Today, December 14th, the Philippine movie industry is remembering Fernando Poe Jr., also called Da King, on his eighth death anniversary. I just heard they are opening a statue of FPJ somewhere in Roxas Blvd. where, if memory serves me right, some scenes in a number of FPJ films had been location-shot.
I am proud to say that since my early childhood days, FPJ has been my movie idol. I say "has,' not "had," because up to now, I haven't missed a picture of FPJ in TV, even as most of them I have seen for many, many times already. Well, unless I didn't know one is showing. Truth is, at this very moment, as I begin writing this piece, I have just finished watching one of his early movies: - the one titled "One Day, Isang Araw," which he did with then still child star, Matet de Leon, newly blooming Dawn Zulueta, his now-deceased favorite side kick in nearly all his movies, Dencio Padilla, and his equally favorite kontra-bida, Paquito Diaz, also now resting in peace. Indeed, as of now, my apos or our housemaid, would receive a long tongue-lashing from me if I missed watching an FPJ film because they did not tell me there's one scheduled in TV.
I hope my blog-viewers won't get peeved if, on this special occasion, I share with them a short poem in sonnet form, which I wrote eight years ago, soon after FPJ lost to GMA in the 2004 presidential elections, as my silent tribute to my lost idol. It was farthest from my imagination, then, that in less than six months after I wrote this poem, exactly eight years to the day today, FPJ would meet his final fate on earth. May he rest in peace.
ODE TO A LOST MESSIAH
Trafficked behind the spell of summer's long travail
A rainbow casts at last its long cascading trail
Of polychromes that, arched in full-blown piebald band
Across the dome , out-beams a fairy's magic wand.
Nearby, the stand-by clouds in ochreous shrouds evolve
To prophesy that rain would soon the drought dissolve;.
Below, the barren earth's wide-fissured mouths look up
Agape for one good gasp of moistured air to sup.
Upon its bosoms bleat brown paddies parched and pall,
Earnestly entreating a fleeting manna' fall..
But woe! The fogs fly far from thawing down the plain,
Alas, great gulfs divide the rainbow and the rain!
Somewhere, in a forlorn and long forsaken shed,
Near yellowed heaps of hay, hungry horses lie dead.
Biyernes, Disyembre 14, 2012
Miyerkules, Disyembre 12, 2012
TACTLESS!
Columnist Rigoberto Tiglao said quite a mouthful against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno with respect to her Administrative Order No.175-2010 establishing a Regional Court Administration Office (RCAO) in Cebu City, as well as against Liberal Party stalwart Francis Pangilinan for immediately coming to Sereno's defense.
I am sure not a few dogged supporters of the present administration who have read the said Tiglao column (PDI, 12/13/2012) will forthwith once again lose no time lambasting Tiglao for being extremely anti-PNoy -- although of course PNoy has absolutely nothing to do with this debacle. To be honest, I also at times tend to take Tiglao's words with a grain of salt. This time around, nevertheless, I think there is nothing condemnable in what he said on this particular issue.
First, it was absolutely undeniable that there had been a previous en banc Supreme Court resolution sometime during former CJ Renato Corona's time, opposing -- or perhaps at least putting on hold for further deliberation -- the establishment of RCAO-7 in Cebu. Even the dumbest law student certainly knows an "en banc" resolution by a collegial body can only be revered by an equally "en banc" resolution. Now, let's get real: and be honest at least to ourselves if not to others! Indeed, Tiglao, or anybody else for that matter, could be validly blamed for thinking that, as the highest Justice of the land, Sereno does not even know what an en back resolution means. Or, does she think that, as protegee of the most powerful official of the land, she can break that time-honored rule?
Neither, in the second place, may Tiglao be regarded as unduly demeaning Pangilinan for forthwith rushing to the media in Sereno's defense. So doing, Pangilinan had only summoned every right-thinking reader into forming three unwholesome impression of him as an otherwise lawmaker. One, like Sereno, he likewise do not know what an en banc resolution is. Two, given the relative bad light that Corona may have left in the eyes of the public, Pangilinan had so foolishly thought he could muster enough public-opinion support or justification for Sereno's shocking blunder. And three, as a Senator and avid supporter of the President -- though, as refuse to believe how his position in this fiasco would delight PNoy -- he unnecessarily broke in the process the time-honored balance of power between the three equal branches of government.
