Residents
Richard Gomez was disqualified by the Comelec from running for Congress from Ormoc, Leyte because he was not a resident. With all due respect to Gomez, it seems that the Comelec had valid reason to rule that way since he does actually live in Greenhills, in Mandaluyong.
Which makes me wonder…if Richard Gomez is not really a resident of Ormoc, why does the Comelec think that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is a resident of the second district of Pampanga when the entire country knows that she has been living in Malacanang since 2001? Sure, she owns a house there or something, but by that same token, doesn’t Gomez–through his wife Lucy– also own property in Ormoc? Or for that matter, have Raul Gonzales, Ed Ermita, Agnes Devanadera, and Art Yap lived in the districts in which they are running?
I’m sure there’s some technical legal reason that the Comelec can dream of to argue that Arroyo has actually been a resident of Pampanga for the past year. But on the surface, it looks like yet another example of arbitrary rulings from one of the most trusted government bodies in the country.
March 4th, 2010 08:02
Here’s one… President Arroyo, while residing in the Palace, has made so many visits to Pampanga that she has fulfilled the requirement of residency status.
March 4th, 2010 08:11
thats a great question, ricky.
someone needs to complain about that.
cong. honteveros’ complaint doesnt center on residency. it is about whether the president can run for re-election in any capacity (president or any position).
i wonder why residency wasn’t argued. is it coz of some quirk that a complaint must have only 1 complaint in it?
March 4th, 2010 08:23
There are no Philippine legal rules that apply to Pidals.
But at least the earthquake while she was in Cagayan is a warning from nature that “ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
March 4th, 2010 09:45
Leonard,
You’re right! I stand corrected. haha
March 4th, 2010 15:09
that would also disqualify maybe 80% of all congressmen. really, they should all just gun for representation for the districts of forbes park, dasmarinas village, corinthian gardens, valle verde, ayala heights and wack-wack.
March 4th, 2010 19:26
Same goes for Pacquiao. He and Roy Chiongbian, his rival for the congressional seat in Sarangani, have been trading jabs over residency issues. Pacquiao campaign t-shirts proclaim him to be “the true Sarangan” while Chiongbian shirts declare that he’s “proud to be Sarangan.”
Neither of them has actually lived in the province until they had the brilliant idea of running for Congress.
March 4th, 2010 23:20
So far, the COMELEC had vested all the other equally controversial government agencies as the most confusing government agency because of their prounouncements and rulings.
. . . and thinking that this agency will manage our “clean election?”
. . . tsk, tsk, tsk . . . anyone of you still remember that old scifi series “LOST IN SPACE?”
March 4th, 2010 23:55
What will we expect from the same group who in their ruling to allow Erap to run again declared that “the decision should be left to the voters”. Hello! Your job is to interpret election laws and not elucidate public opinion. Either the commission has no idea what their job is or perhaps a bunch of spineless lawyers!
I thought the only comelec staff that is doing his job correctly is James Jimenez. The man owe to be a commissioner. I can see a brilliant, no non-sense lawyer who knows his laws.
The newly appointed Comelec commissioner looks like a lost kid everytime he opens his mouth. Remember that damn old college classmate that knows nothing, he is that guy!
March 5th, 2010 07:08
Has anyone actually filed a case questioning GMA’s residential status? Ricky, maybe you should ask COMELEC about this on your show (if this has yet to be done). It would be fun to see COMELEC official squirm on this one!
March 5th, 2010 10:25
Like with everything else, the law must contain explicit requirements for residency. And a person either does, or does not, meet those requirements.
What are the exact legal residency requirements that will determine if a person can run for political office? The exact same requirements must apply to all persons in all places.
Ricky, we waste so much time in this country debating about hidden agendas and conspiracies. What we should be doing is demanding that the letter of the law be applied. The questions that we should ask COMELEC are:
What are the exact legal requirements for residency?
Does Richard Gomez meet those requirements?
Does GMA meet those requirements?
