Law on recalling officials is illogical, unfair, absurd

UNFAIR, ABSURD: Simple arithmetic will show that the Local Government Code as amended by RA 9244 providing for new modes of recalling local elective officials is illogical, unfair, absurd, unjust, and possibly unconstitutional.

RA 9244 eliminated the patently wrong Preparatory Recall Assembly as a mode of initiating recall of elective local officials, by amending some provisions of RA 7160, known as the Local Government Code of 1991.

But the amendment also put in provisions that, I submit, were haphazardly crafted.

To lay the basis of the arithmetic part of my thesis, let me first cite the new law on the matter.

* * *

PERCENTAGES: Under the RA 9244 amendment approved on Feb. 19, 2004:

“a. The Recall of any elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official shall be commenced by a petition of a registered voter in the local government unit concerned and supported by the registered voters in the local government unit concerned during the election in which the local official sought to be recalled was elected subject to the following percentage requirements:

“1. At least 25 percent in the case of local government units with a voting population of not more than 20,000;

“2. At least 20 percent in the case of local government units with a voting population of at least 20,000 but not more than 75,000: Provided, That in no case shall the required petitioners be less than 5,000;

“3. At least 15 percent in the case of local government units with a voting population of at least 75,000 but not more than 300,000: Provided, however, That in no case shall the required number of petitioners be less than 15,000; and

“4. At least 10 percent in the case of local government units with a voting population of over 300,000: Provided, however, That in no case shall the required petitioners be less than 45,000.”

* * *

EXAMPLE: Test the numbers and percentage requirements using a concrete example, that of Gov. Eddie “Among Ed” Panlilio of Pampanga, against whom are now being gathered at least 100,000 voters’ signatures to recall him.

The minimum is 100,000 signatures, because Pampanga (which falls under category “4” above) has an estimated one million voting population. And 10 percent of that is 100,000.

Question: Are 100,000 signatures sufficient and fair to recall the governor?

The answer lies in the numbers themselves.

* * *

PLURALITY WIN: In the 2007 elections, there were six candidates for Pampanga governor: Edna Guillermo (304 votes), then Gov. Mark Lapid (210,876), Arnold Maniago (107), Elly Pamatong (292), Eddie Panlilio (219,706), and then Board Member Lilia Pineda (218,559).

Add up those votes cast and the total is 649,844 — or about 65 percent of the estimated one million voting population.

Panlilio got only 219,706 votes (or 33.8 percent of the total), but this was enough to give him victory by a 1,147-vote plurality over his closest rival Pineda who garnered 218,559 votes.

The total count meant that 430,138 of the 649,844 who cast their ballots did NOT vote for Panlilio.

Applying the RA 9244 amendment, even just a fourth of those 430,138 who did NOT vote for Panlilio would be enough to initiate his recall!

* * *

WHO CAN RECALL?: Imagine the absurdity and the injustice of allowing those who were never for him and did not vote for him in the first place to now initiate his recall!

Why should the negative voters be allowed to mock and undo what the positive voters had decided in a valid and democratic process?

Normally, only those who had voted for a measure or motion are allowed to move for a reconsideration. This is fair and logical, for why would those who did not vote for it be allowed to recall a validly approved motion?

* * *

AMEND RA 9244: But it is hard to apply the same rule on an election by secret ballot. There is no practical way of separating those who voted for the winner from those who did not.

Still, my contention is that the provisions of the recall law cited are illogical, unfair, absurd, unjust and possibly unconstitutional.

These provisions should be challenged before the Supreme Court, and all recall processes be put on hold while the case is pending.

Concurrently, RA 9244 that amended the Local Government Code should be amended further to prevent its inflicting more harm than good.

* * *

GMA AFRAID?: Meanwhile, the war of nerves between Malacañang and the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippine over supposed censorship need not spill over to the larger issue of freedom of the press.

The FOCAP is right in objecting to a letter of Press Secretary Jess Dureza that the press group first submit its questions before President Gloria Arroyo agrees to a group interview. That smacks of prior restraint, which is censorship.

Dureza said there was no intention to “manage the press” or censor the media. Still, it is bad form to pre-screen presscon questions. It gives the impression that the President is afraid, or at least not prepared, to face certain public issues.

A compromise would be: Let FOCAP submit topics, not questions. And then allow its members to ask questions outside the topics listed if there is still time. Give the FOCAP a time frame for the meeting and let everybody play around that.

* * *

ePOSTSCRIPT: Read current and old POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. E-mail feedback to [email protected]