Scribd
Upload
128 views1 page

Penera Vs Comelec

The case involves Penera and Andanar, mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica Surigao del Norte, where Andanar filed a disqualification case against Penera for premature campaigning. The court ruled in favor of disqualification, stating that Penera's participation in a motorcade constituted a form of election campaigning as defined by the Omnibus Election Code. The ruling emphasized that such activities are intended to promote candidates and solicit votes, thus violating election regulations.

Uploaded by

Marianne Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views1 page

Penera Vs Comelec

The case involves Penera and Andanar, mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica Surigao del Norte, where Andanar filed a disqualification case against Penera for premature campaigning. The court ruled in favor of disqualification, stating that Penera's participation in a motorcade constituted a form of election campaigning as defined by the Omnibus Election Code. The ruling emphasized that such activities are intended to promote candidates and solicit votes, thus violating election regulations.

Uploaded by

Marianne Domingo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Penera vs Comelec

Carpio J:

Facts: Penera and Andanar are mayoralty candidates for the May 2007 elections in Sta. Monica Surigao
del Norte . Andanar filed a disqualification case against Penera and the other members of her political
party for there were witnesses that allege that Penera engaged in premature campaigning. She was seen
in a motorcade prior to the official campaign period in certain baranggays of Sta. Monica. She admitted
that she was in the motorcade but she should not be disqualified because she and her party did not
make any speech and that they only played a marching background music and waved to the crowd. So
technically according to her, they did not ask the people to vote for them. COMELEC ruled in favor of the
disqualification case. Hence, this petition

Issue: Whether Penera should be disqualified for rengaging in premature campaigning

Held: Yes. The prohibited act of premature campaigning is defined under Section 80 of the Omnibus
Election Code.

In the case at bar, it had been sufficiently established, not just by Andanars evidence, but also those of
Penera herself, that Penera and her partymates, after filing their COCs on 29 March 2007, participated in
a motorcade which passed through the different barangays of Sta. Monica, waived their hands to the
public, and threw candies to the onlookers. More importantly, the conduct of a motorcade is a form of
election campaign or partisan political activity, falling squarely within the ambit of Section 79(b)(2) of
the Omnibus Election Code, on [h]olding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or
other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or
propaganda for or against a candidate[.] A motorcade is a procession or parade of automobiles or other
motor vehicles.[31] The conduct thereof during election periods by the candidates and their supporters
is a fact that need not be belabored due to its widespread and pervasive practice. The obvious purpose
of the conduct of motorcades is to introduce the candidates and the positions, to which they seek to be
elected, to the voting public; or to make them more visible so as to facilitate the recognition and
recollection of their names in the minds of the voters come election time. Unmistakably, motorcades are
undertaken for no other purpose than to promote the election of a particular candidate or candidates.

You might also like