ELECTION LAW

TALAGA
VS. COMELEC
G.R. NO. 196804 OCTOBER 9, 2012

Ronel B. Pasaiz
REPORTER
LEARNING OBJECTIVES

SUBSTITUTION OF CANDIDATES THREE-TERM LIMIT RULE

CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY SECOND-PLACER DOCTRINE

 FACTS
Ramon Talaga and Philip M. Castillo respectively filed their
certificates of candidacy (CoCs) for the position of Mayor of Lucena
City to be contested in the scheduled May 10, 2010 national and local
elections. Ramon declared that he was eligible for the office he
sought to be elected. Four days later, Castillo filed with the COMELEC
a petition denominated as In the Matter of the Petition to Deny Due
Course to or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy of Ramon as Mayor for
Having Already Served Three (3)Consecutive Terms as a City Mayor of
Lucena. He alleged therein that Ramon, despite knowing that he had
been elected and had served three consecutive terms as Mayor of
Lucena City, still filed his CoC for Mayor of Lucena City in the
upcoming elections.
 FACTS
Ramon countered that the Sandiganbayan had preventively suspended
him from office during his second and third terms; and that the
three-term limit rule did not then apply to him pursuant to the
prevailing jurisprudence to the effect that an involuntary separation
from office amounted to an interruption of continuity of service for
purposes of the application of the three-term limit rule.
On December 23, 2009, the Court promulgated the ruling in Aldovino, Jr.
v. COMELEC, holding that preventive suspension, being a mere temporary
incapacity, was not a valid ground for avoiding the effect of the three-
term limit rule. Thus, Ramon filed in the COMELEC a Manifestation with
Motion to Resolve, acknowledging that he is now disqualified to run for
the position of Mayor of Lucena City; yet did not withdraw his CoC.
 FACTS
Initially, Ramon filed his Verified Motion for Reconsideration,
however, he later filed for its withdrawal. On the same date, Barbara
Ruby filed her own CoC for Mayor of Lucena City in substitution of
Ramon, her husband. On election day on May 10, 2010, the name of
Ramon remained printed on the ballots but the votes cast in his favor
were counted in favor of Barbara Ruby as his substitute candidate,
resulting in Barbara Ruby being ultimately credited with 44,099 votes
as against Castillo’s 39,615 votes.
 FACTS

Castillo filed a Petition for Annulment of Proclamation with the

COMELEC, alleging that Barbara Ruby could not substitute Ramon
because his CoC had been canceled and denied due course; and
Barbara Ruby could not be considered a candidate because the Comelec
En Banc had approved her substitution three days after the elections;
hence, the votes cast for Ramon should be considered stray.
Thereafter, Roderick Alcala, the duly-elected vice Mayor of Lucena
City, sought to intervene, positing that he should assume the post of
Mayor because Barbara Ruby’s substitution had been invalid and
Castillo had clearly lost the elections.
 ISSUES

#1 #2

Who among the

WON Barbara
contending parties
Ruby’s substitution
should assume the
was valid.
contested elective
position?
 RULING 1.
The existence of a valid CoC is a condition sine qua non for a valid substitution.
#1
The filing of a CoC within the period provided by law is a mandatory requirement for any
person to be considered a candidate in a national or local election. This is clear from Section
The existence of a valid CoC is a 73condition of the Omnibus
sine Election
qua nonCode,for toawit:
valid substitution.
Section 73. Certificate of candidacy
No personThe
shallfiling of for
be eligible a CoC withinpublic
any elective the office
period provided
unless by law
he files asworn is a of
certificate
mandatory
candidacy within requirement for any person
the period fixedherein.There to be available
are two remedies considered a a
to prevent
candidate
candidatefrom running in in a national
an electoral race. or
One local election.
is through apetitionThis is clear from
for disqualification and the
Section
other through 73 oftothe
apetition denyOmnibus
due courseElection Code
to or cancel to wit: ofcandidacy.Considering
a certificate
that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to avalid candidacy,
Content there can be no valid substitution
Marketing It should be clear, too, that a
of thecandidate under Section 77 of the Omnibus ElectionCode.
candidate who doesnot file a valid CoC may not be validly substituted,because a person without
a valid CoC is not considereda candidate in much the same way as any person whohas not filed
a CoC is not at all a candidate.
 RULING 1.
The existence of a valid CoC is
a condition sine qua non for a valid substitution.
SECTION
The filing of a CoC 73. CERTIFICATE
within the period providedOFbyCANDIDACY
law is a mandatory requirement for any

person to be considered
"No person a candidate
shall be eligible forinany
a national
electiveor public
local election. This is he
office unless clearfiles
froma Section
sworn certificate of candidacy within the73period of the fixed herein.
Omnibus " Code, to wit:
Election

There are two remedies available to prevent a candidate Section from running inof an
73. Certificate candidacy
electoral
No person race. One
shall be is through
eligible for anyaelective
petitionpublic
for disqualification and asworn
office unless he files the other is
certificate of
through a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
candidacy within the period fixedherein.There

are two remedies available to prevent a
candidatefrom
Considering running
that aincancelled
an electoralCoC
race. One not
does is through apetition
give rise to aforvalid
disqualification
candidacy,and the
other can
there through apetition
be no valid tosubstitution
deny due course
of the to or cancel a certificate
candidate ofcandidacy.Considering
under Section 77 of the
Omnibus ElectionCode.
that a cancelled CoC does Itnotshould be toclear,
give rise avalidtoo, that a there
candidacy,
Content candidate
can be who doessubstitution
no valid not
file a valid CoC
of thecandidate maySection
under not be77 validly
of the Omnibus Marketing
substituted, becauseIt ashould
ElectionCode. person without
be clear, too,a that a
valid CoCwhois doesnot
candidate not considered
file a valida CoC
candidate
may notinbemuchvalidlythe same way as any
substituted,because personwithout
a person
whohas not filed a CoC is not at all a candidate.
a valid CoC is not considereda candidate in much the same way as any person whohas not filed
a CoC is not at all a candidate.
 RULING 1.
The existence of a valid CoC is a condition sine qua non for a valid substitution.
#2
The filing of a CoC within the period provided by law is a mandatory requirement for any
person to be considered a candidate in a national or local election. This is clear from Section
Declaration of Ramon’s disqualification 73 of rendered
the OmnibushisElection
CoC Code, to wit:
invalid.
Ramon was not a valid candidate to be properly
Section 73.substituted.
Certificate of candidacy
No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files asworn certificate of
candidacy within the period fixedherein.There are two remedies available to prevent a
candidatefrom running in an electoral race. One is through apetition for disqualification and the
other through apetition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate ofcandidacy.Considering
that a cancelled CoC does not give rise to avalid candidacy,
Content there can be no valid substitution
Marketing It should be clear, too, that a
of thecandidate under Section 77 of the Omnibus ElectionCode.
candidate who doesnot file a valid CoC may not be validly substituted,because a person without
a valid CoC is not considereda candidate in much the same way as any person whohas not filed
a CoC is not at all a candidate.
 RULING 1.
The denial of The due
existence
courseof atovalid CoC is
or the a condition sine
cancellation qua non
of the CoCforunder
a validSection
substitution.
78
involves a finding
The filing of a CoCnotwithin
only the
thatperiod
a person lacks
provided a qualification
by law is a mandatorybut also thatforhe
requirement any
made
persona tomaterial representation
be considered a candidatethatin a is false. or local election. This is clear from Section
national
The false representation under Section 78 must73likewise be a "deliberate
of the Omnibus attempt
Election Code, to wit:
to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact that would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible."
Ramon was absolutely precluded from asserting eligibility Section 73.toCertificate
run as of candidacy
Mayor of
No person
Lucena shall
City forbethe
eligible
fourthforconsecutive
any electiveterm.
public Resultantly,
office unless he
hisfiles
CoCasworn certificate
was invalid andof
candidacy
ineffectual within for
ab initio the containing
period fixedherein.There
the incurable are defect
two remedies available
consisting in to
hisprevent
false a
declaration running
candidatefrom of his ineligibility
an electoraltorace.
run.OneTheis through
invalidity and for
apetition inefficacy of his and
disqualification CoCthe
made
other his situation
through even
apetition worse
to deny duethan
coursethat
to orofcancel
a nuisance candidate
a certificate because the
ofcandidacy.Considering
nuisance candidate
that a cancelled may not
CoC does remain eligible
give rise despite
to avalid cancellation
candidacy,
Content there of
can his
be noCoC
validor despite
substitution
the denial of due course to the CoC pursuant to Section 69 of the Omnibus
Marketing
of thecandidate under Section 77 of the Omnibus ElectionCode. It should be clear, too, that a
Election Code.
candidate
Ramon who doesnotspecifically
himself file a valid CoC may not his
admitted be validly substituted,because
ineligibility when hea personfiled without
his
aManifestation
valid CoC is not considereda
with Motion tocandidate
Resolveinonmuch the same30,
December way2009
as anyinperson whohas not filed
the COMELEC.
a CoC is not at all a candidate.
SUBSTITUTION
OF CANDIDATES
In the event that a candidate is
disqualified to run for a public office,
or dies, or withdraws his Certificate of
Candidacy before the elections, Section
77 of the Omnibus Election Code
provides the option of substitution.
 REMEMBER
Section 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal.—

If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate
of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any
cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file
a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was
disqualified. The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may
file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the
preceding sections not later than mid-day of the day of the election. If the death,
withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and
mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election
inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of
candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the
Commission.
CERTIFICATE OF
CANDIDACY
A cancelled Certificate of Candidacy
does not give rise to a valid
candidacy, there can be no valid
substitution of the candidate under
Section 77 of the Omnibus Election
Code; Likewise, a candidate who has
not withdrawn his Certificate of
Candidacy in accordance with Section
73 of the Omnibus Election Code may
not be substituted.
THREE-TERM
LIMIT RULE
No local elective official shall serve for
more than three (3) consecutive
terms in the same position.

Article X, Section 8 of the 1987

Constitution provides: The term of
office of elective local officials,
except barangay officials, which shall
be determined by law, shall be three
years and no such official shall serve
for more than three consecutive terms.
SECOND-PLACER
DOCTRINE
The candidate obtaining the second
highest number of votes for the
contested office could not assume the
office despite the disqualification of
the first placer because the second
placer was “not the choice of the
sovereign will.”
 REMEMBER

The only time that a second placer is allowed to take the place of a
disqualified winning candidate is when two requisites concur, namely:

(1) the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is disqualified;
and;
(2) the electorate was fully aware in fact and in law of that candidate’s
disqualification as to bring such awareness within the realm of notoriety
but the electorate still cast the plurality of the votes in favor of the
ineligible candidate
THANK 'Trust in the Lord with all your
heart, and lean not unto your own
understanding." Proverbs 3: 5

YOU RONEL PASAIZ