“Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

This idiom was cited by election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal in scrutinizing, and in effect criticizing, the recent decision of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on the case of the P75 million contributions to now Sen. Rodante D. Marcoleta before the start of the election period in 2025.

The Comelec ruled that Marcoleta was not liable for non-disclosure in his statement of contributions and expenditures (SOCE) of the P75 million contributions.

However, the poll body did not absolve of liability Marcoleta’s donors “due to their failure to submit their respective individual report of contributions within 30 days after the elections."

Thus, the donors -- Michael Tan Defensor, Joseph Varias Espiritu, and Aristotle Baluyut Viray – will be subjected to preliminary investigation under Section 99 of the Omnibus Election Code which states: “Every person giving contributions to any candidate, treasurer of the party, or authorized representative of such candidate or treasurer shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the election, file with the Commission a report under oath stating the amount of each contribution, the name of the candidate, agent of the candidate or political party receiving the contribution, and the date of the contribution.”

In a press statement, Macalintal said the ruling of the Comelec “is truly one for the books.”

He said the Comelec exonerated Marcoleta on the grounds that he was "not yet legally considered a candidate" when he allegedly received P75 million in donations from three individuals.

However, he pointed out that in a striking contradiction, the Comelec held those same donors liable for failing to report the contributions.

In its ruling, Macalintal said that the Comelec essentially accepted Marcoleta’s defense that the donations were received before the start of the 2025 campaign period.

Thus, the Comelec ruled that the funds were not covered by the SOCE pursuant to Section 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by RA 9369, which provides that "any person who files his Certificate of Candidacy shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period."

Macalintal stressed that if Marcoleta is not covered by the law because he was not yet a candidate at the time of receipt, then it is only logical that the law should also benefit the donors.

“What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander; in short, what is sauce for Marcoleta should be sauce for his donors,” he said.

Macalintal said that Section 99 of the Omnibus Election Code specifically refers to a "candidate" as the recipient of the donation. Based on the facts of the case and the Comelec’s own line of reasoning, no candidate existed at the time the money changed hands, he also said. Marcoleta was not yet a candidate because the campaign period had not yet commenced, he added.

Macalintal said: “If the donation was given when Marcoleta was not yet a ‘candidate,’ how can Section 99 be applied to the donors? If Marcoleta was not a candidate when he took the money, then the money was not an ‘election contribution’ – it was practically a private gift. For logic will tell us that we cannot have a ‘donor to a candidate’ if there is no ‘candidate’ to begin with.”

He also said that following the Comelec’s logic, the money received cannot be classified as a donation for a partisan political activity. “Instead, it must be viewed as an ordinary gesture of support to an individual, that is Marcoleta who—legally speaking—was a private citizen,” he added.