Credit card charges: only 2% monthly

In the Philippines the Supreme Court has declared that credit card charges should only be two percent (2%) per month or twenty-four percent (24%) per annum.
This drastically reduces the contractual stipulation by credit card companies, which impose as high as one hundred eleven percent (111%) of interest, penalty and finance charges on credit card holders.
Based on contract, credit card companies can charge as high as 9.25% per month, broken down as follows:
Every month the credit card company slaps card holders with three percent (3%) interest .
In addition, another three percent (3%) imposed for penalty charges.
In addition, another 3.25 % percent is imposed for finance charges, for a total of 9.25% per month.
In one year, that could accumulate to 111% additional charges.
Thus, if you have a principal obligation of P100,000 to the credit card company, in one year, your debt can accumulate to more than double the principal amount.
This is just a ball bark figure (more or less) because we are not talking about monthly compounding of these charges, if this is in the contract..
The Supreme Court said these charges are too much.
“We are of the opinion that that the interest rate and penalty charge should be equitably reduced… to 2% per month or 24% per annum,” The Supreme Court said.
Courts are authorized by law to reduce interest and penalty charges if the court believes that the contractually agreed charges are unconscionable.
Under our example, if the credit card debt is P100,000.00, after a year, the total debt can accumulate to only around P124,000.00, more or less.
If you are in default in your credit card payments, and the credit card company slaps you will all sorts of charges, you can argue that the additional charges should only be two percent (2%) monthly.
It would also be advisable if the card holder go as far back in his/her bills so he/she can seek a re-computation at a rate of two percent (2%) per month in past statements of account.
[Ileana DR Macalinao versus Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 175490, September 17, 2009.]

Divorce recognition expanded in PH

It is not correct to say there is an absolute ban on divorce in the Philippines.
Truth is, there are instances where divorce is recognized here.
The trend seems to expand divorce recgonition.
This is contained in Article 26 of the Family Code.
“Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law”.
The family code justifies that if the foreigner is able to procure a divorce abroad, and as a consequence of the divorce the foreigner is allowed to re-marry, then it is only fair that the divorced Filipino spouse left behind should also be allowed to re-marry.
Lately, the Supreme Court has expanded and made this law applicable even to former Filipinos who become naturalized in another country and subsequently procures a divorce.
This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Republic versus Cipriano Orbecido (G.R. 154380)
In that case, Cipriano and Lady Myros, both Filipinos were married in Ozamis City.
Later Lady Myros left for the United States.
While in the United States, Lady Myros became a naturalized American.
Thereafter, as an American, lady Myros procured a divorce from her marriage to Cipriano.
In this case, the Supreme Court said the Family Code provision on divorce can be applicable.
The point of reckoning is the citizenship of the divorcing spouse when the divorce was procured, and not the time of marriage.
Thus, the Supreme Court expanded the application of Article 26 of the Family Code, this time covering former Filipinos who are naturalized abroad.
If you look at the letter of the law, it only applies to foreigners who were such at the time of the marriage.
But the Supreme Court examined the spirit, not the letter of the law.
Let’s tweak the facts a little bit.
What if the divorce was obtained by the Filipino spouse abroad, BEFORE the Filipino spouse became naturalized abroad?
The answer to this question, applying simple logic, is that Article 26 will not apply.
Therefore, the Filipino spouse left behind cannot remarry, even if the Filipino spouse abroad obtained a divorce (before being naturalized), and then re-marries there.
The explanation is that since the divorce was obtained while the Filipino spouse was still a Filipino, then the spouse abroad is still subject to Philippine laws, which does not recognize the divorce.
But what if the Filipino spouse abroad, after obtaining a divorce and then re-marrying, subsequently becomes naturalized (becomes a foreigner) ?
Will the naturalization have a retroactive, and curative effect on the previously obtained divorce, such that the Filipino spouse left behind can also re-marry?
There is no case on this yet.
But if the Filipino spouse left behind is not allowed to re-marry, because the divorce procured by the Filipino spouse abroad cannot be recognized in the Philippines---having procured the divorce while still a Filipino---the same unfairness persists.
The Filipino spouse left behind will suffer eternally and cannot re-marry
It can be suggested that if a Filipino spouse abroad obtains a divorce there, such a divorce should be recognized once that Filipino spouse abroad becomes naturalized.
Otherwise, the Filipino spouse left behind cannot remarry and will be in an unfair situation.
Such unfairness is precisely what the Court has tried to remove.

Speechwriter legally liable

The controversial speech writer of the President, Maria Carmen Mislang (an assistant secretary), can be held liable for violating Republic Act No. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials.

While being part of a presidential delegation to Vietnam recently, the presidential speech writer made unsavory, embarrassing comments on her Twitter account by saying the Vietnam “wine sucks”.
As if the presidential visit was also a mate-hunting spree, the speech writer also publicly commented that there are no good looking men in Vietnam.
Worse, as if the Manila traffic is not as bad, Mislang comment that being in the motorcycle-laden streets of Vietnam is one of the easiest ways to die.
As a Filipino, I am very embarrassed because this was made by an official who was part of a high level delegation representing the entire Filipino nation.
When the president goes abroad on official visit, there is no moment that he or any of his officials are on private time.
This is because it is the taxpayers’ money, our hard-earned money, that is being used to fund their trip.

The law’s policy

The statement of policy of the Republic Act No. 6713 is very clear:
“It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public service. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest.”
The policy is self-explanatory

Norms of conduct

Public officials are held to observe certain norms while in office.

Commitment to public service

Section 4 (a) requires commitment to public service. It states:
“Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. All government resources and powers of their respective offices must be employed and used efficiently, effectively, honestly and economically, particularly to avoid wastage in public funds and revenues.”
While part of the presidential delegation, did the speechwriter uphold public interest?
Did she use government resources (taxpayers’ money) efficiently, effectively?
If the answers are not “yes” then she is liable under this provision.

Professionalism
Section 4(a) of the law requires, utmost professionalism.
“Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.”
While in Vietnam is the speech writer discharge her duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill?
Did she comport herself with utmost devotion and dedication to duty?
Again, if the answers to these questions are not “yes”, then there is a violation of the law.

Justness, sincerity

Section 4© requires public officials to observe justness and sincerity:
“Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.”
While in Vietnam as part of the presidential delegation, and posting humiliating twitter comments in between, did the speech writer remain true to the people?
As a public official, did she act with justness and sincerity?
Was she not discriminating against the Vietnamese people where she said their “wine sucks”
Was she not discriminating when she publicly degraded the physical attributes of Vietnamese males?
Did she respect the rights of the Vietnamese people with her publicly degrading twitter posts?
Was she doing acts in accordance with ‘good morals’ and ‘good customs’ with her Twitter posts?

