“The Comelec, as an unelected body, has no business mandating participation under threat of disqualification”
WHAT happens when the gatekeeper of democracy starts playing kingmaker?
The Comelec’s latest rule, proposed under Chairman George Garcia, threatens to flip the electoral process on its head.
By mandating senatorial candidates to join debates—or face disqualification—the Comelec risks trampling Constitutional rights and overstepping its authority. Is this democracy’s defender, or its newest challenger?
Let’s be clear: the intent behind the rule is laudable. Voters deserve to hear directly from candidates about their platforms and visions for the country.
Debates can be a vital tool for fostering transparency and accountability in elections. But good intentions are not enough. The means matter, and in this case, the Comelec’s approach is deeply flawed.
The proposed rule runs afoul of the Constitutional right to free speech, which includes the right not to speak.
As every student of Constitutional law knows, compelling someone to speak—or penalizing them for refusing to do so—is a violation of this fundamental right.
A candidate who chooses not to participate in a debate may be making a strategic or personal decision, but it is their decision to make. The Comelec, as an unelected body, has no business mandating participation under threat of disqualification.
Chairman Garcia has defended the rule by arguing that the Comelec has the “inherent power” to impose such requirements, comparing it to the commission’s authority to regulate campaign materials, such as the size of posters.
This reasoning is tenuous at best. Regulating the physical dimensions of campaign posters is a far cry from compelling speech. The comparison is a non sequitur, and the justification falls apart under scrutiny.
What’s more, the rule risks setting a dangerous precedent. If the Comelec can disqualify candidates for refusing to participate in debates, what’s to stop it from imposing other arbitrary requirements in the future?
This kind of overreach is particularly troubling in a country where democratic institutions are still maturing and where the specter of authoritarianism looms large.
It’s worth noting that Garcia’s proposal also raises questions about consistency and fairness. During the 2022 presidential campaign, his former client, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., declined to participate in any Comelec-sponsored debates.
While this was Marcos’s prerogative as a candidate, it’s ironic that Garcia is now pushing a rule that would penalize others for doing the same. This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the Comelec and fuels suspicions of political bias.
To be fair, Garcia is not alone in grappling with the challenges of ensuring a fair and informative electoral process.
Across the globe, election commissions struggle with how to engage candidates and voters in meaningful ways.
But the solution is not to impose heavy-handed rules that infringe on Constitutional rights.
Instead, the Comelec should focus on creating incentives for candidates to participate in debates voluntarily. For example, it could partner with media organizations to ensure that debates reach a wide audience, or it could highlight the benefits of participation in voter education campaigns.
The broader issue here is one of trust.
The Comelec’s authority rests on its perceived impartiality and commitment to upholding democratic principles.
When it proposes rules that appear to overstep its mandate or infringe on constitutional rights, it erodes that trust.
This is particularly concerning at a time when the Philippines is preparing for the 2025 elections, which will be a critical test for the country’s democracy.
If Chairman Garcia is serious about strengthening the electoral process, he should reconsider this ill-advised rule and focus on measures that enhance transparency and voter engagement without compromising constitutional rights.
The Comelec’s role is to facilitate free and fair elections, not to dictate how candidates campaign.
Democracy thrives not in perfection but in the relentless pursuit of fairness and integrity.
By imposing a rule that undermines these values, the Comelec risks turning guardians of the electoral process into its gatecrashers.
It’s time to course-correct before this misstep becomes a stain on the Philippines’ hard-won democratic legacy. The stakes are not just procedural—they are existential.