www.soriano-ph.com

The Supreme Court En Banc declared unconstitutional in Quinto vs. COMELEC (G. R. No. 189698, 1 December 2009) the second proviso in the third paragraph of Sec. 13 of RA 9369, Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Section 4 (a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678. Consequently, appointive public officials are no longer ipso facto resigned when they file their certificate of candidacy for an elective post.

With the ruling, justices, judges, election officials, military and police officers, members of the cabinet and all appointed civil servants may continue to exercise the functions of, and hold on to, their appointive office while campaigning to get elected for an elective position.

If they lose, they just continue occupying their appointive posts without even violating Sec. 6, Art. IX (B) of the Constitution that says “No candidate who has lost in any election shall, within one year after such election, be appointed to any office in the Government of any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of its subsidiaries”.  Why? It is because they have already been appointed before they lost the elections.

The decision does not seem to prevent the evil that the Constitution, in so many words, seeks to prevent. Next elections, should the Filipino people be wary that the Chief Justice, the Chairman of the COMELEC or the Chief of Staff of the AFP becoming a candidate for President, Vice-President or Senator while serving the office to which they were appointed?

Just asking, in the meantime that this decision is not yet final and executory.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 27 May 2007 Issue

The aftermath of the May 14, 2007 midterm election is not actually different from previous polls.
 
Name every provision in the country’s statute books on the conduct of a free, honest, and orderly election and chances are they were all violated. Unfortunately, this litany of poll irregularities is committed with impunity. 

The usual electoral scenario leaves an indelible question to poll observers whether there is still hope in Philippine democracy. Is there?

The interim results of the senatorial race shows that the voters are no longer excited about the celebrity status of the candidates. Tito Sotto, Richard Gomez and Victor Wood are losing miserably. The fact that Senator Ralph Recto is the husband of popular actress and now Batangas governor Vilma Santos did not seem to have much impact on his reelection bid.  Actress Sharon Cuneta on Senator Francis Pangilinan is an entirely different matter because people think that he stood for his principles when he ran independent.
 
The big publicity spenders in the senatorial race were also flatly rejected by the people while Oakwood mutineer Antonio Trillanes IV, who is languishing in jail and hardly had any media exposure, is still in contention. While there is no doubt that media can make or unmake a person’s good image, candidates should learn the lesson that there must be truth in advertising. And the Filipino people had just shown their capacity to discern the truth from falsehood or mere propaganda.

The so-called ‘command votes’ of incumbent political leaders, as well as the endorsements of religious groups who claim to have the strength of numbers by voting in block, also did not matter much in the outcome of the senatorial tally.  Somehow, this is indicative that given the opportunity the present generation of Filipinos tends to vote out of conscience, not out of sheer or blind obedience.

Apparently, candidates from the administration who are making it to the senatorial race are those who are known for their independence, like Senator Joker Arroyo, and performance, like Senator Edgardo Angara. Secretary Mike Defensor, a known loyalist of the president and who has been in the news all year round is in the losing circle.

It seems also that the people are starting to get tired of political dynasties. There is still a possibility that top-notch lawyer Aquilino Pimentel would not join his father and Representative Alan Peter Cayetano may not be with his sister in the Senate. If the people do not mind political dynasties they would have easily put both candidates in the sure winner lists.

On the party-list front, it is a source of wonder why the votes garnered by BANAT led by Raul Lambino, who led the so-called people’s initiative petition to amend the constitution last year, is nowhere the vicinity of the 6.3 million voters who he claimed signed the petition.  Even the BANTAY party-list of reitred General Jovito Palparan is still fighting for its life, maybe because of the alleged human rights violations associated with him while still in the military service.

On the local contests, it is true that there is no real big change in political leadership. This may be due to the failure of non-administration parties to put up candidates in many areas. Also, for the local constituency, it is always a case of who can best deliver the goods for them, a case of voting smart so to speak.

But given the option, like in the case of Pampanga, where Catholic priest Eddie Panlilio fought against the almost impenetrable political machinery incumbent Governor Mark Lapid and Board Member Lilia Pineda, the people would not hesitate to express their conscience on their votes.

Representative Darlene Antonino Custodio, who belongs to a political family in General Santos City, routed the most popular Filipino today, boxer Manny Pacquiao. And it was a choice between mere popularity without any real political agenda as against a political dynasty with a proven track record in public service.

All these point to the growing sensitivity of the Filipino people for political change.  Who knows, the world might be in for one big political surprise come 2010.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 4 March 2007 Issue

The mid-term election fever is very much in the air. And many of those vying and in competition to win the polls for another mandate are the same faces who made politics a life long career.

Despite the term limits imposed by the Constitution, it is rarity for these old guards in Philippine politics to yield their vested interests over an elective post to pave the way for fresh leadership. They will continue to perpetuate themselves in power through their alter egos in the persona of their spouses, children, siblings or immediate relatives, or maybe after ensuring themselves of getting appointed to another sensitive or juicy government post by virtue of a political tit for tat.