I think, if we base her acts with the high standards required of public officials under Republic Act 6713, she should be held liable.

Penalties

Under Section 11 the law provides penalties for violations:
“Any public official or employee, …committing any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding one (1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense after due notice and hearing by the appropriate body or agency. “

Mercury Drug strikes three

I don’t know what’s with my favorite drug store, Mercury Drug Corporation, owner of the country’s largest drug store chain.
For three times it has been penalized by the courts for endangering peoples’ lives when its employees negligently gave the wrong drug to its customers.

Most recent incident

Very recently Mercury Drug Corporation was fined by the court of appeals P100,000 when its employee in its Sucat branch gave a customer an anti-convulsion drug “Dilantin”, instead of “Benadryl”, an anti-alergy medicine.
The customer Alma Garcia said she purchased six Benadryl capsules from the concerned branch for her daughter Amanda Hazel, who later complained of abdominal discomfort, irregular bowel movement, and inability to sleep.
Amanda was later diagnosed as suffering from toxicity due to Dilantin intake, and was forced to quit school.
This is not the first time that Mercury Drug Corporation was found negligent by the courts for issuing a wrong drug to its customers.

First incident

The first time almost claimed the life of its customer.
On November 25, 1993 Sebastian Baking was prescribed by his doctor the drug called “Diamicron” (for his blood sugar).
When Baking went to Mercury drug to buy the medicine, he was given instead “Dormicum”, a potent sleeping tablet.
On the third day that Baking took the wrong medicine, he drove his car.
He fell asleep while driving.
As a result he met an accident when his car collided with another vehicle.
Baking suspected that his medicine may have had an effect in his physical state while driving.
To the shock of his doctor, it was discovered that Baking has been taking the wrong medicine.
Baking sued Mercury Drug Corp and its employee.

Second incident

Apparently unperturbed, the next victim of Mercury Drug’s negligence was no less than a judge.
Judge Raul De Leon, presiding judge of Paranaque, had red eyes in 1999. He had difficulty reading.
His doctor prescribed him “Cortisporin Opthalmic” and “Ceftin” to relieve his eyes.
The following morning, judge De Leon went to the Betterliving, Parañaque, branch of Mercury Drug Store Corporation to buy the prescribed medicines.
At his chambers, De Leon requested his sheriff to assist him in using the eye drops.
As instructed, the sheriff applied 2-3 drops on the judge's left eye. Instead of relieving his irritation, the judge felt searing pain.
He immediately rinsed the affected eye with water, but the pain did not subside.
Only then did he discover that he was given the wrong medicine, “Cortisporin Otic Solution.”
De Leon returned to the same Mercury Drug branch, with his left eye still red and teary. When he confronted the sales lady Ganzon why he was given ear drops, instead of the prescribed eye drops, she did not apologize and instead brazenly replied that she was unable to fully read the prescription.
In fact, it was her supervisor who apologized and informed De Leon that they do not have stock of the needed Cortisporin Opthalmic.
De Leon wrote Mercury Drug, through its president, Ms. Vivian K. Askuna, about the day’s incident. It did not merit any response.
Instead, two sales persons went to his office and informed him that their supervisor was busy with other matters. Having been denied his simple desire for a written apology and explanation, De Leon filed a complaint for damages against Mercury Drug.
Denying that they were negligent, Mercury Drug and Ganzon pointed out that De Leon’s own negligence was the proximate cause of his injury.
They argued that any injury would have been averted had De Leon exercised due diligence before applying the medicine on his eye.
Had he cautiously read the medicine bottle label, he would have known that he had the wrong medicine, Mercury Drug argued.

Ruling of the court

The Supreme Court ruled that Mercury Durg Corporation is liable together with its employees.

Presumption of employer’s negligence

There was a presumption that Mercury Drug Corp. did not exercise the proper diligence in the selection and supervision of its employees.
In cases where an injury is caused by the negligence of an employee, there instantly arises a presumption of law that there has been negligence on the part of the employer, either in the selection or supervision of one’s employees. This presumption may be rebutted by a clear showing that the employer has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of the family.
Mercury Drug failed to overcome such presumption.
In the Baking case, the Court ruled that obviously, Mercury Drug’s employee was grossly negligent in selling to Baking “Dormicum”, instead of the prescribed “Diamicron”.
Considering that a fatal mistake could be a matter of life and death for a buying patient, the said employee should have been very cautious in dispensing medicines, the court said
She should have verified whether the medicine she gave respondent was indeed the one prescribed by his physician, the court said.
The care required must be commensurate with the danger involved, and the skill employed must correspond with the superior knowledge of the business which the law demands, the court said.

Proximate cause

The proximate cause of the accident was the gross negligence of the pharmacist who gave the wrong medicine to the customer, according to the court.

Pharmacy: Imbued with public interest
.
The Supreme Court ruled: “It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest. This can not be more real for Mercury Drug, the country’s biggest drugstore chain”.
“This Court can not tolerate any form of negligence which can jeopardize the health and safety of its loyal patrons,” the Supreme Court said.
“Moreover, this Court will not countenance the cavalier manner it treated judge De Leon. Not only does a pharmacy owe a customer the duty of reasonable care, but it is also duty-bound to accord one with respect,” the court said.

My comments: tort or contract?

No question, the Supreme Court ruled correctly in holding Mercury Drug and its employee liable.
But I cannot agree with the court’s basis for holding Mercury drug liable.
In holding Mercury Drug liable in the Baking case, the Supreme Court invoked the law on torts.
The court cited Article 2176 of the civil code which states: “Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict…”
How the court implied the absence of a “pre-existing contractual relation” escapes me.
Does this not involve a contract of sale between Mercury Drug Corp. and the curtomer?
To my mind, the ruling should have be based on contractual breach, not quasi-delict or tort.

Impunity

What alarms me is that this is the third time that the court has to rule over the negligence of a drug store for giving the customer a wrong medicine.
The drug store apparently hasn’t learned its lesson.
Why? Because the penalty is miniscule.
The maximum award is only P100,000.00 despite the seriousness of the damage.
The Supreme Court merely awarded P50,000 moral damages and P25,000. exemplary damages.
This penalty is too small for such a serious damage.

Legislation needed.

To promote the public interest, may I kindly call on our congressmen/senators to enact a law that would criminalize the reckless giving of wrong medicines by drugs stores to its customers.
Lawmakers should look at the welfare of hapless citizens, specially senior citizens, and the not-very-literate, who may have difficulty reading ant-sized letters in medicine bottles.
The law should impose not only jail time, but in addition, a hefty penalty--- no less than P500,000, if I may suggest.
Perhaps, a local ordinance should be enacted also to immediately protect the locality.
The giving by a drug store of a wrong medicine is no less dangerous, and just as serious as a nurse administering or injecting the wrong drug to a patient.
Piligro ni

Digging into the Fertilizer fund scam

We should congratulate Representative George Arnaiz for coming forward to explain how he used the five million pesos which the province received for fertilizers to help our poor farmers with their farming efforts.
This five million pesos is part (kuno) of the P728-million “fertilizer fund scam” which is now being investigated by the Senate.
The allegation is that the P728-million was mis-used and eventually diverted to bankroll the candidacy of President Arroyo 2004.
On the hot seat is the former Agriculture Department undersecretary Jocelyn “joke-joke” Bolante, who has been alleged to be the architect of the fund mis-use and diversion.
Bolante has flatly denied the accusations under oath, on nationwide television before a Senate inquiry.
Rep. George Arnaiz (who was governor during the distribution of the controversial funds) has confirmed that five million pesos was actually received for Negros Oriental farmers.

The explanation

Rep. Arnaiz explained, and as published in this paper, that everything was in order and that five million pesos was used for the benefit of the farmers, and that no money went to private pockets.
I fully believe our good Rep. George Arnaiz.

Change of public purpose?

However, there are some points in his explanation that left me unsatisfied.

First question: Joke-joke Bolante testified under oath before the House investigation that "not a single centavo" of the fund went to any congressman, governor, or mayor. So what is this five million pesos admittedly received by the provincial government?
Second question: Why was part of the five million pesos received by the province (P1.75-million), used to buy “farm equipments” instead of fertilizers?
It was reported that when an additional P1.75 million was released by DBM representing the second tranche of the fertilizer fund, the provincial government decided to use it to buy farm equipments instead.
The farm equipments (which obviously are not fertilizers) include thresher/shellers, hand tractor, flat bed dryers.
Third question: Who has the discretion to switch the use of public funds from one public purpose (fertilizers), to another public purpose (farm equipments).

Boncodin testimony

May I refer to the 2006 Senate Committee report under former Senator Jun Magsaysay.
Former Budget Secretary Emilia Boncodin testified before the committee that: The release of funds made by the DBM was for farm inputs which could incorporate fertilizers, seeds and even insecticides.
“But the actual purpose for which the same will be used will depend on the Department of Agriculture” Boncodin said.
It is thus clear that it is the D.A. that decides the “actual purpose” for which the funds are to be used, not the local government.
Fourth question: What is the legal basis of the local government unit in changing the public purpose of public funds from “fertilizers” to “farm equipments”?
I am asking these question on the angle of technical malversation.
Technical malversation may arise if public funds are applied to a public use (farm equipments) other than that for which the fund has been appropriated (fertilizers).

The constitutional violation

May I kindly remind that we have a specific constitutional mandate in Section 25(2) Article VI that provides:"No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates."
It seems to me that the constitutional command that appropriations must be particularized and specific has been blatantly violated.
We hear testimony that money was given to local government officials. Some admit fertilizers were given (not cash). Other say the money was used to buy local fertilizers, and local farm equipment. Sir George says he received money and he conducted bidding on fertilizers and farm equipments. Ano ba talaga?
What does the national budget (the appropriations law) say?
Who has discretion? Bolante? The D.A.? The congressman? The governor?
Was the appropriations law followed in the P728-fertilizer fund?

Biggest Source of corruption

Do you know what is the biggest source of corruption in government?
Its called "Lump sum appropriations".
My theory is that lump sum appropriations are unconstitutional.
Lump sum appropriations are not particularized appropriations.
That is why funds are juggled, because they are appropriated in lump sum.
With lump sum approrpiations, the executive department(starting with the President)and the legislators, are just too happy because they have spacious room and wide latitude to juggle and maneuver our taxes to their liking (i.e. bankroll elections).
As one lawmaker asked: "What are we in power for?"
This is another good article to write about.

Better probing

With all due respect to our probing legislators, if they want to pin down Bolante, they should focus their questions on the constitutional provisions on appropriations.
They should determine whether the constitution (provisions on appropriations) was violated.
Then they should tie this issue with the criminal laws on malversation, technical malversation, and graft (RA 3019).
I used to work in the Senate Blue Ribbon committee. Questions are supposed to be thoughtfully prepared.
But it seems Bolante is more prepared--and very intelligent.
One unwritten rule has been violated in these legislative questionings: Do not ask open-ended questions when you have an intelligent witness.
If you do, the witness will drive you around town on a joyride.
And that is what Bolante has done successfully.

Why was there a local bidding?

What also disturbs me is the “bidding” conducted by the provincial government. This needs to be clarified.
Rep. Arnaiz’s explanation is that there was a (local) public bidding for the purchase of the fertilizers.
He publicized the winning bidders/suppliers of fertilizers.
However, I thought the P728-million fertilizer program was already a centralized negotiated contract between the Department of Agriculture and the controversial fertilizer supplier (Feshan).
It was the late journalist Marelene Esperat who exposed this “negotiated contract,” which many believed was the reason for her assassination.
So why did the provincial government conduct a local bidding for fertilizers, when there was already a negotiated contract between DA and the supplier Feshan?
If you were the entity/supplier with a contract with the Department of Agriculture already, and the local government unit still conducts a bidding to award to somebody else, how would you react? Will you be happy? Won't you sue?
It doesn't make sense, does it?

D.A. the procuring entity, not the LGU

Besides, the P728-million fertilizer fund is an appropriation to the Department of Agriculture (AFMA) and not to the provincial government.
So it should be the D.A. that should conduct the bidding or negotiated contract.
Under the procurement law (R.A. 9184) it is the D.A. that is the procuring entity (not the provincial government).
Under the general appropriations law, the fertilizer fund is an appropriation to the D.A., through the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA), not to the provincial government.

Doubts

There are quite interesting points in the good congressman’s explanations which I have compared with the Senate committee report.
Unfortunately, in my reading, many things do not match (Dili mo takdo).
I am thus prompted to ask: Is the five million pesos referred to by the good congressman in his explanation, really a part of the controversial P728-million fertilizer fund?
I doubt it.

If your celphone is stolen, have it blocked

Celphone has become one of the coveted targets for stealing and snatching.
According to one observer, cellphones have become hot targets because nowadays, unlike a kiss, a celphone is not just a celphone.
A cellphone now has digital camera, digital video, MP3, internet facility, and other fancy accessories.
What should you do when somebody steals your cellphone?
Have the cellpone blocked by the NTC.
Cellphone blocking render the cellphone unusable.
When blocked, a cellpphone becomes useless.
Besides, then the cellpphone is sold by the one who stole it, there will be trouble when the cellphone isblocked.
What do you do when your cellphone is stolen?
You report it to the National Telecommunications Commission.
It is quite easy to have a cellphone blocked.
The NTC has prepared a pro-forma affidavit which will be deemed the formal request for blocking.
You just fill in the blanks.
The form of the affdavit is available at the NTC website www.ntc.gov.ph.
Generally required are you identification, proof of ownership or police report, among others.
Where do you file it?
At any NTC office whether the national office in Quezon City, any of the regional offices, or the NTC sattelite offices.
Better still, you can fax the form and other required documentary attachments to the NTC offices in Quezon City at (02) 924-3736.
Within one week from filing, the cellphone will be rendered unusable.

