Comelec should recall order to ‘Soce violators’
With the issuance of Comelec Resolution No. 9834, the Commission on Elections should now recall its previous order directing some elected officials with alleged defective statements of contributions and expenses (Soce) to vacate their posts. In that resolution, the Comelec clarifies that the penalty of fine imposed on them “does not constitute the administrative fine under Section 14 (of Republic Act No. 7166) and does not make them administratively liable for violation of Section 14 of RA 7166.”
Section 14 of RA 7166 imposes a fine ranging from P1,000 to P30,000, in the discretion of the Comelec, on any candidate who fails to submit his Soce within the period prescribed by law. It also provides that a winning candidate cannot enter upon the duties of his office until he and/or his political party has filed the Soce within the deadline set by the Comelec which, in the May 2013 polls, was June 13, 2013. To implement this provision of law, the Comelec issued Resolution No. 13-0823 on July 2, 2013, setting the “scale of penalties” or the amount of fine to be imposed on noncompliant candidates. However, the resolution has not yet been “published in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation” as required under Section 35 of RA 7166, hence, the same is not yet effective or enforceable.
But more than that, with the clarification in Resolution No. 9834, there is no more reason or basis to cite Section 14 of RA 7166 as ground for ordering these officials to vacate their elective positions. In other words, there is no more “violation of the Soce rules” under Section 14 of RA 7166 which could be the basis to remove or order an elected official to vacate his post.
Also, the Comelec should first notify the concerned officials, including all the losing candidates, of whatever deficiencies discovered in their respective Soces. After all, Comelec Resolution No. 13-0823 is clear: candidates should have been first advised of the alleged defects in their Soce on or before June 29, 2013 but, as stated in the resolution, “due to the delay in the transmittal of the campaign documents from the field, not all local candidates were duly informed of their deficiencies within (sic) the 29 June 2013 deadline.”
Furthermore, the Comelec should also consider removing from the list the names of elected candidates whose only “fault” was that they submitted Soces that were not in the “prescribed form.” Section 14, of RA 7166 does not provide for a “prescribed form of Soce.” All that the law requires is an “itemized statement of all contributions and expenditures in connection with the election.” While the Comelec is empowered to issue rules and regulations to implement the law, such rules cannot prescribe what the law does not provide.
Lastly, from the 422 elected officials allegedly with defective Soce, the Comelec will earn around P3 million, that is, if it collects an average P7,200 per candidate, based on the scale of penalties it set in its Resolution No. 13-0823. And more will come when the Comelec takes into account the thousands of candidates who lost in the 2013 polls but still subject to the Soce requirements.
—ROMULO B. MACALINTAL,
election lawyer, Las Piñas City
