De Guzman v Board of Canvassers duty.

The law provides a remedy, by criminal action, against

them. They should be prosecuted criminally, and the will of the
Facts: honest voter, as expressed through his ballot, should be
Tomas De Guzman filed a petition for mandamus before the protected and upheld.
Supreme Court seeking to compel the Board of Canvassers of Hence, even if the legal provision in question is mandatory and
La Union to annul the votes counted in favor of Juan Lucero and non- compliance therewith before the election would have been
to declare him as the duly elected governor of La Union based fatal to the recognition of the status of Juan T. Lucero as
on the fact that certificate of candidacy filed by Juan Lucero was candidate but because the people have already expressed their
not made under oath in violation of Sec. 404 of the Election Law. will honestly, the result of the election cannot be defeated by
Lucero filed a motion to dismiss the petition on 3 grounds the fact that Lucero who was certified by the provincial secretary
namely: (1) that the court has no jurisdiction on the subject- to be a legal candidate for the office of provincial governor has
matter of the complaint; (2) that the court has no jurisdiction not sworn to his certificate of candidacy.
over the person of the members of the board of canvassers;
and (3) the petition failed to state a cause of action. Jurilla v Comelec

Issue: FACTS: Petitioners Eugenio Jurilla, Marciano Medalla,

Whether the failure of Lucero in filing his certificate of candidacy Bernardo Nazal, Rey Medina, Melencio Castelo, Godofredo
under Liban, and private respondent, Antonio Hernandez were among
oath was fatal to his proclamation as the duly elected governor the candidates in the elections for the six positions of councilor
of La Union for the Second District of Quezon City.
On March 23, 1992, Hernandez filed with COMELEC his
Held: No. The seeming irregularity in the filing of Lucero’s certificate of candidacy. In item No. 6 thereof, he gave as his
certificate of candidacy does not invalidate his election for the address “B 26, L 1 New Capitol Estates, Quezon City.”
fundamental reason that after it was proven by the count of the However, he did not indicate his Precinct Number and the
votes that Juan T. Lucero had obtained the majority of the legal particular Barangay where he was a registered voter. In other
votes, the will of the people cannot be frustrated by a words, his certificate of candidacy did not expressly state that
technicality consisting in that his certificate of candidacy had not he was a registered voter of Quezon City or that he was a
been properly sworn to. In the case of Gardiner vs. Romulo, it resident of the Second District thereof.
was held that The provisions of the Election Law declaring that
a certain irregularity in an election procedure is fatal to the Petitioners challenged respondent’s qualification. However,
validity of the ballot or of the returns, or when the purpose and since petitioners only became aware of such after elections, the
spirit of the law would be plainly defeated by a substantial petition was made in accordance with Rule 25 of the COMELEC
departure from the prescribed method, are mandatory. When Rules of Procedure authorizing the filing a petition at any day
the Election Law does not provide that a departure from a for filing certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of
prescribed form will be fatal and such departure has been due proclamation.
to an honest mistake or misinterpretation of the Election Law on COMELEC denied the petition for being filed outside the
the part of him who was obligated to observe it, and such reglementary period under Section 5 of RA 6646, which
departure has not been used as a means for fraudulent pertains to nuisance candidates.
practices or for the intimidation of voters, and it is clear that
there has been a free and honest expression of the popular will, ISSUE: Was the omission sufficient to cause the disqualification
the law will be held directory and such departure will be of respondent?
considered a harmless irregularity. And in Lino Luna vs.
Rodriguez, it was held that he rules and regulations, for the HELD: NO. It may be gleaned from the provisions of Sec. 39,
conduct of elections, are mandatory before the election, but par. (a), of the Local Government Code of 1991, earlier quoted,
when it is sought to enforce them after the election, they are that the law does not specifically require that the candidate must
held to be directory only, if that is possible, especially where, if state in his certificate of candidacy his Precinct Number and the
they are held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived Barangay where he is registered. Apparently, it is enough that
of their votes without any fault on their part. The various and he is actually registered as a voter in the precinct where he
numerous provisions of the Election Law were adopted to assist intends to vote, which should be within the district where he is
the voters in their participation in the affairs of the government running for office.
and not to defeat that object. When the voters have honestly In the case at bench, his failure to so state in his certificate of
cast their ballots, the same should not be nullified simply candidacy his Precinct Number is satisfactorily explained by
because the officers appointed under the law to direct the him in that at the time he filed his certificate he was not yet
election and guard the purity of the ballot have not done their assigned a particular Precinct Number in the Second District of

