Reply of the Chairman of the Board Of Directors to comments on Board Resolutions instituting Electoral Reforms
There have been comments ventilated in facebook about the Board of Directors, specifically the Chairman thereof, supposedly usurping the power or jurisdiction of the COMELEC to institute Electoral Reforms. Allow me to explain.
In the first place, the mere fact that the term “electoral reforms” contained the word “electoral” in the phrase does not mean that it is immediately the Commission on Elections which has jurisdiction thereon. “Electoral Reforms” is a general term which may be used for any act, be it executive or legislative, which focuses on changing certain norms or practices regarding elections. For example, the Congress passed a law shifting the manner of voting in national elections from manual to automated. If it was the Comelec which instituted this “electoral reform,” then it would be guilty of usurpation of legislative functions because it is only Congress which can alter the process through which votes are cast and counted (and/or canvassed). The function of the Comelec, on the other hand, is to insure that the legislative will – that of conducting automated elections – is implemented to the letter.
In the second place, the Board Resolution does not usurp the functions of the Comelec nor the Executive Council because what was treated therein was a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Board of Directors – who are the “official delegates” in the General Assembly. The CBL is clear and unambiguous – that in matters regarding the General Assembly, it is the Board of Directors which has sole and exclusive jurisdiction, not the Comelec nor the Executive Council. Thus
–
“SECTION 1. Nature. – The General Assembly shall be the policy-making authority and, when not in session, such power shall be discharged the Board of Directors.” (CBL, art. III, sec. 1)
It is the Board of Directors which is the custodian of the records of the “Official Delegates” (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[a]). It is the Board of Directors which exercises the delegated authority to determine the time and place of the General Assembly (CBL, art. III, sec. 4 in rel. art. IV, sec. 3[k]). It is the Chairman of the Board of Directors which heads the Conference Committee which will harmonize any conflicting Resolutions passed by the Alumni and Collegiate Conventions (CBL, art. III, sec. 8). Finally, it is the Chair of the Board of Directors which prepares the agenda of the GA and appoints the Reference Committee which is tasked to conduct a preliminary study on matters which may be brought to the attention of the GA (CBL, art. III, sec. 9 in rel. art. IV, sec. 3[j]).
In the third place, the Board Resolution does not ask that the COMELEC nor the Adjudicatory Councils to change their rules regarding the conduct of the elections and the exclusion/inclusion proceedings. What is proposed is that the limitations of authority be properly delineated and there must be transparency and immediacy on the rules pertaining to inclusion/exclusion. Aren’t these the very same demands of the so-called “Save APO Movement”?
(1) I ask those who constantly criticize to cite a specific provision in the CBL which provides for a creature called “official voting delegate” or “voting delegate”? To repeat, there are only two kinds of delegates – the official and non-official – for purposes of the Electoral College and only official delegates are allowed to vote (CBL, art. III, sec. 3[c]). Of course, the insertion of the word “voting” in “official delegates” pertains to “voting” and, therefore, the function of the Comelec. But does this justify the creation of a third kind of delegate or the further classification of “official delegates” into voting and non-voting when the CBL has been clear and specific that only “official delegates of all chapters and associations therein represented shall constitute themselves into an Electoral College which shall be responsible for electing the members of the Board of Directors and the Executive Council for the next two (2) years” (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[c]).
(2) In reclassifying “official delegates” into “voting” (and therefore implying that there are non-voting) delegates, the Comelec was, in fact, intruding into the powers of the Board of Directors as the custodian of the list of “official delegates” and the AC in determining who are to be included and excluded in the list. After all, as the CBL clearly states, only “official delegates” are allowed to vote.
(3) Does the fact that “Life members” were allowed to vote (and therefore constituting a third classification) justifies the creation of the “official voting delegate” (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[c])? To repeat, when life members exercise their right to vote (and even to participate in all sessions of the GA), they are, in fact, “official delegates” as differentiated from “regular delegates” who are not allowed to vote in elections nor participate in the amendment of the CBL (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[b]).
(4) It is true that inclusion/exclusion proceedings are within the functions of the Adjudicatory Commission. It must be remembered that the rule-making authority of the AC is within the power of the Board of Directors to review and approve in furtherance of its power to “enforce x x x directives, rules and regulations of the organization (CBL, art. IV, sec. 3[a]) and, as for the Commissions, the power to approve any such rules (CBL, art. VII, sec. 4). In any event, the rules do not specify any dates within which these kinds of cases may be resolved. Thus, the Resolution simply supplemented the Rules to enable interested members or organizational units to “correct” any errors in the list of “official delegates.”
In the fourth place, inherent in the power of the Board of Directors “(t)o enfoirce the Articles of Incorporation, Code of By-Laws, Directives, Rules and Regulations of the organization” (CBL, art. IV, sec. 3[a]) is the authority to rectify a practice within its sphere of jurisdiction what it considers as not in accordance with the provisions of the CBL. The CBL is clear and specific in that all chapters and associations which choose to participate in the General Assembly through their “official delegates” MUST register with the Board of Directors and the Chair thereof must cause the publication of the list of “official delegates” within 6 months before the General Assembly (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[a]). The CBL likewise says that life members should also register if they wish to participate in the GA (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[c]). The registration process starts when the list of “official delegates” are submitted to the Board of Directors so that this will form part of its records (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[a]). And since the list must be published by the Chairman of the Board of Directors “at least six months before the General Assembly” (CBL, art. III, sec. 2[a]), then, logically, those who wish to participate or those which desire to be represented must register before it is published six months before the GA.
Finally, it should be noted that the Resolution does not amend the provision of the CBL but merely clarifies it. Again, any cry that it is only the SAC which has the authority to “interpret” the provisions of the CBL (CBL, art. V, sec. 3[a][1]) will hopefully be stilled by the fact that the Board has not made any “interpretation” but rather to “rectify” a process, well within its sphere of jurisdiction, which it believes, in the exercise of its collective discretion, is erroneous. It is up to the SAC to determine if the Resolution is not in accordance with the CBL.
As a final word, I am reminded of a chapter in either Noli Me Tangere or El Filibusterismo (the specific novel escapes me) about the preparations for a fiesta. In that chapter, the youth representatives decided to propose what they knew all along the elders would like to propose, although they themselves were averse to it. So when the youth group proposed what the elders wanted, the latter shot down the proposal and, instead, proposed and approved what the youth group wanted.
This is merely a suggestion: whenever we criticize, let us not criticize simply because we don’t like the person who made the suggestion but rather criticize the merits after conducting a thorough, or even a cursory but complete, study of the matter at hand. There have been criticisms left and right about the lack of transparency in elections and that those who should not vote were allowed to vote. And yet when a proposal comes along precisely to address these concerns, those who have been clamoring for these “reforms” are the very first ones who shoot down the idea upon a misconception (or erroneous analysis) of the phraseology of the “laws” which should guide our organization. Before we shoot down the messenger, let us rather look at the message, analyze its contents, and compare these with the universe of laws, policies and rules which should guide us as we traverse the path in search of relevance in our present society.
That is all I have to say on the matter.
LUIS A. PAREDES
Chairman, Board of Directors
ID No. 0007-1975-05616-Life
Comments