THE Commission on Elections (Comelec) has ruled that Sen. Rodante Marcoleta is not liable for nondisclosure in his statement of contributions and expenditures (SOCE) of the P75-million contributions he received during the 2025 national and local polls.
But in the same ruling, the commission en banc said that it is not the case for the three contributors of Marcoleta “due to their failure to submit their respective individual report of contributions within 30 days after the elections.”
“File a complaint for election offense before the Law Department for the requisite conduct of preliminary investigation against the three contributors of the respondent,” the Comelec said.
The three contributors were identified as Michael Tan Defensor, Joseph Varias Espiritu and Aristotle Baluyut Viray.
The Comelec ruling was based on the recommendation of the Political Finance and Affairs Department of the Commission, which the en banc adopted.
In his defense, Marcoleta cited the Peñera Doctrine, a landmark ruling issued by the Supreme Court in 2010, which reversed the Comelec decision that disqualified Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte Mayor Rosalinda Peñera as candidate in the 2007 local elections for violation of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code which prohibits premature campaigning.
The respondent admitted receiving P75 million a month before the start of the campaign period for national candidates when he was not yet legally considered a candidate.
Marcoleta also argued that should there be a failure of proper disclosure of election contributions, he acted in good faith in all his declarations in his SOCE, thus he cannot be accused of falsifying the entries in his SOCE nor could be held liable for any election offense.
But the commission pointed out that contributions used during the campaign period should be reported in SOCE, saying that “the reason being is that a person who has filed his certificate of candidacy may receive and accept contributions not only during the campaign period but also before the start of campaign.”
“In the case at bar, it is with more reason that respondent should have reported the said contributions because it funded his campaign,” it said.
It said that under Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), violation of Section 109 constitutes an election offense.
Section 109 of the OEC states: “The statement shall be in writing, subscribed and sworn to by the candidate or by the treasurer of the party, shall be complete as of the date next preceding the date of filing and shall set forth in detail (a) the amount of contribution, the date of receipt, and the full name and exact address of the person from whom the contribution was received; (b) the amount of every expenditure, the date thereof, the full name and exact address of the person to whom payment was made and the purpose of the expenditure; (c) any unpaid obligation, its nature and amount and to whom said obligation is owing; and (d) such other particulars which the Commission may require.” However, the commission said that due to a later law passed by the Congress, “it is one of the sections in the OEC that a violation of which, will no longer constitute an election offense.”
Section 39 of Republic Act 7166 provides: “Section 107, 108 and 245 of the Omnibus Election Code are hereby repealed. Likewise, the inclusion in Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code of the violation of Section[s] 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111 and 112 as among election offenses is also hereby repealed. This repeal shall have retroactive effect.” However, the commission said that the “contributors are covered by a different provision of the OEC — Section 39 — which is not affected by the repealing law.