Valentine vignettes
But I am digressing. Of late, I have been writing in this column on political issues, primarily about the march of federalists towards fulfilling a decades-old dream—of a parliamentary-federal Philippines. But today, love trumps politics!
Valentine’s Day, February 14, is observed and fêted invariably within the Christian world. This day harks back to the early Christian era and paradoxically commemorates martyrdom. There is much for psychologists to elucidate the proclivity for celebrating a day of love, especially among the young, equating this with martyrdom and gore. Three St. Valentines, all martyred, speaks volumes of this day for cupid’s labors. Is this an ominous sign for modern lovers? Sigmund Freud may have some underlying answers, but this is not within my expertise to expound.
The three martyrs, all named St. Valentine, lived around the second and third centuries A.D. Valentine of Rome was a priest martyred in 269, but Pope Galesius canonized him in 496, enrolling him in the pantheon of Christian saints.
St. Valentine, Bishop of Terni, in central Italy was born in 226 and martyred towards the end of the third century and could be the same person as St. Valentine, the priest of Rome.
The third St. Valentine was martyred in the Roman province of Africa. All three appear in the hagiography of Catholic saints and are venerated on February 14. To add to this convoluted cauldron are seven other St. Valentines whose feast days are not on February 14 but fall on various dates: “…a priest from Viterbo (November 3); a bishop from Raetia who died in about 470 (January 7); a 5th-century priest and hermit (July 4); a Spanish hermit who died in about 715 (October 25); Valentine Berrio Ochoa, martyred in 1861 (November 24); and Valentine Jaunzarás Gómez, martyred in 1936 (September 18). It also lists a virgin, Saint Valentina, who was martyred in 308 (July 25) in Caesarea, Palestine.” (Wikipedia)
But the legend of the first St. Valentine performing a miracle healing Julia, the blind daughter of his jailer, the Roman Asterius, is more compelling and romantic. On the evening before his execution and martyrdom, he wrote a note to Julia, which was signed “Your Valentine.” Thus was born the legend of the “Valentine card.” Julia, upon his death, planted a pink-blossomed almond tree near his grave, now a symbol of “abiding love and friendship.”
Part of this legend too is the image of a heart as the day’s symbol that started when the first St. Valentine “cut hearts from parchment giving these to Roman soldiers and persecuted Christians reminding them of their vows and God’s love.” (Wikipedia)
Originally, the day of love was traditionally March 12, St. Gregory’s day, or February 22, St Vincent’s day. The patron of love was St. Anthony, who feast day was June 13. But all these were eclipsed during the high middle ages by the English poet Geoffrey Chaucer who, again legend says, popularized St. Valentine’s day as the day for lovers and romance in his poem, Parlement des foules, “…For this was on seynt Valentynes day, whan every foul comth there to chese his make” (For this was Saint Valentine’s Day, when all the birds of every kind that men can imagine come to choose their mates. Chaucer ca 1343-1400).
A cursory Google search on Valentine’s Day in the Muslim world would be a quaint study in culture and religion. It is haram for a true believer to celebrate and accept gifts on St. Valentine’s Day. “If the Christians have a festival and the Jews have a festival, which is peculiar to them, then the Muslim should not join them in their religion or their direction of prayer.”
In Pakistan, the top Islamic clerical body threatened to issue a fatwa against the sale of condoms following reports they were being sold together with chocolate to mark Valentine’s Day…” (Rachel Roberts, The Independent, February 13, 2017).
In Saudi Arabia, the religious police ban on the sale of Valentine’s Day goods and removal of all red items, produced instead a black market in roses, wrapping paper and red goods (Rachel Roberts).
In Malaysia, raids were conducted in hotels to prevent couples engaging in unlawful sex.
But overall, Valentine’s Day celebration in the Muslim world is beginning to gain traction that “…the celebrations were so huge they were like the Islamic holiday Eid.”(Daniel Pipes, Middle East Forum, February 28, 2016.)
But nothing compares with the way Valentine’s Day is observed in the Philippines. It runs for three days. February 13 is spent with girlfriends, normally ending in an amorous dalliance with “the secretary” punctuated by a torrid tryst. February 15, the day after the nominal Valentine’s day is celebrated in the arms of the “kalaguyo,” the mistress or the “querida” in a secret “love nest” – especially if the illicit lothario happens to be a government bureaucrat with gray money to throw around. February 14, is of course, celebrated with the legitimate spouse. These three days will tax the man’s prowess – and he is expected to perform. This could be another of those Philippine legends and myths that the macho Pinoy raconteur loves to regale his friends.
