Special treatment of poll cases also stinks

In “Puzzles in election cases” (Opinion, 8/19/13), Domingo D. Bacsal Jr. seems to have failed to trace the source of the stink. It is not the election cases, it is the Commission on Elections itself.

Plain, basic common sense—never mind logic—tells us that the cases against Regina Ongsiako Reyes of Marinduque and Nicasio Abaigar of Calbiga, Samar, under the prevailing circumstances, should have been the ones the Comelec was able to resolve first, long before the case against Gamal Hayudini of South Ubian, Tawi, Tawi.

For one, the Comelec’s two resolutions against Hayudini were issued only after the May 13 elections, as Bacsal correctly pointed out—the first on June 20, 2013, and the second, which was confirmatory, on July 10. On the other hand, in both the Reyes and Abaigar cases, their respective first and confirmatory resolutions were issued before the elections. And yet it is the Hayudini case that the Comelec resolved first, even to the point of proclaiming the lawful winner, citing

jurisprudence or previous Supreme Court decisions. What’s taking the Comelec so long to do the same in the Reyes and Abaigar cases? Why can’t it apply the same jurisprudence to the Reyes and Abaigar cases, which is only proper, isn’t it?

Secondly, again as Bacsal pointed out, the Comelec ruled Hayudini as a noncandidate only because he was excluded from South Ubian’s list of voters. Whereas Reyes and Abaigar were declared noncandidates, after a finding of fact, for being American citizens. Which makes a speedy resolution of their cases more urgent, considering the risks and implications that their holding public office poses on national sovereignty. And yet, the Comelec has been dilly-dallying to stop these foreigners from usurping Philippine government offices.

Thirdly, the Comelec resolutions on the Reyes and Abaigar cases have been practically upheld by the Supreme Court—the highest court of the land, if this bears underscoring—when the latter dismissed their “sound-alike” petitions for certiorari assailing the

Comelec resolutions on their being noncandidates. On the other hand, its resolutions on the Hayudini case have yet to get Supreme Court backing. In other words, the Comelec resolutions on the Hayudini case, up to the point the Comelec proclaimed the lawful winner, are standing “by their lonesome and alone.”

Strange, very strange, indeed, are the Comelec’s handling of these three cases! How many other cases is the Comelec “managing” in similarly suspicious, intriguing, consistently inconsistent fashion?

Or is the Comelec giving Reyes and Abaigar “special treatment” simply because they are Liberal Party members and Hayudini belongs to the National Unity Party? Is the Liberal Party now an American political party and the Comelec an American political arm setting up the day when aliens once again hold sway over our country and our people?

—MARIO FERRER,

[email protected]