Official Stand of the AdMU Students Calling for the Impeachment of Tancangco

[jair]

Sanggunian ng mga Mag-aaral ng Ateneo
Loyola Schools, Ateneo de Manila University
Stand No. 001
May 20, 2002

The Stand of the Ateneo de Manila University Students Calling For
The Impeachment of COMELEC Commissioner Luzviminda G. Tancangco

We the students of the Ateneo de Manila University, in response to the issues and controversies concerning the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), call for the impeachment of COMELEC Commissioner Luzviminda G. Tangcangco.

As students deeply concerned with the present situation and most of all, the future of our country, we are very much aware of the importance and essentiality of the COMELEC in ensuring a fair and unbiased election. We understand that its failure to accomplish its mandated tasks will ultimately lead to the collapse of leadership and downfall of our nation.

We are troubled by the current condition of the COMELEC and deeply disturbed that no less than one of its commissioners is a major contributor to its failure.

In the four years that Luzviminda Tangcangco has served as COMELEC commissioner, her performance has been constantly questioned and her methods criticized. Recently, allegations of graft, corruption and betrayal of public trust have been brought up against her and to each of these claims she has failed to argue her own defense or to even offer a reasonable explanation for her actions.

A public officer must at all times be accountable to the people, to serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency (Art XI, Sec. 1, Philippine Constitution). We believe that the commissioner has acted with recklessness and disrespect to her own position by consistently violating the rules that bind such an officer. We believe that the commissioner has run her office with much inefficiency and ineffectiveness, grossly misusing the resources allocated for the COMELEC, impeding its performance and hindering its progress. Most of all, we believe that the commissioner has placed her own interest over what is beneficial to the country.

The students of the Ateneo de Manila University value student participation in nation building. We, the youth, cannot remain passive amidst the deterioration of one of the most integral systems of our democracy. As Ateneans called to social concern and action, we believe that maintaining the status quo is unacceptable. The elections must be improved and the best men and women must spearhead this improvement. We feel that Luzviminda Tangcangco is not one of them.

Therefore, we urge the Congress to pursue the impeachment of the commissioner. We appeal to each and every citizen of the Philippines to support this cause.

[rabbaddal]

I have but a few questions re. this call from the Ateneo students for the impeachment of Comm. Tancangco:

Are the Ateneo students aware of all the facts re. this issue? Have these facts and the corresponding evidence been clearly and concisely communicated to the students through various means such as posters along "EDSA Walk"? I haven't been around the Ateneo lately so I wouldn't know.

I don't like Comm. Tancangco myself, but I also hope that the student body is not issuing an official statement against her w/o first being aware of all the pertinent facts. I've had a lot of experiences before wherein the SC made official statements on issues based only on what was sensationalized in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

[Oscar01]

True, rabbaddal, but this one is probably more informed. I remember that the Ateneo Sanggunian had a close working relationship with NAMFREL in the past elections.

As part of my UP Law education, I am presently an intern with the House Committee on Suffrage. I actually discussed the issue with representatives of NAMFREL before hearings and heard the situationers at the committee's Electoral Summit. Everything points to paralyzation due to infighting in COMELEC. I understand they already tried to bend over backwards to compromise on issues, but nothing worked.

The cited Constitutional provision simply reads, "A public office is a public trust..." and I guess a lot of people don't trust her. :)

Personally, having volunteered for NAMFREL in the past myself, I'd trust NAMFREL more than her...

[rabbaddal]

Originally posted by Oscar01
True, rabbaddal, but this one is probably more informed. I remember that the Ateneo Sanggunian had a close working relationship with NAMFREL in the past elections.



Very likely. But I do hope that the Sanggunian makes an effort to lay down the facts and evidence very clearly to the rest of the students. When I was still studying, the only thing they used to post along "EDSA Walk" were proclamations similar to the first post in this thread. I think Ateneans owe it to themselves to be as factually informed as possible.

[Oscar01]

But, that'd be a complete pipe dream, of course.

I'm sure I know that when the Sanggunian President was being impeached, few Ateneans could be bothered to dig for the real facts, and the defendant got away with libel and black propaganda as a defense.

[maria_jose]

the sanggunian made the stand because we have received a copy of the draft of the articles of impeachment. and NAMFREL was asking for our support. before making the stand, each sanggunian member was asked to research on the issue. everything that were found out by the individual reserches, were shared at a meeting. aside from these, the sanggu got a chance to have a dialogue with NAMFREL and the lawyer handling the case. we also tried to get some comments, opinions from the students, but since its summer and coz of the time limit, we weren't able to get any useful information or opinions from the students.

i'll try to find my copy of the articles of impeachment and post it here...

pls give the current sanggu a chance to do its job, before making any comments or criticisms, pls take time to take a look at what's really happening. we are working very hard and are trying to do what's best for the loyola schools student body. we do not mind being criticized, but at least get your facts straight first.

i am not the spokesperson or pr manager of the council. i just felt the need to defend the council.

thanks!

