MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed the petition to disqualify Edgar R. Erice from running as representative of Caloocan City’s 2nd District in the 2025 elections.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC En Banc reversed the ruling of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which had earlier disqualified Erice for allegedly violating the Omnibus Election Code (OEC).

COMELEC’s ruling was based on Section 261(z)(11) of the OEC, which prohibits the spreading of false or alarming information about ballot printing, election postponement, or the general conduct of elections when intended to disrupt the process.

The case stemmed from statements Erice made during media interviews in April 2024, when he claimed that the automated counting machines from Miru Systems had never been used in any election worldwide. He also questioned the ₱18 billion contract between COMELEC and Miru, alleging that the bidding was rigged and that he had evidence of offshore accounts linked to COMELEC officials, including Chairperson George Erwin M. Garcia.

Erice argued that there was no violation since the prohibition applies only to statements made during an actual election and within voting centers. He also maintained that his remarks were protected under his right to free speech.

COMELEC’s Second Division found his statements to be false and unverified, ruling that they could cause public confusion, alarm, and distrust in the electoral process. Based on COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, Erice was disqualified, and the COMELEC En Banc later affirmed the ruling.

Erice elevated the case to the SC, which issued a temporary restraining order stopping COMELEC from enforcing the disqualification while the case was under review.

In its ruling, the SC clarified that under Section 1(c)(3)(viii) of COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, a candidate may only be disqualified if a competent court has already found them guilty of violating the OEC or the Local Government Code in a separate proceeding. The final conviction, the Court said, must come from an earlier case and not from the disqualification proceeding itself.

The SC further explained that while COMELEC has the authority to investigate election offenses, only Regional Trial Courts have the power to determine whether an offense has been committed. It ruled that COMELEC failed to follow proper legal procedures when it directly declared Erice guilty and disqualified him.

The Court also noted that the prohibition against spreading false or alarming information is not among the grounds for disqualification under Section 68 of the OEC.

Although the SC did not decide on whether Erice committed the offense, it clarified that there is a violation when a person spreads false or alarming reports about ballot printing, election postponement, polling place transfers, or the general conduct of elections to disrupt the process or confuse voters. The Court added that the law does not require that such acts occur near polling places or during the voting period.

In a separate concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that laws regulating speech must not be too broad or vague, must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored, and proportionate, and must satisfy either the “clear and present danger” test or the “dangerous tendency” rule.