by Diego Morra
The decision of the Comelec en banc to terminate the inquiry into the possible violation of campaign finance rules by Senator Rodante Marcoleta leaves a bad taste in the mouth and exposes the basic flaw in the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), also known as Republic Act No. 7166, since one of its provisions has become the refuge of violators, particularly traditional politicians and those backed by vested interest groups, whether religious corporations or business conglomerates.
In the case of Marcoleta, his argument was that he was free to receive millions in cash before the official campaign period and was not obligated to report the same since the money became his personal funds. This doesn’t square. We thought the the Comelec commissioners were not born yesterday and would not succumb to pressure from businessmen, religious cults and special interest groups, including witness production cliques.
Yet, here we are, with a Comelec en banc that believes the three Marcoleta donors gave money to the lawmaker because they adored him, believed in his legal genius and worshipped his skill in statutory construction. We hope he has nothing to do with cadging millions from infrastructure projects even as we cannot pronounce him guilty for not speaking Mandarin in questioning the existence of the West Philippine Sea (WPS) and in engaging in a tete-a-tete with the Chinese ambassador. Back to our sheep, it defies logic why RA 7166 would reduce the non-disclosure of the names campaign contributors into a taradiddle, and the absent-minded failure to name names a venial sin (Marcoleta must hate this term) and just a fib deserving of a slap in the wrist.
Can the OEC be expected to level the playing field for candidates if someone is exonerated despite admitting against self-interest, in a TV show on an Iglesia NI Cristo (INC) network yet, that he did not include the names of the donors of P75 -million to his campaign since they did not want their identities revealed? Now, for the edification of all those who abide by OEC but do not believe that corporations and religious congregations are like humans with political rights, including the right to finance candidates (as what the US Supreme Court allowed in the assailed 2010 Citizens United decision), Marcoleta was perforce mandated to report who gave money to his campaign or donated other resources for his senatorial bid. The statement of contributions and expenses (SOCE) is a mandatory document that must detail the money collected and spent.
Marcoleta did not disclose the names of the contributors, who were named by the Comelec as Michael Tan Defensor (sounds like Mike Defensor), Joseph Varias Espiritu and Aristotle Baluyut Viray, and they collectively delivered to him P75-million purportedly two months before the campaign period. Since the money was given before the campaign period, Marcoleta argued, they formed part of his personal funds and cannot be covered by the SOCE. Yet, Marcoleta himself said that the money was for his campaign and it is irrelevant whether it was donated rtwo months before the campaign period or two minutes before the closing of polling precincts. Did Defensor, Espiritu and Viray give him cash out of the goodness or their hearts. Marcoleta admitted that the donors did not want to be identified. Now, the Comelec must find out what the quid pro quo was.
The Comelec absolved Marcoleta but wasn’t filling out a wrong SOCE and claiming that he funded his campaign with his own money (and his SALN only showed his net worth at P59-million) enough grounds to lodge criminal complaints against him? If Marcoleta could not be truthful in accomplishing his SOCE, which is his ministerial duty within 30 days of the elections, how could the Comelec now claim that there is no basis to put Marcoleta on the griller. Apropos this decision, which is sure to be assailed, an investigation into the veracity of reports that Comelec was pressured by meddling political groups is in order.
Comelec Chairman George Erwin Garcia inhibited from the case but stressed that under RA 7166, specifically Section 109, a candidate can be held criminally liable for failure to honestly disclose campaign contributions and expenses. Yet, a revision of RA 7166 was generous to candidates as they can only be liable civilly and administratively, or compelled to pay a fine, if they violate that provision. Thus, Marcoleta is free as a bird. What happens now to his disclosure that he had spent P139.9 million for his campaign, much higher than his declared net worth of P51,965,559? Without any campaign contribution listed, whether it was P75-million or P112-million, from where did Marcoleta source the P139.9 million that he swore he had spent? Even if he used up all his assets, he still has to account for the P87,934,441. Marcoleta’s figures do not square. The lawmaker must have a fraught relationship with the truth.
The Comelec, if it were worth its salt, must forthwith investigate not only Marcoleta’s SOCE but all of the receipts accumulated during the campaign, all the checks received, the cash donated and other resources, from tarpaulins to banners, posters, leaflets, T-shirts and other paraphernalia. Of course, voters may also seek to collect from Marcoleta the P2,000 “rebate” on electricity bills that he had promised to millions of voters during the campaign. Inasmuch as the Comelec will now be in the business of investigating the truthfulness of his SOCE, it might expand the inquiry to find out how much US dollars, Japanese yen, Siunapore dollars, euro and Chinese yuan ended in the Marcoleta tampipi or maleta. Meanwhile, Defensor, Espiritu and Viray will be in the crosshairs of the Comelec. That’s the tragedy of campaign donors when their pesos end up in Marcoleta’s bank accounts as his own cash. Hopefully, the Comelec would not touch the van registered in the name of Defensor’s wife as the vehicle that ferried the cash gift to Marcoleta. Nagbigay na nga, naindulto pa.#
