Dear Nic,
I am the younger brother of deceased Luis Vallejos, an NSDB National Youth Scientist, probably he was your classmate in high school and you knew each other in college. I am an ex-Jesuit Junior scholastic. Archbishop Tony Ledesma knows me well.
You are eminently qualified to be President of the Philippines. And I will commit to campaign for you if you will commit publicly, in multi-media, that when you become President you will marshall everything to put into the administration’ s agenda for constitutional amendments that:
1)The extra-appointing powers of the President shall be abolished;
2)Said extra-appointing powers shall be replaced with constituent election, specifically:
(a) The chairmen and commissioners of COA, COMELEC, CSC and other shall be elected by their constituents [COA by all CPAs, COMELEC by all elections officers and CSC by all CSC officers]
(b)Judges, justices, fiscals shall be elected by all lawyers;
(c)Military officers previously appointed by the President be elected by all servicemen;
(d)The Ombudsman be elected by all lawyers;
(e) The AFP and the DepEd be converted into constitutional commissions
(f) All DepEd officials from Superintendent upwards be elected by all civil service eleigible teachers
and such other amendments that directly counter corruption.
Unless you do this, no matter how well-meaning and committed you are, your administration and all administrations after you will certainly be very corrupt.
Thank you.
- Kroi
Dear Atty. Dioscoro Vallejos, Jr.:
Like you, many of us are eager to realize our dream of clean politics and a government that truly works for the benefit of the whole. I do know that all the dreams of a political revolution will go down the drain if political reformers neglect to establish a new arrangement in addition to the current practice of achieving a balance of power by separating the functions of government into the executive, legislative, and judiciary. As I can glean from your email, you are also repelled by the massive overlap between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The traditional balance of power no longer works in the Philippines because of patronage. The current administration has used our very Constitution, through appointing powers (among others), destroyed the traditional balance of power and using the executive, legislative, and judiciary for its advantage.
I am for establishing a broader, more potent, and more comprehensive approach to balancing power. And this I will commit publicly that when I become President, I will install a new concept of governance involving the state, civil society, and business, that would almost be impossible for totalitarian pseudo-democracies to co-opt. This includes going beyond the traditional checks and balance of power as originally envisioned in creating the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government. Governance is not just about government and the traditional balance of power found by differentiating government into the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. It is about the involvement of civil society and business IN AN APPROPRIATE AND MEANINGFUL WAY.
Your proposal below IS MOVING IN A SIMILAR DIRECTION EVEN IF IT ONLY CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE APPOINTIVE ASPECTS OF THIS NEW FORM OF GOVERNANCE THAT WE WILL BE ADVANCING. YOU WANT THE POWERS OF appointment given to civil society itself or to the very people under the specific branch, commission or department of government. THIS MAKES SENSE PROVIDED CERTAIN OTHER PROVISIONS ARE IN PLACE TO PREVENT INBREEDING AND ULTIMATELY ADVANCING ANOTHER KIND OF UNDESIRABLE CONTROL.
THE SPIRIT OF your constitution amendments below, GIVEN THE APPROPRIATE REFINEMENTS, shall be a potent force to ensure that the executive branch of government does not usurp or have control over all the other separate branches of government. I assure you that I will include A REFINED VERSION OF your proposal below, as a potent means to ensure and maintain a balance of power, in line with my vision to bring the elements in society which wield power, authority and influence, to collectively arrive at decisions about the future of society.
Best,
Nick Perlas
I was wondering how can the above measures counter corruption when these measures effectively politisized such positions. For me positions like this should be based on merit, number of years in service and qualifications.
For me appointees should be at least eligible for the position they are handling and had experience in the position. They should be accepted by their constituency as well.
I do not think that selecting them through an election is a very good idea because in the long run this system might usher in a bigger corruption and culture of patronage politics and divisiveness.
Just my opinion.
By the way I am also supporting Nick Perlas.
Hitting the core of the problem, nipping it in the bud! This is my first impression when i read your letter to Nic on email. It is starting over with by cleansing the government service of corruption, ineptitude and incompetence and by doing so addressing the issue of patronage politics contrary to dave’s concern at the end of his comment. It is actually a gargantuan task for the newly-elected president but maybe it is the only way to start with a clean slate and restore confidence on the government.
I don’t know how the rest feel about this, but i am really toying with the idea if we could come up with a kind of manifesto about the suggested reform agenda and perhaps a more concrete plan how to popularize it into the mainstream – political public discourse – for the coming election. I believe it is the right time to factor in the historical transformation of our country.
Dear Readers:
The extra-appointing power of the President enshrined in the constitution gives him the power to appoint chairmen and commissioners of the constitutional commissions (COA, COMELEC & CSC), the officials of the Judiciary, the Ombudsman and military officers from colonel or naval captain upwards.
This power, even in principle, is itself a corruption of the constitutional principle of separation of powers and the doctrine of check and balance.
The constitutional commissions are supposed to be independent while the Judiciary is a co-equal of the executive department.
This constitutional corruption is the root of governmental corruption. How can the COA effectively check how the executive department (the president and the LGU officials who are partymates of the president) spends public funds when the chairman and commissioners are beholden to the president who appointed them.
