...a referendum on

I think term limits for members of Congress should be examined. That might even things out a bit. Also, to eliminate lobbying. That's not really doing us any good, in my opinion. Special interests, particularly corporations, have far too much power over elected representatives and the people because of this. That's millions of dollars that could be more effective in our lives if we redirected it towards medical research, for instance. And I would like to see political parties other than the big two get some form of public assistance, like politicians do, to level the playing field, hopefully break the Congressional gridlock. Best wishes! :-)

There is a point you are missing... A democratic and elected government negates the need for a referendum - We vote for these people to make the decisions for us. A politician or party has a manifesto that they present to the voters, the voters then decide if this politician/party is the one for them. A referendum is really something that should occur once in a generation or two generations for issues that will define the social and political landscape for years to come. People whom call for a referendum over every issue should have their right to vote removed until they understand how democracy works

Having the same name in public office is not a sign of political dynasty especially if the position is an electoral post. How could be a political dynasty exist when a politician was appointed by the voting public. I think political dynasty would require a long debate in the legislature. They would even not know how to define it. For my own opinion, political dynasty exists if the appointing authority posted his own relatives into public office.

I could not think of any topic or things to be changed because there are so many.... They still have pending bills which need to be resolved. Like the RH Bill, maybe they need to have a referendum on that because more people wanted to get involved on it like the catholic church. There must be information drive on this and thereafter people will be asked about what they want on this.

Yes, we do need a referendum not only on political dynasty but also on many issue that require attention. The First issue I want to highlight is the economic liberalization, the removal of protectionist provisions in the Charter and the amendments on the 'restrictive' economic provisions of the constitution that is considered as impeding the entry of more foreign investments in the Philippines. We have been left out by our neighbors in term of foreign investment because of these restrictive provision in our constitution. Read this news item from Daily Inquirer - http://opinion.inquirer.net/41695/foreign-investments-steeply-fall-under-aquino The following are excerpts from the said news: Foreign direct investments into the Philippines during President Aquino’s first two years in office have steeply fallen, putting the country only a notch above Cambodia as the least-favored site in East Asia for offshore investors. The annual average inflow of net foreign direct investments (FDI) under Mr. Aquino amounted to only $1,367 million, compared to the $2,171 million under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s watch from 2005 until June 2010, and the $1,746 million during Joseph Estrada’s years. These figures are from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the World Bank. The 2001 to 2004 FDI figures aren’t used for comparison because of the abnormal slowdown of global capital movements right after the 9/11 terrorist assaults on the World Trade Center, and the US invasion of Iraq that started 2003. However, the Philippines even during the global financial crisis from 2008 to 2009—considered worse than the 1920s Great Depression—still attracted substantial foreign capital under Macapagal-Arroyo’s watch. During the politically volatile 2006-2007 years when the opposition threw everything but the kitchen sink to overthrow Macapagal-Arroyo, FDI inflows were even the highest in our history, nearly reaching $3 billion annually. In contrast, FDI flows have fallen during Mr. Aquino’s first two years in office, when there’s a robust global economy and feeble opposition against him. Mr. Aquino’s main focus—a shrill anticorruption rhetoric and persecuting Mrs. Arroyo, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, and Chief Justice Renato Corona—obviously has not helped make the country attractive to FDI. Under Mr. Aquino’s watch, we have been overtaken by miles by Indonesia, Thailand and by socialist Vietnam. This is despite their lower proficiencies in English, the lingua franca of global business, and their less-sophisticated corporate sectors. Cambodia, one of the most backward and poorest country in Asia, is now breathing down our necks. Cambodia can overtake us soon, if China succumbs to the temptation of putting us down and throws a billion yuan into it just so we get listed as the country with the least FDI in the region. -excerpts ends here. While Charter change and "opening up" of the Philippine economy are generally supported by small to mid size businesses in the country (such as Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI), Employers Confederation of the Philippines (ECOP)), it is opposed by the powerful Makati Business Club (MBC). The Oligarch don't want to give up their tight reigns on our economy The Second Issue I want to be highlighted is the Form of Government. We have right now a Presidential form of government with a multi-party system that give rise to a MINORITY PRESIDENT. What form of government is best for our country? What form of government does majority of Filipinos want? Presidential or Parliamentary? or Federalism? We have been in Presidential form of government for too long and I can't see any progress achieve from this kind of politics. And I believe either parliamentary or federal form is best suited for us but if majority of us want to stick to presidential system, another issue I want to be tackle is the multiparty system because I believe that the combination of a multiparty system and a presidential system is destructive to stable democracy. There are empirical evidence that shows that few (4 of 25) stable democracies have presidential systems. Several features of presidential systems contribute to explaining why so few have become stable democracies; presidential systems are more prone to government paralysis, weak executive power, and destabilizing executive/legislative conflict than parliamentary systems. In presidential democracies, two-party systems are more capable of avoiding stagnation and intense legislative/executive conflict because they facilitate the formation of a government with a majority in congress, and also with only two parties, ideological polarization is less likely . The Third Issue I want to be tackle in a referendum is regarding Political Dynasty. I want that the political dynasty enshrine on the charter to be clearly define under its provision and should not need any law from the Congress to decide its definition. Have a nice evening. Ciao!