CHA-CHA or the other way around?

INTRODUCTION.
Before laying down my views of whether or not the change of the Constitution is necessary or beneficial to the country, or others may call it as CHA-CHA, I will first defined and laid out the great importance of the Constitution in our country.

CONSTITUTION DEFINED.

That body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised [Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, p.4]

THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law [Cruz, Isagani A., “Constitutional Law” (2003 ed.].

CHARTER CHANGE or "cha-cha" in the Philippines.
Refers to the political and other related processes involved in amending or revising the current 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. Under the current constitution there are three modes of which it could be amended: people's initiative (PI), constituent assembly and constitutional convention. All three would lead to a referendum wherein the proposed amendment/s or revision/s has to be approved by the majority of Filipinos in order to be adopted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Philippines_charter_ change).

MY VIEWS.
Based on the laid information, I don’t believe that there is a need to change the Constitution. Leading countries in the world like France and United States never change their Constitution since from the beginning, but still these countries lead the world politically and economically. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the product of the past revisions and ammendments of the prior Constitutions, it undergoes series of modifications that suit the type of belief and culture among Filipinos. Historically, CHA-CHA was shut down by the Supreme Court in the following cases:

- Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106
- Pirma v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129754
- Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160

So, NO to CHA-CHA, let us protect and guard our Constitution against those people who think of their personal interest alone without thinking the many issues / problems to be resolved first in our country.

BETWEEN THE GIANTS....

THE 3rd PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE OF OBAMA and McCAIN

WHO SHOULD BE???

Freedom of thought and of expression is the very soul of democracy – so much so that one cannot exist without the other. It is for this reason that many types of contest debates and public discussion have been evolved in many institutions of learning around the world. Lately, the 3rd US Presidential Debate caught the eyes of the many peoples around the world since US is one of the globally leading country today in which others looked up to as their model. The said 3rd Presidential Debate was moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS with the country’s presidentiables, Senator Jhon McCain and Senator Barrack Obama. As they started, they were given one (1) question which to be answered at a time among the two debaters. The following were the total ten (10) questions:

- Why is Your Economic Plan Better Than Your Opponent’s?
- How would You Cut Spending?
- Can you balance the Budget in Four Years?
- Are you Willing to Say Face-to-Face What Your Campaigns Have Said About Your Opponent?
- Why Would the Country Be Better Off If Your Running Mate Became President?
- How much Can U.S. Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil?
- Do You Favor Controlling Health Care Costs Over Expanding Coverage?
- Could You Nominate a Supreme Court Justice Who Differs With Your View on Rose v. Wade?
- Does Poor Performance in School Pose a Threat to National Security?
- Should Federal Government Play a Larger Role in Education?

In each given question, the candidate gave his stand on the issue. Then, the other would be free to argue his opponent’s answer. The entire event gave a view of how the two presidentiables carry their selves on the questions raised. Nevertheless, there were many instances when McCain displayed his aggressive manner in answering the questions; and plenty of situations where Obama manifested calmness over the issue.

Based from my readings and as audience of certain debates, I believe that the 3rd Presidential Debate did not have the formal contest form. The said US Presidential Debate had no similarities in format with the different common types of contest debates. To mention, there were plenty of issues / questions raised to the candidates; when in fact, there should only be one issue. Added to that, there were no affirmative nor negative side was assigned / clarified; and each of them is free to argue the answer of the other without giving the appropriate guidelines of who will give first the interpellation nor the rebuttal speech. Since the said debate did not have the formal contest form in structure, therefore, the 3rd US Presidential debate was only one of the many types of public discussion wherein the candidate were given the appropriate time of laying their views on the current US issues and problems. It is the time that each of them can convince and persuade freely their answers to the audience.

ARGUMENTATION...

Argumentation defined.

Argumentation is generally defined as " the art of influencing others, through the medium of reasoned discourse, to believe or act as we wish them to believe or act."

It is the process of influencing the belief or behavior of a hearer or reader, through spoken or written speech, by supplying him with reasons and stirring his feelings.

In argumentation, the medium is either the written or the spoken word and the opposing speakers may not be in each other's presence.

The Two Methods of Approach in the Work of Argumentation.

1. Conviction. The appeal to reason.

The phase of argumentation whereby the arguer directs his words to the reasoning faculty of man.

Purpose: To create belief, or intellectual agreement.

2. Persuasion. The appeal to the emotions, to the feelings, to the will.

The phase of argumentation whereby the disputant directs his words to the heart, to the feelings, to the sentiments, to the emotions.

Purpose: To stir those one desires to influence to act in the way one wishes them to act