A Government of Laws and Not of Men
Written on Wednesday, October 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 am | by DJBWhat exactly is the difference between autocratic fascism and popular democracy? I offer a simple logical test for distinguishing between fascist and democratic proposals to change the Constitution.
First let me say that the difference lies in our understanding of the phrase “the Rule of Law”, which is a concept much abused by dictators and totalitarians who do not actually believe in John Adams’ goal of having “a government of laws and not of men”. Essential to this notion is the equality of men before the Law. Autocrats and fascists cannot rule in a society that respects the equality of all men before the Law as that would undermine their very claim to power, especially absolute power, as exceptional in their case because of their talents and superior attributes. Thus we have men like Ferdinand Marcos who have changed the laws of the land for their own personal benefit and theirs alone. In the last few days on Filipino Voices, we have been regaled and entertained by the suggestion that the Constitution and the laws ought to be changed to allow an “extension of GMA’s term” or to allow her to run again for President. The reasons put forward are all altruistic and patriotic though justified by the suggestion that all the alternatives to this angel of vision are unacceptable, or worse:
High Priest: “I’m sure everybody agrees with me that giving a measure of praise to PGMA is in order since she brought economic and political stability in this country. I admire her not because of my current position. Among the so-called leaders of this country, she’s the only one with a vision. The rest, they just themselves to mind. And their thoughts are murky, sadistic and egoistic power trips….about this purported plan–it’s not a plan. It’s a desire. A desire, no, a longing for continuity. Again, let me reiterate that all these are just my personal opinions.
What I’m saying all along is the perpetuation of stability. When PGMA came to Malacanang, it was in utter disarray. Eight years after, we have a stable economy and a contented people. What do you people want? You want more of this stability, right? Me as well.”
So there you have it folks–we must have Chacha because of Gloria’s exceptional vision and performance, and for continuity and stability. I won’t even controvert the amazing description of the Philippines as having a stable economy and a contented people, even if the international community considers our government to be the most corrupt in Asia on the level of Haiti or Somalia; a fifth of the population are regularly going hungry; even more believe they are poor; and there does appear to be “utter disarray” in Mindanao.
Let me take the measure instead of the ethical dimension of these plans, or longings, or desires, as against the goal of having a government of laws and not of men. To test the integrity of these plans, or longings or desires, and gauge its intellectual consistency with the democratic precept we are addressing, let us ask this question of its proponents:
Would you make this proposal to change the Constitution and lift presidential term limit now, IF the sitting president happened to be not Gloria Macapagal Arroyo but someone else who has been deemed to have “murky and sadistic thoughts” and into “egoistic power trips”?
I ask this question to see if it is the Law you wish to strengthen and reform because such a change in it is inherently beneficial to the people, or whether you are in fact partaking of the opposite of democracy and arguing for fascism.
In my opinion, only an honest affirmative answer would qualify the very proposal for a change in the Law as ethical and legitimate. Otherwise, you are clearly after a nation of Men, and NOT of Laws, even if the person you have in mind represents to you vision, stability and continuity. For these were the very arguments made by Benito Mussolini (with the enthusiastic support of the Pope and the Catholic Church); of Adolf Hitler; the communist tyrants with their personality cults (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) and of course our very own Ferdinand Marcos.
I do not believe that the proponents can credibly assert that their proposal is BLIND to who will benefit from the change. It is clear from the statements quoted that the beneficiary is to be Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and nobody else. This proves that it is not the Law which they seek to improve, but the status of the one person that is object of the plans or longings or desires propounded. Such a proposal would lead inexorably to a nation of Men and not of Laws.
It is a FASCIST proposal. Quod Erap Demonstrandum (Latin-Tagalog pun intended).
Tags: 2010 election, charter change- Stating the (Not so) Obvious
- An Alternative Representation
- Fragmentation, not peace.
- The Precariousness of Hope
- Dysfunctional environmentalism
- Like Caesar’s Wife
- Esperon’s Costly Mistakes
- Freedom of Religion is not Religion, Father
- Lunch Coup
- “We cannot keep what we cannot defend”
Comments
98 Responses to “A Government of Laws and Not of Men”
Leave a Reply
Current Events, News, and Press
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
Senator Manny Villar has resigned as Senate President. Immediately, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was nominated then declared New Senate President. Read More...
- The Catholic-Muslim Joint Declaration
Three days of talks at the Vatican that included scholars from The Islamic and Catholic faith, finally concluded with a joint declaration. Here is the full text of The Catholic and Muslim Joint Declaration. Read More...
- Change.gov The Official Website of President-elect Barack Obama
To those who wish to dive deep into what President-elect Barack Obama has in store as his presidency nears, you can go visit Change.gov, his official website introducing the reader to his policies during his presidency. Read More...
- Obama assembles White House team
Barack Obama has started forming his administration by asking Rahm Emanuel, a former adviser to President Clinton, to be his chief-of-staff. Read More...
- Pimentel cautions colleagues against obstructing probe of Bolante
Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, (PDP-Laban) today cautioned his colleagues against blocking the reopening of the Senate's investigation into the fertilizer fund scam that could expose them to suspicion that they may be unwittingly covering up the scandal. Read More...
- Full Text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech
Here is the full text of President-Elect Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech. Read More...
- Barack Obama Presidential Victory Speech Video November 5, 2008
This is the full video of President Elect Barack Obama's Presidential Victory Speech. As November 4th gave way to November 5th, America heralded in a historic moment, by electing, for the first time in history, an African-American as President of The United States of America. Read More...
- A Global Market Meltdown
The world financial system is teetering on the "brink of systemic meltdown", the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has warned in Washington. Read More...
- Full Draft Copy of The Proposed Bailout Plan
This is the Full Draft Copy of the proposed bailout plan that was struck down just yesterday, and is estimated to cost The United States government, $700 billion or upwards to $1 trillion. Read More...
- Chavit Singson Is New Deputy National Security Adviser
MANILA, Philippines—After a yearlong absence from the political scene, former Ilocos Sur Gov. Luis “Chavit” Singson is back in the corridors of power. Read More...
Archive for Current Events »
- Manny Villar Resigns, Juan Ponce Enrile is New Senate President
-
Subscribe to Filipino Voices!
-
FULL TEXT
perhaps there are just people who are not comfortable with the uncertainty change brings or who benefit from fruits imposed by the status quo
sometimes the longing for change or for the love of equal opportunity can be set aside to make way for order, stability and progress: results.
i dont know if its just me, but there seems to be a sudden surge of people who believe in a more results-oriented oriented leadership style rather than leadership that bows for respect for democracy of the western-kind.
Well, Liam, Democracy may be flawed, but we’ve not found anything better. I am open to an alternative you might want to suggest to replace the ideal of a government of laws and not of men. Marcos too, used the excuse that “Western Democracy” did not apply to the Philippines. We know of course where that led: Eastern-style fascist dictatorship.
In the post of Pat Mangubat re: “Implosion of the Philippine State” in his blog “The New Philippine Revolution,” I posted:
“It’s not the system that runs itself; it’s those men behind it that run the system the way they want.
A governance system at hand could be structurally faulty; totalitarianism may not be inherently bad because its social justice system aims for the highest good of the highest number; democracy, though considered today as the best system of governance in the secular world, perhaps may not have all the structural refinements that can solve all the problems of the public.
But them who choose to run these systems have all the faculties and conscience to mitigate somehow system loopholes, offset these structural fault lines and run the system despite these flaws into constructive and best ways that cater to people’s welfare and develop human potentials. I believe an imperfect governance system can undergo evolutionary developments and overcome its structural imperfections if those men running said system only make use of their faculties and conscience to compensate for its lapses.”
djb, asks:
“Would you make this proposal to change the Constitution and lift presidential term limit now, IF the sitting president happened to be not Gloria Macapagal Arroyo but someone else who has been deemed to have “murky and sadistic thoughts” and into “egoistic power trips”?”
In the case at bar, the question begs an answer which is on the affirmative. It is irrelevant whether it is Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo or someone else provided that the following conditions emanate from the change:
1. A stronger government.
2. A better program on succession
3. A better solution to the generational problem on continuity.
4. A stable life to all.
I must admit that it’s my fault to head this off with my personal take on PGMA, making me instead a personality-based follower. Let me correct that impression.
I subscribe to the idea of charter change simply because it will solve the following problems, to wit:
1. Economy. Charter change would lead to a better and more stable economy. It will enhance further the competitiveness of the Philippines, since some of the charter change proposals delve on lifting economic restrictions, especially on property.
2. Political Instability. We follow South American models on succession which is harmful to us. We gauge performance based on our concept of “time-spent” so to speak. Notice that all positions don’t enjoy the co-efficiency of continuity which places the entire political system at risk. This has been pointed out by the respected Political scientist, Fr. Intengan.
3. Social disorder. If we have a stable leadership and people know that their leaders will be staying on much longer than 3 or 4 or 6 years, more trust and respect will occur. This has been proven in similar sociological studies about the Filipino.
These are just some examples that I will cite here for lack of time and space.
Am waiting for a clear sign of what new term of office is being envisioned by the chacha engineers, DJB.
But for the moment, I cannot help recalling the term “constitutional authoritarianism.”
The sitting president was installed after Erap was ousted in 2000 so when she steps down (assuming we are still a democracy) in 2010 that’s a decade-long rule. A 10-year term extension is supposedly desired by certain people, so 10+10 makes 20. Hmmm. We’ll have to consult the people how “contented” they really are.
As I’ve indicated, every democracy seeks to perfect itself. Often I’ve phrased it like this: Corrigibility is democracy’s greatest virtue. There are a number of changes I would want to make myself.
The men like John Adams and Thomas Paine who conceived of these principles did not posit a never changing constitution as 27 amendments to the American charter proves.
However, they made it crystal clear that change for the sake of a specific person leads to authoritarian or monarchical rule. “A nation of Laws and not men” implies that our considerations ought not be tied to the fate of any particular leader.
I will take your affirmative answer at face value, HPOS, that what you really want is to remove the single six year term limit that the 1987 constitution specifies and replace it with something else, for example that former or incumbent president can run for a second? third? or unlimited number of terms. The details don’t really matter.
So now, I ask a further question: If indeed you are earnest in reforming the Laws for its own sake, and not to benefit your benefactress and visionary, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, why is it (or is it?) urgent and critical that we do so before 2010 considering that the process itself would induce a good deal of instabililty because of the political divisiveness of such a move, and given the closeness of the next elections?
Would you be willing to specify, in the name of GMA, that such a charter amendment is aimed at perfecting the system of laws and govt, and therefore ought not to benefit her in 2010, simply to prove your dedication to the Law? (though 2016 might be available if she has the stamina to wait)
Danilo,
I disagree with the notion that it is the men behind the system and not the system itself that is important. Thomas Jefferson once described Democracy as a Machine with interlocking parts, composed of institutions and of human beings interacting in a common enterprise. But the System ran on principles that had been agreed to BEFORE any particular persons were joined to it.
The reason this is important is that we cannot guarantee the quality, honesty, talent or dedication of the “MEN” that run the system. Therefore, we are forced to accept a compromise: No matter how good or how bad a given leader is, his or her time at the helm of power, shall be strictly limited and temporary–if only to avoid arbitrary changes to the law for their own benefit, which evil men while in power would surely attempt, as they are doing now, in order to preserve their fell grip upon the helm.
But if you wish to reject the principle “A nation of laws and not of men” you are free to move to North Korea or South Waziristan.
@djb
we want to change the constitution or relax the term limits, because WE think that she is doing a good job..
YOU(plural) say she is not..
so how are we going to determine who is right?
Liam,
Even if you were right, and she was the Blessed Virgin Mother herself, it would still violate the principle “A govt of laws and not of men” to change the constitution for her sake. But what will you do after she says dead and gone and some ogre wins the Presidency? Change the constitution again to suit the man and the time?
Your high priest makes a big deal about continuity and stability as criteria for doing any chacha. But the suggestion you and he are now making clearly violates these criteria, no?
The 1987 Constitution does need to be amended (mind it not changed) and you don’t need a Juris Doctor degree to know its limitations. It is a product of its time a sort of leftist-centrist-rightist chimera.
The Rule of Law concept in amending the constitution will work when the public has a large degree of trust in the institutions of State. But in the case of our Glorious Queen, her ascendancy is still in a cloud of doubt. Thus we have to seriously consider that she has not a shred of legitimate claim to represent the sovereignty of the people. I think DJB has skewered Davide and company many times on this.
The Great Apo despite what he has done has more legitimate claim to the presidency than Mrs Arroyo ever had or ever will. Even Ninoy Aquino recognised this. Even when he was dictator, Marcos was recognised as President.
That Marcos and Macapagal-Arroyo seem to have made the economy worse or better during their reigns is rather irrelevant here.
The fixed single six year term of the President needs to be changed, I agree but it is a sickness of the Philippine presidency for its occupants not to transcend the interest of their persons. Thus is really the tragedy. This started even with the soon to be canonized Corazon Aquino, who in her triumph failed to hear what Roman generals needed to hear, “Respica te, hominem te memento” from the rest of us slaves.
Excellent points Ben. I have big problems with the 1987 Constitution too, but I guess I am more of a stabilizer and conservative than the visionary’s supporters, who seem ready to change it depending on the man in Malacanang. It shouldn’t really surprise since they are probably Edsa Dos diehards too, who seem to think that Erap’s sins (which were many) somehow absolves those of Gloria, Davide, et al. They are the original destabilizers and destroyers of the Constitution. After screwing it in 2001 to get her in, they need to screw it again to keep her in. What’s scary of course is that Gloria, has gotten everything she has ever wanted, probably since she was one year old, that she set her mind to. Believe it or not, she was the hope and inspiration of our generation at one time, based on nothing more, probably, than what her current cull of rooters base their adulation upon.
We were fooled by her once, twice, thrice, so many times already since 2001.
I’m looking to 2010 just to be rid of her. Hasn’t she gorged herself enough with power? It’s almost enough for me to start praying like a nun for just one super-malignant cancer cell on HER funny bone.
Except there really would not be the same kind of poetic justice in that, than if she were properly charged, arrested, prosecuted and jailed for her heinous crimes of lying, cheating and stealing. And now fomenting war with a false peace intended only to bring on chacha.
God may not be real (I do not know if and ask only for evidence for my open mind), but Evil is more probably a reality, judging by its present incarnation in her.
Blackshama & DJB
is there any way of proving your claims aside from surveys, word-of-mouth?
besides, even if she is popular, isnt it with deference to the rule of law that we allow our congressmen, as duly elected representatives of our people, to decide on the matter of changing the constitution?
i mean, what are they there for if we are to always bow down to popular sentiments as reflected by the surveys? isnt it that “bowing down to popular sentiments” is precisely what “government of men” means?
for if we are truly a government of laws, we should respect what it says, in spite of our reservations.. why should we deny charter change that will benefit PGMA if the 1987 Constitution itself will allow it to take place?
Delicadeza for one thing, Liam. Something you can’t legislate (or even translate to English), but should be a trait of all of us especially of those in power.
Liam,
just because the constitution allows something doesn’t mean we may not oppose it with all of our might if we think it is not right.
The Constitution allows us to declare war on any country. Should we allow it even if it is understandably unpopular??
I have very carefully explained the democratic principle of a government of laws and not of men and applied it to this case by asking Gloria supporters to state what principle they stand upon.
HPOS claims his answer to my logical test question is in the affirmative (meaning he believes in the principle above), that he would go for term limits to be lifted even if it weren’t gloria as the incumbent and that it is really the Law he is trying to improve and reform and not just giving Gloria a new term because she is a good leader in his opinion.
But until he also stipulates in the affirmative to my second question about whether he would be willing to delay effectivity of such a change so it doesn’t benefit her, I will deem his first answer to be disingenuous. I will suspect that he doesn’t really believe in the principle and is only saying he does to avoid the obvious logical pitfall into a judgment of fascism if he is just being personalistic and not statesmanlike about pursuing chacha.
If you however reject the principle then I say you can move to North Korea or South Waziristan where you won’t get any arguments from people like me. (I’m only saying that rhetorically and don’t really want you to move there…you might get hurt!)
if we are to consider “delicadeza” then, alas, we are indeed a government of men and not laws..
if we want the our institutions and laws to be strong, then let us follow it, that is what this administration is doing.. it had pursued its actions, by the constitution, by the law, by the book..
djb wants us to do government the ‘legal way’.. PGMA has been doing it all along..
and yet we still hear protests, we still hear complaints..
if YOU really want us to be a government of laws, then why cant we accept and live with the scrapping of impeachment proceedings in the process as mandated by the constitution and the laws?
because if we are to really are to follow opinion surveys, street rallies and protests, then we are really reverting back to the ORIGINAL meaning of democracy: the rule of the MOB
liam,
you must be on the wrong comment thread. We are not talking about impeachment here but chacha to give her a term extension because she’s so great, remember? But even at that why are you calling for the “scrapping of impeachment proceedings” when that is a completely constitutional mode of removing a president?
All I am saying is that she should puhleeze just leave in 2010 as the Constitution provides. You are the destabilizers who refuse to accept that her time is almost up and we shall be insisting on a change of venue for her lying, cheating and stealing ways…maybe with Chavit Singson and Bong Pineda and all the rest of her “legal” operations.
if we are to consider “delicadeza” then, alas, we are indeed a government of men and not laws..
We are not. We are a government of principles that are above any man. And it isnt ‘alas’. There IS something beyond the text (laws), contrary to what postmodernists assert. Principles are what’s behind the laws.
djb
i am really confused as to why you dont want to follow the 1987 Constitution, which you so love, when it deals with term extension of the current President
the idea behind the option of amending a constitution is there so as to UPDATE the charter to RESPOND to the NEEDS OF THE TIME
if our congressmen, see it fit that NOW is the TIME to AMEND it, they are, by the powers given to them by the constitution and as affirmed by their mandate, ALLOWED to AMEND the charter
IF they WANT PGMA for another 20, 60, 90 years, SO BE IT, THEY REPRESENT US, WE ELECTED THEM, THEY REFLECT OUR SENTIMENTS
if we are, as you truly say, a government of LAWS, why dont we then, allow our congressmen, under the limits provided by the constitution, to CHANGE it?
Liam,
I know that as presidential staff officer you are just here to worry the sheep, but can’t they send someone a little more attentive to the actual discussion?
What don’t you understand about “a nation of laws and not of men”?
It’s probably useless asking you but your shift is almost over. I hope they send somebody else a little more interesting and less repetitive.
Liam,
90 years??? You mean we have to wait till she is a 150 years old before we are free of the tumor on our funny bone?
Wow, you must REALLY think she IS the Blessed Virgin Mary. You. Scary!
Jeg, the principles behind the laws are part of juris prudence as well.. and it is also considered when deciding cases..
besides, if the framers of the 1987 Constitution really meant that NO President shall be allowed to serve twice, they should have so written:
“Section # - NO PERSON CAN HOLD THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY MORE THAN ONCE.. EVER..”
^_^
lol
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY
lol ^_^
@djb
if only i could illustrate or allowed to say the pain it takes or the pains i must suffer to be a government employee under the Office of the President..
but just like what high priest said, she has a vision, and we want to pursue and follow it
Gee Liam, you should’ve been a founding pater. Because your formulation would’ve prevented GMA taking her oath of office on 20 January 2001!
They should fire you tonight for being so dumb, bro.
But the Constitution does say “The President shall not be eligible for any re-election.” Isn’t that better as it allows a person (the Vice President) to conceivably hold the office of the presidency more than once?
besides, if the framers of the 1987 Constitution really meant that NO President shall be allowed to serve twice, they should have so written:
“Section # - NO PERSON CAN HOLD THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY MORE THAN ONCE.. EVER..”
Haha. Principles such as delicadeza render that unnecessary, Liam. But you have to understand the exasperation many feel about your and HP’s arguments. There is nothing wrong with amending the law to allow presidents to serve for ever and ever until they croak. There is something wrong with amending the law to allow a person to serve for ever etc etc.
sorry, I meant prevented her taking the oath of office in 2004.
I bear you no umbrage, LIam. You are just doing your job. I think I know a lil bit about vision, but I have to ask you the same question I asked HPOS and I expect an honest answer okay:
Has she ever cussed you out in a native tongue? I mean for real?
Perhaps these lines from Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons can put us in the right place
Thomas More: I think that when statesmen forsake
their own private conscience
for the sake of their public duties
they lead their country
by a short route to chaos.
And we shall have my prayers
to fall back on.
The Philippines has been brought to the brink chaos in fact it may be in it already. Ask any Mindanao citizen.
Then we have Saint Thomas More’s intercession to fall back on. If only faithful Catholics in this country can prioritize their prayer intentions!
Thomas More,Patron saint of despicable politicians, ORA PRO NOBIS!