1
Quezon City. He was formerly a registered voter of Manila, from September 17, 1981, when he was hired as clerk, to
although for the past two (2) years prior to the elections he was January 26, 1989, when his employment was terminated. In
already a resident of "B 26, L 1 New Capitol Estates," admittedly November, 1987, while holding the position of Geothermal
within the Second District of Quezon City. Construction Secretary, Engineering and Construction
Department at Tongonan Geothermal Project, Ormoc City.
Amora v Comelec Pineda decided to run for councilor of the Municipality of
Kananga, Leyte, in the local elections scheduled in January,
FACTS: 1988, and filed the corresponding certificate of candidacy for
On December 1, 2009, petitioner Sergio G. Amora, Jr. filed his the position. Thereafter, Pineda won the election and was thus
Certificate of Candidacy for Mayor of Candijay, Bohol. proclaimed. Despite so qualifying as councilor, and assuming
To oppose Amora, the Nationalist People’s Coalition fielded his duties as such, he continued working for PNOC-EDC. Legal
Trygve L. Olaivar for the mayoralty post. Respondent Arnielo S. Department of PNOC rendered an opinion to the effect that
Olandria was one of the candidates for councilor of the NPC in Manuel S. Pineda should be considered ipso facto resigned
the same municipality. upon the filing of his Certificate of Candidacy in November,
1987, in accordance with Section 66 of the Omnibus Election
On March 5, 2010, Olandria filed before the COMELEC a Code.
Petition for Disqualification against Amora. Olandria alleged
that Amora’s COC was not properly sworn contrary to the ISSUE:
requirements of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and the Whether or not an employee in a government-owned or
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Olandria pointed out that, in controlled corporations without an original charter (and
executing his COC, Amora merely presented his Community therefore not covered by Civil Service Law) nevertheless falls
Tax Certificate (CTC) to the notary public, Atty. Oriculo Granada within the scope of Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code.
(Atty. Granada), instead of presenting competent evidence of
his identity. Consequently, Amora’s COC had no force and RULING: When the Congress of the Philippines reviewed the
effect and should be considered as not filed. Omnibus Election Code of 1985, Congress made no effort to
distinguish between two classes of government-owned or
Atty. Granada counters that while he normally requires the controlled corporations or their employees in the Omnibus
affiant to show competent evidence of identity, in Amora’s case, Election Code or subsequent related statutes, particularly as
however, he accepted Amora’s CTC since he personally knows regards the rule that an any employee "in government-owned
him. Amora was victorious in the local elections. A week later, or controlled corporations, shall be considered Ipso facto
COMELEC en banc granted Olandria’s petition. Thus, this case. resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of
candidacy." What all this imports is that Section 66 of the
ISSUE: Omnibus Election Code applies to officers and employees in
Whether or not petitioner should be disqualified by presenting government-owned or controlled corporations, even those
his community tax certificate as competent evidence of identity organized under the general laws on incorporation and
in executing his COC. therefore not having an original or legislative charter, and even
if they do not fall under the Civil Service Law but under the
HELD: Labor Code. In other words, Section 66 constitutes just cause
No. An improperly sworn COC is not equivalent to possession for termination of employment in addition to those set forth in
of a ground for disqualification. the Labor Code, as amended.
Neither OEC and LGC provides for such nor can the courts infer
this as an additional ground for disqualification. Quinto v Comelec
Laws prescribing qualifications for and disqualifications from
office are liberally construed in favor of eligibility. Competent FACTS:
evidence of identity is not required in cases where the affiant is The court declared as unconstitutional the second provisio in
personally known to the Notary Public, which is the case herein. the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the
Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution
The purpose of election laws is to give effect to, rather than 8679 that they violate the equal protection clause of the
frustrate, the will of the voters. Constitution.

PNOC-EDC v NLRC BACKGROUND:

Dec 1, 2009 The Court declared the second provisio in the third
FACTS: Manuel S. Pineda was employed with the Philippine paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus
National Oil Co. - Energy Development Corp. (PNOC-EDC)

