When you decide to aspire for the highest political seat in the country, expect people to put you under the microscope for public scrutiny. Smear campaigns and black propaganda are all part of the political culture in the country. While we are only a few days away from the Presidential Election happening on May 9, word war never ceases. As they say, "it ain't over 'til it's over". Criticisms are hurled up against a presidential candidate who tops the pre-election survey. A blunt example is the anti-Duterte ad involving children. The 30-second ad highlights the negative side of Rodrigo Duterte and the reasons why he is unworthy of becoming the next President of the Philippines. We get it. It is obvious that the TV ad is against Duterte's presidency. However, as we dissect the TV ad, it slowly unravels who we are as voters, as Pinoys. While the ad is deemed to be cringe-worthy, it does not necessarily take a Duterte supporter to realize that something is really wrong with it. Is it simply because the children were used in the making of the video? Is it due to the fact that the campaign was putting Duterte in a bad light? No. The TV ad slowly uncovers what we are as a person. It can be a Freudian slip, a revelation of our subconscious feelings, but one thing is for sure: we reveal our true selves without even knowing it. It is purely paradoxical.Sure this ad does not necessarily change voter perception, but it reveals the values that shaped us as humans. A Duterte supporter might be surprised by his or her reaction to the TV ad not because it is the exact opposite of the dominant qualities of the presidential candidate they are supporting, but it is even more surprising to know that a supporter cheering or clapping for Duterte's cuss words is also against indecency of the TV ad. With Duterte's popularity, we already know what this ad is all about, but the mixed reactions clearly show both our negative and positive traits as Pinoys. We are unified because we are against the idea of using children to fulfill a politician's self-serving biases. On the other hand, we also have double standards of morality. While political goals may be accomplished eventually, nobody can have their cake and eat it too. (credits to the owner of this video)

With just a few days away from 2016 Presidential Election, Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is still dealing with minor glitches. Although Smartmatic International has already assured of an election free of technical issues, there are still some doubts on the effectiveness of vote counting machines in terms of delivering the fast and accurate results.

Smartmatic General Manager Elie Moreno assures voters that it’s all systems go after conducting a mock election on May 3, 2016. All of the vote counting machines have already been delivered and each machine has undergone an international certification review. A hardware acceptance test and local source code review have been put in place. There is a total of 92,509 VCMs, which will be used in the elections. In the event of technical failures, there are additional 5000 machines on standby, which will be used as backup.

The ballots are ready and the technology, which will be used for verifying votes has been checked. The final testing was conducted on Monday and even teachers who will serve as the inspectors of board of election have tested the machines. Although COMELEC encountered a problem with cyber security due to hacking of voter’s personal data, both COMELEC and Smartmatic gave an assurance that the machines are hack-free.

The VCMs are not connected to the Internet and with that said, Lawyer Karen Jimeno assures that hackers do not have access to the information. Jimeno also added that the level of encryption of VCM is 256 bits and this is much higher than the security used for banking programs. Aside from the high encryption level, Smartmatic also use an encrypted SD (Secure Digital) card. The card is intended for preventing tampering of election results.

The preparation of these vote counting machines is said to be in compliance with Republic Act No. 9369:

"SEC.14. Examination and Testing of Equipment or Device of the AES and Opening of the Source Code for Review. - The Commission shall allow the political parties and candidates or their representatives, citizens' arm or their representatives to examine and test.

"The equipment or device to be used in the voting and counting on the day of the electoral exercise, before voting start. Test ballots and test forms shall be provided by the Commission.

"Immediately after the examination and testing of the equipment or device, parties and candidates or their representatives, citizen's arms or their representatives, may submit a written comment to the election officer who shall immediately transmit it to the Commission for appropriate action.
"The election officer shall keep minutes of the testing, a copy of which shall be submitted to the Commission together with the minute of voting."

"Once an AES technology is selected for implementation, the Commission shall promptly make the source code of that technology available and open to any interested political party or groups which may conduct their own review thereof."

It has been recently reported that the voter’s data had been stolen by hackers from the Comelec’s database.  There unlawful use of stolen data is considered a violation of Data Privacy Act according to the acting Justice Secretary Emmanual Caparas. The Comelec is the rightful owner of the stolen information and the unauthorized individuals who use the information will face the consequences for the violation. Although the   leaked poll data is a serious issue, Caparas assured that it should not be a cause for alarm as the integrity of May 9 election will not be compromised. The Department of Justice together with the foreign agencies are also doing their best to hunt down the person/s responsible for hacking the Comelec’s database system.

SECURITY OF PERSONAL INFORMATION

“SEC. 20. Security of Personal Information. – (a) The personal information controller must implement reasonable and appropriate organizational, physical and technical measures intended for the protection of personal information against any accidental or unlawful destruction, alteration and disclosure, as well as against any other unlawful processing.

(b) The personal information controller shall implement reasonable and appropriate measures to protect personal information against natural dangers such as accidental loss or destruction, and human dangers such as unlawful access, fraudulent misuse, unlawful destruction, alteration and contamination.

(c) The determination of the appropriate level of security under this section must take into account the nature of the personal information to be protected, the risks represented by the processing, the size of the organization and complexity of its operations, current data privacy best practices and the cost of security implementation. Subject to guidelines as the Commission may issue from time to time, the measures implemented must include:

(1) Safeguards to protect its computer network against accidental, unlawful or unauthorized usage or interference with or hindering of their functioning or availability;

(2) A security policy with respect to the processing of personal information;

(3) A process for identifying and accessing reasonably foreseeable vulnerabilities in its computer networks, and for taking preventive, corrective and mitigating action against security incidents that can lead to a security breach; and

(4) Regular monitoring for security breaches and a process for taking preventive, corrective and mitigating action against security incidents that can lead to a security breach.

(d) The personal information controller must further ensure that third parties processing personal information on its behalf shall implement the security measures required by this provision.

(e) The employees, agents or representatives of a personal information controller who are involved in the processing of personal information shall operate and hold personal information under strict confidentiality if the personal information are not intended for public disclosure. This obligation shall continue even after leaving the public service, transfer to another position or upon termination of employment or contractual relations.

(f) The personal information controller shall promptly notify the Commission and affected data subjects when sensitive personal information or other information that may, under the circumstances, be used to enable identity fraud are reasonably believed to have been acquired by an unauthorized person, and the personal information controller or the Commission believes (bat such unauthorized acquisition is likely to give rise to a real risk of serious harm to any affected data subject. The notification shall at least describe the nature of the breach, the sensitive personal information possibly involved, and the measures taken by the entity to address the breach. Notification may be delayed only to the extent necessary to determine the scope of the breach, to prevent further disclosures, or to restore reasonable integrity to the information and communications system.

(1) In evaluating if notification is unwarranted, the Commission may take into account compliance by the personal information controller with this section and existence of good faith in the acquisition of personal information.

(2) The Commission may exempt a personal information controller from notification where, in its reasonable judgment, such notification would not be in the public interest or in the interests of the affected data subjects.

(3) The Commission may authorize postponement of notification where it may hinder the progress of a criminal investigation related to a serious breach.”

Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) is the national government’s human development measure. Its main objective is to provide financial assistance to the poorest of the poor so basic needs such as education, health and nutrition are met. The program works like conditional cash transfer, which originated from Latin American and African countries. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)is the government agency leading 4Ps.

With 17 regions in the Philippines, 79 provinces, 143 cities and 1484 municipalities covered by this program, national and local candidates are using the program as bait to get a sufficient number of supporters they need to win in the 2016 election. In one of the campaign rallies, one supporter attested to the “generosity” of a local candidate for choosing her as one of the beneficiaries of 4Ps. Other 4Ps members were warned of 500 cut if they refuse to join an activity, which is not even part of the activity of 4Ps.