Let me answer djb’s earlier question, to wit:
“So now, I ask a further question: If indeed you are earnest in reforming the Laws for its own sake, and not to benefit your benefactress and visionary, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, why is it (or is it?) urgent and critical that we do so before 2010 considering that the process itself would induce a good deal of instabililty because of the political divisiveness of such a move, and given the closeness of the next elections?
Would you be willing to specify, in the name of GMA, that such a charter amendment is aimed at perfecting the system of laws and govt, and therefore ought not to benefit her in 2010, simply to prove your dedication to the Law? (though 2016 might be available if she has the stamina to wait)
djb, who said that we want her to amend the charter prior to 2010 and for her behalf? I wrote a correction in my site. It says ” it’s my own desire”. The last time I heard, this is still a democracy. People do have the right to dream, right?
However, let me answer you straight–there is urgency to amend the Constitution because (1) we need to make our country more competitive (2) changing these economic provisions that deter foreigners from owning lands would do the trick and (3) we need continuity of programs. Like I said, regardless of who benefits from this, the point is, we need to face this reality now, not later.
Who said we want to amend the charter prior to 2010 and for her behalf?
I think you did:
and in several other places!
So excuse me HPOS, but let’s not change the subject here. I’ve already said even I have changes I’d like to suggest to the Charter. But we are talking about plans, desires, longings to extend her term via chacha, not the economic provisions or anything else like that. Of course you have a right to do that, but you haven’t actually answered the question about term extension benefiting a particular incumbent person.
Do you agree that only a YES to my second question–that any term limit change ought not to benefit the incumbent–is consistent with your first affirmative that you would pursue lifting the term limits before 2010, even if say Lacson or Villar were President. You said yes, but since this question was hypothetical, I just want to be assured you are not being disingenuous for rhetorical purposes, which assurance I would have if you also now agree that such a chacha ought not benefit this incumbent, even if I concede, as I certainly do, that charter change in and of itself is allowed and constitutional as provided for in the Constitution.
“A government of laws and not men” is simply not consistent with chacha to extend GMA’s term.
By the way, please tell Gloria not to get too mad at Liam and not to cuss him out good just coz he said some really dumb things today. Like how he thinks the Constitution ought to be worded. He’s really trying his best you know, but he’s really gotta try and follow the discussion and not just type from some script or crib sheet what to say around here. We may just be bloggers, but we’re really tough on the weak-minded paid hacks.
What you stated above, is itself within the text. It is written down, isn’t it?
Haha. The text is written down. Not what’s beyond it.
What’s beyond it is located outside Society.
How come? Is society text?
Jeg, CVJ, this is a philosophical vein you guys are mining. I love it! I think Jeg may have something there. John Rawls, in his Theory of Justice speaks of a gedankenexperiment with something he calls the “original position”–in which we can all imagine ourselves to be something like organizers of a Constitutional convention, a proto-convention in which we decide the really bedrock principles by which we design the very Constitution itself, before we write the text down. Fascinating, exhilirating stuff–like designing a spaceship before you even build it, but for laws and constitutions.
Then of course there’s St. John … in the beginning was the Word and the word was with God…
In a manner of speaking yes. As per Niklas Luhman, Society is a system. And as a system, society does *not* consists of people. Rather, it is composed of communication which Luhman describes as the unity of information, message and understanding. Communication is the medium in which society operates and reproduces itself.
Where do people fit in then? People comprise the environment in which society exist. Without people, Society will not have an environment to reproduce itself. Corollary to this, Society is the environment in which people exist (unless you’re living alone in a deserted island).
Within our little corner, these blog entries and comments is society. As people, you and me are on the outside looking in.
In the larger world, our conversations (written, oral, nonverbal interactions), printed publications, AM/FM radio broadcasts and TV shows and other forms of communication are what make up society. The people are likewise on the outside looking in.
Slight correction, the above should read…
Communication is the medium through which society operates and reproduces itself (not ‘in which’).
DJB,
I agree. The US hasn’t changed its constitution, no matter how many flaws it has, and other progressive countries do without constitution, perhaps in fear that the makers of the constitution will exercise autocracy rather than democracy. Besides, status quo isn’t the result of unchanging laws but the product of complacency of law enforcement. This is certainly VERY TRUE in the PHILIPPINES.
CVJ, Jeq,
Kung ganyan kayo makikinig nalang ako sa mga oration nang mga abogago.
You may call the various elements that comprise our world with any name or jargon but one must consider the results should be given ear too. How does every Filipino get fed?
Brian (at 8:05 pm), what you have written is now part of Society.
Sure, but so what if it isn’t? See the difference? No? Of course not. Because there isn’t any between yea or nay.
BrianB,
I’m a lil confused by your comment because in fact the US Constitution has several dozen amendments to it. Unless you mean they have only had one Constitution and not four as we have (Malolos, Commonwealth, Marcos and 1987).
Brian (at 8:26pm) of course there is a difference, no matter how little. Society has been changed by the comment that you have just written. Now if instead of writing it down, you just kept your comment to yourself as uncommunicated thoughts, then it would have had no effect on Society. It’s as if your thoughts never existed, and from the point of view of society as a system, it never did.
You’re right of course, but adding the Bill of Rights doesn’t really change a constitution drafted by the colonials of the US. When they ratified the US constitution it was to enact their independence from the British. Only later did they think of adding a Bill of Rights to serve the newly free and governed people of the United States.
I’m not opposed to liberalizing our economy, taking away Filipino majority ownership as long as foreign ownership will have permanent limitations. I’m not against revising the penal code. I’m not against amending CARP, making it more comprehensive and giving it more teeth. This doesn’t qualify to me as CHANGE, not in any significant level. I’m liberalizing the economy by allowing permanent ownership to foreigners not only because I’m a little conservative at heart but also because I don’t want us to stray too far from the original.
But to change the form of government? Extending term limits. These are drastic changes. The general meaning of the word “amend” specifies “minor” changes or changes that does not reverse the original meaning. The intention of presidential term limits is put their precisely to deny a president a lengthy rule. Sp extending term limits is to reverse this intention.
You’re right. I’m confused myself because of the number of changes and their drastic nature made me think the constitution is going to be changed again with a new date and all.
cvj, I mean no difference whatever you call it. I’m sure before Derrida, people know that communication is the basis of society. It is implicit. But then again, they are not so hung up on technical terms like “society.” My point is, it’s just jargon, an aide for philosophical and systematic thinking. We don’t need to argue about jargon, do we? You can call on the deconstructionist all you want and I can call on my favorite structuralists or idealists but does it rally matter?
correction to 9:02:
I’m AGAINST liberalizing the economy by allowing permanent ownership to foreigners not only because I’m a little conservative at heart but also because I don’t want us to stray too far from the original.
cvj,
A simple counter-example though…suppose I know that Al Qaeda is about to strike Manila tomorrow, but I don’t tell anybody about it, write or post it, leaving the information uncommunicated. How can you now say that uncommunicated thoughts have no effect on Society?
Likewise, as the old saying goes, all writing is ultimately a form of plagiarism, by which we mean that we cannot possibly create all our thoughts out of thin air all by ourselves. Even the Web (software) cannot exist independently of the people and computers that comprise its society.
