Batas Pambansa (Republic Act) 22 known as the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law is supposed to deter people from abusing the use of checks as well as facilitate the flow of money through the checking system instead of cash.
The banking system in the Philippines is horrible, to say the least. It would take me tens of pages to list the defects of our banking system. That is why we need not fear of any banking collapse like in the US. The banking system here is primitive, to say the least, and only serves the banks’ owners.
The present proposals to increase the insurance deposits from P 100,000.00 to P.5M or P 1M is a step in the right direction.
CHECKING SYSTEM
Carrying huge amounts of cash around is not a good idea. Before the credit card system came into use, the checking system was introduced. In France for example, the banks guaranteed the checks so French people could use their checks even for shopping. That was the system back then when I was in Paris in the late 1970s and 1980.
Because of the horrible state of the banking system here, accepting checks is so inconvenient. First, for some banks like Land Bank, you cannot even deposit a check to your account in any Land Bank branch other than your own branch. Well, sometimes they do accept, but only if the teller is in good mood.
Second, cashing in a check is quite taxing. You have to queue up, wait a long time for your turn and must carry so many ID cards with you. And sometimes, if the teller is in bad mood, she might even question the validity of your ID.
Of course, for the rich people, these inconveniences are not felt directly because they simply let their messengers do the job.
Third, if you receive dollar-denominated checks, you cannot even deposit them in your own peso account. You have to open a dollar account.
At any rate, the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law was passed in 1979. The reason for it was obvious – to maintain the integrity of the checking system and facilitate business transactions through use of checks instead of cash. Issuing bouncing checks became a crime – punishable by imprisonment and fines.
However, there is so much to be desired for in our justice system. Criminals who issue worthless checks abound, and they don’t get to spend a day in jail.
Since the Eduardo Vaca vs. Court of Appeals, the Courts seemed to have deleted the provision of BP 22 regarding imprisonment.
And then came the decision on the Betty King vs People of the Philippines (319 SCRA 654, Dec. 2, 1999) where the Court said that it has to be proven that the defendant received a notice that the check was dishonored by the bank. The justices who penned and signed this decision should be hanged for incompetence and gross misunderstanding of the law.
This ruling just about gave all the estafadors free hand in issuing bouncing checks left and right. This practice is of course injurious to the business community as well as to everybody else.
And this ruling negates the spirit and letter of BP 22 or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law.
To make matters even worse, in the Elvira Yu Oh vs Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines (403 SCRA 300) which was decided on June 6, 2003, the Court reaffirmed the previous ruling on the Betty King case.
The recent Court of Appeals scandal just proves the kind of characters in the highest courts of the land. When it comes to moneyed people, the laws can be interpreted any which way.
Fortunately, against great odds, came the Lilany Yulo y Billones vs People of the Philippines (GR 142762) [March 4, 2005] where the Court ruled:
What Batas Pambansa 22 penalizes is the issuance of a bouncing check. It is not the nonpayment of an obligation which the law punishes, but the act of making and issuing a check that is dishonored upon presentment for payment. The purpose for which the check was issued and the terms and conditions relating to its issuance are immaterial. What is primordial is that the issued checks were worthless and the fact of worthlessness was known to the petitioner at the time of their issuance, as in this case.
(See The integrity of checks is redeemed )
Thank God there are still intelligent justices left. Isn’t it OBVIOUS to anyone with a high school diploma or an average IQ that the rationale for BP 22 is to punish the very act of issuing worthless checks ? The whys and wherefores of the issuance of the check are only incidental and not material and the receipt of a notice of dishonor should not be of prime importance.
MY INTEREST
It is my unfortunate luck now to try the validity or efficacy of BP 22. A certain Ranulph F. Huertas, who goes around claiming to be Managing Director of Mr. & Ms. Magazine, has issued a check in payment for my services as Managing Editor and the services of the Editor-in-Chief of the magazine for three months. We agreed to accept the post-dated check which was way below the amount stipulated in our contracts because we knew that Mr. Huertas and his common-law wife, Leslie Michelle Co, would find it difficult to come up with the money even though they boasted to the original owner of the magazine that they had more than enough money to pay us and run the magazine.
The check bounced last Oct. 15 and we have talked to our lawyers about it.
We recently found out that Mr. Huertas’s checks given to other people also bounced. And yet this guy still plans to continue publishing a magazine even though he could not pay his editors, writers, photographers, printers and other creditors.
Even though people raise their eyebrows every time I ask for cash instead of check as payment for my services; from now own, I will insist on a cash basis only. No more checks for me.
NEW LAW FOR THE NEW CENTURY
With the collapse of the Financial and Credit Markets in the US and Europe and parts of Asia, perhaps it is time to amend BP 22 and give it real teeth to become a true deterrent and to make the process swift and accessible to all.
My proposal would be to create a Bouncing Check Desk in Police Stations where the mere presentation of a bounced check (dishonored by the bank), a warrant of arrest would be immediately issued and the culprit would be arrested and scheduled for trial. S/he could be released without trial if s/he could pay within 5 days after the arrest. This would truly deter the estafadors and would insure the credibility of checks and facilitate commerce in the land.
Yesterday, Carmen Pedrosa in her opinion column in the Philippine Star daily newspaper wrote:
Combined search for peace and identity
FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Of the many things said about the unfortunate Supreme Court decision on the MOA-AD, my favorites come from two sources: one from a Muslim, Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas and the other from Lourdes Mastura, a Christian, married to Muslim Mike Mastura who was part of the panel in the KL meetings.
I like what both of them said and would like them to know that I have followed their suggestions. From Jamal Abbas I have embarked on a reading program on Filipino identity. My bedtime reading is the Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino by William Henry Scott and Filipino Prehistory by E. [sic] Landa Jocano. I confess that my convent education did not include this search. It is his thesis that our search for identity and peace settlement with the Bangsamoro can only be achieved if both Christians and Muslims discover their commonality when they fought colonialism.
Lourdes, I know personally, and take her cue that the Mindanao problem should be more widely known and understood. And may I add especially among media.
One reader of my column in the Internet reminded me that when Apolinario Mabini wrote those words of wisdom (placing more importance to principles than to constitutions) circumstances then were different. Oh? I will argue against that but it will take a book. The primacy of fundamental principles over a constitution especially a flawed one was true then as it is true now and it has nothing to do with 2010.
Another asked why we need to change the Constitution to accommodate a peace settlement. He ought to read up on the history of the peace process and answer his own question.
By the way, I have also taken up the seven volume The Philippine Insurrection against the United States by John R. M. Taylor to complement my search for Filipino identity. It may interest you to know that the documents compiled in the book give a good portrayal of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo and his role in the history of our nation building.
I am indeed very glad that Ms. Pedrosa, an influential member of Philippine society, has taken to heart my suggestion that there is a need to revisit history in search of the Indio-Filipino and Moro-Filipino identities in order to have lasting peace in the country. In my 7-part post, Quest for Peace and Identity, I wrote:
This paper will attempt to show that the Filipinos’ quests for Identity and Peace should be pursued together for only a clear and comprehensive understanding of the Christian Filipinos’ quest for Identity and the Moros’ desire to reclaim their sovereign Identity separate from the rest of the Filipinos can there be true peace in the land. And only a thorough understanding of history by all parties can bring about the needed change.
To achieve peace in Mindanao, there must be a clamor by the population. For that to happen, the average Filipino must understand the real circumstances surrounding the issue. They must understand the motivations behind every group. And to understand the real issues, one must go back to history.
However, I also wrote:
Philippine historiography is not exactly in a good state. Skeptics have categorized historians as those who lie, those who are mistaken and those who do not know. (Gilderhus1996) It is quite unfortunate that much of Philippine history was written by those in the first two categories. With regards to the Moros, Spanish historians (writing about Moro history) belonged to the first category; American historians belonged to the first and second; and Filipino historians belonged to all categories.
I suggested a new approach in historiography called microhistory. But for the non-historians, I suggest that they go book-hunting in libraries here and abroad. They must also try to analyze who the author is / was, his prejudices and biases, the circumstances surrounding the publication and most importantly, verify his facts.
I think it was Napoleon who said that "history is fiction, with varying degrees of accuracy."
If I may suggest, I believe the starting point should be Antonio Pigafetta’s eyewitness account of Magellan’s "discovery" of the Islands and the "official" start of Filipino history. There are English translations and microfiche copies at the National Library. It is imperative that every Filipino should know that the Philippine natives did not just bow down to the conquistadors. They fought and massacred them.
Lapu-Lapu started the fight and killed Magellan. And then, what is not told to Filipinos for the last 500 years was that Rajah Humabon invited the conquistadors for a farewell meal and then massacred them. Only the handful who were left at the ship managed to escape. Pigafetta himself was lucky because he was wounded at the Battle of Mactan and therefore remained on the ship.The Spaniards did not come back until 50 years later.
Thus, from the very beginning, the Philippine indigenous peoples fought for freedom and homeland. They did not meekly bow down and accepted the foreigners’ beliefs.
And 50 years later, the Islands’ natives again fought for Freedom led by the young Rajah Suleiman of Manila.
A re-reading of history might show that all the Philippine revolts written in history books as mere side stories or footnotes might actually represent the actual state of things then, especially in the eyes of the masses.
Any Indio-Filipino who would write a history of Mindanao since the Republic’s independence (1945) might show only the peaceful side with the Moro revolution as mere side story. Yet a Moro historian would probably show the Moro rebellion as the major thread in the Mindanao account.
