Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • E.R. Ejercito v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Hudson Cee
    82 views2 pages
    (1) Ejercito, the incumbent governor of Laguna province, was disqualified from running for reelection after spending over the authorized campaign expense limit of PHP 4.5 million. He had spent PHP 23.7 million on television advertisements alone. (2) The court rejected Ejercito's argument that the advertising contracts were executed without his knowledge, as candidates must provide written acceptance of donated advertisements under the law. (3) Ejercito was disqualified for violating campaign spending limits, as contributions to a candidate count toward their authorized expense limit.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) Ejercito, the incumbent governor of Laguna province, was disqualified from running for reelection after spending over the authorized campaign expense limit of PHP 4.5 million. He had spent PHP 23.7 million on television advertisements alone. (2) The court rejected Ejercito's argument that the advertising contracts were executed without his knowledge, as candidates must provide written acceptance of donated advertisements under the law. (3) Ejercito was disqualified for violating campaign spending limits, as contributions to a candidate count toward their authorized expense limit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views2 pages

    E.R. Ejercito v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Hudson Cee
    (1) Ejercito, the incumbent governor of Laguna province, was disqualified from running for reelection after spending over the authorized campaign expense limit of PHP 4.5 million. He had spent PHP 23.7 million on television advertisements alone. (2) The court rejected Ejercito's argument that the advertising contracts were executed without his knowledge, as candidates must provide written acceptance of donated advertisements under the law. (3) Ejercito was disqualified for violating campaign spending limits, as contributions to a candidate count toward their authorized expense limit.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case: E.R. Ejercito v.

    Comelec
    Date: November 25, 2014
    Ponente: J. Peralta

    DOCTRINE
    (1) The phrase “those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate” is sufficiently
    adequate to cover those expenses which are contributed or donated in the
    candidate’s behalf. By virtue of the legal requirement that a contribution or
    donation should bear the written conformity of the candidate,
    contributor/supporter/donor certainly qualifies as “any person authorized by such
    candidate or treasurer.” There should be no distinction in the application of a law
    where none is indicated.

    (2) Rules on succession under the Local Government Code apply when a candidate was
    disqualified, not because of any ineligibility existing at the time of filing of his
    Certificate of Candidacy but for violating the rules of candidacy such as having over-
    spent in his campaign.

    FACTS:
    Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections, a petition for
    disqualification was filed by San Luis before the Office of the COMELEC Clerk in Manila against
    Ejercito, who was a fellow gubernatorial candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor of the
    Province of Laguna.
    1. Ejercito distributed to the electorates of the province of Laguna the so-called "Orange
    Card" with an intent to influence, induce or corrupt the voters in voting for his favor.
    Province of Laguna has a total of 1,525,522 registered electorate. The authorized
    expenses of candidates (aggregate amount) is three pesos (P3.00) for every voter
    currently registered in the constituency where the candidate filed his certificate of
    candidacy.
    2. A candidate for the position of Provincial Governor of Laguna is only authorized to
    incur an election expense amounting to FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX
    THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX (P4,576,566.00) PESOS.
    3. However, in total disregard and violation of the afore-quoted provision of law, [Ejercito]
    exceeded his expenditures in relation to his campaign for the 2013 election. For
    television campaign commercials alone, [Ejercito] already spent the sum of
    PhP23,730.784 based on our party's official monitoring.
    ISSUES:
    WON Ejercito should be disqualified?

    HELD:
    Yes. Ejercito should be disqualified for spending in his election campaign an amount
    in excess of what is allowed by the OEC.

    Ejercito claims that the advertising contracts between ABS-CBN Corporation and Scenema
    Concept International, Inc. were executed by an identified supporter without his knowledge and
    consent. He believes that an advertising contract paid for by a third party without the candidate's
    knowledge and consent must be considered a form of political speech that must prevail against the
    laws suppressing it.

    We refuse to believe that the advertising contracts between ABS-CBN Corporation and
    Scenema Concept International, Inc. were executed without Ejercito's knowledge and consent. His
    express conformity to the advertising contracts is actually a must because non-compliance is
    considered as an election offense.

    R.A. No. 9006 provides:


    Sec. 4. Requirements for Published or Printed and Broadcast Election Propaganda. —
    xxx xxx xxx
    4.3 Print, broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated to the candidate or political party
    shall not be printed, published, broadcasted or exhibited without the written acceptance by the
    said candidate or political party. Such written acceptance shall be attached to the advertising
    contract and shall be submitted to the COMELEC as provided in Subsection 6.3 hereof.

    This Court cannot give weight to Ejercito's representation that his signature on the
    advertising contracts was a forgery. The issue is a belated claim, raised only for the first time in
    this petition for certiorari. Likewise, whether the advertising contracts were executed without
    Ejercito's knowledge and consent, and whether his signatures thereto were fraudulent, are issues
    of fact.

    Section 11 (b) of R.A. No. 6646 does not invade and violate the constitutional guarantees
    comprising freedom of expression. Regarding the regulation by the Commission of the enjoyment
    or utilization of franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities,
    media of communication or information, all grants, special privileges or concessions granted by
    the Government, there is a provision that during the election period, the Commission may
    regulate, among other things, the rates, reasonable free space, and time allotments for public
    information campaigns and forums among candidates for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly,
    honest and peaceful elections.

    The inclusion of the amount contributed by a donor to the candidate's allowable limit of
    election expenses does not trample upon the free exercise of the voters' rights of speech and of
    expression under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution. As a content-neutral regulation, the
    law's concern is not to curtail the message or content of the advertisement promoting a particular
    candidate but to ensure equality between and among aspirants with "deep pockets" and those
    with less financial resources. Any restriction on speech or expression is only incidental and is no
    more than necessary to achieve the substantial governmental interest of promoting equality of
    opportunity in political advertising. Indeed, to rule otherwise would practically result in an
    unlimited expenditure for political advertising, which skews the political process and subverts the
    essence of a truly democratic form of government.

    Section 13 of R.A. No. 7166 sets the current allowable limit on expenses of candidates and
    political parties for election campaign. Moreover, R.A. No. 7166 does not repeal Sections 100, 101,
    and 103 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), as these provisions were merely amended insofar as
    the allowable amount is concerned. In tracing the legislative history of Sections 100, 101, and 103
    of the OEC, it can be said, therefore, that the intent of our lawmakers has been consistent through
    the years: to regulate not just the election expenses of the candidate but also of his or her
    contributor/supporter/donor as well as by including in the aggregate limit of the former’s
    election expenses those incurred by the latter.

    The phrase “those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate” is sufficiently


    adequate to cover those expenses which are contributed or donated in the candidate’s behalf. By
    virtue of the legal requirement that a contribution or donation should bear the written conformity
    of the candidate, a contributor/supporter/donor certainly qualifies as “any person authorized by
    such candidate or treasurer.” There should be no distinction in the application of a law where
    none is indicated.

    You might also like