Penera v Comelec and Edgar Andanar Penera conducted a motorcade right after filing her certificate of candidacy and

was found guilty by the COMELEC, en banc and the SC. However, in a motion for reconsideration, the SC reversed itself and citing the Lanot case and cam aign eriod and that unlawful acts only begin to a ertinent rovisions discussing that a erson is only considered a candidate at the start of the ly u on the start of the cam aign eriod. !"# $his case is %inda weird because it says that she can&t be guilty of cam aigning because unlawful acts will only start to a eriod '() *+,-.. Soooo, how the hell can you be guilty of when the law won&t a ly /E0O(E the cam aigning remature

ly during the cam aign remature cam aigning remature

eriod1.. /asically, that&s the

reasoning of the SC. Either way, as ma&am stated, there&s no more cam aigning in our country and 2 guess this case e3 lains why. FACTS: 4Motion for (econsideration in SC in affirming COMELEC decision 4(esolution found etitioner guilty of

remature cam aigning 'Omnibus Election

Code Sec. *5. and ordering the dis6ualification of Penera from the candidacy of mayor of Munici ality of Sta Monica Surigao del 7orte 48 on filing for candidacy, she went on a motorcade. 4She won as mayor, however the COMELEC 9nd division decided in favor of the com lainant, affirmed by the COMELEC en banc. 4Petitioner&s main contention# 7ot yet a candidate at the time of the incident under Section :: of () *+,- as amended by Section :, of () ;,-;. 4$he revious decision of the SC states that after the filing of her candidacy already ma%es her a candidate even though the cam aign eriod has not yet started. Issue: <=7 etitioner was guilty of remature cam aigning '7O. Held: (osalinda ). Penera shall continue as Mayor of Sta. Monica, Surigao del 7orte. Ratio: 4$he main reason is basically because the law says so.

-$he revious decision of the SC was contrary to the ur ose and intent of the law. -Pertinent rovisions# -First: Section >;'a. of the Omnibus Election# ) ?candidate@ as ?any as iring for or of candidacy -Second: Section :A of () *+,-, as amended by Section :, of () ;,-; ?[a]ny erson !"o #iles "is certi#icate o# candidacy !it"in [t"e eriod #or !"ic" "e #iled "is certi#icate o# candidacy%@ eriod #or #iling] s"all only $e considered as a candidate at t"e start o# t"e cam aign see%ing an elective erson ublic office, who has filed a certificate

4$he immediately succeeding proviso in the same third aragra h states that ?unla!#ul acts or omissions a 4$he Lanot Case was discussed. 4Essential elements for violation of Section *5 of the Omnibus Election Code are# ':. a erson engages in an election cam aign or artisan olitical activityB '9. the act is designed to eriod. 4$he deadline for submission of was moved earlier to :95 days before election day by Section :: of (e ublic )ct 7o. *+,- '?() *+,-@.. 'Previous date was a day before cam aigning eriod. 4$he /icameral Conference Committee discussed that the moving of the date was only for the ertinent rovision. 4Main doctrine of the case# one who files a certificate of candidacy is not a candidate until the start of the cam aign eriod 4 Congress elevated the Lanot doctrine into a statute by s ecifically inserting it as the second sentence of the third *+,- 'second ertinent rovision. aragra h of the amended Section :A of () ur ose of roviding more time for the rinting of the ballots, not really to ronounce him as a candidate as stated in the first romote the election or defeat of a lica$le to a candidate s"all ta&e eriod%@ e##ect only u on t"e start o# t"e a#oresaid cam aign

articular candidate or candidatesB ',. the act is done outside the cam aign

4$hus, Congress not only reiterated but also strengthened its mandatory directive that election offenses can be committed by a candidate ? only@ u on the start of the cam aign eriod. $his clearly means that before the start of the cam aign eriod, such election offenses cannot be so committed. 4SC considered the motorcade as the etitioner&s e3ercise of her right to freedom of e3 ression

4?$hus, there is no need for Congress to declare in Section :A of () *+,-, as amended by () ;,-;, that cam aign unla!#ul act or omission a olitical artisan activities before the start of the eriod are lawful. 2t is sufficient for Congress to state that ? any lica$le to a candidate s"all ta&e e##ect only eriod .@ $he only inesca able and logical eriod, are

u on t"e start o# t"e cam aign lawful.@

result is that the same acts, if done before the start of the cam aign