Category: congress

Cha-cha crazy?

Feb 8, Constitution Day, the President declared unequivocally that he is in favor of the Lower House’s push to alter the charter’s economic provisions. As expected, the honourable Reps have since gotten even more aggressive, nagging the Upper House to pass RBH6 ASAP. It’s as though they’re sure that in separate voting, the Senate would oblige, say yes to inserting UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW in three provisions. It’s as though they’re still sure that it can all happen very fast, including a plebiscite (raise your hands?), maybe even preempt the 2025 midterm elections, pasensiya na kung totoo ang nababalitang balak ni VP Sara na tumakbong senador. 

It’s all so convoluted, layer upon layer of issues and agendas, and so many unfamiliar faces, in presscon after presscon, telling us why they’re right and the Senate is wrong to slow down the chacha process, whether through People’s (Politicians’) Initiative or Constituent Assembly. My kneejerk reaction everytime is, sino kayo? Why should I take your word for anything? I’d rather hear from people I know of,  like Rep Joey Salceda, who has been for chacha since GMA times (if memory serves). I’ve always wondered why, really. I’d love to know kung anong sagot niya sa mga anti-chacha na nagsasabing ang problema ay hindi ang econ provisions na nagawan na ng paraang luwagan; ang problema ay high power rates, poor infrastructure, bureaucratic red tape, policies that change midstream, atbp. 

Feb 15, Senate Prez Migs Zubiri in that interview with Karen Davila, said na sa ibang bansa, ang economic restrictions ay legislated, hindi nakasaad sa konstitusyon, so dapat daw siguro, gayahin natin para pumasok ang mas maraming foreign investments, or something like that. Ganoon? I’m sure that’s debatable. 

I gather from the Senate hearings na merong mga senador na pro-chacha. Si Sen. Imee Marcos mismo has nothing daw against chacha, but questions the timing and, kailangan pa ba?  Are there 17 who might say yes to the Senate prez? When are we going to hear from the Senators themselves?

Meanwhile, here’s an excerpt from must-read essay,Machiavelli’s The Prince by Business World columnist Amelia HC Ylagan. Reminds not to believe everything we’re told by politicians, let’s not be deceived by appearances, self-serving press releases, warring dynasties atbp. Read also “Marcos Jr. explains in what sense he’s Machiavellian” by Inquirer‘s John Eric Mendoza.

Machiavelli’s The Prince

By Amelia H. C. Ylagan

… To celebrate the book’s 500th anniversary, the Boston University College of Arts & Sciences history department discussed why Machiavelli’s masterwork continues to resonate. “Some say he wanted to empower tyrants; others say he listed their crimes the better to expose them. Readers across the ages have found support for all kinds of causes: monarchists, defenders of republics, cynics, idealists, religious zealots, religious skeptics. Whatever its intent, one thing is clear. The book follows its declared purpose fearlessly and without hesitation: to show rulers how to survive in the world as it is and not as it should be” (bu.edu, Feb. 6, 2013).

Machiavelli himself was a “survivor.” He from whose name comes the pejorative “Machiavellian” qualifier, quite cunningly maneuvered himself in critical government posts (foreign service) through the changes among the powers-that-be in the turmoil of the 16th century flux of the Renaissance. He has been given the honorific title of “father of political science” by some admiring political analysts.

Machiavelli wrote The Prince just after he was forced to leave Florence as a political exile. Dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the book is Machiavelli’s advice to the current ruler of Florence on how to stay in power. It was also his effort, though unsuccessful, to gain an advisory post in the Medici government. Yet The Prince was not even read by the person to whom it was dedicated, Lorenzo de Medici (insights.som.yale.edu).

“The advice espoused in The Prince led his name to become shorthand for cunning, manipulation, and self-serving behavior— one of the few eponymous adjectives to strongly convey an abstract idea. His open appeal to guile and his subversion of Christian norms were regarded as so abhorrent that, in 1559, the work would be listed in the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited Books” (natgeo.com, Oct. 23, 2020).

But Machiavelli’s ideas on how to acquire power and glory as a leader had a profound impact on political leaders throughout the modern west, helped by the new technology of the printing press.

Leaders as diverse as Oliver Cromwell, Frederick the Great, Louis XIV, Napoleon I, Otto von Bismarck, and John F. Kennedy read, contemplated, and debated Machiavelli’s ideas. “The most one can say about The Prince in this regard is that Kissinger and Nixon preferred it as their bedtime reading” (penguinrandomhouse.com). Napoleon I of France wrote extensive comments to The Prince. After his defeat at Waterloo, these comments were found in the emperor’s coach and taken by the Prussian military. According to their biographies, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini wrote a discourse on The Prince and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin read The Prince and annotated his own copy.

Does Machiavelli, therefore, share some blame for the violence and brutality that has wracked the globe since he first wrote? No. “People don’t need The Prince to be inspired to commit every atrocity it names and more,” the forum at BU for the book’s 500th year anniversary concluded. “The impact of the book has instead been to force countless readers over the past 500 years to confront, in the starkest terms possible, the most important questions about politics and morality.”

And time must be looping, as in an automatic replay video, livestreaming strong-man rules in countries big and small, young and old.

“In order to get a secure hold on new territories,” the book advises, “one need merely eliminate the surviving members of the family of their previous rulers.”

It is terrifying how “the end justifies the means” is the backdrop of the to-the-death fight between Russia and Ukraine for territory. Ukraine claims that Russian casualties since February 2022 were 386,230, staggeringly high, but broadly corresponding with estimates from the US military and intelligence officials that Russia has suffered 315,000 dead and injured troops in the full-scale invasion. If accurate, this means Russian casualties are equivalent to almost 90% of the total personnel it had when the conflict began in February 2022. A New York Times report in August cited US officials who estimated the Ukrainian death toll at close to 70,000, with another 100,000 to 120,000 wounded. “Ukraine’s goal is not liberation of the territory. Ukraine’s goal is the elimination of the military threat from Russia, and the liberation of territory would be only a sequence of the main goal,” Ukrainian officials said (Newsweek, Feb. 1, 2024).

“Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself,” Machiavelli says in The Prince.

More than the liberation of territory for the sake of the people, the goal of the leader is to keep his power. The great leader, Machiavelli says, must be able “to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people.”

And in our own little country, we live in fear at not knowing the truth, not knowing where we are being led to.

Machiavelli says princes are obligated to lie in certain circumstances. He also states that “while it is unnecessary for the prince to have positive qualities, such as honesty, trustworthiness, sympathy, compassion, or be religious, it is essential for the prince to be viewed so by the public” (ipl.org).

And we, the “vulgar” masses, must bow to the fathers and sons/daughters of warring political dynasties like in Machiavelli’s time.

“The vulgar crowd always is taken by appearances, and the world consists chiefly of the vulgar,” Machiavelli taunts us all. [emphasis mine]

*

Amelia H. C. Ylagan is a doctor of Business Administration from the University of the Philippines. ahcylagan@yahoo.com

the 18th congress

it’s too soon to be  arguing over the senate presidency, or the speakership for that matter, is what i gathered from outgoing senator chiz escudero on headstart.   but why aren’t we surprised.  these are different times.  and pundits are keeping track.  will add to list, newest op-ed first.

A society in decay? Pinoy vs Pinoy? by Rene Saguisag
Rumble in the house Inquirer editorial
Cayetano’s zombie victory by Manolo Quezon
Isumbong mo kay Inday Sara by Manolo Quezon
Unsettled by Alex Magno
Business and politics make strange bedfellows by Ernesto Hilario
Arroyo’s successor; Sotto to succeed himself by Yen Makabenta
Passing the baton by Gary Olivar
Lightweights for Speaker by Oscar P. Lagman, Jr.
Fond send off for 6 outgoing senators by Federico Pascual
Cuckoos in Duterte’s nest by Segundo Eclar Romero
Termed-out senators threaten to form Senate majority by Yen Makabenta
In search of leaders for 18th Congress by Malou Tiquia
Disaggregating the incoming Senate by Rudy Romero

The Oldest Trick in the Book #WowDickGordon

Walden Bello

How do you get a bill bringing down the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 12 passed in the Senate?

By proposing another bill to have it lowered to age 9, and making those who hold the line at 12 feel like they won a great victory for human rights and and allowing guys like Senator Gordon, who probably thought up the strategy in the first place, to pose as advocates of children’s rights.

gloria in the house: worst case scenario

i think i get it, finally, why rep danilo suarez refuses to give up the minority leadership even if he is part of the majority that ingloriously voted speaker gloria arroyo into position, AND even if there is a real minority group — a coalition of LP and makabayan bloc reps who did NOT vote for arroyo.

“The House Rules clearly state that those who voted for the winning Speaker will constitute the majority bloc. Aside from voting for Speaker Arroyo, the Suarez group did sign the manifesto of support for Speaker Arroyo and even campaigned for her. For the Suarez group to remain a minority bloc is beyond reasonable,” Quimbo said.

beyond reasonable, beyond acceptable, but it would seem that gloria and her megamajority do not want to have to deal with a real minority.  i strongly suspect that it’s because they are still on charter change mode, but without resorting to no-el, which is what did alvarez in.  and now they are testing the waters with this suarez kapit-tuko-sa-posisyon.  if they got away with breaking the rules and improvising to unseat alvarez, maybe they can get away with this, too, in these very fluid times under duterte?

i wouldn’t put it past GMA and her cohorts to have promised sara duterte that without a pesky dissenting minority, they can do a cha-cha via con-ass in time for an info campaign in the run-up to may 2019 AND still pass the 2019 budget (or not, re-enact 2018 na lang) at kung ano-ano pa kuno, before she steps down (or not) in 2019.

GMA, by the way, is a veteran at failed chacha attempts.  maybe she thinks that the 5th (?)  time’s a charm?  read What went before: Past charter change attempts.   

worst case scenario, given duterte’s marching orders:  the lower house convenes (in secret, if necessary) as a constitutional assembly, passes (in the dead of night, possibly) its version of a federal constitution that favors incumbents, and presents it to the nation as a fait accompli, requiring only the people’s approval in a plebiscite kasabay ng may 2019 midterm elections.

never mind that 2 out of 3 filipinos do not know enough about the constitution, much less about the proposed replacement, to make an informed decision on the matter.  maybe the duterte and arroyo camps even consider this a plus in their favor — since there’s no time for a massive multi-media multi-lingual information campaign, much less time for serious debates nationwide, they will simply appeal to / for the people’s trust.  i can already hear mocha uson urging her 5 million followers: let’s trust tatay digong on this, maniwala tayo, manalig tayo, he knows what’s best, vote YES!  argh.

i hope i’m wrong.  my imagination on overdrive.  but if i’m right, and the senate is unable to stop it, ‘twould be time to hit the streets, the people and the senators, together.