The fundamental principle that sovereignty resides in the people has eroded over the past 50 years, largely due to persistent controversies surrounding the agency tasked with ensuring that the people’s voice is heard through free and fair elections.
The Philippine electoral system has suffered a steady decline, with wealth and popularity increasingly determining election outcomes from the national level down to local politics. The Commission on Elections (Comelec), established 90 years ago, has undergone significant amendments that expanded its role beyond administrative functions. Today, it wields administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial powers—authority that, while intended to strengthen the institution, has also made it vulnerable to exploitation.
With broader powers at play, unscrupulous individuals have found ways to manipulate the system for financial and political gain, entrenching political dynasties that have ruled for generations.
Amid growing concerns over electoral integrity, some have proposed abolishing Comelec and replacing it with provincial election boards akin to the Federal Electoral Districts of the U.S. and Canada. The rationale is that decentralizing electoral management could minimize large-scale fraud.
However, would such a move truly curb electoral manipulation, or would it merely shift control to political dynasties with deep-rooted influence in their respective territories? After all, many of those in power today are direct descendants of local political kingpins. Would this reform be a genuine solution, or just a superficial fix that ignores the deeper systemic problems?
Comelec’s credibility has been significantly damaged over the years. The game-changing walkout of national tabulators during the 1986 snap elections, the infamous “Hello, Garci” scandal in 2004, and controversies surrounding SmartMatic’s automated election system are just a few instances that have fueled public distrust.
For over two decades, there have been persistent calls to dissolve Comelec and replace it with an interim body. However, such a move would require a constitutional amendment—an enormous challenge in itself.
Despite its tarnished reputation, Comelec has had its moments of integrity and competence, particularly under the leadership of figures like Ramon Felipe, Christian Monsod, Jaime Ferrer, Hilario Davide, Haydee Yorac, and Harriet Demetriou. These examples serve as a reminder that the institution is not beyond redemption.
A viable path forward would be to reform the selection process for Comelec officials, ensuring that only individuals of unquestionable integrity and competence are appointed. One potential approach is to adopt a system similar to that of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which meticulously screens candidates for the Supreme Court.
By implementing a rigorous, transparent, and merit-based selection process, we can move toward an electoral system that truly upholds democracy. The task is daunting, but hope remains. The challenge now is to ensure that reforms go beyond rhetoric and translate into real, meaningful change.