I guess this really makes me a Platonist. Like Kurt Godel, I believe that Mathematics is real and has an independent existence from our minds. But of course its Society is the entire Universe.
If I have a Religion it would be Pythagoreanism.
DJB,
Just to clarify my point further and thanks for the correction
Status quo in the Philippines is a result of complacent law enforcement.
Constitutional amendments (and I browsed Google for amendments in other countries) are usually done not for CHANGE but as a process of providing DECORUM in the law to what is already preponderant in the culture.
In summary: a country who cannot enforce vital laws (CARP) has no business changing it every five years (even if it is provided in the constitution). Coz if it doesn’t provide an opportunity for copping out by our leaders it provides opportunity for worse.
DJB (at 9:06 pm), in your Al Qaeda example, if you kept that information secret even after the attack, taking the secret with you to your grave, then that information is non-existent from the point of view of society. Such knowledge of what might have been only existed as a thought in your mind (while you were alive). As long as it remained in your mind, the fact that ‘the attack could have been revealed by DJB and consequently prevented‘ does not exist outside your head. (Let’s ignore for a moment that someone or something must have communicated the impending attack to you because such communication would then be part of Society.)
You are right of course that given there are circumstances when communication can take place even without saying or writing a word, or that the absence of a response may itself be a form of communication. All this still means that society is composed of communication.
Your sentence in the second paragraph will be in agreement with what i say (at 7:39 pm) if instead of saying…
…you say…
The systems-environment relationship between People and Society is complementary:
Society [the social system] forms the environment in which people [aka cognitive systems] live; and in turn…
People form the environment in which Society exists.
The first is obvious, it is the second is Niklas Luhman’s insight.
Brian (at 9:05 pm), it’s not just about ‘jargon’. The formulation of Society as being made up of communication with people existing on the outside is useful for the purpose of further scientific study. For example, it may in the future be possible to measure the entropy (hidden information) of a given Society.
In the meantime, why do you think Puno and Rove are valuable to their political masters? It’s because the politicians appreciate that communication is what shapes social reality. (Manipulating election results is in essence manipulating communication.)
If, for example, all the FV-bloggers entries and comments (and all memory of such writings) disappeared from the face of the earth, leaving only the writings of Bencard and highpriestofsmokes, then the reality of GMA would have been altered in her favor. DJB may be right to believe that there is a Platonic reality out there, but that is not the ‘reality’ that matters because such reality is inaccessible without being communicated.
I think entropy though here is not hidden information but lost information or lost details, nuances, etc.
Although no information is ever truly lost, I think you’re right to say that Brian in the sense that entropy is the number of microstates in a given macrostate. The fewer the microstates comprising the macrostate, the lower the entropy. A more organized system has a lower entropy than an unorganized one because the former has fewer microstates.
So for example, when Benign0 says it’s simply, really, it is because he is content to limit himself to the level of the macrostate (i.e. the powerpoint version of reality) and is incapable or unwilling to look into the underlying microstates.
So the sense in which information is ‘lost’ in a high entropy system has to do with keeping track of the number of microstates in a given macrostate.
Sorry to segue like this CVJ, DJB, etc.
How are we on having an economist guesting here at FV. Can someone offer advice for the future. If you’re an employee, a homemaker, a small business owner… what to do late this year or next year.
Sorry again, watching msnbc now. I guess profit outlooks is causing further market panics. Geez like it wasn’t already expected.
CVJ,
Facts can be recovered and data recovered by if message is the medium then when a medium goes into extinction, say the Internet, information is indeed lost.
Brian, I recommend inviting hvrds (who comments regularly in mlq3). He’s been right so far on how this will all turn out. (Early this year, he advised us to ’short the peso’. Anyone who followed that advice would have made money.)
Brian, it is ‘lost’ to the extent that observers like us are unable to retrieve such information because of our limited human capabilities. Posit a more powerful Observer who is able to keep track of all the atoms that made up such information and calculate from its trajectory backwards such that he/she can reconstruct the disk drives and its contents. To that Being, the information will not be lost.
[…] incautiously aggrandizing judicial independence - the way Smokey HP is ennobling his “angel of vision” (DJB) for bringing “economic and politica… - ” (HPOS) while trespass of defined constitutional boundaries may be occurring similarly […]
yes, i gather that but the medium (a human construct) has qualities that doesn’t really exist in the physical world. Medium is message.
Practical economics I mean, not just a trader’s eye view.
From the point of view of practical economics, isn’t the only advice (for employees) to try your best to keep your job?
@DJB
Rawls original position can’t hold ground in the real world. His veil of ignorance is a farfetched suggestion. The best that Rawls’ assertions can do is to give an account of as to how we were able to arrive at our concept of justice, at least in theory.
Besides, children aren’t allowed to participate in his original position. The theory lets the adults do the talking and thinking.
But the thing I like about his theory is that it allows for the acceptance of certain disparities in the society. For the most part, certain inequalities are permissible if and only if the least disadvantaged are given some sort of “compensation”.
*make that “most disadvantaged”. My mistake.
@Tambay, I think Rawls’ Maximin View of Economic Justice would be too much to the Left for many among the Pinoy Middle Class, particularly those who believe that it’s the fault of the poor that they are poor. Even the Threshold View (which i hold and is also explained in the link) is too much to the Left particularly of those FV bloggers who participated in the recent Blog Action Day against Poverty.
djb, for a self-confessed engineer, you seem to be extraordinarily enamored by constitutional law more than many lawyers i know. with due respect, however, i must say that you love threading on shaky grounds when it comes to mixing your smatterings of the law with your partisan persuasions.
simply put, the rule of law in a democracy means the sovereignty or the primacy, if you will, of the law over any person or group of persons, real or artificial. thus, everyone in the realm, whether or not a public officer, is subject to it. law is created, promulgated and enforced by a competent authority, who him/her/itself is subject to its rule.
contrary to what you imply, there’s no “rule of law” as we know it, in a totalitarian society for the simple reason that the totalitarian ruler (dictator, monarch) is the law unto him/herself.
if the constitution would be amended in accordance with the prescribed methods and subsequent approval by the required number of citizens, how could that be contrary to the rule of law?
as to your question concerning the lifting of term limit which could enable gma to run for re-election, where is the inconsistency with the “rule of law” if the lifting is pursuant to a duly passed constitutional amendment?
make no mistake, whether it’s gma or anyone “with murky and sadistic thoughts”, he/she will have to be ELECTED first by the electorates in order to become president.
so, what’s the problem?
Bencard,
As a self-confessed lawyer, you don’t seem to have much intellectual curiosity about the foundational documents and philosophical disquisitions that attended the birth of modern democracy in 1776. I strongly and respectfully urge you to read for example, Thomas Paine, Common Sense, or John Adams’ many essays, or Alexis de Toqcueville (Journeys through America), or Thomas Jefferson, in which these basics are developed and taught to school children all over America.
Regarding for example, the rule of law, there are in fact two kinds of govt that are addressed in many of those writings: autocratic or monarchical rule and democratic rule, both of which involve rules, decrees and other social regulations. My small essay here contains many ideas that are not at all original, but apply them to our particular situation.
