A Good Name

January 28.

One of the most important realization this day was that we should not only read the law, but understand it. My group got only 23 + 5 incentive points, an average of 28.6 or 29 (because of Pak Lim, our Yao Ming). There were three questions there that we should have got only if I understood what I read. Most groups got those correct since they thought the statements are false because of the amount (1M, 2.5M, 5M). The mistake was that the clause "not less than" was missing. Only, since we were not asked to correct the mistakes of the false statements, we were wrong and they were correct. The problem? I read those amounts, and somehow breezed through the details. I did not think that "not less than" would spell a lot of difference.

Most of our classmates who got those questions wrong did ask the good madam why the statement "the minimum amount of capital requirement....shall be 1M" is not the same as "the minimum amount of capital requirement...shall not be less than 1M". Plot it on the number line and it looks the same. Even the grammar points to a double negative, a sort of redundancy. But, although I was wrong, I supported the position of the madam that my answer was incorrect.

The question is a true or false question regarding not the application of a legal provision on a certain example of fact, but on the provision itself. We cannot divert from the letter of the law.

Secondly, if there is a difference of opinion especially among people who are not legal experts, we must go to the letter of the law and to no other.

I find the comment of my classmate Andy quite pertinent. The provision is made as such in order for future promulgations not to contradict the law. Let us say it is the year 2015 and the provided minimum is not pertinent anymore due to excessive inflation. If the letter of the law did not carry the word "not less than", it will be necessary for the law to be repealed. No further amendments may be made because one article needs to be taken out. Now, the words "not less than 1million" may be amended later, say to "not less than 2.5Million". The letter of the law was not contradicted since, clearly, 2.5Million is not lesser than 1million. Instead of writing "the minimum will be 1million", further amendments will not be made possible without junking the whole law.

I think Dr. Cruz also mentioned about not being a minimalist, especially in schools that need special funds - medical and nursing schools. Hence, should the CHED orders the minimum capital requirement for those schools is 5M, it will not contradict the law.

Associate only with those people you trust. In this regard, be competent, be professional. In La Salle, we get to meet a lot of prospective clients and partners. It pays to be the best always. We are building a name. It must be a good name.

I am reminded of the "Crucible" wherein the protagonist was requested to write his name on a paper and burn it, in order to be "cleaned" from the witchcraft issue against him. When he was repeatedly asked why he is unable to do a simple thing, tears burst in his eyes (Daniel Day-Lewis). "Because it is my name!" was the reply.

It pays to have a good name. Later, it will be the only thing that will be remembered. People will offer you goods, services, business opportunities because of your good name.