You are on page 1of 11

ARTICLE XXI.

Jurisdiction of Comelec:
ELECTION CONTESTS Reyes v. Comelec
Which has jurisdiction when a candidate took
Sec. 249. Jurisdiction of the Commission. his oath and assumed the office and have been
- The Commission shall be the sole judge of all proclaimed as the winner?
contests relating to the elections, returns, and A: It depends on the position:
qualifications of all Members of the Batasang If he is a barangay official, MTC.
Pambansa, elective regional, provincial and If he is municipal official, RTC.
city officials. (appeal is to the COMELEC, the appeal should
be affirmed)
Sec. 250. Election contests for Batasang If he is a provincial official, COMELEC (final)
Pambansa, regional, provincial and city Appeal: Certiorari, under Rule 64, Supreme
offices. - A sworn petition contesting the Court.
election of any Member of the Batasang
Pambansa or any regional, provincial or city Velasco v. Belmonte
official shall be filed with the Commission by Disqualification before his assumption of office
any candidate who has duly filed a certificate but the Speaker of the House received such
of candidacy and has been voted for the same notice of disqualification after he assumed the
office, within ten days after the proclamation office and taken his oath: HRET
of the results of the election. There can be no valid assumption of office
since the COC was cancelled way before the
Sec. 251. Election contests for municipal assumption of office and according to the SC
offices. - A sworn petition contesting the the earliest possible time the HRET
election of a municipal officer shall be filed assumption of office is as of June 30 next
with the proper regional trial court by any following the election.
candidate who has duly filed a certificate of How about if he is disqualified after the
candidacy and has been voted for the same assumption of office, which has jurisdiction?
office, within ten days after proclamation of HRET shall take the jurisdiction.
the results of the election. What if the COMELEC issued an order of
decision disqualifying the candidate before his
Sec. 252. Election contest for barangay assumption of duty, however before the
offices. - A sworn petition contesting the Speaker of the House ordered the disqualifying
election of a barangay officer shall be filed with decision, the member took his oath of office,
the proper municipal or metropolitan trial court has been proclaimed and assumed position,
by any candidate who has duly filed a which has jurisdiction?
certificate of candidacy and has been voted for Still, the HRET because of the assumption of
the same office, within ten days after the office.
proclamation of the results of the election. The
trial court shall decide the election protest Legaspi v. COMELEC
within fifteen days after the filing thereof. The First Scenario:
decision of the municipal or metropolitan trial In original case, if the necessary majority
court may be appealed within ten days from cannot be had, after rehearing the case with
receipt of a copy thereof by the aggrieved the same result, the original case shall be
party to the regional trial court which shall dismissed and it should be qualified.
decide the case within thirty days from its
submission, and whose decisions shall be Second Scenario:
final. If its on appeal, the appealed decision shall be
affirmed.
(ex: decision of the RTC shall be affirmed)

Third Scenario:
All incidental matters shall be denied.
1
Ex: Such as Temporary Restraining Order support the application for membership in the
holding abeyance of the proclamation of the KK, the original or certified true copy of birth
candidate. certificate or any valid ID or any legal
= The candidate shall be proclaimed. document indicating the date of birth shall be
When the necessary majority cannot be had, presented. The Registry of Barangay
then it shall be denied. Inhabitants (RBI) shall be used as reference
for residency of the applicant.
Former Ruling:
It applied the original case, applying the first SC: The OEC has empowered the COMELEC to
scenario, wherein it was dismissed. They always change deadlines.
granted the disqualification and it was brought Even though the law set it to 90 days, and the
to the en banc for MR. COMELEC changed it to 120 days. (an earlier
Motion for reconsideration is a continuation of deadline).
the original case, from the first division to the
en banc, the en banc deliberation is not anew
deliberation but a continuation of the
Main Issue: How political parties affect
deliberation of the special first division,
candidates?
dismissing the disqualification of the
candidate.
In a party list system, political parties cannot
seat as an entity or seat in a government
Present Ruling:
EXCEPT their representatives.
The MR is only an incidental matter, then we
applied the third scenario, which is dismissal
Exception: Party List System in Election
when the necessary majority cannot be had.
wherein political parties can be elected in their
The decision of the COMELEC is disqualifying
own names and represent their principles.
the candidate and the MR which is an
incidental matter is denied.
OEC, Sec. 70. Guest candidacy/ political
butterflies (not a member of the party) – a
Qualification and Disqualification of
political party may nominate and/or support
VOTERS
candidates not belonging to it.
Section 4, RA 10742
As to Sangguniang Kabataan..
Third Notice Rule
A candidate for an elective position is allowed
RULE II THE KATIPUNAN NG KABATAAN
can change affiliation within one (1) year prior
AND THE SANGGUNIANG KABATAAN
to such election.
SECTION. 4. Katipunan ng Kabataan
(KK). – (a) There shall be in every barangay
Sec 71. (Struck Sec. 71.)
a KK to be composed of all citizens of the
It is no longer binding, because the OEC was
Philippines residing in the barangay for at least
enacted in 1985 but after the EDSA
six (6) months, who are fifteen (15) but not
Revolution, the 1973 Constitution was revised.
more than thirty (30) years of age, and who
The 1987 Constitution encourages the free
are duly registered in the list of voters of the
system of election, it was actually held in cases
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and/or
that candidates can change in a political party
based on the list of members of the KK under
even it is within the one (1) year prescriptive
the custody of the secretary of the SK. The
period, that is a lot of candidates shifted
rules and procedures to be followed in the
political parties.
registration of voters, in connection with the
SK election shall be in accordance with existing
The latest possible that candidates can change
laws.
political party is the filing of the COC
because the Certification of Nomination and
(b) The secretary of the SK shall continuously
Acceptance (CONA) should be attached or filed
update the list of members of the KK. To
2
with the COC simultaneously with the filing of threshold is only constitutional as to the
the COC. qualifying seat but not unconstitutional in
additional seat and the 20% allocation is
NOTE: mandatory. Provided further that after
A candidate under a political party, is not applying the 2% threshold in the qualified and
precluded from changing the political system. additional seats, there are still unfilled seats,
1987 Constitution: Article 9-C, Sec. 6. and such seats can be distributed to those who
SECTION 6. A free and open party system shall garnered less than the 2% threshold.
be allowed to evolve according to the free
choice of the people, subject to the provisions Atom Paglaum v. Comelec
of this Article. What are the three (3) kinds of Party-Lists
(note)
Four Parameters of the Party List:
1. 20% Allocation NOTE: A major political party can join the
2. 2% Threshold (1/6) party-lists, requisites:
3. 3/6 Seat Rule (Three Seat Limit Rule)
4. Proportional Representation 1. GR: He should not be a candidate in any
legislative district.
Veterans Party v. Comelec
Issue: Whether or not the 20% allocation is Q: If the major political party has a candidate
only mandatory or only a ceiling of any legislative district, is there any way that
party can join?
Comelec Veterans Ruling is A: Yes, the political party can join by
unconstitutional. It is ceiling. The 2% seat is registering a sectoral party that can
constitutional as to guaranteed seats but not separately register under the party list system,
as to additional seats. the sectoral wing is by itself an independent
sectoral party and is linked to a political party
NOTE: through a coalition.
The old Comelec formula is 2%, means one
(1) seat in Congress. (Panganiban Formula) Lokin v. Comelec
3 instances party list organization can replace
Recent Ruling: or substitute their nominees submitted to
In Banat v. Comelec: They changed the COMELEC:
allocation to fill in the 20%.
1. the 20% allocation is now mandatory (new 1. Death
formula) 2. Withdrawal by the nominee himself
3. Incapacity
(old formula: Comelec formula / Panganiban
Formula = 2% = one seat / divisible by 2) Qualifications of Elective officials:7160,
LGC
2. the 2% threshold is constitutional only as
to qualifying seat but not unconstitutional TITLE II
in additional seat in order to fill in the 59 ELECTIVE OFFICIALS
seats, which distributed all the excess down
the line. CHAPTER I
Qualifications and Election
Q: Can a party list have a seat in Congress
even though it has a less than the 2% SEC. 39. Qualifications. –
threshold? (a) An elective local official must be a citizen
of the Philippines; a registered voter in the
A: Yes, it can have a seat in Congress, in the barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in
case of Banat, the SC ruled that the 2% the case of a member of the sangguniang
3
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or day of the election; and able to read and write
sanggunian bayan, the district where he Filipino or any other local language or dialect.
intends to be elected; a resident therein for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the Q: Can a person who is 18 yrs old run as a
day of the election; and able to read and write mayor in Nueva Ecija
Filipino or any other local language or dialect. A: No because he must be 21 years of age.

