The more than 6 million Filipinos living and working outside the Philippines are not able to participate in Philippine elections. This exclusion from Philippine political life is in stark contrast to the very significant contribution of migrant remittances to the Philippine economy.
The framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution made a specific provision granting Overseas Filipinos (OFs) the right to vote. Article V, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution states: " The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad."
However, in the more than 10 years after the Constitution came into effect, overseas Filipinos still could not vote, because Congress has been unable to pass the enabling law for this Constitutional provision. This has not been due to the lack of trying. In fact, there have been a lot of laws proposed over the years seeking to operationalize the constitutional provision on absentee voting. Somehow, these laws do not get passed.
One explanation offered about Congress' inability to pass a law on migrant voting goes like this: Neither the party in power nor the opposition really want a law. The party in power is afraid that overseas Filipinos will vote overwhelmingly for the opposition, given their grievances against the government. The opposition, for their part, is afraid that the administration will engage in massive cheating using the migrant vote. With Philippine elections these days sometimes determined by a difference of a few hundred thousand votes, the prospect that the migrant vote (with more than 6 million potential voters) would be decisive in determining the winner of national elections terrifies Philippine-based politicians.
The fate of the latest attempt to pass an absentee voting law in the final sessions of the 10th Congress illustrates the above point. When the administration party inserted HB 9396 (the proposed Absenteee Voting Act) into the agenda, the political opposition complained, saying that the bill is intended to ensure that administration candidates would win by manipulating the results of the overseas votes. Administration congressmen in turn said that the bill would come into effect only later this year (at the earliest), and thus would not enable Overseas Filipinos to vote in May 1998.
At the same time, no party could afford to be openly against granting overseas Filipinos the right to vote. So, the parties discuss the various details of the various absentee voting laws for so long, with the effect that none of the proposals make it past second reading in the House of Representatives.
Apart from the political motivation of various groups in forwarding or opposing a law on overseas voting, the details of such a law are also quite complicated.
Section 2 of the same article continues: " The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad."
The requirement of residency in the Philippines is the biggest problem here. Overseas Filipinos, are per definition, resident outside the Philippines. Thus, it would be ridiculous to require them to be resident in the Philippines in order to qualify to vote abroad. If this was the requirement, then only those who had just arrived from the Philippines, and tourists would be able to pass the residency requirement. Ridiculous as it seems, some proposed laws on absentee voting did require the voter to have resided in the Philippines in the year immediately preceding the election.
Thus, it is important that the residency requirement be waived in the case of Filipinos overseas. Otherwise, very few would be able to vote.
One set of proposed laws tackles this question by saying that first the OFs would participate in the national elections, and that in later elections at the local elections also. Another set of proposals say that those with who are registered voters in the Philippines may participate in the local elections of that area, while the others (i.e. those without Philippine residency or registration) would only vote in national elections. Still another proposal, put forward by overseas Filipino groups, is that instead of electing officials in their hometowns in the Philippines, they should be electing OF representatives to Congress and other elected government positions for OFs.
The question of separating voting for national and local elections is complicated. In the first place, Filipinos cast a single ballot for the whole range of elective positions and even on referendum questions. If all OFs could vote for national positions/questions, and only some for local positions, there would be a need for each voter to cast separate ballots - one for national elections, the other for local. Also, overseas votes for national elections are a lot easier to count, than overseas votes cast for local elections. The question of how these votes are sent in to the various local voting precincts, and what should be done to ensure the anonymity and security of the ballots cast from abroad.
In the whole discussion of scope, procedures, etc. on the overseas Filipinos right to vote, it is very easy to get entangled with the complexity of the question. It is thus no wonder that HB 9396 ends up with a formula for a 'clinical' participation of OFs in the elections. It is very easy to forget that the political empowerment of overseas Filipinos is the main reason why OFs need to participate in Philippine elections in the first place. If OFs in their numbers are allowed to vote, that in itself would be a victory for them. For when that happens, Philippine politicians could never again afford to neglect this big part of the electorate. So, in a sense, the question as to which political party or candidate will benefit from their votes is secondary to the fact that OFs will have then become a political factor in elections.
A 'clinical' procedure for voting only serves the interests of political groups in the Philippines, to the detriment of the interest of OFs. One result of procedures such as those spelled out in HB 9396 is that only a limited number of OFs could vote. Entire sections of the OF community, e.g. the seamen, and unauthorized workers, could not vote. Many others will not bother to go through complicated procedures in order to vote. In order to maximize political empowerment, it is important to ensure that OFs are able to fully participate in the elections. They should be able not only to cast their ballots, but also to form or join parties, campaign, participate in political debates, monitor the voting and counting of votes, and perhaps also participate in recall procedures for elected officials or campaign for peoples' initiatives. Eventually, they should also be able to vote for their own representatives in Congress and other government bodies.
The May 1998 elections may well be the last Philippine elections in which OFs are not allowed to participate. The question at hand now is no longer whether or not an Absentee Voting Bill will be passed by the next Congress. Now, the question is whether this bill will really empower the millions of overseas Filipinos by allowing them to fully participate in elections, or merely allow a handful to vote from abroad. An 'absentee voting' law, in order to be empowering, should have the following provisions:
It is time that overseas Filipinos all over the world unite in demanding a law that will really allow them to take part in Philippine elections. It is high time that Philippine politicians are forced to be accountable to the millions of Filipinos living and working abroad. ??
