Golez’s misreading-2

Cited in the privilege speech of Congressman Golez that I mentioned yesterday are two certifications by two different persons but which I think Golez got crossed.

First is the certification of June 20, 2011 by Dr. Ramon Ricardo Roque, Deputy Secretary General for Administration and the second is a certification of April 25, 2012, also by a Deputy Secretary General for Legislative Operations. Two letters, two persons.

Which one was Golez referring to when he declared there “appear as an act of Congress saying that there is already a law that Bacolod City Charter Day is on June 18, but was there a law passed? The problem is that the certification referred to by the mayor, the act of Congress being referred to was a mere issuance of a deputy secretary general and there was no law passed repealing Republic Act No. 7724.”

Reading his speech there is no mistaking that the Roque certification of June 20, 2011 is the one referred to by Golez because he claims that this certification “issued by the deputy secretary of the House of Representative is being used by the mayor to make it appear that it is okay to spend scarce public funds for an activity that is apparently against the law.”

Golez specifically identified Roque as I cited yesterday.

The letter of April 25, 2012 cannot therefore be the letter certification because the celebration and the expenses that aggrieved Golez was last year.

But I repeat my question yesterday, how can the letter certification of Roque be taken as a “repealing” of the law (RA 7724) when that letter was merely a transmittal, covering letter for a true copy of Act 326? There is nothing in that transmittal letter about indicating the law (RA 7724) was repealed.

Will Golez elucidate on this remarkable extrapolation of thought because it can change the whole concept of logic and philosophy?

The second letter by the Deputy Secretary General for Legislative Operations dated April 25, 2012 has never been received in Bácolod. I ask Golez to publish that letter.

Anyway he says that “In a certification issued by the Deputy Secretary General for Legislative Operations dated April 25, 2012, it was stated that there is even no bill that seeks to amend Republic Act No. 7724, the law that mandates that the celebration of Bacolod City Charter Day must be held every October.”

Golez is not being forthright. He is again misreading RA 7724 to suit his purposes. This law authored by the late Cong. Romeo Guanzon was approved on May 19, 1994 and is titled “An Act declaring October nineteen of every year as special, nonworking public holiday in the City of Bacolod to be known a Bacolod City Charter Day.”

Section 1 says, “October Nineteen is the Charter Day Anniversary of the City of Bacolod and its celebration is highlighted with the staging of the now famous Masskara Festival.”

Section 2 says “October nineteen of every year is hereby declared a special, nonworking public holiday in the City of Bacolod.”

Section 3 says “This Act shall take effect upon its approval.”

Does this law “mandate” that the Charter Day anniversary be celebrated every October? The title of the law, which is its subject matter, is the declaration of October 19 as a public nonworking holiday in Bacolod. Not a single word “mandates” the celebration.

Section 1 only provides for its rationale, the justification, the premise for the law about October 19 and we had all assumed that this premise was correct because the city had been celebrating it for years but that assumption is not based on documentary fact.

What happens when we discover that the rationale, the justification, the premise and the assumption are based on wrong data? Should not an erroneous assumption yield to reality, to the actual, verified fact?

Let me illustrate an actual situation which surely many of us have at one time or another also known or experienced.

A politician goes around with a pretty woman and seen by the public in a date, in a concert, in dinners and other activities as spouses do. We then assume that the woman is his wife because we find them together quite often in all sweetness.

Then we discovered that the pretty woman is the wife of another man. Should we continue with our assumption that the politician and the pretty woman are spouses, or do we face and accept the reality of their immoral relationship?

We can cite hundreds of situations where our assumption, based on what we see or read as regularly occurring, is debunked by actual, verified fact. There are many who think their birthday is October 19 only to find out later in the official document from NCSO that they were born on June 18. I will continue tomorrow.*

back to top