The author is interested in empowerment. He perceives that such objective may be achieved if individual rights (life, liberty, and [without ignoring] property rights) are properly emphasized. Although the interference of the government, ideally, should be limited, the role of government cannot be discounted, so as to wrest from it its “duty” to regulate the excesses of a market environment and provide for everyone, as much as possible, an equal playing field.

On Constitutional change. He perceives that although the Philippine Constitution unduly leans towards Social Democracy and that a revision may be necessary to render its provisions neutral and allow the various political orientations to provide governance according to their principles and within the scope of a modified constitution (within such stated parameter); under the present circumstances, where political forces are more interested in political and pecuniary gains that may be achieved in the revision of such basic legal document, he cannot extend support to current proposals for its revision. He cannot provide support for a parliamentary form of government as he remains to be an advocate of a presidential form of government, as the latter remains to provide a fiction of popular accountability. Neither can he provide support for a federal system of government, even if he is not unitarian or centrist, since he advocates regional autonomy which can be pursued through legislation and not necessarily through constitutional revision. As to allegation of the ambiguity of certain provisions of the Constitution, he perceives that the gray areas of the Constitution can ultimately be made black and white through the interpretation of the Supreme Court. What others may perceive ambiguity as faults, he merely thinks of them as untested issues.

On political parties. He perceives that, whether it may be a bipartisan or a multi-party system, parties should be determined by the collective principles that they spouse and not by the personalities that create them. Political personalities may promise the same results, but party doctrines and principles — which should be adhered to when in power — should provide for a clue on the methodologies that are to be pursued to achieve such results. He perceives that this is essential to ensure that every individual is aware of a national direction so that they may be properly oriented in the manner they are to exercise their rights or their freedom to pursue their personal objectives.

On a Philippine Code. The rights of an individual cannot be fully exercised, if a cloud of doubt hangs above as to whether there is some obscure law that is threatened to be violated by one’s act. Although it is an enormous task that  is to be expected of the Philippine Congress, the author perceives that the pursuit of a single Philippine Code is still something that is worthy to be advocated on. Corollarily, it may be argued that it would be difficult to expect citizens to follow every law if they are not aware which of the Philippine Acts, Commonwealth Acts, Batas Pambansa, Presidential Decrees, (Aquino’s) Executive Orders, and Republic Acts remain in force; and hence, it also clarifies which laws are not impliedly repealed by Congress for all its years of existence.

On labor-related discrimination. The author perceives that progress has been made in discouraging discrimination against gender, religion, among others, in relation to employment; but that measures against discrimination on age remains inadequate. Employment opportunities should still be available to persons more than 35 years old, and not limited to those between 21 to 35 years of age, as is usually practiced in the advertisement of job openings.

Social welfare. The author perceives that the direct handouts provided by the government to the masses encourages a mendicant culture. He has no objection, however, if the direct handout is in the form of academic scholarships since the object of the handout is not an end-product but an opportunity to strengthen the skill set of members of the masses to increase their competitiveness in the present, perhaps even the future, environment. Nevertheless, since it may not be avoided that privileges are given to certain classes of citizens under the present social democratic framework, it cannot be overemphasized (without necessarily contradicting a position contrary to social democracy) that social legislations should provide actual benefits to their intended beneficiaries. Benefits should not be shifted. One example of this has been articulated in a post entitled “Maintenance Pills.“

Right to proper information. The author perceives that for anyone to be competitive, or even merely to act accordingly, he/she must the proper information that could be the basis or may provide influence to his/her acts. He proposes that social sciences in secondary levels should, besides what they teach now,  provide basic knowledge on how to deal with transactions with major institutions — such as most frequented government offices, medical institutions, etc. — and on the rights and obligations as adults. Usually a year shy of majority age by the time they graduate from high school, they should be oriented to basic legal concepts before reaching adulthood and thus deny them the pitfalls that call upon the maxim “ignoratia legis non excusat.” Further, outside of the academe, and inasmuch as mass media educates, whether people behind it  intend so or not; mass media outfits should be responsible enough, else a law ensures that such outfits are responsible enough, that the information they provide — even if the material being broadcasted is fiction — are legally correct. Although creative license is to be generally respected, it should be limited somehow as not to misinform citizens of proper social responsibilities and/or of proper legal recourses. Showbiz talk shows have posted disclaimers about their content, it would be due diligence also to apply the same in television teleseries, among others.