Law on Election Cases

8/19/2019 Law on Election Cases

1/114

1

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 181613 November 25, 2009

ROSALINA A. PENERA, Petitioner,vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS !"# EGAR T. ANANAR,

Respondents.

R E S O L U T I O N

CARPIO, J.:

We grant Rosalinda A. Peneras !Penera" #otion for reconsiderationof this Courts $ecision of 11 %epte#ber &''( !$ecision".

)he assailed $ecision dis#issed Peneras petition and affir#ed the

Resolution dated *' +ul &''- of the CME/EC En Banc as 0ell asthe Resolution dated & +ul &''2 of the CME/EC %econd

$ivision. )he $ecision dis3ualified Penera fro# running for the

office of Maor in %ta. Monica, %urigao del Norte and declared thatthe 4ice5Maor should succeed Penera.

6n support of her #otion for reconsideration, Penera sub#its the

follo0ing argu#ents7

1. Penera 0as not et a candidate at the ti#e of the incident under

%ection 11 of RA -*8 as a#ended b %ection 1* of RA (*8(.

&. )he petition for dis3ualification failed to sub#it convincing and

substantial evidence against Penera for violation of %ection -' of the

#nibus Election Code.

*. Penera never ad#itted the allegations of the petition for dis3ualification and has consistentl disputed the charge of

pre#ature ca#paigning.

. )he ad#ission that Penera participated in a #otorcade is not the

sa#e as ad#itting she engaged in pre#ature election ca#paigning.

%ection 2(!a" of the #nibus Election Code defines a 9candidate9as 9an person aspiring for or see:ing an elective public office, 0ho

has filed a certificate of candidac ; ; ;.9 )he second sentence, third

paragraph, %ection 1< of RA -*8, as a#ended b %ection 1* of RA(*8(, provides that 9=a>n person 0ho files his certificate of

candidac 0ithin =the period for filing> shall onl be considered as a

candidate at the start of the ca#paign period

for 0hich he filed hiscertificate of candidac.9 )he i##ediatel succeeding proviso in the

sa#e third paragraph states that 9unla0ful acts or o#issions

applicable to a candidate shall ta:e effect onl upon the start of the

aforesaid ca#paign period.

9 )hese t0o provisions deter#ine the

resolution of this case.

)he $ecision states that 9=0>hen the ca#paign period starts and =the person 0ho filed his certificate of candidac> proceeds 0ith his?her

candidac, his?her intent turning into actualit, 0e can alread

consider his?her acts, after the filing of his?her CC and prior to the

ca#paign period, as the pro#otion of his?her election as a candidate

,hence, constituting pre#ature ca#paigning, for 0hich he?she #a

be dis3ualified.91

@nder the $ecision, a candidate #a alread be liable for pre#ature

/AW N E/EC)6N

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt1


2/114

&

ca#paigning after the filing of the certificate of candidac but even

before the start of the ca#paign period. ro# the filing of the

certificate of candidac, even long before the start of the ca#paign period, the $ecision considers the partisan political acts of a person

so filing a certificate of candidac 9as the pro#otion of his?her election as a candidate.9 )hus, such person can be dis3ualified for pre#ature ca#paigning for acts done before the start of the

ca#paign period. 6n short, the $ecision considers a person 0ho files

a certificate of candidac alread a 9candidate9 even before the startof the ca#paign period. lawphil

)he assailed $ecision is contrar to the clear intent and letter of the

la0.

)he $ecision reverses /anot v. CME/EC,&

0hich held that !$er%o" &'o ()*e% ! +er)()+!e o( +!"#)#!+- )% "o ! +!"#)#!e

")* 'e %!r o( 'e +!m$!)/" $er)o#. 6n Lanot, this Courte;plained7

)hus, the essential ele#ents for violation of %ection -' of the

#nibus Election Code are7 !1" a person engages in an electionca#paign or partisan political activit !&" the act is designed to

pro#ote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or

candidates !*" the act is done outside the ca#paign period.

)he second ele#ent re3uires the e;istence of a 9candidate.9 @nder

%ection 2(!a", a candidate is one 0ho 9has filed a certificate of

candidac9 to an elective public office. @nless one has filed his

certificate of candidac, he is not a 9candidate.9 )he third ele#entre3uires that the ca#paign period has not started 0hen the election

ca#paign or partisan political activit is co##itted.

Assu#ing that all candidates to a public office file their certificates

of candidac on the last da, 0hich under %ection 2< of the #nibus

Election Code is the da before the start of the ca#paign period,

then no one can be prosecuted for violation of %ection -' for actsdone prior to such last da. Before such last da, there is no

9particular candidate or candidates9 to ca#paign for or against. nthe da i##ediatel after the last da of filing, the ca#paign periodstarts and %ection -' ceases to appl since %ection -' covers onl

acts done 9outside9 the ca#paign period.

)hus, if all candidates file their certificates of candidac on the lastda, %ection -' #a onl appl to acts done on such last da, 0hich

is before the start of the ca#paign period and after at least one

candidate has filed his certificate of candidac. )his is perhaps thereason 0h those running for elective public office usuall file their

certificates of candidac on the last da or close to the last da.

)here is no dispute that Eusebios acts of election ca#paigning or partisan political activities 0ere co##itted outside of the ca#paign

period. )he onl 3uestion is 0hether Eusebio, 0ho filed his

certificate of candidac on &( $ece#ber &''*, 0as a 9candidate9

0hen he co##itted those acts before the start of the ca#paign period on & March &''.

%ection 11 of Republic Act No. -*8 !9RA -*89" #oved the

deadline for the filing of certificates of candidac to 1&' das beforeelection da. )hus, the original deadline 0as #oved fro# &* March

&'' to & +anuar &'', or -1 das earlier. )he crucial 3uestion is7

did this change in the deadline for filing the certificate of candidac#a:e one 0ho filed his certificate of candidac before & +anuar

&'' i##ediatel liable for violation of %ection -' if he engaged in

election ca#paign or partisan political activities prior to the start of the ca#paign period on & March &''

/AW N E/EC)6N



3/114

*

%ection 11 of RA -*8 provides7

%EC)6N 11. fficial Ballot. D )he Co##ission shall prescribe the

sie and for# of the official ballot 0hich shall contain the titles of

the positions to be filled and?or the propositions to be voted upon inan initiative, referendu# or plebiscite. @nder each position, the

na#es of candidates shall be arranged alphabeticall b surna#eand unifor#l printed using the sa#e tpe sie. A fi;ed space 0here

the chair#an of the Board of Election 6nspectors shall affi; his?her

signature to authenticate the official ballot shall be provided.

Both sides of the ballots #a be used 0hen necessar.

or this purpose, the deadline for the filing of certificate of

candidac?petition for registration? #anifestation to participate inthe election shall not be later than one hundred t0ent !1&'" das

before the elections7 Provided, )hat, an elective official, 0hether

national or local, running for an office other than the one 0hichhe?she is holding in a per#anent capacit, e;cept for president and

vice5president, shall be dee#ed resigned onl upon the start of the

ca#paign period corresponding to the position for 0hich he?she isrunning7 Provided, further, )hat, unla0ful acts or o#issions

applicable to a candidate shall ta:e effect upon the start of the

aforesaid ca#paign period7 Provided, finall, )hat, for purposes of

the Ma 11, 1((- elections, the deadline for filing of the certificateof candidac for the positions of President, 4ice5President, %enators

and candidates under the part5list sste# as 0ell as petitions for

registration and?or #anifestation to participate in the part5listsste# shall be on ebruar (, 1((- 0hile the deadline for the filing

of certificate of candidac for other positions shall be on March &2,

1((-.

)he official ballots shall be printed b the National Printing ffice

and?or the Bang:o %entral ng Pilipinas at the price co#parable 0ith

that of private printers under proper securit #easures 0hich the

Co##ission shall adopt. )he Co##ission #a contract the servicesof private printers upon certification b the National Printing

ffice?Bang:o %entral ng Pilipinas that it cannot #eet the printingre3uire#ents. Accredited political parties and deputied citiensar#s of the Co##ission #a assign 0atchers in the printing,

storage and distribution of official ballots.

)o prevent the use of fa:e ballots, the Co##ission through theCo##ittee shall ensure that the serial nu#ber on the ballot stub

shall be printed in #agnetic in: that shall be easil detectable b

ine;pensive hard0are and shall be i#possible to reproduce on a photocoping #achine, and that identification #ar:s, #agnetic

strips, bar codes and other technical and securit #ar:ings, are provided on the ballot.

)he official ballots shall be printed and distributed to each

cit?#unicipalit at the rate of one !1" ballot for ever registered

voter 0ith a provision of additional four !" ballots per precinct.

@nder %ection 11 of RA -*8, the onl purpose for the earl filing

of certificates of candidac is to give a#ple ti#e for the printing of

official ballots. )his is clear fro# the follo0ing deliberations of the

Bica#eral Conference Co##ittee7

%ENA)R FNGA/E%. :a. )hen, ho0 about the ca#paign

period, 0ould it be the sa#e=,> unifor# for local and national

officials

)HE CHA6RMAN !REP. )AN+@A)C". Personall, 6 0ould agree

to retaining it at the present periods.

/AW N E/EC)6N


4/114

%ENA)R FNGA/E%. But the #o#ent one files a certificate of

candidac, hes alread a candidate, and there are #an prohibited

acts on the part of candidate.

)HE CHA6RMAN !REP. )AN+@A)C". @nless 0e. . . .

%ENA)R FNGA/E%. And ou cannot sa that the ca#paign

period has not et began !sic".

)HE CHA6RMAN !REP. )AN+@A)C". 6f 0e dont provide that

the filing of the certificate 0ill not bring about ones being a

candidate.

%ENA)R FNGA/E%. 6f thats a fact, the la0 cannot change a

fact.

