Ducky Paredes

Malaya (01.28.09)

“We can test all we want but all our testing will not stop drug use.”

by Ducky Paredes

Pinoys, it seems, never really solve their problems. Instead, they find ways of covering them up. For instance, we obviously have a monstrous, almost impossible-to-solve problem with drug use. We see this in the bars that our young people frequent. Visitors are often shocked that the young use and talk about their use of illegal substances so openly.
So, how do we solve that problem? We go into mandatory drug testing. Didn’t we do that with drivers so that no licenses would not be issued unless one passed a drug test? How many drug users did that anti-drug campaign bag? How many drug-related accidents were prevented? I suggest that the only ones who profited from that campaign were the lucky few drug testing businesses that were accepted by the Land Transportation Office as drug testing center.
Now, they want to do mandatory drug testing in all schools and the plan is to test everyone including faculty members. (Don’t forget to also test the grounds personnel, school bus drivers, guards and those janitors, too.)
This is madness which will only enrich the few who will qualify themselves as drug test centers.
The solution to the problem of dug use is to stop the drug trade by cutting off the supply, arresting pushers and jailing the financiers. We can test all we want but all our testing will not stop drug use. The best use of widespread drug testing is that we will have incontrovertible data on the extent of drug use. But, don’t we already know how prevalent drug use is? Of course, we do. Why else would we set up a Dangerous Drugs Board and a PDEA?
This is, of course, par for us. For instance, don’t we already have a Customs Bureau whose only assignment is controlling what enter and leave our ports? So, why do we have several anti-smuggling groups in this country? If our Customs cannot do their job, why not change everyone there with more honest persons instead of creating still another agency?
Ad hoc agencies ought to be disallowed. Not only do they duplicate what are more naturally assigned to existing agencies, they are also an extra expense that are rarely worth the money we spend on them. If a particular bureau does not do its job, change all the personnel in that agency with competent and honest workers. If doing this with several agencies still does not result in a working and competent bureaucracy, then, we must really be beyond redemption as a country.
Creating another agency that will do the job that existing ones fail to do only encourages incompetence. After all, as long as the incompetents have jobs, they will not really mind continues to be incompetents. But, once incompetents begin losing their jobs, the rest of the bureaucracy will sit up and take notice – fast!
* * *
Have those people in Malacanang lost their minds?
Deputy Presidential Spokesman Lorelei Fajardo told a news briefing that an appeal for a bail-out of the pre-need industry is undergoing “serious consideration” from the national government because it involves the retirement funds of “hardworking government and private individuals.”
Why will the idea of a bail-out of an industry built on false promises and impossible hopes merit any more of our money?
The pre-need industry has always operated as a scam. It promised to pay for the tuition of our children when they enter college. These plans are usually bought when the child is still in his infancy. Thus, the plan is that one’s small monthly payments will have grown large enough in 15 years to put the young student through college.
Yet, even when tuition was still regulated by the government, if one studied the available historical data, one would realize that it would be extremely difficult for today’s money to pay for college tuition 15 years later. Yet, this was what was being sold to the public.
The claim that pre-need companies now make is that what killed them was the deregulation of tuition fees. This is simply not true.
The promise of being able to pay for something in the future by today’s investments is a false one. No matter what one wishes for — whether this is a house, a car, a trip abroad and so on, the only way that one can pay for this at some future time is by buying it today and paying on installment down the road.
A house, for instance is bought today with payments made over 15 or more years. A car is amortized over several months. The sale happens at the time that the note to the bank or the financing company is written. To promise that what one puts into the pre-need firm will buy you anything a decade or more down the road has to be a scam. No one can predict what tuition or any other commodity will cost at some future time.
The contract with the pre-need firm for one’s child’s education is purely speculative. What ought to have been promised was only a set amount that would be paid towards the tuition of one’s child, not the whole tuition itself. In that case, however, there would have been very few plans sold by these firms.
* * *
Alan Paguia has asked the Supreme Court to withdraw his indefinite suspension from practicing his profession as a lawyer.
On November 25, 2003, while arguing the case of President Joseph Estrada’s removal from office, Paguia was indefinitely suspended, according to the SC, “for conduct unbecoming a lawyer and an officer of the Court.”
Asked Paguia in his motion filed with the SC: “What acts did the movant commit that led to his indefinite suspension? He made several public statements accusing the Justices of the Supreme Court of political partisanship when they swore in Vice President Gloria Arroyo as President, in substitution of President Joseph Estrada, during Edsa II, essentially upon his honest belief that such substitution is unconstitutional, considering the fact that President Estrada was not convicted in the impeachment case before the Senate.”
Adds Psaguia: “ From November 25, 2003 up to this writing, more than five (5) years and two (2) months have passed. For the same period of time and running, movant has been effectively deprived of his professional source of livelihood.
“In spite of his suspension, he continued his personal support for legal aid cases involving indigents, public school teachers, and public interest causes.
“His suspension has strengthened his belief in the Filipino people, the Rule of Law, due process, equal protection, and the Supreme Court as the final dispenser of justice in this country. It has furthermore strengthened his belief in Almighty God as the ultimate source of justice.”
So, should he still be suspended?
Argues Paguia: “The purpose of the suspension is to remind counsel of his duties as a lawyer and an officer of the Court. During the more than five (5) years and two (2) months of suspension, the purpose has been achieved. There appears no more useful purpose to continue his suspension from the practice of law.
“Movant-counsel and his family have suffered enough.”
“The imposition of disciplinary measures, such as the subject suspension, is founded, not on the vindictive, but on the preservative principle. Unless his suspension is lifted soon by the Honorable Court, his years of training in the Ateneo Law School, both as student and as professor, his experience as trial lawyer in mostly legal aid cases and public interest causes, and his belief in upholding the Rule of Law regardless of the consequences, may be adversely affected. At 54 years of age, counsel continues to feel morally and professionally committed to help build a just and humane Filipino society.
“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the undersigned counsel’s Indefinite suspension from the practice of law be lifted.”
I am not a lawyer, but I have spoken to a lot of them, including some who studied under Professor Alan Paguia. They say that the suspension resulted in a net loss for the legal profession and the education of those who would be lawyers. I have to agree with them.

# # # #
hvp 01.27.09)