Group Pudno Nga Ilokano filed a partial motion for reconsideration before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) on Monday, April 25, after the denial of their petition for disqualification against presidential candidate Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos Jr.

Comelec denied their petition on Wednesday, April 20 for "lack of merit" and addressed each of the petitioners' claim to disqualify Marcos Jr.

In the 32-page document, the petitioners asked the Commission en banc to o review and partially set aside the resolution as the bases and reasoning of the First Division were "clearly insufficient" to justify such resolution and are contrary to law.

The petitioners then enumerated the following:

• Marcos, Jr.’s multiple convictions for his repeated violation of the law, and for four (4) consecutive years, carried with it moral turpitude for which he should be disqualified from running for and holding any public office;
• Marcos, Jr. was convicted for a crime which carried a penalty of imprisonment of three (3) years and a payment of a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (PhP30,000.00) for which he should be disqualified from running for and holding any public office;
• Marcos, Jr. remained the sitting Provincial Governor of Ilocos Norte, while serving as Chairman of the Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation ("Philcomsat”), at the time of the consummation of the offense of non-filing of income tax returns on 18 March 1986 and must therefore suffer the penalty of perpetual disqualification; and
• Marcos, Jr. is not only disqualified, but is likewise not qualified to begin with, to run for or to hold any elective position, much less for the position of Philippine President, based on the 1987 Constitution, the relevant laws, and Philippine jurisprudence.

In their original disqualification petition, the petitioners composed of Margarita Salonga Salandanan, Crisanto Palabay, Mario Ben, Danilo Consumido, Gil Derilo, Raoul Tividad, Nida Gatchalian and Nomer Kuan. said respondent is disqualified to run for or to hold any elective position, much less for the position of Philippine president, citing the following reasons:

• For having been found guilty by final judgment of crimes involving "moral turpitude" pursuant to Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code.
• For having been found guilty, by final judgment, of a crime that carries the penalty of more than 18 months also pursuant to Sec. 12 of the OEC.
• For having been actually sentenced to prison correccional and is thereby effectively deprived of his "right ot suffrage" pursuant to Article 43 of the revised penal code in relation to Sec. 2 Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
• Also in view of his conviction for violation of Sec. 45 of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1977 which in itself already carries the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office pursuant to Sec. 286 of the NIRC of 1977.

Their petition for disqualification was the seventh and final disqualification case pending against Marcos Jr. at the division level.

The petitioners stated that Marcos, Jr. 's "contemptuous disregard" of his legal obligation to file income tax returns and to pay income taxes is clearly “contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals,” thus, constituting moral turpitude.

They also said that Marcos, Jr. willfully evaded, and with intent to defraud the Philippine government of its lifeblood, willfully failed to comply with his basic obligation.

It was also mentioned in the motion that the mere fact of Marcos, Jr.’s conviction for violating Section 45 of the 1977 Tax Code,31 already carries with it the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from public office under Section 286 of the 1977 Tax Code, as amended which explicitly provides that conviction of a crime penalized by the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) is sufficient ground to impose the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification.