The Right to Suffrage: A Philosophical Examination of Electoral

Inclusivity and Accessibility

I. Introduction
Suffrage is an essential building block of the democratic state. It helps citizens realize
their political freedom in formulating public policies and making elected officials serve them
properly. Suffrage essentially represents equality in giving empowerment to everyone in society
as a means of participation to decide their community and countrywide issues. Even though
universal suffrage is an ideal in democratic theory, in practice it lags very far behind. Electoral
systems in most democracies usually fail to become very inclusive and accessible; and, often the
groups marginalized by the system remain out of the mainstream of voting processes because of
barriers set by the system, logistic constraints of participation, and socio-economic inequality
(Norris, 2002; Lijphart, 1997).
Involving all the eligible citizens for equal opportunity in terms of registering, voting,
and voice participation without considering their background, the need for suffrage to be
inclusive is a matter. But there is always a major gap between electorals through different
disparities in voting registration procedures, geographical exclusion of certain groups, and socio-
economic differences. Accessibility brings in more complexity because it means that physical
and logistical barriers, such as inaccessible polling places, lack of availability of assistive voting
technologies, or poor voter education, do not disproportionately disenfranchise specific groups of
people, such as persons with disabilities, the elderly, and people living in remote areas
(International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance [IDEA], 2018). These issues
reflect the persistent gap between the theoretical concept of universal suffrage and its reality in
practice.
Such issues must, therefore, have critical analysis not only as moral and political right but
also legally. In this case, John Austin's legal positivism will be the useful framework of analysis
since his philosophy highlights the authority of the sovereign in giving and enforcing laws and
takes legal rights as commands imposed by sanctions rather than as matters of moral imperatives.
In this regard, suffrage may be seen as a right statutorily entrenched, which in turn hinges on the
effectiveness of legal structures and the strength of their power of implementation. Austin's
approach pays more attention to the role of sovereign authority; this shines light on the necessity
of clear legal provisions and strong institutional mechanisms for ensuring just electoral processes
(Austin, 1995).
John Austin's theory has other implications on critical scrutiny for electoral law
enforcement as well. In most democratic jurisdictions, the legal prescription is in place regarding
being accessible and inclusive, which hardly translates into practice on the ground because of
weak implementations or inadequate resources or political antagonisms. For example, voting
suppression techniques and denial rights in several jurisdictions illustrate ways the law can be
marshaled to bar certain sections from elections (Keyssar, 2000). Austin's emphasis on the law of
the rule underscores the truism that electoral systems are both robust in law as well as properly
implemented in practice to ensure the rule of universal suffrage.
Using the concept of Austin's legal positivism, this term paper examines the implications
of codification and law enforcement of electoral rights for the issue of inclusion and
accessibility. This view would help to analyze the electoral system of the Philippines and other
democracies that emphasizes the clarification of legality as a means to the accountability of
institutional mechanisms through which removal of the obstacle to participation might help make
good the promise of suffrage as the fundamental democratic right.
II. Theoretical Framework: John Austin’s Legal Positivism
A. Definition of Law in Austin’s Philosophy
1. Law as a command issued by a sovereign backed by sanctions
Law according to John Austin is defined as a command issued by the sovereign power. In
such an aspect, Austin describes the concept of law as composed of commands that people within
society should follow to avoid any punishment or penalty. It is through these sanctions that
obedience to the law becomes important. That is to say, laws are not just normative statements,
but rather commands which invoke consequences in case of disobedience (Austin, 1832/1995).
The conceptualization of law ties the power of the law to that of the sovereign and that laws are
effective only if they are the command of an authority who they consider an authority (Raz,
1979). The relationship between the law and sanctions shows in practice how Austin's theory
works in that laws work as social controls legitimized through the power of the sovereign. This
framework is most appropriate when discussing the issues of DepEd and electoral inclusiveness.
For instance, its policies on the qualification to vote and access to the electoral process must be
built upon clear legal rights capable of being enforced through a law. Austin's view makes clear
that these legal rights are not moral claims but rather sovereign commands, established by such
command and with sanctions in case of breach. This would ensure that policies on educational
governance are not only fair and just but also legal (Hart, 1994).
