Sigaw ng Bayan promises the moon and the stars

Yes to Jobs! Yes to Progress! Yes to Stability! Yes to Parliamentary! Vote Yes to Charter Change!

Sabi ni Randy David about Sigaw ng Bayan's cha cha:

THERE is something perverse in the way the leaders of Sigaw ng Bayan are peddling the shift to a parliamentary system. They advertise it as if it were a miraculous cure for all our problems. They claim that it will treat political instability and end political adventurism among our soldiers; that it will spur economic development, end poverty and bring back our overseas workers to their families, etc. One can recite the many advantages of the parliamentary system, but no existing studies of parliamentary governments can support these extravagant claims.

The success of any system of government basically depends on the readiness of a people to make it work as it is supposed to work in theory. Even the “best” system is likely to be corrupted by bad politicians and immature voters. But, on the other hand, a system that has proved dysfunctional in some countries may produce good outcomes in others.

I agree. An honest, credible and qualified president can do well under the Presidential system and 1987 Constitution.

Sa aking nakikita, hindi naman ang Constitution ang dapat palitan kundi si Arroyo. Hindi naman Cha cha ang solution sa political crisis ng ating bansa kundi ang pag-resign ng pekeng presidente at pag-hold ng special elections para mapalitan siya.

There's no need to shift from presidential to parliamentary. just amend the constitution to remove provisions that limit economic activities.

(I've never really been for Cha Cha. Not during Ramos' time. Not during Erap's time. But even if i were for charter change, i would be strongly against it today because of the way it's being done and the untrustworthy people who are pushing for it.)

As for parliamentary being a better system dahil pwedeng mapalitan kaagad ang mga untrustworthy o corrupt na gov't, that a LIE. Cha cha will NOT remove arroyo. Tignan mo si ramos, nagmukhang tanga pa dito. LOL.

Besides, the parliamentary system doesn't mean new faces or more credible representatives in politics. Yung mga tongressmen natin na pumatay ng impeachment ay siya pa rin malamang magiging mga MPs natin. tapos ma-aabolish pa ang senado. so arroyo will face no accountability whatsoever.

walang checks and balance sa parliamentary, which proponents of cha cha are even selling as a good thing, because there's "too much check and balance" raw.

arroyo and her MPs will be protecting one another. nobody can check their abuses.

Sabi nila kapag parliamentary wala na raw magpe-people power... eh hindi ba sa thailand, ukraine, Georgia, at Kyrgyzstan ay nagkaroon rin ng people power kahit na parliamentary ang gov't nila?

UPDATE: More thoughts on Arroyo's Cha cha:

- Arroyo allies keep saying na dapat mag-parliamentary na tayo para mawala nang "gridlock". As if madalas mangyari ang gridlock sa presidential system.

Sa aking pagka-alaala, wala naman masyadong "gridlock" during cory, fvr, and erap's time. Or even during the first term of GMA's presidency (2001-2004), dahil hawak ni Arroyo ang Senado at House nung panahon na yon. Nung sumabog lang ang GLORIAGATE at naging questionable ang legitimacy ni Arroyo atsaka lang naging issue ang "gridlock-gridlock" na yan.

So ang solution? Abolish the Senate! Shift to Parliamentary! LMAO!

- The bishops said said na they will not support the impeachment of mrs. Arroyo because those who are pushing for it are not guided by "genuine concern for the common good". But do they think the people who are pushing for CHA CHA today are really "genuinely concerned for the common good" of everybody too?

- I remember the thrust of Ramos' efforts to change the constition wasn't about the economy or shifting to parliamentary. It's about allowing him to run for a second term to prevent a possible erap presidency.

Si Erap naman, ang focus ng CONCORD niya is about the economy. I don't recall him proposing a shift to Parliamentary.

(Napaka-modest at simple lang yung mga amendments na prino-propose nila. Pero hindi pa rin sila nagtagumpay, dahil hindi credible ang mga tao na nasa likod ng cha cha train nila.)

Yung sigaw ng bayan lang ni Arroyo ang nagbibigay ng unrealistic promises about more jobs, a better economy, progress, political stability, wealth blah blah blah... all your dreams will come true... blah blah blah... kung babaguhin lang natin ng wholesale ang Constitution at mag-parliamentary tayo. I guess the Arroyo admin sensed that people today, because mahirap na talaga ang panahon at napaka-uncertain ng economy, are getting desperate/hopeless and are willing to try anything. So they prey on that by offering us the moon and the stars if we just follow their orders and shift to parliamentary.

