Admin Law Reviewer
Prepared By: Cornel and De Paz
Week XVI
II. Eligibility of Candidates
A. CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
A Certificate of candidacy evidences
candidate’s statutory eligibility to be
elected for an elective post. It is the
document which formally accords
upon a person the status of a
candidate. (Tagolino v. HRET and
Lucy Torres-Gomez, G.R. No. 202202,
March 19. 2013)
The certificate of candidacy shall be
filed by the candidate personally or
by his duly authorized
representative at any day from the
commencement of the election
period but not later than the day
before the beginning of the
campaign period. In cases of
postponement or failure of election,
no additional certificate of candidacy
shall be accepted except in cases of
substitution of candidates.
(OEC,Sec. 75)
B. PETITION FOR
DISQUALIFICATION
It is the remedy against any
candidate who does not possess all
the qualifications required by the
Constitution or law, or who commits
any act declared by law to be
grounds for disqualification.
Grounds:
1. Any person who has been declared
by competent authority insane or
incompetent, or has been sentenced
by final judgment for subversion,
insurrection, rebellion, or for any
offense for which he has been
sentenced to a penalty of more than
18 months or for a crime involving
moral turpitude (OEC, Sec. 12);
2. Any candidate who, in action or
protest in which he is a party, is
declared by final decision guilty of or
found by COMELEC of having:
a. Given money or other material
consideration to influence,
induce or corrupt the voters of
public officials performing
electoral functions;
b. Committed acts of terrorism to
enhance his candidacy;
c. Spent in his election campaign
an amount in excess of the
allowed; and
d. Solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under
the Omnibus Election Code.
(OEC, Sec. 68)
3. Any person who is a permanent
resident of or an immigrant to a
foreign country, unless said person
has waived his status as permanent
resident or immigrant of a foreign
country. (OEC, Sec. 68)
CASE: SINACA vs. MULA
There was substantial compliance with the
above said requirements. EMMANUEL was
properly nominated as substitute candidate
by the LAKAS party MATUGAS wing to
which TEODORO, the disqualified
candidate, belongs. That EMMANUEL is
a bona fide member of the LAKAS party is
shown not only by the certificate of
membership, which is being controverted
for having been presented as new evidence
for the first time before this court, but more
importantly by his certificate of candidacy
filed before the COMELEC stating therein
that he belongs to the LAKAS party
Where can there be Substitution?
1. Death - until the mid date of the
election
2. Withdrawal - until required period
3. Disqualification - until the mid date
of the election-
CASE: MIRANDA VS. ABAYA
1. Substitution is not allowed on
individual candidates beyond the
period required by law unless in
case of death
2. What Pempe filed is not a COC for
substitution, but is an original COC
which can only be filed during the
period of filing of the COC.
CASE: CAASI vs. COMELEC
For a candidate to be qualified, a green card
holder must waive his status as a
permanent resident or immigrant of a
foreign country. Therefore, his act of filing a
COC did not of itself constitutes resident of
the United States.
Absent clear evidence that he made an
irrevocable waiver of that status or that he
surrendered his green card, the SC
concluded that he was disqualified to run
for said office.
CASE: VILLABER vs. COMELEC
The presence of the second element
manifests moral turpitude. Conviction for
violation of B.P. BIg. 22 "imports deceit"
and "certainly relates to and affects the
good moral character of a person". It
transcends the private interests of the
parties directly involved in the transaction
and touches the interests of the community
at large
CASE: BAGATSING vs. COMELEC
The mere filing of a petition for
disqualification is not a ground to suspend
the proclamation of the winning candidate.
Instances when a Petition for
Disqualification may be Filed
1. Before the Election
The COMELEC shall order the
disqualification. In case the
complaint was not resolved before
the election, the COMELEC may
motu proprio or on motion of any of
the parties, refer the said complaint
to the Law Department of the
COMELEC for preliminary
investigation
2. After the Election
 Before Proclamation
The complaint shall be dismissed as
a qualification case but shall be
referred to Law Dept. for the
determination of guilt and if the
guilt is stong it may suspend the
proclamation.
 After
The complaint shall be dismissed as
a qualification case but shall be
referred to Law Dept. for the
determination of guilt and if the
guilt is stong it may suspend the
proclamation
CASE: PEREZ vs. COMMISSION
Motion for Reconsideration is allowed
before the COMELEC if the candidate was
not yet proclaimed.
The fact that a person is registered as a
voter in one district is not proof that he is
not domiciled in another district. Under the
law, what is required for the election of
governor is residency in the province, not in
any district or municipality, one year before
the election.
CASE: PANGILINAN vs. COMMISSION
The Constitution vests in the COMELEC
"exclusive original jurisdiction over all
contest relating to the elections, returns,
and qualifications of all elective regional,
provincial and city officials." It has no
jurisdiction over contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of
Members of the House of Representatives.
On the other hand, under Sec. 17, Article
VI of the 1987 Constitution, the Electoral
Tribunal of the House of Representatives is
the "sole judge of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications" of its
members. Consequently, the phrase
"including pre-proclamation controversies"
used in Sec. 3, Article IX-C of the
