The evil of money in democratic elections

Title

Language

English

Source

Panorama XIX (5) May 1967

Year

1967

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

■ The ousting of 3 Philippine senators from their senate seats, Messrs. Antcnino and Manglapuz, and Mrs. Katigbak, provoked the following column in the Manila Times and editorial in the Manila Bulletin. THE EVIL OF MONEY IN DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS OVERSPENDING IN ELECTIONS A decision of the Senate Electoral Tribunal expected to be promulgated soon to oust three incumbent Sen ators for overspending in the 1961 elections is being hailed and bewailed. It is being welcomed for whatever deterrent effect it may have on people running for public office. Election campaigns for both national and local elective positions have become so costly that they have become scandalous. The expected verdict is being deplored for its tardiness. Those against whom the ac tion is to be taken are round ing out their six-year term. They have performed all the functions of their high office, have received all the emolu ments and other benefits ac cruing to their position, and for all intents and purposes have served the term. The composition of the Senate Electoral Tribunal — three members of the Sup reme Court, three ruling party Senators and three op position party Senators — in vests it with an aura of rec titude and practically forbids any critical view of its acts and performance. Still it may be wished that it could terminate processes early enough for protestants to derive the benefits due them and for people wrongly occupying high office to feel the punishment for their mis deeds, instead of continuing to enjoy the honors and tan gibles due their position. As it is, ouster of the three Senators concerned will award their replacements a quasi empty victory. This is so be cause unless they could still sit at any special session that May 1967 27 may be called, they could be considered honorary Senators for the remainder of the sixth year of their term. Of course, there is no down-grading the impact of the verdict of the Senate Electoral Tribunal. It is un precedented. Its effect on the public image of those against whom it is directed could have far-reaching conse quences upon their political career. The offense for which they are expected to be ousted is overspending. This involves spending more than the equi valent of one year’s salary from the public office sought in election campaigning. In the case of Senators, the oneyear salary is P7,200. The Tribunal’s verdict, which should be taken as a condemnation of election overspending, is timely in the face of rampant malpractices in this regard whch have brought in their train other evils that could make a moc kery of our democratic sys tems. The members of the Sen ate Electoral Tribunal are to be congratulated for their moral courage in arriving at the expected verdict. The Supreme Court Justices in the Tribunal are men of known uprightness. The Sen ators sitting in judgment of their peers have likewise per formed like elders of our na tion that they are presumed to be. The expected verdict should reestablish faith in our democratic systems and discredit cynical attitudes to ward their faults. It is a bloodless process of righting a wrong whose value in our way of life must be appre ciated. — Manila Bulletin, May 8, 1967. CAMPAIGN SPENDING The charge of overspend ing against three senators has been received by most peo ple with a feeling of irony because it comes after the ■three served their full term and it deals with a fact of political life that is common knowledge and practice. We do not sanction overspending in election campaigns, we consider this the primary root of all our evils at present. Neither do we censure the action of the tribunal, since any action is better than no action. This is obviously a precedent. It is applying a law that could easily encom 28 Panorama pass all public officials serv ing at present. The fact that it took six years to reach such a verdict on such sim ple evidence and legal appli cation robs the ruling of any reason for crowing. It is quite a coincidence that in one celebrated case, a ruling unseating a congressman who had lost an election protest, came after the four-year term had run its course. It takes six years to arrive at a much simpler matter when enter taining cases against senators. • • • In the latest issue of one weekly magazine, a governor is quoted directly as saying: “I used up more than P2 million to win the governor ship and to help Piping in his reelection bid. But Danding spent more than P4 million in his abortive at tempt to unseat Peping and to help President Marcos win.” Obviously, a simple look at expense in mass me dia alone would be sufficient evidence of a lot of election spending, and everybody knows that expenses in cam paigns are less in the form of promotional materials such as sample ballots and more in outright buying of support of some leaders. If one is to believe loose coffee-shop talk, one senator reportedly asked a presidential candi date for Pl00,000 just to ap pear in Plaza Miranda to give an endorsement speech. • • • The cost of politics is real ly staggering. Those who overspend should be unseated and condemned. But we think that the electoral „Jtribunal is also responsible tor being so unexcusably slow. Furthermore, there is need for more sensible safeguards to prevent election overspend ing. We suggest that the gov ernment print only one of ficial sample ballot with all the names of the candidates, and ban all other such sam ple ballots. We also think that radio time and print advertising should be made on a limited scale, because what ultimately results is a lot of block-time buying in order to speculate on air time during the elections. Bill boards should also be con fined to one area with equal space. In short there are many areas where actual spending could be curbed by limiting and standardizing their use for election pur poses. — By A. R. Roces in Manila Times, May 9, 1967. May 1967 29

pages

27-29

Media