Photo credit: Comelec

Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman George Garcia recently offered voters a blunt reminder: if the Philippines is in a mess, voters themselves are partly to blame for choosing the wrong leaders.

The message, delivered as advice to young and first-time voters, was framed as a call for conscience, discernment, and responsibility at the ballot box.

On its face, the reminder is not wrong. In any democracy, voters matter. Choices have consequences.

But when this lecture comes from the very official who presides over the electoral system and who once represented some of the country’s most controversial political figures, it invites a more uncomfortable question: does the moral standard he now demands of voters apply equally to those who shape the system and benefit from it?

Before becoming Comelec chairman, Garcia built a career as a high-profile election lawyer.

For brevity, one can enumerate a long list of his past clients, but a few names suffice to illustrate the point.

Take former Senator Ramon Bong Revilla. Garcia served as his lawyer in 2009–2010 when Revilla changed his surname to “Bong Revilla” to gain an advantage on the ballot, an act upheld as legal but widely criticized as gaming the system.

Revilla would later be jailed over the pork barrel scam, regain political relevance, and today finds himself back in jail.

One may ask: what does Garcia now say about a political career that, despite earlier legal victories, later became mired in corruption cases?

Garcia also served as counsel to Manny Pacquiao, Grace Poe, and Francis “Chiz” Escudero, each reflecting a familiar strand of Philippine politics.

Pacquiao, a global boxing icon turned senator, rode celebrity and mass appeal into office despite limited legislative experience.

Poe emerged as a reformist symbol, buoyed by strong machinery and emotional voter connection.

Escudero, a seasoned political operator from a political family, benefited from elite networks and media visibility, even as questions arose over his association with contractor Lubiano and campaign donations later cleared by the Comelec, issues that nonetheless fueled debate about proximity to contractors and public works.

These were not illegal strategies. They were effective ones.

But they are precisely the kinds of dynamics Garcia now warns voters against: choosing leaders based on popularity rather than deeper scrutiny. The irony is hard to ignore.

Now, as chairman, Garcia occupies a far more powerful position than he ever did as a private lawyer.

He oversees not only elections but also the rules that define who gets to run and under what banner.

This includes the controversial party-list system, long criticized for straying far from its original purpose of representing marginalized sectors.

Under Comelec’s watch, party-list groups have been allowed to use names associated with government programs and institutions, such as 4Ps, GSIS, and SSS pensyonado, blurring the line between public service and partisan politics.

This practice has long raised concerns that voters,especially the poor, are misled into thinking these groups are official extensions of government rather than political organizations competing for power.

More troubling are recent developments.

Many party-list representatives are now being mentioned in reports surrounding the unfolding flood control scam, with allegations linking contractors and political intermediaries to public works projects.

These party-list groups did not appear out of nowhere. Their accreditation passed through Comelec’s screening process.

This inevitably raises questions about how party-list vetting has been handled and whether weaknesses in the system were ever addressed.

Garcia has suggested that some of these problems were inherited from previous administrations. But that reasoning falls flat.

Inheriting a flawed system does not absolve its current steward of the duty to fix it, especially when, as chairman, he had both the authority and the opportunity to reform the process.

When gaps persist and later surface in corruption controversies, accountability cannot be placed solely on voters; it also rests with the officials entrusted to safeguard the system.

The same tension appears in Garcia’s broader message. He urges voters to rely on conscience rather than media, popularity, or noise.

Yet, the electoral environment continues to reward name recall, celebrity, and political branding, often at the expense of substance.

These are not accidents of voter behavior alone; they are outcomes shaped by rules, enforcement, and institutional choices.

This is where the lecture, at least institutionally, begins to ring hollow.

It is easier to moralize from above than to confront how the system itself benefits the powerful and sidelines the poor and powerless.

When electoral rules allow well-funded, well-connected actors to dominate, voters are left choosing from a menu already curated for them.

Before pointing fingers at voters, perhaps Chairman Garcia should look in the mirror first. Not because he is solely to blame, but because leadership demands more than sermons.

It demands reform, consistency, and the humility to recognize one’s own role in the outcomes one criticizes.

Madaling sabihing may kasalanan ang botante. Ngunit mas mahirap amining may pananagutan din ang sistema at mga taong humuhubog dito.

Kung ang konsensya ang pamantayan, dapat magsimula ang pagbabagong sinasabi ni Garcia sa itaas, hindi sa ibaba.

Tama po ba, Chairman?