UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW: DISQUALIFY MARCOS JR. FROM ELECTIVE OFFICE
The
Comelec and then upon appeal the Supreme Court should disqualify Marcos Jr. The lives and well-being of tens of millions are
not worth gambling with.
Let’s not
make the mistake of Nazi Germany. Uphold the rule of law.
Rule of law—one of the attributes defining
good governance.
DOESN’T
MATTER IF MARCOS TAX CASE RAISED ONLY NOW—CARPIO
By: Marlon
Ramos - Reporter / @MRamosINQ
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:40 AM November 07, 2021
MANILA,
Philippines — The disqualification of former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos
Jr. from next year’s presidential election may be raised at any time as he was
convicted of a crime that prohibits him from being elected or appointed to any
government position, according to former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice
Antonio Carpio.
Marcos was convicted of tax evasion, an offense under the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), which
carries the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office, Carpio
said on Saturday.
The
decision of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court in 1995 was upheld by the
Court of Appeals (CA) in 1997. It became final in 2001 after Marcos withdrew
his Supreme Court appeal.
Since his
conviction, Marcos has been elected as governor and representative of Ilocos
Norte, and senator. He was defeated in the vice presidential election in 2016.
His conviction and disqualification were not raised by his opponents.
“It’s
immaterial that it was not raised before,” Carpio said in response to
statements by the Marcos camp that belittled a petition with the Commission on
Elections (Comelec) to cancel his certificate of candidacy (COC) because the
conviction was not for a crime that involved moral turpitude.
…Two civil
society groups and martial law victims represented by lawyer Howard Calleja on
Friday said the appeals court’s decision should be declared void ab initio
(from the start) for removing the prison term imposed by the Quezon City court
on Marcos.
Carpio,
however, said voiding the CA ruling was “arguable.”
“But there
is no need to raise that because even as is, the CA decision already
disqualifies Marcos,” he told the Inquirer. “Marcos cannot escape (the issue
of) moral turpitude under the CA decision.”
Under the NIRC, or Republic Act No. 8424, persons found guilty of
tax evasion should pay the unpaid taxes and fines, and suffer imprisonment.
Section 253 (c) of the law also explicitly states that if the convicted
individual is a public official “the maximum penalty prescribed for the
offense shall be imposed and, in addition, he shall be dismissed from the
public service and perpetually
disqualified from holding any public office, to vote and to participate in
any election.”
Carpio
said this provision alone was enough to
bar Marcos from vying for the country’s highest elective office. …
—WITH A
REPORT FROM VILLAMOR VISAYA JR.
“Judicial
tyranny is to contradict and subvert the meaning of the law plainly and
unambiguously stated.”—Gonzalinho
da Costa
LAW,
JUSTICE, AND THE HOLOCAUST
With a
series of key decrees, legislative acts, and case law, the Nazi leadership
gradually moved Germany from a democracy to a dictatorship. The role of the
legal profession in general and the actions of judges in particular were
critical.
…The Nazi
leadership used a series of legal mechanisms—which, in contrast to the
revolutionary overthrow of power in 1918, judges tended to consider
legitimate—to gradually assume and consolidate Hitler's power. Then, step by
step, and always under the guise of safeguarding the state, the Nazi leadership
imposed legislation that fulfilled its ideological goals of rearmament,
military expansion, and racial purification. Throughout the 1930s and
especially after the Nazi regime began World War II in 1939, the judiciary
typically rendered verdicts according to the principles of Nazi ideology and
the wishes of the Führer.
In
reality, judges were among those inside
Germany who might have effectively challenged Hitler's authority, the
legitimacy of the Nazi regime, and the hundreds of laws that restricted
political freedoms, civil rights, and guarantees of property and security. And
yet the overwhelming majority did not. Instead,
over the 12 years of Nazi rule, during which time judges heard countless cases,
most not only upheld the law but interpreted it in broad and far-reaching ways
that facilitated, rather than hindered, the Nazis' ability to carry out their
agenda.
How was
this possible? Why did it happen? It seems clear that the Nazi period presented
individual judges—as it did so many others—with intense personal and ethical
dilemmas.
…a series
of key decrees, legislative acts, and case law that show the gradual process by
which the Nazi leadership, with support or acquiescence from the majority of
German people, including judges, moved the nation from a democracy to a
dictatorship. They show the series of legal steps that left millions vulnerable
to the racist and antisemitic ideology of the Nazi state. These legal
instruments reveal the positions that judges took and the questions that they
faced during the Nazi regime; ….
RULE OF
LAW AND THE ASCENSION OF THE THIRD REICH
July 15,
2020
Museum of
Jewish Heritage
Nazi
Germany is often misunderstood as an arbitrary, lawless regime. But even as the
rule of law gradually was hollowed out, significant structures of the legal system continued to exist.
National-conservative lawyers and judges contributed in various legal and
extra-legal ways to the establishment of
a terrorist dictatorship – especially by legally codifying the radical
otherness of the “racially inferior.”
This
discussion about the rule of law before and during the Third Reich is led by
Thorsten Wagner and Eric Muller of FASPE (Fellowships at Auschwitz for the
Study of Professional Ethics) – an organization that looks at how institutional
leaders became intimately involved in designing, enabling and/or executing the
crimes of Nazi Germany.
***
ANTIDEMOCRATIC
MOVE
By: Gian
Paolo S. Ines - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 04:06 AM November 16, 2021
Recently,
some groups moved to eliminate an aspirant from the presidential race through
petitions based on a cold interpretation of the law. They framed their
narrative as deriving from the alleged false representation in the aspirant’s
certificate of candidacy and a Court of Appeals case against him which became
final in 2001. They insist on this narrative even though the aspirant had been
previously elected to various public positions and the issue was never raised
in the past elections.
Incidentally,
some of those closely associated with this ploy are also leaders of a coalition
that has presented itself as an anti-administration umbrella organization of
pro-democracy groups.
What these
groups seem to overlook is that their eagerness to eliminate the aspirant from
the race through a “lawfare” strategy reflects their antidemocratic tendencies — their fear that their preferred
aspirant will lose, and thus the inclination to curtail instead effective
participation in the elections.
Section 1,
Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution reminds us of two important guidelines as
far as Philippine elections are concerned: (1) the Philippines is a democratic
state, and (2) sovereignty resides in the people. There are essential
democratic principles that are incorporated in these guidelines.
…the
Filipino people, as the true sovereign, should be given the right to choose
their leaders through the ballot box. That choice should not be limited or
taken away from them through any form of legal maneuver.
And this
brings us to another essential democratic principle, which is effective
participation. In one of his works, Yale University scholar Robert Dahl traced
the origin and development of democracy in Greece, Rome, and Italy and
concluded that favorable conditions are needed for democracy to function properly.
One of these conditions is effective participation—essentially, that the
members of a society must be given “effective opportunities for making their
views known.”
In a
democracy, one way to make a person’s views known is through elections. But
these views cannot be effectively known if the choices are curtailed simply for
the sake of winning an election. They cannot be effectively known if the
antidemocratic persuasions of one party or group are allowed to unduly
interfere with the electoral exercise. …
Gian Paolo S. Ines is the chair of San Beda
University’s Department of Political Science.
MARCOS JR.’S
DISQUALIFICATION ‘ANTIDEMOCRATIC’?
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:01 AM November 19, 2021
In his
commentary titled “Antidemocratic Move” (11/16/21), San Beda University’s
Department of Political Science chair Gian Paolo Ines made the argument that
the disqualification complaint filed against Bongbong Marcos is antidemocratic.
“After all, the Filipino people, as the true sovereign, should be given the
right to choose their leaders through the ballot box,” he stressed. “That
choice should not be limited or taken away from them through any form of legal
maneuver.”
We submit
that Professor Ines got it all wrong.
His opinion is too simplistic to
merit the scantiest consideration. If we were to follow his way of thinking to
its logical end, an argument could be made that President Duterte should have
been allowed to run again for president and we should have also left it to the
sovereign people “in whom (ultimately) sovereignty resides” to decide whether
or not he deserves a second term.
That Mr.
Duterte’s “reelection” is prohibited by the Constitution itself, while
Bongbong’s bid is hobbled only by a mere legislative enactment that
categorically disqualifies him from holding any public office due to his final
conviction as a tax evader, is really of no moment. The law, whether enshrined in the Constitution or passed in Congress by
representatives of the people, is the law and is enforceable equally.
And it should not matter that his
disqualification is raised only now. Any lawyer will inform Ines that there is no prescriptive period for the
filing of such a petition. That Bongbong has gotten away with his mockery of
the law for so long (having been elected to and had held various public offices
despite that threat of disqualification) is no argument to make a wrong right.
The law is not rendered useless by the lack of enforcement. There is always a
day of reckoning.
George del
Mar, gdmlaw111@gmail.com
I fully
agree with George del Mar’s response to Professor Gian Paolo S. Ines, to wit: “Professor
Ines got it all wrong. His opinion is too simplistic to merit the scantiest
consideration.”
