Calendar
S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
28 | 29 | 30 |
Video Links
Wiki
-
Read This Before Registering to this Site
-
Proposed Philippine Constitution
- Proposed Last Article
- Article 7: The Prime Minister and the Cabinet
- Article 1: Bill of Rights
- Article 3: Citizenship
- General Provisions
- Articles 4 and 5 (Bill of Duties & Suffrage)
- Article 6: Parliament
- The President
- The Judiciary
- Constitutional Commissions
- Local Governments and Autonomous Territories
- Accountability of Public Officers
- Article 2: Declaration of State Principles
-
Crowdsourced Malolos-Style Proposed Constitution
- Transitory Provisions
- Title X on Constitutional Reform
- Title IX on Economic and Social Policies
- Title VIII on The Accountability of Public Officers
- Title VII on Local Government and Autonomous Territories
- Title VI on The Constitutional Commissions
- Title V on Judicial Power
- Title IV on Executive Power
- Title III on Legislative Power
- Title II on The Filipinos and their National and Individual Rights and Duties
- Title I on Preliminary Provisions
- Preamble
-
PDP-Laban Draft Executive Summary
-
The Centrist Proposals
Articles of Interest
- Learning about Federalism using Australia’s example
- Forum of Federations: Videos for Learning about Federalism
- The late John Gokongwei was pro-Constitutional Reform
- How will the Government pay for its COVID-19 Expenses?
- Constitutional Reform First before claiming Sabah!
- Why Do So Many Filipinos Misunderstand System Change?
- Lee Kuan Yew’s Speech at the Philippine Business Conference
- Federalism & Decentralization: Evaluating Africa’s Track Record
- Juan Linz: The Perils of Presidentialism
- Frequently Asked Questions (Tagalog)
- The Parliamentary System can fix Philippine Politics
- Presidential or Parliamentary – Does it Make a Difference?
- Federalism in Africa: The Case of Ethiopia – Challenges & Prospects
- Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism
- Centrist Proposals Executive Summary
- The PDP-Laban Federalism Executive Summary
- KITT vs KARR: Systems & Algorithms Matter
- Why are the Monsods so anti-Constitutional Reform?
- How does Federalism work?
- What if we were Parliamentary back in 2009?
Featured Posts
-
Nancy Binay – Don’t hate the player, hate the game!
27 April 2013 -
Lynching Laurel
25 November 2012 -
Exposing Esposo
17 September 2011 -
The Coming Fall of the “Noynoy Project”
20 November 2013 -
US Government Shutdown: The Presidential System Sucks
5 October 2013 -
How will the Government pay for its COVID-19 Expenses?
20 July 2020 -
Why are the Monsods so anti-Constitutional Reform?
26 May 2016 -
Commandments Are Not Enough
27 August 2013 -
KITT vs KARR: Systems & Algorithms Matter
1 June 2016 -
Sen. Claro M. Recto on the Presidential System
20 September 2011 -
Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism
19 February 2018 -
2 Filipinos: A Football Legend & A Spanish Prime Minister
16 September 2011 -
Learning about Federalism using Australia’s example
26 March 2022 -
The CoRRECT™ Three Point Agenda
9 October 2011 -
Rizal the Federalist; Bonifacio the Unitarian
8 October 2014 -
TOM RODRIGUEZ is a solid Constitutional Reform advocate!
16 March 2016 -
Ang Hagupit ng Bagyong Yolanda
25 November 2013 -
Benign0 is just as clueless as “Benigno”
22 May 2013 -
The PDP-Laban Federalism Executive Summary
7 February 2018 -
It’s the Economy, Student!
15 January 2012 -
A Good Constitution Must Reduce the Impact of a Bad Leader
21 September 2011 -
Federalism & Decentralization: Evaluating Africa’s Track Record
21 June 2020 -
Lee Kuan Yew’s Speech at the Philippine Business Conference
4 July 2020 -
A Head of State and A Head of Government
22 June 2015 -
Philippine Progress: Shift in Sports, Shift in System
19 September 2011 -
Presidential or Parliamentary – Does it Make a Difference?
17 March 2018 -
Centrist Proposals Executive Summary
7 February 2018
Section 1 has two main problems: 1) what is a monopoly? It has to be precisely defined in order for this provision to be enforceable. Even if monopoly is defined, this section still has problem 2) which is that it grants power to the government to control “monopolies” where no power should be granted. Only the government can create a monopoly: it is very difficult, if not impossible, to establish and maintain for some time a monopoly in the free market. Finally, 3) this provision can be used by the government to subvert the free press. If we really want to enhance the free press, we can’t use the government to do that. The Internet is already here, for example, to democratize access to information. We should instead deregulate the establishment of Internet access points all over the country. I would rewrite this section to read: “No law shall be established that allows the government to control the Internet and the free press in any manner.” But this is in essence already in the Bill of Rights. We should probably modify it there to read “all media including the Internet”, instead of Ag”free press”.
Section 2 Again, because of lack of precise definitions, this section is either unenforceable or gives the government too much power. What is “the public interest”? The public interest for one group may not be the same public interest for another. Same goes with the term “general welfare”. Whenever we see these terms in a constitution, we are only giving the government too much power. Please read the second part of the Preamble. This section should be removed.
Section 3. “Unless defined by law” gives too much leeway to the lawmakers such that they can negate the whole purpose of this section. How about “No law shall be established that limits who can own property.”
Section 4. How about “No law shall be established designating a national language. However, given that this Constitution is originally written in English, English is hereby designated as the language of government. As such, English shall also be used in court proceedings, legislative proceedings, and other government functions. English shall be the medium of instruction in public schools.”
I’ve revised the general provisions article per Carlos’ request. Previous sections 1 and 2 are either removed from the proposed constitution or [to be] moved to relevant parts.
I think that we should import some general provisions from the 1987 Constitution. Here are my thoughts:
Section 1 of the old constitution is a briefer version of Chapter 1 Section 4 of the Flag and Heraldic Code of the Philippines (1989). We can keep Section 2 but Sections 3-8 need minor rewording [if needed]. Section 9 is already embodied in the Consumer Act of the Philippines (1992). Don’t know what to do with Sections 10 and 12 but as far as I know, Section 11 is as good as gone. And we may have to add new provisions if necessary.
Section 2 re National Language seems so wrong. I concur with the idea of having the English and Filipino languages as our national languages, and so both MAY be used for government transactions, court proceedings, etc. However, so as not to undermine other existing languages (e.g. Cebuano, Hiligaynon), the State must promote other existing languages and allow local governments to adopt and use the same in their own transactions, etc.