Making a difference

For those who are not interested in voting today, saying they don’t know any of the candidates anyway, it’s good to remember the role played by barangay officials in our day-to-day lives.

Being the smallest unit of government, the barangay is supposed to lead the way in the efficient delivery of basic services. They are at the forefront of efficient garbage collection and are supposed to help the police in maintaining peace and order.

They are mandated by law to prevent squatting from the outset and assist victims of domestic violence. Ideally, they should help in encouraging livelihood and economic activities in the barangay. During emergencies, they are supposed to help in making the response speedy, efficient and equitable.

 Over the years, unfortunately, too many barangay officials have become preoccupied with their authority to raise their own funds. This can be in the form of fees for various services, tolls on barangay roads and bridges, business permits and rent for agricultural equipment.

The result has been a thick tangle of red tape in many areas, with onerous fees collected at every unnecessary step of business processing. All enterprises in this country, from micro to large, have complained of red tape at the barangay level, often worsened by the injection of politics into the approval process.

This red tape has been one of the disincentives cited by public utility operators and foreign investors, including those considering big-ticket projects. It is one of the reasons why 10-minute processing of business permits will never happen in this country, even for ambulant fishball vendors.

The barangay fund-raising can be as opaque as the utilization of confidential and intelligence funds. In many parts of Metro Manila, for example, barangays collect parking fees without issuing official receipts. The rates are higher than in top shopping malls. In busy Divisoria and the tourist destination of Intramuros, the rates can go as high as P100 per vehicle. These funds go directly to the pockets of barangay officials, with zero auditing. Why is this allowed?

Instead of trying to win brownie points with barangay officials for their support during elections by proposing endless term extensions through unconstitutional poll postponements, lawmakers should review the local government code to rationalize the powers particularly on fund-raising given to barangays.

As for the useless youth councils, the sooner the system is abolished, the better for national finances.

*      *      *

Today is supposed to be judgment day for the village and youth council officials who have unduly enjoyed term extensions since 2016 thanks to their political patrons in Congress and Malacañang. 

Hundreds of barangay officials faced complaints for anomalous distribution of cash aid or ayuda at the height of the COVID-19 lockdowns, including favoritism among beneficiaries and pocketing of the funds. Over 100 officials were eventually slapped with criminal charges.

In addition, during the previous administration, barangay officials, most of them captains, were indicted for drug-related offenses. Duterte raised the specter of drug dealers bankrolling the campaigns of barangay officials as one of the reasons for the first postponement of the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections (BSKE) in 2016.

 Today’s vote is supposed to give the electorate a chance to pave the way for meaningful change at the barangay level. How much change is possible, however, is uncertain.

 As of yesterday, there were reports from various parts of the country about vote buying for the BSKE, ranging from dole-outs of P50 to P100 (with more promised after the vote) and ayuda of 1,000 to P2,000, with health cards even bearing QR codes. The funds were reportedly given out in cash or through e-wallets. 

The punishment for vote buying is up to six years in prison plus permanent disqualification from public office and the loss of the right of suffrage. But can vote buying be stopped, when there are people willing to sell their votes, or even expect their votes to be bought?

When a vote is based on instant gratification of basic needs, incumbent officials using public resources obviously enjoy an edge.

*      *      *

 It’s simplistic to describe it as an uninformed vote. For those who live a hand-to-mouth existence, or something approaching this miserable state, any candidate providing relief ASAP for their woes is the informed choice.

 People who accept ayuda or other “gifts” from candidates are thinking of their needs – how these can be eased, and who is doing it best. 

 The situation is aggravated when the quality of education deteriorates. Undereducation and the physical and intellectual stunting caused by poverty and malnutrition also stunt the capability to think strategically for long-term self-interest.

This is a weakness of democracy in low-income states. The government of, for and by the people is anchored on the right of suffrage, exercised in “genuine periodic elections” – as described in the much-appreciated Supreme Court ruling that ended politicians’ use of poll postponements to thank their BSK operators through a term extension.

 Populism thrives in weak democracies, with fake news and disinformation easily embraced. The promise of elections to bring meaningful change is not realized.

 Acknowledging the economic needs of the Filipino masses, challengers of entrenched politicians have often admonished the people to take the money offered by any candidate, but to vote according to their conscience.

Vote buyers have tried to circumvent such advice by promising more to those who deliver the votes. The trick is to prevent anyone from verifying how any person voted. 

Despite the flawed system, giving up on elections will allow the vote buyers and rotten incumbents to rule the day. For whatever it’s worth, we can still try to make a difference with our vote.