Unlike usual elections where parties and candidates are at the center of flak, the latest ones had the DLSU Commission on Elections (Comelec) in hot water. This comes after numerous recent polls are entangled in documentary and procedural controversies, wiping out a significant portion—if not all—of the candidates off the ballots. Special Elections 2024, for one, left 72 seats vacant following these issues, sparking conversations on whether the polls have become “overly bureaucratic at the cost of a democratic student body.”
All University Student Government aspirants and their affiliated party or coalition, if any, are required to submit a number of requirements to be allowed to run for office. Some prerequisites for candidates can be as simple as procuring a copy of one’s enrollment assessment form and ID, while others can be more complex and tedious, such as securing leaves of absence in organizations and signatures from college associate deans. Meanwhile, parties and coalitions must also submit supporting documents such as a directory of members and supporters.
While the requirements seem excessive, these play a crucial role in monitoring adherence to electoral laws. For instance, a well-documented list of supporters would aid in flagging electioneering offenses. Ensuring leaves of absence removes any conflict of interest that may arise in one’s candidacy. If calls for over-bureaucracy equate to too many requirements, then we must point out which parts are unnecessary. Otherwise, there should be no blame placed on a system that fulfills its role of upholding a standard of excellence among student government aspirants.
Discourse on the past election’s disqualifications isolates the system to be at fault, claiming that stringent qualifications “threaten one’s right to choose.” Some even argue that leadership is not measured by a set of requirements. Rather than being a threat to democracy, this sets a more dangerous predicament: that standards should be compromised in exchange for having more options. While it is true that requirements alone do not make a good leader, being compliant shows that the candidate and their affiliation are responsible enough to be one.
It is also worth noting that these cases, while not isolated, happened for different reasons. One disqualification mainly stemmed from corrupted files, while others resulted from the non-submission of different documents, such as Certificates of Verification and Their Takes. This is a longstanding problem, but tagging bureaucracy as the bane of the polls from this issue is merely speculative if we cannot determine what specific aspects of it are problematic.
When we diminish the matter to be merely procedural, we leave little to no accountability toward the poll body’s and the aspirants’ lapses. A more evident trend recently is the frequent last-minute uploads and requests for extension by political parties, yet this issue is often overlooked. Framing the conversation to be a bigger systemic matter trivializes crucial irresponsibilities, such as Santugon sa Tawag ng Panahon’s last-minute submissions in General Elections 2024 and Alyansang Tapat sa Lasallista’s incomplete documents in Special Elections 2024. Ignoring these faults also discards the fact that some are still able to make it past the same electoral hurdles. What makes the recent elections different, then?
Democracy is indeed crucial, but so should responsibility. If anything, the latter is a foundation of leadership. It is not just systemic lapses that compromise it, but also human error. Our candidacy policies can still be reviewed and improved. For instance, specifying what constitutes “clerical errors” can prevent legal disputes. However, if we fail to hold all parties accountable, then we risk boxing ourselves into a loop of recurring electoral issues. Instead of just pushing for a less bureaucratic process, we must not forget to ask our candidates and political parties to be more proactive throughout the electoral process.
All stakeholders of the election must work hand in hand to improve the University’s student political landscape. Incumbent officials must actively review and exact substantial improvements on the Omnibus Election Code without sacrificing our pursuit for capable and competent leaders, waiting for another failure of election, or going through myriads of appointments.
The Comelec must ensure that it upholds the clarity and capacity to implement the Code, while political parties, coalitions, and independent candidates must be responsible enough to adhere to it. Most importantly, we as students must be watchdogs on the sidelines with the aim of seeing a fair, successful, and respectable election.
This article was published in The LaSallian‘s January 2025 issue. To read more, visit bit.ly/TLSJanuary2025.
