SC asked to stop Comelec from disqualifying candidates who had been dismissed by Ombudsman

The Supreme Court (SC) was asked to stop the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from administratively cancelling the certificates of candidacy (COCs) in the 2025 elections of former public officials who were dismissed but whose accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office is pending appeal.

The petition was filed by former Albay governor Noel E. Rosal who challenged Comelec’s Resolution No. 11044-A on the disqualification of candidates like him. Rosal is represented in the SC petition by election lawyer Romulo B. Macalintal.

Comelec’s Resolution No. 11044-A was issued last Sept. 4. Rosal told the SC that Resolution No. 11044-A is an amendment to Resolution No. 11044 which limited the cancellation of COCs of public officials dismissed to final conviction in criminal cases and does not apply to administrative cases decided by the Office of the Ombudsman and whose accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification to hold public office is pending appeal. 

The petition told the SC that the Comelec issued its resolution to harmonize Section 12, Article 1 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) with “existing laws and jurisprudence” in disqualification cases by referring to its Law Department all petitions for disqualification of candidates with perpetual disqualification.

But Rosal said in his petition that “existing jurisprudence or decisions of the SC and even existing Comelec policy have been very consistent in previous elections that the said penalty of perpetual disqualification applies only once the decision of the Ombudsman becomes final and executory.”

Rosal said that on Sept. 4, 2024, he received a copy of the Ombudsman’s resolution dismissing him from the service with perpetual disqualification to hold public office. 

He said he filed a timely appeal of the resolution before the Court of Appeals on Sept. 16, 2024 and the appeal is still pending resolution by the appellate court. 

He cited an opinion of the Comelec’s Law Department dated April 20, 2016 which stated that “the power of the Comelec to bar from running for public office those suffering from perpetual disqualification shall be by virtue of a final judgment or the judgment of the Ombudsman has attained finality.” 

At the same time, Rosal said the power of Comelec to disqualify a candidate cannot be done in an administrative proceeding through its Law Department “since it is not within the administrative power of the Comelec, but rather it calls for the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions through its Division or En Banc….” 

“By referring a disqualification case to its Law Department there is that imminent and clear danger that such candidate will be deprived of his right to due process because Comelec will act the incompatible roles of complainant, judge and prosecutor, since its Law Department has no choice but to comply with the directive of its superior to forthwith cancel the certificate of candidacy of the candidate,” he also said. 

“And when that happens, then Rosal faces the clear and imminent danger of being deprived of his right of suffrage as there is that danger that his name may not be included in the official ballots while he is seeking further legal remedies,” he added.

He then pleaded the SC to issue a status quo ante order or a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the Comelec from enforcing Resolution No. 11044-A.