Republic of the Philippines

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Intramuros, Manila

Lorenzo S. Madamba
Complainant

v.s. E.O. Case No. 16-117

Violation of (R.A 9006)
Fair Election Act

Grace Poe Et. al

Rodrigo R. Duterte
Jejomar Binay
Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
Imee R. Marcos
Angelo M. Barba
Joseph Mathew M. Manotoc
Respondents
x------------------------------x

RECOMMENDATION

FACTS

This is a case filed by Mr. Lorenzo S. Madamba against the

herein respondents for alleged violation of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9006 otherwise known as Fair Election Act. Mr. Madamba
alleged that during the campaign period for May 9, 2016 National
and Local Election, the herein respondents election materials
(i.e. tarpaulins, posters, etc.) do not conform to lawful sizes as
indicated in Comelec Resolution No. 100491. Likewise, these
election materials, according to him, are posted outside the
common poster area. Hence, complainant prayed that herein
respondents be punished for their alleged acts2.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO PROSECUTE
HEREIN RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATION OF R.A. NO. 9006
____________________
 2

1. Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act 9006 otherwise known as Fair Election Act in connection

with 09 May 2016 National and Local Election

2. Records, page 7

RECOMMENDATION

To answer the issue at bar, it is necessary to define

probable cause as guidance in resolving this issue. Probable
cause has been defined as the existence of such facts and
circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind,
acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, which
the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was
prosecuted. xxx The term does not mean "actual or positive
cause" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based
on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable
cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed
that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense
charged.3
In this case, under Comelec Resolution No. 10049, Sections 6
and 7 thereof, enumerate the lawful election propaganda and
prohibited forms of election propaganda, respectively. In dealing
with these two important provisions, Section 19 lays down the
parameters in ensuring proper implementation of the two above-
mentioned sections. Section 19 of Comelec clearly states:

“Posting of Campaign Materials. - Parties and candidates may

post lawful campaign material in:

a. Authorized common poster areas in public places, subject to

the requirements and/or limitations set forth in the next
following section; and

b. Private property, provided that the posting has the consent

of the owner thereof and that the applicable provisions of
Section 6 herein are complied with.

The posting of campaign materials in public places outside of

the designated common poster areas, on private property without
 3

the consent of the owner or in violation of Section 6 hereof, and

in those places enumerated under Section 7 (f) of these Rules
and the like, is prohibited. Persons posting the same shall be
liable together with the candidates and other persons who
caused the posting.”

____________________

3. Uniliver vs.Michael Tan, G.R. No. 179367, January 29, 2014

On this particular section, the undersigned believe that the

complaint of Mr. Madamba must fail. It is clear that under the
above-cited provision, as correctly pointed out by respondent
Matthew Joseph Manotoc in his counter-affidavit 4, the culpability
of candidates and others persons who caused the posting hinges
on the established culpability of persons posting the alleged
materials. In his complaint, Mr. Madamba neither alleges nor
mentions that respondents personally or thru their
representatives caused the posting of the alleged campaign
materials. Nor alleges that respondents have personal knowledge
in printing as well as posting of the same. In general, a perusal of
petitioner’s allegations clearly shows that they are mere general
statements or conclusions of law, wanting in evidentiary support
and substantiation.

More importantly, the same provision provides a scenario

where the offense of unlawful posting of campaign materials is
deemed committed. The same section provides that:

“It will be presumed that the candidates and parties

caused the posting of campaign materials outside the
common poster areas if they do not remove the same within
three (3) days from notice issued by the Election Officer of
the city or municipality where the election propaganda is
posted or displayed”
 4

Upon perusal of respondents’ counter-affidavit and upon

verification of fellow election officers within the province,
respondents did not receive notices to remove any illegal
campaign materials. Hence, the presumption laid down under
section 19 cannot be used against the respondents.

Granting for the sake of argument, that there were unlawful

campaign materials, showing not only the face of respondents
but also other candidates, Comelec personnel with the help of
other government bureau would have immediately removed these
illegal election materials through “operation baklas”, which were
conducted in the province.

_________________________

4 Records, page 52

While it is true that we share the sentiment of complainant

in strictly implementing the provisions of fair election act, the
same cannot be done without observing and following the clear
and unambiguous provisions of the same law.

WHEREFORE, based on the above-mentioned reasons, the

undersigned hereby recommends the dismissal of the complaint
for lack of probable cause.

Atty. Julius Harvey Prieto Balbas

Election Officer III
5