The rule of law you are describing is of course democratic rule of law. I have only provided a logical means by which to distinguish it from autocratic rules.
I get your point of course that you wish to limit the definition of rule of law only to democratic.
Another good lawyer I know, Alan Paguia insists that what we have had since Edsa Dos is rule of force, not rule of law (in your sense).
By the way I am only a physicist and do not feel worthy to be called an engineer, whose many achievements have long exceeded ours.
As physicists of course, we are mainly concerned with the laws of nature, but while the Law as you know it are laws of man. And you guys use much much more English grammar and composition than we do, but the logic, reasoning and required curiosity are the same.
My basic thesis in this post is that even if legally the Congress and the people could pass an amendment to the Constitution under our rules that lift term limits, to make such a proposal to benefit the current incumbent would really violate the notion of building a govt of laws and not of men, a phrase not found in any constitution, but as CVJ, JEG and the others are current discussing, is one of those principles that “stand outside of the text”. It happens a lot in physics and mathematics too, where principles like conservation of energy and arithmetic axioms are not explicitly stated in textbook formalisms of particular laws taught to students, but which in fact form foundations for the laws themselves.
Thus the essential notions for example of “fairness” and “justice”, or even liberty, equality, fraternity, are foundational to democracy’s rule of law.
As is: “a govt of laws and not of men” (John Adams).
Tambay,
You are right of course that the “original position” excludes children, as do all Constitutional Conventions. As a gedankenexperiment (thought experiment) it is indeed useful because of that idea of “veil of ignorance” which basically asks participants in this proto-convention to imagine that they do not know what their particular station in the society and govt to be designed actually is. So if we do not know whether we shall be rich or poor, young or old, Catholic or Muslim, ordinary citizen or President, what rules and principles are we willing to adopt in writing our Constitution?
Since we are under such a veil of ignorance about where we are in society, Rawls asserts we will be more inclined to adopt rules that are “fair to all” and also fair to “us” whatever position we do occupy in such a society.
I guess that is why his, is a theory of “Justice as Fairness.” It is the quintessential “justice is blind” idea that animates this veil of ignorance.
Regarding equality you are quite right again. He justifies social toleration of INEQUALITIES in the society by observing that there are two kinds of goods in the world: social goods such as wealth, power and position which we can control the distribution of, and natural goods such as talent, intelligence and other “God-given” goods that we cannot control the distribution of.
But imagine we are a society of just a dozen people, one of them being an Albert Einstein or a great inventor of some kind. If such a person designs and builds things that benefit the rest of us, it is only advantageous to us all to give him more money, rewards and incentives to carry on such good works because it does benefit the rest.
Rawls thus blows up those who keep berating the “gap between the rich and the poor” as if such a gap is inherently unjust. It is not! Such inequalities are actually good for society, up to a point, and have logical basis in necessity and the long term good of all.
An income distribution of absolute equality is nonsensical because though we can control socioeconomic goods, we cannot (yet) control genetic distribution of talent and intelligence and inherent worth to humanity.
Reality is of course not as neat as all this, as we well know. But thanks for the amplifications.
djb, you are obviously trying to rebut my argument by the fact that i failed to mention the names of adams, paine and jefferson, icons of american democratic constitutionalism - under which the definition of the rule of law is limited to what you call “democratic rule of law”. but isn’t that what we are concerned with? who cares about autocracy and totalitarianism?
never mind mr. paguia. you have not answered my question. where is the conflict between a legally adopted constitutional amendment abrogating presidential term limits and the rule of law?
btw, when the subject of discussion is law and the constitution, i think physics and mathematics are way, way off the mark unless you want to obfuscate the issue and thus avoid it after bringing it up.
if you kept that information secret even after the attack, taking the secret with you to your grave, then that information is non-existent from the point of view of society
You are saying that society is only limited to a certain locality,but what about from a global point.
for that someone to learn about an information must be a result from hearing it or reading it from somewhere,meaning it was communicated to him(even in the case of hearsay or innocent bystander scenario) even if it is taken to the grave,they can still trace to somewhere else.let us say that they are correct in tracing it back to the al qaeda,that al qaeda originated the communique,thus starting the communication.
even suicide bombers get instructions and there are ways of tracing its origin.
I have been watching too many of those CSI,bones,cold case stuff.
I recommend the movie:Eagle Eye
The conflict is not between “a legally adopted constitutional amendment” and the “rule of law” but between a proposal to undertake such a chacha for the benefit of a particular leader, and the notion of “a govt of laws and not of men”. If it is the law we wish to improve and reform, that’s perfectly fine, but if it is to be done for this particular “angel of vision” then that leads to “a govt of men.”
The revelation of this flaw in HPOS “plans, longings and desires” is his unwillingness to stipulate that such a change ought not to benefit the incumbent but should be good for the law in its own right. I would be more inclined to think the proposal is legit if he were willing to make such a stipulation, because it would convince me he is not just trying to benefit his benefactress.
No particular man or woman is above the Law, but the Law itself is a Spring that cannot rise above its source: the sovereign people. So, when even the Supreme Court rules on something, that cannot be the end of all discussion and debate, as you seem to advocate. Take Javellana vs. Executive Secretary. It took years, but the People themselves reversed that judgment–the 1987 Constitution being its rebuttal. I expect Edsa Dos to be “reversed” somehow in 2010.
Karl (at 8:10 am), that’s why included in my comment above this parenthetical statement…
As i told Brian above (at 10:23 pm, no information is ever ‘truly’ lost to sufficiently powerful Observers. CSI and Eagle Eye, which you bring up, are examples of relatively powerful observers who, as you point out, can trace back information better than ordinary people like you and me.
That proves your point that I am not a powerful observer by missing that.
Bencard,
I should add that of course I am against another people power to unseat Arroyo. I want her to leave office as the present, unamended Constitution provides, then to be investigated, charged, prosecuted, fingerprinted, imprisoned and watched over by our 24/7 webcam in Bilibid prison, as the evidence and judgement determine for her. Like the South Koreans did to two corrupt and dastardly presidents. We are after all the most corrupt govt and it IS her fault. Corruption unabated has been her way of feeding the sycophants and revving up the Giant Stealing Machine that her government has been.
Naturally, you and HPOS and other Gloria fans are free to TRY and amend the Constitution for her sake, in the short, short time remaining, which however I believe does violate the precept, “a govt of laws and not of men” as I tried, I guess ineffectively or insufficiently, to explain in this post. Actually such an attempt also violates HPOS’s own stated criteria of stability for doing chacha, because it would be the most divisive and destabilizing proposal to arrive at this point. Without even being conscious of the precept “a govt of laws and not of men” many people would see it as simply trying to change the law for GMA’s benefit.