)HE CHA6RMAN !REP. )AN+@A)C". No, but if 0e can providethat the filing of the certificate of candidac 0ill not result in that

official vacating his position, 0e can also provide that insofar he is

concerned, election period or his being a candidate 0ill not etco##ence. Because here, the reason 0h 0e are doing an earl

filing is to afford enough ti#e to prepare this #achine readable

ballots.

%o, 0ith the #anifestations fro# the Co##ission on Elections, Mr.Chair#an, the House Panel 0ill 0ithdra0 its proposal and 0ill

agree to the 1&'5da period provided in the %enate version.

)HE CHA6RMAN !%ENA)R ERNAN". )han: ou, Mr.

Chair#an.

; ; ; ;

%ENA)R FNGA/E%. Ho0 about prohibition against

ca#paigning or doing partisan acts 0hich appl i##ediatel upon

being a candidate

)HE CHA6RMAN !REP. )AN+@A)C". Again, since the intentionof this provision is Iust to afford the Co#elec enough ti#e to print

the ballots, this provision does not intend to change the ca#paign periods as presentl, or rather election periods as presentl fi;ed b

e;isting la0.

)HE AC)6NF CHA6RMAN !%EN. ERNAN". %o, it should besubIect to the other prohibition.

)HE CHA6RMAN !REP. )AN+@A)C". )hats right.

)HE AC)6NF CHA6RMAN !%EN. ERNAN". :a.

)HE CHA6RMAN !REP. )AN+@A)C". 6n other 0ords, actuall,

there 0ould be no conflict an#ore because 0e are tal:ing about the

1&'5da period before election as the last da of filing a certificateof candidac, election period starts 1&' das also. %o that is election

period alread. But he 0ill still not be considered as a candidate.

)hus, because of the earl deadline of & +anuar &'' for purposes

of printing of official ballots, Eusebio filed his certificate of candidac on &( $ece#ber &''*. Congress, ho0ever, never

intended the filing of a certificate of candidac before & +anuar&'' to #a:e the person filing to beco#e i##ediatel a 9candidate9

for purposes other than the printing of ballots. )his legislative intent

prevents the i##ediate application of %ection -' of the #nibusElection Code to those filing to #eet the earl deadline. )he clear

intention of Congress 0as to preserve the 9election periods as ; ; ;

fi;ed b e;isting la09 prior to RA -*8 and that one 0ho files to

/AW N E/EC)6N


5/114

<

#eet the earl deadline 90ill still not be considered as a candidate.9*

!E#phasis in the original"

/anot 0as decided on the ground that one 0ho files a certificate of

candidac is not a candidate until the start of the ca#paign period.)his ground 0as based on the deliberations of the legislators 0ho

e;plained the intent of the provisions of RA -*8, 0hich laid thelegal fra#e0or: for an auto#ated election sste#. )here 0as no

e;press provision in the original RA -*8 stating that one 0ho files

a certificate of candidac is not a candidate until the start of theca#paign period.

When Congress a#ended RA -*8, Congress decided to e;pressl

incorporate the /anot doctrine into la0, realiing that /anot #erel

relied on the deliberations of Congress in holding that J

)he clear intention of Congress 0as to preserve the 9election periods

as ; ; ; fi;ed b e;isting la09 prior to RA -*8 and that one 0hofiles to #eet the earl deadline 90ill still not be considered as a

candidate.9 !E#phasis supplied"

Congress 0anted to insure that no person filing a certificate of candidac under the earl deadline re3uired b the auto#ated

election sste# 0ould be dis3ualified or penalied for an partisan

political act done before the start of the ca#paign period. )hus, inenacting RA (*8(, Congress e;pressl 0rote the /anot doctrine into

the second sentence, third paragraph of the a#ended %ection 1< of

RA -*8, thus7

; ; ;

or this purpose, the Co##ission shall set the deadline for the filing

of certificate of candidac?petition for registration?#anifestation to

participate in the election. An person 0ho files his certificate of

candidac 0ithin this period shall onl be considered as a candidate

at the start of the ca#paign period for 0hich he filed his certificateof candidac7 Provided, )hat, unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable

to a candidate shall ta:e effect onl upon the start of the aforesaidca#paign period7 Provided, finall, )hat an person holding a publicappointive office or position, including active #e#bers of the ar#ed

forces, and officers and e#ploees in govern#ent5o0ned or

5controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resignedfro# his?her office and #ust vacate the sa#e at the start of the da

of the filing of his?her certificate of candidac. !Boldfacing and

underlining supplied"

Congress elevated the /anot doctrine into a statute b specificall

inserting it as the second sentence of the third paragraph of thea#ended %ection 1< of RA -*8, 0hich cannot be annulled b this

Court e;cept on the sole ground of its unconstitutionalit. )he$ecision cannot reverse /anot 0ithout repealing this second

sentence, because to reverse /anot 0ould #ean repealing this

second sentence.

)he assailed $ecision, ho0ever, in reversing /anot does not clai#

that this second sentence or an portion of %ection 1< of RA -*8,

as a#ended b RA (*8(, is unconstitutional. 6n fact, the $ecision

considers the entire %ection 1< good la0. )hus, the $ecision is self5contradictor J reversing /anot but #aintaining the

constitutionalit of the second sentence, 0hich e#bodies the /anotdoctrine. 6n so doing, the $ecision is irreconcilabl in conflict 0ith

the clear intent and letter of the second sentence, third paragraph,

%ection 1< of RA -*8, as a#ended b RA (*8(.

6n enacting RA (*8(, Congress even further clarified the first

proviso in the third paragraph of %ection 1< of RA -*8. )he

/AW N E/EC)6N

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt4


6/114

8

original provision in RA -*8 states J

; ; ; Provided, further, )hat, unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable

to a candidate shall ta:e effect upon the start of the aforesaid

ca#paign period, ; ; ;.

6n RA (*8(, Congress inserted the 0ord 9onl9 so that the first

proviso no0 reads J

; ; ; Provided, )hat, unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable to a

candidate shall ta:e effect onl upon the start of the aforesaid

ca#paign period ; ; ;. !E#phasis supplied"

)hus, Congress not onl reiterated but also strengthened its

#andator directive that election offenses can be co##itted b acandidate 9onl9 upon the start of the ca#paign period. )his clearl#eans that before the start of the ca#paign period, such election

offenses cannot be so co##itted.

When the applicable provisions of RA -*8, as a#ended b RA(*8(, are read together, these provisions of la0 do not consider

Penera a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots,

until the start of the ca#paign period. )here is absolutel no roo#for an other interpretation.

We 3uote 0ith approval the $issenting pinion of +ustice Antonio

). Carpio7

; ; ; )he definition of a 9candidate9 in %ection 2(!a" of the

#nibus Election Code should be read together 0ith the a#ended

%ection 1< of RA -*8. A 9Kcandidate refers to an person aspiringfor or see:ing an elective public office, 0ho has filed a certificate of

candidac b hi#self or through an accredited political part,

aggroup#ent or coalition of parties.9 Ho0ever, it is no longer

enough to #erel file a certificate of candidac for a person to be

considered a candidate because 9an person 0ho files his certificateof candidac 0ithin =the filing> period shall onl be considered a

candidate at the start of the ca#paign period for 0hich he filed hiscertificate of candidac.9 An person #a thus file a certificate of candidac on an da 0ithin the prescribed period for filing a

certificate of candidac et that person shall be considered a

candidate, for purposes of deter#ining ones possible violations of election la0s, onl during the ca#paign period. 6ndeed, there is no

9election ca#paign9 or 9partisan political activit9 designed to

pro#ote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates

to public office si#pl because there is no 9candidate9 to spea: of prior to the start of the ca#paign period. )herefore, despite the filing

of her certificate of candidac, the la0 does not consider Penera a

candidate at the ti#e of the 3uestioned #otorcade 0hich 0asconducted a da before the start of the ca#paign period. ; ; ;

)he ca#paign period for local officials began on *' March &''2 and

ended on 1& Ma &''2. Penera filed her certificate of candidac on&( March &''2. Penera 0as thus a candidate on &( March &''( onl

for purposes of printing the ballots. n &( March &''2, the la0 still

did not consider Penera a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots. Acts co##itted b Penera prior to *' March

&''2, the date 0hen she beca#e a 9candidate,9 even if constitutingelection ca#paigning or partisan political activities, are not punishable under %ection -' of the #nibus Election Code. %uch

acts are 0ithin the real# of a citiens protected freedo# of

e;pression. Acts co##itted b Penera 0ithin the ca#paign periodare not covered b %ection -' as %ection -' punishes onl acts

outside the ca#paign period.<

)he assailed $ecision gives a specious reason in e;plaining a0a

/AW N E/EC)6N



7/114

2

the first proviso in the third paragraph, the a#ended %ection 1< of

RA -*8 that election offenses applicable to candidates ta:e effect

onl upon the start of the ca#paign period. )he $ecision states that7

; ; ; =)>he line in %ection 1< of Republic Act No. -*8, asa#ended, 0hich provides that 9an unla0ful act or o#ission

applicable to a candidate shall ta:e effect onl upon the start of theca#paign period,9 does not #ean that the acts constituting

pre#ature ca#paigning can onl be co##itted, for 0hich the

offender #a be dis3ualified, during the ca#paign period. Contrarto the pronounce#ent in the dissent, no0here in said proviso 0as it

stated that ca#paigning before the start of the ca#paign period is

la0ful, such that the offender #a freel carr out the sa#e 0ithi#punit.

As previousl established, a person, after filing his?her CC but

prior to his?her beco#ing a candidate !thus, prior to the start of theca#paign period", can alread co##it the acts described under

%ection 2(!b" of the #nibus Election Code as election ca#paign or

partisan political activit, Ho0ever, onl after said person officiall

beco#es a candidate, at the beginning of the ca#paign period, cansaid acts be given effect as pre#ature ca#paigning under %ection -'

of the #nibus Election Code. nl after said person officiall

beco#es a candidate, at the start of the ca#paign period, can his?her

dis3ualification be sought for acts constituting pre#atureca#paigning. bviousl, it is onl at the start of the ca#paign

period, 0hen the person officiall beco#es a candidate, that theundue and ini3uitous advantages of his?her prior acts, constituting

pre#ature ca#paigning, shall accrue to his?her benefit. Co#pared to

the other candidates 0ho are onl about to begin their electionca#paign, a candidate 0ho had previousl engaged in pre#ature

ca#paigning alread enIos an unfair headstart in pro#oting his?her

candidac.8 !E#phasis supplied"

6t is a basic principle of la0 that an act is la0ful unless e;pressl

declared unla0ful b la0. )his is speciall true to e;pression or

speech, 0hich Congress cannot outla0 e;cept on ver narro0grounds involving clear, present and i##inent danger to the %tate.

)he #ere fact that the la0 does not declare an act unla0ful ipsofacto #eans that the act is la0ful. )hus, there is no need for Congress to declare in %ection 1< of RA -*8, as a#ended b RA

(*8(, that political partisan activities before the start of the

ca#paign period are la0ful. 6t is sufficient for Congress to state that9an unla0ful act or o#ission applicable to a candidate shall ta:e

effect onl upon the start of the ca#paign period.9 )he onl

inescapable and logical result is that the sa#e acts, if done before

the start of the ca#paign period, are la0ful.

6n la#ans language, this #eans that a candidate is liable for anelection offense onl for acts done during the ca#paign period, not

before. )he la0 is clear as dalight J an election offense that #a be co##itted b a candidate under an election la0 cannot be

co##itted before the start of the ca#paign period. 6n ruling that

Penera is liable for pre#ature ca#paigning for partisan political acts before the start of the ca#paigning, the assailed $ecision ignores

the clear and e;press provision of the la0.

)he $ecision rationalies that a candidate 0ho co##its pre#ature

ca#paigning can be dis3ualified or prosecuted onl after the start of the ca#paign period. )his is not 0hat the la0 sas. What the la0

sas is 9an unla0ful act or o#ission applicable to a candidate shallta:e effect onl upon the start of the ca#paign period.9 )he plain

#eaning of this provision is that the effective date 0hen partisan

political acts beco#e unla0ful as to a candidate is 0hen theca#paign period starts. Before the start of the ca#paign period, the

sa#e partisan political acts are la0ful.

/AW N E/EC)6N



8/114


9/114

(

" Penera never ad#itted the allegations of the petition for

dis3ualification and has consistentl disputed the charge of

pre#ature ca#paigning.<

olding

political caucuses, conferences, #eetings, rallies, parades, or other si#ilar asse#blies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and?or

/AW N E/EC)6N

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt5cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt5cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt6cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt7cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt5cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt6cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt7cn


10/114

1'

underta:ing an ca#paign or propaganda for or against a

candidate=.>9 )he obvious purpose of the conduct of #otorcades

during election periods is to introduce the candidates and the positions to 0hich the see: to be elected to the voting public or to

#a:e the# #ore visible so as to facilitate the recognition and

recollection of their na#es in the #inds of the voters co#e electionti#e.

)he pretense that the #otorcade 0as onl a convo of vehicles,

0hich 0as entirel an unplanned event that dispersed eventuall,does not hold 0ater. After filing their certificates of candidac,

Rosalinda Penera and the other #e#bers of her political part

conducted a #otorcade and 0ent around the different barangas inthe #unicipalit of %ta. Monica, %urigao $el Norte. )he #otorcade

consisted of t0o !&" Ieepnes and ten !1'" #otorccles, 0hich 0ereall festooned 0ith #ulti5colored balloons. )here 0as #arching

#usic being plaed on the bac:ground and the individuals onboardthe vehicles thre0 candies to the people the passed b along the

streets. With the nu#ber of vehicles, the balloons, the bac:ground

#arching #usic, the candies on hand and the route that too: the# tothe different barangas, the #otorcade could hardl be considered as

spontaneous and unplanned.

MaIorit pinion

Although the #aIorit opinion initiall #entions the above5stated

grounds of Peneras Motion for Reconsideration, the sa#e 0ere not

at all discussed. )he Resolution of the #aIorit purel involves ane;position of the grounds set forth in the $issenting pinion of

+ustice Antonio ). Carpio to the $ecision dated 11 %epte#ber &''(.

At the outset, the #aIorit opinion highlights the relevant provisionsof la0 defining the #eaning of a candidate.

@nder %ection 2(!a" of the #nibus Election Code, a candidate is

9an person aspiring for or see:ing an elective public office, 0ho

has filed a certificate of candidac b hi#self or through anaccredited political part, aggroup#ent, or coalition of parties.9 n

the other hand, the second sentence in the third paragraph of %ection

1< of Republic Act No. -*8, as a#ended b Republic Act No.(*8(, states that 9=a>n person 0ho files his certificate of candidac

0ithin this period shall onl be considered as a candidate at the start

of the ca#paign period for 0hich he filed his certificate of candidac.9 )he first proviso in the sa#e paragraph provides that

9unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable to a candidate shall ta:e

effect onl upon the start of the aforesaid ca#paign period.9

)he #aIorit opinion goes on to 3uote a paragraph in the $ecision

dated 11 %epte#ber &''(, underscoring a portion of the sa#e asfollo0s7

When the ca#paign period starts and said person proceeds 0ith

his?her candidac, his?her intent turning into actualit, 0e can

alread consider his?her acts, after the filing of his?her =certificate of

candidac !CC"> and prior to the ca#paign period, as the pro#otion of his?her election as a candidate, hence, constituting

pre#ature ca#paigning, for 0hich he?she #a be dis3ualified.

According to the interpretation of the #aIorit of the above pronounce#ent, the $ecision dated 11 %epte#ber &''( alread

considers a person 0ho filed a CC a 9candidate9 even before the

start of the ca#paign period. ro# the filing of the CC, even before the start of the ca#paign period, the ponente allegedl

considers the partisan political acts of a person filing a CC 9as the

pro#otion of his?her election as a candidate.9

)he #aIorit clearl #istoo: the i#port of the above53uoted portion

/AW N E/EC)6N


11/114

11

and read the sa#e out of conte;t. Absolutel no0here in the

$ecision dated 11 %epte#ber &''( 0as it stated that a person 0ho

filed a CC is alread dee#ed a candidate even before the start of the ca#paign period.

)o recall, the Court held in its $ecision that %ection -' of the

#nibus Election Code, 0hich defines the prohibited act of pre#ature ca#paigning, 0as not repealed, e;pressl or i#pliedl, b

%ection 1< of Republic Act No. -*8, as a#ended.

%ection -' of the #nibus Election Code reads7

%EC)6N -'. Election campaign or partisan political activity

outside campaign period . J I %'!** be "*!&(* (or !"- $er%o",

&'e'er or "o ! voer or +!"#)#!e, or (or !"- $!r-, or!%%o+)!)o" o( $er%o"%, o e"/!/e )" !" e*e+)o" +!m$!)/" or

$!r)%!" $o*))+!* !+)v)- e+e$ #r)"/ 'e +!m$!)/" $er)o# 7 ;

; ;.

While relevant portions of %ection 1< of Republic Act No. -*8, as

a#ended b Republic Act No. (*8(, provide7

%EC)6N.1

)he Court har#onied and reconciled the above provisions in this

0ise7

)he follo0ing points are e;planator7

irst, %ection -' of the #nibus Election Code, on pre#ature

ca#paigning, e;plicitl provides that 9=i>t shall be unla0ful for an person, 0hether or not a voter or candidate, or for an part, or

association of persons, to engage in an election ca#paign or partisan

political activit, e;cept during the ca#paign period.9 4er si#pl, pre#ature ca#paigning #a be co##itted even b a person 0ho is

not a candidate.

or this reason, the plain declaration in /anot that 9=0>hat %ection-' of the #nibus Election Code prohibits is Kan election ca#paign

or partisan political activit b a Kcandidate Koutside of the

ca#paign period,9 is clearl erroneous.

%econd, %ection 2(!b" of the #nibus Election Code defines

election ca#paign or partisan political activit in the follo0ing

#anner7

%EC)6N 2(. $efinitions. 5 As used in this Code7

; ; ; ;

!b" )he ter# 9election ca#paign9 or 9partisan political activit9refers to an act designed to pro#ote the election or defeat of a

particular candidate or candidates to a public office 0hich shall

include7

/AW N E/EC)6N


12/114

1&

!1" or#ing organiations, associations, clubs, co##ittees or other

groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and?or

underta:ing an ca#paign for or against a candidate

!&" Holding political caucuses, conferences, #eetings, rallies, parades, or other si#ilar asse#blies, for the purpose of soliciting

votes and?or underta:ing an ca#paign or propaganda for or againsta candidate

!*" Ma:ing speeches, announce#ents or co##entaries, or holding

intervie0s for or against the election of an candidate for publicoffice

!" Publishing or distributing ca#paign literature or #aterials

designed to support or oppose the election of an candidate or

!


13/114

1*

No. (*8(, Congress e;pressl 0rote the /anot doctrine into the

second sentence, third paragraph, %ec. 1< of Republic Act No. -*8,

0hich states that 9=a>n person 0ho files his certificate of candidac0ithin =the period for filing CCs> shall onl be considered as a

candidate at the start of the ca#paign period for 0hich he filed his

certificate of candidac.9

)he #aIorit, therefore, concludes that the ponente cannot reverse

/anot 0ithout repealing the above sentence, since to reverse /anot

0ould #ean repealing the said sentence. )he ponente, ho0ever, inreversing /anot does not clai# that the second sentence or an

portion of %ection 1< of RA -*8, as a#ended b RA (*8(, is

unconstitutional. )hus, the $ecision dated 11 %epte#ber &''( issupposedl self5contradictor D reversing /anot but #aintaining the

constitutionalit of the second sentence, 0hich e#bodies the /anot

doctrine. 6n so doing, the #aIorit avers that the #aIorit decision is

irreconcilabl in conflict 0ith the clear intent and letter of thesecond sentence, third paragraph of %ection 1< of Republic Act No.

-*8, as a#ended b Republic Act No. (*8(.

)he #aIorit opinion arrives at an erroneous conclusion based on afault pre#ise.

/anot 0as decided on the basis of the re3uire#ent therein that there

#ust be first a candidate before the prohibited act of pre#atureca#paigning #a be co##itted.

6n /anot v. Co##ission on Elections,( /anot, et al., filed a petition

for dis3ualification against the then Pasig Cit #aoralt candidate4icente P. Eusebio for engaging in various for#s of election

ca#paign on different occasions outside of the designated ca#paign

period after he filed his CC during the &'' local elections. )heCo##ission on Elections !CME/EC" /a0 $epart#ent

reco##ended the dis3ualification of Eusebio for violation of

%ection -' of the #nibus Election Code, 0hich reco##endation

0as approved b the CME/EC irst $ivision. )he CME/EC en banc referred the case bac: to the CME/EC /a0 $epart#ent to

deter#ine 0hether Eusebio actuall co##itted the acts subIect of

the petition for dis3ualification.

)he Court, spea:ing through +ustice Carpio, adIudged that Eusebio

0as not liable for pre#ature ca#paigning given that the latter

co##itted partisan political acts before he beca#e a candidate. )heCourt construed the application of %ection 11 of Republic Act No.

-8* vis5L5vis the provisions of %ections -' and 2(!a" of the

#nibus Election Code. %ection 11 of Republic Act No. -*8#oved the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidac to 1&'

das before election da. )he Court ruled that the onl purpose for

the earl filing of CCs 0as to give a#ple ti#e for the printing of

official ballots. Congress, ho0ever, never intended the earl filing of a CC to #a:e the person filing to beco#e i##ediatel a

9candidate9 for purposes other than the printing of ballots. )his

legislative intent prevented the i##ediate application of %ection -'of the #nibus Election Code to those filing to #eet the earl

deadline. )he clear intention of Congress 0as to preserve the

9election periods as ; ; ; fi;ed b e;isting la09 prior to RepublicAct No. -*8 and that one 0ho files to #eet the earl deadline 9&)**

%)** "o be +o"%)#ere# !% ! +!"#)#!e .91'

%i#pl stated, the Court adIudged in /anot that 0hen Eusebio filedhis CC to #eet the earl deadline set b CME/EC, he did not

thereb i##ediatel beco#e a candidate. )hus, there 0as no

pre#ature ca#paigning since there 0as no candidate to begin 0ith.6t is on this ground that the #aIorit reversed /anot.

)he ponente reiterates that the e;istence of a candidate is not

/AW N E/EC)6N

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt9cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt10cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt9cnhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt10cn


14/114

1

necessar before pre#ature ca#paigning #a be co##itted.

%ection -' of the #nibus Election Code une3uivocall provides

that 9=i>t shall be unla0ful for an person, 0hether or not a voter or candidate, or for an part, or association of persons, to engage in an

election ca#paign or partisan political activit, e;cept during the

ca#paign period.9 4er specific are the 0ordings of the la0 that theindividual 0ho #a be held liable to co##it the unla0ful act of

pre#ature ca#paigning can be an person7 a voter or non5voter, a

candidate or a non5candidate.

urther#ore, as alread previousl discussed, %ection -' of the

#nibus Election Code 0as not repealed b %ection 1< of RA -*8,

as a#ended b RA (*8(. 6n construing the said provisions, as 0ellas that of %ection 2(!a" of the #nibus Election Code, 0hich

defines the #eaning of the ter# candidate, the #aIorit has settled

that, after the filing of the CC but before the start of the ca#paign

period, a person is et to be considered a for#al candidate. Nonetheless, b filing the CC, the person categoricall and

e;plicitl declares his?her intention to run as a candidate. )hereafter,

if such person co##its the acts enu#erated under %ection 2(!b" of the #nibus Election Code, said acts can alread be construed as

for the purpose of pro#oting his?her intended candidac.1avvphi1

)hus, contrar to the #aIorit opinion, the $ecision dated 11%epte#ber &''( is not self5contradictor. )he ponente can reverse

/anot and still uphold the second sentence, third paragraph of

%ection 1< of Republic Act No. -*8, as a#ended.

)he #aIorit also stresses that in the enact#ent of Republic Act No.

(*8(, Congress inserted the 0ord 9onl9 to the first proviso in the

third paragraph of %ection 11 of Republic Act No. -*8 so that thesa#e no0 reads7

Provided , )hat, unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable to a candidate

shall ta:e effect onl upon the start of the aforesaid ca#paign

period.

)hus, Congress even strengthened its #andator directive that

election offenses can be co##itted b a candidate 9onl9 upon the

start of the ca#paign period. Accusing the ponente of giving aspecious reasoning in e;plaining the above proviso, the #aIorit

points out to the basic principle of la0 that an act is la0ful, unless

e;pressl declared as unla0ful. )herefore, the #aIorit clai#s thatthere 0as no need for Congress to declare in %ection 1< of Republic

Act No. -*8, as a#ended, that partisan political activities before

the start of the ca#paign period are la0ful. )he logical conclusion isthat partisan political acts, if done before the start of the ca#paign

period, are la0ful. According to the #aIorit, an election offense

that #a be co##itted b a candidate under an election la0 cannot

be co##itted before the start of the ca#paign period.

)he ponente ta:es e;ception to the above s0eeping and un0arranted

reasoning. Not all election offenses are re3uired to be co##itted b

a candidate and, li:e the prohibited act of pre#ature ca#paigning,not all election offenses are re3uired to be co##itted after the start

of the ca#paign period. )o reiterate, %ection -' of the #nibus

Election Code, 0hich defines the prohibited act of pre#atureca#paigning is still good la0 despite the passage of %ection 1< of

Republic Act No. -*8, as a#ended. Precisel, the conduct of

election ca#paign or partisan political activit before the ca#paign period is the ver evil that %ection -' see:s to prevent.

)he #aIorit opinion #aintains its obIection to the allegedl

strained construction and?or interpretation of the ponente of the particular provisions involved in this case. With e3ual vehe#ence,

ho0ever, the ponente ada#antl reIects the #aIorits absurd and

/AW N E/EC)6N


15/114

1<

un0arranted theor of repeal of %ection -' of the #nibus Election

Code put forth in both the $issenting pinion to the $ecision dated

11 %epte#ber &''( and the Resolution of the #aIorit.

As the #aIorit repeatedl pointed out, %ection 1< of Republic Act

No. -*8, as a#ended b Republic Act No. (*8(, 0as enacted

#erel to give the CME/EC a#ple ti#e for the printing of ballots.%ection -' of the #nibus Election Code, on the other hand, is a

substantive la0 0hich defines the prohibited act of pre#ature

ca#paigning, an election offense punishable 0ith the gravest of penalties that can be i#posed on a candidate, i.e., dis3ualification or,

if elected, re#oval fro# office. 6f the #aIorit opinion indignantl

reIects the atte#pts of the ponente to reconcile the provisions of %ection -' of the #nibus Election Code and %ection 1< of

Republic Act No. -*8, as a#ended, then 0h should the insist on

repealing the for#er provision and not the latter

)he ponente e#phasies that 0hether the election 0ould be held

under the #anual or the auto#ated sste#, the need for prohibiting

pre#ature ca#paigning D to level the plaing field bet0een the

popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and the lesser5:no0n or poorer candidates, on the other, b allo0ing the# to ca#paign onl

0ithin the sa#e li#ited period D re#ains. Again, the choice as to

0ho a#ong the candidates 0ill the voting public besto0 the privilege of holding public office should not be s0aed b the

shre0d conduct, verging on bad faith, of so#e individuals 0ho are

able to spend resources to pro#ote their candidacies in advance of the period slated for ca#paign activities.

Ho0ever, b virtue of the Resolution of the #aIorit, pre#ature

ca#paigning 0ill no0 be officiall decri#inalied and, as aconse3uence, the value and significance of having a ca#paign

period 0ill no0 be utterl negated. )hus, one ear, five ears or

even ten ears prior to the da of the elections, a person aspiring for

public office #a no0 engage in election ca#paign or partisan

political activities to pro#ote his candidac, 0ith i#punit. All heneeds to have is a ver deep ca#paign 0ar chest to be able to carr

out this shre0d activit.

6ndeed, 0hile fair elections has been dealt a fatal blo0 b theResolution of the #aIorit, it is ferventl hoped that the 0riting of

the $ecision dated 11 %epte#ber &''( and this $issenting pinion

0ill not be vie0ed as an effort #ade in vain if in the future the saidResolution can be revisited and so#eho0 rectified.

Pre#ises considered, there is no reason to reverse and set aside the

earlier ruling of the Court rendered in this case.

6, therefore, vote to $EN W6)H 6NA/6) the Motion for

Reconsideration filed b Rosalinda A. Penera on the $ecision dated

11 %epte#ber &''(.

MINITA 4. CICONAARIO

Associate +ustice

ISSENTING OPINION

AA, J.:

T'e !+% !"# 'e C!%e

Petitioner Rosalinda Penera and respondent Edgar Andanar ran for #aor of %ta. Monica, %urigao $el Norte, during the Ma 1, &''2

elections.

/AW N E/EC)6N


16/114

18

n March &(, &''2 a #otorcade b petitioner Peneras political

part preceded the filing of her certificate of candidac before the

Municipal Election fficer of %ta. Monica. Because of this, on April&, &''2 Andanar filed 0ith the Regional Election $irector for

Region 1* in %PA '25&& a petition to dis3ualif1 Penera, a#ong

others,&for engaging in election ca#paign before the start of theca#paign period.

Andanar clai#ed that Penera and her part#ates 0ent around %ta.

Monica on March &(, announcing their candidacies and as:ing the people to vote for the# in the co#ing elections. Ans0ering the

petition, Penera clai#ed that although a #otorcade preceded the

filing of her certificate of candidac, she #erel observed the usual practice of holding a #otorcade on such #o#entous occasion, but

0hich celebration ended soon after she filed her certificate. Penera

clai#ed that no one #ade a speech during the event. All the had

0ere livel bac:ground #usic and 9a grand standing for the purposeof raising the hands of the candidates in the #otorcade.9

)he parties presented their position papers and other evidence in the

case.* After0ards, the regional office for0arded its record to theCo##ission on Elections !CME/EC" in Manila 0here the case

0as raffled to the %econd $ivision for resolution. But the elections

of Ma 1, &''2 overtoo: it, 0ith petitioner Penera 0inning theelection for Maor of %ta. Monica. %he assu#ed office on +ul &,

&''2.

n +ul &, &''2 the CME/ECs %econd $ivision issued aresolution, dis3ualifing petitioner Penera fro# continuing as a

#aoralt candidate in %ta. Monica on the ground that she engaged

in pre#ature ca#paigning in violation of %ections -' and 8- of the#nibus Election Code. )he %econd $ivision found that she, her

part#ates, and a bev of supporters held a #otorcade of t0o truc:s

and nu#erous #otorccles laden 0ith balloons, banners, and posters

that sho0ed the na#es of their candidates and the positions the

sought. ne of the truc:s had a public spea:er that announcedPeneras candidac for #aor.

Petitioner Penera filed before the CME/EC en banc a #otion for

reconsideration of the %econd $ivisions +ul &, &''2 resolution.)he En Banc denied her #otion on +anuar *', &''-.


17/114

12

SECTION. 68. )%7!*)()+!)o"%. A"- +!"#)#!e &'o, )" !"

!+)o" or $roe% )" &')+' 'e )% ! $!r- )% #e+*!re# b- ()"!*

#e+)%)o" o( ! +om$ee" +or /)*- o(, or (o"# b- 'e

Comm)%%)o" o( '!v)"/ e v)o*!e# !"- o( Se+)o"% 80, 83,

85, 86 !"# 261, $!r!/r!$'% #, e, :, v, !"# ++, %b$!r!/r!$' 6,

%'!** be #)%7!*)()e# (rom +o")")"/ !% ! +!"#)#!e, or )( 'e '!%

bee" e*e+e#, (rom 'o*#)"/ 'e o(()+e; .!@nderscoring

supplied."

%ince the CME/EC found petitioner Penera guilt of having ledon March &(, &''2 a colorful and nois #otorcade that openl

publicied her candidac for #aor of %ta. Monica, this Court held

in its original decision that the CME/EC correctl dis3ualified her fro# holding the office to 0hich she 0as elected.

)he current #aIorit of the Court clai#s, ho0ever, that 0ith the

passage of Republic Act !R.A." (*8(, a candidate 0ho ca#paigns before the official ca#paign period #a no longer be regarded as

having co##itted an unla0ful act that constitutes ground for

dis3ualification. )he #aIorits reasoning is as follo0s7

a. %ection 2( !a" of the #nibus Election Code states that a

candidate is 9an person aspiring for or see:ing an elective public

office, 0ho has filed a certificate of candidac b hi#self or through

an accredited political part, aggroup#ent, or coalition of parties.9

b. 6t is a persons filing of a certificate of candidac, therefore, that

#ar:s the beginning of his being a candidate. 6t is also such filing

that #ar:s his assu#ption of the responsibilities that goes 0ith being a candidate. Before Penera filed her certificate of candidac

on March &(, &''2, she could not be regarded as having assu#ed

the responsibilities of a 9candidate.9

c. ne of these responsibilities is the dut not to co##it acts that

are forbidden a candidate such as ca#paigning for votes before the

start of the prescribed period for election ca#paigns. Pre#atureca#paigning is a cri#e and constitutes a ground for dis3ualification

fro# the office that the candidate see:s.

d. But, 0ith the a#end#ent of %ection 1< of R.A. -*8 b %ection1* of R.A. (*8(, a persons filing of a certificate of candidac does

not no0 auto#aticall #ar: hi# as a 9candidate.9 He shall be

regarded a 9candidate,9 sas %ection 1


18/114

1-

; ; ; ;

Evidentl, 0hile Congress 0as 0illing to provide for advance filing

of certificates of candidac, it did not 0ant to i#pose on those 0hofile earl certificates the responsibilities of being alread regarded

as 9candidates9 even before the start of the ca#paign period. )hus,

the sa#e %ection 1< provides further on7

An person 0ho files his certificate of candidac 0ithin this period

shall onl be considered as a candidate at the start of the ca#paign

period for 0hich he filed his certificate of candidac ; ; ;.

6n Peneras case, she filed her certificate of candidac on March &(,

&''2. %ection 1< does not et treat her as 9candidate9 then. nl at

the start of the official ca#paign period on March *', &''2 0as sheto be considered as such 9candidate.9 )o e#phasie this, Congress

provided further on in %ection 1< that an earl filers responsibilit

as a candidate begins onl 0hen the ca#paign period begins. )hus D

Provided, )hat, unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable to a candidate


period ; ; ;.

)he current #aIorit concludes fro# the above that fro# the ti#e

R.A. (*8( too: effect on ebruar 1', &''2 a person li:e petitioner Penera cannot be held liable as a 9candidate9 for engaging in pre#ature election ca#paign before she filed her certificate of

candidac or even after she filed one since she #a be regarded as a

9candidate9 onl at the start of the ca#paign period on March *',&''2. Conse3uentl, since she 0as not et a 9candidate9 on March

&(, &''2 0hen she 0ent around %ta. Monica ca#paigning for votes

on her 0a to appearing before the election registrar to file her certificate of candidac, she cannot be held liable for pre#ature

ca#paigning.

But the fact that Penera 0as not et a candidate before she actuall

handed in her certificate of candidac to the designated CME/ECofficial does not e;e#pt her fro# the prohibition against engaging

in pre#ature election ca#paign. %ection -' 0hich i#poses the ban

ensnares )he provision of %ection 1< of R.A. -*8, as a#ended, that regardsPenera as a 9candidate9 onl at the start of the ca#paign period on

March *', &''2 did not, therefore, e;e#pt her fro# liabilit as a

non5candidate engaging in pre#ature election ca#paign.

Here, candidate Penera has been found b the CME/EC to have

violated %ection -' 0hen, even before she 0as a candidate, she

pre#aturel ca#paigned for votes for herself. )he ground for her conse3uent dis3ualificationJpre#ature ca#paigningJalread

/AW N E/EC)6N


19/114

1(

accrued b the ti#e she filed her certificate of candidac or 0hen

the official ca#paign period began. Conse3uentl, she is

dis3ualified under %ection 8- fro# continuing as a candidate or,since she has been elected, fro# holding on to that office. )hus7

SECTION 68. )%7!*)()+!)o"%. A"- +!"#)#!e &'o, )" !"

!+)o" or $roe% )" &')+' 'e )% ! $!r- )% #e+*!re# b- ()"!*

#e+)%)o" o( ! +om$ee" +or /)*- o(, or (o"# b- 'e

Comm)%%)o" o( '!v)"/ e v)o*!e# !"- o( Se+)o"% 80, 83,

85, 86 !"# 261, $!r!/r!$'% #, e, :, v, !"# ++, %b$!r!/r!$' 6,

%'!** be #)%7!*)()e# (rom +o")")"/ !% ! +!"#)#!e, or )( 'e '!%

bee" e*e+e#, (rom 'o*#)"/ 'e o(()+e; !@nderscoring

supplied."

$oes this position contravene %ection 1< of R.A. -*8, as a#ended,

that regards Penera as a 9candidate9 onl at the start of the ca#paign

period on March *', &''2 6t does not because %ection -', 0hichthe Court see:s to enforce, is essentiall intended as a ground for

sanctioning

engages in pre#ature election ca#paign.

)he real challenge to the current #inorit position, ho0ever, is the

#eaning that the #nibus Election Code places on the ter#

9election ca#paign.9 9)he ter# Kelection ca#paign or Kpartisan

political activit, sas %ection 2(, 9refers to an act designed to pro#ote the election or defeat of ! $!r)+*!r +!"#)#!e or

candidates to a public office.9 )he obIect of the election ca#paign

activit #ust be the 9election or defeat of a particular candidate.9

When petitioner Penera practicall said 9vote for #e9 during the

March &( #otorcade that she led around %ta. Monica, did she solicit

votes for a 9particular candidate9 )he current #aIorit holds thatsince, according to %ection 2(, a 9candidate refers to an person

aspiring for or see:ing an elective public office, 0ho has filed a

certificate of candidac9 and since Penera held her vote5solicitation

#otorcade before she filed her certificate of candidac, she did notengage during the to0n #otorcade in a ca#paign for the election of

an 9particular candidate.9

But this is being too literal. 6t is li:e saing that a 0o#an cannot beheld liable for parricide since the penal code uses the #ale pronoun

in ascribing to the offender the acts that constitute the cri#e. )hus,

the penal code sas7

Ar. 2=6. Parricide. > A"- $er%o" &'o %'!** :)** ')% (!'er,

mo'er, or +')*#, &'e'er *e/))m!e or )**e/))m!e, or !"- o( ')%

!%+e"#!"%, or #e%+e"#!"%, or ')% %$o%e, %'!** be /)*- o(

$!rr)+)#e !"# %'!** be $")%'e# b- 'e $e"!*- o( re+*%)o"

$er$e! o #e!'.

et, parricide, as everone :no0s, can also be co##itted b a0o#an 0ho shall :ill her father, #other, or child, or her spouse. )he

spirit of the la0 intends to punish an person, #ale or fe#ale, 0ho

:ills his or her ascendants, descendants, or spouse. /iteralness #ustield to evident legislative intent.

