You are on page 1of 3

Office of the Student Court

University Student Government


University of Saint La Salle

Re: Election Complaint

Dear Student Court:

Please allow this letter to serve as our formal complaint against the Commission on
Elections and its incumbent officers. We would like to report the office for its
failure of delivering the Implementing Rules and Regulations or IRR before the
filing for certificate of candidacy, oath taking, and campaign period. Thus, we did
not receive the proper and formal information of what are the following rules and
regulations for General Elections 2019. Moreover, the commission did not release
a legal copy of the IRR before they published the schedule of the election period
even when we continually asked for it.

The good office gave us inconsistent protocols during the meetings through
electronic messages only and disregarded us in providing a formal copy of the IRR
which will serve as the law aside from the Omnibus Election Code for the
upcoming elections. Considering this, the complete computerized and printed copy
with affixed signature from the authorities of the implemented rules will be the
basis of the guidelines that will be followed for the whole election period. Hence,
we believe so in the saying that “there is no crime if there is no law”. Failure in the
submission of the implied rules means negligence in the part of COMELEC.

Furthermore, the laxity of publishing and providing us the copy of IRR shows no
commitment in giving fair and well-deliberated governance in the said
commission.
Office of the Student Court
University Student Government
University of Saint La Salle

Re: Election Complaint

Dear Student Court:

We would like to report the Commission on Elections for breaching confidentiality


from a formal letter sent by the Samalaya-Sages last January 29, 2019. The letter
sent must be esoteric only between the involved party and the commission.
However, due to their negligence, they had given it less importance and ​was found
to be publicly left on the table of their office, a place where any member of the
Student Senate can see when passing through their office. This facultative issue
brings into question the credibility of the said commission in giving importance to
the letter addressed to them, their ability to keep confidentiality, and their integrity
as a commission.

As the office in-charge of the entire General Elections, we would expect due
diligence on their part especially with regards to confidential information that
could potentially impact the outcome of the election. Negligence of the letter
shows that the commission does not take the matter of our concern seriously and
we are afraid that this negligence will continue if not addressed properly.

Office of the Student Court


University Student Government
University of Saint La Salle

Re: Election Complaint

Dear Student Court:

Last January *, 2019, a request was filed by our party to the Commission on
Election regarding the changing of position of our candidates. Our request was
denied by the Commission on the grounds that we have submitted our COCs on the
day of the deadline of the filing and that they have started the deliberation already.
However, since there was no issuance of IRR for this year’s General Election, the
party acted on the premises of the previous election, where both parties were
allowed to change the position of their candidates prior to the Oath-taking
Ceremony.

Furthermore, nowhere in the Omnibus Election Code does it prohibit the candidate
from changing the position they wish to run in even after they have filed their
candidacy as long as they haven’t had their Oath-taking Ceremony.

Stipulated in the reply of the Commission to our request was that if they allow a
candidate to change his/her position, it will cause precedence in the future and
candidates may freely change position whenever they want to. First of all, the
concern with regards to the liberty of the candidate to change his/her position can
be regulated with the issuance of an IRR, which the commission has failed to
provide. Next, we would like to cite an example from the previous General
Election, where both parties were allowed to change the position of their
candidates because it is not stated in the Omnibus Election Code that they cannot
do so, and whatever is not in the law is not a law. We believe that this carries the
weight of all future cases and that this creates precedence for the future elections to
come, and this should have been the precedence followed by the commission and
the involved parties.