Only names, not signatures, verified in Sigaw ng Bayan, ULAP-led ‘initiative’

Readers should take the time to read ALG’s pleading. It’s clear, concise and compelling.

Interestingly, the advocates of charter revision have opened a new front in their campaign. Deans from two law schools claim that there is no difference between amendment and revision. The rationale for their argument is hysterical.

only the names were verified? oh that’s great COMELEC.

john,

COMELEC - commission mandated to endorse and legalize electoral cheating

’nuff said.

[...] The PCIJ summarizes the findings of groups opposed to the so-called “people’s initiative.” [...]

Baka naman may balak si Lambinong tumakbong Senador,kaya bumalimbing siya para maging popular ang pangalan niya, sa tingin ko, malabo ito, nag uULAP ULAP ang mata ko.

why make an “initiative” so hard & complicated?
it’s just a first step to getting to know directly from the people what they really want.
why do we have to go splitting-hairs on every step of the way?
are those opposing the initiative scared of losing out on their powers & previleges?
why do some people want to muddle-up & confuse the issues?
what’s wrong in asking the people directly what is it they really want?
don’t we always do it in a regular election?
it looks like a stupid scene, between people who just want change & characters that are defending the status quo w/ a litany of excuses
thanks to pcij that will never write about the issues of what the changes are supposed to be.
papatul lang sila on the points that will futher divided, create intrigue & fan the flames.
but ask anybody if they really are well aware about the pros & cons of the issues.

I don’t see the part where Lambino turned coat.

Anyway, for the ConCom members to pursue seats in the Senate is not farfetched if even the ConAss without 3/4 of the Senate going along is defeated before the SC.

Should they win enough seats in a new Senate; they might be able to pull it off as a Constituent assembly wherein 3/4 of both houses voting separately may revise the Charter. They might get it by retaining 2 houses in Parliament.

2 Houses of parliament was initially the recommendation of Chairman Abueva. the ease of dropping that to favor a single house could be with the same ease of reverting back to it just so a Parliamentary form of government is attained.

monk_x, check your dictionary first then see if hysterical is the right word or the dictionaries are lieing.
but joking aside, those opposing are really splitting hairs already on semantic matters.
the battle is really going down to absurb matters already.
there has never been a debate on the pros & cons of the issue.
we are such a legalistic society & legal matters are are never ending story.that why see where we are.

The Sigaw ng Bayan na natatakpan ng Ulap is not only a mess but ’shits’ being thrown all over to stink and mesmerize us into believing that it was a genuine people’s initiative.

Now look who’s telling monk_x to read his dictionary.

thanks to pcij that will never write about the issues of what the changes are supposed to be.

There you go again, Joselu. I suggest you READ (not just scan) what we have been posting on the blog, including the downloadable documents, about the charter change issue. A whole category awaits you, if you only bother to read.

Let me suggest some selected readings, then tell us if we haven’t been writing on the proposed constitutional amendments/revisions to help contribute to enlightened discussion and debate on the matter. The problem with you is that you only see what you want to see.

• In the Con-Com, trapo power trumps star power
• Con-Com’s ’self-serving’ proposals tied to Arroyo’s political survival
• ‘Great charter change debate’ within Con-Com
• Easy guide to Con-Com’s proposedamendments to 1987 Constitution
• Another easy guide, this time, to the House-proposed Constitution
• Former Con-Com member reveals ‘inside story’ on charter change
• Cha-cha’s real aim, an impeachment-proof Arroyo presidency — ALG
• Business leaders say Cha-cha cannot solve the country’s problems
• People’s initiative: Two contrasting views from former Con-Com members
• CBCP alarmed by charter-change campaign motivated by ’self-serving interests’
• Rep. Dominguez campaigns for charter change
• Constitutional change proposals: A critique by Ramon Casiple
• Proposed charter amendments and civil liberties
• In 1971 and 2006, new charters designed to keep embattled presidents in power
• Arroyo’s charter-change moves copied from the Marcos book
• As in 1973, the ball is in the Supreme Court
• Congress think tank warns on hasty shift to federalism
• Sigaw ng Bayan goes on info blitz for unicameral parliament
• Will parliamentary shift help end corruption?
• An ex-president’s voice
• Cha-cha’s ’seven deadly sins’
• Readings on democracy and the parliamentary vs. presidential debate
• Easy guide to the latest House revisions to 1987 Constitution
• The Chief Justice on Cha-cha battles
• ‘People’s initiative’: Of fraud allegations and dangerous provisions

Joselu ang “lying” mo mali ang spelling (and iba pang words)…. if I were you I will write first sa word application to see if the grammar and spelling is correct.. ok ba yan sayo pareng Jose (Pidal) a.k.a Joselu para di naman kami malito sa pagbabasa ng nakakainis mong komento… Is it Deal or No Deal….

Joselu:
Yung mang-mang na nag kukunyaring matalino ang hirap espelengin, yun namang matalino na nag gagago-gaguhan mahirap din espelengin, e alin ka ba diyan sa dalawa na iyan Joselu? Pag nawala ka diyan sa dalawang uri na iyan malamang may roong bagong uri ng kagaguhan sa mundo. Are you a product of darwin’s evolution?

Monk X:
I tried MSWord dictionary and it suggested that the two words are the same and identical. I just don’t know how lawyers define it (they have their own language), but considering that most of the population used MSWord it could be the deciding factor why a comment from law school dean, probably the idea is for the common folks to understand. But I notice the word “Amendment” is synonymous with improvement while the word “Revision” did not suggest improvement.

As for me the issue of charter change is welcome no matter what is the real intent and purpose of the one pushing it after all it will then be presented to the voter for the final approval, where the majority (50% plus 1) will decide. However, the mode and way of pushing it should be done in accordance with the existing laws and regulation. The fact that this is not done in a transparent ideal way leads to the negative conclusion of having a better charter towards a better future, be it politically or economically. The novelty of the idea was defeated by the way it is being push.

So whom should we blame? The problem started on the creator of this incomplete option and laws. When they created this they have not taken the consideration of how could it be possible to exercise this given right? Now it just bears fruit of discomfort, abuse and political nightmare. Matatalino ba sila o nagtatalitalinuhan lang? A futile exercise wrap as a gift to the common people? Ano Joselu, kasali ka ba diyan?

With this in mind could it be better then to have a bicameral rather than unicameral? Its your pick!

Folks,

For the record, if we look at enough dictionaries we will see that “hysterical” also means “causing unrestrained laughter; very funny” or “extremely funny.” I know I used the right word.

As to distinction between an amendment and revision - the distinction can be determined in the way they are used in Article XVII of the Constitution. I think the distinction was already explained by Fr. Bernas in his Inquirer column (
http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?artic le_id=22837) so I do not want to repeat the explanation here. I will say only that those opposing the present change are pointing out that the Constitution has prescribed a method for change and that Initiative is limited only to amendments.

Incidentally there are many dictionaries that do not equate amendment and revision.

I should make it clear that many of those in court now opposing the Lambino initiative are not against making necessary changes in the Constitution but are opposed to the manner in which it is being carried out. If in fact the signatures were improperly collected then the campaign should be stopped. That is what the law requires and no amount of good intentions should be allowed to disregarad the rules that we have agreed upon in making changes to the constitution.

Joselu,

Hello, if you are same poster in MLQ3’s blog then it is only proper to admit that I am justice league there.

You seem to be asking for a discussion/debate on the issues of the proposed revision. I seem to remember that I asked you if you wanted one back in Manolo’s blog.

You didn’t seem to have answered. Should you be the same one; may I be so bold as to ask if you are only forum shopping?

This is for Joselu,
You asked: Why make an “initiative” so hard and complicated?

Joselu, simply because the present administration is dragging the whole Filipino nation to the unknown world of extreme deceptions! There is no people’s initiative here, it is all Gloria’s initiative! Besides, who can guarantee us of better government under the Parliamentary system? NO ONE! What we need is a transparency in our present system, not a sort of government that requires several decades to put everything in perspectives.

Again you asked:
What’s wrong in asking the people directly what is it they really want?

There is nothing wrong there Joselu! What is wrong here is the method used! If this is a “real” people’s initiative, then why not ask the entire voters population? Why a mere 12% requires by the administration to make it valid? Can you call this method “democratic” if the staggering 88% of the voters voice be left unsolicited?

[...] Other anti-Charter change groups also said there were lack of verification of signatures in several legislative districts. The Alternative Law Groups (ALG), a coalition of 18 legal resource organizations, found that signatures gathered in at least nine provinces were either not properly verified or not verified at all by local election officials. Others alleged there were irregularities in the collection of signatures in cities like Makati, where even signatures of people “long dead, in prison, abroad, and other forgeries appear on the Sigaw ng Bayan signature sheets.” But Lambino said these issues are “matters of fact” that need to be proved or disproved by evidence. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Reynato Puno agreed that the issue “involves contentious facts” that the Comelec must resolve based on evidence. [...]