The problem is, these are not exciting or titillating questions. They are not as much fun as intriga. But if we ever want to progress in this country, we need to start demanding that the law be applied to all.
March 5th, 2010 10:28
The COMELEC has been consistently inconsistent and I consider them as a failed government agency. And with the role they play, they are an ingredient to us becoming a “failed state.”
I feel we Filipinos a living in the “land of the blind where one-eyed monsters are king.”
Nevertheless, I have faith and I believe in fate. Everything else is just a matter of time. Nature has a way of “levelling off” the playing field. And considering what is now happening around the world, “levelling off” may mean both figuratively and literally!
March 6th, 2010 03:45
Why even bother exercising your right to suffrage if the agency in charge is biased? They probably rigged those PCOS machines the same way they rigged the PCSO lottery.
March 6th, 2010 09:01
Zelbo,
That’s a good question. And it might be true.
But I suggest that the only way to change that situation is to use the power of your vote to demand change. Ask the candidates, and get your friends to ask the candidates, how they will change the procedure once they get elected, to ensure that cheating cannot happen.
It can be done. But a president will only do it if there is strong, loud demand from the public. I’m disappointed now that people are not marching in the streets demanding better election safeguards.
It can be done. But only if you do it. Otherwise, the crooked politicians will win another term at the banquet table.
March 6th, 2010 14:39
Michael, the only way I could image things will change is if some benevolent dictator would topple the current administration all fire all government officials from top to bottom.
March 6th, 2010 21:03
LOL!
March 6th, 2010 21:26
zelbo,
You may have something there worth exploring. If Obama can just comment about our blog ideas, it would be interesting to hear his views. Who knows, we might even get to convince him of changing his present democratic government to something more of a dictatorial type so that Obama can finally implement his health bill, less politics. Even without widespread graft & coruption, politicians do smell, sound, think,and look alike whether Filipino, American or Russian. This is just in my own opinion, if you may.
Singapore is a living proof?
March 8th, 2010 04:25
Gloria Arroyo is the President. Have you
heard about the word “privileged”? Power
can do a lot of things, including justification
of the illegitimate actions. Some are above
the law. Some are immuned from prosecution.
If you are a common “tao” like you and me. We
have to follow the law.
March 8th, 2010 15:41
she qualifies..she eats pampangga tocino and longganiza for breakfast everyday
March 8th, 2010 16:35
Lessons from OSCARs:
Relatively unknown film THE HURT LOCKER beating Box Office Hit of All Time AVATAR….
A Box office hit doesn’t always mean it was the Best Movie…. similarly in Politics …Popularity doesnt necessarily translate to being the Most Qualified !!
Go GORDON !!
March 8th, 2010 18:25
the certification rules ought to be changed.
right now, the candidate need not prove residency when he applies for a CoC.
instead, the candidates should prove residency, the burden ought to be on the candidate to prove he fulfills the basic conditions of running for office.
March 9th, 2010 10:25
And while we all are busy going about our duties as good citizens forwarding our concerns through our blogs, like a thief in the night, a few questionable characters are clandestinely creeping in through the backdoor only to get elected to congress via the exploited Partylist system. NO RESIDENCY REQUIRED!
The likes of Mikey Arroyo and Angelo Reyes are running through ‘ANG GALING PARTY’ and ’1-UTAK PARTY’ motivated only by their greed and personal agenda by holding on to power on behalf of their master.
Let’s all join hands in exposing such partylist organizations and the questionable characters behind them.
March 9th, 2010 20:47
the question of residency should eventually go to the high court.
Residency is always a tricky question in the legal context, moreso in the Philippines. the comelec has its own rule. on the another hand the local government has its own definition of what constitute residency. The question for the Supreme court is to finally define what constitute residency for election purposes.
In the US residency status is defined by state laws. In most states if you own a property and pay taxes whether one physically lives there is irrelevant, that property owner is considered a resident of that state and can run for any elective office. One good example is Hillary Clinton. She was able to run as a NY senator after buying a property six months before the election. She has not lived nor owned a property in the state before that time, prompting her opponent to raise the issue of her as a carpetbagger. But New Yorker voted for her overwhelmingly. One does not need to own a property, renting an apartment for at least six months (some for 3 months) will suffice. The important point is one’s name should be in the lease agreement.
March 10th, 2010 00:26
The Philippine Supreme Court is JUST SO ACCESSIBLE… I wonder if being a justice in the high court commands prestige and honor anymore…
The filipinos (with small “f”), oh “genius” … laws are twisted here and there… wonder if they (the laws) really ever meant something…
Haha… perhaps we need to ask the VERY ACCESSIBLE “supreme” court…
I begin to wonder why Marcos RISKED his presidency to change the filipinos’ sense of “democracy” (note quotation marks)…. just thinking
March 10th, 2010 07:20
Seems to me the COMELEC makes up the rules as it goes along (like some other government agencies lately). For example, why would this agency even consider reversing several election results with 2 to 3 months left in the term? Is there not a statute of limitations here?
The supreme court is no better. They have their hands in every little case and it makes one wonder why even bother with having lower courts anymore. All this seems to be more attempts to ensure that administration “friends” are in office (or in power) after the coming elections.
March 10th, 2010 20:42
Leonard,
In the Philippines, statute of limitation means nothing. I am not even sure if the Comelec people understand how to issue a proper writ of execution. The current Bulacan problem was caused by Comelec for issuing a writ of execution without waiting for the 30 day period to lapse. They fully understand that the losing litigant has a 30 day window to file an appeal, and yet the writ was issued immediately after the motion for reconsideration was denied. Can you imagine if the tension between the two camps escalated to violence and people were killed. Whom will the public blames? Absolutely the Comelec!
One question: In between elections which is every three years, what does the organization do? Absolutely nothing! They cant even fix the list of voters properly. The taxpayers are paying three years for a one year task. Comelec is an example of a bureacracy and waste that the government can do without.
March 10th, 2010 21:24
just cant help but pass this news to all concerns.
leonard, and to others who may own a toyota stock. get out and sell em fast! The company is in deep deep hole because of the mess. Numbers of law firms from 50 states are preparing product liability cases against the company. That is on top of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of personal injury cases that are coming out as a result of accidents caused by toyota models. I seriously doubt the company can survive financially from these troubles.
March 11th, 2010 10:31
Coyote,
Yep. They’re (Toyota) are in serious trouble. Especially the Prius. How any motor company would allow a drive-by-wire system not taking into account signal interference from mobile phones is beyond me. That’s why it is illegal to use mobile phones on aircraft…
At least the COMELEC was right about one thing… The court ruling to allow the extension of voter registration (for those folks who waited until the last possible second) may indeed hamper the time constraints of ballot printing. Yet again, another instance where the courts should have stayed out of it.
March 11th, 2010 10:44
Ya, it doesn’t make sense. I didn’t think of that until Ricky brought it up!
Richard, a frustrated politician, poor guy.
His MAD partylist was disqualified, lost senatorial bet last election, and now this.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he settles for barangay chairman.
March 11th, 2010 19:16
In the case of Romualdez vs. RTC, Br. 7, Tacloban City, the Supreme Court held that “domicile” and “residence” are synonymous. The term “residence,” as used in the election law, imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. “Domicile” denotes a fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. The Court explained that in order to acquire a new domicile by choice, there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to abandon the old domicile. There must be animus manendi coupled with animus non revertendi. The purpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an indefinite period of time; the change of residence must be voluntary; and the residence at the place chosen for the new domicile must be actual.
March 12th, 2010 02:04
ricky,
I must say your last “Big Picture” is a good one. I hope you guys will continue to present more of these senatorial candidates. I did not realize that Bongbong is eloquent as his father though his arguments may be loaded with rhetorics. But unless he admits to the mistakes of his father’s regime, he will never get my vote. The show has also opened up my eyes on Acosta. I am thinking ofchecking out his backgrounds and records to see if he is as good as the way he talks.
March 12th, 2010 02:23
Why is it that most people focus on how well a candidate can speak and how they can intelligently answer hypothetical questions? Weird, it’s like people choosing a beauty pageant contestant.
March 12th, 2010 07:34
Zelbo,
Would you suggest they focus on how well they played a role in movies or TV?
March 12th, 2010 08:19
Election law (our election law) and jurisprudence will clearly support the “outcomes” in these cases (although GMA’s is not an actual case?) i.e. why Gomez is NOT a resident of Ormoc, and why GMA is a resident of Lubao, Pampanga.
Not a case of the law not being applied equally.
March 12th, 2010 09:11
Leonard, that would be the dumbest suggestion one could give.
I just hope more people would focus on the candidate’s political platform. I hope they come up with a detailed manifesto of what they are going to do in 6 years if they get elected, preferably with a detailed time frame and plan of action for each priority and with no motherhood statements.
Debates on tv is a waste of time, it’s more of entertainment. You ask a candidate a hypothetical question they answer back with a motherhood statement.
March 12th, 2010 09:29
A manifesto wouldn’t do any better. Promises are made to be broken. Debates give the voting population a chance to see how a given candidate reacts (or answers) questions. From that, voters can judge for themselves how intelligent or stupid a candidate is. It also gives the voter a chance to hear more detailed statements about issues which may concern them.
For example… Gordon: “We need to increase foreign direct investments because…” Intelligent answer…
Ara Mina: “Ampa-who?” “Maguinda-what?” Stupid answer.
March 12th, 2010 09:33
zelbo,
lets put this way. if you are looking to date someone and you are in a single’s bar and you see this gorgeous chick charming her way to get her drink, would you not be interested to meet her? Of course every hot testorone laden male would like to meet and date her, but it does not mean that every interested man will also be willing to marry her.
March 12th, 2010 18:55
I listened to Acosta on the Big Picture. He talked a lot but he didn’t actually say anything. His answers did not have anything to do with the questions. It scares me to think that he might actually become a senator.
He is one of those people who sound good (if you listen to the sound of his voice), but who never actually says anything intelligent. All I heard was catch-phrases, buzzwords, and a lot of things designed to sound knowledgeable, without actually having a clue.
March 12th, 2010 19:38
i’ll take acosta over 90 percent of the current senators. What have these people done for the good of the public? Except to deliver privilege speech when they need to expose someone they dont like or to respond to allegations of anomaly, or defend their own party. I can only think of two or three current senators who are worthy of the honor. The attendance alone in both chambers is worst than the attendance in grade school. What we have are bunch of free loaders! No shame at all to the taxpayers!
March 13th, 2010 10:28
Coyote,
While I don’t like Acosta, I do have to agree with your comments about the current elected officials.
It’s sad that we don’t have a better way to control these guys.
March 13th, 2010 10:57
Guys, IMHO, manifestos and debates are not a good way of determining whether you should vote for someone.The platforms are written by someone else and there is little indication of what they know or how committed they are to the positions they stake out.
I prefer to look at someone’s record. A candidate’s past actions are the fingerprints of their true belief. They can’t be erased.
March 13th, 2010 13:37
Track records and past actions…
1) Martial Law expert, expert in the defense ministry, can justify how to implement martial law, forever a Senator;
Great at investigative work, can speak English very, very well, learned much from the Americans how to run naval and airforce bases, works even during Christmas;
2) …-moutTED orator, good command of English “hard-to-understand words”, and “conduct …becoming” of a LADY, expertise in running in presidential elections, allergic to cigars, has strong military connections;
3) Good actor, can learn from his father who is an actor as well as already experienced in being a president of a poor nation, looks good on camera also like his dad;
5) Good actor, more handsome that the other good actor, can also learn from a father who was a Senator who was an expert in raising chickens, very simpatico on camera;
6) Another good actor, produced one of the highest legislative laws of the land, supporter of “Pampanga’s Best,” can ride a horse well with a cowboy hat;
7) Rose from the ranks, excellent entrepreneur, soon to join Forbes $1.0B club, experienced n both lower and upper houses, can really teach the poorS one or two business tricks;
…would you guys want to help me with the rest…?
March 13th, 2010 15:32
off-topic.. i love your show “the rundown”… it’s very informative and gives us in-depth info about the day’s headlines… kudos Mr Carandang!
March 13th, 2010 21:20
Lito B,
Interesting case law. I thought the opinion of the court is subject to broad interpretation. No wonder it is easy to question a candidate’s residence. What makes the ruling raised more question than answers is the intent of the person. How can a court determine the intention of a person? How long is indefinite period of time? How long does someone need to live physically (or actual) in a new place to be considered a resident?
March 13th, 2010 21:46
lito b,
Why cant congress craft a law stating specifically the time period that one needs to live physically in a given place to be considered a resident?
In the US domicile is determined by state law. To prove domicile, a person needs to show utility bills, lease agreement, library cards, credit card bills, driver’s license, almost anything to show the court that one is physically living in that state. That is if one does not own a property. If one is a property owner and have continually paid taxes for the property, that property owner is a resident of that state. That is why some americans are legal residents of more than one state.
Different rules apply with military personnel. A soldier is stil considered a resident of the last state where he was stationed regardless if he has left the state for overseas stints for indifinite period of time. (Am I right leonard?)
March 15th, 2010 08:07
Coyote,
You are correct sir… US citizens can be residences of more than one one state. Hilliary Clinton would be a good example. She lived in Arkansas with her husband, then Governor Bill Clinton, moved to Washington DC (The White House) becoming a resident of the District of Colombia, after which the Clinton’s moved to a house (a really big house) in a different house in [maybe] Virginia or someplace like that. Finally, for the purposes of this discussion, Mrs. Clinton took up residency in the state of New York in order to run for the US Senate. Each state has their own laws regarding residency status but most, if not all, require that you actually hold physical residence and pay taxes therein. The fact that Mrs. Clinton now resides in either Virginia or Maryland (someplace near her boss’s office) does not negate her residency in the previously mentioned states.
However, for voting rights, either running for office or casting a ballot, she could only claim ONE state as residence… I think.
March 15th, 2010 08:09
Yep. I am certain. Only ONE state.
March 15th, 2010 09:57
Ricky,
I agree 100% that a person’s past actions are the true indicator of his or her beliefs and abilities. That’s why I don’t understand why we don’t press the candidates harder on their SALN’s. In my opinion, the Statement of Assets and Liabilities is the closest thing we have to proof of a person’s honesty. Is it because we recognize that absolutely none of them can produce a clean SALN, so we just don’t bother going there?
It’s the one law that supposedly binds all government officials at all levels, and yet we just allow them to deflect the question every time. With the SALN, you don’t even have to prove that an asset was acquired illegally. Just failing to record it in your SALN is a crime. It’s not an oversight. it’s illegal.
Forget about platforms and political statements. Why don’t we invite them all to an “SALN Review”? The one who shows up and presents a completed SALN, that will stand up to scrutiny, is the one who would get my vote.
March 15th, 2010 10:12
Coyote and Leonard,
Almost correct.
In the US, a person “claims” residence in one particular state or another. You do that by registering to vote, owning property, paying taxes, or getting a driver’s license in your state of choice. To apply for those things, you generally have to show proof that you actually reside there.
The average American physically resides in the same state where they claim residence. In most states, you have to show that you have physically lived there for 6 months before you can switch residency. Again, you prove residency by registering in that state, owning property there, etc.
For military members, it’s not the state where you were last stationed. You are a resident of whichever state you claim. But you still must have resided there before you can claim it. As a military member, you pay Federal taxes and taxes to the state you claim as your home state, regardless of where you happen to be stationed at the moment. That’s why a lot of military members make sure to get an assignment to certain states, like Texas. For those states, you don’t have to pay state tax if you are not physically residing there.
March 15th, 2010 10:57
Michael,
Yep Yep. You are correct. In my case, I was born & raised in CA and my PDS turned out to be San Diego. Go figure…
Now, with GMA (Ricky, you may help us on this one), did she actually reside in Pampanga prior to her current stay at the Palace?
March 15th, 2010 13:01
michael,
I am not sure about that. I know that the US supreme court has ruled that state’s durational requirements for voters and candidates(candidate has to be a qualified voter of that state to be able to run for office) are unconstitutional.
You must be talking about Texas schools’ residency requirements for students. Remember that voter residency requirements are different than those for students who are trying to avail of a lower state resident tuition fees.
March 15th, 2010 22:20
15 percent of filipinos twist the law…
85 percent allow it…
amazing…. its a ROTTEN SYSTEM fed by a ROTTEN CULTURE….
one english writer puts it very well…
“The Philippines is a land FULL of promises…. it will remain to be so!”
sad…sad…sad
March 15th, 2010 22:26
POST MARTIAL LAW…. Have we been any better?
PRE-MARTIAL LAW… when you say Asia… its
Tokyo and Manila… these are THE CITIES!
I am sure the mistakes can be corrected…
2010 is crucial!….
March 15th, 2010 23:11
leonard,
you are correct. although an american can be legal residents of more than one state, one can only register and vote or run for office on one state. Here’s the Supreme Court decision overturning a state court decision regarding durational requirements for voters:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19720324&id=lOQiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XpoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4187,2378297
March 17th, 2010 01:13
Leonard,Before moving to Malacanang, Gloria lived in La Vista in Quezon City.
March 17th, 2010 07:32
Ricky,
Well, there you have it. So by the COMELEC’s own decision regarding Gomez, they have also given cause to disqualify Arroyo from seeking office in Pampanga. That is, of course, if their rules would apply to everyone equally which they do NOT.
Coyote,
Thanks for the research. Though US states have the right to make their own laws, they can do so providing such laws do not contradict Federal Law.
Is the letter of Philippine Law so vague that those who choose can exploit the loopholes to such an extent?
I have heard so many people say how the US and Philippine Constitution and Laws are the same. Nothing can be further from the truth. For example, Freedom of Speech in the US means you can sing the National Anthem anyway you choose. If you screw up, the worst that can happen is you get booed and not asked to sing it again. In the Philippines, you can face charges.
March 17th, 2010 14:18
BATINGAW
I agree with your point, not with your percentages. Although I think I know what you mean. May I interpret it this way:
The existing president twists the law, the SC allows it.
The COMELEC twists the law, the SC allows it.
The military/police ‘shoots’ out the law, the SC allows it.
Congress & Senate make the law and know how to break it, SC allows it.
You and I miss a note in our national anthem, SC sends us to jail!
March 17th, 2010 22:47
Chito,
Those percentages were kind of ‘rhetorical’ but Im glad u see beyond it
Hahaha, your interpretation gave me a smile… that’s why I only call it the “court”.
On Lupang Hinirang… I dont agree it should be sang and interpreted like someAmericans do to Star Spangled Banner… although I like Arnel Pineda…. hahahha
Cheers
March 18th, 2010 10:07
I admit that I don’t have any idea where to find it, but I still haven’t heard anyone here cite the actual legal requirements for residency.
Under Philippine law, what is the legal definition of “resident”? Do you have to maintain a physical home there, or is it enough just to claim a particular place?
Whether we agree with it or not, the law has to define it. And then, you either are or are not a resident.
Ricky, maybe you can ask someone from COMELEC. And then, you might ask if GMA meets the same criteria.
March 18th, 2010 12:13
Michael
In my opinion, the SC should be or one of)the source of all enlightenment for issues such as residency requirements for election purposes.
I can’t really appreciate how our government or governments in general fucntion.
Is it a “they first before me” protocol? I personally think “proaction” from government is needed instead of waiting for someone else to raise the flag.
