ON THE ARMS DISPARITY BETWEEN PHILIPPINES AND CHINA

I just had a discussion with a Makati resident regarding Vice President Binay and why Makati residents will consistently and continuously keep voting for him in spite of the numerous allegations of corruption which, if true would mean that his dynasty squandered billions and billions of pesos. Well, to be honest, she was a bit of a simpleton, her main argument was that the “poor” keep getting benefits under Binay, hence they will keep voting for him - damn poor argument and full of holes.

To begin with, Makati City is possibly the richest city in the Philippines and one with a relatively small resident population. The fact that there are still “poor” people in Makati speaks volumes on the utilization of capital.

That leads me to the thesis of this article:  The way we handle our capital leaves much to be desired. Plans get bogged down for want of corruption, corruption saps funding and capital that would result in first class projects.

Contrast this with the Chinese Approach

We often hear of people complaining of the poor roads, housing and other infrastructure in an area, say a city. Doesn’t it just put you to shame that the Chinese can just go ahead and build new infrastructure seemingly in the middle of nowhere, while over in this country, a road reblocking is already considered a huge undertaking!?

Chinese Armed Forces

It isn’t just infrastructure where the Philippines lags behind China. We also lag behind militarily.

(Above) Chinese “infrastructure” project in the West Philippine Sea

versus

Philippine Naval Installation, the BRP Sierra Madre

[Source: Both pictures are from Rappler]

The problem with the Philippines is that we never had a “martial tradition”. Procurements for the military are treated in the same way as any other government project rather than as a class of their own. This means that if we buy aircraft, for example, we have to put out a public bidding, everyone’s going to know how much our budget is, etc.

Naturally, the media is going to pick all this up and all of our tech acquisitions, both planned and accomplished are going to go on TV, print etc.

A little secrecy helps

Chinese don’t need to fly spy satellites over us if the media keeps this up. All they need to do is download the iWantTV app and watch the news for everything relating to troop movements and deployment.

This is really a problem with our gossippy, I-can-piss-higher-than-you braggadocio culture. A new helicopter is big news! You can count on ABS-CBN showing off our latest frigate and letting the entire WORLD know exactly where it is anchored.

The 2015 SONA

The President’s last State of the Nation Address went into the details of the AFP modernization program. One of the highlights of the 2015 SONA was an interview with a Philippine Airforce Man on how, “the long wait is over” - That we are finally going to start receiving aircraft to beef up the Philippine Air Force (PAF). You will see this PMA graduate stating the obvious in the clip below.

In a country like ours, things like these make the SONA!

Clearly, we’ve got to improve our own domestic capacity for infrastructure projects and arms/equipment manufacture. Government can start by following the National Socialist model of partnering with local manufacturers and helping them grow.

Theory: Junjun Binay and the Dasmariñas Gate Incident Shows a Disrespect for Property Rights

Grave abuse of discretion???  almost 700k views!!!

I originally planned to simply let this Junjun Binay gate incident pass without writing anything about it. I thought that much has already been said on the issue. Much discussion on the issue, most focusing Politicians and their sense of entitlement—and that politicians should set an example to the rest of the Filipinos.

On December 20, 2013, Blogger benign0 wrote that gated communities should not even be preventing people from coming in and out of their premises.

On December 27, 2013, Nicole Curato wrote on Rappler wrote that gated communities tend to increase the social divide and inequality in cities which should ideally be “Democratic Spaces”.

Thus, this incident has stuck. It remains provocative. Thus, I would like to contribute another angle, one that I feel has been left out: The property rights angle, public versus private.

Who exercises the rights of ownership in Dasmariñas Village?

Dasmariñas Village is a posh subdivision, it is privately owned. It is run by the DasmariñasVillage Association (DVA) a corporation whose membership is composed of real estate owners within the subdivision.  I presume that while the individual lots are owned by individual owners, the roads, walls and common spaces within the Village are owned by the DVA. Essentially, the Village is just one big piece of land owned by a corporation.

Under the law, a corporation has juridical personality much like that of an actual/natural person. The corporation acts through its board which promulgated certain rules and regulations. The rule that one may not exit a certain gate at a certain time is one such rule.  

The letter of commendation says it all: “Dasmariñas village is a private subdivision”

In this incident, it appears that the association has ratified the action of its Security Guards as its own. There can be no doubt and one can say that Dasmariñas Village had every intention to exclude any and all persons from using the passageway beginning 10PM. The acts of the Guards were the act of the Village.

Did the Mayor have the right to pass through the gate contrary to the village rules?

The Mayor has two aspects. The public and the private aspect. When he dons the visage of a public officer, he carries with him all the rights appurtenant to his office which include certain immunities and rights and privileges. For example, a public person [such as the Mayor in this case] if he takes advantage of his position in the commission of a crime, the courts will take such circumstance against him and makie his punishment stronger [Art. 14 (1) , Revised Penal Code]. The other side of the coin is that if a person using force or intimidation tries to prevent a public officer from doing his duty, he may be guilty of a crime called Direct Assault which carries a penalty of up to 6 years in prison (max) whereas if you tried the same stunt with a private person or a public officer who is acting in a private capacity, you may only be punished with up to 6 months in prison (max) [Art 148, 286, Revised Penal Code].

That night of the incident however, I want to claim that the Mayor was acting in a private capacity. This makes him an ordinary citizen. Why do I say this? He was attending what I presume to be a private party for the purpose of merriment, he did not appear to be doing anything official or important. He did not appear to be on his way to an important engagement or official business. There was no grave necessity for him to insist on that particular route. He has no right appurtenant to his duties.

For the purposes of this article, which is also my honest opinion, I believe that Junjun Binay was having a power trip. His exercise of authority was unwarranted, expecially since he was obviously acting in a private capacity. His reaction was clearly antagonistic as seen in the CCTV footage and his remedy was extraordinary and unreasonable—to summarily order theguard's arrest.

Did the village association have a right to enforce its rules within its property?

Yes. Since the property where the incident took place was private property, therefore pursuant to his right to possess (jus posidendi) and his right to exclude (jus vindicandi) as codified in Art. 429 of the New Civil Code which states:

The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property.

The Village association clearly made its intention to exercise its jus posidendi and jus vindicandi in implementing the rule that no one may use the gate past a certain hour. The reason for its exercise is reasonable—for the security of Village homeowners; its means were reasonable—a simple metal gate pole and the posting of security personnel.

Courtesy owed to a public officer or public figure does not trump jus posidendi and jus vindicandi. There is no courtesy involved in Art. 429 of the New Civil Code. Only necessity and right to life will trump these property rights. Nowhere in the circumstances of the occurrence does it show that it was necessary for the good Mayor to pick that particular route.

Thus Binay could not just waltz around the village like he owns the place.

Conclusion

What I am saying is that our Constitution allows us to own property. It allows us to form corporations and other associations, such entities has the power to own property and to exercise the rights of ownership. The Dasmariñas Village Association clearly ratified its act of exercising its rights of ownership when it gave its letters of commendation to the Security Guards. Thus, the Village and its Agents (the guards) were clearly within their rights during the altercation.

Binay was in the wrong. He was clearly showing blurred judgement, misapprehension of facts and law. His was very shameless behavior.

Post Script

The blogger benign0 and Nicole Curato are correct in pointing out that there is a socio-political aspect in having gated communities in the Philippines. I don't see anything particularly wrong or illegal with their existence.