GLOBALIZATION
In Globalization, there are two facets. One, Globalization as an opportunity for success and progress. Two, Globalization may run-on our local companies. This is inevitable. This is dictated by the changing time. This is necessary. Logical. Painful. Worth-watching. Worth-guarding. Fulfilling.
Bello, as posted in the CorpWatch.org website is right in saying that the Philippines is experiencing disadvantages in the multilateral trade agreement. He is truthful to say that our legal system has been overhauled (may be an overstatement) just to conform to its opening for the world.
I tell you, this is a common stand of those against trade liberalization and globalization (especially for the leftist group). When we open our skies, our trading for the world our local companies find it difficult to compete with the foreign companies. Quality and Price-wise we are not at par with them; considering our technology and sky-high labor wage.
What the article fail to spell and spill are the benefits of Globalization. I may enumerate some:
1. Knowledge and Technological transfer
2. Our local companies will now aim for a world-class quality for
they themselves will compete abroad, internationally to countries
who are member and open to free-trade.
3. As we become global (as our aspiration), we make stronger ties
to countries essential for our economic growth. More Foreign
Direct Investments (FDI), accessible international credit facility,
and more strategic collaborations to key countries.
It is not that bad when we joined the free-trade agreement via WTO.
What we need is an eye keen for abuse and over exploitation. I also agree to the article that we should not be too open to exploit our natural resource lest we feel being raped. We should join hands in protecting our rights to all these BIG changes around the world.
Party list, quo vadis?
(http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100410-263463/Party-list-quo-vadis)
This is again a classic circumvention of the law. The marginalized sector is doubtless to say under represented. Why? They are as well a minority. Being marginalized refers to being separated from the rest of the society, forced to occupy the fringes and edges and not to be at the centre of things. Marginalized people are not considered to be a part of the society.
By this simple premise, the and “Ladlad Party-list” and the cited party-list for the security guards by simple definition may become a member of the party-list system. This is in contrary to the wrong connotation that being marginalized one has to be ultra-poor.
“Thus, the party-list candidate must show— through its constitution, articles of incorporation, bylaws, history, platform of government and track record—that it represents and seeks to uplift marginalized and underrepresented sectors.” (from the above link)
Where then is the premise as posted by Josh Centro on fb that ignorance of the law excuses no one? Highly unrelated. (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/photo.php?pid=30824104&id=1030042175)
I believe the Supreme Court ruled-out the decision against the party-list that nominates one of the Arroyo’s in Congress solely because it protects the rights of the “marginalized sector” from forms of abuses and even over exploitation and not as indicated and hinted by Josh and others that its politics-related. The Supreme Court itself upholds the Constitution by following its provisions.
“In the end,” the Court concluded, the “role of the Comelec is to see to it that only those Filipinos who are marginalized and underrepresented become members of Congress under the party-list system, Filipino style.” (http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100410-263463/Party-list-quo-vadis)
Jösh Centro : It is highly IRRESPONSIBLE and the height of IGNORANCE to say that Noy Aquino has done nothing.
I’d like to answer this shortly: PERSONAL GAIN.
It is a free-ride to political gimmick and election-related furtherance.
What Noy has to do are the “states-man” actions and not political antics and dramatics. In his petition, can you feel patriotism? Can you read between the line, UPHOLDING the INTEREST of the nation and its sovereign? I say, UPHOLDING his Presidential stance.
A district each for Arroyo and Andaya
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100411-263720/A-district-each-for-Arroyo-and-Andaya
Whoever is the legal counsel and Constitutional lawyer of the Arroyos’ is one heck of a brainy guy. Macalintal? Probably. This is again the dramatic stunts of circumventing around the law.
It may be that the the apportionment of an Arroyo and Andaya for respective districts failed the minimum population-qualification, it still bears substance and essence by following the ponencia.
In the quoted article by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, he stressed that the populace is the sovereign. Noble.Very true.
Finally, what of the command that Congress make a reapportionment within three years after the return of every census? Its purpose is to periodically readjust proportionality.
On the other side of the argument:
The 250,000 minimum population do not apply to provinces. The Constitution did not provide any minimum population requirement for the creation of congressional districts within a province.
_____
Mischievous petition. Last week, top lawyer Romulo Macalintal petitioned the Supreme Court to abolish the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), which was created to decide contests relating to the presidency and the vice presidency.
Because Macalintal also lawyers for President Macapagal-Arroyo, critics immediately imputed Machiavellian motives to him. I disagree. The Constitution already provides, “The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice President…” Hence, even if his petition succeeds, the Court—not the PET—will hear presidential protests.
from (http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20100410-263463/Party-list-quo-vadis)
———————————————–