[Oscar01]

Ria,

You're preaching to the choir though because all the replies on this thread were by alumni. :)

Anyway, my True Atenean™ friend here was commenting on the Atenean psyche in general, not the Sanggunian work ethic.

How's a particular project that used to be the Apple of your eye?

[sum1]

pasensya na people. di talaga ako magaling sa law. anyway me question ako. oscar, naglalaw ka diba? pasagot naman tong tanong ko.

sabi dun sa letter ng ateneo:

We believe that the commissioner has run her office with much inefficiency and ineffectiveness, grossly misusing the resources allocated for the COMELEC, impeding its performance and hindering its progress. Most of all, we believe that the commissioner has placed her own interest over what is beneficial to the country.

what if hiningan ang Ateneo ng proof na she is grossly misusing....
e of course, you cannot really produce these documents, is the school/SC liable for libel or something?

thanks.

[rabbaddal]

maria_jose,

You must understand that when you post something, even the slightest comments, in a public forum, you are opening yourself to criticism of all sorts.

And when someone starts accusing or denouncing someone (in this case, Comm. Tangcangco) in a public forum, it is only fair that the person provide as much information as necessary to support his/her stand.

Granted, the sanggunian is working overtime to build its case against Comm. Tangcangco, and that it has enough facts up its sleeve to support its public announcement, it still has to communicate these supporting facts along with the public announcement.

You challenged the critics and pessimists to get their facts straight first. But isn't it the responsibility of whoever posts first to provide these supporting facts? It is the sanggunian, after all, who is making the accusation. I, for one, have gone through the anouncement over and over again, and the only part I see that bears a close resemblance to facts are:


In the four years that Luzviminda Tangcangco has served as COMELEC commissioner, her performance has been constantly questioned and her methods criticized. Recently, allegations of graft, corruption and betrayal of public trust have been brought up against her and to each of these claims she has failed to argue her own defense or to even offer a reasonable explanation for her actions.

A public officer must at all times be accountable to the people, to serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency (Art XI, Sec. 1, Philippine Constitution). We believe that the commissioner has acted with recklessness and disrespect to her own position by consistently violating the rules that bind such an officer. We believe that the commissioner has run her office with much inefficiency and ineffectiveness, grossly misusing the resources allocated for the COMELEC, impeding its performance and hindering its progress. Most of all, we believe that the commissioner has placed her own interest over what is beneficial to the country.

This portion of the announcement looks more like a conclusion than supporting facts. After all that has been said against Comm. Tangcangco, what exactly has she done for her to be accused of -

We believe that the commissioner has run her office with much inefficiency and ineffectiveness, grossly misusing the resources allocated for the COMELEC, impeding its performance and hindering its progress.

Was it because she has constantly delayed the COMELEC's computerization program? (my personal reason for wanting to see her kicked out)

Was it because those affiliated w/ her in the COMELEC have been using COMELEC resources for their personal use? (gardeners doubling as armed COMELEC bodyguards)

Was it because her hostile conduct towards her fellow commissioners has hindered the COMELEC's ability to work effectively?

What exactly is it?

If there are too many facts to lay down, why not just pick the 5 most compelling ones?

Yes, the saggunian should be given a chance to do its work, which is why it should have supported its announcement with the necessary facts before it exposed this same announcement to public scrutiny.

[Oscar01]

Originally posted by sum1
what if hiningan ang Ateneo ng proof na she is grossly misusing....
e of course, you cannot really produce these documents, is the school/SC liable for libel or something?
E di Inquirer ang mauuna diyan...

