PART V

CANDIDATES
What is a certificate of candidacy?
It is in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the
candidates political creed or lack of political creed.
Political creed refers to the platform of government. It is
optional. You may or may not submit that.
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 he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party which
he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all
election purposes being well stated. (Sinaca v. Mula)
It is the document which formally accords upon a person the status
of a candidate.
You cannot be a candidate without a COC. Except that case
when the widow who substituted the husband who died. She
only submitted a letter which was later on considered by the
SC as her COC. Only in this case that the SC liberalized. But
today, it is already strict.
Without a valid CoC, one is not a candidate.
Certificate of candidacy defined under jurisprudence.
Tagala v. Comelec, cited in Tagolino v. HRET
A persons declaration of his intention to run for public office and his
affirmation that he possesses the eligibility for the position he seeks to
assume, followed by the timely filing of such declaration, constitute a
valid CoC that render the person making the declaration a valid or
official candidate.
Take note here that it says it must my timely filed because the
moment you file late, there is no other remedy.
What is the purpose of the CoC?
Monsale v. Nico, 83 Phil. 758 (1949), cited in Miranda v.
Abaya, G.R No. 136351, July 28, 1999
a.) To enable the voters to know the candidates among whom
they are to make the choice;
b.) To avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the
votes cast.
This is self-explanatory. Because without the list of candidates
you cannot know who to vote for. Without COC, we cannot
know who is a candidate or not a candidate. You can vote for a
fictitious person and when you vote for a fictitious person it is
considered as a marked ballot.
Who may file Certificate of Candidacy
Qualification of President and Vice-President:
Natural-born citizen of the Philippines

A registered voter
Able to read and write
At least 40 years old on the day of election
A resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years prior to
election
The president shall not be eligible for any re-election.
The vice-president shall not serve for more than 2 successive terms.
Qualifications of Senator
A Natural-born citizen of the Philippines
A registered voter
Able to read and write
At least 35 years old on the day of election
A resident of the Philippines for at least 2 years prior to
election.
The Senator shall not serve for more than 2 successive terms.
Qualifications of Representative
A natural born citizen
At least 25 years old
Able to read and write
A registered voter
A resident of the district for at least 1 year
No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for more than
three consecutive terms.

Qualifications of Local Elective Officials

Governor, Vice-governor
Members, SangguniangPanlalawigan
Mayor, Vice-Mayor, SP or SB Member
Punong Barangay &Kagawad
Filipino Citizen
Registered voter of the province, city, municipality, district
or barangay
Resident for at least 1 year immediately preceding the date
of election
Able to read and write Filipino or any local language or
dialect
Who cannot file?
Acts of Terrorism
Take note ha that it is not the regular courts that deems that
you committed an act of terrorism. But it is an act of terrorism
it is a condition.
Forced, threatened and intimidated watchers of other
candidates to leave the ballot box and election paraphernalia

for one precinct to give her followers free hand to fill out the
official ballots.
Swooped down and assaulted one barangay, creating
tumultuous commotion or disturbances scaring away and
preventing voters from casting their votes, snatching ballot
boxs and other election paraphernalia including official ballots
and stuffing ballot boxes with spurious ballots. (Diangka v.
Comelec)
Again expectedly this is ARMM. Actually dire, iya gi seize ang
entire baranggay. And what happened here was there was a
complaint filed against her violating election laws. What she
did was a mere general denial. Comelec indeed she is guilty of
acts of terrorism and should be disqualified. She petitioned
the court saying there was grave abuse of discretion. But what
did we say this is a question of fact the courts normally do not
interrupt these findings because the Comelec is the best
position to appreciate the facts.
Fugitives from justice (Marquez v. Comelec)
He cant file right. How do you define them? Not only those
who flee from imprisonment but also to those who flee to
avoid prosecution.
Permanent residents abroad (Caasi v. CA)
What did we say about this? Position of a green card does not
only abandons the residence but also the domicile. He cannot
run.
Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
What is moral turpitude?
Zari v. Flores, 94 SCRA 319 (1979), cited in Magno v. Comelec,
G.R No. 147904, Oct. 4, 2002
An act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which
a person owes his or her fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary
to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man
and woman or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals.
What do you think binisaya ani? Ok read the example first.
Examples of crimes involving moral turpitude:
Issuance of a bouncing check involves moral turpitude because
accused knows at the time of the issuance of the check that he does
not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the
payment of the check in full upon presentment.
Conviction for it shows that accused is guilty of deceit, and certainly
relates to or affects the good moral character of a person. (Villaber v.
Comelec, G.R NO. 148326, November 15, 2001)

