News Briefs | Inquirer News

News Briefs

/ 08:52 AM May 17, 2011

’WORLD WON’T END’

A BILLBOARD in Cebu City coupled with rumors circulating in the Internet that the world would end on May 21 should not be taken seriously, said Msgr. Esteban Binghay, episcopal vicar of the Archdiocese of Cebu.

“God is the only one who would know when the world would end,” said Binghay in a phone interview.

Article continues after this advertisement

He said many similar doomsday claims have been made before but never happen on the predicted dates.

FEATURED STORIES

“Let us instead focus on our Christian duties rather than panicking over these things,” he said.

He advised the faithful to prepare for the return of Jesus Christ by being in a constant relationship with him, fulfilling their Christian duties and following the 10 Commandments.

Article continues after this advertisement

“We should not be afraid if the end is coming because our Father will be with us,” Binghay said.

Article continues after this advertisement

The latest “end of the world” frenzy in cyberspace stems from forecasts of American Christian radio host Harold Camping who said God would take his people to heaven by May 21, 2011, in a phenomenon referred to as “The Rapture.”

Article continues after this advertisement

Camping is the president of the Family Radio Christian network based in the United States. /Reporter Candeze R. Mongaya

DUMANJUG AGAINST RH BILL

Article continues after this advertisement

THE municipal council of Dumanjug town passed on mass motion last Friday, May 13, a resolution opposing the Reproductive Health (RH) bill now pending in Congress.

The town council resolution, signed by Mayor Nelson Garcia, said, “Procreation is an act of God and should not be tinkered with (through) human legislation.”

Copies of the resolution will be sent to President Benigno Aquino III, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte.

In the Capitol, the mayor’s sister Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia reiterated her opposition to the bill.

“I have always considered each life as precious and our greatest asset is our people,” Garcia said.

“It is the responsibility of every public servant to see to it that we should be able to cope with every challenge of an increasing population but let me point out as well that an increasing population is also as I have always viewed it an increasing asset,” Garcia added.

She insisted that the bill is still open for debates and discussions.

“It is not yet a law so you cannot disobey something that is not passed as a law. And I will quote Archbishop Palma himself, for as long as this bill is presented for discussion and debate, we will continue to state our stand and join Archbishop Palma in this respect.” /Reporter Carmel Loise Matus

CEBU CITY OWNS SRP

THE Cebu City government is still the legal owner of the 300-hectare South Road Properties, said the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA dismissed the case filed by former Tinago barangay captain Joel Garganera against the city.

Garganera claimed that SRP is a public domain and therefore belongs to the State. He asked the court stop the city from selling parcels of land at the SRP without the approval of Congress.

He insisted that the city government had no authority to sell any of the lots.

But the Court of Appeals said that the Cebu City government acquired the lot for a patrimonial purpose and can therefore sell it to private parties including corporations.

The decision also noted that SRP is registered under the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) as a special zone, so it is governed by the rules and regulations in terms of leasing properties.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

“It is quite clear that the city of Cebu has acquired the subject properties as a corporate entity and that the same was acquired not for public use but for industrial, commercial and tourism purposes. All premises considered, the appeal is dismissed,” the court’s decision reads. /Correspondent Fatrick r. Tabada

TAGS: Health, law, Social Issues

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.