1895 electoral fraud

Organized in 1988, the National Movement for Free elections (NAMFREL), a Church-led initiative formed to expose any form of pressure and cheating in every nationwide Philippine political exercise, was not among the first to discover that fraudulent polls have long been allowed to prosper with very minimal, if not outright overlooked, policing from the state agencies.

During Spanish rule, the issue of electoral fixing, at a time when partisan cannibalism was not yet existent, was no different. Under the electoral guidelines of the period, only males were qualified as electors, but this discriminatory rule eventually led to abuse, which called for a revision of existing edicts. Eminent Jesuit historian Jose S. Arcilla wrote:

“In 1676, the vote limited to 13 electors; six past barangay heads, six incumbents, and the incumbent gobernadorcillo. The first three candidates winning the highest number of votes formed the terna or list of three names sent to the central office in Manila, which chose one to be the gobernadorcillo or town chief. The governor normally appointed one on the terna, unless special circumstances dictated otherwise.”

In 1895, in a letter dated June 1 written by Fr. Saturnino Urios, S.J., he reported to Manila that the local polls held that year in Davao weres annulled and a new vote was ordered. It was an offshoot of a disagreement why the electors, who argued that three distinct persons should be included in the terna, listed the name of the gobernadorcillo third on the list instead of being on top. This closely resembles the now-abolished rule of installing the candidate with the highest number of votes as barangay captain.

To iron out the kinks, the padre intervened, asking why the incumbent mayor was placed last when he was seeking reelection and must be placed first given the previous electoral sup-port he got? He pointed out that his election as town executive was an affirmation of support from the public that need to be honored in the list. This inspired the rule of the “equity of the incumbent.”

“After much struggling and preparing,” Fr. Urios wrote, “we succeeded in listing in the first place the incumbent gobernadorcillo. By proving in this way that this was the electors’ choice, we have to work for his reelection. For, according to the law, it is now the turn of the one figuring in the third place.”

Electoral fraud is as old as colonial rule. Fr. Arcilla noted: “Annual local elections were invariably occasions for cheating, as well as the efforts to raise mission stations to the rank of full-fledged civil municipalities or independent ecclesiastical parishes. Intrigue or political maneuvering was evident, most of the time in order to control local funds and keep political power within the family or a closed circle of blood relatives.”

To ensure a continuing hold of powerful positions, harassments were also perpetrated. In Sigaboy, for instance, abuses were committed by the tercios, the colonial police who linked with old Christians in terrorizing the people, forcing them to leave their permanent settlements.

The law enforcers, in threatening defenseless neo-Christians, were armed with Remington rifles, while the cohorts were carrying shotguns and other deadly weapons.

Between then and now, the technological improvements introduced in the way the polls are handled, including manipulations, have become so sophisticated that even the first steps of tracing and tracking the source of a fraud is highly complex, expensive, and time-consuming. Because the laws provide tons of legal technicalities before a case of electoral fraud is seriously probed and elections are held every three years, chances are the cases cannot be resolved but archived.

Candidly speaking, election laws were never designed to eliminate fraud from our political system. With the Commission on Elections following its own sets of rules based on the commissioners’ interpretations, the chances for delay in resolving electoral issues take a front seat. (31)