“22. Have you ever been found to be liable for an offense [that] carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office, which has become final and executory?”
---From Comelec form that a candidate for the 2019 elections is required to fill up and file
THE Comelec form in filing COCs (certificates of candidacy) for the 2019 mid-term elections has been reduced from three pages to one but it has added a controversial question. The filer is asked under oath, yes or no, if he or she has been found “liable” for an offense that includes the penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office.
What’s wrong with that? Sixto Brillantes Jr., former chairman of the Commission of Elections, said that one could admit his guilt by answering the question. Self-incriminatory? Unconstitutional, said Brillantes. Answer “yes” and you disqualify yourself, said Brillantes. With a “no” answer, it follows, one who actually was so sanctioned may commit perjury.
Filer’s handicap
Brilliantes said that most would-be candidates don’t know the meaning of “accessory” penalty or whether the ruling is final and executory. Would-be public officials are expected to know the law; they can have some lawyer, theirs or the Comelec’s, explain what it means. The five-day period of filing COCs is precisely to enable filers to understand what the Comelec requires and correct any mistake.
If a filer erroneously answers the question, that won’t disqualify him if actually he was not penalized with perpetual disqualification in a final and executory decision. Which means, Comelec lawyer Lionel Marco Castillano said, the case is no longer pending before any court.
No victim here
There’s no catch in it, especially not Catch 22. The Comelec question bearing the same number as that in the Joseph Heller book and the movie based on it must be totally coincidental. There’s no “paradox” in the Comelec rule that “makes one a victim of its provision no matter what one does.”
No one is or will be a victim. However, the question is answered (yes, no, or blank), it won’t affect that the filer was or was not sanctioned with the penalty of perpetual disqualification. The answer won’t change the fact or facts.
Causes to disqualify
The Constitution lists only requirements of citizenship, natural birth in the Philippines (for national officials), age, residence, and ability to read and write.
It does not include perpetual disqualification among the qualifications for one to run for public office. That is not a cause to qualify but a ground to disqualify, as part of the penalty for an offense of a public official. A legitimate exercise of Comelec’s duty to enforce decisions of the ombudsman or a court of law against persons running for or being elected to public office.
Slipping through
What hurts public service is when a public official who is ordered by competent authority to be barred forever from public office still manages to slip through and get elected again.
It happened before in Cebu and may happen again, especially if political rivals fail to complain and the Comelec does not know or does not act because of the absence of a complaint. They were disqualified and yet managed to go through the cracks.
The filer’s answer to Question #22 puts the election body on notice and may help alert its system. If the bar to public office is found in the Comelec record, that should help stop or weed out disqualified persons from government service.