The group stressed that moving the election date set by law can only be justified when any of the conditions mentioned in Section 5 of the Philippine Omnibus Election Code exist. #barangaySKelections

Postponing the elections extends the terms of elected officials without a fresh mandate from the electorate, according to NAMFREL. (Screengrab)

The National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) has opposed a Senate bill postponing the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections next year.

The poll watchdog argued that moving the date of the exercise to December 2022 under Senate Bill No. 1043 contravenes the principle of regularity in the conduct of an election.

Likewise, it also extends the terms of elected officials without a fresh mandate from the electorate and deprives voters from seeking accountability from elected officials through the ballot.

“Periodic elections are an institutionalized governance feature in countries that have chosen democracy as their form of government,” read the statement from NAMFREL on Thursday.

“The regularity of elections is important to establish the mandate, legitimacy and moral authority of elected leaders. Not holding elections regularly could undermine the democratic process of ensuring the citizens’ right to choose their leaders and make them accountable,” the statement further read.

The group stressed that moving the election date set by law can only be justified when any of the conditions mentioned in Section 5 of the Philippine Omnibus Election Code exist.

The conditions under the said code includes any serious cause such as violence, terrorism, loss or destruction of election paraphernalia or records, force majeure, and other analogous causes of such a nature that the holding of a free, orderly and honest election should become impossible in any political subdivision.

Namfrel also stressed that the decision to postpone any election schedule should be determined by the Commission on Elections.

“It is the task of the Commission on Elections to make such determination, which in turn should be through public hearings. None of these conditions exist, and no such consultations with the voting public ever took place,” the group said.