Partisan politics by people in gov’t
Senator Manny Pacquiao took to the Senate floor recently and berated Secretary Alfonso Cusi for prioritizing politics over his regular job as the head of the Department of Energy.
Luzon was recently beset with power problems, resulting in rotational brownouts in several areas at a time when the summer heat was slow-cooking people caught in their homes because of COVID restrictions.
Pacquiao and Cusi belong to the same political party. Pacquiao is the president of administration party PDPLaban while Cusi is its vice chairman.
“It is saddening to think that some of our officials, who are supposed to attend to the situation, to our problems, are prioritizing politics… five years ago, Secretary Cusi declared that there is no looming power crisis and here we are, having brownouts. Nasa red alert pa naman tayo ngayon,” Pacquiao said in a privilege speech, after Cusi insisted to hold a national council party meeting, ostensibly to push for the presidential run of Mayor Sara Duterte in 2022.
There is something truly amiss about a Cabinet secretary being caught in a power struggle within a political party. He is being paid with people’s taxes in order to carry out strictly governmental functions.
Why is Cusi a high-ranking party official in the first place? Isn’t it also partly Pacquiao’s fault that he allowed a civil servant to take a political party position that takes his concentration away from his duties to government, especially now that political season is afoot?
Article IX-B Section 2 (4) of the Constitution is explicit: no officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political activity.
Working for the election of a political candidate or group of candidates is undoubtedly a partisan political activity within the meaning and intendment of that constitutional prohibition.
By the way, there is a difference between those who hold elective offices and those who were appointed to their position.
Those who hold office by virtue of an electoral vote are naturally performing political functions and can engage in political activities without violating the Constitution. That is their reason for being. On the other hand, those who hold government positions by virtue of an appointment are “apolitical” and therefore covered by the constitutional ban.
This distinction has been upheld by the Supreme Court. A law (Republic Act No. 9369) was declared constitutional even if it provides that a person holding a public appointive office or position is considered resigned once he or she files a certificate of candidacy for an elective position. An incumbent elective official is not similarly situated and is therefore not considered automatically resigned.
To illustrate, a Cabinet official like Secretary Harry Roque is considered ipso facto resigned when he chooses to file his certificate of candidacy for senator this October. On the other hand, Senator Franklin Drilon is not considered resigned as a senator when he decides to run for the vice presidency in 2022.
A Cabinet position is appointive. The constitutional ban should apply even if the civil servant holds the highest position in his department.
The ban is intended to make the civil service strictly non-partisan. A civil servant cannot be said to be nonpartisan when as a party officer he prepares and works for the victory of his political party in the upcoming polls. A civil servant certainly cannot campaign during office hours and get paid with the people’s money at the same time.
Furthermore, there is grave danger of a Cabinet official using the time of his subordinates and the resources of his office to promote the success of his political party and its standard bearer.
Senator Pacquiao can show the way by imposing party discipline within his political party. But the political winds may not necessarily go his way given that the presidential daughter’s visibility of late seems to have rendered his hold over his own party shaky at best.
Those who hold office by virtue of an electoral vote are naturally performing political functions and can engage in political activities without violating the Constitution. That is their reason for being. On the other hand, those who hold government positions by virtue of an appointment are “apolitical” and therefore covered by the constitutional ban.