ASEAN Regional News - Page 7

tigidig14 · October 17th, 2005, 07:23 PM

^there’s nothing wrong being in college in a later age at least they’re doing something fruitful in their life. im 23 still in college that was because, I guess, I made a wrong move and serve first, but still it isn’t excuse for me to stop pursuing what I wanted even though everyone in my family had finished before I did.

picture looks like theyre having fun btw

, yung isa nadulas pa, yung cnasabi mong balbas alvarado

Lili · October 17th, 2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulkrps

baka di rin pwede dahil di papayag yung iba dahil walang paglagyan ng last supper, malalaking kutsara at tinidor ang vatican, bawal ang mga balikbayan boxes, tsaka di sanay sila ng psst.

:LOL: grabe ang humor mo! Puede rin Psst be with you!

tigidig14 · October 17th, 2005, 07:35 PM

nakakaintindi daw clang tawaging: POGI

Lili · October 17th, 2005, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boybaha

Now I can't find the exact text of the law on the web. Do a search for RA 7279, otherwise known as the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992. Like most republic acts, there are many sections to this law. The entire law is not all bad as it delineates certain duties of the HLURB (HOUSING AND LAND USE REGULATORY BOARD) and also makes provisions for socialized housing as part of development projects, which I think is a duty of a responsible government. RA 7279 seems to be an equitable development law that ensures that if there is development happening, more people should be the beneficiaries of the development (even if indirectly). It seems that the part about squatters needing to be compensated is the most objectionable part of this law. I don't care about squatter decriminalization-- people should not be penalized for being homeless. Squatting SHOULD be decriminalized. But surely, property owners need to have rights to land they rightfully own.

I just read the law RA 7279 and it's not as bad as I first thought. There is no unjust taking of private property since expropriation proceedings will be instituted for idle lands and there are exemptions on residential lands owned by small property-owners or those subject to litigation. There is still due process involved. Moreover, it does not condone professional squatting and squatting syndicates which remain criminal activities under its provisions. While evictions or demolitions are discouraged, there are certain exceptions such as when persons or entitities occupy danger areas as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, waterways, shoreline and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, park and playgrounds; when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented, or; when there is a court order for eviction and demolition. Provision for relocation is not for the private citizen to undertake but for the local government unit concerned and the NHA.

It really pays to read the law. I have a change of heart now and believe that it is a good law with adequate protections for both the haves and the have nots.

Lili · October 17th, 2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigidig14

^there’s nothing wrong being in college in a later age at least they’re doing something fruitful in their life. im 23 still in college that was because, I guess, I made a wrong move and serve first, but still it isn’t excuse for me to stop pursuing what I wanted even though everyone in my family had finished before I did.

picture looks like theyre having fun btw

, yung isa nadulas pa, yung cnasabi mong balbas alvarado

@Tigs, where did you serve-- Munti? No kidding aside. Where Army, Navy, Marine, Air Force, Brat Camp (this one's a joke)?

tigidig14 · October 17th, 2005, 08:07 PM

Bratz camp

bagel · October 17th, 2005, 09:52 PM

Lili-- did you read about that law on the web or did you find it elsewhere? I'd like to see the text myself.

Lili · October 17th, 2005, 10:41 PM

I got it from the web. Let me see if I can retrace it and give you the link Mike. Wait. Here try this www.gov.ph/laws/ra7279.pdf

xDieselJockx · October 18th, 2005, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lili

I just read the law RA 7279 and it's not as bad as I first thought. There is no unjust taking of private property since expropriation proceedings will be instituted for idle lands and there are exemptions on residential lands owned by small property-owners or those subject to litigation. There is still due process involved. Moreover, it does not condone professional squatting and squatting syndicates which remain criminal activities under its provisions. While evictions or demolitions are discouraged, there are certain exceptions such as when persons or entitities occupy danger areas as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, waterways, shoreline and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, park and playgrounds; when government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented, or; when there is a court order for eviction and demolition. Provision for relocation is not for the private citizen to undertake but for the local government unit concerned and the NHA.

It really pays to read the law. I have a change of heart now and believe that it is a good law with adequate protections for both the haves and the have nots.

Yep, sure do. I'm glad someone is as smart as you are lili-poo, you are the best. Too bad, I don't know if you are still available (well, i'm not either,just for teh time being..LOL) I like smart women ....

bustero · October 18th, 2005, 05:14 AM

The minutae betrays the problems with Law. All sorts of unintended and intended ocnsequences occur. If you read the original energy deregulation law you would not have found anything wrong with it except for one line stating that only companies with exising franchises could operate electrical utilities. This single line negated the whole law by making only two groups capable of participating in the NPC privatization. The insertion was pushed by Aboitiz through their attack dog osmena, who sat on it through 3 administrations. Same with 7279 and with the law decriminalizing squatters.(separate law) The burden is placed on the person who did not commit any infraction. While this simple concept is seemingly benign the practical matter is that even government now spends enourmous amounts of money claiming public lands set up for utilites (e.g. simple right of way for trains or UP trying to kick out profesional squatters who come every other month). Also as can be seen in the article below, how exaclty will small landowners , get all that money and kick out a squatter.

I've had practical first hand dealings with squatters and property owners. There are some very poor property owners who really can not afford to have a case to kick a squatter out. Now I don't know about the semantics of decriminalization , one should really look more to the penalties and it's operability. e.g. bouncing checks are still criminal but not subject to a jail term. But I do not see how taking someone elses property (simple theft) is not bad (If the US will push for putting people who watch pirated videos to go to jail, which is the greater crime). This deprives people of whatever they or their parents have worked for. Now some will say that the the poor should enjoy more leniency because of their situation , but this is a wash , because in a situation where there is no incentive to have your own belongings since someone else can take it there is no point in becoming richer (the very basis of failure of communism). Hence a vicious cycle develops. I do not agree with decriminalization of squatter as can obviously be seen above,but on a practical basis the fact is nobody ever really spent a long time in jail because of squatting. Authorities recognize the situation and make adjustments for it But at least there is teeth in protecting your property. Taking it out is just one more step you need to protect your basic right to own anything. I find it absurd that someone who steals your cellphone or your video goes to jail but someone who takes your land by occupying hence takes your right to use or rent it out (remember space and time are valuable in real estate this is a real loss) or what must first be proven to be a squatter in court before you have to pay a sheriff to use the law on them! I think the simple fear of beeing label a criminal really should be a good deterent.

I'm not against redistribution per se. It's obvious that many rich people sit on property which can be used for the greater good, but squatting is not a fair way to redistribute as it is a defacto way of redistribution right now.

ryanr · October 18th, 2005, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xDieselJockx

Too bad, I don't know if you are still available (well, i'm not either,just for teh time being..LOL) I like smart women ....

wow...the power of SSC. Brings people together

Btw...i didnt know anything about that Lina Law. How pathetic...its just the dumbest law ever. How did it get passed into the legislation?

bustero · October 18th, 2005, 05:28 AM

Can't seem to paste the article but you can link it here/
http://www.manilatimes.net/others/sp...41012spe1.html

bustero · October 18th, 2005, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyX

wow...the power of SSC. Brings people together

Btw...i didnt know anything about that Lina Law. How pathetic...its just the dumbest law ever. How did it get passed into the legislation?

With the best of intentions and the most subverted of agendas...

tigidig14 · October 18th, 2005, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bustero

Can't seem to paste the article but you can link it here/
http://www.manilatimes.net/others/sp...41012spe1.html

cguro c lina, taga squater dati kaya nya nai-appeal to, pero i dont get that how did it get approve. lagay lang naman kapalit sa'tin ookey na ang pamahalaan eh,

Lili · October 18th, 2005, 07:20 AM

Hmmm... it would seem that notwithstanding all the good intentions in changing the law, it has resulted in an incongruous application where the burden has shifted to the individuals or entities who did not commit any transgression. Perhaps what the landowners are guilty of is negligence in asserting their ownership and possessory rights in a timely manner. Still, as Bustero mentioned they had lost teeth in protecting their properties.

What about the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on trespassing and usurpation of rights in real property, are those still in effect or have those been repealed also? Just the same, the burden will be on those asserting the elements of the crime/s and adjudication is still necessary to proceed with a civil case for ejectment or eviction. Very costly and litigious. Tsk. Tsk. I am hoping they did not create a Frankenstein.

Thanks for explaining the repercussions and practical implication of the law @Bustero.

Lili · October 18th, 2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xDieselJockx

Yep, sure do. I'm glad someone is as smart as you are lili-poo, you are the best. Too bad, I don't know if you are still available (well, i'm not either,just for teh time being..LOL) I like smart women ....

Thanks xDieselJockx, I'm flattered. I just don't know what the year 2010 holds for us.

***Sinjin P.*** · October 21st, 2005, 12:28 PM

2010 Revolutionary and Evolutionary Development of the Philippines

paulkrps · October 21st, 2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sinjin

2010 Revolutionary and Evolutionary Development of the Philippines

neanderthals and katipuneros in a development summit perhaps?

Lili · October 21st, 2005, 04:24 PM

^ That explains it. I wanted @sinjin to elaborate.

paulkrps · October 21st, 2005, 05:38 PM

sana naman a century hence, desidido na tayo kung parliamentary o ano.

View Poll Results: Are you in favor of Papua New Guinea joining the Association of Southeast Asian Nations?
Yes	86	77.48%
No	25	22.52%
Voters: 111. You may not vote on this poll

October 17th, 2005, 09:52 PM	#127
bagel Member, Winifred Fan Club Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Posts: 2,381 Likes (Received): 3	Lili-- did you read about that law on the web or did you find it elsewhere? I'd like to see the text myself. __________________ bagels \| blog I am the original thread killer.

