Protecting democracy
Sorry to sprinkle some sadness—or maybe anger, annoyance, disappointment, disillusionment—on this Christmas Eve.
Before we settle down around the family dinner table, let’s turn our minds to one last bit of political chicanery. This has to do with the rejection with finality of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET), composed of the justices of the Supreme Court, of the petition filed by a group of concerned citizens. They were asking the tribunal to accept the more than P7 million the group was able to raise in connection with the electoral protest filed by defeated vice-presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos.
The P7 million plus is the balance of the payment charged to Vice President Leni Robredo to cover the expenses entailed in her counterprotest.
Knowing the financial difficulties faced by the VP, the group members, which adopted the name “Piso Para sa Laban ni Leni,” decided on their own to help raise the needed amount. In the beginning, from what I gather, the members were not too confident about raising P1 million—let alone P7 million—to help the VP’s cause. But as explained in their petition, the “Piso” campaign was meant to “provide a way for Filipino voters to protect the result of their exercise of the right to suffrage, which in the last elections installed Leni Robredo as the rightful Vice President.” So whatever amount they would be able to raise, they hoped, would help Robredo counter the charges filed by Marcos who, it must be noted, raised the money for his protest without much difficulty.
The “Piso” campaign, as I understand it, was a means by which ordinary Filipino voters could protect their votes, or, rather, the result of the voting. Raising the needed amount, P1 at a time, was a way for those who voted for Robredo to ensure that their votes were counted.
And indeed, the “Piso” campaign seemed to touch a nerve. Before the organizers realized it, the fund-raising gathered momentum, such that over 25,000 donors—ranging from young professionals turning over their savings for planned overseas trips to waiters dropping their tips into collection cans on customers’ tables—were able to raise and even slightly exceed the needed amount.
In his response to the “Piso” group’s petition, Marcos said that while “it appears that the only purpose of the movants in intervening in the case is to provide financial assistance to the protestee,” this could be achieved without them intervening in the protest. They could simply “donate the amount directly to her should they see fit.”
But in its latest decision, the PET ruled that donating the money directly to the tribunal would still violate the law, since sitting government officials were prohibited from accepting gifts from private sources. Apparently, in their minds, helping the Vice President counter Marcos’ protest would constitute a “gift” to her.
As announced earlier, the money raised by the “Piso” campaign, should it be rejected by the PET, would be channeled to Angat Buhay projects. Angat Buhay is the Office of the Vice President’s poverty alleviation program, and indeed leaders of the “Piso” campaign met recently with Robredo to agree on the projects to benefit from the donations. The project, it was announced, should be “the most beneficial and impactful.” The VP will not be personally receiving or benefiting from even a single peso from the effort. The final decision will be announced in January.
While clearly disappointing and disheartening, the PET decision is but a temporary setback in the effort to put the 2016 elections behind us. True, the voting result was a close one. But it doesn’t mean it’s doubtful. And if Marcos truly believes in democracy and the democratic process—as his father clearly didn’t—he should accept the people’s verdict and truly “move on.”
More important, in this season of love and salvation, let us celebrate what the “Piso” movement proved. That people, even the most humble, could still stand for their beliefs and dig deep from their meager resources to do their share to protect our fragile democracy.