I'm sorry to say this, but what they offer is FALSE HOPE.

MORE COMMENTARY: From De Quiros:

I mention the affairs of a country that might as well be located in another planet as far as most Filipinos are concerned simply because they bear directly on something that looms upon us today. Which is a shift to a parliamentary system that Jose de Venecia's Mafia in Congress has been trying to foist on us. Blair's (impending) resignation shows why a parliamentary system works in a country like Britain and why it won't work in a country like ours.

First off, it needs real parties to work. A real party is one that advocates certain principles to which their members subscribe. You don't change principles like you change clothes, you don't switch parties like you switch ballot boxes. I remember the reaction of a Japanese political officer when I asked him if Japanese politicians have been known to switch parties. He was speechless, he could not grasp the concept. All he could say after a while was: "But if he did that, no one would vote for him."

By that definition alone, we do not have any political party, with the possible exception of the Communist Party of the Philippines, which you can desert only at risk of joining your comrades in the "killing fields." In this country, politicians join and leave parties with the ease with which they take up and leave mistresses. The kind of political parties we have is indistinguishable from the riotous parties kids have with the aid of beer and Ecstasy. At least the kids screw only themselves, the politicians screw the nation.

Indeed, in a country like Britain, you have a whole spectrum of political beliefs represented by the political parties. You even have Sinn Fein, a spin-off from the Irish Republican Army among them. Of course, in this country we also have a party-list party like Bayan Muna. But the difference is that Sinn Fein's members are able to campaign freely while Bayan Muna's members are being murdered freely by General Jovito Palparan's hordes.

A parliamentary system will not produce real parties, real parties will produce a parliamentary system. The only parliament non-real parties will produce is the parliament of thieves, or a crime syndicate not unlike the Mafia we now have in Congress. Only worse. Much, much worse.

Second off, a parliamentary system requires sensitivity to public opinion. Blair is not the first prime minister to resign from adverse public opinion, and he won't be the last. Indeed, closer to home, not too long ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin also resigned and called for new elections because of charges of corruption. The system is predicated on "delicadeza," or sense of propriety, not on "pakapalan," or the possession
of a thick hide.

True, in a parliamentary system, you do not need to impeach a prime minister to kick him out, you just need a vote of no confidence. But the opposite is just as true, if not truer: You will have absolutely no way of getting rid of a monstrous prime minister if his allies continue to repose confidence in him notwithstanding that the public has long withdrawn it. Indeed, notwithstanding that the public detests him.

As the recent impeachment bid showed, that is the case in this country. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's allies can always ignore public opinion and move like gangsters to kill any bid to oust her. Thaksin was merely hounded by charges of corruption, Arroyo is hounded by charges of stealing the vote. Blair merely labors from a picture of him literally stooping down to Bush's level, Arroyo labors from a tape that shows her stooping down to Garci's level -- or the other way around (I don't know who between them will find it more unflattering). The surveys say Thaksin and Blair were slipping in public esteem, the surveys say Arroyo never had public esteem. Thaksin resigned and Blair is about to resign, but Arroyo is still there and threatens to rule forever.

A parliamentary system will not produce sensitivity to public opinion, sensitivity to public opinion will produce a parliamentary system. Contempt for public opinion will not produce a parliament, it will produce a tyranny.

Third off, a parliamentary system, like a presidential one, presupposes that votes will be counted. That is the reason real political parties worry that their "bata" [protégé], or "manok" [bet], or prime minister, will drag them down at the polls if he gets too unpopular. But what if votes are not counted in the first place? What if parties, real or unreal, can just steal them in broad daylight?

If that's the case -- which it is today -- who the hell cares whether we have a presidential or parliamentary system? It will be, as the Thais say, "sem-sem."

yup. and how the fuck are we ever going to remove a corrupt president if were giving arroyo and their allies the same power Marcos gave himself? No joke. It's all there.

Read this PDI Editorial too about Mike Defensor's efforts to get the 3rd termers to support a NO-EL in 2007.

Sabi rin ni Banayo na gusto raw ng mga kaalyado ni Arroyo ng NO-EL. Well, Kung makakalusot ang mga Arroyo admin sa proposal na ito, then gagawin nila yan. kung hindi, okay lang, pero mas magastos at mas risky...

And some straight talk from Raul Pangalanan:

Let's drop the sober, lawyerly talk, and shift to gut issues. Do you honestly, deep in your heart, believe that "presidential v. parliamentary" is really the issue? Do you buy that cockamamie argument that Filipinos will be less poor if we call Arroyo prime minister instead of president? Do you really think that the problem is gridlock between the executive and Congress, and the solution is closer coordination between them? So what do you call the cozy, hand-in-glove coordination between Arroyo and House Speaker Jose de Venecia's congressional hatchet men? And you want to institutionalize that?

Will fewer Filipino kids drop out of school and sniff rugby if we give even more power to our locally elected deputies, whether they are called congressmen or members of parliament? Hey, man, don't you watch the ANC television channel's live coverage of congressional debates? Try zapping between ANC and the National Geographic feature on lions hunting down wildebeest and feasting on the most vulnerable of the herd, or on hyenas scavenging on the leftovers. At least, their cartoon version resulted in the inspiring classic "The Lion King." With the Jaraula committee, who needs cartoons?

I have taught Constitutional Law for more than a decade and a half, and I'm happy that the public has begun to appreciate why scholars consider constitutions sacred. Fine, let us debate the Charter, spot the flaws and seek improvements, but not this way. When we reduce the Constitution into political football, we cheapen constitutional discourse itself and doom all future constitutions. Beware the price of whoring the sacred text.

Here's the complete Newsbreak Article (via google cache) on Ramos' plans to allow him to run for a second term back in 1997:

People Power aborted By Miriam Grace A. Go Newsbreak Senior writer

"People power [in the Philippines] has become its own institution, and one that seems monopolized by a certain clique... People power has become an acceptable term for a troubling phenomenon: one that used to be known as mob rule." —Anthony Spaeth, writing about Edsa 2, Time, Jan. 29, 2001 Forcing out a disgraced leader in 2001, Filipinos, in the eyes of outsiders, appeared to have the tendency to discard constitutional means in favor of street demonstrations to resolve political issues. Four years before president Joseph Estrada’s ouster, however, there was Pirma’s debacle. The thwarted attempt of the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (Pirma) to amend the Constitution was one indication that some sectors of Philippine society preferred the Edsa route. Pirma’s campaign to remove the restriction on a president’s reelection was waged in 1997 according to parameters set by the Constitution, and was supported—in writing—by several million voters. It was, however, frustrated by the legal maneuvers of its critics; an opposition rally organized by politicians, religious groups, and businessmen that would oust a still-popular Estrada out of office almost four years later; and a Supreme Court decision. Formed by people supportive of then president Fidel Ramos, Pirma, in December 1996, announced it would gather signatures backing a petition to amend Article VII, Section 4, of the 1987 Constitution. That part of the Charter provides that a president of the republic can be elected only once. This makes the president the only elected official prohibited from seeking reelection. The Constitution lists down three modes through which it can be amended: the people’s initiative, Congress convening itself into a constituent assembly, and a constitutional convention composed of elected delegates. Pirma chose the people’s initiative mode, which requires that only one amendment be proposed per initiative, and specifies that an initiative may be conducted only once every five years. In this mode, a petition had to be signed by at least 12 percent of the nation’s registered voters, which should include at least 3 percent of voters in every legislative district. Six million signatures The Commission on Elections (Comelec) is required to verify the signatures against the voters’ list. Once the Comelec finds the petition sufficient in form and substance, it sets a nationwide plebiscite on the proposed amendment. If the yes vote wins, the amendment is submitted to Congress and implemented as the new law. The entire process, which the poll body is required to wrap up in not more than four months, is not just spelled out in the Constitution. It was fleshed out in Republic Act 6735 (or the Initiative and Referendum Act), the enabling law, and Comelec drew up the rules and regulations. Pirma, with the help of other organizations in Access (Alliance of Concerned Citizens for Empowered Social Systems), more than met all the requirements for its initiative. In 1997, there were 35 million voters on Comelec’s list, which meant that Pirma needed at least 4.2 million verified signatures to warrant a plebiscite. As of July 1997, it had submitted to the Comelec 5.9 million signatures, or 17 percent of the total number of voters. Ramos’s national security adviser, Jose Almonte, claims that Pirma, his brainchild, gathered 11.5 million signatures. By the time a Supreme Court decision on September 23 that year halted the initiative, Comelec had reportedly verified 4.2 million of the signatures—enough to compel it to conduct a plebiscite. Almonte, banking on Ramos’s good performance in Malacañang, was confident Pirma would win. Yet, Pirma failed. Critics point out the group’s credibility problem. The initiative had the elements of what opponents described as a grand scheme "to perpetuate Ramos in power": • Almonte was the suspected mastermind (he admitted so for the first time in a Newsbreak interview). • It was being carried out by civic leaders who had worked with Ramos, some as early as his 1992 presidential campaign. • The signature gathering was launched the year before Ramos’s term as president was to end in 1998. • Members of Ramos’s Lakas-NUCD party, including congressmen and heads of local government leagues, were gathering signatures in their localities. • His budget secretary was announcing that 17 big businessmen had contributed to the campaign. • Five Cabinet secretaries had signed up for Pirma. Pirma was vocal about its purpose of allowing Ramos to seek another term and continue the reforms he had started. Effective opposition The local media had a field day because opposition to Pirma mainly came from two newsworthy political camps: then Vice President Estrada and his partymates, and the circle of former president Corazon Aquino and Manila Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin. The opposition shifted the public discussion away from the legality and the merits of Pirma’s initiative by ascribing ill motives to its proponents and its beneficiary. Estrada was turning out to be the most popular contender for the approaching presidential elections, so Pirma’s victory could frustrate his ambitions for higher office. Aquino’s camp was protective of the 1987 Constitution because it was drafted by a commission she appointed. Forgotten in the debate was that in 1991, a year before Aquino’s term ended, her brother, Tarlac Representative Jose Cojuangco Jr., delivered a privilege speech pointing out an issue that, although valid, could extend Aquino’s stay in office: a potential vacuum in the political leadership if the incumbent president, as provided in the Charter, stepped down on June 30, while no successor had yet emerged because of electoral canvassing problems. Who would govern the country, he asked, when there would be no Congress to decide on the matter because the lawmakers had yet to be sworn in by that date? The muddled debate prompted Pirma’s leaders to complain about the noisy minority dominating the airwaves and the newspaper pages, while the "silent majority"—the almost six million Pirma signatories—were not given the time of day. And there was the legal battle that Pirma did not anticipate. Concerned citizens asked the Supreme Court to stop Comelec from verifying the signatures and thus prevent the scheduling of a plebiscite. Among the complainants was the lawyer of Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, she who had maintained that Ramos cheated her in the 1992 presidential election. Thus, the Comelec’s hands were tied as the court studied if RA 6735, the law authored by Camarines Norte Representative Raul Roco to give flesh to the constitutional provision on people’s initiative, was indeed the enabling law. The tribunal, under Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, decided that the people’s initiative law was applicable only to local exercises, and not for national matters such as amending the Constitution. (Narvasa was Estrada’s lawyer before joining the High Court.) Edsa, back and forth The Supreme Court decision came on September 23, two days after Aquino, Sin, and the political opposition led an anti-Charter change rally at the Quirino Grandstand in Luneta. It was an activity which Catholic schools, in written memoranda, asked their students, below voting age, to attend. It was reported that because of the "mammoth" crowd, Pirma backtracked and Ramos read the handwriting on the wall. Pirma had its internal conflicts on how to solve the problems brought by the court case, but these were apparently not the main cause of its defeat. It was the perception game that the opposition successfully played against it. In the end, Almonte says that nothing was wrong with Pirma—but it was aborted by outside forces. After Pirma’s defeat, a Pulse Asia survey in December 1999 showed the people’s initiative as the public’s most preferred mode of amending the Constitution (56 percent, against 25 percent for a constitutional convention and 18 percent for a constituent assembly). This was understandable because people’s initiative was the only mode where the common people could be directly involved in amending the Constitution. For now, the process of people’s initiative—the constitutional form of people power—is dead. The modes are limited to the constitutional convention and the constituent assembly. This means that until an adequate people’s initiative law is passed, amending the Charter will be the show of politicians. But since the same political camps doubt the sincerity of those proposing a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly, any output through these two modes may be junked when thousands calling the proponents "evil" and the efforts "ill-timed" take to the streets again. This "going back and forth to Edsa," Almonte says, would have been prevented if the Pirma initiative was allowed to take its course.