EO 464 Revocation?

Three days ago, the president had revoked the Executive Order 464, or known in the Philippines as Executive Previlege. This was made after an intensed call from the Catholic Bishops to abolish said Executive Order in the light of the ZTE Scandal faced today by the government. But what really is EO 464? What is its effect? Does it make a difference now that it was abolished by the president? Is this really the solution?
EO 464 is an executive order issued by the president in the exercise of her inherent powers to answer the problem of too much prosecution of government officials in the Senate or even in House of Representatives. EO 464 mandates all department heads and top officials of the executive branch to get first the permission of the president before they could appear before the congress during legsilative inquiries. Legislative Inquiries is the equivalent of Question hour in parliament where government officials are made to appear before the congress to be asked on questions regarding issues of national concerns. But legislative inquiries is not the powerful compared to the question hour, in the sense that the president has the prerogative to appear or not or to allow his or her top cabinet officials to attend such inquiries. The president has the inherent powers granted upon him/her by no less than the constitution of the Philippines. The president has what we call Executive Previlege. Executive Previlege is the previlege given to the president by the consitution, not to divulge any information regarding military secrets, national security issues, trade secrets and some agreements with other governments. This is accordingly to ensure that there will be no prejudice or derailment that will happen in the course of the conduct of government as it is seen to be for the good of the country.
Now, what is the effect of the abolition of the EO464? Actually, nothing. It is because even without the EO, the president can still prohibit her top government men from appearing before any legislative inquiries. But suppose the president will allow them, as what this revocation of EO means, still, it is not an assurance that the cabinet official who will appear in Senate for example will say everything he knows regarding government matters and answer all the questions that will be thrown to him or her by the congressmen. Again, he can always invoke Executive Previlege as the alter ego of the president, which means he can opt not to answer the question asked on him if he feels that it is covered with the executive previlege. Therefore, in a sense, nothing is changed.
So, what should be the best solution? Well, as Executive Previlege is a right granted to the president by the constitution, she can always waive such right. Meaning, she can direct all her cabinet officials not to raise executive previlege when asked by the legislators. It means that the president can always allow her cabinet officials to answer in the best of their knowledge everything that will be asked to them. This is the very best solution to stop all the questions in the minds of the people regarding the truth about the ZTE Controversy.
If the President is not hiding anything, then it is time for her to let all her cabinte officials who are inflicted in the controversy to go before the senate and face the legislative inquiry without any reservations whatsoever. The truth should come out.

The PHILIPPINES- DeMuKratik!!!

They say that Philippines has one of the best constitutions in the world. Not only does it provide for the fundamentals of the government, but it emphasizes the Rights of each and every Filipino- even foreigners(to some extent). This, as they say, what makes Philippines a democratic country- a country for the people, of the people and by the people.
But that is not the real thing. As a student of law, I have studied Article III of the Philippine Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And I can say that indeed, it is astounding to have such kind of rights vested upon the sovereigns-the people.
But that is the ideal side of the coin. Reality is a different story. The constitution provides for freedom of the people to peaceably assemble, but an assembly of peoeple calling for the resignation of the president is easily dispersed. The reason?-"well they are part of the communist movement."" So disgusting! Another thing is that the Bill of Rights also provides for freedom of speech, of the press and to petition the government for any redress or grievances. But what does the secretary of Justice always say?- We will go after You!
Now, tell me, who in this country will try to exercise their rights if there is this fear of being ran after by the government? Yes, the rights have limitations, but are the people knowledgeable of their rights? How can they exercise these rights? and What are the restictions if there are any? Of course, the government won't bother to educate the people- it would be to their own disadvantage.
The Philippines is democratic in papers, but in practice?- it is really not! Even in the elections, when it is the only time (ideally) that everyone is equal is colored with so much irregularity. How much is your vote is the question. Or worse, life or vote?
No question why so many Filipinos are going out of the country. In fact, those who leave the country want to bring all their family members if only it is possible. The Philippines is DYING!
A famous line from the national hero of the Philippines goes " Ang Kabataan ang Pag-asa ng Bayan" -the youth is the hope of the fatherland. Yes, ideally Yes. But what is the government doing? It deprives more and more Filipino youth and children of education, of a decent life, of a bright future.
In conclusion, I can say that indeed, the Philippines is a democratic country- The government off the people, buy the people and fool the people. May the great Abraham Lincoln realize that his statement has two meanings- whichever is applicable. hehe

"Ignorance of the Law"

Article three (3) of the Civil Code of the Philippines is very clear that " Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith."

What does this mean? From decisions of the Supreme Court, this provision of law is very heavy. It means that every person is pressumed to know the laws, and that it is an invalid defense in court that one doesn't know the existence of a law punishing the act he/she may have been committed. A person must, in the acts he/she may do, know its consequences and legal its boundaries. Thus, one should be very cautious in all of his/her actions.

But one may ask; Isn't it unfair that a person is deemed to have known the laws that sorround him/her? In the stand of justice, it is not. Article two (2) of the Civil code demands that " Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the official gazzette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided." This provision seeks to safeguard the right of every citizen to be informed of the law passed by our Congress or of any other declaration which is of punitive or binding effect to the public, so that one may know the laws which govern him/her in his/her day-to-day life. Our constitution guarantees this due process which should not be violated or dispensed with. The statement "unless it is otherwise provided" does not talk about the publication but of the effectivity of laws which may be set on a different date as may be stipulated in the law. The necessity of publication is indespensable as to inform the general public.

Given these points, it is therefore our duty as citizens to know the laws that govern us and to abide with these laws. It is not a valid reason for us to raise that we don't know the existence of the law. We must therefore be vigilant to all our actions and to see to it that we don't violate any of the laws of the land. We have the freedom and liberty, but these freedom and liberty end when the freedom and liberty of others begin. Let us all be guided.

It is a very well founded maxim in law that "every person must, in the exercise of his rights, and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and obeserve honesty and good faith." art. 19 Civil code

Politics on the other hand emphasizes that with great powers comes great responsibility. But Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

These two realms (LAW and Politics) are the great words that this world is striving to live with...

Fraternal Order Of Saint Thomas More

"Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely?"

I am a neophyte member of this known law school fraternity- The Fraternal Order of Saint Thomas More (Tau Mu). And it was my first time to witness the much awaited once in a year event of the brotherhood- election. Unlike other fraternal orders, Tau Mu is simply unique and the best. It has no constitution and by-laws, but the word of its Grand Archon is the law. This is why election is very much scrutinized, deliberated and suggested by all its members. In fact, to choose a Grand Archon is no easy. He must be unanimously elected by all the members present in the election. Only one disagrees, and no Grand Archon is chosen. Of course, the Brotherhood is aware that too much power is dangerous and enimical to the rights of its individual members. That is why, The Grand Archon must be chosen in consideration of his credentials, platforms and stand for the welfare of the Fraternity. Service must come first.

I just pondered that indeed our fraternity is the best! Not only it trains and inculcates to its members the importance of unity and brotherhood , but foremost, it builds and molds great leaders. Leaders who are responsible and are mindful of the use of the powers vested upon them. And this is a best beginning as training ground for a greater responsibility for the greater number. So to all my Tau Brods, let's shout to the world that we are Tau Mus! and Let's continue to be King's good servants, But of course, God is First!

Y?Y?Y?

Human Dignity?

I was so surprised when I saw on TV a comment of a European member of Parliament who visited a depressed area in Manila- the capital city of the Philippines. The focus of her statement was "human dignity." She commented that the situation in the place is so dehumanizing. It seems that the people living there are deprived of their dignity as human beings. Further, she said that in their country, it is a crime if the government could not give its citizens a descent life and dignity for themselves.
It was really a striking statement. I felt so ashamed of that true, candid and reality-based observations. Strike 1! to the Philippine government i said. But yeah, in the Philippines, the faces of the leaders are five-inch thick. They are not affected of it anyway. Their focus is on how they could stay in power long and on how they could get more, more and more money! No doubt why in the Philippines, if you are rich, it is either you are in Show business, in business, and of course in POLITICS... Well, well, well, so much for that. The world already knows about it. It is a fact!
Going back to the statement of that member of parliament, I should admit that I admire her for that. That statement was so big, strong and heavy. "Human Dignity." What really is it? In this world, there are five things that define Human Dignity- money, fame, education, status and influence... If you have all these, then the world would call you Dignified! WoW! This means then that only few people have dignity (sad to say). How about those living in Africa, in the Third world Countries? That would explain the statement of the member of parliament. Indeed, people living in poor countries have nothing but only their physical self. Their dignity is self proclaim rather affirmed by everyone.
On a different view, some would say that Human Dignity is not about money, fame etcetera but rather Equality among Men. Well, the more that those people living in the third world countries have no dignity. Try to go to those countries and you'll see how rich are the rich and how poor are the poor. Even Equity could not replace Equality. It is really depressing.
Even I, could hardly define Human Dignity- a definition that could fit even the poorest of the poor. hmmmmm. I think I'm getting too emotional. So, I leave it to you. Hope as you read this, you can say that you have that so called HUMAN DIGNITY...

