Petitioner's Initial Statements
Petitioner Edgar R. Erice makes public statements (e.g., on DWPM Radyo 630) claiming the COMELEC's contract with Miru Systems is an "P18B, one time big time scam" and that the Philippines will be a "guinea pig" for the automated counting machines (ACMs).
Complaint-Affidavit Filed
Respondent Raymond D.C. Salipot and Benjamin B. Balatbat filed a Joint Complaint-Affidavit against Erice for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
Certificate of Candidacy (COC) Filed
Erice filed his COC for the position of Member of the House of Representatives for the Second District of Caloocan City for the May 12, 2025 National and Local Elections (NLE).
Petition for Disqualification Filed
Salipot filed a Petition for Disqualification against Erice (SPA Case No. 24-210 (DC)) with the COMELEC, alleging violation of OEC Section 261(z)(11). Erice did not file an Answer.
COMELEC Second Division Ruling
The COMELEC Second Division GRANTED the Petition and DISQUALIFIED Erice, finding that the evidence substantially proved he violated OEC Section 261(z)(11) by propagating false information intended to disrupt elections.
COMELEC Chairman Inhibits
COMELEC Chairperson George Erwin M. Garcia inhibited himself from handling the case involving Erice.
Motion for Reconsideration Filed
Erice filed a Motion for Reconsideration challenging the disqualification and arguing lack of due process (failure to receive the petition).
COMELEC En Banc Ruling
The COMELEC En Banc AFFIRMED the ruling of the Second Division and the disqualification of Erice, finding he was properly served and that his statements violated OEC Section 261(z)(11).
Supreme Court Issues TRO
The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting the COMELEC from implementing its resolutions that disqualified Erice.
Supreme Court Decision Promulgated
The Supreme Court (G.R. No. 277608) GRANTED Erice's Petition for Certiorari, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the COMELEC's Resolution, and DISMISSED the Petition for Disqualification. The Court ruled that:
-
The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by disqualifying a candidate based on OEC Section 261(z)(11), as this section is not listed as a ground for disqualification under OEC Section 68 or other relevant laws.
-
The determination of guilt for an election offense (like OEC Section 261(z)(11)) must be made in a prior criminal proceeding by a competent court, not directly by the COMELEC in a disqualification case.
Erice v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 277608, July 8, 2025
EN BANC
DOCTRINE:
The jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify candidates is limited exclusively to the grounds enumerated in Section 68 and Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and other related laws; the COMELEC acts with grave abuse of discretion when it expands these statutory grounds, such as by directly disqualifying a candidate for violation of an election offense (like Section 261[z][11] of the OEC) that does not inherently carry the penalty of disqualification under the law.
FACTS:
Petitioner Edgar R. Erice filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the House of Representatives in the 2025 National and Local Elections. Respondent Raymond D.C. Salipot filed a petition for disqualification against Erice based on the latter’s public statements claiming that the COMELEC’s PHP 18 billion contract with Miru Systems was anomalous, that the bidding was rigged, and that the automated counting machines were untested. Salipot argued that these unverified claims violated Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), which penalizes the propagation of false and alarming reports concerning the general conduct of the election.
The COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC En Banc both ruled that Erice violated Section 261(z)(11) and, citing Section 1(c)(3)(viii) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046 (a resolution listing disqualification grounds), disqualified him from running. The COMELEC ruled that the statements were intended to cause confusion and disrupt the electoral process, thereby undermining its integrity. Erice challenged the disqualification, arguing it was a violation of his right to free speech and that the COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to impose disqualification for a violation not listed in the OEC’s primary disqualification provisions.
ISSUE(S):
Was the petitioner’s right to due process violated due to alleged failure to serve a copy of the disqualification petition?
Did the COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioner for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code?
RULING:
1. Was the petitioner’s right to due process violated due to alleged failure to serve a copy of the disqualification petition?
NO. The Court, citing COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, found no violation:
The Court is not convinced that petitioner Erice did not receive a copy of the petition. x x x [T]he 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. x x x 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.
2. Did the COMELEC act with grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying the petitioner for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code?
YES. The Court ruled that the COMELEC overstepped its jurisdiction, primarily based on the statutory limits found in Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code:
Section 261(z)(11) is not listed as a ground for disqualification under the Omnibus Election Code, specifically Section 68 thereof x x x The Court reiterated this ruling in Atty. Francisco v. Commission on Elections, Gov. Javier v. Commission on Elections, and Aratea v. Commission on Elections.
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. Therefore, respondent COMELEC went beyond its jurisdiction in disqualifying petitioner Erice for violation of Section 261(z)(11) of the Omnibus Election Code.
The Court further clarified that the determination of guilt for an election offense must be done in a prior proceeding before the proper court (Regional Trial Court) as mandated by Sections 265 and 268 of the OEC.