G.R. No.

192856               March 8, 2011

FERNANDO V. GONZALEZ, Petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RENO G. LIM, STEPHEN C. BICHARA and THE SPECIAL
BOARD OF CANVASSERS constituted per Res. dated July 23, 2010 of the Commission on
Elections En Banc, Respondents.

Facts:

Petitioner Fernando V. Gonzalez and private respondent Reno G. Lim both filed certificates of candidacy
for the position of Representative of the 3rd congressional district of the Province of Albay in the May 10,
2010 elections. Lim was the incumbent congressman of the 3rd district while Gonzalez was former
Governor of Albay, having been elected to said position in 2004 but lost his re-election bid in 2007.

On March 30, 2010, a Petition for Disqualification and Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy
(COC)3 was filed by Stephen Bichara [SPA No. 10-074 (DC)] on the ground that Gonzalez is a Spanish
national, being the legitimate child of a Spanish father and a Filipino mother, and that he failed to elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority in accordance with the provisions of
Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625. It was further alleged that Gonzalez’s late registration of his
certificate of birth with the Civil Registry of Ligao City on January 17, 2006, even if accompanied by an
affidavit of election of Philippine citizenship, was not done within a reasonable time as it was in fact
registered 45 years after Gonzalez reached the age of majority on September 11, 1961.

In his Answer,4 Gonzalez denied having willfully made false and misleading statement in his COC
regarding his citizenship and pointed out that Bichara had filed the wrong petition under Section 68 of
the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) to question his eligibility as a candidate. Gonzalez also argued that the
petition which should have been correctly filed under Section 78 of the OEC was filed out of time.

On May 8, 2010, the COMELEC’s Second Division issued the assailed resolution which decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we resolve to, as we do hereby, GRANT this Petition. Respondent
Fernando Vallejo Gonzalez is hereby declared disqualified to be a candidate for the position of Member
of the House of Representatives, 3rd District, Province of Albay, in the forthcoming National and Local
Elections on May 10, 2010.

Finding the petition to be both a petition for disqualification and cancellation of COC, the Second
Division ruled that the same was filed on time.
Based on the results of the counting and canvassing of votes, Gonzalez emerged as the winner having
garnered a total of 96,000 votes while Lim ranked second with 68,701 votes. On May 12, 2010, the
PBOC officially proclaimed Gonzalez as the duly elected Representative of the 3rd district of Albay.
Gonzalez took his oath of office on the same day. 11 On May 13, 2010, Bichara filed a Very Urgent
Motion to Suspend the Effects of the Proclamation of Fernando V. Gonzalez.
On May 14, 2010, Gonzalez filed a motion for reconsideration of the May 8, 2010 resolution. Gonzalez
reiterated that the Second Division’s finding that Bichara’s petition is both a petition for disqualification
and to cancel COC is not borne by the petition itself and contrary to Section 68 of the OEC and
COMELEC Resolution No. 8696. Applying Section 78 of the OEC which is the proper petition based on

1
alleged deliberate misrepresentation and false statement in the COC, Gonzalez contended that Bichara’s
petition was filed out of time
In its Resolution dated July 23, 2010, the COMELEC En Banc denied the motion for reconsideration and
affirmed its finding that Gonzalez failed to prove with sufficient evidence that he had fully complied with
the requirements for electing Philippine citizenship under C.A. No. 625.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent Stephen Bichara availed of the correct remedy and/or filed the correct
petition against petitioner Fernando V. Gonzales

Ruling:
No.

A petition to cancel a candidate’s COC may be filed under Section 78 of the OEC which provides:

SEC. 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. -- A verified petition seeking
to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person  exclusively on the
ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false.  The
petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days
before the election.

A petition for disqualification of a candidate may also be filed pursuant to Section 68 of the same Code
which states:

SEC. 68. Disqualifications. -- Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared
by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having: (a) given money
or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing
electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election
campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any
contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85,
86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a
candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of
or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code,
unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in
accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.

As to the ground of false representation in the COC under Section 78, it is essential that the false
representation mentioned therein pertain to a material matter for the sanction imposed by this provision
would affect the substantive rights of a candidate – the right to run for the elective post for which he filed
the certificate of candidacy. Although the law does not specify what would be considered as a "material
representation", the Court concluded that this refers to qualifications for elective office. Citing previous
cases in which the Court interpreted this phrase, we held that Section 78 contemplates statements
regarding age,26 residence27 and citizenship or non-possession of natural-born Filipino status.

2
Furthermore, aside from the requirement of materiality, the false representation must consist of a
deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate
ineligible. In other words, it must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s
qualification for public office.

There are two instances where a petition questioning the qualifications of a registered candidate to run for
the office for which his certificate of candidacy was filed can be raised under the Omnibus Election Code
(B.P. Blg. 881), to wit:

"(1) Before election, pursuant to Section 78 thereof which provides that:

xxx

and

"(2) After election, pursuant to Section 253 thereof, viz:

‘Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto. - Any voter contesting the election of any Member of the Batasang
Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the
Republic of the Philippines shall file a sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within ten
days after the proclamation of the results of the election."

Clearly, the only instance where a petition questioning the qualifications of a candidate for elective office
can be filed before election is when the petition is filed under Section 78 of the OEC. The petition in SPA
No. 10-074 (DC) based on the allegation that Gonzalez was not a natural-born Filipino which was filed
before the elections, is in the nature of a petition filed under Section 78. The recitals in the petition in said
case, however, state that it was filed pursuant to Section 4 (b) of COMELEC Resolution No. 8696 and
Section 68 of the OEC to disqualify a candidate for lack of qualifications or possessing some grounds for
disqualification. The COMELEC treated the petition as one filed both for disqualification and
cancellation of COC, with the effect that Section 68, in relation to Section 3, Rule 25 of the COMELEC
Rules of Procedure, is applicable insofar as determining the period for filing the petition.
Rule 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure on Disqualification of Candidates provides:

xxxx

Sec. 3. Period to File Petition. -- The petition shall be filed any day after the last day for filing of
certificates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Loong v. Commission on Elections, we held that Section 3 of Rule 25 allowing the filing of a petition
at any time after the last day for filing of COC’s but not later than the date of proclamation, is merely a
procedural rule that cannot supersede Section 78 of the OEC. We quote the following pertinent discussion
in said case:

x x x Section 78 of the same Code states that in case a person filing a certificate of candidacy has
committed false representation, a petition to cancel the certificate of the aforesaid person may be filed
within twenty-five (25) days from the time the certificate was filed.

3
Clearly, SPA No. 90-006 was filed beyond the 25-day period prescribed by Section 78 of the Omnibus
Election Code.

Lest it be misunderstood, the denial of due course to or the cancellation of the CoC is not based on the
lack of qualifications but on a finding that the candidate made a material representation that is false,
which may relate to the qualifications required of the public office he/she is running for. It is noted that
the candidate states in his/her CoC that he/she is eligible for the office he/she seeks. Section 78 of the
OEC, therefore, is to be read in relation to the constitutional and statutory provisions on qualifications or
eligibility for public office. If the candidate subsequently states a material representation in the CoC that
is false, the COMELEC, following the law, is empowered to deny due course to or cancel such
certificate. Indeed, the Court has already likened a proceeding under Section 78 to a quo
warranto proceeding under Section 253 of the OEC since they both deal with the eligibility or
qualification of a candidate, with the distinction mainly in the fact that a "Section 78" petition is filed
before proclamation, while a petition for quo warranto is filed after proclamation of the winning
candidate.

Since the petition in SPA No. 10-074 (DC) sought to cancel the COC filed by Gonzalez and disqualify
him as a candidate on the ground of false representation as to his citizenship, the same should have been
filed within twenty-five days from the filing of the COC, pursuant to Section 78 of the OEC. Gonzales
filed his COC on December 1, 2009. Clearly, the petition for disqualification and cancellation of COC
filed by Lim on March 30, 2010 was filed out of time. The COMELEC therefore erred in giving due
course to the petition.