PLUGGING THE LOOPHOLE OF PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING

A Proposal to Amend Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369 or the Amended Automated Election
Law

Mary Antonette P. Igna

2019-80014
June 24, 2022

A thesis submitted
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Juris Doctor

Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

College of Law
 AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

PLUGGING THE LOOPHOLE OF PREMATURE CAMPAIGNING

A Proposal to Amend Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369 or the Amended Automated Election
Law

I declare that I have personally prepared this thesis. I have completed the same in accordance
with the provisions of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila College of Law Thesis Manual
and all existing rules of the university and the College.
No part of this thesis is plagiarized. I understand and agree that should the thesis panel find that
all or any portion of my thesis is plagiarized, this University shall subject me to disciplinary
action, which action may include expulsion or a dishonorable dismissal from the University.
This research project is original and a result of my work. I have not submitted this to this
University or to any other academic or non-academic institution for any other degree or
qualification.

MARY ANTONETTE P. IGNA

June 24, 2022
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter I – Introduction
Background of the Study ……………………………………………………………………....... 1
Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………………………...... 2
Significance of the Study ………………………………………………………………………...3
Objective ……………………………………………………………………………………....... 3
Scope and limitation ……………………………………………………………………………. 3
Definition of terms……………………………………………………………………………… 4
Chapter II – Review of Related Literature

Factual and Historical Background ……………………………………………………………..5

Political Culture in the Philippines…………………………………………………………….. 5
Pre-campaign period ……………………………………………………………………………5
Filing of Candidacy ………………………………………………………………………….....5
Formal Campaign Period ………………………………………………………………………5
Election day…………………………………………………………………………………….6
Post-Election Period …………………………………………………………………………...6
Premature Campaigning ……………………………………………………………………….6
Vote buying in the Philippines ………………………………………………………………. .7
What is vote buying? ………………………………………………………………………….7
Vote buying among the Poor in the Philippines ……………………………………………....7
Chapter II - Review of Related Laws and Jurisprudence
BP Blg 881 or the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines ……………………………… 8
Election and Campaign Periods ……………………………………………………………....8
Republic Act No. 9369 or the Amended Automated Election Law …………………………..9
Candidate……………………………………………………………………………………... 9
Penera v. COMELEC………………………………………………………………………….9
Lanot v. COMELEC …………………………………………………………………………. 9
Gonzales v. COMELEC ……………………………………………………………………. 10
Chavez v. COMELEC ……………………………………………………………………… 10
COMELEC v. Tagle ………………………………………………………………………… 10
Bills that seeks to address the loophole in premature campaigning …………………………. 11
SB No. 2445, AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 81 OF BATAS PAMBANSA
BILANG 881 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OMNUBUS ELECTION CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES ……………………………………………………………………………….... 11
HB 10614 AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 81 OF BATAS PAMBANSA
BILANG 881 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OMNUBUS ELECTION CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES ………………………………………………………………………………… 11
SB No. 1893 AN ACT REDEFINING THE PROHIBITED ACT OF PREMATURE
CAMPAIGNING, ACCORDINGLY AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80, AND 81 OF BATAS
PAMBANSA BILANG 881, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
OF THE PHILIPPINES” ……………………………………………………………………… 12
Chapter III - Methodology
Methodology …………………………………………………………………………………… 13
List of Laws and Jurisprudence
Statutes and Codes
Republic Act No. 9369 (2007)

OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE (1985)

Legislative Bills
S. No. 2445, 16th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2014) AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 81 OF

BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 881 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OMNUBUS

ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

S. No. 1893, 17th Cong. 3rd Sess. (2018) AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 81 OF

BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 881 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OMNUBUS

ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

H. No. 10614, 18th Cong. 3rd Sess. (2021) AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 81

OF BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 881 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OMNUBUS

ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Jurisprudence
Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613, Nov. 25, 2009

Lanot v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858, November 16, 2006

Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-27833, April 18, 1969

Chavez v. COMELEC G.R. No. 162777, August 31, 2004

COMELEC v. Tagle, G. R. Nos. 148948 & 148951-60, February 17, 2003

 Abstract
Section 79 of Republic Act No. 9369 or the Omnibus Election Code defines a candidate as, any
person aspiring for or seeking an elective public office, who has filed a certificate of candidacy
by himself or through an accredited political party, aggroupment, or coalition of parties.
In relation to this, Section 80 of Republic Act No. 9369 or the Omnibus Election Code provides
that it shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or
association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except
during the campaign period.
While the third paragraph of Section 15 of the same law provides that any person who files his
certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of
the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy. Provided, that, unlawful acts
or omissions applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the aforesaid
campaign period.
There is an apparent conflict between Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code and the third
paragraph of Section 15 of Republic Act 9369. In the leading case of Penera v. COMELEC it is
ruled that “It is a basic principle of law that any act is lawful unless expressly declared unlawful
by law xxx The mere fact that the law does not declare an act unlawful ipso facto means that the
act is lawful.”
Thus, there is no need for Congress to declare in Section 15 of RA 8436, as amended by RA
9369, that political partisan activities before the start of the campaign period are lawful. It is
sufficient for Congress to state that "any unlawful act or omission applicable to a candidate shall
take effect only upon the start of the campaign period." The only inescapable and logical result is
that the same acts, if done before the start of the campaign period, are lawful.”
The provision of the law and the leading jurisprudence has been abused by aspiring candidates
who more often than not, engage in partisan political activities prior to the campaign period. The
popular premise is that there is no violation or it is not illegal to engage in those activities since it
was done before the campaign period, and a person cannot be penalized since he did not commit
an election offense. However, this may be a loophole that is often abused by aspiring candidates.
Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code is also clear, that it shall be unlawful for any person,
whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an
election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period.
Hence, this thesis proposes to amend the third paragraph of Section 15 of Republic No. 9369 to
wit: “Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within the period of filing shall be
considered as candidate immediately after such filing. Provided, that pursuant to Section 80 of
the Omnibus Election Code, the unlawful activities or omissions shall be applicable from the day
the candidate filed his certificate of candidacy until the day prior to the campaign period.

i
I. Introduction
1.1 Background of the Study
Premature campaigning refers to any election campaign or partisan political activity against any
candidate outside of the campaign period. Engaging in campaign or partisan political activity
prior the campaign period is considered as an election offense pursuant to Section 80 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
The Supreme Court ruled that if a person entered into contracts to endorse certain producs,
appeared in billboard, and subsequently filed a certificate of candidacy, he/she may be held liable
for indirectly promoting his/her candidacy, and this may be included in the definition of an
election campaign or partisan political activity. (Chavez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 162777, (2014)
)
However, it was held that a candidate is liable for an election offense only for acts done during
the campaign period, not before. Since premature campaigning requires the existence of a
candidate and there is no candidate to speak of until the start of the campaign period, there is no
more premature campaigning. (Peñera vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613, (2009) )
This pronouncement of the court made premature campaigning not legally actionable. The
premise is that there would be no violation of the Omnibus Election Code if an aspiring
candidate engages in partisan political activities prior to the campaign period and engaging in
such activity would not constitute an election offense. This may be a logical premise, but this
may be considered a loophole of the law that may be abused by aspiring candidates.
More often than not, aspiring candidates engage in such activities because they are well aware
that it would not be considered as an election offense. This often leads to some aspiring
candidates to resort to vote buying prior to the campaign period and would be scot free since the
act they committed cannot be considered as an election offense since it was committed outside of
the campaign period.
One of the most popular example of the abuse of the said practice is giving of “cash aids” to
various groups by an aspiring candidate prior to the campaign period. The COMELEC has
already clarified that such practice is wrong, but argues that it cannot be considered as vote
buying, as it was committed outside of the campaign period (Pazzibugan & Subingsubing, 2021).
As will be discussed in this study, the political culture of the Philippines was explored, as various
studies would reveal the actual scenario during elections, from pre-campaign period up to the
post-election period. Likewise, the studies conducted on the pervasive practice of vote buying
and selling were also included as may be pertinent to the discussion.
In addition to this, pertinent provisions of law and jurisprudence regarding campaign period,
premature campaigning, vote buying and vote selling were also discussed. Finally, relevant bills
which were proposed by various legislators were also discussed in the review of related laws and
jurisprudence.

1
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Premature campaigning can only be regulated, but not legally actionable since existing law and
jurisprudence states that a person who files a certificate of candidacy may only be considered a
candidate and be held liable for election offenses once the official campaign period starts.
This may be abused by aspiring candidates who would grab the opportunity to engage in various
partisan political activity prior to the campaign period, such as, text blasts, online campaigning,
and worst, soliciting votes for consideration or vote buying.
While there may be opposing views as to the legislators’ attempts to pass a bill that would
criminalize premature campaigning, such that it may violate freedom of speech and expression,
there should be a provision in the law that would effectively prohibit this practice.

2
1.3 Significance of the Study
This study would be beneficial to the voters who are directly affected by the outcome of the
elections and who votes for some candidates who may be engaged in premature campaigning.
Furthermore, the study would also be helpful to the legal community, as the result of this study
would call for an amendment of the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and also put an
end to the conflict between its provisions and the controversial ruling of Penera v. COMELEC.

1.4 Objective
The objective of this study is to challenge the ruling in Penera v. COMELEC regarding
premature campaigning and to define the loophole of the law that needs to be addressed. To this
end, this thesis proposes to amend the third paragraph of Section 15 of Republic No. 9369 to wit:
“Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within the period of filing shall be considered
as candidate immediately after such filing.
Provided, that pursuant to Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, the unlawful activities or
omissions shall be applicable from the day the candidate filed his certificate of candidacy until
the day prior to the campaign period.”
The goal of amending the said provision would be to address the gap in the law, by considering a
person deemed a candidate when he/she has filed certificate of candidacy and not only when the
official campaign period starts.

1.5 Scope and limitation

This study would cover premature campaigning and other concepts related to it such as,
campaign period, vote buying and vote selling, and other pertinent provisions of the Omnibus
Election Code. In order to limit the scope of this study, the researcher would focus on the
relation of vote buying and vote selling to premature campaigning, by analyzing studies relating
to vote buying and vote selling. Thus, this study would no longer cover other election offenses.

3
1.6 Definition of terms
Campaign period – unless otherwise fixed in special cases by the Commission on Elections,
which hereinafter shall be referred to as the Commission, the election period shall commence
ninety days before the day of the election and shall end thirty days thereafter (OMNIBUS
ELECTION CODE (1985), sec. 3).
Premature campaigning – It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or
candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or
partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, that political parties may
hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days
before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-
Presidential election. (OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE (1985), sec. 80).
Vote buying and vote selling - Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of
value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or
makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be
made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or
the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or
to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or
similar election process of a political party (OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE (1985), sec. 261(a)).

4
II. Review of Related Literature
2.1 Factual and Historical Background
2.1.a Political Culture in the Philippines
The Filipino political culture is a systematically related set of mental and concrete compositions.
It includes but is not limited to beliefs, practices, language, and paraphernalia shared by huge
groups of Filipinos as they use political powers inside and outside the state.
In a study conducted where interviews and focused-group discussions were employed, the
research participants narrated the stages of electoral process in the Philippines from pre-
campaign period up to post-election period.
The electoral process in the Philippines can be described by a sequence of stages, such as the
pre-campaign period, the filing of candidacy, the formal campaign period, the day of election,
and the post-election period. In each of the mentioned stage, there are groups of activities or
practices considered to be necessary factors in winning an election (Montiel, 2012).
i. Pre-campaign period
First, the pre-campaign period. The major practices during the pre-campaign period are being
visible, accessible, and available to the people, and strengthening one's political base; planning,
organizing, and raising money; and, forging alliances or joining political groups. These activities
may occur simultaneously and are deemed necessary for an electoral victory.
At this stage, an aspiring candidate attempts to impose name recall. Thus, he/she makes
himself/herself engages in various activities and standard procedure of printing calendars, t-
shirts, newsletters, reports, and other things that will promote name recall. Further, the aspiring
candidate also makes one’s self visible in the community by being physically present in public
events, such as, fiestas, weddings, funerals, and other similar activities in order to gain Filipino
cultural expectations. Another major activity made during pre-campaign period is soliciting
money from different organizations or sectors (Montiel, 2012).

ii. Filing of Candidacy

Second, the filing of candidacy. This is when the aspiring candidate formally announce that
he/she is running for public office prior to the formal campaign period, which usually starts 60
days before elections for national posts and 45 days for local positions (Montiel, 2012).

iii. Formal Campaign Period

Third, the formal campaign period. At this stage, a candidate employs barangay-to-barangay,
house-to-house, person-to-person, and market-to-market campaigning. The intensity of the actual

5
campaign is measured by how much money the candidate has. At a minimum, a candidate has to
spend for leaflets, advertisements, and poll watchers come election day.
The candidate has to give money to campaign coordinators, political leaders, even mayors.
Leaders and coordinators need campaign funds to mobilize people and to organize conferences
where a candidate's vision and/or character can be put advertised.
Notably, to a very real extent, money is used to buy votes. Knowing that vote buying is
unavoidable, some candidates explicitly tell their supporters to accept the money given them but
to vote according to their conscience (Montiel, 2012).

iv. Election day

Fourth, the election day. This stage is the most important day in the whole electoral process.
Even up to this day, vote buying is rampant in some areas and allegations of fraud and violence
are common. Another common occurrence during this day is sudden power outage in the
precinct area, and by the time lights come on again, somehow the losing candidate's score has
been reversed in the race and he/she stands ahead of his/her opponent (Montiel, 2012).

v. Post-Election Period
Finally, the post-election period. This period covers the days of ballot counting until the electoral
winner is declared. This period is marred by cases of election fraud and election violence. Some
candidates reportedly hire gunmen, even policemen, to intervene with the ballot counting
(Montiel, 2012).

2.1.b Premature Campaigning

Premature Campaigning is engaging in an election campaign or partisan political activity outside
of the campaign period. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate,
or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political
activity except during the campaign period (OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE (1985) sec. 80).
On the other hand, the prevailing rule is that premature campaigning is not penalized under the
law, as any political activity conducted before the campaign period cannot be considered an
election offense. In Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. G.R. No. 181613, (2009), it was held that a
candidate shall only be liable for election offenses at the start of the campaign period. The
political activities of the petitioner prior the campaign period were only considered as freedom of
expression.
Premature campaigning, at the present state of affairs, may be considered to be a grey area.
Notably, there are only a few research that touches upon this matter, such as a study conducted in
2015, which is a critique of the case of Penera v. COMELEC.

6
The researcher evaluated whether there have been violations committed in the Constitution, by
specifically correlating the said case to the constitutional provisions of equal protection, right to
equal access to opportunities for public service, and the right to freedom of expression. It was
concluded by the researcher that the equal protection clause and the right to equal access to
opportunities for public service was violated. As to freedom of expression, the effect of said
jurisprudence is that the said right has been broadened.
Finally, the researcher recommends that a bill be passed to address the grey areas in election
laws, specifically on premature campaigning (Santos, 2015).

2.1.c Vote buying in the Philippines

i. What is vote buying?
Vote buying occurs when a person gives, offers or promises money or anything of value, gives or
promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to
make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person,
association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general
to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against
any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar election
process of a political party (OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE (1985), sec. 261(a)).
This the technical definition of vote buying under the law. But, for a better understanding of the
practice, the act of vote buying may be viewed as a contract, or perhaps an auction in which the
voter sells his or her vote to the highest bidder. (Schaeffer, 2002).
Vote buying entails an implicit contract between the vote buyer and the seller. What makes it
different compared to most legal contracts is that vote buying and selling, as an illegal activity,
cannot be enforced through the usual legal means. Contract enforcement in vote buying involves
some level of trust between the buyer and the seller that the latter will keep his/her end of the
bargain (Canare, 2018).
ii. Vote buying among the Poor in the Philippines
Vote buying in the Philippines is rampant among the poor or the marginalized sector of society,
who are often victimized by political candidates to win during the elections. A study conducted,
using data on low-income voters in Metro Manila collected after the 2016 national and local
elections, found remarkable patterns on vote buying.
The most common form of vote buying was offering material things, such as shirts, umbrellas,
mugs, and other similar articles. The next most common form type of vote buying was offering
of food, rice or groceries. While the third most prevalent type of vote buying is offering cash in
exchange of votes.
A large majority of respondents said that they accepted the offer, but the acceptance rate also
differs across vote buying types. Any help or favor has the lowest acceptance rate, followed by

7
money. Further, as compared to those who accepted the offer, there is insignificant share of
respondents who voted for the candidate who made the offer.
The closeness of the election race is also one of the most important factors of money-based vote
buying. The closer the election, the more likely that this type of vote buying will occur.
However, closeness of the race, has different effects on vote buying depending on vote buying
type.
Most importantly, lower income, unemployment, and fewer acquired tangible assets are all
associated with a higher probability of accepting the vote buying offer. In relation to tightness of
election race, voters are more likely to accept the offer if the race more tightly contested.
Finally, the study concluded that although there is evidence that vote buying is socially accepted,
there is some undesirability attached to accepting money (Canare, 2018).
Consistent with this trend of targeting poor voters, another study confirmed that most politicians
exert effort to cultivate the vote of the poor by sponsoring community projects, such as school
building, street lighting, well digging, and drainage cleaning. Aside from this, they also provide a
more direct and short-term payoff to voters by supplying potential supporters with food, money,
free medical care, scholarships, discounted funerals, and other similar activities.

2.2 Review of Related Laws and Jurisprudence

2.2.a BP Blg 881 or the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines
i. Election and Campaign Periods
Unless otherwise fixed in special cases by the Commission on Elections, which hereinafter shall
be referred to as the Commission, the election period shall commence ninety days before the day
of the election and shall end thirty days thereafter.
The period of campaign shall be as follows:
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election - 90 days;
Election of Members of the Batasang Pambansa and Local Election - 45 days; and
Barangay Election - 15 days.
The campaign periods shall not include the day before and the day of the election.
However, in case of special elections under Article VIII, Section 5, Subsection (2) of the
Constitution, the campaign period shall be forty-five days (OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE
(1985) sec. 3).
It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or
association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except
during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or

8
meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of
the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election
(OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE (1985), sec. 80).
As can be inferred from the above-cited provisions, the campaign period shall begin 90 days
before the day of the election unless the COMELEC fix another period for it. Prior to this period,
it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in an election campaign or partisan political
activity. The prohibition is not only limited to candidates, but also to non-candidates.

2.2.b Republic Act No. 9369 or the Amended Automated Election Law
i. Candidate
Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a
candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy:
Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon that
start of the aforesaid campaign period (Republic Act No. 9369 (2007), sec. 13).
As can be inferred from the above-cited provision, a person may only be considered a candidate
at the start of campaign period, and not when he/she has filed a certificate of candidacy.
2.2.c Penera v. COMELEC
In this controversial case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the act of engaging in an
election campaign or partisan political activity to “promote the election or defeat of a particular
candidate or candidates”, before the start of the campaign period, is what was commonly known
as “premature campaigning”. Because premature campaigning requires the existence of a
“candidate” and because there is no “candidate” to speak of until the start of the campaign
period, there is no more premature campaigning (Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 181613,
(2009)).
In the said case the court also ruled that there is no need for Congress to declare in Section 15 of
RA 8436, as amended by RA 9369, that political partisan activities before the start of the
campaign period are lawful. It is sufficient for Congress to state that "any unlawful act or
omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period."
The only inescapable and logical result is that the same acts, if done before the start of the
campaign period, are lawful.”
This case has expressly declared that premature campaigning is no longer considered an election
offense, and a person who engages in campaign activities outside of the campaign period cannot
be held liable.
2.2.d Lanot v. COMELEC
Consistent with the above-cited case, the court ruled that acts committed by a person prior to
his/her being a “candidate” even if constituting election campaigning or partisan political
activities are not punishable under Section 80 and are considered to be protected as part of

9
freedom of expression of a citizen before s/he becomes a candidate for elective public office.
(Lanot v. COMELEC,

2.2.e Gonzales v. COMELEC

Further, consistent with the two above-cited cases, the court declared unconstitutional a law
which prohibited any person, whether a voter or not, from engaging in an election campaign or
partisan political activity except during the prescribed election period. It held that the law was
constitutionally infirm as its coverage was too wide and all-encompassing and operates to inhibit
the exercise of individual freedoms protected under the Constitution. (Gonzales v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. L-27833, (1969))

2.2.e Chavez v. COMELEC

Contrary to the other cases, the court in this case, that activities which indirectly promotes
candidacy may be disallowed even prior to the campaign period.
It held that:
When a person enters into contracts or agreements to endorse certain products, s/he acts as a
private individual and has all the right to lend his/her name and image to these products.
However, when s/he files his/her certificate of candidacy, the billboards featuring his/her name
and image assumed partisan political character because the same indirectly promoted his/her/ her
candidacy. Non-removal of the billboards would result in candidates for public office whose
name and image are used to advertise commercial products having more opportunity to make
themselves known to the electorate, to the disadvantage of other candidates who do not have the
same chance of lending their faces and names to endorse popular commercial products as image
model. COMELEC can disallow the continued display of advertisements after a person has
already filed his/her certificate of candidacy and before the start of the campaign period in order
to prevent premature campaigning. (Chavez v. COMELEC

2.2.f COMELEC v. Tagle

This case involves vote buying and vote selling, where it ruled that the respondents violated
Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code. It also held that:
One of the effective ways of preventing the commission of vote-buying and of prosecuting those
committing it is the grant of immunity from criminal liability in favor of the party whose vote
was bought. This grant of immunity will encourage the recipient or acceptor to come into the
open and denounce the culprit-candidate, and will ensure the successful prosecution of the
criminal case against the latter. Congress saw the wisdom of this proposition, and so Section 28

10
 of R.A. No. 6646 on Prosecution of Vote-Buying and Vote-Selling concludes with this
paragraph:
The giver, offeror, the promisor as well as the solicitor, acceptor, recipient and conspirator
referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 shall be liable as
principals: Provided, That any person, otherwise guilty under said paragraphs who voluntarily
gives information and willingly testifies on any violation thereof in any official investigation or
proceeding shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for the offenses with reference to
which his information and testimony were given: Provided, further, That nothing herein shall
exempt such person from criminal prosecution for perjury or false testimony.

However, to avoid possible fabrication of evidence against the vote-buyers, especially by the
latter’s opponents, Congress saw it fit to warn “vote-sellers” who denounce the vote-buying that
they could be liable for perjury or false testimony should they not tell the truth.” (COMELEC v.
Tagle G. R. Nos. 148948 & 148951-60 (2003))

2.2.h Bills that seeks to address the loophole in premature campaigning

i. SB No. 2445, AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 81 OF BATAS
PAMBANSA BILANG 881 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OMNUBUS ELECTION
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
This bill proposed by former Senator Miriam Santiago seeks to enumerate the acts constituting
indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support, so that aspiring political candidates may be
informed that such activity may be considered as election campaigning or partisan political
activities.
More importantly, the bill has expanded the scope of prohibition against premature campaigning
by including “prospective candidates” as may be prohibited from engaging in partisan political
activities prior to the campaign period (S. No. 2445, 16th Cong. 2nd Sess. (2014)).

iii. HB 10614 AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80 AND 81 OF BATAS

PAMBANSA BILANG 881 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "OMNUBUS
ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
This bill was proposed by Bayan Muna representatives Zarate, Cullamat, and Gaite. This is the
most recent bill filed regarding premature campaigning. In the explanatory note, the well cited
case of Penera v. COMELEC was discussed and likewise challenged.
The said bill proposed to amend Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, by making the unlawful
acts applicable to a candidate effective immediately after filing his/her certificate of candidacy.
(H. No. 10614, 18th Cong. 3rd Sess. (2021)).

11
 iv. SB No. 1893 AN ACT REDEFINING THE PROHIBITED ACT OF PREMATURE
CAMPAIGNING, ACCORDINGLY AMENDING SECTIONS 79, 80, AND 81 OF
BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 881, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “OMNIBUS
ELECTION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES”

This bill proposed by former Senator Leila De Lima seeks to reconcile the conflicting provisions
of BP Blg. 881 and R.A. No. 9369 by introducing a prospective candidate as one of the persons
liable for premature campaigning. This is measure was similar to the proposal of former Senator
Miriam Defensor Santiago.
It defined a prospective candidate as “any person aspiring for or seeking an elective public
office, whether or not he/she has explicitly declared his/her intention to run as a candidate in the
immediately preceding elections, who eventually files a Certificate of Candidacy.”
Further, “prospective candidates may be held liable for premature campaigning within 1 year
before the start of the campaign period.” (S. No. 1893, 17th Cong. 3rd Sess. (2018)).

12
III. Methodology
This study will use a qualitative method of gathering data. A qualitative research involves
collection and analysis of non-numerical data to understand concepts, opinions or experiences.
Specifically, in this study, an interview would be conducted where law experts on election would
be asked questions relating to the legal effect of premature campaigning and its relation to vote
buying. A focused-group discussion may also be employed in interviewing voters in order to
have a more fruitful conversation as to vote buying and the common practice of politicians prior
the campaign period.
Finally, as a necessary endeavor of this study, data may also be gathered from existing records in
the government websites or in government offices that may be helpful for the conduct of the
study.

13
14
Bibliography
Local and International Studies
Montiel, C. J., Barbo, L., & Acosta, N. (2012). Philippine political culture and governance.  Office of the
Ombudsman.

Retrieved from: https://www.ombudsman.gov.ph/UNDP4/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Philippine-Political-Culture-

and-Governance.pdf

Santos, J. C. (2015). Napaaga nga ba?: A critique of Penera vs. Comelec (599 SCRA 609 [2009]) re:
premature campaigning.
Retrieved from: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/etd_bachelors/2793/

Canare, T. A., Mendoza, R. U., & Lopez, M. A. (2018). An empirical analysis of vote buying among the poor:
Evidence from elections in the Philippines. South East Asia Research, 26(1), 58-84.

Retrieved from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0967828X17753420

Internet Sources

Pazzibugan, D. Z., & Subingsubing, K. (2021, October 29). Comelec: Pacquiao cash handouts
wrong, but not yet vote buying. Inquirer.Net.