 |
| Forum |
 |
IN Defense of the 1987
Constitution(ON Charter Change) •
(1559 bytes)
Posted: 9/4/2006
• 21:08 GMT+8
|
 Quote-reply
|
By: coolkalang
registered: 9/4/2006
member
Quezon
City, Philippines
| It must be
clarified if what the proponents of this CHARTER
CHANGE want is amendment or revocation. Because
I hate to see their agenda of revocation wins
riding on an amendment cape. Amendment is
provided in the constitution, there is no
question on that, but to totally revoke the 1987
Constitution will be detrimental to the
achievements of our people over the
dictatorship.
To totally revoke the
constitution requires a major demographical
change such as the breakdown of a large state
into smaller states, which renders the old
charter useless for the purpose of the created
new states. In our case, an example is the
emergence of a Metro Manila Republic, Calabarzon
Republic, Central Plains Republic,etc. Or the
other way around, of which our country joins a
union with other states. Other than these major
demographical changes, I can't see any reason
why we have to change the charter. Face it, our
population of 80 Million(see
http://www.ey.com/GLOBAL/content.nsf/Philippines/Population_growth_and_Philippine_development)
is still manageable under the 1987 Constitution.
It is still potent enough for governance and the
truth is, ConCom delegates in 1986 has
anticipated the re-emergence of the dictatorship
that is why they have created an ideal check and
balances to govern the country by separating the
executive branch from the legislative and the
judiciary. Unless the appearance of a "Judge
Dredd" governance can be justified by present
realities, and it should be substantiated by
facts, to change the present charter is
obviously RIDICULOUS!
|
|
re:IN Defense of the 1987
Constitution(ON Charter Change) •
(214 bytes)
Posted: 9/11/2006
• 18:01 GMT+8
|
Quote-reply
|
By: kissesonmypillow
registered: 9/11/2006
member
San
Fernando, Philippines
| Ang ating
saligang batas ay may mga bahaging kailangang
amyendahan kaya gumagawa ng "resolution" upang
palitan ang ating sistema. Pero ako, ayaw ko pa
ring palitan ang ating konstitusyon. Dapat sa
CHA-CHA, tutulan!
|
|
re:IN Defense of the 1987
Constitution(ON Charter Change) •
(55 bytes)
Posted: 9/14/2006
• 23:40 GMT+8
|
Quote-reply
|
By: coolkalang
registered: 9/4/2006
member
Quezon
City, Philippines
| http://www.veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e115334Z8NGjGnh
|
|
re:IN Defense of the 1987
Constitution(ON Charter Change) •
(501 bytes)
Posted: 9/14/2006
• 23:49 GMT+8
|
Quote-reply
|
By: coolkalang
registered: 9/4/2006
member
Quezon
City, Philippines
| http://manilascooltalk.multiply.com/photos/photo/1/115
LEADERS’
ASSEMBLY AGAINST CHA-CHA
Former President
Corazon C. Aquino (2nd from right) is flanked by
Sen. Franklin Drilon and Rep. Francis ‘Chiz’
Escudero (right) as they attend the Stop Cha-Cha
Assembly at Club Filipino. At left are some of
the leaders of the group — Bro. Eddie
Villanueva, former Sen. Vicente Paterno, Ms.
Nini Quezon Avanceña, former Vice President
Teofisto Guingona Jr. (standing), and Bro. Armin
Luistro. (Tony Pionilla)
|
|
re:IN Defense of the 1987
Constitution(ON Charter Change) •
(1093 bytes)
Posted: 9/15/2006
• 14:46 GMT+8
|
Quote-reply
|
By: wandering_pinoy
registered: 4/14/2005
member
United
States |
Quote:
coolkalang posted on 9/14/2006 |
23:49
|
Nakakalungkot ang
mga taong nasa picture mo cool.
Dahil sa
kanilang mga sariling iterest at fixation laban
ke PGMA ay isinasantabi nila ang pag-bibigay ng
tamang impormasyon kung bakit hindi dapat ang
CHA-CHA. Na ang CHA-CHA na sinusulong ay para
lang makinabang ang mga Politiko at hindi ang
taong bayan. Para sakin ang mga tao sa picture
mo ay mga opurtunista at mga hunyango, hindi
dapat pag-aksayahan ng film at oras. Tama ba yon
na NO sa CHA-CHA dahil ke PGMA eh di mga pasaway
lang itong mga ito.
Pustahan tayo
pagawin mo ng commercial sa TV si PGMA,
halimbawa Sabihin ni PGMA na ang pagsisigarilyo
ay nakakasira ng kalusugan, Tiyak ako sasabihin
ng mga iyan na ang paninigarilyo ay COOL at wag
tigilan ang paninigarilyo dahil nakaupo pa si
PGMA  Ewan ko ba. Isipin nio naman ang mga
pinoy na hirap na hirap na sa buhay.
Mga
pinoy na sinasakripisyo ang malayo sa mga mahal
sa buhay kumita lang ng kahit 150 dollars a
month.
"Sa CHA-CHA, Mga Politiko ang
Makikinabang hindi ang Taong
Bayan"---W.P.
|
 |
re:IN Defense of the 1987
Constitution(ON Charter Change) •
(13838 bytes)
Posted: 9/15/2006
• 15:45 GMT+8
|
Quote-reply
|
By: ilaw06
registered: 1/1/2006
member
Bulakan, Philippines
| coolkalang,
Just
my two cents.
Quote:
coolkalang posted on 9/4/2006 | 21:08
“It
must be clarified if what the proponents of this
CHARTER CHANGE want is amendment or revocation.
Because I hate to see their agenda of revocation
wins riding on an amendment cape. Amendment is
provided in the constitution, there is no
question on that, but to totally revoke the 1987
Constitution will be detrimental to the
achievements of our people over the
dictatorship.
|
FIRST, LET US
DEFINE SOME TERMS OR WORDS SINCE YOU ADDED A NEW
WORD.
Amend -
a•mend
Pronunciation: (u-mend'), [key]
—v.t.
1. to alter, modify, rephrase, or
add to or subtract from (a motion, bill,
constitution, etc.) by formal procedure:
Congress may amend the proposed tax bill.
2.
to change for the better; improve: to amend
one's ways.
3. to remove or correct faults
in; rectify.
—v.i.
to grow or become
better by reforming oneself: He amends day by
day.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary,
Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on
Infoplease.
Amendment -
a•mend•ment
Pronunciation: (u-mend'munt),
[key]
—n.
1. the act of amending or the
state of being amended.
2. an alteration of
or addition to a motion, bill, constitution,
etc.
3. a change made by correction,
addition, or deletion: The editors made few
amendments to the manuscript.
Random
House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997,
by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease.
amendment, in law, alteration of the
provisions of a legal document. The term usually
refers to the alteration of a statute or a
constitution, but it is also applied in
parliamentary law to proposed changes to a bill
or motion under consideration, and in judicial
procedure to the correction of errors. A statute
may be amended by the passage of an act that is
identified specifically as an amendment to it or
by a new statute that renders some of its
provisions nugatory. Written constitutions,
however, for the most part must be amended by an
exactly prescribed procedure. The Constitution
of the United States, as provided in Article 5,
may be amended when two thirds of each house of
Congress approves a proposed amendment (approval
by the president is not required), and three
fourths of the states thereafter ratify it,
sometimes within a set period. Congress decides
whether state ratification shall be by vote of
the legislatures or by popularly elected
conventions. Only in the case of the
Twenty-first Amendment (repealing prohibition)
has the convention system been used. In many
U.S. states, a proposed amendment to the state
constitution must be submitted to the voters in
a referendum.
The Columbia Electronic
Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia
University Press. All rights
reserved.
parliamentary law, rules under
which deliberative bodies conduct their
proceedings. In English-speaking countries these
are based on the practice of the British
Parliament, chiefly in the House of Commons.
British parliamentary law is conventional,
rather than statutory, including traditions and
precedents as well as the Standing Orders of the
House. Thomas Jefferson, when presiding over the
U.S. Senate, prepared a manual of parliamentary
law based on the practice of the House of
Commons, and this practice has generally been
followed in the House of Representatives as
well. Robert's Rules of Order, first compiled by
Henry Martyn Robert in 1876 and drawn from the
usages of all three bodies, is the usually
accepted authority on parliamentary law in the
United States. Parliamentary law includes the
rules necessary for the efficient and equitable
conduct of business by an assembly. In Britain
the effective interpreter of parliamentary law
is the speaker of the House of Commons; in the
United States the role is shared by the speaker
of the House and the president of the Senate,
who are partisan figures, unlike their British
counterpart.
