Lawyer in TV

Two days ago, I accidentally tuned in to DZMM's Teleradyo program "Usapang de Kampanilya", if I am not mistaken. The setup of the program is such that there is a lawyer who answers the legal queries asked by the listeners and viewers. One viewer asked whether both contracting parties in a marriage should be members of the same religion so that the solemnizing officer, whether a rabbi, priest, or imam, can have authority to solemnize the marriage. The lawyer replied in the affirmative. He said that in order for a priest, rabbi, imam or minister of any church or religious sect to validly solemnize the marriage both contracting parties must belong to the solemnizing officer's church or religious sect.

My stock knowledge told me he gave the wrong answer. Although we took up Persons and Family Relations almost two years ago, I can still remember most of its provisions. I believed at that time that the correct answer is that the marriage is still valid as long as at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer's church or religious sect.

After consulting the pertinent provision in the Family Code, I found out, happily, that my guess was correct. The Family Code provides that:

Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:

xxx xxx

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the authority granted him by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer's church or religious sect;

xxx xxx

So, for whoever asked that question, I hope you get to read this blog so you can still get married. And for the lawyer - be careful next time especially since many people are watching and listening.

The First Ever SONA I Watched from Beginning to End

The Ateneo Professional School’s basement 1 level was unusually packed today, July 26, 2010. Students and employees gathered to watch President Benigno Aquino’s first ever State of the Nation Address (“SONA”). Two days before, many people also gathered at the same spot to watch the basketball game between Ateneo and La Salle. However, the crowd that watched the game pales in comparison to the crowd gathered today. I can’t remember a time when people actually took time to watch Gloria Arroyo’s SONA.

Truth be told, I’m not in any position to compare the substance of President Aquino’s SONA with President Arroyo’s. I didn’t have the time, patience, and tolerance to watch Ms. Arroyo’s SONA in the past nine years, more so during the last five. In contrast, I was eager to watch this one. By the fact alone that they spent time to watch Aquino’s SONA, it seems many people, at least law students and employees in Ateneo, shared my sentiment. Or maybe they were also required to write reaction papers too. Anyway, what matters is that I had an opportunity to watch the whole SONA itself and not merely rely on news reports in the evening.

First thing I noticed about Pres. Aquino’s speech is the use of the Filipino language. I think this was a good strategy to make the SONA more meaningful to ordinary people. In contrast, Ms. Arroyo’s use of the English language limited the number of people who could understand what she was talking about. It was an elitist’s way of doing things. Considering that the masses comprise majority of the population, it is important that the country’s leaders communicate with them in a language they can understand. This way ordinary people will know the problems facing the country and hopefully be able to contribute solutions, even in the smallest possible way.

President Noynoy Aquino promised to tell the true state of the nation. And he did, without hesitation. Was it shocking? I think so but not so much because people already knew that Arroyo’s administration was corrupt. They were just fed the details and extent of the corruption.

The irregular transactions involved rice, water, electricity, and disbursement of the calamity fund, among others. These are only some of the garbage that the Aquino administration inherited from the previous administration. There are more problems that were not mentioned. Suffice it to say that Pres. Aquino has a lot of cleaning to do. If the situation is likened to the law on succession, the decedent (Ms. Arroyo) left more liabilities than assets to her heir (Mr. Aquino). Sadly, Mr. Aquino cannot invoke the defense that an heir is liable only to the extent of his share in the estate of the decedent. He has to face and solve the problems left by Gloria Arroyo before the country can move forward.