Latest news with #ConstitutionalConvention
GMA Network
14 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Ronnie Puno optimistic about Con-con but admits 'challenges'
Amending the 1987 Constitution via a Constitutional Convention (Con-con) will face "challenges," but House Deputy Speaker Ronaldo Puno of Antipolo City is optimistic about its chances. "The initial reaction is always hindi papayag 'yung Senado dyan. Then the next reaction is, oh baka mamaya sabihin nila perpetuation of power na naman 'yan, babaguhin 'yung mga term of office. So, it's going to be a challenge,' Puno said in a press conference. (The initial feedback is that Con-con faces an uphill climb. The initial reaction is that the Senate won't agree to it. Next is that this is just about perpetuating ourselves in power by changing term limits.) Puno, meanwhile, said the public and his colleagues in the House and Senate should trust the Con-con system which is provided for by the Constitution, given that the House and the Senate can also limit the scope of the Constitution's provisions that will be amended. Puno made the statement after calling for a Con-con to address supposed vague provisions in the 1987 Charter. Among them is the use of the term fortwith in Article 11, Section 3.4 on the Accountability of Public Officials, which became controversial during the impeachment proceedings of Vice President Sara Duterte. After more than one-third of the House impeached and sent the Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President last February 5, Senate President Francis Escudero has repeatedly said that while forthwith is the synonym of immediately, forthwith cannot be considered immediately because the Constitution did not state immediately. This, despite former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, who was a member of the 1986 Constitutional Convention and drafted Article 11, saying that he included the word 'forthwith' referring to the need of the Senate to proceed with the trial after the House adopts a Resolution of Impeachment. The Senate later voted to transfer to the archives the articles of impeachment agains Duterte, following the decision of the Supreme Court (SC) to declare her impeachment unconstitutional. Scope Puno, meanwhile, believes that the first challenge for the Con-con is to secure the passage of the Joint Resolution in the House and the Senate for the establishment of the Con-con to amend the Constitution. A Joint Resolution needs to be approved by two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate, voting separately, before both Houses of Congress draft and pass a bill that will serve as the implementing law for Con-con. In addition, Puno said the Con-con bill will set the parameters for which constitutional provisions should be amended and the qualifications of the Con-con delegates, among others. "We are not thinking of changing the form of government here. If the Senators or my colleagues in the House want to limit the scope of the amendments, that can be done under the bill. Sa [Con-con] bill, makakasiguro na hindi tatalakayin 'yung mga hindi dapat," Puno said. (The Con-con bill will ensure that the Con-Con will only discuss amendments with merit and not the ones that the public do not approve of.) Likewise, Puno said that the election for Con-con delegates can be done manually to save money, since it will not involve many names, unlike in usual midterm and national elections. 'I think that there is enough goodwill, there is enough patriotism in our national leaders that they can rely on to move forward. With a little faith...a little faith in the wisdom of our people in electing the delegates to the convention, faith in all of our citizenry in their ability to prevent abuse by being vocal and by being vigilant,' Puno said. 'So, andun kami sa alam namin mahirap ito pero wala namang madali,' he added. —VAL, GMA Integrated News
The National
01-08-2025
- Politics
- The National
Revealed: The full text of SNP's independence strategy
Titled "Winning Independence" and signed off by First Minister John Swinney and [[SNP]] depute leader Keith Brown (below), the motion says an [[SNP]] majority will be a "clear target" in next year's Holyrood election if a fresh indy push is to succeed. The text reads: "An SNP majority in that election, repeating the precedent of 2011, is the only uncontested route to delivering a new referendum." It also pledges support for for the "immediate establishment" of a Constitutional Convention, set to involve "gathering support from the people of Scotland, civic bodies and international opinion", as revealed by The National earlier this week. In July, The National exclusively revealed Swinney's renewed independence plan – based upon building support for leaving the Union, putting pressure on Westminster over its democratic failures around a second referendum, and securing a solid win for the [[SNP]] in 2026. This week, Swinney set out further that an emphatic win for the SNP would have to be defined as a majority in Holyrood, something very difficult to achieve in a Parliament not designed to produce majorities under a proportionally representative voting system. READ MORE: Scottish politicians unfollow Unionist group after 'bomb Holyrood' Twitter/X post The announcement has proved controversial, with other pro-independence parties frustrated that the path to self-determination is being decided by the SNP alone. Ross Greer of the Scottish Greens said the bid was more about "self-preservation" for Swinney's party, while Alba branded the strategy "cynical". After Alba chief Kenny MacAskill described the [[SNP]] plan as "unachievable", former [[SNP]] MSP Gil Paterson also chimed in, writing on Twitter/X: "I have no option but to agree entirely with [[Kenny MacAskill]]. The [[SNP]] leadership would be wise to reconsider its position urgently." Meanwhile around 43 branches of the SNP are backing a challenge to the proposals. They are set to meet in Perth on August 9 to strategise on amendments opposing the requirement for an [[SNP]] majority, with a preference of securing majority support for pro-independence parties on the list vote next year. Below, you can read Swinney and Brown's conference motion in full. Winning Independence Conference agrees that the 2026 Scottish Parliament election will be fought by the Scottish National Party on a clear platform of national independence because only Independence is the change that will significantly improve the lives and life chances of the people of Scotland. Conference notes that events since the 2014 referendum have only served to confirm the validity of the case that was made then, with people across Scotland continuing to be devastated by a Westminster system that squeezes family incomes, in particular through sky-high energy bills and rising food costs; with Scotland little more than an afterthought within the UK with its economic model that prioritises jobs, wealth and opportunities in London and the south-east, and which delivers a disproportionate benefit for a very few who are already very rich; and with a Britain that has been broken by Brexit, is isolated in Europe, and can never deliver on the hopes, dreams and ambitions of the people of Scotland, who have had seen rights and opportunities they previously enjoyed removed.
The National
31-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
If SNP are serious about winning independence they must act like it
If it was, John Swinney's strategy – along with his Constitutional Convention – would be the talk of the independence steamie. But it isn't. Yessers have been round the houses too many times and there's a feeling of weariness even broaching the strategy question again. That's a bad sign. It's a bit like your 43rd birthday. Not particularly momentous, but celebrated in a low-key, box-ticking, performative, kinda way all the same. No point pals spicing things up with a trip to the pub/restaurant or anywhere else because every aspect of the day will be decided by the Birthday Boy himself. And it'll be 'talk to the hand' for anyone with a different idea, question or alternative proposition. It always is. Yet an alternative strategy is in the offing – an SNP conference motion doing the rounds of branches right now, calls for a de facto referendum in 2026 instead. Did this prompt Swinney to try and head off dissent with a different strategy upon which he'll stake his leadership? Perhaps. READ MORE: John Curtice weighs in on Corbyn-Sultana party threat to Keir Starmer's seat Either way, I'd imagine an alternative will be proposed in October anyway which will be widely reported by the Unionist press as a telling party split. It will actually be a bit of long-overdue democracy – if it happens. Already though, Alba leader Kenny MacAskill has roused himself to pour cold water on Swinney's plan. Of course, he would. But I'd say he's pretty well right. Instead of an SNP majority of seats, he wants a majority of votes for pro-independence parties to act as a mandate for independence talks – not a second referendum. He wants Swinney to call a summit of all of pro-independence parties now 'to prepare for a plebiscite [or de facto] election in 2026, as a matter of urgency'. And he wants Swinney's convention to take place right away not after the [[SNP]]'s conference in October. Otherwise, he says, the 2026 Holyrood election 'will be a blind alley leading to a political cul de sac'. And that does look where we're headed. The SNP leader has proposed a strategy the party is pretty much unable to deliver. Where does that leave indy? Then there are all the inconsistencies. Is Swinney suggesting an election strategy of SNP both votes again – list and constituency? Doubtless he will, since it took list seats to give the party its 2011 victory – the template Swinney has adopted for 2026, even though it is essentially unrepeatable. In 2011, Alex Salmond led his party to an 'impossible' absolute majority in the Scottish Parliament elections overriding all the checks and balances created by the Unionist architects of [[Holyrood]]. But immediately, tactical voting kicked in amongst Unionist voters, suddenly alert to the fact independence was no whimsy – an awareness the 2014 indyref cemented. And since then, it's been an electoral case of once bitten, twice very prepared. So, it's unlikely any party will get an overall majority again. And suggesting its possible plays into the first-past-the-post Westminster narrative of whopping great (unfair) majorities, instead of schooling southern commentators by clarifying Scotland's proportional and totally different system. Even so, many Yessers are dejected, hopeless and desperate enough to swing with any kind of SNP momentum, in the hope the party can produce a genuinely inclusive, collaborative indy election and convention with verve – at last. So some sceptics may yet give Swinney the benefit of the doubt. And yet, isn't all of this beside the point? We are all treating independence as a moment. A vote, an election or a unilateral declaration. I'd humbly suggest the right strategy and moment will emerge as events unfold. And that's the real problem. There are no events. No momentum. Just words. And endless arguments about strategy. Yes, the Constitutional Convention might eventually be an impressive event, though there are doubts about its timescale before the May elections, the likelihood of zero collaboration with other independence parties or groups and the possibility participants will have to accept Swinney's take-it-or-leave-it contention that an SNP victory and Section 30 referendum are the only game in town. But that's not nearly enough. Consider independence like an athletic championship. There is training for years beforehand. There are personal bests. There are constant competitions. There is working up to a big event. There is learning to work as a team. There is disruption and sacrifice. Kelso cyclist Oscar Onley lives in Andorra so he can train in the high altitudes that give him a real advantage racing at sea level. That's the level of sacrifice, change and preparation needed for a big successful moment – be it the Tour de France or serious constitutional change. Yet none of this is happening – at least not within the SNP. James Murphy made a very strong point about the examples of other recently independent nations in a comment on National coverage. He pointed out that Ireland, the Baltic states, Slovenia, Norway, Montenegro, and the Czech Republic, all asserted their independence first and produced a referendum later. Indeed, the Estonians co-organised the massive Baltic Chain in August 1989, where approximately two million people held hands to form a human chain across the Baltic States spanning 675 km – an epic public event designed to shame Moscow. It worked. Three months later, citizens elsewhere started dismantling the Berlin Wall. Meantime, independence leaders were encouraging people to claim their citizenship as Estonian – aided by the fact many countries including Britain didn't recognise the legitimacy of Russia's occupation. And for years they had regular singing events – which may sound wafty to o'er serious Scots, but Estonia's singing revolution let people meet regularly in what looked like a non-political way. All these actions produced their referendum held on March 3 1991, which was the final, not the first act. There's also a Scottish example, highlighted last week by Believe in Scotland. Scotland has publicly owned water today because Strathclyde Regional Council decided to hold an advisory referendum in 1994, and it had a massive turnout. Some 71% of folk voted and 97% wanted Scottish Water to stay in public hands. It was such a whopping majority that even the privatising Tories hesitated and let Scotland off the hook (though Strathclyde was later abolished). That referendum had no legal force, but it was a really, powerful, impactful act before there was a Scottish Government, Parliament, or any formally devolved authority. Westminster had the legal power to do what it wanted with Scottish Water, but that didn't stop Strathclyde Region from acting. Charles Gray was actually a Labour council chief (who voted Yes in 2014) and went hell for leather to keep public assets in public hands by throwing a big unpredictable spanner in the works. That's what we need now. Lots of it. The [[SNP]] has to start acting as if it really means business. It needs to collaborate with others habitually and showcase the benefits independence would bring every week. At every high-profile event. (Image: Jane Barlow) A wheen happened last week thanks to The Donald with not an I-word in sight. Currently the SNP are playing basketball, by trying to land the ball through the hoop in one massive throw from the back line. That's not how it works. Progress involves passing, moving, tackling, swerving, focusing, getting past each opponent and finally aiming for the hoop when you are much, much more likely to score. Is any of that going to happen between now and October, let alone May? There's the biggest problem for indy, right there.