The activity that posed a threat to the monthly assistance that the beneficiaries get is not part of the 4Ps program. While the election is a perfect time for unscrupulous candidates to deceive gullible voters in Class D and E, conditional cash grants should not be used as another instrument to win votes.
According to the explanatory note of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago “The Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) is more than a welfare program; it addresses structural inequities in society and promotes human capital development of the poor, thus, breaking the intergenerational cycle of poverty. The conditions attached to the grants require parents to undergo trainings on responsible parenthood, have their children undergo health check-ups and ensure school attendance. The program ensures that there is sufficient resource for the health, nutrition and education of children aged 0-14 year old. An initial study on the pilot areas of the program shows promising results.”

Has the problem with poverty been properly addressed by this program? As of June 2015, there are 4,436,732 4Ps beneficiaries and 555,861 of which are classified as indigenous households. Unfortunately, the cash granted to the beneficiaries is not enough to put food on their plate on a daily basis. There are reports that poverty is still clutching the poor with its sharp claws. This is why some beneficiaries are left with no choice but to pawn their ATM to make ends meet. While the government has been closely monitoring beneficiaries involved in these prohibited practices, something has to be done. Aside from voter education, beneficiaries must also be aware that their situation should not be used by local and national candidates as an instrument for winning a seat in the 2016 election.

If there is one routine that most people are stuck in, it is taking rants to social media at the same rate an individual changes clothes. During a social-media induced hysteria, your fingers seem to have a mind of their own. They think for themselves carrying one sole mission: to win the cyber word war. Online bashing or cyber bullying has become prevalent during the election period. Just visit one of the electoral candidate’s Facebook page and you will realize how a die-hard supporter can dominate the comments section.

Social media users enjoy basking in the glory of anonymity that it becomes an addiction like a druggie to cocaine. Online bashers can easily get out of this situation scot-free because they can create fake accounts and comment as they please. Unfortunately, these internet trolls just do not know when to stop because they know no limitations. They can post rude comments in rapid succession and get away with it.

These social media platforms have become an avenue for no-holds-barred expressions and a passive-aggressive way of venting out. Employees who are against their employer may choose to create a Facebook Group where they can freely express their turmoil and discontentment. These individuals can put up a façade and report to work as though everything is perfectly fine. Cyber bullying comes in many forms, but it yields the same negative result.

A bill that may soon put a stop to cyber bullying has been proposed by Camarines Sur Representative Rolando Andaya. Anti-Cyber Bullying Act of 2015, if enacted into a law cyberbullies will receive a penalty between six months and six years imprisonment. They will also pay a fine of not less than P50,000 to a maximum of 100,000.

The following offenses are considered to be a violation of anti-cyber bullying act of 2015:

“a) Repeatedly sending offensive, rude and insulting message;

b) Distributing derogatory information about the victim;

c) Posting or sending offensive photos of the victim, whether these are digitally altered or not, or were taken with or without consent, with the intention to humiliate and embarrass the victim;

d) Breaking into an email, social networking or any electronic account and using the victim’s virtual identity to send, upload or distribute embarrassing materials to or about others;

e) Sharing the victim’s personal information or any embarrassing information, or tricking the victim into revealing personal or embarrassing information and sharing it to others; and

f) Repeatedly sending messages that include threats of harm or engaging in online activities that cause fear on the victim’s safety.”

In the previous years, the election period starts in February, but it comes a month earlier this year. This means rules and regulations under Section 3 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) commences on January 10, which is 30 days in advance.

From January 10 to June 8, 2016, these following acts are prohibited:

•    Suspension of elective local officials;
•    bearing firearms and other deadly weapons, unless authorized by the Comelec, this is also referred to as the gun ban;
•    organization of reaction forces, strike forces, etc;
•    alteration of territory of a precinct, or the establishment of a new precinct;
•    use of security personnel/bodyguards by candidates, unless authorized by the Comelec;
•    transfer or movement of officers and employees in the civil service.

If one of these prohibitions is violated, it can be a ground for disqualification in case the offender is running for an elective public office.

The prohibited acts can be found under Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code:

“Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

a. Vote-buying and vote-selling.
1.      Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.

2.     Any person, association, corporation, group or community who solicits or receives, directly or indirectly, any expenditure or promise of any office or employment, public or private, for any of the foregoing considerations.
b.    Conspiracy to bribe voters. - Two or more persons, whether candidates or not, who come to an agreement concerning the commission of any violation of paragraph (a) of this section and decide to commit it.

c.    Wagering upon result of election. - Any person who bets or wagers upon the outcome of, or any contingency connected with an election. Any money or thing of value or deposit of money or thing of value situated anywhere in the Philippines put as such bet or wager shall be forfeited to the government.

 d.   Coercion of subordinates.

1.    Any public officer, or any officer of any public or private corporation or association, or any head, superior, or administrator of any religious organization, or any employer or land-owner who coerces or intimidates or compels, or in any manner influence, directly or indirectly, any of his subordinates or members or parishioners or employees or house helpers, tenants, overseers, farm helpers, tillers, or lease holders to aid, campaign or vote for or against any candidate or any aspirant for the nomination or selection of candidates.

2.    Any public officer or any officer of any commercial, industrial, agricultural, economic or social enterprise or public or private corporation or association, or any head, superior or administrator of any religious organization, or any employer or landowner who dismisses or threatens to dismiss, punishes or threatens to punish be reducing his salary, wage or compensation, or by demotion, transfer, suspension, separation, excommunication, ejectment, or causing him annoyance in the performance of his job or in his membership, any subordinate member or affiliate, parishioner, employee or house helper, tenant, overseer, farm helper, tiller, or lease holder, for disobeying or not complying with any of the acts ordered by the former to aid, campaign or vote for or against any candidate, or any aspirant for the nomination or selection of candidates.

e. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other forms of coercion. - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence, injury, punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage upon any person or persons or that of the immediate members of his family, his honor or property, or uses any fraudulent device or scheme to compel or induce the registration or refraining from registration of any voter, or the participation in a campaign or refraining or desistance from any campaign, or the casting of any vote or omission to vote, or any promise of such registration, campaign, vote, or omission therefrom.

f. Coercion of election officials and employees. - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates, terrorizes or coerces any election official or employee in the performance of his election functions or duties.”

The detailed list of prohibited acts can be found in the official website of Comelec.

Comelec has implemented “No Bio, No Boto” policy in order to ensure that each and every voter has completed a verification process in line with the Comelec’s efforts to reduce if not totally eradicate flying voters and other issues involved in voter registration. The Supreme Court junks petition vs No Bio, No Boto policy filed by leftist group leaders on November 25. Due to the petition, the court was prompted to issue a temporary restraining order, deterring Comelec from implementing the policy. The reason for junking the petition is that the policy is based on a law. The poll body also took time needed for preparation for the 2016 elections into great consideration.

The biometrics required by Comelec is based on Republic Act 10367:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology.

Section 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:

(a) Commission refers to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

(b) Biometrics refers to the quantitative analysis that provides a positive identification of an individual such as voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, iris and/or such other identifiable features.

(c) Data Capture Machine (DCM) is the device which captures the biometrics of an individual.

(d) Validation is the process of taking the biometrics of registered voters whose biometrics have not yet been captured.

(e) Deactivation refers to the removal of the registration record of the registered voter from the corresponding precinct book of voters for failure to comply with the validation process as required by this Act.

(f) Reactivation refers to the reinstatement of a deactivated voter.

Section 3. Who Shall Submit for Validation. – Registered voters whose biometrics have not been captured shall submit themselves for validation.

Section 4. Who Shall Conduct the Validation. – The City or Municipal Election Officer shall conduct the validation.

Section 5. Commencement of Validation. – The Commission shall conduct validation beginning July 1, 2013, consistent with the continuing registration under Republic Act No. 8189.

