"x x x.
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) was created to regulate subdivisions and their homeowners’ associations, and the Magna Carta for Homeowners defines the rights and duties of homeowners. The Magna Carta provides, among others, why and how association officers can be removed from office. But it emphasizes that there should always be “due process,” which is guaranteed by the Constitution.
The HLURB wrote the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the Magna Carta but forgot to mention “due process” in these rules. “Due process” is a basic right guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen, especially those accused of wrongdoing. But this was denied the president and vice president of the Filinvest I Homeowners Association Inc. (Filhai) in Quezon City: They were suddenly removed from office by the regional director of the HLURB upon the petition of a minority group of homeowners. Filhai has appealed this decision to the chair and members of the HLURB board of directors. It also moved for the inhibition of HLURB’s National Capital Region director Alfredo Gil M. Tan from the case as he is seen to be partial to the petitioners and biased against the two defendants, and to have violated the procedure laid down by the IRR.
Another violation: The IRR provides that the causes for the removal of directors should be based on the bylaws of the association. But the Filhai bylaws contain no grounds for the removal of directors. In fact, the case has all the earmarks of having been railroaded through the HLURB.
In a matter of days after the petition was submitted, without any hearing to get the side of the defendants, without a competent verification of the signatures of the minority (not the majority) homeowners who allegedly signed the petition (only five of them made the verification before a notary public as required by the IRR), the regional director issued his order to remove the two Filhai officers.
The petitioners submitted a list of seven nominees, all former presidents and a vice president of the association, to be members of a new board. It is interesting to note that the term of office of the incumbent board will expire next month. Why can’t the petitioners (and the HLURB) wait for that and run in the new elections?
There are two possible explanations:
1. Because of the staggered terms of office of the board directors, the two ousted officers would still be members of the new board where they would be a thorn on the side of the new officers.
2. The previous officers of Filhai, some of whom are behind the ouster move against the current officers, are facing estafa charges in the Office of the Prosecutor of Quezon City. Isn’t it dangerous to let them control the Filhai board as the records of the association may be destroyed, lost, or altered?
I ask again: Why not wait for the elections next month and let all the homeowners decide who they want to govern them? Why is the HLURB allowing itself to be used in this blatantly hurried and unconstitutional attempt to replace officers duly elected by the homeowners?
x x x."Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/66567/something-is-rotten-in-the-state-of-hlurb#ixzz2mIcwEGMU
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
