P288B rail to open in 2020 | Malaya Business Insight

“For a mega city like Manila,  a consequence of a growing economy is the growing capacity of our people to own vehicles. With our traffic (situation), that is not the way to go. The solution to that is to develop mass transit systems. Thus, government is investing in rails, in BRTs (bus rapid transit systems) (and) likewise reforming the bus system,” said Joseph Emilio Abaya, secretary  of the Department of Transportation and Communication.Abaya said  at present there is a right mix of population using public transportation and those using private cars,  80:20. But public utility vehicles (PUVs)  in the country are in smaller modes like jeeps, tricycles and utility vehicles.“The direction is to migrate the smaller PUVs to mass transport systems and eventually migrate private owners into mass transit systems,” Abaya said.NSCR Phase 1 involves the construction of a 36.7-kilometer narrow-gauge elevated commuter railway from Malolos to Tutuban.Abaya said  government is looking to finance Phase 1 through loans from the Japan International Cooperation Agency or through the national budget  whichever can deliver fast.Project   construction is set in the first quarter of 2017, for  completion by third quarter of 2020.The NSCR Phase 1 will use the Philippine National Railway’s right-of-way with 10 stations and a depot at Valenzuela, Bulacan The project’s total estimated cost is P117.3 billion and targeted to be implemented from 2015 with a 35-year operation period starting 2020.
via P288B rail to open in 2020 | Malaya Business Insight.

The myth of control | Inquirer Opinion

I am sure their answer would have been no different from that of the MILF: They didn’t know. I think that we are in no position to demand of the MILF what we do not expect our own officials to know.
Let’s face it. In our heart of hearts, we know that, despite the existence of the formal institutions of national government, political control over many parts of Muslim Mindanao is at best tenuous and unstable. The Philippine state cannot claim monopoly of force in these parts. We know only too well how every adult in Muslim Mindanao aspires to own a gun as a means of personal protection in frontier-like conditions. No one bothers to have these weapons licensed by the Philippine government.
Our local officials and police in these areas know this, but choose to look the other way. All kinds of armed groups operate in this region. They put up checkpoints demarcating the territories they consider theirs, and collect fees in exchange for passage. So long as they do not kill or abduct people for ransom, or destroy government facilities and private property, our authorities do little to suppress them—in prudent observance of peaceful coexistence. But, out of ignorance or for reasons of our own, we in Manila continue to promote the fiction that Muslim Mindanao is an integral part of the Filipino nation-state. On paper, it is so. But, in practice, Filipino sovereignty over Muslim Mindanao is at best a work in progress.
via The myth of control | Inquirer Opinion.

Who won in new DAP ruling? | Inquirer Opinion

Who won? Plainly, the government won because the Court partially granted its motion for reconsideration by limiting personal liability only to the “authors” of the DAP, and only after other tribunals find evidence showing bad faith and culpability. Otherwise stated, the DAP decision cannot, by itself, be a source of liability.
Clearly, the above-quoted constitutional exception is quite difficult to comprehend. In fact, on March 5, 2013, the Court itself asked for the cross-border transfer of P100 million from the Department of Justice’s budget to the judiciary for the construction of the Malabon Hall of Justice. This request was, however, withdrawn on Dec. 23, 2013, after the petitions questioning the constitutionality of the DAP were filed.
This shows that even the keenest legal minds can misconstrue the exception. Hence, it is fair and reasonable that the doctrine of operative fact should validate past acts, and that everyone, including the “authors,” should be given the presumptions of innocence, good faith, and regularity in the performance of official duties.
Far from condemning it, the DAP, said the Court, “is a policy instrument that the Executive, by its own prerogative, may utilize to spur economic growth and development.” Moreover, unlike in the case involving the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund), the Court did not find any public money malevolently flowing into private pockets, or to pseudo foundations, or to fake nongovernment organizations.
At bottom, I think it is reason, logic and fairness that really won.
via Who won in new DAP ruling? | Inquirer Opinion.

Who won in new DAP ruling? | Inquirer Opinion

Who won? Plainly, the government won because the Court partially granted its motion for reconsideration by limiting personal liability only to the “authors” of the DAP, and only after other tribunals find evidence showing bad faith and culpability. Otherwise stated, the DAP decision cannot, by itself, be a source of liability.
Clearly, the above-quoted constitutional exception is quite difficult to comprehend. In fact, on March 5, 2013, the Court itself asked for the cross-border transfer of P100 million from the Department of Justice’s budget to the judiciary for the construction of the Malabon Hall of Justice. This request was, however, withdrawn on Dec. 23, 2013, after the petitions questioning the constitutionality of the DAP were filed.
This shows that even the keenest legal minds can misconstrue the exception. Hence, it is fair and reasonable that the doctrine of operative fact should validate past acts, and that everyone, including the “authors,” should be given the presumptions of innocence, good faith, and regularity in the performance of official duties.
Far from condemning it, the DAP, said the Court, “is a policy instrument that the Executive, by its own prerogative, may utilize to spur economic growth and development.” Moreover, unlike in the case involving the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund), the Court did not find any public money malevolently flowing into private pockets, or to pseudo foundations, or to fake nongovernment organizations.
At bottom, I think it is reason, logic and fairness that really won.
via Who won in new DAP ruling? | Inquirer Opinion.

Ignorant, or arrogant, in the Senate | Inquirer Opinion

There is much more to this issue than the bluster of Santiago, the opportunistic emotionalism of the Cayetanos, or the insidious obtuseness of Sen. Ferdinand Marcos Jr.When Marcos pretends to be shocked! shocked! that the MILF still considers itself a revolutionary movement, before the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro takes full effect, does he even remember that his own mother negotiated with the Moro National Liberation Front when it was still an insurrectionary movement? Of course something remains what it is until change is complete; to think otherwise is to raise impossible expectations.
via Ignorant, or arrogant, in the Senate | Inquirer Opinion.

The Decision-Maker

The first chapter in Seymour Schulich’s book, Get Smarter: Life and Business Lessons, offers a decision tool that adds to the simple pro-and-con list that many of us have used to make decisions. Schulich, a self-made billionaire, is one of Canada’s richest and best-known businessmen.I learned this tool in a practical mathematics course more than fifty years ago and have used it for virtually every major decision of my adult life. It has never let me down and it will serve you well, too.
via The Decision-Maker.

rePost::The Law of Crappy People

If you’ve ever worked in an organization, you’ve no doubt come across someone in senior management and asked yourself how they ever got promoted.
The Peter Principle, coined by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, contends that, in a hierarchy, people are sooner or later promoted to positions which they are no longer skilled to handle. This is their “level of incompetence.” This is where they stay.
James March offers some compelling insight into why this happens.
In his book High Output Management, Andy Grove points out that this is largely unavoidable because there is no way to know a priori at what point the person will be incapable of handling further promotions.
via The Law of Crappy People.

Vincent van Gogh on Love

Na friendone pala si pareng Vincent van Gogh!  read the linked page.
 

In a letter to his brother Theo, dated Thursday, 3 November 1881, found in Ever Yours: The Essential Letters, Vincent van Gogh describes an unreciprocated love and in so doing alludes to three stages of love.
via Vincent van Gogh on Love.