As a father of a family, I should know when to proact between my two or more children arguing-to-a-fighting scenario before even they get to the point of “armageddon.”
Anyway, if you guys do finally determine the facts about “residency” for elective officials, do please conduct a seminar or enlighten the COMELEC and the SC, will you? Or through Ricky, perhaps?
March 18th, 2010 14:57
Yea, but Chito, don’t you agree that the court should not be the first place to turn? In my opinion, something like residency requirements should be written into the law. We should only turn to the courts if we think the law needs to be interpreted (i.e. if the law is unclear).
It seems that, in this country, we all have such little regard for the law that we don’t even bother to ask what the law requires. And then, whenever someone does commit a wrongful act, we almost never talk about it in terms of a violation of law. Instead we talk about “delicadeza”, rudeness, protocol, etc. Anything to avoid turning to a law that binds people.
That’s the whole basis of the concept of “Rule of Law”. When 2 neighbors have a dispute, there are many social mechanisms available to resolve it. But in a developed society, The law is supposed to be binding. If the law says you can, you can. If it says you can’t, you can’t. So many of this country’s problems would evaporate if we would just adhere to that simple principle.
March 19th, 2010 08:16
monsod: SC is Arroyo’s court
but Monsod is Lopez’s lapdog
opposition will always praise the SC for decisions against Arroyo and will sour-grape decisions for Arroyo…
ANC on the other hand will always air side of the opposition as if it is the only opinion in the whole country — what a disservice to our nation..
March 19th, 2010 10:48
Chito & Michael,
That’s it right there. If the “letter” of the law is so vague, then no wonder the courts have to step in at every instance. If the law was more specific, this would not even be an issue. That is, of course, if there is even a law providing for residency.
March 19th, 2010 12:49
As offensive as it may be to say, this country seems to be designed to operate that way. If laws were clear, then everybody would have to obey them. But here, laws seem to be intentionally left open to interpretation (i.e. with loopholes).
The constitution seems to be filled with conflicting clauses, or with clauses that can be interpreted different ways.
COMELEC’s own rules about whether a candidate is qualified or not. Even the laws about whether something is a crime or not.
Many times, I have found myself in a “this is the way we do it” situation, even though the law clearly dictates another way.
In my opinion, it is this way because we all seem to want it this way. If we could quote the law and make another person do something, then we would also be bound to follow that same law. And, apparently, we don’t want that.
So we continue to write ambiguous laws, and we all seem to be happy with that.
March 19th, 2010 17:23
The same is true with Citoy “Baby” Arenas who wants to run for congressman in the 2nd district of Panay. He was disqualified because he could not even spell his hometown.
March 19th, 2010 22:34
I think the problem is there are so many laws. The Philippines is the only country in the world with three constitutions. Somewhere, somehow the constitutional framers forgot to repeal the previous constitutions. Aside from so many unrepealed laws we still have presidential decrees that written during the Marcos regime. No one has ever challenged the legality of presidential decrees. These decrees where written when the country was under martial law, when civil liberties and due process were suspended. Marcos really messed up the legal system!
Look what’s happening now with the supreme court decision to allow arroyo to appoint the next CJ. I think what is in question are two conflicting constitutional provisions from two different constitutions.
In the US there used to be another constitution called confederate constitution. When the present constitution was written the framers made it clear that the present constitution is the highest law of the land and in case of conflict between laws the question would be resolved by following the provision of the constitution. This will not happen in the Philippines because the supreme court will have to check three constitutions before making a ruling, just like what happened with the CJ problem. When three constitutions are the highest law of the land, conficting provisions among the three constitutions will likely happen. I am surprised that other constitutional questions have not gone to the SC. The only reason that I can think of is the quality of lawyers that we have in the Philippines. Filipinos like to say we have brilliant lawyers. Really!!?
March 20th, 2010 16:00
…and as the “lawyers” use to JOKE about themselves…
“What can you say about 100 lawyers tied up together at the bottom of the ocean?”
