Election Law

Chapters 3 and 8
Leizl A. Villapando, MBA
Juris Doctor-2020
c. PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
• Election Disputes may be classified into the following:
• 1. Disputes filed against the erring candidate before the election, such as petition for
disqualification, petition to declare a candidate a nuisance candidate and a petition to
deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy. These are pre-election disputes.
• 2. Pre-proclamation controversies, which arise under Secs. 233, 234 and 236 of the
Omnibus Election Code and filed with COMELEC before proclamation.
• 3. Post election disputes, such as election protest, quo warranto and prosecution for an
election offense, either of which may result in the removal of the winning candidate.
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code:

• 1. Is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country [unless he

has waived such status in accordance with the residency requirement for the
concerned position];
• 2. Given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or
corrupt voters or public officials performing electoral functions;
• 3. Committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy;
• 4. Spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed;
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code:

• 5. Solicited, received or made prohibited contributions;

• 6. Violated provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, specifically:
• a. Engaged in election campaign or partisan political activity outside the campaign
period and not pursuant to a political party nomination [Sec. 80];
• b. Removed, destroyed, defaced lawful election propaganda [Sec. 83];
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code:
• c. Engaged in prohibited forms of election propaganda [Sec. 85];
• d. Violated election rules and regulations on election propaganda through mass media
[Sec. 86];
• e. Coerced, intimidated, compelled, or influenced any of his subordinates, members, or
employees to aid, campaign or vote for or against any candidate or aspirant for the
nomination or selection of candidates [Sec. 261.d] – expressly repealed by R.A. No.
7890. The effect of this repeal is to remove Section 261(d) from among those listed as
ground for disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code [see Javier v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 215847 (2016)];
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code:

• f. Threatened, intimidated, caused, inflicted or produced any violence, injury,

punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage upon any person or of the immediate
members of his family, his honor or property, or used fraud to compel, induce or prevent
the registration of any voter, or the participation in any campaign, or the casting of any
vote, or any promise of such registration, campaign, vote, or omission therefrom [Sec.
261.e];
• g. Unlawful electioneering [Sec. 261.k];
• h. Violated the prohibition against release, disbursement or expenditure of public funds
45 days before a regular election or 30 days before a special election [Sec. 261.v];
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code:

• Solicited votes or undertook propaganda on election day for or against any candidate
or any political party within the polling place or within a 30m radius [Sec. 261.cc.6];
and
• j. Conviction for robbery by final judgment with the penalty of prision mayor, to
which perpetual special disqualification attaches by operation of law, is not a ground
for a petition under Section 68 because robbery is not one of the offenses enumerated
in Section 68. Insofar as crimes are concerned, Section 68 refers only to election
offenses under the Omnibus Election Code and not to crimes under the Revised
Penal Code [Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 193237 (2012)].
 Under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election Code
• 1. Insane or incompetent
• 2. Sentenced by final judgment for:
• a. Subversion, insurrection, rebellion;
• b. Any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months imprisonment;
or
• c. A crime involving moral turpitude [Sec. 12].
• N.B. As to disqualifications under Sec. 12:
• • These will not apply if the person has been given plenary pardon or amnesty.
These are deemed removed upon declaration by competent authority that the insanity/incompetence has
been removed, or after the expiration of a period of five years from service of sentence.
 Under Section 12 of the Omnibus Election
Code

• In Magno v. COMELEC [G.R. No. 147904 (2002)], it was held that there appears to be an
irreconcilable conflict between the five-year disqualification period under Sec. 12, OEC and the two-
year disqualification period under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code (infra). Court held that Sec.
40 of the LGC is deemed to have repealed Sec. 12 of the OEC, the former being the later legislative
enactment. Furthermore, Sec. 40 of the LGC partakes of a special law applicable to candidates for local
elective positions as opposed to Sec. 12 of the OEC which applies to candidates for any public office.
Thus, the former must prevail over the latter.
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code

• 1. Sentenced by final judgment for an offense (a) involving moral

turpitude or (b) punishable by at least 1-year imprisonment.
• The disqualification lasts for two years after service of sentence.
• The provision “within 2 years after serving sentence” applies both to (1) those who have been
sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude and (2) those who have been
sentenced by final judgment for an offense punishable by one year or more of imprisonment
• Those who have not served their sentence by reason of the grant of probation should not be
disqualified from running for a local elective office because the 2-year period of ineligibility does
not even begin to run [Moreno v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 168550 (2006)].
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code

• 2. Removed from office as a result of an administrative case.

• This disqualification does not retroactively apply to those who
were
removed from office as a result of an administrative case before the
effectivity of the LGC [Grego v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125955 (1997)].
• 3. Convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines.
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code

• 4. Dual citizenship.
• Dual citizenship as a disqualification must refer to citizens with dual allegiance. For candidates
with mere dual citizenship, the filing of certificate of candidacy is considered as an election of
Filipino citizenship and renunciation of foreign citizenship [Mercado v. Manzano, supra].
• For a natural born Filipino, who reacquired or retained his Philippine citizenship under RA
9225, to run for public office, he must: (1) meet the qualifications for holding such public
office as required by the Constitution and existing laws; and (2) make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized to
administer oath [Japzon v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 180088 (2009)].
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code

• With respect to a person with dual allegiance, candidate’s oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially comply with the requirement of a
personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.
• Section 5(2) of R.A. No. 9225 compels natural-born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens
of a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath
of allegiance under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking elective public
offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn renunciation of any and
all foreign citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of their
certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in Philippine elections. [Jacot v. Dal, G.R. No.
179848 (2008); De Guzman v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129118 (2009)].
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code

• Hence, based on jurisprudence, the mere filing of certificate of candidacy is a sufficient form of
renunciation for dual citizens but not for those who reacquired/retained Filipino citizenship under
R.A. 9225.
• While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts constituting renunciation and loss of
Philippine citizenship, it is nevertheless an act which repudiates the very oath of renunciation required
for a former Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another country to be qualified to run for a local
elective position [Maquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. 195649 (2013)].
• Compare Maquiling with Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC: There, the use of the foreign passport by
the presidential candidate occurred before she formally renounced her foreign citizenship; hence, the
use was not taken against her.
 Grounds for Disqualification
Under Section 40 of the Local Government Code

• 5. Fugitive from justice in criminal and non-political cases here and abroad.
• “Fugitive from justice” includes (a) those who flee after conviction to avoid
punishment and (b) those who, after being charged, flee to avoid prosecution.
This presupposes knowledge by the fleeing subject of either an already instituted
indictment or of a promulgated judgment of conviction [Rodriquez v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. 120099 (1996)].
• 6. Insane or feeble-minded.
 When to file; its purpose

• Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure on disqualification reads:

• Section 1. Grounds for Disqualification. - Any candidate who does not
possess all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the
Constitution or by existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be
grounds for disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate.
Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of
Procedure on disqualification reads:

• Sec. 2. Who May File Petition for Disqualification. - Any citizen

of voting age, or duly registered political party, organization or
coalition of political parties may file with the Law Department
of the Commission a petition to disqualify a candidate on
grounds provided by law.
Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure on
disqualification reads:

• Sec. 3. Period to File Petition. - The petition shall be filed any day
after the last day for filing of certificates of candidacy but not later
than the date of proclamation.
• Sec.4. Summary Proceeding. - The petition shall be heard
summarily after due notice.
Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure on
disqualification reads:

• Sec. 5. Effect of Petition if Unresolved Before Completion

of Canvass - If the petition, for reasons beyond the control of the
Commission, cannot be decided before the completion of the
canvass, the votes cast for the respondent may be included in the
counting and in the canvassing; however, if the evidence of guilt is
strong, his proclamation shall be suspended notwithstanding the
fact that he received the winning number of votes in such election.
 Purpose

• The purpose of disqualification proceeding filed before the election for

violation of Sec. 68 of the Code is to prevent the candidate from running or, if
elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the election laws,
for any of the grounds therein specified.
 Where candidate is a senatorial or
congressional candidate
• Where the candidate involved is senatorial or congressional candidate, the
petition filed before the election to disqualify him on the ground of lack of any
qualifications or for violations of an offense under Section 68 of the Code
remains viable even after the election provided that there is yet no proclamation.
• COMELEC retains jurisdiction to continue to hear and finally resolve it, for the
electoral tribunal assumes jurisdiction as sole judge of all issues pertaining the
election, returns and qualifications of members of Congress only when the
candidate has been duly proclaimed or has become a member thereof.
 Effects of disqualification cases

Sec. 6 of R.A. 6646 reads:

SEC. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case.—Any candidate who has been declared by final
judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be
counted. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the
Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry, or protest
and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order
the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is
strong.
Winning candidate entitled to be proclaimed

• The law enjoys the Commission and the Courts to decide disqualification
cases speedily as possible to the end that a final judgement shall be rendered
not later than seven days before the election. However, if for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final judgement before the election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes,
such circumstances shall not prevent his proclamation and assumption to
office.