POLITICS IN THE CHURCH

by: Monaliza Z. Barrientos

“The Church of Christ is in constant peril. Satan is seeking to destroy the people of God, and one man’s mind, one man’s judgment, is not sufficient to be trusted. Christ should have His followers brought together in church capacity, observing order, having rules and discipline, and all subject one to another, esteeming others better than themselves.”
Ellen G, White (Testimonies, vol9, p.260)

As Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer, Lord and King of all creation, God alone is the source and ground of authority for the church. He delegated authority to His prophets and apostles. They, therefore, occupied a crucial and unique position in the transmission of the word of God and edification of the church. The statement above justifies that the head of the church is none other than the Almighty God, and for that reason, no one should be higher than Him.

How about the subordinates of the Head? Does the church have its election or not at all? We may cite a variety of denominations, but for sure, almost all acquire the same political principles. They do have elections, but the church chooses the process of picking the right leaders in a solemn way. They are not doing it on public, not like a democratic country who possesses candidacies and elections afterwards. Some members of the church are chosen to decide upon to whom the authority in the church should be given. Furthermore, these chosen ones who may be called as the board members of the nominating committee of the church will be guided by a priest or a pastor in order to be more sufficient. Most importantly, they will be guided by the Lord through sober prayers. This route is being practiced by the churches for this won’t include popularity among the people who will be chosen. The method that is usually being delivered by the nation for its government calls for fame among those who are running for their desired positions to be able to win. Refuting with popular demands of the members of the church doesn’t mean that the members alone don’t have the power to change the list of the leaders that are chosen by the nominating committee. The whole church including its members of course will still be the one to approve the roll. This procedure again lets the people to think cunningly for the leaders of the church.

The church is about the gospel of God. The politics that will run inside the house of the Lord should gain enough holiness.

DISTURBIA

Branches of Government

by: Lovelylaine Tayag

The Founding Fathers, the framers of the Constitution, wanted to form a government that did not allow one person to have too much authority or control. While under the rule of the British king they learned that this could be a bad system. Yet government under the Articles of Confederation taught them that there was a need for a strong centralized government.

With this in mind the framers wrote the Constitution to provide for a separation of powers, or three separate branches of government. Each has its own responsibilities and at the same time they work together to make the country run smoothly and to assure that the rights of citizens are not ignored or disallowed. This is done through checks and balances. A branch may use its powers to check the powers of the other two in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government.

The three branches of the U.S. Government are the legislative, executive, and judicial. A complete diagram of the branches of the U.S. Government may be found in the U.S. Government Manual (PDF).

To learn more, choose from the following:

• Branches of Government
• Legislative Branch
• Executive Branch
• Judicial Branch

BETWEEN FAMILY AND POLITICS

BOTTOM LINE

by: LEIGHNOR ANN GUMOGDA

The state exists through process of evolution. It evolved from the family, then to clan, later to a tribe. The tribe developed a nation and the nation evolved into a state.-
-The Patriarchal Theory

In the patriarchal theory, it is said that state subsists because of the evolution from the family. It is a proof that, as the smallest unit of the institution, family plays a crucial part in making a good nation and reproduces a better society either biologically or socially.

Family is a refuge from the world, furnishing absolute fulfillment. It is considered to egg on "intimacy, love and trust where individuals may escape the competition of dehumanizing forces in modern society from the rough and topple politicking world. It is said to be the place where understanding, love and warmth resides, where mother and father provides protection from the world. That is, marriage should not be ruptured for it distresses nation.

The values that the family members teach to each other generate a big impact in forming a finer look in every aspect of life, especially at politics. But even the only institution that the confused people can lean to is preoccupied with politics.

Recognizing the Filipino family is the groundwork of the nation. That is why constitution provided laws that will secure and protect each member of the family especially the marriage as an inviolable social institution WHERE IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY and shall be protected by the state.-(ART.XV.SEC2)

Family is the most common way of understanding the country. Thus, one’s understanding of how a family should be will have direct implication for how the country should be.

CHA CHA

Cha Cha a.k.a.Charter Change refers to a political revision of a current Constitution in the Philippines. There are three modes that can trigger or approved Charter Change namely: People's Initiative, Constituent assembly and constitutional convention.

The current Cha Cha that want to be implemented by the Political leaders was facing a grave contradictions among pro and anti administration,because critics proclaimed that the administration only want to extend the reign of the current president.

The task of the Consultative Commission was to propose the "necessary" revisions on the 1987 constitution after various consultation with different sectors of society.

Charter Change, a change in our constitution is a serious matter that deals with the change of flow of Philippines, and no assurance of the outcome if Juan dela Cruz will benefit to it.

Athena Michelle V. de Lara

STATE OF THE NATION ADDRESS 2008 (SONA)

by: LEIGHNOR ANN M. GUMOGDA


let's see what you've got to say about President Gloria Arroyo's SONA this year...
which focus mainly on taxation and the past projects that she'd accomplished..

many believe that she's doing better though a lot still believe that she's governing the Philippine nation under martial law..

lets think the positive and negative things that we are facing under her regime..
lets think not only for ourselves...;)

" BETTER TALKS THAN FIGHT, IF NOTHING OF SOVEREIGN VALUE IS ANYWAY LOST. DIALOGUE HAS ACHIEVED MORE THAN CONFRONTATION IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD"

read between the lines.

have a nice day.

forestry policy in the Philippines

Traces the evolution of forestry policy in the Philippines and examines the shift towards participatory conservation in the first decade following overthrow of the Marcos regime. Seeks to highlight the relevance of social and political variables in explaining the relative success and failure of environmental protection variables. Looks beyond news headlines and official discourse surrounding sustainable development, providing a more realistic assessment of the achievements, complexities, and limitations of participatory concervation.

The Judicialization of Politics in the Philippines and Southeast Asia

In Afro-Asia, outside India, it may be that only in the Philippines is the judicialization of politics a significant, current political development. Several factors—liberal democracy, separation of powers, a politics of rights, interest group and opposition use of the courts, and frequently ineffective majoritarian institutions with limited public respect—make substantial judicialization of contemporary Philippine politics possible or even likely. The current Constitution assigns the judiciary new and expanded powers and responsibilities, giving it great potential to judicial ize policy processes that would otherwise be the responsibility of majori tarian institutions. The constitutional grant of authority given the Supreme Court provides a foundation for it to substitute its judgment for that of any government official who has engaged in a "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." Activist judicial attitudes have led to Supreme Court decisions that can be cited as evidence for a judicial ization of post-Marcos Philippine politics. (Decisions handed down by the Court during 1990-91 will be examined here for such evidence.) However, a developing appointment pattern that places career judges on the Supreme Court may reduce the likelihood of continuing judicialization, since, in the Philippines, such appointees have been more likely to be restraintist than have justices with different, more partisan, careers.