With elections still nine months away, the scent of politicking is already in the air. Election season—like Christmas—seems to start earlier each year. Like September promos and holiday décor, the faces of politicians, incumbent or aspiring, can already be found in the streets—stapled on festival banners and streamers, even on trivial announcements and greetings.

All that might be acceptable—just more urban noise, really—if it merely ended there. But it doesn’t. Politicians who have the financial resources are already bombarding us with expensively produced “advocacy ads,” buying radio and television time without limit and placing “click bait” ads on the internet, touting themselves as patriotic saviors of the Filipino or vilifying their potential opponents as worthless or dishonest.

In short, nine months before the election, we can barely watch television, listen to radio or browse our favorite internet sites without encountering a steady stream of both “black” and “white” election propaganda. No wonder we get too overloaded to judge substantive issues. We’re already burned out.

“Nakauumay” is a Tagalog word for losing one’s appetite for something frequently seen or tasted. It’s nakauumay to see the same faces and names with almost identical promises day in and day out. But more than the loss of appetite, literal and figurative, premature campaigning is only a symptom of the many deep-seated issues confronting Philippine politics today. Premature campaigning is prevalent in countries that lack firm campaign finance laws.

According to our Omnibus Election Code, “premature campaigning” means electioneering conducted before the official campaign period. The intent of this prohibition was to level the playing field for candidates of public office, to even opportunities between the rich or popular and the poorer or lesser-known candidates, and to prevent the incumbents from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of public funds. Violation was intended to be a serious matter: candidates guilty of premature campaigning could be disqualified from continuing as candidates, or, if elected, could be prevented from holding office.

But such laudable intentions were all lost when Congress amended Republic Act (RA) 8346 with RA 9369, modifying the definition of “candidates.” The amended law states: “a person who files his/her certificate of candidacy will only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period.” This law has rendered the concept of premature campaigning effectively meaningless. Spending and airtime limitations therefore do not apply until the campaign period begins, which is when the “playing field” actually become “level.”

For national candidates,the campaign period is 90 days, while candidates for local office have 45 days. In the 2016 elections, the campaign period will start on February 9 for national candidates, and on March 25 for local candidates. Thus, all ads airing for politicians before those dates are not considered to be premature campaigning—they’re merely an exercise of freedom of speech and expression.

So premature campaigning is now theoretically legal—supported by law. Why, then, does it still remain a major concern? And why are there many movements, not only from COMELEC, but also from the media and other non-government organizations, to regulate--if not totally ban--premature campaign ads?

Atty. Kenji Aman, national secretariat of Legal Network for Truthful Elections (LENTE), a non-partisan, nationwide network of lawyers, law students, and paralegals engaged to do election work, offers two reasons: it breeds political inequality and raises the question of transparency and accountability with regard to campaign finance.

Indeed, even when “everyone” is allowed to do it, premature campaigning effectively breeds political inequality. Pre-campaign electioneering—whether on television, over the radio, in newspapers or in the form of internet ads--is expensive. Only rich candidates can afford to buy television and radio airtime, and place print and electronic ads. Even worse, pre-campaign period ads do not count against “official” airtime or spending limits. Atty. Aman also points out that premature campaigning furthers the gap between the rich and less resourceful candidates,saying, “Those aspiring politicians who do not have the same resources as the traditional ‘rich’ political families may feel discouraged from entering the political arena because they can’t keep up with the campaign expenses.” He notes that expensive campaigning is one of the reasons most elective officials are from elite and influential families.

Politics is indeed a prohibitive battlefield. As mandated by the Synchronized Elections Law (RA 7166), national candidates are allowed to spend hundreds of millions during elections. The law sets an election expenditure limit (on campaign materials) of P10 per registered voter for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, P3 for senatorial candidates endorsed by a political party, and P5 for independent senatorial candidates. Presidential and vice-presidential candidates are allowed to spend a whopping P500 million (estimating 50 million registered voters) during their “official” run for office, while aspiring senatorial candidates are allowed to spend P150 million during the 90-day campaign period. And this says nothing of the premature campaign spending in question. Obviously, poorer aspirants need not apply.

Atty. Aman emphasizes how the present deregulation of premature campaigning favors incumbent officials, making the playing field more unequal for disadvantaged,aspiring candidates. “Those already in (government) positions have the advantage of making themselves known to more people. They can use their posts, their influence and even their offices’ resources to increase their popularity,” he said. He added that campaign finance is a major and critical election issue that should not be ignored. Aside from the uneven playing field, premature campaigning raises more important questions of transparency and accountability—especially regarding incumbents. With the law no longer prohibiting premature campaigning, there are no laws regulating or monitoring campaign spending outside the campaign period. “COMELEC has no way of finding out or even penalizing candidates who overspend or incumbent officials who use public funds for personal interests like campaigns,” Atty. Aman explained.

Noteworthy incumbent government officials have already aired ads—not necessarily “campaign ads”—on television. Among them are Senators Grace Poe, Alan Peter Cayetano and Bongbong Marcos, Vice-President Jejomar Binay, DILG Secretary Mar Roxas, Las Piñas Representative Mark Villar, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte, Valenzuela City Representative Sherwin Gatchalian, TESDA Secretary Joel Villanueva, PhilHealth Director Risa Hontiveros, DOH Secretary Janette Garin, Manila Vice-Mayor Isko Moreno, and Leyte Representative Martin Romualdez.

Compiled screenshots of campaign videos of incumbent officials. Screenshots taken from Youtube and Calbayog Local Media.

Premature campaigning has a long history in Philippine politics. Hundreds of millions of pesos are spent on premature campaign ads every election year. For instance, in 2013, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism reported P446 million spent by national candidates on “pre-campaign ads.” Incumbent officials who aired pre-campaign ads for that year included Senators Chiz Escudero, Aquilino Pimentel III, and Alan Peter Cayetano; then Congressmen Sonny Angara, JV Ejercito, and Jack Enrile, Jr.; and then Puerto Princesa City Mayor Edward Hagedorn.

In addition to premature campaigning, “Epal” publicity is also a favorite among incumbents (despite the general opprobrium of the public). “Epal” is particularly popular during fiestas, holidays, graduations, birthdays, and, of course, elections. These mostly nonsensical greetings from government officials also get plastered on public infrastructure projects and relief goods. In the case of the latter, for instance, repacking under the name of a relief agency intends to prevent resale—but under the face of an incumbent politician, it amounts to political patronage—something very near vote-buying. These acts of publicity are alarming because government funds are ultimately used and wasted.

“Epal” publicity is in fact prohibited. Late DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo signed memorandum No. 2010-101 prohibiting government officials from putting up billboards or signage bearing their names, initials, or pictures on any government project or property (fire trucks, ambulances, vehicles, etc.). Additionally, the Commission on Audit (COA) released COA Circular 2013-004 emphasizing that “the display and/or affixture of the picture, image, motto, logo, color motif, initials or other symbol or graphic representation associated with the top leadership of the project proponent or implementing agency/unit/office on signboards is considered unnecessary.”

Some might contend that premature campaigning and “Epal” are small concerns compared to those of political dynasty, corruption, injustice, and lack of social service. But all issues related to elections play a critical role in our society.Elections--where the politics of governance begins--are ultimately the deciding point. It is the winners who dictate the kind of society we will become—poor or rich, citizens of a country plagued by injustices and inequalities, or a just and peaceful one.

In the absence of a legislative cure, fair-election advocates can do little to even the playing field. Supporters of bright and deserving aspirants can only do so much to encourage and support their bets in a political arena where they must compete with trapos—many of whom bear responsibility for the current state of our election and campaign finance laws.But just as it is only legislators who can change the laws, it is only the voters who have the power to change the political climate of our country. The future of our politics and our society remains at the hands of Filipino voters.

In the coming elections, we would do well to ask—among so many other things—the degree to which a potential candidate has used power, influence and position to campaign for him/herself so many months before the official campaign period. Can we possibly trust a potential candidate who—this early—has violated the spirit of equality? What does this suggest about abuse of power once they are elected?