@caloycaliwara: So, what is Faith again? It is when your heart, no longer belongs to you, but to God. #binhingmustasa

Commonwealth Saga On Twitter

@caloycaliwara: Walang masama sa marangal ng paghahanapbuhay. Pero hindi marangal ang reckless driving ng bus drivers sa Commonwealth Ave. #kukotenghilaw

@caloycaliwara: Para bang ang mga buses as Commonwealth ang tanging may karapatan na tumahak as Commonwealth Avenue. #kukotenghilaw

@caloycaliwara: Mga jaywalkers. Sumawsaw din sa Commonwealth at huwag ka, halos lahat na yata ng sulok ng Metro Manila. #kukotenghilaw

@caloycaliwara: Mga jeepney drivers at tricycle drivers, ganyan din. Reckless. Pag nabangga naman, sa una, mata pang. Tapos lalambot. #kukotenghilaw

@caloycaliwara: Tao nga naman. Pag lulusot, talo pa ang daga. Pag hindi uobra, buntot nakakilo parang tuta. #kukotenghilaw

Exposing Human Character At Its Worst

@caloycaliwara: Pasaway. Bulakbol. Suwapang. Ulol. Mayabang. Tamad. Bolero. Ganid. Tarantado. Atbp katropang halintulad. Dito gigisahin sa #kukotenghilaw

Kukoteng Hilaw on Twitter

@caloycaliwara: Pasaway. Bulakbol. Suwapang. Ulol. Mayabang. Tamad. Bolero. Ganid. Tarantado. Atbp katropang halintulad. Dito gigisahin sa #kukotenghilaw

Human Character At It's Worst

Check out @caloycaliwara's Tweet: https://twitter.com/caloycaliwara/status/391709247240536064

Some Thoughts On P/DAF/P

At the end of the day, the real issue is whether the funds were used entirely for public purposes and not for private benefit.

Legal issues are involved and granting there was a violation of any law, let the court decide. Those questioning the releases may just have to come forward and clean by taking legal action.

As to whether the funds influenced the impeachment magistrates, it can be recalled that practically the entire nation was in agreement that political questions are involved.

Many agreed with the outcome. People did not go out to the streets to protest against the decision.

Err On The Side Of Caution

"Ex abundanti ad cautelam" is often read in court pleadings or documents filed which are not yet due or required but for purposes of taking a precautionary action, the pleading is filed nonetheless. This is true in lower courts like the the municipal trial courts and regional trial courts. But when it comes to the Supreme Court, unless for a very exceptional and significant reason, no pleading or document may be filed without an order first coming from the high court otherwise the lawyer may be subjecting himself to sanctions or contempt. 

Outside of the court system, there are instances when a public officer or official is being made to follow an order, in whatever form it may have been made, either verbal, through a memorandum circular or resolution, and thus, the official or officer must comply lest administrative and criminal sanctions may be imposed.

But what if the order is unlawful? Should the public official or officer comply with such an unlawful order?

In a decision of the high court, it declared that "When a public officer takes an oath of office, he or she binds himself or herself to faithfully perform the duties of the office and use reasonable skill and diligence, and to act primarily for the benefit of the public. Thus, in the discharge of duties, a public officer is to use that prudence, caution and attention which careful persons use in the management of their affairs." (Factura, G.R. 166495)

Does this mean that blind obedience cannot just be made merely because there is a standing order to do or refrain from doing? Not exactly. But It is clear that "prudence, caution and attention" must be used. And a word of caution though, existing laws provide for certain parameters. There are instances when such or similar acts may be construed as sedition. That is why, when there are laws or issuances which one may feel to be violative of or will violate certain rights, the court is the still the best forum. This could be by declaratory relief or similar actions. Another move or remedy is to secure an official legal opinion from appropriate government agencies. Hence, the bottomline still is, do not put the law in your own hands. Seek legal remedies and redress.

DID THE PHILIPPINES EVER HAD A SHUTDOWN?

This blog will be very brief.

Whatever may be the answer, it is certain that PDAF never had it.

It is only now.