MIRIAM ELEVATES PREMATURE CAMPAIGN BAN TO SC

Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago took her fight against premature campaign advertisements by filing a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.

Earlier, Santiago filed a similar petition with the Commission on Elections (Comelec), which was dismissed with a comment that the Comelec is not the proper forum to resolve the constitutional issue she raised.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, argues that allowing rich and influential candidates to advertise themselves two years before the campaign period violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Santiago’s petition contains nine arguments:

• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine provided by the Constitution, when it dismissed Santiago’s earlier petition by transferring the burden of resolving the case to the SC;
• The Comelec gravely erred when it chose to ignore the glaring conflict between Section 79 and Section 80 of the Election Code, in effect abdicating the policy of the law to make sure that no candidate unfairly campaigns ahead of others by sheer audacity and mental dishonesty, making it appear that the ban applies only to a person who files a certificate of candidacy.

  Section 79 of the Election Code defines the terms “candidate” as a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy. The same section defines “election campaign” as “an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates”. Section 80, on the other hand, defines premature campaigning by imposing a ban on “any person, whether or not a voter or a candidate.”

• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to resolve the conflict between Sections 79 and 80 in favor of Section 80 of the Election Code, inviting unscrupulous politicians to circumvent the prohibition against premature campaigning by filing his or her certificate of candidacy in the last day before the start of the campaign period to avoid prosecution;
• The Comelec gravely erred in ruling that the ordinary meaning of Section 79 must apply, as a result, gravely ignoring the true intention of the law which is to provide equal opportunity to all candidates in the election;
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that the SC, in Chavez v. Comelec,did not resolve the conflict between Sec. 70 and 80 of the Election Code. The SC’s decision simply stopped at an isolated reading of Section 79 and did not proceed to the logical conclusion dictated by the applicable rules of statutory construction that demanded an application of Section 80;
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that neither did Lanot vs. Comelec resolve the conflict. While the SC, in its decision, recognized that an absurd conclusion results when the law is interpreted to mean that a person who has not yet filed a certificate of candidacy is not yet a candidate, it stopped short of definitively resolving the conflict between Sections 79 and 80 of the Election Code;
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to recognize that the defense of free speech and free expression cannot be invoked to shield the circumvention of the Omnibus Election Code (the right to free speech and free expression cannot be exploited to exonerate unlawful electioneering);
• The Comelec gravely erred in failing to accept that the exceptions under Section 80 of the Election Code no longer apply because of certain changes in electoral practices, such as the 1987 Constitution’s rejection of the two-party system, which was then valid when the Election Code was written;
• The Comelec gravely erred in ignoring the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Under the Equal Protection Clause, our Constitution prohibits a statute to favor one class of candidates–-those who have the influence and money–-over another class – those do not have the same influence and money to engage in premature political advertising. In effect, a statute which discriminates between its subjects makes a classification where there is no “rational relationship” between legislative means and ends.

Santiago earlier slammed the Comelec for being “fainthearted” and “timid” when the commission dismissed her petition and refused to ban campaign activities by presidential wannabes.