Vote for Charter Change

siguro ilatag mo muna ang nilalaman ng charter change... para malaman ng mga mambabasa natin kung ano ang nilalaman nito at ng makaboto ba... hehehe... hirap bumoto ng blind folded eh... hehehe...

big no no po, enough is enough.

papayag ako sa Charter Change. Pero depende nga sa nilalaman.

Sa kasalukuyan, maraming hangal na kapag narinig ang Charter Change, akala pahahabain ang termino ni Gloria. tsk tsk tsk

Nakaka-awa ang bayan natin dahil madaling malinlang ng mga Komunista tulad ni Satur Ocampo!

Amendments only on the economic provision.. yung lang......

no to charter change,

Hindi po banal na kasulatan ang saligang batas, ito ay dapat nirereview at binabago sa pagdating ng panahon na aakma sa kasalukuyang pangangailangan ng tao.  Kahit na po ang America ay ilang beses na inaamiendahan ang saligang batas.  Unang una dapat repormahin ang sistema ng gobyerno, hindi pwedeng ang ating ekonomiya ay nakasandal lang sa kalagayan ng kung sinong pangulo, dapat flexible ang pagpapalit ng liderato at , madali, ganito ang Israel parang nagpalit lang ng damit.  Ikalawa ang pag-aari ng dayuhan sa lupain, dapat iliberalize natin ito, payagan ang dayuhang mamumuhunan na, mag-ari ng pansamantala sa loob ng 100 taon at pagkatapos nararapat na bumalik sa nagbenta o sa gobyerno ang property ng sa ganoon madevelop ang lugar.  Ang termino dapat ng isang pangulo ay dapat paikliin, mula 6 gawing 5 taon pero, dapat may pagkakataon ang isang lider na mahalal hanggang dalawang beses lang.  Kung hindi natin babaguhin ang saligang batas, maiiwan tayo o naiwan na ng malayo ng ating mga kapitbahay, hindi puro hinala at konserbatibong pananaw ang paiiralin.

isa sa dapat baguhin
tanggalin na ang senado
malaking matitipid ng goverment dyan

ok ako sa charter chance

WHEREAS, there are proposals to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution, which is presently enforced, but any of such proposals cannot be considered, heard, debated, approved or disapproved, unless any of the modes expressly provided by Article XVII of the present Constitution is adopted;

WHEREAS, adopting a mode of amending or revising the Constitution, as mandated by said Article XVII is a condition precedent, a pre-requisite, before specific proposals to amend or revise the Constitution could be considered by the Members of Congress, convened to exercise the constitutionally ordained power to amend or revise the Constitution.

WHEREAS, there is a recognized distinction between the exercise of legislative powers of Congress from the exercise of the constituent power to amend or revise the Constitution;

WHEREAS, Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power as provided in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, cannot amend or revise the Constitution, but it is through the exercise of its constituent power under Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution that âany amendment to, or revision of the Constitution may be proposed, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Membersâ;

WHEREAS, while the prescribed method of enacting constitutional change in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions are different from the method of enacting ordinary legislation, there is a very distinct and notable difference between the 1935 and the 1987 Constitution, which respectively provides as follows:

The 1935 Constitution:
âThe Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately may propose amendments to this Constitution or a call a convention for that purpose.â

The 1987 Constitution:
âAny 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.â

WHEREAS, it is to be emphasized and underscored that some essential words and phrases in the aforequoted 1935 Constitution were deleted and no longer contained in the aforequoted 1987 Constitution, such that the âamendments by deletionâ are as follows:
1. The phrase âin joint session assembledâ in the 1935 Constitution was deleted;
2. The phrase that the Senate and the House of Representatives, voting separatelyâ was also deleted;
3. The percentage of voting three-fourths of the respective membership of each House (the Senate and the House of Representatives) treated separately has also been deleted and substituted with a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., ¾ of the âmembers of Congressâ without distinction as to which institution of Congress they belong to).

WHEREAS, the intention of the amendments of the 1935 Constitution by deletions of certain words and phrases thereon by the 1987 Constitution are clear and manifest as underscored in the preceding WHEREAS Clauses and by such deletions, the meaning and application of the corresponding provisions of the 1987 Constitution on Amendments and Revision have been changed. There are however oppositors claiming adverse legal interests who claim that, notwithstanding that the express, clear, and unambiguous provision of Article XVII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution shall be upon a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., not three-fourths of each House voting separately as the oppositors contend), a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights by the oppositors, on one side, and the denial thereof by the proponents of this Resolution, on the other side, shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling upon the Members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent power is filed, heard, and approved.

WHEREAS, while no specific proposals to amend or revise the present Constitution could formally be given due course unless and until this call to convene Members of Congress, as provided herein, is effected. It is hereby pledged and covenanted by the proponents of this Resolution, that by their signatures hereto that whatever constitutional changes may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues of construction and interpretation by the Honorable Supreme Court of the justiciable controversy that may arise shall have been resolved with finality that:
1. The term of office of the incumbent President and Vice-President shall not be extended;
2. The term of office of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials whose term of office shall expire in 2010 shall not be extended;
3. The term of office of the twelve (12) Senators who were elected in 2007 for a six (6) year term ending in 2013 shall not be shortened and they shall be allowed to finish their term;
4. That there shall be elections in 2010.

WHEREAS, there is a specific proposal that for the Philippines to be internationally competitive in attracting foreign investments and technology transfers that the economic provisions of the Constitution is proposed to be amended in an appropriate manner, but such specific proposal to amend the present Constitution cannot be formally presented and resolved until the mode for amending or revising the Constitution is convened and made operational through the application of Article XVII of the present Constitution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BE CONVENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS AND THAT UPON ITS BEING CONVENED SHALL ADOPT ITS RULES OF PROCEDURES THAT SHALL GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS.

Adopted.

Aksaya lang ng pera ni Juan Dela Cruz yan.

No No No No No No 

yan na po yun kopya ng house resolution 1109...

ok ito simulan for the new president. hindi sa rehimeng ito

ayan na pala. may kopya na nung controversial na resolution. ok lang kung ayaw mo nung gustong baguhin. pero para sabihing para kay Gloria iyan, kahit nakasabi namang hindi, haynaku. myopia tawag diyan.

Pro Charter Change ako maging Con Ass, ConCon o People's initiative pa 'yan at ang mahalaga mailalatag at maipapaliwanag ang mga pagamyendang gagawin. Besides ang ano mang pagbabago sa konstitusyon na gagawin ay magiging valid lamang after ng isang plebisito.

Kaya 'yung mga nagpapadala sa mga TRAPO na extension ni GMA ang ConAss ay 'wag tayong maniniwala agad-agad dahil may mga maiitim ding balak ang mga 'yan at nagaambisyon na maging pangulo ng Pilipinas.

agree ako sa'yo sadako. I will grant the may mga gustong samantalahin din ang chacha para sa pansariling interest, mas nakikita ko iyung mga trapong may gustong proteksyonan sa pagtutol sa chacha

nakakatawa nga eh kung paano paikutin ang tao na kesyo kapag naging parliamentary form of government tayo at tumakbong congressman si GMA ay gagawin siyang prime minister.... masyadong napakababa ang tingin ng mga inutil na TRAPO na 'yan sa pagiisip ng isang ordinaryong Pilipino.... Ipinapakita lang nila na wala silang silbi bilang oposisyon bagkus ay sumasama sila sa corrupt na sistema at the expense of Filipino people.

oo nga naman. masyadong simplistic ang explanation sa mga tao ng CHACHA pati na rin ng parliamentary system; halatang tinatago ang buti at sinisiraan ang sistema na ito. tsk tsk tsk

saak kahit maging Member of Parliament si Gloria sa Parliamentary, hindi guarantee iyun na magiging Prime Minister siya agad. Mantakin mo nga, lahat ng mga Members ng Parliament, puwedeng maging Prime Minister! Kung may party-list pa, kahit si Satur Ocampo, puwede kung boboto ang majority coalition. tsk tsk tsk

mas makapangyarihan ang isang MP kesa isang Congressman.

to amend some economic provision or to improve some provision on constitution,
WHY NOT.
but to change the system of goverment from presidential to parliamental goverment,
BIG NO

wala dyan sa resolution yung mga idadagdag nila, kasi pagdedebatehan pa yun sa plenaryo...

pero yung proposed portion na babaguhin nila ay yung sa economic lng daw.. kaya nga nakakatakot eh.. wala silang specific na sinasabi,..

ang for the information of everybody, at the time na ma-constitute na nila ang Congress as a CONSITUTIENT ASSEMBLY (CONASS), wla nang makakapigil sa kalia kung ano gusto nila... the power of the CONASS is PLENARY... absolute...

walang makakaharang sa kanila ...

kahit anong gawin nila...

kung kelangan nang baguhin kasi hindi na akma sa panahon natin, agree ako dyan,

pero kong gagamitin lang ng ilang official ang batas na eto para sa pansariling adhikain,

wag nalang,

tanggalin sa batas,

at ang mga kelangan lang ang ipasa..