Not a real closure

JAI-ALAI betting operations in Pangasinan may have stopped for now with the voluntary closure of stations licensed under Meridien Vista Gaming Corporation (MVGC) following a directive from the national government and a ruling by the Court of Appeals (CA).

But the deeper problem has not been resolved and ended — illegal gambling continues to thrive in Pangasinan and supposedly legal operations such as MVGC’s jai-alai are conveniently used as a front for the undying jueteng.

With the findings of the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the illegality of off-fronton betting stations for jai alai and the CA order allowing the government at least 60 days to stop MVGC’s operation outside the Cagayan Economic Zone Authority, the mayors here in Pangasinan who were unusually quick to issue permits to MVGC are now suspect for covering up for jueteng.

They can, of course, keep justifying their issuance of a permit to MVGC by simply claiming that the company had the legal papers to back their application for a license. But we expect more from our mayors, they who have been trusted and elected by our communities to lead their respective cities and municipalities towards significant development through good governance. Issuing a permit to an individual or a company does not simply depend on legal papers — mayors can always exercise good judgment in determining whether a certain business will contribute to the progress of their town.

Even before the order from the DOJ and the Department of Interior and Local Government as well as the CA ruling were handed out, our mayors with help from the police could have taken a look, listened to reports from the ground on whether the jai-alai betting stations were really what they claim to be. But perhaps our local leaders really don’t want a closure to jueteng.

*     *     *     *     *     *

Prophetic

IN the end, the seven Roman Catholic bishops wound up heroes.

They did not receive Pajeros but decrepit vehicles – save for one who got an SUV (Mitsubishi Montero).  The rest that had seen better days.  They returned all seven vehicles – but not after the Montero beneficiary expressed regret over what he said was his “lapse of judgment” when he requested GMA for the SUV as his birthday gift in 2009.

In the Senate hearing, Sen. Sotto said the bishops ought to keep the vehicles for their noble service to the poor. It was promptly seconded by three senators. But the bishops refused, saying “whether it was right or wrong, constitutional or not, for us to keep them, it was prophetic that we need to return them.”

How does one rebut that?

Back to Homepage

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments