Premature Campaigning in the Philippines: A Closer Look at the Loopholes and Legal Challenges

As the Philippines gears up for the 2025 midterm elections on 12 May 2025, the nation stands at a critical time where voters have the power to shape the country’s future. These elections, set to elect senators, congressmen, and local officials, are more than just a democratic exercise, they are an opportunity to address pressing national issues and reaffirm our collective commitment to good governance.

However, alongside the anticipation of campaigns and political platforms, concerns about election integrity have already surfaced. The country is already seeing heightened political activity, even though the official campaign period has yet to begin, which is scheduled from 11 February 2025 to 10 May 2025. 

Across public spaces, posters featuring official candidates are becoming increasingly visible. On television and social media platforms, aspirants are appearing in advertisements and public service announcements, subtly promoting themselves under the guise of civic engagement. The proliferation of pre-campaign activities, such as posters, television appearances, and social media promotions, raises concerns about premature campaigning, a practice that circumvents election laws to gain an advantage before the regulated campaign period.

What Is Premature Campaigning?

Premature campaigning, classified as an election offense, refers to any form of electioneering carried out before the official campaign period. This practice is expressly prohibited under Section 80 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, also known as the “Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines”, to wit:

“SECTION 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. – It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election. (Sec. 35, 1978 EC)”

Section 68 of the same law provides the penalty for premature campaigning, which may result in the disqualification of a candidate found guilty of committing the offense.

Loopholes and Legal Challenges in Premature Campaigning in the Philippines

Premature campaigning remains a contentious issue in Philippine elections, revealing significant legal loopholes and challenges in the enforcement of election laws. One key legal doctrine that has shaped the understanding of premature campaigning is the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Penera v. COMELEC and Andanar.^[1] This case clarified when a candidate becomes liable for election offenses, underscoring the gaps between the intent of the law and its practical application.

In this case, Rosalinda Penera and Edgar Andanar were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte for the May 2007 elections. Andanar filed a petition for disqualification against Penera, claiming she engaged in premature campaigning on March 29, 2007, a day before the official campaign period began, by conducting a motorcade announcing her candidacy. Penera denied the allegations, stating the motorcade was a customary practice tied to filing certificates of candidacy (COCs).

Initially, the Supreme Court upheld Penera’s disqualification under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, prohibiting campaigning before the campaign period. Upon reconsideration, the Court reversed its decision, citing Republic Act No. 9369 (Automated Election Law). The Supreme Court emphasized that a candidate is only liable for election offenses committed during the official campaign period. As a result, pre-campaign activities, even if designed to promote candidacy, fall outside the scope of penal sanctions. This ruling has inadvertently allowed individuals to engage in extensive political promotion before the campaign period, highlighting the limitations of the current legal framework in addressing premature campaigning.

The Impact of the Penera Ruling on Philippine Elections

The Penera ruling fundamentally changed how premature campaigning is viewed under Philippine election laws. It established that, under the Automated Election System Law (Republic Act No. 9369), an individual who files a certificate of candidacy (COC) is not officially considered a candidate until the start of the campaign period. Consequently, any campaigning conducted before this period is not deemed premature and, therefore, cannot be considered an election offense.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Penera v. COMELEC effectively allowed candidates to engage in campaign activities without legal repercussions before the official campaign period begins. This interpretation provided a legal shield for pre-campaign promotions, significantly altering the landscape of electoral practices in the Philippines. Campaign materials, public events, and social media promotions, all common pre-campaign activities, are now widely utilized by prospective candidates to boost their visibility early on.

Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, or the Automated Election System Law, explicitly states that a person is only considered a candidate at the start of the campaign period. This provision is pivotal in understanding the doctrine established in Penera v. COMELEC, as it limits the applicability of rules on premature campaigning. By defining “candidates” this way, the law creates a significant loophole, allowing campaign activities before the official period without penalty.

Despite the legal framework set by the Penera ruling, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) remains proactive in monitoring and regulating election activities. COMELEC has issued resolutions to address issues related to campaign conduct, including premature campaigning, within the bounds of existing laws and jurisprudence. These efforts aim to mitigate the impact of the loophole while adhering to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law.

What This Means for Voters and Candidates

The Penera ruling has undeniably shaped the electoral landscape in the Philippines, highlighting both the strengths and gaps within existing election laws. While it reinforced the legal framework set forth by the Automated Election System Law, it also exposed a loophole that allows pre-campaign activities to flourish unchecked. This has fueled ongoing debates about fairness, transparency, and the need for legislative reforms to uphold the integrity of elections.

As the nation approaches the 2025 midterm elections, it is crucial for candidates, voters, and election authorities to remain vigilant and committed to promoting a fair electoral process. Understanding the nuances of election laws, including the implications of premature campaigning, is essential to safeguarding democracy.

If you have questions about election-related issues or need assistance navigating legal concerns, our experienced legal team is here to help. Contact us today for guidance on election offenses, compliance, or other legal matters.

Prepared by Jermile Ed Salor.

FOOTNOTES

1. G.R. No. 181613, 25 November 2009.