Basaang Pambansa

I was watching JDV's press conference at ANC this morning when Renato Constantino, Jr. (RC) stood up and berated the House leadership for their gall. RC, who was last associated with Sanlakas, calls himself a "retired activist" and private citizen who just wants to air his views. JDV then told him to stop since the presscon wasn't the "proper" place to air grievances. Which actually makes it the perfect place to air grievances, especially for someone like RC, whose statements wont get much press mileage unless he has a large group backing him up or a controversy surrounding him. Lacking the former he went for the latter.

What made it all the more memorable was Vic Agustin who dumped water on Constantino as he was being escorted out. Agustin, who writes the "Cocktales" column for the Inquirer (He spells it that way. I'm not implying anything, just sayin... :) ), is the Dolly Anne Carvajal of the business world. He hangs out at country clubs and hotel lobbies to gather gossip regarding takeovers and mergers and the like and isn't above maligning people by dropping nasty hints. He has the journalistic ethics of a tabloid showbiz reporter and, if we are to believe rumors, gets paid by this administration to spread good PR.

Inq7 Pic: Nerdfight!



Of course what he did was utterly pointless. JDV was trying to save (his very thick) face by saying "pagbibigyan namin yung Con-Con." RC was trying to build a soapbox to stand on (KSP, literally). Agustin just succeeded in being an ass.

* * * * *

The scary part is that people are missing the point. They want to change the Constitution and we're not sure what exactly they want changed.

The brazenness and utter disregard for checks and balances with which the Con-Ass resolution was steamrolled shocked everyone to the point that a Con-Con sounds more inviting. It looks like the more rational approach to changing the Constitution; an approach that encourages maximum participation and representation. But no one is asking the question:  do we even need to change it?

When was this agreed upon? We're bleeding money and what they want is to spend more changing a document that doesn't need fixing? No one has come up with a convincing argument for changing the Constitution. Everytime the idea is discussed the focus turns to the process, conveniently forgetting to justify the change in the first place.

For once I'm gunning for status quo.