Petitioner: Esmeraldo M.

Gatchalian
Respondent: Commission on Elections

Facts
 Petitioner Esmeraldo M. Gatchalian alleges that he is a candidate for delegate to the
Constitutional Convention for the first district of Rizal.
 The Commission on Elections promulgated on August 13, 1970 Comelec Resolution No. RR-707
holding that "donations of billboards to the Commission by foreigners or companies or
corporations owned and controlled partially or wholly by foreigners are not covered by the
provision of Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code."
 On September 17, 1970, the Commission on Elections promulgated Resolution No. RR-731 to
the effect that the ban in Sec. 46 of the Revised Election Code, as amended, does not cover the
projected campaign for funds and other contributions by the Advertising Council of the Philippines
and others similarly situated, during the 120 days immediately preceding a regular or special
election; and "that in line with the ruling in its resolution numbered RR-707, donations and
contributions for the above campaign may be received from foreigners, companies or corporation
owned and/or controlled wholly or partially by foreigners.
 Petitioner filed a petition with the Commission on Elections impugning the validity of said
Resolutions Nos. RR-707 and 731 as violative of Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code.
 The Commission on Elections denied the petitioner's petition on, the ground "that contributions by
foreigners to the Comelec Billboards Committee for the purpose of financing costs of Comelec
billboards are not made in aid or support of any particular candidate in a particular district and
that the allocation of space for its candidate is allowed by lottery, nor would it in any way influence
the result of the election.
 Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and the present petition for a review by this Tribunal of the said
Comelec ruling, contending that said order of the Comelec is null and void as contrary to law or
having been issued in excess of the powers of the Commission on Elections or in grave abuse of
its discretion, and praying for a writ of preliminary as well as permanent injunction.
 No writ of preliminary injunction nor restraining order was issued, by reason that the Comelec
refrained from enforcing the questioned Resolutions Nos. RR-707 and 731 and had given the
corresponding advice to the advertising firms and associations concerned, including the
Advertising Council of the Philippines.

Issues
1. Whether the term "any elections" as used in Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code as amended,
includes the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
2. Whether the term "foreigner as employed in the law includes both natural and juridical persons or
associations or organized groups, with or without legal personality.
3. Whether the term "any candidate" in Sec. 56 comprehends "some candidates" or "all candidates."
4. Whether by such donations, the foreigner: (a) aids any candidate directly or indirectly, or (b) takes
a part in any election, or (c) influences in any manner any election

Ruling
1. Yes. Election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention shall be held on the second Tuesday
in November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election Code.
 We held that the term "any election" in Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution which prohibits
officers and employees in the Civil Service, including members of the Armed Forces, from
engaging "directly or indirectly in partisan political activities" or "taking part in any election except
to vote," comprehends or applies to election of delegates Constitutional Convention.
2. Yes. Sec. 39 of Art. III of the Revised Election Code, "the term "person" includes an individual,
partnership, committee, association, corporation and any other organization or group of persons."
 Sec. 39 refers to contributions from or expenditures by any person for the purpose of influencing
or attempting to influence the election of candidates.
 The contributors to electoral campaign funds are either natural or artificial persons, or an
organized group of persons without separate legal personality. Sec. 39 even goes further by
 including in the definition of the term "person," a committee or any other group of persons which
may not have any juridical personality.
3. The term "any can candidate" should be construed also to mean some or all candidates. It has
been held that the term "any candidate" voted for at any election refers to "candidates"; 9 and that
the term "any person" is not limited to "any person" in the singular, but is applicable as well to two
or more persons.
 When the context so indicates, the word may be construed to mean, and indeed it has been
frequently used in its enlarged and plural sense, as meaning "all," "all or every," "each," "each
one of all," "every," without limitation; indefinite number or quantity, an indeterminate unit or
number of units out of many or all, one or more as the case may be, several, some.
4. Yes. In law, the word "aid" is understood to mean to support, to help, to assist or to strengthen or
to act in cooperation with. On the other hand, the term "to take part" means to participate or to
engage in; while the term "influence" means to use the party's endeavors, though he may not be
able to carry his point, or to exert or have an effect on the nature or behavior of, or affect the
action or thought of, or modify; or to sway; to persuade; to affect; to have an effect on the
condition or development of; to modify or act upon physically, especially in some gentle, subtle, or
gradual way; or to exert or maintain a mental or moral power upon or over; to effect or sway by
modifications, feelings or conduct.

Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code, as amended, provides that:

No foreigner shall aid any candidate, directly or indirectly, or to take part in or to influence in any manner
any elections.
The prohibited active intervention of foreigners thereunder may consist of:
(1) aiding any candidate, directly or indirectly, in any election;
(2) taking part in any election; and
(3) influencing in any manner any election.

To limit the term "foreigner" to natural persons would be unrealistic and would remove much of the bite in
the prohibition. It should not be disputed that juridical persons or organized groups — whether civic,
fraternal, religious, professional, trade, or labor — have more funds than individuals with which to
subsidize a candidate.

Consequently, the influence of a juridical person or organized group, which is a contributor or donor, is
greater than that of any natural person.

Furthermore, any, juridical person organized group has more interests to protect than any of its
component members or stockholders.

It has likewise been held that in the absence of an expressed statutory provision or instruction the word
"person" comprehends private corporations unless it appears that it is used in a more limited sense, and
that prima facie the word "person" under even a penal statute which is intended to inhibit an act, must be
a "person in law" that is, an artificial as well as a natural person and therefore includes corporations if they
are within the sphere and purpose of the statute.

There is nothing in the Revised Election Code, much less in Sec. 56 itself, indicating that the term
"foreigner" is limited only to natural persons. Neither is there any provision in the same Revised Election
Code expressly or impliedly suggesting that the circumstances of an artificial person in law are not
identical to those of natural persons covered by the prohibition in the Revised Election Code.

On the contrary, there is greater reason to believe that the law-maker feared more the assistance and
influence of artificial persons in the elections than the aid of natural persons.

Hence, the law utilizes the more generic term "foreigner."

It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a law is understood to contain, by implication, if not by its
expressed terms, all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose. And that
the whole and every part of the statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of its part.

The law penalizing corrupt election practices should be given a reasonable construction in the interests of
the purity of the elections.

Since, as heretofore stated, the danger of desecration of the sanctity of the ballot is greater from artificial
persons by reason of their vastly superior financial and other resources including the combined voting
power of their members and employees, the term "foreigner" in Sec. 56 should be understood to include
artificial persons and other organized groups, without distinct legal personality.

The fact that the Comelec allowed:

(1) Operations Quick Count 1969, established by civic-minded citizens for the purpose of reporting
truthfully and speedily the results of the 1969 Presidential Elections, to accept monetary and material
contributions from foreign individuals and corporations to finance its activities;
(2) Robert L. Stewart, an American citizen who owns TV Channel 7, to utilize his Radio-TV station to
disseminate information and public features beneficial to public interests in connection with elections; and
(3) Time-Ad, Inc. whose President is an alien who owns 25% of its stocks, to accept political commercials
from candidates for inclusion in their television programs.

It would indeed be a myopic view and the height of naivete to believe that donations for Comelec
billboards will not aid the candidates nor in any way influence the elections, no matter how small the
contributions may be; although parenthetically, the needed amount of two hundred fifty thousand pesos
(P250,000.00) for billboards is not insubstantial.

The fact that alien donors have no direct participation in the distribution or allocation of the Comelec
billboards, does not inevitably mean that they have no participation in the elections nor exercise any
influence in the same, nor give assistance to any candidate.

Billboards are means of propaganda. Supplying billboards to all candidates is an assistance greater than
the aid that may be given to one candidate. The influence therefore that may be exerted jointly by the
donors on all the candidates is correspondingly as great, because all the candidates benefited thereby will
naturally be grateful to the donors for such needed materials for their publicity or propaganda.

This is even worse than supporting a single candidate, because if the latter's opponent wins he will not be
amenable to influence by those who supported the adversary — out in donations of this sort, whoever
wins will feel grateful.

The fact that the identity of the donors is not publicized, does not necessarily mean that their identity
cannot be made known to the candidates themselves thru adroit subtle means. The names of the donors
will be entered in the books of the collecting advertising agencies or associations which must
acknowledge receipts thereof and must account for the same in their itemized reports to the Comelec and
to their respective members.

The contributions or donations, no matter how small, can effect the thinking or attitude of the victorious
candidates in dealing with matters involving foreigners, and more so when the sum total of all these
donations is to be taken into account.

The aggregate total will certainly generate a greater influence on the triumphant candidates than the
contribution of one foreigner considered separately or individually.

This will open the floodgates to undesirable alien influences in our country, which may be exercised subtly
and covertly in many guises and forms.
In matters of national interest as well as affecting civil liberties, the caveat is obsta principiis — oppose or
resist from the very beginning such "erosion of small encroachments."

Consequently, we apprehend the same danger feared by petitioner; because the Constitutional
Convention will inescapably discuss proposals concerning the rights — civil, social, economic, legal and
political — of foreigners in this country, accentuated by the off-and-on renegotiations of the Parity
Amendment as well as the U.S.-Philippine military base agreement, and which renegotiations may extend
to other treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory.

The delegates who are beneficiaries of the Comelec billboards contributed or donated by foreigners will
be under terrific pressure from quarters whose interest are alien, if not inimical to ours.

Some sectors are already agitating for the inclusion in the new Constitution of the principle of jus soli as a
mode of acquiring Filipino citizenship with retroactive effect.

One could just visualize the impact of such a constitutional amendment. Dire repercussions arising from
such and other amendments on the political and economic life of our country and people may be too
terrifying to contemplate.

However, even donations from our own compatriots for such billboards, are objectionable; because
Congress should appropriate the needed funds for the purpose.

That Congress slashed the proposed Comelec budget for this election, can only mean that the legislators,
who are familiar with the cost of such campaign materials, estimated that the diminished appropriation will
suffice to cover the expenses for this election including those for Comelec billboards.

In the same manner that it had economized and accumulated savings the last fiscal year, the Comelec
must not be prodigal with public funds to effectuate the legislative judgment in reducing its budget for this
particular election.

But above all, our sense of national integrity, pride and dignity should restrain us in subscribing to such a
mendicant attitude, especially considering that our country is endowed by Divine Providence with rich
natural resources and people whose talents, initiative and resourcefulness are equal if not superior in
some respects, to those of foreigners.

That we should, without feeling any shame, barter our national integrity, dignity and pride by running for
succor to foreigners to obtain such a measly amount of two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00),
does not speak well of our independent status.

WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Commission on Elections Nos. RR-707 and 731 promulgated
respectively on August 13, 1970 and September 17, 1970 are hereby declared illegal and null and void.

Writ granted, without costs.