Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Andres Soriano, Jr, Avenue, Intramuros, Manila
COMELEC EN BANC

MEMORANDUM

For : Pedro
Vice Mayoralty Candidate

Subject : Petition for Review on the Resolution of the

COMELEC against Vice Mayoralty
Candidate Mr. Pedro
Date : December 15, 2018

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. That the Resolution of the Commission on Elections, Intramuros, Manila was

received by the Petitioner

2. That the Petitioner is running for Vice Mayor who were found by Respondent
COMELEC liable for overspending upon submitting his Statement of Expenses and
Contributions (SOCE).

ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER

AND THE RELATED ARGUMENTS

The concerns raised by petitioner which need to be further clarified, to wit:

1. Petitioner Pedro asserted that there was a miscalculation of his expenses by

Respondent;

1|Page
 2. Petitioner also alleges to have mistakenly included the fees of his lawyers during
the campaign and the expenses incurred by his political party

I. On the Overspending of Petitioner

In the case of (EMILIO RAMON “E.R.” P. EJERCITO, Petitioner, v. HON.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND EDGAR “EGAY” S. SAN LUIS G.R. No.
212398, November 25, 2014 ) to wit:

SEC. 13. Authorized Expenses of Candidates and Political Parties. – The aggregate
amount that a candidate or registered political party may spend for election campaign
shall be as follows:
xxxxx

(b) For political parties - Five pesos (P5.00) for every voter currently registered in the
constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates.

Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, any contribution in cash or in kind
to any candidate or political party or coalition of parties for campaign purposes, duly
reported to the Commission, shall not be subject to the payment of any gift tax.

Sections 100, 101, and 103 of the OEC are not repealed by R.A. No. 7166.120 These
provisions, which are merely amended insofar as the allowable amount is concerned,

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, chapters, or committees of such political party shall be included in the
computation of the total expenditures of the political party.

Expenses incurred by other political parties shall be considered as expenses of their

respective individual candidates and subject to limitation under Section 100 of this Code.

SECTION 103. Persons authorized to incur election expenditures. – No person, except the
candidate, the treasurer of a political party or any person authorized by such candidate or
treasurer, shall make any expenditure in support of or in opposition to any candidate or
political party. Expenditures duly authorized by the candidate or the treasurer of the
party shall be considered as expenditures of such candidate or political party.

2|Page
The authority to incur expenditures shall be in writing, copy of which shall be furnished
the Commission signed by the candidate or the treasurer of the party and showing the
expenditures so authorized, and shall state the full name and exact address of the person
so designated. (Emphasis supplied)

The focal query is: How shall We interpret “the expenses herein referred to shall include
those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate” and “except the candidate, the
treasurer of a political party or any person authorized by such candidate or treasurer”
found in Sections 100 and 103, respectively, of the OEC? Do these provisions exclude from
the allowable election expenditures the contributions of third parties made with the consent
of the candidate? The Court holds not.

When the intent of the law is not apparent as worded, or when the application of the law
would lead to absurdity, impossibility or injustice, extrinsic aids of statutory construction
may be resorted to such as the legislative history of the law for the purpose of solving
doubt, and that courts may take judicial notice of the origin and history of the law, the
deliberations during the enactment, as well as prior laws on the same subject matter in
order to ascertain the true intent or spirit of the law.

Looking back, it could be found that Sections 100, 101, and 103 of the OEC are
substantially lifted from P.D. No. 1296,123 as amended. Sections 51, 52 and 54 of which
specifically provide:

Section 51. Limitations upon expenses of candidates. No candidate shall spend for his
election campaign an amount more than the salary or the equivalent of the total
emoluments for one year attached to the office for which he is a candidate: Provided,
That the expenses herein referred to shall include those incurred by the candidate, his
contributors and supporters, whether in cash or in kind, including the use, rental or hire
of land, water or air craft, equipment, facilities, apparatus and paraphernalia used in the
campaign: Provided, further, That, where the land, water or air craft, equipment, facilities,
apparatus and paraphernalia used is owned by the candidate, his contributor or supporter,
the Commission is hereby empowered to assess the amount commensurate with the
expenses for the use thereof, based on the prevailing rates in the locality and shall be
included in the total expenses incurred by the candidate.

In the case of candidates for the interim Batasang Pambansa, they shall not spend more
than sixty thousand pesos for their election campaign.

Section 52. Limitation upon expenses of political parties, groups or aggrupations. A

political party, group or aggrupation may not spend for the election of its candidates in
the constituency or constituencies where it has official candidates an aggregate amount
more than the equivalent of fifty centavos for every voter currently registered therein:
Provided, That expenses incurred by such political party, group or aggrupation not duly

3|Page
registered with the Commission and/or not presenting or supporting a complete list of
candidates shall be considered as expenses of its candidates and subject to the limitation
under Section 51 of this Code. Expenses incurred by branches, chapters or committees of
a political party, group or aggrupation shall be included in the computation of the total
expenditures of the political party, group or aggrupation. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 54. Persons authorized to incur election expenditures. No person, except the
candidate or any person authorized by him or the treasurer of a political party, group or
aggrupation, shall make any expenditure in support of, or in opposition to any candidate
or political party, group or aggrupation. Expenditures duly authorized by the candidate of
the treasurer of the party, group or aggrupation shall be considered as expenditure of such
candidate or political party, group or aggrupation.

The authority to incur expenditures shall be in writing, copy of which shall be furnished
the Commission, signed by the candidate or the treasurer of the party, group or
aggrupation and showing the expenditure so authorized, and shall state the full name and
exact address of the person so designated. (Emphasis supplied)

Prior to P.D. No. 1296, R.A. No. 6388 (otherwise known as the “Election Code of 1971”)
was enacted.124 Sections 41 and 42 of which are relevant, to quote:

Section 41. Limitation Upon Expenses of Candidates. – No candidate shall spend for his
election campaign more than the total amount of salary for the full term attached to the
office for which he is a candidate.

Section 42. Limitation Upon Expenses of Political Parties and Other Non-political
Organizations. – No political party as defined in this Code shall spend for the election of
its candidates an aggregate amount more than the equivalent of one peso for every voter
currently registered throughout the country in case of a regular election, or in the
constituency in which the election shall be held in case of a special election which is not
held in conjunction with a regular election. Any other organization not connected with
any political party, campaigning for or against a candidate, or for or against a political
party shall not spend more than a total amount of five thousand pesos. (Emphasis supplied)

Much earlier, Section 12 (G) of R.A. No. 6132,125 which implemented the resolution of
both Houses of Congress calling for a constitutional convention, explicitly stated:

Section 12. Regulations of Election Spending and Propaganda. The following provisions
shall govern election spending and propaganda in the election provided for in this Act:

xxx

4|Page
(G) All candidates and all other persons making or receiving expenditures, contributions
or donations which in their totality exceed fifty pesos, in order to further or oppose the
candidacy of any candidate, shall file a statement of all such expenditures and
contributions made or received on such dates and with such details as the Commission on
Elections shall prescribe by rules. The total expenditures made by a candidate, or by any
other person with the knowledge and consent of the candidate, shall not exceed thirty-two
thousand pesos. (Emphasis supplied)

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.” Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.126 (Where
the law does not distinguish, neither should We.) There should be no distinction in the
application of a law where none is indicated. xxxxx

II. On the Resolution of COMELEC

As enunciated in Juan v. Commission on Election:

Findings of facts of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise, are
afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such
findings are made from an erroneous estimation of the evidence presented, they are
conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be
disturbed. The COMELEC, as an administrative agency and a specialized constitutional
body charged with the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall, has
more than enough expertise in its field that its findings or conclusions are generally
respected and even given finality. x x x.

PRAYER

5|Page
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent most respectfully prays of
this Honorable Commission that the Petition for Review be DENIED and the
COMELEC DISQUALIFICATION ORDER be AFFIRMED

Davao City, Philippines, December 15, 2018.

COMELEC PROSECUTORS

Atty. Erick Jay N. Inok Atty. Leo B. Escalante

6|Page