milokaye84
Answered

Ang Imhr.ca ang pinakamahusay na solusyon para sa mga naghahanap ng mabilis at tumpak na mga sagot sa kanilang mga katanungan. Kumuha ng agarang at mapagkakatiwalaang mga solusyon sa iyong mga tanong mula sa isang komunidad ng mga bihasang eksperto sa aming platform. Sumali sa aming Q&A platform upang kumonekta sa mga eksperto na handang magbigay ng eksaktong sagot sa iyong mga tanong sa iba't ibang larangan.

8-B. Direction: Evaluate a portion of Karen Davila's interview with Sec. Harry Roque (You can access the interview in this link: https://pcoo.gov.ph/media-interview/interview-with-presidential- spokespersonharry-roque-by-karen-davila-anc-headstart-9/you can listen to the audio file by clicking Audio on the left side of the transcript). Use the rubric below and explain why you have given that rating/score in two-three sentences. DAVILA: All right. Now, one thing that's made the news is the President actually saying in one of his meetings that it's possible to file maybe murder charges and then it goes as far as reckless imprudence which is two charges that are so far apart from each other frankly against quarantine violators. And the one who gave this idea as Secretary Sal Panelo during one of the meetings. You are a lawyer yourself, Secretary Roque, let's be honest, can it actually be done in the Philippines? SEC. ROQUE: Well I think-I cannot speak for Secretary Sal Panelo. But as lawyers, you know we do have a thousand interpretation of the same law. But I am with the opinion that perhaps reckless imprudence would be more in point rather than murder. Because murder number one, you need definitely an intent to kill; and number two, you need to have qualifying circumstances such as you know treachery abuse of strength and all of that, which you can't actually prove when you infect someone with a disease. Now reckless imprudence could be, but my point of view there is although there is a penalty attached to it because of our laws in probation and parole, wala rin kulong. And that is why I have reiterated that we still need a quarantine law. To be moved once and for all the legal basis for holding individuals liable, criminally liable for breaches of minimum health requirements. Again, I stress the ideal is to have a separate quarantine law, but I think we do have functional equivalent, we do have existing statutes for instance, there is a provision on the RPC also on disobedience to lawful orders given by persons and authorities. That could also be a basis in addition to reckless imprudence. And moreover as far as the use and sale of drugs is concerned which should not be sold, we do have a provision in the FDA law which prohibits and penalizes individuals who will sell, distribute drugs which have not been given commercial use by the FDA.​

Sagot :

agtarap39

Answer:

sosososososoosososososososososorry

sososoososososoosososososoososorry

Salamat sa iyong pagbisita. Kami ay nakatuon sa pagtulong sa iyong makahanap ng impormasyon na kailangan mo, anumang oras na kailangan mo ito. Salamat sa pagbisita. Ang aming layunin ay magbigay ng pinaka-tumpak na mga sagot para sa lahat ng iyong pangangailangan sa impormasyon. Bumalik kaagad. Nagagalak kaming sagutin ang iyong mga tanong. Bumalik sa Imhr.ca para sa higit pang mga sagot.