For me, on February 14, I spend the day with my one and only legitimate and loving wife, Sylvia. Dinner probably with candlelight complete with red wine and soft music. But the day before, February 13, and the day after, February 15, I may spend with two other maidens, the gregarious Sylvie and reticent Claudia – in the true tradition of the macho Filipino.
But the rendezvous must be before evening falls, as they need to be in bed by 6:30p.m. Instead of wine, they will have to settle for their beverage of choice. Sylvie, three years, nine months, Claudia two years, three months, will need their warm bottles of milk.
Happy Valentine’s Day! “Onli en da Pilipins”
Thinking the way the bully wants
To this latest outrage, another demonstration of Xi Jinping’s contempt for compromise commitments his predecessors entered into with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Duterte administration offered … a collective shrug, combined with a finger pointed in the usual direction.
“If the Aquino administration was not able to do anything about these artificial islands, what [do] they want us to do? We cannot declare war — not only is it illegal, but it is also contrary — but it’s also … impossible for us to declare war at this point,” presidential spokesperson Harry Roque, once a credible lawyer with experience in human rights law and expertise in international law, told reporters.
Among many other dismaying statements he made, he also said this: “Our position is everything found on these islands were already there when the President took over. So let’s not talk of a militarization that happened under the Duterte administration, if there is such a militarization which China denies.”
He should have at least read the news report before opening his mouth. The story quoted Eugenio Bito-onon Jr., former mayor of Kalayaan town on Pag-asa Island, the largest part of the Spratlys occupied by the Philippines, thus: “I flew with HBO before the elections in 2016. We got repeated warnings from the Chinese because we were circling over the islands. I see there are now additional vertical features.”
To this categorical statement from someone who lives in the area, one can add any number of scholarly or intelligence assessments, including from independent institutions, which assert that the Chinese have not only aggressively reclaimed land in the seven reefs they occupy in the Spratlys, they have built military facilities on them.
Not even China denies that new facilities have been built that can be converted to military use; Beijing only denies that the new facilities are military in objective.
Why the official speaking on behalf of the President of the Philippines should prioritize what China says (“if there is such a militarization which China denies”) over the informed judgment of Filipino citizens and indeed of the Philippine military is a riddle.
Why that same official, a lawyer like the President he speaks for, would assert easily disprovable lies (“If the Aquino administration was not able to do anything”) is a mystery.
Why he would think that his answers, and the Philippine government’s position, meet the national interest (“let’s not talk of a militarization that happened under the Duterte administration”) is an enigma.
The truth is: Only Beijing thinks that the alternative is war. To be more precise, Beijing wants us to think that the only alternative to the current state of affairs is war.
President Duterte himself said so. Referring to Xi, China’s all-powerful leader, he said: “His response to me, ‘We’re friends, we don’t want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we’ll go to war.’”
Tellingly, no Chinese government agency ever denied or confirmed these remarks — and why would they? To hear the president of a sovereign state say these words is victory enough for the Chinese. If the only alternative is war, why would a small carabao butt heads with an enormous dragon?
But in fact, other alternatives exist.
The sweeping legal victory the Philippines won at the arbitral tribunal, in the case the previous administration filed, is proof that other options are available.
It is nothing short of tragic that the first administration to be led by a lawyer since Ferdinand Marcos’ does not believe in the efficacy of the law.
It would have taken time, but Manila stubbornly insisting on its rights recognized by the landmark ruling of July 12, 2016, would have had the support of many influential members of the international community.
Instead, we have the tragic spectacle of the President’s spokesperson, lying about the objective facts, blaming those who actually fought for the country’s best interest, and spreading China’s own black-and-white, war-or-else gospel.
History repeats itself, first as spectacle, then as capitulation.
The brass tacks on federalism
PIDS just released the discussion paper “Designing the Fiscal Features of a Federal Form of Government: Autonomy, Accountability, and Equity Considerations” by Dr. Rosario Manasan, its resident public finance expert who has studied government finances over the last four decades. The study merits the attention of all who would shape the fiscal configuration of the federal form of government now being pursued by our legislators, who have made the move toward amending the Constitution by themselves as a constituent assembly.
