Comelec orders Marcos to answer 3 disqualification suits vs presidential bid
MANILA, Philippines — A division of the Commission on Elections has ordered presidential aspirant Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. to answer the three disqualification cases he faces.
Commissioner Rowena Guanzon, a member of the Comelec’s First Division, said summonses were already sent to Marcos, via email, on three cases filed against him. These will also be printed out and personally served to Marcos, Guanzon added.
"The summons directed respondent [Marcos] to file a verified answer to each petition within five days from receipt, in accordance with the rules," she also said.
These are the suits filed by Martial Law survivors led by Bonifacio Ilagan, Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party and Abubakar Mangelen, who claims he is the legitimate chair of the Partido Federal ng Filipinos that fielded Marcos as their presidential bet.
Preliminary conferences for the said cases are set on Jan. 7, 2022, Guanzon added.
Memoranda submitted in petition to cancel COC
This comes as a separate Comelec Division received on Monday respective memoranda filed by Marcos and petitioners in the plea to cancel his Certificate of Candidacy.
In their last submission to the Comelec Second Division for the case, Marcos through his counsels led by Martial Law-era Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza again insisted that he was able to file his COC numerous times for various elected positions since, and his eligibility was not once questioned.
Marcos also said that the Supreme Court has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to decide on qualifications of presidentiables. He insisted that for a misrepresentation to be material — the sole issue in cancellation of a COC — it must pertain to the candidate’s eligibility for public office.
For the Comelec to resolve the petition based on merits if there is “a prior authoritative finding” of Marcos ’ineligibility, which is not the case presented by the petitioners, he said.
Marcos’s memorandum also mentioned a defense put forth by officers of the Partido Federal ng Pilipinas in an answer-in-intervention that was not allowed by the Comelec in the end. He said that the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code did not impose “perpetual disqualification” as penalty, as this was only part of PD 1994 which took effect on Jan. 1, 1986.
Following this, the mandatory filing of Income Tax Returns for the years of 1982-194 already lapsed before PD 1994 took effect and applying so would give the law an ex post facto effect, which is unconstitutional.
For the filing for the year 1985, Marcos said he was already removed from government and forced to leave the country.
His lawyers also asserted that there is “no basis for petitioners’ contention that perpetual disqualification is imposed upon conviction.”
Payment?
Marcos also refuted the petitioners’ allegation that his conviction for non-filing of ITRs constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude, as they cited the 2009 Supreme Court ruling of Republic of the Philippines v. Ferdinand Marcos II and Imelda Marcos.
But even if Marcos was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, they said that disqualification to be a candidate shall be removed five years from service of sentence, under the Omnibus Elections Code.
They argued that Marcos paid fines and penalties following the CA decision on Dec. 27, 2001, which means that he was no longer disqualified to be a candidate and hold public office on Dec. 27, 2006.
But petitioners, in their submitted memorandum, presented to the Comelec certifications from the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 105 that stating that it has no record on file of “compliance of payment or satisfaction of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated July 27, 1997 or the Court of Appeals dated October 31, 1997."
Petitioners also secured a separate certificate from the QC Office of the Clerk of Court stating that “per verification with records on file, this office has no record of any compliance/payment of fine” in the tax case.
Marcos however objected to the certification dated December 2, from the QC RTC Branch 105, as this was “never marked at all” and should not be admitted to evidence.
A supposed “proof of payment of the deficiency income taxes with legal rate and the fine imposed by the Court of Appeals” was among the pieces of additional documentary evidence that were not presented to them during the preliminary conference on November 26.
“Petitioners acted in contravention of not only the rules of the Honorable Commission but also of the concept of fair play and due process,” they said.
No intent to mislead
Marcos also said there was “no deliberate intent… to mislead or deceive the electorate,” and petitioners also failed to establish this.
His lawyers told the Comelec: When legal luminaries have differing opinions on whether Marcos committed material misrepresentation, how could the aspirant be faulted in his interpretation?
They noted the opinions of retired SC Associate Justice Antonio Carpio who claimed Marcos is ineligible to run, and opinions of University of Santo Tomas College of Law Dean Nilo Divina and former Justice Secretary Alberto Agra. The latter two were also quoted in releases by the Marcos camp as saying that the petitions have no basis.
“Indeed, when even the pillars of the legal community cannot agree on the matter, [Marcos], as a layman, cannot be faulted if his interpretation of a difficult question of law should later on turn out to be erroneous,” they said.
“Certainly, an error in the interpretation of a difficult question of law cannot and should not be equated to a deliberate and malicious intent to misrepresent a material fact,” the memo read.
But for the petitioners, Marcos is running for the highest post in the country and “convincing” the masses that his violation “was but a mere infraction.”
"It is not a simple campaign promise that this nation can be great again that results in no consequence to the candidacy when ignored or unfulfilled past election day," they said.
"In the performance of its most solemn and sworn duty, this Commission must send the message to Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.: ‘Never forget. Never again," they added.
- Latest
- Trending
