For those still interested in BENECO, the June 27, 2023 Decision of the Supreme Court declaring as UNCONSTITUTIONAL Republic Act 11935—the law postponing barangay and SK elections—gives plenty of critical insights that make a very strong case for compelling NEA to call districts elections soon.

But first, let me digress for a bit: When reading a Supreme Court decision and determining if it is applicable to another situation, you can’t be too capricious as to look for razor sharp similarity.

It is enough that “in pari materia” applies—meaning there are enough substantial equivalence of facts between the two situations being compared.

What you ‘harvest’ from case law is really more of its so-called “ratio decidendi”—or the REASONING of the Court in arriving at their conclusions. That is the instructive element of “stare decisis” (the concept of stability of precedent decisions). This, in turn, is founded on the principle of laying down templates of legal philosophy so that no matter how many times a situation recurs, regardless how many subtle variants of it there might emerge—the law would always resolve the conflict in a consistent manner.

For instance, barangay elections and BENECO district elections, strictly speaking, are not the same. One is a state undertaking, the second one is a private affair. But both are political exercises intended to uphold the universal democratic principle, which the Supreme Court expressed in these words:

“The free and meaningful exercise of the right to vote, as protected and guaranteed by the Constitution, requires the holding of genuine periodic elections which must be held at intervals which are not unduly long, and which ensure that the authority of government continues to be based on the free expression of the will of electors.”

In BENECO, the Board of Directors is its internal government and the 140,000 MCO’s are their electors.

A second important point, said the Supreme Court, is that “the Commission on Elections does not have the power to postpone elections on a nationwide basis.”

You can liken COMELEC, as a regulatory authority on elections, as a parallel of NEA, which regulates the organic affairs of electric cooperatives.

Just as COMELEC may suspend elections in certain hotspots but not over the entire country, NEA might ARGUABLY suspend elections in certain districts but not over the entire franchise area.

In itself, this is already a very generous premise for NEA. My personal opinion is that NEA’s attitude should never be to justify a postponement, but to be on a continuing lookout and if necessary to force an election against any impediment tending to hinder elections. It makes absolutely no sense for NEA to take the position of perpetuating the systemic disenfranchisement of BENECO’s 140,000 electors for any length of time.

Thirdly, the Supreme Court frowned on the suggestion that things become “moot and academic” just because we have been overtaken by events.

The original date for the unconstitutionally-rescheduled barangay elections was supposed to be December 5, 2022. It is now June 2023—but the Supreme Court still ruled RETROACTIVELY that the rescheduling was unconstitutional even though it’s all water under the bridge.

That’s because, according to the Justices, “the constitutional issue raised under the circumstances surrounding this case is capable of repetition yet evading review and thus, demands formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public.”

Similarly, the malicious one can say, “tapos naman na ang boksing. Tinanggal na si Mel Licoben as GM, ibinasura na si Rafael, sinibak na yung buong Board of Directors, meron nang Interim Board, meron pang decoration na corporate secretary, bakit paguusapan pa ang election?”

The answer is, however you characterize the whole compendium of events in the last two years and six months, and no matter how it is eventually resolved, one thing is certain: you don’t want anything like this to HAPPEN AGAIN.

So it is always the prudent thing to un-derail the affairs of the cooperative, restart all its organic processes, and restore all its institutional dynamics—and ONLY the election of a regular board can achieve that.

In other words, it is time to stop blindly swallowing—to outrightly reject—the idea that “normalizing” BENECO’s operation is entirely about nursing it back to profitability.

Money has nothing to do with it. The truth is, a “Triple-C” rated BENECO with a regular board is the true NORMAL—as opposed to a “Triple-A” rated BENECO run by a board composed of unelected and unelectable strangers.

The Fourth salient point in the Decision ties in with what I just said: it’s NOT about budget and affordability. I’ve heard it said that there will be district elections when NEA is good and ready, and BENECO is stable enough to afford the costs of elections both in terms of money, availability of human resources, and the accrual of the so-called “proper timing.”

How did the Supreme Court shoot down this kind of rationalizing by the government in postponing barangay election TO SAVE MONEY AND APPEAL TO PURE CONVENIENCE?

It said postponing elections “violates the freedom of suffrage as it failed to satisfy the requisites of the substantive aspect of the due process clause of the Constitution.”

“The means employed by Congress are unreasonably unnecessary to achieve the interest of the government.

“The means are unduly arbitrary or oppressive of the electorates’ right of suffrage. The primordial purpose stated in the various bills presented in the Senate and House of Representatives sought the realignment of the budget allocation of the COMELEC for the 2022 BSKE to the Executive for the latter’s use in its projects cannot be done without violating the explicit prohibition in the Constitution against any transfer of appropriations.”

Let me simplify that. Applied to the BENECO situation, if resources (money) have been allocated to defray the cost of elections, you CANNOT “un-allocate” it, withhold it or devote it for any other purpose.

In other words, the real reason you cannot postpone an election is because you LOSE MONEY, and not save money when you do so. That’s because an election budget is untouchable, that money will stay in limbo UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY HOLD ELECTIONS.

Which is more important—money or democratic freedom? According to the Supreme Court, “The postponement of the 2022 BSKE by RA 11935 for the purpose of augmenting the Executive’s funds is violative of the Constitution because it unconstitutionally transgresses the constitutional prohibition against any transfer of appropriations, and it unconstitutionally and arbitrarily overreaches the exercise of the rights of suffrage, liberty, and expression.”

That is clearer than daylight. The right of suffrage, liberty and expression—of respecting the right of BENECO’s 140,000 MCO’s to say what they want, to choose who they want, in total freedom—is the SUPERIOR consideration.

I did not say that. The Supreme Court did.*