Clarification to the BW article “Leadership still an issue with TUCP’s two camps”

To the Business World Editor:

May we clarify some points contained in the article titled “Leadership still an issue with TUCP’s two camps,” by Ms Aubrey E. Barrameda published on 01 April 2012:

Former TUCP President Mendoza “strongly protest[ed]” the action by taken by the ITUC-AP General Secretary Noriyuki Suzuki and the ITUC-AP Executive Bureau on the leadership issue in the TUCP because he lost. He would have welcomed a favourable decision for his group.

Mr. Mendoza cannot say that “Mr. Suzuki should respect local self-determination. Domestic internal and intra-union affairs are not the ambit of the ITUC-AP through the leadership of Mr. Suzuki.”

The leadership question was already decided internally by the TUCP governing bodies.  The Executive Board on November 9, 2011 and the General Council on January 25, 2012 had approved and confirmed.

Mr. Mendoza (and Senator Herrera) submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of their parent organizations ITUC and ITUC-AP when they sent people and communications to the fact-finding meetings. Mendoza himself had two separate meetings with Suzuki. He knew (and therefore agreed) that a decision was coming, because in Mr. Mendoza’s Cebu meeting with ITUC-AP General Secretary Suzuki, he said, thinking it would be in his group’s favour: “it’s your decision.”

The TUCP special convention on March 16, 2012 was another decision point by the TUCP internally.  An overwhelming majority of TUCP affiliates, together with ten new affiliates, participated — made amendments to the TUCP Constitution to forestall abuses, elected new officers, and decided on policies and programs to strengthen TUCP and labor’s actions to advance workers and unions’ interest — despite widely-publicized threat of sanctions by the illegal Mendoza group.

The issue of leadership misrepresentation cannot be charged against Herrera who succeeded under the Constitution and whose succession was affirmed by the TUCP’s Constitutional bodies.

In contrast, Mendoza’s alleged retraction of his resignation (is there such a thing?) was prompted by a minority of General Council members who were not even deciding as a TUCP governing body. (no quorum, no votes).

Mendoza should stop misusing the name of TUCP and the title of TUCP President.

On unliquidated cash advances, Mr. Mendoza forgets that he called and chaired the TUCP Executive Board meeting on February 24, 2010 which precisely authorized reimbursement to Herrera of monies he advanced for the purchase of ManGlobeLink, which should have been TUCP’s recruitment agency, if not for Mendoza’s illegal, unauthorized withdrawal of P2 million from TUCP’s Global Jobs Network.

Herrera advanced the funds for Manglobe.  He was authorized by the TUCP Executive Board to be reimbursed for such advances. Why should he liquidate funds which he already paid and for which he was supposed to be reimbursed?

The one who sat for so long, for many many years, in the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (predecessor of ITUC) Executive Board and in the ILO Governing Body is complaining of Herrera’s “resources and clout at the international level”!!??  That tells you a lot about Mendoza’s standing in the international community.  ITUC and ITUC-AP decided on the basis of the TUCP Constitution.  Mendoza’s group would set aside the Constitution to legitimize his sons’ succession to the TUCP leadership.

Herrera warns the TUCP party-list against misusing funds for unauthorized items.  TUCP demands from the TUCP party list a report on monies received and spent.