Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio got the ball rolling with his Inquirer column about how BBM can be disqualified as a Presidential candidate on account of the tax evasion case filed against him by the government after the ouster of Apo Lakay and their flight into exile in 1986.
The case was filed in 1992 and after three years, in 1995, the trial court convicted Marcos Jr. and imposed on him the following penalty, among others: (1) “To serve imprisonment of three (3) years and pay a fine of P30,000.00 in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-91-24391 for failure to file income tax return for the year 1985”; and (2) “To serve imprisonment of three (3) years and pay a fine of P30,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-91-24390 for failure to pay income tax for the year 1985.”
Marcos Jr. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in 1997 affirmed the decision of the trial court with modification. The CA rendered a decision “FINDING (Marcos Jr.) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 45 of the NIRC for failure to file income tax returns for the taxable years 1982 to 1985 in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-91-24391, Q-93-29212, Q-93-29213, Q-93-29217.” The CA ordered Marcos Jr. to pay the corresponding deficiency taxes, penalties, and fine. Inexplicably, despite finding Marcos Jr. guilty of failure to file his income tax returns from 1982 to 1985, the CA imposed on Marcos Jr. only a fine without any imprisonment, despite the clear mandatory requirement of the Tax Code that the penalty shall be both a fine and imprisonment.
Marcos Jr. filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court but shortly thereafter withdrew his appeal, probably on the realization that the Supreme Court would most likely correct the error of the CA and impose the corresponding penalty of imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted Marcos Jr.’s motion to withdraw on Aug. 8, 2001 since the Solicitor General did not file his own appeal. Consequently, the decision of the CA convicting Marcos Jr. became final and executory.
In layaman’s terms, the appeal filed at the Court of Appeals was resolved in Marcos’ favor. He was to pay the fine imposed by the Regional Trial Court but without the additional penalty of imprisonment.
The more important question is on the issue of moral turpitude. Under the Omnibus Election Code, candidates who are guilty of committing crimes involving moral turpitude are disqualified from running for public office.
Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code (“Election Code”) provides for certain disqualifications. Thus, under the Election Code, the following are disqualified from running for public office:
1. Those declared as incompetent or insane by competent authority.
2. Those sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months imprisonment.
3. Those sentenced by final judgment for a crime involving moral turpitude.
4. Those who are permanent residents of or immigrants to a foreign country, unless he has waived his status as such.
Carpio himself demolishes his own argument by stating that “Marcos Jr. cannot now be disqualified on the ground that he was sentenced to imprisonment for more than 18 months because there is no such sentence by the CA. However, a case can be made out that the repeated failure to file income tax returns from 1982 to 1985 amounts to moral turpitude. While the failure to file a tax return for one year may not evince an intent to evade payment of income taxes, the repeated failure to file income tax returns for several years can evince an intent to evade such payment, amounting to moral turpitude. The Supreme Court did opine in a related case that Marcos Jr.’s failure to file his income tax returns did not amount to moral turpitude. This was, however, merely an obiter since the Court in the same case admitted that the conviction of Marcos Jr. was then still under appeal.”
But Carpio goes the extra mile in imposing the act of judgment on the public by pointing out Marcos’ disputing the PCGG claim on $658M that it intends to garnish and the non-settlement of the inheritance and estate taxes due on the estate of Ferdinand Marcos Sr., which is obviously still in litigation between his heirs and the Philippine goverment. “Any disqualification case against Marcos Jr. based on conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude will be decided by the Commission on Elections and the Supreme Court on the narrow ground of whether his repeated failure to file income tax returns constitutes moral turpitude. However, as far as the voting public is concerned, such disqualification on the ground of moral turpitude will be viewed on the overall conduct of Marcos Jr., including his claim to the $658 million Swiss account of his father despite clear proof it constitutes ill-gotten wealth, and his refusal to pay the P203.8 billion estate tax liability of his father’s estate.”
Carpio is correct in stating that the Supreme Court’s obiter dictum on what constitutes moral turpitude is not binding. The Latin legal term is translated as “that which is said in passing.” It does not constitute or automatically become jurisprudence.
The operative question is why was the disqualification petition only filed now when Marcos has run for elective office after 1995 when the decision of the Court of Appeals became final and executory? The answer is obvious. The petition is meant to take Marcos out of the Presidential race since he is leading in all the surveys after the withdrawal of Sara Duterte.
The petition was filed by personalities identified with the opposition who are supposedly advocates of freedom and democracy. If they were sincere in their belief, shouldn’t they leave it up to the public to decide Marcos’ fate? Isn’t the principle of Vox Populi Vox Dei, applicable in Marcos’ case? Isn’t the public the better judge than the Comelec Commissioners or even the Justices of the Supreme Court, should this case go all the way to the court of last resort?
The inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the accepted rule of right conduct, according to a 2009 Supreme Court decision on a petition seeking a candidate’s disqualification.
Under Section12 (Disqualification) of Batas Pambansa No. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent, or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion, or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime involving moral turpitude, shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office, unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty.
The law added that the disqualification will be lifted upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified.
In layman’s terms, the petitioner’s want Marcos disqualified on the basis of the definition of moral turpitude and not his non-filing of income tax returns per se.
One can recall the disqualification case filed against Joseph Estrada when he ran for President again in 2010. There was a question over the pardon granted him by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, with reference to the restoration of his civil and political rights. The language of the pardon was explicit but still his detractors found it convenient to pose a nuisance suit to contest his candidacy.
Unless there is undue influence put on the Comelec to rule against Marcos in the disqualification petition, it is clear there is no basis to disqualify him because there was no prison sentence accompanying the sentence of judgment per the Court of Appeals. But even if there was, and the prison sentence was for a maximum of, or less than 18 months, it still wouldn’t constitute moral turpitude which means Marcos is still qualified to run for the Presidency.
Comentarios