October 18th, 2005, 05:14 AM	#130
bustero Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 5,479 Likes (Received): 0	The minutae betrays the problems with Law. All sorts of unintended and intended ocnsequences occur. If you read the original energy deregulation law you would not have found anything wrong with it except for one line stating that only companies with exising franchises could operate electrical utilities. This single line negated the whole law by making only two groups capable of participating in the NPC privatization. The insertion was pushed by Aboitiz through their attack dog osmena, who sat on it through 3 administrations. Same with 7279 and with the law decriminalizing squatters.(separate law) The burden is placed on the person who did not commit any infraction. While this simple concept is seemingly benign the practical matter is that even government now spends enourmous amounts of money claiming public lands set up for utilites (e.g. simple right of way for trains or UP trying to kick out profesional squatters who come every other month). Also as can be seen in the article below, how exaclty will small landowners , get all that money and kick out a squatter. I've had practical first hand dealings with squatters and property owners. There are some very poor property owners who really can not afford to have a case to kick a squatter out. Now I don't know about the semantics of decriminalization , one should really look more to the penalties and it's operability. e.g. bouncing checks are still criminal but not subject to a jail term. But I do not see how taking someone elses property (simple theft) is not bad (If the US will push for putting people who watch pirated videos to go to jail, which is the greater crime). This deprives people of whatever they or their parents have worked for. Now some will say that the the poor should enjoy more leniency because of their situation , but this is a wash , because in a situation where there is no incentive to have your own belongings since someone else can take it there is no point in becoming richer (the very basis of failure of communism). Hence a vicious cycle develops. I do not agree with decriminalization of squatter as can obviously be seen above,but on a practical basis the fact is nobody ever really spent a long time in jail because of squatting. Authorities recognize the situation and make adjustments for it But at least there is teeth in protecting your property. Taking it out is just one more step you need to protect your basic right to own anything. I find it absurd that someone who steals your cellphone or your video goes to jail but someone who takes your land by occupying hence takes your right to use or rent it out (remember space and time are valuable in real estate this is a real loss) or what must first be proven to be a squatter in court before you have to pay a sheriff to use the law on them! I think the simple fear of beeing label a criminal really should be a good deterent. I'm not against redistribution per se. It's obvious that many rich people sit on property which can be used for the greater good, but squatting is not a fair way to redistribute as it is a defacto way of redistribution right now. __________________ towards a livable city...

October 18th, 2005, 05:28 AM	#132
bustero Registered User Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 5,479 Likes (Received): 0	Can't seem to paste the article but you can link it here/ http://www.manilatimes.net/others/sp...41012spe1.html __________________ towards a livable city...

October 21st, 2005, 12:28 PM	#137
*Sinjin P.* Lingkod-Bayan Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: CEB, SIN Posts: 10,369 Likes (Received): 148	2010 Revolutionary and Evolutionary Development of the Philippines __________________ Helpful links: Cebu Pacific \| Zest Air \| Airphil Express \| Philippines' Air Asia \| Libotero

October 17th, 2005, 07:23 PM	#121
tigidig14 --- Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baseko Co. Posts: 5,659	^there’s nothing wrong being in college in a later age at least they’re doing something fruitful in their life. im 23 still in college that was because, I guess, I made a wrong move and serve first, but still it isn’t excuse for me to stop pursuing what I wanted even though everyone in my family had finished before I did. picture looks like theyre having fun btw , yung isa nadulas pa, yung cnasabi mong balbas alvarado

October 17th, 2005, 07:35 PM	#123
tigidig14 --- Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baseko Co. Posts: 5,659	nakakaintindi daw clang tawaging: POGI

October 17th, 2005, 08:07 PM	#126
tigidig14 --- Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Baseko Co. Posts: 5,659	Bratz camp

October 17th, 2005, 10:41 PM	#128
Lili The Original is The Best Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: New York Posts: 5,252 Likes (Received): 1	I got it from the web. Let me see if I can retrace it and give you the link Mike. Wait. Here try this www.gov.ph/laws/ra7279.pdf

October 18th, 2005, 07:20 AM	#135
Lili The Original is The Best Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: New York Posts: 5,252 Likes (Received): 1	Hmmm... it would seem that notwithstanding all the good intentions in changing the law, it has resulted in an incongruous application where the burden has shifted to the individuals or entities who did not commit any transgression. Perhaps what the landowners are guilty of is negligence in asserting their ownership and possessory rights in a timely manner. Still, as Bustero mentioned they had lost teeth in protecting their properties. What about the provisions of the Revised Penal Code on trespassing and usurpation of rights in real property, are those still in effect or have those been repealed also? Just the same, the burden will be on those asserting the elements of the crime/s and adjudication is still necessary to proceed with a civil case for ejectment or eviction. Very costly and litigious. Tsk. Tsk. I am hoping they did not create a Frankenstein. Thanks for explaining the repercussions and practical implication of the law @Bustero.

October 21st, 2005, 04:24 PM	#139
Lili The Original is The Best Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: New York Posts: 5,252 Likes (Received): 1	^ That explains it. I wanted @sinjin to elaborate.

October 21st, 2005, 05:38 PM	#140
paulkrps BANNED Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Eastern Time Posts: 625 Likes (Received): 0	sana naman a century hence, desidido na tayo kung parliamentary o ano.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: