G.R. No.
206666, January 21, 2015
ATTY. ALICIA RISOS-VIDAL, ALFREDO
S. LIM PETITIONER-INTERVENOR,
VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
NATURE:
These are petitions including:
1)
a Petition for Certiorari filed by
Atty. Alicia Risos-Vidal, which essentially prays for the issuance of the writ
of certiorari annulling and setting
aside the April 1, 2013 and April
23, 2013 Resolutions of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Second Division and En banc, respectively.
(2)
a Petition-in-Intervention[ filed
by Alfredo S. Lim praying to be declared the 2013 winning candidate for Mayor
of the City of Manila in view of private respondent former President Joseph
Ejercito Estrada’s) disqualification to run for and hold public office
FACTS:
On September 12, 2007, the
Sandiganbayan convicted former President Estrada, a former President of the
Republic of the Philippines, for the crime of plunder and was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
and the accessory penalties of civil interdiction during the period of sentence
and perpetual absolute disqualification.
On October 25, 2007, however,
former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo extended executive clemency, by way of
pardon, to former President Estrada explicitly states that He is hereby restored to his civil and political rights.
On November 30, 2009, former
President Estrada filed a Certificate of Candidacy[7] for the
position of President but was opposed by three petitions seeking for his disqualification.
None of the cases prospered and MRs were denied by Comelec En Banc. Estrada
only managed to garner the second highest number of votes on the May 10, 2010
synchronized elections.
On October 2, 2012, former
President Estrada once more ventured into the political arena, and filed a
Certificate of Candidacy,[10] this time vying for a local elective
post, that of the Mayor of the City of Manila.
Petitioner Risos-Vidal filed a
Petition for Disqualification against former President Estrada before the
COMELEC because of Estrada’s Conviction for Plunder by the Sandiganbayan
Sentencing Him to Suffer the Penalty of Reclusion Perpetua with Perpetual
Absolute Disqualification. Petitioner relied on Section 40 of the
Local Government Code (LGC), in relation to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election
Code (OEC)
In a Resolution dated April 1, 2013, the COMELEC, Second Division, dismissed the petition for disqualification holding that President Estrada’s right to seek public office has been effectively restored by the pardon vested upon him by former President Gloria M. Arroyo.
Estrada won the mayoralty race in
May 13, 2013 elections. Petitioner-intervenor Alfredo Lim garnered the second
highest votes intervene and seek to disqualify Estrada for the same ground as
the contention of Risos-Vidal and praying that he be proclaimed as Mayor of
Manila.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in ruling that former President Estrada is qualified to vote and be voted for
in public office as a result of the pardon granted to him by former President
Arroyo.
HELD:
No. The
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in issuing the assailed Resolutions. The arguments forwarded by
Risos-Vidal fail to adequately demonstrate any factual or legal bases to prove
that the assailed COMELEC Resolutions were issued in a “whimsical, arbitrary or
capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or refusal to perform a
positive duty enjoined by law” or were so “patent and gross” as to constitute
grave abuse of discretion.
Former President Estrada was
granted an absolute pardon that
fully restored all his civil and
political rights, which naturally includes the right to seek public elective
office, the focal point of this controversy. The wording of the pardon extended
to former President Estrada is complete, unambiguous, and unqualified. It is
likewise unfettered by Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code. The only
reasonable, objective, and constitutional interpretation of the language of the
pardon is that the same in fact conforms to Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The proper interpretation of
Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code.
A close scrutiny of the text of
the pardon extended to former President Estrada shows that both the principal
penalty of reclusion perpetua and its
accessory penalties are included in the pardon. The sentence which states that
“(h)e is hereby restored to his civil and political rights,” expressly remitted
the accessory penalties that attached to the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence, even if we
apply Articles 36 and 41 of the Revised Penal Code, it is indubitable from the
text of the pardon that the accessory penalties of civil interdiction and
perpetual absolute disqualification were expressly remitted together with the
principal penalty of reclusion perpetua.
The disqualification of former
President Estrada under Section 40 of the LGC in relation to Section 12 of the
OEC was removed by his acceptance of the absolute pardon granted to him
While it may be apparent that the
proscription in Section 40(a) of the LGC is worded in absolute terms, Section
12 of the OEC provides a legal escape from the prohibition – a plenary pardon
or amnesty. In other words, the latter provision allows any person who has been
granted plenary pardon or amnesty after conviction by final judgment of an
offense involving moral turpitude, inter
alia, to run for and hold any public office, whether local or national
position.
FALLO:
Petition is dismissed
No comments:
Post a Comment