Irish Examiner
19-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Examiner
Paul Hosford: Why no younger candidates are stepping up for the presidency in 2025
One of the stranger and lesser noted moments in recent Irish political history came a little over a decade ago. As Ireland became the first country in the world to legalise same sex marriage by popular vote, we affirmed that all love is equal. It sparked joyous scenes across the country and was a message that Ireland was a more inclusive space, one which valued everyone equally. However, on the same day as that referendum passed, one which enshrined in the Constitution the belief that everyone in Ireland was entitled to the same treatment, the public massively rejected the idea that a 34-year-old could be President. A second referendum that day on lowering the age of any prospective President to 21 was trounced by 73.1% to 26.9%. In truth, the running of that referendum was either a mistake or a conscious effort to give the public the chance to kick a government which had enacted austerity measures without risking the marriage equality vote, possibly both, and it played out in a campaign that was more non-existent than lacklustre. Indeed, possibly the only argument which cut through in any real way was a warning that should the referendum pass, we could be looking at President Jedward. The defeat of that referendum was very much a secondary concern to most that day, as marriage equality set the stage for the push for a repeal of the Eighth Amendment and civic groups led a coalition and energised a generation into the kind of action that only comes from the ground up, but can shake establishments. The repeal campaign came just months before the 2018 presidential election and with Michael D Higgins both hugely popular and a long-time proponent of abortion rights, there was never any question of an insurgent campaign to unseat him. But seven years later, it seems strange that nobody who led those campaigns, or came to the fore in them, is being mentioned as a possible candidate for the Áras. While recent campaigns have seen figures from civic society - Adi Roche, Joan Freeman, Derek Nally - and from the world of business - Sean Gallagher, Peter Casey, Gavan Duffy - launch campaigns of varying degrees of success, with just months to go in this year's election, those wishing to see themselves on the ballot have been few and far between. Constitutional Convention Obviously, a part of that comes down to one of the factors in why the age-based referendum was held at all. The vote on lowering the age actually had its origins in the same place the same-sex marriage vote did: the Constitutional Convention. Running from 2012 to 2014, it was a forum comprising 100 members; 29 members of the Oireachtas; four representatives of Northern Irish political parties; and 66 citizens along with a chair. It was tasked with a number of deliberations around what is the Constitution and options for changing it. In the end, it recommended three changes in relation to the President: 94% were in favour of giving citizens a say in the nomination process 78% agreed that citizens resident outside the state, including in Northern Ireland, should have the right to vote in presidential elections And 50% said to reduce the age of candidacy for presidential elections While the third option was run and the second continues to come and go on the political agenda, the first, which was nearly unanimous, has never really gone anywhere. Under the current rules, remember, anyone wishing to run must receive the support of at least 20 members of the Oireachtas or the backing of at least four local authorities — city or county councils. The system, by design, stops insurgent campaigns. Whereas civil society can form coalitions around social issues or policy priorities, without the backing of existing politicians, you or I have no chance of being President. Indeed, without the backing of their parliamentary party colleagues, many who would like to be President have been forced to accept it will not happen. The truth is that for most who come from outside the political sphere, the path to a nomination is nigh on unnavigable. If you've been a member of a civic group on an issue, chances are you've clashed with political parties who hold opposing views and, even if you haven't, without a clear and overwhelming consensus coming from the public, your chances of finding 20 Oireachtas members who are free to vote for you are pretty slim. This is a feature of the system, rather than a bug in its operation. The narrow route to a nomination is supposed to, in theory at least, act as something of a quality control mechanism. If someone who wants to be nominated has to first survive the body politic, the logic is that they are generally considered to be worthy of at least the public's consideration. That failsafe has proven itself in the eyes of its proponents this year, warding off at least one potential candidate's entry onto the ballot. Of course, then, there is the local authorities. While these are controlled up and down the country by coalition parties and opposition parties in different configurations, they are free to make their own minds up. In 2011, 25 councils gave nominations to candidates who made it to the ballot, while in 2018 it was 17 councils with Laois giving journalist Gemma O'Doherty her lone nomination. Convincing councillors to break with party nominees is possible, but takes work and a platform. But the narrow path to the Phoenix Park doesn't in and of itself explain the lack of civic and social figures being touted this time around, even speculatively. In part, it can be also attributed to a lack of major social movements since Repeal, particularly post covid. The role of the presidency While Repeal itself was hailed as a transformational moment in Irish history - and it was and remains felt particularly by those women who have availed of abortion healthcare in their own country and not in some far-off place - one wonders if its promise has been fulfilled, if its energy has been harnessed by the generation most associated with it, most galvanised by it. At present, the presidential field is former European Commissioner Mairead McGuinness in the Fine Gael corner and current TD Catherine Connolly with the the support of the Social Democrats, People Before Profit and assorted independents. Both are extremely capable, worthy candidates. But it is worth asking why, if the presidency is meant to reflect our society back to us, why is nobody younger at least trying? Ms McGuinness is 66, Ms Connolly 68. We have had two millennial Taoisigh, but at this point it will likely be 2039 by the time someone of my generation leads the state. In 1997 when she was elected, Mary McAleese was 46. In 2011, Mr Higgins was 70. There is, of course, the argument that the head of state needs a track record. That they need to have shown the Irish people that they can lead. That is a fair argument, but surely a conversation about the role can be had? Is it a reward for a life of service or a statement of who we are? Can it be both? There is a chance that one of the existing candidates or one unforeseen captures the imagination and electrifies supporters into a positive and energetic campaign. I hope that they do, because the alternative will be an election where even fewer than the 44% who voted last time will turn out. The conservation of energy is an absolute law, but it is worth asking where the energy created in the last decade has gone and whether anyone can harness it to run for the Áras?
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Utah Rep. Maloy proposes way to honor the nation's 250th birthday
WASHINGTON — Visitors could enjoy national parks for free on next year's Constitution Day to celebrate the country's 250th anniversary under a new proposal introduced by Utah Rep. Celeste Maloy this week. The Semiquincentennial Tourism and Access to Recreation Sites, or STARS Act, would direct the secretary of the Interior to designate Constitution Day as an 'entrance-fee free day' at all National Park Service sites next year. If passed, it would open the gates on Sept. 17, 2026, for all visitors to commemorate the 250th birthday of the United States. 'How do you properly celebrate 250 years of freedom? Maybe the best way is to spend time in what Wallace Stegner called 'the best idea we ever had'— our national parks,' Maloy said in a statement. The bill would open access to more than 400 sites across the country, including national parks, battleground sites, monuments and other cultural landmarks. By waiving entrance fees, Maloy said it highlights the role of public lands in U.S. history and 'honors the legacy of freedom, resilience, and patriotism that began in 1776.' Constitution Day is a federal holiday marking the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, marking the day the delegates signed the document at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The holiday is observed every year to celebrate those who have become U.S. citizens. If passed, Maloy's proposal would join other mass efforts next year to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States. President Donald Trump earlier this month launched America250, a campaign promise to celebrate the country's 250th birthday with a yearlong celebration. America250 began at the Iowa State Fairgrounds on July 3 and several states, including Utah, have ongoing events to mark the occasion.