It is no longer a source of wonder why many of the country’s politicians would do whatever it takes to remain in power. They would spend a fortune to fund extravagant electoral campaigns and political dole-outs. Some would not mind employing dirty tricks and unlawful schemes or resorting to intimidation, force or even political killings just to ensure poll victory.

If there is any rational or logical explanation for all of this display of ‘political will’ on the part of the candidates, it is simply because politics is a lucrative career.

Of course, the standard line of the typical politician is to the contrary. They seek public office to serve the country and its people, or to alleviate the plight of the poor and the down-trodden, or get rid of corruption. All of these though are pure lip service. At the end of the day, nothing really significant would change in the lives of their constituencies. Proof of this is the fact that the usual problems and concerns facing the country that are being tackled every election campaign remains almost the same interminable and long-standing issues. 

But by taking a second look at many politicians and political families and comparing the extent of their wealth and fortune today from that of elections ago, there would be a remarkable difference in most cases. And this is a source of great wonder especially in a theoretical situation where statutory defined government pay and amenities for elective public positions are not really commensurate with the huge amount of political investments put in to earn the votes.

Notwithstanding the practical realities, no politician who has been in office for the longest time did ever become poor or miserable and would give up political ambitions for such a reason.

The return of investments in a political career is quicker, very tempting, and apparently much easier compared to a savvy businessman who would engage in serious entrepreneurship. And every ‘political entrepreneur’ would know that recovery at the very least of political investments is next to impossible, except through kickbacks or payoffs in government transactions, or in the form of protection, lobby or retainer money from unscrupulous supporters whose economic interest, legitimate or otherwise, might be in jeopardy, or via the various business opportunities using other people’s money that become easily accessible or instantaneously available to a person in power or authority.

Some would argue the point that when they entered politics they were already rich but would hide the fact that it also made them richer by a mile afterwards.

The motive is easily discernible why people would cling to political power, themselves or through their kin, or stage a political comeback after some period of hibernation from an electoral defeat.

On a positive note however, it is also comforting to know that there are also virtuous politicians in the midst of it all. But they are a rarity and would usually and understandably vanish from the public view as quickly as they get in.

There is no reason to get envious though. For those who are seriously thinking of starting a lucrative career, there are more than 17,000 elective positions at stake in both the national and local level on May 14, 2007.

But take note that the deadline for application is on March 29.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 28 January 2007 Issue

While the country gears up for the midterm national and local elections, the season for the race to the US presidency in 2008 also began.

The Democratic Party, perhaps one of the oldest political parties in the world whose origin can be traced back as early as 1792, is pitting two exciting figures in its election primary, senators Barack Hussein Obama Jr. of Illinois and Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton of New York.

Either of them winning the party nomination and eventually the US presidency would make a first in that country’s history. 

Obama may yet become the first black president of his country and now at the age of 45 could be the second youngest after assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Clinton, on the other hand, could be the first woman president of the US, the first former First Lady to become one, and the first woman to be nominated to the presidency by a major political party.

Obama was born in Hawaii. He is only the fifth African American senator in US history and the only one of such breed serving at the US Senate at present. His father, a Kenyan, died in a car accident when he was twenty-one years old. His mother Ann Dunham of Kansas, who divorced Obama Sr. when he was two years old, re-married an Indonesian and died of cancer in 1995 several months after he published his book, Dreams from My Father. He has written other books one of which is about his political convictions entitled: The Audacity of Hope that remained in New York Times list of best sellers since its publication in 2006.

Four years of Obama’s childhood were spent in Indonesia attending Catholic and Muslim schools. He graduated magna cum laude at the Harvard Law School and first gained national recognition when he was elected as the first African American president of Harvard Law Review, the oldest operating student-edited law review in America. After becoming a lawyer, he briefly became active in a voters’ registration drive, worked for a civil rights law firm, and taught constitutional law in Chicago until his election as senator in 2004.

They say that many Americans are drawn by Obama’s everyman image and broad appeal because in his own words “people project their hopes on him”.

Clinton, as everyone knows, is the wife of former US President Bill Clinton, who involved herself in policy making primarily on health care during her husband’s tenure, departing from the traditional role played by First Ladies. When she won a Senate seat in 2000, Clinton became the First Lady to seek public office and became the first woman senator of New York.

Clinton was born in Chicago. As a student, Clinton had already shown her academic brilliance, her mettle as a student leader, and her passion for political life and causes. Like her husband, she graduated from the Yale Law School where she served on the Board of Editors of Yale Review of Law and Social Action.

In 1996, Clinton authored a book entitled: It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us that became a best-seller. Her 2003 memoir Living History sold more than one million copies in the first month following publication. In the latter book, she explained that love is the reason why she chose to stay with Bill during the Monica Lewinsky scandal in 1998.

Magazines Time and Forbes had placed Clinton as among the most powerful figure in today’s world.

Just like the drama of world tennis championship, Obama and Clinton unfortunately will not battle it out in the finals because they will have to knock each other out early on.

Wanted: Obamas and Clintons in Philippine politics.