Written By: Charmis Casella D. Abila, Kristi Anne Sharmaine S. Biares, Vince C. Glorioso, Mary Philline C. Rodriguez, Peter Wald C. Saguirel II, and Melody Jade E. Soriano
On October 9, 2024, the Commission on Elections announced that 43,033 individuals had filed their certificates of candidacy (COCs) for the 2025 midterm elections. The COC filing had its irregularities, including a shooting incident on the last day in Maguindanao del Sur and Negros Occidental, allegedly to snatch COCs.
These events marked the start of the electoral journey for aspirants aiming for their desired offices.
Some of the candidates for the Senate seat, Bethsaida (Beth) Lopez and Rolando Plaza (Rastaman), had already been previously declared as “Nuisance Candidates.” Luis Philippe Manzano, an actor, is running for Vice Governor of Batangas despite having no political background aside from being related to Vilma-Santos Recto, also a former celebrity. Influencers such as Rosmarie (Rosmar) Tan-Pamulaklakin, a content creator, filed a certificate of candidacy for the position of Councilor of the City of Manila, allegedly pressured by her friends despite having no original plan to run.
Despite not knowing the nature of the positions they intend to run for, this did not stop them from submitting their certificates of candidacy this upcoming election.
True to the spirit of fairness and democracy, the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that in terms of educational attainment, an aspiring Senator, Member of the House, Vice President, and President–even–only needs to be able to read and write. A lot of people express their plight with the absurdity of these qualifications because it’s ironic to think that to secure a Salary Grade (SG) 1 position like an Administrative Aide I who earns roughly ₱14,000/month, an applicant must be a college graduate and a Civil Exam Passer. In contrast, a Senator with an SG of 31, earning around P300,000/month, only needs basic literacy. Life, indeed, seems unfair.
However, these seemingly unfair qualifications are rooted in the principle of fairness. In a democratic country like the Philippines, the intent behind these “shallow” qualifications is to ensure that all Filipino people are well-represented, including those without the privilege of a college degree. While some may disagree and have the freedom to express their concerns, ultimately, these objections do not change the law.
Despite these qualifications, it is worth recognizing Congress’s attempt to impose stricter restrictions on aspiring public officials. In 2002, Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was enacted. Section 36, Article III thereof, provides, among others:
“Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing
x x x
(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the
national or local government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.”
However, this provision was short-lived. In 2003, it was challenged and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board (G.R. No. 157870, November 3, 2008). Aspiring Senator Aquino Pimentel argued that it imposed an additional qualification on candidates for Senator, beyond what the Constitution requires. He contended that Congress cannot amend or modify these standards, as it cannot alter or weaken a constitutional mandate.
The Supreme Court agreed with Pimentel, stating that any law or administrative rule violating the Constitution is null and void. Since the Constitution is the supreme law, no act conflicting with it is valid. The three branches of government must obey the Constitution’s commands and observe its limits.
In a world where we have grown weary of empty promises, a neophyte candidate with a brand-new perspective and approach might come off as appealing to the voters. However, it’s crucial to remain vigilant; as many can be deceived by a charismatic facade–a wolf in sheep’s clothing. As stewards of our nation, we entrust public servants with the burden of making crucial decisions for our government. Our choice of leaders will significantly impact our economy and quality of life.
Discerning truth is essential as misinformation, fake news, and propaganda distort public perception and skew voter behavior. Social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube often amplify sensational, emotionally-charged content over factual reporting to drive engagement. This shift reduces political discourse to a popularity contest, turning elections into “political reality shows” that prioritize entertainment and charisma over competence and credibility. Strengthening media literacy is essential to sustaining a healthy democracy in the digital age. When popularity overshadows credibility and entertainment trumps truth, the public’s ability to make informed, rational decisions suffers, risking democratic integrity. As the digital landscape evolves, media literacy becomes a cornerstone of democratic resilience, upholding integrity, and truth-based political discourse.
It is fitting to say that the battle of protecting the future will be a tough one. Be that as it may, this terrain does not tip the weight in favor of the negative, instead it behooves those who hold knowledge to put the great weight in favor of the positive; and from that stems the role that future lawyers are to play.
THE BARRISTER 