PCIJ, as part of the PAP Consortium, covered campaign finance by monitoring political advertisements before, during and after the campaign. PCIJ likewise tracked compliance with campaign-finance reporting requirements and irregularities in donations and expenditures received by the candidates.
At the center of PCIJ’s investigation are two documents: the Statement of Election Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) and the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).
Republic Act 7166 or the Synchronized Elections Law provides that each candidate and political party participating in the polls must file with the Comelec the full, true, and itemized SOCE within 30 days after election day. The law also states that they should not be allowed to assume office until they submit this report.
When reviewing a SOCE, journalists look at totals and breakdowns of a candidate’s and party’s expenses incurred and donations received. The law that prompted the creation of the SOCE has become the backbone for various lines on inquiries, including but not limited to failure to disclose the true identities of donors, overspending, failure to file complete and correct reports, or not filing their reports within deadline.
For instance, campaign expenditure limits are also defined in RA 7166, which states that candidates for president and vice president are allowed to spend only a maximum of P10 per registered voter. Political parties, meanwhile, are allowed to spend a maximum of P5 per registered voter. Local candidates may spend P3 for every voter currently registered in the constituency they filed their certificate of candidacy. A candidate running without a political party or support from any political party meanwhile may be allowed to spend P5 for every such voter.
Spending beyond the expenditure limit set in law and the rules and regulations of the Comelec is considered an election offense and is punishable under Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines. The penalties for overspenders include the loss of one’s right to vote and a jail term of one to six years. Those who were elected into office would also lose their post.
There is also no question that out-of-pocket spending in elections is a natural and legal recourse in fueling one’s campaign activities. In fact, campaign finance rules obligate the candidates to define how much of the campaign was sourced from their own pockets.
But whether a candidate’s liquidity can support such spending or not, is another thing. Whether this is within the candidate’s threshold or not can be initially determined from their reported net worth. It is therefore important to check campaign finance submissions against the candidate’s own wealth declaration or the SALN.
There are three laws that govern the filing of the SALN: RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), the 1987 Constitution, and RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
The requirement to file wealth disclosure records began in 1960 with the passage of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Officials then were required to submit, apart from their assets and liabilities, amounts and sources of their income, their personal and family expenses, as well as income taxes paid. But these details weren’t made public. They became available for public scrutiny in the 1987 Constitution for the highest officials of the country, and then in RA 6713, for lower-ranking officials as well.
Also known as the SALN Law, RA 6713 imposes three main obligations on public officials and employees: to make a truthful declaration; to submit such declaration; and for the custodian to publicly disclose these records.
As in any kind of investigation, PCIJ is also mindful of the limits of documents especially as these are self-reported, hence research and reporting includes other sources that may also point to how money influences elections such as use of government resources, how party alliances work and political patronage.
Illustration by ANFREL