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 |
31 |
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 -
Eight Points in Enlightening the Élite
9 October 2011 -
Constitutional Reform First before claiming Sabah!
5 July 2020 -
Tables and Ladders (Exposing Esposo, Part 2)
16 August 2012 -
Nápoles & Pork Barrel: It’s the Lousy System
23 August 2013 -
Forum of Federations: Videos for Learning about Federalism
19 November 2020 -
The Parliamentary System: Would it produce better leaders?
4 October 2011 -
Tacloban Tragedy: A Painful Wake-up Call
29 November 2013 -
Sen. Enrile Solidly Supports Parliamentarism
4 December 2011 -
Making the economic comeback w/ higher private FDI
9 November 2012 -
How will the Government pay for its COVID-19 Expenses?
20 July 2020 -
Rediscovering the Advantages of Federalism
19 February 2018 -
Infographic: Solutions to the Root Causes of the Pork Barrel
6 September 2013 -
Lee Kuan Yew on Filipinos and the Philippines
23 March 2015 -
The Parliamentary System can fix Philippine Politics
6 April 2018 -
Federalism & Decentralization: Evaluating Africa’s Track Record
21 June 2020 -
Why Do So Many Filipinos Misunderstand System Change?
5 July 2020 -
Presidential or Parliamentary – Does it Make a Difference?
17 March 2018 -
The Parable of the Mountain Bike
11 October 2013 -
It’s all about Competition
28 January 2012 -
Let’s Talk Basketball – by Figo Cantos
23 December 2011 -
Centrist Proposals Executive Summary
7 February 2018 -
Crucifying Cruz
12 November 2011 -
Benign0 is just as clueless as “Benigno”
22 May 2013 -
TOM RODRIGUEZ is a solid Constitutional Reform advocate!
16 March 2016 -
Frequently Asked Questions (Tagalog)
4 June 2020 -
Polls aren’t just for Metro Manila: Why Federalism?
9 May 2013
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.