The same is true with the COMELEC, the Civil Service Commission, the Ombudsman and the Judiciary.
The Prosecutors, the military and the DepEd teachers are used extensively by the administration during elections to support the adminsitration’s agenda or desired results.
If we as the sovereign people take away the extra-appointing power from the president, to whom shall we repose such power and in what manner.
The people who should choose the chairmen and commissioners of the constitutional commissions, the Justices and judges of the judiciary and the Ombudsman are the ones who really know and understand their kind. They are the CPAs for the COA, the Election officers for the COMELEC, the civil service eligibles for the CSC, the lawyers for the Judiciary and the Ombudsman, the servicemen for the military and naval officials, the licensed teachers for the DepEd officials, and the lawyers for the DOJ.
Election is the only mode by which a large number of people can make a choice.
Election would be easier and faster to conduct if computerized. A detour: now you will undertand why influential people seek to derail computerization. If elections are computerized, the margin of cheating is greatly minimized and manipulators will be out of business.
Whether you like it or not, all institutions will always be politicized. The lever with which to neutralize the ill-effects of politiclization is education. Those who should vote must be competent and intelligent. These qualities are presumed and backed by national governmental examinations before lawyers, and CPA’s take their oaths, before civil servants become eligible, before teachers are licensed, before career officers or officials of the government are appointed.
Thus, we must amend the Constitution ASAP and it is this extra-appointing power of the president that we must specifically amend because it is the root of governmental corruption which is mainly the facilitator of corruption in the private sector.
I speak on this matter with competent authority because I have observed this subject since age 21 and I taught Constitutional law in a law school for four years.
When the CBCP suggested to GMA to fight corruption in government, the bishops do not really know specifically what kind corruption they are against except the general and widespread corruption in government.
The corruption that we must actively fight is the corruption that is rooted in the extra-appointing [power of the president.
Ever wondered why this simple view was never spoken of in public by our constitutionalists? Simple. Either they want to be president or they have friends who want to become president. This is extra-appointing power is the password to billions of funds.
Kroi
Addendum:
The candidates for the proposed elections of chairmen and commissioners of the constitutional commissions, the officials of the Judiciary, Ombudsman, the AFP and DEpEd must qualify according to a basic set of qualifications which can be established in due time.
Kroi
I’d like to invite more people to comment on the developing proposal that candidates for the presidency must commit publicly and in writing to work for the constitutional amendment or abolition of the extra-appointing power of the president and substitute appointment of the officials formerly subject to the extra-appointing power of the president with computerized constituent elections.
Kroi
I think the Philippines is not the only country with appointing powers even the United States has that appointing power which is then confirmed by Congress through an Appointments Committee. If this is the source of corruption then why did they not abolish it in the United States or in other countries.
Please understand that a President must work with someone whom he/she trust and believes in his platform. How can you do something if the person you have in your cabinet does not believe in your agenda.
However, for positions like the COA, Commission on Elections, Civil Service Commission and the Judiciary which are actually more than just cabinet positions and the others are actually non-cabinet positions… I am thinking that this proposal can work within those but not in the overall Executive Department.
Another thing is that I do not believe that supporting a candidate should solely be based on what we believe is right for us because we should also think that it is way beyond this single issue. This is not the cure all to the problems of our country nor is Nicanor Perlas the cure all… for we… all of us are the ones needed to make this country better.
If we held hostage a candidate just on one issue aren’t we just the same brand of people that is now making our system rotten?
Dave:
You are confusing the issues. The constitutional commissions, the Ombudsman, and the Judiciary are not part of the executive department. That is why the president should not be appointing them.
The prosecutors, the AFP and the DepEd are part of the executive department but they are one of the major instruments of corruption during election which leads to more corruption because they are being used to install or perpatuate in power a corrupt president.
You refer to the constitution of other countries. please read and study thoroughly our own. As a pointer, the US taught us a constituion of corruption. They only have to control the president to control the entire nation.
Initially, my proposal refers only to the positions, which are not part of the executive department, but which are subject to the extra-appointing powers of the head of the executive department (the president).
Secondly, my proposal refers further to prosecutors (DOJ), the AFP and the DepEd, which are part of the executive department. This is the reason why the president is able to marshall them during the election to ensure that a presidential candidate favored by the administration or the incumbent running for re-election, wins the contest.
The phrase I use is “extra-appointing” power, meaning an appointing power NOT INHERENT to the presidency.
The confirmation process of Congress covers only appointments by the president of officials within the executive department.
The appointments by the president of the chairmen & commissioners of the constitutional commissions, the judges and Justices and the Ombudsman are not subject to confirmation by the conniving Committee on Appointments.
So there. I hope you are clarified and don’t continue to jumble subject matters and issues.
I propose further that Nick Perlas commit publicly and in writing that, pending constitutional amendments on the president’s extra-appointing power, he will, as president when he wins the presidency, use a search committee, whose identities shall be publicized, to draw up a list of qualified candidates for the positions concerned (constitutional commissions, Judiciary, Ombudsman) and ask their constituents to vote on these candidates and the ones who will win shall be appointed by the president (NicK, God willing).
