2026 Political Law, Question 14

Mayor Jose Guinto is the incumbent Mayor of the City of Binibini, a first-class city with a total of 300,000 registered voters. He ran for re-election in the May 2025 elections against his rival Lorenzo Pilak (Pilak). Under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 7166, in relation to the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), the allowable campaign expenditure for a candidate for city mayor is PHP 3.00 per voter for a candidate with a political party, or PHP 5.00 per voter for an independent candidate. Mayor Guinto ran under Partido ng Bano (PNB) making his allowable spending limit PHP 3.00 x 300,000 = PHP 900,000.00. During the campaign period, the following expenditures were made in connection with Mayor Guinto’s re-election campaign: Item 1. Mayor Guinto’s campaign team directly purchased television advertising slots on three local and national television networks, spending a total of PHP 850,000.00, documented by advertising contracts and broadcast logs signed by Mayor Guinto’s authorized representative. Item 2. Mahirap Business Club (MBC), a private business organization composed of Binibini’s prominent businessmen, independently produced and aired a television advertisement praising Mayor Guinto’s infrastructure projects and urging viewers to re-elect him. MBC spent PHP 2 million on the advertisement which aired for several months. MBC’s president stated in a sworn affidavit that MBC produced the advertisement independently, without any request from or coordination with Mayor Guinto’s campaign team, purely as an exercise of the organization’s freedom of expression in support of a candidate they believed in. Item 3. PNB spent PHP 1.5 million on campaign materials prominently bearing Mayor Guinto’s name, photograph, and the words “IBOTO SI MAYOR GUINTO.” The PNB provincial chairman certified that these materials were produced and distributed by the party independently, without request from Mayor Guinto’s personal campaign team. If all three items are counted toward Mayor Guinto’s campaign spending, the total is PHP 4.35 million. However, if only Item 1 (Mayor Guinto’s direct campaign spending) is counted, the total is PHP 850,000.00. Mayor Guinto won the election against Pilak and was proclaimed the winning candidate and took his oath of office as City Mayor of Binibini. Dismayed, Pilak filed a Petition for Disqualification against Mayor Guinto before the COMELEC under Section 68(c) of the OEC for campaign overspending. In his defense, Mayor Guinto argues that the MBC advertisement and the PNB campaign materials should not be counted toward his campaign spending limit because they were made by independent third parties without any request from or coordination with his campaign team, and represented the exercise of their own constitutional right to free expression in favor of a candidate of their choice. He further avers that the law only penalizes the candidate’s spending, not that of independent supporters. He claims that he cannot be held liable for third-party spending that he did not authorize, request, or know about. Is Mayor Guinto correct? Explain.

Quick check

Is Mayor Guinto correct in contending that the campaign expenditures made by MBC and PNB should not be counted toward his individual campaign spending limit?

About these questions and answers
The questions reproduced here are the official texts of the Philippine Bar Examinations, published by the Supreme Court. They are reproduced for study purposes.The suggested answers are the author’s own.

They are not official answers, have no connection with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Bar Confidant, or any bar review institution, and are not endorsed by any of them. Official answer keys, where released, should be preferred over anything here.Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it creates no lawyer-client relationship. Do not rely on any suggested answer in an actual legal matter. Consult counsel on your own facts.Suggested answers reflect the law and jurisprudence the author considers applicable as of the date shown.

Where a question comes from an earlier examination, the suggested answer applies the law as it now stands, which may differ from the law in force when the question was given, and may therefore differ from what would have been the correct answer at that time. Where the difference is material, the answer notes it.The practice scoring feature measures wording overlap with the suggested answer. It is not a grade, carries no official weight, and says nothing about whether your reasoning is sound.Errors are possible. If you find one, please tell me and I will correct it.Last reviewed: October 2026