Other examples could be bribery, fencing and the most

common estafa.
So ang binisaya ani PAGPANGILAD or sa tagalong pa,
PANGDURUGAS
If there is this element na gani moral turpitude na.
So if your guilty, you cannot run. But take note ha! Conviction
with finality is what is required. If you are convicted in the
lower court and it is still pending, you can still run for public
office.

Term Limit
Ecclesiastics?
Did you not think about this? Can the priests run for
public office?
Pamil v. Teleron
Ok, this happened in Bohol, a priest was elected as Municipal
President, karaan ni. And so, because there was a specific
provision in the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 which
prohibits ecclesiastics to run for public office. And so, nidaog
man sya, so gi challenge ang iya winning. The SC answered
here indecisively.
Seven members affirmed the right of the priest to be elected to
public office because the challenged provision was superseded by the
1935 Constitution as opposed to five members who ruled that such a
prohibition against an ecclesiastic running for elective office is not
tainted with any constitutional infirmity.
The issue here is free exercise or the non-establishment
clause. Because if some people from the church run for public
office, does that violate the non-establishment clause?
The seven justices approached the problem from a free-exercise
point of view and considered the law a prohibited religious test while
five justices approached it from the none-establishment point of view
and upheld the law as a safeguard against the constant threat of
union of church and state that has marked Philippine history.
Ok diba, the separation of church and state is inviolable.
While five members of the Court constitute a minority, the vote of
the remaining seven does not suffice to render the challenged
provision ineffective. Section 2175 of the Revised Administrative Code,
as far as ecclesiastics are concerned, must be accorded respect.
Ok take note ha, first premise there was a prohibition that
ecclesiastics cannot run for public office. But they said that it
was not superseded by the 1935 Constitution, and so now,
they want to make it clear that Section 2175 is constitutional?
7 justices said it was unconstitutional because anybody can
run for public office. But 5 justices said it was constitutional.
So diba how many votes are required to declare a local law? 8
diba because there is 15. Now here ang 7 kay kuwangan man.

So even if ang majority, it lacked a vote to declare the law

unconstitutional.
Here now applies the tyranny of the minority, that even the
minority can prevail because there is that required number of
votes to declare a law unconstitutional.
However there was a case in the following year that declaring
that the prohibition was actually unconstitutional. It must be
the free exercise clause that must prevail. Anybody can run
for public office.
But! In Ang Bagong Bayani about the party list, the prohibition
there was that religious organizations cannot be party list. And
it qualifies that the prohibition is against a GROUP not a
individual priest who might want to run for public office. So in
the end, priests can run for public office.
So whether or not it offends the church it is not between the
priest, the nun and the church. Not the priest, the nun and the
Comelec.

When filed Barangay election

Any day from start of election period but prior to campaign
period (Sec. 35, OEC)
But nevermind this because the Comelec resolves always or
sets the date for filing the coc. Even outside the date.
National and Local Election
within the period fixed (Sec. 73, OEC)
not later than the day before the date fixed for the beginning
of his campaign period (Sec. 7, R.A. 7166)
Pananglit automated elections, what have we said about this.
We usually set a deadline earlier than usual because we are
going to print the ballots embodying the names of the
candidates. That is why we need sufficient time. This is
precisely the reason why, when you file for candidacy,
technically you are not a candidate yet. You are only a
candidate for purposes of ballot printing. In which case, right
after filing your COC you cant actually campaign class. It is
not prohibited. We we will discuss that soon.
What is the purpose for deadline for the filing of the CoC?
a.) to enable the voters to know the candidates among whom
they are to make the choice;
b.) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the
votes cast. (Monsale v. Nico, 83 Phil. 758 (1949), cited in
Miranda v. Abaya, G.R No. 136351, July 28, 1999)
There has to be a deadline, without the deadline it will affect
all.
Where filed-

You should know this ha, if you want to public office.

