To the younger generation of voters, the petition for the recall of an elective official is an unfamiliar concept. But not to those who were already members of the electorate in 2002 when the very same move was launched against then Governor Leandro B. Verceles, Jr.
The son of former governor of the same name had breezed easily through three terms in Congress and handily won the Capitol in the 2001 election.
But ruling the provincial government with the opposition, then led by Vice Gov. Cesar Sarmiento, controlling the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, proved to be difficult. By then, Congressman Joseph Santiago was a key ally of the board.
In a lengthy oration on “The Godfather of Scams,” the sponsor of the recall resolution, then PBM Angeles Tablizo Jr., branded the Verceles administration as “dictatorial and abusive.”
Saying that the governor had lost the moral ascendancy to govern, the board member cited Verceles’ hand in anomalous transactions such as the controversial overpriced Lifan motorcycle purchase, the passing of midnight resolutions granting him blanket authority to enter into contracts and realign the budget, and the equally controversial seedling contract deal with DENR that awarded juicy contracts to allies, among others.
With Verceles failing to secure a TRO from the court, the Preparatory Recall Assembly (PRA) composed of elected officials of the province and the 11 municipalities approved the governor’s recall by 78-2 vote.
The Commission on Elections, however, took a long time to decide the date of the recall election, most likely due to Verceles’ political connections and the recall move petered out.
In 2004, Congress passed Republic Act 9244 eliminating the PRA as a mode of instituting the recall of local elective officials and exclusively giving to the electorate the political right.
COMELEC Resolution No. 10649, issued on Jan. 31, 2020, states that a petition for recall may be filed at any time after the assumption of office of the official sought to be recalled, with the recall election to be conducted not earlier than one year from the date of assumption and not later than one year immediately preceding the next regular local election.
Any registered voter may file a petition for recall, supported by the signature of at least 15 percent of the voting population of Catanduanes but not less than 5,000, according to the revised guidelines.
In the 2022 national and local elections, there were a total of 101,627 registered voters, of which 88,523 (88.09 percent) cast their votes.
Assuming that there are already 110,000 voters by this time, the proponent of the recall petition against the incumbent congressman would need just 16,500 voters.
This is just a measly 1,500 voters for each town on average, although it would be wise to get the same required percentage of the electorate in each municipality.
Considering the transactional nature of elections in Catanduanes, it would be easy to assume that many would volunteer to sign the petition.
It will not only be beneficial for the 16,500 on the signing of the petition itself but also on the eve of the recall election itself, when all 110,000 voters are eligible for the same benefit.
Now, let us ask ourselves if there are enough grounds to recall Congressman Eulogio Rodriguez for lack of confidence.
Would the allegation that he caused the transfer of the funding and implementation of over a billion pesos in infrastructure projects from the DPWH Catanduanes District Engineering Office to the regional office suffice?
Perhaps it would do, especially if it results in joblessness, loss of livelihood opportunities and taxes.
As they say in the colorful vernacular, “pag ayaw, maraming dahilan; pag gusto, maraming paraan…”