This column would espouse meaningful electoral reforms through constitutional amendments without favoring any form of government, believing that the bedrock of a true democracy lies in free, honest, and credible elections.

As such, the following are thrown into the free market of ideas, where not just my colleagues in the legal profession, but likewise our policy makers and the readers themselves can form their own opinions in shaping the final matrix of electoral reforms, viz:

(1) Under Article VII (Sec. 4) of the Constitution it is stated:

If we retain the existing Presidential form of government, it is submitted that in case of closely-contested elections (since we have a multiparty system), the top two candidates will have to face the electorate again within one month to determine the real winner. This process will enable a single candidate to gain majority of the votes and produce a leader whom majority of the electorate will rally behind, avoiding post-election divisiveness and solidifying the people behind a newly-elected (and acceptable) President.

The foregoing process is being followed in countries such as: (a) Chile, where the most recent Presidential Election (11 December 2005) had to take a second round (runoff) only last January 15, 2006 that proclaimed Michelle Bachelet from the Coalition of Parties for Democracy as the new Chilean President; (b) Ukraine, where Presidential elections were held last Nov. 23, 2004 and was followed by a runoff on December 26, 2004 electing Viktor Yushchenko as the new President of Ukraine; (c) Peru, where there is an upcoming election this year (slated on April 9, 2006) and where elections last 2001 had to take second rounds to determine and proclaim Alejandro Toledo victorious over former president Alan Garcia Perez; (d) France, where the latest Presidential election last April 21, 2002 was followed by a runoff on May 4, 2002 that declared Jacques Chirac the winner of the election; (e) Guatemala, where Oscar Berger Perdomo was declared the winner after an election on November 9, 2003 and a runoff on December 28 of the same year; and (f) Lithuania, where the Presidential election on June 13, 2004, and the runoff that followed on July 2004 elected Valdas Adamkus as the new Lithuanian President.

Last year (August 17, 2005), we wrote extensively on the success of the Indian electoral system and how democracy works (with more than 700 million Indian voters) in that country. While news reports last week indicated that our Comelec officials invited their Indian counterparts to explain their automated system, such positive move would be incomplete if we do not overhaul the electoral system, again through constitutional reforms (applicable in either parliamentary or presidential set-ups).

Our experience with an independent constitutional commission as provided for under Article IX of the Constitution envisioned a Comelec as the real nucleus of our democratic exercises, but such was never the case. Even the Supreme Court has recognized the Comelec’s "manpower and logistic limitations" (Alvarez vs. Comelec, GR No. 142527, March 1, 2001).

By placing the Comelec under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, we further insulate it from political outside interference as part of the Judiciary. Second, the Comelec can be transformed into a truly impartial electoral tribunal (headed by a Supreme Court, or Court of Appeals Justice) where considerations of expeditious and fair dispensation of justice reflective of the people’s will and unhampered by manpower constraints would result in early resolution of protest cases which promotes tension in local communities (similar to what is happening right now in Tanauan City and Legaspi City). Thirdly, this would pave the way for the decentralization of the Comelec’s judicial functions in resolving electoral cases as the Supreme Court can merely assign a Court of Appeals Justice to handle electoral cases on a regional basis to be assisted by two Regional Trial Court Judges in the area and whose decision can be appealed to the Comelec En Banc and by "certiorari" to the Supreme Court.

As of today, thousands of electoral cases are pending with the Comelec and for sure, some will be decided a few weeks before the next elections in 2007.

We believe that by placing the Comelec under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, we would be further strengthening the independence of the body as it would be part of a branch of government co-equal with that of the legislative and executive branches.

With the foregoing, Section 2 of Article IX of the Constitution would have to be revised as the Comelec would be an Electoral Tribunal within the Supreme Court and questions relative to exclusive original jurisdiction of electoral contests would have to be reviewed, but the administrative functions can remain the same.

There are other sound proposals emanating from Congress (such as computerization), and amidst the current Charter change debate, there is a convergence of thought between the pro-Cha-cha (espousing a Parliamentary form) and the anti-Cha-cha advocates – and that is the urgent need for meaningful electoral reforms. However, in the heat of the debate, they must have overlooked the fact that electoral reforms can be and should be the first subject of Charter change! (E-mail address: myrfnt@yahoo.com)