“…Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God – children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God…” –John 1:12-13
It cannot be denied that many of those who serve in government, particularly within agencies (unfortunately) linked with public works projects worth billions and trillions of pesos, have serious mental issues affecting their capability to uphold the interest and welfare of the country. Among these agencies is the Department of Transportation (DOTr), under the controversial Secretary Arthur Tugade.
The MRT 7 project, for instance, faces serious problems towards its completion because a purchase of land by the government has yet to be finalized – DOTr spent billions on a project without finalizing the land purchase for an area to be used as a depot. Plus, the agency is trying to blame a Malolos City judge after allowing the original land owner to be paid an additional P510 million.
DOTr should be blamed and castigated for yet another display of incompetence and inefficiency.
It is indeed gratifying to see biblical scholars around the world accepting the prophecy in Isaiah 9:6, made some 700 years before Jesus was born, was fulfilled when Jesus was born. This means Bible experts and authorities are united in their belief the baby boy referred to in Isaiah 9:6, Jesus, is the “mighty God, everlasting Father” – the same belief espoused by the Children of God Blood Kin of the Christ Church, or the Simbahang Anak ng Diyos Kadugo Ni Kristo (AND KNK).
Isaiah 9:6 is a mere continuation of Isaiah 7:14, where the event involving the virgin and her baby boy would be signs from God the Father Himself was prophesized. Isaiah 9:6 explains the baby boy mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 – the boy that was conceived and given birth to as a man with flesh and blood by a virgin woman, who was also a human being.
Isaiah 9:6 says this baby boy is the “mighty God, everlasting Father” – no more, no less.
The question was posed by someone who sought legal assistance from “Bitag ni Ben Tulfo:” If a check bounces because the individual who issued the check was out of the job and lost their ability to pay, do they have any liability? In their particular case, both parties agreed to allow payment for the bounced checks at a lower sum. Does the agreement impact the bounced checks?
Lawyers in the Light (or Lawyers Instructed on Godliness, Humility, and Truth) responded: First, whenever a check bounces, or is dishonored for lack of funds, criminal liability is immediately attached to the issuer immediately; as long as the check bounced, the issuer is in violation of Batas Pambansa 22. However, since the drawer and the payee entered into a new agreement allowing the drawer to instead pay through an alternative methods, the drawer’s criminal liability is deemed extinguished b, what is known as, “novation of contract.”
The new agreement will instead pay for the value of the bounced checks.
FOR QUESTIONS, REACTIONS: If anyone would like to ask me any question about what the burning issues of the day mean, what we have discussed here, or to consult any problem, whatever it maybe, please call 0917-984-2468, email me at email@example.com, or post your concerns at facebook.com/attybatas. Promise, I will answer right away. Thank God in the Name of Jesus, Amen!/WDJ