Held
No, Mayor Guinto is not correct; under Section 103 of the Omnibus Election Code and the ruling in Ejercito v. Commission On Elections, expenditures made by any person with the knowledge and consent of the candidate or treasurer shall be considered as expenditures of such candidate, and the total campaign spending includes such expenditures (Section 103, Omnibus Election Code; Ejercito v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 212398).
Explanation
The law limits the total campaign expenditures of a candidate to a fixed amount per registered voter in the constituency. This limit includes not only the expenses directly incurred by the candidate but also those made by any person with the candidate's knowledge and consent. Section 103 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibits any person other than the candidate, the treasurer, or a person authorized in writing by them from making expenditures in support of the candidate. If expenditures are authorized or accepted by the candidate or treasurer, those expenses are considered part of the candidate's campaign spending. The Supreme Court in Ejercito v. COMELEC clarified that expenditures made by contributors or supporters with the candidate's knowledge and consent are included in the candidate's spending limit. This rule ensures that candidates cannot circumvent spending limits by having third parties spend on their behalf without accountability. However, independent expenditures made without the candidate's knowledge, consent, or authorization are not counted against the candidate's spending limit, as these represent the free expression of private individuals or groups.
Application to the facts
Mayor Guinto's direct campaign spending of PHP 850,000 is within his allowable limit of PHP 900,000. The Mahirap Business Club (MBC) spent PHP 2 million on an advertisement praising Mayor Guinto, and the Partido ng Bano (PNB) spent PHP 1.5 million on campaign materials. Mayor Guinto claims these were independent expenditures without his knowledge or coordination. If MBC and PNB truly acted independently, without any request, authorization, or coordination with Mayor Guinto or his campaign, their spending would not be counted against his campaign expenditure limit. This aligns with the principle that independent expenditures by private groups exercising their freedom of expression are not imputable to the candidate. However, if there is evidence that Mayor Guinto or his campaign authorized, consented to, or coordinated with MBC or PNB regarding these expenditures, then these amounts must be included in his total campaign spending. The Ejercito case emphasizes that expenditures made with the candidate's knowledge and consent are considered part of the candidate's expenses. The question of whether Mayor Guinto had knowledge or gave consent to MBC and PNB's expenditures is crucial. If he did, his total spending of PHP 4.35 million exceeds the allowable limit, making him liable for overspending under Section 68(c) of the Omnibus Election Code. If he did not, only his direct spending of PHP 850,000 counts, which is within the limit.
- citation lookup failed (unknown instrument: 'OEC for campaign overspending'); used search
"Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of... (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code... shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office."
"No candidate shall spend for his election campaign an aggregate amount exceeding one peso and fifty centavos for every voter currently registered in the constituency where he filed his candidacy: Provided, That the expenses herein referred to shall include those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate, whether in cash or in kind..."
"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."
In Ejercito v. Commission On Elections, the Supreme Court explained that the intent of lawmakers has been to regulate not just the election expenses of the candidate but also of his or her contributor, supporter, or donor, by including in the aggregate limit of the candidate's election expenses those incurred by the latter. The Court stated that 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.
Laws retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.
- Section 13, Synchronized National and Local Elections Act
- Section 100, Omnibus Election Code and Other Election Laws
- Section 102, Omnibus Election Code and Other Election Laws
- Section 103, Omnibus Election Code and Other Election Laws
- Section 101, Omnibus Election Code and Other Election Laws
- Section 68, Omnibus Election Code and Other Election Laws
"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 consideredas an election offense.87 Notably, R.A. No. 9006 explicitly directs that broadcast advertisements donated to the candidate shall not be broadcasted without the…
"These materials are "declarative speech that, taken as a whole, has for its principal object the endorsement of a candidate only."75 Accordingly, the application of the _Diocese of Bacolod_ test, in accordance with the required judicial temperament in appraising speech in the context of electoral campaigns which is principally designed to endorse a candidate as enunciated in _Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections,_76 is proper. The Court finds that the COMELEC's implementation of _"Oplan Baklas"_ as to St. Anthony College et al.'s election paraphernalia is unconstitutional as it is not allowed…
In Ejercito v. Commission On Elections, the Supreme Court found that the law intends to regulate not just the candidate's own expenses but also those incurred by contributors or donors on the candidate's behalf, and that the phrase 'those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate' covers expenses contributed or donated for the candidate.
Cases retrieved
Everything retrieval surfaced, not only what the answer relied on. Read the ones it quotes.