The lines between compliance and defiance can be blurred, especially when it comes to a law that is complexly open to overlooked nuances. However, is the law still considered effective when these gray lines are indirectly offending itself?
(Cartoon by Luke Perry Saycon/The Communicator)
As election season approaches, the entire advertisement landscape is also preparing to become a political battleground for candidates. However, months before the official campaign period, candidates have been blatantly displaying their faces and designated platforms on television, billboards, and social media, promoting themselves to the masses ahead of time—boosting visibility and favorability that insults the concept of fairness.
Premature campaign advertisements tamper with and compromise the integrity of the electoral process. These actions and strategies provide an unfair advantage to the offenders. Yet they cannot be held accountable for their actions, as no punishment is in place, rendering the law ineffective as it doesn't protect pre-campaign activities.
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code states that it is unlawful for any candidate who has already filed their candidacy to engage in any promotion before the campaign period. The amendment clearly specifies that national and local candidates may only begin campaigning 90 and 45 days before Election Day, respectively. For the upcoming elections, campaign activities should only start in February 2025.
Although the law aims to prevent candidates from gaining an advantage during the elections, it is also limited and susceptible to exploitation, as its legal loopholes can be used against it, which indirectly makes the law futile.
But why is it inefficient and inadequate?
First and foremost, given that the law clearly states that restriction applies “as soon as they file their candidacy,” thus it is only effective during the course after running. Consequently, premature campaign ads before filing are not prohibited and are thus protected by the law. This results in the plethora of disguised political campaign materials being disseminated and presented on public platforms–even before the electoral process officially begins.
The loopholes in the law have been taken advantage of to elevate the candidates just before the election. What’s saddening is that the only recourse for the public is to call out these actions, which candidates can quickly brush off by claiming that the ads serve different intended purposes and do not constitute a formal campaign.
Examples include House Deputy Speaker Camille Villar’s “Bagong Boses, Bagong Bukas,” Senator Imee Marcos’ “IMEEsolusyon,” Interior Sec. Benhur Abalos’ “Si Abalos ‘Yan,” and Senator Nancy Binay’s “Better Makati! Visit Makati!” advertisements. Although these do not directly state that they are running for office, they display characteristics of political campaign materials as they include their platforms, achievements, as well as repetitive taglines that provide indirect endorsements, undermining the principle of equal opportunity, which is one of the foundations of a fair and ethical election.
The laws have inadvertently tolerated political parties to produce advertisements that resemble campaigns, while adhering to legal timing as these activities are not within the limitations, can be manipulated, and supposedly during the permissible times which is outside the election period.
Moreover, political candidates can also use third-party groups, similar to the advertisement for Ramon “Bong” Revilla which was funded by Imus Productions, Inc. These might not show an explicit endorsement of him as a candidate, allowing it to be disguised as conventions. Such tactics could be watered down and misrepresented as mere non-partisan efforts, evading regulations and avoiding accountability as it was outside the scope of Section 79 of the Election Code.
They can advantageously build their brands and connect to the constituents, encouraging people to stimulate interest in their goals through indirect defying of legal standards that are not within the limitation.
Furthermore, it is alarming that these disguised campaign materials have the possibility of being funded by the government office budgets serving a dual purpose—promoting activities while indirectly endorsing potential candidates featured in the advertisements.
The law intended to protect and ensure fair election opportunities for all candidates is being manipulated, turning it to favor those who love and know how to exploit them, thereby tarnishing the principles of equality and democracy. If they cannot respect a simple law while aiming for a position, how can we trust that they will do so once elected?
It is evident that some aspects of election codes are no longer adequate to be enforced in monitoring and tracking those premature political ads, as the law itself is strained and manipulated, eroding fairness. Thus, those better candidates who prioritize public services and adhere to the law are disadvantaged simply for following the code.
The flagrant disregard of the existing election laws, underscored by legal loopholes, highlights a flaw in the process of election. As long as some candidates constantly exploit these loopholes, we cannot ensure that there is a fair process, as it is misleadingly compromised. Moreover, it remains prone to constant manipulation and challenges. We should advocate for stronger and more effective regulations that will close the gaps and ensure accountability to everyone.
Article: Kent Merrie Jade A. Mejares
Cartoon: Luke Perry Saycon
Comments