How can following a constitutional mandate to synchronize the elections be unconstitutional?
In the history of ARMM, we have had six elections and eight postponements. Also, there was an attempt to synchronize the ARMM election with the general election in May 2001 as provided in RA 8953 but the same was later amended by RA 9012 on February 28, 2001 (less than two months before the May 14, 2001 general election).
Postponement of ARMM elections is not without precedent. In fact, post-1996 FPA (Final Peace Agreement), there were several postponements precisely to pave the way for the amendment of the original ARMM organic act to incorporate the provisions of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement (FPA). Republic Act Nos. 8176, 8746, 8753, 8953, 9012, 9054, 9140, and 9333 were the laws passed by Congress on ARMM poll deferment.
The first postponement of the ARMM elections, however, was not after the signing of the 1996 peace pact but just before: RA 8176 changed the date of the ARMM elections and was signed into law by then President Fidel Ramos on December 29, 1995. The third ARMM election was supposed to have been held March 1996. The law reset the polls to September that same year, giving the negotiators six months leeway.
During President Gloria Macagapal-Arroyo’s time, three laws were passed postponing the ARMM elections. In February 2001, Congress passed RA 9012, resetting the supposed May 2001 elections in the ARMM to September 2001. Congress again passed RA 9140 in June 2001, setting the plebiscite to August and election to “the last Monday of November 2001. President Arroyo again signed RA No. 9333 on September 21, 2004, scheduling elections to the “second Monday of August 2005.
Now this RA 9333 is the subject matter of the five petitions pending before the Supreme Court. They question the constitutionality of the law. The petitioners do not agree when exactly the date of ARMM election is. Ironically, if the August 2011 will push through, it is by virtue of RA 9333.
No comments:
Post a Comment