Comelec extends election liquor ban

A+
A
A-

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has decided to extend by three days the duration of the election liquor ban, Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. said Wednesday.

He said the Comelec en banc had voted by a majority vote of 4 to 1 to extend the liquor ban from just two days to five days—from May 9 to May 13, or Election Day.

“(Before), the liquor ban was effective only the day before and on Election Day,” Brillantes noted.

He said the Metro Manila Development Authority had even proposed that a 60-day liquor ban be imposed. However, he said the MMDA’s proposed ban would be too long and would likely invite an adverse reaction from liquor manufacturers.

“We feel that a five-day period is better because … the heat of the campaign will be on the last five days,” Brillantes said.

Brillantes said the lone dissenter was Commissioner Christian Robert Lim who argued that the law had specified a ban on the day before and on Election Day.

However, Brillantes said the law did not say “only,” which means the en banc “can really expand it but not to (an) unreasonable period because it will affect business.”

“If you apply the liquor ban within the last five days, that will lessen the tension because many people drink, especially on the Saturday before the elections,” he added.

The Comelec chairman also said that the problem of the source code of the Precinct Count Optical Scan machines might be resolved this week.

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • Hey_Dudes

    Liquor ban?  just because an election is forthcoming?  Jeez……now I’ve seen it all.  When will Comelec ban showering during election?

  • Simon Ward

    I think that extending the ban to five days is utterly ridiculous, but if indeed it is needed, it reflects very poorly on the self-control of Filipinos. Frankly, if I were Filipino, I would be insulted by the clear implication that I have no self-discipline.

    As for the MMDA’s proposal for a 60-day ban, I am lost for words.

    • MC M

      Lambanog! 

  • espada1964

    Tama si Simon Ward.  Comelec is taking too much liberties with their authority.  Tama si Comm. Lim, meron na batas, sapat na sana yun.

  • espada1964

    ang pamahalaan ay binuo para sa kapakanan ng karamihan. hirap dito saten, malukluk lang sa pwesto, nakakalimuan na karamihan, NAGHAHARI HARIAN PA!  di man lang nagtanong sa NASASAKUPAN? hindi dapat nasasakupan gagamitin kong word pero dahil nga naghahari harian, para na silang trato saten mga alipin na, maging opisyales lang. yan ang mentalidad dito saten kaya di kataka takang pati pera ng bayan, kala nila sa kanila na!

  • Manuel_II

    MMDA proposed 60 days ban, WAGAS talaga MMDA, lol.

  • Putakte Naman

    arte mo naman mahina ka pa man din mag implement ng kaparusan sa nga violators. Hoy! dagdagan mo pangil mo! korap na ahensiya!!!

  • Jason_Voorhees

    Kawawa naman ang Team SUNOG BAGA niyan! LOL

  • Magsasaka

    pukang nang comelec to ang daming ban, may gun ban may liquor ban pero walang BAN SA DAYAAN sa election, mga kalahi ni ogag.

  • JasonBieber

    Are the Comelec’s bans even effective? They have a gun ban and that’s not really being upheld. Candidates also have rules placed on them about illegal posters and that’s not being adhered to so what’s the point really?

    Oh the the PCOS machines that the Comelec are using is still faulty so that’s not looking so good for the elections in May.

  • jtclassic

    From the report: However, Brillantes said the law did not say “only,” which means the en
    banc “can really expand it but not to (an) unreasonable period because it will affect business.”

    This is absolutely lame. Because the law doesn’t have “only”? Consider, by way of example, Art.246 of the Revised Penal Code:”Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.”

    Because the law doesn’t say “only,” would that mean a judge could sentence a convict to just one day in prison? Or even half a day? Or maybe a minute, because the provision doesn’t say “only”? So many provisions of law do not have “only,” especially when they’re specific, as the Omnibus Election Code is regarding the liquor ban. Does this ruling mean that any person or body of authority can now just expand the law?

    I understand from other reports (GMA news, “Comelec extends liquor ban to 5 days,” March 13, 2013) that the law department of the Comelec believes that the Comelec cannot expand the liquor ban period, which was the reason for the dissenting vote.

    I hope this ruling is challenged in court by those whose businesses and livelihood will be affected. Five days may not seem like much, especially if you can have your booze in the privacy of your home, but if you’re a waitress in a bar or a resto-bar who gets maybe just two to three days a week of work, this will hurt.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

editors' picks

advertisement

popular

advertisement

videos