THREE City Hall appointive officials seeking elective posts in the May polls have tendered their resignation this week.
Laurence Adube, former Community Affairs Division head and now member of the Peoples Law Enforcement Board; Ronald Perez, secretary to the mayor; and Peter Fianza, city administrator, have submitted their resignation following the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision that appointed officials seeking elective post should quit their government posts.
Adube has been with the City Government for 17 years, while Perez was with the mayor’s office for almost two years. Perez was also former legal officer of the city field office of the Department of the Interior and Local Government.
Fianza was first appointed during the term of Mayor Braulio Yaranon in 2005 and he continued to be city administrator when incumbent Mayor Reinaldo Bautista Jr., who then sat as acting mayor, re-appointed him. In 2007 elections, Bautista won and appointed Fianza again.
Adube, Perez and Fianza are all running for seats in the City Council.
Mayor Reinaldo Bautista Jr. said he will appoint a replacement for those who resigned.
Recently, the SC reversed its earlier ruling allowing appointed official to remain in their posts even with their filing of certificates of candidacy.
Around 20 high National Government officials will be affected by this decision of the SC.
The SC said appointed officials are deemed automatically resigned from their posts once they file their certificates of candidacy.
In the new ruling, the SC also gave weight to arguments in the motions for reconsideration filed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and the petition-in-intervention filed by Senator Mar Roxas, former senator Franklin Drilon, and congressional candidate Tom Apacible that the issue of whether the “deemed resigned” provisions violate the Constitution has already been ruled upon.
“The probable harm to society in permitting incumbent appointive officials to remain in office, even as they actively pursue elective posts, far outweighs the less likely evil of having arguably protected candidates blocked by the possible inhibitory effect of a potentially overly broad statute,” the decision read. “We cannot allow the tilting of our electoral playing field in their favor.”
The SC stated the assailed original decision failed to consider another threat - the danger of systematic abuse using the “powerful political machine” of the government. (With Sunnex)