See H. A. Bosmajian, ed.,
Readings in Parliamentary Procedure (1968); H.
E. Hellman, Parliamentary Procedure
(1968).
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia,
6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia University
Press. All rights reserved.
Charter -
char•ter
Pronunciation: (chär'tur), [key]
—n.
1. a document, issued by a sovereign
or state, outlining the conditions under which a
corporation, colony, city, or other corporate
body is organized, and defining its rights and
privileges.
2. (often cap.) a document
defining the formal organization of a corporate
body; constitution: the Charter of the United
Nations.
3. authorization from a central or
parent organization to establish a new branch,
chapter, etc.
4. a grant by a sovereign
power creating a corporation, as the royal
charters granted to British colonies in America.
5. special privilege or immunity.
—v.t.
1. to establish by charter: to charter a
bank.
2. to give special favor or privilege
to.
—adj.
1. done or held in accordance
with a charter: a charter school.
Random
House Unabridged Dictionary, Copyright © 1997,
by Random House, Inc., on Infoplease
charter, document granting certain rights,
powers, or functions. It may be issued by the
sovereign body of a state to a local governing
body, university, or other corporation or by the
constituted authority of a society or order to a
local unit. The term was widely applied to
various royal grants of rights in the Middle
Ages and in early modern times. The most famous
political charter is the Magna Carta of England.
Chartered companies held broad powers of trade
and government by royal charter. In colonial
America, chartered colonies were in theory, and
to an extent in fact, less subject to royal
interference than were royal
colonies.
Constitution -
con•sti•tu•tion
Pronunciation:
(kon"sti-tOO'shun, -tyOO'-), [key]
—n.
1. the act or process of constituting;
establishment.
2. the state of being
constituted; formation.
3. any established
arrangement or custom.
4. (cap.) See
Constitution of the United States.
5. the
system of fundamental principles according to
which a nation, state, corporation, or the like,
is governed.
6. the document embodying these
principles.
Random House Unabridged
Dictionary, Copyright © 1997, by Random House,
Inc., on Infoplease
federal
government or federation,government of a union
of states in which sovereignty is divided
between a central authority and component state
authorities. A federation differs from a
confederation in that the central power acts
directly upon individuals as well as upon
states, thus creating the problem of dual
allegiance. Substantial power over matters
affecting the people as a whole, such as
external affairs, commerce, coinage, and the
maintenance of military forces, are usually
granted to the central government. Nevertheless,
retention of jurisdiction over local affairs by
states is compatible with the federal system and
makes allowance for local feelings. The chief
political problem of a federal system of
government is likely to be the allocation of
sovereignty, because the need for unity among
the federating states may conflict with their
desire for autonomy. The Greek city-states
failed to solve this problem, although religious
and political federations were often attempted
and the Aetolian and Achaean leagues had many of
the institutions of federal government. The
primacy of the central over the state
governments was not resolved in the United
States until after the Civil War. The
distribution of powers between the federal and
state governments is usually accomplished by
means of a written constitution, for a
federation does not exist if authority can be
allocated by ordinary legislation. A fairly
uniform legal system, as well as cultural and
geographic affinities, is usually necessary for
the success of a federation. Varieties of
federation include the Swiss, where the
federative principle is carried into the
executive branch of government; the Australian,
which closely reflects American states' rights
and judicial doctrines; and the Canadian, which
reverses common federative practice and allots
residuary rights to the dominion government.
Other examples of federal governments are the
German Empire of 1871 and the present state of
Germany, modern Russia, Mexico, South Africa,
and India.
See J. Bryce, The American
Commonwealth (rev. ed. 1959); K. Wheare, Federal
Government (4th ed. 1964); D. J. Elazar,
American Federalism (2d ed. 1972); W. H.
Stewart, Concepts of Federalism (1984); H.
Bakvis and W. M. Chandler, ed., Federalism and
the Role of the State (1987); K. L. Hall,
Federalism (1987).
The Columbia Electronic
Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2006, Columbia
University Press. All rights
reserved.
Revise –
re•vise
Pronunciation: (ri-vīz'), [key]
—v., -vised, -vis•ing,
—v.t.
1.
to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.
2. to alter something already written or
printed, in order to make corrections, improve,
or update: to revise a manuscript.
3.
brit.to review (previously studied materials) in
preparation for an examination.
—n.
1. an act of revising.
2. a revised form
of something; revision.
3. print.a proof
sheet taken after alterations have been made,
for further examination or
correction.
random house unabridged
dictionary, copyright © 1997, by random house,
inc., on infoplease.
revocation -
rev•o•ca•tion
pronunciation:
(rev"u-kā'shun), [key]
—n.
1. the act of
revoking; annulment.
2. Law.nullification or
withdrawal, esp. of an offer to
contract.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary,
Copyright © 1997, by Random House, Inc., on
Infoplease.
To totally
revoke the constitution requires a major
demographical change such as the breakdown of a
large state into smaller states, which renders
the old charter useless for the purpose of the
created new states. In our case, an example is
the emergence of a Metro Manila Republic,
Calabarzon Republic, Central Plains
Republic,etc. Or the other way around, of which
our country joins a union with other states.
Other than these major demographical changes, I
can't see any reason why we have to change the
charter.
|
WHY WE NEED
CHARTER CHANGE? Because we need to adapt to our
environment or be left behind. Our family is
growing. In a mom and pop store one person ends
up doing different jobs because the load allows
it. In bigger organizations due to load
requirements--sections or divisions specialize
on a specific function such as: marketing
department, finance department, human resource
department. Before, CEOs of a country focuses on
two main core local and national issues. But now
wit Global Economics--brought about a third
element which is the International
core.
Do not confuse the business and
economics reorganization such as Calabarzon or
the super regions as a means of establishing a
new state. Federalism to the US means 50
independently locally manage states due to their
geographical formation. To the Philippines,
Federalism is more of political in nature.
Actually if you really look into it--it has been
that way. Governors had been managing the
business of their territory. The main change is
the monetary matter. The super regions is about
teaming up the neighboring provinces so they can
be more independent from Imperial Manila. It is
"empowering the local government." One important
benefit of organizing the super regions is that
it will enable the group of provinces to acquire
their own financing through the world bank
without being a hostage to the central or
national government.
Face it, our
population of 80 Million(see
http://www.ey.com/GLOBAL/content.nsf/Philippines/Population_growth_and_Philippine_development)
is still manageable under the 1987 Constitution.
It is still potent enough for governance and the
truth is, ConCom delegates in 1986 has
anticipated the re-emergence of the dictatorship
that is why they have created an ideal check and
balances to govern the country by separating the
executive branch from the legislative and the
judiciary. Unless the appearance of a "Judge
Dredd" governance can be justified by present
realities, and it should be substantiated by
facts, to change the present charter is
obviously RIDICULOUS!”
|
CHANGE TO THE
PRESENT CHARTER IS NECESSITATED BY THE NEED TO
SURVIVE IN THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT. WHAT IS
RIDICULOUS IS TO LET OURSELVES BE A HOSTAGE TO A
P~GMENT OF OUR OWN FEAR--"anticipated the
re-emergence of the dictatorship."
THE
THREE KEYWORDS: PARLIAMENTARY, FEDERAL,
UNICAMERAL IN SUMMARY-
parliamentary will
consists of representatives elected by the
people. It will retain its legislative function
plus they get to implement it. They will elect
one of their fellow representative as Prime
Minister who in turn will manage the daily
internal national business. Isn't this what the
senators want to do anyway? Right now we have
lots of those wanna be the president. Once the
prime minister is identified--he/she organizes
the government (cabinet ministers).
The
president(of which can be elected by the
people)becomes a symbolic position and focuses
on international affairs. And if the government
is not performing well, the president can
initiate a vote of no confidentce.
The
Judicial Branch stays the way they
are.
Federalism.
The local
officials: mayors, governors, etc., continue to
do their business plus their own
budget.
Unicameral - New Zealand and
Sweden are both unicameral parliamentary.
Actually, New Zealand was in a similar situation
that we are now--it was taking too long to make
laws due to bi-cameral grandstanding.
LET
US ALL KEEP IN MIND THAT NOTHING IS FINAL UNTIL
WE THE PEOPLE RATIFIES IT. AT THIS STAGE WE ARE
LEARNING AND DISCUSSING IT SO THAT WE MAY TAILOR
IT TO OUR NEEDS.
THE QUESTION IS HOW DO
WE WANT IT TO BE?
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| Information By Category |
| |
|
| |
|
| Links |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
