04/11/2021
QUESTION: IS PD 1994 REALLY APPLICABLE TO MARCOS' COMELEC-SLASH-TAX CASE?
Because I am pathologically obsessive-compulsive, here we go.
[Note: Unlike Atty. Teddy Te, I don't cite Wikipedia as a source.]
Should Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. be perpetually disqualified from public office for not filing his 1985 ITR in April 1986?
1. Eight cases were filed against Marcos in relation to his income taxes from 1982 to 1985. For each filing year, he was charged one count of failure to file ITR (Sec. 45, NIRC 1977) and one count of non-payment of deficiency taxes (Sec. 50, NIRC 1977) [1].
2. “NIRC” refers to the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 and its subsequent amendments applicable to the case at hand.
3. The Court of Appeals eventually acquitted Marcos of all four (4) counts of non-payment of taxes, but upheld the convictions for non-filing of ITRs [2]. That is, Marcos had no tax due but was merely judged guilty of not submitting his Income Tax Return forms.
4. Presidential Decree No. 1994, which took effect on 01 January 1986 [3], amended the NIRC of 1977 to include [4] :
“If [NIRC offender] is a public officer or employee… he shall be… perpetually disqualified from holding any public office…”
5. Laws, especially tax-related laws, should have no retroactive effect, i.e. additional penalties should apply only on offenses committed after a law takes effect. In the case of Marcos, the “perpetual disqualification from public office” should, at best, hinge on his non-filing of ITR in April 1986, for earnings in 1985.
6. The ITRs that should have been filed in 1983, 1984, and 1985, should not be affected by PD 1994 because that law wasn’t effective at the time. Hence, the question is now whether PD 1994 applies to Marcos’ non-filing of his ITR in April 1986.
7. The EDSA Revolution happened in February 1986. Citing Estrada vs. Desierto , the Supreme Court said, “EDSA I involves the exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government.” [5]
8. Marcos, as governor of Ilocos Norte prior to the EDSA Revolution, was part of the government that EDSA I overthrew, so that by the end of February 1986, he was no longer a government official.
9. That is, by the time he failed to file his ITR in April 1986, he was no longer a government official.
10. PD 1994’s clause on perpetual disqualification hinges on the condition that the accused is a public official but Marcos, at the time he violated the law on ITRs, was not a public official anymore.
11. Marcos was congressman of Ilocos Norte’s 2nd District from 1992 to 1995. He ended his stint as a government official on 30 June 1995, by virtue of common knowledge that he ran and lost in the 1995 Senatorial Elections.
12. The 1995 verdict on the Marcos RTC Tax case was handed in 27 July 1995 [6], or when he wasn’t a government official anymore.
13. The Court of Appeals decisions on the same tax case was handed in 1997 [7], which was the year before the 1998 elections, so he still wasn’t a public official at the time. The decision eventually became final and executory.
14. In short, MARCOS WAS NEITHER A PUBLIC OFFICIAL NOR A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE DURING:
(14.1) the commission of the crime of non-filing (April 1986),
(14.2) the time the RTC handed the verdict on 27 July 1995, and
(14.3) the time the Court of Appeals handed the verdict in 1997, which became final and executory.
If he was neither a public official nor a public employee in all those relevant points in time, how could the perpetual disqualification be applicable to his case?
Moreover, it must be noted that then President Corazon Aquino, on 12 March 1986 or a little over a month before the April ITR filing deadline, issued Executive Order No. 2 which froze all assets of Bongbong Marcos [8], so he wouldn't even have gas money to go to BIR to file his ITR.
This is aside from the well known fact the entire Marcos Family was whisked to the states in February 1986 (two months before ITR deadline), with no way of going back to the Philippines as affirmed in Marcos v. Manglapus [9].
That is, the Government of the Philippines itself PHYSICALLY AND FINANCIALLY prevented BBM from filing his ITR in April 1986, then punished BBM for it.
# # # # # SOURCES # # # # #
[1] Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Ferdinand Marcos II (CA-G.R. CR No. 18569), as cited in Republic of Philippines vs. Ferdinand Marcos II (G.R. Nos. 130371 &130855). 04 August 2009. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_130371_2009.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Section 49, Presidential Decree No. 1994. https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1985/pd_1994_1985.html
[4] Ibid. Section 40.
[5] Estrada v. Desierto. 02 March 2001. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/gr_146710_2001.html
[6] Buenafe et al vs. Marcos. Petition to Deny Due Course. SPA No. 21-156(DC). 02 November 2021. https://www.scribd.com/document/537013051/BBM-Petition-Redacted
[7] Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos (CA-G.R. SP No. 43450), as cited in G.R. Nos. 130371 &130855. 04 August 2009. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/aug2009/gr_130371_2009.html
[8] Executive Order No. 2 s. 1986. https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1986/eo_2_1986.html
[9] Marcos v Manglapus. G.R. No. 88211 October 27, 1989. https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1989/oct1989/gr_88211_1989.html
