MARCOLETA PINALUSOT NG COMELEC? HOW MIXING PERJURY w/ Sec 98 Killed the case? #attybuenoexplains

The termination of the case against Senator Rodante Marcoleta before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) regarding his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) highlights a critical distinction in legal strategy between election offenses and criminal acts. As of March 2026, the case involving the non-disclosure of certain campaign donors was dismissed or "lapsed" primarily due to the way the complaints were structured—specifically the decision to anchor the disqualification on a charge of perjury. 1. The Core Legal Distinction The failure of the case largely stems from the difference between mala in se and mala prohibita acts: Perjury (Mala in Se): Perjury is an act that is "wrong in itself." It requires proof of willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath. Because it is a crime of intent, it is difficult to prove in summary election proceedings and often requires a separate criminal conviction in a regular court before it can serve as a ground for disqualification. Sections 98 & 99 (Mala Prohibita): These sections of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) deal with the prohibited sources of contributions and the mandatory reporting of expenditures. These are "prohibited acts." In mala prohibita cases, the intent of the perpetrator is immaterial; the mere commission of the prohibited act (e.g., failing to name a donor or accepting an illegal contribution) is enough to constitute a violation. 2. Why Joining the Cases Led to Dismissal By joining the disqualification petition with a charge of perjury, the case became burdened by the higher evidentiary standards and procedural requirements of a criminal complaint. Standing Alone: Had the case focused solely on Section 98 (illegal contributors) and Section 99 (reporting requirements), the COMELEC could have ruled on the administrative violation of election laws. Under the OEC, a candidate who fails to file an accurate SOCE or violates contribution rules can face perpetual disqualification regardless of whether they "intended" to lie. The Perjury Trap: By framing the issue as perjury, the defense was able to argue that the matter was a criminal one that should be handled by the Law Department or the Prosecutor’s Office, rather than a summary disqualification case. This led to the "termination" or dismissal of the disqualification aspect, as the COMELEC often defers to criminal proceedings when a case is characterized as a crime of moral turpitude like perjury. 3. Summary of the Outcome The COMELEC eventually cleared the Senator of the criminal aspect of the SOCE violation, noting that while there may have been "omissions," they did not meet the strict legal threshold for perjury. Critics and legal observers have noted that if the petitioners had filed a "pure" disqualification case based strictly on the mala prohibita nature of Sections 98 and 99, the outcome might have been a sustained disqualification rather than a dismissal.