Republic of the Philippines

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

MEMORANDUM

For : Hon. Andres D. Bautista

Chairman
Commission on Elections

Subject : Petition for Review on the Resolution of the

COMELEC against Vice Mayoralty
Candidate Mr. Pedro
Date : December 08, 2018

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

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

received by the Respondent Pedro

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 fees of his lawyers during the campaign

Under Item (i), Section 102 of Batas Pambansa 881 otherwise known as the
Omnibus Election Code

x x x Sec. 102. Lawful expenditures. - To carry out the objectives of the

preceding sections, no candidate or treasurer of a political party shall, directly or
indirectly, make any expenditure except for the following purposes:

xxxx
(i) For employment of counsel, the cost of which shall not be taken into account in
determining the amount of expenses which a candidate or political party may have incurred
under Section 100 and 101 hereof; x x x (underscoring supplied)

Moreover, the same rule was reiterated in the recent Comelec Resolution No. 9991
dated October 2, 2015. Item (i), Section 3, Rule 6 of the said resolution provides :
xxxx
(i) For employment of counsel;

x x x x The expenditures form items (i), (j), and (k), shall not be taken
into account in determining whether the expenditure limit has been
breached by the candidate or party in the conduct of campaign
activities. (OEC, 102) (Underscoring supplied)x x x x

Respondent COMELEC clearly erred in finding Pedro liable for overspending, A

cardinal rule in statutory construction is that when the law is clear and free from any doubt
or ambiguity, there is no room for construction or interpretation. There is only room for
application. As the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the
plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is expressed in the maxim, index animi sermo, or
speech is the index of intention. Furthermore, there is the maxim verba legis non est
recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure ( Bolos vs Bolos
G.R. No. 186400) . The law explicitly stated that “employment of counsel shall not be
2|Page
taken into account in determining whether the expenditure limit has been breached by the
candidate or party”, thus it cannot be said that Pedro has overspent in his campaign.

II. On the expenses incurred by his political party

In the case of (Salvador vs COMELEC , G.R. No. 230744, September 26, 2017) the
Supreme Court held that , a political party is allowed to spend election expenses different
from that of an individual candidate and is further strengthened on the fact that under
Section 13 of RA No.7116, it clearly provides for two different ceilings, to wit: (a) for
candidates and (b) for political parties.

Section 13 of R.A. No. 7166, a provision which provides for the allowable expenses of a
candidate and political parties, is an amendment to Section 100 of the OEC. The pertinent
provisions state:

x x x x Sec. 100. Limitations upon expenses of candidates. - 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, including the use, rental or hire of land, water,
or aircraft, equipment, facilities, apparatus and paraphernalia used in the campaign;
Provided, further, That where the land, water, aircraft, 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. x x x x

While Section 13 of R.A. No. 7166 provides:

xxxx
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:

1. For Candidates. - Ten pesos (P10.00) for President and Vice President; and for other
candidates Three Pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency
where he filed his certificate of candidacy; Provided, That a candidate without any
political party and without support from any political party may be allowed to spend Five
Pesos (P5.00) for every such voter; and

3|Page
2. 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 gift tax.x x x x

Sec. 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.x
xxx

III. On the Good faith of the Petitioner

Petitioner Pedro indeed committed an honest mistake in including as expenses the fees of
his lawyers during campaign and the expenses incurred by his political parties in good faith
and moreover, pursuant to the Omnibus Election Code, the law explicitly exempts the
inclusion of payment of counsel from the overall cost of expenditures which is generally
limited.

xxxx Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or
statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the
absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable
advantage. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith
lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim and
absence of intention to overreach another. Applied to possession, one is considered in
good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw
which invalidates it.(Ochoa vs Apeta , G.R 146259, September 13, 2007)xxxx

PRAYER

4|Page
 WHEREFORE, premises considered, Respondent most respectfully prays of
this Honorable Commission that the Petition for Review be AFFIRMED and the
COMELEC DISQUALIFICATION ORDER be REVERSED AND SET ASIDE

Davao City, Philippines, December 08, 2018.

COUNSELS FOR THE PETITIONER

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

5|Page