ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | PEÑERA VS. COMELEC G.R. NO. 181613, NOVEMBER 25, 2009
PEÑERA VS. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 181613,
NOVEMBER 25, 2009
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Under the
Decision, a candidate may already be liable for premature campaigning after the
filing of the certificate of candidacy but even before the start of the campaign period. From the filing of the certificate of candidacy,
even long before the start of the campaign period, the Decision considers the
partisan political acts of a person so filing a certificate of candidacy “as the promotion of his/her election as a candidate.” Thus, such person can be disqualified for premature
campaigning for acts done before the start of the campaign period. In short, the Decision considers a person who files a certificate of
candidacy already a “candidate”
even before the start of the campaign period. The assailed Decision is contrary to the
clear intent and letter of the law.
FACTS
Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar
were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte during the 14 May
2007 elections. On 2 April 2007, Andanar filed before the Office of the
Regional Election Director (ORED), Caraga Region (Region XIII), a Petition for
Disqualification against Penera, as well as the candidates for Vice-Mayor and
Sangguniang Bayan who belonged to her political party, for unlawfully engaging
in election campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the
commencement of the campaign period.
Andanar claimed that on 29 March 2007 – a day
before the start of the authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007 – Penera
and her partymates went around the different barangays in Sta. Monica, announcing
their candidacies and requesting the people to vote for them on the day of the
elections. Penera alone filed an Answer denying the charges but admitted that a
motorcade did take place and that it was simply in accordance with the usual
practice in nearby cities and provinces, where the filing of certificates of
candidacy (COCs) was preceded by a motorcade, which dispersed soon after the
completion of such filing. The COMELEC disqualified Penera but absolved the
other candidates from Penera’s party from violation of section 80 and 68 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Penera filed for a moton for reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether Penera should be disqualified.
RULING
No.
The court ruled that Republic Act No. 8436 and Republic Act No. 9369 do not consider Penera
a candidate for purposes other than the printing of ballots, until the start of
the campaign period.
The court ruled that the assailed Decision,
however, in reversing Lanot does not claim that this second sentence or any portion of Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by
RA 9369, is unconstitutional. In fact, the Decision considers the entire
Section 15 good law. Thus, the Decision is self-contradictory—reversing Lanot but maintaining the constitutionality of the second sentence, which embodies the Lanot doctrine. In so doing, the Decision is irreconcilably
in conflict with the clear intent and letter of the second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA
9369. Republic Act No. 8436 and
Republic Act No. 9369 do not consider Penera a candidate for purposes other
than the printing of ballots, until the start of the campaign period. Court has
no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that “any person
who files his certificate of candidacy within (the filing) period shall only be
considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed
his certificate of candidacy; Neither can it turn a blind eye to the express
and clear language of the law that “any unlawful act or omission applicable to
a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period.”