Disqualification cases against the Tulfos, dismissed

The disqualification cases against Erwin Tulfo have been dismissed by the Comelec based on technicality. Likewise, Senator Raffy has earlier won over an attempt to unseat him, filed by a woman who claimed to be his wife. What I know is that the senator's wife and son are both members of the House and are also running. Their cases were also dismissed.

Official records show that incumbent Senator Tulfo's qualifications were questioned by a woman, who claimed to be his wife. The Supreme Court in the case of Julie Licup Pearson vs Comelec and Senator Raffy Tulfo, GR no 266053, dismissed the petition in a decision promulgated on April 3, 2024.The ground for the petition was an alleged criminal conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. But the high court dismissed it.

Today, Tulfo is a member of the Senate. His wife and son are both members of the House. The wife, Jocelyn Pua is an ACT CIS partylist representative. The son, Ralph is a representative of the second district of QC.  And they are both running again for reelection. And his two brothers, Erwin and Ben Tulfo are most likely going to join Senator Raffy in the Senate. The Tulfos used to attack family dynasties. Now, they are the perfect example of one.

Elder brother Ben, although not visibly supported by senator Raffy, is poised to win a Senate seat.  Erwin is also facing two disqualification cases based on citizenship issues, among others. And these cases are pending resolution before the Comelec. I will not comment on Erwin's cases as they are sub judice.

The disqualification case against Senator Raffy was filed by Pearson a month before the May 2022 election. She alleged that Tulfo should be disqualified because he had been allegedly convicted of libel, a crime involving moral turpitude, and that he was allegedly guilty of an election offense by supposedly advertising his candidacy on his show Raffy Tulfo In Action.

That petition was dismissed by the Comelec First Division for failure of the petitioner to attach the required proof that a copy thereof was furnished to respondent Tulfo. Take note that the dismissal was based on technicality. There was no ruling on the libel conviction. Thus, there was no pronouncement that such a conviction could not be raised again by another petitioner.

The Supreme Court, in the light of the provisions of the Constitution, specifically, Section 17 of Article VI, declared that once a candidate shall have already been proclaimed, taken oath and assumed office, the Comelec loses jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court held that Pearson failed to file the case on time before the proper forum, which is the Senate Electoral Tribunal. That fatal error could not be corrected by filing a petition before the Supreme Court.

This writer thus observes that the case against senator Raffy Tulfo was not decided on the merit but on mere technicality. The Supreme Court in the case of Lara vs Mamba (GR no 265847, decided on August 6, 2024), held that technicalities should be set aside in the pursuit of substantive justice. In the Lara/Mamba case, which we discussed in yesterday's column, the High Court en banc held that there should be relaxation of procedural rules in election cases.

However, in fairness to Senator Tulfo, it can be argued by him that Pearson's error was jurisdictional, not mere procedural. It just happened that Tulfo had a better lawyer and his alleged wife's attorney lost on technical knockout, not on the merits, but on a procedural error only.

The Supreme Court held that: "Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try, and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. " The woman who claimed to be Tulfo's wife should have filed her petition before the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Her lawyer failed to bring it to the proper forum, instead of going to the Supreme Court.

The highest court, in dismissing Pearson's petition, declared: " It is axiomatic that jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the action."

It is our considered view however, with all due respect, that since the question of disqualification based on the alleged conviction of libel was not decided on the merits, the same petition to disqualify may be filed against senator Raffy come 2028, if and when he shall run for president, vice president or for senator again.

And election lawyers shall have their heydays again.