If the president is really a man of integrity and honesty, why wait for constitutional amendment when the extra-appointing power, a great, sweeping but immensely corrupting power, is within his control to waive in favor of the choice of constituent elections and whereby he will simply appoint the winning candidates.
[...] May 16, 2009 by haggerty voice CLICK TO FOLLOW THE THREAD AND POST COMMENT [...]
Still I remain that the presidency is more than this issue and corruption takes more than just the extra-appointing power of the president. I agree with your points but what about us, the people who are also corrupt?
How long have you considered this issue? As for myself, I have long considered this way back 1982 when I was the Editor field investigator and writer, all in one, of “Ang Bandilyo”, the pastoral newsletter of the diocese of Malaybalay, Bukidnon.
I taught Constitutional Law for four years in a law school. This extra-appointing is the fulcrum of governmental corruption. I don’t blame you for not agreeing with me. However, your view is only symptomatic of millions of Filipino people, including highly educated and well-meaning bishops, who do not really understand the root of institutional or governmental corruption.
To a large extent, it is governmental corruption which spawns, encourages and facilitate corruption in the private sector, specifically those who deal with corrupt governmental officials.
If Nick does not intend to give up this extra-appointing power in favor of constituent election, then he will be corrupted by this. That is certain. Even an angel was corrupted – Lucifer. And mind you, Nick is not an angel.
If Nick does not commit to publicly give up this extra-appointing power, he is just another corruptible wannabe.
At least to me.
Kroi
And you say your view is the one that is right? How can we work in unity if we so believe in ourselves so much? Unity means seeing others opinion and not just believing in oneself.
I may not understand corruption fully but it does not take someone to be super intelligent to know what the real problem is. My friend… the solution is within all of us working together and build a better government and country and not just the President.
Dear Dave:
Sorry to have caused some angst on the matter. However, I believe you are confusing issues again.
So let me clarify.
1) My view on the extra-appointing power of the president as the fulcrum of governmental corruption because this view is based on the Constitution and confirmed by acts of past presidents. This view has gone through years of discussion with others and four years of academic discussion in my Consitutional Law classes in law school. Lunod-patay ako sa view na ito.
I don’t insinuate that I am super intelligent. I just expended for years of emotional and intellectual energy on researching on this matter.
2) Believing in my view is not a hindrance to unity. If people reject my view, that is their right.
3) You are right to say that the solution is within all of us working together and build a better government and country and not just the president.
However, we are talking here of presidential candidates and who among them should we support.
I am very specific about my suggestion.
Since we are looking for ways to minimize corruption, we must identify concretely what corruption are we talking about.
I suggested that we attack governmental corruption because that is an area which palpable, tangible and solvable. Moral corruption or the morality is something only the presidential candidates can ultimately handle or act out. Governmental corruption is measurable and tractable.
I suggested too that it is the extra-appointing power of the president which corrupts the government. I have fully explained that earlier. Extra-appointing power is a corruption of the principle of separation of powers and the doctrine of balance.
In our government, with the culture of patronage and the insatiable inclination of political parties to corner all opportunites, extra-appointing power of the president becomes a mammoth tool of corruption.
In the end, I request all not to view and impute conceit to me on account of my lunod-patay belief and view that the extra-appointing power of the president must be abolished and substituted with constituent election for those positions currently subject to that extra-appointing power.
I mean well and do not relish being imputed any tinge of conceit or self-righteousness.
I call on any one to critique my view on the merits, reject it if you wish but never mix it with opinion as to my person.
I did not put myself on the block. What I put on the chopping block is my view, my suggestions and my challenge to Nick.
Bow.
Kroi
Kroi and Dave..
Kroi’s recommended courses of action on the “extra-appointing power” of the president are very specific and apparently doable..very difficult though, but not hopelessly impossible…
but, Kroi, in recent memory at least, when did constituent elections here become truly reflective of and faithful to the will of the noble majority of the Filipino people? PGMA’s election was? that of many senators, congressmen, governors and mayors was? At best, elections have been rough approximations of the will of an influential portion of the generally manipulated population.
Now, assuming we elect military officials, will they not be in the position to effectively manipulate the votes of subordinate officers and rank-and-file who have been accustomed to subserviently say “Sir, yes, Sir!” to him? and why exclude the qualified civilian voters many of whom truly understand and can propose feasible measures to address intricacies of the issues involving internal and external threats to national security.. far better than the army or navy sergeant, colonel or even that candidate general himself can? sabagay, yours might still be just a “skeletal” proposal which can be fleshed out later with subsequent improvements.
I admire and respect several lawyers, but the drift I get from your proposal, Kroi, prompts me to ask you: Do the lawyer-voters have exclusive wisdom to discern who shall be the next chief justice, justices, judges, ombudsman, et al? Y’see, Justice is too essential and too crucial to civilized and just society to be left to lawyers alone. You only have to be human to truly understand truth and justice..no need to pass the bar.
I fully agree with you though when it comes to the constitutional commissions..but let’s expand the electorate. CPA’s, election officers and civil service eligibles are not the only ones with reliable judgment on these matters.
In sum, I still have to be convinced that constituent elections here truly express the people’s will..and who really is and are the people? Certain electoral processes and some governmental structures can be improved, must be improved. But these processes are carried out by people with vested interests, structures are occupied and run also by such people. And people are corruptible. I agree with Dave in this regard.
But, there is always hope. That’s why there are still Krois and Nics and Danis and Haggies ..mga lunod-patay for something they believe in.
Ooops, before I forget, let me repeat what i asked dani long time ago: Why is it that for one to be considered for appointment as a government driver, he must be an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL GRADUATE with a driver’s license / eligibility (CSC MC 11, s.1996)..
and yet, for one to qualify for the position of President of the Philippines, vice president, senator, congressman, governor, mayor…he/she must only be ABLE TO READ AND WRITE!..no eligibility whatsoever is needed! I don’t believe the our galaxies of lawyers can miss this glaring epitome of inanity!
Mosumpay ra ko sunod, komrads.
I agree with your comments. One of the qualifications to be a president is you should have at least have some sort of Civil Service Eligibility.
Thanks Dave. Welcome Rom.
We have never had constituent elections but only general elections.
I concede and admit that our general elections were not reflections of the true will of the people.
The majority of voters in general elections are not really competent and knowledgeable in their choices, aside form the fact that votes were bought and results were rigged.
In the constituent elections I am referring to (COA chair & commissioners etc.), the constituents (CPAs, lawyers, elections officers, CS officers, prosecutors, military men, teachers) know more about their officials who might likely be voted on and know better about their qualifications as a group compared to the general electorate. This alone enhances the chance that they will likely vote “inteliigently”.
In particular, military personnel have been politicized and conscienticized. This process now balances their “blind obedience” and there is more likelihood that they will vote “intelligently” because the officers they will vote on will actually affect their entire lives and that of their families, a perception not widely felt by the general electorate.
Taking the away the president’s extra-appointing power and giving it to more people of specific groups (constitutional commissions, Judiciary, DOJ, Ombudsman, etc.) will water-down the power of corruption and manipulation.
Korek ka dyan, multitudes of lawyers do not realize that the powerful positions of government require only occupants to be “able to read and write”, and DO NOT EVEN REQUIRE THEM TO “UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE ABLE TO READ AND WRITE” Pweeh! That’s the kind of consitution we have. How can Bernas be proud of himself and of the consitutions he helped to promulgate! Those who are not able to understand what they are able to read and write INCLUDE even the best educated because not being able to understand what one reads and write implies that that person may most likely be MORALLY DEPRAVED WITH NO GENUINE VALUES and NO CONSCIENCE.
Ay ambot. Basta ako, lunod-patay sa akong challenge kang Nick.
Kuroi
[...] Challenge to Nic Perlas to Commit Publicly [...]
Kroi, Dani and Dave and all Haggies…I still have to read much more about Nic’s stand and general inclinations concerning issues crucial to national survival and development..and about nic as a person..been asking around about him, his track record..
my tentative choice at the moment is manny villar..apart from his performance as senator and senate president..I’ve had several recent instances working closely on official matters with his staff under sen. alan peter cayetano.. and i liked what i saw and understood there about an office culture of highly efficient and humane work..which to me was a microcosm of what he seemed to be capable of carrying out on a national scale..yes, inductive, not sufficient to support a conclusion..but these are indicators that, well, strongly indicates something good.
I know whereof I speak..as a director of CSC Central Office 2002-05 and even now that I’m a cdo-based university professor in public administration…I’ve had opportunities observing/dealing up close with the staffs of PGMA’s, Lacson, Noli, Loren, even Teodoro..ah, such red tape, tardiness, sloppy service, bureaucratic self-importance, wastefulness.. even to say disgusting is an understatement.
By the way, I read yesterday that PGMA, as her 4th of July message, assured the US about her unflinching loyalty to democratic principles..hmm loyalty, that word again…well, anyone can read between, above and behind the lines..which reminds me of a song “oh, when will they ever learn..oh, when will we ever learn…”
so, let’s get to know more about Nic Perlas!
Rom:
Thanks for your comments.
Manny Villar is a good choice. I was one the original seven branch managers in his former Capitol Development Bank when he was not yet a politician.
I supported him in consultations in Muntinlupa and Paranque area where my branch was when he ran for Congress.
Maya Canlas Santos and another close friend supported him lunod-patay when he ean for the Senate.
The culture in his Manuela Corporation, which the Starmalls, is very professional.
Just when the exchange here is forming a synthesis on the desirability of Nick Perlas, I have to change direction on the challenge I proposed and elevate it to non-partisan and legal plane.
Here it is.
From: “atty_vallejos@yahoo.com” View contact detailsTo: haggertyhall@yahoogroups.comDani:
Thanks for disseminating.
Yes, we should all wonder why the appointing power of the President has not become the principal argument over and above term extensions, form of government and economic provisions.
That “wonder” has been the angst that forced me to ponder upon the Constitution since 1982 until I taught Constitutional Law in law school. And my discussions with activists, law students, co-faculty in law and election lawyers have led me to the sorry conclusions:
1) Nobody wants to give up that extra-appointing power;
2) The extra-appointing power (extra because the Constitution gives him authority to appoint those government officials who are also authorized to be independent or outside of the President’s jurisdiction) is the key to BILLIONS OF PESOS;
3) The incumbent President and the wanna-bes DO NOT WANT TO GIVE UP THE KEY TO BILLIONS;
4) They would rather PERPETUATE IT AND INCREASE ITS AMBIT AND EFFICACY.
Nick’s response saddens me. If he is what we hope him to be, I believe that he did not write that response. Someone in his camp who intends to use him, has his own agenda and ulterior motive, if ever Nick becomes President, wrote that response.
The response, if you read between the lines, did not really perceive the pre-eminence and prior importance of the originating power given by the Constitution to every President who will eventually savor, relish and profit from that extra-appointing power when he would actually wield, apply and muster it to implement or derail the best and “pro-people” program of government.
We are philosophers and we should know that one step eventually leads to one foreseeable ultimate end.
The response from the email of Nick’s One Million Volunteers is not acceptable. It belittles the “moral imperative” ensconced in the direct effort to curb governmental corruption by abolishing the corrruptive and patronage-ridden extra-appointing power of the President.
The life-affecting and life-changing lessons I have imbibed from Philiosophy and the Jesuits behooves me, upon reading between the lines of the response from Nick’s camp, to change direction and take a more effective route, taking advantage of civil society and the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Puno to apply more teeth to the challenge I proposed.
I intend to provide civil society a tool with which to compell presidential candidates to sign a pre-election Deed of Commitment to give up that extra-appointing power and within the first 100 days of the victorious presidential candidate’s term, he must have already called a constitutional convention, waived that extra-appointing power pending the approval of the desired amendents on provisions directly tied-up with the executive and extra-appointing powers of the and which are directly and clearly anti-corruptive.
It is legally workable to make that pre-election Deed of Commitment attach later on, if not fulfilled within the first 100 days of the term of the winning presidential candidate, as an evidence for impeachmentunder the ground of BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST.
The pre-election commitment shall be NOTARIZED and WITNESSED by the incumbent Chief Justice, the Senate President, the Speaker of the House, the Ombudsman and if possible by the Philippine Cardinals of the Catholic Church in order TO SATISFY that the legal requirement that the pre-election commitment IS A PUBLIC INDUCEMENT by the presidential candidates to EVERY VOTER COMPRISING THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE TO TRUST THEM AND VOTE FOR THEM AS PRESIDENT ON THE BASIS OF THAT TRUST.
Thus, we provide the Sovereign Filipino People an evidence of BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST whenever the pre-election Deed of Commitment is not satisfied or fulfilled.
I will even go to the extent of filing with the Supreme Court a petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court to ensure that the non-fulfillment of the pre-election Deed of Commitment will be interpeted as Betrayal of Public Trust by the victorious presidential candidate and thus, an impeachment complaint shall already be ready for immediate filing after the first 100 days of the new President.
I am 100% certain Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Sr. will support me on this.
Cool, workable and non-partisan.
Kroi
— On Sun, 5/7/09, dani conejar wrote:
From: dani conejar
Subject: [haggertyhall] Krio’s Article “Call to Commit”
To: haggertyhall@yahoogroups.com
Cc: “nonoy panorel” , “ana miguel” , “consuelo batedio” , “edwin damasco” , “Germelyn Factulerin” , “fe mutia” , “Lilibeth galolo” , “fervent garay” , “fluent Garay” , “gil melendez” , “carol munasque” , “emilito osorno” , “mildred padua” , “Teresita de castro”
Date: Sunday, 5 July, 2009, 7:00 AM
Plucking it out from the comment section, I have posted Kroi’s full article (written sometime ago) prefacing the challenge thrown to Nic Perlas which churned out opinions in our blogsite. I have also posted the link to my facebook to maximize its circulation.
The Article entitled “Call to Commit” remains a relevant issue for policy advocacy and we can only wonder why it has not become the principal argument over and above economic provisions, term extension and form of government in changing the constitution. I fully agree that the appointive powers of the president must be clipped to curb abuses and the appointing mechanisms are more reliable for check and balance. It is the “moral imperative” for any president to take and the challenge to demonstrate true people-by, for and of- participation in governance.
Visit Link: http://haggies. wordpress. com/2009/ 07/04/call- to-commit/
Dani Conejar
Kroi, I’m glad you and dan started sparks of discussion like these..healthy, wholesome and patriotic preoccupation really.
So you seem to have slightly changed gear about nic..and now surveying the political highway for alternative, better routes..that’s what I’m doing myself..open and carefully studied options.. so that when the defining moment comes, I will be able to responsibly make my most informed decision.
I will review and read up more on Puno. Next to Villar, he’s the most preferrable.. But there are a few pebbles in my shoe about him.
Right now, here in Mindanao there’s a “Padaca-Panlilio (or is it the other way around?) for prex & veep” movement. Many, I heard, in the religious sector (predominantly Catholic), including local and national organizations of former priests, seminarians, lay organizations, powerful media groups, NGOs, XU no less, and the hazy, so-called civil society with their international networks.. have reportedly signified support for it.
Profound respect and admiration I have for these two new, “non-trad” political icons. But I still have to put my ears closer and longer to the ground to know and understand more.
[By the way, are you referring to the one and only Maya Canlas of our "Crusader Magazine" days at XU..with Ronnie Ferraris as ed-in-chief, followed by totoy, then ako, domy awiten, and alejandrino (now a lawyer in Lucena City). If yes, then I'm glad to know that. Warm regards to her.]
I would like to point everyone to Nicanor Perlas’ Strategic Agenda.. for his agenda involves genuine people participation in governance.
here is the link … http://nicanor-perlas.com/2010/strategic-agenda.html
He is using the process of emergent dialogue in order to resolve the problems of the Philippines, thus proposals will actually be based on what the people will collectively decide on together with him as the President.
This is a personal effort to help curb governmental corruption. Please comment and help disseminate with the view of creating a groundswell of consensus to take collective action for the good of our People.
(Proposal 2)
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES)
METRO MANILA ) S. S
SO ALL MAY KNOW:
PRE-ELECTION
DEED OF COMMITMENT
I, (full name of presidential candidate), of legal age, married/single, a Filipino citizen, residing at (full address), after having sworn according to law, hereby depose and state that:
1. I, as presidential candidate, solemnly offer to undertake and guarantee to the sovereign Filipino People that the commitments hereunder shall be implemented in the first 100 days of my term should I prevail as the elected President in the May 2010 elections;
2. I made this solemn offer of commitment to induce and convince the sovereign Filipino People to TRUST ME, consider me as presidential candidate and vote for me;
3. I am making the commitments hereunder to convince the Filipino People that I shall not exercise the extra-appointing power of the Presidency and shall not practice patronage to curb the proliferation of governmental corruption;
4. I fully understand and admit that if and when I am elected President of the Republic and I am unable to fulfill my commitments hereunder for any reason whatsoever within the first 100 days of my term, the latter shall be used against me as evidence of BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST;
5. I guarantee that the period of the first 100 days of my term within which to fulfill my commitments SHALL NOT BE EXTENDED for any reason whatsoever except by reason of any act of God.
NOW THEREFORE, I SOLEMNLY COMMIT
TO THE FILIPINO PEOPLE THAT:
6. I SHALL APPOINT DIRECTLY THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS OUTSIDE OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN ELECTED BY THEIR PROPER CONSTITUENTS;
7. THE NOMINEES OF THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE THE CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITIONS FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN NOMINATED AND TO BE ELECTED BY ALL LAWYERS IN GOOD STANDING AND REGISTERED IN APPLICABLE IBP CHAPTERS;
8. I SHALL ESTABLISH A NOMINATING BODY FOR CANDIDATES TO THE POSITION OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND HIS DEPUTIES;
9. I SHALL REQUEST THE COMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS FOR A SHORT-LIST OF 5 CANDIDATES FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL VACANT POSITIONS IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE THE LIST OF CANDIDATES TO BE VOTED ON BY THE PROPER CONSTITUENTS OF THE CONCERNED CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS;
10. I SHALL IMMEDIATELY AND WITHIN THE FIRST 100 DAYS OF MY TERM PETITION CONGRESS TO CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION;
11. ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, I SHALL PETITION THE CONVENTION TO GIVE PRIORITY TO THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:
(A) TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO APPOINT OFFICIALS OF THE JUDICIARY AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND THE OMBUDSMAN AND HIS DEPUTIES AND TO ESTABLISH INSTEAD PROVISIONS FOR ELECTION OF SAID OFFICIALS BY THEIR PROPER CONSTITUTENTS;
(B) TO AMEND THE LITERACY QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE-PRESIDENT, THE SENATORS AND THE REPRESENTATIVES AND ESTABLISH INSTEAD A COLLEGE DEGREE AS LITERACY QUALIFICATION;
(C) TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS ON THE AFP AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TO ESTABLISH INSTEAD PROVISIONS CONVERTING THE AFP AND THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION INTO CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS.
12. I SHALL DO ALL IN MY POWER BUT WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF LAW TO SUPPORT THE SUCCESFUL APPROVAL OF THE FOREGOING AMENDMENTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT PLEBISCITE.
DONE THIS ___ day of __________, 2010, in Manila, Philippines.
______________________ Presidential Candidate
WITNESSED BY:
MR. REYNATO PUNO, SR.
Chief Justice
JUAN P. ENRILE
Senate President
PROSPERO NOGRALES
Speaker of the House
CERTIFICATION
I solemnly certify that Presidential Candidate _______________________ appeared before me this ____ day of ___________, 2010 in the City of Manila, Philippines and he acknowledged to me that the foregoing Deed of Commitment is his free and voluntary act and deed and that he has read and understood the contents thereof and he thereby waives his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
________________________________
Chairman, COMELEC
So far we have only the Web to take part in Kroi’s personal effort which I think should be a CRUSADE and the consensus it creates will snowball to crush the seat of corruption and patronage politics. It’s maybe a quixotic quest against all odds but again as I said and believe, it is a moral imperative, a higher cause based on actual experience.