[maria_jose]

some facts that i remember were brought up & discussed:

1) commissioner tancangco incurred 44 unexcused absences

2) non-liquidation of funds, i'll try to get the exact amount but i think it amounts to sevral MILLIONS OF PESOS

3) delay of the modernization project

4) expressed bias against NAMFREL's accreditation

5) tancangco led the committee which awarded the modernization project contract to photokina for P6.5 billion, fully aware that the budget appropriated for the said project was only P1.2 billion

here are some of the things we considered:

IMPEACH COMELEC COMMISSIONER LUZVIMINDA TANCANGCO
1. Why impeach Comelec Commissioner Luzviminda Tancangco?
Civil society is pushing for the impeachment of Commissioner Luzviminda Tancangco of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on the following charges:
a. Failure to implement Republic Act 8436 otherwise known as the Election Modernization Law. This law is mandating Comelec "to use an automated system on the May 11, 1998 national or local elections and in subsequent national and local electoral exercises, providing funds therefor and for
other purposes."
Tancangco assumed position as a commissioner in July 1998 and as chair of the Modernization Committee in February 1999 or three years before the May 14, 2001 elections. She has been tasked to head Comelec's modernization program. Her violation of RA 8436 on the May 14 elections resulted in traditional election frauds, which could have been prevented or minimized by implementing the modernization program.

b. Refusal, failure to attend Comelec en banc meetings especially those concerning registration of new voters. These absences span the terms of then Comelec Chair Harriet Demetriou and incumbent Chair Alfredo Benipayo.
From January to September 2001, Tancangco had 43 unexcused absences out of a total 85 meetings.
As Tancangco herself admitted to Senator Edgardo Angara in a Senate hearing, these absences were deliberate.
Her frequent nonattendance derailed a significant part of Comelec's operations: quorum was not obtained in 30 of those meetings; and 14 occurred just before the May 14, 2001 elections' a critical period where key decisions have to be made.

2. What was the major implication of the failure to implement RA 8436?
The Board of Election Inspectors had no choice but to adopt the old manual system of elections resulting in inefficiency and inaccuracy of the election process.

3. Why do we need to modernize the electoral process?
Modernization will make the electoral process efficient by speeding up the counting and canvassing of results. It will eliminate or at least minimize fraud.

4. What was Tancangco's defense on these accusations?
Tancangco attributed the failure of the computerization to the shelving of her projects: Precinct Mapping Project, Voters' Registration and Identification System (VRIS), and the Automated Counting and Consolidation of Results System (ACCORS).

5. What is Precinct Mapping Project and why did the Comelec fail
to accomplish this?
The objective of the Precinct Mapping Project was to cleanse voters' registration records. There is no budget for this. In reality,
house-to-house verification of voters could be done with the help of political parties, NGOs, civil society organizations and barangay
officials as mandated by RA 8189.
As of April 2001, however, less than one third of the total precincts had been mapped and of these, 3.3% of the submitted maps was considered in order. This means that out of 230,000 precincts that should have been mapped, only 72,337 were completed and of these, only 2,389 were considered to be in order. Meanwhile, 56% of the total project cost of P500 million had already been disbursed, not to mention the several million peso cash advances - a clear indication of financial mismanagement. These disbursements were not even
authorized. The project that should have been carried out as early as 1999 was implemented only in 2001, a few months before the May 2001 election. Why? Quoting economic expert Winnie Monsod: "examining her actions and statements, it is not difficult to come up with an answer - because she does not want to (implement the modernization)." Former chair of the House
Committee on Electoral Reforms Ding Tanjuatco also remarked that her fixation for voters identification and dislike for automation were right on the money.
Because of the incomplete results of the precinct mapping project, the 1998 Computerized Voters' List was used instead.
Precinct mapping is a prerequisite for the VRIS.

6. What is VRIS?
VRIS or Voters' Registration and Identification System is the most
controversial among Tancangco's projects. VRIS aimed to update the 1998 Computerized Voters' List (CVL) and provide voters with an ID. The goal of the project was to prevent vote buying or vote selling, illegal proxy voting, dagdag-bawas and eliminate flying voters.

7. Why was VRIS not implemented?
Despite the original Comelec budget of only P1.2 billion (which was the entire budget for modernization), the VRIS project was awarded to Photokina Marketing Corporation at a staggering amount of P6.5 billion. Fully aware that an approved government estimate (of the budget) had to be obtained first, Tancangco proceeded to award the project at a cost way beyond what the commission could afford. Because of this, the project was shelved.

8. What is ACCORS and why was it not implemented?
ACCORS or Automated Counting and Consolidation of Results System targeted the automation of canvassing and consolidation of election results. Tancangco's modernization project, according to Atty. Caridad Lutero of Comelec had been "approved in principle but had not been fully passed as a
policy". Technically, this project had not been approved.
Despite that, Tancangco still conducted a bidding for the project. But then, since the bids tendered were clustered at P750 million and the budget was only P500 million, ACCORS was shelved due to failure of bidding.

9. Instead of filing impeachment charges, why not just remove
Tancangco from the post?
Unfortunately, since Tancangco had been appointed for the position, the law states that only impeachment could remove her from the post.

10. If this is so, why not impeach all the commissioners including
Comelec chair Alfredo Benipayo?
Tancangco, being the head of the Committee on Modernization during the May 2001 election holds the greatest culpability in the failure to implement the modernization law. Still according to economic expert Winnie Monsod, she was designated "as the signatory for all expenditures of the Modernization Project including necessary actions/ programs for the enhancement thereof, regardless of the amount." She was the over-all
in-charge of the project and not Benipayo. Tancangco's statement that it was Benipayo who caused the trouble in
Comelec negates with the fact that even before Benipayo, there had already been conflicts between her and then Comelec Harriet Demetriou, regarding the non-awarding of the controversial VRIS contract.
If not for the late implementation and heavily incomplete results of the Precinct Mapping Project, the computerization would have been adopted. The law clearly states that Comelec should have been 100% computerized in time for the 2001 election - and Tancangco should have been responsible for it.

Benipayo now chairs the modernization committee. But until this time, Tancangco has not shown initiative to turn over the modernization documents to Benipayo.

From: NSSA
Sources: Philippine Daily Inquirer, various issues
National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel)

[maria_jose]

double post

[Oscar01]

Playing devil's advocate...

How would you answer someone who perceives that Tancangco is being singled out, and that all this is just an extension of the factionalism in COMELEC at present?

[maria_jose]

PEOPLE Vs. TANCANGCO

Namfrel National Secretariat
(Atty. Jose A. Bernas – 892.1775 / 812.8994 / 892.7470; Telibert C. Laoc – 631.0078 / 631.0141 / 747.9066)

National Secretariat of Social Action, Justice and Peace (NASSA – CBCP) (Eero Brillantes – 527.4146 to 48)


(For this press statement, you may contact the office of Rep. Monico Puentevella at 931.5479)

PRESS STATEMENT
May 23, 2002

“LET US IMPEACH HER IMMEDIATELY”

Rep. Monico O. Puentevella of the lone district of Bacolod City started the ball rolling at the lower House on the impeachment case against Comelec commissioner Luzviminda Tancangco. In a privilege speech yesterday, May 22, 2002, Puentevella enumerated the following ten issues against Tancangco.
Excerpts:

“1. Tancangco is fixated on registration of voters, rather than on improving the conduct and accuracy of the counting of votes…(which) has proven to be vulnerable to small-scale dagdag-bawas at precincts, and large-scale dagdag-bawas at the municipal and provincial canvassing levels…

“2. Tancangco, as chair of the Comelec Modernization Committee, failed to cause the Comelec to automate the counting of votes during the May 14, 2001 elections violating Republic Act 8436 (The Election Automation Law of 1997). She was appointed commissioner…33 months before the May 2001 elections…

“3. She showed an unjustified bias for the Voters Registration and Identification System (VRIS) project by causing the issuance of a Notice of Award to Photokina for the amount of P6.5 billion even if Comelec only had a budget of P1.2 billion. In contrast, she caused the Comelec to declare failure of bidding for the Automated Counting and Canvassing of Results System (ACCORS) because the budget was only P500 million and bids tendered were clustered at P750 million…

“4. She conducted the precinct-mapping project incurring wasteful expenses that could amount to P500 million as budgeted for the project, even if the expenses for the project are not authorized by law…moreover, the expenses for this project were taken from funds budgeted for equipment intended for automating the counting of elections…

“5. As sole signatory of the Comelec’s modernization program, Tancangco authorized the release of P41 million to non-bonded employees for the precinct-mapping project, while P56 million remain unaccounted for.

“6. For the precinct-mapping project, the Commission on Audit reported in November 2001 that P282 million of the total P500 million was spent to prepare 72,337 maps…Moreover, of the total submitted maps, only 3.3% were considered in order…

“7. In 1999, she caused the Comelec to acquire P46.4 million worth of Polaroid equipment (cameras and film) in order to take identification photographs for the ARMM elections, knowing fully well that Polaroid photographs fade and that there is no possible subsequent use for (the) cameras…

“8. She boycotted en banc sessions and incurred 44 unexcused absences from January 2001 to February 2002…In general, for government employees, this is sufficient ground for dismissal based on the administrative Code…

“9. She wrote and caused the promulgation of a resolution in a case entitled ‘Petition to Annul the Election Results in Precinct No. 26-A in Barangay Cawayan Kalaw, Marantao, Lanao del Sur,’ on June 30, 2001, which was not assigned to her, when Chairman Alfredo Benipayo, who as ponente of the case was assigned to write the Decision, was abroad on official business.

“10. On Tancangco’s initiative, along with commissioners Lantion, Sadain, and Javier, attempted to suspend the 26 November 2001 ARMM elections in Sulu by circulating an undated Resolution on the eve of the elections even if no actual en banc Commission meeting was called or convened to pass the
resolution. Aside from the procedural defects, the said Resolution was unauthorized and had absolutely no basis under the law.”

Citing Article IX Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution -- “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and live modest lives” -- Puentevella encouraged his fellow members of the House of Representatives to “resolve this problem (in the Comelec) once and for all. Let us impeach her immediately.” “We cannot turn a blind eye to her
failures.”

Early in his speech, Puentevella made reference to media reports about the squabbling in the Comelec, and chided colleagues in the House and Senate who “have merely suggested (that) Comelec commissioner Benipayo and Tancangco should compromise, but without suggesting what is to be compromised, or more importantly focusing on what the conflict is really all about.” Puentevella added: “We are left with the general impression that the Comelec leaders are merely squabbling over personal differences. In the process, we failed to highlight and inform our citizens about the fundamentally wrong actions
taken at the Comelec, the questions and accusations raised about
commissioner Tancangco and its consequences on the way we govern.”

Since the official start of its signature campaign on May 2, 2002, the People Vs. Tancangco movement has already received 120 signatures of organizations, to the Charge Sheet on the Tancangco impeachment. They include local and overseas organizations from different sectors of society -- business, youth, religious, civil society, urban poor, women, and professionals, like: National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel), National Secretariat of Social Action, Justice and Peace (NASSA –
CBCP), Konsyensyang Pilipino, Kongreso ng Mamamayang Pilipino (Kompil), Concerned Women of the Philippines, AWARE, Katotohanan, Makati Business Club, Cebu Business Club, National Council of Churches of the Philippines, Akbayan, Concerned Citizens of Abra for Good Government, Information
Technology Foundation of the Philippines, Ranao Good Government and Free Election Reform Movement, Youth Reform Movement for Free Elections, Maranao Professional League, Lanao del Sur Federation of Youth Groups, Association
of Women Religious in the Archdiocese of Manila, Citizens’ National Network Against Poverty and Corruption, Teresa Makabayan, Kilosbayan, COPA, Institute for the Urban Poor, Damayan ng mga Maralitang Pilipinong Api (DAMPA), Philippine Anti-Graft Crusaders, Inc., Alliance for Progressive
Labor, International Coalition on Overseas Filipinos Voting Rights, Friends of Overseas Filipinos, Inc. (the Netherlands), Overseas Filipinos Worldnet Foundation, Inc., Kaibigan ng OCWs, Inc., Cebuano-Speaking Organization in Saudi Arabia, Empowering Civic Participation in Governance, Inc., Federation of Lasallian Institutions, Ateneo de Davao University, Simbahang Lingkod ng
Bayan, Sanggunian ng mga Mag-Aaral ng Ateneo, Manindigan, Diocesan Public Affairs Apostolate, Pagbabago@Pilipinas, eLagda-Riyadh, eLagda-Vancouver, Christian Family Movement, Makati NGO Network, among many others.

In the show “Online” last night, hosted by Gene Orejana at the ANC cable channel, an overwhelming 89% of viewers who sent in their votes to the show's SMS poll favored that Tancangco be impeached.

[maria_jose]

here is another article we received and took note of regarding the the Commissioner Tancangco Issue...