Ans: “NOTHING MUCH. BUT THAT’S A GOOD START!”
March 20th, 2010 18:04
But on a very serious note, a strong, transparent, and honest leadership, and a stable political/govenment system is what we need to establish to positively move forward.
Our government has got to reach that point when people do not entertain any thoughts of coup d’etat or “people power” cum rebellion, power grabbing, but rather issues that would improve our financial, health, educational, and infrastructures that would build on a much more solid middle class, and a society free from orligarchic tendencies by monied individuals, ergo, a clear and inbiased implementation of the rule of LAW, regarless of economic class!!!
May God save the Filipinos from “Evil Filipinos!”
March 22nd, 2010 23:46
If the “OPPOSITION” takes hold of Malacanang… what are they to be called?
uuuhhhh….LEADERS?…. ohh please this is very kindergarten use of language.. hahahaha
we surely have an INFANT “democracy”…
…our heroes saw this ahead of our time…
March 24th, 2010 12:28
Philippine Party List System – “A Political SCAM”
Just copied the names of the Party List and their representatives from the Inquirer and started my blacklisting.
I’m campaigning amongst my neighbors and circle of influence to blacklist those which should be blacklisted, especially the Arroyos and military and other entities coming in through the backdoor in order to invade our Congress in order to bankrupt our nation.
DON’T VOTE “#42 ANG GALING PINOY” where Arroyo and “Jueteng Pineda” are represenatatives, as well as, “1-UTAK.” …more to come…
God help us all in this time of great deception!
March 24th, 2010 13:29
I wonder how you define “under-represented”?
The party list system was originally intended to provide representation to those segments of society who have no voice in government (specifically referring to the poor).
In what way are athletes, security guards, teachers, women, fishermen, etc under-represented? If I am a woman living in Makati, doesn’t the representative from Makati act as my voice in Congress? How in the world are security guards under-represented?
I recognize that, because they don’t have the financial resources to lobby like many of us do, the poor might need a special voice in government, but I just don’t see how all these other special interest groups can fall into the same category.
Representation in the Philippines is geographical. If I am under-represented, it is not because I do not have a representative. Rather, it is because my representative is not doing his job properly.
March 24th, 2010 15:47
truthaboutluciotan.blogspot.com
predicted the fall of Lucio Tan Group!!
March 24th, 2010 21:56
If only our election laws say that those running can only use funds from campaign contributions of registered voters… then this is all gonna be easy and decisive.
… then we avoid having candidate/s who literally is/are SALIVATING to become the president of the land even at the expense of EXTREMELY HIGH personal expense… making it all a lot more frightening…
One who is able to and thinks rightly would know that if in case this candidate wins… he surely would RECOUP all his expenses… comon’ guys DON’T FOOL URSELVES…its just natural!… especially if you are “business”-minded
March 24th, 2010 22:07
Hahaha… the “party-list system”… this st_ _ _d provision in Philippine Election law…
what’s that for… we got congressmen and the different agencies of government…
complete redundancy and a simple “backdoor”… well at least some people say
March 25th, 2010 09:35
Ricky,
I watched your interview with Army chief General Mapagu last night.
You asked him if we should also hold candidates liable for paying “permit to campaign” fees to the NPA. His answer: “We are discouraging them. They should not do it.”
The word “should” means “dapat”. He couldn’t even bring himself to use the word “illegal”.
This is exactly why corruption and poor governance abound in the Philippines. Why is it so hard for a government official to say that something is illegal? Could it be that, by using that word, they might be forced to actually enforce the law?
March 29th, 2010 10:29
I think Ricky you should not be surprised, because you judge the same! You leave Manny Pacquiao out of the list of people who don’t live where they run! Why? Because you are afraid to be critical to an Icon, I presume.
There, you go. Hopefully 1 day you get the guts.
April 9th, 2010 10:49
Ricky,
Parang I have never perceived of the Comelec as “…one of the most trusted government bodies in the country.”