General Membership

One of the biggest disappointments for many observers to the BENECO crisis is the near-total collapse of the MCO resistance against NEA’s overbearing interference in the cooperative’s operation, particularly since January 2023.

Before you start rebuking me with all those memorized mantras of “Fight Ladta” and “MSL is our GM” and rhapsodizing about the over-romanticized concept of BENECO being owned by its member consumers, I will douse cold water on your aimless enthusiasm by simply stating here that what you believe is USELESS if actual conditions on the ground do not reflect your rosy pink world view.

This is not a contest in proving who loves BENECO more, or who has the more profound understanding of its predicament. Rather it’s all just a matter of what people are willing to DO about it, even if speaking courageously IN SUBSTANCE, and not slogans, is all some are capable of for now.

Ironically, last year it was NEA that relied on pure bravado trying to invoke legalism to bulldoze the resistance of the Magnificent Seven—directors Esteban Somngi, Jeffred Acop, Mike Wayway Maspil, Peter Busaing, Jonathan Obar, Josephine Tuling and Robert Valentin.

These seven underrated and under-appreciated elected directors stood their ground against NEA—regardless what convoluted legal technicalities NEA hurled at them.

They stood on PRINCIPLE that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law.

The spirit of the law overwhelmingly upholds the autonomy of electric cooperatives. Therefore, the letter of the law must be interpreted liberally in support of its spirit and not the other way around.

If you imbibe the spirit of anything, you have a greater grasp of its substance. Notice how it’s so easy to learn a song, even if you can’t read notes. In reality, you don’t need to know anything about music to learn many songs. Some people can render a song with an amazing degree of aesthetic quality, even better than a professional opera singer schooled in classical theory. That’s because a song is poetry, and poetry is art. Art is the universal language of the heart.

In the same way, you don’t have to be a lawyer to articulate your opinion about BENECO. It suffices that you understand the spirit of cooperativism, and know the essence of democracy.

There is no subject entitled “Democracy 101” in the college of law. We don’t TEACH democracy, you’re supposed to figure that one out yourself. Fortunately, you are well-equipped to do so, because democracy is an inherent longing of the human spirit. It is universal. It beats in every heart.

Be that as it may, democracy is not self-actuating. You cannot just profess your undying faith in it, you have to EXERCISE it to enjoy it—and you must defend it CONTINUALLY. The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.

The upcoming Annual General Membership Assembly (AGMA) is the looming battlefield for asserting the sovereignty of the Members and their freedom not only to be heard but to be HEEDED. And if one must defend freedom, one cannot forego any occasion to do it. Freedom must be defended in the FIRST PLACE it is attacked.

The AGMA is not a mere social event—it used to be the time and venue to confer mandate upon an elected Board. It is abundantly clear that this will not happen this year, and God knows whenever else. Instead, the AGMA promises to be NEA’s elaborately-contrived mechanics for rationalizing its continued hold on BENECO, flying in the face of the sovereignty of its Members.

In my opinion, NEA has no choice. My own take of this so-called “Interim Board” or “Task Force BENECO”—they can’t even make up their minds WHAT to call it—is that it is ILLEGAL. The longer it persists and carries out constituent functions “ultra vires” the harder it becomes for NEA to defend its intervention in an electric cooperative whose “ailing” status it refuses to PROVE to the public.

In other words, NEA needs the AGMA to give it even the faintest color of legitimacy.

As a transitional setup only, this Interim Board along with its illegal “corporate secretary” are, at best, mere CARETAKERS of the cooperative. Their singular mission, their sole purpose for being, is to remove themselves from BENECO posthaste and yield the reins of its control back to its Members. They have one task to discharge: hold district elections.

The law gave them only NINETY (90) DAYS to do that. There is no getting around the law on this specific matter. But like I said, NEA learned well from the false bravado of the MCO’s this past two years. It knows now that however fiercely the MCO’s hiss and snarl with their fighting slogans, at the end of the day the morally-bankrupt among them can be bought, while the morally-upright can be safely ignored.

Sadly, NEA couldn’t have chosen a better place to flex its own mettle in discretionary abuse than BENGUET. After all, the peace-loving iBenguets didn’t even mind losing their congressional seat to a caretaker, either. And this incredible capacity for sufferance stretches a long way back in its history. Benguet lost all its gold and other minerals, its hydroelectric potential, its forever submerged ancestral domains. And yet, you’ve never heard of a son or daughter of Benguet becoming the Rockefeller of the Philippines, awash in the wealth of their land. Everytime adversity stared Benguet straight in the eyes, it had always blinked against the assertiveness of usurpers, and surrendered what belonged to them to the articulate greed of commerce.

I hope and pray that they don’t lose their BENECO the same way.

I hear that there is aforming a new convenors’ group of Members who are determined to mount a challenge to all this abuse. This arises from their frustration with the Electric Cooperatives Member Consumer Owners United (registered under its shorter acronym EC-MCO United, Inc.) of which, by the way, I am one of the founding trustees.

I will devote a full article on this later, to explain why it failed and continues to fail—because it did not live up the REASON for its existence.

My advise to this new group is to prominently and formally announce their coming into existence. When the AGMA comes around, they cannot ONLY THEN still be introducing themselves. They have to be ALREADY a distinct entity with a widely-disseminated organizational philosophy that non-aligned Members can gravitate towards. It is much more effective to present to the Members a clear statement of direction that these Members can agree with and endorse. Not everyone is endowed with the gift of public-speaking, but that should not suppress the opportunity for people to concur with sentiments they cannot express themselves.

At the AGMA, all it would take is for ONE SPEAKER to deliver the collective sentiment. Even if the moderator cuts him short, the Members can DIRECTLY give the floor to that speaker—overrule the Chair– and let him deliver and finish what he has to say on their behalf. That courageous speaker need only invoke that he rises on a matter of personal and collective privilege. Under the Roberts Rules of Parliamentary Procedure, that privilege towers higher than even a Point of Order. Once the privilege in invoked and a privilege speech is underway, it cannot ne stopped—or can only be stopped at the risk of the august body itself.

If I were the moderator or presiding officer, it would be more prudent to ALLOW IT.

Why? Because if enough Members WANT to hear it, that same number is totally enough to CALL another general assembly on their own if they want. To say it in the vernacular, “Pakinggan nyo na lang ang Members, bago kayo magkahiyaan ng todo.”

What I’m saying to this new aforming group is that they must be prepared to thrive where the EC-MCO failed—in lending expression to the sentiments of the general Membership beyond simple sloganeering and name-calling.

There is no reason to be uncomfortable with appearing to compete, or counter-balance, the EC-MCO, Inc.

Contrary to the common misconception, the EC-MCO is NOT an exclusive representational franchise, it has no proprietary “copyright” or “patent” on the idea of clustering a collection of concerned BENECO Members, to act as a common mouthpiece and advocate of Member concerns.

It was formed—as any other group can similarly be formed—pursuant to the many constitutional guarantees to the enjoyment the freedom of association and assembly like, “The State shall encourage non-governmental, community-based, or sectoral organizations that promote the welfare of the nation.” (Article II, Sec. 23, 1987 Constitution).

Likewise, “The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.” (Article III, Sec. 8).

In fact, the main reason why I suggested that the MCO’s incorporate into a formal entity is simply to vest upon them a legal personality. That allows them to sue (and be sued) because in matters of legal dispute that boils down to a “he said, she said, and I say” situation, only a court of law can authoritatively resolve who is right. And without a legal personality, you are not a juridical entity and you cannot acquire standing before any court.

Nameless, faceless organizations DO NOT COUNT.

If you read Article XII, Sec. 15, “The State shall respect the role of independent people’s organizations to enable the people to pursue and protect, within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.”

It then DEFINES the essential requisites for a legitimate organization: “People’s organizations are bona fide associations of citizens with demonstrated capacity to promote the public interest and with IDENTIFIABLE LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP AND STRUCTURE.”

THAT’S the reason why you have to incorporate, and register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). How long will that take?

Less than a week.

Is that too late for purposes of the AGMA?

Of course not. Organization is the first priority. You can take your sweet time processing your registration. Anyway, you are not suing anyone…yet.*