b. Material Misrepresentation

No False Material Representation:

• When a candidate uses the name of her long-time-live-in partner or states a false profession.
• When the candidate is actually qualified even if the entries in the COC as filled up by the candidate will show that he is not.
• When the candidate, supported by a preponderance of evidence, believed that he was qualified since there was no intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s qualification for public office.

Material Misrepresentation as a Ground for cancellation or denial of Certificate of Candidacy

• Must be false
• Must be material (goes into qualifications)
• Must be deliberate and there is an intention to defraud the electorate

The COMELEC must determine whether or not the candidate deliberately attempted to mislead, misinform or hide a fact about his or her residency that would otherwise render him or her ineligible for the position sought. The COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in this case when, in considering the residency issue, it based its decision solely on very personal and subjective assessment standards, such as the nature or design and furnishings of the dwelling place in relation to the stature of the candidate. (Mitra v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191938, July 2, 2010)

Misrepresentation of nickname is not a material misrepresentation because the use of nickname is not a qualification of public office. Nickname does not affect eligibility; hence, not a material representation. To be material, such must refer to an eligibility or qualification for the elective office the candidate seeks to hold. Here, respondent’s nickname is not a qualification for a public office which affects his eligibility. The proper recourse is to file an election protest and pray that votes be declared as stray votes (Villafuerte v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 206698)

Material representation contemplated by Section 78 refers to qualifications for elective office, such as the requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as provided for in the Local Government Code. Furthermore, aside from the requirement of materiality, the misrepresentation must consist of a deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact, which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible (Caballero v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 209835)

Failure to comply with RA 9225 requirements despite statement in COC is material representation. Aside from the bare allegation that she is a natural-born citizen, however, petitioner submitted no proof to support such contention. Neither did she submit any proof as to the inapplicability of R.A. No. 9225 to her. xxx xxx Such being the case, the COMELEC did not err when it inquired into the compliance by petitioner of Sections 3 and 5 of RA 9225 to determine if she reacquired her status as a natural-born Filipino citizen. It simply applied the constitutional provision and nothing more. (Reyes v. COMELEC)

If a candidate cannot be disqualified without a prior finding that she or he is suffering from a disqualification “provided by law or the Constitution,” neither can the certificate of candidacy be cancelled or denied due course on grounds of false misrepresentation regarding his or her qualification, without a prior authoritative finding that he or she is not qualified. (Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697)

The COMELEC cannot, in the same cancellation case based on the ground of false material representation, decide the qualification or lack thereof of the candidate. (Poe-Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697)

A CoC may be cancelled on the ground that the “candidate” misrepresented his eligibility in his CoC because he knew that he had been convicted by final judgment for libel, a crime involving moral turpitude regardless of the fact that he was merely the publisher of the libelous articles, and that his penalty was merely a fine. (Ty-Delgado v. HRET, G.R. No. 219603)

If the certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, the candidate is not considered a candidate from the very beginning even if his certificate of candidacy was cancelled after the elections. (H. Sohria Pasagi Diambrang vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 201809)

The summary nature of proceedings under Section 78 only allows it to rule on patent material misrepresentations of facts, not to make conclusions of law that are even contrary to jurisprudence. (Dano vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210200)

Withdrawal of Certificates of Candidacy

> B.P. Blg. 881, sec. 73

Section 73. Certificate of candidacy. - No person shall be eligible for any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of candidacy within the period fixed herein.

A person who has filed a certificate of candidacy may, prior to the election, withdraw the same by submitting to the office concerned a written declaration under oath.

No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them.

However, before the expiration of the period for the filing of certificates of candidacy, the person who has filed more than one certificate of candidacy may declare under oath the office for which he desires to be eligible and cancel the certificate of candidacy for the other office or offices.

The filing or withdrawal of a certificate of candidacy shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities which a candidate may have incurred.