Chapter-4-Qualifications-and-Disqualifications.pptx

1. MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT FOR A
PERSON WHO PLANS TO RUN FOR
PRESIDENT
2.CAN A CANDIDATE CHOOSE BETWEEN JUST
BEING ABLE TO READ OR JUST BEING ABLE
TO WRITE?
3.
HOW MANY ARTICLES ARE THERE IN THE
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?

1. ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION.NO. ARTICLE VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. 3. . A CANDIDATE MUST BE ABLE TO READ AND WRITE. AT LEAST 40 YEARS OLD ON THE DAY OF THE ELECTION. ACCORDING TO SEC 2. 2.TWENTY EIGHT (28) ARTICLES.

For a particular position . That must be met or complied with c. The quality of not being suitable b. Condition or circumstance b. To make a person suitable for a particular position DISQUALIFICATION a. aggroupment or coalition QUALIFICATIONS a. By himself or through an accredited political party. Aspiring for or seeking an elective office c. Who has filed a certificate of candidacy d. Any person SEC 79(a) BP 881 b. DEFINITION OF TERMS CANDIDATE a.

NATURAL BORN a. The domicile of natural person is their habitual residence . For the exercise of civil rights and fulfilment of obligations b. of Filipino mothers. whether permanent or temporary DOMICILE a. Those born before January 17. who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority RESIDENCE Indicate a place of abode. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the CITIZEN adoption of this Constitution SEC 2 ART IV b. 1973. Without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship c.

QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR NATIONAL ELECTIVE OFFICES PRES & VP SENATE HOUSE OF REP BASIS SEC 2 ART VII SEC 3 ART VI SEC 6 ART VI CITIZENSHIP Natural born Natural born Natural born At least 40 years old At least 35 years old At least 25 years old AGE on the day of the on the day of the on the day of the election election election LITERACY Able to read and write Able to read and write Able to read and write Registered voter in the VOTER Registered Voter Registered Voter district in which he REGISTRATION shall be elected Phil. – not less than 2 Phil. – at least two (2) RESIDENCE years preceding years preceding years before the day election election of the election . – at least 10 Phil.

. and • Must be able to read and write Filipino. • Must be a registered voter in the barangay. the district where he intends to be elected. or sangguniang bayan. QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES FOR LOCAL ELECTIVE OFFICES SECTION 39 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE STATES: • Must be a citizen of the Philippines. city or province or. or any other local language or dialect. in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan. • Must be a resident therein for at least 1 year immediately preceding the day of the election. municipality. sangguniang panlungsod.

Mayor. member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. 10742. . Vice- Mayor or member of the Sangguniang At least 23 years old on election day. Vice-Governor. at least 18 years old Sangguniang Kabataan but not more than 24 years old on election day. or Punong Barangay or Member At least 18 years old on election day. AGE QUALIFICATION Governor. Panglungsod of a Highly Urbanized City Mayor or Vice mayor of a City or At least 21 years old on election day. of the Sangguniang Barangay According to R. Municipality Member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod or Bayan.A.

city. the district where he intends to be elected. FRIVALDO VS. a resident therein for at least one (1) year immediately preceding the day of the election. Sec. and able to read and write Filipino or any other local language or dialect. COMELEC FACTS: Juan G. in the case of a member of the sangguniang panlalawigan. 39 of the local government code of 1991 . vice governor or member of the sangguniang panlalawigan. sangguniang panlungsod. Qualifications. — (A) an elective local official must be a citizen of the Philippines.D. . a registered voter in the barangay. or mayor. or sangguniang bayan. which he filed with the special committee on naturalization. Frivaldo – filed a petition for his own proclamation. (B) candidates for the position of governor. municipality."sec. vice mayor or member of the sangguniang panlungsod of highly urbanized cities must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age on election day. or province or. 39. He alleged that he took his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after his petition for repatriation under P. 725.

II. . it was the intent of the legislative authority that the law should apply to past events in order to benefit the greatest number of former Filipinos possible thereby enabling them to enjoy and exercise the constitutionally guaranteed right of citizenship. unlike in naturalization where an alien covets a first-time entry into Philippine political life. registration— not the actual voting—is the core of this qualification. The law intended citizenship to be a qualification distinct from being a voter. but even the repatriation granted to Frivaldo. Manners of reacquisition under Philippine laws – the local government code of 1991 expressly requires Philippine citizenship as a qualification for elective local officials. not to reiterate the need for nationality but to require that the official be registered as a voter in the area or territory he seeks to govern. and such legislative intention is to be give the fullest effect and expression. it is not only the law itself which is to be given retroactive effect. events. as in this case. III. in repatriation the applicant is a former natural-born Filipino who is merely seeking to reacquire his previous citizenship. even if being a voter presumes being a citizen first.HELD: I. The reason for this is simply that if. then there is all the more reason to have the law apply in a retroactive or retrospective manner to situations. and the purpose of the citizenship qualification is none other than to ensure that no alien shall govern our people and our country or a unit of territory thereof. including that of provincial governor. Philippine citizenship is an indispensable requirement for holding an elective public office. When may the repatriation be given a retroactive effect – the law was already in effect at the time Frivaldo became an American citizen. It also stands to reason that the voter requirement was included as another qualification. nevertheless. Hence. and transactions subsequent to the passage of such law. Requirements for repatriation as compared to naturalization – the requirements for repatriation is not unusual since.

Labo. that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of the methods in the same act. Commonwealth act no. he was not even a qualified voter under the constitution itself because of his alienage. nor does the petitioner claim.. once any of them is lost during incumbency. Ii. Jr. title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. COMELEC FACTS: Ramon L. Section 5 of the 1987 constitution – dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law. The qualifications are continuing requirements. Section 42 of the local government code – unless otherwise provided by law. In fact. Modes of losing Philippine citizenship – all of the modes of losing Philippine citizenship are applicable to the petitioner. . the elections for local officials shall be held every three (3) years on the second Monday of may. 63 – enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Lack of Philippine citizenship – the petitioner is not now. and (3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a foreign country. (2) express renunciation of citizenship. Ramon L. LABO VS. HELD: I. nor was he on the day of the local elections a citizen of the Philippines. Among these are: (1) naturalization in a foreign country. Jr. Article IV. As it does not appear in the record. Labo. – Asked to restrain the commission on elections from looking into the question of his citizenship as a qualification for his office as mayor of Baguio city.

is at least twenty-five years of age. She averred that the entry of the word “seven” in her original certificate of candidacy was the result of an “honest misinterpretation” which she sought to rectify by adding the words “since childhood” since she has always maintained Tacloban city as her domicile or residence. except the party-list representatives. 6 of the 1987 constitution – which states that no person shall be a member of the house of representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and. . changing the entry “seven” months to “since childhood”. and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. sec. ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS VS. COMELEC FACTS: Imelda Romualdez-Marcos – filed an amended/corrected certificate of candidacy. a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected. on the day of the election. able to read and write. and. Article vi.

it actually means only domicile. Fact of residence. Absence from permanent residence without intention to abandon it does not result in loss or change of domicile – it is settled in our election law that the mere absence of an individual from his permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change of domicile. what has clearly and unequivocally emerged is the fact that residence for election purposes is used synonymously with domicile. Ii. It would be plainly ridiculous for a candidate to deliberate and knowingly make a statement in a certificate of candidacy which would lead to his or her disqualification. misinform. Iii.HELD: I. decisive factor in determining residency qualification – it is the fact of residence. not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in determining whether an individual has satisfied the constitution’s residency qualification requirement or not. or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. The said statement becomes material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead. the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the peculiar criteria of political laws. As these concepts have evolved in our election law. Residence used synonymously with domicile – for political purposes. . The deliberations of the 1987 constitution on the residence qualification for certain elective positions have placed beyond doubt the principle that when the constitution speaks of residence in election law. not statement in certificate of candidacy.

Jurisdiction over qualification cases of candidates for members of house of representatives – the electoral tribunal clearly assumes jurisdiction over all contests relative to the election. returns. HELD: I. and who has not taken his oath of office cannot be said to be a member of either houses subject to article VI. section 17 of the 1987 constitution. and claimed that the jurisdiction over the petition for disqualification is exclusively lodged with the house of representatives electoral tribunal. and qualifications of their respective members. returns. the COMELEC lost its jurisdiction over the question of petitioner’s qualifications to run for member of the house of representatives. Aquino – contended that after the may 1995 elections. and qualifications of candidates for either the senate or the house of representatives only when the latter become members of either houses. . COMELEC FACTS: Agapito A. AQUINO VS. A candidate who has not been proclaimed. Section 17 of the 1987 constitution – which states that both the senate and the house of representatives shall have an electoral tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to election. Article VI.

HELD: Section 78 And Section 253 On Petitions For Quo Warranto Are The Provisions In The Code Which Supply Periods Within Which A Petition Relating To Disqualification Of Candidates Must Be Filed. On The Contrary. A Petition To Disqualify Him On The Ground Of False Representation. 6646. Applying Sections 6 And 7 Of Republic Act No. On The Part Of Respondent Commission. .Contends That SPA No. Loong . Both Read In The Light Of The Frivaldo Ruling Of This Court. COMELEC FACTS: Benjamin T. Said Section 7 Affirms And Reiterates Section 78 Of The Code. These Are Procedural Rules That Cannot Supersede The Code. It Held In Its Assailed Resolution That The Petition Of Ututalum And Edris Was Timely Filed. Rule 23 Of The Comelec Rules Of Procedure Which States That The Petition To Deny Due Course To Or Cancel A Certificate Of Candidacy Must Be Filed Within Five (5) Days Following The Last Day For The Filing Of A Certificate Of Candidacy. 90-006. LOONG VS. 9 And Section 2. Was Filed Out Of Time Because It Was Filed Beyond The 25-day Period Prescribed By Section 78 Of The Omnibus Election Code. It Will Be Noted That Nothing In Sections 6 Or 7 Modified Or Alters The 25-day Prescribed By Section 78 Of The Code For Filing The Appropriate Action To Cancel A Certificate Of Candidacy On Account Of Any False Representation Made Therein.

GONZALES VS. . HELD: There Being No Final Judgment Of Disqualification Yet At The Time Of His Proclamation On May 12. COMELEC FACTS: Fernando V. 2010. It Was Grave Error For The COMELEC En Banc To Rule That Gonzalez's Proclamation Was Illegal And Premature. The Issue Of Qualification Of Gonzalez For The Position Of Member Of The House Of Representatives Is Within The Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The HRET. 2010 Of The COMELEC Regarding The Petition For Disqualification And Cancellation Of Certificate Of Candidacy Filed Against Him By Stephen Bichara Alleging That Gonzalez Is A Spanish National. Gonzalez . Being The Legitimate Child Of A Spanish Father And A Filipino Mother And That He Failed To Elect Philippine Citizenship Upon Reaching The Age Of Majority. Gonzales Emerged As Winner Was Proclaimed. The COMELEC Clearly Acted With Grave Abuse Of Discretion In Ordering The Proclamation Of Private Respondent Lim. The Comelec Second Division Division Disqualified Gonzales In The Elections And Held That The Proclamation Of Gonzalez By The PBOC Was Premature And Illegal.Assailing The Resolution Dated May 8.

Agustin . but the use of his USA passport after his renunciation of foreign citizenship rendered him disqualified from continuing as a mayoralty candidate. It should suffice that the person is duly registered upon the filing of his COC or within the period prescribed by law for such registration. . The law expressly declares that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for. and votes cast for him shall not be counted. AGUSTIN VS.was a naturalized citizen running for mayor of the municipality of marcos ilocos comelec - posits that the petitioner's declaration of his eligibility in his coc constituted material misrepresentation because of his failure to meet the citizenship and residency requirements. The petitioner filed a valid coc. HELD: I. II. III. COMELEC FACTS: Arsenio A.

DISQUALIFICATIONS .

insurrection. 811 IMCOMPETENT OR INSANE Declared as incompetent or insane by competent authority CONVICTION (subversion. B.P. 18 months or more – imprisonment) CONVICTION Sentenced by final judgement for a crime involving moral (crime involving moral turpitude turpitude) . OR rebellion or any offense for which has been sentenced to penalty CONVICTION of more than 18 months imprisonment (any offense. insurrection.SEC. rebellion) Sentenced by final judgement for subversion. 12.

40. R. within two years after serving sentence THOSE REMOVED FROM OFFICE Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case VIOLATION OF OATH OF Those convicted by final judgement for violationg the oath of ALLEGIANCE allegiance .A. 7160 CONVICTION Sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral (crime involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one year or more of turpitude) imprisonment.SEC.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP Those with dual citizenship. Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or FUGITIVES abroad. Permanent residents of a foreign country or those who have PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF A acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the FOREIGN COUNTRY same right after the effectivity of this Code. .

filed a motion for reconsideration over his disqualification as a candidate for Congressional seat and from holding any elective public office. rebellion. VILLABER VS. insurrection. unless he has been given plenary pardon or granted amnesty. or for any offense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than eighteen months. — Any person who has been declared by competent authority insane or incompetent. or has been sentenced by final judgment for subversion. 12. The disqualifications to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed upon the declaration by competent authority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or after the expiration of a period of five years from his service of sentence. unless within the same period he again becomes disqualified. COMELEC Facts: Pablo c.P. Disqualifications. for his conviction for violation of B. Villaber . shall be disqualified to be a candidate and to hold any office. a crime which involves moral turpitude." . 22. or for a crime involving moral turpitude. "Sec. Blg.

Held: The petition is DISMISSED. but also an injury to the Public" since the circulation of valueless commercial papers "can very well pollute the Channels of trade and commerce. NLRC) SC held that a conviction for violation of B. . “(People vs. "transcends the private interests of the parties Directly involved in the transaction and touches the interests of the community at large. Blg. Martinez) . "not every criminal act involves moral turpitude. injure the banking system and eventually hurt the welfareOf society and the public interest.” (International rice research institute vs.P. 22 "imports deceit" and “certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person. . Tuanda) The effects of the issuance of a worthless check.” (Lozano vs. No grave abuse of discretion was committed by respondent COMELEC in issuing the assailed resolution.” (Dela torre vs. Commission on Elections) In the final analysis. whether or not a crime involves Moral turpitude is ultimately a question of fact and frequently depends on all the circumstances surrounding the violation of the statute." and that "as to what crime involves moral turpitude is for the Supreme Court to determine. . The mischief it creates is not only a wrong to the payee or holder.

including the right to run for public office." . COMELEC Facts: Urbano Moreno – assailed the resolution of the commission on elections (Comelec) disqualifying him from running for the elective office of Punong Barangay of Barangay Cabugao. 2002 synchronized barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections. Sec. his case was deemed terminated and all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction were restored to him. Held: The petition is GRANTED When Moreno was finally discharged upon the court's finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation.MORENO VS. 16 of the probation law provides that "the final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted. Daram. Samar in the July 15.

Comelec . In spite of this. It is important to note that the disqualification under sec. a penalty which also covers probationable offenses.” ~ Justice Artemio Panganiban in Frivaldo vs. an act of grace and clemency or immunity conferred by the state. This omission is significant because it offers a glimpse into the legislative intent to treat probationers as a distinct class of offenders not covered by the disqualification.Probation is not a right of an accused but a mere privilege. the provision does not specifically disqualify probationers from running for a local elective office. 40(a) of the local government code covers offenses punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment. "It would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms. which is granted to a deserving defendant who thereby escapes the extreme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense of which he was convicted.

The law looks forward. A statute. unless such intent is expressly declared or clearly and necessarily implied from the language of the enactment. non respicit. Lex prospicit. . Held: Well-settled is the principle that while the legislature has the power to pass retroactive laws which do not impair the obligation of contracts. COMELEC Facts: Humberto Basco . not backward. therefore. 7160. GREGO VS. otherwise known as the local government code (the code). follows that section 40 (b) of the local government code is not applicable. It. must not be so construed as to overreach acts. The basic tenet in legal hermeneutics that laws operate only prospectively and not retroactively provides the qualification sought by petitioner. or affect injuriously vested rights. There is no provision in the statute which would clearly indicate that the same operates retroactively. events or matters. which transpired before its passage. despite the generality in its language. it is equally true that statutes are not to be construed as intended to have a retroactive effect so as to affect pending proceedings.filed a petition assailing his disqualification from running for any elective position since he had been "removed from office as a result of an administrative case" pursuant to section 40 (b) of republic act no.

Reyes filed a certificate of candidacy. Subsequently. Because of the absence of any contrary order from the COMELEC. Reyes filed a motion for reconsideration but his motion was denied. COMELEC Facts: Renato U. Hence the petition with the supreme court alleging grave abuse of discretion by the COMELEC. the COMELEC issued a resolution declaring reyes as disqualified from running for public office. Petitioner argues that his election is a bar to his disqualification. Held: Garcia's plea that the votes cast for Reyes be invalidated is without merit. The subsequent finding that he is disqualified cannot retroact to the date of the elections so as to invalidate the votes cast for him. The votes cast for Reyes were presumed to have been cast in the belief that Reyes was qualified and for that reason cannot be treated as stray. petitioner reyes was voted for in the election. . REYES VS. void. or meaningless. And rogelio de castro sought the disqualification of reyes as candidate for mayor.

. and which the Comelec used in its assailed resolutions. or credit with. the crime of which Moreno was the time of issuance of the check. involves moral have sufficient funds in. a determination that the crime of Arbitrary Detention involves moral turpitude is not decisive of this case. whether Arbitrary Detention is a crime involving moral turpitude was never raised in the petition for disqualification because the ground relied upon by Mejes. the turpitude falling under the first part of the drawee bank for payment of the check in full above-quoted provision. COMELEC MORENO vs. VILLABER vs. COMELEC WON the crime involves moral turpitude Violation of B. The question of upon presentment. the crucial issue being whether Moreno's sentence was in fact served.P. is his alleged disqualification from running for a local elective office within two (2) years from his discharge from probation after having been convicted by final judgment for an offense punishable by Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Two (2) Years and Four (4) Months. he does not convicted by final judgment. 22 is a crime involving moral There is no need to rule on whether Arbitrary turpitude because the accused knows that at Detention. Besides.

as in this case. plurality of voters. the conditions would have substantially changed. especially if they placer. repudiated by either a majority or that the candidate was qualified. . the electorate alone. COMELEC Does a candidate’s election to office The qualifications prescribed for To simplistically assume that the wipe away and condone the elective office cannot be erased by second placer would have received the administrative penalty against him. The office? ballot cannot cure the vice of second placer is just that. We are not prepared to extrapolate the results under the circumstances. He lost the elections. GREGO vs. He could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified candidate. He was mistakenly believed. a second ineligibility. COMELEC REYES vs. The will of the other votes would be to substitute our thus restoring his eligibility for public people as expressed through the judgment for the mind of the voter.

20 – Must be understood as referring to dual allegiance. dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition. refers to a situation in which a person simultaneously owes. Dual allegiance on the other hand. While dual citizenship is involuntary. Manzano on the ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. a person is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. The former arises when. as a result of the application of the different laws of two or more states. loyalty to two or more states. Section 40(d) of the local government code – those holding dual citizenship are disqualified from running for any elective local position. HELD: The phrase "dual citizenship" in R. MANZANO FACTS: Ernesto Mamaril – filed a disqualification case against Eduardo B. 5 of the constitution provides "dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.A." . Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. Article IV sec. by some positive act. 40 (d) and R.MERCADO VS. 7160 sec. 7854 sec.A.

to be able to qualify as a candidate in the elections. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003) . The courts 2000 ruling in Valles vs. petitioner should have made a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship. This. This new law explicitly provides that should one seek elective public office. at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy.A. Ii. HELD: I. Villanueva – filed a petition before the provincial election supervisor of the province of Iloilo. petitioner failed to do. . Lopez on the ground that he is an American citizen. Petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under the cited law.Section 5 of this law provides that “those seeking public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding such public office as required by the constitution and existing laws and. he should first make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath. LOPEZ VS. COMELEC FACTS: Tessie P. COMELEC – According to the poll body. No. COMELEC has been superseded by the enactment of R. praying for the disqualification of Eusebio Eugenio K. make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath.

