Emilio Ramon E.R. EJERCITO v.

COMELEC and Edgar Egay San Luis Manila against Ejercito, who was a fellow gubernatorial candidate and, at the time,
November 25, 2014 | Peralta, J. | Election expenses and contributions the incumbent Governor of the Province of Laguna.
Digester: Ihna Santos First cause of action: San Luis alleged that:
o Ejercito, during the campaign period for the 2013 local election, distributed
SUMMARY: 3 days prior to the May 13, 2013 elections, a petition for to the electorates of the province of Laguna the so-called orange card with
disqualication was led by San Luis before the COMELEC against Ejercito, a fellow an intent to influence, induce or corrupt the voters in voting for his favor.
gubernatorial candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor of the Province o Ejercito and his cohorts claimed that the said orange card could be used in
of Laguna. San Luis alleged that Ejercito distributed orange card to inuence voters in any public hospital within the Province of Laguna for their medical needs.
his favor and that Ejercito exceeded the amount of expenditures necessary. Meanwhile, o The said orange card is considered a material consideration in convincing
Ejercito was proclaimed Governor. Ejercito prayed for the dismissal of the petition, voter to cast their votes for Ejercitos favor in clear violation of the Omnibus
alleging that it was improperly led since it is in reality a complaint for election Election Code (OEC) Sec. 68: Disqualification Any candidate who, in an
oenses, thus, the case should have been led before the COMELEC Law action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision by a
Department, and if with probable cause, led with proper court. The COMELEC First competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given
Division resolved to grant the disqualication of Ejercito. The COMELEC En Banc money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the
agreed with the ndings of its First Division that San Luis petition is an action to voters or public officials performing electoral functions; xxx shall be
disqualify Ejercito. SC affirmed the COMELEC En Banc decision, holding that the disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from
latter did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed resolution. SC holding the office.
held that the petition filed by San Luis against Ejercito is for the latters disqualification o Thus, San Luis contends that Ejercito should be disqualified.
and prosecution for election offense. Further, Ejercito should be disqualified for Second cause of action:
spending in his election campaign an amount in excess of what is allowed by the OEC. o Based on the records of the Provincial COMELEC, the Province of Laguna
has a total of 1,525,522 registered electorate.
DOCTRINE: Section 13 of RA 7166 sets the current allowable limit on expenses of o COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 (Rules and Regulation Implementing Fair
candidates and political parties for election campaign: The aggregate amount that a Election Act) Sec. 5, Par. 1 provides that:
candidate or registered political party may spend for election campaign shall be as Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Parties The aggregate
follows: (a) For candidates P10.00 for President and Vice President; and for other amount that a candidate or party may spent for election campaign
candidates, P3.00 for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed shall be as follows:
his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, a candidate without any political party and a. For candidates Three pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently
without support from any political party may be allowed to spend P5.00 for every such registered in the constituency where the candidate filed his certificate
voter; and (b) For political parties P5.00 for every voter currently registered in the of candidacy.
constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates. Any provision of law to b. For other candidates without any political party and without any
the contrary notwithstanding, any contribution in cash or in kind to any candidate or support from any political party Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter
political party or coalition of parties for campaign purposes, duly reported to the currently registered in the constituency where the candidate filed his
Commission, shall not be subject to the payment of any gift tax. certificate of candidacy.
c. For Political Parties and party list groups Five pesos (P5.00) for
The intent of our lawmakers has been consistent through the years: to regulate not just every voter currently registered in the constituency or constituencies
the election expenses of the candidate but also of his or her contributor/supporter/ where it has official candidates.
donor as well as by including in the aggregate limit of the formers election expenses o Accordingly, a candidate for the position of Provincial Governor of
those incurred by the latter. The phrase those incurred or caused to be incurred by the Laguna is only authorized to incur an election expense amounting to
candidate in Sec. 100 of the OEC is sufficiently adequate to cover those expenses which P4,576,566.00.
are contributed or donated in the candidates behalf. o However, Ejercito exceeded his expenditures in relation to his campaign for
the 201 election. For television campaign commercials alone, Ejercito already
Sorry for the long digest. The case is 77 pages long spent the sum of P23,730,784.00 based on San Luis partys monitoring.
o Even assuming that Ejercito was given 30% discount as prescribed under the
FACTS: Fair Election Act, he still exceeded in the total allowable expenditures for
3 days prior to the May 13, 2013 National and Local elections, a petition for which he paid the sum of P16,611,549.00.
disqualification was filed by San Luis before the Office of the COMELEC Clerk in
 o In view of this, Ejercito committed an election offense under Sec. 35 of being speculative, self-serving, and uncorroborated by any other substantial
COMELEC Resolution No. 9615: Election Offense, and Sec. 68, OEC: Any evidence.
candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by Citing Sinaca v. Mula, Ejercito asserted that the petition questioning his
final decision by a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of qualification was rendered moot and academic by his proclamation as the duly-
having xxx (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that elected Provincial Governor of Laguna for the term 2013-2016.
allowed by this Code shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or Lastly, Ejercito considered San Luis petition for disqualification as purely frivolous
if he has been elected, from holding the office. and with no plain and clear purpose but to harass and cause undue hardship.
o On the other hand, the effect of disqualification is provided under According to him, the fact that it was filed only a few days before the May 13, 2013
Sec. 6 of RA 6646: Effect of Disqualification Case: Any candidate who has elections evidently shows that it was lodged as a last-ditch effort to baselessly derail
been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and and obstruct his assumption of office and function as the duly-elected Laguna
the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a candidate is Governor.
not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is COMELEC First Division promulgated a Resolution granting the petition for
voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the disqualification against Ejercito and disqualifying him from holding the office of
Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, the Provincial Governor of Laguna. The said Division ordered Ejercito to cease
inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, and desist from performing the functions of the Office of the Provincial Governor
may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of Laguna. The Division also declared a permanent vacancy of the contested office.
of such candidate whenever the evidence of [his] guilt is strong. The duly-elected Vice-Governor of Laguna was then directed, by virtue of
Subsequently, on May 16, 2013, San Luis filed a Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to succession as provided in Sec. 44 of the LGC, to assume the office of the
Issue Suspension of Possible Proclamation of Respondent and Supplemental to the Provincial Governor. The Campaign Finance Unit was directed to with the Law
Very Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Issue Suspension of Possible Proclamation of Department of this Commission for the conduct of a preliminary investigation into
Respondent. However, these were not acted upon by the COMELEC. The next the alleged violations of campaign finance laws, rules and regulations committed by
day, Ejercito and Ramil Hernandez were proclaimed by the Provincial Board of Ejercito.
Canvassers as the duly-elected Governor and Vice Governor, respectively, of o The first cause of action of San Luis was rejected for being unsupported by
Laguna. Based on the Provincial/District Certificate of Canvass, Ejercito obtained evidence.
549,310 votes compared with San Luis 471,209 votes. o With respect to the second cause of action, COMELECs verification lead to
The COMELEC First Division issued a Summons with Notice of Conference on its finding that Ejercito had accepted Php20,197,170.25 donation from
June 4, 2013. Ejercito then filed his Verified Answer on June 13, 2013 that prayed Scenema Concept International, Inc. in the form of television advertisements
for the dismissal of the petition due to procedural and substantive irregularities and to be aired on ABS-CBNs Channel 2.
taking into account his proclamation as Provincial Governor. He countered that No credence was given to Ejercitos contention that the petition was mooted by his
the petition was improperly filed because, based on the averments and relief prayed proclamation as Governor of Laguna. Consistent with Maquiling v. Commission on
for, it is in reality a complaint for election offenses; thus, the case should have been Elections, it was declared that Ejercitos garnering of more votes than San Luis in
filed before the COMELEC Law Department, or the election registrar, provincial the May 2013 elections is not tantamount to condonation of any act or acts that he
election supervisor or regional election director, or the state, provincial or city committed which may be found to be a ground for disqualification or
prosecutor in accordance with Laurel v. Presiding Judge, RTC, Manila, Br. 10. election offense.