As things stand, that which Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Sen. Francis Pangilinan did had clearly mirrored an utter lack of a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations or avoid offense. The dictionary has an exact word for it: TACTLESS. That is, truth to tell so disgraceful an adjective that nobody -- very much less a high official in government or in a private organization -- would ever wish to be attached to him. The good news is Pangilinan stays in the Senate only until June next year; the bad news is Sereno will be this country's Chief Justice for the next eighteen years.
I am sure not a few dogged supporters of the present administration who have read the said Tiglao column (PDI, 12/13/2012) will forthwith once again lose no time lambasting Tiglao for being extremely anti-PNoy -- although of course PNoy has absolutely nothing to do with this debacle. To be honest, I also at times tend to take Tiglao's words with a grain of salt. This time around, nevertheless, I think there is nothing condemnable in what he said on this particular issue.
First, it was absolutely undeniable that there had been a previous en banc Supreme Court resolution sometime during former CJ Renato Corona's time, opposing -- or perhaps at least putting on hold for further deliberation -- the establishment of RCAO-7 in Cebu. Even the dumbest law student certainly knows an "en banc" resolution by a collegial body can only be revered by an equally "en banc" resolution. Now, let's get real: and be honest at least to ourselves if not to others! Indeed, Tiglao, or anybody else for that matter, could be validly blamed for thinking that, as the highest Justice of the land, Sereno does not even know what an en back resolution means. Or, does she think that, as protegee of the most powerful official of the land, she can break that time-honored rule?
Neither, in the second place, may Tiglao be regarded as unduly demeaning Pangilinan for forthwith rushing to the media in Sereno's defense. So doing, Pangilinan had only summoned every right-thinking reader into forming three unwholesome impression of him as an otherwise lawmaker. One, like Sereno, he likewise do not know what an en banc resolution is. Two, given the relative bad light that Corona may have left in the eyes of the public, Pangilinan had so foolishly thought he could muster enough public-opinion support or justification for Sereno's shocking blunder. And three, as a Senator and avid supporter of the President -- though, as refuse to believe how his position in this fiasco would delight PNoy -- he unnecessarily broke in the process the time-honored balance of power between the three equal branches of government.
As things stand, that which Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Sen. Francis Pangilinan did had clearly mirrored an utter lack of a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations or avoid offense. The dictionary has an exact word for it: TACTLESS. That is, truth to tell so disgraceful an adjective that nobody -- very much less a high official in government or in a private organization -- would ever wish to be attached to him. The good news is Pangilinan stays in the Senate only until June next year; the bad news is Sereno will be this country's Chief Justice for the next eighteen years.
Martes, Disyembre 11, 2012
MANNY A MILKING COW OF PROTESTANT PASTORS?
The banner story (which all along had been datelined six months ago in Inquirer-Mindanao) that Protestant pastors had been swarming Pacquiao for cash and various perks since he changed his faith was truly mind-boggling. At least, now I know why Mommy Dionisia had appeared in a television interview soon after her son's defeat as kind of "scolding" the pastors. Indeed, that story could have just fizzled out unnoticed like a shooting star in the news local horizons, had not certain quarters been quoted as attributing Manny's loss to Marquez to his sudden change of religion. Such attribution is of course pure gobbledegook!
Quite inevitably, the news cannot but leave a very unpalatable taste in the mouths of Protestants. In fairness, chances are the pastors involved -- some of whom have personally admitted asking boons from Manny in exchange for the role they played in making him change his erstwhile undesirable habits or life styles -- may not be true Protestants in the strict sense of the word; some say they are merely "born-again Christians" and, truth to tell, both Catholics and Protestants are "Christians." As things stand, even so, "born-agains" are of two kinds, each one being mostly a "break-away" group from either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant sect. Those who were truly Roman Catholics call themselves "Born-Again Charismatics", while those who were originally Protestants -- whose denominations, by the way, are so numerous in our midst and times -- are more commonly called "Born-Again Protestants." Only very few Charismatic groups now exist under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas many "Born-Again Protestants" that remain still galore.may have been once upon a time true Roman Catholics.
I have ventured to opine in my last blog that the sheer flair to be a leader-preacher -- to be kind of "bida" or "sikat" in a manner of speaking, is what oftentimes tempt otherwise true-born Catholics to call themselves "Born-Agains." And Pacquiao is just one of them. But the fact remains they are comparatively more identifiable with Protestantism than with Catholicism. That is clearly because, like Pacquiao, they abandon their allegiance to the Holy Rosary and the sign of the cross (items quite anathema to Protestantism) in expressing their respective religiosity. And so, Protestants may not just so easily disown the pastors who have turned Manny into a milking cow. That, quite unfortunately is the little problem in this regard. The Roman Catholic Church does have more control, better regulation on members of their flock than does the Protestant.
Alas, I am raring to hear or see how the Protestant movement in the Philippines will be able to handle this truly unfortunate happenstance. This is even as, at the very least, it calls to mind a related news once upon a time wherein Catholic bishops had been reported as accepting suspicious "envelopes" from GMA.
Quite inevitably, the news cannot but leave a very unpalatable taste in the mouths of Protestants. In fairness, chances are the pastors involved -- some of whom have personally admitted asking boons from Manny in exchange for the role they played in making him change his erstwhile undesirable habits or life styles -- may not be true Protestants in the strict sense of the word; some say they are merely "born-again Christians" and, truth to tell, both Catholics and Protestants are "Christians." As things stand, even so, "born-agains" are of two kinds, each one being mostly a "break-away" group from either the Roman Catholic or the Protestant sect. Those who were truly Roman Catholics call themselves "Born-Again Charismatics", while those who were originally Protestants -- whose denominations, by the way, are so numerous in our midst and times -- are more commonly called "Born-Again Protestants." Only very few Charismatic groups now exist under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church, whereas many "Born-Again Protestants" that remain still galore.may have been once upon a time true Roman Catholics.
I have ventured to opine in my last blog that the sheer flair to be a leader-preacher -- to be kind of "bida" or "sikat" in a manner of speaking, is what oftentimes tempt otherwise true-born Catholics to call themselves "Born-Agains." And Pacquiao is just one of them. But the fact remains they are comparatively more identifiable with Protestantism than with Catholicism. That is clearly because, like Pacquiao, they abandon their allegiance to the Holy Rosary and the sign of the cross (items quite anathema to Protestantism) in expressing their respective religiosity. And so, Protestants may not just so easily disown the pastors who have turned Manny into a milking cow. That, quite unfortunately is the little problem in this regard. The Roman Catholic Church does have more control, better regulation on members of their flock than does the Protestant.
Alas, I am raring to hear or see how the Protestant movement in the Philippines will be able to handle this truly unfortunate happenstance. This is even as, at the very least, it calls to mind a related news once upon a time wherein Catholic bishops had been reported as accepting suspicious "envelopes" from GMA.
Linggo, Disyembre 9, 2012
MANNY'S SUDDEN CHANGE OF FAITH
The whys and hows behind Juan Manuel Marquez' painful knockout of Manny Pacquiao in the last dying second of the sixth round of their much ballyhooed fourth encounter will be a favorite talk of the town for many days to come. One thing that certainly need not simply pass unnoticed is that of some fans somehow attributing Pacman's loss to his sudden change of religion - apparently from Roman Catholic to Born-Again Charismatics. Even Nanay Dionisia herself, Manny's equally well-known mother, when she was interviewed by the media soon after the bout, was quoted as somewhat "scolding" certain unnamed "pastors" who must have tempted her son into joining their sect.
Indeed, one recalls that Manny must have changed his faith just soon before his unsuccessful fight with Bradley last year. A truly devout Roman Catholic, Manny's trust in his God used to know no bounds. He would always wear his rosary, kneel down and make the sign of the cross before the start of each round, and more earnestly so every time he won. He had stopped doing that when he fought Bradley, as well as in his recent bout with Marquez who, quite noticeably, was the one who never forgot to make the sign of the cross before each round. Needlessly emphasizing, the Holy Rosary, which represents the Virgin Mary whose Immaculate Conception the whole nation was celebrating on the night of the Pacquiao-Marquez fight, as well as the sign of the cross, are two of the relics or rituals that Protestantism does not abide by.
That said, I definitely am not saying that Manny's sudden change of faith was that which had caused his two successive downfalls, for no one, indeed, may ever know, much less validly say, that. Even so, my gut feel -- which very seldom lies to me -- keeps suggesting that this kind of doubt had somehow lingered in his mind, and perhaps even in Nanay Dionisia's too, when he lost to Bradley, and perhaps much more as he now nurses a meek remorse at being knocked down by "El Dinamita," an unfortunate happenstance which, truth to tell, was farthest from the minds of most boxing aficionados, particularly in the Philippines. But of course, Manny is not about to go back to his old faith simply because of this stunning loss. On the contrary, he should probably need to pray more devoutly to his new-found God the next time around.
Why Manny was tempted into changing his religion, I humbly submit my own humble opinion. As most everybody has seen him, Manny is the kind of person who wishes to excel in every human activity under the sun. He wanted, and reasonably succeeded, to be a movie and television celebrity, in dancing, singing and playing the guitar, in raising the best fighting cocks in town, in becoming kind of a womanizer, a lawmaker -- all in addition to being the world's greatest boxer of all times. In fact, he practically leads all others in every way of life he indulges in, except perhaps in matters of religion. I mean, in the Roman Catholic faith, it is only the priests of pastors that leads, at the very most, the lay ministers whose actions before the public nonetheless remain regulated by the rules of the parish they represent.
As myself a practicing Roman Catholic, I feel and believe that except in church rituals, one must read the Bible all by himself alone directly talking to God. As we all know, bible reading before members of our flock is commonplace only during the rituals of the holy mass (as in First and Second Readings). On the other hand, most born-again or Christian charismatic movements, mostly being spontaneously self-proclaimed (I mean, anybody may form his own group and start preaching) or mere breakaway groups from Protestantism, are free to conduct bible studies as they wish to in public, which tends to satisfy man's natural flair to be a leader, which in turn, is one of Manny Pacquiao's particular weaknesses, and which he cannot freely do under his old sect. And so, since more or less a year ago, Manny has found great delights in being reported by the media every now and then as conducting this or that bible reading or bible study before a group of followers, whether they belong to Roman Catholicism or the Born-Again Charismatic movement. This kind of leadership he will never be able to actively practice as a Roman Catholic, because virtually only the priests and full-fledged theologians are given absolute freedom to preach. Truth is -- I was surprised when I had first known it -- the Bible is not among the required textbooks in schools for the priests. To avoid or forestall any possible misinterpretations of biblical provisions -- as indeed happens almost daily with different sects endlessly debating against each other in TV shows -- students of theology do study the Bible only through the book written by St. Thomas de Aquinas. Hence, the Holy Bible is practically forbidden in the seminaries.
There is of course nothing grievously wrong with, and never would I attempt to criticize, the varying practices under Protestantism as against those in the Roman Catholic Church. I am just trying to explain what in my very humble, yet well-considered, analysis had caused Manny to suddenly change his sect. At the end of the day, everything that happens to us in this world, without exception, is the result of our absolute freedom to choose between at least two things. What principally matters is that we are always ready, sans a bit of remorse, to accept the consequences of our choice.
Indeed, one recalls that Manny must have changed his faith just soon before his unsuccessful fight with Bradley last year. A truly devout Roman Catholic, Manny's trust in his God used to know no bounds. He would always wear his rosary, kneel down and make the sign of the cross before the start of each round, and more earnestly so every time he won. He had stopped doing that when he fought Bradley, as well as in his recent bout with Marquez who, quite noticeably, was the one who never forgot to make the sign of the cross before each round. Needlessly emphasizing, the Holy Rosary, which represents the Virgin Mary whose Immaculate Conception the whole nation was celebrating on the night of the Pacquiao-Marquez fight, as well as the sign of the cross, are two of the relics or rituals that Protestantism does not abide by.
That said, I definitely am not saying that Manny's sudden change of faith was that which had caused his two successive downfalls, for no one, indeed, may ever know, much less validly say, that. Even so, my gut feel -- which very seldom lies to me -- keeps suggesting that this kind of doubt had somehow lingered in his mind, and perhaps even in Nanay Dionisia's too, when he lost to Bradley, and perhaps much more as he now nurses a meek remorse at being knocked down by "El Dinamita," an unfortunate happenstance which, truth to tell, was farthest from the minds of most boxing aficionados, particularly in the Philippines. But of course, Manny is not about to go back to his old faith simply because of this stunning loss. On the contrary, he should probably need to pray more devoutly to his new-found God the next time around.
Why Manny was tempted into changing his religion, I humbly submit my own humble opinion. As most everybody has seen him, Manny is the kind of person who wishes to excel in every human activity under the sun. He wanted, and reasonably succeeded, to be a movie and television celebrity, in dancing, singing and playing the guitar, in raising the best fighting cocks in town, in becoming kind of a womanizer, a lawmaker -- all in addition to being the world's greatest boxer of all times. In fact, he practically leads all others in every way of life he indulges in, except perhaps in matters of religion. I mean, in the Roman Catholic faith, it is only the priests of pastors that leads, at the very most, the lay ministers whose actions before the public nonetheless remain regulated by the rules of the parish they represent.
As myself a practicing Roman Catholic, I feel and believe that except in church rituals, one must read the Bible all by himself alone directly talking to God. As we all know, bible reading before members of our flock is commonplace only during the rituals of the holy mass (as in First and Second Readings). On the other hand, most born-again or Christian charismatic movements, mostly being spontaneously self-proclaimed (I mean, anybody may form his own group and start preaching) or mere breakaway groups from Protestantism, are free to conduct bible studies as they wish to in public, which tends to satisfy man's natural flair to be a leader, which in turn, is one of Manny Pacquiao's particular weaknesses, and which he cannot freely do under his old sect. And so, since more or less a year ago, Manny has found great delights in being reported by the media every now and then as conducting this or that bible reading or bible study before a group of followers, whether they belong to Roman Catholicism or the Born-Again Charismatic movement. This kind of leadership he will never be able to actively practice as a Roman Catholic, because virtually only the priests and full-fledged theologians are given absolute freedom to preach. Truth is -- I was surprised when I had first known it -- the Bible is not among the required textbooks in schools for the priests. To avoid or forestall any possible misinterpretations of biblical provisions -- as indeed happens almost daily with different sects endlessly debating against each other in TV shows -- students of theology do study the Bible only through the book written by St. Thomas de Aquinas. Hence, the Holy Bible is practically forbidden in the seminaries.
There is of course nothing grievously wrong with, and never would I attempt to criticize, the varying practices under Protestantism as against those in the Roman Catholic Church. I am just trying to explain what in my very humble, yet well-considered, analysis had caused Manny to suddenly change his sect. At the end of the day, everything that happens to us in this world, without exception, is the result of our absolute freedom to choose between at least two things. What principally matters is that we are always ready, sans a bit of remorse, to accept the consequences of our choice.
Miyerkules, Disyembre 5, 2012
DOES THE PRESIDENT REALLY SMOKE OR NOT??
For sure, many readers will once again react with disgust to Rigoberto Tiglao's recent column, "Is Aquino breaking anti-smoking laws daily?" Indeed, that may just be one tiny bead in the litany of this columnist's never-ending tirades against the present government. But let us please get real, at least for once, in this respect. Doesn't the question so simply emanate from a matter of plain common sense as to deserve an equally commonsensical answer?
I mean, given the existing Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series of 2009, which calls for a 100% smoke-free policy, practically a smoking prohibition that covers all government premises, buildings and grounds inside the Palace, where or how else, for heaven's sake, may the President, so hooked to the smoking vice as he himself admits it, afford to make even a short or passing puff while discharging his daily tasks? Methinks this is a question the presidential spokesperson should be able to objectively deal with in one of his daily encounters with the press -- without ifs, ands or buts -- at the very least, for the sake of the Freedom of Information Bill that is now being debated in Congress.
Of course, there may yet be nothing so grievously wrong with the President eventually saying: "mag-Presidente muna kayo!" After all, hasn't someone else said that before and apparently succeeded in stopping people from questioning his presidential prerogatives?
I mean, given the existing Memorandum Circular No. 17, Series of 2009, which calls for a 100% smoke-free policy, practically a smoking prohibition that covers all government premises, buildings and grounds inside the Palace, where or how else, for heaven's sake, may the President, so hooked to the smoking vice as he himself admits it, afford to make even a short or passing puff while discharging his daily tasks? Methinks this is a question the presidential spokesperson should be able to objectively deal with in one of his daily encounters with the press -- without ifs, ands or buts -- at the very least, for the sake of the Freedom of Information Bill that is now being debated in Congress.
Of course, there may yet be nothing so grievously wrong with the President eventually saying: "mag-Presidente muna kayo!" After all, hasn't someone else said that before and apparently succeeded in stopping people from questioning his presidential prerogatives?
Martes, Nobyembre 27, 2012
RECTO'S 13TH MONTH PAY-RELATED PROPOSAL
With Christmas just in the offing, the proposal of Sen. Ralph Recto to raise the tax-exemption threshold of the 13th Month Pay from P30,000 to P60,000 is surely good news. The bad news is, not everybody will benefit from it; only employees earning more than P30,000 a month, and there are not too many of them, anyway.
More than three decades after the passage of the Labor Code, one of whose principal objectives was to encourage collective bargaining, the bigger bulk of our working populace has yet been the unorganized sector -- for whom joining a labor union resembles joining the Katipunan in Bonifacio's times: one may not be jailed for insurrection but he puts his job security in great peril. Our unscrupulous employers should admit this grim reality, at least to themselves in good conscience, if not really to others. Unarguably still the most marginalized sector of Philippine society even after the spawning of that political animal called party-list system, this sector continues to depend solely and very precariously upon the minimum provisions of the Code, some of which have either grown obsolete or are deemed stupid from the very beginning.
For example, what whale of a difference does exist between a regular holiday and a special holiday for our laws to give higher premium pay to the former than to the latter? As it stands, a worker is paid twice his daily wage for working on a regular holiday, but gets only 30% on top of his basic wage if he works on a special holiday. Too, a daily rated employee who does not work on a regular holiday is guaranteed his normal wage for that day; he does not receive any pay if the holiday happens to be "special." Some says it is not the fault of an employee that a holiday is declared, so he need not suffer a sudden loss in pay -- that is, the money to buy his meal for the day -- simply because of a holiday. That is for me a stupid alibi! Truth is, regular holidays being in the calendar as early as January each year, as against the relatively unforeseen special holidays, it is more on the latter than on the former that a daily paid worker unduly suffers a loss of the money with which to buy his daily meal, strictly speaking. At any rate, isn't it the present practice of the government to proclaim and list down all holidays, regular or special, even before the close of any given year? Moreover, while relatively shorter workweeks, higher overtime/night-premium pay rates and longer vacation, sick and other leave entitlements than those provided by the Labor Code have long been quite common in many local industries, the unorganized labor sector just keeps looking desperately on the sidelines.
The more for sure will they look in envy at Recto's proposal. Without intending to sound ingrate, that it will benefit only employees belonging to the good senator's salary bracket cannot but leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
More than three decades after the passage of the Labor Code, one of whose principal objectives was to encourage collective bargaining, the bigger bulk of our working populace has yet been the unorganized sector -- for whom joining a labor union resembles joining the Katipunan in Bonifacio's times: one may not be jailed for insurrection but he puts his job security in great peril. Our unscrupulous employers should admit this grim reality, at least to themselves in good conscience, if not really to others. Unarguably still the most marginalized sector of Philippine society even after the spawning of that political animal called party-list system, this sector continues to depend solely and very precariously upon the minimum provisions of the Code, some of which have either grown obsolete or are deemed stupid from the very beginning.
For example, what whale of a difference does exist between a regular holiday and a special holiday for our laws to give higher premium pay to the former than to the latter? As it stands, a worker is paid twice his daily wage for working on a regular holiday, but gets only 30% on top of his basic wage if he works on a special holiday. Too, a daily rated employee who does not work on a regular holiday is guaranteed his normal wage for that day; he does not receive any pay if the holiday happens to be "special." Some says it is not the fault of an employee that a holiday is declared, so he need not suffer a sudden loss in pay -- that is, the money to buy his meal for the day -- simply because of a holiday. That is for me a stupid alibi! Truth is, regular holidays being in the calendar as early as January each year, as against the relatively unforeseen special holidays, it is more on the latter than on the former that a daily paid worker unduly suffers a loss of the money with which to buy his daily meal, strictly speaking. At any rate, isn't it the present practice of the government to proclaim and list down all holidays, regular or special, even before the close of any given year? Moreover, while relatively shorter workweeks, higher overtime/night-premium pay rates and longer vacation, sick and other leave entitlements than those provided by the Labor Code have long been quite common in many local industries, the unorganized labor sector just keeps looking desperately on the sidelines.
The more for sure will they look in envy at Recto's proposal. Without intending to sound ingrate, that it will benefit only employees belonging to the good senator's salary bracket cannot but leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
Martes, Nobyembre 20, 2012
AN ORDINANCE THAT BORDERS ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
It bothers me endlessly, indeed, that a Quezon City ordinance requiring business establishment to install short-circuit television (CCTV) cameras under a "no CCTV, no business permit" policy has been passed without much ado, to take effect lst January 2013. Maybe, medyo "nakatulog ako sa pansitan" about this one; but I think there's noharm in my hereby putting out my two-centavo worth of comments thereon.
To begin with, let me state categorically that I personally have nothing against CCTV cameras. As a matter of fact, even long before this wonderful invention of modern times became in vogue in these parts, I had been making my own research about it as they were used in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, amid these highly uncertain times, I would have also liked at least one unit installed in my own residence, if only I have the means to afford it. In this life we always have a choice to make in everything we do. So, since I cannot afford a CCTV camera, I just would rather have to contend with strengthening the security locks around my house as reliably as I can. In the same token, not a few business establishments probably believe that the security guards that are deployed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week around their premises are sufficient security that, right or wrong, no one else may ever challenge. I honestly believe that maintaining a security crew is still our basic line of defense against criminal elements in our midst and times. That, in a nut shell, is why I think the ordinance providing for a "no CCTV no business permit' policy should have first been looked into more prudently. First and foremost, it removes the element of optionality in in the business establishment's decision making process.
Truth to tell, the benefits derivable from the CCTV cameras are well recognized throughout the world. I don't have any quarrel with that. Well, even though for me, "seeing" criminals doing their very act through a CCTV camera does not always necessarily mean "solving" the crime itself. If at all, that is possible only in supermarkets where a shoplifter caught in the CCTV camera as he steals something and hides it in his person; will surely be accosted by a security guard. As we all realize, most other criminal acts that happen during off-normal hours are only post-factor reported by the CCTV camera long after the criminal has escaped out of the crime scene. Then follows a long series of identifying the criminal, perhaps through the police or the NBI's cartographic procedures. But what if the criminal was wearing a wig or a fake facial mole or otherwised dressed as a woman? My plain common sense tells me that the CCTV cameras may indeed increase the the record of number of crimes "reported" without necessarily correspondingly increasing the number of crimes "solved." Thus, the percentage of the latter over the former as a measure of police performance becomes even worse.
Be that as it may, I repeat, I am not against the use of CCTV cameras by business establishments. But let it simply be encouraged, not mandated, or put under a "No CCTV No business permit" premise. I strongly feel that already borders on the unconstitutional. The ordinance not only removes from business the right of making a choice, or the optionality element, in deciding how private business should be run and managed. The loss of privacy of the people under surveillance and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties is one other sign of unconstitutionality. Along this light -- my blog viewers may research it further if they wish -- I have read tha in "Katz vs. United States," the US Supreme Court held that there is a right to privacy even in public areas.
Last but not least, QC Councilor Joseph Juico clarified in a recent ABS-CBNnews interview with Tina Monzon Palma that not all establishments would be covered by the new policy, only establishments such as banks, money changers, restaurants, malls and gas stations. Doesn't this, then, somehow violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Not being a lawyer, I do not wish to dwell on that. At the very least, nonetheless, would somebody more qualified come out to challenge the subject QC ordinance before it takes effect on January 2013?
To begin with, let me state categorically that I personally have nothing against CCTV cameras. As a matter of fact, even long before this wonderful invention of modern times became in vogue in these parts, I had been making my own research about it as they were used in other parts of the world. As a matter of fact, amid these highly uncertain times, I would have also liked at least one unit installed in my own residence, if only I have the means to afford it. In this life we always have a choice to make in everything we do. So, since I cannot afford a CCTV camera, I just would rather have to contend with strengthening the security locks around my house as reliably as I can. In the same token, not a few business establishments probably believe that the security guards that are deployed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week around their premises are sufficient security that, right or wrong, no one else may ever challenge. I honestly believe that maintaining a security crew is still our basic line of defense against criminal elements in our midst and times. That, in a nut shell, is why I think the ordinance providing for a "no CCTV no business permit' policy should have first been looked into more prudently. First and foremost, it removes the element of optionality in in the business establishment's decision making process.
Truth to tell, the benefits derivable from the CCTV cameras are well recognized throughout the world. I don't have any quarrel with that. Well, even though for me, "seeing" criminals doing their very act through a CCTV camera does not always necessarily mean "solving" the crime itself. If at all, that is possible only in supermarkets where a shoplifter caught in the CCTV camera as he steals something and hides it in his person; will surely be accosted by a security guard. As we all realize, most other criminal acts that happen during off-normal hours are only post-factor reported by the CCTV camera long after the criminal has escaped out of the crime scene. Then follows a long series of identifying the criminal, perhaps through the police or the NBI's cartographic procedures. But what if the criminal was wearing a wig or a fake facial mole or otherwised dressed as a woman? My plain common sense tells me that the CCTV cameras may indeed increase the the record of number of crimes "reported" without necessarily correspondingly increasing the number of crimes "solved." Thus, the percentage of the latter over the former as a measure of police performance becomes even worse.
Be that as it may, I repeat, I am not against the use of CCTV cameras by business establishments. But let it simply be encouraged, not mandated, or put under a "No CCTV No business permit" premise. I strongly feel that already borders on the unconstitutional. The ordinance not only removes from business the right of making a choice, or the optionality element, in deciding how private business should be run and managed. The loss of privacy of the people under surveillance and the negative impact of surveillance on civil liberties is one other sign of unconstitutionality. Along this light -- my blog viewers may research it further if they wish -- I have read tha in "Katz vs. United States," the US Supreme Court held that there is a right to privacy even in public areas.
Last but not least, QC Councilor Joseph Juico clarified in a recent ABS-CBNnews interview with Tina Monzon Palma that not all establishments would be covered by the new policy, only establishments such as banks, money changers, restaurants, malls and gas stations. Doesn't this, then, somehow violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Not being a lawyer, I do not wish to dwell on that. At the very least, nonetheless, would somebody more qualified come out to challenge the subject QC ordinance before it takes effect on January 2013?
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)