Gwen’s COC

Gica said Garcia should have answered “yes” to the question but clarified her answer at the back of her COC

Third district Rep. Gwen Garcia, who is running for Cebu governor, is facing two petitions for the cancellation of her certificate of candidacy (COC) before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) for supposedly declaring falsely that she is eligible to run.

First to file a petition was lawyer Edgar Gica, a known Garcia critic. He was followed by the lawyers of Vice Gov. Agnes Magpale, her rival in the gubernatorial race, using the same grounds.

Gica focused on item 22 in the COC that asked, “Have you ever been found liable for an offense that carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office and which has become final and executory?” Gwen answered “no.”

But earlier, the Office of the Ombudsman ordered her dismissal from public service and by extension her perpetual disqualification from holding public office based on a case involving the backfilling of the Balili property in Barangay Tina-an, the City of Naga, without securing authority from the Provincial Board.

Gica claimed the order was final and executory. A line in her petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals stated: “There is an extreme urgency for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/status quo ante order and/or preliminary injunction in this case in view of the executory nature of the dismissal order of public respondent Honorable Ombudsman.”

Gica noted that, “Considering the said dismissal order, accessory penalties were also imposed which would totally deprive petitioner Rep. Garcia from continuing public service. Clearly Gwen, at the time she filed her COC on Oct. 12, was not eligible and, worse, knew that she is not eligible yet she declares therein that she is eligible.”

Gica cited a Supreme Court (SC) jurisprudence in the case of Dimapilis vs. Comelec (G. R. No. 227158, April 18, 2017) where the SC en banc ruled that “the Comelec has the legal duty to cancel COC of anyone suffering from the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office.”

Gica said Garcia’s memory failed her because under oath she admitted even before the CA as to the executory nature of the Ombudsman’s order. Yet she answered “no” in item 22 of her COC. He said Garcia should have answered “yes” to the question but clarified her answer at the back of her COC.

Gica said in the case of Cobarde-Gamallo vs. Escandor (G.R. No. 1844464), the SC expounded on the executory nature of the Ombudsman orders saying, “the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay the immediate implementation.”

The issue is misrepresentation of a material fact in the COC, Gica said. If the order was not yet final she should have said so in her COC and let the Comelec evaluate it.

But Garcia just laughed off Gica’s arguments describing it as a desperate move of her critics. She said the lawyer just misread the Ombudsman law.