Duties of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) | Filing of Certificates of Candidacy | Candidacy | ELECTION LAW

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

XIV. ELECTION LAW
B. Candidacy
2. Filing of Certificates of Candidacy
d. Duties of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC)

---

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is the constitutional body responsible for enforcing and administering election laws in the Philippines. In relation to the filing of Certificates of Candidacy (COC), the COMELEC has specific duties and powers defined by the Constitution, statutory laws, jurisprudence, and its own rules and regulations.

Below is a detailed enumeration of the COMELEC’s duties related to the filing of Certificates of Candidacy:

1. Rule-Making Power

COMELEC is tasked with promulgating rules and regulations governing the filing of Certificates of Candidacy. This rule-making power includes:

• Setting guidelines for the form and content of the COC. The COC must be in a form prescribed by COMELEC and contain certain mandatory information, including the candidate's name, address, age, citizenship, and the office sought.
• Specifying the period for filing COCs. Under the law, the COMELEC determines the specific dates within which aspirants for public office must file their COCs. Late filings are generally not allowed except for valid reasons recognized by COMELEC.

Legal Basis:

• Article IX-C, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution
• Republic Act No. 9369 (Amended Automated Election Law)
• Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881)

2. Receiving and Processing of Certificates of Candidacy

The COMELEC has the duty to receive, process, and evaluate the validity of Certificates of Candidacy. Specific duties include:

• Acceptance of COCs: COMELEC is responsible for officially receiving the COCs from aspiring candidates during the prescribed period.
• Verification and validation: After the submission, the COMELEC must scrutinize the contents of the COC to ensure the candidate complies with the qualifications required by law (e.g., age, residency, citizenship). This includes checking whether the COC has been properly executed, notarized, and contains the required attachments (e.g., documentary proof of qualification).

Legal Basis:

• Article IX-C, Section 2(1) of the 1987 Constitution
• Section 73, Omnibus Election Code

3. Examination of Qualifications and Grounds for Disqualification

COMELEC has the authority to examine whether a candidate is qualified to run for office and to determine the existence of any grounds for disqualification. Duties include:

• Preliminary investigation and motu proprio powers: COMELEC can motu proprio (on its own initiative) investigate and resolve petitions to cancel a COC or disqualify a candidate. Grounds for cancellation include:

  • Material misrepresentation in the COC, such as false claims about citizenship, age, or residency (Section 78, Omnibus Election Code).
  • Non-filing of mandatory Statement of Contributions and Expenditures (SOCE) from previous elections.

• Disqualification cases: COMELEC is empowered to disqualify candidates based on statutory grounds, including:

  • Conviction of certain crimes involving moral turpitude, or an offense punishable by over 18 months of imprisonment.
  • Violation of election-related offenses such as vote-buying, campaign overspending, or election-related violence (Section 12, Omnibus Election Code).

Legal Basis:

• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code
• Section 12, Omnibus Election Code

4. Publication and Posting of Certified List of Candidates

Once the COCs have been processed and the candidates’ qualifications verified, COMELEC is required to prepare and publish a Certified List of Candidates. This includes:

• Certification and publication: COMELEC must prepare the final list of qualified candidates, which must be posted in conspicuous places and published in major newspapers of general circulation and the COMELEC website.

• Exclusion of nuisance candidates: COMELEC has the authority to declare certain aspirants as nuisance candidates if they:

  • File their COCs to put the election process into mockery or disrepute.
  • Have no bona fide intention to run for office, demonstrated by lack of capability to campaign for the position sought (Section 69, Omnibus Election Code).

Legal Basis:

• Article IX-C, Section 3, 1987 Constitution
• Section 69, Omnibus Election Code

5. Hearing and Deciding Petitions Related to COCs

COMELEC has the adjudicatory function to hear and decide cases related to the filing of COCs. This includes:

• Resolution of cancellation or disqualification cases: COMELEC is vested with the authority to decide on cases involving cancellation of COCs due to material misrepresentation or disqualification cases initiated either motu proprio or through petitions by opposing parties.

• Conduct of hearings: The COMELEC, through its divisions and en banc, conducts summary hearings and issues decisions on these matters. Parties have the right to file appeals before the Supreme Court under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, which governs appeals from decisions of constitutional commissions.

Legal Basis:

• Section 78, Omnibus Election Code
• Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC
• Section 2(2), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution

6. Ensuring Publicity and Access to Information

COMELEC must ensure that the filing of COCs is done in a transparent manner. Duties in this context include:

• Public access to COC records: COMELEC must ensure that the information on candidates’ qualifications and declarations in their COCs is accessible to the public. This transparency is key to ensuring an informed electorate.

