Anti-marcos…

He drew attention to page 29 of the 32-page ruling, where Presiding Commissioner Socorro B. Inting wrote: “Petitioners’ propensity to mislead is at once apparent in their act of branding the case faced by Respondent in the RTC and CA as TAX EVASION CASES. This phrase is clearly a misnomer. These cannot be rightfully termed as tax evasion cases because Marcos was merely charged with violation of Section 45 which is failure to file income tax returns and Section 50 which is payment of taxes to which he was later acquitted with a definitive finding that there was no tax evasion as he was subjected to the withholding tax system.”

Rodriguez likewise invited Carpio to “ponder on” pages 2930 of the Decision: “It somehow becomes ironic when we realize the thought that herein Petitioners accuse Respondent Marcos of misrepresentations while they themselves are guilty of supposed misrepresentations in this very same proceeding.”

Rodriguez concluded: “This notwithstanding, we once again extend our hands of unity as we look towards the future and hope that they will join us in cultivating love of country, instead of promoting a culture of hatred and divisiveness.”

Earlier, the Marcos camp noted how the Comelec had liberally treated the apparent deviation from technical rules, with Inting writing: “Since the instant petition, which is one for cancellation or denial of due course of a COC invoked grounds for disqualification, the instant petition should be summarily dismissed. We shall nevertheless relax compliance with the technical rules of procedure and proceed to discuss the merits if only to fully and finally settle the matter in this case because of its paramount importance.”

The petition, filed by a group of Marcos critics represented by former Supreme Court spokesperson Te, was aimed at preventing Marcos Jr. from running for President in the upcoming 2022 national elections.

The Marcos camp noted how the ruling cited the petitioners’ attempts to mislead the poll body with allegations and misrepresentations of facts and wrong quotations of certain provisions of the law.

“Petitioners shamelessly cited a certain provision denominated as Section 254 of the 1977 NIRC which they alleged such provision punishes those who fail to file an ITR fine of not less than P10,000 ‘AND’ imprisonment. However, a careful reading of the actual Section 254 of the 1977 NIRC shows that it refers to rentals and royalties and mineral lands under lease,” read another portion of the Second Division’s ruling.

The petitioners’ invocation of Section 254 of the NIRC to make it appear that imprisonment is mandatory punishment “reeks of deliberate intent to deceive or mislead the Commission,” another portion of the ruling read.

Commissioners Antonio T. Kho, Jr. and Rey E. Bulay concurred with the ruling, which lamented what it called an “obvious clutching at straws,” or a desperate attempt, by the petitioners to convince the poll body to cancel the COC of Marcos Jr.