Political advertisement

This case is useful to candidates who publish printed advertisements in newspapers. The law involved here is the Fair Elections Act (Section 6, R.A. 9006) requiring that print advertisements shall not exceed page in a broad sheet and page in a tabloid and that the same shall be published only thrice a week per newspaper, magazine or other publication during the campaign period. Also involved is Section 4 which requires that any published or printed political matter shall be identified by legible words “political advertisement paid by” followed by the true and correct name and address of the candidate or party for whose benefit the election propaganda was printed and that if it is donated, it shall not be published without the written acceptance by said candidate.

The candidate involved here (AG) ran for mayor in the 2004 elections. He and his family own stocks in a local newspaper publishing company. From April 26 to May 2, 2004 or a period of one week straight, the said newspaper published for seven consecutive times a political advertisement entitled “It’s No Contest” promoting AG’s candidacy. According to the affidavit of the newspaper’ manager, an organization called “Friends of AG’” caused and paid for said publication.

Upon complaint of his opponent (TO), AG was charged with the violation of Section 6 in relation to Section 4 of the Fair Elections Act. After preliminary investigation, the COMELEC en banc found the existence of probable cause and directed its law department to file appropriate information against AG for violation of Section 6 of R.A. 9006 and Section 13 of COMELEC Resolution 6520 in relation to Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code punishing a person guilty of an election offense with imprisonment of not less than one or more than six years, disqualification to hold public office and deprivation of the right of suffrage.

AG questioned this action of the COMELEC. He contended that he was neither the author of the political advertisement nor the one who caused its publication as shown by the affidavit of the paper’s general manager stating that an organization named “Friends of AG” paid for and caused its publication. Since there was no competent proof that he performed the alleged acts violating the Fair Elections Law, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding the existence of probable cause and directing the filing of charges against him, AG contended. Was AG correct?

No. Probable cause does not mean actual or positive cause, nor does it import absolute certainty. It does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to entertain an honest and strong belief that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.

In this case, AG himself averred that the advertisement in question was paid for by the organization named “Friends of AG”. This advertisement may be considered as a donation to AG under Section 4 of R.A. 9006 which explicitly requires that it shall not be published without the written acceptance of the said candidate, which written acceptance shall be attached to the advertising contract and submitted to the COMELEC. Since the advertisement was published there arises a presumption that there was written acceptance by AG of the said advertisement paid for or donated by his friends in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Hence there is probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that he participated in the act complained of.

The requirement for a written acceptance by a candidate of donated advertisements is a safeguard provided by law against the danger of publishing or broadcasting election propaganda beyond the required frequency, size and other limitations imposed by law without the candidates’ express agreement since the violation thereof results in the prosecution of the candidate for an election offense punishable by Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Hence the Information already filed in the Regional Trial Court must be allowed to take its due course (Garcia vs. COMELEC and Osmena, G.R. 170256, January 25, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]