A simple suggestion should help solve as well: for uniformed policemen to simply stand, loiter around, ogle at female passers-by, or even just sit and scratch their balls all day long at strategic places in the city. Mere police presence and visibility can better deter the commission of crimes than any anti-crime crusade. They do not even have to be armed, as the unarmed London patrolmen prove.
An apparently exasperated Mon Tulfo reiterated in his Inquirer "On Target" column today his proposals for radical solutions to fight crime. One is for duly licensed and responsible firearms owners to be deputized as peace officers by the PNP.
A simple suggestion should help solve as well: for uniformed policemen to simply stand, loiter around, ogle at female passers-by, or even just sit and scratch their balls all day long at strategic places in the city. Mere police presence and visibility can better deter the commission of crimes than any anti-crime crusade. They do not even have to be armed, as the unarmed London patrolmen prove.
0 Comments
Dick’s pen is at it again, disseminating opinions which inflame even as they mislead. In his Philippine Star September 23, 2014 column entitled “Can Noy Still Escape From Palace Cabal?,” he decks the DAP anew by writing:
“To go straight to the point, we think President Aquino – who accepted the Liberal Party nomination in 2010 despite his limitations – has become a captive of an LP cabal that has been using him to make money and consolidate more power for themselves. They invented, for instance, the Disbursement Acceleration Program, a secret mechanism for funneling billions in forced savings into a presidential pork barrel. They misled the President to think that DAP was perfectly legal and served public good since it would accelerate disbursement of public funds to spur economic development. Budget Secretary Florencio Abad, the architect of this criminal scheme, could not have been unaware that it was against the Constitution and should have told the President. Yet he misled the President to think that it was perfectly legal provided they could cite good faith. Never mind that the supposedly good intentions included bribing lawmakers to do their bidding and amassing and amassing billions for the party war chest. To make sure President Aquino could not back out, they made him sign incriminating papers covering the disbursements. Officials of the Commission on Audit and Abad himself have testified that the papers authorizing the DAP releases were signed by the President.” In an editorial entitled “Political Mischief in the Philippines,” the New York Times criticized PNoy on the possibility of amending the constitution in order to clip the powers of the judiciary. This after the Supreme Court had clipped the powers of the executive under the Disbursement Acceleration Program.
On its face, the editorial refers to a constitution in general and the fact that the constitution of the Philippines has been passed under the term of PNoy’s mother, then President Cory. Apparently, the point of reference is the editorial writer’s constitution, i.e. the U. S. Constitution. Had the writer pored over the constitution of the Philippines, perhaps he would not have been as critical on a charter change. A single provision in the present constitution is the single best argument for charter change. This is because while the constitution, both the US and the Philippines, provides for three branches of government, which, though supposed to be co-equal and independent of each other, hence, may act in whichever way they choose, are reined in course for the common good by the principles of checks and balances. Under the Philippine constitution, this solitary provision in fact unbalances the time-honored principle. A comparison of the US and the Philippines on the judiciary and the power of judicial review easily supports this submission. Showtime naman.
“It’s not just about talent” is the title of the article on page D-4 of today’s Daily Inquirer, of world class Lea Salonga on the brouhaha following the conclusion of the TV singing contest “The Voice Kids.” Coming from Lea, her prose reads like a psalm, so it is better to copy her own letters rather than re-arrange her lyrics. If the decision of the Supreme Court on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) were any measure, then the present term of Samar Provincial Board Member Alma Uy is unconstitutional, because it falls within the cross border transfers between the three branches of government which the Supreme Court decreed to be unconstitutional. While the DAP decision pertained to public funds, there should be no reason why it may not apply to public officers. On the other hand, based on the arguments seeking reconsideration of the SC decision, it would seem that it is unconstitutional if the transfer is from the executive department to the legislative, but not if the transfer is from the judicial department to the executive (SOS. will somebody help when were, when is). For such is the case of BM Alma Uy (the repeated use of her name is necessary since another Uy also sits in the board).
Pending enactment of the Freedom of Information Bill, access to public records may be compelled under Republic Act No. 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards For Public Officials and Employees”, enacted in 1989, specifically Section 5(a) (Act promptly on letters and requests. – All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.) and Section 5(e) (Make documents accessible to the public. – All public documents must be made accessible to, and readily available for inspection by the public within reasonable working hours.), non-compliance with which shall be punished, under Section 11, with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six months salary or suspension not exceeding one year, or removal depending on the gravity of the offense.
Instead of blaming PNoy for the delayed passage of the FOI, critics should avail themselves of this law, which was approved by his mother. FUI. The reactions to PNoy’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) can be compared to PNoy being asked, after singing “My Way”, why he did not sing "The Impossible Dream," "I Believe," "Walk With Faith In Your Heart," or any other song that the Inquirer may have in mind, or being shot, for no reason at all, just like a singer in a videoke, like those who burned his effigy. Instead of commenting on his reported accomplishments, he was faulted for his failure to fulfill his promises and for a lot of other things which he should have done.
In his Inquirer column today entitled ”What a difference a year makes”, idol Conrado de Quiros noted the dip in PNoy’s popularity because of the DAP. Central to his piece (since it is literally in the middle of his essay) is the statement: “Thus the Supreme Court ruled the DAP unconstitutional”. He then faults PNoy for standing his ground and defending the DAP to astonishing lengths.
“Time for DAP critics to speak before the Senate”, an article by Marvin Sy on page 4 of today’s Philippine Star, reports about the intention of senator Nancy Binay to invite the critics of the DAP to the ongoing senate investigation, specifically mentioning former budget secretary Benjamin Diokno and former national treasurer Leonor Briones.
In Alex Magno’s Star column today entitled “Fact check”, Alex magnifies as a lie pnoy’s observation that the Supreme Court also committed the same “cross border fund transfer that it frowned upon in its ruling on DAP. Alex explains: “Not a single centavo of court funds was transferred to the DOJ, the latter not quick enough to build urgently needed courthouses. The court’s P1.8 billion in savings was realigned to the Judiciary’s capital outlay fund and was part of that was earmarked to build the Manila Hall of Justice on land titled to the SC.”
|