2
Election Code and Sec 4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679 as
unconstitutional. Substantial distinctions clearly exists between elective officials
and appointive officials. Elective officials occupy their office by
Dec 14, 2009 COMELEC filed the motion for reconsideration. virtue of the mandate of the electorate. Appointive officials hold
The second provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA their office by virtue of their designation by an appointing
9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the authority.
COMELEC Resolution 8679: “Any person holding a public
appointive office or position, including active members of the Lanot v Comelec
Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in
GOCCs shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office FACTS: Petitioners filed a petition for disqualification under
upon filling of his certificate of candidacy“ Sections 68 and 80 of the Omnibus Election Code against
Eusebio before the COMELEC stating that the latter engaged
ISSUE: in an election campaign in various forms on various occasions
Whether or not the second provisio in the third paragraph of sec outside of the designated campaign period, such as (1)
13 of RA 9369, Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec addressing a large group of people during a medical mission
4 of the COMELEC Resolution 8679, violate the equal sponsored by the Pasig City government; (2) uttering
protection clause of the constitution. defamatory statements against Lanot; (3) causing the
publication of a press release predicting his victory; (4) installing
HELD: billboards, streamers, posters, and stickers printed with his
The Court reversed their previous decision and declared the surname across Pasig City; and (5) distributing shoes to
second provisio in the third paragraph of sec 13 of RA 9369, schoolchildren in Pasig public schools to induce their parents to
Sec 66 of the Omnibus Election Code and Sec 4 of the vote for him. Eusebio won the election and any other complaints
COMELEC Resolution 8679 as constitutional. was dismissed by the COMELEC.

RULING: ISSUE: Whether or not there is a pre-campaign offense

These laws and regulations implement Sec 2 Art IX-B of the committed by Eusebio.
1987 Constitution which prohibits civil service officers and RULING: There is no dispute that Eusebio’s acts of election
employees from engaging in any electioneering or partisan campaigning or partisan political activities were committed
political campaign. outside of the campaign period. The only question is whether
Eusebio, who filed his certificate of candidacy on 29 December
The intention to impose a strict limitation on the participation of 2003, was a "candidate" when he committed those acts before
civil service officers and employees in partisan political the start of the campaign period on 24 March 2004. Under
campaign is unmistakable. Section 11 of RA 8436, Eusebio became a "candidate," for
purposes of Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code, only on
The equal protection of the law clause in the constitution is not 23 March 2004, the last day for filing certificates of candidacy.
absolute, but is subject to reasonable classification if the Applying the facts - as found by Director Ladra and affirmed by
groupings are characterized by substantial distinctions that the COMELEC First Division - to Section 11 of RA 8436,
make real differences, one class may be treated and regulated Eusebio clearly did not violate Section 80 of the Omnibus
different from the other. Election Code which requires the existence of a "candidate,"
one who has filed his certificate of candidacy, during the
The equal protection of the law clause is against undue favor commission of the questioned acts.
and individual or class privelege, as well as hostile
discrimination or the oppression of inequality. It is not intended Penera v Comelec
to prohibit legislation which is limited either in the object to
which it is directed or by territory within which it is to operate. It FACTS:
does not demand absolute equality among residents; it merely Petitioner and private respondents were candidates for mayor
requires that all persons shall be treated alike under like of the Municipality of Sta.Monica, Surigao del Norte in the last
circumstances and conditions both as to priveleges conferred May 2007 elections. The former filed her certificate of candidacy
and liabilities enforced. The equal protection clause is not on the day before the prescribed campaign period. When she
enfringed by legislation which applies only to those persons went to the COMELEC Office for filing she was accompanied
falling within a specified class, if it applies alike to all persons by her partymates. Thereafter, they had a motorcade which was
within such class and reasonable ground exists for making a consist of two trucks and ten motorcycles running around the
distinction between those who fall within such class and those municipality convincing the residents to vote for her and the
who do not. other candidates of their political party.

3
 WHEREFORE, we GRANT petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera’s
Due to this, private respondent filed a petition against her Motion for Reconsideration. We SET ASIDE the Decision of this
alleging premature campaigning as provided in the Omnibus Court in G.R. No. 181613 promulgated on 11 September 2009,
Election Code Section 80 which says: “Election or partisan as well as the Resolutions dated 24 July 2007 and 30 January
political activity outside campaign period.--- It shall be unlawful 2008 of the COMELEC Second Division and the COMELEC En
for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any Banc, respectively, in SPA No. 07-224. Rosalinda A. Penera
party, or association of persons, to engage in an election shall continue as Mayor of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte.
campaign or partisan political activity except during the
campaign period.” She argued that she is not guilty since she Loreto-Go v Comelec
was not yet a candidate at that time and the campaign period
has not yet started when the motorcade was conducted. Facts:
- Petitioner Loreto-Go filed Certificates of Candidacy for Mayor
While the petition was pending in the COMELEC, she was of Baybay, Leyte and for Governor of the province of Leyte.
voted as mayor and took her office thereafter. The COMELEC - She filed an affidavit of withdrawal for the position of Mayor
Second Division decided in favor of the complainant and found with the provincial election officer, which the latter refused to
her guilty of premature campaigning. Likewise, when she receive stating that she should file the same with the municipal
appealed in the COMELEC En Banc, the previous decision was election officer of Baybay, hence, she filed the same with the
affirmed. proper office by fax.
- However, she filed the withdrawal 28 minutes after the
Subsequently, she filed with the Supreme Court which decided deadline.
against her. It held that the conduct of the motorcade is a form - Respondents Felipe Montejo and Arvin Antoni filed separate
of election campaign or partisan political activity, falling under petitions to deny due course and/or to cancel the certificate of
Section 79(b)(2) of the Omnibus Election Code which says: candidacy of petitioner.
“[h]olding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, - The case was referred to the Law Department of COMELEC
parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of which gave due course to respondents’ petitions without
soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or affording petitioner an opportunity to be heard or to submit
propaganda for or against a candidate[.]” Furthermore, it was responsive pleadings.
held that she should vacate the position. Now, she comes for a - Based on the report of the COMELEC’s Law Department, the
motion for reconsideration using the same arguments. COMELEC en banc disqualified petitioner to run for both
positions; hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of premature campaigning? Issues:
1. WON petitioner is disqualified to be a candidate for governor.
RULING: 2.Was there a valid withdrawal of the certificate of candidacy for
No, she is not. mayor
Any act is lawful unless expressly declared unlawful by law. It of Baybay, Leyte?
is enough that Congress stated that “any unlawful act or 3. Was there denial to petitioner of procedural due process of
omission applicable to a candidate shall take effect only upon Law?
the start of the campaign period.” So, it is lawful if done before
the start of the campaign period. This plain language of the law Held:
need not be construed further. 1. No. Petitioner’s withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for
mayor of Baybay, Leyte was effective for all legal purposes, and
Moreover, on the day of the motorcade, she was not yet a left in full force her certificate of candidacy for governor.
candidate for. As what was decided in the Lanot Case which
says that prior to the campaign period, even if the candidate has 2. Yes. Section73, BPBlg.881, does not mandate that the
filed his/her certificate of candidacy, he/she is not yet affidavit of withdrawal must be filed with the same office where
considered as a candidate for purposes other than the printing the certificate of candidacy to be withdrawn was filed. While it
of ballots. Hence, she cannot be guilty of premature may be true that Sec. 12 of the COMELEC Resolution No.
campaigning for in the first place there is no candidate to talk 3253-A requires that the withdrawal be filed before the election
about. What she did was an exercise of her freedom of officer where the certificate of candidacy was filed, such
expression. requirement is merely directory, and is intended for the
convenience. Hence, the filing of petitioner’s affidavit of
JUDGMENT: withdrawal of candidacy for mayor of Baybay with the provincial

4
election supervisor of Leyte sufficed to effectively withdraw Villanueva v Comelec
such candidacy.
FACTS
3. Yes. Sec.3, Rule23 of COMELEC Rules of procedure The will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality.
provides that a petition to deny due course to or cancel (Guzman v. Board of Canvassers, 48 Phil 211). Mendoza, on
certificates of candidacy shall be heard summarily after due the last day for filling, filed his sworn certificate of candidacy for
notice. In the case, the COMELEC Law department conducted Vice Mayor of Dolores Quezon for the 1980 elections. On the
an ex-parte study of the cases without giving petitioner an same day, Mendoza filed an unsworn but handwritten letter
opportunity to be heard, or requiring her to submit a comment withdrawing his candidacy. Immediately after Mendoza’s
or opposition to the petitions or setting the case for hearing. withdrawal, Villanueva filed his own sworn Certificate of
Hence, the COMELEC en banc deprived the petitioner of due candidacy in substitution of Mendoza’s. Villanueva won. The
process of law in approving the report and recommendation of COMELEC, however, disregarded the votes cast in favour of
the Law Department. Villanueva and declared the other candidate as the sole winner.

Monsale v Nico The COMELEC argued that the withdrawal of Mendoza was not
valid and consequently he could not have been substituted by
FACTS: Jose F. Monsale withdrew his certificate of candidacy Villanueva since the withdrawal by Mendoza was not sworn to
on October 10, 1947, but, on November 7, attempted to revive as required by Section 27 of the Election Code which provides:
it by withdrawing his withdrawal. The Commission on Elections, ... No certificate of candidacy duly filed shall be considered
however, ruled on November 8 that the protestant could no withdraw ... unless the candidate files with the office which
longer be a candidate in spite of his desire to withdraw his received the certificate ... or with the commission a sworn
withdrawal. A canvass of the election returns showed that the statement of withdrawal ...
protestee Paulino M. Nico received 2,291 votes; another
candidate, Gregorio Fagutao, 126, votes; and the protestant ISSUE
Jose F. Monsale, none, evidently because the votes cast in his
favor had not been counted for the reason that he was not a HELD
registered candidate. Consequently, Nico was proclaimed No. The fact that Mendoza’s withdrawal was not sworn is but a
elected. technicality which should not be used to frustrate the people’s
will in favour of the petitioner as the substitute candidate. In
ISSUE: Guzman vs. Board of Canvassers (48 Phil. 211), which is
Whether or not a candidate who has withdrawn his certificate of clearly applicable, mutatis mutandis, the Supreme Court held
candidacy may revive it, either by withdrawing his letter of that “The will of the people cannot be frustrated by a technicality
withdrawal or by filing a new certificate of candidacy, after the that the certificate of candidacy had not been properly sworn to,
deadline provided by law for the filing of such certificate. This legal provision is mandatory and non-compliance therewith
before the election would be fatal to the status of the candidate
RULING: before the electorate, but after the people have expressed their
There is no question as to the right of a candidate to withdraw will, the result of the election cannot be defeated by the fact that
or annul his own certificate of candidacy, there being no legal the candidate has not sworn to his certificate or candidacy.”
prohibition against such withdrawal. Therefore, on October 10, (See also Gundan vs. Court of First Instance, 66 Phil. 125). As
or thirty- one days before the election, the protestant ceased to likewise ruled by this Court in Canceran vs. COMELEC (107
be a candidate by his own voluntary act, and as a matter of fact Phil. 607), the legal requirement that a withdrawal be under oath
the boards of election inspectors of the municipality of Miagao will be held to be merely directory and Mendoza’s failure to
were duly notified of his withdrawal. His letter to the observe the requirement should be considered a harmless
Commission on Elections dated November 6, 1947, which the irregularity. The spirit of the law rather than its literal reading
subscribed and swore to before a notary public on November 7, should have guided Respondent Commission in resolving the
whereby he withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of issue of last minute withdrawal and substitution of other persons
candidacy, can only be considered as a new certificate of as candidates.
candidacy which, having been filed only four days before the
election, could not legally be accepted under the law, which Note: Initially the Supreme Court dismissed Villanueva’s
expressly provides that such certificate should be filed at least petition. The Court considered its dismissal when it was shown
sixty days before the election. that the COMELEC proclaimed winner abandoned the position.

Pontawe v Comelec ADDITIONAL:

5
Whether the informal withdrawal of Mendoza invalidates the SEC. 73. Certificate of candidacy No person shall be eligible for
election of Villanueva as vice mayor. Section 28 of the 1978 any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of
Election Code provides for such substitute candidates in case candidacy within the period fixed herein.
of death, withdrawal or disqualification up to mid-day of the very
day of the elections. Mendoza’s withdrawal was filed on the last By its express language, the foregoing provision of law is
hour of the last day for regular filing of candidacies, which he absolutely mandatory. It is but logical to say that any person
had filed earlier that same day. Further, the will of the electorate who attempts to run for an elective office but does not file a
should be respected; it should not be defeated through the certificate of candidacy, is not a candidate at all. No amount of
invocation of formal or technical defects. The will of the people votes would catapult him into office. In Gador vs. Comelec (95
cannot be frustrated by a technicality that the certificate of SCRA 431 [1980]), the Court held that a certificate of candidacy
candidacy had not been properly sworn to. filed beyond the period fixed by law is void, and the person who
Statutes providing for election contests are to be liberally filed it is not, in law, a candidate. Much in the same manner as
construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of a person who filed no certificate of candidacy at all and a person
public officer may not be defeated by mere technical objections who filed it out of time, a person whose certificate of candidacy
is cancelled or denied due course is no candidate at all. No
Miranda v Comelec amount of votes should entitle him to the elective office aspired
for.
Facts:
Jose Pempe Miranda, then incumbent mayor of Santiago City, The evident purposes of the law in requiring the filing of
Isabela, filed his certificate of candidacy for the same mayoralty certificates of candidacy and in fixing the time limit therefor are:
post for the synchronized May 11, 1998 elections. Private (a) to enable the voters to know, at least sixty days before the
respondent Antonio M. Abaya filed a Petition to Deny Due regular election, the candidates among whom they are to make
Course to and/or Cancel Certificate of Candidacy and his the choice, and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the
petition was granted by the Comelec and disqualified Jose tabulation of the votes cast. For if the law did not confine the
Pempe Miranda. choice or election by the voters to the duly registered
candidates, there might be as many persons voted for as there
On May 6, 1998, way beyond the deadline for filing a certificate are voters, and votes might be cast even for unknown or
of candidacy, petitioner Joel G. Miranda filed his certificate of fictitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a
candidacy for the mayoralty post, supposedly as a substitute for candidate for another office in the same election. (Monsale vs.
his father, Jose Pempe Miranda. Nico, 83 Phil. 758 [1949])

