Ang telenobelang Kris at James

Balita ko lalabanan ni James ang sinasabi ng mga abogado ni Kris na invalido ang kanilang kasal.Yan kasi ang taktika ng mga abogado ni Kris. Sabi nila walang bisa ang kasal nina Kris at James dahil yata sa taong nagkasal sa kanila.

Hindi lang tactica yan. Yan lang marahil ang maidudulog nilang basehan ng paghingi ng pagkawalang bisa. Limitado ang mga causes of action (basehan) ng paghingi ng declaraciong walang bisa ang kasal. Isa ay ang pyschological incapacity, na mahirap mapatunayan, dahil mukha namang nagmahalan sila noon, at malapit naman ata si James sa sanggol.

Ang ikalawa ay ang incapacity to consummate the marriage. Maaari yan, kung hindi nag-fla-flag ceremony ang bahagi ng katawan ng lalaki, for physical reasons, or psychological ones (wala siyang turn-on kay Misis dahil bading siya).

Ang ikatlo ay yang formal requirements – marriage license, authority of the solemnizing officer (pekeng judge, or pekeng pare or imam).

NGUNIT

Kahit walang autoridad ang nagkasal, kung isa o ang dalawang ikinasal ay naniwala sa autoridad, hindi na null ang void (walang bisa) ang kasal. Yan ang nakasaad sa Family Code, Article 35.

Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;

Yan maaari, ang magiging depensa ni Lorna Kapunan.

Annulment is a hypocritical bases for divorce, because, in truth and in fact, people do want to get married, and stay married for a while. Later, they get tired, and try to convince themselves, and the judge, that there was a “psychological” incapacity (the most used basis for annulment). I know one classmate, who before he became a politician, fiscally persuaded a judge to grant a divorce (for his client) for psychological reasons.

It would be better to have a divorce law. After all, all the Catholic countries already have them – Italy, France, Ireland, even Spain. In fact, Spain, which introduced Catholicism to us, has already allowed same-sex marriage.

When it comes to hot-button issues like divorce, sex education and same-sex marriage, I subscribe to the best formulation ever made regarding separation of Church and State. “Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give unto God what belongs to God.” Perform your civic duties, and pray to God in the privacy of your heart. Governance should not be shackled by objections of priests, imams and rabbis. After all, we are not a theocracy.

Privatization na naman? One should look for the logic of the privatization, not rely on mere slogans.

Slogans are more insidious than lies, because they have the veneer of truth. They seduce you into dropping your logic for the presumed validity of the slogan.

What is the implied slogan here? Privatization is good, because it will attract competition. Competition will make producers more efficient, increasing quality of goods, and bringing down prices.

Palakpakan mga kapatid.

OOPS. Look at the facts and the logic.

In the case of the MWSS, can there really be competition? How many Pantabangan Dams are there to supply water? You mean to tell me that if you do not like MWSS, you will unhook your gripo and connect to another water supplier? So what happened? Because it is a natural monopoly, you just handed the monopoly to profit seeking private firms. Were it still in the hands of government, then the government would only go for recovery of costs.

Is it more efficient? Do you have tastier water? Is there less water outage? Is there less chlorine?

Same with NAPOCOR. You really think you can foment competition in a natural monopoly like power generation? You think there will be ten power generators supplying Manila or some other city? Or will they look for other territories to supply exclusively? What happened to the electricity prices? Di ba’t tumaas?

At least with NAPOCOR, the profit markup was fixed at eight percent of the asset base (plants actually generating power to be supplied).

Ask California if deregulation fomented competition. Ask them if they were not, in fact, price gouged by Enron.

Re PAGCOR: Do the math.

The offer is $10 Billion. The income currently, is 30 Billion pesos annually, or 2.5 billion pesos monthly.

Assuming an interest rate of 6% per annum, compute the future value of that money. On Excel, at a1, type 2.5 (Billion pesos per month). On a2, type 10 (ten years). On a3, type .06 (six percent interest rate). Now on a4, click insert function, and click FV (future value of money).

When the box appears, on “Rate”, type a3/12 (six percent annual interest rate divided by twelve months)

On “Nper” (number of periods) type a2*12 [10 years, found at a2, multiplied by 12(months)].

On PMT (payment), type a1 (2.5 billion a month average income of PAGCOR). Click OK, and you get 409 billion pesos – the income for ten years. Divided by 45, gives you 9 Billion dollars. Now without changing the formula, just change 10 (at a2) to 20. You get 1,155 billion pesos, or 25.67 billion dollars. Now change that to 25, and you get 38.5 billion dollars.

In other words, kung nagtakaw si Cory, and sold PAGCOR in 1986, she would have gotten then, the income for the next ten years. From 1996 to present, wala na sana tayong pakinabang sa PAGCOR.

So you get an advance on your ten years income, and derive no more income after that. Is that what the people want?

Now with respect to vital services, true, PAGCOR does not deliver water, collect garbage, or whatever. But its income (at least as far as the original PD was concerned) is for important government projects.

Diyan daig ng Chinoy ang Pinoy. Ang Pinoy, gusto, biglang yaman, or biglang kita. Ang Chinoy, handang maghintay at magpundar.