The fiscal federalism literature defines four important considerations pertaining to the fiscal configuration under a federal system: One, how must functions and corresponding expenditures be assigned between the national and subnational governments? Two, how should tax and revenue powers be delineated between the two (e.g., what kinds of taxes must be reserved for one or the other)? Three, what should be the nature of financial transfers from the national to the subnational government units? And four, what conditions should govern borrowing by the subnational units? Space constraints allow me only to touch on some of Manasan’s key points here; the full paper has to be read to grasp the rationale behind them.
Will Filipinos stand up for Ombudsman?
SINGAPORE — Deputy Ombudsman Melchor Arthur Carandang’s preventive suspension is genius. It is indubitably not legal. But it could be made legal.
In April 2010, Senior Insp. Rolando Mendoza held a bus of Hong Kong tourists at gunpoint. He asked to speak to then Deputy Ombudsman Emilio Gonzales III, before whom his case was pending.
He cursed him for extorting P150,000. He shot eight hostages.
In March 2011, President Benigno Aquino III removed Gonzales for “inordinate and unjustified delay.” Mendoza’s case was pending for nine months. (Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez resigned before her impeachment trial, replaced by just retired Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.)
Gonzales challenged Section 8(2) of the Ombudsman Act of 1989 allowing the president to remove a deputy ombudsman.
The Supreme Court’s 2012 Gonzales decision split 7-7, upholding Section 8(2) by default (but ruled 14-0 Aquino had no “substantial basis” to remove Gonzales).
The Constitution’s text and structure can collide with great intellectual beauty.
Renowned textualist Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio invoked the Constitution’s Article XI, Section 2: removal of all nonimpeachable officials is prescribed by law.
Since the deputy ombudsman is not impeachable and Congress passed Section 8(2), the high court must enforce it and not question its underlying policy.
Justice Arturo Brion countered, structurally, that the Ombudsman cannot be independent if her deputies can be removed by the president. When the Constitution was drafted, authors such as Christian Monsod emphasized insulating Ombudsman personnel from the president, given Marcos-era abuses.
On reconsideration in 2014, the high court revoted 8-7 that Section 8(2) is unconstitutional. Brion’s philosophy won by one vote.
In 2017, Carandang announced that bank accounts of President Duterte’s family showed tens of millions of pesos in transfers. He never elaborated.
The President never waived bank secrecy. The Anti-Money Laundering Council denied disclosing bank records.
Carandang was suspended for spreading false information. This time, Morales cited Gonzales and ignored the president’s order.
A new Supreme Court decision may reverse doctrine. But the Constitution requires an “actual case,” a real conflict to force the high court to rule again.
All bluster aside, this is why Carandang’s suspension is genius.
It is clearly illegal. But if one is ready to bear the consequences, this is in fact how to force the Supreme Court to revote Section 8(2), setting aside whether an unconstitutional provision still exists.
Remember, the Constitution itself does not explicitly say who may remove a deputy ombudsman.
Six from Team Carpio (including Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno) and five from Team Brion are still on the bench. If two new justices — Francis Jardeleza, Benjamin Caguioa, Samuel Martires, Noel Tijam — join Team Carpio, Section 8(2) could be legal again.
But I prefer a third theory: stability.
At some point, it is more important that a rule is clear and agreed than what the actual rule is.
Beyond politics, no dramatic change in our national values merits a revote after only four years. It is prudent to respect Gonzales given our many other legal dilemmas from martial law to Charter change. Worse, the perceived conflict of interest — precisely what Gonzales cautioned — is so great the President could end up wrong even if he is right.
Morales recounted to me how she indignantly became Ombudsman after a predecessor told her she was too old for the job. But she is far from too old to inspire millions of idealistic young Filipinos, including dozens of new Ombudsman lawyers. When our most beloved lola retires this July, a woke new generation honors her 47 years in government service.
Law ultimately turns on the conviction of the people who live by it.
The real question is: Can Morales’ adoring fans ever turn from crucial national issues, such as Isabelle Duterte’s debut, James Deakin’s video with Bongbong Marcos and whether Mayon volcano is in Naga, to ponder trivialities such as institutional independence and Morales’ legacy?
Is Manila still imperial to warrant federalism?
