ADMIN FEBRUARY 21

Review: Election Law

Eligibility of Candidates

Q: When do we know that someone is a candidate?

A: When a person file their Certificate of Candidacy (COC)

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY

When a person intends to run for a public office, he has to file his COC.

However, if he belongs to a political party, his COC must be accompanied with CONA (Certificate of
Nomination and Acceptance)

This CONA has authorized signatory which will be filed to the COMELEC.

Example:

PDP Political Party whose leader is Boy Bagsik (hindi naman pwedeng siya lahat ang pumirma ng
nomination). So, Boy will delegate it to other persons like the leader of Mandaluyong PDP, Girl Putok, or
Pasig PDP, Lady Malditah, to sign the nomination.

This nomination will be approved by the Comelec.

The person nominating the candidates must be authorized by the political party.

Case: SINACA vs. MULA

Q: What is the effect in the proclamation of granting the petition to disqualify?

A: The proclamation will be rendered null and void and the proclaimed candidate will be ordered to
vacate the position.

(Note: There must be a closure of the canvassing before a proclamation)

Validity of Substitution:

Contention of Petitioner: The spring cannot rise above its source. If the candidacy of a candidate was
void, then the substitution of the other candidate is not valid.

SC held:

There was a valid substitution.

There was substantial compliance with the requirements as provided by Sec. 77 of the Omnibus Election
Code.
B was properly nominated by the political party as a substitute candidate to which A was disqualified, as
evidenced by the CONA signed.

The fact of being a member of a political party only when he filed his COC as a substitute of a candidate
belonging to a political party is immaterial. In short, as to when he joined the party is irrelevant.

What is important is the fact that at the time B was nominated, he was already a member of the political
party. B withdrew his candidacy as an independent candidate before he filed his COC as substitute for A
in which time he became a member of the political party of A.

Q: When can there be a valid substitution?

A: When there’s DEATH, or WITHDRAWAL, or DISQUALIFICATION

DEATH: A substitute can file his COC up to the midday of election.

DISQUALIFICATION: A substitute can file his COC up to the midday of election

WITHDRAWAL: A substitute can file his COC only on or before the deadline of the filing of COC.

In the case of Sinaca, the reason of the substitution is DISQUALIFICATION. Hence, even when a
substitute became a member of the political party on the midday of the election, a substitute can still be
considered as a valid candidate.

A substitute must be a member of the political party at the day of his nomination and can substitute the
first candidate even if it occurs during the midday of the election because the reason for the substitution
is DISQUALIFICATION. It would be otherwise if the reason of the substitution is WITHDRAWAL.

Case: MIRANDA vs. ABAYA

“Original COC” was filed by the substitute.

Should the COC of the substitute be accepted? NO.

A void COC cannot be substituted by another COC.

Q: What kind of COC can be substituted?

A: A valid COC.
If A is a member of a political party, he can be substituted in case of disqualification. Only by reason of
death that a candidate can be substituted without a political party provided that the substitute have the
same surname with that of the first candidate.

Points to consider:

1. Substitution can only be allowed if you are a member of a political party because it presupposes that
what is being elected is the political party.

2. The filing of the original COC must be filed within the period of the filing of COC except when the COC
filed is for substitution.

3. Petition for Disqualification is different from Petition for the cancellation of COC.

Case: CAASI vs. COMELEC

The following persons are disqualified to run for any elective local position

 Those sentenced by final judgment for offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense
punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment within two years after serving a sentence;
 Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case;
 Those convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic;
 Those with dual citizenship;
 Fugitive from justice in criminal or non-political cases here in the Philippines or abroad;
 Permanent resident of foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad
and continue to avail the same right after the effectivity of this Code; and
 The insane and feeble minded.

Caasi never denied to having possessed a green card. Caasi was disqualified.

A green card holder is a resident of a foreign country.

The filing of the COC does not constitutes a waiver.

“To be qualified to run for elective office” in the Philippines, the law requires that the candidate who is a
green card holder must have “waived his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign
country.” The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done
prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Without such prior waiver, he was
“disqualified to run for any elective office.”

Case: VILLABER vs. COMELEC

Villaber did not state in his COC that he was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude for violating
BP 22 (bouncing checks) which constitutes material misrepresentation.

BP 22 is a crime involving moral turpitude.

The effects of the issuance of worthless check transcends the private interests of the parties directly
involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. It imports deceit and
certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person.

Case: BAGATSING vs. COMELEC

Disbursement of public funds is prohibited during the 45-day period BEFORE the elections.

Reason: The funds can be used for election purposes in the guise of public service. It can be in the form
of vote-buying.

The mere filing of the Petition for Disqualification is NOT a ground to suspend the proclamation.

RULES GOVERNING THE DISPOSITION OF DISQUALIFICATION CASES:

 Complaint for Disqualification filed BEFORE the elections:

 The complaint must be inquired into by the COMELEC to determine whether the acts
complained of have in fact been committed.
 If the case was resolved BEFORE the elections  COMELEC shall order the candidate’s
disqualification.
 If the case the complaint was NOT resolve BEFORE the election  The COMELEC by
motu proprio or on Motion of any parties, refer the said complaint to the LAW
DEPARTMENT of COMELEC for preliminary investigation.

 Complaint for Disqualification filed AFTER the elections:

 The complaint for disqualification against a candidate (whether has NOT YET been
proclaimed as winner OR has ALREADY been proclaimed as winner) shall be DISMISSED
as a disqualification case BUT shall be referred to the LAW DEPARTMENT of the
COMELEC for preliminary investigation.
 If the LAW DEPARTMENT makes a prima facie finding of guilt and the corresponding
information has been filed with the APPROPRIATE TRIAL COURT BEFORE THE
PROCLAMATION the complainant may file a PETITION FOR SUSPENSION OF THE
PROCLAMATION of the respondent candidate with the court before which the criminal
case is pending. The said court, in turn, may order the suspension of the proclamation IF
THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG.

Case: PEREZ vs. COMELEC

When the Motion for Reconsideration was filed, Aguinaldo was already a member of the House of
Representatives. Hence, the Comelec En Banc has NO jurisdiction to entertain the motion because the
proclamation of Aguinaldo barred further consideration of Perez’ action. House of Representatives
Electoral Tribunal (HRET) has jurisdiction over it.
The fact that a person is registered as a voter in one district is NOT PROOF that he is not domiciled in
another district. Furthermore, the registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin is
NOT sufficient to consider him to have abandoned or lost his residence.

Case: PANGILINAN vs. COMELEC

The COMELEC has 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 elections, returns, qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives. The
Constitution provides that the ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL of the House of Rep is the “sole judge” of all
contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of its members.

The “including pre-proclamation controversies” should refer only to “pre-proclamation” controversies in

the election cases that FALL WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION of the COMELEC pertaining
to the election of regional, provincial, and city officials NOT election of the members of the House of
Representatives.

Comelec has NO jurisdiction to hear and decide pre-proclamation controversies against the members of
the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Remedy of Pangilinan: To file an ELECTORAL PROTEST with the HRET.

The Board of Canvassers consists of the following among others:

 Election officer
 School Superintendent
 City Prosecutor

Note: No Pre-proclamation controversies are reported because the election now is automated.
However, the exception to this is when there is an ILLEGAL COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF
CANVASSERS.

Pre-proc may still be applicable to Barangay Elections and SK Elections because the election is still
manual.

Case: DOMINO vs. COMELEC

Domino wanted to run as Congressman in Saranggani but his residence was still in Quezon City.

Reason for the residency requirement:

 To know the needs of the constituents

  To know the priorities of the constituents

Domino lacks the intention to abandon the residence in Quezon City because of the fact that he
registered as a voter in Quezon City. The exercise of the right of election franchise is a deliberate public
assertion of the fact of residence.

PETITION TO DECLARE NUISANCE

Q: What are the Nuisance candidates?

A: A nuisance candidate is a candidate who has caused confusion to the electorate because of similar
surnames or no bona fide intention to run. Neither intention to win nor campaign. He is considered as
such because he is mocking the election process.

Case: ISIDRO GARCIA vs. COMELEC

Garcia is NOT considered as a Nuisance Candidate because the lack of logistical means and machinery to
pursue a serious political campaign due to the absence of propaganda materials as alleged has NO
BEARING on the qualification of Arturo Garcia to seek public office.

Arturo Garcia was already proclaimed making the issues moot and academic.

To determine that a candidate has ‘No bona fide intention to run’, the following must be considered:

 Does he have a platform and program?

 Does he have campaign funds? Does he have sponsors that make contributions for his
campaign?

PETITION TO CANCEL CANDIDACY

Q: When can you avail of this remedy (Petition to Cancel Candidacy)?

A: Before the elections.

Q: What are the grounds?

A: The grounds are premised on a person’s misrepresentation of any of the material qualifications
required for the elective office aspired for. The candidate, to warrant the cancellation of his COC, must
(a) lack the relevant qualification such as age, residency, and citizenship; AND (b) he must have
committed or made a false representation of the same in his COC.

Case: SALCEDO II vs. COMELEC

TWO INSTANCES WHERE A PETITION QUESTIONING THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A REGISTERED CANDIDATE

TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE WHICH HIS COC WAS FILED CAN BE RAISED UNDER OEC:

 BEFORE the election: Petition to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy
 Firme: Within 5 days from the filing of the COC.
 Case: The petition may be filed AT ANY TIME not later than 25 days from the time of the
filing of the COC
 It shall be decided NOT later than 15 days before the election AFTER DUE NOTICE AND
HEARING.
 GROUND: Qualifications for an elective office are misrepresented in the COC.
 AFTER the election: Petition for Quo Warranto
 Initiated WITHIN 10 days AFTER the proclamation of the results of the election.
 GROUND: (1) Ineligibility [disqualified to be elected to office]; OR (2) Disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines.

Q: What constitutes Material Misrepresentation?

A: It must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise
render a candidate ineligible.

Ermelita Cacao Salcedo did not commit a material misrepresentation in her COC.

There’s no deliberate intent to deceive the electorate because people know her as the wife of the
Mayor of Sara, Iloilo for 3 consecutive terms and she resides therein since 1986.

Case: TAGOLINO vs. HRET

There was no valid substitution.

A valid COC is a requisite for a valid substitution.

COC of Richard was void due to the lacking of residency requirement. A spring cannot rise above its
source. Thus, Lucy’s substitution is NOT valid.
PETITION FOR DISQUALIFIFCATION vs. PETITION TO CANCEL COC

Grounds for Disqualification:

1. A candidate’s possession of a permanent resident status in a foreign country;

2. His/Her commission of certain acts of disqualification:
a) Giving money or other material consideration to influence, induce, or corrupt the voters
or public officials performing electoral functions;
b) Committing acts of terrorism to enhance one’s candidacy;
c) Spending in one’s election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by the OEC;
d) Soliciting, receiving, or making any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96,
97, and 104 of OEC;
e) Violating sections of the OEC:
i. Election campaign or political activity outside the campaign period;
ii. Removal, destruction, or defacement of lawful election propaganda;
iii. Certain forms of election propaganda;
iv. Violation of rules and regulations on election propaganda through mass media;
v. Coercion of subordinates;
vi. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other forms of
coercion;
vii. Unlawful electioneering;
viii. Release, disbursement, or expenditure of public funds;
ix. Solicitation of votes or undertaking any propaganda on the day of the election.

PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION PETITION TO CANCEL COC

When to file? When to file?

Should be filed at any day after the last day of the Should be filed WITHIN 5 days from the filing of
filing of COC but NOT LATER THAN the date of the COC
Proclamation

Effects: Effects:

Discontinuance of such candidacy as a form of Deemed as not a candidate at all

penal sanction for committing election offenses
provided by the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) COC is void ab initio

Cannot give rise to a valid candidacy and valid

votes.
Q: Can the Supreme Court interfere with the HRET?

A: The Supreme Court can still hear and decide cases involving the HRET if it exercise its jurisdiction over
HRET cases involving grave abuse of discretion.