President, Vice President, Senator & Party-List
Law Department, Commission on Elections, Intramuros, Manila
This is Palacio del Goberno! Kadtong kinaraan gud, kadtong
mga guard nga karaan. Basta in front there is a cathedral very
nice.
This was the issue about Duterte, the contention was that
kadtong gipulihan ni Duterte they said he wrote the position
mayor daw. But then again we said na diba that you dont
right the position because it is already there in the form.
House Representative, Governor, Vice-Governor & SP
Member
Office of the Provincial Election Supervisor
You go to Capitol!
City & Municipal Mayor, Vice-Mayor & Members,
SangguniangPanlungsod
Office of the Election Officer
In the sitio or municipality. Aduna jud nay Comelec.
Punong Barangay &Kagawad
Office of the Election Officer
-

Take note here that if you file your COC at the wrong venue, it
is considered as NOT FILED. So you cannot say ikaw nalang
pasa bi pareha ra btaw mi comelec. You cant do that! As a
matter fact, we would never accept that.

Duty to Receive Coc (Section 76, OEC)

Ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt
Ministerial meaning walay discretion. But if we need to verify
whether or not it is in the prescribed form, whether or not it is
complete, whether or not it is notarized or with documentary
stamps. We can never ask is it true? Because it is no longer
ministerial. Kung mubutang xa diha natural born, siya bahala
basta it is under oath. And if it is under oath, there is another
case for perjury right? So pasagdan because the risk there is if
the comelec is authorized to inquire as long as acceptance is
concerned because the biases will come to play. What if ako
election officer then mu file ka unya di man ko ganahan nimo
so di tika sugtan. That is why it is ministerial.
Contents of CoC (Sec. 74, OEC)
Name, political party, office, eligibility, age, civil status, profession or
occupation, residence, citizenship, among others
Undertaking that he is not a permanent resident or immigrant to a
foreign country, among others
Name to be used is the one he is baptized. If not baptized, the name
appearing in the record of birth.

About the name question kanang mga artista nga nagamit

ug mga screen name, can they use that? The answer is yes
but only as a nickname or alias. Not as a surname, first name
or middle name. So pananglit, Isko Moreno, that can appear to
ballot. But you cannot argue because walay maybuot kung
mao ang imong nickname or not. Example kadtong sikat PBB,
nay nidagan Big brother Luigi. Walay makabuot ikaw ra. It was
allowed.

Effect of filing of CoC by Elective Official (Sec. 67, OEC)

Any elective official, whether national or local running for any other
office other than the one he holds in a permanent capacity, except
President & Vice-President, shall be considered ipso facto resigned
upon filing of the CoC
What happens if you are an incumbent official and you want to
file for COC? The effect is you are not considered resigned.
Expressly repealed by Section 14, R.A. 9006
Effect of filing of CoC by Appointive Official (Sec. 66, OEC &
Sec. 13, R.A. 9369)
Any person holding public appointive office shall be considered ipso
facto resigned upon filing of CoC.
No need to even write a resignation letter but there is no
prohibition. The filing of COC is a mechanical act of
resignation. But take note here that we are talking about
government office. If you are in the private sector, and you
want to file for public office, you are considered resigned as
long as the law and the comelec is concerned. But the
problem is with your employer. That is up to him.
Quinto v. Comelec
Facts: Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, Section 13 of R.A
9369 and Sec. 4(a) of Comelec Resolution No. 8678 deemed
resigned all appointive officials upon filing of candidacy. The
Supreme Court struck them down as unconstitutional for violating
the equal protection Clause.
ok dba? So the argument there is pareho rman ta naa sa gobyerno.
We receive compensation from the same. So why on earth will you
segregate appointive and elective officials? But! You know what
happened? Soldiers, teachers, police run for public office. And here
is the pamatay! Election officers run for public office. Kay di man
considered resigned. So...
Held: The Supreme Court reconsidered and ruled that these laws are
constitutional as they do not violate equal protection clause.
Substantial distinctions exist between appointive and elective
officials. Elective officials occupy their position by virtue of the

mandate of the electorate. Appointive officials are designated by

appointing authority.
The Constitution prohibits civil service employees from engaging
in electioneering and partisan political activity. Since elective
officials are elected into office for a definite term, their exclusion
from the deemed-resigned rule is in deference to the sovereign will.
There is no such expectation from appointive officials because they
are not elected to a definite term. Some of them serve in permanent
capacity with security of tenure. (Quinto v. Comelec)
OK, here you have relatives who are working for the
government. Please remind them that they are not supposed
to do that. Civil Service employees should not be non-partisan
about the election. A mere share and a mere like is a violation.
You cannot invoke freedom of expression because no less than
the constitution provided this. Except! As to voting. You can
vote and make known your choices.
RULE 23- Petition to deny due course or cancel CoC (Section
78, OEC)
Ground
Falsity of any material representations or otherwise state
material misrepresentations
When to file
Within 5 days from the last day of filing
Who may file
Any citizen of voting age or a duly registered political party
(take note ha no need to be registered voters just voting age)
Where to file
Law Department
Nature of proceedings- summary
Reception of evidence may be delegated ( meaning, even the
lawyers in the field like election lawyers may be delegated to
investigate whether or not this particular person committed a material
misrepresentation.)
Salcedo v. Comelec
Facts: In her certificate of candidacy, a candidate used the surname
of her husband. But it was sought to be cancelled on the ground of
material representation because the husband she married was
already married. Being bigamous, her marriage is void. Thus, she
cannot use the surname of the husband.
Ok here iya ingon namakak siya.
Held: Material misrepresentation involves qualifications to hold public
office like age, residence or citizenship. It does not involve
innocuous mistakes of surname because it does not deceive or
mislead the voters about qualification.

Remember carl? If you lie about carl, that can be a ground for
material misrepresentation. Outside of carl, it does not a
ground for material misrepresentation and does not result to
its cancellation.
Because here what is sought to be avoided is you might
deceive the voters that you are a qualified. What is say? A
COC is your personal warrant. If you lie about CARL, that can
be a ground for cancellation. Basta outside of CARL, it cannot.
Like kani, if minyu xa or dili. This is harmless. Or like you lie
about your gender, middle name, nickname? Harmless.

Tecson v. Comelec& Velez v. Poe

Facts: FPJ filed his CoC for president where he stated that he is a
natural-born Filipino. A petition to deny due course or cancel CoC
based on misrepresentation was filed against him because he is not
a natural-born Filipino. Born to unmarried parents, he is an
illegitimate child thus he follows the citizenship of his mother who is
American.
They are saying that FPJ lied about a material fact.
Held: FPJ is a natural-born Filipino citizen. He was born under the
1935 Constitution which confers citizenship to all persons whose
fathers are Filipino citizens whether such children are legitimate or
illegitimate.
The grandfather, Lorenzo Pou, would have been born sometime
in 1870 when the Philippines was under Spanish rule. As such, he
would have been Filipinized by the 1902 Philippine Bill. Such
acquired citizenship was extended to this son Allan Poe, the father
of FPJ, hence he is a Filipino citizen. As such, FPJ was born to a
Filipino father. Thus, he is a natural-born citizen from birth because
he did not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect his
Philippine citizenship.
While the totality of evidence may not be conclusive, still, it is
enough to preponderate in favor of FPJ that he did not make a
material misrepresentation in his CoC.
Any misrepresentation in the CoC must not only be material, it
must also be deliberate and wilful. (Fornier v. Comelec, citing
Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec)
If there is a material misrepresentation, it can be a honest
mistake. Because now we are saying that it must be
deliberate and wilful. Pareha kang Grace Poe that they said
that she lied about her residence, possible nga pwede xa
makalusot because it could be a honest mistake. With more
reason about her citizen because it is a difficult question of
law. Probably, there is no wilful and deliberate intent. But let
us wait for the SC.
While it is true that the SC is the sole judge of all contests
relating to qualifications of the President, it applies only to the

