Kakampi Mo Ang Batas
By Atty. Batas Mauricio
“…If a king judges the poor with fairness, his throne will be established forever…” –Proverbs 29:14
There is one small (but significant) question about the proposal to synchronize the upcoming May 14 barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) elections with a plebiscite on amending the Constitution; can the Philippines express its true will on “Charter Change” if, at the same time people are called to make decisions on governmental change, they are selecting candidates for various barangay positions?
We have seen what happens when ballots contain too many choices – the true voice of the people usually does not emerge. This is why, when people elect barangay officials, it must be held separately from a plebiscite on “Charter Change;” especially when it comes to shifting the country from a presidential form of government to a parliamentary one.
Both of these issues are important to all Filipinos; therefore, it is necessary the public be given ample time to express their intelligent choices.
Yes, I strongly advocate separating the barangay elections from the constitutional plebiscite.
***
To the Philippine National Police-Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (PNP-CIDG), let’s assume you are correct in your view that evidence related to the cases against Kerwin Espinosa and the other accused, which were dismissed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), was satisfactory and sufficient.
What you should have done after the DOJ tossed out the charges was to appeal the dismissal in accordance with established procedures – not air grievances to the media, especially with many good lawyers among your ranks.
If the evidence is sufficient, one must pursue a motion for reconsideration; if that doesn’t work, one can file a petition for review with DOJ Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II himself – this is what the DOJ Manual for Prosecutors suggests.
With all due respect to our great leaders among the police force, the time has come to show all law enforcement’s full obedience to the rules and not expressing panic because a government agency issued a decision opposed to your viewpoint.
Don’t panic; restore sanity and sobriety in the bureaucracy.
***
It is totally unfair for the Insurance Commission to close five insurance firms simply because they were unable to provide the minimum P550 million net worth requirement for 2018. The fact is, when these companies started, they were able to comply with the commission’s requirements. The firms managed to do well and, according to the commission itself, “All have positive net worth.” Why require such a huge minimum threshold “mid-stream?”
This changing of rules in the middle of the game is unjust. Was it just a way of pushing out the said firms? Did they cross anybody in power and have been targeted for closure? Just asking…
***
If anyone would like to ask me questions about the burning issues of the day, what we have discussed here, or to consult on a problem, please call 0917-984-2468, email at batasmauricio@yahoo.com, or post your concerns at facebook.com/attybatas. Promise, I will answer right away. Thank God in the Name of Jesus, Amen!