What if "that convicted felon" wins the election?

It is possible, even highly probable that Donald Trump wins in the US presidential polls come November. It is also possible that former resident Rodrigo Duterte, and even his two sons: Polong and Baste, can be elected senators in 2025. What happens if the International Criminal Court shall find them indictable for the alleged EJK's in Davao?

This is not just about Donald Trump, who has been convicted of 34 counts of felonies and yet can be, in fact, may most likely be, elected as president of the US. This is about any Filipino public official who might be convicted and yet remains popular enough to get elected? We have one or two senators who had been convicted of graft or plunder, appealed the conviction and still were reelected?

Let us discuss the effect of a successful election run after a public official has been convicted in the context of Philippine laws. Let us take up the so-called Aguinaldo Doctrine. The Supreme Court, en banc, in the case of Madreo vs. Bayron, GR 237330, November 3, 2020, held as follows: "The doctrine of condonation first enunciated in 1959 en banc ruling in Pascual vs Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, and reiterated in Aguinaldo vs Santos, hence, also known as Aguinaldo Doctrine, states that an elected public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior term since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct x x x".

The Supreme Court also cited Salalima vs. Guingona which held that "the condonation doctrine is not only founded on the theory that an official's re-election expresses the sovereign will of the electorate to forgive or condone any act or omission constituting a ground for administrative discipline which was committed during his previous term. The same is also justified by "sound public policy". The Court held that to rule otherwise would open the floodgates to exacerbating endless partisan contests between the re-elected official and his political enemies, who may not stop to hound the former during his new term.xxx His second term may thus be devoted to defending himself in the said cases to the detriment of public service."

However, this doctrine, according to the highest court of the land, applies only to administrative misconduct and not to criminal acts. And also, this doctrine does not apply to appointive officials since to them there is no sovereign will that would be disenfranchised. More importantly, this Aguinaldo Doctrine or doctrine of condonation has been abandoned already in the case of Ombudsman Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals, being contrary to the new Constitution of 1987. Even before that case, when a public official is convicted of a serious crime like statutory rape, and he is subsequently pardoned by the president, he still cannot run for public office if and when the presidential pardon did not explicitly include the lifting of the perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

In the case of Romeo Jalosjos vs. Comelec, et al, GR 205033, June 18, 2013, a congressman from Zamboanga del Norte was convicted in 2001 of two counts of statutory rape and six counts of acts of lasciviousness and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with reclusion temporal for each count and he was forever disqualified from holding any elective or appointive office. He was pardoned by President GMA in 2007 with no mention of the disqualification. In 2012, Jalosjos registered in Zamboanga City and later filed his candidacy for city mayor. The Comelec cancelled his candidacy. Jalosjos appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed his appeal.

Jalosjos lost before the Supreme Court, which held that the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification does not depend on the principal penalty of imprisonment. Even while Jalosjos was saved by GMA from imprisonment, the presidential pardon did not remove the perpetual disqualification. Therefore, until he dies, this man can no longer run for public office. Neither can he be appointed to any office in government including government-owned or -controlled corporations. He cannot even be appointed as barangay tanod.

The conclusion therefore is clear and unequivocal. A convicted felon can no longer run for election, and even if he does and wins, he can be removed by quo warranto. That is the law. It may be harsh, but it is the law. And we are not a government of men but a government of laws. Once the conviction of two senators is upheld by the Supreme Court by final judgment, they should be removed even if they shall top the next senatorial elections.