Comelec wants to redefine 'vote-buying'

Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman George Garcia thinks that the Omnibus Election Code should be amended to modernize the definition of "vote-buying".

During the House Committee on Appropriations budget hearing with the Comelec, Batangas 2nd district Rep. Gerville Luistro asked this question: “May we know the thoughts of the Comelec with respect to vote-buying or no vote-buying as this likewise disenfranchised our voters?”

Garcia commented that the current definition of the act is outdated and is thus abuse by “unscrupulous” individuals who are up to no good.

“Section 261 A of the Omnibus Election Code defined what is vote-buying. Unfortunately, our Omnibus code was circa 1985,” Garcia began during the budget hearing Friday, Sept. 9.

“There is a pending bill here in our Congress that imposes an increased penalty for those who are engaged in vote-buying. We actually support this initiative but we are of the belief that aside from increasing the penalty...it is high-time that we redefine what is the meaning of vote-buying,” he explained.

One of those bills is House Bill (HB) 1709 by Malasakit@Bayanihan Party-list Rep. Anthony Golez. The measure wants 20 to 40 years of imprisonment, a fine of not less than P5 million, and perpetual disqualification from public office for politicians found guilty of vote-buying.

It is pending with the House Committee on Justice.

READ: https://mb.com.ph/2022/08/08/solon-wants-to-criminalize-vote-buying-vote-selling-here-are-the-proposed-penalties/

“Yung vote buying sa kasalukuyang panahon ay maaaring hindi na macocover ng definition ng (Vote-buying in the modern day may not be covered by the definition listed in) 261 A of the Omnibus Election Code...It may be used by certain candidates or unscrupulous individuals,” the Comelec chairman said.

“Kasi nga po may loophole ang batas (It's because there's a loophole in the law). For example, vote-buying using your cellphone, or such as using GCash or PayMaya or other modes of transferring fund,” Garcia noted.

“Next ang pag gastos ng ilan nating mga (is the spending of) local officials. Wala pong exceptions sa (There are no exceptions for) social services. Dun pa lang din po may (That alone has a) loophole. How do you distinguish social services and vote buying? Namimigay po ng mga tulong lalo na (They distribute aid) as pandemic response and that is still a function of the local government,” he continued.

He mentioned the distribution of election merchandise including wrist ballers, t-shirts, and caps, and even food items as an act that could be considered an election offense.

Garcia admitted to some "fault" as to why there are so few cases of prosecution against vote-buyers: “To a certain extent, may fault din ng konti ang Comelec (there is some fault in the Comelec). To a certain extent, because of the lack of evidence. Nobody would like to pursue vote-buying as an election offense.”

Section 261 A of the Omnibus Election Code defines vote-buying and vote-selling as follows:

“Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.

“Any person, association, corporation, group or community who solicits or receives, directly or indirectly, any expenditure or promise of any office or employment, public or private, for any of the foregoing considerations.”