One of the most vital characteristics of a democratic society –
for it to function and be recognized as such – are regular elections.
Concretized and symbolized in these events is a particular people’s
right to collectively determine their future, that the chosen political
leaders are always accountable to a body higher than themselves. In
these events where people exercise their right to vote and be voted
upon, the assurance is given that political power will not be arbitrary,
and that all forms of dissatisfaction with political leadership can
be rectified.
Like all human tasks in a changing society, there is always room
for improvement and reform. The one event that spoke loudly concerning
the necessary changes in the present electoral system and its processes
was the May 2001 elections. Clearly, it expressed the need for further
enfranchisement, of more effective safeguards, of broader information
dissemination and voter education.
The task was clearly meritorious and civil society took the first
step. Archipelago-wide consultations were conducted by the Institute
for Political and Electoral Reform. Civil society groups that participated
then revitalized the Consortium for Electoral Reforms to serve as
channel for cooperative actions for electoral reforms. At this point,
the goal was to produce a comprehensive electoral reform package
through a civil society summit, which would then be presented to
the proper government channels for necessary actions.
Government though, did not want to simply receive. Having recognized
the importance of the task, different offices and agencies of the
government offered their assistance. The Commission on Elections,
through Chairman Alfredo Benipayo, was the first to pledge the cooperation
of his office. The House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms,
through Committee Chairperson Rep. Augusto Syjuco, was next. Last
but not the least, the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments,
Revision of Laws and Codes, through Committee Chairperson, Sen.
Edgardo Angara, agreed to be part of the summit convenors group.
The summit therefore evolved into a full-fledged summit of stakeholders
in electoral reforms. The legislative committees represent the law-making
bodies who are expected to come up with electoral reforms bills.
The Comelec is the implementing constitutional body. Civil society
groups, including business and church-based groups, represent the
grassroots electorate.
Two pre-summit conferences of civil society groups were also held
as part of the preparations. Papers and positions were solicited
in these conferences and made a basis for the summit agenda.
Clearly then, the documents that one is about to read is not the
beginning of an initiative, and neither is it the end. It began
simply with the desire to improve what already is and to rectify
what should not be. Nor will it end with the documents and the proposals
at hand. It necessarily ends with the further enfranchisement of
the disenfranchised, with greater safeguards, when elections become
safer and more truthful, when the vote finally becomes sacred.