Constitution should be construed as
referring only to "pre-proclamation
controversies" in election cases that fall
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the COMELEC, i.e., election cases
pertaining to the election of regional,
provincial and city officials.
DOMINO, vs. COMELEC
The lease contract entered into sometime in
January 1997, does not adequately support
a change of domicile. The lease contract
may be indicative of DOMINO's intention to
reside in Sarangani but it does not
engender the kind of permanency required
to prove abandonment of one's original
domicile. The mere absence of individual
from his permanent residence, no matter
how long, without the intention to abandon
it does not result in loss or change of
domicile.
Domino's lack of intention to abandon his
residence in Quezon City is further
strengthened by his act of registering as
voter in one of the precincts in Quezon City.
While voting is not conclusive of residence,
it does give rise to a strong presumption of
residence especially in this case where
DOMINO registered in his former barangay.
C. PETITION TO DECLARE
NUISANCE
Any registered candidate for the
same office may file a petition to
declare a duly registered candidate
as a nuisance candidate, personally
or through duly authorized
representative with COMELEC,
within five days from the last day of
filing of Certificate of Cadidacy
Nuisance Candidate
Any person whose certificate of
candidacy has been filed to put the
election process in mockery or
disrepute or to cause confusion
among the voters by the similarity of
the names of the registered
candidates or by other
circumstances or acts which clearly
demonstrate that the candidate has
no bona fide intention to run for the
office for which the certificate of
candidacy has been filed and thus
prevent a faithful determination of
the true will of the electorate.
Grounds
The COMELEC may motu proprio or
upon verified petition refuse to give
due course to or cancel a certificate
of candidacy if shown that it was
filed to:
1. Put the election process in
mockery or disrepute;
2. Cause confusion among the
voters by the similarity of the
names of the registered
candidates; or
3. Clearly demonstrate that the
candidate has no bona fide
intention to run for the office
for which the COC has been
filed and thus prevent a
faithful determination of the
true will of the electorate.
(OEC, Sec. 69)
CASE: GARCIA vs. COMELEC
The assailed resolution would no longer be
of any practical use or value to private
respondent considering was Petitioner was
already proclaimed mayor of Tagig as early
as May 23, 1995, while the assailed
resolution was promulgated by respondent
COMELEC on June 30, 1995. Hence, the
case was moot and academic
PETITION TO PETITION FOR
DENY DUE DISQUALIFICATION
COURSE OR TO
CANCEL COC
Based on a Premised on Sec. 12
statement of a of OEC, or Sec. 40 of
material the LGC.
representation in
the said certificate
 that is false. assumed that the electorate knew who
The person whose A person who is private respondent was, not only by name,
certificate is disqualified under but also by face and may have even been
cancelled or denied Sec. 68 is merely personally acquainted with her since she
due course under prohibited to has been residing in the municipality of
Sec. 78 is not continue as a Sara, Iloilo since at least 1986. Bolstering
treated as a candidate. this assumption is the fact that she has
candidate at all, as been living with Neptali Salcedo, the mayor
if he never filed a of Sara for three consecutive terms, since
COC. 1970 and the latter has held her out to the
A person whose A candidate who is public as his wife.
COC has been disqualified under
denied due course Sec. 68 can be 2 Instances to Question a Candidate’s
or cancelled under validly substituted Qualification
Sec. 78 cannot be under Sec. 77 of the
substituted OEC because he 1. Before Election
because he is never remains a candidate Misrepresentation of a candidate on
considered as until disqualified.
the ground of his qualification such
candidate.
as residency, age, citizenship or any
other legal qualification necessary to
D. PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE run for a local elective office – Shall
OR TO CANCEL CANDIDACY be filed within 5 days after the filing
A verified petition seeking to deny of COC
due course to a certificate of 2. After the Election
candidacy may be filed by any Via Petition Quo Warranto on the
person exclusively on the ground grounds of:
that material representation  Ineligibility
regarding his qualification. The  Disloyalty to the Republic
petition may be filed not later than
25 days from the time of filing of the Material Misrepresentation
certificate of candidacy, and shall be
There must be a deliberate attempt to
decided, after due notice and
mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which
hearing, not later than 15 days
would otherwise render a candidate
before the election.
ineligible
CASE: SALCEDO II vs. COMMISSION

The use of a surname, when not intended CASE: TAGOLINO vs. HRET
to mislead or deceive the public as to ones
identity, is not within the scope of the A valid COC is a requisite for a valid
provision. substitution.

There is absolutely no showing that the Petition for Disqualification

inhabitants of Sara, Iloilo were deceived by
the use of such surname by private
respondent. Petitioner does not allege that
the electorate did not know who they were
voting for when they cast their ballots in
favor of Ermelita Cacao Salcedo or that they
were fooled into voting for someone else by
the use of such name. It may safely be
1. Grounds are under SEC. 68 of
Omnibus Election Code
2. Filed any day after the last day for
filing of certificates of candidacy,
but not later than the date of
proclamation
Petition to Cancel COC

1. Grounds are under SEC. 78 of

Omnibus Election Code
2. Filed within 5 days from the filing of
COC