Election Offenses: The 45-Day Ban on Releasing Public Funds for Livelihood Programs

The Supreme Court has clarified that the 45-day election ban on releasing public funds applies to local government units (LGUs) and their livelihood programs, not just to national agencies like the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). In Velez v. People (G.R. No. 215136, August 28, 2019), the Court affirmed the conviction of a city mayor who released loan proceeds to cooperatives and market vendors within the prohibited period before the 1998 elections.

The Facts of the Case

Edwin D. Velez, then Mayor of Silay City, entered into loan agreements with two credit cooperatives and a market vendors' association in April 1998. The loans—P50,000.00 each for the cooperatives and P300,000.00 for the vendors—were part of the city's livelihood development program. Velez signed the disbursement vouchers on April 12, 13, and 23, 1998, all within 45 days before the May 11, 1998 elections.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Section 261(v)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) applies to LGUs. Velez argued that the prohibition only covers the DSWD and other national government offices performing similar functions. He also claimed that his livelihood program was a continuing project and therefore exempt from the ban.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court rejected both arguments. It held that the prohibition covers "any public official or employee" and that LGUs, as frontline service providers of social welfare programs under the devolved powers in the Local Government Code, fall squarely within its scope.

The Court emphasized the purpose of the ban: to prevent public officials from using government resources to influence voters. It would defeat this purpose, the Court reasoned, if LGUs could freely release funds for social welfare projects during the election period simply because they are not the DSWD.

No Exemption for Continuing Projects

The Court also clarified that the exemption for ongoing projects applies only to public works under Section 261(v)(1), not to social services and development projects under Section 261(v)(2). Nothing in the law exempts continuing livelihood programs from the prohibition.

Notably, Velez had written to the Election Officer requesting permission to continue the program, but the request was never acted upon. The Court found this significant—it showed Velez knew the program was covered by the ban, and the election officer's inaction could not be treated as tacit approval.

Practical Takeaways

• The 45-day ban is broad. It covers any public official or employee, including LGU officials, who releases, disburses, or expends public funds for social welfare and development projects during the prohibited period.
• Livelihood programs are covered. Loan assistance and similar livelihood projects undertaken by LGUs fall under the prohibition, even if the DSWD is not involved.
• No continuing-project exemption for social services. Unlike public works, there is no exemption for ongoing social development projects.
• Requesting permission is not enough. A request for exemption from the COMELEC must be granted; inaction does not constitute approval.
• Plan around the calendar. Government officials should schedule fund releases for social welfare programs well before the 45-day period or after election day.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.