The first principle of a free society is an untrammeled flow of words in an open forum.
Adlai E. Stevenson
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
LGUs and Food Crisis
In one of my provincial visits, I bumped into an old friend who was working with an LGU. Being the chap that he is, he invited me to his office to catch up with each other. On our way, I saw a bunch of farmers queuing outside the mayor’s office and I was told, they were chancing on the mayor’s help, mostly, for medical assistance or to get temporary jobs for their broods.
At that time, I was amused of the LGU’s “little sphere of influence”. But with news of the looming food crisis these days, those farmers make me mull over the developments which the Local Government Code and the decentralization policy have brought us.
After a score of implementation, there just seems to be no showing of any notable or practical program from local governments to help address our perennial social problems e.g. unstable food supply, unemployment, lack of health care and the like.
It seems to me that the policies which should have empowered our local governments to broaden the government’s reach have only leveraged the long term political plans of our local officials. In big issues such as the food crisis, it is the national agencies which get the brunt of the public’s wrath, yet not everyone can tell how our LGUs figure in the tableau.
Most analysts would agree that in order to provide long term solution to food shortage, sustainability is the way to go and that this can be done by giving priority to food production.
Under our present law, our local governments are empowered to adopt policies that will help encourage local farmers to plant and boost harvest. For instance, local governments may provide incentives such as farm inputs and technical assistance in terms of processing and marketing in order to support the viability of farm products.
However, there just seems to be plenty of reasons why policies such as these
cannot be enacted by our local councils, all the more implemented!
It is even curious that for years now, the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) of our local governments were beefed up to better dispense government services to the people. And yet, it is disheartening to see our locals lining up in front of a mayor’s office for help. To me, the situation looked more of a dole out to firm up a future political plan than a tangible local social assistance program.
On the brighter side however, there are also some performing LGUs with commendable and forward-looking initiatives. But what impact would their initiatives bear if there are only a few of them? It is just sad that the Local Government Code, potent as it may be for change, is emasculated by the wrong use of some “Fortuner- riding” politicians.
The brilliance of our laws and the social and economic growth we expect from it lie not so much on well-crafted semantics but on the sincerity and foresight of those sitting in the executive.
Should all our local leaders share a common sense of interest and purpose for this country, then the strength and impact of our laws would have been greater.
And maybe then, we can give our farmers a far better sense of dignity than beg for money sourced from their very own sweats.
At that time, I was amused of the LGU’s “little sphere of influence”. But with news of the looming food crisis these days, those farmers make me mull over the developments which the Local Government Code and the decentralization policy have brought us.
After a score of implementation, there just seems to be no showing of any notable or practical program from local governments to help address our perennial social problems e.g. unstable food supply, unemployment, lack of health care and the like.
It seems to me that the policies which should have empowered our local governments to broaden the government’s reach have only leveraged the long term political plans of our local officials. In big issues such as the food crisis, it is the national agencies which get the brunt of the public’s wrath, yet not everyone can tell how our LGUs figure in the tableau.
Most analysts would agree that in order to provide long term solution to food shortage, sustainability is the way to go and that this can be done by giving priority to food production.
Under our present law, our local governments are empowered to adopt policies that will help encourage local farmers to plant and boost harvest. For instance, local governments may provide incentives such as farm inputs and technical assistance in terms of processing and marketing in order to support the viability of farm products.
However, there just seems to be plenty of reasons why policies such as these
cannot be enacted by our local councils, all the more implemented!
It is even curious that for years now, the Internal Revenue Allotments (IRA) of our local governments were beefed up to better dispense government services to the people. And yet, it is disheartening to see our locals lining up in front of a mayor’s office for help. To me, the situation looked more of a dole out to firm up a future political plan than a tangible local social assistance program.
On the brighter side however, there are also some performing LGUs with commendable and forward-looking initiatives. But what impact would their initiatives bear if there are only a few of them? It is just sad that the Local Government Code, potent as it may be for change, is emasculated by the wrong use of some “Fortuner- riding” politicians.
The brilliance of our laws and the social and economic growth we expect from it lie not so much on well-crafted semantics but on the sincerity and foresight of those sitting in the executive.
Should all our local leaders share a common sense of interest and purpose for this country, then the strength and impact of our laws would have been greater.
And maybe then, we can give our farmers a far better sense of dignity than beg for money sourced from their very own sweats.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
050907 Assignment
Today's Assignment in Leg Forms:
1. Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
2. Contracts
3. & 3 remaining Cases
1. Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping
2. Contracts
3. & 3 remaining Cases
Thursday, May 3, 2007
HumanSecurity Act of 2007
This newly ratified legislation is strongly opposed by Human Rights Advocates. Law enforcers charged with combating terrorism however see it as a break through authority in carrying out their mandates.
The debate is just beginning. A complete text of the Human Security Act of 2007 is posted on this site for your purposes. Ciao!
The debate is just beginning. A complete text of the Human Security Act of 2007 is posted on this site for your purposes. Ciao!
