Republic
of the Philippines
A MESSAGE TO THE COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS
M
a n i l a
HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE
Petitioner-Law
Department's View of Holding Public Office = Diluted
Interpretation of the Provision in the Constitution
1.
The Constitution guarantees
equal access to opportunities for public service.... Art.
II, Section 26.
By
denying the Respondent her Candidacy, the Petitioner-Law Department's
knowledge
of that act of Holding Public office becomes glaring and wanting. It
is violating the Constitution by denying the Respondent her right to
run for public office.
2.
To the Petitioner-Law Department, Holding Public Office is engaging
in a capitalistic endeavor –the individual candidate, without a
party must be able to sustain (meaning have enough spending money)
the campaign, have funds, and insure his/her victory through the
polls. This is a rather narrow view of the role of the Commission on
Elections in the country.
Public
Service, a General Category; Holding Public Office, a Sub-Category
3.
To the Petitioner-Law Department, Holding Public Office is the same
as Public Service. Petitioner forgets that Public Service is a
general category, philosophically and politically. Philosophically,
it means a service that is run for the benefit of the general
….....................................................................................................................................4
public. The sub-categories are: helping the disadvantaged groups,
disseminating information on political matters for public consumption
AND holding
office,
among others. Politically, Public Service means acting in order to
create and make changes for the public.
4.
Now, “Holding Office” is not a general but rather a specific
category falling under the general heading of Public Service. To hold
office is to be in public service. In
terms of significance,
holding office cannot be higher in significance than that of public
service. The latter is all encompassing and general, while the former
is very specific.
Therefore,
the Petitioner - Law Department MISUNDERSTANDS and DILUTES the
meaning of Public Service. By denying Respondent the right to run for
office, it has distorted the meaning of and statement in the
Constitution from being equal to unequal access to opportunities for
public service.
5.
Right vs Privilege. To
state that running for public office is a mere 'privilege subject to
limitations imposed by law,” is to rewrite the Constitution.
“Privilege” cannot be a substitute for “right.” Nor should
Right be capriciously changed to Privilege. Privilege
is a capricious benefit that can be recalled at any time but Right is
just entitlement, so fundamental that it cannot be obliterated by
anyone. It is bestowed upon the Filipino people. To say that to run
for public office is a mere privilege subject to limitations imposed
by law is committing a gross violation of the fundamental law of the
land. The Constitution guarantees equal access to public service;
ergo, everyone should be allowed to file their candidacies and be
allowed to be judged by the public except for health reasons – for
example physiological may be mentioned as obstructive of serving the
public, but incapacity to conduct a campaign is not at all nor should
it be a hindrance because the Constitution states that everyone
should have equal access to serve in office.
6.
Beyond its Purview It
is beyond the role of the Comelec to meddle into how any Candidate/s
should conduct their campaigns as these all depend on their
creativity. To allow others to be free to conduct their own and
disallow others is to be selective, elitist and discriminatory.
However, it has a responsibility to insure that all the barangays are
informed about the backgrounds of each candidate ahead of the voting
period.
7.
Libelous Word. The
Petitioner had called the Respondent a nuisance. Yet the
Philippine
Constitution
avers
that the
“State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.
ARTICLE II DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE
POLICIES............................................................................................................................................................4
“Nuisance”
means, an
obnoxious or annoying person, thing, condition, practice, etc.
In what manner, or what action, did the Respondent do to merit such a
libelous name? The only interaction the Respondent has had with the
Petitioner has been through the submission of the certificate of
candidacy and nothing more. Now if the Petitioner-Law Department
relied on the reports of other individuals or agencies such as the
military and the police, then they become suspect. The only reason
why they should produce any negative report is because the Respondent
has been highly critical of anti-democratic practices in Philippine
society.
Yet
the Petitioner-Law Department violates this Constitutional provision
thus blatantly destroying her reputation. Calling candidates nuisance
based on pieces of paper and not a thorough understanding of their
biography, of having interviewed them, or their having been assessed
by competent personnel with regard to their total existence is
tantamount
to
committing Libel, a civil offense that is penalized by law.
8.
Legacy of Marcosian One-Man Rule
Most
ironically, the Petitioner-Law Department quoted from the
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881
revised under the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, lifting
the word "nuisance" without analyzing its implications.
Batas
Pambansa Blg. 881
is a product of the one-man rule in the country in 1985. Marcos used
the word "nuisance" in order to downgrade his opponents,
all of his enemies who were plotting to bring him down. Ergo, after
1986 the term should have been changed to a more humane one in order
to give recognition to the political act of the people in bringing
down his one-man rule and installing a democratic regime in the
country.
So
what guarantees can we have from the Comelec to guarantee full
respect for human rights? For the Commission to become a true
Filipino People's institution based on what we had fought for in
1986, then it must contend with the language being used within and
being disseminated to the public and revise those that are
anti-democratic. This is to insure the protection of the rights of
the people to a democratic, humane, just and orderly access to
public office as well as peaceful transition of leadership.
9.
Discriminatory Act. The
Constitution declares that The
State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall
ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Art
II, Section 14.
The
Petitioner-Law Department commits the act of discrimination against
the Respondent.
Contrary
to the fundamental law of the land, the Petitioner-Law Department
omits or fails to mention, intentionally or unintentionally, that the
Respondent is a woman and and
..............................................................................................................................5
deserves equal treatment before the law. It ignores if not totally
omits its own role in ensuring the access of women to public office.
The Respondent submitted her bio-data and program of action when she
filed her COC but this was clearly glossed over totally as can be
gleaned from its blanket conclusion. Ironically, one Petitioner
signee is a woman.
10.
Denial of Responsibility of Public Information Functions.
The (Omnibus
Election Code)
law states in Sec.
10 that
.
Election
expenses. - Except in barangay elections, such expenses as may be
necessary and reasonable in connection with the elections, referenda,
plebiscites and other similar exercises shall be paid by the
Commission. The Commission may direct that in the provinces, cities,
or municipalities, the election expenses chargeable to the Commission
be advanced by the province, city or municipality concerned subject
to reimbursement by the Commission upon presentation of the proper
bill.
The
Petitioner-Law
Department fails
to recognize , or denies the responsibility of the Commission for the
onus of informing the public as to the background of candidates for
positions yet it is mentioned above.
Considering
the archipelagic character of the country, it is stringently
difficult to inform every voter in the region about the candidates.
Only political parties and moneyed individuals can do that. So, when
the Petitioner-Law Department mentions that “the Respondent has no
bona
fide
intention to run for public office...absent clear proof of her
financial capability, Respondent will not be able to sustain the
financial rigors of waging a nationwide campaign,” it is committing
the gross error of putting an added qualifier to be a candidate on
the part of the Respondent, which is not sanctioned by the
Constitution nor by the Omnibus Election Code. As well, it clearly
discriminates against the sincerely patriotic poor and handicapped
from exercising the opportunities for holding public office.
11.
Jumping from Principled to Pragmatic Analysis. Moreover,
the Petitioner-Law Department commits double speak when it says that
“while it is true that 'the right to vote and to be voted for shall
not be dependent upon the wealth of the individual
concerned...reality is a bitter pill that Respondent has to swallow.”
Now what kind of thought is that that jumps from a principled to a
highly pragmatic stand? Is this not a case of saying one thing and
then meaning another thing? Should the State allow such kind of
thinking to prevail in the Commission? The Petitioner-Law Department
glosses over the import of the above provision and has committed an
erroneous way of thinking which should be dismissed by the higher
echelons of the Commission as a warped and .anti-democratic
act. It presents itself as knowledgeable about the law but its
mistakes in thinking are highly gross: creating a favorable climate
for the moneyed class only to be able to vie for public office.
Worse, it states its bias in a very sardonic way, as if the
Respondent has to swallow the poison of being rejected. The bitter
pill is that the country
…................................................................................................................................
7
has
a Petitioner-Law Department with great feelings of
self-aggrandizement.
Elitism
and discrimination based on wealth have no room in a democratic
regime. These are the bitter pills of living under the aegis of a
Petitioner-Law Department who twists the law to for reasons nobody
can fathom.
3.
Actually, RA
No. 6646, An
Act Introducing Additional Reforms In The Electoral System and
For Other Purposes, promulgated
on 5 January 1998 states that “the
Commission shall cause to be printed certified lists of candidates
containing the names of all registered candidates for each office to
be voted for in each province, city or municipality immediately
followed by the nickname or stage name of each candidate duly
registered in his certificate of candidacy and his political party
affiliation, if any. Said list shall be posted inside each voting
booth during the voting period. Whenever practicable, the board of
inspectors shall cause said list of candidates to be written clearly
and legibly on the blackboard or on manila paper for posting at a
conspicuous place inside the polling place.
The
Constitution emphasizes equal access to public service.”
In
other words, during the voting period, the voters are given the
chance to make a judgment right away about the credentials of the
candidates. The exposure here is only in terms of the name, and not
the background of the candidates. Now is there enough time to make a
decent assessment of the capability of a candidate? This situation
opens up the voters to familiar recall of names based on media
exposure done by the candidates and not on the basis of
qualifications anymore. Will there be room for an informed choice?
4.
Petitioner-Law Department Transferring Promotions Responsibility
Completely to Candidates Instead Of Carrying The Onus. In
truth, the State, through the Commission, is burdened with the
function of informing the public, to publicize as to who are
qualified to run and not solely the individual candidates' acting
responsibly. Self-promotion could be deceiving
and downright misleading. Some candidates could hide their true
nature and because they have the money could put out glossy
tarpaulins and posters, give away lots of paraphernalia and sweet
talk voters in order to encourage them to their side.
Twin examples are these Congress representatives who got voted upon
but later on turned out to be “nuisance officials” coming to the
Congress sessions for only seven out of 34 sessions in 2014.
By
confining its activities to informing the public only during the
voting day itself nary any information on the candidates, save their
names, the Commission is disallowing the public from making a good
vote.
….............................................
8
WHEREFORE,
the Respondent prays that the Honorable Commission would stop the
implementation of the Petitioner-Law Department's Judgment as it is
highly flawed based on the premises above. And also to approve her
Certificate of Candidacy based on principles inscribed in the
Philippine Constitution. The positive move shall show the seriousness
of the Commission in the political exercise of voting as as the
lifeblood that would define the future of everyone in society.
SIGNED
THIS 2 NOVEMBER 2015 IN MANILA, PHILIPPINES
WILHELMINA
S. OROZCO
Respondent
89
Kapiligan Street
Araneta
Subdivision
Quezon
City 1113
09158238491
No comments:
Post a Comment