That was 1990. Note the major elements of the narrative: Marcoses, multitude of supporters. In 1990, many Filipinos had not learned their lessons from the profligacy of a family regime that thieved them of the basic necessities of life. Today, that is still where we are.
We often hear the idiom “Imperial Manila.” I live in Mindanao out of choice. Mindanao keeps me grounded. It is my lens of the world, and yet it has not narrowed my view of the world which I have traversed quite a fair number of times. The quality of life in Mindanao is nowhere near Manila’s harsh dog-eat-dog world. Mindanao is tranquility. I can create in it my center, not a margin.
What is the genesis of the term? When Manila inundated Mindanao with an ocean of migrants beginning in 1913, “colonies” were established. The first were in Pikit, Silik, Peidu-Pulangi, Pagalungan and Glan in Cotabato. The official language of that project was “to lead to an amalgamation and Filipinization of the Moros and pagans and thus remove the danger of a possible separation of Mindanao.”
That sounds bizarre. It meant Manila looked down upon Mindanao and that the standard of society was only Manila’s, medieval by today’s expansive global canons.
In 1926, the US Congress was deliberating on a bill authored by New York Republican Robert Bacon to separate Mindanao from Manila. The paramount leader of Cotabato, Datu Piang, wired Bacon gleefully: “Allow me to congratulate you on a bill for the separation of Mindanao from the government in Manila. Long have we hoped and long have we prayed that the people of the United States after conquering us would not turn us over to those who do not understand us.”
Was Datu Piang politically correct? Unlettered by Manila standards, he was. He had native intelligence. One’s culture and how it is received by the centers of power is a yardstick of the center’s bigotry.
Ninety-two years later, federalism echoes in the country stage-managed by a president who comes not from the imperial center but from remote (by Manila’s reckoning) Davao.
Is federalism the answer? That’s not the pivotal question. The more fundamental one is: Is Manila still imperial?
Our state formation in the last hundred years has in fact seen the fruitful export by Manila to the provinces of its devious political trade. What Manila has created—dynastic families—is now firmly entrenched in the country’s 42,036 barangays.
What used to be behind-the-scenes deceit Imperial Manila had generated among lawmakers is now successfully replicated in all our political centers. Why does one Cebu congresswoman walk and talk like a screaming poodle? No need to ask.
There is no more Imperial Manila; there is Imperial Manila all over the archipelago.
Rodrigo Duterte, locally bred from that same imperialist mold, was legally elected. But was the 16 million who elected him discerning of the oligarchic roots of his family and all it incriminates? The answer is no.
We must hark back to that victory party of Imelda. We elected a president from a city where the mayor, vice mayor, city councilor (January, Paolo’s second wife; yes, even with his resignation, his own nuclear family is still in power) are all Dutertes. Were there no other candidates who qualified? No, because we have not yet learned to discern evil from good governance. Dynasties and the wealth they generate from public office do not factor into our political morality.
If we replicate the fragmented polities where we used to be in the 14th century, then we must still be in the mind of the Dark Ages. Dynasties keep us in poverty. That singular point alone must keep us in sober assessment. We haven’t yet.
Filipino dynastic governing is being judged. The verdict cannot be federalism.
Uniwide owner sues its former execs, ex-Landbank officials
The owner of the Uniwide group has sued former senior executives of the once-lucrative retailer and former officials of the Land Bank of the Philippines for allegedly defrauding him of nearly P4 billion in assets.
In a complaint for qualified theft and estafa, businessman Jimmy Gow claimed that the unlawful acts of Jaime Cabangis as chief finance officer of Uniwide Holdings Inc. led to the company’s eventual bankruptcy.
Other respondents include Uniwide comptroller Corazon Rey, Monico Jacob, Cornelio Peralta and Arthur Aguilar.
Also impleaded were former Landbank chair Roberto de Ocampo, former Landbank president Margarito Teves and loan officer Peter Eymard Tamayo. —Marlon Ramos
Solon to Duterte: ‘Reveal China loan terms’
Opposition lawmaker Magdalo Rep. Gary Alejano has filed a House resolution calling on President Rodrigo Duterte to fully disclose the loan conditions for all projects under his much-touted “build, build, build” infrastructure program.
House Resolution No. 1612 “strongly urges” Mr. Duterte to disclose the loan terms to Congress “to promote transparency.”
The resolution, which mostly tackled Chinese loans, stressed the need to allow the House and the Senate to review and assess “the possible impacts of such loans to our debt-servicing capacity and national economy.”
Alejano described the so-called “Dutertenomics” as “fueled by such expensive loans mainly from China.”
Alejano noted that while the Duterte administration had revealed its dealings with Beijing for loans and investments, “it has been less transparent about the conditions and potential implications of these loans.”
“In light of a looming debt crisis, if such loans went unchecked, it is up to Congress and the people to put pressure on the administration to shine a light on such proceedings and open the loans up to sensible and informed governmental debate,” the resolution read.
Financial leverage
Alejano pointed out that the country risked “entering into debt bondage with its lenders, especially China.”
He said Beijing could use its “severe financial leverage” over the Philippines by strengthening its claims in the South China Sea.
“The loans could be utilized as a valuable weapon to erode Filipino sovereignty and the conditions of the loans used as a useful negotiating weapon to further Chinese territorial interests in the region,” the resolution read.
Ballooning debt
Alejano said the infrastructure program was expected to more than double the $123-billion national government debt to $290 billion, excluding interest.
If high interest rates are taken into account, the country’s debt could even reach “over a trillion US dollars in 10 years,” the resolution read.
Assuming that a 10-percent interest rate is imposed, the
national debt could reach $452 billion.
This would bring the country’s debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) ratio to 197 percent, the second worst in the world (in layman’s terms, this meant the debt is double the total value of all goods and services produced within the country).
Even if the loan interest was only 5 percent, Alejano claimed the debt would increase by $275 billion in 10 years and bring the debt-to-GDP ratio to 136 percent.
These figures were the same as those projected by political risk analyst Andres Corr in a Forbes article dated May 13, 2017.
Aside from loans from China, the resolution also mentioned “other potential lenders, such as Japan.”
Solon wants pork cut out of draft Constitution
In a statement, Colmenares on Sunday slammed a House of Representatives subcommittee proposal that would “enshrine” pork barrel in the proposed federal Constitution.
Budget share
Colmenares zeroed in on the proposal to allocate an “annual share” in the state and federal budgets to each district, as well as the senators and the party-list groups.
The proposal came from the subcommittee chaired by Davao Oriental Rep. Corazon Nuñez-Malanyaon.
“It is clear from the provision that an ‘amount’ will be allocated to each senator, each party-list congressman as well as district congressmen,” said Colmenares, who now chairs Bayan Muna.
He said getting some of the supposed pork barrel funds from the federal states’ budgets would defeat the purpose of shifting to federalism.
“Federalism is supposed to disperse funds from the national government to the regions and provinces, but this reverses that purpose,” he said.
Unconstitutional
Colmenares also said the proposal was meant to reverse the Supreme Court’s Nov. 19, 2013, ruling declaring unconstitutional the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and similar mechanisms that allowed legislators to intervene in the postenactment stage of the budget.
No need to hide
“If this (amendment of the Constitution) succeeds, there is no need to hide pork barrel in the departments since the new Constitution allows it,” he said.
Recalling the pork barrel scam in which legislators allegedly diverted P10 billion in PDAF proceeds to bogus foundations, Colmenares said: “[Charter change] proponents would like to constitutionalize a system that drains public funds to corruption.”
Imperial Manila becomes the Evil Empire
Proponents of federalization have repeatedly said their goal is to end the domination of Imperial Manila in our unitary system of government. Federalization will indeed eliminate Imperial Manila, but it will be replaced by the Evil Empire.
History has shown that when a federation is formed with states of disparate sizes, the wealthiest state dominates. An extreme example was Prussia, which had two-thirds of the territory of the old German Confederation, so whatever Prussia wanted, it got. The Allies dismantled Prussia at the end of World War II to prevent this dominance. In Canada, the Ontario-Quebec partnership has dictated the policies of the Canadian Confederation since its inception in 1867. The Soviet Union was dismantled in 1991 by its three most advanced republics—Ukraine, Byelorussia and Russia.
Nevertheless, the proponents of federalization will do just that: Create a federation with big disparities in wealth among the member-states. A partnership between the National Capital Region and Calabarzon will clone the Ontario-Quebec partnership that has resulted in a weak Canadian central government. Just the NCR alone, with its output estimated at more than 50 percent of our gross domestic product, can transform itself from Imperial Manila into Evil Empire by cloning Singapore.
