Conversation

According to petitioners' counsel

@TedTe

"Comelec agreed with the petitioners that the representations made in Item 11 and Box 22 of the COC of Marcos Jr. are material but disagreed that they were false."

This petition to cancel COC is one among the 3 pending petitions vs Marcos. Two others for disqualification remain. Christian Monsod petition pending in 2nd Div, consolidated Akbayan/Ilagan/Mangelen in 1st Div. Te's group will appeal to the en banc.

126

Any division ruling of the Comelec is appealable to its en banc, afterwhich parties can move to elevate to the Supreme Court.

LOOK: Here are material pages from the 32-page decision of the 2nd div penned by Comm Socorro Inting, concurred in by Comms Kho and Bulay. It says Marcos' info in COC that he had not been meted with perpetual DQ was not false, because CA ruling in 1997 did not say so.

READ: Marcos' spokesperson Vic Rodriguez says: "The petitioners’ mere creativity for writing and wanting what is not written in the law as basis to cancel the COC of Marcos is way too frivolous and unmeritorious to override the basic precepts of the Constitution."

The 2nd Division said that while such information was material, it was not false. "Respondent cannot be said to have deliberately attempted to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render him ineligible," said the ruling.

3:44 AM · Jan 17, 2022Twitter Web App

The ruling agreed Marcos' lawyers that CA's amended decision in 1997 "did not categorically hold hat respondent is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude nor did it positively pronounce that respondent is meted with the penalty of imprisonment of more than 18 months."

Replying to

Te's group argued that by sheer conviction of failure to file income tax returns, Marcos was automatically perpetually disqualified from public office because that is an accessory penalty of the tax code. Te's group said it need not be spelled out by the CA.

Comelec 2nd Division junks petition to cancel Marcos Jr.'s COC

But Comelec 2nd division said: "There is likewise no definitive declaration by the said decision that herein respondent is perpetually disqualified from holding public office."

Full story:

(6th UPDATE) It is appealable to the Comelec en banc, after which moves can be made to go to the Supreme Court

2nd Div ponencia said PD 1994, which imposed perpetual DQ, took effect only Jan '86 so it does not cover Marcos' failure to file ITR from '82-'85. In separate opinion, Comm Kho said PD 1994 covers '85 ITR because filing period is March '86, but Kho agreed there's no perpetual DQ.

Kho in his separate opinion said that while PD 1994 covers the '85 ITR, the penalty of perpetual DQ is a principal penalty and not an accessory penalty. Principal penalty, he said, is one that needs to be expressly written which CA's 1997 ruling did not do.