angelic moo

Pro-initiative advocates presented a disturbing suggeston that was featured in the news recently ostensibly in support of the floundering case on initiative now pending with the Supreme Court (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153). The Manila Standard reported that Deans Danilo Fariñas of the University of Baguio and Hermogenes Decano of the University of Pangasinan claimed “there is no distinction between the terms amendment and revision of the 1987 Constitution because they are “understood to be one and the same” by the people, who are considered the sovereign authors of the fundamental law of the land.” The lawyers also said that even law practitioners have agreed to define the words “amend” and “revise” as pertaining to “changes.” Fariñas and Decano said they found the “technical distinctions unnecessary” because even the US Federal Constitution from which the Philippine Constitution extensively adopted its principles, makes no mention of the word revision as distinct from amend

The Judicial and Bar Council has declared the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court open for nomination with the impending retirementof Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban on December 7, 2006. The practice of selecting the Chief Justice should be the subject of serious study (I am not aware of any) especially in light of our recent experience. The selection of the Chief Justice should be a critical task but the selection process in the Philippines, according to critics, is far from perfect. The designation of Artemio Panganiban as Chief Justice raised two issues: the system engenders cronyism and the system is exclusionary in that it limits potential appointees to sitting members of the Court. The last time President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo selected a Chief Justice, her decision generated controversy. Arroyo ignored the most senior member of the Court, Reynato Puno in favor of Artemio Panganiban. Puno was named to the Court three years earlier. No President since Ferdinand

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will move heaven and earth to become Prime Minister when the Philippine system of government is somehow altered into a parliamentary govenment. She needs the title. There are two things Mrs. Arroyo cannot shake from the judgment of history no matter how long she remains in power. The first is that she is the most unpopular president the Philippines has had in recent memory, faring worse than Ferdinand Marcos. The second is that she is the only Chief Executive in Philippine history who has never had a mandate to govern. The first issue does not bother her; not openly anyway. Her administration dishes out standard replies to every survey that consistently puts her at the bottom of the pupularity scale - this is not a popularity contest. Her administration will make the hard decisions that will revive the economy etcetera etcetera and so forth. The second, I suspect, eats at her very core. Arroyo became President after Estrada was forced to leave office. As vice-pr

Malaya 's editorial on October 9, 2006 in part reads: During the hearing conducted by the Supreme Court, the justices did not fall for the line that the tribunal is limited to settling the issues of law. They pointedly grilled Sigaw and Ulap counsels on the authenticity of the signatures. Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban said in open court that if it could be shown that the signatures were fake and their gathering was attended [by] irregularity, then there would be no need to revisit Santiago vs Comelec . The Sigaw and Ulap petition would be dismissed outright. I am uncomfortable with the fact that the Supreme Court is assuming what is technically the function of the Commission on Elections. The verification of the signatures that accompany a petition for initiative is not a judicial function. But the Court evidently directed the parties to show if the collection of signatures was conducted properly and if it meets the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court's decision and