By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Proposed legislative amendments to strengthen the fight against vote-buying
Vote-buying remains a persistent threat to the integrity of Philippine elections, undermining the democratic process and eroding public trust in government. Despite comprehensive laws and Supreme Court pronouncements penalizing this offense, the practice continues to evolve, often outpacing the reach of current statutes. It is, therefore, imperative for Congress to revisit and amend existing laws and for the judiciary to clarify and strengthen jurisprudence to more effectively deter and prosecute vote-buying.
One key area for legislative amendment is the evidentiary threshold required to prosecute vote-buying cases. As highlighted in Rodriguez et al. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 255509 (2023), the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of a vote-buying complaint due to insufficient evidence, particularly the lack of supporting affidavits and concrete proof. To address this, Congress could amend the law to allow for the admissibility of digital evidence, such as video recordings and electronic communications, as primary evidence in vote-buying cases. This would reflect the realities of modern campaigning, where transactions and inducements are often captured on mobile devices.
Additionally, the law should be amended to impose stricter liability on candidates whose campaign managers, supporters, or relatives are found to have engaged in vote-buying. Under current law, there is only a disputable presumption of conspiracy if at least 20% of precincts are affected, as provided in Republic Act No. 6646 and affirmed in Rodriguez. Lowering this threshold or making candidate liability stricter—even for isolated but well-documented incidents—would send a strong message that candidates are responsible for the conduct of their entire campaign machinery.
Jurisprudence should also be clarified to address the gray area between legitimate campaign activities and prohibited vote-buying. The Supreme Court in Rodriguez noted that the distinction between campaign rallies and entertainment programs is not determinative of liability. Legislative amendments could provide clearer guidelines on what constitutes “anything of value” and “expenditure” for purposes of vote-buying, including the distribution of goods, services, or even digital incentives during the campaign period.
Furthermore, the penalties for vote-buying should be revisited. While current laws provide for imprisonment, fines, and disqualification from public office, these sanctions are rarely imposed due to the high bar for conviction. Congress could consider introducing administrative penalties, such as immediate disqualification from candidacy upon a finding of probable cause, subject to due process. This would serve as a more immediate deterrent and complement criminal prosecution.
In conclusion, the fight against vote-buying requires a multi-pronged approach: updating evidentiary rules, expanding candidate liability, clarifying legal definitions, and imposing more effective penalties. By enacting these legislative amendments and encouraging the judiciary to adopt a more proactive stance, the Philippines can take significant strides toward ensuring cleaner, more credible elections and restoring faith in the democratic process.