Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Digests: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine Facts

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    27 views2 pages
    Ejercito was running for governor of Laguna province. He was accused of spending over the legal campaign expense limit and distributing "Orange Cards" to influence voters, violating election laws. While the COMELEC initially proclaimed Ejercito as governor, they later ruled he exceeded expenses and should be disqualified. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Ejercito knew and consented to campaign ads exceeding the limit, rejecting his argument that donations by third parties shouldn't count toward the limit. They found regulating donations was constitutional and promoted equal opportunities in elections.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2. ADMIN_Ejercito_vs_COMELEC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ejercito was running for governor of Laguna province. He was accused of spending over the legal campaign expense limit and distributing "Orange Cards" to influence voters, violating election laws. While the COMELEC initially proclaimed Ejercito as governor, they later ruled he exceeded expenses and should be disqualified. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Ejercito knew and consented to campaign ads exceeding the limit, rejecting his argument that donations by third parties shouldn't count toward the limit. They found regulating donations was constitutional and promoted equal opportunities in elections.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digests: Topic Author Case Title GR No Tickler Date Doctrine Facts

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    Ejercito was running for governor of Laguna province. He was accused of spending over the legal campaign expense limit and distributing "Orange Cards" to influence voters, violating election laws. While the COMELEC initially proclaimed Ejercito as governor, they later ruled he exceeded expenses and should be disqualified. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding Ejercito knew and consented to campaign ads exceeding the limit, rejecting his argument that donations by third parties shouldn't count toward the limit. They found regulating donations was constitutional and promoted equal opportunities in elections.

    Copyright:

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

    2S ADMIN Case Digests

    TOPIC Campaign, Voting, Canvass and Proclamation AUTHOR #Number_Surname

    CASE TITLE Ejercito vs. COMELEC GR NO 212398

    TICKLER Limit on expense of candidates DATE November 25, 2014

    DOCTRINE

    FACTS
    Three days prior to the 2013 National and Local Elections, a petition for disqualification was filed by San Luis
    before the Office of the COMELEC against Ejercito, who was a fellow gubernatorial candidate and, at the time,
    the incumbent Governor of the Province of Laguna.

    In his FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION, he alleged that Ejercito, during the campaign period for 2013 local election,
    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. The so-called "Orange Card" is considered a
    material consideration in convincing the voters to cast their votes for Ejercito's favor in clear violation of the
    provision of the Omnibus Election. In his SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION, he alleged that COMELEC Resolution
    No. 9615, provides that the aggregate amount that a candidate or party may spent for election campaign shall
    be as three pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency where the candidate filed his
    certificate of candidacy. Accordingly, a candidate for the position of Provincial Governor of Laguna is only
    authorized to incur an election expense amounting to Php 4,576,566.00. However, Ejercito exceeded his
    expenditures in relation to his campaign for the 2013 election. For television campaign commercials alone,
    Ejercito already spent the sum of Php 23,730,784.

    San Luis filed a Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Issue Suspension of Possible Proclamation of Respondent and
    Supplemental to the Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Issue Suspension of Possible Proclamation of
    respondent. However, these were not acted upon by the COMELEC. The next day, Ejercito was proclaimed by
    the Provincial Board of Canvassers as the duly-elected Governor of Laguna.

    However, the COMELEC First Division issued a Summons with Notice of Conference. Ejercito then filed his
    Verified and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. The COMELEC First Division settled the substantive issues
    put forth in the petition for disqualification in this wise. It rejected San Luis’ first cause of action, but as to the
    second cause of action, it held that Ejercito indeed exceeded his authorized expenditure limit of
    Php4,576,566.00 which is a ground for disqualification under Section 68(c) and concurrently an election
    offense pursuant to Section 100 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code.

    The Resolution of the COMELEC First Division was unanimously affirmed by COMELEC en banc.

    ISSUE/S
    Whether or not petitioner should be disqualified.

    RULING/S
    YES. 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 as, in fact,
    his signature thereon was obviously forged. Even assuming that such contract benefited him, Ejercito alleges
    that he should not be penalized for the conduct of third parties who acted on their own without his consent.
    Citing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decided by the US Supreme Court, he argues that every
    voter has the right to support a particular candidate in accordance with the free exercise of his or her rights

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law
    2S ADMIN Case Digests
    of speech and of expression, which is guaranteed in Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. Further,
    Ejercito advances the view that COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 distinguishes between "contribution" and
    "expenditure" and makes no proscription on the medium or amount of contribution. He also stresses that it
    is clear from COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 that the limit set by law applies only to election expenditures of
    candidates and not to contributions made by third parties.

    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. As found by the COMELEC
    First Division, the advertising contracts submitted in evidence by San Luis as well as those in legal custody of
    the COMELEC belie his hollow assertion. His express conformity to the advertising contracts is actually a
    must because non-compliance is considered as an election offense. Notably, R.A. No. 9006 explicitly directs
    that broadcast advertisements donated to the candidate shall not be broadcasted without the written
    acceptance of the candidate, which shall be attached to the advertising contract and shall be submitted to
    the COMELEC, and that, in every case, advertising contracts shall be signed by the donor, the candidate
    concerned or by the duly-authorized representative of the political party. Conformably with the mandate of
    the law, COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 requires that election propaganda materials donated to a candidate
    shall not be broadcasted unless it is accompanied by the written acceptance of said candidate which shall be
    in the form of an official receipt in the name of the candidate and must specify the description of the items
    donated, their quantity and value, and that, in every case, the advertising contracts, media purchase orders
    or booking orders shall be signed by the candidate concerned or by the duly authorized representative of the
    party and, in case of a donation, should be accompanied by a written acceptance of the candidate, party or
    their authorized representatives

    COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 also unambiguously states that it shall be unlawful to broadcast any election
    propaganda donated or given free of charge by any person or broadcast entity to a candidate without the
    written acceptance of the said candidate and unless they bear and be identified by the words "airtime for
    this broadcast was provided free of charge by" followed by the true and correct name and address of the
    donor.

    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. 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.

    NOTES

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law

    You might also like