check out my reaction paper for a subject that required us to attend a symposium, ehem, a 150Phpeso-registration-fee(god, where did all my lunch money gO???)-for-supposedly-4-hours-but-really-only-took-less-than-2-because-one-of-the-three-speakers-didn't-bother-showing-up symposium inclusive of stale & pasty carbonara and a bottle of an anti-oxidant of an upper people fondly call C2. e-yuch. pardon.
and now be entertained:
For the record, I’m all out for any changes that ought to be taken in order to rid the Philippines of the crises dragging us into more wars, an impossibly jam-packed below the line poverty level, and, oh, total deterioration from within. So is it any wonder that I’m positively saying NO to Charter Change? Not really.
I’m not sure exactly but I think I’ve been hearing about Cha-Cha since the first year of my high school, when Estrada’s presidency wasn’t yet slugged with jueteng payolas and ghost bank accounts. But it’s only today that I see TV commercials and ads on print endorsing Cha-Cha. Why, I ask, has the government so suddenly became a desperate housewife concerning the matter? It seems the likes of Hon. Teddy Casino have quite the hypothesis bubbling up.
Part of the procedure of the shift from a presidential constitution into parliament as proposed by the administration is a 3-year transition period (2007–2010) wherein President Arroyo will simultaneously play head of state and head of government, with no election whatsoever. Being such, she acquires power not unlike Spiderman (with great power comes great responsibility? I just hope our president sees the same outlook). Like, for example, she has the ability of determining the prime minister’s role in all of this. Or, she can always dissolve the parliament – and, if she so desires, impose martial law. What an odd case of dé ja vu. So could this entire tangle really be a huge plot designed by Arroyo and allies to rationalize a planned overdue stay in position? Plausible. Possible. Probable?
And then there’s the matter of a unicameral legislature in a parliamentary constitution. It remains to be seen what real effect having only one house in a lawmaking body would have on our country. That is, unless the house majority comprises of the present administration’s supporters. A point stressed upon by Casino is the net worth of our leaders today. All senators are millionaires and only seven in congress aren’t. And in an era of recycled public officials, undoubtedly most of these affluent politicians will be part of the unicameral legislature. Hardly the genuine representatives of the Filipino people parliament supposedly has.
One of the commercials I saw promises better life for everyone. Or at least for the prospective OFWs, since it said they wouldn’t have to work abroad and risk abuse from an animal of an employer. How would they do that? Well, parliament opens up the country and transforms it into the ultimate public property. This implies that foreigners could anytime obtain land ownerships, access to the country’s natural resources, public utilities, mass media and schools. Not kosher. Although foreign investments could mean more jobs for the people, it also could mean the possible fatality of the local industry, considering the Filipino’s undeniable colonial mentality. So are we really solving the problem of our economy by letting products of foreign capital dominate our markets? Or is that the problem first and foremost?
The flaws are now piecing together to form this one great hole if we took the step towards parliamentary governance. Arroyo’s timing is bad, if not suspicious of conspiring to remain seated in her comfortable little Cleopatra couch – not to mention a looming threat of martial law all over again. The reduction of checks and balances is bliss for grafters and corruptors. Potential exploitation of our resources by foreigners in exchange of very unpromising profit (as if we don’t have enough local exploiters around). Can vote but can’t vote – people are just soaking up more incredulity with every little feat of the government, which certainly would lead to more rallies and upheavals. In short: more crises. Back to square one.
Change is good. But personally, I would want to wait for a better version of the Charter Change – if there is such a thing – in a more appropriate time – if there is such a time.
say "naks" everybody.
really, i wouldnt so much as mind if we took on a parliamentary constitution for a change. really, this sort of thing will happen AGAIN and people will AGAIN say the timing is not right. so when the heck will it ever be then? or people will AGAIN say that the president is plotting this evilmost plan of staying in and abusing more of his power. his next step would probably be to take over the world, wouldnt it? have we ever stoppped to consider that what we see is really actually simply just everything there is to it? dont get me wrong, GMA is still a bitch, but the proposal of cha cha is i think something worth a try with or without her.
now am i a great liar or what?
