Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy | Remedies and Jurisdiction | ELECTION LAW

Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy (CoC)

In Philippine election law, a petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy (CoC) is a crucial remedy designed to ensure that only qualified candidates can run for public office. This petition is governed primarily by the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and relevant jurisprudence. It is lodged against candidates who misrepresent or falsify material facts in their CoC. Below is a detailed analysis of the subject:

Legal Basis

The legal foundation for a petition to deny due course or cancel a CoC is found in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, which provides:

“A verified petition seeking to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false.”

Key Elements of a Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel a CoC

1. Ground for Filing: False Material Representation

   • The primary and exclusive ground for filing such a petition is when the candidate makes a false material representation in the CoC. Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code lists the facts that must be truthfully stated in a CoC, such as:
     • Full name;
     • Age;
     • Citizenship;
     • Residency;
     • Eligibility for the position being sought;
     • That the candidate is not a permanent resident of, or an immigrant to, a foreign country;
     • Other qualifications prescribed by law.
   • The falsity must be material, meaning it affects the candidate's eligibility to hold the office they seek.

2. Material Misrepresentation

   • The misrepresentation must be material, meaning it involves a matter essential to the candidate's qualifications. Examples of material representations include the candidate's:
     • Citizenship (e.g., falsely claiming Filipino citizenship);
     • Residency (e.g., stating a false number of years of residency in the political jurisdiction);
     • Status of eligibility (e.g., falsely claiming that they are eligible to run when barred by law, such as in cases of perpetual disqualification).
   • The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that for a representation to be deemed material, it must pertain to facts that would affect the validity of the CoC and the candidate's qualifications. Case law (e.g., Jalosjos v. COMELEC) emphasizes that the falsity should pertain to a substantial matter that would disqualify the candidate if untrue.

3. Verification and Period for Filing

   • The petition must be verified, meaning it should be sworn to and properly authenticated by the petitioner.
   • The petition must be filed within five (5) days from the last day for filing of the CoC. If the petition is filed after the period, it will be dismissed for being time-barred.

4. COMELEC's Jurisdiction and Procedure

   • The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has original and exclusive jurisdiction over petitions to deny due course to or cancel a CoC. COMELEC is required to evaluate whether the representations in the CoC are false and material.
   • Upon the filing of a petition, the COMELEC en banc or one of its divisions will handle the case. COMELEC has the power to conduct hearings and require the submission of evidence.
   • The burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that the candidate made a false material representation.

Consequences of a Grant of Petition

If COMELEC finds that the petition is meritorious, the CoC will be canceled, and the candidate will be disqualified from running for office. Importantly, the cancellation of the CoC means that the candidate is treated as if they never filed a valid CoC. This has significant consequences:

• Votes for a disqualified candidate are considered stray votes, and these votes will not be counted in favor of the disqualified candidate.
• If the candidate has already been proclaimed as a winner, the proclamation may be nullified, and the office may be declared vacant or awarded to the next qualified candidate, depending on the circumstances.

Remedies and Appeals

1. Motion for Reconsideration: A party aggrieved by a decision of a COMELEC division may file a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC en banc within five (5) days from receipt of the decision.

2. Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court: A decision of the COMELEC en banc may be brought before the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, provided there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC.

Relevant Jurisprudence

1. Villafuerte v. COMELEC (2016): This case clarified that the filing of a petition under Section 78 is appropriate only when there is deliberate intent to deceive or mislead the electorate through false statements in the CoC. The Court emphasized that the petitioner must establish the existence of such intent.

2. Tagolino v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) (2013): The Supreme Court discussed the nature of false material representations, particularly in relation to eligibility requirements, and reiterated that the misrepresentation must not only be false but also material in affecting the candidate’s qualifications.

3. Jalosjos v. COMELEC (2003): The Supreme Court ruled that a disqualified candidate cannot be deemed a valid substitute for an already disqualified candidate, as both would have no valid CoC. In this case, the court underscored that false material representations regarding residency and citizenship are grounds for the cancellation of a CoC.

Distinction from Other Election Law Remedies

It is essential to distinguish a petition to deny due course or cancel a CoC from other remedies available under election law:

• Disqualification Cases (Section 68, Omnibus Election Code): These pertain to acts of a candidate that disqualify them from holding office, such as engaging in election offenses or committing acts of terrorism.
• Quo Warranto Petitions: These are filed after the election and challenge the qualifications of a proclaimed winner on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualifications for the office at the time of election.
• Election Protest: This remedy is used to contest the results of an election due to fraud, vote-buying, or other irregularities in the voting process.

Conclusion

A petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy is a potent remedy to prevent individuals who have made false material representations from running for public office. The petition is strictly limited to cases where a candidate has misrepresented material facts that would disqualify them from holding the position sought. The COMELEC exercises original jurisdiction over these cases, and its decisions can be appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds of grave abuse of discretion.

This remedy ensures that only those who meet the legal qualifications and honestly represent themselves are allowed to participate in the electoral process, thereby protecting the integrity of elections in the Philippines.