Institutional neutrality

The public’s trust in the election process relies, whether we like or not, on the perception that the process is fair.

Even the appearance of impropriety undermines the public’s faith in the process, no matter how well-intentioned the action may be.

Just recently, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Dasmariñas in Cavite approved a resolution granting P50-million in financial assistance to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to defray the expenses for the Aug. 29 special election to fill the vacancy in the position of representative of the fourth legislative district of Cavite.

The House of Representatives earlier expelled Cavite 4th district Rep. Francisco “Kiko” Barzaga after finding him guilty of disorderly behavior, conduct unbecoming of a member and violations of the House Code of Conduct.

The House adopted the committee on ethics and privileges’ recommendation to expel Barzaga, including the committee’s finding that Barzaga’s conduct fell short of the professionalism required under Republic Act 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The Sanggunian resolution noted that Dasmariñas City Mayor Jennifer Austria-Barzaga recommended granting P50-million in financial assistance to the Comelec to cover the expenses for the special election to fill the vacancy created by Kiko Barzaga’s removal.

The mayor, the expelled congressman’s mother, filed her certificate of candidacy in July to replace her son in the Lower House. She is one of the five candidates for the position.

The donation was turned over by vice mayor (now acting mayor) Elpidio “Third” Barzaga III, Kiko’s brother, to the Comelec last July 23.

Unfortunately, the donation has sparked significant public debate between institutional necessity and possible conflict of interest.

After all, Comelec is an independent constitutional body tasked with overseeing an election that is now partly financed by the same LGU unit upon the recommendation of a candidate and approved by the Sanggunian presided over by Vice Mayor Third.

Some critics argue that having the local government headed by a candidate fund the very body regulating their election compromises institutional neutrality.

The Comelec is designed to be a completely independent body funded solely by the national government to prevent local interference. Relying on local government funding sets a worrying precedent where wealthy LGUs can possibly exert financial influence over public democratic processes.

Section 4 of RA 6713, which covers elective and appointive public officials and employees including constitutional officials, provides that every public official and employee shall observe professionalism and endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.

Recently, Comelec dismissed claims by a Facebook page named “Calabarzon Connect” that the P50-million donation is “legal bribery in broad daylight,” reiterating that it will be used for the honoraria of teachers serving as electoral board members on election day.

Holding a special election is not cheap, requiring a budget of about P191 million.

But is P50 million worth the appearance of impropriety? Comelec may have the best of intentions, even the Barzagas, but it is simply not worth it. The end after all never justifies the means. Preserving the public image and perceived credibility of the Comelec should come first.

Chilling effect

Every election depends on citizens willing to participate. Some volunteer for campaigns. Others speak for the candidates they believe in. Many contribute financially within the limits set by law. These are ordinary acts of civic engagement that help sustain a functioning democracy.

However, the plunder case involving Sen. Rodante Marcoleta, former congressman Mike Defensor and two private businessmen will now make campaign donors think twice, fearing that a lawful contribution could later become part of a non-bailable criminal prosecution because of a candidate’s actions.

It is alleged that campaign-related transfers amounting to P75 million were omitted from the required election disclosures, eventually giving rise to plunder charges.

A campaign contribution does not automatically become evidence of criminal conspiracy simply because it is later questioned. The existence of a financial transfer, even one connected to a political campaign, does not by itself establish criminal intent. Prosecutors must demonstrate that each accused knowingly and intentionally participated in an unlawful scheme. The burden applies separately to every individual charged.

Unlike the public figures named in the case, the others do not hold public office. The deeds of donation identified the transfers as campaign contributions and that donor’s taxes were reportedly paid. If prosecutors contend that the transfers were actually corrupt payments made by reason of public office, they bear the burden of proving precisely that. They must establish not only the movement of money but also each donor’s knowledge and intentional participation in the alleged scheme.

The pending bail applications bring this requirement into sharper focus.

A bail hearing does not determine whether an accused is guilty. It asks whether the prosecution has presented sufficiently strong evidence to justify continued detention while trial proceeds. The inquiry is individualized. It focuses on the evidence against each applicant, not on the prominence of the other names appearing in the same information.

Personal liability remains a cornerstone of criminal justice. Association alone cannot substitute for proof. One defendant’s alleged conduct cannot automatically establish another defendant’s intent. Courts have long recognized that conspiracy must be supported by evidence showing each participant knowingly joined the alleged unlawful design.

However the Marcoleta case turns out, its significance may lie not only in the verdict but also in the precedent it leaves for future elections.

If citizens begin to fear that supporting a political candidate could later expose them to the gravest criminal charges without proof of their own knowing participation in wrongdoing, the chilling effect will extend far beyond this single prosecution.

For comments, email at [email protected]