Except for the Campaign Against the Return of the Marcoses and Martial Law (CARMMA), presidential candidates and other groups appear resigned to the decision of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to throw out the petition filed before the agency by civil society groups to disqualify presidential aspirant Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr.
Vice President Leni Robredo, who defeated Marcos Jr. in the 2016 vice presidential race and is now vying for the presidency against him, was quoted in the media as saying she is unperturbed by the Comelec’s decision. Other presidential candidates likewise went about their respective campaign sorties, rather than dwell on the issue.
CARMMA on Friday said they will file a motion for reconsideration to overturn the ruling of the Comelec’s First Division. Unless reversed by the Comelec or the Supreme Court, for that matter, the election commission’s ruling stands, effectively removing one of the hurdles Marcos Jr. has to go through to retake Malacañang after his father was deposed in 1986 by the historic EDSA People Power Revolution.
While the presidential bets seem undisturbed by Marcos Jr.’s victory, netizens and lawyer- groups torched the Internet with their different interpretations of the poll body’s decision. One particular issue that they focused on is the excerpt of the decision penned by Comelec Chair Aimee Ferolino: “Failure to file ITR [income tax return] is not inherently wrong in the absence of law punishing it.”
Some sectors are now saying this “jurisprudence” practically declares that there is nothing “inherently wrong” for anyone to avoid paying taxes, bewailing that they had been religiously paying taxes out of their hard-earned income, while Marcos Jr. could get away with not filing his ITR.
For the record, however, Marcos Jr. was convicted of tax evasion in 1995 by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court. What we know is that after he elevated his tax evasion conviction to the Court of Appeals, the court modified the lower court’s ruling in 1997, saying that while he should be acquitted on the charges of non-payment of deficiency taxes, Marcos Jr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of not filing his income taxes from 1982 to 1985 while serving as Ilocos Norte governor. In other words, Marcos Jr. was convicted for the crime of tax evasion, which, under the Omnibus Election Code, prohibits him or any person from running for public office.
Also on Friday last week, Comelec Spokesperson James Jimenez defended the Comelec First Division’s decision. While admitting that the division did state “that failure to file tax returns is not inherently wrong, critics have taken the statement out of context.” He said the Comelec was not saying that failure to file income tax returns (ITR) is not a punishable offense. He said that the decision should be taken in the context of trying to explain the difference between a crime that is malum in se (evil in itself) versus malum prohibitum (prohibited evil).
To explain Ferolino’s statement, and justify the Comelec’s decision, Jimenez said that “what it says is that a crime mala in se is a crime that is by itself naturally wrong. For example, murder. You don’t need a law to tell you that murder is wrong, right? But there are some offenses that are mala prohibitum, which means they are considered wrong under the law only because a special law exists, we penalize it.” He cited jaywalking as an example of a crime that is considered an offense only because an ordinance had been passed prohibiting it.
My lawyer-friend said that, in effect, the election commission has ruled that non-filing of ITRs is an omission that is not serious enough to involve moral turpitude and warrant Marcos Jr.’s disqualification. The issue over whether tax evasion constitutes “an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community” is one for lawyers to discuss. The phrase “moral turpitude” has not been clearly delineated by courts, and in the black-and-white letter of the law is in part amorphous and becomes relative to various concepts of morality. Its boundaries, nature, and characteristics are largely defined by precedents. Research shows that “crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person’s duty to another or to society in general, such as rape, forgery, robbery, and solicitation by prostitutes.”
In this legalistic debate, which is barely accessible to a non-lawyer, the question is: Which law on non-filing of income taxes did Marcos violate?
The question is crucial to answer because the first legal act of a president-elect is to take an oath, as written in the Philippine Constitution, to “execute its laws.” The fitness of a person for the presidency is therefore not simply based on compliance with a checklist of qualifications or disqualifications for the office, but his or her trustworthiness or integrity on seeing that our country’s laws are complied with.
Now this raises another important question: Was Marcos Jr. under an obligation to file an ITR in the years covered by the tax case against him? If the answer is no, then this is all a tempest in a teapot. If the answer is yes, as the lower court seems to say, then Marcos Jr. has to explain why he did not file his ITR, or why his lawyers did not question the obligation for him to file a tax return.
Personally I would rather see him run against the other presidential aspirants in this year’s election. The public must be left to discern for themselves whether Marcos Jr. has done enough to benefit the country as a former public servant or in his capacity as a private citizen. The arguments laid out for or against him in the Comelec are now public records. The voting public should be sufficiently concerned to read them, and astute enough to separate the grain from the chaff.
For comments, suggestions, e-mail me at mvala.v@gmail.com