Marcos Jr. COC cancellation in the SC?

The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has shown a welcome determination to deal decisively
with the cases filed against the eligibility of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. to contest the
presidency in 2022. It has already summarily dismissed one petition asking for Marcos Jr. to be
declared a nuisance candidate.

It should help that, in the most serious and substantial case, petitioners have obtained, as
suggested by retired chief justice Artemio Panganiban, a certification from Gregorio C. Tallud,
Clerk of Court responsible for all 57 branches of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Tallud confirmed that the RTC had no record of compliance with the judgment on Marcos Jr.’s
tax evasion cases from 1982-1985. The penalties arising from his conviction, therefore, should
stand, including the loss of the privilege to run for public office. The certification should enable
the Comelec to render summary judgment to cancel Marcos Jr.’s COC.
But political insiders believe that the Comelec decision will be subject to appeal and will reach
the Supreme Court. In recent decisions, the Court has expressed dismay at the injustice
suffered by citizens when cases drag on for decades. The high court will, hopefully, model the
desired dispatch in resolving legal cases by ruling clearly and decisively on Marcos Jr.’s COC
cancellation. The Filipino people must pray that the Supreme Court will do this as a duty it owes
the country—to prevent delays from extending the decision deep into the campaign period. The
doubts cast on the legitimacy of Marcos Jr.’s candidacy cannot be allowed to distract from the
critical issues upon which voters should base their presidential choice.
The president whose ascent to power is suspect cannot govern effectively. Coercion and
corruption in the 1969 elections tainted the success of Ferdinand Marcos in winning for the first
time in the country’s history reelection to a second presidential term, and fueled the political
ferment that triggered the First Quarter Storm. The country suffered greatly from the political
polarization caused by doubts on the legitimacy of Arroyo’s promotion to the presidency in 2001,
after Edsa II forced Joseph “Erap” Estrada to leave Malacañang and surrender the presidency.
The attack on the presidential palace by disaffected Estrada supporters that national forces
suppressed aborted an Edsa III revolt, but showed the wide political and socioeconomic divide
that had opened up.
Prohibited communications with the Comelec during the campaign period, leading to the “Hyatt
10” resignation of key Arroyo Cabinet members and reported cheating, similarly clouded the
credibility of Arroyo’s election in 2004, from which she was never able to recover. In her nine
years as president, Arroyo never earned positive trust and performance ratings from the
majority of the public. Vulnerable to the sword of impeachment over her head, losing
experienced, trusted officials, and lacking a popular base, Arroyo found herself bullied by
Congress, enmeshed in corruption issues involving Chinese firms, and constrained in her efforts
to address critical national economic and security problems.
Opinion polls showing Marcos Jr. as currently the leading candidate encourage his camp, but do
not really mean much in a presidential race that has not been officially begun. Jojo Binay started
as the dominant frontrunner in the 2016 presidential race but faded in the homestretch. Marcos
Jr.’s tax evasion conviction and an invalid COC make him a controversial candidate and, should
he magically win both the suits and the election, a compromised president. Like Arroyo, he will
continue to be a polarizing president, lacking the moral ascendancy to mobilize popular support
for the difficult decisions confronting the country.
Ordinary citizens unschooled in the refinements of the law would probably consider the COC
cancellation case a fairly simple issue that Supreme Court justices can quickly resolve. They
would also hope to see, beyond a timely decision, a credible and “correct” judgment. In
mathematics and the physical sciences, it is possible to prove that a conclusion is irrefutably
correct or demonstrably wrong. Law does not offer this level of certitude.
Disputes will arise on the proper bases for the right decision. But only the cynics will predict that
high court justices will vote according to the preference of the president who approved their
appointment.
***
Edilberto C. de Jesus is professor emeritus at the Asian Institute of Management.

Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/148176/marcos-jr-coc-cancellation-in-the-
sc#ixzz7V0oUgvbE
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Leni or Sara: Who will be president if Marcos disqualified?
MANILA - Proving that the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion is an
uphill battle, an analyst said Friday after the Supreme Court ordered all parties to comment on
the disqualification cases of leading presidential candidate Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr.

The Comelec through a division decision and later through an en banc ruling, dismissed the
petition to deny due course or cancel Marcos’ certificate of candidacy (COC). The groups filed a
petition for certiorari on Monday, alleging the Comelec gravely abused its discretion.