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
050807 Assignment in Legal Forms
1) Affidavit of Service
2) CONTRACTS
- Deed of Sale of Real / Personal Property
- Deed of Chattel Mortgage
- Deed of Donation
- Contract of Lease
3) Information (may be discussed next next meeting)
- Rape / Acts of Lasciviousness
4) On Complaints, likely to be discussed are forcible entry / for sum of money (He just mentioned this but not due for discussion next meeting)
2) CONTRACTS
- Deed of Sale of Real / Personal Property
- Deed of Chattel Mortgage
- Deed of Donation
- Contract of Lease
3) Information (may be discussed next next meeting)
- Rape / Acts of Lasciviousness
4) On Complaints, likely to be discussed are forcible entry / for sum of money (He just mentioned this but not due for discussion next meeting)
Friday, April 27, 2007
Legal Forms: Next Mtg
Atty. Lao's Discusion Next Mtg.will cover,
1) Affidavits
2) Information (See Pamaran for this)
3) Plus 5 more cases. Please see linked file (050207 Assignment) for the text of cases.
* Atty. Lao also mentioned bringing sample legal documents e.g. summons and notarial books.
Good Luck!
1) Affidavits
2) Information (See Pamaran for this)
3) Plus 5 more cases. Please see linked file (050207 Assignment) for the text of cases.
* Atty. Lao also mentioned bringing sample legal documents e.g. summons and notarial books.
Good Luck!
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Maceda Law
I am often confused or may I say, I tend to forget the distinction between Maceda and Recto Laws. I have to dig through my past notes to remind me. Anyhow, Recto Law covers installment sale of personal property while Maceda Law covers installment sale of realty.
Here's an excerpt from ACTIVE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS DAROYA, G.R. No. 141205 May 9, 2002 on Maceda Law:
Republic Act No. 6552 -- "The Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act," or more popularly known as the Maceda Law -- came into effect in September 1972. Its declared public policy is to protect buyers of real estate on installment basis against onerous and oppressive conditions.16 The law seeks to address the acute housing shortage problem in our country that has prompted thousands of middle and lower class buyers of houses, lots and condominium units to enter into all sorts of contracts with private housing developers involving installment schemes. Lot buyers, mostly low income earners eager to acquire a lot upon which to build their homes, readily affix their signatures on these contracts, without an opportunity to question the onerous provisions therein as the contract is offered to them on a "take it or leave it" basis.17 Most of these contracts of adhesion, drawn exclusively by the developers, entrap innocent buyers by requiring cash deposits for reservation agreements which oftentimes include, in fine print, onerous default clauses where all the installment payments made will be forfeited upon failure to pay any installment due even if the buyers had made payments for several years.18 Real estate developers thus enjoy an unnecessary advantage over lot buyers who they often exploit with iniquitous results. They get to forfeit all the installment payments of defaulting buyers and resell the same lot to another buyer with the same exigent conditions. To help especially the low income lot buyers, the legislature enacted R.A. No. 6552 delineating the rights and remedies of lot buyers and protect them from one-sided and pernicious contract stipulations.
More specifically, Section 3 of R.A. No. 6552 provided for the rights of the buyer in case of default in the payment of succeeding installments, where he has already paid at least two (2) years of installments, thus:
"(a) To pay, without additional interest, the unpaid installments due within the total grace period earned by him, which is hereby fixed at the rate of one month grace period for every one year of installment payments made; x x x
(b) If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall refund to the buyer the cash surrender value of the payments on the property equivalent to fifty per cent of the total payments made; provided, that the actual cancellation of the contract shall take place after thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the contract by a notarial act and upon full payment of the cash surrender value to the buyer."
Here's an excerpt from ACTIVE REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS DAROYA, G.R. No. 141205 May 9, 2002 on Maceda Law:
Republic Act No. 6552 -- "The Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act," or more popularly known as the Maceda Law -- came into effect in September 1972. Its declared public policy is to protect buyers of real estate on installment basis against onerous and oppressive conditions.16 The law seeks to address the acute housing shortage problem in our country that has prompted thousands of middle and lower class buyers of houses, lots and condominium units to enter into all sorts of contracts with private housing developers involving installment schemes. Lot buyers, mostly low income earners eager to acquire a lot upon which to build their homes, readily affix their signatures on these contracts, without an opportunity to question the onerous provisions therein as the contract is offered to them on a "take it or leave it" basis.17 Most of these contracts of adhesion, drawn exclusively by the developers, entrap innocent buyers by requiring cash deposits for reservation agreements which oftentimes include, in fine print, onerous default clauses where all the installment payments made will be forfeited upon failure to pay any installment due even if the buyers had made payments for several years.18 Real estate developers thus enjoy an unnecessary advantage over lot buyers who they often exploit with iniquitous results. They get to forfeit all the installment payments of defaulting buyers and resell the same lot to another buyer with the same exigent conditions. To help especially the low income lot buyers, the legislature enacted R.A. No. 6552 delineating the rights and remedies of lot buyers and protect them from one-sided and pernicious contract stipulations.
More specifically, Section 3 of R.A. No. 6552 provided for the rights of the buyer in case of default in the payment of succeeding installments, where he has already paid at least two (2) years of installments, thus:
"(a) To pay, without additional interest, the unpaid installments due within the total grace period earned by him, which is hereby fixed at the rate of one month grace period for every one year of installment payments made; x x x
(b) If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall refund to the buyer the cash surrender value of the payments on the property equivalent to fifty per cent of the total payments made; provided, that the actual cancellation of the contract shall take place after thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or the demand for rescission of the contract by a notarial act and upon full payment of the cash surrender value to the buyer."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