Dependency theory

Dependency Theory, theory of economic development that emerged in the 1960s. Dependency theory addresses the problems of poverty and economic underdevelopment throughout the world. Dependency theorists argue that dependence upon foreign capital, technology, and expertise impedes economic development in developing countries.
.

Until the 1960s, the prevailing theory of economic development, known as modernization theory, maintained that industrialization, the introduction of mass media, and the diffusion of Western ideas would transform traditional economies and societies. These influences would place poor countries on a path of development similar to that experienced by Western industrialized nations during the 19th and 20th centuries (see Industrial Revolution).

Dependency theory rejects the central assumptions of modernization theory. In the 1960s advocates of dependency theory—mostly social scientists from the developing world, particularly Latin America—argued that former colonial nations were underdeveloped because of their dependence on Western industrialized nations in the areas of foreign trade and investment. Rather than benefiting developing nations, these relationships stunted their development. Drawing upon various Marxist ideas, dependency theorists observed that economic development and underdevelopment were not simply different stages in the same linear march toward progress (see Karl Marx). They argued that colonial domination had produced relationships between the developed and the developing world that were inherently unequal. Dependency theorists believed that without a major restructuring of the international economy, the former colonial countries would find it virtually impossible to escape from their subordinate position and experience true growth and development.

In the 1960s, dependency theorists emphasized that developing nations were adversely affected by unequal trade, especially in the exchange of cheap raw materials from developing nations for the expensive, finished products manufactured by advanced industrial nations. They argued that modernization theory did not foresee the damaging effect of this unequal exchange on developing nations. Even the achievement of political independence had not enhanced the ability of former colonial nations to demand better prices for their primary exports.

Some developing countries attempted to counter the inequalities in trade by adopting import-substitution industrialization (ISI) policies. ISI strategies involve the use of tariff barriers and government subsidies to companies in order to build domestic industry. Advocates of ISI view industrialization as the precondition of economic and social progress. However, many developing nations that managed to manufacture their own consumer products continued to remain dependent on imports of capital goods. ISI also encouraged multinational companies with headquarters in the industrialized world to establish manufacturing subsidiaries in the developing world.

Dependency theorists have also focused on how foreign direct investments of multinational corporations distort developing nation economies. In the view of these scholars, distortions include the crowding out of national firms, rising unemployment related to the use of capital-intensive technology, and a marked loss of political sovereignty.

From the perspective of dependency theory, the relationship between developing nations and foreign lending institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), also undermines the sovereignty of developing nations. These countries must often agree to harsh conditions—such as budget cuts and interest rate increases—to obtain loans from international agencies. During the 1980s, for example, the foreign debt of many Latin American countries soared. In response to pressure from multilateral lending agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF, these nations enacted financial austerity measures in order to qualify for new loans. In the short term, these economic policies led to higher levels of unemployment and slower economic growth.

III EVOLUTION OF DEPENDENCY PERSPECTIVES

The impressive rise of the newly industrializing countries of Latin America and East Asia since the 1960s defied the bleak prognosis of dependency theorists. Both Mexico and Brazil, for example, exporters of raw materials that turned to ISI and encouraged direct foreign investment and external loans, have experienced substantial industrial growth. South Korea and Taiwan successfully implemented ISI policies and became global exporters of manufactured goods. The economic success of these nations forced a reevaluation of the central premises of dependency theory.

In the 1970s, sociologist Fernando Henrique Cardoso (now president of Brazil) addressed weaknesses in dependency theory. Cardoso asserted that developing countries could achieve substantial development despite their dependence on foreign businesses, banks, and governments for capital, technology, and trade. He believed that developing nations could defend national interests and oversee a process of steady economic growth by bargaining with foreign governments, multinational corporations, and international lending agencies.

Other scholars, such as American sociologist Peter Evans, have gone even further than Cardoso in recognizing the importance of negotiations between governments in developing countries and governments and firms from industrialized nations. These analysts believe the way nations respond to dependence on foreign capital can be as important as the dependence itself. These refinements to dependency theory suggest the promise of new approaches to the problem of development, approaches that seriously take into account the role of politics and government-level negotiations in determining economic outcomes.

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
.