On the eve of the end of the campaign period, Ed Panlilio received the final word from the Commission on Elections: for the past three years, he had occupied a post that he did not win in the 2007 midterm elections. The real winner in the race for Pampanga governor, according to the final Comelec ruling, is former provincial board member Lilia Pineda.
Regardless of where one stands in this electoral dispute, the interminable wait for its resolution is unfair to all parties concerned. It is unfair to Pineda, who believes she has been robbed of her mandate. It is unfair to Panlilio, who still believes he won and sees the ruling as a permanent stain on his public service record. And it is most unfair to the voters of Pampanga.
The long period for settling electoral disputes is one of the biggest incentives for poll fraud in this country. A stolen mandate is not supposed to be an irretrievable loss for the victim. Instead the slow pace of resolving election disputes has reinforced the notion that when it comes to elective office, possession is nine-tenths of the law. Legal complications can also arise in connection with some official acts of an elective official whose victory is invalidated at the last minute by the Comelec.
Such eleventh-hour rulings give certain quarters reason to complain of political harassment. In this case, Panlilio’s Liberal Party sees the Comelec ruling as another case of harassment to favor the Pinedas, staunch supporters of President Arroyo especially in the Pampanga district where she is seeking a congressional seat.
The only upside is that Panlilio’s case has been resolved. Other disputes will have to wait until after the elections.
Elections are supposed to be the democratic manifestation of people power – an expression of the people’s will, which creates a government of, for, and by the people. If elections are to serve this purpose, a deadline must be set and strictly followed for resolving electoral disputes, which will guarantee that the people’s mandate will not be thwarted.