• Filing in the appropriate offices: COMELEC must ensure that candidates file their COCs in the correct regional, provincial, or city offices, depending on the office sought. For national candidates (i.e., president, vice president, senators), the COC must be filed directly with COMELEC’s main office.

Legal Basis:

• Section 76, Omnibus Election Code
• Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution

7. Withdrawal and Substitution of Candidates

COMELEC oversees the processes related to the withdrawal of candidacies and substitution by political parties. Key duties include:

• Acceptance of withdrawal of candidacy: Candidates are allowed to withdraw their candidacies by filing a written withdrawal with the COMELEC, which it must receive and act upon within the prescribed periods.

• Substitution of candidates: COMELEC regulates the substitution of candidates, allowing it only under certain conditions, such as:

  • Withdrawal of the original candidate by the political party on or before the deadline for substitution.
  • Death or permanent incapacity of the original candidate after the deadline.
  • Substitutes must belong to the same political party and meet all qualifications.

Legal Basis:

• Section 77, Omnibus Election Code

8. Coordination with Other Agencies

COMELEC is responsible for coordinating with other government agencies in relation to the filing and processing of COCs. For example:

• Coordination with the Bureau of Immigration (BI) and Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA): To verify the citizenship of candidates, particularly when issues of dual or foreign citizenship arise.

• Coordination with the courts and law enforcement agencies: For records of candidates who may have pending disqualification cases or criminal convictions.

---

Conclusion

The COMELEC’s duties regarding the filing of Certificates of Candidacy are critical to ensuring orderly, fair, and legal elections in the Philippines. Its responsibilities span from rule-making to adjudication, requiring close adherence to the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, and various election laws.

Nuisance Candidates | Filing of Certificates of Candidacy | Candidacy | ELECTION LAW

Election Law: Nuisance Candidates (Filing of Certificates of Candidacy)

In Philippine election law, the concept of nuisance candidates is addressed primarily under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), and further elaborated in jurisprudence and Commission on Elections (COMELEC) resolutions. The law seeks to preserve the integrity of the electoral process by preventing candidates from cluttering the ballot or causing confusion among voters, especially where such candidates have no genuine intent to seek office.

Here is a comprehensive discussion on nuisance candidates, specifically regarding the filing of Certificates of Candidacy (COCs):

1. Definition of Nuisance Candidates

Under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, a nuisance candidate is defined as:

"The Commission may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to:

1. Put the election process in mockery or disrepute;
2. Cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates; or
3. By other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and would thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate."

2. Grounds for Declaration as a Nuisance Candidate

The following grounds are key considerations for declaring a candidate as a nuisance:

• Mockery or Disrepute: This pertains to candidates whose filing is clearly meant to trivialize the electoral process. This can include those who file for comedic effect or in bad faith, knowing they do not seriously intend to seek office.

• Confusion Among Voters: This is common where multiple candidates have similar or identical names, causing confusion that may affect the voters' ability to correctly choose their intended candidate. COMELEC evaluates whether the similarity is deliberate or incidental.

• Lack of Bona Fide Intent: The lack of a genuine intention to seek office may be indicated by the candidate’s conduct, statements, or background. Factors such as the lack of campaign activity, financial capability to campaign, or public declarations that contradict their candidacy may suggest they are not serious about running for office.

3. Filing of Petition to Declare a Candidate as a Nuisance

The process for declaring a candidate a nuisance begins with either the COMELEC acting motu proprio or a verified petition by an interested party. The petition must be filed within the time frame prescribed by COMELEC after the filing of the Certificates of Candidacy (COC).

Procedural Steps:

• Petition Filing: The petition to declare a nuisance candidate must be filed with the appropriate COMELEC division.

• Notice and Hearing: Once the petition is filed, the respondent candidate is given an opportunity to submit an answer or explanation, and a hearing is conducted if necessary. The COMELEC evaluates the evidence and submissions to determine whether the respondent falls under the grounds of a nuisance candidate.

• Decision: The COMELEC will issue a decision either giving due course to the COC or canceling it if the grounds for nuisance candidacy are established. If canceled, the candidate is disqualified from running for office.

4. Jurisprudence and Key Cases

Philippine courts and COMELEC rulings have clarified and interpreted the provisions on nuisance candidates through various cases:

• Pamatong v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004): In this case, the Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision to disqualify Elly Pamatong, a candidate for President, as a nuisance candidate. Pamatong’s candidacy was found to lack serious intent, and his public pronouncements and acts were seen as mocking the electoral process.

• Maruhom v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 179430, July 27, 2007): This case involved candidates with similar names. The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC has the power to cancel a COC if it would likely cause voter confusion, especially if the similarity is calculated to deceive the electorate.

