The Right of Suffrage

 The Right of Suffrage (from the Latin word suffragium, meaning "vote") is the right of the people to choose their officials as their representatives, for a definite and fixed periods, to whom they entrust the exercise of the powers of government. In the aftermath of the Reformation it was common in European countries for people of disfavored religious denominations to be denied civil and political rights, often including the right to vote, to stand for election or to sit in parliament. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, Roman Catholics were denied the right to vote from 1728 to 1793, and the right to sit in parliament until 1829. The anti-Catholic policy was justified on the grounds that the loyalty of Catholics supposedly lay with the Pope rather than the national monarch.
In several British North American colonies, even the Declaration of Independence, Jews, Quakers or Catholics were denied voting rights and/or forbidden to run for office. The Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated that "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall (...) also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.". This was repealed by article I, section 2 of the 1792 Constitution: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State.". The 1778 Constitution of the State of South Carolina stated that "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion", the 1777 Constitution of the State of Georgia (art. VI) that "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county (...) and they shall be of the Protestent (sic) religion". In Maryland, voting rights and eligibility were extended to Jews in 1828.

*****

The right of suffrage was at the start a statutory right. It was granted to Filipinos by the Philippine Legislature of the American period of our history. In due time it evolved into a constitutional right. Under the 1935 Philippine Constitution, the right of suffrage was granted only to male citizens of the Philippines. Subsequently, the issue concerning women's suffrage was settled in a special plebiscite held on April 30, 1937. Ninety percent of voters were in favor of the measure. Thus, the National Assembly passed a law which extended right of suffrage to women.

*****

As conferred by the constitutional provision, the right of suffrage "is not a natural right of the citizens, but a political right intended to enable them to participate in the process of government to assure it derives its powers from the consent of the governed." (Pungutan vs. Abubakar, L-33541, 20 June 1972). No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement is imposed on the exercise of suffrage. The Congress is tasked to provide a system to protect the ballots, a system of overseas absentee voting, and a procedure for the disabled and illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Nevertheless, it is not the obligation of a citizen to register and vote. Suffrage is not a duty but a right and a privilege that may or may not be exercised.

*****

As seen, the universal right of suffrage was won only after centuries of struggle, and it is for a noble purpose -- to insure that the government, and government officials, derive their powers from the consent of the governed. This is to realize Abraham Lincoln’s idea of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Thus, it will be a pity if voters will sell this sacred right to vote for "30 pieces of silver", or irresponsibly give them to candidates whose obvious purpose in running is to enrich themselves in office. Unless the voters are prepared to again witness crooked government officials sucking the lifeblood of the nation away like insatiable leeches. Remember, these dirty politicians do not stop there. After all the blood is sucked and the nation dies, they still feast upon the dead carcass of the nation like ravenous vultures. So, vote wisely and responsibly.

*****

In my opinion, the following candidates for congress do not deserve our votes: (a) the candidate who ran twice already, and has invariably lost. She has already spent millions of pesos, and is again spending millions more for the current election. Like any other businessperson, she is driven by profit. One cannot comprehend why she continues to invest her millions in the current campaign, unless she intends to get her return of investment (ROI) not only from her salary (which is not enough, in relation to her expenses) but from extra-legal sources; (b) the candidate who chiefly anchors his candidacy on his being a Viracnon. The accident of birth in the premier municipality of the province is not a guarantee of competence and honesty. In fact, this writer finds it hard to discount nagging doubts that this candidate sold his candidacy to an opposing candidate in an earlier election. This may not be true, but this suspicion casts a heavy cloud upon his integrity; (c) the perennial candidate who has already served as congressman for 9 years, and 6 years as governor. This politician was not reared in the province, does not speak the dialect, and comes only during election time. He, definitely, does not identify with the people of Catanduanes as shown by the fact that in spite of his 15 years supposedly in the service of the province, he has yet to produce concrete evidence of sufficient accomplishments worthy of his lengthy tenures. We already booted him out of office during the last elections. Let us see if he can also support himself from the sweat of his brow in the private sector where one has to work for his money.

*****

Too, the following candidate for governor should be retired for good: the candidate who, from average economic circumstances, transformed himself into a mega-millionaire after briefly holding an executive appointive position, and after 9 years as a congressman. One can only speculate where he got his millions. In fact, he is running for governor this time not because he has suddenly lost his appetite for the immense riches available to congressmen. He has already served 3 terms as congressman and is already forbidden by law to run for re-election. Let us serve him notice that, for the sake of our children and a better future, we will vote for another candidate who is more deserving of the people’s trust.

Posted in: Legal Law