Here, did Congress in enacting R.A. (*8( intend to abolish or repeal

%ection -' of the #nibus Election Code that prohibits electionca#paigns before the start of the ca#paign period 6t did not.

%ection -' re#ains in the statute boo:s and R.A. (*8( did not,

directl or indirectl, touch it.

)he current #aIorit of course clai#s, citing %ection 1< of R.A.

-*8, as a#ended, that 9the effective date 0hen partisan political

acts beco#e unla0ful as to a candidate is 0hen the ca#paign periodstarts. )he pertinent portion of %ection 1< sas7

/AW N E/EC)6N


20/114

&'

Provided, )hat, unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable to a candidate


period ; ; ;.

6f 0e 0ere to abide b the vie0 of the current #aIorit, Congress

ordained 0hen it passed the above provision that it is onl for

unla0ful acts or o#issions co##itted during the ca#paign periodthat candidates could be punished. Conse3uentl, if candidates ta:e

ca#paign funds fro# a foreign govern#ent8 or conspire 0ith others

to bribe voters2 Iust one da before the start of the ca#paign period,the cannot be prosecuted. A candidate under the theor of the

current #aIorit can freel co##it a litan of other cri#es relating

to the election so long as he co##its the# before the start of theca#paign period. %urel, R.A. (*8( did not intend to grant hi#

i##unit fro# prosecution for these cri#es.

)he #ore reasonable reading of the provisionJthat unla0ful acts or o#issions applicable to a candidate shall ta:e effect onl upon the

start of the ca#paign periodJis that Congress referred onl to

unla0ful acts or o#issions that could essentiall be co##itted onl

during the ca#paign period. or ho0 could a candidate co##it"*!&(*


21/114

&1

the countr.-

Actuall, practicall all the principal sta:eholders in the election,

na#el, the voters, the candidates, and the CME/EC, have since1(8( assu#ed that pre#ature election ca#paign is not allo0ed.

People generall 0ait for the ca#paign period to start before

engaging in election ca#paign. Even toda, after the passage of R.A. (*8(, those aspiring to national offices have resorted to the so5

called 9info#ercials9 that atte#pt to enhance their popularities b

sho0ing their philosophies in life, 0hat the have acco#plished,and the affection 0ith 0hich ordinar people hold the#. No one has

reall co#e out 0ith ads soliciting votes for an particular candidate

or person aspiring for a particular public office. )he are all a0areof %ection -'.

Parentheticall, the %upre#e Court declared the la0 banning

pre#ature election ca#paign constitutional in Fonales v.Co##ission on Elections( onl because the #aIorit in the Court

0ere unable to #uster t0o5thirds votes to declare it unconstitutional.

)he freedo# of e;pression has al0as loo#ed large in the #ind of

the Court. 6t 0ould not be li:el, therefore, for the Court to hastildeclare ever e;pression tending to pro#ote a persons chances in

the elections as prohibited election ca#paigning.

6 vote to den the #otion for reconsideration.

ROERTO A. AA

Associate +ustice

Pe"er! v%. Comm)%%)o" o" E*e+)o"%, e !*.

G.R. No. 181613 25 November 2009

!#otion for reconsideration"

!+%@

n 11 %epte#ber &''(, the %upre#e Court affir#ed the

CME/ECs decision to dis3ualif petitioner Rosalinda Penera

!Penera" as #aoralt candidate in %ta. Monica, %urigao del Norte,for engaging in election ca#paign outside the ca#paign period, in

violation of %ection -' of Batas Pa#bansa Blg. --1 !the #nibus

Election Code".

Penera #oved for reconsideration, arguing that she 0as not et a

candidate at the ti#e of the supposed pre#ature ca#paigning, since

under %ection 1< of Republic Act No. -*8 !the la0 authoriing theCME/EC to use an auto#ated election sste# for the process of

voting, counting of votes, and canvassing?consolidating the results

of the national and local elections", as a#ended b Republic Act No.(*8(, one is not officiall a candidate until the start of the ca#paign

period.

I%%e@

Whether or not Peneras dis3ualification for engaging in pre#ature

ca#paigning should be reconsidered.

o*#)"/@

Franting Peneras #otion for reconsideration, the %upre#e Court En

Banc held that Penera did not engage in pre#ature ca#paigning and

should, thus, not be dis3ualified as a #aoralt candidate. )he Courtsaid D

/AW N E/EC)6N

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt8ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt8ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt9ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt8ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/nov2009/gr_181613_2009.html#fnt9a


22/114

&&

!A" )he Courts 11 %epte#ber &''( $ecision !or Othe assailed

$ecision" considered a person 0ho files a certificate of candidacalread a Ocandidate even before the start of the ca#paign period.

)his is contrar to the clear intent and letter of %ection 1< of

Republic Act -*8, as a#ended, 0hich states that a person 0ho fileshis certificate of candidac 0ill onl be considered a candidate at

the start of the ca#paign period, and unla0ful acts or o#issions

applicable to a candidate shall ta:e effect onl upon the start of suchca#paign period.

)hus, appling said la07

!1" )he effective date 0hen partisan political acts beco#e unla0ful

as to a

candidate is 0hen the ca#paign period starts. Before the start of theca#paign period, the sa#e partisan political acts are la0ful.

!&" Accordingl, a candidate is liable for an election offense onl for acts done during the ca#paign period, not before. 6n other 0ords,

election offenses can be co##itted b a candidate onl upon the

start of the ca#paign period. Before the start of the ca#paign period, such election offenses cannot be so co##itted. %ince the la0

is clear, the Court has no recourse but to appl it. )he foru# for

e;a#ining the 0isdo# of the la0, and enacting re#edial #easures,

is not the Court but the /egislature.

!B" Contrar to the assailed $ecision, %ection 1< of R.A. -*8, asa#ended, does not provide that partisan political acts done b a

candidate before the ca#paign period are unla0ful, but #a be

prosecuted onl upon the start of the ca#paign period. Neither does

the la0 state that partisan political acts done b a candidate beforethe ca#paign period are te#poraril la0ful, but beco#es unla0ful

upon the start of the ca#paign period. Besides, such a la0 as

envisioned in the $ecision, 0hich defines a cri#inal act and curtails

freedo# of e;pression and speech, 0ould be void for vagueness.

!C" )hat %ection 1< of R.A. -*8 does not e;pressl state that

ca#paigning before the start of the ca#paign period is la0ful, as theassailed $ecision asserted, is of no #o#ent. 6t is a basic principle of

la0 that an act is la0ful unless e;pressl declared unla0ful b la0.

)he #ere fact that the la0 does not declare an act unla0ful ipsofacto #eans that the act is la0ful. )hus, there is no need for

Congress to declare in %ection 1< of R.A. -*8 that partisan

political activities before the start of the ca#paign period are la0ful.

6t is sufficient for Congress to state that Oan unla0ful act or o#ission applicable to a candidate shall ta:e effect onl upon the

start of the ca#paign period. )he onl inescapable and logical

result is that the sa#e acts, if done before the start of the ca#paign period, are la0ful.

!$" )he Courts 11 %epte#ber &''( $ecision also reversed /anotvs. CME/EC !F.R.

No. 18-


23/114

&*

%ection 1< of R.A. -*8 that a person 0ho files his certificate of

candidac shall be considered a candidate onl at the start of the

ca#paign period. Congress 0anted to insure that no person filing acertificate of candidac under the earl deadline re3uired b the

auto#ated election sste# 0ould be dis3ualified or penalied for

an partisan political act done before the start of the ca#paign period. )his provision cannot be annulled b the Court e;cept on the

sole ground of its unconstitutionalit.

)he assailed $ecision, ho0ever, did not clai# that this provision is

unconstitutional. 6n fact, the assailed $ecision considered the entire

%ection 1< good la0. )hus, the $ecision 0as self5contradictor J reversing /anot but #aintaining the constitutionalit of the said

provision.

“It’s fiesta time, it’s open season

D Co#elec Co##issioner Rene %ar#iento=1>

)he case of Penera vs. Co#elec !F.R. No. 1-181*, Nove#ber &


24/114

&

that #a be co##itted b a candidate under an election la0 cannot

be co##itted before the start of the ca#paign period.

6 believe that Penera vs. Co#elec has #ade partisan political

activities, in 0hatever for#, la0ful before the start of the official

ca#paign period. %ince the %upre#e Court has declared that acandidate is liable for an election offense onl for acts done during

the ca#paign period, pre#ature ca#paigning is effectivel

decri#inalied.

)hus, an partisan political activit, provided the are la0ful !i.e.

not violative of an other la0", done b a person 0ho has alreadfiled his CC before the official ca#paign period, is legal.

)he ter# Opartisan political activit is defined b the EC=*> as anact designed to pro#ote the election or defeat of a particular

candidate or candidates to a public office 0hich shall include7

!1" )orming organi*ations, associations, clu+s, committees or other

groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes andor

underta-ing any campaign for or against a candidate#

!$" .olding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies,

parades, or other similar assem+lies, for the purpose of soliciting votes andor underta-ing any campaign or propaganda for or

against a candidate#

!%" /a-ing speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding

interviews for or against the election of any candidate for pu+lic

office#

!0" Pu+lishing or distri+uting campaign literature or materials

designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate# or

!" 2irectly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or

against a candidate&

)hus, because partisan political activities done before the ca#paign

period are no0 la0ful, the acts enu#erated above are also la0ful.

)he effect is that candidates could be punished onl for unla0ful

acts or o#issions co##itted during the ca#paign period.

Conse3uentl, if candidates ta:e ca#paign funds fro# a foreigngovern#ent or bribe voters outside ca#paign period, the cannot be

prosecuted. A candidate can freel co##it election offenses so long

as he co##its the# before the start of the ca#paign period.=>

)he ruling has in a sense e;tended the Oca#paign period. @nder the

la0, the ca#paign period for candidates running for national postsstarts three #onths before Ma 1', or election da. )he ca#paign

period for local posts is even shorter. But because pre#ature

ca#paigning is no0 an i#possible offense, one can Oca#paigneven before the start of this period.

