Senators may be in for a big surprise if they think that Charter change advocates can just be scoffed away. They must think Filipinos are such masochists they will continue shelling out billions to pay for a non-performing Senate. They may feel threatened by a unicameral parliament but the nation’s interest is paramount. They can huff and puff against Charter change because they don’t want to lose their cushy jobs but the democratization of our society is inevitable. And that can only happen with the proposed changes on the table.
Who do the senators represent? At least the congressmen/women can point to a constituency. What are the constituencies of Loi and Jinggoy Estrada or Jamby Madrigal (the billionairess playing footsies with the extreme left)? If we are to believe the so-called surveys, people are clamoring for comedian Tito Sotto and JV Ejercito and surprise, surprise Alan Peter Cayetano, ranting and raving as if that qualifies him to be a senator. Can you blame him if the only examples he has for the position he covets are the likes of our non-performing senators?
The list of so-called frontrunners for senators, so eagerly put out almost the morning after the Supreme Court decision is enough to make anyone cry. There is not a shred of shame among these ignoramuses to push themselves on a hapless electorate who will vote for them so they can filch precious taxpayers money that could have been put to better use. If these senators and would-be-senators prevail, it is business as usual disguised as ‘elections’ to return them to power. That is the bottom-line of elections without a plebiscite on Charter change. The effrontery of that list alone should convince more and more Filipinos to see the wisdom of Charter change. No more comedians please for the Senate.
The senators scoffing at the final push for Charter change are whistling in the dark. They know they can only win with the help of local authorities and local authorities are for Charter change. Ask any aspiring senator, or any politician for that matter there is no way to the people’s vote except through local authorities. That is why the Arroyo administration has the advantage of a well-oiled organization. As for the fire and fury from militant leftist lawmakers – sus – they cannot even mount a decent sized protest, they are challenging local authorities?
* * *
JDV in Iran. As for the man in the line of fire, Speaker JDV may be in the thick of local intramurals on Charter change, he has not let up on his international advocacies. Among these advocacies none is closer to his heart than the "Dialogue of Civilizations’, he has espoused in every forum he can use to ward Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations.’
People who are better informed acknowledged that his advocacies for peace have earned the respect of many countries, particularly in the Arab world. He projects an image for the Philippines of serious internationalism. As chairman of the Senior Advisory Council of the Association of Asian Parliaments for Peace (AAPP) he was in Tehran recently to meet with Iran’s top political leaders. He sought them out to help stem the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine-Israeli. "I came away from my meetings with Iran’s political leaders convinced that a modus vivendi can be reached between Washington and Tehran – and that Iran can help shape the processes of reconciliation between the religious and ethnic communities in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.
* * *
We could start the work of interfaith and intercultural exchange right here. Did you know, for example that there has been a Jewish community in the Philippines as early as the 16th century? Remember La Estrella del Norte, Bachrach Motors or Beck’s American Bazaar? These were fixtures of pre-war Philippines. Recently they had an exhibition on "A Glimpse into the Past of the Jewish Community in the Philippines." We should provide opportunities for the Jews and the Arabs among us to start talking to each other if only about the weather.
Letter from renante pilapil <reyphilo@yahoo.com. He feels frustrated that the People’s Initiative was junked by the Supreme Court. "Hannah Arendt, one of the contemporary political thinkers, in her book On Revolution says that those who oppose changing the Constitution hold the Constitution sacrosanct, and deem it like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. But such view is plain vanity and the "most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies." She continues, quoting Jefferson: "We have not yet so far perfected our constitutions as to venture to make them unchangeable . . . . Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man," among which the rights to rebellion and revolution.
I think this applies to what happened to the People’s Initiative. I guess those who oppose Charter Change, and perhaps even the SC who killed the Initiative, think that the Constitution is so sacred that any effort to change it (even legal ones) should be dismissed. I believe our Constitution needs to be changed for us to be able to catch up with development of the times. I also agree with Arendt that one of the "sorry" products of republicanism is that it could lead to losing the spirit of revolution to change and reform things for the better. And instead, we replace it with a desire for stability and permanence, thus we build political institutions, e.g. the Supreme Court.
But with this infatuation with stability and permanence of republicanism, it is not only the spirit of revolution which is lost but also the space for ordinary people to participate in the political affairs of society. Why?
Because only the so-called representatives of the people are given the chance to deliberate, debate, and discuss pressing issues that concern the nation . . . . at the august halls of the Senate or Congress, or even at the Supreme Court! Killing the People’s Initiative is just like disregarding the public space where people’s freedom, that is, their views, positions, and even decisions, are exercised. Now, I begin to wonder if a public space exists at all in the Philippines, a public space (in the Arendtian sense of the word) where people’s freedom are exercised. If it does, it seems that it only belongs to the lawmakers or to the luminaries of the laws. Or, we could say it belongs to the leftist NGOs, which consider themselves the voice of the poor, the oppressed and neglected. But what about the more enlightened Filipinos who want genuine reforms for space, even if it existed momentarily. But it is quite disgusting that the effort was not even recognized and was instead judged as illegal.
My e-mail is cpedrosaster@gmail.com