ER Ejercito vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 212398, Nov.

25, 2014

SHORT 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.
 It argued among others, that a candidate for the position of Provincial Governor of Laguna is only authorized to incur an
election expense amounting to P4,576,566
o Ejercito, in total disregard and violation of the provision of law, exceeded his expenditures in relation to his
campaign for the 2013 election
o For television campaign commercials alone, Ejercito already spent the sum of P23,730,784 based on the party’s
official monitoring
o Even assuming that Ejercito was given 30% discount as prescribed under the Fair Election Act, he still exceeded in
the total allowable expenditures for which he paid the sum of P16,611,549
 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 as, in fact, his signature thereon was obviously
forged
o Even assuming that such contract benefited him, he alleges that he should not be penalized for the conduct of
third parties who acted on their own without his consent
 He also argued, among others, that the legislature imposes no legal limitation on campaign donations
o He vigorously asserts that COMELEC Resolution No. 9476 distinguishes between “contribution” and “expenditure”
and makes no proscription on the medium or amount of contribution made by third parties in favor of the
candidates, while the limit set by law, as appearing in COMELEC Resolution No. 9615, applies only to election
expenditures of candidates.

ISSUE: Are contributions of supporters included in the aggregate limit of the candidate’s election expenses?

RULING: Yes. Section 13 of R.A. No. 7166 sets the current allowable limit on expenses of candidates and political parties for election
campaign. Moreover, R.A. No. 7166 does not repeal Sections 100, 101, and 103 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), as these
provisions were merely amended insofar as the allowable amount is concerned. In tracing the legislative history of Sections 100,
101, and 103 of the OEC, it can be said, therefore, that the intent of our lawmakers has been consistent through the years: to
regulate not just the election expenses of the candidate but also of his or her contributor/supporter/donor as well as by including
in the aggregate limit of the former’s election expenses those incurred by the latter.

The phrase “those incurred or caused to be incurred by the candidate” is sufficiently adequate to cover those expenses which are
contributed or donated in the candidate’s behalf. By virtue of the legal requirement that a contribution or donation should bear the
written conformity of the candidate, a contributor/supporter/donor certainly qualifies as “any person authorized by such candidate
or treasurer.” There should be no distinction in the application of a law where none is indicated.