Assuming that the petition could be given due course, Ejercito argued that San Luis Only Ejercito filed a Verified Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC
failed to show he was previously convicted or declared by final judgment of a En Banc. After the parties exchange of pleadings, the Resolution of the
competent court for being guilty of, or found by the COMELEC of having COMELEC First Division was unanimously affirmed. The COMELEC En Banc
committed, the punishable acts under Section 68 of the OEC. agreed with the findings of its First Division that San Luis petition is an action to
As to the acts he allegedly committed, Ejercito claimed that the same are baseless, disqualify Ejercito.
unfounded, and totally speculative. He stated that the Health Access Program or The alleged violation of Ejercitos constitutional right to due process was also not
the E.R. Orange Card was a priority project of his administration as incumbent sustained. The COMELEC En Banc held that Ejercito cannot complain that he
Governor of Laguna and was never intended to influence the electorate during the was deprived of his right to notice and hearing. He cannot feign ignorance that the
May 2013 elections. COMELEC First Division, throughout the trial, was hearing the petition as a
With respect to the charge of having exceeded the total allowable election disqualification case and not as an election offense case.
expenditures, Ejercito submitted that the accusation deserves no consideration for
 Anchoring on the case of Lanot v. Commission on Elections, the COMELEC En Whether COMELEC rendered its assailed Resolution with grave abuse of
Banc likewise debunked Ejercitos assertion that the petition was prematurely and discretion NO.
improperly filed on the ground that the filing of an election offense and the factual
determination on the existence of probable cause are required before a The petition filed by San Luis against Ejercito is for the latters disqualification
disqualification case based on Section 68 of the OEC may proceed. It held that an and prosecution for election offense
erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable Ejercito: Insists that his alleged acts of giving material consideration in the form of
cause in a preliminary investigation. The electoral aspect may proceed Orange Cards and election overspending are considered as election offenses
independently of the criminal aspect, and vice versa. under Section 35 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, in relation to Section 1349
Further rejected was Ejercitos argument that the COMELEC lost its jurisdiction of RA 9006, and punishable under Section 264 of the OEC. Considering that San
over the petition for disqualification the moment he was proclaimed as the duly- Luis petition partakes of the nature of a complaint for election offenses, the
elected Governor of Laguna. For the COMELEC En Banc, its First Division COMELEC First Division has no jurisdiction over the same based on COMELEC
thoroughly and sufficiently addressed the matter when it relied on Maquiling Resolution No. 9386 and Section 265 of the OEC.
instead of Sinaca. It maintained that based on Section 5 of COMELEC Resolution SC: COMELEC First Division and COMELEC En Banc correctly ruled that the
No. 9523, the COMELEC shall continue the trial and hearing of a pending petition filed by San Luis against Ejercito is not just for prosecution of election
disqualification case despite the proclamation of a winner. offense but for disqualification as well. The following are clear indications:
Finally, the COMELEC En Banc ruled on one of San Luis contentions in his o The title of San Luis petition shows that the case was brought under Rule
Comment/Opposition to Ejercitos MR. He argued that he becomes the winner in 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, as amended by COMELEC
the gubernatorial election upon the disqualification of Ejercito. The COMELEC Resolution No. 9523. This expresses the objective of the action since Rule
En Banc held otherwise and ruled that the votes for the disqualified winning 25 is the specific rule governing the disqualification of candidates.
candidate remained valid. Ergo, San Luis, being the second placer in the vote o The averments of San Luis petition rely on Section 68(a) and (c) of the
count, remains the second placer. He cannot, thus, be named the winner. OEC as grounds for its causes of action. Section 68 of the OEC precisely
Ejercito filed before the SC a Petition for certiorari with application for the enumerates the grounds for the disqualification of a candidate for elective
issuance of a status quo ante order or temporary restraining order (TRO)/writ of position and provides, as penalty, that the candidate shall be disqualified
preliminary injunction (WPI). from continuing as such, or if he or she has been elected, from holding the
Without issuing a TRO/WPI, Chief Justice Sereno, issued an order to respondents office.
to comment on the petition within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice. o Paragraph 2 of San Luis prayer in the petition states that [in the event that
Such order was confirmed nunc pro tunc by the Court En Banc. [Ejercito] will be able to get a majority vote of the electorate of the Province
of Laguna on May 13, 2013, his proclamation be suspended until further
Meanwhile, Ejercito filed before the COMELEC En Banc an Omnibus Motion to
order of the Honorable Commission. The relief sought is actually pursuant
suspend proceedings and to defer the implementation of the latters Resolution. On
to Section 6 of RA 6646 and Section 5 Rule 25 of COMELEC Resolution
the same day, San Luis also filed an Extremely Urgent Motion to Declare
No. 9523, both of which pertain to the effect of a disqualification case when
COMELEC En Banc Resolution and First Division Resolution Final and
the petition is unresolved by final judgment come election day.
Executory and to Issue Forthwith Writ of Execution or Implementing Order.
o San Luis Memorandum emphasized that the case is a Special Action for
The COMELEC En Banc issued an Order denying Ejercitos omnibus motion, Disqualification, praying that [t]he Petition be granted [and] x x x [ejercito]
granted San Luis extremely urgent motion, and directed the Clerk of the be disqualified, and prevented from further holding office as Governor of
Commission to issue the corresponding writ of execution. On even date, Vice Laguna.
Governor Hernandez was sworn in as the Governor of Laguna at the COMELEC
With the foregoing, Ejercito cannot feign ignorance of the true nature and intent of
Main Office in Manila. The service of the writ was deemed completed and validly
San Luis petition.
served upon Ejercito. Hence, this special civil action of certiorari under Rule 64, in
relation to Rule 65 of the ROC filed by Ejercito.
The conduct of preliminary investigation is not required in the resolution of the
electoral aspect of a disqualification case
RULING: Petition denied. Resolution of COMELEC En Banc, which upheld the
resolution of the COMELEC First Division, granting the petition for disqualification Ejercito: Assuming, arguendo, that San Luis petition was properly instituted as an
filed by private respondent San Luis against petitioner Ejercito, is affirmed. action for disqualification, the conduct of preliminary investigation to determine
whether the acts enumerated under Section 68 of the OEC were indeed committed
is a requirement prior to actual disqualification. Section 5, Rule 25 of COMELEC
Resolution No. 9523 is silent on the matter of preliminary investigation; hence, the
 clear import of this is that the necessity of preliminary investigation provided for in The exclusive power [of the COMELEC] to conduct a preliminary investigation
COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 remains undisturbed and continues to be in full of all cases involving criminal infractions of the election laws stated in Par. 1 of
force and effect. COMELEC Resolution No. 2050 pertains to the criminal aspect of a
SC: Preliminary investigation not required in this case. The conduct of a disqualification case. It has been repeatedly underscored that an election offense
preliminary investigation exclusively pertains to the criminal aspect of an action for has its criminal and electoral aspects. While its criminal aspect to determine the
disqualification case. A factual finding by the authorized legal officers of the guilt or innocence of the accused cannot be the subject of summary hearing, its
COMELEC may be dispensed with in the proceedings for the administrative aspect electoral aspect to ascertain whether the offender should be disqualified from office
of a disqualification case. can be determined in an administrative proceeding that is summary in character and
It is expected that COMELEC Resolution No. 9523 is silent on the conduct of requires only preponderance of evidence.
preliminary investigation because it merely amended, among others, Rule 25 of the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which deals with disqualification of candidates. The COMELEC En Banc properly considered as evidence the Advertising
In disqualification cases, the COMELEC may designate any of its officials, who are Contract dated May 8, 2013
members of the Philippine Bar, to hear the case and to receive evidence only in Ejercito: The Advertising Contract dated May 8, 2013 should not have been relied
cases involving barangay officials. upon by the COMELEC since:
The present rules of procedure in the investigation and prosecution of election o It was not formally offered in evidence pursuant to Section 34, Rule 132 of
offenses in the COMELEC, which requires preliminary investigation, is governed the Rules and he was not even furnished with a copy thereof, depriving him
by COMELEC Resolution No. 9386. Under said Resolution, all lawyers in the of the opportunity to examine its authenticity and due execution and object
COMELEC who are Election Officers in the National Capital Region (NCR), to its admissibility.
Provincial Election Supervisors, Regional Election Attorneys, Assistant Regional o Even if Section 34, Rule 132 does not apply, administrative bodies exercising
Election Directors, Regional Election Directors and lawyers of the Law quasi-judicial functions are nonetheless proscribed from rendering judgment
Department are authorized to conduct preliminary investigation of complaints based on evidence that was never presented and could not be controverted.
involving election offenses under the election laws which may be filed directly with o The presentation of the advertising contracts, which are highly disputable
them, or which may be indorsed to them by the COMELEC. and on which no hearing was held for the purpose of taking judicial notice
2 situations contemplated under COMELEC Resolution No. 2050: in accordance with Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules, cannot be dispensed
o A complaint for disqualification filed before the election which must be with by COMELECs claim that it could take judicial notice.
inquired into by the COMELEC for the purpose of determining whether the SC: Contrary to Ejercitos claim, Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules is inapplicable.
acts complained of have in fact been committed. Section 4, Rule 171 of the Rules is clear enough in stating that it shall not apply to
Where the inquiry results in a finding before the election, the election cases except by analogy or in a suppletory character and whenever
COMELEC shall order the candidates disqualification. practicable and convenient. In fact, nowhere from COMELEC Resolution No.
In case the complaint was not resolved before the election, the 9523 requires that documentary evidence should be formally offered in evidence.
COMELEC may motu propio or on motion of any of the parties, Granting, for arguments sake, that Section 4, Rule 1 of the Rules applies, there
refer the said complaint to the Law Department of the COMELEC have been instances when SC suspended the strict application of the rule in the
for preliminary investigation. interest of substantial justice, fairness, and equity. Since rules of procedure are mere
o A complaint for disqualification filed after the election against a candidate (a) tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice, it is well-recognized that the
who has not yet been proclaimed as winner, or (b) who has already been Court is empowered to suspend its rules or to exempt a particular case from the
proclaimed as winner. application of a general rule, when the rigid application thereof tends to frustrate
In both cases, the complaint shall be dismissed as a disqualification rather than promote the ends of justice.
case but shall be referred to the Law Department of the COMELEC Even Sections 3 and 4, Rule 1 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure fittingly
for preliminary investigation. declare that [the] rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote the
However, if before proclamation, the Law Department makes a prima effective and efficient implementation of the objectives of ensuring the holding of
facie finding of guilt and the corresponding information has been filed free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections and to achieve just, expeditious
with the appropriate trial court, the complainant may file a petition for and inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding
suspension of the proclamation of the respondent with the court brought before the Commission and that [in] the interest of justice and in order
before which the criminal case is pending and the said court may order to obtain speedy disposition of all matters pending before the Commission, these
the suspension of the proclamation if the evidence of guilt is strong. rules or any portion thereof may be suspended by the Commission.
 SC agrees with San Luis and the Office of the Solicitor General that, pursuant to COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 also unambiguously states that it shall be
Section 2, Rule 129, the COMELEC has the discretion to properly take judicial unlawful to broadcast any election propaganda donated or given free of charge by
notice of the Advertising Contract dated May 8, 2013 through its Campaign any person or broadcast entity to a candidate without the written acceptance of the
Finance Unit. said candidate and unless they bear and be identified by the words airtime for this
The COMELEC may properly take and act on the advertising contracts without broadcast was provided free of charge by followed by the true and correct name
further proof from the parties herein. Aside from being considered as an admission and address of the donor.
and presumed to be proper submissions from them, the COMELEC already has SC cannot give weight to Ejercitos representation that his signature on the
knowledge of the contracts for being ascertainable from its very own records. Said advertising contracts was a forgery. The issue is a belated claim, raised only for the
contracts are ought to be known by the COMELEC because of its statutory first time in this petition for certiorari. It is a rudimentary principle of law that
function as the legal custodian of all advertising contracts promoting or opposing matters neither alleged in the pleadings nor raised during the proceedings below
any candidate during the campaign period. cannot be ventilated for the first time on appeal before the Supreme Court.
Likewise, whether the advertising contracts were executed without Ejercitos
Ejercito should be disqualified for spending in his election campaign an amount knowledge and consent, and whether his signatures thereto were fraudulent, are
in excess of what is allowed by the OEC issues of fact. Any factual challenge has no place in a Rule 65 petition. SC is not a
trier of facts and is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of
Consent factual allegations. Instead, the findings of fact made by the COMELEC, or by any
Ejercito: The advertising contracts between ABS-CBN Corporation and Scenema other administrative agency exercising expertise in its particular field of
Concept International, Inc. were executed by an identified supporter without his competence, are binding on the SC.
knowledge and consent as, in fact, his signature thereon was obviously forged.
Even assuming that such contract benefited him, he alleges that he should not be Political speech
penalized for the conduct of third parties who acted on their own without his Ejercito: Also argued, citing the US case of Citizens United v. Federal Election
consent. It is clear from COMELEC Resolution No. 9615 that the limit set by law Commission, that every voter has the right to support a particular candidate in
applies only to election expenditures of candidates and not to contributions made accordance with the free exercise of his or her rights of speech and of expression,
by third parties. which is guaranteed in Section 4, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. He believes
SC, however, refused to believe that the advertising contracts between ABS- CBN that an advertising contract paid for by a third party without the candidates
Corporation and Scenema Concept International, Inc. were executed without knowledge and consent must be considered a form of political speech that must
Ejercitos knowledge and consent. As found by the COMELEC First Division, the prevail against the laws suppressing it, whether by design or inadvertence.
advertising contracts submitted in evidence by San Luis as well as those in legal SC: Having determined that the subject TV advertisements were done and
custody of the COMELEC belie his hollow assertion. His express conformity to broadcasted with Ejercitos consent, it follows that Citizens United does not apply.
the advertising contracts is actually a must because noncompliance is considered as Further, the ruling in Citizens United find bearing only on matters related to
an election offense. independent expenditures, an election law concept which has no application in
Notably, RA 9006 explicitly directs that broadcast advertisements donated to the this jurisdiction.
candidate shall not be broadcasted without the written acceptance of the candidate, o In the US context, independent expenditures for or against a particular
which shall be attached to the advertising contract and shall be submitted to the candidate enjoy constitutional protection. They refer to those expenses made
COMELEC, and that, in every case, advertising contracts shall be signed by the by an individual, a group or a legal entity which are not authorized or
donor, the candidate concerned or by the duly authorized representative of the requested by the candidate, an authorized committee of the candidate, or an
political party. agent of the candidate; they are expenditures that are not placed in
Conformably with the mandate of the law, COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 cooperation with or with the consent of a candidate, his agents, or an
requires that election propaganda materials donated to a candidate shall not be authorized committee of the candidate.
broadcasted unless it is accompanied by the written acceptance of said candidate, o In contrast, there is no similar provision here in the Philippines. In fact, RA
which shall be in the form of an official receipt in the name of the candidate and 9006 and its implementing rules and regulations specifically make it unlawful
must specify the description of the items donated, their quantity and value, and to print, publish, broadcast or exhibit any print, broadcast or outdoor
that, in every case, the advertising contracts, media purchase orders or booking advertisements donated to the candidate without the written acceptance of
orders shall be signed by the candidate concerned or by the duly authorized said candidate.
