[ G.R. No. 277608. July 08, 2025 ] EN BANC
[ G.R. No. 277608. July 08, 2025 ]
EDGAR R. ERICE, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND RAYMOND D.C. SALIPOT, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari (with Application for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction)[1] filed by petitioner Edgar R. Erice (Erice) assailing the Resolution[2] dated December 27, 2024, of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En Banc in SPA Case No. 24-210 (DC). The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the Resolution[3] dated November 26, 2024, of the COMELEC Second Division which disqualified Erice as a candidate for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the Second District of Caloocan City in the May 12, 2025 National and Local Elections (2025 NLE).[4]
The Antecedents
On August 15, 2024, respondent Raymond D.C. Salipot (Salipot) and Benjamin B. Balatbat (Balatbat) filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit[5] against Erice for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code. The complaint is based on the statements made by Erice in various interviews that the contract of the COMELEC with Miru Systems (Miru) is highly anomalous and that the bidding process which preceded it was rigged. For example, in his interview with DWPM Radyo 630 on April 15, 2024, Erice said: “May propaganda kase ang COMELEC eh, na mi-mislead yung mga taong bayan na maganda yung [S]istema. Pero po yung itong [s]istema na ito masasabi ko ng tapat na ito ay isang P18B, one time big time scam.” In addition, Erice asserted that the automated counting machines (ACM) to be provided by Miru have never been used in any previous election in other countries; thus, the Philippines will serve as its guinea pig in the 2025 NLE. Salipot and Balatbat argued that Brice’s statements lacked verification and supporting evidence.[6] On October 7, 2024, Erice filed his Certificate of Candidacy[7] (COC) for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the Second District of Caloocan City for the 2025 NLE.[8] On October 28, 2024, Salipot filed a Petition for Disqualification[9] against Erice for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 1(c)(3)(viii) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046.[10] The COMELEC Second Division issued summons ordering Erice to file his Answer cum Memorandum within a nonextendible period of five days from receipt of the summons. Erice did not file the required pleading.[11]
The COMELEC Second Division Ruling
The COMELEC Second Division granted the Petition in its Resolution[12] dated November 26, 2024, the fallo of which provides:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED. Respondent EDGAR R. ERICE is DISQUALIFIED as a candidate for the position of Member, House of Representatives in the Second (2nd) District of Caloocan City for the 12 May 2025 National and Local Elections [“2025 NLE”]. Let the records of the case be forwarded to the Law Department of this Commission relative to the election offense aspect of this case. SO ORDERED.[13]
The COMELEC Second Division found that the evidence submitted by Salipot substantially proved that Erice violated Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code. Erice repeatedly made the following statements: first, the Philippines will serve as a guinea pig in the 2025 NLE. The ACMs and systems procured from Miru have never been utilized in any election worldwide; second, the PHP 18 billion contract with Miru was highly anomalous, the bidding process was rigged, and the custom-made specifications were used to justify price inflation; and finally, he received evidence of offshore accounts of COMELEC officials, particularly COMELEC Chairperson George Erwin M. Garcia (Chairperson Garcia), suggesting suspicious transactions with Miru.[14] The COMELEC Second Division ruled that the statements, which relate to the general conduct of elections, are unverified and unsupported by evidence and, therefore, false. It held that Erice’s act of propagating false information across multiple platforms shows his deliberate intent to disrupt elections rather than offer legitimate criticism. It also found that his statements may cause public alarm and voter confusion as well as damage the integrity of the electoral system of the Philippines. In accordance with COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, the COMELEC Second Division disqualified Erice.[15] On November 27, 2024, Chairperson Garcia inhibited himself from handling or participating in any case involving Erice to “preserve the principles of fairness and impartiality, ensuring the integrity of the proceedings under my jurisdiction and avoiding any potential perception of bias or conflict of interest."[16] On December 2, 2024, Erice filed a Motion for Reconsideration[17] wherein he alleged that Salipot did not send a copy of the petition to him but only its annexes. He also asserted that he was not guilty of violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code.[18]
The COMELEC En Banc Ruling
In its Resolution[19] dated December 27, 2024, the COMELEC En Banc affirmed the ruling of the COMELEC Second Division, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (En Banc) AFFIRMS the Commission (Second Division)’s Resolution dated 26 November 2024 insofar as it declared Respondent EDGAR R. ERICE as DISQUALIFIED as a candidate for the position of Member, House of Representatives in the 2nd District of Caloocan City for the 12 May 2025 National and Local Elections. Let the records of the case be forwarded to the Law Department of this Commission relative to the election offense aspect of this case. SO ORDERED.[20] (Emphasis in the original)