I don’t possess the legal expertise to comment on the formal aspect of the document but I fully agree to its spirit and intent:
I doubt, however well-intended, the pre-election deed of commitment can only be a manifest and if it can be made into a legal document, the same, all the presidentiables including Joseph Estrada and my neighbors here will affix their signatures on it just to get elected president. Afterwards if I fail on any of the provisions of the deed, I could always find alibis, and it is more difficult to unseat a reneging president than elect a promising one.
But for the intent of the deed, per se, aimed to spur opinions, the democratic processes and established norms that it has to pass through, are the primary barrier to its realization. For example, in Commitment item 11B which spells out bias on education, there should be instead a mechanism that, other than specifying it explicitly in law, will ensure nuisance, non-grata, way-nada, walang karapatan, baboy and illiterates will not be elected in any position in government. Electing those with degree of education does not either guarantee good governance.
There should be a balance of responsibility in governance and that everyone should take part. I find it sufficient enough to rely on a powerful constituent mechanisms – by sector – to nominate appointive positions in the government, disqualify, remove from office (even forcibly) those who fall short of their mandates.
Well, I believe, 100 days is enough for any president to set Kroi’s suggested reform in motion!
Dan, thanks for your sobering comment.
On the literacy qualification, a college degree is miles away from the current constitutional qualification which is merely “able to read and write”. I surmise our American constituional tutors were so condescending and our own Filipino con-con delegates did not even bother to correct that.
Yet, this private pondering is Quixotic indeed. However, most beneficial germs of public import had their origins from idealistic yearnings,like anti-slavery and women’s lib. What transformed them was overwhelming common will, like civil war, revolution and countless women who fought for their exploited and oppressed sisters together with many adopted “women” men who loved their mothers and sisters.
The Deed of Commitment is a social contract and is the law between the parties. When one of the parties is the sovereign Filipino People, the contract carries with it all the power of law, especially under the principle that the Constitution and all laws of the land are the creation of the will of the Sovereign Filipino people.
The groundswell, the snowball and the consensus shall prevail over the crucible of vested interests. I feel strongly positive that before the beginning of the election campaign, there will already be a consensual and legally binding mechanism to compel presidential candidates to sign the Pre-Election Deed of Commitment.
I have submitted the Call To Commit and the Pre-Election Deed of Commitment to many websites and groups including the CBCP, Global Integrity, Puno for President, ChanRobles, XUHSBatch 74, Grade6Central, SPCLaw2011, and to many personal websites.
Please light your candles. Forward the Call To Commit and the Pre-Election Deed of Commitment to your own networks.
How much does it cost to fight governmental corruption? How much does internet messaging and chatting cost? Just a pittance. Yet, everyday WE PAY a lot to acquiesce to governmental corruption. Billions!
Kroi
Hi Rom,
I am glad you are sharing your opinions on other presidentiables and scouting for a perfect tandem. I really root for Puno before I heard about Nic. I even thought how we could kidnap his grandchild to convince him to run.
For his mate, well, Panlilio or any of presidentiabes do not cross my mind. So far, I am sticking with Nic since Puno shows less interest. But in case Puno is persuaded, Nic as his mate would boolster his bid.
Well like you, I am quite queasy with Villar and once he deals with GMA – my suspicion – it will be the end of his dream or if he wins there would be nothing more susbtantial about him. Villar has the winnability and resources over all other candidates, but i always side with the dreamer, that one who can present something new. That is why perhaps i always lose.
Same here… I have never voted yet for a president that won… but this time I think I would
Thanks Dani for sharing with us Mangubat’s piece on some military scenarios for serious consideration by all of us..it’s probable..it worked before for marcos.. and countless other despots in history..might also work for this regime..
Military might definitely plays a pivotal role in any violent, political power grab. But professionalism and patriotism or lack of these among the military officers are crucial. What do we see in and say about our own armed forces? Below are some ponderings based on some readings validated by some sort of insider/outsider observations which I would like to share with everyone:
Let me begin with three interrelated questions:
1. Who or what is a professional soldier? Is it one who keeps out of politics or one who directly intervenes in it?
2. Is being a professional soldier synonymous with with being unquestioning and blindly obeying all orders from superiors?
3. Does his duty to obey the military chain of command hopelessly deprive him of the inherent human capability and obligation to question the propriety, legitimacy and morality of a superior’s order?
The Nuremberg dictum on the soldier’s legal and moral duty to defy and disobey unlawful order comes to mind. But who determines what order is lawful or unlawful? Is it the incumbent political power propped up by the military chain of command or the individual soldier?
Military professionalism is the decisive factor that keeps the soldier out politics. The more the military’s attention, energies and resources are focused on a full-time preoccupation with professionalizing their ranks–in terms of continuous upgrading of knowledge and technical expertise–the more they will leave politics to the politicians. And the more unlikely military intervention in politics will occur. Something to this effect was stressed by Prof. Sam Huntington in his book “The Soldier and the State.”
This sounds neat enough in relation to social-organizational efficiency. I disagree with this view. It is naively dismissive of the fact that the soldier is a human being first and foremost–not just a serial number in the enlistment statistics, not just a fighting robot. The soldier is a citizen with socio-political-ethical awareness, one with personal freedom and responsibility.
An alternative perspective I prefer is this: Military professionalization– in terms of continuous upgrading of education resulting in expanded knowledge and widened socio-political awareness – - is a double-edged sword.
This is so because the same professionalism that supposedly keeps the military away from politics is, ironically, the same mind-opener that enables the soldier to “distinguish between nation and government in power”..to formulate his own notion of the national interest. That “professionalized” soldier analyzes, examines his own inner values and motives, and decides whether to obey or defy a superior’s order..and face and accept full responsibility for the consequences of such act.
Consequently, that soldier will use his own interpretation of what national interest is as the very reason to intervene in politics..believing he can do better than his fumbling, incompetent civilian masters can in running the government of the people of whom, the soldier himself, is an integral member. This, substantially, was asserted by Prof. Samuel Edward Finer in his “The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics.” But how do we assess the honasans, the trillianeses, the RAM boys, the self-proclaimed reformists in the AFP within this context?
The truly professional and patriotic soldier resents the thought of being “used to coerce the government’s domestic political opponents, and has valid reason to do so when the incumbent politician-autocrat exploits an apparent linkage between his (politician’s) personal security and the security of the state..equating his own safety with national security..believing that an attack against him is an attack against the state..and on this pretext, ruthlessly murders / decimates those he perceives as actual, suspected and even merely potential political foes through the use of military power. The truly professional and patriotic soldier hates this. This in essence was asserted by Prof. Barry Buzan in “People, States and Fear.” Do we have enough officers and gentlemen in the AFP of this caliber?
The military scenarios described in mangubat’s clipping might happen..but, who knows, there may still be truly professional and patriotic soldiers, especially among the ranks of colonels up..there might be more now than before..who, with the enlightened citizenry, will see to it that the zombie of authoritarianism will instantly be bulldozed back to oblivion every time it rears its ugly head.
ROM.
Rom,
Thank you for deep and extensive ideas on the military.
The resentment of the professional soldier in “being used” will always be there for as long as the AFP is under the Executive Department. Presidents will always use the generals and those down the hierarchy.
Which is why I proposed that the military be converted to a constitutional commission or its equivalent to shield the professional soldier from misuse by politicians.
Kroi
Rom, my own son hopefully will enter the PMA. I wanted to myself in my time to contribute to the transfromation of the AFP but I didn’t growp to 5″4″ so I was not allowed to take the exams.
I rely heavily on my son to help transform the AFP. I know him. Internally and morally, Kroi Angelo (the Balck Angel) is far better than Kroi (Black is beautiful, hehehe but only for one Japanase tribe). I am certain he will grow to be a professional soldier and lawyer.
But what can a professional soldier do in a superstructure where his rise in the hierarchy depends inevtiably on the decision of the President?
Again the superstructure that controls the professional soldier must be changed first.
Kroi
Kroi, indeed a son like Kroi Angelo is a cause for justified pride and joy for any father. I join you in prayerful hope that he will make it to the PMA, go through it successfully and make a truly noble career out of military service.
Thanks for your reaction to my reaction to mangubat’s piece on the scenario of a conspiracy to use / abuse military power for grabbing or retaining political power.
You asked what A professional soldier can do against the monstrous appointing (and of course, promoting, demoting or dismissing) power of the president.
I submit something can still be done by a purpose-driven professional soldier. He can go through the process of rising to the highest ranks and, with like-minded officers, decide to refuse military support to any despotic political administration and extend the same to civilian movements advocating democratic reforms. Has this happened here?
Obviously, the military has a massive advantage over all civilian organizations in terms of monopolistic control of war technology, organizational superiority and highly specialized training to win wars. So, if our top generals think that this regime deserves to be dismantled pronto,
my wonder is not so much why the military should rebel against it, but rather, why it ever obeys it.
Have we a miserable shortage of military brass of dignified caliber? Or, do the top military honchos perceive the political power of the moment as democratic enough or not autocratic enough to deserve ouster?
Kroi, I partly agree with you on the pressure of the appointing authority’s power on the appointed/promoted military officers. Yes, “loyalty” and “utang na loob” are not taken lightly here, generally, I say.
But loyalty to an appointing authority who misuses / abuses that authority ends where loyalty to the country and its sovereign people begins. The generals and foot soldiers are also part of the people with whom the state rulers have entered into a sacred, socio-political contract.
Locke and Rosseau can only agree with Teban’s reprimand to Goliat nga drayber:
“Kung ikaw gani jipney drayber, obligasyon mo ilayo kaming mga pasahero sa aksidente..perog huboghubog ka gadrayeb, kulatahon ka namo, manganaog mi, mangita mig jipney ug drayber nga anader!” hehehe..
ROM
Check it out: Nicanor Perlas 3 minute video re: his qualifications and his campaign platform six pillars:
salamat