E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Recall the PRA
Sunday, 09 15, 2002
The people’s prerogative to remove an elective public official for loss of confidence, which is constitutionally mandated, is indispensable to the proper and effective administration of public affairs; it ensures transparency and accountability of local government officials. The power of recall is a reaffirmation that the sovereign will resides in the people.
When the Local Government Code (LGC) was enacted into law in 1991, it paved the way for decentralization to ensure a more responsive local government structure. Among the significant provisions of the LGC in this regard is the exercise of the power of recall, defining the modes by which the electorate can remove undeserving public officials even before the end of their term of office.
Section 70 of the LGC provides two modes of initiating the recall of a public official, either through the petition of 25 percent of the registered voters of the local government unit to which the local elective official subject of the recall belongs, or through the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) constituted in every province, city, district and municipality. So far the first mode has not been used, simply because it is difficult and expensive to convince 25 percent of the total number of registered voters in any given local government unit to initiate the recall. The second, given the ease with which it can be exercised, appears to have been abused.
The PRA has become a tool to harass duly elected local officials. Politicians are abusing the power of recall by mobilizing highly partisan barangay officials into signing the initiatory (recall) resolutions. Thus a mere handful of barangay officials in a given municipality can overturn the will of tens of thousands of voters by initiating the recall of the mayor they elected.
At present, the PRAs have been mobilized in Taguig, Puerto Princesa City, Camarines Norte, and in Cebu. Comelec records show the frequency in which the recall has been initiated through the PRA, which is rather alarming. This brings into focus the need to revisit the LGC in authorizing the use of the PRA.
In Taguig, Mayor Freddie Tinga (Independent) is fighting to fend off the efforts of Taguig-Pateros Rep. Allan Peter Cayetano (Lakas) to oust him via the PRA. Taguig has about 120,000 registered voters, and its PRA is composed of the 162 punong barangays and sangguniang barangay members.
Mayor Tinga, who is obviously doing well as chief executive of Taguig, has the misfortune of being up against the powerful who are determined to thwart the will of the people of Taguig, and who are preparing too early for 2004.
The abuse of the PRA impairs the sovereign will of the people; it substitutes the will of a very small group of people. In Taguig for instance, Mayor Tinga was voted into office by a very comfortable majority, the highest ever. Now we have, reportedly, only 84 members of the PRA trying to substitute their will over the 65,000 who voted Mayor Tinga into office during the May 11, 2001 elections. How can the will of this mass of voters be possibly negated by the say-so of only 84 punong barangays and sangguniang barangay members, who are even rumored to have been paid off P50,000 each just to participate in the PRA? One only has to recall the experience of Caloocan City, where the PRA voted to oust Mayor Rey Malonzo, but in the subsequent recall elections, the PRA was soundly repudiated and Mayor Malonzo himself was retained. The recall proceedings should not have been initiated at all.
The great number of recall initiated through the PRA proves the relative ease by which the mechanism has been resorted to for narrow, partisan political ends. The Comelec should, therefore, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, be extra-sensitive in its evaluation of the evidence to justify a recall election. Attention should be given by it to the authenticity of the initiatory resolution as well as the fact that the PRA was not convened in Taguig, but outside of it, in Subic to be exact, to where its members were reportedly herded off, and only a handful, not a majority of the 162 members attended. After full-page ads had already come out, many of those who were identified as signatories to the initiatory resolution are reported to have already executed affidavits denying their participation in the PRA. The full-page ads themselves are indicative of irregularity in the proceedings of the PRA. For why else should the alleged signatories to the resolution – or the politicians behind them – spend a sizable sum of advertisement just to explain their side? The proper forum is the Comelec; if there are no doubts as to the regularity of the PRA, no one would resort to such a publicity gimmick. If all these can be established by the electoral body during the evaluation process, then the PRA being foisted on the residents of Taguig will necessarily be a nullity.
The mechanism of the PRA besmirches the sanctity of the electoral process, and effectively bypasses the sovereign will of the people. The imprudent use of the recall mechanism through the PRA constitutes wastage of scarce government resources and it unduly disrupts the functions of local governments.
Sen. Nene Pimentel, the father of the LGC, himself acknowledges the abuse of the PRA and proposes its abolition. He says: “There should only be one mode of recall, and that is directly by the people themselves.” He realizes only too well that the PRA is now being used as a partisan political weapon.
Like a concerned father alarmed at the peccadilloes of a wayward offspring, the senator feels duty-bound to step in. It would do well for Congress to now take heed of the proposed amendment to the LGC, particularly Title 2, Chapter 5 on the recall provisions, under Senate Bill 826 of Senator Pimentel.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment