The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) to the Philippines 2025 wrote the DAILY TRIBUNE to dispute the commentary published in the newspaper regarding the presence of permanent election observers, stating that there was no such position on their team.

The commentary criticized the existence of the 200 or so members of the EU EOM, but the letter claimed the delegation for the polls will soon leave or had already left the country.

“As of the writing of this email, the long-term and short-term election observers have already left the country, and the core team of analysts will leave the country by the end of the month,” the letter said.

It came with an admission that a handful of team members will return in two months “to share the final election observation report.” It added that the team will leave after sharing the report with stakeholders, the media, and the public.

Despite the clarification, the watchers appeared to have many misgivings, even citing the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) limitations, as the letter effectively stated that such hurdles led to the EU EOM members’ failure to fulfill their objectives.

An assessment that accompanied the letter only proved the need for a deeper review of their participation in future polls.

According to the EU EOM, the lack of guarantees regarding access to polling precincts during voting hours, compounded by the Comelec’s public statements on the matter in the lead-up to the elections, “prevented EU EOM observers’ ability to conduct a meaningful observation of voting procedures on election day in line with the commitment previously undersigned by the EU, the Philippine authorities, and the Comelec.”

Referred to in the letter was the demand of the observers for unrestricted access to election areas, which the poll body turned down, as it would violate the Election Code which restricts such places only to voters and Comelec officials.

A limited number of EU observers attended the voting in some precincts — which restricted the mission from reporting on its findings — despite 226 observers being ready for deployment on election day.

A DAILY TRIBUNE photographer, however, was able to take a photo of one of the observers in the restricted area, disregarding the Comelec prohibition.

Nonetheless, the EU EOM indicated that eight of its 92 teams of observers deployed across the country were denied entrance to polling precincts “despite written assurances to the contrary by the Comelec.”

The EU monitoring team said it signed an Administrative Arrangement that set the basis for the EU EOM, granting the mission and its members “freedom of access, at any time, to all polling stations and counting/tabulation centres,” and ensuring that all mission members shall abide by the Comelec’s International Election Observer Accreditation Guidelines and the EU EOM Code of Conduct.

It alleged that the Comelec disregarded prior commitments, as the poll body asserted that the observers were not allowed in the voting precincts, which was “widely reported in the media ahead of election day.”

It claimed the Comelec undermined the EU EOM’s ability to observe voting procedures meaningfully. Thus, the mission did not deploy its entire team of 226 observers as originally planned.

The EU monitors, who were in the country at the invitation of the government, were not in a position to complain since they were expected to follow the rules of their host, which in turn were based on an enduring law that seeks to ensure the orderly conduct of elections.

The EU EOM cannot impose its rules on a country. It is merely a monitor. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.