Comments on: Testing the Justice System http://www.duckyparedes.com/blogs/2008/08/29/testing-the-justice-system/ Columns from Malaya and Abante Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:29:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Kezia-Edrei http://www.duckyparedes.com/blogs/2008/08/29/testing-the-justice-system/#comment-1518 Kezia-Edrei Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:12:55 +0000 http://www.duckyparedes.com/blogs/2008/08/29/testing-the-justice-system/#comment-1518 Sir, I'd like to comment on certain parts of your article. You said: "The test is whether it is one law for all except for the very rich who stand accused in the P899-million Meralco estafa case." My question: Before this test, shouldn't we test first if the accusation has basis and is valid? You said: "The real issue here is that Meralco has been using all tricks in the book to, first, overcharge its customers, and secondly, delay any refund arising from such overcharging." My observations po: After researching all the sides, the overcharge was not Meralco's fault but the effect of changes in the rules that only the Philippines had the drive to adopt, bus later reversed through another law (EPIRA). Also, ERC, in fact, released their decision only last June and their order is for January next year. The refund will start Nov this year. This doesn't look as delaying to me. You said: "What immediately comes to mind regarding this is the P30 billion of Meralco’s income which it passed on to consumers for the longest time – from 1994 to 2002 – until the Commission on Audit (COA) discovered the anomaly and the Supreme Court ordered Meralco to refund the same." My question po: Sir, this doesn't appear to me a sound editorial statement. Would you like me to send you my research references on this matter? You said: "The P899 million, according to NASECORE, was declared by Meralco as income in its 2007 submissions with the Securities and Exchange Commission, instead of holding the same in trust." My question po: Yes sir, this is NASECORE's opinion. More recent facts, though, seem to be pointing in the other direction proving their opinion loosely founded. By saying the statement, are you saying that you hold the same opinion? You said: "The smoking gun was provided by Meralco itself. All that NASECORE had to do was read the financial statements that the company submitted to the SEC. Case closed." My observation po: In light of what had been coming out lately, it appears to me that that is all that NASECORE did. I'd like someone to protect me, as a struggling electricity user, who has the emotional intelligence to wait before speaking, spend enough to dig out for more information, and understand the rudiments of basic accounting. The case of NASECORE's main representative with me is indeed closed. Yours po is being shaken. Sir, I've been reading you and I'm looking for more sound content. I'm just one young person and might not be important enough for you. In any case, thank you very much for helping me see more of you. May God bless you. Sir, I’d like to comment on certain parts of your article.

You said: “The test is whether it is one law for all except for the very rich who stand accused in the P899-million Meralco estafa case.”

My question: Before this test, shouldn’t we test first if the accusation has basis and is valid?

You said: “The real issue here is that Meralco has been using all tricks in the book to, first, overcharge its customers, and secondly, delay any refund arising from such overcharging.”

My observations po: After researching all the sides, the overcharge was not Meralco’s fault but the effect of changes in the rules that only the Philippines had the drive to adopt, bus later reversed through another law (EPIRA). Also, ERC, in fact, released their decision only last June and their order is for January next year. The refund will start Nov this year. This doesn’t look as delaying to me.

You said: “What immediately comes to mind regarding this is the P30 billion of Meralco’s income which it passed on to consumers for the longest time – from 1994 to 2002 – until the Commission on Audit (COA) discovered the anomaly and the Supreme Court ordered Meralco to refund the same.”

My question po: Sir, this doesn’t appear to me a sound editorial statement. Would you like me to send you my research references on this matter?

You said: “The P899 million, according to NASECORE, was declared by Meralco as income in its 2007 submissions with the Securities and Exchange Commission, instead of holding the same in trust.”

My question po: Yes sir, this is NASECORE’s opinion. More recent facts, though, seem to be pointing in the other direction proving their opinion loosely founded. By saying the statement, are you saying that you hold the same opinion?

You said: “The smoking gun was provided by Meralco itself. All that NASECORE had to do was read the financial statements that the company submitted to the SEC. Case closed.”

My observation po: In light of what had been coming out lately, it appears to me that that is all that NASECORE did. I’d like someone to protect me, as a struggling electricity user, who has the emotional intelligence to wait before speaking, spend enough to dig out for more information, and understand the rudiments of basic accounting.

The case of NASECORE’s main representative with me is indeed closed. Yours po is being shaken. Sir, I’ve been reading you and I’m looking for more sound content. I’m just one young person and might not be important enough for you. In any case, thank you very much for helping me see more of you. May God bless you.

]]>