(b) Candidates for the position of governor, Q: Suppose a person is a native Chinese, but
vice- governor or member of the sangguniang a naturalized and he wants to run as a mayor
panlalawigan, or Mayor, vice-mayor or and a legislative representative, what will be
member of the sangguniang panlungsod of your advise?
highly urbanized cities must be at least A: As counsel I will advise him that as to the
twenty-three (23) years of age on election position of the house of rep, he can’t run
day. because he should be a natural-born.
But he can run as Mayor since what is only
(c) Candidates for the position of Mayor or required is that he must be a Filipino citizen.
vice-mayor of independent component cities,
component cities, or municipalities must be at Q: A person who is 24 yrs old who just
least twenty-one (21) years of age on celebrated his birthday and he is
election day.c contemplating of running as a kagawad or SK
chairman?
(d) Candidates for the position of member of
the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang A: As a lawyer, I will advise him that:
bayan must be at least eighteen (18) years
of age on election day. As to SK chairman, he cannot run…
Sec. 39 (f) Candidates for the sangguniang
(e) Candidates for the position of punong kabataan must be at least fifteen (18) years
barangay or member of the sangguniang of age but not more than thirty (24)
barangay must be at least eighteen (18) years of age on election day. (superseded
years of age on election day. through an SK law)

(f) Candidates for the sangguniang kabataan As to Kagawad, he may run..


must be at least fifteen (18) years of age Sec. 39 (e) Candidates for the position of
but not more than thirty (24) years of punong barangay or member of the
age on election day. (superseded through an sangguniang barangay must be at least
SK law) eighteen (18) years of age on election day.

Q: A person who cannot speak Filipino but can Frivaldo (American citizenship)
speak fluent Ilocano or Chinese and a Filipino In all positions, there are basic five (5) basic
citizen, can run in one of the municipalities in qualifications:
Ilocos Sur as Mayor? 1. citizenship
2. age
A: Yes, because: 3. residency/address
SEC. 39. Qualifications. – 4. registered voter
(a) An elective local official must be a citizen 5. literacy: able to read and write
of the Philippines; a registered voter in the **The qualification is a continuing
barangay, municipality, city, or province or, in requirement.
the case of a member of the sangguniang
panlalawigan, sangguniang panlungsod, or NOTE: When you run for the positions it is
sanggunian bayan, the district where he presumed that you possess the qualifications.
intends to be elected; a resident therein for at
least one (1) year immediately preceding the
4
Q: If ever you loose one of the qualifications, Constitution. It strongly prohibits the SK
can someone challenge your qualification? candidacy of someone who has at most
second degree relationship with an incumbent
A: Yes, because according to SC, the official from the local to the national level.
qualifications set by law is a continuing
requirement and could not be lost even during Social Justice Society v. Dangerous
the period that you are serving. If during the Drugs
period while you are serving you become a Sen. Pimentel questioned the constitutionality
citizen of another country, then you are no for qualification of undergoing the drug test
longer qualified. An interested party can under the Dangerous Drug Act because it is
question your position. requiring candidates to undergo drug testing.

Hayudini v. COMELEC SC: It is unconstitutional because adding


additional to the requirements stated in the
Q: Suppose there is a defect in the COC, and Constitution is considered as a nullity.
the COC was not notarized, and it was
discovered after the election process. His Who are Filipino Citizens?
opponent filed a case to question his Section 1. The following are citizens of the
qualification. Can his opponent question his Philippines:
holding of the position considering that he [1] Those who are citizens of the Philippines
already won the position? (W/N an election at the time of the adoption of this
can cure the defect) Constitution;

A: It depends whether or not the defect [2] Those whose fathers or mothers are
referes to disqualification refers to citizens of the Philippines;
qualification or to a material defect. If the
defect refers to any of the qualifications [3] Those born before January 17, 1973, of
(citizenship, age residency/address, registered Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
voter and literacy: able to read and write), citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
even if the person has been elected it cannot and
cure the defect and his position can be
challenged every time. NOTE: The person must elect Philippine
citizenship within the period of three (3) years
But if the defect refers to material defect upon reaching the age of majority beyond
(material representation) such as taking an that he cannot be considered as natural-born
oath of office, the SC said that in this case, the Filipino.
defect is cured by his election. An election can
cure the defect. Any defect for as long as it is [4] Those who are naturalized in accordance
not disqualification can be cured by an with law.
election.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those
Q: Can an SK official who won in the election who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
be disqualified based on a discovery that he is without having to perform any act to acquire
a son of the governor? Can the defect be cured or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
by the election? who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
A: NO, because the SK Reform Law deemed natural-born citizens.
enumerated as a qualification that, a son of
the governor is disqualified from running the Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or
election because it contains an anti-dynasty reacquired in the manner provided by law.
clause making it the first to comply
with Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine
5
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who need to trace the person’s origin, the mother
marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, or the father? (in order to prove that you one
unless by their act or omission, they are is not a Filipino: opponent) (in proving that a
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it. foundling is not a Filipino)

Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is A: BOTH mother and father, because if you
inimical to the national interest and shall be only prove through either the mother or the
dealt with by law. father, it shall be in favor of the foundling.

David v. SET
Q: Can a naturalized citizen of the Philippines Effect of RA 9225:
run as a member of House of Representatives Repatriation will have his former citizenship
of the Philippines?
The addition to Twin Requirements, is only
A: No, because according to the Constitution applicable to those who have dual citizenship
a person must be a natural-born Filipino by application of law.
because only paragraphs 1,2 and 3 are
natural-born Filipino and not paragraph 4. Twin Requirements after repatriation can run:
1. taking of oath of allegiance
Q: Can a naturalized Filipino run for Mayor? 2. personal and sworn of renunciation of
foreign citizenship
A: Yes, because the requirement is that a
person must only be a Filipino and not natural- Addition to Twin Requirements (now
born. Three Requirements):
3. Compliance to the requirements as a voter
Tecson v. COMELEC

SC: FPJ was a natural-born citizen. Cordora v. Comelec / Valles v. Comelec


Tambunting travels using an American
FPJ’s grandfather was a Filipino under the passport. He argues that he is a dual citizen
Treaty of Paris. Under that law it states that by birth.
all citizens residing in the Philippine islands is
a Spanish subject and are considered Filipino SC: Dual citizenship is not prohibited by law if
citizens. it is by operation of law and not because of a
person’s conduct. What is prohibited by law is
FPJ’s father is also a Filipino under the 1935 dual allegiance. Under the case, dual
Constitution and his father is a Filipino, hence allegiance means that there must be a positive
FPJ is a Filipino. act from the citizen to acquire citizenship. In
this case, Tambunting do not need to
Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec renounce his citizenship.

In international law, foundling’s citizenship is Sobejana-Condon v. Comelec


based on where the foundling was found and
thus such State must afford its protection. Sobejana: By signing the COC with the
statement below the COC is already a
David v. SET compliance of the renunciation required under
RA 9225.
Q: Is Grace-Poe a natural born Filipino?
A: YES NOTE: This contention is untenable because
that is only applicable to those with dual
Q: In order to disprove the citizenship of a citizenship by operation of law.
foundling, who among his parents does one
6
The third requirement in which a person who A: NO, he must establish his residency after
is repatriated to require a person to comply taking his oath of allegiance.
with the requirement is only applicable to a
person who has become a dual citizen through Q: Can that person, before getting his
naturalization in a foreign country. If he Philippine citizenship establish his residency in
became a dual citizen by operation of law or the Philippines?
by birth (jus solis) then the third requirement
is not necessary. When will the counting of residency reckon, is
it from the moment I after I decided to reside
Maquiling v. Comelec in the Philippines or after regained my
citizenship as a Filipino?
Q: Is the act of using a foreign passport after
repatriation divests a person his Philippine A: NO, a person before repatriation cannot
citizenship? legally establish residency in the Philippines
because he is still considered an alien.
A: NO. After repatriation, a person who uses a
foreign passport does not divest him his The reckon will start after his application for
Philippine citizenship. repatriation has been approved.

