COMMENTS: PROPOSED CHARTER CHANGE

I think filipinos in general does not want a new set of laws replacing the old governing Constitution. They are tired and sick of those capricious and personal interest of the lawmakers, There is no need to change the Constitution considering the condition that we are experiencing either with regards to economic and political settings. 2010 election is approaching and there is no doubt that some prominent candidates were preserving there assets and weapons especially the candidates from the senate. obvioslly these people won't allow a sudden change in the Constitution because they are afraid that certain changes might involve extension of term in the current administration run by Pres. Arroyo. so they oppossed vigorioslly expressing there nays to such changes. So theres is no way a change minght be achieve as what the Congress are expecting for almost all of the Senators are not in the affirmative. However if we believe that such changes will bring prosperity and improvements let us examine the effects first. Congress are planning to have changes in the economic provisions in the Constitution, they said it is so strict and limited. Thus there planning to eliminate the limitations to foriegners in terms of investment and property ownership. I think these is not a good idea for Filipino people will be the one to suffer the consequence. backlash will be on our side if these will happen for it will not only kill the small traders but the entire Philippine economy.

CASE DIGEST - AKBAYAN VS. AQUINO

Facts: The signing of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) at the sidelines of the Asia-Europe Summit in Helsinki in September 2006 was hailed by both Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a “milestone in the continuing cooperation and collaboration, setting a new chapter of strategic partnership for mutual opportunity and growth (for both countries).”
JPEPA which has been referred to as a ‘mega treaty’ is a comprehensive plan for opening up of markets in goods and services as well as removing barriers and restrictions on investments. It is a deal that encompasses even our commitments to the WTO.
The complexity of JPEPA became all the more evident at the Senate hearing conducted by the Committee on Trade and Commerce last November 2006. The committee, chaired by Senator Mar Roxas, heard differing views and perspectives on JPEPA. On one hand the committee heard Government’s rosy projections on the economic benefits of JPEPA and on the other hand the views of environmental and trade activists who raised there very serious concerns about the country being turned into Japan’s toxic waste basket. The discussion in the Senate showed that JPEPA is not just an issue concerning trade and economic relations with Japan but one that touches on broader national development concerns.

Issues:

1. Do the therein petitioners have standing to bring this action for mandamus in their capacity as citizens of the Republic, as taxpayers, and as members of the Congress

2. Can this Honorable Court exercise primary jurisdiction of this case and take cognizance of the instant petition.

3. Are the documents and information being requested in relation to the JPEPA exempted from the general rules on transparency and full public disclosure such that the Philippine government is justified in denying access thereto.

Rulings:

The Supreme Court en banc promulgated last July 16, 2008 its ruling on the case of “Akbayan Citizens Action Party et al vs. Thomas G. Aquino et al” (G.R. No. 170516). The Highest Tribunal dismissed the Petition for mandamus and prohibition, which sought to compel respondents Department of Trade Industry (DTI) Undersecretary Thomas Aquino et al to furnish petitioners the full text of the Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement (JPEPA) and the lists of the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and annexes thereto.


In its Decision, the Court noted that the full text of the JPEPA has been made accessible to the public since 11 September 2006, and thus the demand to be furnished with copy of the said document has become moot and academic. Notwithstanding this, however, the Court lengthily discussed the substatives issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners' demand for access to the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.

The Court held: “Applying the principles adopted in PMPF v. Manglapus, it is clear that while the final text of the JPEPA may not be kept perpetually confidential – since there should be 'ample opportunity for discussion before [a treaty] is approved' – the offers exchanged by the parties during the negotiations continue to be privileged even after the JPEPA is published. It is reasonable to conclude that the Japenese representatives submitted their offers with the understanding that 'historic confidentiality' would govern the same. Disclosing these offers could impair the ability of the Philippines to deal not only with Japan but with other foreign governments in future negotiations.”

