I have come to a decision in negative. There is no need for charter change. Let us start knowing first the present form of government that we have. It can be said that the Philippine government is a representative democracy, a unitary and presidential government with separation of powers. Democratic governments are further classified into: Direct and Indirect Democracy. The Philippines is one with an indirect democracy or one which that involves the selection of government official by the people being represented.
If we try to look into the manifestation of our democratic and republican state such as the existence of bill of rights; the observance of the rule of majority; the principle that ours is a government of laws and not of men; the presence of election through popular will; We could say that the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, that the citizens can have their share of freedom. It is not only limited to certain people but it equally applies to all so long as this freedom is not being abused. It is more of an assurance that the will of the people are being followed rather than the private desires or motives of the government officials as shown in the bill of rights. And also we could prevent irregularities or any grave abuses made by persons in authority because of the principle of the separation of powers and the system of check and balance.
I could say that our present form of government does not have any defect in running our government. The problem only arises on the person representing the people and dispensing their governmental function. The predicament is not the system itself but the persons who are administering it. That is why I am confuse, is there really a need for charter change? Would the new system of government gives an assurance that our country will be more progressive? Is it really the solution of the political crisis? Or could the problem be the officials running the system not the system itself? Why are they changing the system? Could it be for the promotion of the general welfare or the promotion of a certain public officer? Could our freedom, as given under the present government system, be suppressed under the new system? What are the possible assurances that the new system can give to the citizens?
All this confusion has come into a decision based on the manifestation of a democratic and republican state. As Article II of section 1 our constitution provides that the Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Clearly it shows that the supreme authority to govern dwells in the Filipino people. I think that our system of government is no longer functioning well because of the conflict exists between in abusing the powers by the government official and the freedom of the people to indirectly govern our country. So the proper thing to do is to remove the root of the problem, the cause why our present system is not functioning well, we should not resolved it by amending our constitution because it would just entail unnecessary appropriation of funds that is needed before its implementation and as a result it would have a great effect on our economic stability. What we need to concrete more is on how we could establish a public office as a public trust.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Issue: Charter Change
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Akbayan vs Aquino - digest
Akbayan vs Aquino – July 16 2008
FACTS:
Petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed by the petitioners, as congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, requesting respondents to submit to them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).
Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates there right to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. That the non-disclosure of the same documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political and economic decision making.
Respondent herein invoke executive privilege. They relied on the ground that the matter sought involves a diplomatic negotiation then in progress, thus constituting an exception to the right to information and the policy of full disclosure of matters that are of public concern like the JPEPA. That diplomatic negotiation are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition has been entirely rendered moot and academic because of the subsequent event that occurred?
Whether the information sought by the petitioners are of public concern and are still covered by the doctrine of executive privilege?
Held:
On the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled that t]he principal relief petitioners are praying for is the disclosure of the contents of the JPEPA prior to its finalization between the two States parties,” public disclosure of the text of the JPEPA after its signing by the President, during the pendency of the present petition, has been largely rendered moot and academic.
The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the “full text” thereof.
The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to obtain, not merely the text of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.
Moving on to the second issue, The Supreme Court Ruled that Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exception. It bears emphasis, however, that such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita holds, recognizing a type of information as privileged does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
The court adopted also the doctrine in PMPF v. Manglapus, Wherein petitioners were seeking information from the President’s representatives on the state of the then on-going negotiations of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. The Court denied the petition, stressing that “secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information.
FACTS:
Petition for mandamus and prohibition was filed by the petitioners, as congresspersons, citizens and taxpayers, requesting respondents to submit to them the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA).
Petitioner emphasize that the refusal of the government to disclose the said agreement violates there right to information on matters of public concern and of public interest. That the non-disclosure of the same documents undermines their right to effective and reasonable participation in all levels of social, political and economic decision making.
Respondent herein invoke executive privilege. They relied on the ground that the matter sought involves a diplomatic negotiation then in progress, thus constituting an exception to the right to information and the policy of full disclosure of matters that are of public concern like the JPEPA. That diplomatic negotiation are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege.
Issue:
Whether or not the petition has been entirely rendered moot and academic because of the subsequent event that occurred?
Whether the information sought by the petitioners are of public concern and are still covered by the doctrine of executive privilege?
Held:
On the first issue, the Supreme Court ruled that t]he principal relief petitioners are praying for is the disclosure of the contents of the JPEPA prior to its finalization between the two States parties,” public disclosure of the text of the JPEPA after its signing by the President, during the pendency of the present petition, has been largely rendered moot and academic.
The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the petition has become moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the “full text” thereof.
The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to obtain, not merely the text of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.
Moving on to the second issue, The Supreme Court Ruled that Diplomatic negotiations, therefore, are recognized as privileged in this jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exception. It bears emphasis, however, that such privilege is only presumptive. For as Senate v. Ermita holds, recognizing a type of information as privileged does not mean that it will be considered privileged in all instances. Only after a consideration of the context in which the claim is made may it be determined if there is a public interest that calls for the disclosure of the desired information, strong enough to overcome its traditionally privileged status.
The court adopted also the doctrine in PMPF v. Manglapus, Wherein petitioners were seeking information from the President’s representatives on the state of the then on-going negotiations of the RP-US Military Bases Agreement. The Court denied the petition, stressing that “secrecy of negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the constitutional provisions of freedom of speech or of the press nor of the freedom of access to information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)