THERE is a brewing debate these days. It is whether or not those engaged in online selling are made to secure business permits.
Definitely, we are for it. But our position of support is dependent on the nature, volume, and regularity in the offering of the merchandise by the online seller to clients.
Yes, online sellers must secure business permits more so if they are maintaining display centers for their articles of commerce, and whether such display areas are outside the residence or inside the confines of their respective homes.
After all, it is already common knowledge that many online sellers who started small are now getting big and are talking of a big volume of sales.
But please, the government, local or national, should spare the delivery riders or those who are making a living by transporting the sold goods online to their respective buyers. We are no lawyer but we fully understand that most, if not all, delivery riders are just having some kind of unwritten contract with the online sellers including fast food establishments in order to reduce the hustle of buyers from going to the location of the establishment or persons disposing of their merchandise.
And the delivery riders? Well, they are earning their keep from this kind of service through fixed commissions and tips from generous buyers. And every time they do their deliveries they have to face certain risks to their lives or limbs.
So why should the government add more burden to the delivery riders when they are merely working for online sellers and businesses offering the sale of their products online with the support of the risk-taker men and women?
******************************
Former President Rodrigo R. Duterte just “deadmaed” some members of the Congressional Quad Com now looking into the alleged Extra-Judicial Killings (EJKs) during his war against illegal drugs. These members were reported to have called him a “coward.”
There are two possibilities here. He (FPRRD) would rather be called a “coward” than be goaded into insulting the intelligence, if any, of those who called him such. The other is that he might have thought how it would be disgraceful for the inquisitor-congressmen suddenly turn into lambs whose silence betrays the identities of those who they were acting and working for, or suddenly acting as if they were back in time when Duterte was still President and they were gravitating towards him for favor.
But any which way, with FPRRD attending their hearing such episode will only succeed in unmasking the true persons of the Quad Com members, including the many neophytes among them. Besides, we agree with the former President that what the quad com members want to hear or confirm he had already said it all in the Senate hearing, and there is nothing more to say or add to what he had told the senators.
Yes, we know that the quad com members were monitoring the Senate version of the probe on EJKs. And certainly, they could not be asking other questions but just the same ones asked during the probe of the Upper House.
*******************************
So parents whose children have been found roaming on the road and rescued by the authorities will be prosecuted if the same children of theirs are again caught back in the streets?
Hopefully, it will be more than just big words evolving into big talk. That is, the authorities concerned will be able to “walk” such talk of theirs. After all, we know for certain that the reason they are on the streets is because they (the street children) are mostly goaded by their parents to be out there either to find ways to help support their families or are roam around the city’s roads because they find more “love” in there from their friends than they can have at home.
So we personally could not find enough justification to prosecute the parents of recidivist children for the reason that they have gone back to the roads and live the lives of vagabonds.
And if such parents are to be prosecuted then there must be a law or ordinance, enabling as it is, to determine the liability of the parents concerned.
Say, the parents’ tacit approval of their child or children’s living on the streets; Or that it can be easily established that they partake of whatever gains their street-dwelling children.
