Beyond a Broken Code

For nearly four decades, the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) has been the backbone of electoral governance in the Philippines. Enacted on December 3, 1985, as Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, it was designed to ensure fair and orderly elections.

However, as the democratic landscape has evolved, persistent issues have emerged, highlighting the need for comprehensive reforms to uphold electoral integrity. It is increasingly clear that this nearly four-decade-old statute requires revision to address contemporary challenges undermining elections.

The first issue of the code is early campaigning. Under Sections 80 and 86 of the OEC, individuals are prohibited from engaging in election campaigning outside the official campaign period, with violations potentially leading to disqualification and imprisonment. Historically, candidates who campaigned prematurely faced little punishment. The Supreme Court case Peñera vs. COMELEC (2009) clarified that a person filing a Certificate of Candidacy is only considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period, effectively decriminalizing premature campaigning. This ruling builds on the earlier case Lanot vs. COMELEC (2006), which addressed when an individual is deemed a candidate.

Another glaring issue is nuisance candidacy, which has turned the electoral process into a chaotic circus. Individuals with no genuine intent to win file candidacies to mock the system, confuse voters, or sabotage legitimate campaigns, and the OEC offers little defense against this.

While Section 69 of the OEC attempts to define nuisance candidates as those who disrupt the process or create confusion through name similarities, the criteria for declaring someone a nuisance remain vague, creating loopholes for unethical individuals. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marquez vs. COMELEC (2022) emphasized that unpopularity and lack of funds alone aren’t enough to disqualify a candidate. Without stricter guidelines and enforcement, nuisance candidates will continue to exploit these gaps, turning elections into a popularity contest rather than a credible democratic process.

Then there’s the can of worms we know as negative campaigning. The OEC’s permissiveness allows candidates to smear opponents with minimal consequences. COMELEC Chairman George Erwin M. Garcia admitted, "The Omnibus Election Code allows negative campaigning. We cannot impose an outright ban." This outdated framework encourages campaigns fueled by insults and fear-mongering, drowning out meaningful discourse. Without reforms to curb these tactics, our elections risk becoming a circus where mudslinging overshadows substance.

Then you touch upon other famous issues, like vote-buying, a pervasive problem that erodes trust in the electoral system. The flaws in campaign finance regulations and enforcement make this issue even more challenging to combat. Additionally, the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) has several loopholes that undermine transparency in the electoral process. 

Expenditures incurred before the official campaign period aren't required in the SOCE, allowing significant unreported spending. Outdated spending limits incentivize underreporting, and weak enforcement due to the Commission on Elections' limited resources complicates oversight further.

Revising the Omnibus Election Code once and for all should be a priority of the 20th Congress the people decide to send after the elections. However, it seems the problem of revision lies in the political will it has. After all, why would the members of Congress wish to change the laws that they can exploit to win elections ?

Since 2021, there have been urges within COMELEC to revise the OEC, where in 2023, a 900-page draft was made. Nevertheless, the reality is, should we revise the OEC, the lawmakers who will write the revision may maneuver to add holes that they can exploit for future elections to come. 

While the revision of the Omnibus Election Code is merely a suggestion at this point. It is undeniably clear, the sheer amount of issues the nation faces and sees during elections is evident, it is almost nauseating, that there is no bigger push for a revision. Perhaps it falls on deaf ears, content with a system that benefits them and not the electorate, wherein instead of reform, they may continue to perpetuate the issues that plague this law. Granted that a single change in our electoral laws, even of this magnitude, may not have an effect on the politicians the electorate votes, but it could be a solution to the issues our Democracy has faced over the last couple of years

This should be a reminder that democracy is not perfect — it demands constant vigilance and reform. Without stronger safeguards, elections risk becoming contests of deception rather than ideas. To preserve the integrity of the democratic process, we must reject complacency and push for laws that prioritize truth, accountability, and genuine public service.

Article: Kyan Miguel A. San Agustin

Graphics: Katherine Cielo