Basic Q&A (In Favor or Against the ARMM Poll Synch Bill?)

I am in favor of HB 4146 (and its twin Senate Bill 2756). All elections, except for barangay election, are to be synchronized as mandated for by the 1987 Constitution. ARMM election, being a local election, is not an exception to this rule. The question to be asked to those who oppose is why until now this constitutional mandate has not been followed? If we don’t synchronize it in 2013, the next national and local election, when do we synchronize it?

With regards to the postponement, the August 2011 election need to be postponed because of the following reasons:

a.   need to synchronize local and national elections as mandated in the 1987 Constitution. Having a separate ARMM elections will not only be inconsistent with such mandate but will entail additional cost to taxpayers;

[NOTE: if we synchronize ARMM election with the national and local election in 2013 without postponing the election, that is we push through with the August 2011 election, then the term of office of the elected officials will only be for 21 months, less than the three-year term mandate in the Organic Act. Cutting short the term of office is unconstitutional.]

b.   need to institute electoral reforms in the ARMM that has been constantly plagued by electoral violence, massive fraud, vote-buying, kidnapping, etc. COMELEC needs time to cleanse the voters’ list and institute safeguards in the ballots and for the voters’ will to be protected;

[NOTE: COMELEC says that with their Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) they were able to remove 73,000 double registrants and 16,000 bogus identities. But biometrics doesn’t end at the registration of voters. We do not have a double biometrics system that checks/verifies/validates the fingerprint of the registered voter to the one who gets the ballot and submits the ballot. Anyone can just fill up the ballot. Also, as pointed out by a governor in Maguindanao (you may verify this in the Transcript of the Marawi Public Hearing done by Senate last May 19, 2010) a municipality with only 500 voters has 20,000 voters in the COMELEC list. Imagine the 19,500 ghost voters? This is definitely a slap to what they say as democratic process. How can there be democracy when more than half of the voters are ghost? We demand that there should be a general registration and a double biometrics system first before another sham election.]

c.   must give way to the peace process that is ongoing between the government and the Moro rebel groups to provide focus and imperatives to achieving sustainable peace.

[NOTE: Both the MILF and MNLF gave support to the call for postponement of ARMM election.]

If elections are to push through in August 2011, we will see the same ‘warlords’ dominating the scene. If we recall, the November 2009 massacre in Ampatuan, Maguindanao was election-related violence as those murdered were supposed to file certificates of candidacies for the Mangudadatus against the Ampatuans. Already incidence of violent crimes possibly related to election ‘preparations’ like kidnapping, arms procurement, etc are on the rise.

The May 2010 elections and the October 2010 barangay elections in the ARMM saw heightened violence and fraud that COMELEC needs to address first before elections are held again in ARMM. Such argument for postponement was recommended by the Parish-Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) and the Citizens Coalition for ARMM Electoral Reforms or C-CARE, an electoral watchdog supported by the International Foundation for Electoral System (IFES). Yet COMELEC has failed to act on such recommendations and now the ARMM elections will officially start by May 9, 2011 upon the filing of candidacy by prospective officials. The short period of time and the proven track record of COMELEC of ineptitude in poll preparations compel the need for postponement.

The History of ARMM Elections

Let us review when exactly is the date of ARMM election.

The first ARMM election was on February 12, 1990, by virtue of the Transitory Provision in RA 6734 that the election will be not earlier than 60 days or later than 90 days after the law has been ratified.

Section 1 of RA 7647 states that the date of ARMM election will on the second Monday after the Muslim Month of Ramadhan except on the second regular election which is on March 25, 1993.

In 1999, the Eidl Fitr was on February 20, 1996, and so by virtue of RA 7647, the ARMM election should be on March 4, 1996, the second Monday after Ramadhan. But RA 8176 moved it to September 9, 1996, the third ARMM election. RA 8176 was passed in less than 3 months before the scheduled election.

How about RA 8746 which changed the schedule of ARMM election four days before the election? The 1999 election was supposedly on March 8, 1999 (based on RA 8176) but the law was approved on March 4, 1999, four days before the scheduled election. RA 8746 moved the date of election to Sept 13, 1999.

How about another law, RA 8753, which moved the date of polls five days before the election? The supposedly September 13, 1999 election was moved to September 11, 2000 by virtue of RA 8753 which was passed on September 8, 1999.

Then ten days before the supposedly September 11, 2000 election, the date of ARMM election was moved again to May 14, 2001 (this time to coincide with the general election) under RA 8953. It was a certified urgent bill. It was filed on June 2, 2000; approved by the House on June 5, 2000; sent to the Senate on June 6, 2000; received by the Senate on June 14, 2000 before the Congress' sine die adjournment. Despite the insufficient time-frame according to opposition, both chambers agreed to form a ConCom on August 21. The ConCom released the report on August 22. On August 31, the bill was transmitted to the President who approved it on September 1, ten days before the date of election.

RA 9012 which was approved on February 14, 2001 changed again the date of election, supposedly May 14, 2001 to September 10, 2001.

Take note that more than a month since the passage of RA 9012, RA 9054 aka the Organic Act of ARMM lapsed into a law without the President's signature. This was the time of the so-called EDSA Dos where there was too much political instability in the country.

ARTICLE XVIII Transitory Provisions of RA 9054 provides that
SEC. 7 First Regular Elections. – The first regular elections of the Regional Governor, Regional Vice Governor and members of the regional legislative assembly under this Organic Act shall be held on the second Monday of September 2001.

It was specific, only for the first regular election. It did not state that the next elections will be three years thereafter. The supposedly September 10, 2001 election was moved to November 25, 2001 by virtue of RA 9140. November 25, 2001 was the fourth ARMM election and the first ARMM election under the NEW Organic Act RA 9054.

Then came RA 9333 which changed the date of ARMM election to the second Monday of August. The August 8, 2005 and August 11, 2008 elections, the fifth and sixth ARMM elections respectively (or the second and third ARMM election based on the new Organic Act), were based on RA 9333. Now, RA 9333 is being questioned at the SC for being unconstitutional. Even the August 8, 2011 election is based on RA 9333. What happens if SC declares it unconstitutional? When is the date of ARMM election? What SB 2756 and HB 4146 are amending is RA 9333 not the Organic Act, RA 9054.

As to the bill sitting before the committee of Sen. Marcos, there is clearly time based on the precedents. Let's hold on to our seats and start counting the days to the passage of the bill into a law. :)

QUICK Info:
 >>6 elections in ARMM

• Feb 12, 1990
• March 25, 1993
• Sept 9, 1996
• Nov 25, 2001
• Aug 8, 2005
• Aug 11, 2008

>>8 postponements: RAs 7647, 8176, 8746, 8753, 8953, 9012, 9140, and 9333
>>All 6 elected RGs (and RVGs) are under the same party, LAKAS-UMCD.