It’s now official that there will be no district elections for BENECO ahead of the Annual General Membership Assembly (AGMA) this June, or even anytime soon after.
Given that NEA does not support BENECO’s effort to convert into a stock cooperative under the CDA, then you can safely say conversion is not going to be the focus of the AGMA either.
So what’s the point of holding the AGMA at all?
Only one: to create an opportunity to cloak the Interim Board with some kind of direct constituent mandate that is distinct and different from its arbitrary appointment from NEA.
Someone must have already prepared in advance a resolution expressing the full support of the member consumers to the Interim Board. That way, it can drop the word “interim” and begin to designate itself as the AGMA-endorsed “BENECO Board of Directors.”
That resolution will be presented during the AGMA in the form of a very impressive and persuasive PowerPoint presentation of some kind of “rehabilitation plan” aimed at regaining BENECO’s “Triple A” status.
Who can disagree with motherhood objectives like that? So the assembly will easily embrace the plan, oblivious of the implied condition that only the rebranded interim board can implement it. The fleas come with the dog. Love the dog, take the fleas.
Will that have any substantial legal impact?
Yes. Approval of the action is authorization for the doer. A good case can be made that because the member consumers have overwhelmingly (I’m assuming) passed a “vote of confidence by referendum” on the interim board, then there is no more necessity to hold district elections indefinitely. That’s the meaning of Section 21-A of RA 10531 that leaves it to NEA to decide whether “the election of a new Board of Directors to lead the electric cooperative is NECESSARY.”
True, the interim board is a rubberstamp to approve all NEA initiatives, but it needs a rubberstamp of its own to rationalize its own existence—and that is the AGMA.
The only thing that can foil this plan is a massive—and I mean tidal wave massive—opposition by the general membership itself.
You can liken this situation to that infinitely annoying charter change (“Cha-Cha”) movement that has bedevilled us from 1992 until today.
From since the Fidel V. Ramos administration, every ruling political party from Ramos’ own LAKAS-NUCD, Erap’s PMP, Gloria’s LAKAS-CMD, PNoy’s LP, Digong’s PDP-Laban to now BBM’s PFP (Partido Federal ng Pilipinas, in case you really didn’t know)—every post-“EDSA-Cory” president has tinkered with countless “strategies” to rewrite the 1987 Constitution.
Why? because it prohibits any reelection of the President and caps a two-term limit on senators and three-term limit on all other elective officials. You can wrap any noble proposal around a Chacha initiative all you want—like economic recovery amendments, liberalization of foreign investments yada yada—but the bottomline is, BASICALLY the objective is still to lift term limits.
They explored the possibility of creating a regular Contitutional Convention (which requires an election all its own), transforming Congress itself into a constituent assembly, even a direct people’s initiative. Everything looks good on paper, supported by manufactured poll results gathered in several fake surveys.
There was just one problem: no matter what mode of proposal to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution you choose, you cannot escape or by-pass that one indispensable requirement under the Constitution: DIRECT RATIFICATION by the People in a national referendum.
It’s easy enough to buy votes massively in a general election and amass enough votes in favor of one candidate in a field of many. But in a bi-polar question answerable by a simple “yes” or “no” all metrics told every ambitious dictator-wannabe that mustering 50% PLUS ONE of a nationwide full turnout is an insurmountable goal.
Why? Because mathematically, one of every two Filipinos does not want Chacha in any form. And out of the 65.75-MILLION registered voters in the Philippines, coming up with JUST ONE more vote to swing the result either way is TOO easy. Psychologically, if the average uninformed voter were to choose between YES and NO—choosing NO is a 75% handicap no massive vote-buyer is willing to gamble with and underwrite.
In the same way, no amount of legal acrobatics will enable NEA to bypass the general membership. They can appoint as many “popular” sectoral representatives to all manner of pseudo-Boards of Director as they want. Again, that representation is something I personally dispute, but don’t dare me to start challenging specific sectors allegedly “represented” to speak up—THEY MIGHT.
They can create more non-existent positions and appoint more pretty boys and girls to manipulate p-r, put to use an articulate social climber to run a dedicated fake news campaign on social media. But no matter what legal contortionism NEA employs, it will NEVER produce the equivalent of a mandate from the member consumers.
Like I said, BENECO is a microcosm of the nation—sovereignty resides in the Members and all cooperative management authority emanates from them.
You cannot bypass the Members, but you can have a sporting chance of FAKING the constituency mandate that can only come exclusively from them—by hijacking the AGMA.
Sino pa nga ba naman ang makakahalata?*
(NEXT: A step-by-step strategy to re-empower a timid true MCO community)
About the Author
The author is a writer and lawyer based in Baguio City, Philippines. Former editor of the Gold Ore and Baguio City Digest, professor of journalism, political science and law at Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF). He is a photographer and video documentarist. He has a YouTube channel called “Parables and Reason”
About Images: Some of the images used in the articles are from the posts in Atty. Joel Rodriguez Dizon’s Facebook account, and/or Facebook groups and pages he manages or/and member of.