MERGED: Charter Change

[FK]

---

Kng naa amendments dili sa paagi pareho karon.

Kng madayon na ang Cha-Cha ron... pagbantay mo kay gamiton ra na nila sa ilang kaugalingon gusto.

tsk... tsk... tsk...

[wanderlust]

I dont support Cha Cha. Thats the only way where GMA can legitimize her illegitimate government. I dont think Cha cha is being thought of to genuinely help the Filipino people. Its the politicians that will benefit on Cha cha.

1. There are no term limits
2. Prime Minister gets elected by fellow MPs, people can no longer directly choose their leader.
3. Members of the parliament also become members of the Cabinet - verty powerful.
4. No more checks and balances.

Given the political culture in our country, we will have the spectre of one party system. Nobody wants to be in the opposition in a parliamentary system.

Term limits do not guarantee accountability. On the contrary-- in our present presidential system, the president's fixed term renders him/her "untouchable" during her term, because of the separation of powers that guarantees the executive's independence. There is no real accountability in the present system because of the separation of powers which renders each branch of government independent and non-responsive to each other.

Under a parliamentary system, the independence of the executive is removed, so as to make him/her accountable DURING her term, not after. The daily sessions of parliament include a "question hour" in which the prime minister and members of his cabinet must personally confront their critics and explain their behavior, policies and decisions to both the majority and the opposition. Unsatisfactory performance can lead to a vote of no-confidence.

A common misconception about the parliamentary system is that there will be no options for the people to repudiate the ruling party. Not true. There will still be REGULAR ELECTIONS at which the people can vote out the majority party. Another option is the dissolution of parliament and the resulting call for mid-term elections.

We have experimented a parliamentary form of government. The economic crisis was not solved. Worse, it nurtured a dictator named Marcos. Its the same dog wiht a different collar. There are still crooks in government. In a parliamentary system, we just make the work of the crooks easier because there is no longer a system of checks and balances.

Under Marcos, the parliamentary system continued to be CENTRALIZED, with the national government continuing to make most of the policies and decisions for the country. But the support that Arroyo gets from local government units is due to her advocacy for a FEDERAL form of government, which will further DECENTRALIZE power into the different states that will be set up. Unlike the Marcos-sponsored centralized system, the federal parliamentary system will take power AWAY from the center, not concentrate it in the center. The national government will be even much less powerful under a federal system.

[wanderlust]

i agree with you wanderlust...

charter change has been campained by ny political sciene prof since 2001..

dili lang tungod sa president or PGMA, but he saw the need to change..

daghan man jud flaw sa ato constitution..

'coz gehemu ni siya by people with lasting anger against marcos..

hope well thought na ang cha cha karon..

basta tarungon lang ug pili ang mga usbon na articles and sections..

hoping that people in the community will be well educated by the right agencies..

kay sa amu, nagsige na pangampanya ang mga leftist against cha cha..

I agree with you, the 1987 Constitution is a product of the people's REACTION against the excesses of the Marcos regime. It is a largely flawed document, because its framers were too obsessed with repudiating "everything Marcos". Paranoia is written all over our Constitution and reflected in the presidential system founded upon it.

But we must stop living in the past. The present Constitution is no longer adequate to meet the needs and realities of the present day. With globalization looming on our shores, we can choose either to go with the tide or to be swept away to our detriment. We need a more efficient government. We don't need the gridlock that has hampered national development, that has kept our countryside in the death-grip of poverty.

[FK]

On the contrary-- in our present presidential system, the president's fixed term renders him/her "untouchable" during her term.

not totally right...

Under a parliamentary system, the independence of the executive is removed, so as to make him/her accountable DURING her term, not after.

The daily sessions of parliament include a "question hour" in which the prime minister and members of his cabinet must personally confront their critics and explain their behavior, policies and decisions to both the majority and the opposition.

but still with a clap2x type of parliament... and with the head of the government knows to feed those hungry crocs, it will still be the same.

if we have to change our charter... let's do it the con-con way.

[mannyamador]

There is no real accountability in the present system because of the separation of powers which renders each branch of government independent and non-responsive to each other.

Not really. The independence of the branches makes them accountable since it is more difficult to railroad self-serving measures. The other branches prevent dictatorial powers. For example, the Supreme Court has put some limit on the GMA administration's oppressive measures by declaring PP1017, E0464, and CPR as unconstitutional.

Under a parliamentary system, the independence of the executive is removed, so as to make him/her accountable DURING her term, not after.

This is totally ineffective when a party can control enough seats.

The REAL issue, however, is not the form of ogvernment, but hpow the current administration is manipulating Charter change to perpetuate itself in power. There may be very good reasons for a change to parliamentary government, but that is not the issue. The issue is that such a move will allow the current trapo government to stay in power and continue to pillage the economy, distort the truth, and suppress legitimate dissent.

[wanderlust]

This is totally ineffective when a party can control enough seats.

The REAL issue, however, is not the form of ogvernment, but hpow the current administration is manipulating Charter change to perpetuate itself in power. There may be very good reasons for a change to parliamentary government, but that is not the issue. The issue is that such a move will allow the current trapo government to stay in power and continue to pillage the economy, distort the truth, and suppress legitimate dissent.

As I've said, the people will still have the opportunity to repudiate the majority party, NO MATTER HOW GREAT IT IS, at the regular elections. The people can also compel the government to respond to popular movements through the dissolution of parliament and the resultant call for mid-term elections.

No matter whose administration we are under, its advocacy for Charter change will always be attacked. It was unfortunate that former Pres. Ramos did not have the same backbone that Pres. Arroyo has. Arroyo's advocacy for a shift to a federal parliamentary system was an election campaign promise, contrary to accusations that this was a mere device to escape impeachment for the allegations against her.

The issue is that such a move will allow the current trapo government to stay in power and continue to pillage the economy, distort the truth, and suppress legitimate dissent.

If these allegations had concrete proof, they would be an issue. But as it is, these are mere speculation.

[FK]

But why is it... we don't want to do it via Constitutional Convention? And why favor the Con-Ass? para palami sa congressman?

If these allegations had concrete proof, they would be an issue. But as it is, these are mere speculation.

O.T.
so let's have an impeachment then... to see if this are just mere speculation or there is a concrete proof.

Every person who is accused claim that it is just plain accusation.

shall we?

[tolstoi]

plebiscite now or PGMA 2010?

[SamuraiArcher]

I hope soon na ang PLEBISITO para maka move on na ang atong nasod....

[mannyamador]

If these allegations had concrete proof, they would be an issue. But as it is, these are mere speculation.

These aren't mere allegations. The Supreme Court has already ruled. PP1017 was ILLEGAL and so were CPR and EO 464. There is no douibt about these matters.

Since these were used to suppress dissent and consequently shown to be illegal, then these were illegal means to suppress legitimate dissent.