7/28/2019 Election Article

1/2

'Tis the (fourth) season: ElectionsAtty. Emilia Queng-Bueza and Atty. Michael Angelo Rito

Political scientists have not termed the election period as the fourth

season for no reason. It is a topic as hot as the mid-summer sun. It brings fortha multitude of issues that either pour like rain or spread like inundation. And itcreates an atmoshpere the way Christmas ushers in that familiar yuletide air many people (called candidates) wear smiles and become generous, only thatthe usual decors are replaced by the candidates' colorful posters.

With the 2013 mid-term elections just a few sleeps away, and just as wehave started mentally jotting down the names of the candidates we intend tovote, we have here scribbled random thoughts and legal points that deserveconsideration before we cast our sacred votes.

First, the 2013 elections come at the heels of many recent reforms andinnovations in the electoral system like automation (and with it, the use of PCOS,i.e., precinct count optical scan, machines), the new Form of Certificate ofCandidacy (which supposedly will help level the playing field by promotingtransparency in election spending), random manual audit (as provided for underCOMELEC Resolution No. 9595), and strengthened voting capacity of personswith disabilities (pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9485). While these arewelcome, these changes will have to be tested against such recorded problemslike registered voters exceeding the number of the voting population. And whilethe Philippines respectably remains above the world average in voter turnout,these changes hopefully spare the country from the global downtrend in electoral

participation.

Second, the interestingly large number of participants in the party-listremain as such: interestingly large. There are more than 120 registered party-listgroups participating in the 2013 elections. And there are more than 160 othersthat filed intent to participate in the forthcoming elections. While the thrust of theParty-List System Act (R.A. No. 7941) is proportional representation by openingup the law-making process to the marginalized and under-represented sectorslike labor, elderly and indigenous cultural communities, among others, the party-list elections have largely been a choice of the sectoral representative ratherthan the sector that the voters want represented in Congress. The personality-

based politics has obviously permeated the manner people choose the party-listgroup they want to vote for. And this is fostered by the lack of prohibition againstmultiple party-list groups wanting to represent one and the same sector. Case inpoint: the farmers.

Around ten (10) registered party-list groups [Butil Farmers Party (BUTIL),

1

7/28/2019 Election Article

2/2

Ang Agrikultura Natin Isulong (AANI) and Abono Party List (ABONO), amongothers] vied for and won seats in Congress last 2010 elections. Obviously, theresult was the flock of party-list representatives for farmers who now appear tobe overly represented. Moreover, is it not that the farmers are in the best positionto decide who can best represent them? The party-list elections should better be

confined to having the electorate choose which sectors should have arepresentation in Congress. The members of each sector, fielding just one (1)party-list group, will then have greater ease of satisfying the required number ofvotes and catapulting into Congress the reprsentatives who enjoy the trust of themajority, if not all, of those within such sector.

And finally: Two (2) factors largely explain why Filipinos vote for whichcandidates: name recall and bandwagon effect. What accounts for name recallis having a popular name or alias, and the use of the mass media (as throughpolitical ads). While we believe in like father, like son, and although media maybe informative, we may not close eyes to the reality of sons being like their bad

fathers, or unlike their good fathers. And we know how the powerful media cantweak the truth. We also consider how a candidate may be endorsed by actors tosay that the latter entrust their future to the former. But we look beyond this andsee that the actors got their pay to say such spiel. The candidate may win or losebut the actors' future is never really on the line because they have already beenhandsomely paid. The future of the common people is because a hefty portionof our few but hard-earned money will go to and be spent by such candidate if hewins.

On the other hand, bandwagon effect is mainly anchored on surveys andis exemplified by people who say they do not want to waste their vote on a

candidate who is not winnable. This mentality forgets that a candidate'swinnability is essentially a perception which, though at times intelligent, is stillessentially a guess. Such is a sorry mentality because it increases the chancesof those who already have the (sometimes undue) advantage of the first factor(i.e., name recall) and lessens the chances of those who have the real heart toserve but have not been born to a known family or have not paid for their ownadvertisements.

These two (2) factors are not bad in themselves. But they become so if, onaccount of such factors, we are made to choose candidates who may bewinnable but should never ever win.

Come crunch time, may we see beyond the name, the political ad and thesurveys. May we look into the character, and eventually cast our worthy votes forthose who truly have the mind, heart and soul to render genuine fealty to the lawand give the country the service it is due.

2