Miranda garnered 22,002 votes, 1,666 more votes than private Even on the most basic and fundamental principles, it is readily
respondent who got only 20, 336 votes. On May 13, 1998, understood that the concept of a substitute presupposes the
private respondent filed a Petition to Declare Null and Void existence of the person to be substituted, for how can a person
Substitution .He prayed for the nullification of petitioners take the place of somebody who does not exist or who never
certificate of candidacy for being void ab initio because the was. The Court has no other choice but to rule that in all the
certificate of candidacy of Jose Pempe Miranda, whom instances enumerated in Section 77 of the Omnibus Election
petitioner was supposed to substitute, had already been code, the existence of a valid certificate of candidacy
cancelled and denied due course. seasonably filed is a requisite sine qua non.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is qualified to substitute a All told, a disqualified candidate may only be substituted if he
candidate whose COC was already cancelled? had a valid certificate of candidacy in the first place because, if
the disqualified candidate did not have a valid and seasonably
Ruling: No. filed certificate of candidacy, he is and was not a candidate at
In Bautista vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998) all. If a person was not a candidate, he cannot be substituted
this Court explicitly ruled that a cancelled certificate does not under Section 77 of the Code. Besides, if we were to allow the
give rise to a valid candidacy .A person without a valid so-called substitute to file a new and original certificate of
certificate of candidacy cannot be considered a candidate in candidacy beyond the period for the filing thereof, it would be a
much the same way as any person who has not filed any crystalline case of unequal protection of the law, an act
certificate of candidacy at all can not, by any stretch of the abhorred by our Constitution.
imagination, be a candidate at all.
The invalidation of petitioners supposed substitution of Jose
The law clearly provides: Pempe Miranda brings about the disqualification of petitioner in
the mayoralty race. However, the candidate who obtains the

6
second highest number of votes may not be proclaimed winner therein (barangay, municipality, city or province) for at least 1
in case the winning candidate is disqualified. year immediately preceding the day of the election…”

To simplistically assume that the second placer would have Domicile and residence are synonymous. The term residence
received the other votes would be to substitute our judgment for as used in election law, imports not only an intention to reside
the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second in a fixed place but also personal presence in that place, couple
placer. He lost the elections. He was repudiated by either a with conduct indicative of such intention. Domicile denotes a
majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the fixed permanent residence to which when absent for business,
first among qualified candidates because in a field which pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return.
excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have
substantially changed. We are not prepared to extrapolate the Requisites in order to acquire a new domicile by choice are:
results under the circumstances. there must concur (1) residence or bodily presence in the new
locality, (2) an intention to remain there, and (3) an intention to
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby partly DENIED, insofar as abandon the old domicile. There must be animus manendi
the Comelec ruling to ANNUL the election and proclamation of coupled with animus non revertendi.
petitioner is being AFFIRMED. The petition is, however, hereby
GRANTED so as to MODIFY the resolution of the Comelec in Luna v Comelec
SPA No. 98-288 by DELETING the portion directing the city
board of canvassers to reconvene and proclaim the winning Facts: On January 15 2004, Hans Roger withdrew his certificate
candidate from among those voted upon during the May 11, of candidacy. On the same date, Joy Chrisma Luna filed her
1998 elections. The law on succession should be enforced. certificate of candidacy as a substitute candidate for Hans
Roger for the 2004 elections as vice mayor of Lagayan, Abra.
Papandayan v Comelec Tomas Layao, together with several others filed a
disqualification petition against her since she was not a
Facts: In the May 14, 2001 elections, 3 candidates ran for the registered voter Lagayan, Abra, but of Bangued. It is also
position of mayor of Tubaran, Lanao del Sur, namely: petitioner contested that there can be no valid substitution since Hans
Papandayan Jr., respondent Balt, who was the incumbent Roger, the candidate sought to be substituted, is only 20 years
mayor seeking reelection, and Bantuas. Respondent Balt old on the day of the election. COMELEC ruled in favor of the
sought the disqualification of petitioner alleging that petitioner disqualification case.
was not a resident of Barangay Tangcal in Tubaran, Lanao del
Sur but a permanent resident of Bayang, Lanao del Sur. Issue: Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse
of discretion when it ruled that there was no valid substitution
Petitioner claimed that he was a resident of Tangcal, Tubaran; by Luna for Hans Roger.
that in 1990, he transferred his domicile from Bayang to Tangcal
and stayed there with his wife, a native of Tangcal; that he Held: The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
managed an agricultural land in Tubaran; and that he filed in amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring that
1998 his COC for the position of municipal mayor of Tubaran, Hans Roger, being under age, could not be considered to have
which he later withdraw. filed a valid certificate of candidacy and, thus, could not be
validly substituted by Luna. The substitution of Luna for Hans
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its Roger was valid.The COMELEC may not, by itself, without the
discretion in declaring him disqualified in a resolution, on the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate
ground that he is not a resident of Tubaran. of candidacy filed in due form. Since Hans Roger withdrew his
certificate of candidacy and the COMELEC found that Luna
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is disqualified to run as an complied with all the procedural requirements for a valid
elective official. substitution, Luna can validly substitute for Hans Roger. The
Court ruled that the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a
Held: No. The petitioner has duly proven that, although he was candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper
formerly a resident of Bayang, he later transferred residence to cognizance of the COMELEC.
Tangcal, Tubaran as shown by his actual and physical
presence therein for 10 years prior to the May 14, 2001 Tagolino v HRET
elections.
Actor Richard Gomez (Richard) filed his Certificate of
Par. 39, Chapter 1, Title 2 of the Local Government Code (RA Candidacy seeking the congressional office of the House of
7160) provides that an elective official must be a “…resident Representatives for the 4th District of Leyte. He indicated his

7
residence as 910 Carlota Hills, Ormoc City. The same was the COC that Kimberly filed was invalid because it contained a
questioned before the COMELEC by Buenaventura Juntilla, material misrepresentation relating to her eligibility for the office
one of the candidates for the said position claiming that Richard she seeks to be elected to. Olivia countered that although
is a resident of Colgate St., East Greenhills, San Juan City, MM. Kimberly may not be qualified to run for election because of her
The COMELEC disqualified Richard based on Section 78 of the age, it cannot be denied that she still filed a valid COC and was,
Omnibus Election Code for lack of residence. On May 5, 2010, thus, an official candidate who may be substituted. Olivia also
Lucy Torres-Gomez (Lucy) filed her Certificate of Candidacy as claimed that there was no ground to cancel or deny Kimberly’s
SUBSTITUTE of Richard. Despite the vigorous objection of COC on the ground of lack of qualification and material
Juntilla, the COMELEC allowed the substitution and Lucy was misrepresentation because she did not misrepresent her birth
elected as Representative of the 4th District of Leyte in the May date to qualify for the position of councilor, and as there was no
10, 2010 elections. deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate, which is precisely
why she withdrew her COC upon learning that she was not
A case was filed before the HRET questinoning the election of qualified.
Lucy on the ground that the “substitution” is not valid but the
HRET sustained the validity of the said substitution ISSUE:
Was there a valid substitution?
Issue:
Was there a valid substitution? Was Lucy Torres Gomez validly RULING:
elected as representative of the 4th District of Leyte? Yes, in declaring that Kimberly, being under age, could not be
considered to have filed a valid COC and, thus, could not be
Held: validly substituted by Olivia, we find that the COMELEC gravely
A valid Certificate of Candidacy is a condition sine qua non for abused its discretion. Firstly, subject to its authority over
a valid candidate substitution.Since Richard’s COC was not nuisance candidates and its power to deny due course to or
valid for material representation as to his residence, then there cancel COCs under Sec. 78, Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 881,
was no valid substitution. In short, since Richard is not the COMELEC has the ministerial duty to receive and
considered a “candidate” or there was no candidate to speak of, acknowledge receipt of COCs. The question of eligibility or
there would be no candidate to be substituted. ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper
cognizance of the COMELEC.
Unlike disqualification under Section 68 where he can be
substituted because the candidate therein has all the The next question then is whether Olivia complied with all of the
qualifications but disqualified because of prohibited acts like requirements for a valid substitution; we answer in the
election offences or because he is a permanent resident of a affirmative. First, there was a valid withdrawal of Kimberly’s
foreign country, a candidate disqualified under Section 78 could COC after the last day for the filing of COCs; second, Olivia
not be validly substituted. belongs to and is certified to by the same political party to which
Kimberly belongs; and third, Olivia filed her COC not later than
Cerafica v Comelec mid-day of election day.

On October 2012, Kimberly filed her certificate of candidacy Abcede v Imperial

(COC) for Councilor, City of Taguig for the 2013 Elections. Her
COC stated that she was born on 29 October 1992, or that she FACTS: Prior to September 7, 1957, petitioner Alfredo
will be twenty (20) years of age on the day of the Abcede filed, with the Commission on Elections,
elections, in contravention of the requirement that one must be his certificate of candidacy for the Office of the President of the
at least twenty-three (23) years of age on the day of the Philippines, in connection with the elections to be held on
elections. As such, Kimberly was summoned to a clarificatory November 12 of the same year. On or about said date, 23,
hearing due to the age qualification. Instead of attending the 1957, "to show cause why their certificates of candidacy should
hearing, Kimberly opted to file a sworn Statement of Withdrawal be considered as filed in good faith Abcede and other
of COC. Simultaneously, Olivia filed her own COC as a candidates were summoned by the Commission on Elections to
substitute of Kimberly. The COMELEC rendered a decision appear before the same on September and to be given due
ordering the cancellation of Kimberly’s COC, and the denial of course," that their failure to appear would be sufficient ground
the substitution of Kimberly by Olivia. to deny said certificates. After due hearing, the certificates were
considered not given due course. A reconsideration of such
COMELEC argued that Olivia cannot substitute Kimberly as the resolution having been denied, Abcede filed petition before the
latter was never an official candidate because she was not Supreme Court.
eligible for the post by reason of her age, and that; moreover,

8
ISSUE: Whether or not COMELEC can deny due course to a Petitioner Garvida applied for registration as member and voter
certificate of candidacy of an aspiring candidate. of the Katipunan ng Kabataan of a certain barangay. However
the Board of election tellers denied her application on the
RULING: No. ground that she is already 21 years and 10 months old. She
While the Constitution has given the Commission on Elections already exceeded the age limit for membership as laid down in
the "exclusive charge" of the enforcement and administration of Sec 3(b) of COMELEC resolution no. 2824.
all laws relative to the conduct of elections," the power of
decision of the Commission is limited to purely "administrative The municipal circuit trial court found her to be qualified and
questions." It cannot determine who among those possessing ordered her registration as member and voter in the Katipunan
the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, who have ng Kabataan. The Board of Election Tellers appealed to the
complied with the procedural requirements relative to the filing RTC, but the presiding judge inhibited himself from acting on
of certificates of candidacy - should be allowed to enjoy the full the appeal due to his close association with petitioner.
benefits intended by law therefor. This is a matter of policy, not
of administration and enforcement of the law, which policy must However, private respondent Sales a rival candidate, filed with
be determined by Congress in the exercise of its legislative the COMELEC en banc a “Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation
functions. of Certificate of Candidacy” against Garvida for falsely
representing her age qualification in her certificate of candidacy.
Cipriano v Comelec He claimed that Garvida is disqualified to become a voter and
a candidate for the SK for the reason that she will be more than
FACTS: On June 7, 2002, petitioner filed with the COMELEC twenty-one (21) years of age on May 6, 1996; that she was born
her certificate of candidacy as Chairman of the Sangguniang on June 11, 1974 as can be gleaned from her birth certificate.
Kabataan (SK) for the SK elections held on July 15, 2002. On
the date of the elections, July 15, 2002, the COMELEC issued ISSUE:
a resolution denying due course to or cancel the certificates of Whether or not Garvida can assume office as the elected SK
candidacy of several candidates for the SK elections, including official
petitioner, stating that those affected were not registered voters
in the barangay where they intended to run. Petitioner, RULING:
nonetheless, was allowed to vote in the July 15 SK elections In the case at bar, petitioner was born on June 11, 1974. On
and her name was not deleted from the official list of March 16, 1996, the day she registered as voter for the May 6,
candidates. After the canvassing of votes, petitioner was 1996 SK elections, petitioner was twenty-one (21) years and
proclaimed by the Barangay Board of Canvassers the duly nine (9) months old. On the day of the elections, she was 21
elected SK Chairman of Barangay 38, Pasay City. years, 11 months and 5 days old. When she assumed office on
June 1, 1996, she was 21 years, 11 months and 20 days old
ISSUE: Whether or not the Commission on Elections and was merely ten (10) days away from turning 22 years old.
(COMELEC), on its own, in the exercise of its power to enforce Petitioner may have qualified as a member of the Katipunan ng
and administer election laws, look into the qualifications of a Kabataan but definitely, petitioner was over the age limit for
candidate and cancel his certificate of candidacy on the ground elective SK officials set by Section 428 of the Local Government
that he lacks the qualifications prescribed by law. Code and Sections 3 [b] and 6 of Comelec Resolution No. 2824.

RULING: The Commission may not, by itself, without the proper Thus, she is ineligible to run as candidate for the May 6, 1996
proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of Sangguniang Kabataan elections.
candidacy filed in due form. When a candidate files his
certificate of candidacy, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to Loong v Comelec
receive and acknowledge its receipt. This is provided in Sec. 76
of the Omnibus Election Code. While the Commission may look
into patent defects in the certificates, it may not go into matters
not appearing on their face. The question of eligibility or
ineligibility of a candidate is thus beyond the usual and proper
cognizance of said body.

Garvida v Sales

FACTS: