CARMMA asks Comelec en banc to reverse division ruling allowing Marcos Jr. to seek presidency

Martial law victims on Tuesday petitioned the Comelec en banc to overturn the division ruling that allowed former Senator Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr. to run for president despite his conviction for non-filing of income tax returns (ITRs).

The Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and Martial Law (CARMMA) filed a motion for reconsideration urging the Commission on Elections to reverse the former First Division’s junking of the consolidated disqualification cases against Marcos.

According to the petitioners, the division “erred” in considering the evidence filed by Marcos, despite his failure to file his formal offer of evidence on time; in finding that he was not perpetually disqualified from running for public office; in finding that Marcos was not meted a penalty of imprisonment of more than 18 months or for a crime involving moral turpitude; and in ruling that failure to file income tax returns for four consecutive years is not inherently wrong and does not involve moral turpitude.

“While the parties submitted their respective memoranda on time, respondent convicted Marcos, Jr. did not file his Formal Offer of Evidence until January 13, 2022, or four days after the period within which to file the same,” the petitioners argued.

This, the petitioners reiterated, is a violation of Section 34, Rule 123 of the Rules of Court which “suppletorily applies in election cases.”

“Verily, none of the documents submitted by the respondent convicted candidate Marcos, Jr. should be considered in the resolution of the case,” they said.

Aside from its late filing, the petitioners said that the documents submitted as evidence by the presidential candidate's camp are “questionable at best.”

They reiterated that the Bureau of Internal Revenue cannot certify payments that are due to the courts.

They explained that an Order of Payment must come from the courts before a payment may be made, which Marcos failed to submit.

“And while the amounts reflected in the Certification issued by the BIR match the amounts imposed by [the Quezon City Regional Trial Court] Branch 105, nothing in the Certification shows that such payments were in satisfaction of the imposed penalties rendered by the Court,” CARMMA said.

The petitioners contended again, citing the trial court's certification, that Marcos had not paid the penalty (fine) imposed against him.

CARMMA insisted that Marcos has lost his right to run for and be elected to public office, citing his 1995 conviction for violating Section 45 of the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA) in a 1997 ruling.

Despite the fact that the additional accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification for public officers found guilty of violating the tax code only became effective on January 1, 1986, the petitioners claim Marcos continued to violate the tax code and "did not even try to belatedly file his income tax return."

“He just did not. Therefore, when the amendments introduced by Presidential Decree No. 1994 took effect, he remained to be committing an offense in continued violation of the law, and such continued commission of an offense thus subjected him to the additional accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification,” the document read.

CARMMA added that accessory penalties need not be written in the judgment on conviction, citing the Supreme Court ruling in People of the Philippine Islands vs. Basilio Silvallana.

“Simply put, regardless of the penalty imposed by the Court, be it a fine or imprisonment, or both, a violation of P.D. 1994 comes with it the penalty of perpetual disqualification from running for public office,” the petitioners said.

They also clarified that their argument does not seek a retroactive application of the law, but merely applies the law in effect in 1986 "for violations he was continually committing in 1986" and "therefore does not fall within the ambit of an ex post facto law."

CARMMA further argued that Marcos continued to be a public official until 1986 and there was no abandonment of office that would justify his violation of the tax code.

“It is rather appalling that the Honorable Commission would attribute another crime to respondent convicted Marcos Jr. by stating that he abandoned his post,” the petitioners said, citing Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code.

They pointed out that neither the petitioners nor Marcos ever claimed that there was an abandonment of office. 

“It is rather curious of the Honorable Commission, in an attempt to exonerate respondent convicted Marcos Jr. from the present criminal offense which is the subject matter of this litigation, ends up attributing another criminal offense to him,” they said.

The petitioners said it was “perplexing” why the Comelec is going against the Marcos camp’s admission that the latter served as Ilocos Norte governor until 1986.

“Unfortunately, it appears as if the Honorable Commission is defending respondent convicted Marcos Jr. instead of being a neutral arbiter,” the petitioners said, adding that abandonment of office is being used to “shield” Marcos from his tax cases.

They further pointed out that Marcos Jr. never resigned and never claimed to have resigned from his post as governor of Ilocos Norte nor he was removed from the government.

Nonetheless, CARMMA said Marcos’ absence is not an excuse for his non-compliance with his obligation to file ITRs for the years 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985.

“He could have paid it while he was in Hawaii, through the consulate. He could have paid it upon his return from Hawaii. He could also have paid it when he learned of the case against him. But he continued to not do so. That is a fact,” the motion read.

Citing the definition of moral turpitude in Black’s Law dictionary, the petitioners said it will show that the willful, deliberate, and intentional act of non-filing of ITRs for four years fits squarely as conduct contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals.

Further, CARMMA said crimes involving moral turpitude is not limited to those that involve fraud.

They said that Marcos’ act “reeks of dishonesty and bad faith,” especially considering that he is not a single income earner and he should have filed his tax returns for the year 1985 as he was then appointed by his father, former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., as chairman of the board of Philippine Communications Satellite Corp.

They added that it was amplified by Marcos' camp’s admission that the presidential candidate had not satisfied the payment of penalties imposed by the court when they admitted that there was no evidence supporting his payments before the RTC.

Apart from CARMMA, two other petitioners— Akbayan party-list and Abubakar Mangelen— have filed separate appeals against the junking of the consolidated disqualification cases.

These motions for reconsiderations will be tackled by the Comelec en banc, which currently has four members. Three vacancies on the commission are yet to be filled by President Rodrigo Duterte.

Whatever the decision of the en banc is, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court. — VBL, GMA News