Lawyer questions Comelec’s mall-voting proposal

A LAWYER and electoral reform advocate has raised more legal questions against the decision of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to allow people to vote in some shopping malls in 2016.

Glenn Chong, a former congressman and convenor of the Citizens for Clean and Credible Elections, accused the Comelec of violating provisions in the Omnibus Election Code, particularly the ban on the possession of deadly weapons near polling precincts.

“The underlying thesis of my questions is the willingness of the Comelec to disregard the express provisions of the law concerning polling places. These express provisions that cannot be disregarded for convenience or for the enhancement of the voting experience. The law must be followed and respected,” Chong told the Inquirer in an interview.

He pointed out that under Section 42 of the election code, the chair of the board of election tellers shall order the use of the public school or any other public building within the barangay as a polling place in case the barangay has one election precinct. For barangays with two or more election precincts, the chair of the board of canvassers shall designate the public school or any other public building as a polling place.

In case there are no public schools or public buildings that can be used as polling places, other appropriate private buildings may be used. This is on the condition that such buildings are not owned, occupied or possessed by any incumbent elective public official or candidate, or his relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

The location of the polling place should also take into consideration the convenience and safety of the voters.

“How do you reconcile without violating [the code] the use of privately-owned malls with their own set of private internal security rules when clearly, these malls are [surrounded by] public schools and other public buildings available for use as polling places in accordance with law?” Chong asked.

He wondered if the poll body, by using privately-owned malls, intended to take full control and exercise full direct supervision over their operations.

Chong also expressed doubts whether Comelec could legally skirt several penal provisions in the code, such as Section 261 (p) which regards as an election offense the bringing in of any deadly weapon within the polling place.

“Will the mall administrators allow their security personnel to be disarmed or restricted outside the 100-meter radius minimum distance requirement?” he asked.