Even if the election is still eight months away and the campaign period will start only on February 12 for Senatorial and party-list candidates, and March 29, 2013 for Congressional and local posts, there is already a proliferation of so many posters, streamers, billboards, ambulances and government vehicles bearing faces and/or names of government officials and politicians undoubtedly aspiring for or seeking an elective public office. Obviously these people are trying to do everything for name recall, or to be recognized, in preparation for the coming elections. This practice has been going on for quite a time now and has drawn the ire of concerned citizens who gave them the name “epal,” the Tagalog slang for mahilig pumapel or mapapel.
Lately, these epals have even utilized radio and TV to air their achievements, projects and plans. Sometimes they are also seen endorsing social services and programs or movements for improvement of peoples’ lives and surroundings. Some were even seen waving their hands with P-Noy on a six by six truck as they visited flood stricken areas during the last habagat. Others go to the extent of acting as commercial models endorsing various consumer products.
Evidently these activities are designed to promote their election to a public office. Even if the positions they are aspiring for are not yet specified, since they have not yet filed their certificates of candidacy, there is no need to do so because it has already been reported in media the positions they are seeking. For all intents and purposes these activities already constitute election campaigning under Section 79 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code. And under Section 80 of the Code, these “epals” and politicians may be held liable for premature campaigning.
But COMELEC Chairman Boy Brillantes seems unable to do something against these epals and their lamentable activities except to express his dismay and posts on his new Twitter account his passionate appeal “to remember their faces now and forget their names come election time.” Brillantes’ helplessness stems from the Supreme Court (SC) ruling in Penera vs. Andanar and Comelec (G.R. 181613, November 25, 2009) which declared that Section 80 has already been repealed by the poll automation law (RA 8436 as amended by RA 9369) and that therefore there is no more such thing as premature campaigning.
The Penera ruling however is not a well settled jurisprudence on this matter, enough to tie the hands of Brillantes on doing something to stop the current practices of government officials and politicians that “cheapen the electoral process.” In fact the case was originally decided against Penera who was initially disqualified for premature campaigning. The SC just subsequently flip flopped and reversed itself when Penera filed a motion for reconsideration.
In said case, after filing their certificates of candidacy but before the start of the campaign period, Penera and other members of her political party conducted a motorcade in 2 jeepneys and 10 motorcycles festooned with multi colored balloons and went around the different barangays and threw candies to the people they passed along the way. Upon petition of her opponent Andanar, the Comelec disqualified Penera. But the SC eventually ruled that Penera should not be disqualified. According to the SC, any person who filed his certificate of candidacy shall only be considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period, so political partisan activities before the start of the campaign period are lawful and a candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the campaign period.
Obviously, the SC in said case essentially determined only when a person is officially considered a “candidate” and when he becomes liable for election offenses, which is at the start of the campaign period. But Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code prohibiting election campaign or partisan political activity outside the campaign period is applicable to “any person whether or not a voter or candidate.” So, even a non candidate can be liable for premature campaigning and thus it is not entirely correct to say that the Penera ruling repealed Section 80. Those politicians and government officials posting their names and faces in public places and/ or buying political Ads on Radio and TV may still be held liable for premature campaigning.
The COMELEC can conclusively settle this issue on premature campaigning upon the filing of the certificates of candidacy of the aspirants on October 5, 2012. It could on its own initiative disapprove the certificates filed by those government officials and politicians with posters, bill boards, streamers and tarpaulins projecting their faces and names trying to be recognized obviously in preparation for the coming elections. They are all over the place. It is easy to determine who they are. The same action can be adopted against those with radio and TV ads apparently promoting themselves in preparation for the coming elections. Under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, they may be considered to be campaigning already outside the campaign period. Eventually the cases will reach the Supreme Court again.
Indeed the SC can always break away from its previous ruling in the Penera case. It can always establish a different jurisprudence on this issue of premature campaigning. To be sure, its present ruling in the Penera case really looks quite absurd. It is truly quite ludicrous to say that there is no more premature campaigning when the law still fixes a period for the start of the campaign. This is not the law. The law abhors absurdity. Hopefully the SC will be more reasonable and change its stand on this issue.
* * *
E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com