Regi’s Blog

Met some hotties in Hong Kong!!! Ooh la la la!!!

How do we determine if an invention is great?  There are many ways to evaluate the greatness of an invention.  The evaluation of the creativity or ingenuity involved is one of them.  Another way is by rating the difficulty endured by the inventor in the processing of creating his invention.  The difficulty with these is that assessing creativity, ingenuity or difficulty is very subjective that any determination based on such would appear to be arbitrary.

Perhaps the better way to rate the greatness of an invention is by evaluating the consequences made possible by the same,  whether by determining the other ideas and inventions spawned by them or by simply assessing the positive impact of such inventions in changing the way we lead our lives.  Using these criteria, particularly, the latter, the determination of which is the best invention will not be as subjective as compared to if we rate such inventions by rating the creativity, ingenuity or difficulty involved in making them.

What now then is the greatest invention on earth, or to put simply, as earlier explained, what invention has improved our lives the most?  The automobile perhaps, as it has practically reduced the world we live in by making it easier and faster to travel great distances.  Or the airplane as it makes the travel of even greater distances possible.  But the way these inventions made people closer by improving transportation is nothing to the impact caused by the computer and consequently the internet.  It has practically made everything accessible.  Communication has never been this easy making travel of great distances  impractical, if not unnecessary.  But the computer is not primarily a communication device as it was originally created as a computing device.  The computer as a computing device virtually extended the reach of the human mind.  The evolution of the computer as a computing device into a programming device is the cause of the benefit of the computer as a communication device and is the ultimate indication of the greatness of this invention.  The ability to make the computer to perform several instructions spawned other uses for the computer such making computers word processors, data bases, gaming consoles, and as aforementioned, communication devices, and many others.  The computer as a programming device has also improved the utility of the computer as a computing device extending the reach of the human mind even more.

But for me, the greatest invention on earth now, or even for all-time, is definitely greater than the computer, although it can be argued that this invention is merely a derivative of the former.  For it is without question that this invention was built using the same technology that made the invention of the computer possible.  It has changed my life dramatically that there is not a day that goes by that I do not use this device since the time that I was able to acquire it, which was last month.  Yes, I have been aware of a device so revolutionary only last month.  I am ofocurse talking about the Nintendo Wii.  This device has practically filled my days last month, well not really, as I also played poker online most of those days, and played basketball in some.  But this device has practically ruled my October of 2008.  It is through this device that I beat the Crash of the Titans game and made significant successes in others.  My favorite games include Mario Strikers Charged, Wii Sports, Super Mario Bros. 3, Wii Play (yes, I am a casual gamer), World of Goo, and, as already mentioned, Crash of the Titans.

After six months of sowing…

Now, we wait.

There are many reasons why the UP College of Law is the best law school in the country.  The foremost reason however is that UP is able to attract the best law students from all over the archipelago.  UP has one of the lowest tuition and other fees in the country.  How can the other law schools really compete when the government subsidises the tuition expenses of UP students.  Moreover, UP Law provides the best opportunities for its graduates.  This is exemplified by the fact that the UP College of Law has produced six of the fourteen Philippine Presidents and who knows how many Senate Presidents and Chief Justices.   

The Present crop of graduating student is no exception.  In fact, more than ever, the present seniors epitomize the tradition of excellence the UP College of Law is known for.  Oooooh yeahhhh!

Yey!!! It’s now 2008!!!  Although I am encountering mixed feelings as 2007 was one of my best, I am sure with the rate things are going that 2008 will be better! Happy New Year to all of us!!!  Thank you, family and friends for making 2007 the best!!! You know who you are!! Shit, I sound gay… Anyways 2008! Yahoo!!!

P.S. 250 days na lang bar na… egad.

Many serious accusations have been hurled this year, the most notorious of which was the statement made by former Socio-Economic Planning Secretary and current Commission on Higher Education Chair Romulo Neri during the Senate hearing on the controversial national broadband network deal between the Philippine government and China’s ZTE Corporation last September 26, 2007.  Neri alleged that COMELEC Chair Benjamin Abalos told him during a golf game, “Sec., meron kang 200 dito,” referring to a hefty P200-million commission offered by Abalos to Neri in connection with the RP-ZTE deal.

Assuming such testimony of Neri was true, that is, Abalos offered him a P200 million bribe and Neri rejected such offer, Abalos incurred the following liability:

Criminal liability. The making of an offer and/or promise to a public officer in consideration of the execution of an act of such public officer whether or not such act constitutes a crime and whether or not such act is accomplished is punishable under Art. 212, Corruption of Public Officials, of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 210 of the same.  Abalos made a promise of giving Neri P200 million in exchange for giving the approval on the national broadband network project. Thus, Abalos committed the crime of attempted corruption of a public official.  The crime was merely in the attempted stage since Neri rejected the offer.

Moreover, Abalos violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended).  Under Sec. 3(a) thereof, persuading, inducing or influencing another officer to perform an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter is considered unlawful and punishable with imprisonment for not less than six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual disqualification from public office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.  Abalos, a public officer, was persuading, inducing and/or influencing Neri, another public officer, into committing an offense, i.e., violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, that is, causing undue injury to the Government, Jose “Joey” de Venecia III, or Amsterdam Holdings, Inc., or giving ZTE Corporation unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official functions through manifest partiality or evident bad faith.

However, considering that the resignation of Abalos was improper (which will be discussed below) and the judicial pronouncements in In re: Gonzales that a public officer, who under the Constitution may be removed from office only by impeachment, cannot be criminally charged during his incumbency before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office or any penalty service of which would amount to removal from office, the criminal liability of Abalos may only be determined and enforced after he is removed from office, or when he resigns formally and such resignation is accepted by the President, or until his compulsory retirement on February 8, 2008.

Administrative liability. The resignation of Abalos was improper as it was never accepted by any competent and lawful authority. Furthermore, if the published statements attributed to Presidential Legal Counsel Sergio Apostol are to be believed, Abalos has not really resigned and is merely on terminal leave until his compulsory retirement on February 8, 2008 which is contrary to his earlier declarations in his residence in Kanlaon, Mandaluyong City, last October 1, 2007, that he was resigning the chairmanship of the COMELEC immediately. Resignation by definition is the formal renunciation or relinquishment of a public office.  Additionally, the official with whom a resignation of a public office must be tendered, absent any designation by statute, is the officer or body which has authority to appoint his successor or to call an election to fill the office. There appears to be no record that Abalos submitted a formal written letter of resignation to President Arroyo and of her having accepted such resignation.  This is not to say that the declaration made by Abalos in public does not suffice as valid tender of resignation since the tender of resignation may be made orally, and it may be presumed that the President has watched it on TV or has read it in the newspapers.  But the resignation still needs to be accepted by the President and the President has not done so in this case.  More importantly, the published statements attributed to Presidential Legal Counsel Sergio Apostol that Abalos has not really resigned and is merely on terminal leave until his compulsory retirement on February 8, 2008, leaves us with no other conclusion other than Abalos has not yet properly and legally resigned.  Therefore, Abalos remains an impeachable officer and may be impeached by the House of Representives and be tried before the Senate.

Under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, a Member of a Constitutional Commission may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.  In this case, Abalos, being a current Member of a Constitutional Commission albeit currently on terminal leave committed culpable violations of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust when he offered Neri a P200 million bribe.  Such act was a culpable violation of the constitutional mandate that public officers must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.  In addition, under Article IX, Section 2 of the same, it is expressly provided that Members of the Constitutional Commissions are prohibited from being financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or in any privilege granted by the government.  Moreover, said act constituted graft and corruption and betrayal of public trust.  The bribe offer of Abalos was covered by corrupt practices under R.A. No. 3019, as amended, specifically Sec. 3(a) thereof.  Betrayal of public trust on the other hand refers to all acts, even if not punishable by statute as penal offenses, which would render the public officer unfit to continue office such as the bribe offer of Abalos in this case.

Civil liability. Jurisprudence tells us that government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages in so far as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights which any reasonable person would have known.  Such rule does not apply in this case as the bribe offer was not in the performance of discretionary functions by reason of Abalos’soffice; thus, Abalos exposed himself to civil liability.  And though the bribe offer of Abalos to Neri per se did not cause any pecuniary loss that would warrant the payment of actual or compensatory damages to Neri or the government, the same clearly violated the right of Neri not to be induced or persuaded to commit a crime.  Pursuant to Article 2221 of the New Civil Code, Abalos should be made to pay Neri nominal damages for the violation of such right.

But ofcourse, it is unfair to say that Abalos did make the offer to Neri.  Abalos should be afforded due process of law and the allegations of Neri still needs to be proven by sufficient evidence in the proper forum.

On the surface, it would seem that Capital is winning against Labor with the shallow reasoning that capitalists in the Philippines have more resources and live substantially more comfortable lives than laborers.But the evaluation of which class is winning the war is more than the comparison between the average living conditions of members of both classes.To say that Capital is winning merely because they have more resources and live more comfortable lives than laborers ignores the fact that there are substantially more laborers than capitalists and their resources put together may be more than those of capitalists.Moreover, to evaluate which class is winning based on living conditions belies their nature as classes and not merely groups of individuals.

How then should we determine who is winning the war? Labor and Capital are factors of production in an economy.It is said in classical economics that there are four factors of production, namely, capital, land, enterprise, and labor.But in reality there are only two, land being a special kind of capital, and enterprise or entrepreneurship being a special kind of labor.The economic system of the Philippines that being primarily a market economy reveals that in this aspect Capital is winning, and the failing communist movement betrays Labor’s impending defeat.

However, looking at it from an economic standpoint ignores that fact that Capital and Labor more than anything else are classes in a society.How then do we determine who is winning from a social standpoint? It is not clear.But looking at it from a legal standpoint may be indicative, since it may be said that laws are social rules and reflect the society and culture out of which they arise.

The legal system of the Philippines is primarily a civil law system as oppose to common law and religious law systems.Being a civil law system does not really favor any class but only explain the importance of the codifications in a constitution or statute.A perusal of our constitution shows Labor as a primary social economic force and mandates the State to afford it full protection.And though the same constitution mandates that the State recognize as indispensable the role of private sector, encourage private enterprise and provide incentives to needed investments all in support of Capital, our statutes in general show a preference for Labor as exemplified by Article 1702 of the Civil Code.But again this is inconclusive as the law only dictates what should be the case and not what is really the case.The Labor Code and other labor statutes do not change the fact that laborers in this country are oppressed and exploited as shown by the 24.4% poverty incidence, 7.8% unemployment rate and 21.5% underemployment rate.This is so because the people who execute and interpret our laws favor Capital over Labor.

Our political system which is suppose to be democratic and republican fails to afford Labor appropriate representation.The flaws in our electoral processes allow the reign of oligarchs who are supported by Capital.The oligarchs-run government then favors Capital despite the laws in place and allows capitalists to continue to accumulate the resources of the nation which in turn allow them to live more comfortable lives.The view therefore that Capital is winning against Labor because of the reasoning that capitalists have more resources and live substantially more comfortable lives than laborers is not that shallow after all.

I first met her in a musical.  I wasn’t sure then.  Now, I am.

She completes me.

Parang ang daming malas lately.  Those in the public consciousness include a gameshow host and a lifestyle columnist. 

Must be the weather.

The Kumon Method, one of the largest math and language educational systems in the world, develops children’s fundamental learning skills, that is, math and reading skills, at a very young age allowing them to excel in their regualr classes.  In the Mathematics Program, the skill in solving problems is developed as the child tackles repetitive packets progressing from counting to calculus.  While in the Reading Program, the child’s skill in summarizing texts is improved with similar repetitive but progressing packets.

While undoubtedly, the Kumon Method as an after-school learning program has many successes especially in developing the critical thinking skills of its students, I feel that such method fails to recognize the equal importance of developing a creative mind.  Moreso now as people who are truly creative such as Bill Gates and Steve Jobs contribute the most in our society.

Improving the Kumon Method thus requires additional programs that will develop the right part of the brain of the child as well.  Such programs should help the child acquire creative writing and visual communication skills.  Thus, aside from the Mathematics and Reading Programs, the addition of a Creative Writing Program as well as a Visual Communications Program would truly develop the child’s fundamental skills, both creative and critical thinking skills.