Chapter 5 Certificate of Candidacy Cases

De Guzman v Board of Canvassers: While the CoC is required to be under oath, the election of a
candidate cannot be annulled on the sole ground of formal defects in the certificate, such as lack of the
required oath.
Jurilla v Comelec: It was held that the omission by a candidate to indicate in his certificate of candidacy
his precinct number and the particular barangay where he is a registered voter, is not sufficient ground to
disqualify the candidate, because the Local Government Code does not require these data to be indicated
in the certificate. It is enough that he is registered voter in the precinct where he intends to vote which
should be in the district where he is running for office.
PNOC energy development corporation v NLRC: it was held that the law applies even to employees of
government owned or controlled corporation without an original charter
Quinto v Comelec: the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the provision that appointive officials
who file CoCs shall be considered ipso facto resigned from their appointive public office on the day of
filing such certificate of candidacy.
Loreto-Go v Comelec: the SC held that there is nothing in Sec.73 BP881, which mandates that the
affidavit of withdrawal must be filed directly with the main office where the CoC to be withdrawn was filed.
It can be filed directly with the main office of the COMELEC, the office of the regional election director
concerned, the office of provincial election supervisor of the province to which municipality belongs, or the
office of the municipal election officer of the municipality.
the petitioner filed two certificates; one for Governor of Leyte and another for Mayor of Baybay Leyte.
With the Supreme Court ruling that she had validly withdrawn her certificate of candidacy of Mayor, she
was, therefore, considered a bona fide candidate for Governor of Leyte.
Luna v Comelec: Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or withdrawal of
another. If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a
registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a
person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to
replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The substitute candidate
nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office
affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of election day of the
election. If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the
election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election
inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be
voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission. TEHDIA
Since Hans Roger withdrew his certificate of candidacy and the COMELEC found
that Luna complied with all the procedural requirements for a valid substitution, 10Luna can validly
substitute for Hans Roger.
The COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
declaring that Hans Roger, being under age, could not be considered to have filed a valid certificate of
candidacy and, thus, could not be validly substituted by Luna. The COMELEC may not, by itself, without
the proper proceedings, deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy filed in due
form. 11 In Sanchez v. Del Rosario, 12 the Court ruled that the question of eligibility or ineligibility of a
candidate for non-age is beyond the usual and proper cognizance of the COMELEC.

Section 74 13 of the Election Code provides that the certificate of candidacy shall state, among others,
the date of birth of the person filing the certificate. Section 78 14 of the Election Code provides that in
case a person filing a certificate of candidacy has committed false material representation, a verified
petition to deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy of said person may be filed at any
time not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the certificate of candidacy.
Monsale v Nico: The withdrawal for the withdrawal, for the purpose of reviving certificate of candidacy,
must be made within the period provided by law for the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
Cipriano v Comelec: It was held that the COMELEC has no discretion to give or not to give due course to
certification of candidacy, that it may not unilaterally cancel a CoC filed in due form without proper notice
and hearing.
Abcede v Imperial: the SC ruled that the COMELEC has no discretion to give or not to give due course to
a certificate of candidacy filed in due form. While commission may look into patent defects in the
certificate, it may not inquire into matters not appearing on the face of the certificate.
Salih v Comelec: The records of this case are utterly wanting of such sham and fraudulent voting. The
Second Division of the COMELEC largely relied on the affidavit executed by the members of the Board of
Inspectors who alleged therein that they prepared the returns after the counting of the votes. Proceeding
therefrom, the Second Division leaped to the conclusion that the questioned returns were fictitious,
manufactured or fraudulent and must, as such, be excluded from the canvass. This allegation, however,
barely makes out a valid pre-proclamation controversy on the ground of fictitious or manufactured election
returns, for ultimately, the grounds relied upon by the Second Division in order to justify its order to
exclude the election returns from Precinct Nos. 10 and 10-A, necessitate evidence of sham voting and
such fraudulent schemes perpetrated by private respondent Alonzo, but no such evidence was proffered
and had there been so, the same is hardly proper in a pre-proclamation controversy such as the instant
case. In other words, on the basis only of the election returns which, on their face, appear regular and
wanting of any physical signs of tampering, alteration, or other similar vice, the Second Division could not
justifiably exclude said returns on the occasion of a pre-proclamation controversy whose office is limited
to incomplete, falsified or materially defective returns which appear as such on their face. If there had
been sham voting or minimal voting which was made to appear as normal through the falsification of the
election returns by private respondent Alonzo's followers, such grounds are properly cognizable in an
election protest and not in a pre-proclamation controversy. Our ruling in the landmark case of Gov. Tupay
T. Loong, et al. v. COMELEC, et al. and it companion cases, leaves no room for entertaining such
grounds in a pre-proclamation controversy.|
Loong v Comelec: a petition for cancellation of CoC filed beyond the 25-day period was not given due
course.
Garvida v Sales: the Supreme Court faulted the COMELEC for entertaining a facsimile of a petition for
disqualification, saying that the Commission should have awaited receipt of the original petition filed
through registered mail.