LTO regulation: Absurd, illogical

I am inclined to seek a permanent injunction against this LTO regulation (AHS-2008-015) because, it seeks to ram through our throats certain provisions which are not only unclear, but absurd, illogical, impractical, and inapplicable to local conditions.
This LTO regulation was crafted without consulting a cross section of Philippine society, particularly the economically marginalized.
Take for example the requirement for helmets.
The LTO regulation states that: “Standard helmet” shall mean the protective helmet approved by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) with PNS-UNECE 22 marking.
Now what animal is this “PNS-UNECE 22″
Does any one know what this mean?
I myself didn’t know this, until I had to research its meaning in the internet.
PNS means “Philippine National Standard”
UNECE means “United Nations Economic Commission on Europe”
This regulation is rammed through our throats without a deliberative process so all stakeholders can participate.
This is undemocratic.
Look at the provision on “protective devices”:
“Protective devices” shall include helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit.
What is meant by “heavy pants”?
What is meant by “heavy jackets”?
So how many kilos would constitute "heavy"?
Do we have to weigh our outfits—pants and jackets—before we drive our motorcycles, so as to be compliant with the LTO regulation?
And there is an addition: “rain suit”
So try to imagine yourself, complying to-the-letter with this LTO regulation.
Try imagining yourself wearing a helmet, goggles, heavy pants (is the regulation endorsing Levi’s jeans?), a heavy jacket, leather gloves and leather boots, plus a rain suit.
How would you look?
Just try wearing them all, each time you ride your motorcycle.
Better practice it now.
There is another LTO provision that requires motorcycle drivers to turn on the headlight anytime of the day while in the highway (Section VIII).
Why will you turn on the headlight at high noon?
Can somebody explain that?
Next, there is a provision in the LTO that says:
“Any modification of the original standard design of a motorcycle or scooter shall first be subject to the approval of LTO and the DTI.”
But isn’t the motorcycle private property?
I have to ask permission from the government if I want to do something to my private property?
Suppose I want to place a basket on the front of my motorcycle below the headlight, where I can place books, grocery items, so I wouldn’t be holding them while driving. Do I have to ask permission from the government/LTO?
Suppose I want to install an anti-hand perspirant around the motorcycle's grip, because my hands easily sweat, and get slippery. Do I have to ask permission from government/LTO?
Suppose I want to install a muffler to lessen the noise of the motorcycle. Do I have to ask permission from the government/LTO?
There are some people who love to just follow
any government regulation hook-line-and-sinker, no matter how absurd and illogical.
Well, I respect them.
They probably are fans of the governments of China, and monarchies ruled by dictators and kings like Saudi Arabia.
But not in the Philippines, my friend.
The people here demand that they be allowed to join in the deliberative processes, in the formulation of laws and regulations.
People here are allowed to question, to reason, to discuss, to debate in the marketplace of ideas, so we can come up with better laws.
Why, we can even freely write our comments on websites, like the the Negros Chronicle.
Try doing that in Egypt or China and chances are, you’ll be jailed.
It has happened to bloggers there.
That is the reason why I question this LTO regulation because most of its provisions do not make sense to me.
Don’t make me follow a regulation that cannot be understood.
Don’t make me follow a regulation that is devoid of reason and logic.
Don’t make me follow a regulation that is vague.
It just doesn’t happen in the Philippines.

Leather boots to drive a motorcycle?

In the Philippines, you have to have a pair of leather boots before you can drive a motorcycle.
This is the implication of a new administrative regulation issued by the Land Transportation Office AHS-2008-015.
This LTO administrative issuance is titled RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND OPERATION OF MOTORCYCLES ON HIGHWAYS.
Under this regulation, drivers will be punished with fine "For wearing of flip flops, sandals or slippers or being bare footed while operating motorcycle or scooter on a road or highway"
The regulation does not, however, give any relevant explanation as to why flip-flops, sandals, or slippers or being barefooted is prohibited.
Neither does the regulation explain how wearing flip-flops, sandals, slippers or being bear footed would have any effect on safety on the road.
Meanwhile, the LTO regulation specifically lists down the outfit that are described as "protectived devices" to be worn by motorcycle drivers.
Section I No. 7 states: “Protective devices” shall include helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit.
There is a principle that what is not prohibited, is allowed.
So, if only flip-flops, slippers, sandals, or being barefooted are prohibited, are rubber shoes allowed?
What about leather shoes? what about step-ins, bakya, high-heels, crocs (to be a little fashionable)? Aren’t these more dangerous when worn driving a motorcycle?
Where is the rational distinction and valid classification?
Honestly, I find this LTO regulation vague.
Its not clear to me. Its clear as mud.
Any law--much less any regulation--that is vague is void (void-for-vagueness principle).
This is because it drives the people groping in the dark and confused as to how to comply with a law or regulation.

LTO Administrative Order AHS 2008-015 is anti-poor, discriminatory

With all due respect to our executive officials in the LTO and the national government, the Administrative Order regulating the operation of motorcycles in the country (AHS 2008-015) is patently unconstitutional, therefore invalid on its face.
It violates the due process, and equal protection clauses of our constitution.
More important, it is discriminatory.
There is a civil code provision which says that administrative regulations (like AHS-2008-015) are valid only when they are not contrary to the constitution.
I am very much alarmed at the formulation of this administrative order for it obviously did not hear many of our poor Filipinos, specially those in the rural country-sides.
It is appears to me that our poor rural folks have again been disregarded in the formulation of executive policies.
I am specifically referring, and taking the cudgels of the operators or drivers of habal-habal, and their passengers, patrons, customers, who rely on habal-habal as their only mode of transport to carry on their daily lives.
Priority should be for our brother Filipinos in the remote towns, who for the large part of this democratic system, have remained voiceless in the formulation of policies and laws.
The LTO administrative regulation totally forgets the words of the late President Magsaysay that “those who have less in life must have more in law”

What is the habal-habal?

For the information of our elitist policy makers in imperial Manila, there is a mode of transport in the vast rural and remote barrios in country called “Habal-habal”.
This mode of transport uses motorcycles, which is now the subject of regulation of AHS-2008-015.
Habal-habal is the principal, if not the only mode of transport availed of by our brother and sisters (yes, they are also Filipinos) in the hinterlands.
Where the buses, jeepneys , and tricycles no longer dare to tread due to the absence of any roads, owing largely to government non-feasance, it is the habal-habal which people rely on for transport.
The habal-habal comes to the rescue in places where government’s basic services of good roads and transport are absent.
The habal-habal is a principal component of the economic progress in the hinterlands.
The habal-habal, aside from transporting passengers, also transport, sacks of rice, basic food commodities like sugar, salt, flour, sari-sari store items, even pigs and poultry stuff.
That is reality out there.

Prejudicial to the poorer Filipinos


Here comes AHS-2008-015 which virtually eliminates the habal-habal, and annihilate them from existence because of heavy fines and penalties in the government regulation.
Imagine the prohibitions:
The LTO administrative regulation punishes those who use slippers, sandals, or are barefooted.
The LTO wants the habal-habal drivers to use “leather boots”.
Many of these drivers are on a hand-to-mouth existence.
Now the government wants them to drive motorcycles using “leather boots”.
Isn't this crazy?

“Protective devices”

The LTO regulation mentions protective gears for motorcycle drivers, namely: helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit
Now, how does the government expect the country’s, motorcycle drivers, let alone the finanacially marginalized habal-habal operators and drivers to afford these requirements described as "protective devices"?
Did the government ever think of the economic welfare of the habal-habal operators when they crafted this regulation?


No cargo allowed

According to this LTO regulation “The motorcycle or scooter shall not carry cargo other than the saddle bags or luggage carriers specifically designed and approved by the DTI”.
This provision will virtually put the habal-habal industry into extinction.
Have our government policy makers even seen a habal-habal?
A habal-habal is always modified to allow it to carry cargo like sacks of rice, flour, corn, basic staple, etc.
Will the government now disallow habal-habal from carrying these cargo?
What alternative transporter is the government giving to our brothers and sisters in the hinterlands?

Only one passenger allowed

Another provision that will render the habal-habal as an endangered specie is the requirement of only a single passenger.
Again, did the government and the LTO ever consider the reality in the remote barrios where the habal-habal motors have to carry several passengers for a fee?
If only one passenger is allowed, how will the habal-habal industry survive?
How can the people in the hinterlands live in mobility if only one passenger is allowed for habal-habal?
Does the government have any alternative?

Prohibitive penalty for habal-habal

If this LTO regulation is implemented, the habal-habal driver will have to pay the following penalties on the initial apprehension:
(1) failure to wear helmet: P1,500
(2) for carrying more than one passenger P1,000
(3) For modifying their motors P2,000
(4) For wearing slippers (or being barefooted) while driving P500

Thus at the very least, each habal-habal drivers stand to pay P5,000 for the initial offense.

Conclusion

I maintain the position that LTO regulation AHS-2008-015 is unconstitutional and invalid for violating the due process, and equal protection clauses of our constitution.
A significant number of Filipinos, the habal-habal operators/drivers, and the poor customers in the remote barrios have been deprived of their opportunity to be heard of their concerns.
The LTO regulation is highly oppressive against our humble, lowly and poorer bothers and sisters living in the remote parts of our country who solely rely on the habal habal as their only mode of transport.
The LTO regulation does not address the concerns of the poor and the voiceless sectors who are affected.
The equal protection clause proceeds from a belief that all men are created equal.
But this LTO regulation treats a poorer sector --- the habal-habal operators and patrons--- differently.
Many of habal-habal drivers make a living barefooted. Many of them, out of poverty, wear rotten slippers in going to work.
But the government penalizes them, through this LTO regulation.
In other words, the habal-habal drivers are punished for being poor.
The LTO regulation terribly discriminates against the poor.

I think this LTO regulation must be scrapped.

I am contemplating initiating a class suit against this unconstitutional administrative issuance in behalf of not only the habal habal operators and drivers, but the poor, ordinary passengers, whose impoverished conditions in the far-flung barrios would be worsened if the government enforces the regulation against the habal habals, and eventually exterminate them out of existence.


Credits for the pictures:
www.bigjimsphilippinesexperience.com
www.mynewhorizon.net
www.gerelynsweetmemories.blogspot.com

The "Helmet" Administrative Order

The "Helmet" administrative issuance has become controversial among many sectors and in the country.
Let me just clarify that the helmet regualtions are just part of the administrative issuance, which tackles generally the operation of motorcycles.
I am posting the full text of Administrative Order No. AHS 2008-015 titiled "RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND OPERATION OF MOTORCYCLES ON HIGHWAYS".
I have to credit the website of XRM Bikers Club Philippines http://xrmbikersclub.forumakers.com from where I got the text.
(I had a hard time retrieving a copy of the said issuance from the LTO website itself).
Here is the text:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS
LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE
East Avenue, Quezon City

E-mail Address: Ilombox@lto.gov.ph – Website: www.lto.gov.ph
15 May 2008

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. AHS-2008-015
Subject: RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE AND OPERATION OF MOTORCYCLES ON HIGHWAYS

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 292 otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987 and the United Nations Vienna Convention for Road Traffic of 1968 to which the Philippines is a signatory, and in accordance with Department Order No. 93-693, series of 1992, the following rules and regulations shall govern the use and operation of motorcycles on roads and highways.

Section I. Definition of Terms. As used in these Rules:

1. “Driver” shall mean every and any licensed operator or rider of a motorcycle or scooter.

2. “Electrical accessories” shall mean the horn, brake, headlight and turn signals of a motorcycle or scooter.

3. “Highways” shall mean every public thoroughfare, public boulevard, driveway, avenue, park, alley, callejon, but shall not include roadway upon grounds owned by private persons, colleges, universities, or other similar institutions.

4. “Lane splitting” shall mean using or sharing a lane already occupied by one vehicle by another vehicle such as a motorcycle or scooter in a road or highway.

5. “Motorcycle” shall mean two-wheeled motor vehicle having one or two riding saddles.

6. “Passenger” shall mean the back rider of a motorcycle or scooter.

7. “Protective devices” shall include helmet, goggles, leather boots and protective clothing such as heavy pants, heavy jackets, leather gloves and rain suit.

8. “Standard helmet” shall mean the protective helmet approved by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) with PNS-UNECE 22 marking.

9. “School for motorcycle riders” shall mean any and all motorcycle riding school accredited by the Land Transportation Office.

10. “Saddle bag” shall mean the Department of Trade and Industry approved built-in carrier of luggage in a motorcycle.

11. “Temporary Operator’s Permit” shall mean the citation ticket issued by LTO deputized agents to those who violates these Rules and Regulations.

Section II. Compulsory Registration of Motorcycles and Scooters. All motorcycles and scooters used or operated on any highway of the Philippines must be registered with the Land Transportation Office for the current year, in accordance with R.A. No. 4136, as amended.

Section III. Use of Number Plates. Every motorcycle or scooter shall, at all times, display in conspicuous places, the reflective number plates issued by the Land Transportation Office (LTO).

The number plates shall be kept clean and shall be firmly affixed to the motor vehicle in such a manner as will make it entirely visible and legible.

Section IV. Duty of Driver/Rider to have License. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate any motor vehicle without a valid license to drive a motor vehicle.

The license with Restriction Code No. 1 shall be carried by the driver/rider at all times when operating a motorcycle or scooter, and shall be shown and/or surrendered for cause to and upon demand by any person authorized under R.A. No. 4136 as amended, to confiscate the same.

Section V. Speed Limit. The uniform speed limit for nationwide application as provided under Sec. 35, Article I, Chapter IV of R.A. No. 4136 is hereby incorporated as part of these Rules as follows:

“Section 35. Restriction as to speed. – (a) Any person driving a motor vehicle on a highway shall drive the same at a careful and prudent speed, not greater not less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard for the traffic, the width of the highway, and or any other condition then and there existing, and no person shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway at such a speed as to endanger the life, limb and properly of any person, not at a speed greater than will permit him to bring the vehicle to a stop within the assured clear distance ahead.

(b) subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the rate of speed of any motor vehicle shall not exceed the following:

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SPEEDS


Passenger cars Motor trucks and
and motorcycles buses

1. On open country roads,
with no “blind corner” not 80 kms. per 50 kms. per
closely bordered by hour hour
habitations.

2. On “through streets” or 40 kms. per 30 kms. per
boulevards clear of traffic hour hour
with no “blind corners”
when so designated.

3. On city and municipal 30 kms. per 30 kms. per
streets, wit light traffic, hour hour
when not designated
“through streets.”

4. Through crowded streets, 20 kms. per 20 kms. per
approaching intersections hour hour
at “blind corners,” passing
school zones, passing
other vehicles which are
stationary, or for similar
dangerous circumstances.

Section VI. Passenger and Cargo Load. Only one (1) back rider shall be allowed on a motorcycle or scooter who must be provided with a seat and footrest.
The motorcycle or scooter shall not carry cargo other than the saddle bags or luggage carriers specifically designed and approved by the DTI.

Section VII. Wearing of Standard Helmet. It shall be the duty of the motorcycle or scooter driver/rider to ensure that he/she and the back rider wear standard helmets.

Section VIII. Motorcycle and Scooter Accessories. Motorcycles or scooters shall be equipped with required accessories such as headlight, tail light, signal light, brake light, side mirror and horn.

The driver/rider shall, anytime of the day, switch on the headlight of the motorcycle or scooter while it is being operated on the highway. He shall dim the headlight or lower the beam whenever the motorcycle or scooter is being operated on well-lighted streets within the limits of cities, municipalities, and thickly populated barrios or districts, or whenever it meets another vehicle along a highway.

Any modification of the original standard design of a motorcycle or scooter shall first be subject to the approval of LTO and the DTI.

Section IX. Miscellaneous Traffic Rules.

a) No driver/rider shall operate a motorcycle or scooter while under the influence of liquor or narcotic drug.

b) The driver/rider shall not use a cellular phone or other gadgets while operating a motorcycle or scooter.

c) A driver/rider shall observe the rule and on one lane per one vehicle only. Lane splitting is prohibited along a road or a highway. Motorcycles or scooters shall not be operated on sidewalks.

Section X. Accreditation of Motorcycle Riding School. Any person may establish a motorcycle riding school according to law, provided accreditation is secured from the LTO.

The LTO may waive the practical driving test for a student permit holder applying for driver’s license with Restriction Code No. 1 who has completed a rider’s course from a LTO accredited motorcycle riding school, provided the certificate of completion and graded results of the riding test of said applicant are submitted to the LTO.

Section XI. Penal and other Provisions. The following fines/penalties shall be imposed against those who violated these Rules and Regulations.

a) For failure of driver/rider and/or back rider to wear prescribed helmet, a fine of One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P1,500.00) with accessory penalty of driver/rider attending a seminar or traffic safety management to be conducted by the LTO.

b) For carrying more passengers other than the back rider or cargo other than the saddle bags and luggage carriers, fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).

c) For defective accessories such as headlight, tail light, signal light, brake light, side mirror and horn, a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).

d) For modifying any part of the original designs of a motorcycle or scooter without approval of the LTO and the DTI, a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).

e) For wearing of flip flops, sandals or slippers or being bare footed while operating motorcycle or scooter on a road or highway, a fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) for the first offense, Seven Hundred Pesos (P700.00) for the second offense and a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and revocation of drivers license for the third offense.

Section XII. Repealing Clause. All previous orders and issuances inconsistent herewith are revoked and superseded.

Section XIII. Separability. If any provision of these Rules and Regulation of the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of these Rules and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances not be affected thereby.

Section XIV. Effectivity. These Rules shall take effect after fifteen (15) days upon publication in a newspaper or national general circulation and a copy hereof furnished the UP Law Center.

Notice of hearing

In litigation, a notice of hearing is very important.
In fact it is indespensable.
The rules of court require that for every motion filed by a party, there must be a hearing so that the adverse party can also be heard before the court grants or denies the motion.
First, a motion is anything under the sun that a party asks or requests from the court to give or grant, other than the favorable judgement sought by the party.
For instance, if a party wants to go to the comfort room, he motions the court.
But of course, going to the comfort room is not litiguous or subject to legal debate that one can just orally request this from the court.
The common motions filed in court are motion to cancel hearing, motion to dismiss the case, motion to resolve, or just anything a party requests the court.
The rule is that when a motion is filed by a party, it must be set for hearing where all parties can be present to deliberate, comment on, or oppose the motion.
That is why a notice of hearing to the other parties is something that cannot be dispensed with.
When a party files a motion, at the end of the written motion, he notifies the other parties by writing: "Please be notified that I am setting this motion for hearing on August 1, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. for approval of the court."
A common mistake by some parties is that it directs the clerk of court, not the parties to set the hearing.
Some parties filing a motion write to the clerk: "Please set the hearing of the above motion on August 1, 2008 at 9:00 a,.m. for the approval of the court."
This is not a notice of hearing contemplated by the rules.
This is nothing but a written instruction to the clerk to set a hearing, not a notice of hearing.
The Supreme Court has ruled that instructions to the clerk of court, not addresed to the parties are not notices of hearing which merit attention of the court.
The Supreme Court ruled that such kind of notices of hearing are a mere scrap of paper.

Pimentel to explain 20/80 federal solution

Once the federal system of government is impelemented, for this year Negros Oriental would stand to receive more than one billion pesos as its share from the collection of national taxes.
Senator minority leader Aquilino 'Nene' Q. Pimentel, Jr. will explain the important implications of adoption of a federal form of government in the country during his visit to Dumaguete City on August 14.
The most significant benefit derived from the adoption of a federal government is the drastic increase in the shares by local government in the collection of national taxes.
Under the model that is being pushed by the senator, there wil be a 20-80 sharing scheme between the federal government and the proposed federal states.
Pimentel is scheduled to speak before students, and local officials at the Negros Oriental State University when he arrives from a morning flight from Manila on Thursday.
He is also going to speak before the league of municipalities in Amlan.
The shares of local government units (LGUs) in the collection of national taxes shall substantially increase – many by as much as 30 percent – under the federal system being proposed by a majority of senators, according to Senator Pimentel.
As provided for in Joint Senate Resolution 10 calling for the adoption of a federal system, all revenues and taxes collected by the LGUs or by the national government shall be divided in the following manner: 20 percent shall accrue to the federal government and 80 percent to the federal states.
Of the share accruing to the federal states, 30 percent shall go to the state concerned and 70 percent shall be apportioned among the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, according to the formula prescribed under the Local Government Code of 1991.
Pimentel, principal author of Senate Joint Resolution 10, explained that the shares of LGUs defined under the Code, will get much bigger under the proposal because the funds to be apportioned shall include all revenues and taxes imposed or collected by the federal government.
“That means that monies like customs duties and the collections of seaports will now be included in the revenues to be divided among the federal government, the states and the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays,” he said.
Under the present system, Pimentel pointed out that “only taxes as taxes strictly construed are subjected to division between the central government and LGUs.”
In the case of Negros Oriental, the province's share for 2008 out of collections from the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), amounts to P801,711,407.02.
But under the federal system's sharing scheme, the share for Negros Oriental will rise to P1,122,395,969.82.
There will be an increase of P320-million to the province's share in the national taxes, under the proposed sharing scheme in the federal system.
This is a thirty-nine percent increase from Negros Oriental's current share
For Dumaguete City, the share for 2008 out of BIR collections amounts to P187,778,810.56.
Under the federal system, the share for Dumaguete City would be P262,890,334.77.
There would be an increse of P75,111,524.22 for DUamguete share in the national taxes.

Dgte. Press forms legal team

The Dumaguete Press Club Inc. has formed a legal team that will address the legal concerns of its members.
I have volunteered to be the team's legal counsel. Hopefully we will be able to invite other lawyers to lend us a helping hand in promoting the legal interests of practicing journalists.
The Dumaguete journalists, members of the Dumaguete Press Club Inc. met at our Dumaguete law office last week, to organize and adopt a framework to fulfill the team's objectives.
I asked the members of the press if there have been legal actions taken against any them.
Fortunately, there have yet been none lately.
However, their concerns are the constant harrassments they encounter when they write their stories.
The harrassments most expectedly come from local officials who are the subject of their stories.
They relate their stories about how mayors "scold" or berate journalists during press conferences.
I am not surprised at these stories.
Some are parochial, the local chief thinks he lords over his little kingdom.
Some local officials also have a burgeoning egos.
So instead of giving his side of the story, the local official lets out his personal emotions, and scolds the journalists for writing the story wrong.
I sense that the only correct story is when the the official is placed in a good light.
If the official is placed in a bad light, then the story is wrong or "libelous".
That is a challenge for journalists---dealing with these kind of public officials.
Fellow journalists related the story of a southern mayor, who in a fit of madness, drove the journalists away from his turf.
"Pamahawa mo diri!" (Get out of here!), the journalists were told.
It was as if the mayor owned the town.
This mayor was formerly a political errand boy in the past.
He continuously licked the asses of political bosses until his tongue dried up, he got his chance, and eventually became mayor.
Now that he is mayor, he thinks he has all the right to scold people, including journalists.
Such are stories I heard during our gathering.
I opined that we really cannot avoid ego-tripping public officials.
Diskartehan na lang. Pasensiya lang.
Public officials should not cross the line though, by doing something that would give rise to legal cause of action.
If there arises a cause of action against journalists, then the journalists must assert their rights, assisted by this legal team, and take action.

Heavy fines at NTC

If you are a practitioner at the National Telecommunications Commission, you will notice that administrative fines against communications entities who commit lapses are quite heavy.
For instance, for a broadcast station to fail to timely seek and extension of its expired provisional authority to operate its broadcast facility, the fine is P200 per day.
Imagine the amount of fine if the failure to seek and extension reaches several months or years...
I am handling an administative case for a client, whose fine may go beyond the hundred of thousand peso mark.
Pretty expensive...

A Dent on Democracy

The decision of the Supreme Court favoring Secretary Romulo Neri by allowing him to invoke executive privilege, has been seen as creating a dent in our democracy.
It is a dangerous decision because it would encourage the furtherance corruption in the highest position of government.
It pounces on the principle of checks and balances between the three main branches of government.

Can the truth be compromised?

I am much confused with the end result of the petition before the Supreme Court filed by CHED Chairman Romulo Neri, who had asked that the Senate be prevented from compelling him to testify on the ground of executive privilege.
During the orgal arguments, the Supreme Court apparently issued a solomonic solution by urging the parties to come up with a compromise.
As I write this, the compromise was that Romulo Neri will go back to the Senate and testify, but the Senate cannot ask three questions.
These forbidden questions, according to news reports (since I was not able to attand the oral arguments at the Supreme Court), are: (1) Whether President Arroyo approved the NBN-ZTE project inspite of the bribery disclosure, (2) whether she had dictated on Neri to approve the project, and (3) whether the President had followed up on her directive.
To, me this is a highly unusual result in the highest court of the land.
It is my impression that the truth after all, is subject to compromise.
So the people will not know the answers to the forbidden questions from the very lips of Romulo Neri.
But of course, the answers are already out, mainly from secondary sources like Rodolfo Lozada, Jr.
Lozada has testified that Neri had told him that the President instructed Neri to approve the monumentally anomalous NBN ZTE broadcband deal.
In fact, I recall Neri had already testified in the Senate that the President had told him to reject the P200-million bribe offer of Benjamin Abalos, but approve the NBN deal just the same.
But I am very uncomfortable about this proposed compromise deal to be struck in the Supreme Court.
I know as a lawyer that almost everything can be subject to compromise.
Under the rules of court, the few things that cannot be subject of compromise are support, civil status of persons, among others.
But never did I ever think that the search for truth, or the truth itself, is subject to compromise.
The reason why I think the truth is not subject to compromise is that one is supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
With this looming compromise deal, it is my undertantding that when one testifies, he may testifiy about 90% of the truth only.
So when Neri goes back to the Senate, he will be asked to tell the truth, most-but-not-all of the truth, and nothing but most-of-the-truth.
Funny.
I was expecting a landmark, historic decision by the Supreme Court on the issue of executive privilege, in the same way that the United States Supreme Court decided executive privilege in United States versus Nixon.
During the politically tumultuous times of the Nixon presidency, Nixon had wanted to prevent the White House tape-recordings of presidential conversations revealed to the public.
Nixon failed in his bid.
Eventually, he resigned from office.
I had also wanted to know whether Neri can invoke executive privilege, when he is not the president.
Who has the privilege to invoke executive privilege?
Who decides what is covered by executive privilege?
Can executive privilege be invoked, even if raising it would effectively conceal a crime?
Can anybody, who might just happen to have talked with the president, be allowed to invoke executive privilege?
If the President talks to a Malacanang gardener, can the gardener refuse to disclose his/her conversations with the President on the ground that in his personal judgement, the conversations were matters of executive privilege?
Is it the garderner who decides what is covered by executive privilege?
In short, what are the parameters of executive privilege?
The Supreme Court is the court of last resort.
With this compromise agreement (if executed), there will be no definitive ruling on the matter of executive privilege.
For the Supreme Court, it would have been a defining moment.

