Contextualizing Electoral Accountability on the Outcome of the May 9, 2016 Elections and Ateneo De Cagayan's First Poll Survey in Cagayan De Oro City

Abstract

Can voters sanction the candidates during elections? What mechanisms are useful in holding power seekers accountable to the public? These are the questions raised on the electoral accountability of the local candidates in Cagayan de Oro City on the outcome of the May 9, 2016 elections and based on the March 12 – 16, 2016 Poll Survey of Ateneo de Cagayan. Both showed that voters do not know how to sanction their candidates. Since 1987 local elections, 45% of those elected were incumbent and 38% changed party affiliations despite the incumbents’ poor performances. In the past years, the City gained only an average 9% increase of its total income, 11% increase in local income, 45% of its income is dependent to Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) and an average of only 43% of its development fund are utilized every year; and since 2006 had complied the annual audit recommendations with an average of only 2.6 in every 10 audit observations. The poll survey almost showed the same result where 50% of those preferred by the voters are incumbents and 50% are those who belonged to the same party with the City Mayor. Likewise, the electorates’ opinion on Barangay level problems and needs showed an overwhelming 68.63% said that illegal drugs is the top problem but records of the city’s utilization of its development fund from 2006 to 2013 provided that only an average of 6.36% of the 20% development fund were allotted for that problem. Why do voters reward electoral victory to the candidates despite their performance? Theories provide the primordial role of the civil society in maintaining the balance of power, create and articulate effectively public opinion and set the rules of the games which was totally absent during the last elections hence the voters relied only to information monopolized by the candidates during the entire discourse of the electoral campaign.