MEMORANDUM OF FACTS AND LAW

To: CMM

From: PFB, ETK, ALS

Re: Remedies Regarding the COMELEC

Date: 23 APRIL 2002
__________________________________________________

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On August 5, 1998, Luzviminda G. Tancangco was appointed by then President Joseph Estrada to the post of Commissioner of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to serve until February 15, 2005. Commissioner Tancangco would later serve in the Modernization Committee of the COMELEC to replace Commissioner Harriet O. Demetriou.
Meanwhile, Ralph C. Lantion, Rufino S.B. Javier, and Mehol K. Sadain were also appointed by former President Estrada on January 6, 2000, March 3, 2000 and July 17, 2000, respectively.
On September 9, 1999, the Pre-qualification, Bids and Evaluation Committee (PBEC)/Pre-qualifications, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), commenced the pre-qualification process for the bidding for the Voter’s Registration and Identification System (VRIS) project.
On February 10, 2000, the COMELEC en banc promulgated Resolution No. 00-0315 approving the VRIS Project pursuant to the mandate of Republic Act No. 8189 (1996) otherwise known as the "Voter's Registration Act of 1996" which provides, among others, for the modernization and computerization of the voters' registration list and the appropriation of funds therefor, the purpose of which is to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete permanent and updated list of voters.
Later, on September 26, 2000, the pre-qualification process for the VRIS was concluded when the COMELEC confirmed the result of the said bidding and affirmed that PHOTOKINA MARKETING CORPORATION and its partners have the required technological and financial capability to carry out the VRIS project. Accordingly, a Notice of Award was issued to PHOTOKINA for the supply, delivery, and installation of software, hardware system integration, testing and implementation of the VRIS Project. in its Resolution No. 3252 dated September 28, 2000, the COMELEC en banc affirmed the Notice of Award of the VRIS Project to PHOTOKINA.
Sometime in December 2000, however, then COMELEC Chairman Harriet O. Demetriou issued a Memorandum dated December 8, 2000 expressing her objections to the contract formalized by the parties. Commissioner Sadain submitted the latest draft of the formal contract on December 14, 2000 for COMELEC's review and approval but this was not favorably acted upon until the end of the term of Chairman Demetriou and commissioners Julio F. Desamito and Teresita Dy-Lliaco on February 2, 2001.
Meanwhile, on January 20, 2001, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was installed as the new President of the Philippines after President Joseph E. Estrada was removed in a popular uprising. Thus, following the expiration of the term of COMELEC Chairman Demetriou on February 15, 2001, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointed Resurreccion Z. Borra Commissioner on February 16, 2001. To fill similar vacancies, the President likewise appointed Alfredo L. Benipayo on February 19, 2001, and finally, Florentino A. Tuason, Jr. on February 21, 2001.
Thus, upon assumption of the new chairman, Alfredo L. Benipayo and Commissioners Tuason and Borra, PHOTOKINA sent letters for the consideration and approval of the draft formal contract in the agenda of the next COMELEC en banc meetings but to no avail. Instead of complying with Resolution No. 00-0315 and Resolution No. 3252 as amended, Chairman Benipayo issued several press releases and other public statements, unilaterally and without authorization from the COMELEC en banc, announcing that the VRIS Project had already been scrapped, dropped, junked or set aside and a new modernization project will be implemented. Chairman Banipayo claimed that the contract was illegal and null and void, as the amounts agreed upon (PhP 6.5 M) were not available nor appropriated.
On October 31, 2001, PHOTOKINA petitioned the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 215, to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to compel the COMELEC to honor its contract upon determination of the legality of the agreement.
In the same proceeding, Commissioners Tancangco, Javier, Lantion, and Sadain filed a manifestation that “we have no objection to the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for the continuation of the negotiation with Petitioner (PHOTOKINA) leading to the formalization and execution of the subject VRIS contract, if warranted.?
This TRO, however, was not granted by the court in Special Civil Action No. Q-01-45405. The case went on to litigation before the same court.
On February 8, 2001, Commissioner Tancangco issued a position paper regarding the petition for accreditation of the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL), wherein the Commissioner voiced out her disapproval of the organization. Later, on March 1, 2001, NAMFREL filed a 47-page petition for prohibition and certiorari asking the Supreme Court to inhibit Commissioner Tancangco from deliberating on the petition for accreditation of NAMFREL, citing her marked bias against the organization.
However, on April 5, 2001, the COMELEC nonetheless accredited the NAMFREL through a resolution penned by Commissioner Sadain.
Meanwhile, on March 7, 2001, reports that Commissioner Tancangco misused PhP 500 million earmarked for the COMELEC’s precinct mapping project intended to be used for the May 14, 2001 local and national elections began to surface. This mapping was in connection with the modernization program of the COMELEC.
Meanwhile, on May 14, 2001, local and national elections took place. These elections were marked by confusion and lack of coordination, due in part to the lack of coordination between and among the working groups of certain committees, as well as the lack of harmony among the top officials of the COMELEC, who are evidently not on good terms with each other.
