1. This document outlines the grounds and procedures for disqualifying candidates in Philippine elections. It discusses when candidates can be disqualified for violating election laws or for being nuisance candidates.
2. It also describes the process for filing disqualification cases, including that petitions must generally be filed within 5 days of the candidacy filing deadline. It can be filed by any voter or candidate for the same office and is handled through a summary process by the Commission on Elections.
3. The effects of disqualification are also summarized, including that disqualified candidates cannot be voted for and any votes for them are not counted if the disqualification is by final judgment before the election. If after the election, the case can still
1. This document outlines the grounds and procedures for disqualifying candidates in Philippine elections. It discusses when candidates can be disqualified for violating election laws or for being nuisance candidates.
2. It also describes the process for filing disqualification cases, including that petitions must generally be filed within 5 days of the candidacy filing deadline. It can be filed by any voter or candidate for the same office and is handled through a summary process by the Commission on Elections.
3. The effects of disqualification are also summarized, including that disqualified candidates cannot be voted for and any votes for them are not counted if the disqualification is by final judgment before the election. If after the election, the case can still
1. This document outlines the grounds and procedures for disqualifying candidates in Philippine elections. It discusses when candidates can be disqualified for violating election laws or for being nuisance candidates.
2. It also describes the process for filing disqualification cases, including that petitions must generally be filed within 5 days of the candidacy filing deadline. It can be filed by any voter or candidate for the same office and is handled through a summary process by the Commission on Elections.
3. The effects of disqualification are also summarized, including that disqualified candidates cannot be voted for and any votes for them are not counted if the disqualification is by final judgment before the election. If after the election, the case can still
Giving money or other material consideration to influence
voters or public officials performing electoral functions Committing acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy Spending in his election campaign in excess of the amount allowed by the Code Soliciting, receiving or making any prohibited contribution Violations of Secs. 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v and cc, sub-paragraph 6. Nuisance
candidate
Sec.
The COMELEC may motu propio refuse to give due course or
cancel a certificate of candidacy. (Sec. 69, BP 881) The proceeding shall be summary. (Nolasco vs. COMELEC, 275 SCRA 762) The COMELEC can decide a disqualification case directly without referring it to its legal officers for investigation. (Nolasco, supra) The decision shall be final and executory after 5 days from receipt unless stayed by the Supreme Court [Secs. 5(e) and 7, RA 6646]
69 EFFECTS
A petition to disqualify a candidate for councilor for failure to
indicate in his certificate of candidacy the precinct number and the barangay as a registered voter cannot be considered a petition to disqualify him for being a nuisance candidate, since his certificate was not filed to make mockery of the election or to confuse the voters. (Jurilla vs. COMELEC, 232 SCRA 758) Falsity of material representation in certificate of candidacy. Sec. 78 The COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition to disqualify a candidate for congressman for ineligibility before he has been proclaimed and has assumed office (Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300; Aquino vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 400) 2.
Procedure
for
disqualification
of
candidates
The petition shall be filed by any registered candidate for the
same Office within 5 days from the last day of filing of certificates of Candidacy. (Secs. 5a and 7, RA 6646) Under the election laws and the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, any voter may file a petition to disqualify a candidate on grounds provided by law. (Torayno vs.COMELEC, 337 SCRA 574) The fact that no docket fee was initially paid is not fatal. The Procedural defect as cured by the subsequent payment of the docket fee. (Sunga vs. COMELEC, 228 SCRA 76) A petition filed after the election is filed out of time. (Loong vs.COMELEC, 216 SCRA 769) Since the filing by facsimile transmission is not sanctioned and a facsimile copy is not an original pleading, a petition for disqualification should be deemed filed upon the filing of the original petition. (Garvida vs. Sales, 271 SCRA 764) Where a qualified candidate was replaced on the day before the election, a petition to disqualify the replacement filed on election day should be entertained, as it was impossible to file the petition earlier. (Abella vs. Larrazabal, 180 SCRA 509)
OF
DISQUALIFICATION
CASE
After final judgment -Any candidate who has been declared by
final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. Before final judgment 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 Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may, during the tendency thereof, order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong. (Sec. 6, RA 6646) The purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for violation of election laws. The fact that a candidate has been proclaimed and had assumed the position to which he was elected does not divest the COMELEC of authority and jurisdiction to continue the hearing and eventually decide the disqualification. The COMELEC should not dismiss the case simply because the respondent has been proclaimed. (Sunga vs. COMELEC, 288 SCRA 76 and Lonzanida vs. COMELEC, 311 SCRA 617) Sec. 6 of RA 6616 authorizes the continuation of proceedings for disqualification even after the elections if the respondent has not been proclaimed. (Perez vs. COMELEC, 317 SCRA 641) A disqualification case may have administrative, which required only a evidence to prove disqualification, and necessitates proof beyond reasonable
two aspects, the
preponderance of the criminal, which doubt to convict.
There is no provision in RA 6646 that treats of a situation where
the complaint for disqualification is filed after the election. . . . Second paragraph of paragraph 2 of Res. No. 2050 provides that where a complaint is filed after the election but before proclamation, as in this case, the complaint must be dismissed
as a disqualification case but shall be referred to the Law
Department for preliminary investigation. Why there is a difference between a petition for disqualifications before and after the election proceeds from the fact that before the electorate and those who vote for the candidate assume the risk that should said candidate be disqualified after the election, their votes would be declared stray or invalid votes and that would not be true in the case of one filed after the electorate has already voted . . . (Bagatsing vs. COMELEC, 320 SCRA 817) The COMELEC can legally suspend the proclamation of the winning candidate although he received the winning number of votes.(Labo vs. COMELEC, 211 SCRA 297). The use of the word may, indicates that the suspension of the proclamation is merely directory and permissive in nature and operates to confer discretion. What is made mandatory is the continuation of the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or protest. Since the suspension of the proclamation is merely permissive, the proclamation of a candidate is valid, if the COMELEC did not suspend his proclamation. (Grego vs. COMELEC, 274 SCRA 481) Under the same provision, intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election if there has yet no final judgment rendered. (Mercado vs. Mazano, 307 SCRA 630) Where the votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose disqualification had not yet become final on election day were tallied separately, they should be counted in favor of the petitioner. (Bautista vs. COMELEC, 298, SCRA 480)
25 Soc - Sec.rep - Ser. 64, Unempl - Ins.rep. CCH 14534a Marilyn Finkelstein v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, 869 F.2d 215, 3rd Cir. (1989)