Comelec junks disqualification case filed versus Baguio mayor

By Dexter A. See

BAGUIO CITY – The Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc denied for lack of merit a motion for reconsideration seeking to reverse a resolution dated Jan. 22, 2015 dismissing the disqualification case filed against re-electionist Mayor Mauricio G. Domogan.

In an 8-page en banc resolution signed by Comelec chairman Andres D. Bautista, commissioners Christian Robert S. Lim, Al A. Parreno, Louie Tito F. Guia, Arthur D. Lim, Ma. Rowena Amelia V. Guanzon and sheriff M. Abas, the petition for disqualification filed by mayoral candidate Jose M. Molintas against Mayor Mauricio G. Domogan said it did not present substantial pieces of evidence that would warrant the positive action of the Commission, thus, the dismissal of the same for lack of merit.

The resolution said commission of the unlawful acts of the respondent should have been committed during election period pursuant to provisions of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election code (OEC), otherwise, unlawful acts committed outside the prescribed election period are not considered election offenses.

The commission said assuming that the act complained against Domogan constitutes giving of prohibitive donations under Section 104 of the OEC, it still does not warrant the disqualification of the local chief executive as it was committed outside the campaign period.

Molintas in his petition admitted that violation of Section 261(o) of the OEC was not a ground for disqualification under Section 68.

However, he claimed that by using the property of the Lions Club in Burnham Park for free, Domogan committed other grounds for disqualification under the OEC.

The Commission noted allegations that Domogan violated Section 95(d) and Section 68© of the OEC were matters that were brought up for the first time in petitioner’s memorandum, as they were never raised in the petition., thus, petitioner should not be allowed to raise new matter in his memorandum, for the main purpose of the memorandum is merely to expound the previously raised grounds contained in the petition.

“To do so constitutes substantial amendment to the petition, thus., this may only be done with leave of the Commission. For reasons of fair play, justice and due process, this Commission cannot pass upon the said questions,” the resolution stated.

The Commission said respondent’s alleged solicitation of participation of the barangay officials of Irisan is not a ground for his disqualification and contrary to petitioner’s claim, it cannot be considered as vote-buying.

The resolution said vote-buying is committed when a person has given money or other material consideration to another in order to induce him to vote for against any candidate and in the case filed by the petitioner, the evidence presented against the respondent failed to establish that respondent gave money to the barangay officials of Irisan for the purpose of buying their votes.

“This Commission finds no reason to depart from the assailed resolution of the second division,” the resolution stated.

The en banc resolution was no longer appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) by the petitioner rendering the same final.