after being charged. xx. Rodriguez therefore is a “fugitive from justice” which is a ground for his disqualification/ineligibility. However. The definition thus indicates that the intent to evade is the compelling factor that animates one's flight from a particular jurisdiction. rodriguez’s arrival in the philippines preceded the filing of the felony complaint in the los angeles court. flee to avoid prosecution. RODRIGUEZ VS. 1985. And obviously. grand theft and attempted grand theft of personal property. Rodriguez’s case just cannot fit in this concept. Iii. Marquez revealed that Rodriguez left the united states where a charge. filed on November 12. Section 40(e) of the local government code .the following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: xx (e) fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad. or of a promulgated judgment of conviction. COMELEC FACTS: Bienvenido O. The definition of a “fugitive from justice” includes not only those who flee after conviction to avoid punishment but also those who. is pending against the latter before the Los Angeles Municipal Court for fraudulent insurance claims. – Challenged the victory of Rodriguez via quo warranto before the COMELEC. HELD: I. Ii. there can only be an intent to evade prosecution or punishment when there is knowledge by the fleeing subject of an already instituted indictment. Jr. Marquez. .

COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Mateo Caasi – filed a petition for quo warranto to disqualify Merito Miguel from running for the position of municipal mayor of Bolinao. his act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective office in the Philippines. CAASI VS. The waiver of his green card should be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to filing his candidacy for elective office in this country. Without such prior waiver. Iii. and any public officer or employee who seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law.” Ii." . HELD: I. did not of itself constitute a waiver of his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of the united states. Therefore. he was "disqualified to run for any elective office. To be “qualified to run for public office” in the Philippines. Section 18. Article XI of the 1987 constitution – provides that public officers and employees owe the state and this constitution allegiance at all times. Pangasinan on the account of his being a green card holder. the law requires the candidate who is a green card holder must have “waives his status as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country.

he had already been convicted by final judgment for robbery and sentenced to prision mayor by the RTC. JR. A person suffering from these ineligibilities is ineligible to run for elective public office.filed a petition under section 78 of the omnibus election code to deny due course and and to cancel the COC of Jalosjos. VS. Ii.the following persons are disqualified from running for any elective local position: (a) those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment. He asserts that Jalosjos made a false misrepresentation in his COC when he declared that he was eligible to run for mayor because before he filed his candidacy. within two (2) years after serving sentence. Section 40(a) of the local government code . xx. and commits a false material representation if he states in his certificate of candidacy that he is eligible to so run. HELD: I. COMELEC FACTS: Agapito J. The penalty of prision mayor automatically carries with it. he accessory penalties of temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special disqualification. JALOSJOS. by operation of law. Cardino . Iii. Both temporary absolute disqualification and perpetual special disqualification constitute ineligibilities to hold elective public office. .

REMEDIES: PRE-ELECTION • PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE TO OR CANCEL A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY (SEC. AS AMENDED) A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of 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. 78. 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. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 881. . after due notice and hearing. not later than fifteen days before the election.

Sec. but still states under oath he is eligible. in other words. a ground to support a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy under section 78. or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. or. then the candidate clearly makes a false material representation. requires that said candidate is eligible for said office. as amended.• On what ground/s: Material Representation in the qualifications for elective office. misinform. . 74. B. • Must pertain to a material fact • Must cause a deliberate attempt to mislead. 881. to mislead the electorate • If the candidate is not actually eligible.P.

if it is filed way beyond 25 days. otherwise. the petition cannot be given due course • Where to file: COMELEC .• Period to file: Rule 23 of COMELEC rules of procedure states that the petition must be filed within 25 days from the filing of the certificate of candidacy sought to be cancelled.

regional.REMEDIES: POST-ELECTION • PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO (SEC. . 881. AS AMENDED) Any voter contesting the election of any member of the batasang pambansa. or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the commission within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election. within ten days after the proclamation of the results of the election. 253. Any voter contesting the election of any municipal or barangay officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the regional trial court or metropolitan or municipal trial court. provincial. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. respectively.

• Who may file: Filed by any registered voter. • On what ground/s: On grounds of ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines • Period to file: Within ten (10) days from proclamation of the results of the election . if his claim is not well founded or if he has forfeited his right to enjoy the privilege. or ineligibility of the winning candidate. but not necessarily to install the petitioner in his place.• Quo warranto proceeding: Raises an issue as to the disloyalty of. It is a proceeding to determine the right to the use or exercise to an office and to oust the holder from its enjoyment.

as the sole judge. The 1987 Philippine Constitution) As to the members of the House of Representatives: House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal Members of the Congress As to the members of the Senate: Senate Electoral Tribunal (Art. The 1987 Philippine Constitution) Governor/Vice-Governor Supreme Court (Petition for certiorari) COMELEC (Original Jurisdiction) Regional/Provincial/City officials Supreme Court (Petition for certiorari) Regional Trial Court (Exclusive Original Jurisdiction) Elective Municipal Officials COMELEC (Appeal/ Certiorari/ Mandamus. MTCC.g . Sec. 4(7). The 1987 Philippine Constitution) Commission on Elections (Exclusive Original Jurisdiction) (Art. 17. Sec.MeTC. MTC. VII. VI. MCTC (Exclusive Original Jurisdiction) Elective Barangay Officials COMELEC (Appeal/ Certiorari/ Mandamus/ Prohibition) Supreme Court (Petition for certiorari) . 2 (2).ELECTIVE OFFICE WHERE TO FILE Supreme Court en banc. Prohibition) Supreme Court (Petition for Certiorari) Inferior Courts e. seating as Presidential Electoral Tribunal President/ Vice-President (Art. IX-C. Sec.

REPUBLIC ACT 6646 Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for. upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor. the court or commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action. 6. and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.EFFECTS OF DISQUALIFICATION • SEC. . inquiry. or protest and. If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election.

the board of election inspectors.• BEFORE ELECTION: Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for. . • May suspend the proclamation of such candidate if the evidence of guilt is strong • Requisites for doctrine of rejection of 2nd placer • DISQUALIFICATION REMAINED PENDING ON ELECTION DAY • DISQUALIFICATION BECAME FINAL ONLY AFTER THE ELECTIONS. is under obligation to count and tally the votes cast in favor of the candidate. and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. • AFTER ELECTION: Where the decision of the COMELEC disqualifying the candidate is not yet final and executory on election day. in the exercise of its ministerial duty.

July 29. 12. Benguet for the May 10. COMELEC FACTS: Jan. 292 votes. Feliseo Bayacsan. Nov. thus he won the mayoralty race wherein he received 8. . 2004 – Palileng filed a petition for annulment of proclamation of Cayat as Mayor. filed a disqualification case. . Nardo Cayat filed a certificate for candidacy for Mayor in Baguias. 2004. 05. 2004 COMELEC Ruling. 2004 . Cayat’s opponent. alleging that Cayat was not eligible for said position because the latter was convicted by final judgment on the Crime of Acts of Lasciviousness.COMELEC disqualified Cayat May 12.Thomas R. 2004 . Disqualifications. 2004 – Cayat’s name remained in the list of candidates. May 17. intervened and prayed that he be proclaimed as mayor.Rev. Jan. 2004 . 2004 – Cayat was proclaimed as Mayor. Section 40. while Palileng received 5.(A) those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by one (1) year or more of imprisonment. Palileng Sr.CAYAT VS. 164 votes. 2004 – COMELEC proclaimed Palileng as the new mayor. invoking section 40(a) of the local government code. within two (2) years after serving sentence T April 12. and also filed motion for execution of judgment of the April 12. . elected vice-mayor. 26. National Elections. Fr.

resulting in the presence of two mayoralty candidates for buguias. . Benguet in the May 10. or RA 6646 applies . 10 May 2004. 2004 .Palileng was the only candidate for Mayor of Baguias. Moreover he was not a second placer. 6.Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for. Doctrine of rejection of 2nd placer cannot be applied . 2004.The April 12. benguet in the elections. 2004 Palileng is the sole candidate . First sentence of Sec.Elements: 1) The decision on Cayat’s disqualification remained pending on election day. 2) The decision on Cayat’s disqualification became final only after the elections.HELD: COMELEC Resolution became final and executory on April 17. 2004 COMELEC Resolution cancelling Cayat’s COC became final and executory on April 17. but he was the sole and only placer. and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.