Section 6. Publication and Notice Requirement. – The Commission shall cause the publication of the commencement of the validation in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. The City or Municipal Election Officer shall serve individual written notices by registered mail with return card to the voters concerned at their latest address in the voter’s registration record and post the list of the voters concerned in the city or municipal bulletin board and in the local COMELEC office.

Section 7. Deactivation. – Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall be deactivated pursuant to this Act.

Section 8. Reactivation. – Those deactivated under the preceding section may apply for reactivation after the May 2016 elections following the procedure provided in Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8189.

Section 9. Database Security. – The database generated by biometric registration shall be secured by the Commission and shall not be used, under any circumstance, for any purpose other than for electoral exercises.

Section 10. Mandatory Biometrics Registration. – The Commission shall implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters.

Section 11. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be election offenses punishable under Sections 263 and 264 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended, otherwise known as the "Omnibus Election Code":

(a) Any person who shall prohibit, impede, obstruct or prevent a registered voter or a new voter from submitting his or her biometrics for capture through the use of force, intimidation or monetary consideration; and

(b) Any public official or person who, under the guise of implementing this Act, shall unjustifiably and without due process, cause the deactivation or reactivation of any registered voter.

Anti-corruption advocates were quite disappointed when Makati Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” Binay Jr. invoked the Aguinaldo doctrine, questioning his order of suspension last March. The decision was made by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales. The Makati Mayor claimed that he was no longer held responsible nor liable for the construction of Makati Science High School Building (MSHSB) because such liability has already been rendered ineffective by his reelection in 2013.  The same doctrine was used for defending himself against anomalous and shady transaction involved in the construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building II. Perhaps, the existence of Aguinaldo Doctrine has been misused and abused by politicians who still aspire to run for 2016 elections in spite of pending administrative cases. 

The Aguinaldo doctrine removes the elected officials’ liabilities for administrative offenses that were committed in previous terms once they are reelected. It is so easy for elected officials to evade liabilities so long as they are reelected into office. The doctrine also emphasizes that the law only applies to administrative cases. If elected official has a pending criminal case, the acts will not be pardoned and the judicial processes will push through. Anti-corruption advocates believe that scrapping this doctrine can reduce graft and corruption in the country. 

As stated in the doctrine: “Offenses committed, or acts done, during a previous term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this is especially true were the Constitution provides that the penalty in proceeding for removal shall not extend beyond the removal from office, and disqualification from holding office for a term for which the officer was elected or appointed.”

“The Court should ever remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When a people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people. (Lizares v. Hechanova, et al., 17 SCRA 58, 59-60 [1966]) (See also Oliveros v. Villaluz, 57 SCRA 163 [1974])”

“Equally without merit is petitioner's claim that before he could be suspended or removed from office, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required inasmuch as he is charged with a penal offense of disloyalty to the Republic which is defined and penalized under Article 137 of the Revised Penal Code. Petitioner is not being prosecuted criminally under the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, but administratively with the end in view of removing petitioner as the duly elected Governor of Cagayan Province for acts of disloyalty to the Republic where the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence.”

Elections provide voters a unique form or element of entertainment not only due to the list of candidates filing for certificate of candidacy, but also due to the complexities of the electoral system. Before the results are released, voters need to wait for several weeks as the canvassing of election results can be a long and tedious process. There will be disputes, which can delay the declaration process. 

The Philippine elections give voters some sort of confusion and excitement when two candidates have tied. Instead of undergoing another voting process, the tie is simply broken by drawing of lots. While this method may appear to be tongue-in-cheek, it is covered by Resolution No. 9648. “In case there are candidates receiving the same number of votes for the same position, the Board immediately notify the said candidates to appear before them for the drawing of lots to break the tie. The drawing of lots should be conducted within one (1) hour after issuance of notice by the Board of candidates concerned.” 

