Another petition to disqualify presidential aspirant Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr., due to his conviction of nonfiling of tax returns, has been filed at the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) office in Intramuros, Wednesday morning.

Eighteen petitioners have signed on the latest petition versus the dictator’s son, including Martial Law victims Bonifacio Ilagan, Saturnino Ocampo, and Carol Pagaduan Araullo. The three were among the 70,000 individuals who were illegally imprisoned during Martial Law.

Also among the petitioners were James Carwyn Candila, spokesperson of the League of Filipino Students, Jonas Abadilla, chairperson of the UP Diliman University Student Council, and Polynne Dira, editor-in-chief of the Philippine Collegian.

This is the third petition assailing Marcos’s presidential run. The first one was filed by civic society groups on November 2. The first petition sought to cancel Marcos’s certificate of candidacy (COC) for material misrepresentation since he ticked the box that declared he was not convicted of any crime despite the contrary.

Meanwhile, the second petition was filed on November 8 by 10 individuals, represented by lawyer Howard Calleja, who is a convenor of opposition coalition 1Sambayan. This petition was likewise rooted in Marcos’s conviction of various tax code violations.

Cancellation vs Disqualification

While the first two petitions have sought to annul Marcos’s COC, the petition filed by Martial Law victims is now a formal disqualification bid. This means that the COMELEC will not only be asked to cancel Marcos’s COC, but also to bar him from running at all.

Per COMELEC rules, a petition for cancellation of COC may only be filed during the period of filing of COCs—which has already lapsed—while a petition for disqualification may be filed until the day of proclamation of results for the presidential election.

Lying in the COC or material misrepresentation is a ground for the filing of a petition for cancellation. However, that is not the case for a disqualification petition.

Since the filing of petitions for cancellation has already lapsed, COMELEC has stricter grounds for a petition for disqualification—among which is a final conviction of any offense with a penalty greater than 18-month imprisonment or for a crime involving moral turpitude.

Assailed Decision

The sticking point is that Marcos never got jail time when his conviction was made final and executory on August 31, 2001 by the Supreme Court.

In 1995, a Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) meted out, among others, a three-year imprisonment for Marcos due to his failure to file and pay income tax from 1982 to 1985 as Ilocos Norte governor.

But the Court of Appeals (CA), in 1997, modified the lower court’s judgment. In the end, Marcos was only made to pay his fine and tax dues for the same tax code violations.

For the petitioners, the CA’s move was illegal because the 1977 tax code mandated that the failure to file tax returns must be punished by at least a P10,000-fine and a one to 10-year imprisonment. Hence, the petitioners contend, the CA’s decision was “void,” and the RTC’s decision must prevail.

Whether COMELEC could declare a CA decision void is still up for debate. But Calleja said, in a press conference on November 5, their case might go up to the Supreme Court if either camp is not satisfied with the COMELEC’s decision. “Eventually, the Supreme Court will decide that,” he said.

Timing

The COMELEC has yet to act on the third petition versus Marcos. The first petition, however, has already been set for hearing on November 26. It will be handled by the poll body’s second division consisting of Commissioners Socorro Inting and Antonio Kho, Jr.—both of whom were President Rodrigo Duterte’s appointees.

On Monday, Elaiza David, the director of COMELEC education and information department, said the resolution of the petitions will ultimately rest on the poll body. “We can’t say [when it will be resolved]. Hopefully, within the year,” she said.

The COMELEC may also opt to merge petitions versus Marcos into one to save time. However, there has been no order for consolidation yet as of writing.

“[T]o allow the candidacy of a patently disqualified candidate, is not just to disregard an express provision of the law, but, in no uncertain terms, would be to reward convicted criminals for the evils and unjust acts they have committed,” read part of the petition. ●