Scribd
Upload
42 views1 page

Penera Vs Comelec

This case involved a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court decision disqualifying Rosalinda Penera from running for mayor. Penera and another candidate accused each other of premature campaigning before the official campaign period started. The Supreme Court granted Penera's motion for reconsideration, holding that candidates are only liable for election offenses starting from the official campaign period according to the clear language of the law. The Court ruled that Penera was not guilty of premature campaigning.

Uploaded by

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

Penera Vs Comelec

This case involved a motion for reconsideration of a Supreme Court decision disqualifying Rosalinda Penera from running for mayor. Penera and another candidate accused each other of premature campaigning before the official campaign period started. The Supreme Court granted Penera's motion for reconsideration, holding that candidates are only liable for election offenses starting from the official campaign period according to the clear language of the law. The Court ruled that Penera was not guilty of premature campaigning.

Uploaded by

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

G.R. No.

181613 November 25, 2009


ROSALINDA A. PENERA
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and EDGAR T. ANDANAR

Nature of the Case : Motion for Reconsideration of a decision of the Supreme Court

SC Decision: : The Court held that candidate is liable for election offenses only upon
the start of the campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear
and express mandate of the law that "any person who files his certificate of
candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a candidate at the
start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy

Legal Doctrine

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica
during the 14 May 2007 elections. On 2 April 2007, Andanar filed before the Office of the Regional
Election Director, Caraga Region, a Petition for Disqualification against Penera, as well as the
candidates for Vice-Mayor and Sangguniang Bayan who belonged to her political party, for
unlawfully engaging in election campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the
commencement of the campaign period.

Rosalinda Penera filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s decision of 11 September
2009. The assailed decision dismissed Penera’s petition and affirmed the Resolution dated 30 July
2008 of the COMELEC Second Division. The Decision disqualified Penera from running for the office
of Mayor in Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte and declared that the Vice-Mayor should succeed
Penera.
We grant Rosalinda A. Penera’s (Penera) motion for reconsideration of this Court’s Decision of 11
September 2009 (Decision).

The assailed Decision dismissed Penera’s petition and affirmed the Resolution dated 30 July
2008 of the COMELEC En Banc as well as the Resolution dated 24 July 2007 of the COMELEC
Second Division. The Decision disqualified Penera from running for the office of Mayor in Sta.
Monica, Surigao del Norte and declared that the Vice-Mayor should succeed Penera.

ISSUE:
WoN Penera is guilty of premature campaigning?

RULING:

No, Penera is not guilty of premature campaigning.

The Court held that candidate is liable for election offenses only upon the start of the
campaign period. This Court has no power to ignore the clear and express mandate of the law that
"any person who files his certificate of candidacy within [the filing] period shall only be considered a
candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy." Neither
can this Court turn a blind eye to the express and clear language of the law that "any unlawful act or
omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon the start of the campaign period."

You might also like