...1millionvs nuidancecandidiates
By jeanneyvonne
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
Philippines
October 17, 2012 4:13am CST
I am not really into tabloids or newspapers these days. With the coming election, I know that politicians out there will grab any media spotlight they can have before actually paying for exclusive campaign ads and air times. However, this piece of news gave me a quite interest.
The news article (forgot what paper,it gets passed around in the house and the neighborhood) says that COMELEC is proposing to have a 1 million bond for an aspiring candidate. The measure is supposed to discourage nuisance candidates into filing their certificate of candidacy.
I was at lost in this one because it does make sense. If there was a 'wealth' requirement, some people might think twice about filing or running for an office. It is not a secret that money plays a big part in campaigns and politics. However, the said measure might be in violation of the Constitution. According to the law, there should be no money requirement to run for an office. This issue is currently being considered but it will be probably junked anyway.
What do you think? Should there be a wealthy requirement or the Constitution gives everyone a even paling field, even for nuisance candidates?
1 person likes this
2 responses
@rsa101 (37932)
• Philippines
18 Oct 12
True since under constitution we are not required to be rich to ran for public office. You just need to be in the right age, of mental capacity and can read and write. I really think those three criterion is enough for the Comelec to weed out the nuisance candidates from the real ones. I am looking at the party list system defect than looking at the individual candidates.
I see that Party List essence is to represent the marginalized sector but it shows now that it is not followed anymore. I think Comelec should instead look into this since we can see that it is being abused by many politicians that does not represent any marginalized sector of the society but acts as extension of the politicians that created them.
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
18 Oct 12
I heard about the removal of some party list, even those who are already in Congress. I cannot claim to how much they are really representatives since I don't know one in person.
I agree with your sentiment.I think some stricter guidelines shoudl be implement for the qualification for arty-list. Not everybody is a marginalized sector in this society. They should have proof first before they are given the chance to participate. I remember the sample ballot I used last election. I think two pages consist of eligible partylists.
@subhojit10 (7375)
• India
17 Oct 12
Thanks for posting this discussion. Well glad to know about this news and i am sure this bring a great deal of change in our political system. There are many candidates during the elections who never have any positive things in their mind and still fill up their candidature and they are the ones who misuse our Constitution and play with our feelings. With this rule, we will have genuine candidates who can work for the welfare of our country.
What say?
