So when do we reform elections?

The stage is set. Polls show that 54 percent of Filipinos favor former President Fidel Ramos’ line that Gloria Arroyo cut short her term by 2007. Too, that more Filipinos than ever back immediate constitutional revisions. Meanwhile, Ramos and Arroyo have met to fuse their stands on No-El (no elections in 2007); that is, Ramos is against it and Arroyo has left the matter to Congress. The House of Representatives has begun incorporating the Consultative Commission’s proposals into its own draft constitution – sans the hated No-El. The Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, which groups all governors, mayors, their vices, provincial board members and councilors, is gathering five million signatures for the Senate to go along with Charter change.

All this means there would soon be two elections. The first, sometime this year, is a plebiscite to ratify a new Constitution. The second, in 2007 as scheduled, would be to vote in local officials and likely a new parliament.

There’s only one item missing in the groundswell for political reform: a cleanup of election procedures.

The Garci Tape raised a scandal over the election system. It may have been a product of illegal wiretap, but that is no longer of issue. Thousands of copies of the tape landed in the hands of ordinary folk, who played it in homes and offices, schools and communities, for them to judge that indeed there’s something terribly wrong with candidates high and low phoning an all too compliant election officer. Virgilio Garcillano’s admission of 30 or so aspirants from both the Administration and Opposition contacting him at the height of the 2004 vote counting all the more drove home the point: the Commission on Elections needs a revamp.

Other events exacerbate the mess. Today’s Comelec, except for one new commissioner, is the same body that spent P1.3 billion on automation that never was. Weeks before the 2004 balloting, the Supreme Court had to void the Comelec purchase for violating its own bidding rules to favor a supplier with no track record. Thousands of automated counting machines are gathering dust in Comelec warehouses, and the government is trying to recover P830 million already paid to the supplier. This is the same Comelec that spent another billion pesos to photograph and fingerprint millions of voters for ID cards that were never delivered. This is the same Comelec that messed up the precinct assignments on Election Day, thus disenfranchising at least two million voters. This is the same Comelec that, despite the High Court’s ruling and a Senate plea for the commissioners to resign, arrogantly retorts, "So sue me."

The Comelec as it is cannot be trusted to conduct the plebiscite, much more the national and local balloting.

Whether or not there’s a shift to parliamentary-federal from today’s presidential-unitary, reforming the election process cannot be postponed. The problems have grown so big to the point of absurdity. Ballot counting takes two months. So much so that candidates spend half their campaign funds buying votes, and the other half paying off election supervisors for dagdag-bawas (vote padding-shaving). That is why no loser ever concedes defeat, but instead clogs the election tribunals with protest cases.

Elections have become too expensive. It costs P2 billion to run for President, P800 million for senator, P250 million for congressman, governor or big city mayor, P50 million for town mayor, and P20 million for board member or councilor. All this for monthly salaries ranging from P15,000 to P32,000. The expense is a drain on the pocket while recovery by foul means is becoming slimmer because of tougher anti-graft laws and a more vigilant citizenry. This is why local officials are aching for No-El, although their public assertion is that postponed elections till 2010 would give people a respite from divisive politics. Businessmen have another reason to advocate No-El: they can no longer afford to donate to parties at a time of economic slowdown. But voters are averse to No-El, for it would be like postponing the fiesta from which they earn extra cash, legit or illicit.

Solutions must be immediate. They need not wait for constitutional amendments, but only congressional action. For, the looming plebiscite needs a good system with good people running it. If that plebiscite thrashes a switch in form of government, the 2007 elections will proceed under the present Constitution, and will need the same good system and good men.

The first step is to reestablish the Comelec to be truly insulated from political influence. This Comelec can purge and computerize the voters’ list, and automate counting with clean contracts. It can strictly regulate election spending and access to the media. A revitalized Comelec can be given the exclusive task to break up political districts whose number of voters has grown too large. This would entice new faces to enter politics and begin to break the grip of oligarchs on local and national politicians.

To curb the influence of big money on politics, Congress can revive two bills long sponsored by Speaker Jose de Venecia and Sen. Ed Angara. One of these is for state subsidy to political parties for campaign spending. The other would severely punish political turncoats who bolt parties that have spent for their election.

These are but for starters. Other measures can follow to plug system loopholes as they spring up. But the objective should be always clear: to set up an election process that would truly reflect the people’s pick of leaders.

Malacañang is convening the Council of State on January 23. Invited are former presidents; Congress, Cabinet and Opposition figures; religious and sector leaders. Topping the agenda is electoral reform. Some Arroyo foes, even before receiving invitations, have announced they would snub it. Their line – an extension of their failed impeachment and demonstrations – is that Arroyo should resign first before they start to talk election cleanup. They might miss the boat.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]