cha-cha crazy

there they go again, chattering about charter change, as if it were even do-able, what a waste of time.   read fr. joaquin bernas’s Finally a new Constitution in 2011?

In my view, one major obstacle to attempts to revise the 1987 Constitution is structural. It has a built-in unintended obstacle to change. And I do not know how this can be overcome this year.

Inmany respects the 1987 Constitution consists of significant borrowings from the 1935 Constitution. Unfortunately, however, the provision on the amendatory process is a carbon copy of the provision in the 1973 Constitution. Year after year since 1987 this has been the major obstacle to change. Why so?

The text says: “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) a constitutional convention. . . . The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”

The provision is one formulated for a unicameral legislative body but it is now meant to work for a bicameral Congress. This was not a tactical product designed by an evil genius. It is merely the result of oversight. But the oversight has spawned major problems.

First, must Senate and Housecome together in joint session before they can do anything that can lead to charter change? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on this question: Congress could not begin to work on constitutional change unless they first came together in joint session. The 1987 Constitution is non-committal.

Second, since the text of the Constitution is not clear about requiring a joint session, can Congress work on constitutional change analogously to the way it works on ordinary legislation, that is where they are and as they are? I have always maintained that Congress can, but this is by no means a settled matter. There are those who believe that the importance of Charter change demands a joint session.

Third, should Congress decide to come together in joint session, must Senate and House vote separately or may they vote jointly? The 1935 Constitution was very clear on the need for separate voting; the present Constitution is silent about this. But I am sure that the Senate will not agree to a joint voting where their number can be buried in an avalanche of House votes, an avalanche of votes which can mean the abolition of the Senate! How will this issue be settled? Howsoever the matter might be settled by agreement of the majority of both houses, someone in the minority will run to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision.

What about a constitutional convention? But the business of calling a constitutional convention is fraught with the same problems. Should Congress choose to call a constitutional convention, must the two houses be in joint session? And if in joint session, should they vote separately?

Briefly, constitutional change in 2011 or later can happen only if the members of Congress can agree to work in harmony and if the Supreme Court will not throw a monkey wrench on how Congress decides to do it. Can the members of Congress rise above self-interest and work together harmoniously? Or are we waiting for an extra-constitutional change?

i like it, this obstacle not designed by some evil genius, rather an oversight of cory’s constitutional commission.   it means that charter change can happen only if and when our legislators get their act together, and that’s just so NOT in any one’s agenda.

extra-constitutional change?   another edsa, he means?   but a successful edsa, a successful revolutionary government, one that brings about deep-seated change, is soooo not in the stars, not until a true leader rises, one in the mold of rizal or bonifacio but wise to the ways of the world today and highly-biased for the filipino.

the state of the zodiac

woke up at noon to an email from my son joel asking, “so am i a virgo now?   seems to be all over the news — but no mention of it on any astrology sites :-)”   followed by an email from my brother louie:  “am i now a virgo!  did you know about this?”   both with links to last night’s breaking news:   astronomer park kunkle reveals that because of earth’s wobble our zodiac signs as we know them may no longer be our signs.   according to his calculations, i would be a leo, but i know i’m not ;))

the good news is, libra pa rin sila, virgo pa rin ako.   and to all katrina’s friends who have been asking, stressing out, having identity crises, including two whose birthcharts i recently read, relax, nothing has changed, this is nothing new.   it’s an old issue that astronomers have long been throwing at astrologers to debunk derogate diminish the celestial grounds of astrology.   and really, it’s not that astrologers don’t care to know the earth, stars, and constellations as astronomers do, it’s just that we have a whole different way of viewing the whole.   read astrologers kevin burk and dane rhudyar, if you have the time and the inclination.   it’s all there.   (i love the web!)