Lee Kuan Yew had an easy task in modernizing Singapore because it is a city-state. A city-state does not have problems of insurgency. Third World insurgencies are caused by poverty in the countryside. The shantytowns in Third World cities are produced by migrants from the rural areas flocking to the urban centers in search of a better life. A city-state thus saves the resources that would be used to fight insurgency and devotes these to development. The compact area of a city-state also means less outlay for infrastructure. Transmission of government communications and policies is fast and effective, without some remote communities left out of the system.
If Metro Manila does not get its way in the proposed federation and decides to secede, it becomes a ready-made Singapore. The NCR will be able to retain all the taxes it collects for its own benefit rather than keep sending a portion of it to subsidize the impoverished states. By declaring its independence, it will be able to stop the endless migration of poor folk from the rural areas. In a short time, because it has the resources, it will be able to eliminate the shantytowns. A low birth rate in the NCR means that it can devote sufficient resources to providing high-quality education to its constituents and quickly transform itself into a First World country like Singapore. Staying within the union will mean the NCR perpetually sharing the poverty of the rest of the country.
The proposed Philippine Federation cannot be a viable entity if the NCR secedes. Since the NCR will have adequate resources, its federal police will be better armed than the police forces of the other member-states. In short, the federal government will not be in a position to use force to keep the NCR in the federation.
And keeping the NCR in the federation will come at a steep price. It will stay only if it becomes the master of the federation, in the same manner that Prussia dictated the policies of the German Confederation. The gap between the wealth of Manila and the rest of the country will grow rather than diminish. Thus, Imperial Manila becomes the Evil Empire in the Philippine Federation.
For a federal system to work in the country, the citizens and the politicians they elect must put the interest of the federation above the interest of a member-state. That is a pipe dream; even now, our loyalty is to family first before Madre Filipinas. Thus, federalization means we maintain a union dominated by an Evil Empire, or we balkanize our country.
Hermenegildo C. Cruz holds a degree in international development jointly conferred by Tufts and Harvard Universities. A retired ambassador, he was posted to Canada, the United States and the Soviet Union and was able to observe “the complexity of running a federal system of government.”
The 25-man consultative committee and the Centrist position
Ostensibly, this will advance the move by DU30 to put in play a major election pledge. But behind the platitudes are the details, where the devil resides. The delicate issues range from the political structure to the economic underpinnings of the revised constitution and perforce the profile of the coming Philippine Republic.
What we have today
“The Philippines is a sovereign state governed as a single entity. The central government is supreme and the administrative division or local government units exercise only powers that the central government has delegated to them. Central government is therefore ultimately the source of power (upon the consent of the governed) and can choose to delegate, decentralize and devolve powers but can unilaterally revoke or take them back.
What we want
“We also want a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary government. Briefly, Parliamentary system is known too as “Party Government”, as the political parties have ascendancy over personalities and because of the pivotal role of political parties in parliamentary elections, governance and public administrations. In our proposal, the legislative and the executive powers are fused in a unicameral parliament. The “Head of the Government” is the Prime Minister with his cabinet recruited from among the members of Parliament, while the President is the “Head of State” and Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces. He is elected from among the members of Parliament. The Prime Minister (Head of Government) can be booted out of office through a “vote of no confidence, not impeachment.”
But before all of these must come to pass, and during the actual revision of the 1987 Constitution, the Centrist Democratic Party (CDP) and its political institute (CDPI) proposes three steps:
Step 2. Right after the plebiscite in May 2019, transit immediately into a parliamentary government, also known as “party government” because of the pivotal role of political parties. The “newness” of this governmental form may take more time for calibration for our institutions and our leaders to acclimatize to this new political regimen.
By the time the President steps down in 2022, the parliamentary government will be in place. The head of government will be chosen by virtue of the political party majority or through party coalitions. The president or head of state will be elected from among the members of parliament.
Categories
Archives
Comments
-
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've…
Written by Merrill
on Thursday, 24 March 2016 12:35
Incompetence Kills
(LML Polettiques)
Newsletter Subscription
PARTNERS:
Contact Us
+63 (02) 470-9076 Pasig
F. Torres Street Corner Jacinto Extension,
Davao City, 8000 Philippines
Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