• Agan v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 164390, January 19, 2009): The Supreme Court reiterated that the COMELEC must ensure that the true intent of the voters is not subverted by the presence of nuisance candidates, especially those filed to frustrate the electorate's will or create unnecessary confusion.

5. Consequences of Being Declared a Nuisance Candidate

If a candidate is declared a nuisance by COMELEC, the following consequences apply:

• Disqualification from Running: The certificate of candidacy is canceled, and the individual is effectively barred from participating in the election. The name of the nuisance candidate is also excluded from the official ballot.

• No Legal Remedy After Ballots are Printed: A key principle in election law is that once the ballots have been printed, it is extremely difficult to remedy the presence of a nuisance candidate's name. Hence, petitions to declare a candidate a nuisance must be resolved in a timely manner to avoid disruptions in the election process.

• No Automatic Substitution: In the case of political parties, a declared nuisance candidate is not entitled to be substituted, unlike a candidate who withdraws or dies before the election.

6. Relation to Other Electoral Laws

The provision on nuisance candidates interacts with other electoral laws and doctrines, such as:

• Fair Play in Elections: The doctrine emphasizes that elections should provide a fair field to all legitimate candidates, and the presence of nuisance candidates can undermine this by creating unfair competition or misleading voters.

• COMELEC's Plenary Powers: Under the 1987 Constitution, COMELEC has broad powers to administer elections, including the ability to regulate the filing of COCs and ensure that elections are conducted in an orderly and credible manner. This includes disqualifying nuisance candidates.

7. Practical Considerations and Election Impact

• Candidate Name Homonyms: Local and national elections in the Philippines often involve candidates with common names, making the protection against confusion particularly important. For example, multiple candidates with names like "Jose Santos" could confuse voters. COMELEC may order disambiguation methods, such as adding a nickname or suffix to distinguish between legitimate candidates, but may also cancel the candidacy of individuals found to be nuisance candidates based on voter confusion.

• Timing of Petitions: It is critical that petitions against nuisance candidates are filed promptly, as electoral processes are time-bound. COMELEC strives to resolve such cases before finalizing the official list of candidates to avoid impacting the election timetable.

Conclusion

Nuisance candidates undermine the credibility of elections by cluttering the electoral process and misleading the electorate. The filing of Certificates of Candidacy is a serious matter, and the law provides stringent grounds for disqualifying individuals who mock the electoral process, cause confusion, or do not intend to genuinely seek office. COMELEC, through its regulatory authority, ensures that elections are conducted smoothly and that the voters’ will is faithfully determined without interference from those with frivolous or malicious motives.

Substitution and Withdrawal of Candidates | Filing of Certificates of Candidacy | Candidacy | ELECTION LAW

Topic: Political Law and Public International Law

XIV. Election Law
B. Candidacy
2. Filing of Certificates of Candidacy
b. Substitution and Withdrawal of Candidates

---

In Philippine election law, the filing of Certificates of Candidacy (COCs) is a fundamental process regulated by the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and Republic Act No. 7166, among other laws and rules enforced by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Candidates are required to file their COCs within the period prescribed by COMELEC, and this process ensures that the political landscape for each election cycle is set. However, provisions for substitution and withdrawal of candidates create exceptions that permit changes in the list of candidates, subject to strict rules and conditions.

1. Withdrawal of Candidates

The withdrawal of a candidate's Certificate of Candidacy is a voluntary act, wherein the candidate opts to discontinue their bid for an elective position. The key legal provisions on withdrawal are:

• Section 73 of the Omnibus Election Code allows any candidate to withdraw their candidacy by filing a written declaration under oath with the office where their COC was filed. This withdrawal must occur before election day, with no further requirements for reasons or justifications.

• Irrevocability: Once a candidate has withdrawn their candidacy, the act is considered irrevocable. The withdrawn candidate cannot be reinstated or replace another candidate, except in special circumstances, such as in the case of party nominations (see substitution rules).

• Effects on Substitution: The withdrawal of a candidate may trigger substitution, provided certain requirements are met. However, substitution is not automatic; it must be in accordance with the rules governing substitution.

2. Substitution of Candidates

Substitution of candidates is the legal mechanism by which a candidate who withdraws, dies, or is disqualified after filing their COC can be replaced by another candidate. The governing rules and limitations on substitution are set forth primarily in Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code, with supplemental provisions in COMELEC resolutions. Substitution is recognized in two general cases:

a. Substitution due to Withdrawal of Candidacy

• Party-Based Substitution: Substitution is allowed only if the candidate withdrawing belongs to a political party. A political party has the right to nominate a substitute candidate, subject to the following conditions:

  • The substitute must also belong to the same party.
  • The substitution should occur before the deadline set by COMELEC for candidate substitution. Typically, this deadline coincides with the end of the period for filing COCs or, in some cases, an extended period determined by COMELEC for substitute candidates.
  • The substitute candidate must file a valid COC before the set deadline for substitution.

• No Substitution for Independent Candidates: Candidates running as independents (i.e., not nominated by a political party) cannot be substituted in case of withdrawal.

b. Substitution Due to Death or Disqualification

• Substitution Beyond Deadline: Substitution due to death or disqualification of a candidate is permitted even after the deadline for filing COCs. The substitute candidate must file their COC up to mid-day of election day, provided the cause of substitution arose after the official deadline.

• Disqualification: Disqualification may arise for various reasons, such as failure to meet eligibility requirements (e.g., citizenship, residency, age, etc.) or violation of election laws. Upon the candidate’s final disqualification (i.e., after all appeals or review have been exhausted), the political party can substitute a new candidate.

• Continuing Party Nomination: For substitution to be valid in the case of death or disqualification, the substitute candidate must belong to the same political party as the original candidate. COMELEC will also verify that the party’s nomination remains effective.

c. Same Elective Position

Substitution is only allowed for the same position that the withdrawn, deceased, or disqualified candidate originally filed for. A substitute candidate cannot run for a different position from that of the original candidate. For example, a candidate for mayor can only be substituted by someone also running for mayor, not for a lower or higher position (e.g., vice mayor or governor).

d. Requirement for Valid Substitution

• Filing of a New COC: The substitute candidate must file a new Certificate of Candidacy (COC) that is complete, correct, and in compliance with all legal requirements. This must be filed within the period prescribed for substitution, and COMELEC will assess the eligibility of the substitute candidate under the same rules as the original candidates.

• Same Political Party: As mentioned, the substitute must belong to the same political party as the original candidate to maintain the continuity of the party's nomination.

• COMELEC Rules on Publicizing Substitutes: COMELEC is mandated to notify the public about any substitutions that occur, especially when these substitutions take place after the printing of ballots. This ensures that voters are informed and that the election process remains transparent.

3. Special Rules and Jurisprudence on Substitution and Withdrawal

• Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled in various cases regarding the validity of substitutions and the interpretation of election laws. For example, in cases where candidates withdraw on the basis of internal party disputes or last-minute political strategies, the Court has emphasized adherence to deadlines and strict compliance with party affiliation rules.

• COMELEC Resolutions: From time to time, COMELEC issues resolutions that clarify the rules for substitution and withdrawal in light of changing political circumstances or the need for more precise regulations. These resolutions are legally binding and have the force of law.

---

In conclusion, the laws on withdrawal and substitution of candidates in the Philippines serve to balance the integrity of the electoral process with the flexibility needed to accommodate unexpected situations such as the voluntary withdrawal, death, or disqualification of candidates. However, these mechanisms are governed by strict rules to prevent abuses and maintain the fairness and competitiveness of elections. Political parties play a critical role in the substitution process, while independent candidates do not enjoy the same privileges under the law.

Effect of Filing | Filing of Certificates of Candidacy | Candidacy | ELECTION LAW

Topic: Political Law and Public International Law

XIV. Election Law

B. Candidacy

2. Filing of Certificates of Candidacy (COC)

a. Effect of Filing

---

1. Nature and Purpose of Certificate of Candidacy (COC)

A Certificate of Candidacy (COC) is a formal document filed by an individual intending to run for public office. The submission of this document to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) is a legal requirement under Philippine election law. Its primary purpose is to ensure that the individual is legally qualified and possesses the intent to run for a specific elective position. It is a manifestation of the individual’s willingness to submit to the electoral process and abide by the rules and regulations governing elections.

The filing of a COC serves several important functions:

• It signals the official entry of a person into the electoral race.
• It enables the COMELEC to regulate and oversee the conduct of elections.
• It facilitates transparency, preventing the possibility of election manipulation through sudden withdrawals or substitutions of candidates.

The COC contains vital information such as the name of the candidate, the office sought, and declarations regarding their eligibility, residence, and citizenship. Without the proper filing of a COC, an individual cannot legally be considered a candidate.

---

2. Effect of Filing a COC

A. Establishment of Candidacy

Upon the filing of a valid COC, the individual legally becomes a candidate for the office indicated. The filing date of the COC marks the official start of the individual’s status as a candidate. However, Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9369 (Automated Election Law) provides that a person only officially becomes a "candidate" at the start of the campaign period. This distinction has significant legal implications, especially in the application of rules related to premature campaigning.

---

B. Prohibition on Premature Campaigning

Premature campaigning refers to electioneering or political activities conducted by an individual before the official campaign period. Under Section 80 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC), engaging in such activities would have previously disqualified an individual from running for office. However, under Republic Act No. 9369, premature campaigning has been largely neutralized by jurisprudence. The Supreme Court, in the case of Penera v. COMELEC (GR No. 181613, 2009), ruled that premature campaigning is no longer punishable as long as the campaign activities occur before the campaign period. The reason for this is that even though a COC may have been filed, an individual is not considered a candidate before the campaign period begins.

Thus, the effect of filing a COC does not automatically make a person a candidate for purposes of prohibiting premature campaigning. The prohibition against premature campaigning applies only during the campaign period, not after the COC is filed.

---

C. Incumbent Public Officials and the Rule on Resignation

Section 66 of the Local Government Code provides that upon filing a COC for an elective position different from the one currently held, an incumbent elected official is considered ipso facto resigned from their current position. This rule is intended to prevent conflict of interest, allowing the official to focus on the upcoming election without utilizing the resources of the position they currently hold.

However, this rule does not apply to appointive officials. Appointive officials, under Section 26 of the Omnibus Election Code, are deemed resigned upon the filing of a COC. This provision is an express prohibition intended to preserve the integrity and impartiality of government operations, ensuring that appointive officials do not use their positions to influence the election process.

---

D. Substitution of Candidates

Under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code, substitution of candidates is allowed in cases of death, withdrawal, or disqualification. The following rules apply:

• Substitution by a candidate from the same political party: If the original candidate who filed the COC withdraws, dies, or is disqualified, another member of the same political party may be substituted, provided that the substitute candidate also files a COC within the prescribed period set by the COMELEC. The substitute candidate must possess the qualifications required for the office and comply with the deadlines imposed.
• No substitution for independent candidates: An independent candidate who withdraws or is disqualified cannot be substituted, as there is no political party that could designate a substitute.

It is also essential to note that withdrawal of candidacy must be voluntary and filed in writing with the COMELEC before the election. In case of substitution due to withdrawal, it must be filed before the official deadline, which is typically the end of the candidate substitution period as announced by COMELEC.

---

E. Disqualification and its Effect

A candidate may be disqualified for various reasons, including violations of election laws, such as engaging in vote-buying, committing acts of terrorism, or failing to meet the qualifications required for the office they are running for (e.g., residency, age, citizenship). If a disqualification petition is successful, the candidate’s COC will be canceled, and they will be barred from running.

Additionally, the COMELEC may motu proprio or upon the filing of a verified petition, cancel or deny due course to a COC on the grounds of material misrepresentation. A misrepresentation concerning the candidate’s eligibility, qualifications, or any required information in the COC could result in the denial of the candidacy.

---

F. Withdrawal of Candidacy

Withdrawal of candidacy must be made formally, through the submission of a written notice of withdrawal with the COMELEC. A candidate who withdraws their candidacy after filing a COC but before the election may be substituted by another candidate of the same political party, as previously mentioned.

It is important to note that once a candidate has withdrawn, they are no longer entitled to the rights and privileges of a candidate, such as being included on the ballot.

---

G. Effects on Criminal or Administrative Cases

Once a person files a COC, certain legal protections come into play. For instance, under Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), an individual running for public office may invoke the prohibition against suspension if they are facing a criminal or administrative case. The Supreme Court has held that a public officer who has filed a COC and is seeking re-election or election to another position cannot be suspended, whether in a criminal case or administrative case, during the election period, unless allowed by the COMELEC. This provision is meant to ensure that the electoral process is not unduly influenced by legal cases meant to harass candidates.

---

3. Key Jurisprudence

• Penera v. COMELEC (2009): This case established the principle that premature campaigning is no longer punishable under the current election law framework. A person becomes a candidate only at the start of the official campaign period, not upon the filing of a COC.

• Miranda v. Abaya (2004): The Supreme Court ruled that an incumbent elective official is deemed resigned upon filing a COC for a different position, but not when running for re-election to the same post.

• Quinto v. COMELEC (2010): This case clarified the rule on appointive officials being deemed resigned upon filing a COC.

---

4. Conclusion

The filing of a COC has significant legal consequences under Philippine election law. While it signals the formal entry of an individual into the election process, the law carefully balances this with provisions aimed at preventing premature campaigning, managing disqualification, ensuring proper substitution, and maintaining the integrity of the public office. Jurisprudence has further refined the interpretation of these laws, making it crucial for potential candidates to understand the legal implications of filing a COC.