2. Distinction between legal rights and moral obligations
Austin clearly distinguished between legal rights and moral obligations. The legal rights
he regarded as claims based on the commands of the sovereign, which the law recognized. They
exist because they were created by the sovereign power and are liable to vindication as a rule of
law (Hart, 1994). This is a distinction to understand that legal rights do not necessarily go hand-
in-hand with moral rectitude but rather are the product of express legal stipulations. Moral
obligations, however are duties that people acknowledge as their conscience, social mores, or
personal belief system. These are not enforceable under law; they arise out of what people
consider morally right or wrong (Fuller, 1969). This makes this differentiation particularly
pertinent to the assessment of questions concerning electoral inclusiveness in DepEd. For
example, voting rules over who qualifies to participate in educational governance might have
their base on legal entitlements received through sovereign command but be sensitive to other
considerations working at the moral level relating to equity and fairness (Brennan, 2019). The
challenge that DepEd and COMELEC face is that such policies on voter eligibility not only have
to be correct in law but also equitable, balancing rights under law with moral duties. Such
balance is important for sustaining the legitimacy of the electoral process within both DepEd and
COMELEC and ensuring all stakeholders receive a fair opportunity to share in educational
governance.
B. Suffrage as a Legal Right
1. The role of sovereign authority in granting and regulating suffrage
According to John Austin, law is actually a command of a superior authoritative power
backed by threats or rewards to compel obedience (Austin, 1832/1995). This means that the
power to grant and regulate the right to vote belongs to a recognized sovereign authority like a
government or legislative body (Hart, 1994). In the context of DepEd in the Philippines,
sovereign authority, through legislative acts, determines the qualifications for suffrage. The
Department of Education's policies for determining who can vote in school-level governance
elections are, by way of laws passed by the legislature (Hart, 1994). These laws stipulate the
criteria through which the sovereign sets out the eligibility of those allowed to vote in the
elections. This process takes the importance of legal clarification and the power of the sovereign
in defining an electorate in ensuring that the franchise is accessible and inclusive with the
consistency of the rule of law (Fuller, 1969).
2. Ensuring inclusivity through codified legal frameworks
To make sure that the electoral process is inclusive, codified legal frameworks are
essential. As Austin put it, "the power of the law lies in its ability to command obedience and in
its sanctions" (Austin, 1832/1995). In the case of DepEd, these codified legal frameworks must
be explicit about who is eligible to vote in educational governance elections. This is achieved by
having well-defined and legally enforceable criteria, such as age, residency, and educational
attainment requirements, for the purposes of voting (Raz, 1979). The codification of such
requirements avoids arbitrary disenfranchisement and ensures that the right to vote is accessible
to all eligible participants. These legal frameworks also offer a systematic framework in which
grievances and disputes about the eligibility of voters can be addressed, making the process more
transparent and fair (Brennan, 2019). By codifying the rules systematically, the sovereign
authority can then regulate the suffrage properly, balancing the legal rights with broader moral
obligations in order to promote equity and inclusivity in educational governance (Mendelsohn,
2012).
C. Legal Obligations and Sovereign Authority
1. The responsibility of the state in upholding suffrage laws
As stated by John Austin, one essential part of sovereign power is when the state enforces
its suffrage laws. Theory by Austin stipulates that laws are orders from the sovereign, and threats
of sanction enforce obedience (Austin, 1832/1995). For DepEd and the Philippines, it holds the
responsibility to make the legal framework on suffrage effective. This encompasses keeping
intact the voter registration systems, stopping disenfranchisement, and ensuring that all citizens
with a right to vote get equal access to the voting process (Hart, 1994). The state should also
make sure to provide the proper infrastructures to facilitate voting such as polling stations,
education for voters, and other easily accessible mechanisms for the handicapped. Thus, by
doing so, it is not only following legal provision but also showing interest on democratic values.
This, in turn, is also essential for making sure laws in relation to suffrage were not mere abstract
concepts that had to be implemented into their rule of law and a right to vote (Fuller, 1969). In
legislative and executive arms, sovereign authority has been very essential to designing,
implementing, and enforcing policies to make electoral process accessible to all the voters
qualified, thus guaranteeing democratic democracy is fair and all-inclusive (Brennan, 2019).
2. Sovereign power and its role in promoting accessible voting
Therefore, the supreme power is required to make voting accessible through the creation
of lawful framework and its enforcement for people to vote. As Austin says, law has authority
because it can give commands and be backed with sanctions (Austin, 1832/1995). That's what
the sovereign role, ensuring that voting is integrated policy as in the case of inventing electronic
voting systems or even absentee voting or mobilization voting for those with difficulties due to
remote locations and persons suffering with disabilities (Raz, 1979). This would ensure that no
hindrance exists that might discourage registered voters from exercising their vote (Mendelsohn,
2012). For DepEd, this sovereign power would be exercised when it passed laws and rules that
offer access to the system of elections through special accommodation in polling places,
accessible voting machines, and programs for voters' assistance (Brennan, 2019). This way, the
supreme authority advocates these measures to be inclusive and makes the legal framework rule-
of-law compliant and just in relation to manifesting an interest in democratic principles. Such an
approach would really help in making an environment where every citizen can meaningfully take
part in the electoral process, thus making governance of DepEd more legitimate and inclusive.
III. Electoral Inclusivity in the Context of Austin’s Philosophy
A. Codification of Suffrage Rights
1. The importance of clear legal statutes to ensure inclusive voting rights
Clearly enunciated legal statutes form the most basic ground of comprehensive voting
rights. Laws are "commands" given by the sovereign authority, backed up by sanctions to make
them obeyed, as Austin described them (Austin, 1832/1995). Clear and codified legal statutes
are, therefore, necessary in the context of the Philippine electoral system. It should delineate who
can vote, how they can vote, and what is in place to protect their voting rights. These statutes
provide the bases on which the state exercises its sovereign power to regulate suffrage so that the
right to vote is accessible to all citizens eligible to vote, especially those in marginalized groups,
including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and other vulnerable sectors (Hart,
1994). This gives the Philippine government a concrete legal basis for the prevention of
disenfranchisement and effective enforcement. For example, the law - Accessibility Law (RA
10366) and Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277) has a guideline to make the right of
suffrage for persons with disabilities accessible and therefore ensure that their rights are
protected in suffrage (Brennan, 2019). This captures Austin's argument that the power of the law
lies in its capacity to command obedience and to be supported by sanctions, thus making explicit
the legal duties of the state in ensuring equal voting rights (Fuller, 1969). In the case of the
Philippines, such codified laws are significant because they ensure that the process of elections
does not disqualify marginalized groups based on physical, economic, or educational disabilities.
2. Examples of laws addressing marginalized groups’ right to vote
Austin's philosophy also calls for the existence of sovereign power that increases voting
among marginalized people. For instance, laws for the specific groups normally provide
particular requirements that remove restrictions from the process of voting, especially on the
aspect of participation. In the Philippines, it is ensured that persons with disabilities can vote
with much ease through the accessibility law: RA 10366. This law provides access to polling
places, mechanisms for voters with disabilities to seek assistance, and requires accommodations
for special needs voters (Brennan, 2019). All these legal provisions are important in preventing
disenfranchisement and ensuring that the electoral process is inclusive and fair to all citizens,
especially when DepEd is trying to engage students and educators of diverse backgrounds.
According to the principles of Austin, there must be a role in Philippines by sovereign power so
that these measures may be effectively performed and so that an evidence of democratic rights to
ensure just and equal opportunity at polls can be depicted (Raz, 1979). The department DepEd
takes an important role so that measures implemented go on and all students and education
providers from all walks are able to cast their voting rights in the election regarding educational
governance (Mendelsohn, 2012). This reflects the role of the sovereign in creating inclusive legal
frameworks that make the right to vote a reality for all eligible citizens, ensuring that the
democratic process is fair and representative.
B. Challenges to Inclusivity
1. Legal barriers (e.g., restrictive voter ID laws, disenfranchisement)
Amongst the legal barriers are those of restrictive voter ID laws and disenfranchisement
practices, which pose immense challenges to electoral inclusiveness, especially within the
philosophies of John Austin. According to Austin, the laws are commands issued against
sanctioning violations, and their enforcement would prove ineffective without it (Austin,
1832/1995). Many jurisdictions now have restrictive voter ID laws that prevent eligible citizens
from exercising their right to vote. These laws may demand specific identification forms that can
be unattainable for marginalized sections, such as the poor, the elderly, the indigenous peoples,
and disabled people (Hart, 1994). In the Philippines, such barriers may significantly limit
participation in elections about DepEd, particularly by students and teachers belonging to the
low-income family background or those coming from rural communities who do not have
identification documents. These disenfranchisement practices undermine the sovereignty's role in
ensuring equitable and inclusive elections as conceived by Austin because they work against the
principle of equal accessibility to the democratic process as provided by Fuller, 1969. The DepEd
should strive to overcome this hindrance by campaigning for inclusive policies that eliminate
such legal exclusions, thus allowing a proper representative electoral process as urged by
Mendelsohn, 2012.
2. Lack of enforcement of inclusivity measures in existing laws
The absence of the enforcement measures in the existing laws contributes to electoral
inclusivity. For instance, even though voting access is codified in place, their implementation
may be relatively weak or inconsistent. Law has the ability to command compliance or sanctions
for being followed, as Austin expounds (Austin, 1832/1995). There have been instances in the
Philippines wherein laws such as RA 10366 that require accessible polling places for persons
with disabilities were not effectively implemented (Brennan, 2019). This may lead to a situation
wherein the right to vote is not really protected for all eligible citizens, especially those with
disabilities or from remote areas where polling stations may be inaccessible. Such failure to
enforce prevents the role of the sovereign as ordained by Austin to ensure equal access to the
right to vote as established (Raz, 1979). On its part, the DepEd needs to take initiative to
facilitate such measures while at it and make considerations for stronger mechanism for
enforcing such measures integral in their policies on election in governance of education
establishments (Mendelsohn, 2012).
C. Austin’s View on Enforcement
1. The role of sanctions in ensuring compliance with suffrage laws
According to John Austin, it is the ability to command compliance and have the backing
of sanctions that give law its authority (Austin, 1832/1995). In this case, concerning the issue of
ensuring obedience to laws about suffrage, the enforcement mechanism here is very significant
to establish the rules by the sovereign. To him, Austin said these are sanctions deter violations
and necessary in establishing and maintaining order within the system of law. In the Philippines,
the enforcement of suffrage laws always faces challenges, especially to marginalized groups
whose electoral rights may be violated because of inaccessible polling places, discriminatory
voter ID requirements, or improper voter education (Hart, 1994). The DepEd and other relevant
government agencies must ensure that sanctions are effectively applied to prevent
disenfranchisement. For instance, the Philippine Commission on Elections (Comelec) should
monitor the implementation of the Accessibility Law (RA 10366) very keenly and penalize
perpetrators in case of noncompliance, like failure to offer accessible polling stations to people
with disabilities (Brennan, 2019). Doing this, the state shows what Austin believed, that is that
the law's power of authority is based on the ability to enforce obedience using sanctions, thus
making sure that laws on suffrage are not mere formalities but are implemented to ensure that
electoral rights are protected (Fuller, 1969).
2. Addressing violations of electoral rights
In Austin's model, the sanctions also find a place in redressing infringement of electoral
rights. Austin postulates that the commands of the sovereign are sustained by the threat of
sanctions to maintain order and impose obedience (Austin, 1832/1995). In the context of the
Philippines, electoral rights can be infringed in vote buying, intimidation of voters, and
disenfranchisement of marginalized sectors. These infractions undermine the legitimacy of
elections and contravene the fundamental democratic principles of equal participation. The
DepEd, together with other state institutions, must be more vigilant in monitoring and redressing
these infractions to uphold electoral rights. For example, the Comelec can mete sanctions, such
as disqualification from candidature, fines, or imprisonment to offenders proven guilty of
electoral fraud (Raz, 1979).This is based on the argument by Austin that the law enforcement
demands the rules to be formulated and at the same time the capacity to enforce punishment in
case of non-compliance. Proper handling of such violation results in the sovereign power of the
state, which Austin defines, therefore being guaranteed, thus the laws on suffrage doing the
intended work effectively in the fair and all-inclusive voting process (Mendelsohn, 2012).
IV. Accessibility in Electoral Systems
A. Legal Frameworks for Accessibility
1. How laws mandate physical and technological access to voting
 Laws require physical and technological access to voting as part of the electoral process
for full inclusivity. According to the philosophy of John Austin, laws are commands that have a
sanction behind them and thus derive their authority from the sovereign's ability to impose them
(Austin, 1832/1995). In the context of the Philippines, accessibility provisions in voting laws
stipulate that polling places be made accessible to persons with disabilities, and voting
technologies used to suit different voters. According to Accessibility Law (RA 10366), the
stations of voting are supposed to be designed accessible to persons with disabilities, with wide
doorways, ramps, and other facilities that may ensure comfortable voting. It does reflect the
emphasis of Austin towards the role of the sovereign in making and enforcing law toward equal
access to voting under sanctions for non-compliance with such laws (Brennan, 2019). Moreover,
technological change, such as online registration and electronic voting systems can further
improve accessibility for dispersed communities and those with a disability (Fuller, 1969). Such
frameworks of the law are considered vital tools in overcoming participation barriers in electoral
processes, guaranteeing access to voting opportunities without segregation based on disabilities
or a person's locality (Hart, 1994).
2. Addressing barriers faced by persons with disabilities and remote communities
An integrated approach involving both physical and technological solutions is required
for barriers to persons with disabilities and remote communities. According to Austin's
framework, the sovereign power must be actively involved in enacting laws that provide a
chance for all qualified electors, especially those whose participation would be highly
disadvantaged (Austin, 1832/1995). For example, RA 10366 ensures physical access for voters
with disabilities in the Philippines as polling places must be accessible, and the precincts support
the PWD by giving way through the assistance provided by Polling Precinct Assistance Desks
(PADs) (Brennan, 2019). Often, these measures were poorly executed as well, which simply
depicts how the principle of law as command backed by sanctions fails in its actual execution.
Apart from the physical accessibility, other barriers of remote communities include geographic
isolation and limited transportation access with low communication infrastructure (Mendelsohn,
2012). DepEd plays a very critical role as it ensures the educational policies and practices have a
resonance with such needs by giving resources and guidance to the educators and learners who
experience such barriers while voting in elections. This may even reach to mobile polling
stations or special transport service to poll centers so that suffrage rights are exercised all over
the land equitably, (Raz, 1979). This, in turn, may serve to better the electoral rights of
sovereignty in the country by responding to these obstacles on the premise that effective laws
cannot be authority unless sanctioned in Austin.

B. Enforcement and State Accountability

1. Sovereign authority’s duty to implement inclusive electoral processes
According to John Austin's legal positivism, the sovereign has a duty to issue commands
that are sanctioned with a view to maintaining order and compelling obedience to the law
(Austin, 1832/1995). By providing an understanding of electoral process implementation in the
Philippines, that allows the sovereign authority—the government of its administration, especially
the Commission on Elections (Comelec)—its responsibility in ensuring the rights of
marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities, members of indigenous peoples, remote
communities to participate in inclusive and accessible electoral processes in the country. This
responsibility involves creating, implementing, and enforcing laws that promote equal access to
the right to vote, including RA 10366, an accessible and enabling electoral context that makes
polling places accessible and devises mechanisms for the inclusion of PWDs (Brennan, 2019).
However, often, enforcement of such law is challenged by the lacuna of the legal space and
inadequacies of monitoring mechanisms. As Hart (1994) said, for instance, despite legislations,
most polling booths are not accessible to persons with a disability, and there's very little
compliance with the necessity of accessible voting booths as well as signs. The DepEd is
important in that these measures of inclusivity are brought into educational policies and practices
in such a way that teachers and students are made to understand the importance of fair access to
the electoral process (Fuller, 1969). The duty of the sovereign authority underscores the need for
positive action to close these gaps so that electoral rights are actually protected (Raz, 1979).
2. Case studies on legal gaps and enforcement failures in the Philippines
Case studies on the enforcement of electoral laws in the Philippines reveal that there are
significant legal gaps and failures that prevent the inclusivity of the electoral process. For
example, during the 2016 general elections, problems such as vote buying, inaccessible polling
places for PWDs, and disenfranchisement of voters because of inadequate voter education
reflected systemic problems in the enforcement of electoral laws (Mendelsohn, 2012). Despite
the enactment of RA 10366 that calls for accessible polling stations, there were still many polling
places that did not pass the accessibility standards, and hence, PWDs could not fully exercise
their right to vote (Brennan, 2019). This is a manifestation of the enforcement failure because
translating legal mandates into practice is a challenge when DepEd and other agencies with
responsibility for election administration do not have the resources or commitment to monitor
compliance (Austin, 1832/1995). For instance, absentee voting for overseas Filipinos was
characterized by cumbersome processes and lack of transparency that made this sector
experience low voter turnout (Raz, 1979). Such cases prove the need for stronger sanctions and
accountability measures to ensure that the sovereign's commands are obeyed regarding electoral
inclusivity (Fuller, 1969). The involvement of DepEd in voter education and advocacy for
accessible voting technologies can be critical in closing these gaps, especially for DepEd-related
educational governance elections (Hart, 1994).
C. Austin’s Focus on Sovereign Power
1. Balancing sovereign authority with the principle of equity
The legal positivism of John Austin stresses the fact that the power of the sovereign is
exercised in the form of commands, supported by sanctions (Austin, 1832/1995). In the context
of electoral systems, this power must be balanced with the principle of equity to ensure that
every citizen, regardless of his background or status, participates in the democratic process. This
sovereignty in the Philippines, more specifically the Commission on Elections, is supposed to
issue mandates which make it easier for equal access to the ballot. Yet, as Brennan (2019) argues,
fairness in elections extends beyond implementing laws to address disparities that arise in
accessing resources and information that are more challenging to access for marginalized groups.
For example, polling precincts have steps and narrow doorways and insufficient ramps that
prohibit persons with disabilities from entering such premises and has no relation to any equity
concept under RA 10366 (Raz, 1979). In this regard, DepEd can play a significant role in striking
a balance between these elements by adding equity and access lessons to the curriculum and
orienting students and teachers regarding the need for inclusive practice during elections (Fuller,
1969). This way, equity will no longer be a legal requirement but also a social value through
public awareness and education (Hart, 1994). The balance between power and justice will enable
DepEd to contribute to more inclusive and respectful electoral process toward everyone's rights
and dignity of fellow citizens (Mendelsohn, 2012).
2. The role of electoral commissions in implementing accessibility laws
 Of importance in making voting accessible lies the role of electoral commissions, with
Austin saying that "The sovereign's authority depends upon the power to exact compliance and
to enforce sanctions." (Austin, 1832/1995) It is in this country of the Philippines where the
elections are being supervised and their laws, such as RA 10366, is implemented by the primary
entity called Comelec. The commission must, therefore, monitor compliance, educate voters, and
ensure that resources are available to PWDs and other remote communities to participate fully in
the electoral process. However, enforcement has frequently been sporadic, as many polling
places have not met accessibility standards due to poor planning, no budget allocation, or
oversight (Mendelsohn, 2012). The DepEd can actually facilitate the efforts of the Comelec by
holding an effective voter education campaign promoting the concept of accessible voting such
as teacher and student empowerment where they can be one advocate in their community that
ensures the implementation of inclusiveness (Brennan, 2019). Thus, the implementation would
no longer be a solely technical process but a socio-conscious action to ensure there is equity in
the voting arena. By doing this, the DepEd and the Comelec can make the sovereign stronger
while the principle of equity is given a nod. This is in view with Austin when he said that law is
effective if it commands not only compliance but also respect for dignity and rights of all citizens
(Raz, 1979).
V. Case Studies and Comparative Analysis
A. Examples of electoral inclusivity and accessibility in Philippine elections
The Philippines also took some measures in opening the electoral process for greater
participation. However, in terms of implementation, these have problems. An example of which
is the passing of Accessibility Law or RA 10366 in 2012 in order to ensure accessible polling
stations for PWDs: ramps, accessible voting booths, and PADs. Despite these legal mandates,
uneven application of accessibility features at various voting stations spread all around the
country causes problems. Polling stations where election cases on studies have recently
uncovered many without necessary accommodations were found to pose a challenge on casting
votes in an independent, secret manner by PWDs (Brennan, 2019). These fall under the role of
DepEd in educating voters and election officers of the need to abide by accessibility laws, the
propagation of inclusive practices, and collaboration with local government units for all voter
needs (Raz, 1979). Austin expounds further that the obligation of the sovereign is to make the
people comply with such laws and sanctions are applied to attain proper inclusion (Austin,
1832/1995). Such legislation would, however, remain in total implementation failure if its
enforcement affects not only the PWDs but also the general integrity of the electoral process.
This is a difference between the mandate of the law and practice (Fuller, 1969).
B. Comparison with other countries’ legal frameworks for suffrage
Comparatively, the strengths and weaknesses of the Philippines' legal framework for
electoral inclusivity and accessibility are better established than those of other countries. For
example, the United States, Canada, and Australia have stronger legal provisions regarding voter
accessibility and accessibility, including universal use of accessible voting machines and mobile
polling stations for voters in remote communities (Hart, 1994). Such countries have developed
regulatory bodies and monitoring mechanisms that ensure compliance and also cater to the
vulnerable group. The Philippine system, on paper, is progressive but has lacked transforming
these theories into practice and not to say, implementing such with incoherent regulations,
underfunded in providing accessible polling stations and not coordinated among the national
level agencies (Mendelsohn, 2012). The DepEd can draw lessons from such scenarios by
introducing best practices in its voter education program, creating awareness on the same legal
requirements, and empowering teachers and students to advocate for voting procedures that are
accessible (Brennan, 2019). In the comparison of these systems in the context of Austin's legal
positivism, emphasis is laid on the factor of sanctions and effective command structures in which
laws can be not only written but put into action (Austin, 1832/1995). According to Austin, the
sovereign authority must do more than provide rules but back them up with the power to punish
in order to make measures of inclusion taken seriously (Fuller, 1969).
C. Evaluation of these systems through Austin’s legal positivism
This has also provided much more information toward an evaluation of the system in the
Philippines as well as other countries about electoral inclusion and accessibility utilizing the
positivism of law introduced by Austin. An instance regarding this is where, within the system by
Austin, there is always mention that sovereignty's powers give more support to commands
especially towards being able to comply under a legal sanction (Austin, 1832/1995). Within this
suffrage scenario, therefore, it ought to imply for implementing the laws and capabilities
enforcing efficacy too. In Philippines, in terms of legal frames; with RA 10366-accessible voting
stations through lawful mandate, on actualization however its very challenged by the lack
monitoring strength with resource constraint along co-ordination among several different types
of agencies ( Raz 1979). For example, other countries like the United States have established
comprehensive legal frameworks accompanied by robust enforcement mechanisms, such as the
Help America Vote Act, that provides clear voting practices and financing for their
implementation (Mendelsohn, 2012). DepEd of the Philippines could therefore do more by
emulating similar measures that include collaboration with local authorities and NGOs to
monitor the access and offer assistance for vulnerable people. This reflects Austin's idea of clear
commands by the sovereign that should be enforceable with accompanying sanctions to compel
compliance and maintain the rule of law (Fuller, 1969). Given emphasis on enforcement and
accountability, the sovereign power can bridge the gap between the ideal legal provisions and the
practice for everyone to stand at the same level regarding the democratic process.
VI. Recommendations Based on Austin’s Philosophy
A. Strengthening legal codification to ensure suffrage inclusivity
Strengthen legal codification so that suffrage laws are definite, practicable, and
consequently obeyed, based on the philosophy espoused by John Austin (Austin, 1832/1995).
For this end, it becomes crucial to redefine and modernize the legal setup so that its provision
would better accommodate marginalized sections, namely, the handicapped people, minorities,
and even scattered rural villages. By codifying inclusivity of suffrage into law, the sovereign
authority of the Philippines, in particular, Comelec and DepEd, may establish a solid foundation
in the law that requires practices to allow access to elections (Brennan, 2019). It is then codified
as comprehensive and specific guidelines for design at the polling place, education for the voters,
and outreach that would be applicable for participation by all in the election process. The DepEd
should strongly take part in integrating legal mandates into the curriculum of which educational
curricula, educating on their rights, and about inclusive voting. This manner can be done to really
cultivate a culture of civic responsibility and heightened awareness (Fuller, 1969). The
government, therefore, should strengthen and make these legal frameworks stronger: it aligns
with Austin in his opinion that laws "must be effectively backed with sanctions" and also builds
the sovereign's role in maintaining election equity (Raz, 1979).
B. Enhancing enforcement mechanisms to guarantee compliance with suffrage laws
Mechanisms for enforcement should be strengthened in other institutions, such as DepEd,
with ensured observance of suffrage laws through proactive monitoring of services available to
polling places and regular auditing, doing something promptly about violations (Austin,
1832/1995). Such hostile polled stations must be given punishments; either in the form of fines,
suspension from being accredited or any punishment to make them respect and heed legal
processes that should take place under them (Mendelsohn, 2012). This is in line with the
postulation of Austin that sanctions played a significant role in compelling the laws to be not
empty words on paper but those that could be given because they are enforceable and can be
obeyed with consequences (Hart, 1994). Thus, there is a role for DepEd which is to educate
election officers, voters, and even local government units about how these enforcement
mechanisms work in addition to liabilities under law. In doing so, the DepEd can contribute to a
more vigilant and proactive monitoring system, ensuring that laws designed to protect the
inclusivity of the electoral process are upheld (Brennan, 2019).
C. Empowering electoral institutions to align with accessibility mandates
Electoral institutions should be enabled to allow them to easily respond to accessibility
requirements through the provision of resources, training and support in accessible voting
practices by Raz, 1979. Deped should work hand in hand with the Comelec in developing
strategies for teachers, local government officials, and voters themselves to know their role,
responsibility, and expectations in ensuring a more accessible voting process, hence Austin,
1832/1995. This would include training materials, workshops, and regional centers for voter
assistance to meet the needs of marginalized groups such as PWDs and indigenous populations
(Fuller, 1969). In Austin's model, the sovereign is to ensure that such institutions have the power
and ability to make laws and implement them (Raz, 1979). These means empower electoral
institutions, enable legal mandates to be aligned practically in terms of implementation by
DepEd, and by such means, ensure each qualified voter can access polling station as well as the
appropriate tool to cast his votes without fear or intimidation according to Hart (1994).
D. Educating citizens on their legal rights to promote electoral participation
Educating citizens of their rights is an aspect that makes electoral participation much
more prevalent and ensures the concept of equity and inclusivity will be held (Mendelsohn,
2012). The DepEd must integrate voter education in its curriculum through making it
compulsory as part of the civic education syllabus in schools from elementary up to high school.
The training education is more than just what to do technically-to vote for example, that is the
registration process as well as procedures at the polls-but why it matters-to be aware of one's
legal rights in particular, like having the right to vote or rights to adequate polling places as well
as the role the DepEd plays in their favor advocating to protect their rights (Brennan, 2019).
DepEd can encourage civic awareness and participation to bridge the gap between law and
practice, where marginalized communities would be equipped and informed enough to be able to
vote effectively in an election (Raz, 1979). This is consistent with the philosophy of Austin,
pointing out the importance of an informed compliance and the duty of the sovereign to make
citizens aware of their obligation under the law (Austin, 1832/1995).
VII. Conclusion
A. Reaffirmation of the right to suffrage as a legal foundation of democracy
The right to vote is an indispensable principle of democratic governance, according to
which citizens should have the right to voice their views on issues that affect them (Brennan,
2019). In the Philippines, a country in which the equality principle in elections is sometimes put
aside for accessibility and inclusion, there is a great need to reassert the importance of the right
to vote as a legal base of democracy.. John Austin's legal positivism philosophy emphasizes that
law, especially the sovereign's command, must be supported by definite sanctions to make people
comply and that rights should be meaningful (Austin, 1832/1995). This affirmation is not only
codification of laws that require accessible voting practices but also a commitment to
enforcement mechanisms that hold the sovereign accountable for protecting these rights (Raz,
1979). As the policymakers in the Philippines pursue democratic institution building, "reform
efforts must be made such that every citizen, regardless of background or circumstances,
becomes able to participate effectively within the electoral process," opines Fuller (1969). The
role of DepEd in this regards is very critical because it enables the public to be educated
concerning their rights and the voting practices that are inclusive, hence able to hold the state
responsible, as argued by Mendelsohn (2012).
B. Summary of Austin’s contributions to understanding suffrage inclusivity and
accessibility
In general, the contributions of John Austin in understanding the inclusiveness and
accessibility of suffrage offer a very crucial framework by which to evaluate the efficiency of
electoral systems in promoting equity and participation (Austin, 1832/1995). In the theory of
legal positivism, Austin argued that law is not just rules but rather a command by the sovereign
that is given support through sanctions (Raz, 1979).This structure is key to understanding how
suffrage laws have to be implemented so that they become something meaningful, especially in
places like the Philippines where mandates of law appear to have a head start over what is
happening. The significance of focusing on the sovereign as the source of enforceable commands
through sanctions speaks of an urgent need for a good check system that punishes for violations.
Using this structure, the DepEd can partner with the Comelec in the implementation of effective
voter education programs that are going to enlighten citizens on what their rights are and the
corresponding duties of the state in safeguarding them (Brennan, 2019). This action cements the
legal basis of democracy and speaks well of Austin's position on how the law must be
commanding and obeyed (Fuller, 1969).
C. Call to action for policymakers to prioritize legal reforms for equitable elections
Reflecting the efforts of Austin to derive understanding towards law-democracy
relationship, there is a need for lawmakers within Philippines to pursue legal reforms with an aim
to having electoral democracy (Mendelsohn, 2012). Therefore, for such principles as outlined in
this book to be put ahead, DepEd should embrace Comelec to actually pen them on the ground
also. This encompasses upgrading the legal framework to encompass full-fledged measures for
voter access like the use of technology to conquer physical barriers and conducting nationwide
campaigns on voter education (Raz, 1979). The power of the sovereign, according to Austin must
be exercised through effective commands accompanied by sanctions to enforce compliance
(Austin, 1832/1995). The role of the policymakers is to ensure that every citizen can vote freely
and fairly and contribute to an inclusive democracy for all Filipinos (Hart, 1994). In this regard,
the role of the DepEd becomes important because it can drive the level of civic engagement and
awareness among citizens, with a view to educating people regarding the rights they are legally
empowered with and how these have to be protected in electoral processes (Fuller, 1969).
VIII. References
A. John Austin’s Primary Works
Austin, J. (1832/1995). The Province of Jurisprudence Determined. Oxford University Press. B.
B. Legal Studies on Suffrage Laws and Electoral Inclusivity
Brennan, G. (2019). Democratic Equality: The Good in the Right. Princeton University Press.
Fuller, L. (1969). The Morality of Law. Yale University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press.
Mendelsohn, R. (2012). "Suffrage and Political Equality: What’s Race Got to Do with It?" New
Political Science, 34(1), 35–50.
Raz, J. (1979). The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford University Press.
C. Reports on Accessibility and Inclusivity in Philippine Elections and Global Contexts
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). (2018). Electoral system
design: The new international IDEA handbook. IDEA Publications.
International IDEA. (2021). Electoral Access: A Comparative Analysis.
World Bank Group. (2019). Disability-Inclusive Voting: A Global Review.
D. Other References
Keyssar, A. (2000). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States.
Lijphart, A. (1997). "Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma." The American
Political Science Review, 91(1), 1-14.
Norris, P. (2002). Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge University
Press.