-
Website
http://www.mindanaobloggers.com/ -
Original page
http://www.mindanaobloggers.com/2007/06/22/cagayan-de-oro-bloggers/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
@Marc: I'll bet you a million euros Davao City will end up hosting the 2nd summit. :)
@Mito: Punta ka ha!
Anyways, I do hope for another gathering so that we can organize a CDO Bloggers Community. And then will go to the Blogger Summit. Ang saya siguro....
:P
Nice to see you guys... and hope to meet you in person....
Even though I'm not taking you up on that bet... I hope you lose and MindanaoBloggers 2.0 gets hosted somewhere up north *hint* *hint*
:D
i always pass by CDO.... since i go home in Iligan, Marawi or Lanao del Sur. Hope ma meet ko rin kayo mga CDO Bloggers. Meron din Iligan Bloggers peru konti pa sila.
makasuya..char!!!
maung adlaw sa tanan
Public leadership of public affairs directly responsible for executive action in terms that respect and contribute to the dignity, the worth, and the potentialities of the citizens can only be express without prejudice to any one through the rule of law. It is a solemn duty of every public official, either elected or appointed to conduct himself in a manner that bring forth the efficacy of the government and carry out the command of their respective seats of power in operation of the rule of law. It is a fundamental dictum to be uphold that in order for public administration to be effective, it must have the rule of law as its governing framework. The rule of law is the source of confidence for the people so that their rights will equally be enforced and protected because the law is essentially the source of power of the government the same people have opted to adopt. To say the least without a uncompromising adherence to the rule of law, society becomes a jungle, a rule of the mob, its leaders lacking the competence and the effectiveness to be enforcers of the general welfare of its people. The rule of law will be an illuminating guide, a norm which reflects a public leadership with justice and equity as well.
I heard of a certain Local Government Unit which initiated collection of a fee from PUJ. SEC. 132. of the Local Government code of 1991 noted that “The power to impose a tax, fee, or charge or to generate revenue under this Code shall be exercised by the sanggunian of the local government unit concerned through an appropriate ordinance.” Sec 305 of the same code provided that “local revenue is generated only from sources expressly authorized by law or ordinance, and collection thereof shall at all times be acknowledged properly; Local government funds and monies shall be spent solely for public purposes.” SEC. 307 directed that Officers of the local government authorized to receive and collect monies arising from taxes, revenues, or receipts of any kind shall remit the full amount received and collected to the treasury of such local government unit which shall be credited to the particular account or accounts to which the monies in question properly belong. SEC. 186 Local government units may exercise the power to levy taxes, fees or charges on any base or subject not otherwise specifically enumerated herein or taxed under the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code, as amended, or other applicable laws: Provided, That the taxes, fees, or charges shall not be unjust, excessive, oppressive, confiscatory or contrary to declared national policy: Provided, further, That the ordinance levying such taxes, fees or charges shall not be enacted without any prior public hearing conducted for the purpose.
Were such provisions of law respected and adhered upon? Is there an ordinance backing up the collection of fees? Was there a public hearing about the ordinance? Was it properly acknowledged by the giver and the collector? Were the full amounts collected remitted to the treasury? Was it use solely for public purposes? These questions are worth asking from the local government leaders. Isn’t it?
The collection of fee from the PUJ was meet with varied reaction mostly from the affected drivers and operators. There were those who freely abide by the demand for the fee. But there were others who refused to submit themselves to such an arrangement, questioning its legality. Often noncompliant PUJ drivers engaged themselves in a verbal warfare with the assigned collector. At the same time, the collector is bereft with authority and power to apprehend noncompliant drivers. Members of the barangay Tanods The rule of law provides uniformity in the implementation of affairs. The absence of such brings chaos and confusion, its implementation brutalized by abuses and inequalities. In this atmosphere, submission becomes a personal matter rather than public, more arbitrary than fairly rationale. There will be no wonder that the concern Government Unit will sunk to the deep of lawlessness and abuse of authority. The development of any organization affixes its magnitude upon how well their leaders adhere to the rule of law.
I heard of a Local Government Unit in its desire to be of assistance to the homeowners of a private subdivision promptly entered into an agreement with the homeowners, without the antecedent of the fundamental requisite of enacting an ordinance prior to the agreement. Can this be construed as a grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction, and beyond the framework of the local government code? In SEC. 391 of the local government code THE SANGGUNIANG BARANGAY has the sole power to authorize the Punong barangay to enter into contracts in behalf of the barangay, subject to the provisions of this Code. As such the local legislative body must enact the ordinance necessary to discharge such a responsibility. By virtue of SEC. 458 of the same code the ordinance promulgated by the sangguniang barangay is subject for review by the sangguniang paglungsod to determine whether it is within the scope of the prescribed powers of the barangay officials. Is it appropriate for a government unit to enter into negotiation, finalizing and agreeing to the terms of an agreement with a third party devoid of any authority of an ordinance to the effect? To approve of this act would create a dangerous precedent, since it would allow the government unit to conveniently bind itself to other agreements in the future, on the excuse that agreements were permitted unquestioned in the past. We must do things right from the every beginning, conducting ourselves within the rule of law so as not to lost the opportunity to pass upon the lawful basis of any agreements entered into by our government unit.
I am not against helping the constituents at their time of need. But there are prescribed means of facilitating such act of service within the bounce of the rule of law. Hiding the rule of law within the books of law, is tantamount to saying that we are above the law. Such arrogance of power only exist in the hearts of the mobs and gangsters. Out from these experiences, we cannot help but entertain to raise the issue pertaining to the competence and capability of the local legislative body to promulgate sound, accurate and timely ordinances and resolutions. To ignore what the law duty bound us to obey, in the pretext of extending a helping hand to the constituents is not a justifying circumstance for we are a government of laws and not of men.
The ends never justify the means. We are not to view a tree without considering the whole forest. There is no doubt that when the government unit entered into an agreement with the homeowners thru a Memorandum of Agreement, they were in the discharge of their administrative or official functions; In the said agreement it is the homeowner who will be responsible in providing the monthly compensation of the Tanods who will serve as the security guards of the private subdivision. If this is the case, why can’t they hire other private individuals other than the Tanods to provide such services to them. Why specifically the Tanods? What is so special about the Tanods as their security provider? It is interesting to give room for a closer scrutiny, however, to the acts and events that led to this signing of the Memorandum of Agreement to determine whether there is an act prejudicial and disadvantageous to the part of government disguise as public welfare. However, the barangay tanods have a mandate greater than a security guard. They compose the basic “law enforcement” unit of every locality. They are our front liners in peacekeeping efforts. The creation of tanods as force multipliers in the law enforcement efforts is anchored on the fact that our police are not omnipresent to protect our people. Confining them to the scope of a security guard’s job is an insult, a demotion in rank, an unrespectable gesture, lacking the appreciation and understanding of the purpose and reasons of its creation. By the very nature of their purpose and creation, they are fighters of any threat to the safety and peace of the entire barangay, not limited to a particular subdivision or group of people. Its creation is not for securing the premises of a special group of people but for the general welfare of the whole community.
Let the rule of law prevail. Ignorance excuses no one. When our officials act above the law, we are not safe.
Let us not become false hope to the heirs of our community.
i invite everyone to the new social network on ning:
www.cdoliving.ning.com
it is a free network of people living in cdo or intending to live in cdo.
i am in canada intending to live there
everyone is welcome, pinoy, chinese, european, african, american...
in english please
fred