i will admit that the first time i learned about the precession of the equinoxes, nagdalawang-isip ako for a while and cut down on readings (this was back in the 80s) while getting my bearings.   so far my experience had shown astrology to be compatible with the psychology, traditional and new age, that i had i learned in and after diliman, but suddenly i wasn’t sure…

it was around this time that direk ishmael bernal gave me his birth time and asked for a reading.   couldn’t say no to ishma, so best efforts na lang.   to my dismay he mostly took my reading with a blank stare.   but a month or so later he phoned, apologizing, he had given me the wrong birth time.   this time he was sure, galing mismo sa kanyang birth certificate that he had to get from his mother.   vastly different a birthchart it was, and so was his reaction.   i got a lot of vigorous nods, a sparkle in the eyes, and in the end, say niya, yes, ako yan mismo.   it was validation enough.

the precession problem i came to terms with via the basic principle of astrology, the moment of birth (whether of a person, or an idea, or a project) as the crux of the matter.   i found i could live with the original zodiacal elliptic and its properties codified by the greeks over 2000 years ago as reference point.   just because it works.

but i’m not talking sun-sign astrology which is what daily horoscopes are about.   there’s more to it than the sun-sign alone.   there’s the moon, too, and at least eight planets, their signs and configuration (the angles / aspects they make with each other) at the moment of birth, to take into consideration.   the sun is the most significant of them but always taken in the context of what the sign represents in the 12-step process of personal growth and development — from individual to collective concerns — that the zodiac wheel offers the seeker.

this is not to say that i don’t read daily horoscope columns.   there are a couple that i follow because they keep accurate track of the moon, which moves very fast, just two days or so in a sign.   they give me a sense of the day’s vibes without having to check out my ephemeris.   also i send joel daily readings for his sun-sign, moon-sign, and ascendant-sign (based on birth time) whether he reads them or not.   today i also sent him the reading for virgo, with a smiley, just in case.   and this was his response:

I’ve always been aware that there was theoretical and proven science out there that just probably totally messes up the foundation of astrology. Earth spinning off its axis, moon drifting farther away by the decade, expanding universe, uh, Pluto’s planetary status (although that’s arguably more a matter of semantics)… but between its hit-and-miss record and generally vague advice, I’ve pretty much settled on viewing my daily horoscope as reminders of proper conduct, patience, managed expectation, tempered behavior, etc…

More than anything else, the daily horoscope you send is like motherly advice. Be good, be cautious, show enthusiasm, start something, be diligent, watch out for opportunities, etc. That they’re copied off a newspaper or a site doesn’t make much difference to me — this is part of your personal value system which I respect and, considered responsibly, hasn’t ever steered me wrong.

o di ba.   sulit na sulit naman.

and finally, can’t help wondering why it’s taken astronomers all this time to go mainstream on this.   or maybe it’s mainstream media that just never cared to pick up ’til now?   maybe astrology’s getting too popular in these troubled and much-too-interesting times?   incidentally, the church has always frowned on astrology but i hear the vatican has the best and biggest library of astrological materials dating from ancient times ’til the present, under wraps of course.   so there.

eat bulaga! vs. RH?

Sotto stakes post in anti-RH fight.   hmm.

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III Wednesday said he was willing to risk his position in the chamber if his colleagues would insist on passing the reproductive health (RH) bill, which is said to be on the Aquino administration’s list of priority measures.

… “I cannot guarantee that it will be in the order of business,” he told the Inquirer by phone. “They rather replace me as the majority leader. They might as well find someone else.”

As the majority leader and chairman of the committee on rules, Sotto is instrumental in the preparation of the chamber’s order of business, in consultation with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.

ah so.   akala ko his post as senator.   yun pala his post as majority floorleader and chairman of the committee on rules lang.   tipong he’s saying na it’s up to him whether, if at all, the RH bill is ever included in the senate’s order of business.   and, reading between the lines, tipong the RH bill gets tabled over-his-dead-body, that is, he would have to be replaced first.   aba, naghahamon, ang lakas ng loob, bakit kaya.

