Results 1 to 10 of 58
Threaded View
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
May 15th, 2009 04:05 PM #17IDEALLY, i think tama naman yung SC sa decision nila...
but PRACTICALLY, i think it is not well thought through.. minsan ang tingin ko.. ang SC.. masyado idealistic.. masyado naco confine sa 4 corners of the law... masyado naco confine sa kanilang mga advocacies... hindi naman masama yun per se.. legally tama sila.. in terms of safety... tama yung decision nila.. but a balance should've been attempted to be arrived at... like coming up with a "hearing" on how to deal with the possible consequences of their decision... porke ba sila ang SC immune na sila sa consequences ng decisions nila? kung talagang lumipat ang big 3.. at ipatong nila sa prices ng fuel hindi ba sila aangal? kung mawalan ng trabaho mga manileno, mabibigyan ba nila ng trabaho ? yung mga magugutom sa area ng pandacan, mapapakain ba nila???
it is so easy to decide when you're not the one to deal with the consequences directly...
although overall, i really think it isn't the fault of the SC... nagsimula naman talaga to lahat nung panahon ni Atienza .. sa city council.. doon dapat they considered all angles na at their level... and then come up with a legislation that is not too nearsighted... granted na talagang gusto nilang paalisin, then the law should've provided for a transition.. a realistic transition... but kung hindi mo ilalagay yun, natural, iaakyat yan sa SC... then SC will be the one to clean up the mess... which.. hindi rin kaya ng SC linisin ng super linis...
and if i will speculate.. at the time na Ordinance 8119 (tama ba?) was being crafted.. it is possible that money didn't change hands.. kaya nagtuluy tuloy ang ordinance until it got approved.. now na lumabas na yung Ordinance na nag amend sa ordinance na to, ang madaling isipin eh yung mga nagtrabaho para ma-amend yung unang ordinance ang nakinabang.. siguro maaari... but instead na yung dating administrasyon ang nakinabang.. yun present na administrasyon ang nakinabang...
put yourself even as a business.. a LEGAL business... nagbabayad ka ng tamang taxes.. nagpapa suweldo ka ng maayos.. nagbibigay ng job opportunity sa mga tao... just because walang boto ang isang business (or hindi sumuporta sa eleksyon?), maaaring gumawa ang local council ng zoning ordinance para maging illegal ang stay ng negosyo mo sa lugar na iyon... tapos palalayasin ka ng ganun ganun lang?
in a related scenario, di ba nga, pag ang government kailangang bumili ng lupain para iconvert sa highway, kailangan bayaran ng government ang may ari ng lupa na tatamaan ng pina planong highway? that is the least that government should do... to compensate the private sector in cases like this... but in the big 3 Pandacan move.. may ganung provision ba? we can always argue that the case of the big3 is different dahil inherent yung safety risk.. i agree.. however, pag umalis ang big 3, for sure naman may iba ding mag ne negosyo ng langis eh.. ang tanong.. nawala ba yung safety risk? di ba andun pa rin?? whether big 3 pa yan o small player.. basta nagtayo ka ng depo.. risk na agad yun... is the government telling the private sector how it should conduct its business? mas masama kung walang mag negosyo ng langis (at least wala na yung safety risk).. but then.. san naman pupulitin ang Pilipinas?
and then magtataka tayo bakit ang hirap magnegosyo dito.. magtataka tayo bakit maraming mas gustong mangibang bansa para makipagsapalaran sa hanap buhay kumpara sa dito na lang at tulungan ang sariling bayan...Last edited by wowiesy; May 15th, 2009 at 04:26 PM.
Interesting thread—really important to consider the broader impact of the National ID Law beyond...
National ID Law