Home 
Last Tuesday we raised the seemingly unfair ruling given by the Supreme Court extending the filing of candidacies for prospective candidates of public office up to Dec. 14, in light of the refusal by the Commission on Elections to extend registration of voters beyond the Oct. 30 deadline for one reason or another.
Now what's this about the High Tribunal ruling that allows appointive officials to continue on their jobs even after registering as candidates for next year's elections? In ruling against the requirement for appointive officials to resign from their posts after filing their certificates of candidacy (COC), the SC said the law ?unduly discriminates against the first class.?
Quoting the Supreme Court ruling, deputy court administrator Jose Midas Marquez said ?the fact alone that there is substantial distinction between those who hold appointive positions and those occupying elective posts, does not justify such differential treatment.?
This ruling would especially benefit government officials running for elections in 2010, specifically Winston Garcia, chief of the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) who is still being courted by the political opposition to run against Bando Osmeña-Pundok Kauswagan standard bearer (BO-PK) Michael Rama.
If Jocjoc Bolante was still Agriculture Undersecretary when this Supreme Court ruling was passed, imagine what he could do with the millions of pesos he earlier ?downloaded? as part of the infamous fertilizer fund scam.
Garcia didn't file his COC because he was undecided about running for Cebu City mayor and worried about ?unfinished work? at the GSIS. Hence the use of decoy bets while he makes up his mind whether to join the derby.
Convenient though it may be, this decision does pose serious questions of trust on the leveled playing field that the Comelec promised for all candidates. Already the High Court waived off the premature campaigning requirement in the elections and now this.
Unlike premature campaigning where the people can still choose to reject the message or allow themselves to be entertained by self-promotions of candidates, the High Court ruling that would allow appointive officials to keep their jobs while campaigning would be grossly disadvantageous to those who don't have government resources at their disposal.
The prohibition against the use of government resources for campaigning is honored more in the breach than in actual implementation. What's to stop officials from using every advantage aside from vaunted political machinery to win the votes?
The chances of a group seeking a repeal of this ruling may be slim to none. Nevertheless this should be looked into by advocacy groups who believe a level playing field for the elections is necessary for genuine democracy.
