Regarding the Petition against Marcos, I’m posting here a summary of the facts and the legal bases of the petition

Regarding the Petition against Marcos, I’m posting here a summary of the facts and the legal bases of the petition

1. The petition filed against Marcos is NOT a disqualification case. It's a petition to cancel Marcos' Certificate of Candidacy or deny it due course (which means that the COMELEC should not allow it) because Marcos allegedly lied ("false material representation"). 

2. Legal basis: Section 78 of the Election Code allows the COMELEC to cancel the COC if the candidate writes anything false on it.

3. What was false in the COC of Marcos? In the COC, there is a section where you have to declare if you've been convicted of a crime that caries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification  to hold public office. Marcos wrote that he was never convicted of such a crime. This statement was made under oath.

4. Was Marcos' statement that he was never convicted of such a crime true or false? It is false. Marcos was convicted with finality for four counts of failure to file his ITR under the 1977 Tax Code. That means four convictions. The Court of Appeals simply removed the penalty of imprisonment - a penalty  that was actually required to be imposed together with the fine. But even if the penalty of imprisonment was removed, he was still declared guilty of the crime and sentenced to pay fines.

5. Did Marcos know he was convicted of the crimes? Of course he did. He filed an appeal of his conviction with the Supreme Court. In an appeal, the entire case will be reviewed, and it can be decided against him. The Supreme Court could overturn the decision of the Court of Appeals and sentence him to imprisonment. Appeal can be a risk when facts are not in one's favor. That said, I don't know why Marcos withdrew his appeal with the SC. He should answer that  question.

6. So, was Marcos a convicted criminal? Yes. He was convicted - not just once, but four times. He filed an appeal on his convictions with the Supreme Court, but later decided to withdraw them. By withdrawing his appeal, his convictions became final judgments. Note that a conviction does not always carry with it jail time. Being declared guilty of a crime is the conviction. In Marcos' case, he was declared guilty and sentenced to pay fines for his crimes.

7. Does the crime he was convicted of carry with it the accessory penalty of disqualification? Yes it does. Marcos was convicted under the 1977 Tax Code. Under Section 286 of that law, any public officer or employee convicted of any violation of the Tax Code "shall be dismissed from public office and perpetually disqualified from any public office" and is prohibited from participating in any election. When the Tax Code was amended in 1997, that same provision was retained. That  accessory penalty was never removed. The mere fact of conviction carries with it the penalty of perpetual disqualification. It's part of the law.

8. What about the argument that disqualification of a candidate applies only to those sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of more than 18 months or for crimes involving moral turpitude? That provision under the Omnibus Election Code refers only to those crimes that do not include the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. It does not apply to crimes where perpetual disqualification is already part of the penalty (which is why it is called an accessory penalty). Under the Tax Code, perpetual  disqualification is an accessory penalty to ANY violation. 

Whether the  COMELEC considers violation of the Tax Code as a ground for perpetual disqualification is something we are probably all interested in. The question of whether Marcos is required to file an ITR should have been discussed in the CA, but it would be interesting as well to see if this will be reinterpreted by the COMELEC.

*********