THE political climate in the past two weeks has been colorful.
Colorful in the literal sense was the barangay elections, where one can see colorful posters with sizes bigger than the candidates for congressional and local council positions.
Our barangay elections here in Davao has also been much colorful. For instance, there was a riot among supporters of rival candidates in Barangay 23-C. A group of candidates in Barangay 12-B had posters that had a photoshopped image of Mayor Inday Sara Duterte posing with them. The image of Mayor Sara was cut off later from these posters (I still don't have the reasons why).
A story by Mick Basa noted how the barangay elections here have been "colored" with such open endorsements from local officials. Although it is prohibited under Comelec rules, non-partisanship in barangay elections are spotted in this city.
But this is also happening in other places, where barangay elections have also served as proxy battles of rival local politicians securing their turf and influence for the 2019 local elections. The fact that there are reports of money as low as 20 pesos per head being distributed to constituents show that elections is a money game as well.
How important are barangay and SK officials anyway? Barangay functionaries do help in identifying the needs of a community -- from drainage to proper roads to livelihood projects and services. But such functions have been "colored" by local politics to some certain extent. With projects that sometimes are tied up to a Congressman, Councilor, Mayor or Vice-Mayor, one wonders if these projects are gifts from politicians or part of public services that have to be asserted by constituents.
The other colorful event this past week is the ouster of Supreme Court Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno. There have been many online posts and statements, two-cents worth to two-pages long arguments on this matter. I admit I may not be a legal expert, but I would like to raise these points
Sereno wasn't impeached. She was removed through a quo warranto petition.
What's the difference between the two? An impeachment ensures that the accused is given her day on court that is the Senate impeachment tribunal to prove her innocence. The quo warranto (as far as I can interpret) judges that the official is not capable to lead or assume that office.
Was Sereno guilty of the charge of non-disclosure of her assets and income? If only the impeachment procedure took place in the Senate, she could have her day to present her side of the story. Sereno's side argued that judicial rulings have given consideration to long-serving public employees who have difficulty to retrieve all their SALNs.
130 legal academicians and experts said her removal was un-constitutional. So it is eight justices versus 130 legal experts. There are also six other fellow justices who oppose the ruling. Maybe the case could have been won by "majority wins".
Why do we fuss on this matter anyway? Because we believe in Duterte's mantra of ridding corruption? But do we do it in that rapid finger pointing style? Or do we give the accuse a day in court? That is the argument of those who uphold the Constitution and the basic freedoms and democracy in our country.
To note, so far of the more than 10 officials fired by Duterte, not one has been charged in court. So how do we know who is guilty? And if guilty, how do we recover illegally amassed wealth?
Some lawyers and observers say the issue on Sereno is political. It is "weather-weather". You fall out of favor from the president and you get the boot. Democracy somehow is just the same as before.
tyvelez@gmail.com