“The candidate who won in the drawing of lots and so proclaimed shall have the right to assume office in the same manner as if he had been elected by plurality of votes.”

This electoral system is also under Section 240 of the Omnibus Election Code: “Whenever it shall appear from the canvass that two or more candidates have received an equal and highest number of votes, or in cases where two or more candidates are to be elected for the same position and two or more candidates received the same number of votes for the last place in the number to be elected, the board of canvassers, after recording this fact in its minutes, shall by resolution, upon five days notice to all the tied candidates, hold a special public meeting at which the board of canvassers shall proceed to the drawing of lots of the candidates who have tied and shall proclaim as elected the candidates who may be favored by luck, and the candidates so proclaimed shall have the right to assume office in the same manner as if he had been elected by plurality of vote.”

During the 2013 general elections, San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro mayoralty candidates tossed a coin to break the tie. Although this is considered an unconventional electoral system, it is not considered unique as there are states in the US that also follow the same method. 

As you rivet to the TV screen, political campaign ads seem to remind voters that a few months from now, another person will lead the country. As the 2016 national elections approach, political aspirants are also making necessary preparations. On October 12, Commission on Elections (COMELEC) welcomed candidates who wished to pursue political seats. The filing for the Certificates of Candidacy (COC), has also been a source of entertainment for the nation. 

Aside from the familiar faces in Philippine government, there are also ordinary citizens who wish to give the presidential seat a try. These presidential hopefuls have platforms that are out of the ordinary. 

Under the Constitution, an individual can only aspire for the highest seat in the government if they meet the following criteria: 

1. natural born citizen of the Philippines

2. registered voter

3. able to read and write

4. at least 40 years of age on the day of election

5. resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years immediately preceding the election.

However, not everyone who files for certificate of candidacy for presidency is considered an official candidate. After filing, all of the candidates are subject for deliberation and it is then that the official candidates will be announced. 

Under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, “The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.”

Under Section 72, “Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Nevertheless, if for any reason, a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, his violation of the provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to office.”

According to COMELEC, an independent candidate can also be considered nuisance if they do not have the capacity to support a national campaign. While these independent candidates can be a form of entertainment considering the fact that national elections are filled with tension, stringent laws weed them out when the number of candidates filing for candidacy becomes out of control.

As 2016 election approaches, more and more political hopefuls are going the extra mile to win more votes. You can see a plethora of political ads and various campaign strategies, which are clear signs that election is just around the corner.  In the past, premature campaigning is considered a violation but based on the country’s statute books, it is no longer a violation. It was used to be a criminal offense that can result in disqualification of the candidate. 

Under Section 68 of the Election code, any candidate who in a protest or action in which he is a party is declared, based on the final decision of a competent court is considered guilty of violating any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261. This leads to the disqualification of candidate from holding the office or running for election. If you see political ads on TV, they are not considered as a violation of the election code. 

Premature Campaigning And Its Considerations

An act will only be considered as election campaigning when it intends to promote the election or defeat of a person who has already filed a certificate for candidacy. Even if the person deemed most qualified for public office appears to be campaigning, he still does not violate any laws unless he has officially filed his COC. 

No one can be punished for prematurely campaigning under Section 80 of the Election Code if the person is not yet legally a candidate. In the past elections, the voting and counting process were still manual and a timeline must be observed for filing a COC. It should not be later than one day before the start of the campaign period. This is to ensure that the opportunity to campaign is maximized without breaking the law. 

However, when automated election was introduced by RA 8436 in 1997, the deadline for filing COCs has also changed. It should not be later than 120 days before the election. If candidates file their COCs earlier than the said deadline, they will be punished for premature campaigning especially if campaigns took place between the date of COC filing and the start of the campaign period.

With the most recent amendment, Section 11 of the law states that even if COCs are filed before the campaign period, the candidates will not be liable for violating laws on campaigning. The law takes effect on the start of the campaign period. In the simplest term, no one can be charged for premature campaigning if there are no candidates yet.