“There are many issues and questions to hurdle before the RH bill is even placed in the actual priority list of the Senate,” Sotto said.

Sotto, for instance, rejected the idea that proponents of the measure wanted a national policy that would impose their position on the use of contraceptives even among people not amenable to them.

“Why do they impose their choice on us? Suppose I file a bill banning all contraceptives in the country, would they like that?” he said.

hmm again.  who’s talking ba about imposing anything on anyone?   the idea is to make all these contraceptive measures available.   it’s up to individuals, couples, given adequate information, to decide what kind of contraception they want to use, IF ANY.   maybe he doesn’t understand english?

At present, he pointed out that contraceptives were available around the country to anyone who wished to purchase one. A national RH policy would require the use of taxpayers’ money to buy contraceptives and make them available to all, he added.

naku, sounds just like roilo golez of the lower house.   so contraceptives are only for those who can afford them?   paano na the 80 percent poor, let them multiply and multiply, the better to keep augmenting a cheap labor force?

and what’s wrong with using taxpayers’ money to help out couples who want to plan their families, the better to feed clothe and shelter them?   taxpayers’ money is used for obscene pork barrels that build basketball courts and waiting sheds and sub-standard roads, not to speak of the commissions that line their pockets for every government contract they approve, or how else do these public servants get so rich?

what really intrigues me is, who’s behind sotto?   who has tasked him to kill the RH bill in the upper house?   and in exchange for what?    who, what makes him so uncaring of the wishes of 7 out of 10 pinoys who want an RH law?   bosslady gma?   the bishops?   is he katoliko sarado pala?   kailan pa?

what about his fellow commedians vic & joey kaya?   anti-RH din ba sila?   the better for eat bulaga!?   ika nga, habang may bata, may eat bulaga!?

noisy na, malicious pa

first time i heard “noisy minority” it was ballsy aquino talking and she was referring to leftists making kulit (if memory serves) about hacienda luisita.   so natawa naman ako when i heard that president aquino had used the same in a vin d’honneur toast to the new year in reference to the challenges ahead:

… from an uncertain outlook for the global economy, to a noisy minority who want to rekindle the malicious practices of the past.

bong austero was offended for the opposition in congress:

PNoy’s remark struck a raw nerve because of the lack of a suitable context. Taking potshots at one’s perceived enemies at a formal occasion one is hosting smacks of illegitimate political behavior, particularly if the people being targeted comprised majority of those who graciously lent their presence at the occasion and who were there apparently in the spirit of cooperation.

ninez cacho olivares was more candid as always:

But just who compose the noisy minority, and just who does he refer to as those who want to rekindle the malicious practices of the past — some of which, incidentally,have been rekindling, such as lump sum appropriations, to name just one.

Of course, Noynoy does not say, and won’t say who the noisy minority is either, because he is using the “noisy minority” to blame for his failureand zero achievement in his six months in the presidential office.

Yet the noisy minority that he speaks of can hardly be called a threat to his claimed reform program. The political opposition in the House of Representatives can hardly be seen as a stumbling block to his reforms, mainly because it is in the minority and therefore does not have the numbers with which to block Noynoy’s plans — if he even had one. Nor, for that matter, does the political opposition have the numbers to override the presidential veto. How then can the minority be a stumbling block?

His critics? But they have no power to stop any of his alleged reform plans or even stop the change he claims he wants to bring about but hasn’t.

The Supreme Court (SC)? But it is hardly noisy and if its majority members strike down Noynoy’s executive orders and memorandum circulars if it mainly because his fiats are constitutionally infirm. But just what does Noynoy want? A subservient SC, along with his already subservient Congress? Is this the change, as well as reforms he speaks of that he wants to bring about?

lol.  biglang magka-level na ang kaliwa, ang gma-opposition, at ang supreme court?   ay, teka, mali.   the left has been called a lot of things, but never “malicious.”