Photo from Pexels | Tara Winstead
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
The Omnibus Election Code (OEC) provides for certain remedies to assail a candidate’s bid for public office. Among these are: (1) a petition for disqualification under Sec. 68; and (2) a petition to deny due course to and/or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78.
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that;
“SECTION 68. Disqualifications. – Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration of influence, induce or corrupt the voters or 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 that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received, or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.”
It must be stressed that one who is disqualified under Section 68 is still technically considered to have been a candidate, albeit proscribed to continue as such only because of supervening infractions which do not, however, deny his or her statutory eligibility. In other words, while the candidate’s compliance with the eligibility requirements as prescribed by law, such as age, residency, and citizenship, is not in question, he or she is, however, ordered to discontinue such candidacy as a form of penal sanction brought by the commission of the above-mentioned election offenses. (Tagolino vs. HRET, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013)
On the other hand, Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that:
“SECTION 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. – A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.”
The denial of due course to or the cancellation of the COC is not based on the lack of qualifications but on a finding that the candidate made a material representation that is false, which may relate to the qualifications required of the public office he/she is running for. It is noted that the candidate states in his/her COC that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks. Section 78 of the OEC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications or eligibility for public office. If the candidate subsequently states a material representation in the COC that is false, the COMELEC, following the law, is empowered to deny due course to cancel such certificate. (Fermin vs. COMELEC, G.R. Nos. 179695 & 182369, December 18, 2008)
Corollary thereto, it must be noted that the deliberateness of the misrepresentation, much less one’s intent to defraud, is of bare significance in a Section 78 petition as it is enough that the person’s declaration of a material qualification in the COC be false. In this relation, jurisprudence holds that an express finding that the person committed any deliberate misrepresentation is of little consequence in the determination of whether one’s COC should be deemed cancelled or not. What remains material is that the petition essentially seeks to deny due course to and/or cancel the COC on the basis of one’s ineligibility and that the same be granted without any qualification.
Pertinently, while a disqualified candidate under Section 68 is still considered to have been a candidate for all intents and purposes, on the other hand, a person whose COC had been denied due course to and/or cancelled under Section 78 is deemed to have not been a candidate at all. The reason being is that a cancelled COC is considered void ab initio and thus, cannot give rise to a valid candidacy and necessarily, to valid votes. (Tagolino vs. HRET, G.R. No. 202202, March 19, 2013)
Related Articles:
- Lack of Campaign Funds Does Not Make One a Nuisance Candidate
- Qualifications and Disqualifications of Voters
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
