Statement of Atty. George S. Briones,
General Counsel of Partido Federal ng Pilipinas (PFP)
16 January 2022
1. In page 38 of the petition of Fr. Buenafe, he suggested that the penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding office under Section 252 of the 1977 Tax Code is “deemed written” in the dispositive portion of the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
There is no clear law in this, because the Tax Code is unlike the Revised Penal Code with explicit rules and long standing jurisprudence on accessory penalties. UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, A “FINE” DOES NOT CARRY WITH IT THE ACCESSORY PENALTY OF “PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION” FROM HOLDING OFFICE. Whereas under Article 41 of the Revised Penal Code the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification, whether it is written in the dispositive portion of the decision or not. AS IT IS, THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS SILENT ON THIS POINT. BEING A SPECIAL LAW AND TO BE PRECISE THERE IS A NEED TO INCORPORATE RESPONDENT’S ALLEGED PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION FROM HOLDING OFFICE UNDER SECTION 252 OF THE 1977 TAX CODE, IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
MORE SO BEING A GRAVE PENALTY, WHETHER AS A PRINCIPAL PENALTY OR AS AN ACCESSORY PENALTY, A SANCTION WHICH PROHIBITS A CITIZEN FROM HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS LIFETIME, NEEDS TO BE WRITTEN IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE DECISION IN ORDER TO INFORM THE ACCUSED OF THE PENALTY METED UPON HIM BY THE COURT, SO HE CAN APPEAL SUCH CLEARLY STATED ADVERSE JUDGMENT TO THE HIGHER COURT.
Therefore, before this Honorable Commission can cancel the certificate of candidacy of respondent, it must first annul the Decision of the Court of Appeals, to write in the dispositive portion thereof respondent’s perpetual disqualification, before it can pronounce that respondent lied in his COC when he said he is eligible to run for president, when he allegedly is not, under Section 78 of BP 881.
UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE PETITIONERS, THIS HONORABLE COMMISSION HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ANNUL DECISIONS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS TO INCLUDE THE PENALTY OF PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION IN THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION THEREOF. (Please see Section 5, par. 2, Article VIII of the Constitution on the powers of the Supreme Court.)
Hence, the Second Division of this Commission on Elections has no other recourse but to dismiss this petitions filed against respondent for lack of jurisdiction.
FOR ONE THING IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, PERPETUAL DISQUALIFICATION IS NOT “DEEMED WRITTEN” IN THE DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS DATED 31 OCTOBER 1997. BECAUSE IF IT WERE SO, THE COMELEC WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED BBM TO RUN FOR GOVERNOR, CONGRESSMAN, SENATOR, VICE PRESIDENT, AND NOW PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES.
#PartidoFederalngPilipinas #PFP #BBM2022
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=121715.0
