G.R. Nos. L-32560-61. October 22, 1970
ESMERALDO M. GATCHALIAN, PETITIONER ON HIS BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
MAKASIAR, J.:
Petitioner Esmeraldo M. Gatchalian alleges that he is a candidate for delegate to
the Constitutional Convention for the first district of Rizal,
having filed his certificate of candidacy with the Commission on Elections on September 8, 1970.
It appears that pursuant to the request of the advertising firms
and associations of the Philippines,
the Commission on Elections promulgated on August 13, 1970 Comelec
Resolution No. RR-707 holding that “donations of billboards to the
Commission by foreigners or companies or corporations owned and controlled
partially or wholly by foreigners are not covered by the provision of Sec. 56
of the Revised Election Code.” (See Annex A.)
On September 17, 1970,
pursuant to the request of the Advertising Council of the Philippines,
the Commission on Elections promulgated Resolution No. RR-731 to the effect
that the ban in Sec. 46 of the Revised Election Code, as amended, does not
cover the projected campaign for funds and other contributions by the
Advertising Council of the Philippines and others similarly situated, during
the 120 days immediately preceding a regular or special election; and
“that in line with the ruling in its resolution numbered RR-707, donations
and contributions for the above campaign may be received from foreigners,
companies or corporations owned and/or controlled wholly or partially by
foreigners. (See Annex B.)
On September 21, 1970,
petitioner filed a petition with the Commission on Elections impugning the
validity of said Resolutions Nos. RR-707 and 731 as violative
of Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code.
(See Annex C.)
On the same day,
September 21, 1970, the Commission on Elections denied the petitioner’s
petition on the ground “that contributions by foreigners to the Comelec Billboards Committee for the purpose of financing
costs of Comelec billboards are not made in aid or
support of any particular candidate in a particular district and that the
allocation of space for its candidate is allowed by lottery, nor would it in
any way influence the result of the election, xx xx”. (See Annex D.)
From the said order of the Comelec
denying his petition, petitioner, pursuant to Sec. 2 of Art. X of the
Constitution, filed a notice of appeal and the present petition for a review by
this Tribunal of the said Comelec ruling, contending
that said order of the Comelec is null and void as
contrary to law or having been issued in excess of the powers of the Commission
on Elections or in grave abuse of its discretion, and praying for a writ of
preliminary as well as permanent injunction.
No writ of preliminary injunction nor restraining order was
issued, however, by reason of the fact that the Comelec
itself refrained from enforcing the questioned Resolutions Nos. RR-707 and 731
and had given the corresponding advice to the advertising firms and
associations concerned, including the Advertising Council of the Philippines.
Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code, as amended, provides that
“No foreigner shall aid any candidate, directly or indirectly,
or to take part in or to influence in any manner any elections.”
The prohibited active intervention of foreigners thereunder may consist of:
(1) aiding any candidate, directly or indirectly,
in any election;
(2) taking part in any election; and
(3) influencing in any manner any election.
I
To dissipate any doubt, although not raised by the parties, the
first question is whether the term “any elections” as used in Sec. 56
of the Revised Election Code, as amended, includes the election of delegates to
the Constitutional Convention under Resolution of both Houses No. 2 of March
16, 1967, as amended by Resolution of both Houses No. 4 of June 17, 1969, as
implemented by Rep. Act No. 6132.
The affirmative answer is beyond debate; because Sec. 8 of R.A.
No. 6132 expressly enumerates prohibited acts “In addition to and
supplementing prohibited acts provided for in the Revised Election Code.”
Said Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code, as amended, defines one such
prohibited act or corrupt election practice.
Moreover, Sec. 2 of Res. No. 2 states that the election of delegates to
the Constitutional Convention “shall be held on the second Tuesday in
November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election Code, ” which is
restated in Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6132.
The same conclusion finds support in controlling jurisprudence.
Thus, We held recently that the term “any election” in
Sec. 2 of Art. XII of the Constitution, which prohibits officers and employees
in the Civil Service, including members of the Armed Forces, from engaging
“directly or indirectly in partisan political activities” or
“taking part in any election except to vote,” comprehends or applies
to election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention.[1]
The term “any election” in a statute making it criminal
to bet on any duel or on the result of any election includes all elections held
in the State.[2]
It means not only any election then provided by the laws and the Constitution,
but any election which may thereafter be established or required to be held pursuant to law.[3]
II
The second issue is whether the term “foreigner” as employed
in the law includes both natural and juridical persons or associations or
organized groups, with or without legal personality.
Under Sec. 39 of Art. III of the Revised Election Code, “the
term ‘person’ includes an individual, partnership, committee, association,
corporation and any other organization or group of persons.”[4]
Sec. 39 refers to contributions from or expenditures by any person for the
purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the election of candidates.
The contributors to electoral campaign funds are either natural
or artificial persons, or an organized group of persons without separate legal
personality. Sec. 39 even goes further
by including in the definition of the term “person”, a committee or
any other group of persons which may not have any juridical personality.
Moreover, under Sec. 185 of the Revised Election Code, as
amended, Sec. 56, a violation of which is a serious election offense under Sec.
183 of the same Code, may be violated by an entity which, if found guilty,
shall be sentenced to pay a fine of from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to one
hundred thousand pesos (P100, 000.00) and its President, officials and
employees performing duties connected with the offense committed are liable as
principals, accomplices or accessories as the case may be, in addition “to
the responsibility of such entity.”[5]
To limit the term “foreigner” to natural persons would
be unrealistic and would remove much of the bite in the prohibition. It should
not be disputed that juridical persons or organized groups – whether civic,
fraternal, religious, professional, trade, or labor – have more funds than
individuals with which to subsidize a candidate. Consequently, the influence of
a juridical person or organized group, which is a contributor or donor, is
greater than that of any natural person. Furthermore, any juridical person or
organized group has more interests to protect than any of its component members
or stockholders. And if the interest of
the individual stockholders or members of the juridical person or organized
group were also to be considered, because usually the stockholders or members
have common cause with their corporation or organized group, such artificial
person or organized group together with its members will be under a more
compelling motivation to aid a candidate or to influence the conduct as well as
the outcome of the election — even to frustrate the holding of the election if
it is necessary to protect, if not enhance, their interests.
It has likewise been held that in the absence of an expressed
statutory provision or instruction the word “person” comprehends
private corporations unless it appears that it is used in a more limited sense,
and that prima facie the word “person” under even a penal
statute which is intended to inhibit an act, must be a “person in
law” — that is, an artificial as well as a natural person and therefore
includes corporations if they are within the sphere and purpose of the statute.[6]
There is nothing in the
Revised Election Code, much less in Sec. 56 itself, indicating that the term
“foreigner” is limited only to natural persons. Neither is there any provision in the same
Revised Election Code expressly or impliedly suggesting that the circumstances
of an artificial person in law are not identical to those of natural persons
covered by the prohibition in the Revised Election Code. On the contrary, there is greater reason to
believe that the law-maker feared more the assistance and influence of
artificial persons in the elections than the aid of natural persons. Hence, the law utilizes the more generic term
“foreigner”.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a law is
understood to contain, by implication, if not by its expressed terms, all such
provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose. And that the whole and every part of the
statute must be considered in fixing the meaning of its parts.[7]
The law penalizing corrupt election practices should be given a
reasonable construction in the interests of the purity of the elections.[8]
Since, as heretofore stated, the danger of desecration of the sanctity of the
ballot is greater from artificial persons by reason of their vastly superior
financial and other resources including the combined voting power of their
members and employees, the term “foreigner” in Sec.56 should be
understood to include artificial persons and other organized groups, without
distinct legal personality.
The position of the respondents Chairman and members of the
Commission on Elections that the Advertising Council of the Philippines
and the other advertising firms, associations and organizations are the donors,
and not the alien contributors for the construction of Comelec
billboards, is as inaccurate as it is specious.
Inaccurate, because the very Resolution No. RR-707 states that
the advertising firms and associations mentioned therein “request an
opinion from the Commission whether or not foreigners or companies or
corporations which are owned partially or wholly by foreigners or with foreign
stockholders may contribute to or donate billboards to the Commission
without violating Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code xx xx
xxx ” (See Annex A), re-emphasized by its concluding paragraph that
“in line with the above rulings of the Commission in the previous
elections the Commission hereby RESOLVES to hold that the donations of
billboards to the Commission by foreigners or companies or corporations owned
and controlled partially or wholly by foreigners are not covered by the
prohibition of Sec. 56 of the Revised Election Code.” (underlining
supplied)
Specious, because the advertising firms and organizations are
merely the collectors of such donations or contributions; they do not own the
money or materials contributed or donated by the foreigners who are the actual
benefactors.
III
The third issue is whether the term “any candidate” in
Sec. 56 comprehends “some candidates” or “all candidates”.
The term “any candidate” should be construed also to
mean some or all candidates. It has been
held that the term “any candidate” voted for at any election refers
to “candidates”;[9]
and that the term “any person” is not limited to “any
person” in the singular, but is applicable as well to two or more persons.[10]
“When the context so indicates, the word may be construed to
mean, and indeed it has been frequently used in its enlarged and plural sense,
as meaning “all”, “all or every”, “each”,
“each one of all”, “every”, without limitation; indefinite number
or quantity, an indeterminate unit or number of units out of many or all, one
or more as the case may be, several, some.[11]
Penal laws, like Sec. 56 and the Revised Penal Code, usually
refer to the felon in the singular.
It is possible that, to play safe or for his own protection, the
donor may aid or assist both opponents or all of them, especially if they have
approximately the same political strength or following.
IV
The fourth question is whether by such donations, the foreigner
(a) aids any candidate directly or indirectly, or
(b) takes a part in any election, or
(c) influences in any manner any election.
In law, the word “aid” is understood to mean to
support, to help, to assist or to strengthen or to act in cooperation with.[12]
On the other hand, the term “to take part” means to
participate or to engage in;[13]
while the term “influence” means to use the party’s endeavors, though
he may not be able to carry his point, or to exert or have an effect on the
nature or behaviour of, or affect the action
or thought of, or modify; or to sway; to persuade; to affect; to have
an effect on the condition or development of; to modify or act upon
physically, especially in some gentle, subtle, or gradual way; or to
exert or maintain a mental or moral power upon or over; to effect or
sway by modifications, feelings or conduct.[14]
(underscoring supplied)
The fact that the Comelec allowed:
(1) Operations Quick Count 1969 (OQC ’69),
established by civic-minded citizens for the purpose of reporting truthfully
and speedily the results of the 1969 Presidential Elections, to accept monetary
and material contributions from foreign individuals and corporations to finance
its activities;
(2) Robert L. Stewart, an American citizen who
owns TV Channel 7, to utilize his Radio-TV station to disseminate information
and public features beneficial to public interests in connection with the elections;
and
(3) Time-Ad, Inc. whose President is an alien who
owns 25% of its stocks, to accept political commercials from candidates for inclusion
in their television programs
as not contravening Sec. 56 of the
Revised Election Code, does not make the questioned Resolutions Nos. RR-707 and
731 legal, nor the 1969 resolutions regarding OQC ’69, Channel 7, and Time-Ad,
Inc., valid and binding on this Tribunal.
It would indeed be a myopic view and the height of naivete to believe that donations for Comelec
billboards will not aid the candidates nor in any way influence the elections,
no matter how small the contributions may be; although parenthetically, the
needed amount of two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,000.00) for billboards
is not insubstantial. The fact that
alien donors have no direct participation in the distribution or allocation of
the Comelec billboards, does not inevitably mean that
they have no participation in the election nor exercise any influence in the
same, nor give assistance to any candidate.
Billboards are means of propaganda.
Supplying billboards to all candidates is an assistance greater than the
aid that may be given to one candidate.
The influence therefore that may be exerted jointly by the donors on all
the candidates is correspondingly as great, because all the candidates
benefited thereby will naturally be grateful to the donors for such needed
materials for their publicity or propaganda.
This is even worse than supporting a single candidate, because if the
latter’s opponent wins he will not be amenable to influence by those who
supported the adversary — but in donations of this sort, whoever wins will
feel grateful. The fact that the identity of the donors
is not publicized, does not necessarily mean that their identity cannot be
made known to the candidates themselves thru adroit, subtle means. The names of the donors will be entered in
the books of the collecting advertising agencies or associations which must
acknowledge receipts thereof and must account for the same in their itemized
reports to the Comelec and to their respective
members. Besides, there is nothing to
stop the donors or contributors from informing the candidates during the
campaign and after the elections.
The contributions or donations, no matter how small, can
affect the thinking or attitude of the victorious candidates in dealing with
matters involving foreigners, and more so when the sum total of all these donations is to be taken into account. The aggregate total will certainly generate a greater influence on the
triumphant candidates than the contribution of one foreigner considered separately
or individually.
Then again, masterminds and financiers almost always stay in the
background from where they issue orders to those who are either their outright
dummies or who are beholden to them.
This will open the floodgates to undesirable alien influences in
our country, which may be exercised subtly and covertly in many guises and
forms. In matters of national interest
as well as affecting civil liberties, the caveat is obsta
principiis — oppose or resist from the very
beginning such “erosion of small encroachments”.
Consequently, We
apprehend the same danger feared by petitioner; because the Constitutional
Convention will inescapably discuss proposals concerning the rights — civil,
social, economic, legal and political — of foreigners in this country,
accentuated by the off-and-on renegotiations of the Parity Amendment as well as
the U.S. -Philippine military base agreement, and which renegotiations may
extend to other treaties to which the Philippines is a signatory. The delegates who are beneficiaries of the Comelec billboards contributed or donated by foreigners
will be under terrific pressure from quarters whose interest are alien, if not
inimical, to ours. Some sectors are
already agitating for the inclusion in the new Constitution of the principle of
jus soli as a mode of acquiring
Filipino citizenship with retroactive effect.
One could just visualize the impact of such a constitutional amendment.
Dire repercussions arising from such and other amendments on the political and
economic life of our country and people may be too terrifying to contemplate.
If, as asserted by the Assistant Solicitor General and the
Solicitor, who filed an Answer in behalf of the Comelec,
(which Answer curiously does not bear the signature of the Solicitor General),
the needed amount is only about two hundred fifty thousand pesos (P250,
000.00) for the billboards to be allocated free to all candidates in all
congressional districts in the country or at the rate of two pesos and fifty
centavos (P2.50) for each candidate, this amount of two hundred fifty thousand
pesos (P250,000.00) can easily be covered by contributions from patriotic and
civic-minded Filipino citizens or Filipino owned corporations or associations
or organized groups composed entirely of Filipino citizens, which abound in our
land. If there are not enough patriotic
and civic-minded citizens of this country who can underwrite said amount, then
it is certainly a sad commentary on the character of our people.
However, even donations from our own compatriots for such
billboards, are objectionable; because Congress should appropriate the needed
funds for the purpose.
That Congress slashed the proposed Comelec
budget for this election, can only mean that the legislators, who are familiar
with the cost of such campaign materials, estimated that the diminished
appropriation will suffice to cover the expenses for this election including
those for Comelec billboards. In the same manner that it had economized and
accumulated savings the last fiscal year, the Comelec
must not be prodigal with public funds to effectuate the legislative judgment
in reducing its budget for this
particular election.
But above all, our sense of national integrity, pride and dignity
should restrain us in subscribing to such a mendicant attitude, especially
considering that our country is endowed by Divine Providence with rich natural
resources and a people whose talents, initiative and resourcefulness are equal,
if not superior in some respects, to those of foreigners. That we should, without feeling any shame,
barter our national integrity, dignity and pride by running for succor to
foreigners to obtain such a measly amount of two hundred fifty thousand pesos
(P250,000.00), does not speak well of our independent status.
WHEREFORE, the resolutions of the Commission on Elections
Nos. RR-707 and 731 promulgated respectively on August 13, 1970 and September 17, 1970 are hereby declared illegal and null
and void. Writ granted, without costs.
Reyes, J.B.L., Acting C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., on leave.
Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., in the result.
Zaldivar, J., reserves his vote.
[1] Abelardo Subido vs. Comelec, in re Validity and Constitutionality of Sec. 4,
R.A. 6132, Hon. Guardson Lood,
Judge, CFI, Pasig, Rizal,
et al., petitioners, G.R. No. L-32439,
Sept. 9, 1970; Resolution of
Motion for Clarification dated Sept. 23, 1970 in the same
cases.
[2]
Sharkey vs. State, 33 Miss.
353-354; 29 C.J.S. 13.
[3] Janson vs. Grandfort County,
113 N.W. 1071, 1073 16 N.D. 16363, 125 Am.
State Ref. 662; Vol. 3 A, Words and Phrases,
pp. 118-119.
[4]
Sec. 39, par. D, Revised Election Code, as amended.
[5]
Sec. 184, Revised Election Code, as amended.
[6]
11 N.Y. Jur. Sec. 17, pp. 125-136.
[7]
Black’s Construction and Interpretation of the Laws, 2nd Ed., 84, 317.
[8]
Nelson vs. Gass, 146 N.W., 537 Ann. Ca. 1915
C, 796.
[9] Bellknab vs. Ionia
County, 54 N. W. 376, Vol. 3 A, Words and Phrases, p. 93.
[10]
State vs. Carlino, 118 A, 784, 786; Vol. 3 A,
Words and Phrases, p. 174,
[11]
See Logan vs. Small, 43 Mo.
254; McMurray vs. Brown 91 U.S.
265, 23 L. Ed. 321; Vol. I, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary,
p. 205; C.J.S. Vol. 3 pp. 1400-1401.
[12]
Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., p. 86 citing Hines vs. State 16 Ga.
App. 411, 85 SE 452, 454; State vs. Harris, 74 Or. 573, 144 P 109, 111
Ann. Gas. 1916 A, 1156; Cornett vs. Commonwealth, 198 Ky.
236, 248 S.W. 540-542; 3 C.J.S. 502-503.
[13]
Words and Phrases, Vol. 31, pp. 228-229 citing Lee vs. Guardian Life, 46
NY S Sec. 241, 246; State vs. Datee 198 S.O. 102-103,
144 Fla. 448; Martin vs. Mutual Life, 71 S.W. Sec. 694, 696, 189 Ar. 291; 67 C.J.S. 879-880.
[14]
Words and Phrases, Vol. 21, pp. 600-602; 43 C.J.S. 382.