MANILA, Philippines — Presidential hopeful and former Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong”

Marcos Jr. did not “satisfy” the judgment of the court in his 1995 tax evasion case, according to
Theodore Te, the legal counsel of petitioners seeking to stop his candidacy for the chief
executive position.

The QC RTC Branch 105 said there is no record on their file on Marcos Jr.’s “compliance of
payment or satisfaction” on the decision of the said court in 1995, as well as the Court of
Appeals verdict in 1997.

The Court of Appeals, in 1997 modified the Quezon City Court’s ruling by acquitting him of tax
evasion but convicted him for his failure to file Income Tax Returns from 1982 to 1985.

Te is the legal counsel of petitioners Fr. Christian Buenafe et al, who seeks to cancel Marcos Jr.’s
certificate of candidacy (COC) using his 1995 tax conviction as grounds, saying this disqualifies
him from running for office.

Te on Friday said the court document showed that Marcos had been evading his sentence and
that he had repeatedly falsified his eligibility when he ran for elective office.

“He remains ineligible because the penalty imposed by the NIRC, as modified by the CA, and
the automatic result of a conviction under the NIRC … which is perpetual absolute
disqualification, remains,” he said, referring to the National Internal Revenue Code.

It also proved Marcos’ “intent to deceive the electorate and not to abide by the laws he aspires to
execute,” Te added.

The certification supported the earlier suspicion of retired Supreme Court Senior Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio that Marcos had yet to fulfill his obligation to pay his tax delinquencies
as the court had directed him.

Proof of payment
“If he cannot present receipt or proof of payment, then he lied again,” Carpio told the Inquirer.
Asked if it was possible that Marcos had complied with the court’s order but the documents were
just not in its possession, Carpio said: “That’s possible, but highly unlikely.”

7-page reply of Marcos: peitions against him should be dismissed for being “bereft of any
allegation” that would warrant his disqualification under the Omnibus Election Code.

He also told the Comelec that he was previously elected as governor, district representative and
senator.

“Taking into the account the qualifications of the various elective positions he has been
elected to and occupied … , it is of judicial notice that the respondent has all the
qualifications of a president under … the Constitution,’’ read a portion of reply.
In the 1979 case of Zari v. Flores, the Supreme Court agreed with its investigating officer that
“evasion of income tax” is a crime involving moral turpitude.

Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, as amended by Comelec Resolution No. 9523,
contains the provisions on petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificate of candidacy,
section 1 states that a verified petition may be made “on the exclusive ground that any material
representation contained therein as required by law is false.”

Section 74 of the Election Code provides that the certificate of candidacy shall state, among
others, the date of birth of the person filing the certificate. Section 78 of the Election Code
provides that in case a person filing a certificate of candidacy has committed false material
representation, a verified petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy of
said person may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the
certificate of candidacy.

Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code disqualifies from running for any elective public
position, including for President, anyone who has been convicted by final judgment of “any
offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months or for a crime
involving moral turpitude.”

Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. recently filed his certificate of candidacy for President in the May 2022
national elections. Marcos Jr. was charged in 1992 before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court
for violation of Sections 45 and 50 of the Tax Code for failure to file his income tax returns for
1982 to 1985 as well as for failure to pay the proper income taxes for those years. Section 255 of
the Tax Code provides that anyone convicted of failure to file tax returns or failure to pay the
proper taxes shall be “punished by a fine of not less than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) and
suffer imprisonment of not less than one (1) year but not more than ten (10) years.” The law
mandates a penalty of both fine and imprisonment.

In 1995, the trial court convicted Marcos Jr. and imposed on him the following penalty, among
others: (1) “To serve imprisonment of three (3) years and pay a fine of P30,000.00 in Criminal
Cases Nos. Q-91-24391 for failure to file income tax return for the year 1985”; and (2) “To serve
imprisonment of three (3) years and pay a fine of P30,000.00 in Criminal Case No. Q-91-24390
for failure to pay income tax for the year 1985.”

Marcos Jr. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which in 1997 affirmed the decision of the
trial court with modification. The CA rendered a decision “FINDING (Marcos Jr.) guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 45 of the NIRC for failure to file income tax returns for
the taxable years 1982 to 1985 in Criminal Cases Nos. Q-91-24391, Q-93-29212, Q-93-29213,
Q-93-29217.” The CA ordered Marcos Jr. to pay the corresponding deficiency taxes, penalties,
and fine. Inexplicably, despite finding Marcos Jr. guilty of failure to file his income tax returns
from 1982 to 1985, the CA imposed on Marcos Jr. only a fine without any imprisonment, despite
the clear mandatory requirement of the Tax Code that the penalty shall be both a fine and
imprisonment.
Marcos Jr. filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court but shortly thereafter withdrew his
appeal, probably on the realization that the Supreme Court would most likely correct the error of
the CA and impose the corresponding penalty of imprisonment. The Supreme Court granted
Marcos Jr.’s motion to withdraw on Aug. 8, 2001 since the Solicitor General did not file his own
appeal. Consequently, the decision of the CA convicting Marcos Jr. became final and executory.

Marcos Jr. cannot now be disqualified on the ground that he was sentenced to imprisonment for
more than 18 months because there is no such sentence by the CA. However, a case can be made
out that the repeated failure to file income tax returns from 1982 to 1985 amounts to moral
turpitude. While the failure to file a tax return for one year may not evince an intent to evade
payment of income taxes, the repeated failure to file income tax returns for several years can
evince an intent to evade such payment, amounting to moral turpitude. The Supreme Court did
opine in a related case that Marcos Jr.’s failure to file his income tax returns did not amount to
moral turpitude. This was, however, merely an obiter since the Court in the same case admitted
that the conviction of Marcos Jr. was then still under appeal.

Any disqualification case against Marcos Jr. based on conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude will be decided by the Commission on Elections and the Supreme Court on the narrow
ground of whether his repeated failure to file income tax returns constitutes moral turpitude.
However, as far as the voting public is concerned, such disqualification on the ground of moral
turpitude will be viewed on the overall conduct of Marcos Jr., including his claim to the $658
million Swiss account of his father despite clear proof it constitutes ill-gotten wealth, and his
refusal to pay the P203.8 billion estate tax liability of his father’s estate.