By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Electoral Offenses: A Closer Look at Local Candidates’ Violations
Electoral offenses committed by local candidates have long been a concern in Philippine elections as they undermine the integrity of the democratic process. A notable case is Ejercito v. Commission on Elections, et al., where Emilio Ramon “E.R.” P. Ejercito was disqualified for exceeding the allowable campaign expenditures. The Supreme Court upheld the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) decision, emphasizing that expenses incurred by third-party contributors with the candidate’s consent must be included in the computation of campaign expenses. This case highlights the importance of adhering to campaign finance laws to ensure fair competition among candidates G.R. No. 212398 (2014).
Another significant case is Garcia v. Commission on Elections, et al., where Alvin B. Garcia was charged with election offenses for publishing political advertisements that violated election laws. The COMELEC found probable cause and directed the filing of charges, which the Supreme Court upheld. This case underscores the need for candidates to comply with regulations on political advertisements, such as indicating the name and address of the party or candidate benefiting from the ads G.R. No. 170256 (2010).
In Francisco v. Commission on Elections, et al., the petitioner alleged that a local candidate used public funds for a road construction project during the election period, an act considered an election offense. While the Supreme Court clarified that a prior criminal conviction is not required for disqualification, the petition was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. This case demonstrates the dual nature of election offenses, which have both criminal and electoral aspects, and the importance of substantial evidence in disqualification proceedings G.R. No. 230249 (2018).
The case of Cawasa, et al. v. Commission on Elections, et al. involved allegations of election fraud in a local election, including the illegal transfer of polling places and the appointment of military personnel as election inspectors. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s annulment of the election results, emphasizing the need to safeguard the electoral process from fraud and irregularities G.R. No. 150469 (2002).
Lastly, the recent case of Bargado y Morgado v. People of the Philippines highlights the retroactive application of penal laws favorable to the accused. The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioner, who was charged with violating the election gun ban, after determining that the postponement of elections nullified the election period during which the offense allegedly occurred. This case underscores the principle that penal laws must be interpreted in favor of the accused when applicable G.R. No. 271081 (2024).
These cases illustrate the various ways local candidates have violated election laws, from overspending and fraudulent practices to misuse of public funds. They also highlight the critical role of the COMELEC and the judiciary in ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law in the electoral process. (Anycase.ai Technologies, Inc. (2025). Anycase.ai. https://app.anycase.ai/chat/mZ80C4MO7nXI4AoHx6iP)