Already, early bird dirty tricks
7 Nov 2008 
6
• 1647 views, 2 today
I only wished to have ANY CUP of coffee this afternoon. I got my coffee break, but not without a meeting with hot-headed, combative folks.
I called off a trip to Songco, Lantapan, Bukidnon due to a family errand. I wanted to cover the 4th Mindanao Tripartite Youth Peace Camp in the upland village, but I have to forego it until tomorrow.
After doing the errand, I was left with an empty afternoon.
That’s how I found myself gatecrashing at the news room of Radyo Veritas in Malaybalay City, listening to a friend rant about this group of barangay kagawads (village councilmen) who filed a case against their chairperson.
My search for a coffee break with a colleague brought me to Malaybalay’s City Hall and to a nearby building where the barangay officials were scheduled to file the complaint.
In a nutshell, Johnny, my friend radio broadcaster, explained that they are accusing the barangay captain of corruption, and other cases. Apparently, the action came after the accused complained against their abseentism in council sessions.
After I was introduced, each of the six council members scrutinized me. If looks could kill, I already died six times!
Desperate for my coffee, I asked to be excused and gave them my best smile in a sleepy, interrupted afternoon.
I gave Johnny my own turn of rants, too.
Over a hot cup of instant coffee in a side street bakeshoppe, I realized what I saw was just the beginning. Already, it has began!
Every time we approach general elections, politicians and their supporters quarrel over mountains and mounds alike.
We can now see the numbers of complaints and cases rise sharply at the Office of the Ombudsman.
These cases of alleged corruption, fund malversation, abuse of power, etc. etc. will congest the halls of offices tasked to check on civil service malpractices.
The strange timing, but of course logical, is noteworthy.
This is also the time when politicians form their tickets. They scout for prospective candidates and alliances, and even supporters for the long campaign to victory.
That is why there will be a lot of manipulations, discrediting, and mudslinging.
The Ombudsman offices and Audit teams will have their hands tied up for all these allegations.
And, even if we recognize that there will be valid and sincere complaints against “misgovernance” from the national down to the village level, we can’t just be too complacent to take all of these hook,line and sinker.
Well, still 17 months ahead of May 2010, the dirt road to the next national and local elections is already open.
No related posts.
Author Info
I actually wish we had a 2-party system. Or at the very least, political parties that were more mature and stable. Then, we'd probably avoid some of the political wheeling and dealing. But not the mudslinging, unfortunately.
I agree Blog. It would also be easier to scrutinize platform from two parties. I'm glad the Comelec is thinking of holding presidential debates. Kaya lang optional daw eh. Pweding hindi mag join ang isang candidate kong ayaw niya. Anyway, this view could still be challenged to convince them to make it mandatory (hehe baka, unconstitutional na.)
I think having any genuine political parties would be a welcome change kahit bi or multi party system. Most political parties do not have any firm platforms, they do not have have regular party conventions with voters (like in the US where party delegates are not allowed to be office holders), they do not have any party discipline (like again in the US and in parts of Europe, if you are kicked out of a party, you can not join another established party for 5 years), and of course there's no primaries in the Philippines where we can weed out candidates.
I think the most critical step towards building a political party structure in the country should by having election primaries. This would remove COMELEC from deciding who is a nuisance candidate and what constitutes a sector. This would also save force political candidates to actually have positions before the primaries and would limit how many candidates could run during a general election which would make it easier for voters to choose. Voters must choose a political party to vote for, then they will select the standard bearer from among declared candidates who are members of good standing with the political party they are running in. Whoever wins the primary for that party, becomes the candidate that represents that party automatically. Political parties that do not have the signatures of 10% of the electorate or has less than 5% of candidates in a national office affiliated with that party will not be able to participate in the primaries. Political parties must also have publicized (either through a newspaper or website) a platform and a directory of officers. However, candidates may run as independents in municipal and provincial elections if they secure 5% of the votes in the primaries. Barangay and municipal (of non-chartered cities) elections will be automatically non-partisan (meaning party affiliation won't matter). If any individual wins 51% of the voting electorate for any national or provincial office, they automatically win that seat.
The second critical step is campaign funding reform. Its ridiculous how candidates can keep their donations after the elections like how Lacson bought himself a new SUV after he lost his 2nd bid for the presidency. Along with campaign reforms, we should forbid corporations, churches and NGOs from donating money directly to candidates and lower the amounts a candidate can receive from an individual. Provincial and national candidates should also be forced to present and publish (either in a website or in a newspaper) weekly spending reports and should submit their list of campaign donation contributors to the BIR. Churches should also be forbidden from allowing their premises to be used for campaigning and should not be allowed to indirectly fund candidates (funding appeals to their members and public endorsements).
The third critical step is the post-election campaigning. Candidates should not be allowed to plaster their faces on waiting sheds and ambulances. The Omnibus Election Code is not sufficient. In the US elected officials are not allowed to have their names on monuments equal or greater than the font size of the name of municipality or county. In some states, elected officials are not allowed to put their names at all on plagues and what not. Posters with the images of politicians, programs with the acronymns of politicians, with the names of politicians on public equipment and monuments should no longer be allowed. Instead of "Priority Project of PGMA" with a smiling GMA, signs and posters should read "Priority Project of the Office of the President" and a picture of Malacanang or the seal. Furthermore, the media should attache party affiliations to the names of national (except for the president and vice-president) and provincial elected officials so we know easily what party they belong to.
Just some ideas.
Hi Dhov. These are insightful inputs in this on-going discussion. Definitely, we need political reforms, not just electoral reforms.
But I never cease to be amazed with ideas and lessons we could take from the US political scenario. We might be able to merge it with our “indigenous” ways to make way for a “hiyang” and practical electoral reforms.
Thanks for your comments. It was a handful. Please come again and tell others about this site.
Thanks Waltzib
But I would like to add that political reforms begins with electoral reforms because who drafts the laws? Who is in charge of implementing the laws? So you can’t have political reforms without implementing electoral reforms first especially given the oligarchic nature of Philippine politics where Congressional seats are often hereditary.
Also, the primary election is not just a US political scenerio. The American electoral colleges was borrowed from the Holy Roman Empire’s system and primary’s were held in Switzerland before the US became independent from Britain.
Most countries actually have primaries. The Philippines is one of the few countries that does not have primaries. I believe the countries that do not have primaries are usually ones that were former Spanish colonies, though Spain itself also now has primaries and its similar to the US system of two parties though theoretically its still a multi-party system.
In Nordic countries, primaries are helpful because all political parties are supported by the government. Private donations to candidates and to political parties are not permitted. Instead, the government uses their primary elections as a way to figure out how much money each political party should be allocated. Nordic countries also tend to have very little political scandals. Some parts of the American election laws are actually taken directly from Norway and Sweden.
Wala lang, just some thoughts. Thanks ha.
Dhoy,
Very insightful. You should write about electoral reform, and post it in this blog.