Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    G.R. NO. 202202 DATE: 19 Mar 2013 PONENTE: J. Perlas-Bernabe TOPIC: Sec. 17 Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal Nature and Power Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    Richard filed a certificate of candidacy for congressional office but was alleged to not meet residency requirements. The COMELEC denied his COC and later his motion for reconsideration. His wife then filed a COC as substitute candidate. The issue is whether her substitution is valid. The Supreme Court holds that substitution is not valid, as Section 77 of the OEC requires an "official candidate" to be substituted, and Richard was not an official candidate after his COC was denied. A valid COC is required to be considered a candidate eligible for substitution under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    G.R. NO. 202202 DATE: 19 Mar 2013 PONENTE: J. Perlas-Bernabe TOPIC: Sec. 17 Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal Nature and Power Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    82 views1 page
    Richard filed a certificate of candidacy for congressional office but was alleged to not meet residency requirements. The COMELEC denied his COC and later his motion for reconsideration. His wife then filed a COC as substitute candidate. The issue is whether her substitution is valid. The Supreme Court holds that substitution is not valid, as Section 77 of the OEC requires an "official candidate" to be substituted, and Richard was not an official candidate after his COC was denied. A valid COC is required to be considered a candidate eligible for substitution under the law.

    Original Description:

    Cd

    Original Title

    Tagolino v HRET

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Richard filed a certificate of candidacy for congressional office but was alleged to not meet residency requirements. The COMELEC denied his COC and later his motion for reconsideration. His wife then filed a COC as substitute candidate. The issue is whether her substitution is valid. The Supreme Court holds that substitution is not valid, as Section 77 of the OEC requires an "official candidate" to be substituted, and Richard was not an official candidate after his COC was denied. A valid COC is required to be considered a candidate eligible for substitution under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views1 page

    G.R. NO. 202202 DATE: 19 Mar 2013 PONENTE: J. Perlas-Bernabe TOPIC: Sec. 17 Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal Nature and Power Facts of The Case

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    Richard filed a certificate of candidacy for congressional office but was alleged to not meet residency requirements. The COMELEC denied his COC and later his motion for reconsideration. His wife then filed a COC as substitute candidate. The issue is whether her substitution is valid. The Supreme Court holds that substitution is not valid, as Section 77 of the OEC requires an "official candidate" to be substituted, and Richard was not an official candidate after his COC was denied. A valid COC is required to be considered a candidate eligible for substitution under the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TITLE: Silverio Tagolino v HRET

    G.R. NO. 202202 DATE: 19 Mar 2013


    PONENTE: J. Perlas- Bernabe TOPIC: Sec. 17; Jurisdiction of Electoral Tribunal;
    Nature and Power
    FACTS OF THE CASE:
    On November 30, 2009, Richard Gomez (Richard) filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) with the Commission on
    Elections (COMELEC), seeking congressional office as Representative for the Fourth Legislative District of Leyte under the
    ticket of the Liberal Party. Subsequently, on December 6, 2009, one of the opposing candidates, Buenaventura Juntilla
    (Juntilla), filed a Verified Petition, alleging that Richard, who was actually a resident of Colgate Street, East Greenhills, San
    Juan City, Metro Manila, misrepresented in his CoC that he resided in 910 Carlota Hills, Can-adieng, Ormoc City. In this
    regard, Juntilla asserted that Richard failed to meet the one (1) year residency requirement under Section 6, Article VI of the
    1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution) and thus should be declared disqualifed/ineligible to run for the said office. In
    addition, Juntilla prayed that Richard's CoC be denied due course and/or cancelled. On February 17, 2010, the COMELEC
    First Division rendered a Resolution granting Juntilla's petition without any qualification.

    PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
    Richard moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the COMELEC En Banc through a Resolution dated
    May 4, 2010. 7 Thereafter, in a Manifestation of even date, Richard accepted the said resolution with finality "in order to
    enable his substitute to facilitate the filing of the necessary documents for substitution."
    On May 5, 2010, Lucy Marie Torres-Gomez (private respondent) filed her CoC together with a Certificate of
    Nomination and Acceptance from the Liberal Party endorsing her as the party's official substitute candidate vice her husband,
    Richard, for the same congressional post. In response to various letter-requests submitted to the
    COMELEC's Law Department (Law Department), the COMELEC En Banc, in the exercise of its administrative functions, issued
    Resolution No. 8890 11 on May 8, 2010, approving, among others, the recommendation of the said department to allow the
    substitution of private respondent.
    STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
    Whether or not the substitution of respondent is valid
    HOLDING
    NO. Section 77 of the OEC provides that if an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws
    or is disqualified for any cause, a person belonging to and certified by the same political party may file a CoC to replace the
    candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. Evidently, Section 77 requires that there be an "official candidate" before
    candidate substitution proceeds. Thus, whether the ground for substitution is death, withdrawal or disqualification of a
    candidate, the said section unequivocally states that only an official candidate of a registered or accredited party may be
    substituted.
    As defined under Section 79 (a) of the OEC, the term "candidate" refers to any person aspiring for or seeking an
    elective public office who has filed a certificate of candidacy by himself or through an accredited political party, aggroupment,
    or coalition of parties. Clearly, the law requires that one must have validly filed a CoC in order to be considered a candidate.
    The requirement of having a CoC obtains even greater importance if one considers its nature. In particular, a CoC formalizes
    not only a person's public declaration to run for office but evidences as well his or her statutory eligibility to be elected for
    the said post. Absent a valid CoC one is not considered a candidate under legal contemplation.
    Considering that Section 77 requires that there be a candidate in order for substitution to take place, as well as the
    precept that a person without a valid CoC is not considered as a candidate at all, it necessarily follows that if a person's CoC
    had been denied due course to and/or cancelled, he or she cannot be validly substituted in the electoral process. The
    existence of a valid CoC is therefore a condition sine qua non for a disqualified candidate to be validly substituted.
    notes, if any:

    You might also like