© Republic of the Philippines Commission on Elections Intramuros, Manila SECOND DIVISION IN RE: MOTU PROPRIO PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF CHRISTIAN DE GUZMAN SIA AS CANDIDATE FOR MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, LONE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT, CITY OF PASIG, FOR THE 2025 NLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SPA No. 25-001 (DC)(MP) THROUGH THE TASK FORCE ON SAFEGUARDING AGAINST FEAR & EXCLUSION IN ELECTIONS (TASK FORCE SAFE), Petitioner, -versus- CHRISTIAN DE GUZMAN SIA, Respondent. x NOTICE 1. TASK FORCE ON SAFEGUARDING AGAINST FEAR AND EXCLUSION IN ELECTIONS (TASK FORCE SAFE) Petitioner c/o ATTY. SONIA BEA L. WEE-LOZADA Director IV & Head, Task Force SAFE Office of the Director G/F Palacio del Gobernador Intramuros, Manila taskforcesafe@comelec.gov.ph 2. CHRISTIAN DE GUZMAN SIA Respondent 424 Lope K. Santos Ave. Brgy. San Joaquin, Pasig, iansia201 6pub@gmail.com edg.sia @gmail.comPage 2 of 2 RESOLUTION SPA No. 25-001 (DC\MP) Second Division 2 . THE REGIONAL ELECTION DIRECTOR Commission on Elections — NCR 3/F Col. Bionny Serrano Ave. Brgy. Greenhills, San Juan City redo_ncr@comelec.gov.ph S . THE ELECTION OFFICER Commission on Elections — PASIG CITY, 1ST DISTRICT. pasigcitylst@comelec.gov.ph a |. THE LAW DEPARTMENT This Commission law@comelec.gov.ph 6. THE POLITICAL FINANCE AND AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT This Commission pfad@comelec.gov.ph 7. THE EDUCATION AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT This Commission eid @comelec.gov.ph GREETINGS: Attached is a copy of the RESOLUTION promulgated on MAY 2025 of the Commission (SECOND DIVISION) in the above-entitled case. Given this__0.7 MAY 2025 __ in the City of Manila, Philippines. Clerk of CommissiongRepublic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Intramuros, Manila SECOND DIVISION IN RE: MOTU PROPRIO PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF CHRISTIAN DE GUZMAN SIA AS CANDIDATE FOR MEMBER, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, LONE DISTRICT, CITY OF PASIG, FOR THE SPA No. 25-001 (DC)(MP) 2025 NLE. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, THROUGH THE TASK FORCE ON SAFEGUARDING AGAINST FEAR & EXCLUSION IN ELECTIONS (TASK FORCE SAFE), Petitioner, versus CHRISTIAN DE GUZMAN SIA, Respondent. 07 MAY 2075 RESOLUTION Candidacy for public office is more than a political endeavor; it is a measure of one’s moral fitness to lead. Candidates are expected to carry themselves with honesty, decency, and a deep respect for others, Public office demands a temperament that unites rather than divides, and a character that respects rather than demeans.SPA 25-001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division For resolution is the Petition for Disqualification’ and Supplemental Petition for Disqualificiation? filed by the Commission through the Task Force on Safeguarding Against Fear & Exclusion in Elections (Task Force SAFE) praying for the disqualification of Respondent Christian De Guzman Sia pursuant to Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code (OKO), in relation to Section 261 (e) of the same Code, Section 13 of Republic Act No, 9006 or the Fair Election Act, and COMELEC Resolution No. 11116°. FACTS On 08 October 2024, Respondent CHRISTIAN DE GUZMAN SIA filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC)! for Member, House of Representatives, Lone Legislative District of Pasig City for the 2025 National and Local Elections (2025 NLE). On 16 April 2025, the Commission, through Task Force SAFE, instituted the instant Petition on the ground of statements made by the Respondent during, the course of his campaign activities, which are alleged to be discriminatory against women and constituted acts of gender-based harassment. [he material allegations of the Petition are as follows: "10, Reports from reputable media organizations have shown respondent uttering these words on or about 03 April 2025 during a campaign activity: "Ito ang ambag ko sa mga solo parent ng Pasig. ‘Minsan sa isang taon, ang mgasolo parent na babae 1a nireregla pa. Nay, malinaw nireregla pa at nalulungkot. Minsan sa isang taon, pwedeng sumiping ho sa akin.” 11, On the same day but in another campaign activity, reputable media organizations reported the following utterance of the Respondent: " Kahit po ang mga staff ko po, tipikal po, puro lalaki, isa lang ho ang kasama kong babae nung araw. Isa lang po ang kasama kong babae, si jaja. Nasaan si Jaja? Nagdadiet bu? Magpakita ka lang, para di ka pugselosan. Asawa ni Eweng, ka-batch ko. Ngayon kasama na ho ni Atty. Tantan... Magpakita ka lang aja. Yan. Yan ho ang staff. Jaja, ano bu hitsura mo nung nakaraang labinlimang taon. Payat? Al hindi, Records at pp. 5-21 Id. at pp. 37-77 » ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AND FAIR CAMPAIGNING GUIDELINES FOR PURPOSES OF THE 12 MAY 2025 NATIONAL, LOCAL, AND BARMM PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS, promulgated on 19 February 2125. + Recordsat p.25SPA 25-001 (DC\(MP) Resolution Second Division nung makula kana ni Eweng. Mataba ka na, Nung ‘magkasama pa lang tayo, ito na ang katawan ni jaja Give or take. labas mo na lang yung picture. Huwag nna tayong magtalo dito sa harap. Ang point ko ho. lyan po ba ang magiging staff ng manyak? Di ho. Ang kasama ko naman ngayon, asawwa ni Kuya Mario, si Ate Olive. Fifty-nine years old, Di ho. Pagdating po sa babar, malinaw po, ang babae ay nirerespeto at minamahal!” Respondent actually ordered the woman, the staff referred to as "Jaja", to come to the stage to show herself while making these remarks.°* By reason of these statements, 'l'ask Force SAFE issued two Show Cause Orders (SCOs) dated 04 April 2025° and 08 April 20257, respectively, Both SCOs directed the Respondent to submit a written explanation within a non-extendible period of three (3) days from receipt thereof, stating why a complaint for election offense and/or a petition for disqualification should not be filed against him. In compliance with the first Show Cause Order, the Respondent submitted his Answer* dated 07 April 2025, which was received on 08 April 2025. In said Answer, the Respondent argued that “Resolution No. 11116 suffers from constitutional infirmity” as it was “promulgated pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9006” and “must be for the implementation of said law, which is in relation to equal time and opportunity in relation to the posting of election propaganda.” He further claimed that “Resolution No. 11116 seeks to implement, among others, the Magna Carta of Women and the Safe Spaces Act,” and asserted that these statutes are “outside the jurisdiction of the Honorable Commission, as its power is limited to the enforcement and administration of laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum or recall.” In addition, the Respondent stated that “[e]ven assuming without conceding that Resolution No. 11116 is valid, [he] did not violate the same when {he} uttered the statements on or about 03 April 2025.” He further wrote in his letter that “while the language and tone were indeed conversational with the use of everyday banter one would expect from ordinary people, [his] statements were not made to discriminate, exclude, restrict, demean or harass female solo parents.” He argued that his “statements were not uttered to restrict or deprive female solo parents of their fundamental human rights and freedoms.” The Respondent concluded that “[w]hile the words may sound brash, [his] speech, in its entirety, falls under [his} freedom of speech.” > Records at pp. 78 ‘ Id, at pp. 26-28 Id. at pp. 20.41 ' Ud, at pp. 32-38SPA 25-001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division On 12 April 2025, Task Force SAFE received the Respondent's Answer” to the second Show Cause Order. In said submission, the Respondent substantially reiterated the defenses and arguments previously raised in his earlier Answer. On 14 April 2025, Task Force SAFE issued a Resolution” finding that the Respondent committed a violation of Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code, and recommended the filing of a Petition for Disqualification against him. The dispositive portion of which states: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the ‘Task Force hereby finds that Atty. Christian D. Sia acted in violation of Section 261 (e) of the Omnibus Election Code and recommends that a Petition for Disqualification be filed against him. SO ORDERED.” Pursuant to the findings and recommendation of Task Force SAFE, the instant Petition was filed. On 21 April 2025, the Comelec (Second Division) issued Summons" to the Respondent directing him to file a verified ANSWER CUM MEMORANDUM within a non-extendible five (5) days. Subsequent to the filing of the initial Petition on 16 April 2025, Task Force SAFE received numerous complaints and reports from individuals alleging that they suffered harm, injury, loss, or damage as a result of the Respondent's statements. The Task Force deemed it necessary to bring these matters to the attention of the Commission “if the ends of justice are to be met,” and thus filed the present Supplemental Petition. We now resolve. ISSUE The issue to be resolved is whether the Respondent should be disqualified from running for the position of Member, House of Representatives, Lone Legislative District, Pasig City, on the ground of having committed acts in violation of Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code, in relation to COMELEC Resolution No. 11116. * Records at pp. 4-36 Td. at pp. 17-40 1d, app 49-50SPA 25.001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division RULING We rule in the affirmative. The Commission on Elections is constitutionally mandated to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, pursuant to Section (I), Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution. In line with this mandate, the Commission is likewise vested with the authority to promulgate rules and regulations to effectively implement election laws, ensure orderly and credible elections, and uphold standards of ethical campaign conduct. It is within this framework that the Commission issued COMELEC Resolution No. 11116, which sets forth the rules on lawful election propaganda and imposes specific obligations on candidates to observe decency, gender sensitivity, and respect for human dignity during the campaign period. As an implementing measure pursuant to the Fair Election Act and in harmony with the principles of the Safe Spaces Act (R.A. No. 11313), COMELEC Resolution No. 11116 forms part of the Commission’s broader duty to protect the integrity of the electoral process and to sanction candidates who engage in conduct that undermines public trust and contravenes lepal and ethical norms. While the Commission on Elections does not possess prosecutorial or adjudicatory authority under the Safe Spaces Act, reference to its provisions is made in this case not to establish a direct violation thereof, but solely to serve as a contextual aid in interpreting and evaluating the Respondent's public remarks in relation to applicable election laws, specifically Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code which states that: " SECTION 261. Prohibited Acts, - The following shall be guilty of, an election offense: {e) Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other forms of coercion, - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence, injury, punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage upon any person or persons or that of the immediate members of his family, his honor or property, or uses any fraudulent device or scheme to compel or induce the registration or refraining from registration of any voter, or the participation in a campaign or refraining or desistance from any campaign, or the casting of any vote or omission to vote, or any promise of such registration, campaign, vote, or omission therefrom. (Emphasis ours)" exeSPA 25-001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division In connection thereto, Section 3 of COMELEC Resolution No. 11116 explicitly classifies discrimination against women and gender-based harassment as election offenses, recognizing that such acts can result in injury, damage, loss, or disadvantage to affected persons, particularly with respect to their honor and dignity. After a careful and thorough evaluation of the statements of the Respondent delivered publicly, the Commission (Second Division) finds sufficient basis to hold that the Respondent committed election offenses in violation of Section 261(e) of the OEC and Section 3 of COMELEC Resolution No. 11116. The quoted remarks of the Respondent delivered in a public forum and directed at solo parents were sexually suggestive, objectifying, and degrading. By presenting intimacy with him as a form of support to solo mothers, even in jest, the Respondent reduced a vulnerable sector of women to objects of sexual gratification, trivializing their struggles and reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Far from being innocuous, such statements when made by a candidate during official campaign activities, constitute a form of gender-based harassment that devalues women’s dignity and invites ridicule under the guise of humor, In a separate campaign activity, Respondent made additional remarks directed at a female staff member, “Jaja,” whom he publicly summoned to the stage. He proceeded to draw attention to her physical appearance, inviting the crowd to compare her current body to how she looked years ago, and suggested that old photographs be shown for comparison. This act of publicly singling out a woman for commentary on her body constitutes clear body shaming, and subjected her to unnecessary and unwanted scrutiny. The comments were sexist, demeaning, and objectifying, and served no legitimate political purpose. These acts clearly fall within the scope of Section 261(e) of the OEC. This provision penalizes acts that cause injury or disadvantage to a person's honor. In this case, the Respondent's remarks, delivered during campaign activities and further amplified through media, inflicted reputational and emotional harm on the women concerned. The Commission (Second Division) underscores that freedom of speech is not absolute, especially when it is exercised in a manner that demeans others and compromises the integrity of the electoral process. Further, COMELEC Resolution No. 11116 sets clear standards for campaign conduct, prohibiting discriminatory, sexist, or harassing language that compromises public decency and dignity. The Respondent's repeatedSPA 25-001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division use of gendered, offensive remarks in his campaign engagements violated these standards and reflected conduct grossly unbecoming, of one seeking public office. This Commission does not possess the authority to directly sanction violations of the Safe Spaces Act; nonetheless, the law stands as a clear legislative articulation of the State’s public policy against gender-based harassment and degrading conduct in public spaces. Under Section 4 of the said Act, gender-based sexual harassment in public spaces includes: “unwanted and uninvited sexual actions or remarks against any person regardless of the motive for committing such action or remarks." The Respondent's statements fall squarely within the ambit of this definition. Delivered during a campaign activity and aimed at a vulnerable sector of society - the solo parents, his remarks were not only unsolicited and offensive, but also publicly disseminated in a manner that magnified their degrading impact. These are precisely the types of invasive and demeaning, expressions that the Safe Spaces Act seeks to eliminate. While this Commission does not rule on violations of the Safe Spaces ‘Act per se, its provisions serve as a persuasive interpretive framework in evaluating whether the Respondent's conduct constitutes an election offense under