Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E.R. Ejercito v. Comelec
E.R. Ejercito v. Comelec
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.
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.