Senate President Vicente Sotto III last week declared there is a need to review the provision on substitution in the Omnibus Election Code, saying that it has been abused. “The problem in the law is the third option, which is when a candidate withdraws. That is what is being abused. We should amend that and remove it completely. If you are not ready and unprepared, why are you running for public office?”
Article IX, Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code says, “If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified….”
This election rule, which allows last-minute political aspirants to join the race through substitution, was the avenue taken by then-Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte to become one of the presidential contenders in 2016.
Deputy Speaker and Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez sees the Omnibus Election Code’s rule on substitution via withdrawal a “mockery of the election process,” which prompted him to file a bill pushing to prohibit candidate substitution due to withdrawal. Under House Bill 10380 that Rodriguez filed on Wednesday, a political party would be prohibited from substituting any candidate, unless for the reason of death or disqualification.
“While there is nothing wrong with substitution in case of death or disqualification which is justifiable, substitution because of withdrawal, or what others call voluntary substitution, may pose serious questions and may lead to the manipulation and mockery of the election process,” Rodriguez said.
Comelec Commissioner Rowena Guanzon told CNN Philippines in an interview that there is nothing wrong withthe substitution option for candidates. Asked if the substitution rule can be removed, she said: “We cannot do that. Why will you not allow them to substitute? Even before our 1987 Constitution, substitution was already allowed.” Guanzon cited the case of the late Senator Gaudencio Antonino, who died in a plane crash during an election year in 1967 and had to be replaced by his wife.“They should be allowed to substitute. What is wrong with that? The people will vote for whoever they want anyway,” she added.
We don’t understand why many of our politicians are against the substitution rule. Perhaps, some of them are thinking the playbook is being adopted again to push the candidacy of people close to the President? Assuming they do it again, that’s not illegal. And it’s definitely not a “mockery of the election process.” Why? Because the substitute candidate is not assured of a win in the polls, and the rule does not hamper the other candidates’ ability to fairly compete in the electoral process.
Everybody needs to respect the country’s electoral laws. Attacking the rules only weakens the people’s confidence in the election results, which may create chaos. Assuming there’s another one fielded in the May 2022 presidential election, let the substitute candidate present himself/herself to the electorate. If he/she wins in an honest, orderly and peaceful election, consider the result providential and accept it. As an old saying goes, “The voice of the people is the voice of God.”