elected President and not the candidate for president over which the
Commission has jurisdiction.
Dumpit-Michelina v. Boado
Facts: The CoC of a mayoralty candidate was sought to be cancelled
or denied due course on the ground of material misrepresentation
for falsely claiming evidence. She argued she is already a resident
of the place after she purchased a parcel of land over which a beach
house was eventually built. Thus, it can be said that she abandoned
her domicile of origin and acquired a new domicile of choice.
This is very common. Candidates running for an office on
another place and have beach houses.
Held: Domicile of origin is not easily lost. That she acquired a
property in the new place is not sufficient. Mere property ownership
is not the sole indicia of right to vote and be voted for.
Requisites for change of domicile:
Actual removal or change of domicile
Bona fide intention to abandon the former residence and
establish a new one
Acts which correspond with the purpose.
- Take note ha, domicile of origin does not require actual presence kay
maski mulayu naka, nanarbaho naka, mubalik ra ghapon ka. But here
we required actual presence because this is a change of domicile.
She failed to establish abandonment of her domicile of origin. A
beach house is not a residence, it is more of a temporary place for
relaxation. The designation of caretaker indicates she does not
regularly stay there. Furthermore, the witnesses retracted, claiming
they did not know what they signed for.
Gayo v. Verceles
Facts: A permanent resident in the United States waived her status by
surrendering her green card. She returned to the country for good,
registered as a voter, paid taxes and even won a first term as
mayor. When she won the second time, a petition for quo warranto
was filed against her on the ground that permanent residents
abroad are disqualified to run for public office under Sec. 40 (f) of
the LCG which does not provide waiver as remedy. Thus, Sec. 68(e)
of the OEC allowing it is repealed.
Held: Section 40(f) did not repeal Sec. 68(e). Both provide that
permanent residents abroad are disqualified to run for public office
except that Section 68(e) provides waiver as an exception or
remedy to the disqualification.
The requisites to reacquire domicile are complied with:
Intent to abandon the old domicile, by the surrender of
green card.

 Intent to remain in the new domicile, by her continued

stay for good and even election.
Bodily presence, by continued stay for good, engagement in
business and even election.
- at least in this case the green card holder proved that indeed
she really reacquired domicile by her bodily presence.
If the evidence of lack of residence is weak, and the purpose of
the law is not thwarted in upholding the right to public office, the
will of the electorate should be respected. The purpose of the
residency requirement is to ensure that the person elected into
office is familiar with the needs and problems of his or her
constituency. In this case, she is familiar and is in fact, the
incumbent mayor.
Take note that this argument can also be used by Grace Poe
dba? There is doubt as to lack of residence. And for as long as
the purpose of the law is not thwarted, let the people decide.
As a matter of fact, this provision is somewhat outdated. With
all the modern technology, the world is getting closer. So
probably we can liberalized that.
In the event the proclaimed winner is disqualified, the second
placer cannot assume office because he or she is not the choice of
the people.
But then again you must make a distinction. If the 1 st placer,
the COC was cancelled meaning there was no candidate in the
first place, which case the 2 nd placer can be proclaimed. If the
1st placer was disqualified, then the 2 nd placer CANNOT be
proclaimed because the 2nd placer was not the choice of the
people.
Limbona v. Comelec
Facts: Husband and wife both ran for mayor in Pantar. But they were
sought to be disqualified for not being residents and registered
voters. The wife withdrew and the husband was disqualified for lack
of residence. Even if she withdrew, the wife was also disqualified for
lack of residence. The wife then substituted. She was sought to be
disqualified on the same grounds.
Contention of the wife: There is a separate ruling which says her
husband is a resident of Pantar and could run as a candidate there.
As a wife, she follows the residence of her husband.
Held: There was already an earlier ruling that she is disqualified for
lack of residence. The fact that she withdrew her candidacy while
the case was heard does not change the finding of lack of residence.
Her new domicile by operation of law, by virtue of her marriage is
Rapasun.
Under the Civil Code, the husband and wife are obliged to live
together. Failure to show that she maintained separate residence

from her husband makes way for the civil code presumption that
she and her husband live together in Rapasun, and not Pantar.
This is a funny case. Na disqualified ang bana, the wife
wanted to substitute.
Take note here oh Failure to show that she maintained
separate residence what does this imply? There is no
compulsion from the law that husband and wife should live
together. Equal footing.
RULE 24- Proceedings against nuisance candidates (Sec. 69,
OEC)
Who is a nuisance candidate- any person who filed a Certificate
of Candidacy to:
a.) Put the election process in mockery or disrepute
b.) Cause confusion among voters by the similarity of names of
candidates
c.) Clearly demonstrate to have no bona fide intention to run
Thus preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the
electorate.
Thus, he may be declared a nuisance candidate and his CoC may
be denied due course or cancelled.
When to file within 5 days from the last day of period to file
Who may file- any registered candidate for the same elective
office. The Commission may, before election, motu proprio refuse to
give due course to or to cancel a CoC of a nuisance candidate
Almost always the Commission motu proprio cancel your COC
for being a nuisance candidate.
Take note ha, kadtong cancellation based on material
misrepresentation and this one have the same effect. There
was no candidacy in the first place.
Where to file- Law department
Nature of proceedings- summary
Reception of evidence may be delegated
Pamatong v. Comelec
Facts:Pamatong ran for president in 2004. But his CoC was denied
due course by the Commission because he is a nuisance candidate- he
has no party or movement to back his candidacy. He argued it violates
his right to equal access to opportunities for public office. It indirectly
amends the constitutional provisions on electoral process and limits
the power of the sovereign people to choose their leaders.
He rans all the time. But he as a very good argument. Because
this is written in the constitution.
Held: Equal access to opportunities for public office is not a right,
but a mere privilege, as such it is subject to many limitations.
Prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed at ensuring a

rational, objective and orderly electoral exercise. Thus, the State must
take into account practical considerations.
As such it is only a privilege. It is not absolute.
The greater the number of candidates, the greater the
possibility for logistical confusion, aside from increased allocation
for government time and resources in the preparation for the
election. The prohibition avoids confusion, deception and even
frustration of the electoral process.
So there you cannot invoke the equal opportunities doctrine
because again, it is a mere privilege and it is subject to
limitations. As a matter in fact, the SC said this is not a selfexecuting provision it needs an action. And also, you cannot
argue that sir dba as long as comply ka CARL you cannot be
denied. Yes you can argue this way. But take note, if the
Comelec does not have the power to declare nuisance
candidate. Ibutang talang 1 million mudagan ug pagka
president, dba chaos? Chaotic and confusing. This makes
sense man gd. The bottomline is, if we declare you nuisance
candidate, meaning wala jud kay chance. And muingon mo
sir! Anti poor mana. And amounts to property qualification,
but then again reality check! And maybe the other reason is
you are unknown and your platform of government is not
good. Naa man uban nga pobre and unknown pero the
comelec can allow because they had good platform of
government. So you cannot say ah tungod diay kay pobre ko
di ko padaganon no. Because it is only one of the grounds.
Basta reality check!
Martinez v. HRET &Salimbangon
Facts:
In
the
2007
elections,
Celestino
Martinez
and
BenhurSalimbangon were candidates for the fourth district
representative in the province of Cebu. Edilito C. Martinez however
filed his candidacy for the same position. Celestino sought to
declare him a nuisance candidate but the petition was still pending
on the day of election. Thus, the Board of Election Inspectors
strayed 5,401 votes for MARTINEZ or C. MARTINEZ. As a result,
Benhur was proclaimed the winner over Celestino by 104 votes.
Celestino filed an election protest with the HRET but the latter
sustained the straying of such votes since at the time of election,
both Celestino Martinez and Edilito C. Martinez were listed in the
official list of candidates. As such, there was no way of knowing the
true intent of the voters. Hence, Celestino filed a petition for
certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Take note ha, pareha sila ug initials. Unfortunately, on the day
of election, the petition was still pending. The comelec never
declared that indeed Edilito is a nuisance candidate or not. As
such, there are 2 candidates with the same surname.

