SC Dismisses Disqualification Case Against Edgar Erice

October 15, 2025

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

In a Decision written 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).

The disqualification was based on Section 261(z)(11) of the OEC, which prohibits spreading false or alarming information regarding ballot printing, election postponement, or the general conduct of elections, when the statements are intended to disrupt the election process.

The case stemmed from statements Erice made during media interviews in April 2024. He claimed that the automated counting machines from Miru Systems (Miru) had never been used in any election worldwide. He also questioned the PHP 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 because the prohibition against spreading false or alarming information applies only to statements made during an actual election, and within the vicinity of voting centers. He added that his statements were protected under his right to free speech.

COMELEC’s Second Division found Erice’s statements to be false and unverified and that they could cause public confusion, alarm, and distrust in the electoral process.

Based on COMELEC Resolution No. 11046, Erice was disqualified, and this decision was upheld by the COMELEC En Banc.

Erice brought 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 can 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. It is the final decision finding the candidate guilty which can serve as the basis for disqualification. Thus, the finding of guilt must come from an earlier case, not the disqualification case itself.

The SC explained that under the OEC, COMELEC has the authority to investigate election offenses, while the Regional Trial Courts have the power to decide if an offense was committed.

In this case, COMELEC did not observe the proper legal steps when it directly declared that Erice was guilty and then proceeded to disqualify him.

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

While the SC did not rule on whether Erice actually committed the election offense, it clarified its elements. 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 election process or confuse voters.

The SC added that the offense does not need to happen near polling places or during the actual voting period. The law does not specify these conditions.

In his Separate Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen emphasized that laws regulating speech must: (1) not be too broad or vague; (2) be content-neutral and not act as prior censorship; (3) be narrowly tailored and proportionate; and (4) meet either the “clear and present danger” test or the “dangerous tendency” rule. (Courtesy of the SC Office of the Spokesperson)

This press release is prepared for members of the media and the general public as a simplified summary of the SC’s Decision. For the SC’s full complete discussion of the case, please read the full text of the Decision in G.R. No. 277608 (Edgar R. Erice v. Commission on Elections and Raymond D.C. Salipot), July 8, 2025 and the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonen.