G.R. No. 260374 / 260426, June 28, 2022
Case Title: FR. CHRISTIAN B. BUENAFE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, FERDINAND ROMUALDEZ MARCOS, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

Two petitions were consolidated. The first (Buenafe Petition, G.R. No. 260374) sought to deny due course to or cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos, Jr. for President in the 2022 elections under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging he made false material representations. The second (Ilagan Petition, G.R. No. 260426) sought his disqualification under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code. Both petitions were based on the same set of criminal cases against Marcos Jr. for violations of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977. He was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 105, on July 27, 1995, for failure to file income tax returns for 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985, and for failure to pay the corresponding income taxes. He was sentenced to imprisonment and fines. The petitioners argued that this conviction constituted a crime involving moral turpitude and that his failure to disclose this conviction in his COC was a false material representation. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissed both petitions. The COMELEC En Banc, in its Resolutions dated May 10, 2022, sustained the dismissals. The petitioners elevated the cases to the Supreme Court via petitions for certiorari.

ISSUE

The core issue was whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitions to deny due course to/cancel the COC of Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and the petition for his disqualification, thereby ruling that he was qualified to run for President in the 2022 elections.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the consolidated petitions. The Court held that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
The Court ruled that:
1. Respondent Marcos Jr. is not perpetually disqualified from holding public office. The crime of failure to file income tax returns, for which he was convicted, is not a crime involving moral turpitude. Moral turpitude implies an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity contrary to accepted moral standards. Tax evasion, which involves deceit, may involve moral turpitude, but mere failure to file a return, without intent to evade payment, does not per se involve moral turpitude. The Court found no evidence of deceit or willful intent to evade taxes in his conviction.
2. His COC contained no false material representation. The requirement in the COC to state that the candidate has not been found liable for an offense involving moral turpitude refers to a final conviction. The Court found that Marcos Jr.’s conviction had not attained finality because he had appealed the conviction. The Court noted that while the petitioners claimed he did not perfect his appeal, the records showed he filed a Notice of Appeal, which was given due course by the trial court. The absence of a formal ruling from the appellate court on the appeal did not equate to its abandonment or finality of the conviction. Furthermore, since the crime was not one involving moral turpitude, there was no false representation in stating he had not been convicted of such a crime.
3. The penalties imposed did not include perpetual disqualification from public office. The Court examined the applicable laws (Sections 73 and 72 of the 1977 NIRC, as amended by P.D. 1994) and found that the penalties for the violations did not carry the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office. The accessory penalties of suspension from public office and the right to vote were also deemed extinguished by the service of his prison sentence and payment of fines, or by prescription.
The Court concluded that respondent Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos Jr. possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to run for President, and his Certificate of Candidacy was valid.