By Argosy Nazareno
Disappointed and outraged. These are the expressions of some regarding the recent Comelec en banc’s decision to extend the filing of Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) of political parties. The recent decision paved for different discussion and debates on its constitutional basis.
There is a dilemma, whether to allow candidates and parties, who failed to pass the given deadline, be given consideration and extension, or to deny their petition and cause political turmoil in the different ranks in the government. If the winning candidates would be barred from assuming office, it could trigger major problems and leadership issues. Will these mean that there would be vacant positions? Will this open up the rule on succession or even force a special election?
The law is clear and it is even stated in the Comelec Resolution 9991, Rule 10, Section 2, that June 8, 2016 deadline shall be “final and non-extendible.” Under Section 14 or Republic Act Number 7166, non-filing of SOCE bars winning candidates from assuming office. The new rule for the 2016 elections under Resolution number 9991 removed the category of “late” SOCE’s, thus considering all filing after the June 8 deadline as “having not filed.” The very intention of the law is to strictly set a deadline for political parties and candidates to follow. They were given ample time. The treasurers of political parties were reminded to comply with the law. Their members should have doubled their time in completing the documents in order to reach the deadline.
There may be valid and reasonable grounds by the said decision but they can’t deny public suspicion that the move was meant to accommodate the a major political party. Have they also made such decision based on humanitarian reasons? They are saying that this could uplift the voice of the people, that they won’t hinder the “will of the people” and the decision would not deny the rights of the millions of voters who have chosen their candidates in the 2016 elections. They must have realized that they are breaking their own set of rules making some people lose their trust. However, LP is not the only party who failed to meet the deadline; there are other parties as well. But do certain decisions be bent over such reasons?
This issue is a big deal, not just a miniscule error which has been blown out of proportion. Lawmakers should start studying this case and begin deliberation on possible amendments to certain rules and policies.
I guess it up to the high court now if someone brings it up. The resolution of this issue is very important and will prevent any problem in the future.
(for comments, kindly send a message to my facebook account at ondz18@yahoo.com)
Disappointed and outraged. These are the expressions of some regarding the recent Comelec en banc’s decision to extend the filing of Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) of political parties. The recent decision paved for different discussion and debates on its constitutional basis.
There is a dilemma, whether to allow candidates and parties, who failed to pass the given deadline, be given consideration and extension, or to deny their petition and cause political turmoil in the different ranks in the government. If the winning candidates would be barred from assuming office, it could trigger major problems and leadership issues. Will these mean that there would be vacant positions? Will this open up the rule on succession or even force a special election?
The law is clear and it is even stated in the Comelec Resolution 9991, Rule 10, Section 2, that June 8, 2016 deadline shall be “final and non-extendible.” Under Section 14 or Republic Act Number 7166, non-filing of SOCE bars winning candidates from assuming office. The new rule for the 2016 elections under Resolution number 9991 removed the category of “late” SOCE’s, thus considering all filing after the June 8 deadline as “having not filed.” The very intention of the law is to strictly set a deadline for political parties and candidates to follow. They were given ample time. The treasurers of political parties were reminded to comply with the law. Their members should have doubled their time in completing the documents in order to reach the deadline.
There may be valid and reasonable grounds by the said decision but they can’t deny public suspicion that the move was meant to accommodate the a major political party. Have they also made such decision based on humanitarian reasons? They are saying that this could uplift the voice of the people, that they won’t hinder the “will of the people” and the decision would not deny the rights of the millions of voters who have chosen their candidates in the 2016 elections. They must have realized that they are breaking their own set of rules making some people lose their trust. However, LP is not the only party who failed to meet the deadline; there are other parties as well. But do certain decisions be bent over such reasons?
This issue is a big deal, not just a miniscule error which has been blown out of proportion. Lawmakers should start studying this case and begin deliberation on possible amendments to certain rules and policies.
I guess it up to the high court now if someone brings it up. The resolution of this issue is very important and will prevent any problem in the future.
(for comments, kindly send a message to my facebook account at ondz18@yahoo.com)
This is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Accordingly, it is difficult to figure out when to end it. But then, this is dummy text. It is not meant to be read. Period.
ConversionConversion EmoticonEmoticon