Incontrovertible facts, and 3 laws that address Marcos Jr.’s disqualification

Regarding the disqualification cases against presidential aspirant Ferdinand Marcos Jr., these facts are incontrovertible:

In 1997, Marcos Jr. was convicted of a crime punishable under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 thus: “Any person convicted of a crime penalized by this Code shall … be subject to the penalties herein imposed … (c) If (the offender) is a public officer or employee … he shall (in addition) be DISMISSED from public service and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from holding any public office…” (Sec. 253).

In 1985, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code, was enacted. It said: “Any person who … has been sentenced … for a crime involving MORAL TURPITUDE, shall be DISQUALIFIED to be a candidate and to hold any office…” The disqualification is deemed removed only after five years from service of the sentence (Sec. 12).

In 1997, Republic Act No. 8424, otherwise known as the Tax Reform Act of 1997, was enacted. It provided that “Any person convicted of a crime penalized by this Code shall … be subject to the penalties imposed herein … (c) If (the offender) is a public officer or employee… he shall (in addition) be DISMISSED from the public service and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from holding any public office…” (Sec. 253).

Marcos Jr.’s lawyers have contended that in light of the Election Code of 1985, the disqualification under the Tax Code of 1977 should be deemed repealed since the Election Code, a later law, speaks only of conviction for a “crime involving moral turpitude” as ground for disqualification. Their client’s conviction was not for such a crime, they say, thus his disqualification is uncalled for.

That argument ignores the fact that the disqualification in the Tax Code of 1977 was maintained in the Tax Code of 1997; hence, there was never any such repeal. Such consistency points to the conclusion that the government STILL does not want convicted tax evaders (along with other criminals convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude) in positions of public trust.

And any conversation about Marcos Jr.‘s disqualification having long prescribed under the Election Code is really neither here nor there, simply because the Tax Code of 1977 imposed “PERPETUAL” disqualification which by definition precludes prescription, unlike the TEMPORARY disqualification imposed in the Election Code for criminal convictions under its own provisions or other statutes.

Any lawyer or nonlawyer can take these facts to the bank—or preferably to the Commission on Elections which should have no problem simplifying the issues to expedite the disposition of the cases before it. As former Comelec chair Christian Monsod warned: If Marcos Jr. gets proclaimed because the final resolution of the cases is “unduly delayed,” things could get a lot messier.

Stephen L. Monsanto, [email protected]