Bongbong Marcos’ DQ Case Likely To Reach SC – Expert

The Supreme Court (SC) may have to decide on the eligibility of presidential aspirant Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. and rule on the disqualification case filed against him in connection with a tax case 26 years ago, a legal expert said.

Former justice secretary Alberto Agra said he expects the case to reach the high tribunal once the Commission on Elections (Comelec) rules on it.

Speaking with One News’ “The Chiefs” aired on Wednesday night, Nov. 10, the Ateneo law professor said the losing party could bring the case directly to the SC and challenge whatever would be the ruling of the poll body’s second division.

“The losing party may bring it directly to the Supreme Court and skip the Comelec en banc by arguing that the case is exempted from exhaustion of available remedies since it needs urgent resolution and is of transcendental significance,” Agra said, citing the previous case of Sen. Grace Poe who also immediately elevated her disqualification case before the SC during the 2016 elections.

Agra said the case against Marcos raised justiciable issues or matters that only the court can resolve.

Agra cited the issue of whether or not the conviction of Marcos in 1996 carried with it an accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

“In this case, which is covered by the NIRC, a special law, there’s no consensus among lawyers that it carries accessory penalties, including disqualification from holding public office,” Agra said, referring to the National Internal Revenue Code.

He said the petition also raised the question of whether or not the non-filing of income tax return was a case of moral turpitude, which is a ground for disqualification of candidates for elective positions.

“It might be a judicial issue rather than a Comelec matter,” he said.

Agra reiterated his belief that the case is dismissible.

Citing a 2009 decision of the SC, he said that non-filing of tax returns is a crime not considered moral turpitude.

In the ruling, the court made a distinction between the offenses of non-filing of ITR, fake filing of ITR and fraudulent filing of ITR, he said.

“The court said moral turpitude only pertains to fraudulent filing of ITR. There has to be fraud,” Agra pointed out.

He expressed belief that the remaining question is the issue of perpetual disqualification as an accessory penalty to the crime.

Agra said the Comelec would also resolve if Marcos made deliberate misrepresentation in filing his certificate of candidacy (COC) by not declaring his conviction in the tax case.

“There should be deliberate attempt to defraud the people in filing COC. The intention to defraud is crucial and it has to be established in hearing by Comelec.

That is, however, very difficult to prove,” Agra said. The camp of Marcos earlier downplayed the petition filed by a group of political detainees, and human rights and health rights advocates as a “predictable nuisance” suit and mere “propaganda” against the frontrunner in the presidential race.

Petitioners, led by Fr. Christian Buenafe, cited the conviction of Marcos by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 105 on July 27, 1995, for failure to file income tax returns and pay income taxes from 1982 to 1985.

Records showed that Marcos was sentenced to serve a total of seven years in prison and ordered to pay a fine for several counts of violation of the NIRC.

He appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld on Oct. 31, 1997 the conviction, but modified the penalty by deleting the prison term and merely imposing a fine. Meanwhile, the Comelec is expecting to see some developments on the petition against Marcos in the next “four weeks” as summonses for both parties are expected to be out within the week.

Comelec spokesman James Jimenez said the poll body did not set a deadline for the resolution on the petition, noting it has received a petition for intervention on the petition for cancellation of the former senator’s COC.

“There is an intervention that has not yet been discussed by the Comelec en banc. We have no idea yet about it. Right now, what we have is a petition for cancellation of COCs,” Jimenez said.

The Comelec raffled off the petition, which is now being handled by its second division headed by Commissioners Socorro Inting and Antonio Kho Jr.

Under Comelec rules, Jimenez said that both parties would be given five days to answer the petition, which will be followed by a pre-conference meeting wherein parties will discuss the case followed by the submission of written memoranda.

The parties will be given three days each to respond to their respective answers to the petition before it will be submitted for resolution.

Jimenez believes the case won’t be resolved in eight days “because there is a lot of ‘soft space’ in between.”

The commission also doesn’t know when the summons will be sent out and received, as well the schedule of pre-conference hearing on a date acceptable to both parties, and days set for submission of memoranda and resolution. – With Robertzon Ramirez