Q: What is the effect now of using his passport Garvida v. Sales


after regaining his Philippine citizenship? (now: 15 – 30 yrs. old)
The phrase "not more than 21 years of age"
A: It does not affect his Philippine citizenship. means not over 21 years, not beyond 21 years.
What it affects is his renunciation of the It means 21 365-day cycles. It does not mean
foreign citizenship because it recants to his 21 years and one or some days or a fraction of
disqualification in running for an office. a year because that would be more than 21
365-day cycles. "Not more than 21 years old"
Sabili vs. COMELEC 69:11 is not equivalent to "less than 22 years old,"
contrary to petitioner's claims. The law does
KINDS OF DOMICILE: not state that the candidate be less than 22
1. Domicile of Origin (it refers to where your years on Election Day.
parents reside)
2. Domicile of Choice (it refers to the place Albania v. Comelec
where he desires to live)
3. Domicile by Operation of Law (it refers Q: Suppose a person has already served full
when a woman lives by reason of marriage) three term as mayor, can he run again as
mayor? Is that a disqualification or ineligibility?
To establish a new domicile of choice,
personal presence in the place must be A: It is a disqualification.
coupled with conduct indicative of the
intention to make it one's fixed and permanent Q: Suppose a person already served two (2)
place of abode. As in all administrative cases, terms as a mayor, for six years, and on the
the quantum of proof necessary in election third time, he won again as a mayor but
cases is substantial evidence, or such someone filed a case against him in the office
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will of the Ombudsman.
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. He has been suspended for six months. He
regained his position but it was interrupted by
Caballero vs. Comelec the period of six months, now here comes the
next election and he wants to run for the same
Q: Can a person establish his residency long position? Can he run for the same position
before he applies for repatriation? Can he do considering that he has preventive suspension
that? on his third term?
7
A: He can no longer run for reelection Q: Suppose a mayor of the municipality in
because the preventive suspension in this case Laguna was elected before his third term, but
did not interrupt his term of service as the on his third term the municipality was
elective officer’s continued stay and abolished through a law and it was converted
entitlement to office remain unaffected during into a city. Does the abolition of the LGU was
the period of suspension. considered to be an interruption so that he can
again run?
Q: Suppose a person won in an election but
after the election, few months serving as A: No, it is not an interruption of the official’s
mayor, his opponent filed an election protest continuity of service.
because there was a massive cheating in the
area. In the middle of his term, the mayor was Jalosjos vs. Comelec
adjudged to be guilty of the charge and the While Section 40(a) of the LGC allows a prior
protestant was adjudged to be the rightful convict to run for local elective office after the
winner. So he only served for only 1 ½ year lapse of two (2) years from the time he serves
as a mayor. Is that considered one full term? his sentence, the said provision should not be
deemed to cover cases wherein the law
A: When a candidate is proclaimed as winner imposes a penalty, either as principal or
for an elective position and assumes office, his accessory, which has the effect of disqualifying
term is interrupted when he loses in an the convict to run for elective office.
election protest and is ousted from office, thus
disenabling him from serving what would Tagolino v. HRET
otherwise be the unexpired portion of his term It must be stressed that one who is
of office had the protest been dismissed. disqualified under Section 68 is still technically
considered to have been a candidate, albeit
Q: Suppose a mayor died and by succession proscribed to continue as such only because of
the vice-mayor succeeded and served as a supervening infractions which do not,
mayor until May next year? Can he not run, however, deny his or her statutory eligibility. In
because that is already considered one term other words, while the candidate’s compliance
having served two terms? with the eligibility requirements as prescribed
by law, such as age, residency, and citizenship,
A: He can still run because for a term to be is not in question, he or she is, however,
considered not full, there must be an ordered to discontinue such candidacy as a
interruption. form of penal sanction brought by the
He just assumed the position by operation of commission of the above-mentioned election
law because of succession. offenses.

How do you determine whether or not On the other hand, a denial of due course to
there is no interruption? and/or cancellation of a CoC proceeding under
1. the person has been elected for the position Section 78 of the OEC is premised on a
2. he has fully served the term. person’s misrepresentation of any of the
material qualifications required for the elective
Q: Suppose a mayor was elected for three office aspired for. It is not enough that a
consecutive terms and on the third term the person lacks the relevant qualification; he or
election for recall was approved. Does the she must have also made a false
recall interrupt his term? representation of the same in the CoC.

A: Yes it is an interruption in the continuity of Risos-Vidal vs. Comelec


his official’s service. For he had become an
interim, i.e. from the end of the 3rd term up to One of the contentions here is that the pardon
the recall election, a private citizen. given to Estrada is not absolute but conditional
8
which do not restore his political rights as to from office as a result of an administrative
the whereas clause, where Mayor Estrada no offense that would disqualify a candidate from
longer sits in public office. running for any elective local position. In fact,
the penalty of suspension cannot be a bar to
A: The whereas clause is not part of the the candidacy of the respondent so suspended
pardon given by the President. as long as he meets the qualifications for the
office as provided under Section 66(b) of R.A.
JALOSJOS VS. COMELEC: No. 7160, to wit:
SEC. 40. Disqualifications. The following
SEC. 66. Form and Notice of Decision.- x x x
persons are disqualified from running for any
elective local position: (b) The penalty of suspension shall not exceed
the unexpired term of the respondent or a
(a) Those sentenced by final judgment for an period of six (6) months for every
offense involving moral turpitude or for an administrative offense, nor shall said penalty
offense punishable by one (1) year or more of be a bar to the candidacy of the respondent so
imprisonment, within two (2) years after suspended as long as he meets the
serving sentence qualifications for the office.