It also reasoned out that opening for public scrutiny the Philippine offers in treaty negotiations would discourage future Philippine representatives from frankly expressing their views during negotiations. The Highest Tribunal recognized that treaty negotiations normally involve a process of quid pro quo, where negotiators would willingly grant concessions in an area of lesser importance in order to obtain more favorable terms in an area of greater national interest.

In the same Decision, the Court took time to address the dissent of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno. It said: “We are aware that behind the dissent of the Chief Justice lies a genuine zeal to protect our people's right to information against any abuse of executive privilege. It is a zeal that We fully share. The Court, however, in its endeavour to guard against the abuse of executive privilege, should be careful not to veer towards the opposite extreme, to the point that it would strike down as invalid even a legitimate exercise thereof.”
Rulings:

FINAL DEBATE

FINAL DEBATE Obama vs Mc cain

Watching there video on youtube is facinating and listening to every words they say is quite inspiring. I think every electoral candidates has his own phrase and lines to describe his platform and the kind of adminstration he envisioned. Obama during the debate claims that his policies and concerns are more accurate in terms of providing the american citizen a better option with respect to economic, tax, education, health care benifits, and enerygy policies were explained in a simple and clear statement,which for me is more appealing. On the other hand Sen. Mc cain is much more of an agrressive type of debater, he first initiate an attack on Obama's platform and its campaign citing numerous allegations on Obama's mistakes and lapses in the past. It seems to me that Obama is the much more convincing in his statements in answering the issues trown to him. he backed it with reliable facts citing research, surveys, reports and other reliable facts. Mc cain's argument has no standing, he's basis of reasonings is Obama's strenght. Every time he (Mc cain) attacks it turns out he's in the loosing end because the issues he trow to he's rival are of no strong source as if it were just heresay. So that's why i go for Obama as a winner of this dabate.

ARGUMENTATION-A process of reasoning, or a controversy made up of rational proofs,discussions,disputations.
= Reasoning or expressed in words,to induce belief.-Matter for questions,business in hand.-The independent variable upon whose value of a function depends.
ARGUMENTS= What they are,How to make them and How to avoid making bad ones-Class Objectives ABLE TO: Choose an effective topic>Identify the parts of an argument is valid or sound.>List and explain major logical fallacies.>Demonstrate how arguments are organized in parts.
ARGUMENTS has two parts :
CLAIM (aka position or conclusion)>The claim that arguer wants to defendEVIDENCE (aka premises)>Statements that give reason of support."WHAT DOES THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS A RETURN TO THE CONCEPT OF SWIFT AND CERTAIN JUSTICE. IF WE NEED MORE COURTS,JUDGES AND PRISONS. SO BE IT.STAND AS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. I SAY LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME" JOHN PEARSON
(EXAMPLE OF EVIDENCE) "WHEN INDIVIDUALS VOLOUNTARILY ABANDON PROPERTY,THEY FORFEIT ANY EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN IT THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD.
(EXAMPLE OF CLAIM) THEREFORE A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OR SEIZURE OF ABANDONED PROPERTY IS NOT UNREASONABLE UNDER THE 4TH AMENDMENT"EVIDENCE- Statement that gives reason for support ORGANIZING A PROPOSAL ARGUMENT.
1.Present the problem that needs to be solve.>A.Describe the problem B.Provide a history for the problem C. Argue that the problem can be solve,but dont solve it yet.2.Present the proposal A.Present your claim (thesis).>B.Explain the specifics of the proposal.>C.Explain the specifics of the proposal.3.provide a summary of the opposing viewpoints.>A. Counter argue (this section can summarize opposing solutions and discuss why they arent valid)4.Justification: convince the reader that the proposal should be adopted>A. Solution is feasible: Reason 1 is presented and developed.>B.Solution solves the problem: Reason 2 is presented and developed>C. Solution is the best solution: Reason 3 presented and developed etc..5.Conclusion>A.Restate your proposed solution>B.Summarize main arguments>C.Entice your readers to act.PREPARING TO WRITE AN ARGUMENT(http/www.slide share.net/remnil argumentation)TOPIC: >Select one: What are you passionate about>Ponder all sides: What is your purpose.PERSPECTIVE: >Select one what is your claim? your position?>Take a stand and begin articulating itEVIDENCE: >Gather examples and support. Do you need a statistics? anecdotes?authoritative sources?COUNTER ARGUMENT: >Identify and understand it.>Put yourself in the other sides shoes.>Know how to refute it.Can you do it ethically?

Rhetoric Arguments

RHETORIC ARGUMENTS
(http//www.slide share.net/nskarns/rhetoric-The art of study of using language effectively and persuasively.-A treatise or book discussing this art.-A style of speaking,writing especially the language of a particular subject.-Language that i elaborate pretentions,insincere,or intellectually vacuous.-Verbal communication discourse-Study of the technique and rules for using language effectiveTHE THREE MAIN PARTS OF RHETORICAL ARGUMENTS A-INVENTION=Includes subject matter with identifying the matter at hand.And the ability to persuade the audience."The means of persuasion includes first direct evidence,which is witnesses and contracts.Which the speakers 'uses' but does not invent.Second 'artistic means of persuasion,which include the presentation of the speaker's character as a trustworthy,logical,logical argument that may convince the audience and the pathos or the emotion that the speaker can awaken the audience.The artistic means of persuasion utilize 'topics' which are ethical or political premises on which argument can be built or are logical strategies such as arguing from cause to effect.-ARRANGEMENT=means the organization of a speech into parts.through the order on which the arguments is presented.The arrangement should include an introduction,narration, proof and conclusion.-STYLE=Is how the speaker says the material. There are two parts to style the 'diction' or the choice of words or the composition, 'the putting together of words intosentences which include periodic sentences,structure,prose,rhythm and figures of speech.

Tree of Rhetoric

TREE OF RHETORIC
LOGOS (LOGICAL)CAUSE/EFFECT:>If we start school late,students will learn more.DEDUCTIVE REASONING: Reasons from principles.INDUCTIVE REASONING: Reasons from experience.STATISTICS: EXAMPLE > 3% OUT OF 10% OF WOMEN ADOPTING BIRTH CONTROL.CONTRADICTIONS: Finding logical holes in the opposite argument.>EXAMPLE: "People who are against later school times say that early start allow students more time to study,but whats stopping them from studying in the morning?"PATHOS (EMOTIONAL)>The use of emotional arguments to persuade and convince.>Appeals to negative emotions,fears,discrimination,revenge.ETHOS (CREDIBILITY)>Persuading by convincing the audience that the speaker is worth listening to.

Argumentation and Persuation

ARGUMENTATION AND PERSUATION
ARGUMENTATION PERSUASIONBY:maria keckler (http//www..net/mkeckler)>Appeals to reason >Involves emotional language>Makes logical connections >Appeals to readers:supported by evidence -concerns-beliefs-values>When argumentation and persuasion blend in an ethical manner,emotional appeal supports rather than replaces logicand sound reasoning.PURPOSE:>Inspire change or action>Challenge belief>Inspire thoughts and awareness

The Toulmin Model Asserts

The Toulmin model asserts that most arguments consist of the following 6 parts:
We can also identify 3 other important parts of an argument
Assumptions Counter-examples Implications
Counter-arguments
The Toulmin Model
Claim: the position or claim being argued for; the conclusion of the argument.
Grounds: reasons or supporting evidence that bolster the claim.
Warrant: the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim.
Backing: support, justification, reasons to back up the warrant.
Rebuttal/Reservation: exceptions to the claim; description and rebuttal of counter-examples and counter-arguments.
Qualification: specification of limits to claim, warrant and backing. The degree of conditionality asserted.
Warrants/General Strategies of Argument
Warrants are chains of reasoning that connect the claim and evidence/reason. A warrant is the principle, provision or chain of reasoning that connects the grounds/reason to the claim. Warrants operate at a higher level of generality than a claim or reason, and they are not normally explicit.
Example: “Needle exchange programs should be abolished [claim] because they only cause more people to use drugs.” [reason]The unstated warrant is: “when you make risky behavior safer you encourage more people to engage in it.”
There are 6 main argumentative strategies via which the relationship between evidence and claim are often established. They have the acronym “GASCAP.”
Generalization
Analogy
Sign
Causality
Authority
Principle
These strategies are used at various different levels of generality within an argument, and rarely come in neat packages - typically they are interconnected and work in combination.
Common Warrants
1. Argument based on GeneralizationA very common form of reasoning. It assumes that what is true of a well chosen sample is likely to hold for a larger group or population, or that certain things consistent with the sample can be inferred of the group/population.
2. Argument based on AnalogyExtrapolating from one situation or event based on the nature and outcome of a similar situation or event. Has links to 'case-based' and precedent-based reasoning used in legal discourse. What is important here is the extent to which relevant similarities can be established between 2 contexts. Are there sufficient, typical, accurate, relevant similarities?
3. Argument via Sign/ClueThe notion that certain types of evidence are symptomatic of some wider principle or outcome. For example, smoke is often considered a sign for fire. Some people think high SAT scores are a sign a person is smart and will do well in college.
4. Causal ArgumentArguing that a given occurrence or event is the result of, or is effected by, factor X. Causal reasoning is the most complex of the different forms of warrant. The big dangers with it are:
Mixing up correlation with causation
Falling into the post hoc, ergo propter hoc trap. Closely related to confusing correlation and causation, this involves inferring 'after the fact, therefore because of the fact').
5. Argument from AuthorityDoes person X or text X constitute an authoritative source on the issue in question? What political, ideological or economic interests does the authority have? Is this the sort of issue in which a significant number of authorities are likely to agree on?
6. Argument from PrincipleLocating a principle that is widely regarded as valid and showing that a situation exists in which this principle applies. Evaluation: Is the principle widely accepted? Does it accurately apply to the situation in question? Are there commonly agreed on exceptions? Are there 'rival' principles that lead to a different claim? Are the practical consequences of following the principle sufficiently desirable?
Rebuttals and Main/Faulty/Return Paths Unlike many forms of writing, academic arguments will often include discussions of possible objections and counterarguments to the position being advanced. Academic arguments typically take place in disciplinary communities in which a variety of competing or divergent positions exist. When preparing to 'speak' to the community by writing an argument, writers are aware of the arguments against which they must build their claims, and of the counterarguments which are likely to emerge. Dealing with counterarguments and objections is thus a key part of the process of building arguments, refining them, interpreting and analyzing them. There are several main reasons for introducing counterarguments and objections.
1. It demonstrates that the author is aware of opposing views, and is not trying to 'sweep them under the table'. It thus is more likely to make the writer's argument seem 'balanced' or 'fair' to readers, and as a consequence be persuasive.
2. It shows that the writer is thinking carefully about the responses of readers, anticipating the objections that many readers may have. Introducing the reader to some of the positions opposed to your own, and showing how you can deal with possible objections can thus work to 'inoculate' the reader against counterarguments.
3. By contrasting one's position with the arguments or alternative hypotheses one is against, one clarifies the position that is being argued for.
When dealing with objections or counterarguments, authors tend to take one of 3 approaches.
Strategic concession: acknowledgment of some of the merits of a different view. In some cases, this may mean accepting or incorporating some components of an authors' argument, while rejecting other parts of it.
Refutation: this involves being able to show important weaknesses and shortcomings in an opponent's position that demonstrate that his/her argument ought to be rejected.
Demonstration of irrelevance: showing that the issue in question is to be understood such that opposing views, while perhaps valid in certain respects, do not in fact meet the criteria of relevance that you believe define the issue