She’s gotta go. No matter how good or how bad a given leader is, their time in office must by necessity be strictly limited and temporary.
i really have to concede that my communication abilities are average at best.. but still, i hope you will allow me to ‘take part’ in the ‘high form of discussion’ the contributors of FV aims to accomplish.
so i think its best if i just ‘quote’ those whom express best what i hold as the same as my own while expounding ‘a little’ to add something to the discussion.
i believe Bencard expresses rightly/correctly what i was trying to say so far:
if the constitution would be amended in accordance with the prescribed methods and subsequent approval by the required number of citizens, how could that be contrary to the rule of law?
as to your question concerning the lifting of term limit which could enable gma to run for re-election, where is the inconsistency with the “rule of law” if the lifting is pursuant to a duly passed constitutional amendment?
make no mistake, whether it’s gma or anyone “with murky and sadistic thoughts”, he/she will have to be ELECTED first by the electorates in order to become president. - Bencard 23-Oct-08 @ 3:36 am
and let me quote myself at 22-Oct-08 @ 4:24 pm as to the rationale behind amending the constitution
the idea behind the option of amending a constitution is there so as to UPDATE the charter to RESPOND to the NEEDS OF THE TIME
PS what’s the formatting used for this blog?! bb code or html? thnks ^_^
Karl (at 8:32 am), same applies to me. In fact, Luhman wrote that even the most powerful Observer will somehow be limited by the fact that every act of observation produces its own blindspot. This is because observation involves making a distinction, i.e. deciding what is to be included and what is to be excluded. The excluded portion is the blindspot.
Fortunately, a second observer may make different kinds of distinctions so he would have different blind spots (which is not the same as the first observer’s). When those two observers get together, they can then point out each other’s blind spots. That’s why having different points of view is important. The value of freedom of information and freedom of expression within Society is in the ability to uncover blind spots and the danger of suppressing the same is in the risk of generating blind spots that would be harmful to society’s environment (aka the people).
Liam,
Okay, at the risk of following you into solipsism, I will quote myself also from just two or three comments back:
but arent we disenfranchising certain sectors the capability to push for an extension of term of office who are of the opinion that she is doing a good job?
i mean, this is still subject to a plebiscite and all other processes under the current constitution.
DJB,
Am primarily addressing this to you as while we are both on-lawyers, in deference to the ‘more learned’. But we both remember whose construct ‘constitutional authoritarianism was’ and the role played by a top lawyer in helping The Dictator craft his ‘revolution from the center resulting in the ‘New Society.
As a simple student history, and I do hope we all are, I also remember Marcos’ constitution after having been exposed in the 1971 con-con as as the product of generous bribery and intimidation was later ‘overwhelmingly ratified’ in bogus barangay assemblies where the joke was that everyone raise their hand and shouted yes because what they had actually been asked was “do you want merienda?” The next day the photos splattered in the showed the same raised hands as proof of the constitution’s “ratification in accordance with law.”
With revised storyboard, this time with the ‘loaded’ chambers voting as one instead of separate. we have to brace ourselves for a flashback, I fear.
Liam,
Your right to push for an extension of term of office is safe–no one is questioning that. But if you do it for the sake of the Angel of Vision who is doing such a good job (though the rest of the world thinks her govt is the most corrupt in Asia), then, as this post only gently suggests to your conscience or philosophical sense, you are violating the precept of a “govt of laws and not of men”–which would be true even if she were the Blessed Virgin Mother herself.
You are advocating the other side of the false coin of wrong headed thinking that animated Edsa Dos–destroy democracy to get rid of a bad leader. Now it’s destroy democracy and inaugurate fascism because you think you have a good leader.
Please read the post again: a govt of laws and not of men. Maybe I missed something that you can argue against. I have an open mind, but not to fascism.
Dean,
i’d still be against it. It isn’t Gloria Arroyo that i’m against. I’m against the kind of politics and leadership she practices.
it was the same under Ramos. No one wanted Charter Change for the simple reason that the proposal came at a time too close to the elections and the motive behind the change is just for one man.
that said, i am of the strong opinion that we really do need to consider Charter Change. But we need to do it the right way.
We need to ask our people in 2010, “are you in favor of charter change?” That I think should settle the issue of whether or not there should be a Convention. And if they so choose to go forward with it— then an election of delegates should happen durning the next mid term election. If we should have Charter Change, we shouldn’t rush it. There is no lightning imperative to do so. We must settle the issue once and for all.
As for term limits. I would be in favor of removing term limits for elected legislative officials but not for executive officials. It is far easier to defeat a legislative official in an election than to remove an executive official.
Men and women throughout history have justified holding on to power for the sake of the common good. Altruistic reasons, some might say. Every civilization in history grows stale the longer a leader stays in power. For the same way that everyone needs to take a vacation and get some perspective every now and then is the same reason why we should have term limits for our Public Officials. It is to innovate, to be inventive, to revitalize our politics, to rediscover, to find new ways of dealing with the challenges of tomorrow. It is for the same reason the young replaces the old.
Power not only corrupts but it also lets you lose perspective on what’s really important. The wisdom of knowing when to let go is just as important, imho.
djb, youre right, my and hop’s opinion may be wrong, we may think of her as a visionary while others may think of her as a fascist.
but, i believe, what makes hop or me or to a certain extent bencard, so animate about this discussion on term limits is of your refusal to accept that given that the right processes are being followed, a term extension is indeed possible
djb, i beg your pardon but i still don’t see the connection. even taken in the context of your explanation that you were just referring to a “proposal” to amend the constitution (which you insist is for the intended benefit of gma), there is nothing that even come close to “fascism” unless said proposal is carried out in violation of the present constitution. i think you are unjustifiably jumping the gun, thereby conjuring up a ghost that would haunt you.
but whether there is a need to lift term extension, that is left for the people to decide in a plebiscite.
i like cocoy’s explanation
but i think what worries us in the pro-extension side is the quality of the current ‘winnable’ aspirants..
i really hope something ‘refreshing’ will join the 2010 race
Bencard,
do you think Marcos was a fascist?
djb, yes, but what has that got to do with the price of rice?
Liam,
Read my lips: The constitution indubitably allows itself to be changed and approved at plebiscite.
So of course anything is possible. It’s possible that tomorrow the Congress repeals the freedom of speech and the people could conceivably approve it. Or disapprove it at plebiscite. Same with your plans, longings and desires.
So what exactly, is your point that you think I am disagreeing with?
bencard,
WHY do you think Marcos was a fascist?
Honest query. Is 6 years really NOT enough?
Mga kapatid,
Ipagpaumanhin ninyo kung sa Pilipino ko ito isinulat. Sadyang hindi ko na kasi masikmura, DJB. cocoy, att cvj ang mga kabalintunan at kabalbalang pilit na isinusulasok sa atin.
Bilang Filipino, hindi ko maunawaan kung baki sa tagal ng ating kasaysayan at sa dugong ibinuwis na ng marami sa ating mga kababayan, kabilang rito ang mga sundalong nasa Mindanao, tayo ay may mga kababayan pa rin na ang katapatan ay sa mga taong may tangan ng kapangyarihan ng pansamantala at ngayo’y pinasasamantalahan ang katungkulan.
Kung tunay na may mahabaang pananaw sa kinabukasan ang pilit na ipinagtatanggol at dino-diyos ng ilan rito, bakit sa lansangn laganap pa rin ang tutom, ang kahirapan at kabulukan sa pamahallan?
Ito ba ang dapat nating ipagpasalamat kaya’t binabalaksilang palawigin an sobrang habang pagkakaluklok sa kapangyarihan?
Sobra na, tama na!
“…laganap ang gutom…”
Paumanhin po sa pagkakamali.
Tumpak ang sinabi mo, Ding. Nanonood nga ako ngayon ng pagdinig sa Senado ng karumaldumal na pangyayaring sangkot ang mismong PNP, ang kalihim ng DILG (Puno) at Katarungan (Gonzalez). Ang bantot ng umaalingasaw na katotohanan dito. Katulad ng nangyari sa Comptroller ng AFP noon (AFP), heto naman si De La Paz na PNP comptroller. Ito ang mga kampon ng pangulong sinasamba rito ng ilan. Ito ang pamumuno ni Gloria Macapagal Arroyo na hangad nilang pahabain pa raw dahil wala nang ibang higit pa ang grasya at malayong pananaw.
Nasaan ba talaga si Pepe Alas at ang kanyang masasaltik na murang Kastila pag kailangan natin siya? Kumukulo at tumatalamsik na ang dugo ng mga Pinoy, o kaya sila’y naglipanan na sa ibang bansa dahil sa kabuktutan at kabulukan ni Ginang Arroyo at ng kanyang mga tagatiklop-tuhod.
mr. djb wrote another classic case of historical fallacy with this one:
“..s a self-confessed lawyer, you don’t seem to have much intellectual curiosity about the foundational documents and philosophical disquisitions that attended the birth of modern democracy in 1776. I strongly and respectfully urge you to read for example, Thomas Paine, Common Sense, or John Adams’ many essays, or Alexis de Toqcueville (Journeys through America), or Thomas Jefferson, in which these basics are developed and taught to school children all over America.”
Haha, so, “modern democracy” was born on 1776? I don’t know what history books, my friendly chap reads. But, it’s wrong. Modern democracy started not in America but in France.
anyway, let me dare you mr. djb rizalist–if what you said is true that Gloria’s policies are what you hate and the rest of the Filipino People, why are you sooo afraid that any constitutional change be submitted to the People thru a plebiscite? are you afraid that the very same people you are defending here, the downtrodded, the unwash will prove you wrong? That, majority of the People really want charter change and only you, and those dreamers called “(un)civil society” are the only small voices against it? Why? Are you afraid that charter change would lead you and your kind to irrelevance?
sometimes, dreamers like you need some time to descend from your ivory towers and really, really listen to what people want.
people want stability. people want a good life. people need PGMA.
by the way, both these conspiratory theorists, mr. ding and mr. djb are probably in some other place where there’s screaming faggots. are you two sure that you are in the Philippines? What’s this “kumukulo at tumatalamsik na ang mga dugo ng mga Pilipino” thing?
Where? I’m not seeing anybody shouting in the streets in anger against PGMA. Where are those whose blood boils in angst against PGMA? Have you seen any of them? Me, I have’nt.
Maybe mr. djb and mr. ding are really dreaming. high on drugs? maybe. leftist extremism is really a serious opium.
HPOS–The burden of getting the people to a plebiscite is yours. You don’t need our permission or approbation. Good luck.
But I see you have given up on the discussion over principle and won’t answer the question I have posed. If your first answer was honest that it is the imperfection in the law you are concerned with, then you ought not care if GMA benefits from it.
Your comment clearly show that you were disingenuous in answering the question in the affirmative, as you make plainly evident your true motivation for charter change, which is to install a government for, of and by your Angel of Vision. A govt of fascists who are themselves afraid of liberty, or tired of it, as Benito Mussolini says.
Good luck with your “plans, longings and desires” for Gloria forever, which are exposed at this point to be what they indubitably are: FASCISM.
Quod erap demonstrandum, conyo.
Quite a good news of an old, forgotten language, mr. djb.
I have been away for quite some time and lost on the discussion. But, to answer you why now instead of, say, 2016 really begs a direct and straight answer.
we need cha-cha prior to 2010 to avert a national disaster. Yes, a national disaster of having a successor who’ll be “weaker” than PGMA.
Let me just bare myself here for just this time–what would happen to all these things we’re doing right now if this government falls in the hands of a Noli or a Villar? Surely, with their popularity and the money they have right now, they will easily win an election.
we need cha-cha prior to 2010 because we don’t want this country to go to the dogs, so to speak. Saying this to you now may cause me my job since the OPS is currently looking who’s this man who’s writing all of these things here.
whatever. i can always go back to being a local executive. yet, the urgency of this is really beyond your comprehension.
“The fact is, men are tired of liberty”
…Benito Mussolini…
HPOS,
Please don’t forget to bring your kneeling pads at the next “affair of state” you have to attend and your cilice mit-razor-vire. You may yet miss the colorful cussing of Pepe Alas as gentleness and light compared to the cussing out you are sure to get from She-Whose-Name-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned for being blown out of the water by a bunch of juvenile bloggers and reducing you to calling others “screaming faggots”.
You’re almost out of ideas already aren’t you? I can tell that when someone on these threads start screaming and punching their fingers through the keyboard. And it’s only Day 3 of your blogging career. Tee-hee. My Funny bone is feeling better already.
But like Liam Tinio, I bear you no umbrage. I am, I think, much older than you are, and have nothing to prove, to anyone. I admit my comprehension is very limited, but I sleep soundly every night knowing that a good conscience and a sympathetic heart is a much better treasure than a fat wallet or a fat head.
Literature, history, science, mathematics, my family and friends, these are my best and constant companions.
You must have more faith in freedom and democracy and not put your trust and confidence in the idea of an Indispensable Leader. It is an illusion like that of an infallible Pope, and every bit as deadly.
We have not come to be regarded as the most corrupt country in Asia because GMA is just misunderstood, under-appreciated or uncomprehended. She will get F-Minus in history and be more reviled than Marcos. Google knows. Google remembers. Even this comment thread is already safely in the Internet Archive. History is being written by the bloggers. Let the vast audience of the future decide who makes the most sense in the light of their own times, when these current events shall have past into the historical record and there will be no doubt of it.
I do not hate her as much as I am disappointed in her as I think her own father would be. Even the nuns who teach your daughter know that!
There ought to be a law passed penalizing officials from devoting their time, at the expense of the people, in entrenching themselves in power. Instead of doing more productive work for the common good.
The constitutional provision on the limitations of the term were basically placed to avoid any president(due to the nature of the office)from overstaying(already, GMA has overstayed and we are seeing its effects) and mis-using that power(which has already been mi-used several times).
Amendments to the basic law are being made in order to correct ‘nagging’ problems that are openly perceived by the people as unjust, counter-productive, or simply inconsistent with the tenets of democracy. “Rules are made to be changed” but they need concrete circumstances as a natural consequence of the rule in order for the people may decide whether or not they need to be changed.
As the cliche goes.. “a drink from the cup of power” has many un-foretold results. Yet, they never realized that they are already drunk till the force of justice sweeps them away…