The 69-day period – from the December 2 deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy to the start of the February 9 campaign period for national candidates – is a “period of lawlessness’’ where candidates can violate existing election laws, including overspending.

This was the position of Ferdinand Rafanan, head of the legal department of the Commission on Elections (Comelec), regarding the recent ruling of the Supreme Court on when political aspirants may be formally considered as candidates and therefore covered by election laws.

In a talk with Senate reporters, Rafanan said he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision which states that a person who files a certificate of candidacy shall only be considered a candidate upon the start of the campaign period, which is February 9 for national candidates and March 26 for local candidates.

Rafanan said a Comelec resolution considers a person who has filed a CoC already a candidate who should follow election laws.

Insofar as the Supreme Court is concerned, Rafanan explained, the candidate who has filed his CoC is not considered a candidate yet “for all purposes’’ except only for the purposes of printing the official ballots.

“Since he is not a candidate ‘for all purposes’, he can do anything and we should not interpret what he does as campaigning even if the common tao understands it to be campaigning.

“We should close our eyes; he is not a candidate, so do not view his acts as campaigning,’’ he said.

“I consider the period from the time the person aspiring for public office files his CoC up to the start of the campaign period as a ‘period of lawlessness.’ It is a period where a candidate becomes infallible because he could not be prosecuted for any violation of election laws,’’ he said.

Rafanan said that there are many offenses defined by various election laws that had been rendered useless by the Supreme Court ruling.

These laws, according to Rafanan, pertain to common poster areas, sizes of campaign materials, use of campaign materials and paraphernalia, overspending and many other election laws that define election offenses.

Rafanan said the Supreme Court also dispensed with the principles of Republic Act 9006, the Fair Election Act, which are “leveling the playing field, equalizing access to media time and space.’’