MESSAGES TO COMELEC

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
PALACIO DEL GOBERNADOR, INTRAMUROS, MANILA

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

TEN REASONS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
COMELEC DISQUALIFICATION OF THE CANDIDATES OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES

A. Under a Democratic regime, there is no discrimination. Comelec act shows discrimination. Political acts should be based on democratic principles, recognizing the right of everyone to vote and be voted upon. The Constitution states that “ The Constitution guarantees the right of everyone to participate politically.” In other words, the Comelec should be the agent to ensure that that right is protected, preserved and guaranteed for impolementation.

B. Comelec, by disqualifying candidates, is usurping the right of the people to choose as it is narrowing down the list of candidates to those the employees of Comelec have chosen. In other words, Comelec is putting itself ahead of the people in terms of voting;

C. Democracy: Everyone is created equal. Comelec is showing bias. Political participation is a duty, starting from voting up to being voted upon. Comelec is limiting the participation of the people to those who are media-popular.

D. Arbitrary rejection of candidates
a. hahaba ang balota: this is technical and has a quasi-meaning
b. what is more important: 1.) protecting the right of voters to choose their leaders; 2) protecting the right of everyone to politically participate from voting to being voted upon;
Comelec is presuming that the supporters of candidates will exert all effort to vote for their candidates no matter the length of the ballots. In fact it should act first on the basis of principles not technicalities;

E. Right and duty to run for national and local positions. Currently, those allowed to run have been in the limelight for many years already. Comelec then is assuming and disseminating the idea that to be a candidate, one must be popular in media. This is not a legitimate reason for disqualification. The qualifications, the capabilities of the candidates should be the ones to be scrutinized. 6. Comelec by its act is deciding who matters as a candidate, usurping the people’s right to choose. It is the people who should decide;

F. Give everyone a chance: this is democracy. Otherwise, elitism becomes the guiding principle. The people should be the final arbiter, the final decision-maker as to who should be voted upon.

G. Comelec judgment by prediction: it claims that disqualified candidates cannot mount a successful campaign. How could Comelec say that a campaign will be successful or not successful? In 2007, Sen. Trillanes was allowed to run but was not able to campaign because he was in jail, yet he won. Jamby Madrigal is independent, has no party; not participating in debates, not being interviewed in media yet she is included as a presidential candidate. A successful campaign has many factors;

H. Comelec should educate the voters: Leaders should be chosen by the people, not because of their popularity but by the principles they stand for;

I. By using the argument that a candidate must be able to mount a nationwide campaign is anti-democratic and belittling the capacity of the people to put up their own leaders;

a. Campaigning nationwide has both visible and invisible qualities: a candidate can make their presence be felt nationwide; or their supporters can radiate their energies, their presence among the people. There are multiple ways to campaign politically and every candidate will have his or her own style of campaigning. For Comelec to dictate one style is an authoritarian not a democratic posture which then is unconstitutional.

b. By claiming that the candidates need ability to campaign nationwide the Comelec is already dictating on the political approaches to getting elected. This is not their function;

c. Comelec is dictating that media exposure shows success in campaigning. But campaigning has many forms. – through word of mouth, through leaflets, tv and radio broadcasts, internet, through person-to-person approach, through opinion-makers in the communities, etc. Just because a candidate is not being talked about in the media is not a guarantee of success in campaigning. In the long run, a successful campaign is conducted on the substantial issues that the candidate carries and not the medium; and

J. Reason of inability to campaign nationwide: is not tenable
a. The advent of tv and the Internet has eased the problems of campaigning. Candidates can campaign through tv, being interviewed and the interview being broadcasted.
b. The internet is the popular medium now for communication. A candidate can easily contact anyone nationwide and internationally – the OFWs – to inform supporters and the voters about his or her presence.
c. The DPP has chapters nationwide

WILHELMINA S. OROZCO
Senatorial Candidate, DPP




REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
PALACIO DEL GOBERNADOR, INTRAMUROS, MANILA

REPLY TO RESOLUTION NO. 8713

This Reply pertains to the Comelec Resolution No. 8713 which takes off from the Memorandum dated December 7, 2009 of the Law Department relative to the certificates of candidacy for national positions in connection with the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local elections.

Comments:

1. Observation no. 1: the Comelec praises Jamby Madrigal and disgraces Mario B. Crespo by saying that “her political track record in launching a serious nationwide campaign ins unquestionable, proven by her in the leection in the senate,” versus “Mr. Crespo has no proven political track record in nationwide candidacy…not have any political party affiliation to support his bid for the presidency…would be quite difficult for one man, independent at that, to seriously mount a presidential campaign throughout the nation.”

