'Immoral' bets can't run, Supreme Court rules

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) recently clarified that under the Omnibus Election Code, a person shall be disqualified from running for public office only if he or she has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

As such, the SC allowed former Negros Occidental mayor Edgar Teves to run in the 2010 elections despite prior conviction for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Teves owns a cockpit in his town.

In a statement, the SC said all of its justices held that a breach of RA 3019 does not automatically disqualify a candidate from running for public office according to the Omnibus Election Code.

The unanimous decision penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago explained that not every criminal act involves moral turpitude.

Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in
relation with the Local
Government Code of 1991, it is prohibited to have any financial or pecuniary interest in a cockpit licensed by the local government unit over which the government officer presides.

However, the SC said that while such interests are banned by law, a violation does not necessarily involve moral turpitude or make such interest inherently immoral.

The SC based its pronouncement on the following circumstances: the absence of factual basis that the former mayor used his influence and authority to gain pecuniary interest in the cockpit, nor evidence that he intentionally hid his interest in the cockpit by transferring its management to his wife; and the non-inclusion in the old Local Government Code of a prohibition against possession of financial interest in a cockpit.

The downgrading of the penalty Teves was given in his conviction recognized that the former mayor’s violation was not intentionally done contrary to justice or good morals, the SC said.

Also, while cockfighting may be considered a form of gambling, the morality or the wisdom in legalizing it is not a justifiable issue, it said.

The SC declared that the determination as to what crime involves moral turpitude is left with the courts, guided by the principle that it is everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty or good morals.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Arturo Brion further explained the term “moral turpitude” by citing three approaches, which may be used by the courts in determining its presence.

One approach is by objectively looking at the act itself and determining whether it is intrinsically immoral, regardless of whether it is illegal or not.

Another is by looking at the act committed as an element of the law violated and evaluating it under the objective standards of the first approach.

Meanwhile, the third method involves taking a subjective approach and essentially taking the offender and his act in light of the attendant circumstances of the crime to determine whether there is a manifest intent on the part of the offender to defraud or act contrary to good morals and justice.