MERGED: Charter Change

[bcasabee]

---

Partly to be blamed is the system pud oi, dili lang kay ang tawo............sumala gud nang mga private corporations.....mga tawo man gihapon ang gadala ana.....pero naa may efficient ug dili efficient.....naay uban ISO certified, naay uban dili........attributed pud na sa system.......ug math pa.

good system + competent politicians/people = efficient organization.
bad system + incompetent politicians/people = disaster <----- mura ug mao ni atoang equation karon.....

Ang ako lang gud is mas sayon usbon ang systema kaysa usbon nimo ang kinaiya sa mga politicians.........so why not give cha cha a chance.......pila na gud ta ka tuig nangandoy nga mahimo untang santos ang atoang mga politicians ug bureacracts pero karon wala ra gihapon, mas moputi pa siguro ang uwak kaysa ang ilang kinaiya maoy mausab............buhat ta ug systema nga bisan ang mga trapo, maglisud ug buhat ug dili maayo.......

[istoryador]

It should be made clear that the only change that the pro ‘cha cha’ politicos are really interested in is the shift from the presidential form of government to the parliamentary form of government. Notwithstanding their loud assertions all over the media that they are for charter change because they want to open up the economy and create more jobs, their “Peoples’ Initiative” proposal in fact only petitions for revisions in Articles VI (Legislative Department), VII (Executive Department), and XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of the Constitution. In no part of the scrap of paper that they are asking people to sign is there any mention of amendments to the sections in Articles XII (National Economy and Patrimony) and XVI (General Provisions) that actually contain the restrictive economic provisions. This is disingenuous on their part. On this matter alone, it is hard not to conclude that this is not all part of a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive the Filipino people.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people the real and practical consequences of the parliamentary system’s fusing of the executive power now vested in the President and the legislative power now vested in Congress into a single body (Parliament). Such a system therefore has inherently weaker controls and is more prone to abuse and corruption.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that a parliamentary system discards the system of checks and balances that is an excellent feature of the presidential system. They do not tell the people that the Prime Minister and the members of Parliament – especially in the unicameral system being proposed – will be far more powerful than the President and the Cabinet in a presidential system.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that, in a parliamentary system, the entire national budget (except of course for certain fixed expenditures like debt servicing and salaries) is the ‘pork barrel’. They do not tell the people that there is no check for the power of the Prime Minister and his ruling gang to do what they want except to resort to the judicial system, but that is an after-the-fact control device and assumes that kickbacks can actually be documented and proven in a court of law.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that, in a parliamentary system, ‘horse trading’ – or the ‘I’ll go along with your project if you go along with mine’ system – is enshrined as the way of governance. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet are dependent for their continued stay in office on the votes of members of Parliament, and such votes can be withheld at any time.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people exactly how their desired shift to a parliamentary form of government will benefit the country. All they do is point to other countries that happen to be parliamentary and more economically successful than we are, and then make the sweeping statement that we would be as economically successful as those countries if only we changed to a parliamentary government. They conveniently do not mention that there many other countries that are performing better economically but do not have parliamentary governments, or that there are many other countries that have parliamentary governments but are not performing well economically. These pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that there is no demonstrated correlation between form of government and economic performance, or between the parliamentary form and the rate of economic growth. In fact, economic performance is a function of a country’s economic policies, its resource endowments, and the set of environmental conditions, not its form of government.

Finally, the pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not like to tell the people that, in a parliamentary system, we ordinary citizens – already bereft of any real power – will be further deprived of the power to vote for our choice as leader of the country. In a parliamentary system, only the members of Parliament will have a say in who will lead the nation. Sila sila na lang ang mag-didikta. Props na lang tayo.

http://www.notoparliament.net/

[bcasabee]

Meaning, cha cha is not really bad itself.......its the politicos who wants the cha-cha are the bad ones.......pero assuming Articles XII (National Economy and Patrimony) and XVI (General Provisions) will be included also in the ammendment to give way to economic prosperity....then I guess you would agree with cha-cha....if that is so.....why not we lobby for the inclusion of those articles in the amendments instead of preventing cha-cha just because of the tradpols............

It should be made clear that the only change that the pro ‘cha cha’ politicos are really interested in is the shift from the presidential form of government to the parliamentary form of government. Notwithstanding their loud assertions all over the media that they are for charter change because they want to open up the economy and create more jobs, their “Peoples’ Initiative” proposal in fact only petitions for revisions in Articles VI (Legislative Department), VII (Executive Department), and XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of the Constitution. In no part of the scrap of paper that they are asking people to sign is there any mention of amendments to the sections in Articles XII (National Economy and Patrimony) and XVI (General Provisions) that actually contain the restrictive economic provisions. This is disingenuous on their part. On this matter alone, it is hard not to conclude that this is not all part of a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive the Filipino people.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people the real and practical consequences of the parliamentary system’s fusing of the executive power now vested in the President and the legislative power now vested in Congress into a single body (Parliament). Such a system therefore has inherently weaker controls and is more prone to abuse and corruption.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that a parliamentary system discards the system of checks and balances that is an excellent feature of the presidential system. They do not tell the people that the Prime Minister and the members of Parliament – especially in the unicameral system being proposed – will be far more powerful than the President and the Cabinet in a presidential system.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that, in a parliamentary system, the entire national budget (except of course for certain fixed expenditures like debt servicing and salaries) is the ‘pork barrel’. They do not tell the people that there is no check for the power of the Prime Minister and his ruling gang to do what they want except to resort to the judicial system, but that is an after-the-fact control device and assumes that kickbacks can actually be documented and proven in a court of law.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that, in a parliamentary system, ‘horse trading’ – or the ‘I’ll go along with your project if you go along with mine’ system – is enshrined as the way of governance. This is a natural consequence of the fact that the Prime Minister and his/her cabinet are dependent for their continued stay in office on the votes of members of Parliament, and such votes can be withheld at any time.

The pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people exactly how their desired shift to a parliamentary form of government will benefit the country. All they do is point to other countries that happen to be parliamentary and more economically successful than we are, and then make the sweeping statement that we would be as economically successful as those countries if only we changed to a parliamentary government. They conveniently do not mention that there many other countries that are performing better economically but do not have parliamentary governments, or that there are many other countries that have parliamentary governments but are not performing well economically. These pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not tell the people that there is no demonstrated correlation between form of government and economic performance, or between the parliamentary form and the rate of economic growth. In fact, economic performance is a function of a country’s economic policies, its resource endowments, and the set of environmental conditions, not its form of government.

Finally, the pro ‘cha cha’ politicos do not like to tell the people that, in a parliamentary system, we ordinary citizens – already bereft of any real power – will be further deprived of the power to vote for our choice as leader of the country. In a parliamentary system, only the members of Parliament will have a say in who will lead the nation. Sila sila na lang ang mag-didikta. Props na lang tayo.

http://www.notoparliament.net/

[FK]

good system + competent politicians/people = efficient organization.
bad system + incompetent politicians/people = disaster <----- mura ug mao ni atoang equation karon.....

ang imo wala gi include is... let's just say that parliamentary is good.
good system + incompetent politicians/people = ?

we all know that in parliament a Prime Minister should have a good relationship with his MPs, so given our style or politicos... where kng makapabor sila og hatagan sila og pabor, dili na panumbalingon kng onsa ang sakto... do you think sakto gihapon ang parliament style?

[bcasabee]

Ok, so unsa may mas nindot nga alternative sa charter change?

[cats_eye2000]

ok ko ana! i believe gyud ko ana ni Pres. Gloria. tan-awa ang Value sa Peso ning dako ug maayo! good job!

[istoryador]

Alexander Pope said “for forms of governments let fools contest, whate’er is best administer’d is best.” Taiwan and South Korea are presidential and doing well.

Good people change others. Better people change the system. The best ones change themselves. The fornicators, piranhas and barracudas know who they are. They say they are what they are because we are presidential bicameral?

That they will change overnight once we become parliamentary unicameral?

Lord, give me strength.

[mannyamador]

True Istoryador!!!

Cha-cha is one BIG LIE. It's just a way to keep the current politicos of the administration in power.

[if_i_aint_got_u]

chacha is a long process!

i agree in parliamentary type of government, however, i'm afraid of rapid change of leaders due to crab mentality!

i think graft & corruption,crab mentality, and mismanagement are the main problems in our government today and not chacha!

i agree with this....
chacha is okay...but dat is not da problem for today!

[FK]

Ok, so unsa may mas nindot nga alternative sa charter change?

one ammend the constitution that will promote more transparency in public spending... but look at what they are planning to change?

check and balance in our system is for me better than a unicameral. daghan ga ingon dinhi nga ang senate wala'y ayo... tungod ba kay mo supak sila sa gusto ni GMA? Tan-awa ninyo og balik... gibasura ba tanan measures nga giduso sa admin?