G.R. No. 260374 / 260426, June 28, 2022
FR. CHRISTIAN B. BUENAFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FERDINAND ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS. / BONIFACIO PARABUAC ILAGAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FERDINAND ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

The case involves consolidated petitions challenging the candidacy of Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos, Jr. for President of the Philippines. The petitioners sought the cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy, arguing that he was disqualified due to a previous conviction for failure to file income tax returns. The central legal issue revolves around whether this conviction constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude that would disqualify him under election laws and whether there was a material misrepresentation in his Certificate of Candidacy.

ISSUE

The primary legal issues are: (1) whether the Court can add to the constitutional qualifications for the presidency through statutory interpretation or the assessment of Certificates of Candidacy; and (2) whether a conviction for failure to file income tax returns, which did not include the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification, constitutes a crime involving moral turpitude that warrants the cancellation of a Certificate of Candidacy for material misrepresentation.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his Separate Concurring Opinion, concurs with the main decision (ponencia) dismissing the petitions. He emphasizes that the case presents narrow legal questions, not political ones. The ruling is based on the following principles:
1. The qualifications for President are exclusively those enumerated in Section 2, Article VII of the Constitution . These cannot be amended by statute or expanded through judicial interpretation. The constitutional process for amendment under Article XVII must be followed.
2. The purpose of a Certificate of Candidacy is limited. It is for the Commission on Elections to evaluate a candidate’s qualifications and disqualifications for ballot inclusion. It is not the sole basis for the electorate’s judgment.
3. For a Certificate of Candidacy to be cancelled for false material representation under the Omnibus Election Code, the misrepresentation must be both material and made with a deliberate intent to mislead the Commission on Elections.
4. The private respondent’s (Marcos Jr.) final conviction for failure to file income tax returns did not include the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. This conviction is final and beyond review.
5. Not all violations of law involve moral turpitude. A conviction for failure to file an income tax return, particularly for a government employee whose taxes are withheld at source, is not necessarily a crime of moral turpitude under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code. Moral turpitude implies a depravity of character and discernment between right and wrong.
6. The legal system does not require candidates to be saints. The intent of the law is for the electorate, not the courts, to judge the candidates’ strengths and faults. The Court must avoid using a narrow reading of the law to determine ballot inclusion.
Therefore, the Court cannot disqualify a candidate by adding to the constitutional qualifications through the indirect route of assessing Certificates of Candidacy. Judicial review, while empowered to check grave abuse of discretion, must be exercised based on the Constitution and law, not political preferences.