Vote Buying : Socioeconomic Realities and the Challenge of Reform

CURRENT ISSUES 0 comments By

Vote Buying : Socioeconomic Realities and the Challenge of Reform

 Why Vote Buying Remains Rampant in the Philippines: Socioeconomic Realities and the Challenge of Reform

Vote buying is a deeply entrenched political strategy in the Philippines. Candidates exchange money or goods for votes, reinforcing political loyalty within a patron-client system. Despite laws prohibiting this practice and intensified enforcement efforts, vote buying persists due to socioeconomic realities and cultural acceptance.

The Cultural and Structural Roots of Vote Buying

Magallon-Avenido, Cabardo, and Cabillada (2015) in the International Journal on Graft and Corruption Research explain that this phenomenon is embedded in patron-client relations, where politicians provide tangible “gifts” to constituents in exchange for votes. This reciprocal relationship is culturally ingrained and often involves fraud and intimidation. Vulnerable populations, especially those with lower education and in rural areas, are disproportionately targeted, making vote buying a systemic feature of Philippine politics (Magallon-Avenido, Cabardo, and Cabillada 2015).

Economic Hardship and Voter Vulnerability

Economic deprivation is a fundamental driver of vote buying. The same authors (Magallon-Avenido, Cabardo, and Cabillada 2013) found a strong correlation between poverty, low literacy rates, and the prevalence of vote buying in the Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal. In impoverished communities, immediate economic benefits often outweigh governance considerations or democratic principles, perpetuating a cycle where poverty fuels this practice, which sustains patronage systems that fail to address inequality (Magallon-Avenido, Cabardo, and Cabillada 2013).

66% of Filipino voters expect vote buying to be widespread in the May 2025 elections, with higher expectations among lower socioeconomic classes and younger voters.

Empirical Evidence on Vote Buying Patterns

A 2022 empirical study analyzing this phenomenon among poor voters in Metro Manila found that while goods like food and clothing are commonly offered, over a quarter of respondents reported receiving cash. Notably, acceptance of such inducements does not always translate into votes for the candidate, indicating that vote buying functions within broader clientelistic strategies to build long-term loyalty networks.

Vote Buying : Socioeconomic Realities and the Challenge of Reform

Public Perception and Resignation

According to OCTA Research (2025), 66% of Filipino voters expect vote buying to be widespread in the May 2025 elections, with higher expectations among lower socioeconomic classes and younger voters. This widespread anticipation reflects not only awareness but fatigue and resignation. Many voters no longer believe that anti-vote-buying efforts are effective, leading to passive acceptance of the practice as a normalized part of elections (OCTA Research 2025). Political analyst Pulido (2024) notes that voters often prioritize immediate needs, such as food or money, over democratic ideals, reinforcing this acceptance.

Many voters no longer believe that anti-vote-buying efforts are effective, leading to passive acceptance of the practice as a normalized part of elections (OCTA Research 2025).

Enforcement Challenges and Political Realities

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) acknowledges the rampant nature of this practice and has partnered with the National Bureau of Investigation to monitor suspicious transactions. However, the electorate’s size, nearly 69 million registered voters, and this practice’s covert, decentralized nature complicate enforcement. Political will to aggressively pursue offenders varies, often constrained by local power dynamics and limited resources. Plans for warrantless arrests to crack down on this practice have raised concerns about fairness and civil liberties (Pulido 2024; Philippine Information Agency 2025; Philippine News Agency 2024).

66% of Filipino voters expect vote buying to be widespread in the May 2025 elections, with higher expectations among lower socioeconomic classes and younger voters.

Why Vote Buying Is Widely Accepted and Difficult to Eradicate

  • Economic Necessity: For many poor voters, electoral treating provides immediate relief, making it a rational choice amid poverty and limited opportunities.

  • Political Culture: Vote buying is embedded in a patron-client system where political loyalty is exchanged for material support, seen as a norm rather than an aberration (Magallon-Avenido, Cabardo, and Cabillada 2015).

  • Distrust and Fatigue: Repeated cycles of this practice and weak enforcement foster public cynicism and resignation (OCTA Research 2025).

  • Social Norms: This is socially accepted or expected in some communities, reinforcing its persistence.

  • Weak Institutions: Enforcement agencies face logistical, political, and resource constraints, limiting their effectiveness (Pulido 2024).

While enforcement and voter education are necessary, they are insufficient alone.

Conclusion: Addressing the Root Causes for Sustainable Reform

Electoral clientelism/patronage politics is symptomatic of broader structural problems- poverty, inequality, weak institutions, and entrenched political patronage. While enforcement and voter education are necessary, they are insufficient alone. Sustainable reform requires:

  • Long-term poverty alleviation and economic development

  • Improved education and civic engagement

  • Strengthened, independent electoral institutions

  • Political reforms promoting transparency and accountability

  • Community-driven efforts to shift social norms

Only through comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategies can the Philippines reduce this practice and strengthen its democratic processes.

References

Magallon-Avenido, Jessica, Roberto M. Cabardo, and Rosario L. Cabillada. 2013. “Vote Pricing Spatial Probability Models in the Philippines.” Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.32871/rmrj1301.02.12.

Magallon-Avenido, Jessica, Roberto M. Cabardo, and Rosario L. Cabillada. 2015. “Vote Buying and Patron-Client Relations in the Philippines.” International Journal on Graft and Corruption Research 2 (1): 36–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.7719/ijgc.v2i1.301.

OCTA Research. 2025. “66% of Pinoy Voters Believe Vote Buying Will Be Widespread.” GMA News. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/941535/octa-66-of-pinoy-voters-believe-vote-buying-will-be-widespread/story/.

Pulido, Micaela. 2024. “Comelec Sees Rampant Vote-Buying in Eleksyon 2025.” GMA News. https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/930561/comelec-sees-rampant-vote-buying-in-eleksyon-2025/story/.

Philippine Information Agency. 2025. “Warrantless Arrests Loom as Comelec Cracks Down on Vote-Buying.” https://pia.gov.ph/warrantless-arrests-loom-as-comelec-cracks-down-on-vote-buying/.

Philippine News Agency. 2024. “Voter Registrants for 2025 Polls Top 2.4M – Comelec.” https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1223749.

Anonymous. 2022. “An Empirical Analysis  among the Poor.” Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/92079770/An_empirical_analysis among_the_poor.

 More Stories

Tweet
Share
Pin
Share

Tags

Jojo M. Vito, a seasoned educator with over 20 years of teaching experience. Holding degrees in Psychology, Business Administration, and a Ph.D. in Business Administration, Jojo is a dedicated professional committed to imparting knowledge. Beyond the classroom, he is a blogger across multiple platforms, a management consultant, and an entrepreneur. Jojo is also the owner and designer of Jojo Vito Designs Gallery & Garden, showcasing his creative flair in both business and design.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*