Squatters and suffrage

In our column last Friday, June 21, 2013 we pointed out that squatting and politics really go together in this country because of the right of suffrage supposedly enjoyed even by squatters pursuant to our Constitution (Article V, Section 1). So the link between squatting and politics really stems from link between the squatters and their right of suffrage. The squatters’ right to vote in the election seems to be the very reason behind the chronic squatter problem in this country because politicians themselves largely depend on squatters’ vote to win elections. Hence they would prefer that squatters stay put in the area where they can be useful to them come election time. This is the very reason behind the peoples’ growing belief that the squatter problem in this country is here to stay and may even get worse.

So far, the accepted practice in this jurisdiction is really to allow squatters to vote in our elections because our charter itself provides that “no literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage” (Article V, Section 1, last sentence). And so based on this provision, the squatters’ right to vote even if they do not own any property has been recognized for as long as they are “citizens of the Philippines, not otherwise disqualified by law, who are least 18 years of age, who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year and in the place where they propose to vote, for at least six month immediately preceding the election”.

But as already pointed out, this present practice based on the above constitutional provision nevertheless requires legitimate residency of voters in the place where they propose to vote. Legitimate residency is required because every intendment of the law, especially the charter which is the fundamental law of the land, should always be in favor of legitimacy. Otherwise it will be self-defeating.

Hence, for all legal intents and purposes, squatters should not be allowed to vote because they are not legitimate residents of the place where they propose to vote. Of course there is no jurisprudence yet on this matter. For jurisprudence to be established on this issue the Comelec should adopt this rule in the registration of voters so that the Supreme Court can resolve whether or not it is the correct interpretation of the charter.

Indeed this move may be the more effective way not only in solving the squatter problem but also in improving the quality of our electorate so that we may elect the right officials and improve our politics. In fact, as early as 1991, the board members of the Chamber of Real Estate Brokers (CREBA) led by its Chairman at that time, Retired Brigadier General Rizalino A. Alquiza had already made such a proposal to then Senator Joey Lina as they were discussing the Lina Law. According to General Alquiza in reaction to my Friday column on “Squatting and Politics”:

“In that meeting, I proposed to Senator Lina that, instead, a law should be passed by Congress that, in defining the qualifications and disqualifications of voters, a person to qualify as a voter in local elections he must have been a legitimate resident of the precinct (where he is a voter) for at least six (6) months, and a “legitimate resident” is defined as one who is either the registered owner or the lessee of the house and lot he is occupying. As proof, he must present the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of the title of the lot or a copy of the Lease Contract he has entered into with the owner of the house and lot he is occupying.  By this definition, a squatter cannot be considered a legitimate resident of the place where he is voting and therefore not qualified to vote in local elections. That would remove the reason for local officials to cuddle the squatters.  My proposal does not apply to national elections, where the residency requirement is that one must have been a resident of the Philippines for at least one (1) year.

I remember what Senator Lina told me, “General, you cannot expect Congress to pass your proposal into law, because members of the lower House, like the local officials, also depend on the votes of squatters.”  Maybe, this time when the adverse effects of squatting, especially along esteros which has caused flooding, have reached national consciousness, the members of Congress will awaken to finally solve this menace of squatting. Not only disqualifying squatters from local elections, Congress should make squatting a criminal offense, for that is, plain and simple, robbery.  Squatters squat not only on public lands, like the esteros, but also on private properties. By squatting on private properties, they in effect rob the properties of other persons.  If that is not a crime, I don’t know what is”.

Of course we should also understand the squatters’ situation. Most of them perhaps were only forced to transfer and illegally stay in unoccupied private and public properties in the cities to seek greener pastures and lift themselves out of their poverty stricken lives in remote areas. Indeed their present situation is not really their fault so why should they be disenfranchised of their right to vote.

The answer here is supplied by another reader, Elmar Layka ([email protected]) who also reacted to my column last Friday. He lives in a barangay where there are “several pockets of squatters along the waterways and under electric power lines who do not pay real estate taxes and perhaps, not even income taxes”. Here is Mr. Layka’s description of the squatters in their barangay:

“They are so numerous that they out-number the legitimate residents – both property owners and tenants. For this reason, all the barangay council members are squatters, so that the legitimate residents have no voice in the running of the barangay. Rather anomalous as the legitimate residents are the ones paying taxes.

It is bruited about that the barangay captain and the council members (and others higher up) are the ones who coddle and encourage the proliferation of the squatters as a source of votes.

So in order not to infringe their right of suffrage, Mr. Layka proposes to require the squatters to cast their votes in their province of origin. In this way politicians will have no more reason to coddle them or prevent their relocation. This is another suggestion worth considering.

E-mail: [email protected]