The Bangus Ultimatum

Before or during the summer break, I have to:
- Redesign this blog. I plan to rework it around Mallow, a WP 1.5 theme based on Kubrick.
- Rework the categories to accomodate non-law subjects
- Sidelinks will feature only a blogroll. Law and Tech Bookmarks on a separate page.
- An About Page (now not much of a chore considering WP 1.5’s static page feature)
- Bring back the Credits/Colophon, License, and Affiliations sidebars
- A gallery (or maybe just link to a Flickr)
- Share my favorite newsfeeds (i.e., del.icio.us)
- Google Ads (?)
- PHP-enabled tools for law students on the go

Finally had the guts to bring out the ‘ol FTP client, text editor, and upgrade to WordPress 1.5 (aka “Strayhorn”). Lotsa new features, and a theme-based, switchable presentation layer. Which will be useful when I rework the interface (very seriously this time), er…soon.

A good, long weekend to rest. Next week comes the slope that will eventually turn into the sheer drop that is the finals. My “easy and light” reading for the weekend is Freedom of Expression: Overzealous Copyright Bozoz and the Enemies of Creativity (also available as a pdf.). That, and collected volumes of The Sandman.

A prof of mine once said that there is little love in law—it’s contracts and property and succession that the law recognizes in human relationships.

There is, however, much law in love. The unwritten rules of engagement of human coupling can be as complex as the legal ramifications of any other corporate merger. Fortunately, The Restatement of Love (an actual Yale Law Journal article — 104 Yale L.J. 707) outlines and codifies those unwritten rules. My favorite parts:

In recent history, the blind date model was paramount, and in fact it still remains strong in homogeneous urban and suburban communities.7 A blind date may be arranged or may be initiated by one of the parties; in any event, this model is characterized by a mutual lack of familiarity. While blind dates are often decried as expensive, time-consuming, and futile, the model persists because, each time, parties’ hopefulness overcomes the disenchantment brought on by previous disappointments.

…

e. Three-date rule. Parties often query how many dates it is reasonable to go on in order to assess the possibilities of a relationship. The three-date rule is now standard.15 More than three dates, without the promise of a relationship, poses the risk of abusive practices, especially when one party insists on paying.16 Even in the absence of bad-faith dealings, however, the three-date rule is a viable period of limitation that allows both parties to a “nonstarter” to proceed with their life business. Any shorter period may pose potential risks as well. A party may foreclose otherwise promising opportunities before discovery is complete.17 It is the exceptional, albeit possible, case, where parties know they can settle the matter after the first date.

…

c. Standing doctrine. The standing doctrine–which concerns whether an individual can fairly be said to have cause to complain–presents some of the most complicated procedural issues that arise in the law of love. A party who freely enters into a relationship necessarily grants the other party some degree of standing. The scope of standing depends very much on the stage of the relationship, expanding as the relationship develops and increasing dramatically upon engagement. Yet in certain matters, such as one party’s relationship with his or her parents, the other party may never have standing to intervene.

…

. Sex within an established relationship. The most common context for sexual intercourse is between two parties to an established relationship. While sexual intercourse is commonly considered a medium by which the parties advance the relationship, this perception is false; sexual intercourse merely reflects the bona fides of the relationship. Sex cannot remedy or compensate for the weaknesses in a flawed relationship, nor can it be used to circumvent the laborious process of establishing emotional intimacy.54 A fortiori, the introduction of sex into a strong relationship simply reenforces the parties’ established emotional attachments.

…

a. Grounds commonly invoked. It is common for the moving party to justify the proposed dissolution on several grounds, both procedural and substantive.76 Often, moving parties take refuge in procedural, rather than emotional, grounds, and elevate form over substance to avoid a painful confrontation on the merits. Procedural grounds may include: timing,77 distance,78 statute of frauds,79 and outside pressures.80

Of course, the time is ripe for an evaluation of these rules within Philippine jurisdiction. We have very interesting precedents pertaining to “relationship by estoppel” and the much dreaded “kuya-clause”.

HAPPY VALENTINE’S DAY, EVERYONE!!!

So what is the next greatest terror threat the MRT guards are watching out for?

Unlabeled cd’s, apparently - even if you burned ‘em yourself

Though the standard of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” is reduced while you’re in transit (thus, checkpoints have been upheld, and warrants would usually not be required), there is still such a thing as a state action being “overbroad”. Though legitimately directed against infringement, the action (as contemplated or as implemented) adversely affects a broad range of legitimate activity as well, in violation of the Due Process Clause.