Bomb attack on Cotabato

City cathedral kills five, hurts 29

Five people were killed and 29 others injured in a bomb attack on a Roman Catholic church in
Cotabato City on Sunday morning, officials said.

The death toll rose after hospital officials confirmed that one of the injured, identified as Elmer
Noble, succumbed to severe injuries hours after the blast.

The improvised explosive device (IED) went off at a lechon (roasted pig) house in front of the
Immaculate Concepcion Cathedral along Quezon Avenue at around 8:50 a.m., the Cotabato City
police said.

The explosion took place just as people were leaving the Church after the second Mass, which
ended at around 8:45 a.m.

Officials earlier said two of the victims were killed on the spot. One was identified as Ruby
Ramirez, 43, of Philippine Trade in Barangay Bulalo in Sultan Kudarat town in Maguindanao
and owner of LC Omega Lechon Haus where the explosive was planted. The other was
unidentified and known only to be mentally ill.

Two of the victims died at the Cotabato City Emergency and Medical Specialist Hospital not
long after the blast. One was identified as Prince Salem Cang Diaz, grand son of Patricio Diaz,
former editor-in-chief of Cotabato-based The Mindanao Cross. The other was known only as
Paulo Kahar.

Noble, the fifth fatality, was a 32-year-old member of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical
Unit (Cafgu), officials said. He died at the Cotabato Regional and Medical Center (CRMC).

Among those injured who were taken to the CRMC along Sinsuat Avenue were Jay C. Cergas,
29; his wife, Priscilyn, 27; and 3-year old son Vincent Jay.

The others were identified as Datu Manod Abedin; Nestor Luna, 29; Rey Silo Callado, 38;
Rosita Echavez; Sonny Ilian; Purificacion Alviar; Rodrigo Ominga; Mado Guiamad; Jocelyn
Abdulla, 38; Ferdinand Benora, 27; Gramatica Purling; Mohammad Tipadan; Maricel Escanel,
29; Jerrimae Dapilan, 18; Junreil Sayre, 9; Danisa Sayre, 11; Joeffrey Sayre, 1; Giovanni
Lomigcit, 19; Jayvil Joy Caida, 13; and Sgt. Freddie Millan, a CAFGU commander.
Six victims who were rushed to the Cotabato City Emergency and Medical Specialist were
identified as Aldrian Sinapilo, Amilil Kahabudin, Torla Arliechos, Jun Parcon, Weng Garcia,
and Zacaria Ampang.

Authorities arrested a still unidentified male they suspected to be the attacker, minutes after the
blast, according to Cotabato City Mayor Muslimin Sema.
What are the disadvantages of Charter
Change to the poor Filipino people?
The more I try to understand the so-called Philippine charter change debate, the more I realize
that it is not a debate at all. The two sides are not talking about the same things, so there is no
way of really weighing one side against the other. According to the pro charter change side, the
shift to the unicameral-parliamentary system would streamline government, spur development,
and make the country overcome corruption. The opponents of charter change point out to the so-
called transitory provisions which provide for a concentration of power in the present president,
the automatic extension of the terms of elected officials till 2010 (when many terms would have
expired in 2007), and the concentration of power on the present legislators from the Senate and
the House of Representatives.

On what, at first glance, is a side issue, there seems to at least be two sides. This is the issue of
the national patrimony provisions. The charter change proposals of the House of Representatives
and that of the Consultative Commission (ConCom) clearly want to open up ownership of land,
natural resources, public utilities and mass media to foreigners, because according to them, this
will result in national development etc. And of course, the opponents of charter change are
saying that this will complete the sell-off of our national patrimony to foreigners, and that these
steps will not result in economic gains for the country.

This clash on the issue of national patrimony is, in a sense, overblown. After all, hasn’t the
present government already found ways to circumvent constitutional restrictions in order to get
foreigners to operate and lease utilities and mining concessions? The thing that is now limiting
the entry of foreign mining companies in the Philippines is the opposition from the Catholic
church hierarchy, and not the Constitution. And I very much doubt whether opening up what
little is still closed to foreign investment would spur economic development.

Thus, we are now saddled with a charter change non-debate.

And then, there is the more interesting (from the spectator’s point of view, that is) struggle
regarding the technicalities of how to change the constitution. The House of Representatives is
trying to push the point of a 2/3 vote as meaning 2/3 of the total members of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, even if these legislators are all from the House of
Representatives. This is a creative interpretation, and will be unique in the world - anywhere
where the legislature has two chambers, they are required to get the required majority votes
separately, unless the law specifically says that they should sit jointly for certain decisions. The
House is trying to do everything to push their creative interpretation of the 2/3 vote requirement;
but this will clearly get nowhere.

And the so-called peoples initiative is also getting stranded in a lot of legalese. It seems like it is
anything but a peoples initiative, with all the government bodies tinkering with the process. It
will indeed be a surprise if the Supreme Court accepts the Sigaw ng Bayan etc initiative as valid.
The charter change issue is clearly getting nowhere. But what can we conclude from all this?
First of all, it really seems like the whole charter change issue or debate is one giant smokescreen
(or red herring, if one prefers that analogy). With both the content and the procedure going
nowhere, why on earth is the government still pushing it? As long as all eyes are on the charter
change issue, other issues including that of the Garci-tapes scandal become less prominent in the
public eye. Also, legislators are less prone to be anti-charter change or anti-GMA because they
have everything to gain if charter change “transitory provisions” are implemented.

The second conclusion that one could draw from the current charter change issue is that there
seems to be a consensus that there is something wrong with the Philippine political system, and
that it needs some radical changes. While many people don’t agree with the currently proposed
set of amendments to the Constitution; a lot of these people are in favor of some changes, at least
if these would help get rid of the corrupt and inept politicians currently running the country.
It is a pity that this underlying base of support for fundamental political change is being used by
both sides in order to push their various short-term aims. What we need now is a call for genuine
discussions on how best to design a political system that fits the Philippines today.
What we need now is a real debate on charter change.

What are the advantages of charter change here

in the Philippines?
1.only the provision that clearly and urgently needs to be amended will be touched
-In the present method wherein you open the whole Charter to changes, we will have very little
control over them. And in the plebiscite that will follow, the whole caboodle would be thrown to
the people for ratification, the bad provisions along with the good. The people would be forced to
ratify even the provisions they don't want because they want the good provisions. It's an all-or-
nothing setup. You take the bad with the good or none at all.
2.it is more economical
-(and in the present state of government finances as against the urgent needs to be done, if only
to improve the lives of the great masses of people) we have to spend our scarce resources
judiciously. In a Con-con, we have to hold elections for delegates and appropriate funds for the
Convention, including the salaries and allowances of the delegates. The Convention is open-
ended. It can run on and on until the delegates get tired of talking. It can go on for years. All the
time, the poor taxpayers have to pay for the bills. Taxes that can be used to provide food for the
poor and build homes for the homeless would be spent, instead, to pay for the delegates.