ART. 30. Effects of the penalties of perpetual Morales vs. CA


or temporary absolute disqualification. - The
penalties of perpetual or temporary absolute Doctrine of Condonation- The Court should
disqualification for public office shall produce never remove a public officer for acts done
the following effects: prior to his present term of office. To do
otherwise would be to deprive the people of
The deprivation of the right to vote in any their right to elect their officers. When the
election for any popular office or to be elected people have elected a man to office, it
to such office. must be assumed that they did this with
knowledge of his life and character, and
Section 40(a) of the LGC should be considered that they disregarded or forgave his
as a law of general application and therefore, faults or misconduct, if he had been
must yield to the more definitive RPC guilty of any. It is not for the court, by
provisions in line with the principle of lex reason of such faults or misconduct to
specialis derogat generali general legislation practically overrule the will of the people.
must give way to special legislation on the
same subject, and generally is so interpreted Q: What is the rationale why Doctrine of
as to embrace only cases in which the special Condonation is abandoned?
provisions are not applicable. In particular,
while Section 40(a) of the LGC allows a prior A: Since the doctrine of condonation
convict to run for local elective office after the condoned all administrative cases after
lapse of two (2) years from the time he serves election, and applying it, all pending cases
his sentence, the said provision should not be against the candidate will be dismissed.
deemed to cover cases wherein the law
imposes a penalty, either as principal or If the case prospers, his offense is still a
accessory, which has the effect of disqualifying ground for disqualification.
the convict to run for elective office.
Petition for disqualification (sec 68) vs.
Albania vs. Comelec Petition to deny due course to or Cancel
(b) Those removed from office as a result of COC for False material Representation in
an administrative case; xxx the COC (Sec. 78)
Respondent's suspension from office is indeed A petition to cancel a candidate’s COC may be
not a ground for a petition for disqualification filed under Section 78 of the OEC which
as Section 40(b) clearly speaks of removal provides:
9
SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or in the first place.
cancel a certificate of candidacy. — A
verified petition seeking to deny due course or Under the Omnibus Election Code,
to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be disqualification is provided under Section 68
filed by any person exclusively on the ground (pursuant to Section 77), while cancellation is
that any material representation contained provided under Section 78. Section 77
therein as required under Section 74 hereof is expressly enumerates the instances where
false. The petition may be filed at any substitution is permissible, that is when an
time not later than twenty-five days from the official candidate of a registered or accredited
time of the filing of the certificate of political party "dies, withdraws or is
candidacyand shall be decided, after due disqualified for any cause." Noticeably,
notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days “material misrepresentation” cases are
before the election. (Underlining supplied.) not included in the said section and
A petition for disqualification of a therefore, cannot be a valid basis to
candidate may also be filed pursuant to proceed with candidate substitution.
Section 68 of the same Code which states:
RA 6646 (The electoral reform law of
SEC. 68. Disqualifications. — Any 1987), sec. 6;
candidate who, in an action or protest in which
he is a party is declared by final decision of a Effect of Disqualification Case.— Any
competent court guilty of, or found by the candidate who has been declared by final
Commission of having: (a) given money or judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted
other material consideration to influence, for, and the votes cast for him shall not be
induce or corrupt the voters or public officials counted. If for any reason a candidate is not
performing electoral functions; (b) committed declared by final judgment before an election
acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) to be disqualified and he is voted for and
spent in his election campaign an amount in receives the winning number of votes in such
excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) election, the Court or Commission shall
solicited, received or made any contribution continue with the trial and hearing of the
prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of
104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, the complainant or any intervenor, may during
86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub- the pendency thereof order the suspension of
paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from the proclamation of such candidate whenever
continuing as a candidate, or if he has been the evidence of his guilt is strong.
elected, from holding the office. Any person
who is a permanent resident of or an Grego vs. COMELEC
immigrant to a foreign country shall not be This provision, however, does not support
qualified to run for any elective office under petitioners contention that the COMELEC, or
this Code, unless said person has waived his more properly speaking, the Manila City BOC,
status as permanent resident or immigrant of should have suspended the proclamation. The
a foreign country in accordance with the use of the word may indicates that the
residence requirement provided for in the suspension of a proclamation is merely
election laws. directory and permissive in nature and
operates to confer discretion. What is merely
Tagolino vs. HRET made mandatory, according to the provision
A substitution is only valid when the candidate itself, is the continuation of the trial and
is disqualified. If the candidate to be hearing of the action, inquiry or protest. Thus,
substituted made material misrepresentation in view of this discretion granted to the
in his CoC, it will result to a denial of due COMELEC, the question of whether or not
course/ cancellation of CoC. In disqualification, evidence of guilt is so strong as to warrant
there is a candidate to be substituted. In suspension of proclamation must be left for its
cancellation, there is no candidate to speak of own determination and the Court cannot
10
interfere therewith and substitute its own
judgment unless such discretion has been
exercised whimsically and capriciously.

Sunga vs. COMELEC


Clearly, the legislative intent is that the
COMELEC should continue the trial and
hearing of the disqualification case to its
conclusion, i.e., until judgment is rendered
thereon. The word "shall" signifies that this
requirement of the law is mandatory,
operating to impose a positive duty which
must be enforced. The implication is that the
COMELEC is left with no discretion but to
proceed with the disqualification case even
after the election. Thus, in providing for the
outright dismissal of the disqualification case
which remains unresolved after the election,
Silvestre v. Duavit in effect disallows what RA
No. 6646 imperatively requires.

Nolasco vs. COMELEC


Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 and sections 4 and
5 of the Rule 25 of the Comelec Rules of
Procedure merely require that evidence of
guilt should be strong to justify the COMELEC
in suspending a winning candidate's
proclamation. It ought to be emphasized that
the suspension order is provisional in nature
and can be lifted when the evidence so
warrants. It is akin to a temporary restraining
order which a court can issue ex-parte under
exigent circumstances.

Aquino vs. Comelec


Under the above-quoted provision, not only is
a disqualification case against a candidate
allowed to continue after the election (and
does not oust the COMELEC of its jurisdiction),
but his obtaining the highest number of votes
will not result in the suspension or termination
of the proceedings against him when the
evidence of guilt is strong. As petitioner clearly
lacks one of the essential qualifications for
running for membership in the House of
Representatives, not even the will of a
majority or plurality of the voters of the
Second District of Makati City would substitute
for a requirement mandated by the
fundamental law itself.

11