1. Qualifications and Disqualification of Candidates

Qualifications

The Constitution prescribes the qualifications (i.e., age, citizenship, residency, voter registration and literacy) for the following positions: President, Vice-President, Senators and Representatives (District and Party - List) while statutes set the qualifications of local officials.

• Residence - to be understood as domicile that is, the place where a party actually or constructively has his permanent home, where he/she, no matter where may he/she be found at any given time, eventually intends to return and remain. (Japzon v. COMELEC , G.R. No. 180088, 19 January 2009).
• Registered Voter
• Citizenship
• For national elective positions, the candidate must be a natural-born citizen. For local elective positions, the candidate may be a naturalized citizen.
• Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country can seek elective office provided they re-acquire Philippine citizenship by taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic prescribed under the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003, and make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer oath.
• Use of Foreign Passport: The use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or recantation of the oath of renunciation. Matters dealing with qualifications for public elective office must be strictly complied with. A candidate cannot simply be allowed to correct the deficiency in his qualification by submitting another oath of renunciation. (Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015)
• Dual Citizens: Dual allegiance disqualifies a person from local elective office; dual citizenship alone does not. A candidate who reacquired Philippine citizenship under the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003 must also comply with its requirements for seeking elective office, including personal and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship. (Local Government Code, Sec. 40(d); Mercado v. Manzano, G.R. No. 135083, May 26, 1999; RA 9225, Sec. 5(2))
• Foundlings: As a matter of law, foundling are as a class, natural-born citizens (Poe - Llamanzares v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016). When the names of the parents of a foundling cannot be discovered despite a diligent search, but sufficient evidence is presented to sustain a reasonable inference that satisfies the quantum of proof required to conclude that at least one or both of his or her parents is Filipino, then this should be sufficient to establish that he or she is a natural-born citizen (Rizalito Y. David v . Senate Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016).

Electoral Aspect

• Whether or not the offender should be disqualified from being a candidate or from holding office
• Proceedings are summary in character and require only a clear preponderance of evidence
• An erring candidate may be disqualified even without prior determination of probable cause in a preliminary investigation.

Grounds for Disqualification:

• Lacking qualifications
• Filing a COC for more than 1 office
• False and material representation in the COC
• Disqualifications under the LGC
• Nuisance candidate
• Election offense enumerated under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code
• Declared insane or incompetent by a competent authority
• Sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, rebellion or an offense he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than 18 months, or a crime involving moral turpitude, unless given plenary pardon/amnesty.

The use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or recantation of the oath of renunciation. Matters dealing with qualifications for public elective office must be strictly complied with. A candidate cannot simply be allowed to correct the deficiency in his qualification by submitting another oath of renunciation. (Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015).

The petitioner’s continued exercise of his rights as a citizen of the USA through using USA passport after the renunciation of his USA citizenship reverted him to his earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion disqualified him from being elected to public office. (Agustin v. COMELEC, G.R. 207105, 2015).

Question: What if after being elected and while actually serving, he uses his foreign passport thus making him dual citizen again. Does the qualification to run for an elective office a continuing qualification even after being elected?

Disqualification under the LGC:

• Sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or for an offense punishable by 1 year or more of imprisonment within 2 years after serving sentence.
• Removed from office as a result of an administrative case.
• Convicted by final judgment for violating the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
• Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases here or abroad.
• Dual allegiance.
• Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have acquired the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of the same right.

A candidate is ineligible if he is disqualified to be elected to office, and he is disqualified if he lacks any of the qualifications for elective office. Even if the COMELEC made no finding that the petitioner had deliberately attempted to mislead or to misinform as to warrant the cancellation of his COC, the COMELEC could still declare him disqualified for not meeting the requisite eligibility under the Local Government Code. (Agustin v. COMELEC, G.R. 207105, 2015).

Failure of Election; Call for Special Election

Pre-Proclamation Controversy

Pre-proclamation controversy  - any question pertaining to or affecting the proceedings of the Board of Canvassers which may be raised by any candidate or registered political party, or coalition.

