Case Summary (G.R. No. 260374)
The consolidated petitions challenge COMELEC rulings that (a) denied Buenafe, et al.’s petition to cancel or deny due course Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr.’s Certificate of Candidacy (COC) under Section 78 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, and (b) denied Ilagan, et al.’s petition to disqualify him under Section 12 of the same Code. Both petitions rest on Marcos, Jr.’s final conviction for failing to file income tax returns (ITRs) for 1982–1985. The Court dismisses both petitions.
I. JURISDICTION
A. Power to review Comelec decisions
• Article IX-C, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution and Rule 64 → Rule 65 of the Rules of Court give this Court certiorari power to annul COMELEC orders free of jurisdictional or grave-abuse error.
• Article VIII, Section 1 likewise tasks the courts to decide conflicts amounting to grave abuse of discretion by any government branch or instrumentality.
B. Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) is not a separate body
• Article VII, Section 4 creates the PET—the Supreme Court sitting en banc to hear contests as to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-President.
• But the PET is not a distinct tribunal; it is the same Supreme Court functioning under special rules.
• The rules on when COMELEC jurisdiction ends and PET jurisdiction begins (by analogy to House/SET cases) govern procedure, not jurisdiction of this Court to decide these petitions.
II. REMEDIES: CANCELLATION vs. DISQUALIFICATION
A. Distinct remedies under the Omnibus Election Code
• Petition to cancel or deny due course to COC (Section 78 in relation to Section 74) rests exclusively on false material representations in the COC.
• Petition for disqualification (Section 12 or Section 68) attacks grounds such as final-judgment conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude or a penalty over eighteen months.
• Although some grounds overlap, they differ in filing periods (pre-election vs. up to proclamation) and effects (cancellation treats the person as never a candidate; disqualification merely ends the candidacy).
B. Section 78 petition (Buenafe, et al.)
- Material representation: Eligibility
• Section 74 requires a candidate to declare in the COC “I am eligible for the office” → “eligible” means possessing all qualifications and none of the ineligibilities to run.
• Accessory penalties (e.g., perpetual disqualification) can render a person ineligible, so failure to disclose them is a material representation. - Falsity and intent
• Marcos, Jr. represented that he was not found liable of any offense carrying perpetual disqualification.
• But his final CA judgment did not expressly impose perpetual disqualification—penalties ordered were only payment of taxes and fines—so he was not actually ineligible.
• No evidence of malicious intent to mislead. - Result: No ground to cancel the COC.
C. Section 12 petition (Ilagan, et al.)
- Crime involving moral turpitude?
• Section 12 disqualifies those convicted by final judgment of subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or any offense punished with more than eighteen months, or for a crime involving moral turpitude.
• Marcos, Jr. was convicted only of failure to file income tax returns. - Moral turpitude test
• Not every crime involves moral turpitude. It denotes acts of baseness or depravity contrary to good morals, usually requiring (a) fraud or malicious intent and (b) a grave breach of duty.
• Under the NIRC, “failure to file a return” is distinct from (1) false return and (2) fraudulent return with intent to evade tax. Only the latter two require fraudulent intent and involve moral turpitude.
• The Court of Appeals found no fraudulent intent in Marcos, Jr.’s non-filing; plus the 1985 return was due after PD 1994 took effect, but he was no longer a public officer by the filing date
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 260374)
Facts
- Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. served as Vice-Governor and later Governor of Ilocos Norte (Nov 1982–Mar 1986) and fled the country in Feb 1986.
- In Jun 1990, the BIR’s Special Tax Audit Team began probing the Marcos family’s tax liabilities.
- On Jul 25, 1991, a complaint for violations of the NIRC of 1977 (failure to file returns and pay taxes for 1982–1985) was filed against Marcos, Jr.
- The RTC (Quezon City, Branch 105) in its Jul 27, 1995 Decision convicted him of eight counts: failure to file returns and failure to pay deficiency taxes, ordering imprisonment and fines plus tax payments.
- On Oct 31, 1997, the CA (in CA-G.R. CR No. 18569) modified the RTC judgment: acquitted him of tax-payment charges, affirmed the failure-to-file convictions, deleted imprisonment, and imposed fines with civil tax liabilities.
- The CA Decision became final and executory on Aug 31, 2001.
Proceedings Before COMELEC
- Buenafe et al. filed on Nov 2, 2021 (SPA 21-156 DC) a petition to deny due course or cancel Marcos, Jr.’s Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for President under Section 78, alleging false material representations on eligibility and non-disqualification.
- Ilagan et al. filed on Nov 20, 2021 (SPA 21-212 DC) a petition for disqualification under Section 12, invoking the same CA convictions and accessory penalties.
- COMELEC Second Division (Jan 17, 2022) denied Buenafe et al.’s petition; COMELEC En Banc (May 10, 2022) affirmed.
- COMELEC Former First Division (Feb 10, 2022) and En Banc (May 10, 2022) likewise denied Ilagan et al.’s disqualification petitions.
Issues
- Whether Marcos, Jr.’s COC contained false material representations of his eligibility under Section 78 of the OEC.
- Whether his prior convictions carry the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification, thus rendering those statements false.
- Whether failure to file income tax returns (1982–1985) involves moral turpitude or a penalty of over 18 months imprisonment under Section 12 of the OEC, making him disqualified.
- Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in denying COC cancellation and disqualification petitions.
Applicable Law
- OEC Section 74: COC must state that the candidate “is eligible for said office” and other personal data under oath.
- OEC Section 78: Petition to deny or cancel CoC may be filed “exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein … is false.”
- OEC Section 12: Disqualification arises if a person “has been sentenced by final judgment … to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude.”
- NIRC 1977 Section 45 & Section 73: Failure to file return or to pay tax punished by fine or imprisonment or both.
- P.D. 1994 Section 286: Adds penalty on public officers—maximum penalty for the offense plus dismissal from service and perpetual disqualification.
- Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65, Rules of Court: Provides for Supreme Court certiorari review of C