The process of determining the popular will does not end upon the proclamation of the presumptive winners. The opportunity to make a complaint or appeal is an important safeguard of election integrity. Election integrity however also requires that the election management body and the justice system be willing to effectively address complaints without undue delay. The importance of resolving election disputes as credibly and as efficiently as humanly possible cannot be overemphasized. An election case, unlike an ordinary action, affects public interest, and involves not only resolving the disputes between rival candidates, but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainties which cast doubt over the real choices of the electorate.

With this backdrop, the credibility of the process of election adjudication is as crucial in a democracy as the conduct of election itself. The perception that no just, fair and expeditious relief can be expected to correct a perceived wrong, breeds public distrust in the whole electoral exercise.  It is when citizens view the entire election process, which includes adjudication, as legitimate and sound that they will participate in it.

The process of determining the popular will does not end upon the proclamation of the presumptive winners. The opportunity to make a complaint or appeal is an important safeguard of election integrity. Election integrity however also requires that the election management body and the justice system be willing to effectively address complaints without undue delay. The importance of resolving election disputes as credibly and as efficiently as humanly possible cannot be overemphasized. An election case, unlike an ordinary action, affects public interest, and involves not only resolving the disputes between rival candidates, but also the paramount need of dispelling the uncertainties which cast doubt over the real choices of the electorate.

With this backdrop, the credibility of the process of election adjudication is as crucial in a democracy as the conduct of election itself. The perception that no just, fair and expeditious relief can be expected to correct a perceived wrong, breeds public distrust in the whole electoral exercise.  It is when citizens view the entire election process, which includes adjudication, as legitimate and sound that they will participate in it.

The report of the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS) during the May 2004 elections on the complaints and adjudication process pointed out observations such as great mistrust leading to excessive litigation, few mechanisms in the filing of nuisance cases, delays in case resolution as well as deliberate delays by lawyers in litigants and costly and tedious procedures among others. The recommendations that were outlined included increasing public access to case records and decisions, mandating courts with initial jurisdiction to undertake preferential disposition of election cases, a possible establishment of special courts, automating elections that will lead to reducing protests and streamlining procedures in dispute resolution.

LIBERTAS has successfully implemented a two-phase election adjudication reform project that reviewed existing laws, policies, and processes of the adjudicative bodies, including the House of Representative Election Tribunal, the Senate Election Tribunal, the COMELEC and the courts, as well as the election contests that are resolved by them.

The baseline findings were presented to the election adjudication tribunals together with recommendations to reform procedures by introducing rules and amending laws. While focused studies were made on the various aspects of election disputes (including election contests in the case of the newly designated election courts, pre-proclamation cases, and election offense and disqualification cases in regard to the COMELEC), these were all in the context of manual elections. Thus, the decision to automate the 2010 elections will greatly impact the adjudication of potential election disputes. Hence, there is a need for more sustained and focused discussions with COMELEC and other election stakeholders to define the changes being brought about by automation, identify the issues that will arise, and determine strategies, areas of possible engagement and reform.

With IFES’ support under this program, LIBERTAS is developing a straightforward and user-friendly manual for election stakeholders, including judges, lawyers, the media, COMELEC, and civil society groups, in preparation for automation and anticipation of related disputes. Components of this publication series will include a Manual on Disqualification Cases; a Manual on Election Contests; and a Manual on Pre-Proclamation Cases. LIBERTAS will produce 2,000 manuals for each topic which will be distributed to all election courts2, election lawyers, law schools, COMELEC, the Philippines Judicial Academy (PHILJA) and other civil society partners, such as LENTE. These manuals will be designed as training aids as well as general reference materials.

In addition, LIBERTAS continues to engage adjudicative bodies through consultative events. LIBERTAS will advocate for necessary revisions in rules and procedures to ensure greater transparency and credibility in the election adjudication process, which will become a key and pressing priority following the May 2010 election process. A series of advocacy papers drawing from the results of baseline studies will be developed for submission to policymakers to help craft necessary legislative or policy reforms. Finally, LIBERTAS maintains a web-based portal to inform the public with regular updates and information on electoral tribunals and the status of cases.

IFES is also working in partnership with the American Bar Association (ABA) to train a core group of the Philippines Judicial Academy (PHILJA) trainers on the updated election adjudication framework under an automated election system. Through an international election law expert, IFES is teaming up with PHILJA, LIBERTAS and ABA to develop a training program and materials, and hold a workshop for a core group of trainers who will be trained on the new curriculum for cascading throughout the country. PHILJA and ABA will continue election seminars for judges and clerks of courts, while IFES will offer training to lawyers from the Presidential, Senate and House of Representatives Electoral Tribunals, to ensure election cases are properly handled and the sanctity and credibility of the electoral process is preserved.