Republic Act (RA) 7166 was passed in 1991 and sets out most of the rules for national elections in detail. Section 14, regarding the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE), reads: “Every candidate and treasurer of the political party shall, within 30 days after the day of the elections, file in duplicate with the offices of the commission the full, true and itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the elections.”
Further, “No person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his or her office until he or she has filed the statement of contributions and expenditures herein required. The same prohibition shall apply if the political party, which nominated the winning candidate, fails to file the statement required herein within the period prescribed by this Act.”
Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution 9991 dated October 2, 2015, addresses the same topic, repealing all prior Comelec resolutions on the subject and reiterates the same provisions and penalties for not properly filing the SOCE in a timely manner. Specifically noted is that there is no any extension of the filing period and failure to file within the prescribed period will result in candidates not being allowed to assume the office they were elected to.
While the attorneys will take a big legal hammer to both the law and the resolution, to the ordinary person the language is simple and the rules are clear. What is vague and hard to understand about “No smoking,” “No Parking” and “No food or drink is allowed in the store”?
But the current situation of the Liberal Party failing to file its SOCE is creating a major problem of legal interpretation because, of course, these rules do not apply to ordinary citizens. They apply to politicians.
By reading the law, it would be clear that all candidates that made up the Liberal Party nominated list of candidates would not be allowed to hold office. This would obviously include the Vice President-elect, as well as several senators, numerous representatives and, perhaps, countless local officials.
While the law seems clear, the argument against enforcing the rules is that to do so would violate the “will of the people” that voted for these candidates.
We can remember that in the past at certain times of the day, major streets suddenly became “counterflow” in one direction due to the “will of people.” When there is not any cross-traffic, red stoplights are ignored by the will of the people.
We are being told that in the case of RA 7166 and Comelec Resolution 9991, the “will of the people” should prevail over the rule of law. The “condonation doctrine” ruling stated that reelected officials cannot be held administratively liable for offenses during a previous term because their reelection meant their constituents have already forgiven them for their offenses. That doctrine was overturned by the court last year and, yet, it would seem to also be a violation of the will of the people.
Which will prevail: The rule of law or the will of people? A dangerous precedent might be established, as the will of the people can easily become “the rule of the mob.”
Image credits: Jimbo Albano