‘No more ayuda-sounding party-list groups’

MANILA, Philippines — After the May 12 midterm elections, party-list groups will no longer be allowed to have “ayuda-sounding” names, Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman George Garcia said yesterday.

In an interview with “Storycon” on One News, Garcia said the Comelec would be stricter in its accreditation process for party-list groups to make sure they don’t use misleading names to attract voters.

He noted that many party-list groups have taken names that sound like those of government assistance programs for the poor.

An example is the 4Ps party-list, which sounds like the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)’s Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or 4Ps.

“There are those who were accredited before we, in the present leadership, came. But surely, there will be no party-list names like that to be accredited and allowed. We will not allow it, even those names of television programs, telenovelas, etcetera,” Garcia said when asked why some party-list had been allowed to use “ayuda-sounding” names.

Garcia said the Comelec can no longer stop the existing party-lists with misleading names because they are already accredited and their existence is legal.

“We can no longer run after them because they were accredited. They have the right to enter and therefore, we cannot run after them and tell them to change their party-lists’ names. Some have already run for party-list in the past elections and they even got votes,” Garcia said.

He also cited as example the case of MAD of actor Richard Gomez. Comelec managed to get pieces of evidence that the MAD and its nominee are receiving financial support from the government.

“In this particular case, we are not yet in the present leadership when it was accredited by the commission. They are private when it was accredited. But of course it is a part of the strategy to use well-known names, the ayuda names. At that time, they were not able to impose strict provision involving the use of such names,” Garcia said.

He said that in fairness to the Comelec, it has denied 200 applications for party-lists.

“Only 42 were accredited by the present leadership. The lowest in the history of accreditation of party-list, in all fairness to the present leadership of the commission,” Garcia said.

He noted that party-lists with ayuda-sounding names and those taken from popular telenovelas could be challenged before the Comelec.

“It will be a test case. It can be tested. But I don’t want to reveal it now because some may file a case in a particular party-list and then questioning why the party-list have used such a name. Let us see what will be the action of the commission in this matter,” Garcia said.

Garcia also reminded politicians that they are not allowed to appear in places where ayuda programs are being released during the election period.

“The social workers can distribute, but not the politicians. It is a criminal ground if the lists of names of beneficiaries of ayuda came from the politicians and it is a ground for disqualification,” Garcia said.

Meanwhile, the Comelec and automated election system provider Miru Systems have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to dismiss the petition seeking to compel them to disclose documents related to the 2025 midterm polls, for being procedurally infirm and lacking of merit.

The petitioners, members of the Right to Know, Right Now Coalition (R2KRN), the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR), the Philippine Press Institute, journalists and academics, claimed Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to fully act on their request for information following the withdrawal of one of Miru’s partners.

The Comelec, through the Office of the Solicitor General, belied the contention of petitioners.

The poll body said its action “effectively refuse any assertion of grave abuse of discretion” since the actions were compliant with the Freedom of Information manual and that no grounds exist to challenge the validity or propriety of its exercise of discretion.

It also argued the petitioners do not have “unbridled right to request for access to information” without specifying which official act or decision it seeks to have access to.

Comelec contended that the right to information is provided under Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution but it has yet to be fully operationalized and requires more concrete mechanisms.

It argued that the right to access to information cannot be directly invoked against private individuals or entities as the rule “primarily pertains to the government’s own activities and the information under its control.”

Comelec also argued that the right of people to information is the “right to access to official records, and to documents and papers” on official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as research data used as basis for policy development.

For its part, Miru argued it has no obligation or duty to provide information to the petitioners.

“The information prayed for in the petition were already with petitioners or are readily available to them had they exercised even ordinary diligence in reviewing their mails or searching the website or record office of the Comelec,” it said.

“It is not for (Miru) to spoon-feed petitioners with interpretations of these available information, considering that they claim to be veteran journalists and lawyers who are expected to be capable of reading and comprehending the public documents,” it added. — Daphne Galvez