EDITORIAL - Slow resolution

With only about two weeks left before the start of the campaign for local positions, the Supreme Court last week unseated Emmanuel Maliksi as mayor of Imus, Cavite. The order resulted from an election protest filed by a rival of Maliksi and is reportedly final, prompting the Commission on Elections to order him to vacate his seat.

Maliksi can return to his post if elected in May. The case, however, once again highlights the need to speed up the resolution of electoral protests. Surely it’s not impossible to impose a reasonable deadline for resolving election protests with finality. The case of Maliksi is by no means unique. Some officials have been unseated in the final weeks of what’s left of the contested term.

Such situations create uncertainty and can wreak havoc on governance. They also undermine the will of the people, as reflected in the power of the vote. Only candidates who cheat their way to victory will be happy if they are wrongly proclaimed as winners and then unseated near the end of their term. Elective office is one item that, when stolen, is irretrievably lost. In this case, delayed resolution of an electoral protest rewards poll fraud.

Candidates who play fair will want to know the real mandate of the people, win or lose. And they will find it unfair, either way, if they are unseated at the eleventh hour because of the protracted resolution of an electoral protest.

Surely the best legal minds can come up with ways of speeding up the resolution of such cases, specially in local contests involving smaller numbers of disputed votes. The long wait for final resolution of election protests undermines the vote, which is the reflection of the people’s will in a democracy.