By Ermin Garcia Jr.

 

OUR news story last week on the fourth case filed vs. Dagupan City Mayor Brian Lim can easily be dismissed as another case of political harassment, it being part of a series of complaints sourced from the COA 2021 audit report alone. Perhaps so.

But the matters and issues raised are completely valid. The Lim administration, indeed, ignored the laws that mattered to the communities and Mayor Lim cannot escape culpability because orders came from him directly, not from the department heads who were equally liable for obeying patently illegal orders.

Curiously, there is no complaint against him for the proliferation of illegal fish pens in violation of the city’s ordinance. He cannot say he had nothing to do with it because he deliberately avoided filling in the position of city agriculturist that effectively made himself the chief enforcer of the fishing ordinance in the city.

There must already be more than a thousand illegal fish pens and oversized fish cages affecting the sustainability of the city’s rivers. It’s interesting to know who and how much the operators have been paying to be able to operate illegally in full view of the city.

Is it possible that this widespread violation tolerated by the Lim administration escaped the attention of  COA team of auditors? Hmmm.

*          *          *          *

WHAT HELMET LAW?  What is it about the helmet law that makes it difficult for our police in the province to enforce strictly?

Surely it’s not the color or shape of the crash helmets because there is nothing in the law that prescribes it. It also can’t be about sexes because the wearing of helmets is gender-free. It also can’t be about ages of riders because that is not prescribed.

Perhaps, the fact that many of our policemen are motorcycle riders themselves and they “forget” to comply with the law themselves when riding around their respective barangays. If they find nothing wrong with not wearing helmets, then how can they find anything wrong with their neighbors doing the same? 

I regularly pass through highways in San Fabian, Mangaldan, Calasiao, Sta. Barbara, Malasiqui, Villasis, Urdaneta, Rosales, Binmaley and Lingayen, and one would think we still don’t have a helmet law in the country because riders without helmets are speeding from all sides. Imagine how the helmet law is flouted across the province today. Paging P/Col. Richmond Tadina!

It is precisely this failure of our police to strictly enforce simple all-encompassing laws that denotes no exceptions, that makes people believe and think they can get away with violating other laws, including murder. 

Any police chief that thinks strict enforcement of the helmet law should not be a priority ought to be replaced not a day longer.  The enforcement of all laws is a priority, and cannot be considered as optional.

One thing is certain, we can find disciplined people in a community only where the police and barangay officials are visibly strictly enforcing the helmet law, anti-noise pollution law, anti-vagrancy law and anti-illegal drug law.

*          *          *          *

POLITICIANS AS POLLUTANTS. In every election, the constitution guarantees free speech and use of promotional campaign materials for the purpose.

Consequently, candidates spend on advertising and posters for the full duration of the campaign period. That’s the privilege extended to persons who file their certificates of candidacy.

But that privilege ends a day after the election, and accountability and responsibility for the disposition, removal of their posters and streamers follows. Their posters, streamers appearing on the streets, empty lots, trees, electric posts after the election are considered trash and pollutant wastes.

I dare say that candidates whose promotional materials continue to pollute the environment after the election must be tagged as irresponsible and violators of our ordinances and environmental laws. The candidates who won or lost are not privileged to have their faces plastered in every part of the barangay after the election.

Well, there’s something that barangay councils can exploit in this post-election dilemma with a win-win solution.

Barangay councils can help in the clearing of the campaign trash materials in their communities by adopting a resolution imposing daily fines on irresponsible politicians for every poster they leave behind as posted trash.

Recommended penalty  – P50 fine for every campaign poster monitored as trash per day (7 days after the election). Pictures of daily violations submitted to the barangay office and noted by the kapitan should be enough to press collection. A refusal of the irresponsible politicians to pay the penalty be reported by the barangay council to its constituents.

Time to teach our politicians to teach what they preach, to walk the talk!

*          *          *          *

RIDICULOUS ‘EXPIRATION’ POLICY. The Senate recently passed a bill putting an end to the practice and policy of government agencies requiring “updated” documents from the Philippine Statistics Authority to replace “expired dates of issuance” of birth, marriage and death certificates.

What’s beyond me is why it took this long for our public officials to be confronted with this ridiculous policy. It was obviously adopted as an added source of revenue for the agency, never mind that the public is burdened with the costs and time to get the “updated” issuance of certificates.

Then there are the redundant legal documents required by courts to establish the true identity of a person, i.e., name, alias, age, etc. before any action can be taken on or for the person. 

Here’s a classic example of the burdensome requirements of courts.  A company charged everyone in our editorial box with libel over one simple story. We were all required to post bail, and we did. When the case was dismissed, we sought to withdraw the cash bonds we filed for everyone. It turned out to be a nightmare.

The government-issued ID of one of our staff had the complete name, including second name but the cash bond filed was under the name as filed and charged in court (as it appeared in our editorial box). Dilemma: We have to prove that the person charged and for whom cash bond was filed and the person, whose picture appears in the government-issued ID, are one and the same! 

Without further proof of certification from others, the court cannot release the cash bond! Ugh!

How’s that for documentation of your person? Government needs others to prove you are you!

Share your Comments or Reactions

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments