The Joint COMELEC-CSC Advisory on Electioneering & Partisan Political Activity summarizes the prohibitions against and allowances for partisan political activities among government employees in general.
However, in enforcing this Advisory, consistent with its role as indicated by its title Advisory (i.e., a set of guidelines or food for thought), the prohibitions are to be interpreted and enforced according to the purposes for which they have been imposed and the exclusions that have been crafted to temper the otherwise overbroad language of these prohibitions.
The general prohibition against partisan political activity is meant to insulate the government from activities that will spend government resources for particular candidates; allow government employees to discriminate against others who support opposing political candidates; and enfeeble the provision of government service.
Hence, the expression of political beliefs and the support for the candidacy of political candidates that will not result in these adverse consequences should not be covered by the prohibition. The prohibition cannot be enforced without first considering the purposes for why the prohibition has been imposed.
The reason for this is the inclusive right to free expression in the Constitution that does not discriminate between government and non-government employees. So long as the purposes of the prohibition are met, government employees enjoy the right to freely express the contents of their right to believe and right to have a conscience.
The general prohibition must also be understood in the context of the express exclusions from the prohibition. Notably, these exclusions were the products of a case-by-case analysis of the prohibition by the Supreme Court – proof that indeed the prohibitions are not meant to be implemented blindly and bluntly but contextually.
The Advisory itself understood the exclusions in a general and loose manner, to protect the fundamental right of every person to believe and express this belief, especially on matters of elemental importance, such as the manner by which society will be governed and the persons who will be governing.
The exclusions, as summarized in the Advisory, are –
a) Casting one's vote - Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010.
b) Expressing one's views on current political problems or issues - Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010; People v De Venecia (1965)
c) Mentioning the names of candidates or parties whom one supports; - Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010; People v De Venecia (1965)
d) Letters (a) to (e) of Paragraph 8 of this Joint Circular, when performed for the purpose of enhancing the chances of aspirants for nomination for candidacy to public office by a political party or coalition;
e) Public expressions, opinions, or discussions of probable issues in a forthcoming election, or on attributes of or criticisms against probable candidates to be nominated in a forthcoming political party convention;
f) Social media functions such as "liking," commenting, "sharing," re-posting, or following a candidate's or party's account, unless these are resorted as a means to solicit support for or against a candidate or party during the campaign period - Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335, 11 February 2014
For advocates of free expression, especially where none of the purposes for which the prohibition has been imposed, government employees may justify their partisan political activities by grounding these within the obvious parameters of the exclusions.
For instance, do not solicit support expressly. Mention the names through favorite media, but do not say vote for. Implied support, or incidental solicitation of support, is not punishable; it is not covered by the prohibition - Quinto v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698, 22 February 2010; People v De Venecia (1965). Comment on a social or political or moral issue, and say why this or that candidate does not stand for the issue. This is excluded from the prohibition.
To stress, the idea is to resolve whether the prohibition has been breached contextually. Anything done in good faith and as a result of a government employee’s conscientious beliefs would not fall within the prohibition. Government employees are stakeholders as anyone else. It does not hurt to be a government employee who stands for dignity in government service, especially from those echeloned at the highest levels.
No comments:
Post a Comment