MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by former senatorial candidate Matt Erwin V. Florido, affirming the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruling that disqualified him for committing vote-buying. The Court, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice J. Lopez and promulgated on August 12, 2025, ruled that Florido’s petition was filed six days too late, rendering the COMELEC’s disqualification final and executory.
The Cash-for-Attendance Gathering
The case stemmed from a Petition for Disqualification filed by registered voters of Quezon Province against Florido, who was running for Representative of the Third District in the 2025 National and Local Elections. The petitioners claimed that on April 5 and 6, 2025, Florido’s representative invited them to an assembly in Catanauan, Quezon, promising food and transportation. Upon arrival, attendees signed an attendance sheet, were served meals, and listened to Florido deliver a speech soliciting votes. Subsequently, attendees were individually called to receive a campaign shirt and a brown envelope containing PHP 1,000.00 cash.
Florido countered that the recipients were merely campaign volunteers attending an internal orientation and that the cash was a legitimate advance for campaign expenses, subject to liquidation. Both the COMELEC Division and the COMELEC En Banc rejected this defense, granting the disqualification petition and forwarding the records to the Law Department for preliminary investigation of the election offense.
Strict Application of Period Under Rule 64
The threshold issue addressed by the Supreme Court was the timeliness of the Petition for Certiorari. Florido received the COMELEC Division’s Resolution on April 30, 2025. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration on May 5, which interrupted the 30-day period under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, leaving him with 25 days remaining. He received the denial of his Motion for Reconsideration from the COMELEC En Banc on May 9, 2025. The 25-day period resumed immediately upon receipt, making the last day to file the petition June 3, 2025. Florido filed his petition on June 9, 2025.
The Supreme Court emphasized the strict nature of Rule 64, which governs challenges to constitutional commissions. Unlike Rule 65, Rule 64 does not apply the “fresh period rule,” meaning a petitioner only has the remaining balance of the original 30 days after the denial of reconsideration. By filing his petition six days past the June 3 deadline, the Court found the petition fatally defective, meriting its outright dismissal. The decision stressed that the procedural design reflects the constitutional intent to resolve election cases swiftly and ensure the integrity and finality of electoral processes.
Substantial Evidence of Vote-Buying
Notwithstanding the petition’s untimeliness, the Court proceeded to resolve the substantive issue to dispel any lingering reservations. The SC found that the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding Florido guilty of vote-buying under Section 261(a)(1) of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).
The Court affirmed the COMELEC’s factual finding that the attendees were not bona fide volunteers, noting they were excluded from the volunteers’ exclusive group chat and logistical provisions. The distribution of cash was found to be undocumented and without any mechanism for liquidation, entirely undermining Florido’s defense that the money was an operating expense. Crucially, the Court highlighted that Florido’s presence and active participation in the event—delivering a campaign speech immediately before and personally engaging with recipients during the distribution—demonstrated his knowledge and tacit consent of the inducement, fulfilling the element of intent required under the OEC. The decision concluded that the COMELEC’s finding was based on a reasoned evaluation of facts and substantial evidence, justifying the disqualification.