Confusion also resulted when Commissioner Tancangco attempted to change the traditional procedure of the canvassing of votes that was supposed to start on May 16 at the Philippine International Convention Center. She raised the issue on Sunday night, just hours before the start of the mid-term elections, proposing to use the 234,000 certificates of votes counted for the canvassing instead of the 102 certificates of canvass. However, her proposal was not supported by three commissioners and the Chair; Tancangco's last minute amendment was defeated.
This was therefore a perfect example of the dysfunctional working relationship among the top officials of the COMELEC that was affecting the work the agency. At a time when the COMELEC should have been concluding its preparations for the next day's polls, Tancangco's eleventh-hour proposal caused tempers to flare, and distracted the Commission from the job at hand.
As a result of this confusion and disarray, a call was made by Atty. Haydee Yorac, a former member of the COMELEC who was once its acting chairman, for the resignation of the Commissioners of the COMELEC. And from other quarters has come the demand that some COMELEC members be impeached, among other alleged crimes against the electoral process. The Alliance of Concerned Teachers called Monday's polls the "worst elections ever" and the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines scored the COMELEC for the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters due to election irregularities.
On May 21, 2001, Commissioner Tancangco was relieved as head of the COMELEC modernization program by Chairman Benipayo. The NAMFREL likewise threatened to file impeachment proceedings against Commissioner Tancangco for her failure to implement the COMELEC’s modernization program.
Meanwhile, on November 20, 2001, the COMELEC was marred by a violent killing when Director Velma J. Cinco was murdered in a brutal attack by unknown assailants, and for unknown reasons. Many speculate that this was in connection with her appointment as Director IV of the COMELEC’s Education and Information Department.
On November 26, 2001, an plebiscite was held in the Autonomous Region of Muslin Mindanao (ARMM) to determine which other provinces will be included in the autonomous region. Commissioner Tancangco issued a resolution hours before the scheduled polls calling-off elections in eleven towns in Jolo, Sulu, due to alleged massive disenfranchisement resulting from last minute regrouping of polling precincts. This resolution, not made en banc, was later on overturned by Chairman Benipayo as being ultra vires and in violation of COMELEC rules. However, the repealed resolution caused confusion among election supervisors in the area.
As a consequence, NAMFREL again considered the filing of impeachment complaints against Commissioner Tancangco, which was supported by Commissioner Borra.
On January 8, 2002, the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, branch 215, in the sala of Judge Luisa Quijano-Padilla, upheld the contract made between the COMELEC and PHOTOKINA on September 1999, and compelled the former to honor and finalize the deal with the PHOTOKINA-led consortium. In a seven-page resolution, the judge said the COMELEC had yet to "adduce evidence to prove the invalidity of the award to (Photokina)" compelling the court to uphold the notice of award to the firm.
On February 22, 2002, the COMELEC filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set-aside the ruling of Judge Quijano-Padilla. In this connection, Commissioners Tancangco, Javier, Lantion, and Sadain averred that the said petition for certiorari and prohibition was neither known to nor authorized by the commission en banc, and did not represent the COMELEC's official stand on the controversial VRIS program.
The said petition is presently pending in the Supreme Court.
On March 12, 2002, the leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives called the COMELEC Commissioners to a meeting with the aim of resolving differences within the Commission. This, however, proved futile, when Commissioner Tancangco refused to even shake hands with the COMELEC Chairman.
Meanwhile, on March 13, 2000, the appointments of Commissioners Benipayo, Borra and Tuazon were not considered by the Commission on Appointments (COA) for lack of sufficient time. This was following a supposed smear campaign against the Chairman which included allegations of graft, unexplained wealth, and sexual misconduct. Senate President Franklin Drilon, ex-officio chairman of the COA, stressed that this was the first time in the COMELEC’s history that four commissioners?Tancangco, Javier, Lantion, and Sadain?opposed the confirmation of their Chairman, Benipayo, and two other commissioners?Borra and Tuason Jr.?for alleged violation of the Constitution and the time-honored constitutional principle of COMELEC collegiality. This situation reflects the kind of a mess the COMELEC finds itself in today, Drilon said, adding that the COMELEC infighting is now seriously affecting the modernization program of COMELEC, particularly the computerization program for the 2004 presidential elections.
On March 14, 2002, in light of the non-action of the COA, the Commissioners were reappointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo who, according to Presidential spokesman and Press Secretary Rigoberto Tiglao, remains confident that the Commissioners will successfully hurdle the Commission on Appointments.
On April 12, 2002, Presidential Spokesman and Press Secretary Rigoberto Tiglao denied that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has appointed, or will appoint, Metro Manila Development Authority head Benjamin Abalos as the new chief of the COMELEC, to replace Chairman Alfredo L. Benipayo.

II. RECOMMENDED ACTION

1.) Legal Remedies.

Article XI Sec. 2 of the Constitution
Legal Action is limited considering that the COMELEC Commisioners can be removed from office only via impeachment as dictated by the constitution (Article XI Sec. 2) . The Case of In Re: Gonzales further elucidates this point by saying that ?. . .a public officer, during his incumbency, can not be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan or any other court with any offense which carries with it the penalty of removal from office, or any penalty service which would amount to removal from office? Before any action, criminal or civil maybe filed against a COMELEC Commissioner, said person must first be successfully impeached.
The Law puts the people mentioned on Article XI Sec. 2 into a sound position, allowing only the threat of impeachment to affect their seat in power. Such protection from criminal, civil or administrative actions is sound Philippine doctrine in order to protect said people from undue harassment. Unfortunately, in this case, such protection effectively perpetuates erring officials in power.
Since Case law is open to reconsideration, the doctrine laid down in In Re: Gonzales may be put into question. However, assuming that impeachment is not the sole remedy, the law creates no such violation which covers the inaction and petty bickering of the commissioners under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code.
The sole legal remedy guaranteed by the Constitution is impeachment. Given the long and arduous procedure for it to even get started, it may not be feasible. Unfortunately, it is the only remedy granted by the constitution.

2.) Mass Action/Demonstration

Mobilization to Ask for Resignation
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, Art. III, Sec.4, provides the following,

No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

On this point is the case of U.S. v. Apurado, [7 Phil 422, (1907)]. This case involved a spontaneous gathering of some five hundred men to demand the ouster of certain municipal officers. No permit was involved. But the significant point was that, in a prosecution for sedition, the Court, invoking the right of assembly and petition, was willing to allow a certain amount of disorder.
Quoted from the decision is the following:

It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of such disorderly conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances would become a delusion and a snare and the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable manner would expose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising.

There is likewise the case of Ruiz v.Gordon, G.R. 65695, December 19, 1983. Again, quoted from the case is the following:

Here, there is relevance to a recital of such facts. It appears that the guidelines set forth in the extended opinion in the aforesaid J.B.L. Reyes decision as to the role of the judiciary in petitions for permits to hold peaceable assemblies may have to be supplemented. This is how the J.B.L. Reyes opinion reads on this point: "The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place. If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is required. Such application should be filed well ahead in time to enable the public official concerned to appraise whether there may be valid objections to the grant of the permit or to its grant but at another public place. It is an indispensable condition to such refusal or modification that the clear and present danger test be the standard for the decision reached. If he is of the view that there is such an imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, the applicants must be heard on the matter. Thereafter, his decision, whether favorable or adverse, must be transmitted to them at the earliest opportunity. Thus if so minded, they can have recourse to the proper judicial authority. Free speech and peaceable assembly, along with the other intellectual freedoms, are highly ranked in our scheme of constitutional values. It cannot be too strongly stressed that on the judiciary, ?even more so than on the other departments ?rests the grave and delicate responsibility of assuring respect for and deference to such preferred rights. No verbal formula, no sanctifying phrase can, of course, dispense with what has been so felicitously termed by Justice Holmes 'as the sovereign prerogative of judgment.' Nonetheless, the presumption must be to incline the weight of the scales of justice on the side of such rights, enjoying as they do precedence and primacy. Clearly then, to the extent that there may be inconsistencies between this resolution and that of Navarro v. Villegas, that case is pro tanto modified. So it was made clear in the original resolution of October 25, 1983." (italics ours)

Justice Teehankee concurs in the following wise:

The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court reaffirms and reproduces the guidelines in the J.B.L. Reyes vs. Bagatsing case (G.R. No. 65366, November 9, 1983) for the guidance of applicants for permit to hold peaceful assemblies in public places and of the licensing authorities, generally the city or town mayors. It stresses that the right to peacefully assemble, speak out freely and petition the government for redress of grievances should be accorded the utmost deference and respect and is not to be limited, much less denied, except under the clear and present danger standard, i.e. there must be a clear showing of the "danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health, or any other legitimate public interest ?a substantive evil that the State has a right to prevent (at paragraph 1).

[maria_jose]

Originally posted by Oscar01
Playing devil's advocate...

How would you answer someone who perceives that Tancangco is being singled out, and that all this is just an extension of the factionalism in COMELEC at present?

Tancangco was the one who incurred 44 (read: FORTY-FOUR, 40+4, 11 X 4) UNEXCUSED ABSENCES

Tancangco was the commissioner who showed bias against NAMFREL

Tancangco boycotted en banc sessions of the COMELEC from January 2001 to February 2002

for more info on why tancangco should be impeached, read the articles i posted...

why not the other commissioners too? because we do not have enough susbtantial evidence to impeach them. if they incusrred impeachable offenses, then by all means let us impeach them too! these are my opinions only.

[Oscar01]

Ria,

Line breaks...

The second cut-and-paste was strange though... the latter half of it talks about what people already did during Erap's impeachment trial. :)