Contention of Celestino Martinez: The HRET gravely abused its

discretion when it refused to count the votes in his favour despite
finality of the Comelec decision.
When the case went to the HRET, there comes the finality that
indeed Edilito was a nuisance candidate. And so, Celestino
said HRET you should not count C Martinez should now be
counted because there was confusion. But the HRET said on
the day of election, Edelito was a valid candidate.
Contention of Salimbangon: As far as the voters are concerned,
there are 3 candidates on election day, Celestino, Edilito and him. It
would be illogical and unfair to appreciate the ballot in favour of
Celestino based on a supervening event of declaring Edilito as
nuisance.
Held: The belated declaration of a nuisance retroacts to the day of
election, especially where grounds for such declaration are clear
and conclusive. (take note ha, the effect should be retroactive. Thus
it should be counted now in favour of Celestino because it was too
late.) The inefficiency or lethargy of Comelec should not prejudice
the petitioner. He had no opportunity to segregate the votes in
anticipation of straying because the decision came out after the
election.
Unlike in Bautista v. Comelec where the declaration, though not
final, was issued before election day hence the petitioner was
alerted of the possibility. But even if the facts in Bautista somehow
differ from this case in so far as the date of finality is concerned, the
adverse effect is the same. That is, the disenfranchisement of the
voters and the suppression of the true will of the electorate.
So kani nga kaso, there was a decision although not final but
prior to election day. And so what happened here was,
Martinez was finally proclaimed as the winner a month prior to
end of office. And because he assumed office a week prior, it
interrupted his term of office.
This was a very emotional case. Didto ang canvassing sa
Bogo. The salimbangon camp said these election returns were
spurious. Then ang mga canvasser nakuyapan, dramatic
kaayu. Den gibalhin sa capitolyo, unya basahon mana ang
mga votes. Ingon salimbangon camp ayaw lagi basaha kay
fake lagi na. But the BOC still read it. Suddenly, the
Salimbangon camp and their lawyers niadto saying we are
placing you under citizens camp. Ila daw dakpon ang mga
BOC. Naapil pa ang military naglibog asa man mutuo? Sa
Comelec or sa mga salimbangon. I wont go into details nalang
kay basin makaila mo sa lawyers. But if i was the canvasser
there, i will order the leader of the military to arrest them for
disrupting the peace of election. Tanawon natu kinsay
paminawon sa military kay you have the power.

What i dont understand was, nganung walay lawyer ani nga

election officer. It could make a difference. But then we will
never know if you were placed in this positions. Lady lawyers!
Placing you under citizens arrest.

RULE 25- Disqualification of Candidates

Grounds under Rule 25a.) Does not possess qualifications of a candidate under the
Constitution and applicable law
This ground is shared with cancellation and disqualification.
But if I am the lawyer, I would choose cancellation because it
is easier.
b.) Commission of any act declared by law as ground for
disqualification
Along the way pananglit, naa kay kaso terrorism you can be
disqualified. Or you bought votes.
Grounds under Comelec Resolutiona.) Any candidate, who in an action where he is a party, is
declared by final decision of a competent court, guilty of any
disqualification
b.) Any candidate found by the Commission to be suffering from
any disqualification under the law or the Constitution
When to file
Any day after the last day of filing CoC but not later than the
day of proclamation
Who may file
Any citizen of voting age or any registered political party
Where to file- Law Department
Nature of proceeding- summary
What if the petition is unresolved with finality on election
day?
Votes cast in favour of respondent may be counted or canvassed
Move to suspend the proclamation
Show evidence of guilt is strong
Mao ni nahitabo sa Salimbangon ug Celistino. Pananglit kung
ang nidaog unya nay pending disqualification, your remedy is
to move for suspension for proclamation. Kay once ma
proclaim, lisod na kaayu jud. Once proclaimed, it is harder to
unsee the proclaimed candidate.
Remember ha, oral motions before the canvassers is
prohibited. We can only note this motions.
Procedure under R.A 6646 for petitions to declare nuisance
candidates & to deny due course or cancel CoC
Verified petition within 5 days from last day to file CoC filed
personally or by representative

Issuance of summons within 3 days from filing

Verified answer within 3 days from receipt
Summary proceedings, recommendation within 5 days from
submission of evidence
Authority to receive evidence may be delegated
Decision becomes final and executory after 5 days from receipt by
parties unless stayed by the Supreme Court
Effect of Disqualification under R.A 6646
If disqualified with finality
Candidate shall not be voted for
If voted for
The votes shall not be counted
If not disqualified with finality, voted for and obtains
winning number of votes
Trial and hearing continue but the proclamation may be
suspended upon motion if evidence of guilty is strong.
Substitution of Candidates (Sec. 77 OEC)
After last day of filing certificate of candidacy, the official candidate
of a registered political party:
Dies
Withdraws
Disqualified for any cause
He or she may be substituted by a person belonging to the same
party not later than mid-day on election day.
Substitution under Sec. 12, R.A 8436
In case of valid substitution after the ballots have been printed, vote
for the substituted is vote for the substitute.
Na print na ang ballot, naa na ang pangalan didto unya
namatay. Pwede rana pulihon pero you can never change the
name. That is why you can substitute only if you have the
same surname. Mao ni nahitabo ni Lucy Torres.
Tagalino v. HRET, G.R No. 202202, March 19, 2013
Facts: Richard Gomez was disqualified for lacking residency, a fact he
misrepresented in his CoC. Hence, Lucy Torres substituted him. She
won convincingly.
Held: Substitution is not proper. Misrepresentation warrants
cancellation of CoC, not disqualification. When cancelled, there is no
valid CoC. As such, there is not candidate. Ergo, there cannot be
substitution.
Substitution is proper only when the substituted is disqualified,
because he or she was considered a candidate until ordered
discontinued.
So there, if you are disqualified because you did something
along the way, there was a candidate in the first place. In such

case, the second placer cannot be proclaimed the winner

because he is not the choice of the people. But if it was
cancelled, then the 2nd placer can now be proclaimed.
So going back, if winner was disqualified, if there was no
second placer so the Vice-Mayor will become the Mayor by
succession.

Withdrawal of CoC (Sec. 73, OEC)

A person who field CoC, may withdraw her or her CoC prior to
election day in writing and under oath, filed personally
Monsale v. Nico
Facts: After a lapse of period to file candidacy, a candidate withdraws
his withdrawal to revive his candidacy.
Held: Withdrawal is allowed anytime prior to election day. But
withdrawal of withdrawal with the effect of revival is allowed only
during the period to file candidacy to ensure prior notice to voters
and avoid confusion and inconvenience in tabulation of votes.
For 2016, when you withdraw, you can file now for another
position. Saona di ni pwede. Karon, ok na kay ingon Comelec
that previous provision has no legal basis.
Multiple CoC (Sec. 73 OEC)
Filing of more than one office is prohibited. If he or she files for more
than one office, he or she shall not be eligible for any.
Except: when he declares under oath the office he desires and
cancels the other

The general rule is this, you cannot file multiple COCs or

multiple positions. Wala paka ka decide. During that period of
filing COC we can accept all, however prior to the lapse of
filing of COC, you must withdraw under oath the positions that
you dont want to file. You have to make up your mind. If you
cannot do this, dili ka ma candidate sa tanan nimo na file. So
prior to the lapse, you must withdraw.
Lone Candidate Law (R.A 8295) (what happens if there was
only 1 candidate?)
Special election to fill vacancy of an elective position except
President and Vice-President.
Period to file CoC has expired.
Only one qualified candidate for the position field Coc.
The lone candidate may be proclaimed without the special
election being conducted.
Wala may kontra nganu mag election paman ta. To save
government funds. So this is only 1 instance you cannot be
proclaimed winner without being elected. Take note ha!
Special elections except if President and VP. Ang reason ana
kay kana nga position there needs to be a vote of confidence
maski wala silay kontra.
After the Commission certifies he or she is the only candidate and is
thus deemed elected.
He or she assumes office not earlier than the scheduled special
election.