Editorial: Pe’s maneuvering

EVERYONE, they say, is entitled to his or her own entertainment. That applies, obviously, to Cebu City Councilor Augustus Pe. Jr., who is transferring his residence to the city’s south district even if he has served three terms as councilor in the city’s north district.

Pe is banking on the supposed “gray area” in the constitutional provision on term limits and on our problematic electoral setup to be able to run for an unprecedented four successive terms as councilor. He is also has the support of his boss, Rep. Tomas Osmeña of the Bando Osmeña-Pundok Kauswagan (BOPK).

He is using a supposed opinion by Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Sixto Brillantes so he can his transfer of registration from the north to the south and run for another term as councilor. In that “opinion,” however, Brillantes merely talked about the process of transferring registration, not the nitty-gritty of term limits.

But let us leave the discussion legal gobbledygook to the lawyers. If by any chance Comelec accepts Pe’s certificate of candidacy, it will already be up to the electorate in the city’s south district to right a wrong that the councilor may end up perpetrating.

Which brings us to the old saying about there being no tyrants if there are no slaves.

Pe’s audacity is obviously borne partly by his lack of respect for the maturity and intellect of the city’s, specifically the south district’s, electorate. He must have considered the overwhelming win of the BOPK in the 2010 elections in the city in his assessment of his chances of winning in the south district after serving the north district for three terms.

He is of the belief that despite the activities or circus that the BOPK does, the city’s voters will still vote blindly for party candidates and make them win no matter what. Or that whatever Osmeña says, it will still be “bisag unsaon Osmeña gihapon” for the voters.

Will the city’s electorate prove Pe, Tomas and the BOPK correct in their assessment?

Will they vote blindly for Pe despite the obvious scheming to go around the constitutional provision on term limits? That’s something that can only be answered in May next year.