Skip to content

Why Celebrities Have the Right to Campaign for their political bets?

February 13, 2010

This (un)Fair Election Act simply means that the government would like to protect the people against their stupidity and idiocy!

Fair Election Act is UNFAIR!

Fair Election Act is UNFAIR!

A blog commenter asked whether a public employee and a private individual have equal rights and privileges with respect to election laws. Since I am defending media personalities’ and celebrities right to free speech and to campaign for candidates, this commenter asked why public employees are prohibited from exercising the same right. As for public employees, I have stated that they are prohibited from engaging in “political partisan activity” and electioneering.

In my previous blog article, I defended the right of media personalities and celebrities to free speech because in a “ free society, no one must be singled out by any law, edict or directive.” Thus I stated the following:

“In a true republican society, the standard of value is the individual. The right of an individual must not be lower in degree or extent than the right of a church or a group. We cannot demand the government to deprive other sectors (e.i. the media personalities) of their right to endorse or campaign for their candidates. This is the essence of individual rights and equality under the law, concepts that we borrowed from the Americans. What does this law mean? It means that the government would like to protect the people against their stupidity and idiocy! This law is funny and pathetic. If the government sought to ban “celebrity influence” by passing this Fair Election Act, then it must also prevent religions and organizations from endorsing candidates! Who’s more influential, Kris Aquino or the high priest of the Iglesia ni Cristo? Who’s more influential, Dolphy or the high priest of Ang Dating Daan or Cardinal Rosales?”

This commenter named Enrico Navea asked the following: “Since the 1987 Constitution “prohibits all government employees to campaign, directly or indirectly, for any political candidates, does that mean that government employees were deprived of their rights to freedom of expression and speech?”

Here’s my reply:

The Constitution expressly prohibits civil service officers and employees from engaging in any electioneering or partisan political activity. Section 2(4), Article IX-B of the 1987 Constitution provides: “No officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political activity.”

Since the Constitution also provides that suffrage “may be exercised by all citizens,” Section 2(4) of Article IX-B does not prohibit civil service officers and employees from voting. Thus, civil service officers and employees cannot engage in any electioneering or partisan political activity except to vote. This is clear from the second paragraph of Section 3(3), Article XVI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides: “No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity, except to vote.”

Likewise, the Omnibus Election Code penalizes civil service officers and employees who engage in any partisan political activity except to vote. Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code states:

Section 261. Prohibited Acts. — The following shall be guilty of an election offense: Intervention of public officers and employees. — Any officer or employee in the civil service, except those holding political offices; any officer, employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, or any police force, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense units and all other para-military units that now exist or which may hereafter be organized who, directly or indirectly, intervenes in any election campaign or engages in any partisan political activity, except to voter to preserve public order, if he is a peace officer.

Anyone who read my previous blogs would understand that I am defending the right to free speech of “civilian” celebrities and media personalities who are not employed by the government. The Constitutional prohibition of “civil service officers and employees from engaging in any electioneering or partisan political activity,” including members of the military, is reasonable and valid, because they work for the government and there would be conflict of interest if they engage in political partisan activities and electioneering. So the Constitution is clear, government employees are precluded or prohibited from engaging in two illegal activities: 1) political partisan activities, and 2) electioneering, as a matter of public policy.

Just imagine if members of the Armed Forces, say generals or colonels, were engaged in electioneering in support of a candidate running for gubernatorial post of a particular province. There are several reasons why the Constitution prohibits members of the military to engage in electioneering: First, because it is their job to maintain peace and order before, during, and after the election period; second, because of the nature of their job (just look at the Ampatuans who established a private army); third, to avoid conflict of interest, because if a politician wins the elections, he has to pay debt of gratitude by appointing the military official or any government employee who helped him win his post.

As for civil service officers and employees, they cannot engage in partisan political activities and electioneering because they work for the government. In a case decided by the Supreme Court (Eleazar Quinto, et al. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 189698), the Court states, in obiter, Section 2 (4) of Article IX-B of the Constitution is “intended to keep the Civil Service free of the deleterious effects of political partisanship.” Political partisanship is the inevitable essence of a political office, elective positions included.

Public employees may still campaign for their candidates, but they should take a leave because of the nature of their job and the influence they might have on the voters.

However, the subject of my blog are media personalities and celebrities who are not government employees and who do not receive any monetary or financial benefits from the government. We must understand that in a Republican state, the Constitution is a limitation of the powers of the government and that its fundamental purpose is to protect the rights of individual citizens. Observe that the Constitution also limits the power and privileges of government employees and officials and not private individuals. The reason for this is because only the government has the right to use force, meaning it can use force against those who initiate its use to protect individual rights and national sovereignty.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. Enrico Navea permalink
    February 13, 2010 3:38

    What is the conflict of interest for a mere clerk in the government? I am an employee of the government before and since the approval of the 1987 Constitution, I am against prohibiting government employees to campaign for their candidates. Yes, they are government employees but they are citizen of this country whose right should be protected by law.

    In USA, government employees are prohibited to participate in partisan politics but they have clear guidelines on what are the activities that are prohibited and what is not prohibited and their freedom of speech was not curtailed. Here is the list of prohibitted and permitted acts:

    • May be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
    • May register and vote as they choose
    • May assist in voter registration drives
    • May express opinions about candidates and issues
    • May contribute money to political organizations
    • May attend political fundraising functions
    • May attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
    • May join and be an active member of a political party or club
    • May sign nominating petitions
    • May campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
    • May campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
    • May make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
    • May distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
    • May hold office in political clubs or parties including serving as a delegate to a convention

    • May not use their official authority or influence to interfere with an election
    • May not solicit, accept or receive political contributions unless both individuals are members of the same federal labor organization or employee organization and the one solicited is not a subordinate employee
    • May not knowingly solicit or discourage the political activity of any person who has business before the agency
    • May not engage in political activity while on duty
    • May not engage in political activity in any government office
    • May not engage in political activity while wearing an official uniform
    • May not engage in political activity while using a government vehicle
    • May not be candidates for public office in partisan elections partisan elections
    • May not wear political buttons on duty

    You said you are defending the freedom of speech of celebrities? Why you can’t defend the freedom of speech of civil servants…forget about the military. I dont think there is conflict of interest if a lowly government employee will go to a campaign rally after office hours and speak and endorse a candidate. It is a right protected by the Constitution, but the same Constitution curtailed their right to freedom of speech because they are government employee. Very conflicting.

    • February 13, 2010 3:38

      “You said you are defending the freedom of speech of celebrities? Why you can’t defend the freedom of speech of civil servants…”

      I have clearly explained my position on this matter. What is prohibited of public servants are acts of “electioneering” and “political partisan activity.”

  2. February 22, 2010 3:38

    Can you believe this story from Denver?

    I just saw this story and had to share it with all of you.

    This poor woman, just can’t believe that this actually happens in this day and age, what a shame.

    I just thought it was important to share.

    (CNN) — Three police cars pulled into Christina FourHorn’s front yard one afternoon while working from home just before she was supposed to pick up her daughter at school. The officers had a warrant for her arrest.

    “What do you mean robbery?” FourHorn remembers asking the officers. Her only brushes with the law had been a few speeding tickets.

    She was locked up in a Colorado jail. They took her clothes and other belongings and handed her an oversize black-and-white striped uniform. She protested for five days, telling jailers the arrest was a mistake. Finally, her husband borrowed enough money to bail her out.

    “They wouldn’t tell me the details,” she said.

    Later, it became clear that FourHorn was right, that Denver police had arrested the wrong woman. Police were searching for Christin Fourhorn, who lived in Oklahoma.

    Their names were similar, and Christina FourHorn, a mother with no criminal record living in Sterling, Colorado, had been caught in the mix-up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: