Comelec’s commissioner-in-charge
system fails—but persists
By Frankie Llaguno
MANILA, Philippines—Shortly after being appointed chair of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) more than 2 years ago, Josel Melo announced that the poll body was planning to stop the practice of appointing a commissioner-in-charge (CIC) for a particular region or province during elections.
The full responsibility for election supervision would be returned to the regional directors, he said, responding to years of intense criticism from civil society groups, the academe, and opposition politicians.
With another regular election just 2 months away, the Comelec has yet to issue an en banc resolution putting an end to the fiefdoms—and the past corruptions—reportedly created by the CIC system.
International observers noted that these supposed CIC fiefdoms cover
not only regional or provincial management but other Comelec operations
as well.
“Comelec staff members acknowledge the management structure at the top
of the organization is seriously flawed,” says a report of the
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), a group based in
Washington, DC.
The IFES, which has worked in more than 100 developed and developing
countries, sent a team of observers in 2004 and 2007 to monitor the
Philippine elections at both national and local levels.
Originally, the Comelec was designed to be the “board” of the
organization providing policy direction through its resolutions, the
IFES noted.
The implementation of these policies and the daily running of the
operation were to be done by civil servants headed by the executive
director.
“This approach which is technically sound has been eroded by the
evolution of the Commissioner-in-Charge (CIC) system,” said the IFES.
Commissioners, now in the grip of daily micro-management, have divided
all areas of responsibility among them. These turfs could include a
specific subject, such as ballot printing, a headquarters, a
department, or even the field operations of a region.
As a result, different regions have fallen under different
commissioners with little coordination on operational issues, the IFES
found.
Under this scheme, Comelec effectively has 7 department directors, with
each commissioner taking operational control over his or her area and
managing them directly.
The executive director position—whose occupant is virtually unknown to
the public and the media—has lost authority and central control of the
operation. The IFES found that the commissioners have widened their
influence, expanded their staff, and increased spheres of control and
power.
“The CIC system has proven to be inefficient and ineffective.
Operational management duties belong with the executive director and
his/her staff, not the commission,” the IFES said.
If commissioners were further removed from operational management
responsibilities, they would be better able to focus on providing
sorely needed oversight and policy guidance on elections.
“With Comelec commissioners being replaced periodically and long term
civil servants having lost managerial control, Comelec has little
continuity in its handling of the organization,” the IFES finds.
(Newsbreak)
No one has commented on this article. |
