Case Summary (UDK-16915)
Petitioner
Joseph Roble PeAas, former Mayor and candidate for re-election in Digos City.
Respondent
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), represented by the Campaign Finance Unit.
Key Dates
• November 28, 2009: Filing of Certificate of Candidacy.
• June 7, 2010: Submission of Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE).
• October 1, 2014: COMELEC letter indicating overspending beyond the P3.00/voter limit.
• November 12, 2014: Formal complaint filed by COMELEC’s Campaign Finance Unit.
• February 9, 2015: Petitioner’s counter-affidavit submitted.
• November 5, 2018: En Banc Resolution No. 18-0665 finding probable cause.
• December 9, 2020: En Banc Resolution No. 20-0121-33 denying reconsideration.
• March 8, 2021: Filing of petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
• February 15, 2022: Decision by the Supreme Court First Division.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 16 (right to speedy disposition of cases) and Article IX, Section 2(6) (COMELEC’s power to investigate and prosecute election offenses)
• Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa 881), as amended by Republic Act 7166, Sections 100 (expense ceilings) and 262 (election offenses)
• COMELEC Rules of Procedure, Rule 34, Section 8 (preliminary investigation periods)
• Rule 64 of the Rules of Court (certiorari remedy)
Antecedents and SOCE Discrepancy
PeAas reported P600,000.00 in campaign expenditures against an allowed maximum of P281,403.00 (93,801 registered voters × P3.00). He later filed an Affidavit of Correction explaining that P112,924.10 for printing sample ballots and P245,000.00 for legal fees were party expenses excluded under COMELEC Resolutions Nos. 8944 and 9476. Deducting those items, his true expenses allegedly totaled P241,574.01—within the legal limit.
COMELEC Preliminary Investigation and En Banc Rulings
The COMELEC Campaign Finance Unit filed a formal complaint on November 12, 2014. After the petitioner’s counter-affidavit on February 9, 2015, no resolution issued until November 5, 2018 (Resolution 18-0665), when the En Banc found probable cause to indict him for overspending under Section 100 in relation to Section 262 of the OEC. His motion for reconsideration, filed December 13, 2018, was denied on December 9, 2020 (Resolution 20-0121-33). The COMELEC held that PeAas’s post-notice “corrections” were afterthoughts and that supporting receipts warranted scrutiny only at trial.
Petition for Certiorari and Grounds
PeAas challenged the En Banc resolutions by certiorari, alleging:
- Grave abuse of discretion for finding probable cause despite his affidavit of correction and defective SOCE.
- Inordinate delay violating his right to speedy disposition under Rule 34, Section 8 of the COMELEC Rules.
Respondent’s Comment
The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, countered that:
• The certiorari petition was filed late under Rule 64, Section 3, and should be dismissed.
• PeAas had an adequate remedy by proceeding to trial rather than seeking certiorari.
• The SOCE is a notarized instrument presumed true, and his correction affidavit is self-serving.
• The COMELEC’s preliminary investigation delay was not inordinate given intervening elections, and PeAas failed to timely assert his right to speed.
Supreme Court Ruling – Liberal Application of Procedural Rules
Although PeAas filed the petition beyond the strict 30-day period, the Court invoked liberal construction of procedural rules to prevent grave injustice. It held that strict enforcement would further prejudice him, as the En Banc resolutions were tainted by grave abuse of discretion.
Certiorari as Plain, Speedy, Adequate Remedy
The Court reaffirmed that certiorari under Rule 65 does not require absence of other remedies but rather the inadequacy of ordinary remedies when justice demands. A full-blown trial would not afford expeditious relief from the effects of a prolonged, unwarranted investigation and charge. Certiorari was appropriate to correct the COMELEC’s arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction.
Grave Abuse of Discretion—Inordinate Delay
Invoking Article III, Section 16
Case Syllabus (UDK-16915)
Background and Antecedents
- Petition filed by Joseph Roble PeAas, candidate for Mayor of Digos City, Davao del Sur, in the 2010 National and Local Elections (NLE) under the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC).
- Digos City had 93,801 registered voters in 2010; lawful campaign spending limit set at ₱3.00 per voter (₱281,403.00) under Section 13(a) of RA 7166.
- On June 7, 2010, petitioner submitted a notarized Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) declaring total campaign spending of ₱600,000.00.
- On October 1, 2014, the Comelec Campaign Finance Unit informed petitioner of probable overspending and invited his explanation within ten days.
Petitioner’s Explanation and Correction
- October 29, 2014: Petitioner’s Affidavit of Correction/Explanation attributes over-declaration to emotional oversight and secretary’s errors.
- Petitioner reclassifies ₱112,924.10 for printing sample ballots and ₱245,000.00 for legal fees as NPC party expenses not chargeable to his personal campaign under COMELEC Resolutions No. 8944 (2010 NLE) and No. 9476 (2013 NLE).
- After deductions, petitioner claimed actual personal campaign spending at ₱241,574.01, well within the legal limit.
COMELEC Proceedings and Resolutions
- November 6, 2014: Formal complaint filed by the Comelec Campaign Finance Unit for violation of Section 100 in relation to Section 262 of the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), as amended by RA 7166, for election overspending.
- February 9, 2015: Petitioner submits Counter-Affidavit reiterating that contested expenses benefited NPC-Digos City and are excluded from personal expenditure computation under Section 102(i) & (k) of the OEC.
- November 5, 2018: Comelec En Banc Resolution No. 18-0665 finds probable cause and orders information to be filed, dismissing petitioner’s correction as afterthought a