Penera v.

Comelec Sept 11, 2009

FACTS:
1.
Certiorari for nullification of Comelec resolution ordering disqualification of petitioner Penera as a
candidate for the position of mayor of the Municipality of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte (Sta. Monica) in the 2007
Elections.
2.
Penera and Andanar were mayoralty candidates. Andanar filed petition for disqualification of Penera
for engaging in premature election campaign and partisan political activity. Penera cited Barroso v. Ampig
where court ruled motorcade during filing of COCs not a form of political campaigning.
3.
Comelec 2nd division issued Resolution disqualifying Penera from continuing as mayoralty candidate for
engaging in premature campaign, violating sections 80 and 68 of Omnibus Election Code.
4.
Penera filed before Comelec En banc but MR was likewise denied.
ISSUES/HELD/RATIO: WON Penera and partymates violated the prohibition on premature campaign?
YES.
1.
It had been sufficiently established both by evidence from Andanar and Penera herself that
Penera and her partymates, after filing their COCs on March 29, 2007 (day before start of campaign
period) participated in a motorcade which passed through the different barangays of Sta. Monica, waived their
hands to the public, and threw candies to the onlookers.
2.
The conduct of a motorcade is a form of election campaign or partisan political activity within the ambit of
Section 79(b)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code.
3.
The majority disagrees with Dissenting Opinion which concludes that the prohibited act of premature
campaigning, is practically impossible to commit at any time because Penera is not yet considered as a
candidate until the start of campaign period. Hence, they could not fall under prohibition for candidates to
engage in premature campaign.
4.
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code remains relevant and applicable despite Section 15 of Republic
Act No. 8436, as amended. The intention for prohibiting premature campaigning, as explained in Chavez,
could not have been significantly altered or affected by Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by Republic Act No.
9369, the avowed purpose of which is to carry-on the automation of the election system. Whether the election
would be held under the manual or the automated system, the need for prohibiting premature campaigning
to level the playing field between the popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and the lesser-known or poorer
candidates, on the other, by allowing them to campaign only within the same limited period remains.
WHEREFORE, Certiorari is hereby DISMISSED. Disqualifying Penera from running for the office of Mayor of Sta.
Monica, Surigao del Norte, and the resulting permanent vacancy therein, it is hereby DECLARED that the proclaimed
Vice-Mayor is the rightful successor to said office.

Penera v Comelec Nov. 25, 2009

FACTS:

1.

The earlier Decision considers a person who files a certificate of candidacy already a
candidate even before the start of the campaign period. The Decision reverses Lanot v. COMELEC,
which held that a person who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the
campaign period. Lanots ground was based on the deliberations of the legislators who explained the intent of the
provisions of RA 8436, which laid the legal framework for an automated election system. There was no express

provision in the original RA 8436 stating that one who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the
start of the campaign period.
a. Section 79(a) of the Omnibus Election Code defines a candidate as any person aspiring for or
seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy x x x.
b. The second sentence, third paragraph, Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by Section 13 of RA 9369,
provides that [a]ny person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the period for filing]
shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his
certificate of candidacy.
c. The immediately succeeding proviso in the same third paragraph states that unlawful acts or omissions
applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period.
WON the MR should be granted and Penera continue her post as Mayor? YES.
1.
Congress elevated the Lanot doctrine into a statute by specifically inserting it as the second
sentence of the third paragraph of the amended Section 15 of RA 8436, which cannot be annulled by
this Court except on the sole ground of its unconstitutionality. The Decision cannot reverse Lanot without
repealing this second sentence, because to reverse Lanot would mean repealing this second sentence.
2.
What the law says is any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the
start of the campaign period. Before the start of the campaign period, the same partisan political acts
are lawful.
WHEREFORE, Peneras MR is hereby GRANTED. Rosalinda A. Penera shall continue as Mayor of Sta. Monica,
Surigao del Norte.