Buy and sell

It’s nice to hear the Commission on Elections saying technology and social media will be used to crack down on the buy-and-sell of votes. Comelec officials say acts recorded on mobile phones can constitute evidence to warrant an investigation by the poll body.

I’ve heard this from the Comelec, however, in previous elections since the use of cell phones became pervasive. I can’t remember any significant case that led to the punishment of vote buyers and sellers.

That’s the next question after the Comelec assures the public that it will act on reports of vote buying: if a violation is established, will the guilty be punished?

If the Comelec also says yes, the next question is how far up accountability will go. Should the candidate supported by the offender be held liable?

Like drug dealers who put a safe distance between themselves and their hot merchandise, candidates who deliberately set out to buy votes surely know enough to have layers of deniability in the operation. Bagmen are designated to directly handle the distribution of cash.

There are instances when local political leaders or moneyed supporters, seeking to ingratiate themselves to the standard bearer, take it upon themselves – truly without the knowledge of the candidate – to offer cash, t-shirts and other freebies to muster a large crowd for a campaign rally.

But vote buying involves significant amounts of money, and it is usually taken from the campaign war chest of the standard bearer. So it’s likelier that candidates cannot be completely clueless if their supporters engage in buying votes.

Can the Comelec hold the candidate accountable for election offenses committed by the bet’s supporters? And if a link to the candidate is established, shouldn’t the bet be disqualified from the race?

The typical reaction to such a scenario by candidates in this country is, in your dreams. Especially if the candidate wins.

*      *      *

The idea of vox populi, vox Dei in our dysfunctional democracy has come to mean condonation of a winner’s transgressions, whether legal or moral. Elections in our weak republic are often mere validations of crookedness and greed in government.

The situation validates English scholar Alcuin’s advice to the emperor Charlemagne in the 8th century to resist the idea of vox populi, vox Dei because “the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.”

Vox populi is invoked by entrenched clans in defending dynasty building: they argue that unhappy constituents can always end the dynasty by voting the clan out of office.

Several jueteng lords, smugglers, drug traffickers and all sorts of thieves have successfully laundered their ill-gotten gains into politics. Once elected, their offenses are written off or, worse, the criminal activities continue and even grow exponentially.

If there is strong evidence that the supporters of a candidate have engaged in vote buying, will the Comelec go after the candidate as well, and impose punishment?

The Anti-Money Laundering Council is also moving to prevent vote buying through digital banking and mobile wallet applications. The pandemic has created a boom in digital financial transactions. Apart from vote buying, the AMLC also wants to prevent the laundering of dirty money to election campaigns.

Last month the AMLC told banks and financial institutions to watch out for certain types of transactions that could indicate vote buying and money laundering. The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas had issued a similar directive to the banking community.

People have an idea of how votes are bought and sold through direct cash handouts. In digital vote buying, the AMLC has identified the activities that should raise red flags.

These include large transactions within a short period, especially those that are “unusual” or inconsistent with a customer’s financial profile, everyday dealings or business.

Suspicious transactions include “unjustified” large cash deposits and withdrawals as well as structured cash deposits and money transfers.

Multiple accounts used by one person and the use of multiple money service business to send funds are also red flag indicators, according to the AMLC.

*      *      *

Under the Omnibus Election Code, the buy-and-sell of votes can warrant imprisonment of one to six years, disqualification from public office and forfeiture of the offender’s right to vote.

It remains to be seen whether banks and financing institutions will comply with the requirement to conduct due diligence on their clients and file reports on suspicious transactions. Some of the funding sources could be among the bank’s biggest clients. Some may even own the bank, with certain family members in politics themselves.

Can the AMLC go after such vote buyers? Can the Comelec?

Yesterday, the Comelec signed an agreement with the Department of the Interior and Local Government and Department of Social Welfare and Development to strengthen measures insulating social protection programs from politics.

Meaning, the three agencies want credit-grabbing or epal candidates to keep their paws off government ayuda programs, the 4Ps or conditional cash transfer and similar public-funded assistance programs.

Let’s see what happens when the aid is distributed in the presence of President Duterte himself, who intends to join the campaign sorties of the candidates of his PDP-Laban wing beginning this Thursday.

Skeptics say the anti-epal initiative, while laudable, can suffer the fate of efforts to clamp down on vote buying and selling, bogged down at the level of avowed good intentions.

Oh well, perhaps we can console ourselves with the idea that it’s the thought that counts.