IT TOOK only several petitions and four votes to completely overturn the April Central Student Council (CSC) election results — much to the dismay if not outrage of most Thomasians.
Three months ago, Thomasians overwhelmingly chose to abstain rather than vote for the candidates for president, vice president, treasurer and auditor, which is considerably a feat never before witnessed in recent student elections history.
In a report published by the Varsitarian last April 23, what forced Thomasians to abstain from voting was their dissatisfaction with the quality of candidates, especially with their recycled platforms and poor stands on important national and local issues such as tuition increase and martial law.
Related story: WHY ‘ABSTAIN’ WON: ‘Thomasians dissatisfied with student council bets’
The Central Commission on Elections (Comelec) deemed the abstentions, or what most Thomasians call the ‘protest’ or ‘principled’ vote, as valid, and therefore declared the four positions vacant. A special elections was expected to follow through at the start of the school year.
However, after being tight-lipped for almost three solid months, the little-known Central Judiciary Board overhauled Comelec’s plan for special elections, and has directed the poll-body to proclaim the candidates with the highest votes as winners in the April elections, following petitions from various parties to nullify such abstentions.
One of the petitioners is lone CSC presidential bet Steven Grecia of the Lakas Tomasino Coalition (LTC), who claimed the Comelec erred in interpreting abstain votes.
With the judiciary board decision, candidates all hailing from LTC will assume the posts most Thomasians thought they were saving for other potential leaders. Grecia will assume the presidential post, Gabriela Sepulchre will become vice president, Daveson Nieto will be treasurer and Richard Javier as auditor.
While none of the aforementioned candidates have confirmed they will take oath to their respective positions, it must always be remembered that getting the positions via loopholes is different from being elected by the majority into office.
It will be hard to govern knowing majority of your constituents dislike you, and knowing that the options of recalling and impeaching the officers have also been raised.
Butchering democracy
According to the three-page resolution posted by Comelec on Twitter last July 24, the judiciary board contested that there was no mention of abstain votes in the University Student Elections Code of 2011 (USEC), and that abstentions should not be counted or tallied as legitimate votes.
The resolution adds that Comelec should not have included “abstain” in the ballots as if it was a name of a candidate.
Section 5, Article 10 of the USEC states that the ballot shall contain the printed names of candidates, their position and their party; a box before the candidates’ names, serial number and instructions. Technicality wise, there is no real mention of the inclusion of abstain votes.
The legal basis of the judiciary board decision is understandable, but wasn’t there even a slight consideration about what the student body was trying to get across through their votes?
For the position of CSC president alone, a total of 15, 803 strong students opted to abstain. This is three times more than the 5, 578 voters who abstained in the last year’s elections. If the judiciary board is saying that those 15 thousand votes are not real votes, what then should be counted as real ones?
Elections are held so voters can exercise democracy, so voters can freely choose who they want to sit as their leaders. Clearly, the Thomasian voting population was not impressed by any of the candidates for the four vacant positions.
Thomasians have grown sick and tired of the same old typical candidates who run for office every year with the same old campaign presentations. Thomasians don’t need a brand new set of event organizers, but a brand new set of leaders. The mass abstention should not be considered as tantamount to ignorance nor apathy, but should be seen as a call for better, more deserving leaders who can represent the student body firmly.
To abstain has always been a part of the elections ballot so as to not force Thomasians to just pick the first name they see in the list. And since time immemorial, abstentions have been counted as real votes. Posts that have been left vacant because of abstentions have been recognized before, so why only now that the judiciary board intervenes?
The judiciary board should have asked themselves the question whether they were just simply junking the abstain votes or were they disrespecting and robbing Thomasians of their freedom to choose.
