The campaign season has arrived and soon after
Election Day will be upon us. Several of the presidential aspirants have been
conducting a lot of programs in different provinces in hopes that they would
get the vote of that particular place. But while the public listens to each
candidate, would they consider experience as a defining factor? And if so does
experience play a valuable variable to what a candidate must have as a
requisite? And what kind of experience must one have in order to be a
candidate? Questions that ponder the minds, even though the front half of the
crowd was just nodding for “reasons” and the back half of the crowd does not
understand, or perhaps understand, what the candidate was talking about, was
just there for the heck of life, It all falls down to the results of the
elections.
In
a recent news article Vice-President Jejomar Binay visited Binmaley,
Panggasinan and told Pangasinenses that he is the most capable and fit for the
job of president, citing his experience as executive and administrator in
various offices for more than twenty (20) years. He
also belittled opponents Sen. Grace Poe and administration bet Mar Roxas,
saying the former could not cite her experience as a mother and the latter his
kapalpakan (incompetence) in vying for the presidency. He further made a
point in his speech that the experience he was talking about is on the ability
to rule or oversee things and not experience from other fields.
Does experience really play a
factor? Does it need to be included in the requisites under the constitution? And
what kind of experience is need?
According to the 1987 Constitution
the Qualification for the Executive Department is stated in Article VII (7),
Section 2; “No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at
least forty (40) years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the
Philippines for at least ten (10) years immediately preceding such election.”
The provision does not express the
needed experience, however the experience is implies within the age
requirement. In the Political Law book of Justice Isagani cruz, the
justification with the age requirement is that more maturity was needed for the
highest office in the land. It can be assumed that with maturity there is, as
well, experience along side with it. Since along the years, as nature and human
experience have thought us, a person gains new knowledge or wisdom as he gets
older and when maturity steps-in. In the book of Nancy Alder, Purpose in Life, adult
development and maturity theories include the purpose in life concept, in which
maturity emphasizes a clear comprehension of life's purpose, directedness, and
intentionality, which contributes to the feeling that life is meaningful. We can therefore derived that in maturity
there is a development of experience and that it is clear and meaningful.
The
only question now is what kind of experience is needed in order to be a
President? Does it requirement that a person must have a know-how on how to
rule the land? For me, I disagree with what vice President Binay said.
Experience should come from every aspect of life and not just the ability to
lead or rule over the land. Experience must not only see just one point of
view, but must see every view that a human being can possibly see. To add
specifics on what constitutes experience in the 1987 constitution would be
unfair to those aspirants who really something to offer and contribute for the
benefit of the land, and not just a pretty face all smiling and does not
contribute a single thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment