No Substitute for Elections

There is one thing even worse than non-representation, and that is MAL-REPRESENTATION.

In a recent example of this, an impeachment complaint was filed against a very unpopular President by a lawyer with a dodgy reputation. The complaint was shoddy and so inherently weak that the House of Representatives made short work of shredding it into smithereens.

After the perfunctory pronouncement that the complaint was “sufficient in form” it then dismissed the complaint for being “insufficient in substance.”

Of course it was insufficient in substance—it was purposely DESIGNED that way. The only thing that mattered to the mastermind of that cheap gimmick was just to activate the constitutional provision prohibiting the filing of more than one impeachment complaint against the same official within one year.

Because a complaint had been filed, no matter how unviable it was, “first jeopardy” attached already, in a manner of speaking—so a second one would no longer be admitted.

Impeaching an official unfit for high office is a duty of the Filipino people who, unfortunately are too numerous and diverse they can only act commonly through representation.

Because of this man’s rogue Lone Ranger scruples, the People involuntarily lost a precious opportunity to redeem the Presidency after it had fallen in the hands of a despot.

But who appointed the dearly-departed lawyer, God bless his soul, to act in behalf of the people, to the ultimate prejudice of the whole nation?

Nobody. However, when he stepped forward to perform an act reserved to sovereignty, the sovereign were caught like deer in headlights and did nothing to challenge the presumptuous representation.

“The meek shall inherit the earth,” it does say in the Good Book, but the sub-textual implication there is that the meek will inherit it in the shape left by the bold and shameless.

Impeachment is one of those residual powers reserved to the people by the constitution. Alas, when the constitution speaks in broad generalities like so—“A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by ANY CITIZEN upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof” Congress is typically slow to enact enabling laws that prescribe specific guidelines for its exercise.

It took years before guidelines for people’s initiatives and recall petitions came out.

There is still no law implementing the anti-political dynasty provision of the constitution.

So in the absence of a clear mechanism for ascertaining who can act in behalf of the Filipino people on the matter of impeachment, any Tom, Dick, Harry—and his cousin—can file a bogus impeachment complaint as a cynical strategy to block the filing of a genuine one that takes more earnest preparation.

Unfortunately, the end result is that the sole determination and action of one UNAUTHORIZED citizen is still binding upon the entire acquiescent citizenry.

Roughly speaking, this is the same situation presently obtaining in this long-running crisis of representation in BENECO.

It is always disquieting when only one charismatic though shameless individual, or even a small “elite” group of self-appointed representatives proclaim themselves as warriors FOR the silent majority, without a clear definition of their allegiance for and accountability to that body.

And yet what they do impacts on the welfare of the General Membership, most of whom don’t even recognize them, let alone authorize them to speak or act on their behalf.

Let’s cut to the chase here: right now the member consumers of BENECO are NOT represented in the policy-making echelon of THEIR own cooperative.

No matter how passionately certain drama kings and queens proclaim how they are zealously nurturing BENECO with tender loving care, these sanctimonious un-elected and un-electable persons have no business arrogating sovereignty unto themselves in the first place.

This is not hard to understand. If someone tells you, “Please trust me, I will always act in your best interest” you’d be better telling him or her off, “Excuse moi, but I prefer to act BY MYSELF. Do you mind?”

The upcoming Annual General Membership Assembly (AGMA) is a perfect opportunity to vindicate the wounded sovereignty of the General Membership.

It is the long-awaited chance to redeem their constitutional and statutory right to repose their faith and trust on representatives of THEIR choice.

But I fear that there could be a well-orchestrated plan to usurp the voice of these Members, by frontloading an elite bunch of counterfeit MCO’s acting as NEA’s mouthpieces preaching “change”, “reform”, “modernization”, “rehabilitation”, “normalization”—the whole motherhood enchilada—and sidestepping the REAL and MOST EXISTENTIAL issue: control over the fate and destiny of the cooperative.

That is the heart of the matter: TRUE REPRESENTATION and disavowing the abuse of that representation by dilettantes.

Strictly speaking, the AGMA is NOT a NEA affair. It is an affair exclusive to the Members (who can actually call for its convening more than once, under conditions ‘in extremis’—but that’s another post).

The AGMA has immensely-increased significance this year, in light of the disenfranchisement of all the Members who voted the Magnificent Seven into office (and you might as well count the other four, for contextual completion purposes)—only to witness their duly-elected directors be removed and be replaced by five individuals representing no one other than themselves.

They don’t even represent the “sectors” they belong to—just ask those sectors.

Belonging to any demographic group is a mere credential and not a commission. I don’t represent the legal community just because I’m a lawyer. Every lawyer must give his or her assent for that representation to be real and meaningful.

There’s something morally disturbing also about substituting five appointees in place of an eleven-man Board of Directors. Mathematically, it is saying that these five individuals handpicked by NEA are of such superior and stellar composition that each one of them is the equivalent of “two and two-tenths ordinary directors.”

In the infamous days of slavery in the colonial American deep South, when blacks were finally granted legal representation, each black voter was counted as “three-fifths” of a person. So 10 black votes is only equal to 6 when tabulated.

I wonder if this was the math that informed NEA’s determination that 5 of their own pickings is the equivalent of 11 of the BENECO Members electoral choice’. That might be culturally offensive in other regions, but so far the characteristically long-suffering, peaceful and docile iBenguets are taking the whole thing in stride.

The AGMA will proceed strictly on script, you can expect that. I highly doubt if any moderator would allow off-script discussion on anything other than upholding “status quo” as defined by NEA.

Therefore, if there should be any statement that any maverick cluster of Members wants to deliver on the occasion, they should not expect to be able to deliver it extemporaneously. They must come prepared already with a WRITTEN MANIFESTO carefully drafted and reproduced in enough copies that even if the microphone is turned off on them, they can still proceed to circulate copies to all Members right there on the floor.

There are TWO things to avoid if the Members are really intent on retaking BENECO, and preventing NEA and its MCO proxies in sheep’s clothings from railroading the proceedings during the AGMA.

One is to quickly disown any elite MCO group, and their leaders, who have collaborated with NEA during the January Surrender, if they start pontificating about how they love BENECO so much, they are willing to die for BENECO.

While there’s no need to object to the dying part, the Members must be firm to dissociate the majority membership from the emotional advocacies of these influence-peddlers.

They have already betrayed the general membership by helping bring BENECO the closest it had ever been throughout its history to the edge of the cliff, at the bottom of which awaits the private crony industrial establishment salivating at the dreamy prospect of its acquisition.

Now that this marriage of convenience between them has produced nothing more than abortive miscarriages, they cannot slither their way back to the arms of the Members they had forsaken. Simply said, you cannot eat your cake and keep it too.

Secondly, the Members must be careful not to affix their imprimatur on any act or document expressing their assent to ANY FORM of blind representation, or blanket authorization.

“Attendance sheets” are notorious for this kind of misuse. You sign an innocent looking sheet of paper containing nothing but numbered names and signatures—before you know it, your signature just became part of the attachments to a “cover sheet” containing a Resolution or petition you never even read.

I used to teach my law students that every time they have to sign any “attendance sheet” that they suspect to be prone to misuse, always make sure their middle name is “Attendee.” So, for example, I should sign my name as “Joel Attendee Dizon.”

They can go ahead and “snowpake” all the words “Attendee” within each name but that would create a suspicious long blank column running right down the center of the list of names. Moreover, if they object then it confirms their intention.

I would also be careful especially about all those present being asked to raise their hands for any reason. We already know that there isn’t going to be any elections. So any resort to a show of hands ala viva voce would be suspect. Once photographed, ANY CAPTION can go with that, such as one that might read, “BENECO Members overwhelmingly endorsing Task Force BENECO, urging Interim Board to Stay the Course.”

(NEXT: How to organize an ALTERNATIVE fiscalizing MCO watchdog group)