I have not been following the controversy over the so called Constitutional Assembly (Con-Ass) or an attempt by adherents of the present administration to railroad a modification on the Philippine constitution purportedly for extending the tenure of incumbent officials.
It's because my interpretation of the furor has been more of a "noise" than of a genuine concern.
From an intuitive layman's point of view I would require answers to these questions:
1. Is there a legal basis to amend the Philippine constitution with only one house of the bicameral legislative branch in support of such action?
2. Assuming there is, since any amendment would require a people's referendum or plebiscite, would there be a legal framework for a CON ASS referendum to supersede next year's scheduled national elections?
3. And would there be enough resources and time earmarked to do so?
In my view, a NO answer to any of these 3 questions would likely torpedo these efforts to advance the CON ASS agenda.
Notwithstanding, considering the unpopularity of the present administration, legal hurdles can be utilized by the political opposition to derail such agenda. This would essentially constrict the window for a referendum, in lieu of or prior to next year's national elections.
In short, such actions doesn't look feasible even from the start.
Then why does it seem that the administration has been adamant to play this card?
We offer two guesses here:
One, it could be a diversionary tactic to lure the political opposition into concentrating their efforts over such useless issue while the administration, behind their backs, works to strengthen its logistics and networks in preparation for the upcoming national election.
Two, it could also be a trial balloon to gauge on the "winnability" of PGMA's "anointed" bets via her popularity going into next year's election.
It is political season in the Philippines hence most sensationalist events disseminated by media, including the Halili Kho scandal, are likely to be instruments for political agenda.
As I responded to a colleague at a recent social function:
We must remember, in politics, those in power will always work or attempt to preserve their political privileges, while those in the periphery will always work or attempt to usurp such privileges. Such is the vicious cycle of politics.
Why? Because political privileges are usually products of an interventionist welfare state. Where, to quote Richard Eberling, ``The political process is the mechanism that these individuals and groups use to get that money via regulation, protections, and redistribution."
Politics is hardly about social "weal" or the "people" as much as it has been bruited about, it's mostly about privileges.
It's because my interpretation of the furor has been more of a "noise" than of a genuine concern.
From an intuitive layman's point of view I would require answers to these questions:
1. Is there a legal basis to amend the Philippine constitution with only one house of the bicameral legislative branch in support of such action?
2. Assuming there is, since any amendment would require a people's referendum or plebiscite, would there be a legal framework for a CON ASS referendum to supersede next year's scheduled national elections?
3. And would there be enough resources and time earmarked to do so?
In my view, a NO answer to any of these 3 questions would likely torpedo these efforts to advance the CON ASS agenda.
Notwithstanding, considering the unpopularity of the present administration, legal hurdles can be utilized by the political opposition to derail such agenda. This would essentially constrict the window for a referendum, in lieu of or prior to next year's national elections.
In short, such actions doesn't look feasible even from the start.
Then why does it seem that the administration has been adamant to play this card?
We offer two guesses here:
One, it could be a diversionary tactic to lure the political opposition into concentrating their efforts over such useless issue while the administration, behind their backs, works to strengthen its logistics and networks in preparation for the upcoming national election.
Two, it could also be a trial balloon to gauge on the "winnability" of PGMA's "anointed" bets via her popularity going into next year's election.
It is political season in the Philippines hence most sensationalist events disseminated by media, including the Halili Kho scandal, are likely to be instruments for political agenda.
As I responded to a colleague at a recent social function:
We must remember, in politics, those in power will always work or attempt to preserve their political privileges, while those in the periphery will always work or attempt to usurp such privileges. Such is the vicious cycle of politics.
Why? Because political privileges are usually products of an interventionist welfare state. Where, to quote Richard Eberling, ``The political process is the mechanism that these individuals and groups use to get that money via regulation, protections, and redistribution."
Politics is hardly about social "weal" or the "people" as much as it has been bruited about, it's mostly about privileges.
1 comment:
at long last, i found a sensible post that had enlightened me about this fuss they called Con-Ass...nice post man!
Post a Comment