+ Follow CON COM Tag
Array
(
[results] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 322089
[Title] => Absurdity
[Summary] => Undeniably, it is time for us to change our Constitution. By just looking back at how all our Constitutions have been crafted and assembled, there is no room to doubt that charter change is really necessary. Easily noticeable at first glance is that none of them were enacted during the best of times and under most ideal circumstances. Hence none of them, past or present are without imperfections.
[DatePublished] => 2006-02-17 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[1] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 318009
[Title] => Shifting position on the Cha-Cha
[Summary] => I believe that it is not the system but the people running the system that must undergo a change if we really want to have good governance and to lift our country out of the quagmire of poverty. But I still favored charter change initially because I thought that expecting our public officials to mend their ways is like asking for the moon. Besides, some of the provisions in our constitution really need revisions in keeping with the fast changing pace of globalization.
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-23 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[2] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 316358
[Title] => Sheer waste
[Summary] => Doing a cha-cha (changing the charter) through people’s initiative is another waste of time, effort and money. It will be one more monumental exercise in futility like the Con Com’s gratuitous labours and vain undertaking. It is a more glaring example of committing the same mistake twice and failing to learn a lesson from the past.
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-13 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[3] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 315691
[Title] => Constitutional Authoritarianism
[Summary] => From the pen of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruperto Martin flowed the term "constitutional authoritarianism". I was a student when he wrote it and in the inexperience of my youth, I had difficulty understanding the theory, let alone in accepting its legal consequence. Justice Martin, deciding a bunch of related cases in the Supreme Court about three decades ago, defined the theory as the authority of then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos "to propose amendments to the constitution or to assume the power of a constituent assembly".
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-08 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 135054
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1096513
[AuthorName] => Aven Piramide
[SectionName] => Freeman Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[4] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 315308
[Title] => Superfluous
[Summary] => I have been consistent in my belief that the Consultative Constitutional Commission (Con Com) is a superfluity in the whole process of changing our charter. It is not one of those authorized by the charter itself to propose amendments or revisions therein. The results of its deliberations and the fruits of its labors are nothing but suggestions that can be made by any civic or political group, club or NGOs at the actual start of the process of amendment by the duly authorized Constituent Assembly.
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-06 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[5] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 314692
[Title] => First things first
[Summary] => The palace announcement that it wants a cha-cha plebiscite in early 2006 creates the impression that amendments to the constitution particularly the adoption of the "no-el" proposal are already a foregone conclusion. Having such an early plebiscite simply means that the proposed amendments are already approved by a Constituent Assembly duly authorized to do so. Under the present Constitution, there are only two such Constituent Assembly: Congress or a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) called by 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress (Sections 1 and 3 Article XVII).
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-02 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[6] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 314791
[Title] => First things first
[Summary] => The palace announcement that it wants a cha-cha plebiscite in early 2006 creates the impression that amendments to the constitution particularly the adoption of the "no-el" proposal are already a foregone conclusion. Having such an early plebiscite simply means that the proposed amendments are already approved by a Constituent Assembly duly authorized to do so. Under the present Constitution, there are only two such Constituent Assembly: Congress or a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) called by 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress (Sections 1 and 3 Article XVII).
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-02 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[7] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 309142
[Title] => Wrong reason
[Summary] => With a fixed deadline to propose an array of purely recommendatory and non-binding amendments to the charter, the Con Com should just "keep their minutes" and not "waste hours" debating on such delicate, complicated and highly controversial issue as the shift from the unitary to federal form of government.
[DatePublished] => 2005-11-28 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[8] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 307738
[Title] => Detrimental proposal
[Summary] => What for is the voting conducted by the Con Com on some proposed Constitutional amendments? Will their unanimous vote bind the legitimate body tasked with the real function of making the amendments? These questions crossed my mind especially after learning that there was even a dispute among the Con Com members regarding the unanimity of their voting on the proposal to trim the powers of the Supreme Court (SC).
[DatePublished] => 2005-11-21 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[9] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 301041
[Title] => The Con (Com) game
[Summary] => A law, as fundamental as the Constitution, should outline in few provisions the structure of the government of the whole State and the rights of the citizens. Hence, it should be brief. Brief as it must be, it should also be comprehensive enough to cover all the particular powers and functions of government and of the relations between the governing body and the governed. Hence it should be broad. But in its comprehensiveness it should not suffer in ambiguity as to render the applications of its provisions to concrete situations too difficult if not absurd or impracticable.
[DatePublished] => 2005-10-10 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
)
)
CON COM
Array
(
[results] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 322089
[Title] => Absurdity
[Summary] => Undeniably, it is time for us to change our Constitution. By just looking back at how all our Constitutions have been crafted and assembled, there is no room to doubt that charter change is really necessary. Easily noticeable at first glance is that none of them were enacted during the best of times and under most ideal circumstances. Hence none of them, past or present are without imperfections.
[DatePublished] => 2006-02-17 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[1] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 318009
[Title] => Shifting position on the Cha-Cha
[Summary] => I believe that it is not the system but the people running the system that must undergo a change if we really want to have good governance and to lift our country out of the quagmire of poverty. But I still favored charter change initially because I thought that expecting our public officials to mend their ways is like asking for the moon. Besides, some of the provisions in our constitution really need revisions in keeping with the fast changing pace of globalization.
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-23 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[2] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 316358
[Title] => Sheer waste
[Summary] => Doing a cha-cha (changing the charter) through people’s initiative is another waste of time, effort and money. It will be one more monumental exercise in futility like the Con Com’s gratuitous labours and vain undertaking. It is a more glaring example of committing the same mistake twice and failing to learn a lesson from the past.
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-13 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[3] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 315691
[Title] => Constitutional Authoritarianism
[Summary] => From the pen of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruperto Martin flowed the term "constitutional authoritarianism". I was a student when he wrote it and in the inexperience of my youth, I had difficulty understanding the theory, let alone in accepting its legal consequence. Justice Martin, deciding a bunch of related cases in the Supreme Court about three decades ago, defined the theory as the authority of then Pres. Ferdinand Marcos "to propose amendments to the constitution or to assume the power of a constituent assembly".
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-08 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 135054
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1096513
[AuthorName] => Aven Piramide
[SectionName] => Freeman Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[4] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 315308
[Title] => Superfluous
[Summary] => I have been consistent in my belief that the Consultative Constitutional Commission (Con Com) is a superfluity in the whole process of changing our charter. It is not one of those authorized by the charter itself to propose amendments or revisions therein. The results of its deliberations and the fruits of its labors are nothing but suggestions that can be made by any civic or political group, club or NGOs at the actual start of the process of amendment by the duly authorized Constituent Assembly.
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-06 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[5] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 314692
[Title] => First things first
[Summary] => The palace announcement that it wants a cha-cha plebiscite in early 2006 creates the impression that amendments to the constitution particularly the adoption of the "no-el" proposal are already a foregone conclusion. Having such an early plebiscite simply means that the proposed amendments are already approved by a Constituent Assembly duly authorized to do so. Under the present Constitution, there are only two such Constituent Assembly: Congress or a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) called by 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress (Sections 1 and 3 Article XVII).
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-02 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[6] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 314791
[Title] => First things first
[Summary] => The palace announcement that it wants a cha-cha plebiscite in early 2006 creates the impression that amendments to the constitution particularly the adoption of the "no-el" proposal are already a foregone conclusion. Having such an early plebiscite simply means that the proposed amendments are already approved by a Constituent Assembly duly authorized to do so. Under the present Constitution, there are only two such Constituent Assembly: Congress or a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) called by 2/3 vote of all the members of Congress (Sections 1 and 3 Article XVII).
[DatePublished] => 2006-01-02 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[7] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 309142
[Title] => Wrong reason
[Summary] => With a fixed deadline to propose an array of purely recommendatory and non-binding amendments to the charter, the Con Com should just "keep their minutes" and not "waste hours" debating on such delicate, complicated and highly controversial issue as the shift from the unitary to federal form of government.
[DatePublished] => 2005-11-28 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[8] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 307738
[Title] => Detrimental proposal
[Summary] => What for is the voting conducted by the Con Com on some proposed Constitutional amendments? Will their unanimous vote bind the legitimate body tasked with the real function of making the amendments? These questions crossed my mind especially after learning that there was even a dispute among the Con Com members regarding the unanimity of their voting on the proposal to trim the powers of the Supreme Court (SC).
[DatePublished] => 2005-11-21 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
[9] => Array
(
[ArticleID] => 301041
[Title] => The Con (Com) game
[Summary] => A law, as fundamental as the Constitution, should outline in few provisions the structure of the government of the whole State and the rights of the citizens. Hence, it should be brief. Brief as it must be, it should also be comprehensive enough to cover all the particular powers and functions of government and of the relations between the governing body and the governed. Hence it should be broad. But in its comprehensiveness it should not suffer in ambiguity as to render the applications of its provisions to concrete situations too difficult if not absurd or impracticable.
[DatePublished] => 2005-10-10 00:00:00
[ColumnID] => 133340
[Focus] => 0
[AuthorID] => 1804883
[AuthorName] => Jose C. Sison
[SectionName] => Opinion
[SectionUrl] => opinion
[URL] =>
)
)
)
abtest
