Duterte’s playbook: A mockery?
Senator Ronald de la Rosa’s filing of his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for President barely two hours before the deadline sparked a debate whether Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code allowing substitution of candidates should be repealed to prevent a mockery of the electoral process.
Dela Rosa’s statements raised serious doubts about his sincerity to run for President since he was quoted as saying he is very much willing to drop his bid should the presidential daughter and Davao City Mayor Sara Duterte-Carpio change her mind and seek the highest elective position in the country. The neophyte senator said the Davao City mayor’s “winnability is high.”
These statements have earned de la Rosa the title of a placeholder with his party, hoping for the President’s daughter to join the presidential race. This act is condemned by many as manipulation and mockery of the election process. Calls are mounting for the prohibition of substitution as this serves no positive purpose and only confuses the electorate. One argument for the abolition of substitution is that it further weakens the country’s already weak political party system.
Although it is tempting to argue where sentiments are overflowing, we believe that the substitution of candidates reinforces rather than weakens the political party system. Substitution is available only to political parties. Independent candidates cannot be substituted.
Running for public office is an endeavor only the strong and the courageous can pursue up to its end. Imagine the long hours of campaign sorties, the mudslinging in front of a howling public, and the private affairs of the candidate’s family becoming the subject matter of public discussion. We believe it is the right of every person who filed a CoC to change his mind and withdraw his participation in the elections.
When a candidate withdraws, his political party will have the right to substitute the withdrawn candidate. Remember, there are other reasons a political party loses a candidate for a particular position, such as death and disqualification. Indeed, these two other reasons are not a mockery of the process.
There is a legal maxim cessanterationelegis, cessatipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases). Stated otherwise, when the purpose of the law no longer exists, then the law loses its relevance and must therefore be repealed. In this case, the wisdom behind the rule on substitution does not lose relevance simply because some use it as the same playbook used by President Duterte in the 2016 elections.
What about those placeholders who have no intention to run? Well, let’s condemn the act but spare the rule on substitution. A person who manifests indications of having no bona fide intention to run is a nuisance candidate, and his CoC must be canceled. But to entirely prohibit substitution is overkill.