How can a student election commission release two resolutions that appear to contradict each other in the same announcement?
First, through Resolution No. 006, the PUP Sto. Tomas Campus Commission on Elections (COMELEC) declared the 2025 Central Student Council elections "valid and credible," denying all petitions for a failure of election. Then, through Resolution No. 007, the same commission acknowledged "lapses" significant enough for all its members to agree to their own termination — effective immediately after the proclamation of winners.
While the COMELEC affirms the credibility of the election results, this sequence of resolutions raises serious questions about consistency and accountability. Why issue a termination resolution — even one that takes effect only after proclamation — before the proclamation itself has taken place? The move may be procedurally valid, but it appears ethically questionable. It sends a mixed signal: that the commission finds itself unfit to continue, yet still intends to complete one of its most critical responsibilities.
On October 21, 2025, COMELEC held a 9:00 PM meeting without inviting any campus publications — The Searcher, The Cloud Sentinel, Maestro, or The Psychal Chronicle. Whether this was an oversight or a deliberate decision, the exclusion of the student press raises concerns about transparency. Moments that demand openness instead reflected a closed process, eroding confidence in the institution's impartiality.
Just a day prior, on October 20, Resolution No. 005 was released, detailing the "human and technical errors" that occurred and outlining a "full revalidation" process for councilors. This demonstrates that transparency is possible when COMELEC chooses to exercise it - but the selectivity with which it does so remains troubling.
In Resolution No. 006, COMELEC admitted that no poll watchers were present during the canvassing, citing Article VII, Section 37 as granting them "discretion." However, this section only authorizes them to choose between (A) livestreaming the canvassing or (B) holding a private session with poll watchers - not (C) conducting the canvassing entirely without observers. This distinction is crucial: checks and balances are not optional procedural details but fundamental guarantees of public confidence.
The commission's responsibility does not end with completing the proclamation or issuing resolutions. Transparency, communication, and accountability are continuous duties, especially in moments when public trust is at stake.
COMELEC's decision to terminate itself, even if set after the proclamation, creates an ethical dilemma. If the lapses were serious enough to merit resignation, it is fair to ask why the same members remain to finalize the proclamation. Conversely, if they are capable of completing the process, then why issue a termination order beforehand? Either interpretation leaves doubts about the judgment and timing behind the resolution.
This editorial does not aim to question the validity of the election results or favor any candidate. Rather, it calls for the restoration and reinforcement of trust in the electoral system. The credibility of any election is not secured solely by numbers but by the integrity of the process — from start to finish, and in every decision made along the way.
COMELEC's recent actions highlight the urgent need for clearer procedures, consistent application of rules, and a renewed commitment to ethical leadership. Accountability does not begin and end with resignation; it is demonstrated through transparency and responsibility in every act.
May this serve as a reminder for future COMELEC commissioners: integrity is not proven in words or resolutions, but in conduct that upholds the very democracy they are entrusted to protect. True accountability is not about leaving after the fact — it is about standing firm with clarity and courage.