The young Ae-sun in the Netflix Kdrama “When Life Gives You Tangerines” lost the class election for presidency not because of fewer votes but because the class rich kid brought in treats for everyone.
The drama follows the adventurous life and many trials of Ae-sun, a poor girl from Jeju wanting to become a poet, and Gwan-sik, a young man who cherishes and loves her.
Years later, an adult Ae-sun won as the first female village chief.
Ae-sun’s loss is essentially a manifestation of how economics play a significant role in a political setup, including vote buying.
READ: Women’s suffrage and women’s vote in Philippine election
Vote buying occurs when a political party or candidate distributes money or resources to a voter in an upcoming election with the expectation that the voter votes for the actor handing out monetary rewards.
The offense of vote-buying in the Philippines is defined in Section 261(a) (1) of B.P. 881, or the Omnibus Election Code.
The offender commits one of these acts: (1) gives, offers or promises money or anything of value; (2) gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private; (3) makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly; and (4) cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community.
There must be an intent: (1) to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or (2) to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.
Vote buying derives from competitive electoral processes, but it often encompasses social and economic cleavages in society. Social inequality is placed in the political arena as vote buying disproportionately affects the most vulnerable groups in society.
READ: 78 vote-buying complaints filed, 42 show-cause orders issued in Bicol
It is synonymous with selling and buying goods and services in an open market on agreed prices. Where competition is very high, the process seems to be auction sales whereby the voters sell to the highest bidder.
In Comelec vs Tagle (GR Nos. 148948 , February 17, 2003), the Supreme Court stressed that “election offenses, such as vote-buying, are evils that obstruct the election process.”
Former SC Chief Justice Hilario Davide explained: “A free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible election is indispensable in a democratic society. Without it, democracy would not flourish and would be a sham. Election offenses, such as vote-buying and vote-selling, are evils which prostitute the election process. They destroy the sanctity of the votes and abet the entry of dishonest candidates into the corridors of power where they may do more harm.”
Davide added: “As the Bible says, one who is dishonest in very small matters is dishonest in great ones. One who commits dishonesty in his entry into an elective office through the prostitution of the electoral process cannot be reasonably expected to respect and adhere to the constitutional precept that a public office is a public trust, and that all government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and exercise their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.”
The European Union Election Observation Mission (EU EOM) reported that the 2025 midterm poll witnessed high turnout and robust media coverage, but also “credible indications” of vote-buying through cash, goods and partisan welfare handouts.
The mission’s chief observer Marta Temido attributed vote buying to poverty, saying “when daily life is a struggle, then some food, a small amount of money, or essential services offered in exchange for votes can feel like a tangible benefit”.
It added that “The campaign environment had been distorted by the misuse of state resources, vote-buying, and weak campaign finance rules, undermining the electoral playing field.”
Any complaint that charges the election offense of vote-buying must be supported by credible evidence that substantiates the elements of the offense. (Rodriguez vs Comelec, G.R. No. 255509, January 10, 2023)
The offense need not be made during a political activity such as a miting de avance. This, provided that all the elements of the offense are present, there is no escape from liability even if the vote buying was done at a distance, whether in terms of time or of physical space, from a political activity.
While the giving must be consummated, the mere act of offering or promising something in consideration for someone’s vote constitutes the offense of vote-buying. (Nolasco vs Comelec , GR Nos. 122250, July 21, 1997).
(Atty. Dennis R. Gorecho is a Junior Partner who heads the seafarers division of the Sapalo Velez Bundang Bulilan Law Offices. For comments, e-mail info@sapalovelez.com, or call 09088665786.)