The family recently purchased the upgraded Hyundai Santa Fe and couldn’t be happier with its performance and comfort, particularly the two futsal players in the house. Our 2007 Kia Carens though still dutifully rendering efficient service, is already showing a few signs of ageing, so it definitely welcomes some help.
Powered by a 2.2 liter CRDI engine, equipped with the electronic variable geometry turbo system called R-eVGT, the brown metallic 2WD Santa Fe is easy to steer, quite fast from the get-go, cruises smoothly and quietly, and brakes strongly but gently. While still in the “break-in” phase, the power of Santa Fe is palpable even as it averages 7.7L-10L/100km for mixed Freeport and SCTEX driving.
But first a disclaimer: I am no techie, much less a car expert, so this is purely anecdotal even as I borrow the technical jargons from the websites of Topgear-Phils., Autoindustriya.com, the Philippine Daily Inquirer as well as Korean and Australian news agencies.
With its wide girth, the boys do not have to fight for space in the second row and they can be separated by two cupholders right down the middle. There are airvents on both sides, so does the third row. While it's relatively tall, the boys can easily get in and out of the Santa Fe.
We are still learning about its features and so far, the boys enjoy the NAVSAT capabilities of the Santa Fe (even if it just involves the distance from the house to school and vice-versa most of the time), the automatic wipers that adjust as the rain beats even harder, and the cooler right between the front seats. The touch-screen monitor also doubles as a reverse camera for easier and safer parking, while the side mirrors with signal repeaters fold with the push of a button.
According to the news, the 2012 model year upgrade for Santa Fe, “comprises a number of cosmetic enhancements both inside and out, led by the addition of silver ‘skid plates’ for the front and rear bumpers." The “refreshed seven-seat crossover also features a new chromed grille with ‘floating’ Hyundai badge, revised headlights, high-gloss black (instead of silver) roof rails.”
No mechanical changes are part of the MY2012 upgrade though. Its “R-eVGT 2.2 liter twin-cam 16-valve engine that delivers 197ps and 44.5kg/m of wall-climbing torque,” remains. It still “sports the latest electronically controlled variable geometry turbine technology and piezzo-electric crystal injectors offering precise fuel metering regardless of engine speed. Its Bosch-developed CRDi system is mated to an all-new, more compact, lighter 6-speed automatic transmission (AT) that offers a wider range of ratios and better mechanical efficiency than the outgoing 5-speed AT.” We're fine with it.
Certainly then the Santa Fe is an ideal CUV for a family with two smart and peripatetic young fellows bursting with energy. Hopefully, it will serve us in good stead for countless family adventures to come.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The role of the Solicitor General and its relationship with client-agencies
Lately, there have been news about the contradictory positions of the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Office of the Solicitor General concerning the definition of capital for purposes of determining the shares of stocks held by foreigners, leading to testy exchanges between the officials of the two government agencies. Earlier, the Supreme Court declared that the term "capital" under Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution refers only to shares of stock entitled to vote in the election of directors, i.e., common shares, and not to the total outstanding, capital stock, i.e., both common and non-voting preferred shares, in the case of the ownership of PLDT. (See http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/june2011/176579.html)
According to SEC, the SolGen did not adopt its stand that capital must refer to the total outstanding, capital stock. The SolGen agreed with the Supreme Court. Based on the news, SEC would want to remove the SolGen as its counsel and handle the case on its own, or with the help of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). The question then is, can a government agency like the SEC fire SolGen as its counsel owing to alleged differences with its stand?
The case of Comelec vs. Quijano-Padilla (G. R. No. 151992) comes to mind. There the Supreme Court adroitly explained the relationship between the SolGen and its client agency, thus:
“PHOTOKINA alleges that the OSG has no standing to file the present petition since its legal position is contrary to that espoused by the majority of the COMELEC Commissioners. This is a leap to a non-sequitur conclusion. The OSG is an independent office. Its hands are not shackled to the cause of its client agency. In the discharge of its task, the primordial concern of the OSG is to see to it that the best interest of the government is upheld. This is regardless of the fact that what it perceived as the “best interest of the government” runs counter to its client agency’s position. Endowed with a broad perspective that spans the legal interest of virtually the entire government officialdom, the OSG may transcend the parochial concerns of a particular client agency and instead, promote and protect the public weal. Our ruling in Orbos vs. Civil Service Commission, is relevant, thus:
"x x x It is incumbent upon him (Solicitor General) to present to the court what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to a client’s position. x x x.
"In the present case, it appears that after the Solicitor General studied the issues he found merit in the cause of the petitioner based on the applicable law and jurisprudence. Thus, it is his duty to represent the petitioner as he did by filing this petition. He cannot be disqualified from appearing for the petitioner even if in so doing his representation runs against the interests of the CSC.
"This is not the first time that the Office of the Solicitor General has taken a position adverse to his clients like the CSC, the National Labor Relations Commission, among others, and even the People of the Philippines. x x x”
Hence, while petitioners’ stand is contrary to that of the majority of the Commissioners, still, the OSG may represent the COMELEC as long as in its assessment, such would be for the best interest of the government. For, indeed, in the final analysis, the client of the OSG is not the agency but no less than the Republic of the Philippines in whom the plenum of sovereignty resides.”
According to SEC, the SolGen did not adopt its stand that capital must refer to the total outstanding, capital stock. The SolGen agreed with the Supreme Court. Based on the news, SEC would want to remove the SolGen as its counsel and handle the case on its own, or with the help of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC). The question then is, can a government agency like the SEC fire SolGen as its counsel owing to alleged differences with its stand?
The case of Comelec vs. Quijano-Padilla (G. R. No. 151992) comes to mind. There the Supreme Court adroitly explained the relationship between the SolGen and its client agency, thus:
“PHOTOKINA alleges that the OSG has no standing to file the present petition since its legal position is contrary to that espoused by the majority of the COMELEC Commissioners. This is a leap to a non-sequitur conclusion. The OSG is an independent office. Its hands are not shackled to the cause of its client agency. In the discharge of its task, the primordial concern of the OSG is to see to it that the best interest of the government is upheld. This is regardless of the fact that what it perceived as the “best interest of the government” runs counter to its client agency’s position. Endowed with a broad perspective that spans the legal interest of virtually the entire government officialdom, the OSG may transcend the parochial concerns of a particular client agency and instead, promote and protect the public weal. Our ruling in Orbos vs. Civil Service Commission, is relevant, thus:
"x x x It is incumbent upon him (Solicitor General) to present to the court what he considers would legally uphold the best interest of the government although it may run counter to a client’s position. x x x.
"In the present case, it appears that after the Solicitor General studied the issues he found merit in the cause of the petitioner based on the applicable law and jurisprudence. Thus, it is his duty to represent the petitioner as he did by filing this petition. He cannot be disqualified from appearing for the petitioner even if in so doing his representation runs against the interests of the CSC.
"This is not the first time that the Office of the Solicitor General has taken a position adverse to his clients like the CSC, the National Labor Relations Commission, among others, and even the People of the Philippines. x x x”
Hence, while petitioners’ stand is contrary to that of the majority of the Commissioners, still, the OSG may represent the COMELEC as long as in its assessment, such would be for the best interest of the government. For, indeed, in the final analysis, the client of the OSG is not the agency but no less than the Republic of the Philippines in whom the plenum of sovereignty resides.”
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Is mandamus an appropriate remedy to enforce government contracts?
Will a petition for mandamus be the appropriate remedy to enforce contractual obligations?
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. This definition recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no interest. The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution. As the quoted provision instructs, mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. (Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010)
As a universally accepted rule, mandamus never lies to enforce the performance of contractual obligations. But it has also been held that such rule was not really absolute. So long as there is a showing of a complete, well-defined and clear legal right on the part of the petitioner to the performance of ministerial acts, the same may be enforced by mandamus. (Vda. de Serra vs. Salas, 30 SCRA 541)
Thus, where government contracts are completely performed on the part of the private party, an officer of a corporation may be compelled to perform a duty imposed upon him by law, particularly when the act of said officer has the effect of setting aside contracts already in the process of consummation. In other words, mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. (Isada vs. Bocar, G.R. No. L-33535 January 17, 1975)
Mandamus is a command issuing from a court of law of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified, which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the writ is directed or from operation of law. This definition recognizes the public character of the remedy, and clearly excludes the idea that it may be resorted to for the purpose of enforcing the performance of duties in which the public has no interest. The writ is a proper recourse for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel the performance of a public duty, most especially when the public right involved is mandated by the Constitution. As the quoted provision instructs, mandamus will lie if the tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station. (Uy Kiao Eng vs. Nixon Lee, G.R. No. 176831, January 15, 2010)
As a universally accepted rule, mandamus never lies to enforce the performance of contractual obligations. But it has also been held that such rule was not really absolute. So long as there is a showing of a complete, well-defined and clear legal right on the part of the petitioner to the performance of ministerial acts, the same may be enforced by mandamus. (Vda. de Serra vs. Salas, 30 SCRA 541)
Thus, where government contracts are completely performed on the part of the private party, an officer of a corporation may be compelled to perform a duty imposed upon him by law, particularly when the act of said officer has the effect of setting aside contracts already in the process of consummation. In other words, mandamus will lie only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. (Isada vs. Bocar, G.R. No. L-33535 January 17, 1975)
Monday, August 1, 2011
Narra-logy (isang pagtatangka)
Salamat sa pagkupkop mo sa aming
Kung saan-sang dako pa ng ‘Pinas galing
Sa loob ng maraming taon bahay kang itinuring
Humubog sa pagkatao’t kamalayan ay ginising.
Dito nakatagpo ng mga kaibigang tunay
‘Di ka huhusgahan, handa laging dumamay
Anuman ang estado, anuman ang ‘yong kulay
Sa iisang bubong, sama-samang namumuhay.
Dito kahit walang pera’y di ka magugutom
Nandyan si Aling Lina, handa laging tumulong
Ibabahagi ng corridor-mates kanilang mga baon
Pagkagaling sa probinsya’y may dala pang pasalubong.
Dito P175 lang ang rent na monthly
Mayroon pang antique na ref at TV sa lobby
Nandyan si Popo kung gusto mo ng debate
O tyempuhan si Bading na may kasamang estudyante.
Sarado ang mga kwarto kapag may “open house”
Paborito sa betamax ang seryeng “Debbie Does…”
Dayaan sa larong “red dog” inaabot ng dis-oras
Gilbey’s-asin o Tanduay-Coke siguradong may amats.
Hanggang isang balita ang sa akin ay gumulantang
Ikaw daw ay nasunog, ‘di na titirahan
Isang hapong galing sa miting pilit kitang dinaanan
Kalunos-lunos na nga ang ‘yong kalagayan.
Ngayon nga’y target ka na ng demolisyon
Mga alaala na lamang tanging konsolasyon
Sana’y bigyang halaga ka, gawaran ng rekognisyon
Sa kasaysayan ng Pamantasan tunay kang institusyon!
Kung saan-sang dako pa ng ‘Pinas galing
Sa loob ng maraming taon bahay kang itinuring
Humubog sa pagkatao’t kamalayan ay ginising.
Dito nakatagpo ng mga kaibigang tunay
‘Di ka huhusgahan, handa laging dumamay
Anuman ang estado, anuman ang ‘yong kulay
Sa iisang bubong, sama-samang namumuhay.
Dito kahit walang pera’y di ka magugutom
Nandyan si Aling Lina, handa laging tumulong
Ibabahagi ng corridor-mates kanilang mga baon
Pagkagaling sa probinsya’y may dala pang pasalubong.
Dito P175 lang ang rent na monthly
Mayroon pang antique na ref at TV sa lobby
Nandyan si Popo kung gusto mo ng debate
O tyempuhan si Bading na may kasamang estudyante.
Sarado ang mga kwarto kapag may “open house”
Paborito sa betamax ang seryeng “Debbie Does…”
Dayaan sa larong “red dog” inaabot ng dis-oras
Gilbey’s-asin o Tanduay-Coke siguradong may amats.
Hanggang isang balita ang sa akin ay gumulantang
Ikaw daw ay nasunog, ‘di na titirahan
Isang hapong galing sa miting pilit kitang dinaanan
Kalunos-lunos na nga ang ‘yong kalagayan.
Ngayon nga’y target ka na ng demolisyon
Mga alaala na lamang tanging konsolasyon
Sana’y bigyang halaga ka, gawaran ng rekognisyon
Sa kasaysayan ng Pamantasan tunay kang institusyon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)