DAP, rape and murder Tony Lopez /Explains ponente (writer) of the decision, Justice Lucas Bersamin: “We find the doctrine of operative fact applicable to the adoption and implementation of the DAP. Its application to the DAP proceeds from equity and fair play. The consequences resulting from the DAP and its related issuances could not be ignored or could no longer be undone.” He says the “implementation of the DAP yielded undeniably positive results that enhanced the economic welfare of the country… visible ones, like public infrastructure, could easily include roads, bridges, homes for the homeless, hospitals, classrooms and the like. Not to apply the doctrine of operative fact to the DAP could literally cause the physical undoing of such worthy results by destruction, and would result in most undesirable wastefulness.” The doctrine of operative fact or good faith is noxious in this instance. It sounds to me like raping a virgin. The girl has lost her virginity and therefore, it cannot be restored. The rapist did it in good faith (he probably thought he was making love to his girlfriend). Or like murder. The victim has lost his life and cannot be resurrected to life. But the killing was done in good faith (like Olympian Oscar Pistorius who shot his girlfriend thinking she was a robber hiding in the bathroom). Can something so heinous and patently wrong like stealing and misusing people’s money on a grand and masterful scale be credited to good faith? The act goes against the grain of another doctrine—the doctrine of common sense where good is rewarded and evil is punished./
Posted on: Fri, 04 Jul 2014 17:01:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015