EJERCITO VS COMELEC

FACTS:

Three days prior to the May 13, 2013 National and Local Elections, a petition for disqualification was filed
by San Luis before the Office of the COMELEC Clerk in Manila against Ejercito, who was a fellow
gubernatorial candidate and, at the time, the incumbent Governor of the Province of Laguna.

1. Ejercito distributed to the electorates of the province of Laguna the so-called "Orange Card" with
an intent to influence, induce or corrupt the voters in voting for his favor. Province of Laguna has
a total of 1,525,522 registered electorate. The authorized expenses of candidates (aggregate
amount) is three pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently registered in the constituency where the
candidate filed his certificate of candidacy.
2. A candidate for the position of Provincial Governor of Laguna is only authorized to incur an
election expense amounting to FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX (P4,576,566.00) PESOS.
3. However, in total disregard and violation of the afore-quoted provision of law, [Ejercito] exceeded
his expenditures in relation to his campaign for the 2013 election. For television campaign
commercials alone, [Ejercito] already spent the sum of PhP23,730.784 based on our party's official
monitoring.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ejercito should be disqualified?

HELD:

Yes. Ejercito should be disqualified for spending in his election campaign an amount in excess of what
is allowed by the OEC.

Ejercito claims that the advertising contracts between ABS-CBN Corporation and Scenema Concept
International, Inc. were executed by an identified supporter without his knowledge and consent. He
believes that an advertising contract paid for by a third party without the candidate's knowledge and
consent must be considered a form of political speech that must prevail against the laws suppressing it.

We refuse to believe that the advertising contracts between ABS-CBN Corporation and Scenema Concept
International, Inc. were executed without Ejercito's knowledge and consent. His express conformity to the
advertising contracts is actually a must because non-compliance is considered as an election offense.

R.A. No. 9006 provides:

Sec. 4. Requirements for Published or Printed and Broadcast Election Propaganda. —

xxx xxx xxx

4.3 Print, broadcast or outdoor advertisements donated to the candidate or political party shall not be
printed, published, broadcasted or exhibited without the written acceptance by the said candidate or
political party. Such written acceptance shall be attached to the advertising contract and shall be
submitted to the COMELEC as provided in Subsection 6.3 hereof.
This Court cannot give weight to Ejercito's representation that his signature on the advertising contracts
was a forgery. The issue is a belated claim, raised only for the first time in this petition for certiorari.
Likewise, whether the advertising contracts were executed without Ejercito's knowledge and consent, and
whether his signatures thereto were fraudulent, are issues of fact.

Section 11 (b) of R.A. No. 6646 does not invade and violate the constitutional guarantees comprising
freedom of expression. Regarding the regulation by the Commission of the enjoyment or utilization of
franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of
communication or information, all grants, special privileges or concessions granted by the Government,
there is a provision that during the election period, the Commission may regulate, among other things,
the rates, reasonable free space, and time allotments for public information campaigns and forums among
candidates for the purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest and peaceful elections.

The inclusion of the amount contributed by a donor to the candidate's allowable limit of election expenses
does not trample upon the free exercise of the voters' rights of speech and of expression under Section
4, Article III of the Constitution. As a content-neutral regulation, the law's concern is not to curtail the
message or content of the advertisement promoting a particular candidate but to ensure equality
between and among aspirants with "deep pockets" and those with less financial resources. Any restriction
on speech or expression is only incidental and is no more than necessary to achieve the substantial
governmental interest of promoting equality of opportunity in political advertising. Indeed, to rule
otherwise would practically result in an unlimited expenditure for political advertising, which skews the
political process and subverts the essence of a truly democratic form of government.