Comelec rule vs dismissed candidates with pending appeal questioned

 

MANILA, Philippines – It is a “wonder of all wonders why and how the Commission on Elections (Comelec)” came up with a rule that it can deny certificates of candidacy (COCs) of candidates dismissed by the Office of the Ombudsman if an appeal is still pending, an election lawyer said Monday.

The Comelec rule is contained in Resolution No. 11044-A, dated September 4, 2024, which Atty. Romulo Macalintal said was an amendment to Resolution No. 11044.

Comelec Resolution No. 11044, Macalintal said, does not contain such a rule “and was merely limited to the final judgment of conviction in a criminal case, citing the 2013 case of Jalosjos vs. Comelec.

In the case of Jalosjos vs. Comelec, the Supreme Court ruled that “COMELEC is under a legal duty to cancel the certificate of candidacy of anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of perpetual special disqualification to run for public office by virtue of a final judgment of conviction.”

Macalintal said: “As a matter of fact, even in past elections, the Comelec’s power to administratively cancel a CoC is limited to final conviction in criminal cases with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification, and was never applied to administrative cases decided by the Ombudsman while pending appeal.”

Last week, Atty. Stephen David said dismissed Bamban, Tarlac Mayor Alice Guo will seek reelection in the 2025 midterm elections.

The Ombudsman dismissed Guo after she was found administratively guilty of grave misconduct.

Her lawyer said the Ombudsman’s ruling is subject to an appeal.

Macalintal said neither the Omnibus Election Code nor the Local Government Code provides that a candidate administratively dismissed from services is automatically disqualified from running for public office pending appeal or even if the decision still needs to be finalized.

“Hence, it is a wonder of all wonders why and how Comelec can come up with such an arbitrary, if not whimsical, rule that its power to administratively cancel a COC will now involve candidates dismissed by an executory order of the Ombudsman with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification when it is clear that, in the Jalosjos case, the cancellation of a COC may only be imposed in cases where there is already a FINAL judgment of conviction in a criminal case without mention of Ombudsman decision in administrative cases,” he said.

Macalintal pointed out that while the Ombudsman’s dismissal order is immediately executory, the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from running for public office is always subject to appeal.