)he effect is that ou have t0o periods 0herein partisan politicalactivities are legal7 !1" fro# the filing of CCs to the start of the

official ca#paign period, 0herein one is still not a Ocandidate, and

therefore cannot be liable for pre#ature ca#paigning !&" the

official ca#paign period 0here a candidate can no0 engage inactual ca#paigning.

)his #eans that airing of info#ercials, posting of tarpaulins and

strea#ers, and even conducting gatherings of all sorts are la0ful.

/AW N E/EC)6N


25/114

&<

Even saing Ovote for #e should be considered la0ful. After all, if

ou are still not a Ocandidate, then directl or indirectl soliciting

votes, 0hich does not pro#ote an particular Ocandidate, is perfectl legal.

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 16=858 November 16, 2006

ENR P. LANOT, %b%)e# b- MARIO S. RAMUNO,Petitioner,

CARMIE B. ENA4IES, Petitioner56ntervenor,

vs.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS !"# 4ICENTE P. EUSEIO,

Respondents.

$ E C 6 % 6 N

CARPIO, J.:

T'e C!%e

)his is a petition for certiorari1 assailing the Resolution dated &'August &'',& the Resolution dated &1 Ma &''* of the

Co##ission on Elections !CME/EC" En Banc, and the Advisor

dated 1' Ma &'' of CME/EC Chair#an BenIa#in %. Abalos!9Chair#an Abalos9" in %PA No. '5&--.

)he 1' Ma &'' Advisor of Chair#an Abalos enIoined Acting

National Capital Region !NCR" Regional $irector Es#eraldaA#ora5/adra !9$irector /adra9" fro# i#ple#enting the

CME/EC irst $ivisions < Ma &'' Resolution.


26/114

&8

referred the case to the CME/EC /a0 $epart#ent to deter#ine

0hether Eusebio actuall co##itted the acts subIect of the petition

for dis3ualification.

T'e !+%

n 1( March &'', Henr P. /anot !9/anot9", 4ener bispo

!9bispo9", Roberto Peralta !9Peralta9", Renaldo dela Pa !9delaPa9", Edilberto a#at !9a#at9", and Ra# Alan Cru !9Cru9"

!collectivel, 9petitioners9", filed a petition for dis3ualification-

under %ections 8- and -' of the #nibus Election Code againstEusebio before the CME/EC. /anot, bispo, and Eusebio 0ere

candidates for Pasig Cit Maor, 0hile Peralta, dela Pa, a#at, and

Cru 0ere candidates for Pasig Cit Councilor in the 1' Ma &''elections. )he case 0as doc:eted as %PA !NCR5RE$" No. C'5''-.

Petitioners alleged that Eusebio engaged in an election ca#paign in

various for#s on various occasions outside of the designatedca#paign period, such as !1" addressing a large group of people

during a #edical #ission sponsored b the Pasig Cit govern#ent

!&" uttering defa#ator state#ents against /anot !*" causing the publication of a press release predicting his victor !" installing

billboards, strea#ers, posters, and stic:ers printed 0ith his surna#e

across Pasig Cit and !


27/114

&2

elections

&. the Election fficers of $istrict 6 and $istrict 66 of Pasig Cit to

ELETE and CANCEL the na#e of respondent 4ICENTE P.

EUSEIO fro# the certified list of candidates for the Cit ffices

of Pasig Cit for the Ma 1', &'' elections

*. the Board of Election 6nspectors of all the precincts co#prisingthe Cit of Pasig not to count the votes cast for respondent

46CEN)E E@%EB6, the sa#e being cast for a dis3ualified

candidate and therefore #ust be considered stra

. the Cit Board of Canvassers of Pasig Cit not to canvass the

votes erroneousl cast for the dis3ualified candidate respondent

46CEN)E P. E@%EB6, in the event that such votes 0ere recordedin the election returns=>

8. the /a0 $epart#ent through its $irector 64, Att. A/6$EN

$A/A6F to file the necessar infor#ation against 4icente P.

Eusebio before the appropriate court.

)his Resolution is i##ediatel e;ecutor unless restrained b theCo##ission En Banc.1* !E#phasis in the original"

6n a 4er @rgent Advisor1 dated - Ma &'', or t0o das beforethe elections, Chair#an Abalos infor#ed the follo0ing election

officers of the resolution of the CME/EC irst $ivision7 $irector

/adra Att. Ro#eo Alcaar, Acting Election fficer of the irst$istrict of Pasig Cit Ms. Marina Ferona, Acting Election fficer

of the %econd $istrict of Pasig Cit and all Chair#en and Me#bers

of the Board of Election 6nspectors and Cit Board of Canvassers of

Pasig Cit !collectivel, 9pertinent election officers9". $irector

/adra repeated the dispositive portion of the < Ma &'' resolutionin a Me#orandu#1


28/114

&-

$646%6N, the evidence of respondents guilt is strong, the

Co##ission En Banc hereb R$ER% to %@%PEN$, @N)6/

@R)HER R$ER% )HE CMM6%%6N, the procla#ation of respondent in the event he receives the 0inning nu#ber of votes. 1(

!E#phasis in the original"

n 1& Ma &'', Eusebio filed his opposition to petitioners#otion.

n &1 Ma &'', the CME/EC En Banc issued the second

3uestioned issuance. )he order 3uoted fro# the #otion for advisoropinion of the Pasig Cit Board of Canvassers 0hich reported that

(-Q of the total returns of Pasig Cit had been canvassed and that

there 0ere onl *& uncanvassed returns involving 8,&&< registeredvoters. Eusebio had 11(,8(* votes 0hile /anot had 1'-,(1 votes.

)hus, the re#aining returns 0ould not affect Eusebios lead over /anot. )he CME/EC En Banc stated its 9established polic9 to9e;pedite the canvass of votes and procla#ation of 0inning

candidates to ease the post election tension and 0ithout preIudice to

=its> action in =the> ; ; ; case9 &' and resolved to declare Eusebio as

Pasig Cit Maor. )he dispositive portion of the &1 Ma &'' rder read7

EREORE, this Co##ission RESOL4E, as it hereb

RESOL4ES, to LIT AN SET ASIE the order suspending the

procla#ation of the respondent.

URTER , the Cit Board of Canvassers is IRECTE to

co#plete =the> canvass and i##ediatel proceed 0ith the procla#ation of the 0inning candidate for Maor of Pasig Cit

&)'o $re#)+e o 'e ()"!* o+ome o( 'e +!%e e")*e#,


29/114

&(

a#ounting to lac: of or e;cess of Iurisdiction. /anot raised the

follo0ing issues before this Court7

A. WHE)HER P@B/6C RE%PN$EN) CME/EC, 6N 6%%@6NF=6)%> RE%/@)6N $A)E$ A@F@%) &', &'', AC)E$ W6)H

FRA4E AB@%E $6%CRE)6N R /AC R 6N ESCE%% +@R6%$6C)6N

1. b setting aside the Resolution of $is3ualification pro#ulgated

b its irst $ivision on Ma


30/114

*'

) WARRAN) RE%PN$EN) E@%EB6%

$6%U@A/66CA)6N.

b" WHE)HER RE%PN$EN) E@%EB6 %H@/$ BE $EEME$$6%U@A/66E$ W6)H @R !" A6RMA)64E 4)E%

CMM6%%6NER%, )W !&" 4)E% RM CMM6%%6NER%BRRA AN$ FARC6//AN WH 4)E$ R )HE$6%U@A/66CA)6N 6N )HE MA


31/114

*1

substitution is not barred b prescription because the action 0as

filed on ti#e b the person 0ho died and 0ho is being substituted.

)he sa#e rationale applies to a petition5in5intervention.

COMELEC’s Grave Abuse of Discretion

Propriety of Including Euse+io’s 8ame in the Pasig 6ity /ayoral

6andidates and of the 6ounting of 9otes and 6anvassing of Election :eturns

6n its < Ma &'' resolution, the CME/EC irst $ivision ordered

the pertinent election officials to delete and cancel Eusebios na#efro# the certified list of Pasig Cit #aoral candidates, not to count

votes cast in Eusebios favor, and not to include votes cast in

Eusebios favor in the canvass of election returns. Eusebio filed a

#otion for reconsideration of the resolution on ( Ma &''. Hence,CME/EC Chair#an Abalos issued a #e#orandu# on 1' Ma

&'' 0hich enIoined the pertinent election officials fro#i#ple#enting the < Ma &'' resolution. 6n a Resolution dated 11

Ma &'', the CME/EC En Banc subse3uentl ratified and

adopted Chair#an Abalos 1' Ma &'' #e#orandu# 0hen itdenied /anots #otion to suspend the counting of votes and

canvassing of election returns.

/anot clai#s that Chair#an Abalos 0hi#sicall grabbed theadIudicator po0er of the CME/EC En Banc 0hen he issued the

1' Ma &'' #e#orandu#. /anot asserts that the last sentence in

the dispositive portion of the CME/EC irst $ivisions < Ma

&'' Resolution, 9=t>his Resolution is i##ediatel e;ecutor unlessrestrained b the Co##ission En Banc,9 should have prevented

Chair#an Abalos fro# acting on his o0n.

