Resolution No. 10147: Dissenting Opinion

I respectfully submit my strong dissent against the majority's Resolution to extend the legislatively imposed thirty (30) day period after election day within which to file the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCEs) by candidates and parties who participated in the 2016 National and Local Elections ("2016 NLE"). My dissent is discussed in seriatim following the order of various pronouncements made by the majority in its Resolution:

The majority adopted a limited view of campaign finance regulation when it answered in the negative the questions "Is allowing the extension of the deadline prevent the Commission from doing its mandated task of finding whether those running for public office including their respective parties, complied within the limits set forth in the law? Is extension tantamount to allowing non-compliance?" By these questions, I can discern that the majority has a very limited view of campaign finance regulation, with very little regard for the consequences that the extension of the SOCE filing deadline will entail in terms of implementation on a nationwide scale.

It must be emphasized that the observance of campaign expenditure limits by candidates and parties, as imposed by Section 100 of the Omnibus Election Code and amended by Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7166, is NOT the sole purpose of requiring candidates and parties to submit their Statements of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCEs). By requiring the disclosure of "full, true and itemized statement of all contributions & expenditures in connection with the election", the law prescribes a standard for transparency and accountability so that the Commission on Elections, as the Constitutional Commission mandated to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, have reasonable and adequate bases to fulfill its constitutional mandate. These laws are not limited to the expenditure limits alone as stated in Sections 100 and 101, but also include other provisions of the Omnibus Election Code that relate to campaign finance such as Sections 68, 88, 89, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110, and 112 in connection with Section 262.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, I reiterate my position on the extension as stated in the Memorandum of the Campaign Finance Office dated 15 June 2016:

"The thirty (30) day period reckoned from the day of the election is a hard deadline set by law in Section 14¹ of Republic Act No. 7166 ("RA 7166"). In Section 14, there is no delegated authority from Congress for the Commission to fix the period to file the Statements of Contributions & Expenditures (SOCEs), unlike in Section 52 of RA 7166 wherein the phrase "[u]nless otherwise fixed by the Commission" appears in relation to the setting of election and campaign periods. In fact, Section 14 emphasizes the 30-day deadline in the third paragraph when it stated that "[t]he same prohibition shall apply if the political party which nominated the winning candidate fails to file the statement required herein within the period prescribed by this Act." Any extension given by the Commission is tantamount to an amendment of RA 7166."

The majority adopted the view of only one (1) single party lamenting about "voluminous and tedious to prepare" SOCEs, without regard for the fact that other candidates and parties with similarly voluminous records were able to comply on or before 08 June 2016. To date, only the Liberal Party (LP), through Atty. Sardillo, filed a written request for extension of the SOCE filing deadline. Other national political parties with national candidates such as the Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) and Aksyon Demokratiko (AKSYON) made no such request. Hence, the decision of the majority to extend the SOCE filing deadline is clearly an accommodation in favor of the Liberal Party, whose own deliberate omission to file its SOCE on or before the 08 June 2016 deadline is the root cause of the alleged "vacuum in public service". Note that even unopposed LP-nominated candidates in various municipalities³ of the country were not lulled by a sense of complacency and had exerted every effort to file their SOCEs on or before the 08 June 2016 deadline. Again, to be clear, there should be no dispute that the failure of the Liberal Party to file its SOCE on or before the 08 June 2016 is entirely due to its own fault or omission, a fault or omission that the Commission, as a regulatory body, is not duty-bound to fix and resolve in accordance to the whims of the ruling party, with nary a sanction for such blatant disregard of the Commission's rules. Whether or not the Commission in previous elections had allowed the belated filing SOCEs is not the issue facing this Commission, but rather whether this Commission is independent and steadfast enough in the face of political pressure to stand by the "final and non-extendible" deadline as stated in Resolution No. 9991, a Resolution that ALL the Commissioners had unconditionally approved, signed and promulgated.

The alleged complexity of the SOCE forms for the 2016 NLE is not a justifiable reason to fail in the filing of the SOCE. It is unbecoming of an independent Constitutional Commission to take up the cudgels for the LP and belabor the alleged complexity of the new forms, which were made available on the COMELEC website and distributed to every election officer and provincial election supervisor in the country. Contrary to this complaint by the majority of the alleged complex forms, the Campaign Finance Office had, in fact, made it easier for candidates and parties to accomplish the new forms, by designing the forms in Excel file format with embedded formulas that automatically total and categorize the expenses in accordance to the list of lawful expenditures as enumerated in Section 102 of the Omnibus Election Code. Furthermore, as stated in the Memorandum of the Campaign Finance Office dated 15 June 2016:

"Prior to the adoption and promulgation of the Omnibus Rules on Campaign Finance, the Commission held three (3) public consultations on its draft on 27 July 2015 (Cebu City), 31 July 2015 (Davao City) and 03 August 2015 (Manila). In the Manila session, all national political parties, including the Liberal Party, were specifically invited to the public consultation. Furthermore, the commitment to file the SOCEs within 30 days after the election is also stated in item number 11 of the Certificate of Candidacy form for all candidates. To grant the request for extension would not only be unfair to other candidates and parties who complied within the prescribed period but also would be a reversal of the Commission's own Resolution on the matter."

The reference to the ER Ejercito case by the majority is not relevant to the issue of extending the SOCE filing deadline. The ER Ejercito case was never about the failure of Mr. Ejercito's part to file his SOCE within the 30-day period after election day. Nor was his unseating from the Laguna gubernatorial post the result of a motu proprio action initiated by the Commission. Lest we forget, the factual circumstances in Mr. Ejercito's case are totally different from the present issue in that it was a disqualification case initiated by his political rival Mr. Edgar San Luis on the basis of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code and filed within the reglementary period provided by law. The fact that the ground relied upon by Mr. San Luis had something to do with campaign finance is irrelevant to whether or not Mr. Ejercito had filed his SOCE. The Commission's "mandate of enforcing campaign rules" then was incidental to its exercise of quasi-judicial functions, and not because the Commission had directly and actively prosecuted the same.

The "occurrence of such a widespread vacuum in the public service and possible constitutional crisis" that is "an absurdity not contemplated by law" cited by the majority is premature and speculative at this point in time. Again, I must stress that the legal impediment from entering into the duties of the elective public offices of the LP-nominated winning candidates arose not purely by mere operation of law that is independent of human action or intervention. The said prohibition came into play precisely because of LP's failure to file its SOCE within the period prescribed by Section 14 of RA 7166. Having said that, the fear of a "possible constitutional crisis" sought to be assuaged by the majority is merely that, an unfounded fear. There is no way of knowing at this point in time whether winning LP-nominated candidates will actually be prevented from entering into the duties of their elective offices come the 30th of June 2016. And while Section 14 of RA 7166 clearly states that they are prohibited to do so because of their political party's failure to file its SOCE, which agency is actually responsible for enforcing this prohibition?

I believe that the Commission on Elections, as an independent Constitutional Commission, should stand strong on its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws and regulations regardless of the party or the candidate who might be adversely affected in the fulfillment of the said mandate. The majority, by reneging on Resolution No. 9991 and allowing the filing of SOCEs beyond the 30-day period prescribed by law, had weakened the independence of this august body when they showed that they are willing to reverse their own positions to serve the parties and candidates who did not respect the rules and regulations of this Commission enough to comply with them in the first place.

SIGNED:

• LIM, CHRISTIAN ROBERT S., Commissioner