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. [TOPIC] Limitation on campaign donation
 Ejercito: The legislature imposes no legal limitation on campaign donations. He chapters, or committees of such political party shall be included in the
vigorously asserts that COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 distinguishes between computation of the total expenditures of the political party.
contribution and expenditure and makes no proscription on the medium or Expenses incurred by other political parties shall be considered as expenses
amount of contribution made by third parties in favor of the candidates, while the of their respective individual candidates and subject to limitation under
limit set by law, as appearing in COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, applies only to Section 100 of this Code.
election expenditures of candidates. o SECTION 103. Persons authorized to incur election expenditures. No person,
SC: There is a legal limitation on campaign donations. Section 13 of RA 7166 sets except the candidate, the treasurer of a political party or any person
the current allowable limit on expenses of candidates and political parties for authorized by such candidate or treasurer, shall make any expenditure in
election campaign. support of or in opposition to any candidate or political party. Expenditures
o SEC. 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Political Parties. duly authorized by the candidate or the treasurer of the party shall be
The aggregate amount that a candidate or registered political party may considered as expenditures of such candidate or political party.
spend for election campaign shall be as follows: The authority to incur expenditures shall be in writing, copy of which shall
(a) For candidates Ten pesos (P10.00) for President and Vice be furnished the Commission signed by the candidate or the treasurer of the
President; and for other candidates, Three pesos (P3.00) for every party and showing the expenditures so authorized, and shall state the full
voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his name and exact address of the person so designated.
certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, a candidate without any SC traced the legislative history of Sections 100, 101, and 103 of the OEC, and
political party and without support from any political party may be found that the intent of our lawmakers has been consistent through the years: to
allowed to spend Five pesos (P5.00) for every such voter; and regulate not just the election expenses of the candidate but also of his or her
(b) For political parties Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently contributor/supporter/donor as well as by including in the aggregate limit
registered in the constituency or constituencies where it has official of the formers election expenses those incurred by the latter. The phrase
candidates. those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate is sufficiently
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any contribution in adequate to cover those expenses which are contributed or donated in the
cash or in kind to any candidate or political party or coalition of parties for candidates behalf.
campaign purposes, duly reported to the Commission, shall not be subject
to the payment of any gift tax. [Consti 2 zzz]
Sections 100, 101, and 103 of the OEC are not repealed by RA 7166. These The inclusion of the amount contributed by a donor to the candidates allowable
provisions were merely amended insofar as the allowable amount is concerned. limit of election expenses does not trample upon the free exercise of the voters
o SECTION 100. Limitations upon expenses of candidates.No candidate shall rights of speech and of expression under Section 4, Article III of the Constitution.
spend for his election campaign an aggregate amount exceeding one peso As a content-neutral regulation, the laws concern is not to curtail the message or
and fifty centavos for every voter currently registered in the constituency content of the advertisement promoting a particular candidate but to ensure
where he filed his candidacy: Provided, That the expenses herein equality between and among aspirants with deep pockets and those with less
referred to shall include those incurred or caused to be incurred by the financial resources. Any restriction on speech or expression is only incidental and is
candidate, whether in cash or in kind, including the use, rental or hire of no more than necessary to achieve the substantial governmental interest of
land, water or aircraft, equipment, facilities, apparatus and paraphernalia promoting equality of opportunity in political advertising. It bears a clear and
used in the campaign: Provided, further, That where the land, water or reasonable connection with the constitutional objectives set out in Section 26,
aircraft, equipment, facilities, apparatus and paraphernalia used is owned by Article II, Section 4, Article IX-C, and Section 1, Art. XIII of the Constitution.
the candidate, his contributor or supporter, the Commission is hereby Indeed, to rule otherwise would practically result in an unlimited expenditure for
empowered to assess the amount commensurate with the expenses for the political advertising, which skews the political process and subverts the essence of a
use thereof, based on the prevailing rates in the locality and shall be included truly democratic form of government.
in the total expenses incurred by the candidate.
o SECTION 101. Limitations upon expenses of political parties.A duly accredited
political party may spend for the election of its candidates in the
constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates an aggregate
amount not exceeding the equivalent of one peso and fifty centavos for
every voter currently registered therein. Expenses incurred by branches,