Page 118 - kpi20482

King Prajadhipok’s Institute 117

3. The degree of influence and intervention exercised by
the state over the IEC affects the Commission’s independence,

impartiality, and competence. Both IECs operate under similar oversight
structures but the designated oversight bodies exercise varying degrees of
influence over the COMELEC and the ECT, and over the electoral process.

In both countries, the Supreme/ Constitutional Court and Congress (the
Lower House of Representatives for the Philippines and the Senate for

Thailand) exercise oversight powers over the IECs. In Thailand, however,
it is observed that the Constitutional Court exerts greater influence in
Commission appointments (vetting and selection of the majority of

commissioners and chairperson) and in the determination of the
legitimacy/ confirmation of election results. In the past decade alone,

two elections have been nullified by the Constitutional Court of Thailand,
which is deemed to have resulted to an erosion of public trust in
elections and the Election Commission, and in the subsequent takeover

via coup d’états of military regimes.

In contrast, commissioner selection and appointments for

the COMELEC in the Philippines are made by the President, vetted
and confirmed by the Congressional Commission on Appointments.

Historically, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has not made any
significant intervention to influence COMELEC appointments, and the
outcomes of elections in general; the Supreme Court only intervenes

in critical procedural issues brought to court (e.g. enabling the “Vote
Verification” feature of the vote counting machines to produce a Voter

Verifiable Paper Audit Trail), and the final resolution of election cases
brought to the SC by the Court of Appeals. This simpler appointment and
oversight set-up offers less resistance and less interference by the state