The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has confirmed the disqualification of former Caloocan City Representative Edgar Erice from contesting the 2nd District seat in the upcoming May 2025 elections. This decision stems from Erice’s persistent critique of the automated election system (AES). The Comelec en banc, in a comprehensive 30-page ruling issued recently, supported the earlier decision by its Second Division to exclude Erice from the electoral race.
The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of elections, stating that Erice’s actions were detrimental to the democratic process. ‘The integrity of elections is fundamental to democracy, and any action that undermines this cannot be tolerated. The disqualification of the respondent is not only justified but essential to safeguard the sanctity of our electoral system. The Commission must take firm action to preserve the public’s faith in democratic institutions,’ the decision read.
The Commission pointed out that Erice’s efforts to discredit the AES were a significant factor in their ruling. ‘The respondent’s behavior not only shows his unsuitability for public office but also a clear disrespect for the electoral process. Efforts to undermine the Commission’s reputation and the integrity of elections for personal benefit are unacceptable,’ it added.
The complaint against Erice was lodged by Raymond Salipot, who alleged that Erice was ‘intentionally spreading false and alarming reports, and disseminating misleading messages to disrupt the electoral process and sow confusion among voters,’ actions which are against the Omnibus Election Code.
Comelec stressed the necessity of taking strong action against Erice to protect public trust and prevent further damage to the Commission’s credibility. ‘Faced with ongoing and blatant attacks on its integrity and the overall conduct of elections, the Commission is obligated to act decisively to stop the unfounded and malicious accusations made against it and to alleviate the public’s alarm, doubts, and confusion deliberately caused by the respondent,’ the en banc decision concluded.