Comments on: Supreme Court reverses Penera Decision on Premature Campaign

By: carisse

carisse — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:40:31 +0000

so, the law is clear as a daylight indeed, the word “premature campaign” no longer exist.

By: eithy

eithy — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:36:19 +0000

we are in the 3rd world country, woohoo! be thankful

By: rossi

rossi — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:12:24 +0000

the SC decision implies that there is no such offense as premature campaigning since their argument is based on acts or offenses done during the campaign period. automatically, it excludes acts done prior to campaign period.

the election field will remain unfriendly to those who don’t have the resources, thus, there will be no even playing field (as usual). we can expect that our would-be leaders belong to the elite. how about those poor candidates who could be more qualified and holds better intentions for entering public service than them?

this would also lead us to a more complex scenario of electioneering even in the very first day of their assumption to office (if they aim for a reelection after 3 years).

likewise, the decision sparing appointed officials from resigning their post after filing their candidacies makes the game even utterly unfair.

this is disgusting, for me not all legal acts are ethical…

By: Thirdie

Thirdie — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:48:29 +0000

as far as i know,the reason why we “used” to prohibit tv and radio ads before campaign periods was to level the playing field for all candidates in an election.(famous, rich, poor or what not) i think that it should still be that way now. with regard to election campaign, i don’t see any difference as to the effects of political ads done before or after the allowed period.(campaign period). it will still have the same impact on those who have seen or heard such ads. the names of the candidates will still be imprinted in the minds of the listeners/seers, thus elevating themselves over other candidates. if you we can’t call that campaigning, then i don’t what to call it anymore..the worst part is, the only ones who could benefit from such opportunity are those who can sustain long hours of tv and radio commercials..(we have obviously departed away from the protection of candidates during elections and we have welcomed an age of elections which caters only those who “have” and who “can”. and i am not talking about skills and talents on leadership and governance..

what was in the minds of our law makers when they debated, “scrutinized?” and voted on this law?.