Previous 62 / 89 Next

The laudable and exemplary intention behind the prohibition against premature campaigning, as declared in Chavez v. Commission on Elections,[43] is to level the playing field for candidates of public office, to equalize the situation between the popular or rich candidates, on one hand, and lesser-known or poorer candidates, on the other, by preventing the former from enjoying undue advantage in exposure and publicity on account of their resources and popularity. 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. We cannot stress strongly enough that premature campaigning is a pernicious act that is continuously threatening to undermine the conduct of fair and credible elections in our country, no matter how great or small the acts constituting the same are. The choice as to who among the candidates will the voting public bestow the privilege of holding public office should not be swayed by the shrewd conduct, verging on bad faith, of some individuals who are able to spend resources to promote their candidacies in advance of the period slated for campaign activities. Verily, the consequences provided for in Section 68[44] of the Omnibus Election Code for the commission of the prohibited act of premature campaigning are severe: the candidate who is declared guilty of committing the offense shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or, if he/she has been elected, from holding office. Not to mention that said candidate also faces criminal prosecution for an election offense under Section 262 of the same Code.

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Domingo v. Commission on Elections

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the incumbent mayor prodded potential Board of Election Inspectors for the City?

Alleged Acts: The petitioner, Ernesto Domingo, Jr. and Benjamin Abalos, Jr. served a mayoral candidates for Mandaluyong City. The petitioner filed this action because Abalos, Jr. allegedly prodded the incumbent mayor Abalos, Sr. to give substantial allowances to public school teachers that were appointed as chairpersons to the Board of Election Inspectors for the City. Specifically, the incumbent mayor would provide the school teachers with hazard pay, food allowances, and additional allowances. The petitioner alleged that these payments clearly demonstrated Abalos, Jr.’s influence over his father. The petitioner submitted a video tape of a speech from the incumbent mayor, three public school teacher affidavits, and a steamer.

Procedural history: The petitioner alleges that Abalos, Jr. violated Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. The Election Comission (COMELEC) dismissed these claims and admonished the petitioner for making false claims. On reconsideration, these findings were again affirmed. The petitioner alleges that the complaint was improperly dismissed because it was dismissed for lack of evidence where there was no hearing on the merits of the case.

Summary: The court determined that there was no violation of the right to due process because, precedent indicated that this merely meant the right to be heard through verbal arguments, pleadings, or similar nature. Further, the court looked to the evidence presented by the petitioner and stated that the affidavits failed to provide any evidence of knowledge on the part of Abalos, Jr., the streamer indicated a co-sponsored event was common, and that the video tape modified the nature of the speech to as to cut out the incumbent’s mayor mentioning on of another individual, not Abalos, Jr.

Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition for insufficient evidence and lack of merit. This decision affirmed the election the mayor of Mandaluyong City.

Legal Issue(s)

Civil Procedure
Electoral Integrity
EMB Independence
EMB Operation

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Phillippines

Language of Decision

English

Court: Trial Court

Election Type: Local

Date of decision: Dec 1, 1998

Geolocation

Latitude: 14.58001497

Longitude: 120.865012

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Domingo v. Commission on Elections.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Domingo v. Commission on Elections

Primary Documents

Notifications