“It’s a very symbolic case. Nicole symbolizes the Philippines. The decision could have been written to consider those issues.”
by Ducky Paredes
Does Jovito Palparan, Jr., retired Major General and now party-list congressman deserve to be in the House of Representative of the Philippines? The proposition is debatable not only in the case of Palparan but probably in the case of most of our party-list representatives.
It is a bad law that put our party-list congressmen in the House of Representatives. That law should be amended so that those in the party-list actually represent some actual sector of our population. As it is, all one needs to do is to get so many voters who like the name of your party.
Party-list representatives are voted on in the same way as other politicos – not by what they represent but for the false images they project. Having Palparan as a party-list congressman representing whatever he chooses to represent and an heiress as a representative of balut vendors ought to be seen as a sign that the law needs some tweaking so that everyone knows who or what it is they are choosing to represent whatever sector.
As the law stands, anyone – young or old, rich or poor, of whatever sexual persuasion – can vote for a youth or a senior representative or a representative for the women or the poor or one for farmers, workers and, yes, balut vendors and whatever else, excluding only – by decision of the Comelec –a representative for gays. How can such a law be a good one?
* * *
I have no quarrel with the three women Court of Appeals (CA) justices who acquitted US Marine Lance Corporal Daniel Smith of rape. Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa says: “Our decision speaks for itself. We’re proud of it and it’s based on the law, the facts, and our conscience.”
An unnamed justice who does not agree with the decision allowed himself to be quoted as follows: “It’s a very symbolic case. Nicole symbolizes the Philippines. The decision could have been written to consider those issues.”
Wow! And that justice decides on cases that ought to be done only on the basis of what the law is and nothing else?
Had the victim “Nicole” been left to herself without lawyers and militants who viewed her as representing the country against the abuses of a former colonial power, perhaps, no case would even have been filed. Instead, the “victim” might have reflected inwardly about her aberrant behavior that night and might have changed for the better.
But, then, of course, everything is possible in this world.
As to whether the three women justices were co-opted by the powers-that-are and the Great White Father I make no judgment. Their decision was well-argued and the victim herself even eventually absolved the Marine. So, what is there to discuss — except if you are convinced that “Nicole” represented a helpless Philippines trampled upon by the Yankee invader and not a young woman out for fun with American soldiers who she preferred over Pinoy boys, which is also not a crime but simply a predilection.
* * *
The story about the stock brokerage firm HK Securities Inc. was in most other newspapers yesterday.
Rodolfo Cruz, former president of the Pasig City Chamber of Commerce and Industry and who was my fellow Pasig Rotarian has been unable to account for P106 million of his clients’ investments.
I am among those who filed a case against HK Securities. Inc. What I lost was only 50,000 shares of Aboitiz Power, worth — at present prices – P260,000. These were sold by the broker without my consent and the money taken by Rody for his own account.
The crime he committed was unforgivable. I trusted him because he was my fellow Rotarian and golfer. I expected that he would be as trustworthy as my other fellow Rotarians in Pasig. I do not know if he also cheated at golf. Perhaps, considering that he cheated us out of our money, he also did.
Other Pasig Rotarians, among them Jaime Panganiban, Dominic Uy and Miguel Uy have also filed against HK Securities. There are other Pasig Rotarians who lost much more than I did who have not done so.
In fact, only 140 of HK Securities’ 892 clients who altogether lost P106,877,427.90 to Rody Cruz submitted their claims to the Philippine Stock Exchange’s Market Regulation Division and only six of his victims have filed an estafa against Rody and the other officers of HK Securities, Inc.
What I find anomalous is the fact that the Philippine Stock Exchange has no mechanism that protects investors from brokers like Rody Cruz. When something like this happens, investors are basically left on their own. The PSE seems to have no obligation except to seize the assets of the brokerage firm and divide these among those who register with the PSE. We may be paid something like ten centavos for every peso we invested or even less. Why cannot the PSE seize his house, his cars, his paintings and so on? Why is the PSE seemingly unconcerned about victims of stockbroker fraud? Why has it not filed anything against Rody Cruz?
Why is there no protection for PSE investors as the banks have for their depositors through the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC)? Of what use is the PSE if it cannot regulate stock brokerages that are members of the exchange and if it considers itself faultless when a broker-member sells all of the shares under his care and runs off with the money? Shouldn’t the PSE hve regulations to prevent this and shouldn’t it be held responsible for allowing such to happen?
The PSE says that it made Rody promise to put in P1.5 million that he said he would be getting from Ambassador Kenney for some weird deal. Of course, that money never came. But only fools will believe a story like that, anyway and, really, fools should not be given responsible jobs like regulating stock brokerages.
Rody still lives in his house in Pasig and – according to his neighbors — is actually getting fat from living off the money he stole from us. He is not in jail because as far as I know, while cases have been filed, there has been very little forward movement of these cases in the courts. I filed against Rody as a matter of principle. Crooks like him should not be running businesses like banks and stock brokerages. Yes, he was also — once upon a time — a banker!
* * *
I see it all perfectly: there are two possibilities, one can either do this or do that. My honest opinion and friendly advice is this: do it or do not do it, you will regret both. ~Kierkegaard
# # # #
hvp 04.28.09)
Post a Comment