to me like a Hail Mary pass by Nograles. Something which he may have convinced his superiors could be worth the try. But the bottomline for Nograles is that wants to wriggle himself out of the predicament of initiating cha-cha. With this ploy, he can pass on the onus to the SC and, at the same time, he still comes out as a solid team player in the eyes of his superiors.
As for DJB’s ex-cathedra pronouncements, I, of course, refer to the following:
“There is no right way or wrong way between “voting jointly†and “voting separatelyâ€.
Both modes can be made to comply with the Constitutional requirement that any proposed change be “upon a vote of three fourths of all its Membersâ€.”
And:
“The important point to grasp is this: which mode the Congress uses–joint or separate voting–is purely a matter of discretion of the Congress. Not the Supreme Court!”
And:
“. . . there really isn’t anything for the SCoRP to decide other than that the decision–to vote separately or jointly–is a matter of Congressional discretion.”
And, of course:
“There is no unconstitutional choice. As long as the arithmetic result is 3/4 of all the members approve, its constitutional to make such proposal for plebiscite.”
Yes, DJB also seems to contradict himself with his pronouncements. But he still seems to be making the point that the SC may abstain from making an unequivocal decision and will defer to Congress, so long as they come up with the numbers (“the 3/4th solution”).
In that case, Nograles’ Hail Mary pass way work, after all. But then, I wouldn’t heap all the blame on Nograles. I blame the framers of the 1987 Constitution for having done a terrible job. Instead of ushering the Philippines into a new dawn, those people created a huge mess for the Filipino people.
This doesn’t mean that I agree with DJB’s assessment. But I am not discounting it either, because I defer to his scholarship on these matters.
that’s a fair statement.
Manolo: “Then let’s simply refuse to break bread with any majority congressman, and decline to attend events at which they appear. They’re powerless to get us to even shake their hands. Let us ostracize them, for once.”
They can buy crowds to do those for them. Maybe we should also buy the crowds, be on a bidding war for the poor’s affection.
Or, or, maybe we don’t have buy the crowds? We can just brainwash the poor masses them to hate them politicians!
Sadly, the communists beat us to it.
“Yes, DJB also seems to contradict himself with his pronouncements. But he still seems to be making the point that the SC may abstain from making an unequivocal decision and will defer to Congress, so long as they come up with the numbers (â€the 3/4th solutionâ€).”-Carl
I think that DJB was just hoping for the best. However the SC might just do the worst. Very likely, but who knows.
Still, it would be very interesting times when the Supreme Court ligitimized the implementation of this ConAss with or without the Senate’s approval and the Comelec make sure that the ‘Yes to ConAss’ win in the plebescite.
DJB: There is no unconstitutional choice. As long as the arithmetic result is 3/4 of all the members approve, its constitutional to make such proposal for plebiscite.
If this part of DJB’s comment is true, and the rest are false, then the Senate-less Congress, armed with a 3/4th vote by all members, may proceed with drafting proposed amendments. And the SC can’t or won’t stop it.
Find photos of last Thursday’s Ateneo Con-Ass Forum and Noise Barrage at http://filipinowriter.multiply.com/photos/album/81/Ateneo_Con-Ass_Forum_and_Noise_Barrage
Facing a divergent diffused groups with trapos opposing the government that is organized and funded getting the so called opposition to rush through the usual rallies we have seen for the few years with Mar Roxas, Erap and others including Brother Eddie trying to get pole position will embolden the new royal couple to forge ahead. Start counting on a handful of senators to join the lower house to complete the required 2/3rds number. If like Biazon says, some members of the military do join up with the diffused opposition you have the pretext for martial law.
She may have the ducks all in a row on this one.
Hmmmmm…Arroyo and her minions are clearly abusing their position but there is nothing illegal about it. They are obviously doing something wrong but are still within constitutional bounderies. Is the situation such as that the opposition has no other recourse but to take unconstitutional measures to effect desired changes beneficial to the people?
Then again, the government can do its constitutional right to protect itself and democracy…tuloy ang ligaya ng mga mga tongressmen…
We wanted a democracy for the people, by the people, and of the people…now which people are we talking about?
…maybe we just have to accept it and hope for the best?
“…maybe we just have to accept it and hope for the best?” – ramrod
If the Supreme Court doesn’t make a definitive statement that stops a joint Con Ass on its tracks and, instead, defers to what DJB calls “arithmetic”, people will generally, if reluctantly, accept it.
If that happens, Nograles comes out looking like a genius. Unlike De Venecia, who vigorously embraced cha-cha under Ramos and GMA, Nograles has no stomach for cha-cha. He is not in his element leading movements. He thought up of this ploy in order to deflect pressure to lead a movement for cha-cha, preferring to pass on the hot potato to the SC.
If, however, the SC passes back the hot potato to Congress, prescribing an arithmetical solution, Nograles hits the jackpot. He will have done what De Venecia failed to do under 2 administrations. He will, indeed, prove to be the better man than JDV could ever be, at least in the eyes of his patrons. He will even win the grudging admiration of that sinister old fox, FVR.
Again, I premise these statements on the assumption that the Supreme Court buys DJB’s “numbers” theory. I find it unlikely, although I still won’t rule it out.
Carl: …I premise these statements on the assumption that the Supreme Court buys DJB’s “numbers†theory.
What if, instead, the SC buy DJB’s more plausible theory? “The insuperable fact–unfortunate for the chacha proponents–is that when the Congress is proposing chacha, it must do so, uhmm as the Congress, which is a bicameral body.”
Re: DJB’s “numbers” theory. Please refer to the next sentence: “I find it unlikely, although I still won’t rule it out.”
Carl, on the one hand DJB says that the sound of one chamber clapping is silence. On the other, he says that it is not so if the clapping is loud enough. This is my point. This is what I want clarified.
Photos of Congressmen who Signed Con-Ass (HR 1109):
Multiply version: http://filipinowriter.multiply.com/photos/album/84/Photos_of_Congressmen_who_Signed_Con-Ass_HR_1109
Facebook versions:
Voters of Con-Ass from Luzon
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=96732&id=701072330
Voters of Con-Ass from VisMin, ARMM and Party-Lists
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=96809&id=701072330
The only way to have the conundrum clarified is to have the SC render a verdict on it.
DJB only points out that “there is no right way or wrong way between “voting jointly†and “voting separatelyâ€.”
In other words, the 1987 Constitution is vague and subject to interpretation. One can interpret the sound of one chamber clapping as silence, while another can interpret that same clapping as a clamor. Based on DJB’s analysis, both interpretations are correct . . . or wrong . . . or neither, depending on the perspective one wishes to take. Valid arguments can be made for both sides.
Personally, I take this ambiguity as another case in point that attests to the numerous flaws in the 1987 Constitution. That charter is one heck of a piece of crap. While I have reservations about DJB’s interpretations, I do agree with him that the 1935 Constitution was a lot better.
Carl, you defend well. Maybe, DJB really meant it that way after all. Thank you so much for bearing with me. I doubt though whether the SC will find HR 1109 a justiciable controversy. Unless it opts to go out of its way and stop an expensive and destructive nonsense on its tracks!
Anyway, I fully agree with you on that piece of crap. I think it brought the country into such a mess, with Gloria on top. However, I have written much on how we can thrive on it. I have been writing on this advocacy for years now. So far, among our Senators only Flash Gordon responded, by guiding me to his website.
It’s about safeguards against presidential abuse and more people empowerment at the local government level through legislation. Unless we act on it, we will always have Gloria with us through her successors, whoever they may be.
I, too, believe that the SC will know better. I am mystified, though, to see how many sectors are already crying wolf.
President GMA, the first gentleman Mike Arroyo and their loyalist have Plans A to F so that GMA will remain in power beyond 2010. Everybody is falling into a trap. Should we allow GREED to reign? I can’t even trust our SC justices anymore. I pity our people because they have been lulled into believing we are on the right track and to tell you honestly, maybe believed GMA for if not, Hell could have already broken lose. Are we vigilant enough? God have mercy on us all….
Crying wolf? The wolf has been in our midst, clearly and out in the open — since 2005. The sheep that we all are — have been trusting a wolf — in the hope it won’t devour this republic. What’s a wolf to do except to be true to its nature?
Even if the SC upholds the spirit of bicameralism — who’s to say that the Senate won’t do its own version of HR 1109? Enrile, put there by Malacanang by design, is a liar of the highest order and lulling the public as usual.
SO THE PEOPLE WILL KNOW WHO THE ASSHOLES WHO VOTED FOR THE CON-ASS ARE!!!
CONGRESSMEN WHO APPROVED THE CON ASS:
ABANTE, BIENVENIDO M. “BENNY” 6TH District Pandacan
ABLAN, ROQUE R. JR, Ilocos Norte, 1st District
AGBAYANI, VICTOR AGUEDO E. Pangasinan, 2nd District
AGYAO, MANUEL, S Kalinga Province
ALBANO (III), RODOLFO T. Isabela, 1st District
ALFELOR, FELIX R. JR. 4th District, Camarines Sur
ALMARIO, THELMA Z. Davao Oriental, 2nd District
ALVAREZ, ANTONIO C. Palawan 1st District
ALVAREZ, GENARO RAFAEL M. JR. Negros Occidental, 6th District
AMANTE, EDELMIRO A. Agusan Del Norte, 2nd District
AMATONG, ROMMEL C. Compostela Valley, 2nd District
ANGPING, MARIA ZENAIDA B. Manila, 3rd District
ANTONINO, RODOLFO W. Nueva Ecija, 4th District
APOSTOL, TRINIDAD G. Leyte, 2nd District
AQUINO, JOSE S. (II) 1st District Agusan del Norte
ARAGO, MARIA EVITA R. 3rd district, Laguna
ARBISON, A MUNIR M. Sulu 2nd District
ARENAS, MA. RACHEL J. Pangasinan, 3rd District
ARROYO, DIOSDADO M. Camarines Sur, 1st District
ARROYO, IGNACIO T. 5th district Negros Occidental
ARROYO, JUAN MIGUEL M. 2nd District of Pampanga
BAGATSING, AMADO S. Manila 5th district
BALINDONG, PANGALIAN M. Lanao del Sur, 2nd District
BARZAGA, ELPIDIO F. JR. Cavite, 2nd District
BAUTISTA, FRANKLIN P. Davao Del Sur, 2nd District
BELMONTE, VICENTE F. JR. Lanao del Norte, 1st District
BICHARA, AL FRANCIS C. Albay, 2nd District
BIRON, FERJENEL G. Iloilo, 4th District
BONDOC, ANNA YORK P. Pampanga 4th District
BONOAN-DAVID, MA. THERESA B. Manila, 4th District
BRAVO, NARCISO R. JR. Masbate, 1st District
BRIONES, NICANOR M. AGAP Party list
BUHAIN, EILEEN ERMITA Batangas, 1st District
BULUT, ELIAS C. JR. Apayao Lone District
CAGAS (IV), MARC DOUGLAS C. Davao Del Sur, 1st District
CAJAYON, MARY MITZI L. Caloocan, 2nd District
CAJES, ROBERTO C. Bohol, 2nd District
CARI, CARMEN L. Leyte, 5th District
CASTRO, FREDENIL H. Capiz, 2nd District
CELESTE, ARTHUR F. Pangasinan, 1st District
CERILLES, ANTONIO H. Zamboanga Del Sur, 2nd District
CHATTO, EDGARDO M. Bohol, 1st District
CHONG, GLENN A. Biliran, Lone District
CHUNG-LAO, SOLOMON R. Ifugao, Lone District
CLARETE, MARINA C. Misamis Occidental, 1st District
CODILLA, EUFROCINO M. SR. Leyte, 4th District
COJUANCO, MARK O. Pangasinan, 5th District
COQUILA, TEODULO M. Eastern Samar, Lone District
CRISOLOGO, VINCENT P. Quezon City, 1st District
CUA, JUNIE E. Quirino, Lone District
CUENCO, ANTONIO V. Cebu City, 2nd District
DANGWA, SAMUEL M. Benguet, Lone District
DATUMANONG, SIMEON A. Maguindanao, Lone District
Dayanghirang, Nelson L. Davao Oriental, 1st District
DAZA, NANETTE C. Quezon City, 4th District
DAZA, PAUL R. Northern Samar, 1st District
DE GUZMAN, DEL R. Marikina City, 2nd District
DEFENSOR, ARTHUR D. SR. Iloilo, 3rd District
DEFENSOR, MATIAS V. JR. Quezon City, 3rd District
DEL MAR, RAUL V. Cebu City, 1st District
DIASNES, CARLO OLIVER D. (MD) Batanes, Lone District
DIMAPORO, ABDULLAH D. Lanao Del Norte, 2nd District
DOMOGAN, MAURICIO G. Baguio, Lone District
DUAVIT, MICHAEL JOHN R. Rizal, 1st District
DUENAS, HENRY M. JR. Taguig, 2nd District (2nd Councilor District)
DUMARPA, FAYSAH MRP. Lanao del Sur, 1st District
DUMPIT, THOMAS L. JR. La Union, 2nd District
DURANO (IV), RAMON H. 5th District, Cebu
ECLEO, GLENDA B. Dinagat Islands, Lone District
EMANO, YEVGENY VICENTE B. Misamis Oriental, 2nd District
ENVERGA, WILFRIDO MARK M. Quezon, 1st District
ESTRELLA, CONRADO M. (III) Pangasinan, 6th District
ESTRELLA, ROBERT RAYMUND M. ABONO Party List
FERRER, JEFFREY P. Negros Occidental, 4th District
GARAY, FLORENCIO C. Surigao Del Sur, 2nd District
GARCIA, ALBERT S. Bataan, 2nd District.
GARCIA, PABLO JOHN F. Cebu, 3rd District
GARCIA, PABLO P. Cebu, 2nd District
GARCIA, VINCENT J. Davao City, 2nd District
GARIN, JANETTE L. Iloilo, 1st District
GATCHALIAN, REXLON T. Valenzuela City, 1st District
GATLABAYAN, ANGELITO C. Antipolo City, 2nd District
GO, ARNULFO F. Sultan Kudarat, 2nd District
GONZALES, AURELIO D. JR. Pampanga 3rd District
GONZALES, RAUL T. JR. Ilo ilo City
GULLAS, EDUARDO R. Cebu, 1st District
GUNIGUNDO, MAGTANGGOL T. Valenzuela City 2nd District
HOFER, DULCE ANN K. Zamboanga Sibugay, 2nd District
JAAFAR, NUR G. Tawi-Tawi, Lone District
JALA, ADAM RELSON L. Bohol, 3rd District
JALOSJOS, CESAR G. Zamboanga del Norte, 3rd District
JALOSJOS-CARREON, CECILIA G. Zamboanga del Norte, 1st District
JIKIRI, YUSOP H. Sulu, 1st District
KHO, ANTONIO T. Masbate, 2nd District
LABADLABAD, ROSENDO S. Zamboanga del Norte, 2nd District
LACSON, JOSE CARLOS V. Negros Occidental, 3rd District
LAGDAMEO, ANTONIO F. JR. Davao del Norte, 2nd District
LAPUS, JECI A. Tarlac, 3rd District
LAZATIN, CARMELO F. Pampanga, 1st District
LIM, RENO G. Albay, 3rd District
LOPEZ, JAIME C. Manila, 2nd District
MADRONA, ELEANORA JESUS F. Romblon, Lone District
MAGSAYSAY, MARIA MILAGROS H. Zambales, 1st District
MALAPITAN, OSCAR G. Caloocan, 1st District
MAMBA, MANUEL N. Cagayan, 3rd District
MANGUDADATU, DATU PAKUNG S. Sultan Kudarat,
MARANON, ALFREDO D. III Negros Occidental, 2nd District
MATUGAS, FRANCISCO T. Surigao del Norte, 1st District
MENDOZA, MARK LEANDRO L. Batangas, 4th District
MERCADO, ROGER G. Southern Leyte, Lone District
MIRAFLORES, FLORENCIO T. Aklan, Lone District
NAVA, JOAQUIN CARLOS RAHMAN A. (MD) Guimaras, Lone District
NICOLAS, REYLINA G. Bulacan, 4th District
NOGRALES, PROSPERO C. Davao City, 1st District
OLAñO, ARREL R. Davao Del Norte, 1st District
ONG, EMIL L. Northern Samar, 2nd District
ORTEGA, VICTOR FRANCISCO C. La Union, 1st District
PABLO, ERNESTO C. APEC Party List
PANCHO, PEDRO M. Bulacan, 2nd District
PANCRUDO, CANDIDO P. JR. Bukidnon, 1st District
PICHAY, PHILIP A. Surigao Del Sur, 1st District
PIñOL, BERNARDO F. JR. North Cotabato, 2nd District
PUNO, ROBERTO V. Antipolo City, 1st District
RAMIRO, HERMINIA M. Misamis Occidental, 2nd District
REMULLA, JESUS CRISPIN C. Cavite, 3rd District
REYES, CARMELITA O. Marinduque, Lone District
REYES, VICTORIA H. Batangas, 3rd District
ROBES, ARTURO G. San Jose Del Monte City, Lone District
Rodriguez-Zaldarria ga, Adelina Rizal, 2nd District
ROMAN, HERMINIA B. Bataan, 1st District
ROMARATE, GUILLERMO A. JR. Surigao del Norte, 2nd District
ROMUALDEZ, FERDINAND MARTIN G. Leyte, 1st District
ROMUALDO, PEDRO Camiguin, Lone District
ROMULO, ROMAN T. Pasig City, Lone District
ROXAS, JOSE ANTONIO F. Pasay City
SALIMBANGON, BENHUR L. Cebu, 4th District
SALVACION JR., ANDRES D. Leyte, 3rd District
SAN LUIS, EDGAR S. Laguna, 4th District
SANDOVAL, ALVIN S. Malabon-Navotas, Lone District
SANTIAGO, JOSEPH A. Catanduanes, Lone District
SANTIAGO, NARCISO D. (III) ARC Party List
SEACHON-LANETE, RIZALINA L. 3rd district of Masbate
SEARES-LUNA, CECILIA M. Abra, Lone District
SILVERIO, LORNA C. Bulacan, 3rd District
SINGSON, ERIC D. Ilocos Sur, 2nd District
SINGSON, RONALD V. Ilocos Sur, 1st District
SOLIS, JOSE G. Sorsogon, 2nd District
SOON-RUIZ, NERISSA CORAZON Cebu, 6th District
SUAREZ, DANILO E. Quezon, 3rd District
SUSANO, MARY ANN L. Quezon City, 2nd District
SY-ALVARADO, MA. VICTORIA R. Bulacan, 1st District
SYJUCO, JUDY J. 2nd Dsitrict, Iloilo
TALINO-MENDOZA, EMMYLOU J. North Cotabato, 1st District
TAN, SHAREE ANN T. Samar, 2nd District
TEODORO, MARCELINO R. Marikina City, 1st District
TEODORO, MONICA LOUISSE PRIETO Tarlac, 1st District
TEVES, PRYDE HENRY A. Negros Oriental, 3rd District
TUPAS, NEIL C. JR. Iloilo, 5th District
UNGAB, ISIDRO T. Davao City, 3rd District
UY, EDWIN C. Isabela, 2nd District
UY, REYNALDO S. Samar, 1st District
UY, ROLANDO A. Cagayan De Oro City, Lone District
VALDEZ, EDGAR L. APEC Party List
VALENCIA, RODOLFO G. Oriental Mindoro, 1st District
VARGAS, FLORENCIO L. Cagayan, 2nd District
VILLAFUERTE, LUIS R. Camarines Sur, 2nd District
VILLAROSA, MA. AMELITA C. Occidental Mindoro, Lone District
VIOLAGO, JOSEPH GILBERT F. Nueva Ecija, 2nd District
YAP, JOSE V. Tarlac, 2nd District
YU, VICTOR J. Zamboanga Del Sur, 1st District
ZAMORA, MANUEL E. 1st District, Compostela Valley
ZIALCITA, EDUARDO C. Parañaque, 1st District
Mild and periodic exposure to the source of allergy often rids one of the ailment. Antbodies within the system, like the CBCP, are activated. Remember how it difused the heat at the height of the Hello Garci tapes issue by calling for a futile search for truth? Then there was also its confusing and debilitating call for communal action.
Now CBCP is giving Gloria another shot of vaccine: tame and manageable demos. Expect the furious, the gullible and the free riders to be there. Remember what Lao Tze said? An oppressive and corrupt regime self-destructs. Demos and protests lenghtens its life.
Well said, taxj. That’s what stuck in my mind when the Church called for protests — the way these should be done.
The most important message that should been communicated that HR 1109 is immoral and undemocratic should be condemned has been lost in translation or diluted.
Perhaps just as well. If there is going to be a fresh regime in 2010, the Church should not be a major player anymore. Their time is up.
Just for the record. I’m a an RC. I won’t embrace any other religion.
It was an unconstitutional move by the Lower House. They just proved to us that they’re really belongs to the Lower House because of their LOW knowledge in the Constitution. Shame on you,morons!
Cong. IVY ARAGO of 3rd district of Laguna, I never thought that you were part of this shameful and thick skinned acts. Shame on you, I used to be your campaign supporter,and I regret all those deeds just to help you to win your fight. Pls. Don’t vote for her on 2010, you’re one of those greed morons and puppies of little Cruela with a big mole in malacañang. San Pableños hate you for what you’ve done.