Special Qualifications

(ANY will result to reduction of the 10-year period of continuous residency requirement to 5 years under no. 2 above)

• Having honorably held office under the Government of the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces, cities, municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;
• Established a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines;
• Married to a Filipino woman;
• Engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a public or recognized private school not established for the exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or industry for a period of 2 years or more; or
• Born in the Philippines (C.A. 473, § 3)

Disqualifications Under The Omnibus Election Code

• Any person declared by competent authority insane or incompetent
• Any person sentenced by final judgment for any of the following offenses:
• Insurrection, or rebellion
• Offense for which he was sentenced to penalty of more than 18 months
• Crime involving moral turpitude
• A Philippine citizen who is a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country is disqualified unless that status is waived in accordance with law

Disqualifications Under Local Government Code

• Those sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or an punishable by imprisonment for at least one year, within 2 years after service of sentence.
• Those removed from office as a result of an administrative case.
• Those convicted by final judgment for violating his oath of allegiance to the Republic.
• Those with dual citizenship.
• Fugitives from justice in criminal or non-political cases.
• Permanent residents in a foreign country or those who have the right to reside abroad and continue to avail of it. (Caasi v. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 229).
• The insane or feeble-minded.

Conditions For The Three-Term Ban:

• The official has been elected for 3 consecutive terms in the same local government post
• Fully served 3 consecutive terms
• Election in a regular election is not separately required; a term won in a recall election can count if the official was elected and fully served that term.

Service of Full Term:

• When a municipality has been converted to a city, and the area and inhabitants of the locality are the same, the 3-term municipal mayor continues to hold office until such time as city elections are held.
• When an incumbent mayor loses in an election protest but the decision of the RTC was promulgated after the service of the term.
• Suspension from office does not interrupt service of the term for purposes of the three-term limit.

Not Service of Full Term:

• Fills up a higher office (by succession or operation of law).
• Unseated, in order to vacate by reason of declaration of failure of election or an election protest.
• Served unexpired term after winning in the recall elections.
• Assuming a local government post (even if served for 3 consecutive terms) after winning a recall election (since not considered an immediate re-election).

Holdover Principle - The term of all local officials is 3 years, but Sec. 5 of RA 9164 authorizes the holdover of incumbent barangay officials until their successors are elected. does this apply to non-barangay levels too?

• Filing of certificates of candidacy
• Effect of filing
• Substitution and withdrawal of candidates
• Nuisance candidates
• Effect of disqualification

Effect of Filing of Certificate of Candidacy

> B.P. Blg. 881, sec. 66 Section 66. Candidates holding appointive office or positions. - Any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.

Effective Date of Repatriation

The effective date is the date of application for repatriation not the date when repatriation was approved (Frivaldo v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996)

Accusation Not Synonymous With Guilt

An accusation, according to the fundamental law, is not synonymous with guilt. The challenged proviso (par. 2, § 4 of BP Blg. 52) contravenes the constitutional presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from running for public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed against him before a civil or military tribunal. It condemns before one is fully heard. A person disqualified to run for public office on the ground that charges have been filed against him is virtually placed in the same category as a person already convicted of a crime with the penalty of arresto, which carries with it the accessory penalty of suspension of the right to hold office during the term of the sentence. (Dumlao v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-52245, Jan. 22, 1980)

Effect of the Re-Election on Administrative Liability

The concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the 1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an elective local official’s administrative liability for a misconduct committed during a prior term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office, or even another elective post. Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense, and there is simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the notion that an official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any administrative liability arising from an offense done during a prior term. (Carpio-Morales v. Binay, G.R. 217126-27, 2015).

The COMELEC may suspend the proclamation of a candidate who gets the majority votes, if he has been disqualified before the election but the decision has not yet become final. He will not be proclaimed except where the judgment of disqualification is finally reversed.

Exception to non-proclamation of candidate with 2nd highest number of votes:

• The certificate of candidacy of the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is finally cancelled before the election; and
• Votes cast for that candidate are not counted, and the eligible candidate who receives the highest number of valid votes may be proclaimed. Notoriety of the defect is not required. (Maquiling v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013; Agustin v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 207105, November 10, 2015).

Eligibility and Material Misrepresentation

Age Requirement