If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Aquilino Pimentel III was hardpressed in defending himself with the political dynasty issue being raised by certain quarters. The same issue was raised at last week’s Forum 2007.
The Constitution calls for the Congress to pass a law banning political dynasties. As Article II, Section 26 states:
The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
My position on this issue is here.
His position is that as long as there is no law, political dynasty is not an issue. Cute.
Aside from motherhood statements (don’t they all give statements like that), his answer to a certain query jives with my position on EDSA II. When asked about EDSA II, he said that the logical conclusion would have been for Estrada to resign. He also took potshots at the constructive resignation doctrine, which for me is an unsound and indefensible one. It is a mistake that history will have to judge. Soon.
At the very least, he held himself better than Joker Arroyo and Zosimo Paredes.
Like my article? Leave a tip! Or, treat me to a cup of coffee!
Loading ...
Actually, I tend to view political dynasty in a local level. It is rampant in the local than national level. I also look beyond the name and judge the person by his credentials. I believe that the Pimentels and Cayetanos are victims of circumstance. Corruption is rampant at the local level where checks and balances are almost non-existent. Cases can be covered up and easily forgotten at this level than in the senate where everyone is exposed to the public.
If I may add, the senate has a national constituency where patronage cannot apply whereas in the congress, little fiefdoms are created and voters tend to patronize the powerful.
political dynastyism, even if lacking in definition under the law, is not without thoughtful and deep comprehension.
if by virtue of family name, connections and machinery; a person will run for a public office even though himself and his family knows there are people who know are more qualified and more deserving to seek that same office, then he is a political opportunist, plain and simple.
in our country the brilliant people who are without funds, do not have a chance in seeking public office. the political parties who are supposed to promote these individuals have failed.
a person who have a good sense of fairness will put his own ambitions on the side and simply support or even promote the most qualified individuals.
Hi, Schumey, political dynasty is not bad per se. Actually, I am against it because it is in the Constitution. In the end, however, the voters will choose who they want, so whether a candidate is from a political family doesn’t matter. That is, assuming that the elections are clean.
Hi, Troy, I agree, specially with your last paragraph.