 SC requires comment on petition to cancel Marcos Jr. COC

Evidence has to be strong and has to prove there was "gross, willful, and capricious decision
made by the Comelec," said lawyer Pacifico Agabin, former dean of the University of the
Philippines College of Law.

 Comelec distances from anti-Marcos petition at SC

"I think that if this case will be given due course, I think the SC can render a decision based on
the evidence but of course you know very well that proving grave abuse of discretion is an uphill
battle. It’s like swimming against the current in jurisprudence," he told ANC's Headstart.

Either Vice President Leni Robredo and her presumptive successor Sara Duterte-Carpio would
sit as President if the Supreme Court grants the cancellation of Marcos' COC, Agabin said.

Various groups and individuals had filed petitions before Comelec alleging that Marcos Jr.
committed material false representation when he claimed under oath in his COC that he was
eligible and was not disqualified to run for president despite his tax conviction.

"If the 4th petition which is for the cancellation of the COC of BBM succeeds, then the highest
number of valid votes namely that of Leni Robredo will be considered, that of Bongbong Marcos
will be considered stray votes," he said. 
 
"The 2nd petition which is a combination of disqualification and violation of internal revenue
code, if BBM is disqualified then the (presumptive) Vice President Sara Duterte will have to take
over the position."

The SC has ordered all parties to comment within 15 days, on a petition for certiorari filed by a
group of civic leaders led by Fr. Christian Buenafe, which seeks to overturn the ruling of the
Comelec junking their plea to cancel Marcos’ certificate of candidacy.

The same petition urged the high court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the
canvassing of votes and the proclamation of frontrunner Marcos.

The high court has jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order on the canvassing of
votes, Agabin said contrary to the claim of Marcos' lawyer Estelito Mendoza.

 SC can’t stop canvassing, proclamation of winners, Marcos Jr. says

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
SC requires comment on petition to cancel Marcos Jr. COC
MANILA — The Supreme Court on Thursday issued an unexpected order requiring respondents
to comment on a petition seeking to question Comelec’s ruling on a cancellation of COC case
against presumptive President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr.

In a 1-page media briefer, the high court said it is giving respondents Comelec, Marcos Jr., the
Senate, and the House of Representatives 15 days to comment on the petition for certiorari,
which also asked the SC to issue a TRO to temporarily halt the canvassing of votes and
proclamation of president and vice president set next week.

"WHEREAS, considering the allegations contained, the issues raised and the arguments
adduced in the Petition, without necessarily giving due course thereto, it is necessary and
proper to REQUIRE the respondents to COMMENT on the petition and prayer for temporary
restraining order within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice hereof,” the en banc resolution
was quoted as saying in the media briefer.

“NOW, THEREFORE, respondents COMELEC, Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos, Jr., Senate of

No TRO or injunction was issued.

Without a TRO or injunction, and with respondents given 15 days to comment, canvassing and
proclamation of winning president and VP will likely push through next week.

SC magistrates are on recess and were not scheduled to meet en banc until June 14.

A request for comment from the SC if justices held a special en banc session on Thursday
remains unanswered.

The petition was filed by civic leaders led by Fr. Christian Buenafe and represented by former
SC spokesperson Theodore Te.

They claimed Marcos Jr. committed a material false representation when he claimed under oath
in his COC that he is eligible and is not disqualified to run for president despite his tax
conviction.

Comelec, first through a division decision and later through an en banc ruling, dismissed the
petition to deny due course or cancel Marcos’ COC.

Petitioners filed the petition for certiorari on Monday, alleging the Comelec gravely abused its
discretion.

Reacting to SC order for respondents to comment, Te, the lawyer for civic leaders, said they
welcome the move of the high court but hope that the period to comment is inextendible,
“considering that time is of the essence.”

“The petition is one of first impression and of grave public interest and we hope that the Court
will be given the opportunity to rule substantively on the issues raised,” he said in a statement.
Disqualification petition vs Bongbong Marcos reaches Supreme Court
MANILA (UPDATE) — A petition to cancel the candidacy of presumptive president Ferdinand
"Bongbong" Marcos Jr. has reached the Supreme Court, with civic leaders asking the high court
to stop Congress from canvassing the votes for Marcos and from proclaiming him president.

Petitioners Fr. Christian Buenafe, Fides Lim, Ma. Edeliza Hernandez, Celia Lagman Sevilla,
Roland Vibal, and Josephine Lascano have asked the SC to "cancel and declare ab initio"
Marcos' certificate of candidacy, citing material misrepresentation.

"Consequently, respondent Marcos Jr. must be deemed to have never been a candidate from
the very beginning, his candidacy invalidated, and the votes attributed to him considered stray,"
the petition read.
 
The petitioners also sought from the high court a temporary restraining order enjoining and
restraining both chambers of Congress from canvassing the votes cast for Marcos for president,
which is set on May 23.

"Should the petition be given due course by this Court, petitioners also ask that the qualified
candidate for the position obtaining the highest number of votes cast (sans Marcos Jr.) be
proclaimed as the President," the petition read.

Based on the partial, unofficial results count as of May 13, Marcos posted an unassailable lead,
garnering 31.1 million votes.

His rival, Vice President Leni Robredo, is trailing with 14.8 million votes.

'GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION'

According to the petitioners, the Commission on Elections "acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" by refusing to cancel or deny due course Marcos'
COC.

"Comelec failed to carry out its mandate to enforce and administer the laws relating to the
conduct of elections when it refused, despite basis, to exercise its duty to cancel respondent
Marcos Jr.’s COC in view of the latter’s material misrepresentation on two items," they said.

Civic leaders insisted that Marcos' material representations that he is "eligible" and not
convicted of crime with perpetual disqualification as punishment are false.

Marcos was convicted for failure to file mandatory income tax returns from 1982 to 1985.

The petitioners argued that the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code, the applicable law at the
time of Marcos’ non-filing of income tax returns, is clear — the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from holding any public office shall be imposed in cases of conviction of any
crime penalized under the NIRC.

They cited 2012 and 2013 rulings by the Supreme Court stating that “the accessory penalty of
perpetual special disqualification takes effect immediately once the judgment of conviction
becomes final.”

Marcos appealed his 1995 tax convictions to the CA. Two years later, the latter modified the
RTC ruling, acquitting him of non-payment of taxes and removing the penalty of imprisonment,
even as it convicted him for non-filing of ITRs.

Marcos filed a motion for extension of time to file his appeal with the Supreme Court but later
withdrew it. His conviction became final in 2001.
ESTATE TAX RETURN

The petitioners also said Marcos' "propensity to flout Philippine laws is further exemplified" over
his refusal to pay the estate taxes for the estate of his father, former dictator Ferdinand Marcos
Sr.

Marcos is one of the court-appointed administrators for this estate.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue computed the estate tax due on the Marcos estate at P23
billion. It has ballooned to P203.8 billion, inclusive of interest, surcharges and penalties.

 Henares, Carpio: Marcos Jr. can escape P203B estate tax liability if he wins as
President
 PART 1: How many infrastructure projects can you fund with P203 billion?
 Of taxes and needs: How much can P203-B cover in the health sector?
 Part 3: How many families could benefit from P203-B if it was a subsidy?

Marcos filed a petition with the CA questioning the validity of the estate tax assessment. The CA
dismissed the petition as the estate tax assessment had already become final and
unappealable. This was affirmed by the SC on June 5, 1997.

"The failure of the Marcos family to pay the estate taxes is to the detriment of the Filipino
people, as it represents once again a “Ferdinand Marcos," but this time his Junior, depriving the
country and its people of money properly belonging to them–to the tune of approximately
P 203.8 billion," the petitioners said.

'NO INTENTION TO DECEIVE'

In January, the poll body's Second Division dismissed the petition of civic leaders that sought to
cancel Marcos' candidacy, saying they found no intention on his part "to deceive the electorate."

The ruling, written by Comelec Commissioner Socorro Inting, said Marcos "did not deliberately
attempt to mislead, misinform, or deceive the electorate" when he declared in his COC that he is
eligible for public office.

 Comelec accused of 'grave abuse of discretion' for upholding pro-Marcos order

Inting added that the CA's eventual ruling on Marcos' tax case did not categorically convict
Marcos of a crime involving moral turpitude.

The second division also said that the petition should have been summarily dismissed because
it invoked grounds on both disqualification and cancellation of COC. However, they relaxed the
rules and decided based on the merits of the case.

But in its petition to the high court, the civic leaders have sought for the invalidation and reversal
of the Comelec resolutions "for having been rendered in grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction."