Pollsters come a’calling September (last June 5: Poe 30%, Binay 22, Duterte 15, Erap Mar 10, Miriam 6, Alan 2, Ping 2)

The pollsters come a’calling in September —

    — the audience is bombarded with prime time television  advertisements of politicians, storified reports of politician activities, show-of-force dinner parties, “consultations”, “board meetings”, barnstorming, boodlefighting, press conferencing — there is dancing, speechifying, toasting and hand-raising, tears and voice-quivering: but most of all, there will be money overflowing.

   The June 5 figures are (with a margin of error of +/- 3%)

Poe 30%
Binay 22%
Duterte 15%
Manuel Roxas II 10%
Estrada 10%
Miriam Defensor Santiago 6%
Alan Peter Cayetano 2%
Panfilo Lacson 2%

     These figures are from Pulse Asia. (The SWS survey was not for voter preference for president, but a vague name-the-leaders-of-the-country survey, the storification of which was favorable to the cellardwellers because they were framed in the same line or level as the top two presidential contenders.)

    None of these politicians, however, have presented any of the following:

A.Strategies for: Poverty eradication and equitable distribution of wealth

B.Program for socio-economic welfare: Health care for all; Housing; Education

C.Blueprint for Governance, Plans for Law-enforcement, Justice : 1.Taxes and infrastructure (infra for transpo, flood control, schoolhouses, etc); Pork and Prosecution, stemming rising criminality, etc.

     None of the so-called “political analysts” have taken them to task for being bereft of any detailed answers to socio-economic problems. 

     We’re just being asked to place our bets. (Umatras ka, hindi ako aatras, mag-VP ka, BP mo mataas, corrupt ka, ikaw makapál, sumagot ka, sasagot ako mamaya).    

      Hopefully, the demographics are changing, the public will demand more.

Epal posters as vandalism & nuisance

News peg: MMDA tears down posters of “epal” politicians. [“epal” politicians are those who promote themselves  thru the visual media (tarps and posters) and the multimedia (ads and other forms of publicity) in the guise of sending out greetings, giving free services, “sponsoring” infrastructure.]

      Aside from the pertinent city ordinances prohibiting vandalism, the MMDA  may also rely on the following provisions of the Civil Code:

Book II.  Property, Ownership, and its Modifications. Title VIII.- Nuisance.  

“Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which:

(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or

(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or

(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or

(4) Obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or

(5) Hinders or impairs the use of property.

(Underscoring supplied)


Art. 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.


Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence.

Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or private.

Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or

(2) A civil action; or

(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.


Art. 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:


(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate the nuisance;


(2) That such demand has been rejected;


(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and


(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.


Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:


(1) A civil action; or


(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.


Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person be followed.


Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance shall be liable for damages:


(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or


(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.