Millan: Oblivion

THE Supreme Court has issued another landmark ruling on election law.

Whether or not this will be permanent or temporary, as the Supreme Court can flip and flop as it has in the recent past flipped and flopped, we can never tell. But, as of now, the Supreme Court has decided that the time limitations on advertising by candidates imposed by the Commission on Elections do not hold water.

There are still legal remedies, but this Commission on Elections is as hopeless as it is helpless. This is not the first time that its policies were stricken down by this Supreme Court. This may also not be the last time.

Actually, what was issued by the Supreme Court was merely a Status Quo Ante Order, not even a Temporary Restraining Order, not also an Injunction, and certainly not a final and executory judgment. But, still, it had the same effect as nullifying the time limitations on advertising by candidates. With less than a month to go before Election Day, this really means that there are no more limitations to speak of.

In any case, we cannot point accusing fingers at anybody. To be sure, we actually can, but we may be right, or we may be wrong.

The Supreme Court can always say that if the Commission on Elections wants to implement the policies that it believes to be correct, then it should lobby Congress to enact such laws as would be consistent with the policies that it believes to be correct, not make their own versions through their own interpretations.

Of course, the Supreme Court will always say that it has merely interpreted the laws as it has understood them to mean. Of course, the interpretation of the Supreme Court is what must be followed as such interpretation is its job to do.

To reiterate, Congress or the legislative branch makes the laws; the executive branch or the Commission on Elections in this case implements the laws; and the judicial branch or the Supreme Court in this case interprets the laws if and when there is confusion as to what was made and what was implemented. Regarding interpretation, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. There is no more higher body to run to for relief.

Congress, however, can clarify what it has legislated, and it can communicate this to the Supreme Court in one or more of the hearings called for the purpose, or in the pleadings that may be required to be submitted. But, in this particular instance, a member of Congress, among others, is the one who asked for clarification, so this legislative route can no longer be effective.

Now, then, there are basically no more time limitations on advertising by candidates. The long and short of this is that those who are already advertising will have more time to advertise and those who are not advertising will have more time not advertising. This is like a case of "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer".

As usual, as always, election campaigns are about money. This is not just for advertising. This is for everything.

Campaign volunteers need to eat, in addition to their uniforms in the form of vests, shirts or caps. Campaign posters need wooden frames, aluminum wires, nails, paste and whatever else. There are also no free ladders that can be borrowed to reach high walls and tall posts. Campaign vehicles need gasoline. Campaign materials, not just posters but also leaflets, stickers, fans or whistles for that matter, need to be printed or purchased. Anything. Everything. All have costs. All are expenses. Money. Money. Money.

The more the money, the more the materials. The more the money, the more the volunteers who are for all intents and purposes campaign workers. The more the money, the more the advertising which is now unlimited.

Very simply, everything now boils down to money. To be sure, it is not automatic that money equals victory. Without a doubt, however, with more money comes more chances and more opportunities and more of anything and more of everything.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court removing time limitations on advertising by candidates made the situation and the scenario for those with money a little bit better and for those without money a little bit worse. In election campaigns, though, the little bits spell victory, or defeat, or oblivion.

*****

Comments are most welcome. Please send them to onesmallvoice2013@gmail.com.