Thursday, August 10, 2017
Friday, September 09, 2016
Friday, August 19, 2016
Because the war on drugs resulted in the increase of extra judicial killings.
Because I believe that people can change and that we should give people the chance to change, and dead people do not get that chance.
Because even when tried and punished, innocent people are still killed because any human institution is not perfect, how much more when there are no trials. Will more injustice somehow lead to more justice?
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
""The reason he has this liquor ban (in Davao) is because we have to work the next day, all the (restaurant) staff have to work, as well as the customers," he said."
So he thinks that without the ban, people will just drink until the wee hours of the morning, so they have to be protected from themselves. But then:
"High-end Davao hotels are exempt from the liquor ban, he said."
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Saturday, February 20, 2016
“Guess what the definition of “Bigot” is? Here, let me tell you, “bigot – a person who has no tolerance for the belief and opinion of others and forces their own opinion on others,” he said.
“Now, who is the bigot? Who cannot take the opinion of others and forces their belief on him? Take a wild guess,” he added.
Saturday, December 06, 2014
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Ang di ko maintindihan sa sumusuporta sa uber, bakit sinusuportahan ang uber sa pagtanggi nitong kumuha ng prankisa sa LTFRB. Pag kumuha ba ng prankisa ang mga sasakyan ng uber papangit na ba ang mga ito? Hindi na ba sila magiging convenient? Hindi mo na ba sila matatawagan gamit ang uber app?
Wala namang mababago sa serbisyo nila maliban sa magiging ligal na sila sa mata ng batas. Ano ang masama sa ganito. Bakit may tumututol dito?
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is under fire from irate netizens following last week's sting operation that led to the apprehension of a private car owner hiring out rides under the Uber network. One news report described it as a case of government regulators trying to play catch-up with technology. I see it as a reason why we need to revisit restrictive laws and regulations designed for a bygone era, which technological developments have rendered obsolete if not outright counterproductive.
I first heard about Uber nearly two years ago from US-based relatives, who are all raves about the service, as are those who are now up in arms here about the LTFRB's action. Described as a "ride-sharing" scheme, Uber puts car owners/drivers in touch with people who would be willing to pay them for a ride between pre-specified points in the city. It relies on a smartphone application to connect passengers with available participating drivers, who are carefully screened and regularly monitored. Fares are pre-agreed, payments are cashless (via credit card), and one can even track the hired car's location in real time. The service is now reportedly available in more than 100 cities in 45 countries worldwide. The LTFRB is similarly training its sights on homegrown Tripid, described as an open carpooling system that also uses the smartphone platform to connect riders with trip providers. What makes these services so popular is that they are widely seen as a convenient and safe way to travel.
What particularly irks Uber fans is the LTFRB's insistence that it is merely trying to protect the welfare and safety of the riding public. To many, this comes as a big joke in light of the all-too-common experience with taxis refusing passengers, and the high incidence of crimes by or in connivance with taxi drivers. It is in fact these very risks with taxis that drives people to use Uber, Tripid and their variants. The LTFRB makes no secret of how its action was prompted by a complaint from the Philippine National Taxi Operators Association (PNTOA), unhappy about competition from what is increasingly seen by riders as a superior service. But neither the LTFRB nor PNTOA appears able to come up with a satisfactory way to police the ranks of the taxi industry to prevent such untoward incidents. So who is the LTFRB really protecting from whom?
Even then, the issue is not unique to the Philippines. Uber, understandably, has met with similar protests from the taxi industry in other countries where it operates. The LTFRB recognizes that it has no jurisdiction over the Uber company itself, which does not directly provide transport services, but is a technology company "through whose application, private unlicensed vehicles are able to engage in public land transportation without securing a franchise from the LTFRB."
Uber adherents counter that the LTFRB has no business meddling into private agreements between riders and trip providers, or in voluntary carpooling or ride-sharing among commuters, which are essentially what Uber and Tripid facilitate through their apps. "It's no different from one asking to be driven by a neighbor in his car to the airport for an agreed payment," argues a netizen, except that Uber makes it possible to find that ride well beyond one's neighborhood.
And a "Big Brother" government may be going a bit too far to insist on watching out for the involved parties all the time, when they can well watch out for themselves in such bilateral transactions. Uber and the others in fact go a step further and help protect the transacting parties via a rigorous screening process on partner drivers, and through a user-driven rating system that helps weed out known bad performers on both sides.
If government's concern is to tax such transactions, then Uber's cashless payments system makes it even easier to enforce a taxation mechanism not possible under informal cash-based neighbor-to-neighbor car hire or carpooling schemes. That should not be the concern of the LTFRB, however, but of the tax authorities.
There's much wider significance to all this. There's such a thing as regulatory overreach, and the Uber issue, to my mind, is but one example. I have also argued before that there need not be such things as "colorum" cargo trucks. I don't see why government must have to issue franchises for a service that, like an Uber ride, amounts to a private bilateral contract, in this case between a cargo shipper and a truck owner (the same reasoning applies to cargo ships). With adequate competition—and a policy framework that fosters, not inhibits it, as franchising actually does—the market would ensure that satisfactory services are provided that are commensurate to fees paid. The less government pokes its nose unnecessarily into everybody's business, the livelier the economy becomes.
Legally defined, a "public utility," which by law requires a franchise, "provides a service or facility needed for present day living that cannot be denied to anyone willing to pay for it." Electric power, water or mass transport services are clear examples. But the US Supreme Court once stated, in a ruling that has shaped our own jurisprudence as well, that "a private enterprise doing business under private contracts with customers of its choice and therefore not devoted to public use" cannot be a public utility.
It's time that we revisited our official definition of public utilities, which is still guided by the archaic Public Service Act of 1936. Rapid technological developments demand it. And overall consumer welfare, along with our investment attractiveness, crucially hinges on it as well.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
I think this post by Ed Brayton makes a clear case for why atheists should fight for social justice.
"It should be entirely obvious that one of the damaging effects of religious belief is the denial of equal rights to women, to gay people and even to racial minorities. In all three cases, discriminatory policies are justified by the religious beliefs that atheist activists fight against. We cannot be effective in countering the negative effect of religion-based public policy (or more broadly, cultural norms and non-political societal structures) if we don't take up those fights for equality."