"{T}he chief palladium of constitutional liberty . . . the people who are authors of this blessing must also be its guardians . . . their eyes must be ever ready to mark, their voice to pronounce . . . aggression on the authority of their constitution."
-James Madison, as cited in the case of Angara vs Electoral Commission G.R. No. L-45081 July 15, 1936
Recently, we have witnessed the presentation of candidates, the campaign as well, as the miting de avance of the two parties that vie for the positions in the College of Law Students Association, the chief student body organization for the College of Law.
During the campaign, we have witnessed that the two parties have their own diversified platforms of government which is ideally for the interests and welfare of every law student at MSU. Being mostly bogged down in studies, it is a truly refreshing addition to our student life to have the zeal and emotions of an electoral process that not only would define our future in the College but also cancel most of our weekend classes, much of the delight of everyone.
But let’s get back to this article's very topic: the dynamics of the electoral process. One party has long established its resume as the party of status quo and has been the ruling party ever since the writer took up Constitutional Law II. It stands mainly on the principles of transparency and accountability and the maintenance of the developments that are already there. The innovative platforms of this party are add-ons to enhance their public agenda for the benefit of the students.
On the other hand, the other party can be considered the maverick party. Its candidates advocate for improving the current status quo and even render some institutions and policies obsolete as they may seem detrimental to the students. They anchor their platforms on service with integrity. They advocate giving the student-voter a competent alternative to the ruling party by displaying a diversified front.
Each party’s advocacies and contradictions finally boiled down to contention during the miting de avance. This is mainly the platform where each candidate, armed with oratory and rhetorical skills, aims to woo the electorate. Basically, this is where all the drama of the election unfolds. The candidates debated on matters of public policy, and the voters even got their turn to ask questions on pressing issues such as the enrolment process, budget, Bar Operations, and even the school amenities. The whole event displayed that law students are far from apathetic and that their advocacies for the betterment of the College transcend the four corners of any law classroom.
Elections are essentially the embodiment of the democratic principles of popular sovereignty and public participation. It is when the doctrines we find in the lengthy constitutional law cases come to life. It is when we, the common law student, become not only the voice but the judge. The judge will pass the verdict on every law student's future and general welfare. Many candidates from both parties are the writer’s closest friends and classmates. But the time has come that the writer and the whole electorate must choose whom to lead, even if one would have to look beyond friendship, fraternal bond, or any other relationship. The election of our officials is not for the benefit of just a group of people but the College of Law as a whole. May the best persons win, and may they see public service as not merely a job but an obligation from the people's mandate.
