By Benjie de Ubago
The Board of the Philippine Community Council of NSW (PCC-NSW) met in cyberspace (via Skype) on May 13, 2020 to discuss the complaint submitted by Kate Andres. As Bulseco and Ladia were central to the issue, Vice President External, Cesar Bartolome presided over the meeting. Bulseco and Ladia attended the first part of the meeting to present their defense arguments but later left the Board to deliberate among themselves.
Bulseco’s and Ladia’s presence on the Board, both representing Australian Mindanao (AusMin) is the issue – an alleged violation of Article 13.4 of the PCC-NSW constitution which states: “Only one representative from each association is allowed to sit in the Board.”
As predicted, the decision of the Board, was 10 “NO breach of the constitution” and “2 abstained.” Bartolome as the presiding officer did not vote. Bulseco quickly issued a press release stating that he is staying!
In his statement, he said: “It is now my hope that in these turbulent and troubling times, this Board resolution shall finally bring to an end to this divisive uncertainty and that a deserving peace will reign in the community.”
However, questions remain unanswered:
(1) Ladia’s representation remains questionable.
(2) Why was the complaint from the concerned Past President which was made through former President, Manny Diel not deliberated on? Bulseco has not even acknowledged the complaint because it lacked signatures.
(3) The emailing of nominations was not discussed, nor those directors who emailed their nominations admitted to having done so. Only one has admitted to emailing.
And of utmost importance –
(4) Why was there no independent Grievance Committee formed immediately to discuss the complaint as per Article 43 of the constitution.
I phoned Bulseco on Sunday night to ask him why no independent Grievance committee had been appointed. However, Bulseco unleashed his fury and went ballistic!
I repeated the question was why was there no independent grievance committee formed as per article 43? “Don’t you know you’re your constitution, article 10 states that the Board can make the decision,” he exploded in self-righteous indignation.
But Article 10 of the constitution is about “Disciplining of Members”; it is about the conduct of an officer or a director. The issue is a breach of the constitution. It would have been simply ethical to have an independent committee deliberate and resolve the issue. “Are you questioning the integrity of the Board,” screamed Bulseco.
Bulseco was also insistent that Ladia was not representing AusMin at the time of the election. Serna had told him before the elections that she was going to represent FilCoop. However, when pointed out that he was not a member of the FilCoop and could not make a decision, he was livid. “Hindi ka ba nakaka intindi – there is no breach. She is now representing CRFCC.” If Ladia was not representing AusMin at the time of the election, so who was she representing? Ladia failed to advice or ask Filipino Cooperative prior to the elections. She did not ask until March 25, and then announced on May 2, that she was representing CRFCC. That means she was Club-less at the time of the elections. “There is no rule in the constitution that states that she cannot change associations. While no ruling states that you cannot shift clubs in mid stream, it was obviously Club hopping at best. There were more holes in his arguments than a sieve,
Then in a bizarre twist, Bulseco adds: “Besides, Serna is not the immediate past president. Sa tutuo, I am the immediate past president.” If Bulseco is the president and immediate past president, do both his personas belong to the same club?
“Kayo…kayo…yan grupo ninyo,” cried Bulseco. When asked what group he was referring to, he replied “ang grupo ninyong mga presidente.” I replied that I was not part of the group and reminded him that although I was a PCC pioneer, I was not a former president. I was simply a writer who wanted to gather the facts for the benefit of the community. This enraged Bulseco even more and he crunched his anger a few levels higher. “Liar! Kasama ka diyaan sa kanila. Fakery! Fakery! Aw, come on, stop pretending. Fakery! Fakery! You’ve been wanting me out of PCC for the last ten years” he added. By this time, Bulseco went rabid and having witnessed him before I could imagine him with eyes bulging and foaming in the mouth.
I asked him why did so many people want him out? “Ewan ko, ewan ko sa kanila. Siguro kasi guwapo ako,” he replied. Then, he reverted back to his favourite line of “Kayo, kayo – kasama ka. Fakery!”
This was a clear example of projection as I had never wanted him out. I was fully aware of his antics, his manipulation of previous Boards, and I could list the error of his ways but maybe we’ll reserve that for another time. I really do not care who the President in PCC as long as whoever sits and represents us Filipinos, does so in a respectable manner. Cheats and liars are out! I also reminded him that I even helped him in 2019. There was a slight pause and then he reverted back to raging.
Unable to communicate any further with Bulseco’s irrational behaviour, I ended the conversation. Bulseco showed no remorse; no empathy at all. Reasoning was beyond possible and logic was out the window. Worth noting was that his attitude and behaviour was contradictory to his statement of “deserving peace in the community.”
In the land of fiction, this kind of behavior may be acceptable. It seems that lately, such outbursts are becoming more common in PCC than we care to know. But the reality is we Filipinos are being represented by them. It’s not only sad, it’s embarrassing! And as for the integrity of the Board, I leave that for the readers and affiliates to draw their own conclusions.
For future reference, if anyone should still care to read any correspondence from PCC, they should take it with a grain of salt. All PCC documents should include a disclaimer: “Subject to change due to personal interpretations and without prior notice.” for no one ever knows which way Bulseco’s wind will blow!
