The Commission on Elections is finally showing its teeth. A recent decision, albeit by a Division of the body provided a whiff of fresh hope that the poll body will finally carry out its mandate to administer elections with dispatch. For a long time, inordinate delay in the resolution of cases has been the bane of parties with pending cases before the poll body. In fact, it has been the butt of jokes that after a "grab proclamation" all the proclaimed winners have to do is to a pay "parking fee" to the right person and the case will sleep like Rip Van Winkle.

The Comelec now helmed by a seasoned and veteran election lawyer who has a wealth of experience under his belt — George Garcia is provided with an opportunity to etch its name in the country's electoral history, in the mold of past Comelec Commissioners Haydee Yorac and Christian Monsod who left the poll body with far-reaching reforms as legacy and with their integrity unsullied.

The Commission has long been the whipping boy of election watchers and losers. Losers threw all kinds of the blame for their loss including the kitchen sink. Complaints of corruption, bias and partisan flew thick and fast after every poll. Every seven years (the term of office of Commissioners) we see the rigmarole of appointing men and women by the President in a process wrapped in secrecy. But the problems subsist.

Garcia is proving to be a no-nonsense administrator-reformer. His years of personal experience as an election case litigator are serving him well. He knows the election laws like the palm of his hand.

Having been exposed to the shenanigans and the suspicious practices in the process of the collegial body, including horse-trading, the spirit of the old boys club fraternal bonds, suspicion of corruption, and other irregularities, he would know how to address them.

Two cases are cited as a good omen that brings a whiff of hope to those seeking public office by election. The case of Governors Manuel Mamba of Cagayan and Noel Rosal of Albay who both won in the May 22 election. They both faced violation of the law against vote-buying an offense too hard to prove. In the Mamba case, the complainant raised vote-buying "in the guise of financial aid distribution, and utilized provincial government funds in doing so." Mamba defended his action as an ongoing non-infrastructure program of the local government units.

But both Mamba and Rosal were not found to have violated the anti-vote-buying provision of the law but for violation of the 45-day ban on the release of government funds during the election period. Touche! That's a masterstroke that could be precedent-setting. It evades the contentious vote-buying anomaly. It's still a long process before we see the final result of the protest against Mamba but Rosal was unseated when the Comelec decision became final and he failed to get a restraining order from the Supreme Court.