Karl Bambi

Long time friend and classmate Karl Bambi Tuano came home to Dumaguete with his family for the holidays.
He brought his beautiful wife, and three cute children.
Karl Bambi has been based in Australia for like, two decades already.
It has been a long time.
We were together in soccer high school football varsity where we played national games at the Ultra.
His mother Tita Jean was an officemate of my mother at GSIS before.
We got together at the residence of Alex Abregana right after Christmas.
High school batchmates who attended were Jean Cimafranca, Jay Glenn Dizon, Rene Jay Dela Calzada, Cenon Voltaire Repollo.

Love and legalities

It is the season of love, so let us digress a little bit.
Let’s talk about love.
If you think the Supreme Court deals only with the esoteric, you err.
The high court is never detached to the mundane concerns of day-to-day life, specially on matters affecting the affairs of the heart.
Perhaps, one of the Supreme Court decisions that cannot be forgotten by law students is the case of Wassmer versus Velez, decided a day after Christmas in 1964.
This is the story of a groom who suddenly developed cold feet and “chickened out” two days before his wedding day.
A frustrated, dejected and angry bride sued the elusive and indecisive groom for damages.
The story of Beatriz P. Wassmer and Fracisco “Paquing” X. Velez, is indeed one for the Supreme Court books.
This happened in 1954 where the love birds, Bet and Paquing, after professing their mutual promise of love for each other, decided to get married on September 4.
Bet and Paquing applied for a marriage license.
Invitations were printed and distributed to relatives, friends and acquaintances.
The bride-to-be’s trousseau, party dresses and other apparel were purchased.
Dresses for the maid of honor and flower girl were prepared.
Even a matrimonial bed, where the two were to consummate their romantic liaison, was bought.
Bridal showers were given and gifts already received.
However, with all but two days before the wedding, the bride-to-be met the greatest shock of her life when the 28 year old groom-to-be left her with nothing but a note:
“Dear Bet---
Will have to postpone wedding. My mother opposed it. Am leaving on the Convair today.
Please do not ask too many people about the reason why---That would only create a scandal.
Paquing”
(Mama's boy?)
It turned out that the future husband had enplaned back to his home city in Mindanao.
Shock and disbelief consumed the distraught, lonely and mourning bride.
The next day, September 3, one day before the scheduled wedding, Pacquing, telegrammed Beatriz another note:
“NOTHING CHANGED REST ASSURED RETURNING VERY SOON APOLOGIZE MAMA PAPA LOVE.---PAKING”
But the good Paquing never appeared, nor was he heard of again.
Beatriz did not take this unparalleled humiliation sitting down.
She sued her defaulting husband-to-be for damages.
Even in court, Paquing chickened out.
He did not file an answer to the charges.
The trial court ruled in favor of Beatriz.
Pacquing then appealed to the Supreme Court
In the Surpeme Court Pacquing argued that his failure to marry Beatriz was due to a “fortuitous event” and/or circumstances “beyond his control”.
Pacquing, sounding smart, argued there is no provision in the civil code allowing legal action for breach of promise to marry.
But the Supreme Court thrashed the argument.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that true, breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong.
But this is not a mere case of breach of promise to marry, the court reminded.
“To formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different,” the high court said.
“This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which Pacquing must be held answerable in damages,” said the court.
The Supreme Court cited Article 21 of the civil code which says: “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy, shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
The lesson for the irresolute grooms-to-be: if you chicken out, do not back out at the proverbial eleventh hour .
For you can be held liable for damages.
Also, never under-estimate a dejected bride.
For as the famous line in The Mourning Bride aptly warned: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Happy Valentines!

Notarial commission renewed

I renewed my notarial commission today in Makati City.
I was scheduled to take my oath at the sala of Executive Judge Winlove Dumayas at Branch 59.
I arrived late and had to be called on the second round.
The judge signed the appointment papers one by one, while at the same time asking whether there were any objections to the notarial application.
Thereafter, we went down to teh office of the clerk of court of Makati where he also signed the papers.
Last, we brought the papers to the notarial section to submit copies of our appointements.
A notarial commission has a lifetime of two years.
So a notary public renews his commission every two years.

Me and Josh on the zipline

Josh and I rode the zipline, our ultimate stunt during our Danao Bohol experience last Christmas. The video was taken by my brother Anton using his cell phone.
Joshua sat on my back, without wearing any helmet because the people in charge forgot to provide him one. I had double goosebumps because aside from being terribly frightened being hundreds of meters above the ground, I was thinking of Joshua who was right on top of me.

Lump sum budgeting

Lump sum budgeting is a phrase I coined which describes a peculiar kind of making government appropriations.
I have very serious legal issues about lump sum budgeting.
This invites graft and corruption of horrific magnitude.

Lump sum family budgeting

Let’s go back to family budgeting.
For example, in the family budget, the mother lists down one of the expenses as: “food expenses, say P1,000 ”.
But this kind of expense or appropriation is very general.
Mother has to specify what food she is referring to.
She has to list down: Canned goods (P100), vegetables (P100), rice (P500), chicken (P200), pork (P100).
In other words, instead of just listing P1,000 for food expenses, if would be better for mother to “itemize” how the P1,000 food expense would be spent.
So it would be better for mother to “itemize” the family budget, instead of listing a lump-sum expense of “food.”

Lump-sum government budgeting

This should also be followed by government.
Government should not sprinkle the budget with lump-sum appropriations.
Lump-sum appropriations discards transparency.
If you look at the national government budget, or the general appropriations law, you will encounter appropriations like: “P2,000,000,000 for maintenance of roads and bridges.”
We, the people, will not know what are these specific roads and bridges that will be maintained.
Another common lump-sum appropriation in the national budget: P200,000,000 for construction of school buildings.”
We will not know where these school buildings will be constructed, and what type of school buildings will be constructed.

Lump-sum budgeting invites corruption

Lump sum budgeting invites graft and corruption.
There is no transparency.
Everything is in lump sum.
It is very important that the people insist that appropriations must be itemized, and specific in the budget.
We should say no to lump-sum appropriations.
As I said the biggest corruption that is happening in government, starts with the lump-sum appropriations in the budget.
It runs into billions of pesos.
And the favorite department that contains billions of pesos of lump-sum appropriations is the department of public works and highways.
You need proof?
Very easy, just read the chapter of the budget pertaining to DPWH.
Read also the budget for the Department of Education.

Legal issues

I have legal questions on lump-sum budgeting.
The constitution provides:
The constitution provides in Section 25(2) Article VI on the Legislative Department:

(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein.

I don’t think there is any intendment of the constitution to allow lump sum appropriations.
With lump sum appropriations, the people will never know exactly how and where it is going to be spent.
What we read are motherhood appropriations like “repair and maintenance of national secondary roads”, “construction of classrooms”, “construction of school buildings”.
Lump sum provisions allow so much latitude for executive officials to play with peoples’ money.
The solution is to do away with lump sum appropriations and let the executive department explain in detail their proposed appropriations so every single centavo will be properly accounted for, and monitored.
Until this is done, widespread anomalies running into billions of pesos will hound the government.
Study the budget, and you get to study wholesale graft and corruption.