FILING OF

CERTIFICATE OF
CANDIDACY
CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY
 in the nature of a formal manifestation
 it is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he announces his
candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office, the name of the
political party to which he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all
election purposes being as well stated
B.P. BLG 881 (SECTION 78)
 No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of
candidacy within the period fixed by the Omnibus Election Code

Pursuant to this provision, the Commission on Elections has the ministerial duty to receive and
acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy
 TIME, PLACE AND MANNER
OF FILING
 R.A. No. 7166 provides for a synchronized national and local elections, the certificates of candidacy (COC) of any
person running for the office of President, Vice-President, Senator, Member of the House of Representatives or any
elective provincial, city or municipal office shall be filed in five (5) legible copies with the office of the Commission
specified below not later than the day before the date legally fixed for the beginning of his campaign period
(a) The COC for President, Vice-President and Senators shall be filed in the main office of the Commission in Manila
(b) The COC for Members of the House of Representatives shall be filed with the provincial election supervisor of the
province concerned.
 Legislative districts in NCR shall be filed with the regional election director
 Legislative districts in cities outside NCR which comprise of one or more legislative districts shall be filed with the provincial
election supervisor concerned.

(c) The COC for provincial offices shall be filed with the provincial election supervisor concerned ; and,
(d) The COC for city and municipal offices shall be filed with the city or municipal election registrar concerned.
TIME, PLACE AND MANNER
OF FILING
 The certificate of candidacy shall be filed by the candidate personally or by his duly
authorized representative. No COC shall be filed or accepted by mail, telegram or facsimile
IMPORTANCE OF A VALID CERTIFICATE
OF CANDIDACY
 An absolute mandatory requirement since a person without a COC cannot be considered a
candidate in much the same way as any person who has not filed any COC at all
 Purpose of the law:
(a) To enable voters to know at least sixty (60) days before the regular election the candidates among whom they
are to make the choice
(b) To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast
 CASES: 1. PNOC-EDC V. NLRC
G.R NO. 100947
 Facts:

In November, 1987, while holding the position of Geothermal Construction Secretary, under the
Engineering and Construction Department, at Tongonan Geothermal Project, Ormoc City, Manuel S.
Pineda decided to run for councilor of the Municipality of Kananga, Leyte in the local elections scheduled
in January, 1988, and filed the corresponding certificate of candidacy for the position.
Mayor Arturo Cornejos of Kananga, Leyte objected Pineda’s candidacy, averring that Pineda cannot be a
candidate for local elections while retaining his job in PNOC-EDC
Nevertheless, Pineda was proclaimed elected to the office of councilor, took his oath of office as councilor-
elect and despite so qualifying as councilor, and assuming his duties as such, he continued working for
PNOC-EDC as the latter's Geothermal Construction Secretary, Engineering and Construction Department,
at Tongonan Geothermal Project, Ormoc City
An inquiry was sent regarding Pineda’s employment status, and PNOC-EDC’s Legal Department replied
that Pineda is considered ipso facto resigned
Pineda wrote to the Secretary of Justice seeking legal opinion on the question, among others, of whether
or not he was "considered automatically resigned upon . . . filing of . . . (his) certificate of candidacy,"
and whether or not, in case he was elected, he could "remain appointed to any corporate offspring of a
government-owned or controlled corporation."
Pineda secured an opinion from DILG who sustained the opinion that there was no legal impediment in
retaining his employment in PNOC and being elected as councilor
PNOC-.EDC, however, did not share the same views, and notified him in writing that
(1) after giving him ample time to make some major adjustments before separation from the
company, his employment was being terminated pursuant to Sec. 66 of the Omnibus Election Code,
effective upon receipt of notice
(2) that he was entitled to proper compensation for the services rendered by him
This led Pineda to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and prayed for his reinstatement before the Labor
Arbiter which rendered a decision in his favor. Petitioner appealed the case to the NLRC, which only
sustained the Arbiter’s decision. Hence, this petition.
 Issue:

Whether or not an employee in a government- owned or controlled corporation without an original

charter falls within the scope of Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code. 
 Ruling
 Yes - Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or position.— Any person holding a
public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled
corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his
certificate of candidacy.
What all this imports is that Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code applies to officers
and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, even those organized
under the general laws on incorporation and therefore not having an original or legislative
charter, and even if they do not fall under the Civil Service Law but under the Labor Code.
In other words, Section 66 constitutes just cause for termination of employment in
addition to those set forth in the Labor Code, as amended.
 a government-owned or controlled corporation does not lose its character as such because not
possessed of an original charter but organized under the general law. If a corporation's capital
stock is owned by the Government, or it is operated and managed by officers charged with the
mission of fulfilling the public objectives for which it has been organized, it is a government-
owned or controlled corporation even if organized under the Corporation Code and not under
a special statute; and employees thereof, even if not covered by the Civil Service but by the
Labor Code, are nonetheless "employees in government-owned or controlled corporations,"
and come within the letter of Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, declaring them "ipso
facto resigned from . . . office upon the filing of . . . (their) certificate of candidacy."
 Manuel Pineda is hereby dismissed
 CASES: 2. QUINTO V.
COMELEC
 Facts

Pursuant to its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer election laws, COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 8678, the Guidelines on the Filing of Certificates of Candidacy (CoC) and Nomination
of Official Candidates of Registered Political Parties in Connection with the May 10, 2010 National and
Local Elections. Sections 4 and 5 of Resolution No. 8678 provide:
SEC. 4. Effects of Filing Certificates of Candidacy.—a) Any person holding a public appointive
office or position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and other officers
and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto
resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
b) Any person holding an elective office or position shall not be considered resigned upon the filing
of his certificate of candidacy for the same or any other elective office or position.
 Alarmed that they will be deemed ipso facto resigned from their offices the moment they file their CoCs,
petitioners Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr., who hold appointive positions in the
government and who intend to run in the coming elections, filed the instant petition for prohibition and
certiorari, seeking the declaration of the afore-quoted Section 4(a) of Resolution No. 8678 as null and
void. Petitioners also contend that Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369, the basis of the assailed COMELEC
resolution, contains two conflicting provisions. These must be harmonized or reconciled to give effect to
both and to arrive at a declaration that they are not ipso facto resigned from their positions upon the
filing of their CoCs. Petitioners argue that the said law violates the equal protection clause, hence,
unconstitutional.
 Issue:

Whether the second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9369 and Section
4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678 are violative of the equal protection clause and
therefore unconstitutional
 Ruling:

No. To start with, the equal protection clause does not require the universal application of the laws to
all persons or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as
determined according to a valid classification. The test developed by jurisprudence for reasonableness
and it has four requisites:
(1) The classification rests on substantial distinctions;
(2) It is germane to the purposes of the law;
(3) It is not limited to existing conditions only; and
(4) It applies equally to all members of the same class.
Our assailed Decision readily acknowledged that these deemed-resigned provisions satisfy the first,
third and fourth requisites of reasonableness --"whether one holds an appointive office or an elective
one, the evils sought to be prevented by the measure remain.“
In the instant case, there is a rational justification for excluding elected officials from the
operation of the deemed resigned provisions.
An election is the embodiment of the popular will, perhaps the purest expression of the sovereign power of
the people. It involves the choice or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote.
Considering that elected officials are put in office by their constituents for a definite term, it may justifiably
be said that they were excluded from the ambit of the deemed resigned provisions in utmost respect for the
mandate of the sovereign will. In other words, complete deference is accorded to the will of the electorate
that they be served by such officials until the end of the term for which they were elected. In contrast, there
is no such expectation insofar as appointed officials are concerned.
The dichotomized treatment of appointive and elective officials is therefore germane to the purposes
of the law. For the law was made not merely to preserve the integrity, efficiency, and discipline of the public
service; the Legislature, whose wisdom is outside the rubric of judicial scrutiny, also thought it wise to
balance this with the competing, yet equally compelling, interest of deferring to the sovereign will.
 IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court RESOLVES to GRANT the respondent’s and the intervenors’
Motions for Reconsideration; REVERSE and SET ASIDE this Court’s December 1, 2009
Decision; DISMISS the Petition; and ISSUE this Resolution declaring as not
UNCONSTITUTIONAL (1) Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8678, (2) the second
proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act No. 9369, and (3) Section 66 of
the Omnibus Election Code.