REPLY TO MOTU PROPRIO TO
DENY CANDIDACY OF THE RESPONDENT
WILHELMINA S. OROZCO
Respondent
versus SPA NO. 15-033 (DC) (MP)
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
THROUGH THE LAW DEPARTMENT
Petitioner
REPLIES
TO THIS HONORABLE COMMISSION, Respondent respectfully replies:
A. THE FACTS:
- The Petitioner-Law Department rejected the Certificate of Candidacy for a Senatorial Position of the.Respondent filed for 9 May 2016 National and Local Elections. However the reasons given are nebulous, confusing and downright authoritarian. It
a. Claims that “the Respondent has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the COC has been filed, and thus prevents a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate;” and
b. Has labeled the Respondent a “nuisance,” a word taken from the Batasan Pambansa, Omnibus Election Code. (Actually a piece of legislation that came out of that authoritarian, one-man rule and which had caused the Filipino people to rise up against it in 1986 in order to restore democracy as a system and to guarantee human rights.)
B. THE REASONS: To support its contention, it mentions the following:
1. “Respondent listed her occupation as a Media Prod(ucer)-Educator. While such is a noble way to earn a living, it is respectfully submitted that absent clear proof of her financially capability, Respondent will not be able to sustain the financial rigors of waging a nationwide campaign. (6.7)“
2. “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, whereas social justice presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that, accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty be denied the chance to be elected to public office' reality is a bitter pill that Respondent has to swallow.” (6.8.)
REPLIES OF THE RESPONDENT
A. ABOUT THE RESPONDENT:
1. Petitioner-Law Department's Little Knowledge of Media
a. Regarding “a” the Petitioner-Law Department has very little knowledge of the communication media. Media constitute various forms – print, radio, tv and film, as well as person-to-person, and person-to-public communication.
b. Petitioner shows ignorance, maybe omits or has lack of knowledge as it belittles the media profession of the Respondent. On the contrary, the Respondent is very knowledgeable about the use of Media in all aspects of life. She finished Master in Communication from Ateneo de Manila University, has a doctorate in Philosophy and Education and right now is engaged in media production within the non-government field, a non-commercial endeavor, where advocacies for socio-political issues are rife. Thus the Respondent is well-versed in the various media forms and their uses for pushing and advancing messages that center on many advocacies and issues.
c. Respondent has financed her media productions in many creative ways-- through her project presentations to funders or through appeals to generous patrons and sponsors. Conducting an election campaign is not so difficult for a media person like her – as she has the gifts of speech and writing both very necessary for being in media and being successful in sending messages across to the public, especially in the position aspired for.
d. Petitioner-Law Department fails to consider the many years of involvement, engagement and deep immersion of the Respondent as a media practitioner. Actually Respondent has been writing since 1982 – essays, short stories, dramas, and long political articles, among others. She has gained the support of many folks in the media and the public in general because of her capability to use various forms of communication to bring her messages across to them.
Now, campaigning for the position of Senator could be an easy task because the Respondent could always tap personally her media colleagues, friends and even unmet media individuals and the public in general, located nationwide for support of her …...... 2
candidacy as should she win, she would work diligently for about a better welfare for them. In fact, the Respondent's major platform is to raise the status of the masses in society, especially the disadvantaged sectors. (Please see submitted Oro Magnifico Program of Action)
In other words, as a Media Producer, the Respondent has an arsenal of information, knowledge, experience and know-how in disseminating important ideas in public, using all the different kinds of media, which could all be easily practiced during the election campaign.
Google Norge thirdforce-prg (Philippines for Responsive Governance)
e. The Petitioner-Law Department has very little knowledge of or maybe simply ignores the work of the Respondent whereas she has been widely read here and abroad. Her blog, Google Norge thirdforce-prg which she started in 2008 and has maintained until today is being read in Asia, North America even as far as Alaska where a friend lives, in Europe and the Middle East. To confirm this, Google regularly uploads information in a world map where the blog is being disseminated and read.
B. 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. 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......................
“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 ..............................
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 ….............................
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.
….............................
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
No comments:
Post a Comment