The COMELEC En Banc held that Erice was served a copy of the petition via the email address that he provided in his COC. This is supported by the Affidavit of Electronic Service[21] executed by Paquito Eleazar Joaquin (Joaquin). The COMELEC Second Division also served him summons together with a copy of the petition. Hence, the COMELEC En Banc ruled that Erice was given the opportunity to be heard but did not file an answer. In any event, Erice presented his arguments through his motion for reconsideration which failed to invoke the required grounds of insufficient evidence or contrariness to law.[22] The COMELEC En Banc clarified that Erice is mistaken in asserting that for Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code to apply, the statements must be made around voting centers based on ABS-CBN v. COMELEC,[23] as said case did not discuss the elements of Section 261(z)(11). The COMELEC En Banc also ruled that contrary to Erice’s contention, Section 261(z)(11) does not require the conduct of an actual election.[24] The COMELEC En Banc upheld the ruling of the COMELEC Second Division that Erice violated Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC En Banc held that Erice’s statements refer to the general conduct of the elections because they involve the very machines to be used for the elections. The COMELEC En Banc found Erice’s statements to be beyond the bounds of propriety and protected free speech; and his accusations of corruption were baseless, unsubstantiated, and coupled with calls to revert to the usage of unserviceable machines. According to the COMELEC En Banc, these statements were intended to cause confusion among the voters, disrupt the orderly conduct of elections, and undermine the framework for the protection of our electoral processes. Hence, the COMELEC En Banc found that Erice’s disqualification is called for under COMELEC Resolution No. 11046.[25] On January 14, 2025, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the COMELEC from implementing its resolutions disqualifying Erice as candidate for representative of the 2nd District of Caloocan in the 2025 NLE.[26]
The Issue
The issue for the resolution of the Court is whether the COMELEC En Banc erred in affirming that Erice should be disqualified for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code.
Petitioner’s Arguments
First, respondent COMELEC should have dismissed respondent Salipot’s petition for disqualification for failure to comply with jurisdictional requirements, specifically, to furnish petitioner Erice with a copy of said petition and its annexes. Respondent Salipot only sent a copy of the annexes through email but not the petition itself, in violation of petitioner Erice’s right to due process. Respondent Salipot is not even a registered voter of Caloocan but of Rizal and has a deactivated status.[27] Second, respondent Salipot failed to prove that petitioner Erice violated Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code. Petitioner Erice stresses that the disruptive behavior penalized under that provision must have been done around the voting centers. However, petitioner Erice made his statements in restaurants and media stations. In addition, the statements should have been made during the conduct of an election, which is not the case here. More, petitioner Erice’s statements do not pertain to the printing of official ballots, postponement of election, transfer of polling place, or general conduct of election but to respondent COMELEC’s violation of Republic Act No. 9369, which is currently the subject of his pending Petition before the Court docketed as G.R. No. 272887, and Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which is the subject of his complaint affidavit pending before the Office of the Ombudsman. The statements were consistent with petitioner Erice’s right to free speech and in line with his duty as a citizen of this country.[28] Third, petitioner Erice’s statements are covered by his right to freedom of expression. The statements do not present a clear and present danger to warrant the suppression of his right and cause his disqualification.[29]
Respondent COMELEC’s Arguments
First, respondent Salipot was able to prove that he sent a copy of his petition to petitioner Erice through the Affidavit of Electronic Service of Joaquin. In any event, respondent COMELEC has the discretion to summarily dismiss the petition under Section 4, paragraph 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046 for failure to submit proof of service of the petition and its annexes to respondent. Notably, petitioner Erice did not deny receiving the notice of summons, summons, and a copy of the petition sent to his email by the COMELEC Second Division. As for respondent Salipot’s standing, COMELEC Resolution No. 11046 only requires that the one filing the complaint is a registered voter. It is silent as to the voter’s status.[30] Second, Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code does not require that the act must be committed at voting centers and during the actual conduct of elections.[31] Third, all the elements for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code were established in the case. Petitioner Erice repetitively proclaimed on different social media platforms and radio stations that the Philippines would become Miru’s guinea pig for the technology to be used in the 2025 NLE. This claim refers to the integrity of the ACM; thus, the subject matter is the general conduct of the election. Petitioner Erice’s intent to disrupt the election process was shown through his overt act of consistently making unfounded and libelous statements which caused confusion and disruption of the election process. His statements go beyond what is protected under the Constitution.[32] Fourth, there is no basis to grant the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. For one, petitioner Erice has no clear and unmistakable right to seek election to a public elective office. For another, he did not suffer any irreparable injury.[33]
Salipot’s Arguments
First, petitioner Erice was given the opportunity to be heard before the respondent COMELEC. He was served a copy of the petition through his official email address in his COC.[34] Second, petitioner Erice failed to show that the respondent COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying him. The findings of respondent COMELEC have factual and legal basis.[35] Third, the TRO should be lifted because petitioner Erice is not entitled to it. He did not establish that he has a clear and unmistakable right to injunctive relief.[36]
The Ruling of the Court
The Petition is meritorious.
Petitioner Erice’s right to due process was not violated.
Petitioner Erice avers that respondent COMELEC should have dismissed respondent Salipot’s petition outright due to the latter’s failure to give him a copy of the Petition. Respondent COMELEC correctly pointed out that the language of Section 4, paragraph 7(vii)[37] of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046 gives it the discretion to summarily dismiss a petition for failure to submit proof of service of the petition with complete annexes to the respondent or failure to execute an affidavit of service. The dismissal is not mandatory. Here, respondent COMELEC cannot be faulted for not dismissing the petition considering that respondent Salipot submitted the Affidavit of Electronic Service of Joaquin to attest that he served a copy of the petition and its annexes to petitioner Erice. Further, the Court is not convinced that petitioner Erice did not receive a copy of the petition. Petitioner Erice submitted the printed copy[38] of the email sent by the counsel of respondent Salipot to prove that he did not receive a copy of the petition. The printed copy of the email states that it contains 11 attachments but only the title of 10 attachments is shown, which incidentally does not include the petition. Thus, the printed copy of the email alone is insufficient proof that the Petition was not attached to the email sent to petitioner Erice. Moreover, respondent Salipot submitted a copy of the same email showing that the petition was attached thereto.[39] In any event, respondent COMELEC duly considered the merits of Erice’s arguments, including his allegation of lack of due process, when he filed his motion for reconsideration.[40]
The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in disqualifying petitioner Erice for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code.
Section 1(c) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046 provides in full:
SECTION 1. Grounds. . . . .
c.
Disqualification of Candidates. – A registered voter or a duly registered political party, organization or coalition of political parties may file a verified Petition for Disqualification against any candidate for any of the following grounds:
For lack of qualifications or possessing any of the grounds for disqualification provided by law or the Constitution;
For failure to file Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) for two elections pursuant to Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7166; and
In an action or protest in which he or she is a party, for having been declared by final decision of a competent court, guilty of, or found by the Commission of, having:
i.
Given money or material consideration to influence, induce to corrupt voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
ii.
Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his or her candidacy;
iii.
Spent in his or her election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by law;
iv.
Solicited, received, or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97, and 104 of the Omnibus Election Code;
v.
Violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86, and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc sub-paragraph 6 of the Omnibus Election Code;
vi.
Acquired permanent residency or immigrant status in a foreign country, unless waiver of status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country is made in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in election laws;
vii.
Violated any of Section 40 (a), (b), and (c) of the Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991; or
viii.
Violated all other grounds under the LGC and the OEC.
The disqualification of petitioner Erice is based on Section 1(c)(3)(viii) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, or that he has “[v]iolated all other grounds under the [Local Government Code] and the [Omnibus Election Code].” He allegedly violated Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code which provides:
SECTION 261. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be guilty of an election offense: . . . . (z) On voting: . . . . (11) Any person who, for the purpose of disrupting or obstructing the election process or causing confusion among the voters, propagates false and alarming reports or information or transmits or circulates false orders, directives or messages regarding any matter relating to the printing of official ballots, the postponement of the election, the transfer of polling place or the general conduct of the election[.]
Under Section 1(c)(3) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, the disqualification for violation of all other grounds under the Local Government Code and the Omnibus Election Code requires that the person subject of the disqualification was declared guilty of said violation by final decision of a competent court in an action or protest in which they are a party. Simply put, it is the final decision finding the party guilty of a violation of the Local Government Code or the Omnibus Election Code that shall serve as the basis for their disqualification. This means that the finding of guilt was done in a prior proceeding separate from the disqualification case itself. This is consistent with Section 265[41] of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369,[42] which vests respondent COMELEC with the duty to conduct the preliminary investigation for election offenses; and Section 268,[43] of the Omnibus Election Code which grants the Regional Trial Court the exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide on whether an election offense was committed. Incidentally, Section 264[44] of the Omnibus Election Code imposes disqualification as a penalty for the commission of an election offense. Instead of following the foregoing procedure, it appears that respondent COMELEC decided to directly rule on whether petitioner Erice is guilty of violation of Section 261(z)(11), an election offense, and after having done so, imposed the penalty of disqualification. This cannot be permitted. The COMELEC cannot skip the processes laid down in our laws, no matter how noble the cause of protecting the integrity of the elections may be. More importantly, Section 261(z)(11) is not listed as a ground for disqualification under the Omnibus Election Code, specifically Section 68 thereof:
SECTION 68. Disqualifications. – Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws[.]
Aside from Section 68, the other grounds for disqualification can be found in Section 12[45] of the Omnibus Election Code, Sections 39[46] and 40[47] of the Local Government Code in relation to Section 65[48] of the Omnibus Election Code, and Section 4[49] of Republic Act No. 8295.[50] In Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia,[51] the Court held that “the jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is limited to those enumerated in Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. All other election offenses are beyond the ambit of COMELEC jurisdiction. They are criminal and not administrative in nature."[52] The Court reiterated this ruling in Atty. Francisco v. Commission on Elections,[53] Gov. Javier v. Commission on Elections,[54] and Aratea v. Commission on Elections.[55] Hence, respondent COMELEC cannot expand the grounds for disqualification under our laws using COMELEC Resolution No. 11046 as its basis. The powers of respondent COMELEC under the 1987 Constitution do not include the power to amend laws passed by the legislature.[56] Therefore, respondent COMELEC went beyond its jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioner Erice for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code. Considering that respondent COMELEC had no power in the first place to disqualify a candidate on the ground of violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code, the Court shall refrain from determining whether petitioner Erice violated this provision. To reiterate, the determination of petitioner Erice’s guilt for this election offense should be made in the proper forum through an appropriate action. Notably, respondent COMELEC already ordered that the records of the case be forwarded to its Law Department to study its election offense aspect. Nonetheless, the Court deems it proper to clarify the elements of Section 261(z)(11) for the guidance of the bench and the bar. These are: First, a person propagates false and alarming reports or information; or transmits or circulates false orders, directives or messages. Second, the foregoing must be regarding any matter relating to the printing of official ballots, the postponement of the election, the transfer of polling place, or the general conduct of the election. Finally, it must be done for the purpose of disrupting or obstructing the election process or causing confusion among the voters. Contrary to petitioner Erice’s understanding, Section 261(z)(11) does not require that the act be done near the polling place. There is nothing in the text of Section 261(z)(11) that would suggest this. As to whether the violation must take place during the conduct of the election, Section 261(z) refers to acts “On voting.” This would imply that the punishable acts all relate to voting, which of course would only take place during the conduct of an election. Even so, there being no clear statement in Section 261(z)(11) itself that it must take place during an election, the Court cannot agree with petitioner Erice that this is required. In prosecuting violations of Section 261(z)(11), due consideration must be given to the right to freedom of speech under Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution. As eloquently put in United States v. Bustos:[57]
[O]f course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good. Rising superior to any official, or set of officials, to the Chief Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary—to any or all the agencies of Government—public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy[.][58]
All told, while the vigilance of respondent COMELEC in safeguarding the elections is laudable, it cannot excuse noncompliance with our laws. ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Resolution dated December 27, 2024, of the Commission on Elections En Banc in SPA Case No. 24-210 (DC) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for Disqualification filed by respondent Raymond D.C. Salipot against petitioner Edgar R. Erice is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, Gaerlan, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Villanueva, JJ., concur. Leonen, SAJ., I concur. See separate opinion. Rosario,* J., on wellness leave. Singh,** J., on leave.