Section 261(e) of the OEC which penalizes acts that cause injury or disadvantage to a person’s honor or reputation in the context of the electoral process. The State has a compelling interest in ensuring that candidates do not weaponize speech to intimidate, shame, or dehumanize sectors of the electorate, especially in ways that undermine the dignity of women and marginalized groups. The Respondent's conduct, when viewed through this lens, not only violates the spirit of the Safe Spaces Act but also offends the values that underlie our election laws. Considering that the Commission (Second Division) has found the Respondent to have violated Section 261(e) of the OEC, the consequence under Section 68 of the same Code is unequivocal. Section 68 provides that: “SECTION 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (¢) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 andSPA 25-001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. x x x" (Emphasis ours) Pursuant to the clear and mandatory language of Section 68, the Respondent is hereby rendered disqualified from continuing as a candidate. Finally, this Commission (Second Division) underscores that those who seek public office are expected to uphold not only the law, but also the values of integrity, respect, and accountability that are foundational to public service. Public office is a public trust! It is a responsibility, not a privilege, and those who aspire to it must conduct themselves in a manner worthy of the confidence of the people. The Respondent's public remarks, laden with sexist, objectifying, and demeaning language, did not merely reflect poor judgment. They revealed a troubling lack of respect for human dignity and a serious disregard for the standards of decency and ethical conduct expected of anyone seeking public office. These were nol isolated slips of the tongue; they were deliberate, public statements made during official campaign activities that caused injury to the honor and emotional well-being of specific individuals, particularly women. As the Supreme Court aptly held in Romulo L. Neri v. Office of the Ombudsman": “The Constitution and our laws demand a high standard of ethics and integrity from public officials and employees. Those who fall short of this standard and diminish the people’s confidence in the government shall meet the just punishment meted out by the law.” This principle resonates with particular force in this case. The Respondent's conduct not only fell short of the high ethical standard demanded by law - it undermined the dignity of the electoral process itself. Elections are not meant to be a platform for mockery or harassment. They are a solemn opportunity for the people to choose leaders who will uphold the values of respect, decency, and public service. When a candidate uses that moment to demean others, he shows not only poor judgment but a fundamental unfitness to lead. It bears emphasis that the Respondent is not an ordinary individual making offhand remarks in private; he is a candidate actively seeking the privilege of holding public office. As such, his words and actions carry Article XI, Section 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution » GR. No, 212467, July 05, 2021SPA 25-001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division public consequence. The standards of conduct for those aspiring to be elected in office are no less stringent than for those already serving in the government. The character of a candidate is as critical as his platform, for it is through his behavior that the public gauges his fitness to lead. When a candidate uses his platform to demean, ridicule, or harass others, he shows himself unworthy of the trust and responsibility that public office demands. This is precisely why Section 261(e) of the Omnibus Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 11116 exist: to ensure that those who aspire to be elected do not pursue public office at the expense of others’ dignity. Respondent's remarks, committed during campaign activities, were not only inappropriate, but unlawful and offensive to the principles that guide fair and respectful elections, His statements fall far below the standards required of those who wish to serve the people. Public office demands better and the people deserve no less WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Commission (Second Division) RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES to GRANT the Petition. Accordingly, Respondent is hereby DISQUALIFIED from continuing, as a candidate for Member, House of Representatives, Lone Legislative District of Pasig City, in relation to the 2025 National and Local Elections. In the event that the Respondent nonetheless obtains the highest number of votes, his proclamation shall be SUSPENDED until the final resolution of this case. Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Law Department of the Commission for the initiation of appropriate proceedings for the election offense. SO ORDERED. NEESON J. CELIS CommissionerSPA 25-001 (DC)(MP) Resolution Second Division CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the conclusions in the foregoing Resolution were reached in consultation between the members of the Commission before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Commission (Second Division). Presy bioner 10