After SC TRO, rich candidates warned on overspending
The Supreme Court seemed to be a confused lot when it issued a temporary restraining order stopping the Commission on Elections from implementing its time limit on radio-TV political ads and directing the poll body to use its 2010 rules on broadcast time.
The rule is very clear: For every election period a separate set of resolution has to be issued by the Comelec to implement a particular provision of the election law sought to be enforced. Thus, Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006 (Fair Election Law) provides that its provisions could be implemented by the Comelec by issuing the corresponding rules and regulations.
In the 2010 elections, the Comelec issued Resolution 8758, specifically “in relation to the May 10, 2010 elections for national and local elections” to implement RA 9006. For 2013, Resolution 9615 was issued by the Comelec “in relation to the May 13, 2013 national, local and ARMM elections.” Resolution 9615 is clearly separate and distinct from Resolution 8758 which was specifically designed for activities in the 2010 elections.
Candidates who might avail themselves of the TRO and use more time to air their political ads in excess of that set by the Comelec may find themselves in trouble should the high court decide in favor of the Comelec position. Their rival candidates may charge them with an election offense—for exceeding the time limit provided under Resolution 9615.
If at all, the TRO favors rich senatorial candidates and rich party-list representatives. With 50 million registered voters, each of them can spend, on their own, P3 per registered voter (or a total of P150 million). Aside from that, their political parties can spend P5 for every registered voter (or a total of P250 million). For sure, the poor candidates and marginalized party-list groups cannot put up such big amounts, thus they are in a very disadvantaged position.
In other words, the substantive evil the time limitations were intended to prevent has been allowed by the Court decision. As early as 1969, in the case of Gonzales vs Comelec, on the issue of election campaigning, a Supreme Court justice already opined that “huge expenditure of funds give deserving but poor candidates slim chances of winning. They constitute an inducement to graft to winning candidates already in office in order to recoup campaign expenses” (cited on p. 265, “The Constitution,” Bernas). The TRO is a far cry from the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that “the provision of freedom of expression must be read in conjunction with the power given to the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during the elections as well as with the various provisions in the Constitution, which place a high premium on equalization and opportunities.” (National Press Club vs Comelec, 1992)
—ROMULO B. MACALINTAL,
election lawyer, Las Piñas City
