You are on page 1of 2

DISQUALIFICATION

OF

CANDIDATES

1.

Grounds

Violation

of

Omnibus

Election

Code

Sec.

68

Giving money or other material consideration to influence


voters or public officials performing electoral functions
Committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy
Spending in his election campaign in excess of the amount
allowed
by
the
Code
Soliciting, receiving or making any prohibited contribution
Violations of Secs. 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v
and
cc,
sub-paragraph
6.
Nuisance

candidate

Sec.

The COMELEC may motu propio refuse to give due course or


cancel a certificate of candidacy. (Sec. 69, BP 881)
The proceeding shall be summary. (Nolasco vs. COMELEC,
275
SCRA
762)
The COMELEC can decide a disqualification case directly
without referring it to its legal officers for investigation.
(Nolasco,
supra)
The decision shall be final and executory after 5 days from
receipt unless stayed by the Supreme Court [Secs. 5(e) and 7,
RA
6646]

69
EFFECTS

A petition to disqualify a candidate for councilor for failure to


indicate in his certificate of candidacy the precinct number and
the barangay as a registered voter cannot be considered a
petition to disqualify him for being a nuisance candidate, since
his certificate was not filed to make mockery of the election or
to confuse the voters. (Jurilla vs. COMELEC, 232 SCRA 758)
Falsity of material representation in certificate of candidacy.
Sec.
78
The COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition to disqualify a
candidate for congressman for ineligibility before he has been
proclaimed and has assumed office (Marcos vs. COMELEC,
248 SCRA 300; Aquino vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400)
2.

Procedure

for

disqualification

of

candidates

The petition shall be filed by any registered candidate for the


same Office within 5 days from the last day of filing of
certificates of Candidacy. (Secs. 5a and 7, RA 6646)
Under the election laws and the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure, any voter may file a petition to disqualify a
candidate on grounds provided by law. (Torayno vs.COMELEC,
337
SCRA
574)
The fact that no docket fee was initially paid is not fatal. The
Procedural defect as cured by the subsequent payment of the
docket fee. (Sunga vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 76)
A petition filed after the election is filed out of time. (Loong
vs.COMELEC,
216
SCRA
769)
Since the filing by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned and
a facsimile copy is not an original pleading, a petition for
disqualification should be deemed filed upon the filing of the
original petition. (Garvida vs. Sales, 271 SCRA 764)
Where a qualified candidate was replaced on the day before
the election, a petition to disqualify the replacement filed on
election day should be entertained, as it was impossible to file
the petition earlier. (Abella vs. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509)

OF

DISQUALIFICATION

CASE

After final judgment -Any candidate who has been declared by


final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the
votes
cast
for
him
shall
not
be
counted.
Before final judgment If for any reason a candidate is not
declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified
and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in
such election the Court or Commission shall continue with the
trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon
motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may, during the
tendency thereof, order the suspension of the proclamation of
such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. (Sec.
6,
RA
6646)
The purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the
candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to
prosecute him for violation of election laws. The fact that a
candidate has been proclaimed and had assumed the position
to which he was elected does not divest the COMELEC of
authority and jurisdiction to continue the hearing and eventually
decide the disqualification. The COMELEC should not dismiss
the case simply because the respondent has been proclaimed.
(Sunga vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76 and Lonzanida vs.
COMELEC,
311
SCRA
617)
Sec. 6 of RA 6616 authorizes the continuation of proceedings
for disqualification even after the elections if the respondent has
not been proclaimed. (Perez vs. COMELEC, 317 SCRA 641)
A disqualification case may have
administrative, which required only a
evidence to prove disqualification, and
necessitates proof beyond reasonable

two aspects, the


preponderance of
the criminal, which
doubt to convict.

There is no provision in RA 6646 that treats of a situation where


the complaint for disqualification is filed after the election. . . .
Second paragraph of paragraph 2 of Res. No. 2050 provides
that where a complaint is filed after the election but before
proclamation, as in this case, the complaint must be dismissed

as a disqualification case but shall be referred to the Law


Department
for
preliminary
investigation.
Why there is a difference between a petition for disqualifications
before and after the election proceeds from the fact that before
the electorate and those who vote for the candidate assume the
risk that should said candidate be disqualified after the election,
their votes would be declared stray or invalid votes and that
would not be true in the case of one filed after the electorate
has already voted . . . (Bagatsing vs. COMELEC, 320 SCRA
817)
The COMELEC can legally suspend the proclamation of the
winning candidate although he received the winning number of
votes.(Labo
vs.
COMELEC,
211
SCRA
297).
The use of the word may, indicates that the suspension of the
proclamation is merely directory and permissive in nature and
operates to confer discretion. What is made mandatory is the
continuation of the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or
protest. Since the suspension of the proclamation is merely
permissive, the proclamation of a candidate is valid, if the
COMELEC did not suspend his proclamation. (Grego vs.
COMELEC,
274
SCRA
481)
Under the same provision, intervention may be allowed in
proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has
yet no final judgment rendered. (Mercado vs. Mazano, 307
SCRA
630)
Where the votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose
disqualification had not yet become final on election day were
tallied separately, they should be counted in favor of the
petitioner. (Bautista vs. COMELEC, 298, SCRA 480)