WHY PROXY VOTING IN PHILIPPINE SUBDIVISIONS DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD

In the Philippine context, proxy voting presents several flaws, making it an ineffective and potentially harmful mechanism for community decision-making.

Proxy voting, where a homeowner assigns their voting rights to another individual, can be a convenient way to participate in subdivision homeowners' association (HOA) meetings. However, in the Philippine context, it presents several flaws, making it an ineffective and potentially harmful mechanism for community decision-making. Here's a breakdown of the problems and why alternatives should be explored:

Lack of Transparency and Accountability

•          Potential for Abuse: Proxy voting opens the door for individuals to accumulate a disproportionate amount of votes, often without the clear consent of the homeowners they represent. This can empower select individuals to unfairly influence HOA decisions that might not align with overall community interests. A single individual can accumulate multiple proxies, granting them an outsized influence in HOA decisions. This scenario becomes increasingly dangerous when special interests are involved, or when those holding proxies leverage them to advance personal agendas instead of acting in the community's best interests. In a system designed for representative democracy, proxy voting can erode fairness and shift power dynamics away from the broader homeowner base.

•          Reduced Transparency: It's often difficult to track who authorized the proxy votes and for what purposes. This lack of transparency makes it harder to identify biases, conflicts of interest, or possible vote manipulation.

Undermining Community Participation

•          Apathy and Disengagement: The ease of assigning a proxy vote can create apathy among homeowners. Instead of actively attending meetings and engaging in discussions, they may opt for the least involved route, leading to low overall participation in decision-making. When homeowners know they can simply pass off their vote, they tend to be less engaged with subdivision issues. By reducing direct participation, proxy voting fosters apathy and diminishes the sense of community ownership over critical decisions that affect everyone's quality of life within the subdivision.

•          Missed Dialogue: Direct participation in HOA meetings fosters valuable community interaction and communication. Discussions enable homeowners to better understand different viewpoints and reach reasonable compromises. Relying on proxy votes circumvents this vital dialogue.

Challenges in the Philippine Legal Framework

•          Ambiguities in the Law: In the Philippines, the complex legal framework surrounding HOAs further complicates proxy voting practices. The Corporation Code of the Philippines and Republic Act No. 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners' Associations) establish broad guidelines for HOAs. However, there's often ambiguity in terms of the specific mechanisms and limitations involved in proxy voting. This contributes to potential conflicts and disputes due to varying interpretations of these laws.

•          Issues of Representation: It may be difficult to verify whether a proxy holder indeed represents the true intent of the homeowner. Questions arise on whether a single person is suitable to make voting decisions on a range of complex subdivision issues on behalf of someone else.

Impracticality in Smaller Subdivisions

•          Geographical Proximity: Unlike large corporations with shareholders spread across vast regions, members of Philippine subdivisions reside within the same community. It is relatively more convenient and less burdensome for most homeowners to physically attend meetings.

•          Community Spirit: Smaller subdivisions foster a greater sense of neighborliness and direct involvement in community affairs. Overreliance on proxies can erode this sense of connectedness.

Towards Better Alternatives

Instead of proxy voting, Philippine subdivisions should focus on encouraging more robust homeowner participation. Here are some viable options:

•          Accessible Meeting Schedules: HOA boards can choose meeting times and locations that accommodate the needs of most homeowners, encouraging larger attendance.

•          Technology-Assisted Voting: Utilize secure online voting platforms to expand opportunities for participation, especially for homeowners facing mobility or attendance challenges.

•          Enhanced Communication: Provide ample notice of meetings with clear agendas well in advance. Maintain open communication channels where homeowners can conveniently ask questions and express concerns.

•          Community Building: Strengthen ties among neighbors through community events, newsletters, and forums. A greater sense of belonging fosters increased interest in local decision-making.

While proxy voting might offer a semblance of convenience, its potential downsides far outweigh its benefits in the context of Philippine subdivisions.  Proxy voting might have limited applications for administrative convenience, relying heavily on the practice erodes the vital tenets of participatory democracy that effective HOAs rely on. By exploring alternatives and prioritizing direct homeowner engagement, Philippine subdivisions can cultivate thriving, self-governed communities where decisions are made with transparency and fairness, leading to a better quality of life for all residents.

Sources:

•          The Corporation Code of the Philippines https://chanrobles.com/legal5cc.htm

•          Dela Cruz, M. (2021). Understanding Proxy Voting in Homeowners' Associations. The Manila Times. https://www.sec.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019OpinionNo19-36.pdf