Let me list down some of the other books that I recommend for those interested:
Majul, Cesar Adib (1973) Muslims in the Philippines Quezon City: UP Press
Laarhoven, Ruurdje (1989) The Triumph of Moro Diplomacy : The Maguindanao Sultanate in the 17th Century Quezon City: New Day Publishers
Che Man, W.K. (1990) Muslim Separatism: The Moros of Southern Philippines and the Malays of Southern Thailand, Quezon City: AdM U Press
Dery, Luis Camara(1997) The Kris in Philippine History: A Study of the Impact of Moro Anti-Colonial Resistance 1571-1896 (self-published?)
Ileto, Reynaldo C.(1979) Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines 1840-1910, Ateneo de Manila University Press: QC
Rouvier, Gaston (1899) The War in the Philippines (1896-1898) in The War in the Philippines: As Reported by Two French Journalists translated by E. Aguilar Cruz (1994), Manila:National Historical Institute
Tan, Samuel (1973), The Muslim Armed Struggle in the Philippines, 1900-1941(PhD dissertation, Graduate School of Syracuse Univ, NY)
Here are excerpts from an article in Mindanews titled SC rules 8-7 vs MOA-AD; MILF panel says "SC ruling does not stop armed confllict":
DAVAO CITY (MindaNews/14 October) – The Supreme Court has ruled as unconstitutional by a vote of 8-7, the Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), abs-cbnnews.com reported.
“The minority’s position was to declare the anti-MOA petitions as moot since the Palace has already decided not to pursue the signing of the agreement following a public backlash. This would have given the Palace a graceful exit, if not, defeat,” abs-cbnnews.com said…
Calling the SC decision “a triumph of the people,” North Cotabato Vice Governor Emmanuel Pinol, who first filed the petition for a TRO hailed the SC ruling, referring to today as “an extra-ordinary day in our lives in savoring what for us is a manifestation of a long cherished belief that power truly resides in the people.”…
…“There is no problem (for the MILF). We are not part of the case. The Supreme Court is not a party to the MOA-AD. But GRP remains a party and is bound by it.” he said.
“The ruling is an indication that this country can’t put its act together. MILF is right to never negotiate on the basis of the Constitution. It is not a level playing field,” Iqbal said.
Lawyer Datu Michael Mastura, told MindaNews he doesn’t have a copy of the Supreme Court ruling and has not seen a copy of the ruling but “either way, the bottomline is that the SC decision does not resolve the armed conflict.”…
…“We really need an international guarantee, protocol. Whatever is negotiated should be implemented,” Mastura said.
Lawyer Mary Ann Arnado, secretary-general of the Mindanao Peoples’ Caucus, said, “I guess that’s it. That’s the end of the peace process as far as this government is concerned. The Supreme Court has just foreclosed all possible peaceful means of resolving the armed conflict in Mindanao.”
Prof. Abhoud Syed Lingga, executive director of the Institute of Bangsamoro Studies, said the Supreme Court ruling “puts to an end efforts of the Bangsamoro people to seek domestic remedies to the historical and moral injustices committed against them.”
“Staying with the Republic of the Philippines now becomes untenable, and separation appears as the only viable option left to the Bangsamoro people,” Lingga said.
The SC ruling, he added, is setting a “bad precedent in the use of negotiations in conflict resolutions. It is disincentive to those who fight governments to negotiate if what are agreed upon are thrown to the trash can.”
From (Carolyn O. Arguillas/MindaNews)
*****************************************
I suppose it is now pretty clear that the Indio-Filipino people as represented by its three branches of government — the Executive, Legislative (especially the Senate) and Judiciary — do not want peace in Mindanao if it entails giving the Bangsa Moro any semblance of dignity as a people distinct from the Indio-Filipinos or any square kilometer of additional territory or autonomy greater than the existing sham autonomy "enjoyed" by the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM).
So now, where do we go from here?
I caught a few minutes of Donald Trump’s interview on CNN. The host, Wolf Blitzer was quite surprised at Trump’s answer when Wolf asked the flamboyant billionaire what he thought of House Speaker Pelosi.
Trump said that Pelosi and the Democrat Congress should have impeached George W. for the Iraq War because he LIED to the public. Trump said that there were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam even killed terrorists, and now Iraq has become the breeding ground of terrorists and the Iraq war is a huge mess.
Wolf Blitzer tried to defend Bush by saying that he was simply fed the wrong “intelligence”.
Wolf’s defense has been the refrain of Bush apologists since the war started. I think it is a very unintelligent argument, to say the least. Bush was the president of the country. He could not possibly pass the buck. The buck stops at him.
Trump told Blitzer, “You don’t believe that. I know that you are an intelligent young man…”
Trump said that Bill Clinton was impeached for such an insignificant thing. Indeed, Bush, who was guilty of lies and fraud which resulted in a war, deaths of hundreds of thousands, massive destruction, and loss of huge amounts of money (around 700 billion dollars and increasing), went scot-free.
Trump also said that he is NOT optimistic on the economy in the short-run.
Actually, the present economic crisis is partly the result of the massive spending (almost 700 billion US dollars and still growing) of the US government for the Iraq war. And of course, there is still the Afghanistan war, which is far from over.
