SC affirms Comelec's ruling vs disqualification of Sen. Raffy Tulfo as candidate in 2022 elections
The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) decision that dismissed the disqualification case filed against Sen. Raffy T. Tulfo a month before the May 2022 senatorial election.
In a press statement issued Monday evening, April 8, based on the April 3 ruling of the SC in Baguio City, the High Court’s public information office (PIO) said “the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) has exclusive jurisdiction over disqualification cases against a winning senatorial candidate who has been proclaimed, taken oath, and assumed office.”
Based on its summary of the SC ruling that has not been made public, the PIO said:
“Tulfo ran for senator during the May 2022 general elections. A month before the elections, his alleged wife, Julie Licup Pearson, filed a petition to disqualify him from running for public office on the following grounds: 1) he had been convicted of libel, a crime involving moral turpitude; and 2) he had allegedly committed an election offense by illegally advertising his candidacy on his show, called ‘Raffy Tulfo in Action.’
“The Comelec’s First Division dismissed the petition for failure to attach the required proof of service.
“After obtaining the third-highest number of votes, Tulfo was proclaimed a winning senator, took his oath, and assumed office.
“Pearson moved for reconsideration, but the Comelec denied it for lack of jurisdiction. She then sought to reverse the Comelec’s decision before the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari.
“The Court, citing Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution, and established jurisprudence, clarified the division of powers in election disputes.
“It stated that once a winning candidate had been proclaimed, taken oath, and assumed office, the Comelec’s jurisdiction over election contests relating to their election, returns, and qualifications ceases, and the SET assumes jurisdiction.
“Pearson failed to timely file the appropriate case before the SET and cannot remedy this failure by invoking the Court’s certiorari powers.”