Comments: The Comelec erred in this observation as it clearly shows bias towards those who are already in positions of power in the government. Instead of allowing anyone, qualified by intellectual competence to be put up as a candidate it makes the trappings of power as the basis for approval of candidacies.


2. Observation no. 2: “Further the following DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PHILIPPINES’ (DPP) certificates of nomination for senator do not bear the following recipients’ signature(s) of acceptance as required by Section 6 of the COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 specifically that of WILHELMINA SIOZON OROZCO and LUIS DE GUZMAN RAMOS. “

Comment: This is a false statement. Wilhelmina S. Orozco signed the nomination in front of Atty. Rafanan and together with other staff members of the Law Department on the day that the DPP other candidates filed their COC’s.

3. Observation No. 5: the Memorandum placed the names of Jovito S. Palparan and Liza L. Maza sequentially.

Comments: These two people are at odds politically. It is clear that the Memorandum wanted to give a satirical twist in its approval of candidacies – that people from opposite political spectrum can be together as senatoriables. Is this a professional way of handling a memorandum in a very significant event as the elections of 2010? Does the Comelec show professional sincerity in doing its job by treating the candidacies of the two in this manner?

4. Observation No. 5: in the next paragraph, “It can therefore be concluded that aside from having bona fide intentions of running for the position of senator, all of these candidates are possessed with sufficient political manpower, resources and machinery to launch a nationwide campaign.

Comments: “manpower, resources and machinery” these are just factors to contend with when one becomes a candidate. Now how does Comelec know that every candidate rejected will not be able to commandeer or even move its supporters to take care of “manpower, resources and machinery” once the campaign period starts?

Why does the Comelec meddle into the “manpower, resources and machinery” that the candidate has or can gather when these are factors that can be easily mobilized once the campaign period starts? Every candidate will have its own method of conducting their campaigns. The Comelec has no right to intervene on the process of campaigning.

The Comelec right should be confined to approving the candidacies based on the Constitutional Requirement. The Supreme Court erred in its decision (Pamatong vx. COMELEC, GR 161872) granting the Comelec the right to prohibit and disqualify candidates based on practical considerations. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Comelec to insure that every candidate has enough exposure in media and in the communities so that the voters can make an intelligent choice.

At present, the Comelec puts in the shoulders of every candidate the burden of promoting themselves.

5. Observation: The Comelec has declared the DPP candidates as Nuisance Candidates defined as: “one whose certificate of candidacy is presented and filed to cause confusion among the electorate by the similarity of names of the registered candidate or by other names which demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the will of the electorate.”

Comments: the word “nuisance” is a negative term that speaks of being a cause for disturbance of peace. The above observation of the Comelec is a sweeping generalization – calling all those who it did not qualify as “nuisance.”

An ethical government agency should respect the dignity of every citizen. It should conduct its activities under the highest standards of respecting the human rights of everyone – in this case, of wanting to serve the country through participation in the electoral processes – that of being voted for.

Yet Comelec chooses to wallow in low politics and in one sweeping thrust of the pen dismisses many candidates who could have built their reputation as experts in their fields of endeavor and whose only flaw has been to file their certificates of candidacy.

In this regard, Comelec should be censured in the use of the word “nuisance,” as it brings itself down to the level of poor debaters who use “ad hominem” arguments once they run out of verbal or written defenses.

6. The Comelec has made erroneous governance time after time by disqualifying people without uniformity, as it has shown to exhibit favoritism or bias in its judgment.

Comment: The Comelec, should it commit an error, should be made to pay the candidates harmed by its decisions which have caused moral damages.

The question that Comelec should ask itself is: why are there many people who want to join as candidates? Has it ever examined the kind of government that the Filipino people have had over the decades? Have the different administrations made a positive difference in the lives of the people such that they would love to elect the same people over and over again?

The above comments are meant to overturn the decision of the Comelec in rejecting the COCs of the DPP, and to put into order its acts under professional standards as it shows bias, discrimination and anti-human rights posture in its Resolution.

The DPP must pursue this case up to the highest levels as the Comelec has shown its bias in all of its activities every time the election period arises.

In not being able to correct this, the DPP will be faced with the same problems every time an election arises and the Comelec will be able to petrify in its mistaken governance permanently. In this regard, the DPP would lose its political clout among the people as it would not be able to field its qualified candidates to let them decide the leaders they want.

THE DPP AS THE TRUE PARTY OF THE PEOPLE MUST BE ABLE TO CORRECT HISTORICAL ERRORS WITH SPEED AND INSTALL A GOVERNMENT SENSITIVE ENOUGH AND POSSESSING OFFICIALS WITH KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF GOOD GOVERNANCE – INCORRUPTIBLE AND RESPECTFUL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.



WILHELMINA S. OROZCO, DPP Senatorial Candidate
Senatorial Candidate, DPP