Another flawed bill

A disturbing trend in our society today is the increasing number of litigations. Records show that courts and government agencies vested with quasi-judicial functions are swamped with numerous civil, criminal, political, labor, administrative, and a potpourri of other cases arising from legal conflicts and clashes of rights.

Some say that this trend is a sign that Filipinos are becoming litigious and quarrelsome people. Others blame contentious lawyers whose numbers continue to grow every year as the bar exam results come out. If there are now more than 45,000 lawyers, there are as many number of opinions on any legal issue or as many number of loopholes that can be found on any law.

But Filipinos by nature do not just pick up a fight or plunge into legal disputes. Lawyers can not just form opinions and create loopholes in the various laws. Disputes and conflicting opinions about our existing laws will not arise if they are clear, concise, simple and direct to the point as to leave no room for varying interpretations. Something is really wrong or defective on the laws themselves. This is the more plausible and real reason behind the alarming increases in litigations.

And it is also the foremost indicator that our lawmakers are not doing their jobs properly and well. They are elected primarily to make laws for a just and peaceful society free from disorder and chaos, conflict and confusion. But with the kind of litigious society we have now, it is quite obvious that our lawmakers are pre-occupied with too much politics and other non-legislative matters rather than with performing their primary function.

It cannot be denied that several laws churned out by the legislative mill have “factory defects” either because they are constitutionally flawed, vague or designed to promote vested interests rather than the common good. To be sure there are now several defective bills pending in Congress that should be junked like the RH Bill. Others need to be thoroughly reviewed and properly corrected like the Magna Carta for Women.

Another “Magna Carta” urgently needing corrections and clarification is Senate Bill 3016 entitled “An Act Providing for a Magna Carta for Homeowners and for other Purposes” authored by Senators Biazon, Zubiri and Santiago.

Basically pursuant to SB 3016, the owners or purchasers of lots in subdivisions and villages, the awardees, beneficiaries, occupants or lessees in government socialized or economic housing or relocation projects and the informal settlers in the process of being accredited as beneficiaries in Community Mortgage and similar government programs collectively called “homeowners”, will be granted the freedom to join or not to join the “Homeowners Association” established in said villages or projects.

Immediately noticeable is the absurd and unfair situation created by the bill where the non-members of the homeowners association established in the village will be enjoying the same common areas maintained, and the same basic community services and facilities provided by homeowner’s association for its members even if they don’t pay the membership dues and comply with its rules and regulations. Indeed, it is physically impossible for the association to exclude and prevent the non-members from enjoying the same areas and facilities enjoyed by members since both are residents of the same village. A bill purportedly granting freedom to some should not be oppressive to others. Otherwise it violates the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is true that the bill also requires the non-member homeowners to pay reasonable fees and charges for the use and enjoyment of the common areas and the basic services and facilities provided by the association. What is “reasonable” however is too broad and indefinite and may precisely be the source of litigation especially when the bill does not even specify who shall determine the “reasonableness” of the fees and charges. Maybe the bill would have been less objectionable if the fees and charges are fixed at not less than the amount of the fees, dues and special assessments paid by the members. In other words, non-membership in the association should only mean the non-enjoyment of the rights given to members like the right to inspect the books, to vote and be voted for as directors and officers, to participate in the meetings, elections and referenda; but not the duty to pay the dues and assessments as well as to obey the rules and regulations of the association in the use and enjoyment of the common areas and facilities.

Furthermore, the bill is allegedly designed to give teeth and provide flesh and blood to Section 8 of the Bill of Rights (Article III) which says that: “The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged”. Obviously this section is aimed at promoting unity and solidarity among the people. But SB 3016 in giving the right to homeowners not to join the association only sows division and promotes dissension that undermines the very existence of the association. Hence the people’s right to form associations is even abridged by the said bill in violation of the very Constitutional mandate it seeks to implement.

Our Senators should therefore do their homework first before enacting SB 3016 into law that will only create more conflicts and dissensions in our society.–Jose C. Sison, Philippine Star