Dynasts are the real nuisance candidates

Politicos are considering three ways to be rid of nuisance candidates. Either fine them P50,000, or make them show proof of sanity, or forever bar them after three Comelec rulings of inadequacy.

The Comelec is to pare down the official bets from last week’s 152 senatorial and 185 party-list filers. Past criteria will be used, says Comelec spokesman James Jimenez. Out at once are two whose nominations were signed by God, one who claims to be the ex-hubby of Kris Aquino, another who goes by the alias Captain Kidlat, some who went on record in news videos as seeking their 15 minutes of fame, and many first-timers likely incapable of mounting credible campaigns.

There are also considerations of cost and comprehension, Jimenez adds. Producing extra-long ballots on special security paper would run to the hundreds of millions of pesos. Too many names confuse voters. In 2016 only six of dozens of presidential wannabes, 50 of 145 senatorial filers, and 135 of 212 party-list names were included.

All those may be unconstitutional, however. The only qualifications in the fundamental law to run for Senator, Congressman, President, Vice, and local official are: (1) citizenship, (2) age, (3) voter registration, (4) residency, and (5) ability to read and write. No law or agency may thus debar any aspirant for mental or financial incapacity, much more fine him. A case can be made in the Supreme Court against candidacy restrictions unstated in the Charter. Costs should not hamper suffrage either; the Comelec has wasted P45 billion on unreliable voting machines in the past three elections. Besides, given technological strides, serious campaigns can be done online. Disqualifying a bet for being a newbie can be tricky, Jimenez admits. In 2016 a third of the official “senatoriables” were allowed because they formed tickets, although incomplete.

The ultimate definition of nuisance candidate is one who makes a mockery of the election, Comelec commissioner Rowena Guanzon says. “We are appealing to aspirants: don’t make fun of the process ... Democracy should not be treated as a joke.”

If so, then a stronger case can be made to declare all political dynasts as nuisance – and disqualify them.

That’s because there is only one more electoral restriction in the Constitution other than the five stated above. It pertains to political dynasties. For spouses, siblings, parents and offspring to run simultaneously or in succession or to switch posts is to mock elections and democracy. They belittle Article II, Declaration of Principles and State Policies:

“Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them...

“Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

Anyone who says that no law defines political dynasties only bolsters the point that dynasts mock elections and democracy. It has been 31 years since the people exercised their sovereign will in ratifying the Constitution. The dynast-controlled Congress has passed no law defining to what degree of consanguinity or affinity a dynasty is.

If the Comelec can disqualify bets for eccentricities or disability to campaign, more so it can debar dynasties on basic kinship: spouses, siblings, parents, offspring.

First to go should be those who bend the definition of dynasty. Examples: “I hate dynasties, but my three children are running because of public clamor.” Or, “We are the good type of dynasty.” Or, “We are not dynastic because my spouse, my siblings, and I were elected separately.” The Constitution does not distinguish popularity, type, or election. It simply bans all dynasties. To insist on it is to rub salt on people’s wound.

They are untrue to duty. Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers, Section 1, states: “Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.” To promote one’s political dynasty with or without a law certainly is lack of integrity and unjust.

Political dynasts impoverish the land. They control all business and appointments in their locales. Dissenters and ordinary folk are left out. Only the dynasts’ wealth increases, mostly by kickbacks and theft of public funds. Despite disgraceful indictment for pork barrel plunder, three are running anew for legislator. One of them, who would be 95 in Election 2019, “can no longer walk and so is running.” If he wins as senator, he would sit – and plunder some more? – till he’s 101.

Dynasts think only they have the right. They frustrate the people’s natural desire for upward mobility. Due to political dynasties, more people are hungry. Recent risers to middle from lower class say that, due to inflation and rising commodity prices, they’re back to being poor. Dynasts violate one other constitutional provision. Article II, State Principles, Section 9 says: “The State shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.”

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

Gotcha archives on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jarius-Bondoc/1376602159218459, or The STAR website https://www.philstar.com/columns/134276/gotcha