Candidates, Commercials, and Indecision

Professional politicians are so predictable.

They will try everything, as in do anything, and stoop so low to achieve their ultimate goal - power, fame, and if they can manage it, wealth.

Sure, they may seek political power to do what is the best for the people i.e., the common good; but in pursuit of acquiring power for the good of the many, is it justified for them to break laws that preserve order in society, to curtail our civil liberties and set aside the principles of human rights, or even pay, not of their own, but with the precious lives of our fellow men?

In deed, in this case, "the end justifies the means."

Moving on, by saying "professional," I mean those who have been so used to the machinations of traditional politics, who not only know what gray portions of the law that needs to be circumvented and tweaked to increase their chances of being elected, but also present their image as law-abiding citizens serving the republic, while making a living through private advertisements, perhaps in order to boost their campaign war funds; or worst, they do so in order to provide themselves a chance of an early election campaign in a country where fame, looks, and appearance may be enough to get a candidate elected.

If I am not mistaken, as of current, the law is vague as to whether appearing in media advertisements for the purpose of private gain may be deemed as violating the Philippine Omnibus Election Code which prohibits "early campaign activities."

Article 9, Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code states:

Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. - It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.

Hence, the legal issue at hand is whether media advertisements intended for commercial gain may be considered "election campaign... activity outside the campaign period" if public officials with aspirations to seek elected political offices became involved (thus, appeared in an advertisement to the public to support or encourage a particular product).

But even if it such were not the case, shoudn't those government officials, free as they may be to engaged in any activity that may increase their living, be afraid that may they trample laws that keeps our elections fair, free, and untainted by illegal or even unscontitutional acts?

Through this, one can see the inevitable opportunistic aspect of any politician, of which the measure of aspiration is proportional to the level of public office a politician aspires to hold.

The Inaction of the COMELEC

In this article, I would also like to criticize the inaction of the COMELEC to make a decision regarding the question put forward by Senator Miriam Santiago. It is plain enough that as an electoral constitutional commission, the COMELEC is empowered and is duty bound by the Philippine Constitution to decide matters regarding the enforcement of election laws and due to its quasi-judicial function, interpret to a certain extent the scope and application of election laws.

Even if a decision of the COMELEC was found by the Philippine Supreme Court, acting as an appellate court that may choose to intervene when a constitutional issue arises, as ultra vires, to have erred would have been better; the ramification of failing to act lies not only in the non-establishment of legal precedents emanating from the COMELEC as an independent constitutional body regarding such particular issues in question; but more so, in its potential exposure to the notion of being a weak and irrelevant public office due to its inaction and thus, the danger of losing its significance in the eyes of the public.

It is better to have tried than do nothing; for in trying, the virtue of courage and intent is becomes apparent. But to not have tried and thus to have erred not at all implies the notion of inaction, an act unworthy of decisive political action, however prudent it may be.