Comelec junks poll cases vs Degamo

CEBU, Philippines - The Comelec 2nd Division issued a resolution, dated April 18, 2017, dismissed the cases against Negros Oriental Governor Roel Degamo filed by petitioner June Vincent Gaudan seeking for the cancellation of Degamo’s certificate of candidacy (COC) and to disqualify him to run for the position of governor during the May 9 elections last year.

The Comelec said that, even if all the rules are set aside, including Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and the provisions of Section 1 of Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure, the cases filed against Degamo were still dismissible for two reasons:

1)Gaudan profounded no proof that the imposition of the penalty of dismissal by the Ombudsman is final; and

2)at the time Degamo filed his COC the alleged ineligibility described by Gaudan has yet to exist.

Defeated gubernatorial candidate George Arnaiz also filed a petition as intervenor on June 17, 2016, alleging that he is virtually interested in and will be affected by the outcome of the Gaudan petition because he obtained the second highest number of votes during the elections for governor.

In his petition, Arnaiz claimed that in the event Degamo is disqualified he is the logical candidate that should be proclaimed and, for this reason, he filed the petition-in-intervention.

The poll body granted Arnaiz’ intervention, but it said the Guadan petition should be dismissed for violating Section 78 of the OEC and pertinent sections of Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure.

Comelec made it clear that the case should have been a petition to deny due course to or cancel the COC of Degamo and not a petition for disqualification. It said that when Gaudan accused Degamo of materially misrepresenting that he is eligible to run for governor, it was a petition based on Section 78 of the OEC.

The Comelec 2nd division said the petition was however not filed on time. Records show that Degamo filed his COC on Oct. 15, 2015 and in order to comply with Section 78, Gaudan should file his petition on or before November 9, 2015 but he filed it instead on April 22, 2016. Thus, the Comelec ruled it cannot take jurisdiction over the case.

Even if the petition was filed on time, the case should still be dismissed for violating another Rule 23 provision, particularly Section 1, which states: “A verified petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC for any elective office maybe filed … based on the exclusive ground that any material representation contained there as required by law is false.”

In this case, Gaudan not only asked for Degamo’s disqualification but also for his perpetual disqualification by reason of the joint Ombudsman ruling—in violation of the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 23, said the Comelec.

The poll body also said that the Ombudsman Order cannot be used to cancel Degamo’s COC for material misrepresentation because it came months after Degamo filed his COC.

At the time Degamo filed his COC on Oct. 15, 2015, the case before the Ombudsman was still pending, and its judgment was only promulgated on January 12, 2016. Accordingly, at any time before the date of promulgation, Degamo was not yet found to be guilty of grave misconduct, ruled the Comelec. (FREEMAN)