2004 Legal Opinion on “Command Vote”

         We used the term  “command vote” or “command voting” in 2004,  a term we’ve used since 1987 (see manuals of organizations),  although that’s not what is used in the Omnibus Election Code (see provision quoted below). Excerpts of  the press statement in 2004:  

         Public Interest Lawyers Issue Legal Opinion on “Command-Voting”: “Public officers, heads of corporations, religious organizations, and employers, who compel or influence their members or subordinates to vote for or against a candidate are criminally liable.” – Public Interest
Law Center

              “Any officer of a corporation or any head of a religious organization, or any employer, who coerces, intimidates, compels, or in any manner influence their members or subordinates to campaign for or against or to vote for or against any candidate, is criminally liable for violation of Art. 22, Sec. 261 (d) of the Omnibus Election Code, punishable with imprisonment of one year to six years, disqualification to hold public office, and deprivation of the right to vote.”  This was the legal opinion issued by the Public Interest Law Center (PILC) today on the well-known practice of “command-voting”. The PILC is a law office that renders legal services to peasants and workers, the urban poor, fisherfolk, consumers, religious minorities, and other sectors displaced by globalization and victimized by militarism. It is composed of UN Judge Romeo T. Capulong and senior lawyers Marie Yuvienco, Rom-Voltaire Quizon, Jayson Lamchek, Marichu Lambino, and Edre Olalia.       

               Atty. Marie Yuvienco quoted verbatim the law being violated by those public officers, corporate or religious leaders, or employers, who command or influence their members of subordinates to vote for or against a candidate, as follows:    

           “Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. The following shall be guilty of an election offense: xxx     (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 landowner 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.” [Art. 22, Sec. 261 (d) of the Omnibus Election Code].     

         Yuvienco said “command-voting” or “block-voting” happens when the  head of any organization compels or influences his/her members to vote for a particular candidate. She stressed  that “the fact that the  COMELEC tolerates the practice or looks the other way, despite the open braggadocio of organizations on their command votes shows that the COMELEC appears to be beholden to certain vested interests and is not keen on enforcing the election laws.”    

          Atty. Lamchek pointed out that “it is the leaders who will be criminally liable, not the followers. Nevertheless, people should heed their conscience and not let their beliefs or aspirations be reduced into blind following or worse, a cult.”               When asked whether they are referring to any religious group, Atty. Quizon said “No, we are not referring to any organization, the law is applicable to all heads of any corporation whether public or private. We don’t blame the followers for their obedience and we understand that they move out of compulsion; we blame their leaders who take advantage of their faith.”              Atty. Lambino pointed out, “The public endorsement of any candidate is part of one’s freedom of expression. So, yes, we will not stand in the way of the right to freely express oneself. However, compelling or influencing your members or subordinates as evidenced by  letters, memos, hand signals, rallies, sample ballots, and other means, and the resulting command-vote on election day which can be proven testimonially and by other means,  is punishable; letters and use of sample ballots by themselves are not punishable, it is the compelling or influencing of subordinates or members that is punishable, and those acts can be used as evidence.”                                            -0-