Download pdf - Marquez vs Comelec Elective

8/11/2019 Marquez vs Comelec Elective

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/marquez-vs-comelec-elective 1/3

Facts: It is averred that at the time respondent Rodriguezfiled hiscertificate of candidacy, a criminal charge againsthim for ten counts of insurance fraud or grand theft of

personal property was still pending before the MunicipalCourt of Los Angeles, USA. A warrant issued by said courtfor his arrest, it is claimed, has yet to be served on privaterespondent on account of his alleged “flight” from thatcountry. Before the May 1992 elections, a petition forcancellation of respondent’s certificate of candidacy on theground of the candidate’s disqualification under section 40of the Local Government Code [Section 40.

Disqualification. The followingpersons are disqualifiedfrom running for any local elective position...(e) Fugitive from justice in criminal or non-political caseshere or abroad.] was filed by petitioner, but COMELECdismissed thepetition. Private respondent was proclaimedGovernor-elect of Quezon. Petitioner instituted quowarranto proceedings against private respondent before

the COMELEC but the latter dismissed the petition.

Issue: Whether private respondent, who at the time of thefiling of his certificate of candidacy is said to be facinga criminal chargebefore a foreign court and evadinga warrant of arrest comes within the term “fugitive from

justice.”

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Article 73 of theRules and Regulations implementing the LocalGovernment Code of 1991 provides:

Article 73. Disqualifications – The following persons shallbe disqualified from running for any elective local position:



“xxxx(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-politicalcases here or abroad. Fugitive from justice refers to aperson who has been convicted by final judgment.”

It is clear from this provision that fugitives from justicerefer only topersons who has been convicted by final

judgment. However, COMELEC did not make any definitefinding on whether or not private respondent isa fugitive from justice when it outrightly deniedthe petition for quo warranto. The Court opted to remand

the case to COMELEC to resolve and proceed with thecase.

The Oversight Committee evidently entertained seriousapprehensions on the possible constitutional infirmity ofSection 40(e) of RA 7160 if the disqualification thereinmeant were to be so taken as to embrace those whomerely were facing criminal charges. A similar concern

was expressed by Senator R. A. V. Saguisag who, duringthe bicameral conference committee of the Senate and theHouse of Representatives, made this reservation: “de ipa-refine lang natin 'yung language especially 'yung, thescope of fugitive. Medyo bothered ako doon, a.”

The Oversight Committee finally came out with Article 73of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the LocalGovernment Code of 1991. It provided:

Art. 73. Disqualifications. The following persons shall bedisqualified from running for any elective local position:(e) Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases



here or abroad. Fugitive from justice refers to a personwho has been convicted by final judgment. It includesthose who after being charged flee to avoid prosecution.

The COMELEC is directed to proceed and settle the casein conformity of the given clarification with the term“fugitive from justice”.