I second del
Mar’s evaluation, “simplistic.” Ines reduces democracy—the Philippines’ political
system—to the sovereignty of the Philippine people, especially insofar as it is
exercised in the right to vote.
However, democracy
is not just elections. The right to vote does not solely define democracy.
Besides
guaranteeing the right to vote, democracy exacts accountability after
elections, ensures checks and balances in the exercise of power, and safeguards
political freedoms and civil rights, among other vital functions. Democracy is also
a free press, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and many other
absolutely essential working parts.
When Ines
invokes the principle of the sovereignty of the people solely, he neglects to take
into account other relevant and necessary principles of democracy, the rule of
law in particular.
Under the
principle of the rule of law—a defining principle of democracy—Marcos Jr. should be
penalized according to the explicit and unmistakable meaning of pertinent
provisions of the applicable law. We quote from Justice Carpio’s column in the
Inquirer:
begin
Under the NIRC, or Republic Act No. 8424, persons found guilty of
tax evasion should pay the unpaid taxes and fines, and suffer imprisonment.
Section 253 (c) of the law also explicitly states that if the convicted
individual is a public official “the maximum penalty prescribed for the
offense shall be imposed and, in addition, he shall be dismissed from the
public service and perpetually
disqualified from holding any public office, to vote and to participate in
any election.”
end
No technicalities
have been persuasively invoked whereby the relevant provisions of the law are
rendered inapplicable in this case.
Moreover,
from the standpoint of public policy, the rationale underlying the perpetual
disqualification from public office of a citizen who has betrayed the public
trust is only too sensible, because those who in the past have notably contravened
the public trust show significant risk of doing so again.
Ethics further
argues that the applicable law in this case is just so that there is no good
reason to disobey it.
Ines would
in effect have us flout the rule of law, including its constitutive principle
of equality before the law, because Marcos Jr. is popular (allegedly). The chair of
the San Beda University Department of Political Science would have us violate a
necessary and integral principle of democracy, the rule of law, and in the
process have us undermine democracy itself.
We might
describe his reasoning as a type of rhetorical fallacy in the sense that it is a
sweeping generalization based on a single premise—that of ensuring the sovereignty
of the people in a democracy by safeguarding their right to vote—while omitting
many other important and applicable principles of democracy that are pertinent
to this particular case, the rule of law notably.
“What Is the Rule of Law?”
Uphold the rule of law. Disqualify Marcos Jr. from public
office.
***
NEW
PETITION VS BONGBONG MARCOS BANKS ON TAX CODE’S AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION
Nov 9,
2021 1:39 PM PHT
Lian Buan
Rappler.com
The new petition to cancel the certificate of
candidacy (COC) of presidential aspirant Bongbong Marcos focused on the automatic penalty of
disqualification of the tax code, under which Marcos was convicted of four
counts in 1997.
Ten
individuals represented by lawyer Howard Calleja, a convenor of opposition
coalition 1Sambayan, filed with the Commission on Elections (Comelec) their
motion and petition in intervention on Monday, November 8.
The group
had to file a motion for intervention because the deadline to submit petitions
to cancel COC has already lapsed, and therefore they would need the Comelec to
grant their request to intervene or join the petition filed on the deadline by
civic leaders and their lawyer Ted Te.
I have
lifted the following cogent arguments from social media:
begin
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 carries 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 [Court of Appeals], but it would be interesting as well to see if this will
be reinterpreted by the COMELEC.
By the
way, the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to reinterpret a final decision of the
Court.
end
Open and shut case
Except in the land of impunity
Uphold the rule of law
So that justice will bear fruit in peace and prosperity
CANCEL
MARCOS JR. COC
***
More
problems concerning Marcos Jr.’s Certificate of Candidacy:
QUESTION
NO. 22 AND PERJURY
By:
Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:07 AM November 18, 2021
…Lying
under oath has even become a habit among politicians when they file their
certificates of candidacy (COC). They always claim in their COC that they are
eligible to run for public office even if they had been previously convicted of
a crime that disqualifies them from holding any public office. In the 2012 case
of Aratea v. Comelec, a decision which I penned for the En Banc, the Supreme Court ruled:
“Even
without a petition under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC is under a legal duty to cancel
the certificate of candidacy of anyone suffering from perpetual special
disqualification to run for public office by virtue of a final judgment of
conviction. The final judgment of conviction is judicial notice to the COMELEC of the disqualification of the convict
from running for public office. The law itself bars the convict from
running for public office, and the disqualification is part of the final
judgment of conviction. The final judgment of the court is addressed not only
to the Executive branch, but also to other government agencies tasked to
implement the final judgment under the law.
“Whether
or not the COMELEC is expressly mentioned in the judgment to implement the
disqualification, it is assumed that the portion of the final judgment on
disqualification to run for elective public office is addressed to the COMELEC
because under the Constitution the COMELEC is duty bound to ‘enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election.’”
To implement this directive in the Aratea
decision,
the Commission on Elections (Comelec)
added to the COC Question No. 22, which asks: “Have you ever been found
liable for an offense which carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual
disqualification from public office, which has become final and executory?” A false answer renders the COC void ab
initio, as if the candidate never filed his COC, thus disqualifying the
candidate. In addition, a false answer
constitutes perjury, a separate crime involving moral turpitude which also disqualifies a perjurer from holding any
public office.
Read more:
https://opinion.inquirer.net/146557/question-no-22-and-perjury#ixzz7DgNRujZH
THROW THE
BOOK AT MARCOS JR.
CANCEL MARCOS JR. COC
Uphold the rule of law
***
In the
case of the cancellation of Marcos Jr.’s Certificate of Candidacy, what is at stake
before Comelec and the Philippine people is the rule of law, in particular,
equality before the law. They are constitutive principles of democracy.
The
history of the Marcos family—like the histories of many of the moneyed elite in
Philippine society—shows a predisposition for seeking special privileges and
exemptions from the application of the rule of law and acting as if they are
entitled to it.
RIGHTS AND
DUE PROCESS — FOR THE MARCOSES By: Floyd
G. Buenavente - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 05:02 AM November 21, 2021
My
(adoptive) parents were both victims of martial law.
Dad was
arrested without a warrant and sent to a safe house, where it was jokingly said
the only safe people were the military. He was tortured physically and
psychologically for six months. Once, he was awakened in the middle of the
night, brought to a remote area, and made to dig his own grave. After a few
grueling hours, his captors, after listening to their walkie-talkie radios,
told him his time had not yet come and brought him back to detention. Then they
repeated the same thing all over again on another random night.
He was
eventually transferred to a military camp where he stayed for another six
months. He was only released when his family was able to ask for help from an
ex-military relative.
He lost
all of his front teeth, experienced extreme post-traumatic stress syndrome, and
bouts of depression.
His story
is just one of the thousands of others, many of them with far worse
experiences, at the time of martial law.
A few
years after Edsa 1986, the Marcoses were just allowed to come back into the
country, with no arrests waiting for them, no detention, no handcuffs, no
monitoring of their movements or how they spent their money. They were allowed
to run for public office and retain power in their strongholds all over the
country.
A lawyer
friend pointed to a Supreme Court decision on the right of the Marcoses to
return to the country, since he said they have equal rights under the 1987
Constitution. “The Marcoses have rights enshrined in the Constitution, and if
Edsa wants to reestablish democracy in the country, the Marcoses should also be
able to enjoy those rights and be given due process under the law.”
…my lawyer
friend also stated that the best friend of plunderers like the Marcoses is
time.
Indeed, with all the plundered money at their
disposal, the Marcoses were able to afford the best lawyers. They used
every single dirty rule in the book to prolong court hearings and rulings,
resulting in acquittals in many cases.
The
Marcoses allegedly also made sure to use
their money to finance a network of trolls since 2010 and push the
narrative in social media that martial law was the “golden age” of the
Philippines, and that strongman rulers are necessary for the country because
“Filipinos lack discipline.”
…why does it seem that the justice system in
the Philippines sides more with the abusers rather than their victims?
…How our
justice system treats the Marcoses is in line with the values of our
Constitution. They enjoy the very same rights they had taken away from so many
other Filipinos. However, doesn’t this
setup tolerate wrongdoing and open the stage for anyone to do the same things
the Marcoses did, and, like them, get away with their crimes, too?
Floyd G. Buenavente is a digital marketing
consultant of 15 years. A husband, father, and musician, he collects witty
aphorisms and enjoys the rare silence afforded him by his one-year-old son.
Read more:
https://opinion.inquirer.net/146653/rights-and-due-process-for-the-marcoses#ixzz7DgFZlRrZ
MARCOSES
BEHAVE LIKE THEY’RE ABOVE THE LAW
Philippine
Daily Inquirer / 04:03 AM November 22, 2021
The
disqualification cases against Bongbong Marcos Jr. all boil down to his failure
to file income tax returns for the years 1982 to 1985 and, naturally, failure
to pay the taxes for those years when his father still ruled the country under
martial law. What puzzles many is why he never bothered to do so, given their
family’s enormous wealth. Surely, the taxes supposedly due were just a drop in
the bucket.
It’s
pretty obvious, though. Hubris. Marcos
Jr. must have really thought he and his family were so above the law that no
one could tell them what to do and they could get away with any violation of
the law. …
MARIA MARGARITA AYTONA
Photo courtesy of General Assembly of Scout Rangers
ReplyDeletePhoto link:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bongbongmarcos/23388671106
Gonzalinho
*Highlights between asterisks*
ReplyDeleteCANCEL COC OF, NOT DISQUALIFY, BONGBONG
By: Artemio V. Panganiban - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:05 AM November 28, 2021
Now that the lawyers of Bongbong Marcos have filed their “Answer” to the main petition to cancel (or deny due course to) his certificate of candidacy (COC) in the 2022 elections (other petitions were submitted later but they were merely reiterative or filed out of time), I will now take up the subject as promised in my Nov. 14 piece titled “The Bongbong-Sara juggernaut.”
First, let me summarize the grounds raised by the 52-page petition filed in the Commission on Elections (Comelec) by lawyer Theodore O. Te. It argued that *Bongbong’s COC should be canceled because he falsely declared under oath in paragraph 11 of his COC dated Oct. 6, 2021, that he was “eligible for the office I seek to be elected to.”*
This *material declaration or representation is “false” because he was convicted by a final judgment, dated Oct. 31, 1997, of the Court of Appeals (CA) for violating Section 45 of the Tax Code,* “(a) Ordering (him) to pay the BIR the deficiency taxes due with interest at the legal rate until fully paid; and (b) … to pay a fine of P2,000 for each charge in Criminal Cases Nos… for failure to file income tax returns for the years 1982, 1983 and 1984; and the fine of P30,000 in Criminal Case No… for failure to file income tax return for 1985, with surcharges.” *This judgment made him ineligible to hold any public office.*
*Under Section 78 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), any “material representation” in the COC that is “false” is penalized with the cancellation of, or denial of due course to, such COC.*
*Another false material representation* is found in Item 22 of his said COC in which *Bongbong denied under oath that he had been “found liable for any offense which carries the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office…”*
It contended that “Presidential Decree No. 1994, dated Nov. 5, 1985, which became effective Jan. 1, 1986, amended” the 1977 National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) “to include, among others, the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding any public office… in cases of conviction of a crime penalized under the NIRC.” This amendment is now a part of Section 253 of the 1997 NIRC.
…contrary to some media reports and “analysts,” *lawyer Te’s petition seeks the cancellation of Bongbong’s COC, not his “disqualification.”* Under Section 68 of the OEC and applicable jurisprudence, disqualification can be granted only for the commission of election offenses defined by the OEC, not by any other penal laws.
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/146916/cancel-coc-of-not-disqualify-bongbong#ixzz7DgLc1Ypa
OPEN AND SHUT CASE
EXCEPT IN THE LAND OF IMPUNITY
UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW
SO THAT JUSTICE WILL BEAR FRUIT IN PEACE AND PROSPERITY
CANCEL BBM COC
Gonzalinho
NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS: MARCOS JR. LIED IN HIS COC
DeletePhilippine Daily Inquirer / 04:02 AM November 29, 2021
Allow us our own riff on the petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy (COC) of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. for president. The question asked in the COC was in plain and easily understandable language: “Have you ever been found liable for an offense which carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office, which has become final and executory?”
Marcos Jr. answered NO because, as his lawyers now argue, he was never convicted of any offense “involving moral turpitude,” which the Omnibus Election Code requires for any final conviction to warrant disqualification from public office. While he was, indeed, convicted of an offense under Presidential Decree No. 1158 (Tax Code of 1977, his own father’s decree), his lawyers posit that the imprisonment imposed therein was set aside by the Court of Appeals in its final judgment, thereby negating “moral turpitude.”
But shorn of all gobbledygook, Marcos Jr. did blatantly lie. In reality, that conviction by the Court of Appeals stayed despite the egregious error it made by violating the law which ordained mandatory fine and imprisonment for that offense. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Marcos Jr. was, in fact, “found (by final and executory judgment) liable for an offense (under PD 1158) which carries with it … perpetual disqualification from public office”!
This false declaration in his current COC is a repetition of the false declarations he made in the COCs for various government positions in the past, the most notable of which was for senator and then for vice president in 2016. The former senator was not confused in his reading of a simple question. He is just an incorrigible liar. That no one had called him out on those falsifications to get him disqualified before is no argument to let him slip through the process once more.
JAN VINCENT MARTINEZ
jvlopez_mart@yahoo.com
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/146969/no-ifs-ands-or-buts-marcos-jr-lied-in-his-coc#ixzz7Dlrd2AR7
OPEN AND SHUT CASE
UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW
CANCEL BBM COC
COMELEC STOP DRAGGING YOUR FEET - DON’T POSTPONE THE DECISION TO AFTER ELECTION DAY ON MAY 9, 2022
Gonzalinho
CARPIO DOUBTS MARCOS PAID PENALTIES IMPOSED BY COURT OVER TAX CASE
ReplyDeleteBy: Marlon Ramos - Reporter / @MRamosINQ
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 04:46 AM November 24, 2021
MANILA, Philippines — Did former Sen. Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. just admit his failure to comply with his court sentence?
Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio raised this question on Tuesday as he noted that Marcos’ camp did not mention if he had satisfied the court’s order for him to settle his tax deficiencies in his answer to the petition opposing his presidential bid in the Commission on Elections.
Instead, the son and namesake of dictator Ferdinand Marcos merely argued that the disqualification case against him should be tossed out since the 1997 ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) did not find him guilty of committing a crime involving moral turpitude.
The appellate court’s decision upheld the earlier ruling of a Quezon City court in 1995 that found the younger Marcos guilty of nonpayment of taxes and failure to file income tax returns from 1982 to 1985 when he was vice governor and later, governor of Ilocos Norte.
The decision became final and executory in 2001 after he withdrew his appeal in the Supreme Court.
*“In his answer, Marcos did not state that he paid the fine and deficiency taxes imposed by the CA,”* Carpio told the Inquirer.
“I think [he] did not pay the fine and deficiency income taxes as ordered by the final and executory CA decision,” he added.
Carpio said this could be the reason why Marcos’ counsels, headed by veteran lawyer Estelito Mendoza, did not argue that the petition against him should be junked since he had already served his sentence with the payment of the tax dues and penalties.
Read more: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1519150/carpio-doubts-marcos-paid-penalties-imposed-by-court-over-tax-case#ixzz7DgLxZEHm
THROW THE BOOK AT BBM
CANCEL BBM COC
UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW
Gonzalinho
[ANALYSIS] THEY GAVE BONGBONG MARCOS A FREE PASS
ReplyDeleteNov 26, 2021 11:08 AM PHT
John Molo
Rappler.com
After a group of Martial Law victims filed a petition against the candidacy of Marcos Jr., legal views from both sides have emerged. The arguments of those who filed rely on a reading of the Tax Code and the clear wording of the trial court and Court of Appeals decisions. Those who defend him look at the same words and parse them, some pointing at turns of phrase or offer hairline distinctions – such as “sentence” vs “conviction.” All this is expected. It’s what we lawyers do. (And why society hates us so.)
…It is a legal curiosity why the Court of Appeals deleted imprisonment after agreeing with a regional trial court that Marcos Jr. was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In an interview Justice Carpio said, “Because he is Bongbong, they gave him a free pass.” From his youth, to Oxford, and all the way to public office, how quaint it must be to live a life full of “free passes.” The nation will now watch whether this Marcos will be given another. – Rappler.com
John Molo is a commercial law litigator who enjoys reading and learning about the Constitution and its intersection with politics. He teaches Constitutional Law at UP Law-BGC, where he also chairs the Political Law Cluster of the Faculty. He led the team that sued the Aquino administration and invalidated the Priority Development Assistance Fund.
https://www.rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/analysis-they-gave-bongbong-marcos-free-pass/
In the case before Comelec concerning the cancellation of BBM’s Certificate of Candidacy, what is at stake is the rule of law, in particular, equality before the law. They are constitutive principles of democracy.
The history of the Marcos family—like the histories of many of the moneyed elite in Philippine society—shows a predisposition for seeking special privileges and exemptions from the application of the rule of law and acting as if they are entitled to it.
Gonzalinho
*Highlights between asterisks*
ReplyDeletePARTIDO FEDERAL ALSO FILES MARCOS DEFENSE IN COMELEC CASE
Nov 29, 2021 9:00 PM PHT
Lian Buan
Rappler.com
Partido Federal ng Pilipinas (PFP), which is carrying the presidential bid of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, has filed an *answer-in-intervention* in defense of its candidate at the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
PFP officials – Reynaldo Tamayo (president), Vic Rodriguez (executive vice president and Marcos’ spokesperson), and Thompson Lantion (secretary general) – filed on November 22 the answer, *which the Comelec must accept first.* Marcos’ official answer to the petition to cancel his certificate of candidacy (COC) was filed on his behalf by his lawyer, Estelito Mendoza.
PFP’s answer-in-intervention is among the pending incidents that the Comelec Second Division has to resolve, Comelec spokesperson James Jimenez confirmed to Rappler in a text message Monday, November 29. The pending incidents, which include a petition-in-intervention by the group of 1Sambayan convenor Howard Calleja, are slowing down the resolution of the case.
In their answer, PFP said *Marcos has already settled his tax fines in 2001.*
The Court of Appeals (CA) in 1997 upheld Marcos’ conviction of failure to file income tax returns (ITR) from 1982 to 1985, and ordered him to pay a total P36,000 plus interest and surcharge. This conviction is the basis of the pending petition to cancel his COC, filed by civic leaders represented by former Supreme Court spokesperson Ted Te.
Marcos was going to appeal the CA ruling in the Supreme Court in 2001 but withdrew it.
“He opted to just pay the fine plus interest and surcharges which amounted to P67,137.27. Thus the CA decision became final and executory on August 31, 2001. BBM paid the fine on December 27, 2001,” said PFP’s 33-page-answer, far longer than Marcos’ own answer which ran just five pages.
The petition to cancel Marcos’ COC is anchored on misrepresentation. He allegedly committed misrepresentation when he said in his COC that he was eligible to run for president.
His ineligibility, the petition argues, roots from his 1997 conviction. The petition says that because the tax code imposes perpetual disqualification on any kind of tax convict, Marcos had been perpetually disqualified from holding public office.
One of PFP’s defense was that the *perpetual disqualification clause was only inserted to the tax code via Presidential Decree 1994 which took effect January 1, 1986.*
His conviction covers 1982-1985 taxable years when he was vice governor then governor of Ilocos Norte.
“It is clear for the taxable years 1982 to 1984, BBM failed to file his income tax returns before the effectivity of PD 1994. Therefore *the penalty of perpetual disqualification which was introduced by PD 1994 cannot be applied to BBM’s failure to file his tax returns for taxable years 1982 to 1984,”* said PFP, citing the principle that criminal laws cannot be applied retroactively.
To be continued
Gonzalinho
PARTIDO FEDERAL ALSO FILES MARCOS DEFENSE IN COMELEC CASE
ReplyDeleteNov 29, 2021 9:00 PM PHT
Lian Buan
Rappler.com
Continued
But *what about 1985?*
PFP said that *Marcos was due to file his 1985 ITR in April 1986.* But *by that time,* PFP said, *Marcos was no longer public official* having just been kicked out of the country by a people power revolution.
“It is not difficult to understand that the perpetual disqualification from holding office applies only to an offender who is a public officer…*Since BBM was not a public officer or employee at that time, the penalty of perpetual disqualification is not applicable to BBM,”* said PFP.
https://www.rappler.com/nation/elections/partido-federal-pilipinas-also-files-defense-bongbong-marcos-comelec-case/
Let’s assume that BBM indeed paid the deficiency taxes and penalties imposed by the Court of Appeals decision—this claim is subject to verification by official public documentation.
Let’s also assume that the perpetual disqualification clause took effect on January 1, 1986 and that it therefore applies in this case for the years 1982-85 only.
As a consequence, BBM is deemed not automatically disqualified by the operation of a technicality, specifically, the proscription against the application of ex post facto laws, for the years 1982-84.
However, when the answer-in-intervention insists that Section 253 (c) of Republic Act No. 8424 doesn’t apply to the year 1985, the argument fails.
BBM, who was a public officer in the taxable year 1985-86 until the February 1986 EDSA Revolution ousted Marcos, was liable for the taxes due for this period. He is not exempt from this obligation simply because he was no longer a public officer when the tax payment came due.
Using analogy we would point out that an employee in a private corporation continues to be liable for his acts as a private employee even after he has separated from the corporation. He continues to be responsible, for example, for the payment of the taxes due on his compensation while he was an employee.
UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW. CANCEL BBM COC. IMPLEMENT THE PROVISION ON PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION.
Gonzalinho
*Highlights between asterisks*
DeleteDID MARCOS JR. SERVE HIS SENTENCE?
By: Antonio T. Carpio - @inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:06 AM December 02, 2021
The decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) convicting Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. of criminal violation of the Tax Code became final and executory on Aug. 13, 2001. *The fallo or dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals decision ordered Marcos Jr. “to pay to the BIR the deficiency income taxes” and “to pay a fine of P2,000.00 for each charge xxx for failure to file income tax return for 1982, 1983 and 1984; and a fine of P30,000.00 xxx for failure to file income tax return for 1985, with surcharges.”*
Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) provides that any person convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any public office.” Such disqualification is “removed xxx after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence.” If the penalty is only payment of reparation and fine, the convict is deemed to have served his sentence upon payment of the reparation and fine. Since the CA decision ordered Marcos Jr. to pay reparation, which is the deficiency income tax, plus fine, the question arises if Marcos Jr. had paid the deficiency income tax and fine, and when.
*In his Answer to the Petition* to cancel his certificate of candidacy (COC), *Marcos Jr. claims that the CA’s fallo “does not specify the particular deficiency income tax which appellant therein is required to pay.”* In effect the Answer *judicially admits that Marcos Jr. has not paid the deficiency income tax up to now.* Moreover, while the Answer admits that the order to pay the fine, as distinguished from the deficiency income tax, is unambiguous, the Answer does not state that Marcos Jr. had paid the fine. Even assuming that Marcos Jr. did pay the fine, the *failure to pay the deficiency income tax means he still has not served his sentence.* Consequently, Marcos Jr.’s disqualification to run for public office remains in effect up to now.
…Section 253 of the Tax Code mandates that a public officer shall be “perpetually disqualified from holding public office” if he is “convicted of any crime penalized by this Code.” *It is immaterial whether or not the crime involves moral turpitude. It is also immaterial if the sentence has been served as the disqualification is perpetual.*
…The Petition to cancel COC ultimately turns on the question of whether Marcos Jr. is disqualified to hold public office under either Section 12 of the OEC or Section 253 of the Tax Code. If he is disqualified under either, then he made a material misrepresentation in his COC when he claimed he is eligible to run for public office when in fact he is not eligible due to his disqualification, thus warranting the cancellation of his COC. …
carpio@inquirer.com.ph
Read more: https://opinion.inquirer.net/147091/did-marcos-jr-serve-his-sentence#ixzz7DzJQ1NN3
BBM DID NOT PAY THE DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX PLUS PENALTIES
THEREFORE, BBM IS DISQUALIFIED UP TO THE PRESENT TIME
BESIDES, UPON FINAL CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BBM IS ALSO PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED
CANCEL BBM COC
UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW
Gonzalinho
*Highlights between asterisks*
DeleteCOURT: NO RECORD OF MARCOS COMPLYING WITH TAX JUDGMENT
Dec 3, 2021 2:03 PM PHT
Lian Buan
Court: No record of Marcos complying with tax judgment
(2nd UPDATE)
…There is *no record in the lower court of presidential aspirant Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr’s “compliance of payment”* as ordered by the Court of Appeals in 1997 when he was convicted of failure to file income tax returns (ITRs).
“This is to certify that there is no record on file of compliance of payment or satisfaction of the decision of the regional trial court dated July 27, 1995 or the Court of Appeals dated October 31, 1997,” said a certification by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court Branch 105, as secured by petitioners seeking to cancel Marcos’ certificate of candidacy or COC.
*The certification was signed Thursday, December 2.*
Petitioners’ counsel Ted Te said they will bring this information to the Commission on Elections (Comelec) which is currently in the process of accepting answers and responses in the petition, an extended period before resolution that Te has opposed for allegedly being a unilateral decision of the Second Division.
Te said “the certification simply cements what we have already said in the petition. The respondent has been convicted and the sentence remains unserved.”
…In his response, Marcos told the Comelec to take judicial notice of the fact that he had been elected to, and had served in, various government posts in the last 20 years as vice governor and governor in Ilocos Norte, a representative of the First District, and then senator.
A petition in intervention argues that there is an earlier case of a mayor who had already served, and had been allowed to run before by the Comelec, but whom the Supreme Court eventually disqualified because of a previous conviction. They argue that estoppel does not lie against the State, or that the present Comelec is not bound by the non-action of previous Comelec administrations.
There are now seven various petitions against Marcos in the Comelec, the latest being from former officials of PFP. – Rappler.com
https://www.rappler.com/nation/elections/quezon-city-court-certify-no-record-bongbong-marcos-compliance-payment-tax-conviction/
BBM DID NOT PAY THE DEFICIENCY INCOME TAX PLUS PENALTIES
THEREFORE, BBM IS DISQUALIFIED UP TO THE PRESENT TIME
BESIDES, UPON FINAL CONVICTION AND SENTENCE BBM IS ALSO PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED
CANCEL BBM COC
UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW
Gonzalinho