/anots clai# has no basis, especiall in light of the 11 Ma &''

Resolution of the CME/EC En Banc. )he CME/EC En Bancs

e;planation is apt7

%uspension of these proceedings is tanta#ount to an i#ple#entationof the Resolution of the 6R%) $646%6N 0hich had not et

beco#e final and e;ecutor b reason of the ti#el filing of aMotion for Reconsideration thereof. A disposition that has not etattained finalit cannot be i#ple#ented even through indirect

#eans.*1

Moreover, Chair#an Abalos 1' Ma &'' #e#orandu# is #erelan advisor re3uired b the circu#stances at the ti#e. Eusebio filed

a #otion for reconsideration on ( Ma &'', and there 0as not

enough ti#e to resolve the #otion for reconsideration before theelections. )herefore, Eusebio 0as not et dis3ualified b final

Iudg#ent at the ti#e of the elections. %ection 8 of the ElectoralRefor#s /a0 of 1(-2 provides that 9=a> candidate 0ho has beendeclared b final Iudg#ent to be dis3ualified shall not be voted for,

and

the votes cast for hi# shall not be counted.9 @nder %ection 1* of theCME/EC Rules of Procedure, a decision or resolution of a

$ivision in a special action beco#es final and e;ecutor after the

lapse of fifteen das follo0ing its pro#ulgation 0hile a decision or

resolution of the CME/EC En Banc beco#es final and e;ecutor

after five das fro# its pro#ulgation unless restrained b this Court.

Propriety of the Lifting of the 7uspension of Euse+io’s Proclamation

6n the sa#e 11 Ma &'' Resolution, the CME/EC En Banc

ordered the suspension of Eusebios procla#ation in the event he

0ould receive the 0inning nu#ber of votes. )en das later, theCME/EC En Banc set aside the 11 Ma &'' order and directed

/AW N E/EC)6N



32/114

*&

the Pasig Cit Board of Canvassers to proclai# Eusebio as the

0inning candidate for Pasig Cit Maor. )he CME/EC relied on

Resolutions 21&- and 21&(*& to Iustif the counting of Eusebiosvotes and 3uoted fro# the Resolutions as follo0s7

Re%o*)o" No. F128

; ; ; ;

NW )HERERE, the Co##ission RE%/4E$, as it hereb

RE%/4E%, to adopt certain policies and to direct all Board of

Canvassers, as follo0s7

1. to speed up its canvass and procla#ation of all 0inning

candidates e;cept under the follo0ing circu#stances7

a. issuance of an order or resolution suspending the procla#ation

b. valid appeal=s> fro# the rulings of the board in cases 0here

appeal is allo0ed and the subIect appeal 0ill affect the results of the

elections

; ; ; ;.

Re%o*)o" No. F129

; ; ; ;

NW )HERERE, the Co##ission on Elections, b virtue of the

po0ers vested in it b the Constitution, the #nibus Election Codeand other elections la0s, has RE%/4E$, as it hereb RE%/4E%,

to refrain fro# granting #otions and petitions see:ing to postpone

procla#ations b the Board of Canvassers and other pleadings 0ith

si#ilar purpose unless the are grounded on co#pelling reasons,

supported b convincing evidence and?or violative of the canvassing procedure outlined in Resolution No. 888(.

We agree 0ith Eusebio that the CME/EC En Banc did not co##itgrave abuse of discretion in issuing its &1 Ma &'' order. )heCME/EC has the discretion to suspend the procla#ation of the

0inning candidate during the pendenc of a dis3ualification case

0hen evidence of his guilt is strong.** Ho0ever, an order suspendingthe procla#ation of a 0inning candidate against 0ho# a

dis3ualification case is filed is #erel provisional in nature and can

be lifted 0hen 0arranted b the evidence.*

Propriety of the 2ismissal of the

2is;ualification 6ase and of the :eferral to the 6O/ELE6

Law 2epartment

/anot filed the petition for dis3ualification on 1( March &'', a

little less than t0o #onths before the 1' Ma &'' elections.$irector /adra conducted hearings on the petition for

dis3ualification on &, < and 2 April &''. $irector /adra sub#itted

her findings and reco##endations to the CME/EC on Ma

&''. )he CME/EC irst $ivision issued a resolution adopting

$irector /adras reco##endations on < Ma &''. Chair#anAbalos infor#ed the pertinent election officers of the CME/EC

irst $ivisions resolution through an Advisor dated - Ma &''.Eusebio filed a Motion for Reconsideration on ( Ma &''.

Chair#an Abalos issued a #e#orandu# to $irector /adra on

election da, 1' Ma &'', and enIoined her fro# i#ple#enting the< Ma &'' CME/EC irst $ivision resolution. )he petition for

dis3ualification 0as not et finall resolved at the ti#e of the

/AW N E/EC)6N

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_164858_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_164858_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_164858_2006.html#fnt34http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_164858_2006.html#fnt32http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_164858_2006.html#fnt33http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/nov2006/gr_164858_2006.html#fnt34


33/114

**

elections. Eusebios votes 0ere counted and canvassed, after 0hich

Eusebio 0as proclai#ed as the 0inning candidate for Pasig Cit

Maor. n &' August &'', the CME/EC En Banc set aside theCME/EC irst $ivisions order and referred the case to the

CME/EC /a0 $epart#ent.

6n its &' August &'' resolution, the CME/EC En Banc reliedheavil on the ti#ing of the filing of the petition. )he CME/EC

En Banc invo:ed %ection 1 of Resolution No. &'


34/114

*

voted for, and the votes cast for hi# shall not be counted. I( (or !"-re!%o" ! +!"#)#!e )% "o #e+*!re# b- ()"!* #/me" be(ore !"

e*e+)o" o be #)%7!*)()e# !"# 'e )% voe# (or !"# re+e)ve% 'e

&)"")"/ "mber o( voe% )" %+' e*e+)o", 'e Cor or

Comm)%%)o" %'!** +o")"e &)' 'e r)!* !"# 'e!r)"/ o( 'e

!+)o", )"7)r- or $roe% and, upon #otion of the co#plainant or an intervenor, #a during the pendenc thereof order the

suspension of the procla#ation of such candidate 0henever the

evidence of his guilt is strong. !E#phasis added"

Moreover, this Courts ruling in 7unga 0as further e;plained in

Bagatsing v& 6O/ELE6 ,*8 thus7

)he CME/EC in 7unga obviousl #isapplied Resolution No.&'


35/114

*<

the proper court de#and a full5blo0n hearing and re3uire proof

beond reasonable doubt to convict.*- A cri#inal conviction shall

result in the dis3ualification of the offender, 0hich #a eveninclude dis3ualification fro# holding a future public office. *(

)he t0o aspects account for the variance of the rules on dispositionand resolution of dis3ualification cases filed before or after anelection. When the dis3ualification case is filed before the elections,

the 3uestion of dis3ualification is raised before the voting public. 6f

the candidate is dis3ualified after the election, those 0ho voted for hi# assu#e the ris: that their votes #a be declared stra or invalid.

)here is no such ris: if the petition is filed after the elections. ' )he

CME/EC En Banc erred 0hen it ignored the electoral aspect of the dis3ualification case b setting aside the CME/EC irst

$ivisions resolution and referring the entire case to the CME/EC

/a0 $epart#ent for the cri#inal aspect.

Moreover, the CME/EC En Bancs act and Eusebios assertions

lose sight of the provisions of Resolution No. 8


36/114

*8

7ec& & Procedure in filing petitions. J or purposes of the

preceding section, the follo0ing procedure shall be observed7

; ; ; ;

C. PE)6)6N ) $6%U@A/6 A CAN$6$A)E P@R%@AN) )%EC. 8- )HE MN6B@% E/EC)6N C$E AN$ PE)6)6N

) $6%U@A/6 R /AC U@A/66CA)6N% R P%%E%%6NF %AME FR@N$% R $6%U@A/66CA)6N

1. )he verified petition to dis3ualif a candidate pursuant to %ec. 8-

of the #nibus Election Code ; ; ; #a be filed an da after thelast da =of> filing of certificates of candidac but not later than the

date of procla#ation.

&. )he petition to dis3ualif a candidate pursuant to %ec. 8- of the#nibus Election Code shall be filed in ten !1'" legible copies 0ith

the concerned office #entioned in %ec. * personall or through a

dul authoried representative b an citien of voting age, or dulregistered political part, organiation or coalition of political parties

against an candidate 0ho, in an action or protest in 0hich he is a

part, is declared b final decision of a co#petent court guilt of, or found b the Co##ission of7

&.a having given #one or other #aterial consideration to influence,

induce or corrupt the voters or public officials perfor#ing electoralfunctions or

; ; ;

&.d having solicited, received or #ade an contribution prohibitedunder %ections -(, (he preli#inar investigation for purposes of finding

sufficient ground for =Eusebios> dis3ualification, has alread beenacco#plished b the RE$5NCR prior to the election. )here also

appears no doubt in # #ind, that such reco##endation of the

investigating officer, RE$5NCR, 0as substantive and legall sound.

)he irst $ivision agreed 0ith the result of the

investigation?reco##endation, 0ith the facts of the case clearldistilled in the assailed resolution. )his, 6 li:e0ise found to be in

accord 0ith our ver o0n rules and the Iurisprudential doctrinesaforestated. )here could be no rh#e and reason then to dis#iss the

electoral aspect of the case !i.e., dis3ualification" and refer the sa#e

to the /a0 $epart#ent for preli#inar investigation. As held in7unga, clearl, the legislative intent is that the CME/EC should

continue the trial and hearing of the dis3ualification case to its

/AW N E/EC)6N


37/114

*2

conclusion, i&e&, until Iudg#ent is rendered thereon. )he cri#inal

aspect of the case is an altogether different issue.

7unga said the reason is obvious7 A candidate guilt of electionoffenses 0ould be undeservedl re0arded, instead of punished, b

the dis#issal of the dis3ualification case against hi# si#pl becausethe investigating bod 0as unable, for an reason caused upon it, todeter#ine before the election if the offenses 0ere indeed co##itted

b the candidate sought to be dis3ualified. All that the erring

aspirant 0ould need to do is to e#plo delaing tactics so that thedis3ualification case based on the co##ission of election offenses

0ould not be decided before the election. )his scenario is productive

of #ore fraud 0hich certainl is not the #ain intent and purpose of the la0.1

We agree 0ith /anot that the CME/EC co##itted grave abuse of discretion 0hen it ordered the dis#issal of the dis3ualification

Date post:	08-Jul-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	badette-lou-r-katigbak-lasin
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Law on Election Cases

Documents