A Petition
for Disqualification of Laguna Governor Candidate Emilio Ramon “ER” P. Ejercito
was filed by Edgar “Egay” S. San Luis before the COMELEC. The petition alleged
that Ejercito was committed election offenses by violating Section 68(c) of the
Omnibus Election Code. Under the said provision, “any candidate who, in an
action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a
competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having spent in his
election campaign an amount in excess of this Code shall be disqualified from
continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office.”
Based on the records of
the Provincial COMELEC, the Province of Laguna has a total of 1,525,522
registered electorate. In this regard, the Rules and Regulations Implementing
Fair Election Act provides that the aggregate amount that a candidate or party
may spent for election campaign is three pesos (P3.00) for every voter currently
registered in the constituency where the candidate filed his certificate of
candidacy. Therefore, a candidate for the position of Laguna Governor is only
allowed to incur an election expenses amounting to P4,576,566.00.
However, ER Ejercito spent up to P23,563,365.28 in relation to his campaign for
the 2013 election.
Considering the facts
and evidences presented, the COMELEC rendered its decision disqualifying
Ejercito from holding the Office of the Provincial Governor of Laguna, pursuant
to Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court denied Ejercito's petition and affirmed the Commission on Election’s (COMELEC) decision in removing him from his position as Laguna Governor after he was found guilty of election overspending during the May 2013 National and Local Election.
In the recent case of Maquiling vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court made the following pronouncements:
"When a person is not qualified is voted for and eventually garners the highest number of votes, even the will of the electorate expressed through the ballot cannot cure the defects in the qualifications of the candidate. To rule otherwise is to trample upon and rent asunder the very law that sets forth the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates.
Ineligibility does not only pertain to his qualifications as a candidate but necessarily affects his right to hold public office. The number of ballots cast in his favor cannot cure the defect of failure to qualify with the substantive legal requirements of eligibility to run for public office."
As expressly stated in the Constitution, public office is a
public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest life.[1]
The three words Public, Office and Trust carry great weight and imply sense of
duty and moral responsibility. It is always a great privilege to hold an
office, more so a public office and to render service honestly and fairly
without fear and favor. The greater or higher is the office, the greater is the
responsibility. Misuse of power or abuse of authority is not only breach of
trust but also a public crime and a moral disgrace.
[1]
1987 Phil. Const., Art. XI, §1
No comments:
Post a Comment