Home
I need a legal opinion regarding a homeowner association board of director election.
Mr. and Mrs. A are spouses living in a village. Mrs. A took in her parents Mr. and Mrs. B to live with them in the house since 2006. During the 2010 board of directors election in the village, Mr. B filed for candidacy in the election, submitting a letter from his son-in-law Mr. A saying that he is designating Mr. B to represent his household as a homeowner. The appointed comelec allows him to run, and he wins in the 2010 election.
For the 2011 election, Mr. B files for candidacy again. This time he fails to submit a similar letter from his daughter or his son-in-law. (The village electoral guidelines simply state that any member of good standing may run in the election. It did NOT explicitly state that such a letter is required, in both 2010 and 2011 elections.) The comelec allows him to run again, considering that he is an incumbent officer and has already been allowed in the previous year's election. Mr. B runs in the election, is reelected, and proclaimed one of the winners. (Incidentally, he also was elected in the 2009 election when he did NOT also submit a letter from his son-in-law.)
Within 48 hours after completion of the 2011 election, a certain Mr. C files a letter of protest with the comelec saying that Mr. B is not the homeowner, but the father-in-law of the homeowner who is Mr. A. The complainant Mr. C claims that the candidacy is not valid.
The comelec acts quickly. Within hours its chairman writes a letter to the outgoing board of directors instructing them to desist from planning the oath-taking of Mr. B pending further investigation into the matter. A scanned copy of the complaint letter from Mr. C is affixed. Mr. B and Mr. C are furnished copies of the same letter to the outgoing board. (Having received no protests against the other winners, the chairman declares with finality the victory of the other winners, and permits THEIR oath-taking.) A comelec meeting is being planned to discuss the next move.
Questions: (1) Was the comelec right in allowing Mr. B to run in the election? (2) Should the comelec require a reply from Mr. B regarding the complaint, or is it within due process to act on the matter without a reply from Mr. B? After all, I think what is being questioned is the comelec's decision to allow him to run in the 2011 election. (3) If in case that you should think that Mr. B had no right to run in the election, should the comelec been more explicit in requiring such a letter of authorization from the owner of the house, or is this a requirement already implied by the electoral guidelines that state that "any member of good standing may run for office."? (Obviously the question doesn't apply if you think Mr. B may actually run in the election without an authorization letter.) (4) Is such a letter necessary in future village elections, or are cohabiting relatives of the owner of the house also considered as valid homeowners, and thus eligible to run in future elections?
Thank you for taking time in studying this. Opinions will be very much appreciated. --robbieMD, comelec chair
Mr. and Mrs. A are spouses living in a village. Mrs. A took in her parents Mr. and Mrs. B to live with them in the house since 2006. During the 2010 board of directors election in the village, Mr. B filed for candidacy in the election, submitting a letter from his son-in-law Mr. A saying that he is designating Mr. B to represent his household as a homeowner. The appointed comelec allows him to run, and he wins in the 2010 election.
For the 2011 election, Mr. B files for candidacy again. This time he fails to submit a similar letter from his daughter or his son-in-law. (The village electoral guidelines simply state that any member of good standing may run in the election. It did NOT explicitly state that such a letter is required, in both 2010 and 2011 elections.) The comelec allows him to run again, considering that he is an incumbent officer and has already been allowed in the previous year's election. Mr. B runs in the election, is reelected, and proclaimed one of the winners. (Incidentally, he also was elected in the 2009 election when he did NOT also submit a letter from his son-in-law.)
Within 48 hours after completion of the 2011 election, a certain Mr. C files a letter of protest with the comelec saying that Mr. B is not the homeowner, but the father-in-law of the homeowner who is Mr. A. The complainant Mr. C claims that the candidacy is not valid.
The comelec acts quickly. Within hours its chairman writes a letter to the outgoing board of directors instructing them to desist from planning the oath-taking of Mr. B pending further investigation into the matter. A scanned copy of the complaint letter from Mr. C is affixed. Mr. B and Mr. C are furnished copies of the same letter to the outgoing board. (Having received no protests against the other winners, the chairman declares with finality the victory of the other winners, and permits THEIR oath-taking.) A comelec meeting is being planned to discuss the next move.
Questions: (1) Was the comelec right in allowing Mr. B to run in the election? (2) Should the comelec require a reply from Mr. B regarding the complaint, or is it within due process to act on the matter without a reply from Mr. B? After all, I think what is being questioned is the comelec's decision to allow him to run in the 2011 election. (3) If in case that you should think that Mr. B had no right to run in the election, should the comelec been more explicit in requiring such a letter of authorization from the owner of the house, or is this a requirement already implied by the electoral guidelines that state that "any member of good standing may run for office."? (Obviously the question doesn't apply if you think Mr. B may actually run in the election without an authorization letter.) (4) Is such a letter necessary in future village elections, or are cohabiting relatives of the owner of the house also considered as valid homeowners, and thus eligible to run in future elections?
Thank you for taking time in studying this. Opinions will be very much appreciated. --robbieMD, comelec chair
