Suffrage is the most sacred of a citizen’s fundamental rights. Thus, it is the duty of every Filipino to protect it from manipulation, and attempts at subverting the voters’ will abound.

The usual tactics like vote buying, tampering with election materials and spreading misinformation are now being complemented by the more diabolic involvement of foreign actors.

Bribery remains a persistent issue, often tied to political dynasties and patronage systems, which indirectly manipulate voter choice.

Fake survey results are also a common way to influence votes. These efforts are usually made on social media, where graphs supposedly from polling firms show counterfeit results.

Such bogus trending results mainly target local exercises with a tight contest.

Offers to rig the outcome by altering the Automated Counting Machines were also troubling in that they might be true.

For several elections, technology experts have indicated that those with computer skills, given access to the system, can manipulate the poll results.

The Criminal Investigation and Detection Group recently arrested three individuals in Cagayan for extorting P90 million from two candidates to manipulate vote outcomes.

On 5 May, three people were arrested in Santa Cruz, Laguna, for impersonating Comelec personnel and attempting to access voting machines, likely to tamper with them.

Security officials also flagged alleged Chinese interference in the 2025 midterms. Intelligence agencies warned that China-affiliated entities were amplifying divisive political discourse online to influence voter sentiment.

The Commission on Elections denied an open attempt to exert influence, which was the European Union’s (EU) request to field more than 200 observers in certain voting precincts.

Comelec Chairperson George Garcia resisted the EU group, saying that allowing foreigners to access voting centers would not only disrupt the voting process but also violate Philippine laws.

Under the Omnibus Election Code, only voters, electoral board members, the watchers of citizens’ arms and political parties, and Comelec support staff are allowed inside polling centers.

“No one else is allowed to enter the precincts. Even Comelec personnel cannot just enter,” Garcia said, adding that entering polling centers without permission from the Comelec constitutes an election offense.

The interlopers insisted that prohibiting the observers inside polling precincts “could violate international standards.”

In several instances now, hypocritical foreign bodies are trying to inculcate in government officials the primacy of international law, even if it breaches the country’s edicts.

Garcia, who has broad powers during the elections, should take the next step and have the meddlers deported.

The poll body chief even had to accept the possibility that the EU observers would produce a negative report on the Philippines following the rejection of their request.

In the pretense of observing the conduct of the polls, the EU sought and obtained government approval to deploy teams, but the huge delegation was a surprise.

While the EU Election Observation Mission aims to enhance transparency and ensure compliance with democratic standards, a large foreign presence could disrupt the elections.

Comelec’s decision to bar EU observers from entering polling places underscores tensions over the foreign group’s role.

A further source of anxiety is that 72 EU observers are considered “long-term” monitors, whose role should be clarified by both the EU and the Comelec.

Security officials have lately expressed worries about so-called “sleeper cells” that are planted in the country to interfere with the political system.

How different are they from the “long-term” EU observers?