Electoral protests
Last week the Supreme Court, acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, threw out the electoral protest of Manuel Roxas II. No, the Liberal Party standard bearer did not protest the victory of Rodrigo Duterte in the presidential race last May. What was thrown out by the PET was Roxas’ protest against Jejomar Binay’s proclamation as vice president in the 2010 general elections with a lead of 727,084 votes. Also tossed out was Binay’s counter-protest.
In dismissing the case as moot, the Supreme Court explained that it had directed the two camps to initiate action expressing their interest in pursuing the case. But both camps did not do so, with Roxas also failing to pay the required P167-million filing fee. The SC also pointed out that both men had run for president last May. In this light, and with Binay already finishing his term as vice president, the PET decided to toss out the case for “mootness.”
The case highlights the difficulty of pursuing an electoral protest in this country. On one hand, this can be good in a society where gracious concession is rare among defeated candidates. Filipinos like to joke that after elections, there are only two candidates: those who won, and those who were cheated. A complex process of pursuing an electoral protest discourages frivolous complaints.
On the other hand, the complicated process can encourage poll cheating, which is a reality in this country. Certain politicians have elevated poll fraud to an art. And it’s not unusual for the government machinery to be used for cheating. For victims of such fraud, there must be a more effective mechanism of seeking redress and stopping cheaters from undermining the will of the electorate.
An election victory, once stolen, must be returned as quickly as possible. Resolving legitimate electoral protests when the loser has nearly completed or has finished serving the contested term robs the winner of his mandate and the people of their will. This breeds impunity and encourages cheating as a path to elective office.
Even a winning candidate who has been wrongly accused of cheating should want a more efficient and quicker way of settling electoral protests. Governance is easier when the mandate is unassailable. It shouldn’t be impossible for the electoral tribunals to simplify and speed up the process of settling disputes.