Misuse of ‘vox populi’ doctrine

19 January 2016

If, as suggested, the Constitution should be disregarded to suit Poe’s case, what’s to stop the Constitution from getting similar treatment in the future using “vox populi” as justification for the action? Bad precedents have an uncanny way of repeating themselves.

Besides, what’s so special about Poe or what services has she performed for the country to merit the suspension of certain constitutional provisions so her political ambition can be accommodated with ease?

Just because she is getting good ratings in the surveys does not mean the people (supposedly the voice of God) have already chosen her to succeed President Aquino and so all obstacles, both legal and moral, including the Constitution, should be pushed aside to speed up her entry to Malacañang.

~ Raul  J. Palabrica

 

Posted in 2016, why

16 Responses to Misuse of ‘vox populi’ doctrine

  1. January 19, 2016 at 4:11 pm
    ricelander

    The question is when is “vox populi” misused or used properly? Those who agreed with EDSA 1 and 2 would most likely claim it was wisely used. Those opposed to them would likely assert it was misused. It is the same thing now. I think those desperately trying to push for Poe just do not find the rest palatable at all.

    • January 20, 2016 at 11:56 am

      ricelander, yes, EDSA naman talaga ang peg ng call for vox populi. but the political situation pre-EDSA 86 and pre-EDSA dos were exceptional. EDSA 1 was preceded by 20 years of marcos rule (14 under martial law) — we just wanted marcos out and it didnt matter that cory was just a housewife. edsa dos was preceded by erap’s impeachment for corruption and immorality in our faces, with whistle-blowers galore. and then came noynoy because his mother died, and it was billed another edsa, after 10 years of gma, vox populi daw, never mind that his political performance record was nothing to brag about, even if obviously he was nothing like ninoy. today the call for vox populi is so grace can run even if she’s not qualified as per the constitutuon, just because her supporters do not find the other candidates palatable at all, and i don’t see anything that promising or extraordinary about her that would warrant going extra-constitutional. di bale sana kung meron siyang platform of government na kakaiba, na magdadala ng tunay na pagbabago, e wala naman. puro motherhood statements. playing politics like a true trapo. yet she’s asking for our trust, that she will do right by the country, wag na siyang tanungin how — parang si FPJ, no talk no mistake — obviously she’s not ready, pero nagmamadali, and that makes me so suspicious about her agenda and the people pushing her to do this. ang gulo na nga, pinagulo pa niya lalo. so now we’re all totally distracted from more important matters, such as the integrity of counting machines at kung ano ano pa relative to whether your votes will be counted correctly atl all.

      the other candidates not palatable? i can relate to that, and that’s why i’m not voting.

  2. January 19, 2016 at 7:59 pm
    Batang-Genyo, Alah Eh

    Good ratings are mere statistical snapshots. They are not the final results of real or actual voters who cast their real choice. Its doesnt ensure final figures to be declared the winner of the election contest. Therefore, she or her supportersshould not assume a “vox populi” decision.

  3. January 19, 2016 at 10:32 pm
    manuelbuencamino

    “Suffrage is one of the direct exercises, perhaps the only direct exercise, where people actually select their agents in terms of government. And therefore, should this Court apply the doctrine, in that we should first allow the people to decide and then we, the final arbiter, in case of contests?” AJ Leonen

    I don’t follow Leonen’s logic…Implied in his pasakalye about suffrage is the old Vox Populi argument. Now if he is going to play the Vox Populi card then the people’s “selection of their agents” must be FINAL. “El fallo del juez (Vox Populi in this case) es inapelable” as written on the wall of the old Jai Alai fronton.

    But in the same sentence, Leonen says the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, meaning it can overturn Vox Populi in case of contests. Contests in elections are: (1) I was cheated (2) My opponent over-spent (3) My opponent was not eligible to run in the first place.

    The first contest can be settled by an examination of ballots.
    The second contest can be determined through expense receipts for all campaign related expenses
    The third contest will be decided by looking at the law.

    Leonen’s argument deals with the third contest. And what it boils down to is he prefers to look at the question of eligibility AFTER instead of BEFORE the election. WTF?

    The question regarding Grace Poe is eligibility – the state of having the right to do or obtain something through satisfaction of the appropriate conditions.

    Shouldn’t be her eligibility be established BEFORE she can run for office?

    • January 20, 2016 at 7:38 pm
      Batang-genyo, ala-eh

      Morally and legally, Grace failed to comply with requirements of “Eligibility” as candidate for national position as assessed by Constitutional body thru an enbanc decision. Therefore, only a disqualification will be in order as a matter of implementing the rule of law, not seeking the “vox populi” as determining factor to comply with perquisite of basic law. Perhaps, Leonen is advancing a political solution to an emotionally charge issue.

    • January 20, 2016 at 7:41 pm
      Batang-genyo, ala-eh

      Morally and legally, Grace failed to comply with requirements of “Eligibility” as candidate for national position as assessed by Constitutional body thru an enbanc decision. Therefore, only a disqualification will be in order as a matter of implementing the rule of law, not seeking the “vox populi” as determining factor to comply with prequisite of basic law. Perhaps, Leonen is advancing a political solution to an emotionally charged issue.IHMO.

  4. January 20, 2016 at 11:20 am
    manuelbuencamino

    Sa madaling salita ang approach ni Leonen ay ass-backwards or as the more polite cliché goes, “put the cart before the horse” :-)

    • January 20, 2016 at 12:04 pm

      oo. sumakit ang ulo kay leonen.

  5. January 20, 2016 at 11:50 am
    john c. jacinto

    Malinaw naman sa Saligang Batas ang mga nakasaad na mga kwalipikasyon para maging Pangulo ng bansa. Kung sablay na nga si G. Llamanzares sa isa o dalawa sa mga kwalipikasyong iyon, marapat lamang na idiskwalipika siya ng COMELEC. Kalokohan na palalahukin sa halalan ang isang malinaw na kulang o sablay ang kwalipikasyon ayon sa Saligang Batas.

    Sa “lohika” ni J. Leonen, palalahukin muna niya si G. Llamanzares sa halalan at saka kung tapos na ito ay saka lamang pagdedesisyunan kung kwalipikado ba siya o hindi sa posisyong pinaglalabanan.

    Kahit grade one pupil makikitang mali ang “lohika” ni J. Leonen.

    • January 20, 2016 at 12:06 pm

      nagulat ako kay leonen who sounded like he was lawyering for poe, and of course, making a better case than poblador.

  6. January 20, 2016 at 3:37 pm
    john c. jacinto

    Yung Caballero case (G.R. No. 209835) na na-promulgate ng Supreme Court nitong Sept. 22, 2015 lamang ay swak na swak sa kaso ni G. Llamanzares. Ipagpalagay nating malusutan ni Llamanzares ang natural-born citizenship requirement, mahihirapan siyang lusutan ang residency requirement. Kaya’t anupamang hilot, salsal, at pasirko-sirkong argumento ang gamitin nina Llamanzares (sa tulong ni Leonen?) ay tiyak na mawiwindang pagdating sa residency requirement.

    • January 20, 2016 at 3:49 pm

      oo matindi rin yung kakulangan ng residency, no matter how they try to explain her mistakes away. ang dating sa akin, she was careless with some details because she had no real big ambitions at the time. pero nagpasulsol siya.

      • January 21, 2016 at 2:03 pm
        manuelbuencamino

        Pero ako agree si pananaw ni Leni Robredo. Sabihin natin na Poe meets all the legal requirements, still the real issue is Poe swore “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;…” Yan ang magiging president natin?

        • January 21, 2016 at 3:08 pm
          john c. jacinto

          Agree din po ako. Pero mukhang hindi pa ito masyadong pinagdidiinan ng LP, siguro during the official campaign period na. Dapat ay dikdikin dito sa puntong ito si Llamanzares.

  7. January 21, 2016 at 2:06 pm
    manuelbuencamino

    Mabigat ang naturalization oath ng US. Compare it to the UK’s

    Affirmations
    4.1 Under the Oaths Act 1978, any person who objects to swearing an
    oath may instead make a solemn affirmation. This also applies
    when it is not practicable to administer the oath in accordance
    with a person’s religious belief (e.g. if the sacred book of the
    person’s religion is not available). The relevant provisions of
    the Oaths Act (sections 5 and 6) are applied to citizenship oaths
    by section 42(7) of the British Nationality Act 1981.

    4.2 The form for a written affirmation, as prescribed under the 1978
    Act, is:
    I, A.B. [full name], of , do solemnly and sincerely
    affirm that on becoming a I will be faithful and
    bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second,
    Her Heirs and Successors, according to law.
    (Signed) A.B.
    Affirmed at this day of 19 ,
    before me
    (Signed) X.Y.
    (Justice of the Peace, Commissioner, Notary
    Public or other official title)

    An oral affirmation should be made as follows:
    I, A.B. [full name], do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and
    affirm that on becoming a , I will be faithful and
    bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second,
    Her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

  8. February 2, 2016 at 5:02 pm
    Batang-genyo, ala-eh

    Batay sa pananaw ng punong mahistrado na isinasantabi ang kautusan ng Saligan Batas ng Inang Bayan, na di makatarungang saliksikin ng impossibling hanapin ang biological magulang dahil walang evidenciang paghuhukayin kundi ang mismong patay na magulang😈,kaluslunos na isapuera ang pagbibigay ng ” benefit of doubt” para lang maging “ecceptional policy” itong sinabing ” foundling ” na wala naman ito sa definition ng ating Saligang Batas. Marahil dito sia huhugot at pagbigyan si Pinoyat Mar na palahukin di Ginang Grace para lang “pangbasag ng boto na dapat sanang kay Binay.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twitter

follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago