The evident purpose of the law in requiring the filing of certificate of candidacy and in fixing

the time limit therefor are: (a) to enable the voters to know, at least sixty days before the

regular election, the candidates among whom they are to make the choice, and (b) to avoid
confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. For if the law did not confine
the choice or election by the voters to the duly registered candidates, there might be as many persons
voted for as there are voters, and votes might be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a
mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election. (Miranda
v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999)

227.
May a disqualified candidate and whose certificate of candidacy was denied due course
and/or canceled by the Comelec be validly substituted?
Held: Even on the most basic and fundamental principles, it is readily understood that the

concept of a substitute presupposes the existence of the person to be substituted, for how

can a person take the place of somebody who does not exist or who never was. The Court
has no other choice but to rule that in all instances enumerated in Section 77 of the Omnibus
Election Code, the existence of a valid certificate of candidacy seasonably filed is a
requisite sine qua non.

All told, a disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he had a valid

certificate of candidacy in the first place because, if the disqualified candidate did not

have a valid and seasonably filed certificate of candidacy, he is and was not a candidate at
all. If a person was not a candidate, he cannot be substituted under Section 77 of the
Code. (Miranda v. Abaya, G.R. No. 136351, July 28, 1999, en Banc [Melo])

228.
Should the votes cast for the substituted candidate be considered votes for the substitute
candidate?
Answer: Republic Act No. 9006, otherwise known as the Fair Election Act, provides in
Section 12 thereof:

In case of valid substitutions after the official ballots have been

printed, the votes cast for the substituted candidates shall be considered as stray votes
but shall not invalidate the whole ballot.

For this purpose, the official ballots shall

provide spaces where the voters may write the name of the substitute candidates if they

are voting for the latter: Provided, however, that if the substitute candidate is of the same
family name, this provision shall not apply.

229.

What is the effect of the filing of certificate of candidacy by elective officials?

Answer: COMELEC Resolution No. 3636, promulgated March 1, 2001, implementing the

Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006) provides in Section 26 thereof: any elective official, whether
national or local, who has filed a certificate of candidacy for the same or any other office
shall not be considered resigned from his office.

NOTE that Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code and the first proviso in the third
paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 which modified said Section 67, were expressly
repealed and rendered ineffective, respectively, by Section 14 (Repealing Clause) of The Fair
Election Act (R.A. No. 9006).

230.
What kind of MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION is contemplated by Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code as a ground for disqualification of a candidate? Does it include the use of
surname?
Held: Therefore, it may be concluded that the material misrepresentation contemplated by
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code refers to qualifications for elective office. This
conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of
having made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy are grave to prevent the
candidate from running or, if elected