Widen probe of Pacquiao swindling

I agree with moves of Los Angeles law enforcement authorities to widen the probe of the swindling of Filipino boxer Manny Pacquiao.
Pacquiao apparently was duped of more than US$150,000 by the second wife of his driver, identified as Pia Quijada.
The story is that Pacquiao opened a checking account at Wells Fargo and used the addresses of the spouses Quijada.
Over time, Quijada made unauthorized withdrawals of the Pacquiao funds by issuing checks with forged Pacquiao signatures.
The investigation, naturally focused on the beneficiary of the forgery, Pia Quijada, who has reportedly confessed and has asked for forgiveness from Pacquiao.
But I think the investigation should not stop there.
The question now is, how could this withdrawal be made possible without the participation of people from within the bank.
In the Philippines, when one opens a checking account, the bank as standard procedure, requires the account holder to make several specimen signatures in what they call "sig-cards" or signature cards.
This sig-cards are used by bank employees/telles for comparison, in the event checks are issued by the account holder.
When the bank receives checks issued by the account holder, the teller immiadately gets the sig-cards from a filing cabinet and compare the signatures.
In short, it is the responsibility of the bank to ensure the checks are not forged.
If the bank allows the withdrawal, and later on the signature turns out to be forged, that is the responsibility of the bank.
At the very least, negligence can be attributed on the bank.
But is it only negligence, or did it amount to conspiracy?
That is the question.
It is therefore no surprise that Wells Fargo is offering to refund Manny Pacquiao of the money withdrawn without his authority.
That is only proper.
It is a good thing that the person swindled was a celebrity.
If it were an ordinary account holder, would the bank readily make the refund?

What is on Neri's mind?

Many are puzzled why Romulo Neri refuses to "choose the light," and instead continues to align himself with the "dark side".

Neri is known to be incorruptible.

Other see him as an upright person.

But he, with the assistance of the powers in government, seems to be moving heaven and earth in order evade testifying in the Senate, unlike what his friend Rodolfo "Jun" Lozada did.

At this point, many people think Neri is the final nail that will seal the coffin of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo government.

It is in Neri's lips where the Filipino people will know what the President had told him, or instructed him, that paved the way for the signing of the scandalous multi-million dollar ZTE loan last year in China.

For me, what I really want to know from Romulo Neri is: What was that million-dollar factor that changed the NBN project from Build-Operate-Transfer (B.O.T.) scheme to a China loan?

Only the President (not Abalos) has that power to convert a B.O.T. (National Broadband Network) project into a loan monumentally onerous to the Filipino people.

Neri continues to refuse to reveal his conversations with the President, and instead invokes executive privilege.

Executive privilege was what former U.S. President Richard Nixon unsuccessfully invoked when he tried to cover-up the infamous Watergate scandal that led to the downfall of his administration.

But there is now a written piece, arributed to Jun Lozada, circulated in the internet.

This writing purportedly was written by Jun Lozada and given to a friend Enteng Romano.

Romano then did not find much use of the Lozada piece, until Lozada spilled the beans in the Senate recently.

The piece, attributed to Jun Lozada, seeks to explain why Romulo Neri won't testify in the Senate.

It also seeks to squeeze out some of the things on Neri's mind.

Here is the link: http://www.tingog.com/government/what-is-neri-afraid-to-say-and-why.html

Bad news for Sabungeros

I bring bad news to sabungeros (cockfight enthusiasts).
The Supreme Court has turned down a petition seeking to allow the holding of cockfights other than the statutorily mandated dates.
I read from the Bohol Chronicle a news item disclosing about this Supreme Court resolution.
I tried to look up the G.R. No. 176004 (Ramo v Gov. Erico Aumentado, December 5, 2007) in the Supreme Court website, but I wasn't able to trace it.
You see, under Philippine law, Presidential Decree No. 449, cockfights are to be held only on certain dates.
These are on Sundays and legal holidays, including Christmas, Easter Sunday, and fiestas.
However, on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Black Saturday, Rizal Day, Independence Day, National Heroes Day, election days, cockfighting are not allowed.
But beyond this, some sabungeros want extended cockfight sessions.
It was disallowed by the Bohol provincial government.
So somebody questioned this and went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the provincial government's stand on disallowing cockfights other than those dates stated in the law.
So, for our sabungero-friends, sorry.
Control your vice. Contain your urges.
Retain Sunday school.
Don't over do it. "Moderate your greed".
It's good for your health.
You will also have more time with the family.

Adverse claim

An adverse claim is a legal remedy for any person who may have a stake or claim upon registered property.
A person who has a claim upon a certain real property will make a sworn statement and file it with the register of deeds.
The register of deeds will inscribe the claim in the title so that the entire world will be informed that there is a person making a claim over a certain property.
The adverse effects of any adverse claim is that persons will be wary in dealing with registered property with an inscribed adverse claim.
Banks for instance, will not easily approve loans where the collaterals are registered property with an adverse claim.
Actually banks won't.
The general rule is that an adverse claim serves as a warning to people to be careful in dealing with registered property with an inscribed adverse claim.
But my client, Manny, a real estate broker says this general rule is not always applicable and there are exceptions.
He said that registered properties in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig for instance have adverse claims from the city of Makati.
This means that for every title of real property in Taguig, the city of Makati registered an adverse claim.
Manny says people dealing with real properties in Taguig always make sure that the titles have adverse claims by the city of Makati.
If there is no such adverse claim, a doubt ensues on the authenticity of the title.
Manny says people feel more secure if the titles of properties in Fort Bonifacio have adverse claims by the city of Makati.
This means that the property is genuine.
It means the property is valuable.
It is coveted.
Weird, right?