Private Recruitment Entity.
According to the Labor Code a "Private recruitment entity" means any person or association engaged in the recruitment and
placement of workers, locally or overseas, without charging, directly or indirectly, any fee from the
workers or employers.
Why would anyone establish a private recruitment entity if he cannot make money out of it? Labor of love? The texts of Azucena and Chan do not have the answer. Neither do the Bedan Red Book and Memory Aid have any suggestions.
May the entity perhaps maintain a donation box to cover its expenses?
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Saturday typos, 25 June 2016
From Constitutional Law, 2007 Edition by Isagani A. Cruz:
Page 22,
Page 100,
Page 22,
Page 100,
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Saturday typos, 18 June 2016
From the Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. I, 2013 Edition by Edgardo L. Paras:
Page v,
Page 34,
Page 59,
Page v,
Page 34,
Page 59,
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Induction vs inducement
As an electronics graduate of Cebu School of Arts and Trades, now Cebu Technological University, the first meaning of induction that comes to mind is this from the Merriam online dictionary:
In my classes in logic I learned that induction means, according to Merriam again, the "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances."
But when I entered law school years ago (which I got to finish only in my present reincarnation) I found that Luis B. Reyes seemed to be more familiar with meaning 4.a above in explaining Par. 2, Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code.
Here's the Article from his very famous textbook The Revised Penal Code, Book One (2012 Edition):
On page 540, Reyes says this:
But isn't it more natural to say "principal by inducement?" In fact that is what Regalado and Boado use in their textbooks. Otherwise Par. 2 would have used induct instead of induce.
It appears that Reyes equates the noun induction with the verb induce. But he only uses induction in pair with principal. On the same page here's Reyes switching from the noun to the verb:
To be consistent he should have used inducting instead of inducing.
What about our jurisprudence? A google search of the decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court shows that "principal by induction" is used 43 times while "principal by inducement" tallies 84 times. The US Supreme Court does not use either of the two.
So how did induction get paired with principal in our legal literature? It's because we derived most of our legal literature from Spain.
In the Spanish Codigo Penal, from whence our Penal Code - most of it anyway - was copied, here's the equivalent article:
According to Articulo 28, the first type of autores (principals) son los que inducen (are those who induce). And the Spanish legal term for principals who fit into the first type is autores por induccion. Inducement is induccion in Español.
Reyes does use "principal by inducement" on page 540:
But he prefers principal by induction in the rest of his discussion. And Regalado, by way of an "obiter" also mention induction on page 123 of his book Criminal Law Conspectus, 4th Edition:
It seems that Reyes and many of our legal commentators who were more conversant with Español than English translated the term into principal by induction.
-------------
Edited June 20, 2016
-
In my classes in logic I learned that induction means, according to Merriam again, the "inference of a generalized conclusion from particular instances."
But when I entered law school years ago (which I got to finish only in my present reincarnation) I found that Luis B. Reyes seemed to be more familiar with meaning 4.a above in explaining Par. 2, Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code.
Here's the Article from his very famous textbook The Revised Penal Code, Book One (2012 Edition):
It appears that Reyes equates the noun induction with the verb induce. But he only uses induction in pair with principal. On the same page here's Reyes switching from the noun to the verb:
To be consistent he should have used inducting instead of inducing.
What about our jurisprudence? A google search of the decisions of the Philippine Supreme Court shows that "principal by induction" is used 43 times while "principal by inducement" tallies 84 times. The US Supreme Court does not use either of the two.
So how did induction get paired with principal in our legal literature? It's because we derived most of our legal literature from Spain.
In the Spanish Codigo Penal, from whence our Penal Code - most of it anyway - was copied, here's the equivalent article:
According to Articulo 28, the first type of autores (principals) son los que inducen (are those who induce). And the Spanish legal term for principals who fit into the first type is autores por induccion. Inducement is induccion in Español.
Reyes does use "principal by inducement" on page 540:
But he prefers principal by induction in the rest of his discussion. And Regalado, by way of an "obiter" also mention induction on page 123 of his book Criminal Law Conspectus, 4th Edition:
It seems that Reyes and many of our legal commentators who were more conversant with Español than English translated the term into principal by induction.
-------------
Edited June 20, 2016
-
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Saturday typos, 11 June 2016
From Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code, 2012 Edition by Leonor D. Boado:
Page 153,
Page 207,
Page 211,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)