By Atty. Howie Calleja
Over the weekend, the public went abuzz with new political fodder as news broke out that “there is no record on file” of the “[c]ompliance of payment or satisfaction of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated July 27, 1995 or the Court of Appeals dated October 31, 1997” by Marcos Jr.
Not long after new outlets published the shocking story, a copy of a Land Bank receipt allegedly evidencing payment of tax liabilities was circulated by Marcos Jr. supporters in an attempt to salvage their idol’s reputation. Some even went as far as insinuating lack of common sense, questioning why Ted Te inquired with the court instead of with the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Along with the receipt, a letter from Marcos Jr.’s lawyers dated January 2001 informing the BIR of their client’s full satisfaction of his tax liabilities pursuant to the 1997 CA Decision also made the rounds on social media, which letter was seemingly pitted against the RTC Quezon City’s own certification.
The confusion is understandable from a layperson’s perspective. This is quite a teaching moment for the public: the legal system operates with its own meticulous set of rules and procedures, not with mere rhetoric. But one would wonder: where did these documentary “evidence” come from before blowing up on social media? The creation of such confusion, however, if done by people supposedly knowledgeable of the law, is rather sinister – satisfaction of judgment, after all, is a basic legal concept, something even rookie litigators would know.
The CA Decision that found Marcos Jr. guilty for violation of the Tax Code spelled out two monetary liabilities: (1) deficiency income taxes due with interest until paid, payable to the BIR and (2) fine with surcharges for failure to file income tax returns, payable to the court.
Why ask the court instead of BIR?
What the Marcos Jr. camp brandishes on social media is the alleged payment of taxes to the BIR via Land Bank. But even if this is true, payment to the BIR is just but one of his two liabilities under the final CA Decision. Their group still has nothing to show with respect to the payment of fine, which Marcos Jr. owes to the court as part of his penalty in lieu of imprisonment. The public should be reminded that while the CA – albeit incorrectly and with grave abuse of discretion – removed his jail term, he was still declared to be GUILTY. In criminal law, findings of guilt are punished by either imprisonment, fine, or both. In this case, payment of the income tax deficiencies is not the punishment contemplated by law.
Alas, this is a tale of two liabilities. The alleged payment, if true, is only in satisfaction of Marcos Jr.’s obligations as a taxpayer. In doing so, he does nothing to serve his sentence for his conviction – because that entails a separate obligation: payment of fines with surcharges. That said, the alleged payment establishes nothing as far as the service of his sentence for his criminal conviction goes.
Why can’t the letter from Marcos Jr.’s lawyers invalidate the Certification by RTC QC?
Loyalists feel like they found a smoking gun against the court’s Certification when they got hold of the January 2001 letter stating that the attached receipt from Land Bank is in full satisfaction of Marcos Jr.’s tax liabilities. Some of them even reason out that the statement that there is no record on file with the court does not mean that there was no payment. But they are misguided.
Under existing Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure, satisfaction of a judgment must be coursed through the court sheriff. The sheriff is the court official vested with the duty and authority to oversee that payment as ordered by the court is properly made. Since it is the court that issued the judgment, it must remain informed of whether or not its decision has been duly executed. Those who have duly satisfied the court’s order are likewise expected to file with the court an admission pertaining to the satisfaction of such judgment.
That RTC QC has no record on file of Marcos Jr.’s compliance with the final order as affirmed by the CA and the SC means one thing: there simply was no compliance with the established rules. And his lawyers, try as they might, cannot just come up with their own rules. The letter addressed to BIR simply is not compliant with what legal procedure requires. Besides, as a lot of netizens have observed, the letter is in itself quite dubious: it was written in January 2001, speaking of a payment made in December 2001 – or eleven months into the future.
Two Liabilities and a Debility
But while the actual payment of liabilities under the CA Decision remains suspect, we nonetheless give benefit of the doubt. Paid or not, however, this does not change the fact that Marcos Jr. was found guilty by final judgement of a crime. The letter of his lawyers does not show compliance with the CA Decision. Rather, it is an admission of guilt and finality of judgment – which he has unfortunately not yet fully complied with, if at all. This means that the penalty is still running.
Marcos Jr. is guilty of a violation of the Tax Code, and this final judgment, by law, carries with it not just the two spelled out liabilities, but also, perpetual disqualification for public office whether appointive or elective. Of this, the facts and law are clear – whether or not he has indeed paid his dues.
