[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’ VIEWPOINTS ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY OSCAR CRUZ
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
AUTHORITY and power, primacy and supremacy, ascendancy and dominion – such are the common understandings of the reality of Sovereignty.
The one with ruling predominance and in possession of command, the one in tenure of supreme control and dominion – such are the standard attributions of a Sovereign. And such is the fundamental significance and implications of Article II, Section I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from the people.”
Who is the Chief Executive in the Philippines? Who are the sitting members of the Legislative Department? Who are the supreme constituents of the Judicial Department? These are directly or indirectly, nationally or locally elected by the sovereign people of this country.
From the above-quoted constitutional provision and its basic consequences, rather relevant and respectful questions can be asked such that reasonable and tenable answers thereto are also required in the interests of objective truth, real justice and tenable peace.
Question 1: What if the candidates for election are in fact and in truth incompetent for the elective offices they are aspiring for?
This question is rather realistic, not merely theoretical. So it is that a big number of elected public officials – particularly in the Senate and Congress – are usually but spectators if not frequently absent during sessions as a matter of course.
Question 2: Why is it that no psychological tests of any kind, with the proper IQ result, is required among those running for political offices?
If psychological tests of one kind or another are required from those applying for professional ventures as well as for vocational aspirations, why is there nothing at all for those presenting themselves for elective public Offices?
Question 3: Why is it that elections for national, regional and local positions are by and large popularity contests instead of the personal attributions of the candidates?
When someone is known for dynastic reason, for sports ventures, for movie appearances and the like, the same has a much bigger chance of winning the elections instead of those capable for the elective political Offices concerned.
Question 4: What if a candidate has and in effect uses his/her wealth, work on their dubious connections and errant influence precisely to win the elective position they desire?
This question becomes truly relevant when through no fault of their own, a relatively big number of electors in the country wallow in poverty plus their lack of objective knowledge on the what and why of the candidates.
Question 5: What if the elections are rigged one way or another such that after all investigations and inquiries are done, the unelected candidate still assumes the office they covet?
Electoral cheating – particularly through manipulation of the electorate plus the further manipulation of election machines – appears to have become the norm in this country before, during and after the elections.
Sovereignty resides in the people?/PN