The recent barangay elections that were held for the old and the youth had exposed the corruption of the electoral process. It showcased the money contest that were only practiced in the higher levels of local governance, usually in the provincial, city and municipal levels which carried the candidates for congressional, provincial board members as well as city and municipal councillors.

Those were the ugly commercialized elections were barangay officials merely acted as ward leaders. The huge money for vote buying were reportedly downloaded to the barangay level to ensure that votes are delivered and monitored at the precinct level where ward leaders who keep the funds for themselves are easily traced from the results at the precinct votes.

Time has changed that the corruption had now invaded the barangay elections both for the old and youth candidates. Vote selling and vote buying had been rampant and at high prices for barangay and youth positions. What seems to be the benchmark was the honorarium that a candidate expects to get if elected for duration of the term. Other candidates include the possible gains that would be raked in from the implementation of programs, projects and activities.

Never mind the platform of governance that candidates were forced to declare during the campaign period as a qualification issue of those wannabes for the various positions. Those who won are now preparing for recovery of their expenses and the amount to prepare for the next elections. Vote sellers and those who did not sell their votes have to bear with whatever kind of governance the purported winners by vote buying will do. Their right to complain for bad governance had been compromised by the corrupted elections.

With barely two years in office, the honorarium the winners will receive would be barely a little more that the election expenses incurred. The excess would not even be enough to maintain the position in the next elections. Yet, the victors in the vote buying would have the gall to call themselves . . . winners?
comments to