This article talks about how to file a Petition for Disqualification of a Candidate based on the commission of election offenses under Sec. 68 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Petition for Disqualification Based on Commission of Election Offenses
Election campaign aims to inform the voters the capabilities, platforms and qualifications of the candidates. It has a laudable purpose of ensuring that voters are well-informed and can make the proper choices. However, what can one do if the opponent does not play fair and would resort to underhanded tactics?
One of the remedies is to file a Petition for Disqualification of a Candidate based on the commission of election offenses. This finds support under Sec. 68 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, otherwise known as the Omnibus Election Code which states:
SECTION 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.
Grounds for the Petition for Disqualification
In sum, the following can be disqualified for the commission of the following acts:
- One who has given money or materials to influence or corrupt voters or public officials performing electoral functions.
- One who has committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy
- One who has spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by law.
- One who has solicited, received or made prohibited contributions
- One who has committed prohibited acts under Sec. 80 (campaign period), Sec 83 (removal, destruction of lawful election paraphernalia, Sec 85 (prohibited forms of propaganda), Sec 86 (regulation of propaganda through mass media) and Sec 261 (election offenses).
The purpose of a disqualification proceeding is to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for violation of the election laws [Sunga vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 125629, 25 March 1998].
Prior Conviction by a Trial Court Not Necessary
In Francisco vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 230249, 24 April 2018, it was ruled that in a Petition for Disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, a prior judgment by a competent court that the candidate is guilty of an election offense is NOT required before the said petition can be entertained or given due course by the Commission on Elections. The Supreme Court ratiocinated:
“The essence of a disqualification proceeding that invokes Sec. 68 of the OEC is to bar an individual from becoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for public office based not on the candidate’s lack of qualification, but on his possession of a disqualification as declared by a final decision of a competent court, or as found by the Commission. The jurisdiction of the COMELEC to disqualify candidates is limited to those enumerated in Section 68 of the OEC. All other election offenses are beyond the ambit of COMELEC jurisdiction. X x x
The doctrine in Poe was never meant to apply to Petitions for Disqualification. A prior court judgment is not required before the remedy under Sec. 68 of the OEC can prosper. This is highlighted by the provision itself, which contemplates of two scenarios: first, there is a final decision by a competent court that the candidate is guilty of an election offense and second, it is the Commission itself that found that the candidate committed any of the enumerated prohibited acts. Noteworthy is that in the second scenario, it is not required that there be a prior final judgment; it is sufficient that the Commission itself made the determination. The conjunction “or” separating “competent court” and “the Commission” could only mean that the legislative intent was for bot/1 bodies to be clothed with authority to ascertain whether or not there is evidence that the respondent candidate ought to be disqualified.”
This is reinforced by the fact that the disqualification of a candidate for commission of an election offense has two (2) aspects, namely criminal and administrative. Thus, it was ruled in Lanot vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 164858, 16 November 2006:
“The criminal aspect of a disqualification case determines whether there is probable cause to charge a candidate for an election offense. The prosecutor is the COMELEC, through its Law Department, which determines whether probable cause exists. If there is probable cause, the COMELEC, through its Law Department, files the criminal information before the proper court. Proceedings before the proper court demand a full-blown hearing and require proof beyond reasonable doubt to convict. A criminal conviction shall result in the disqualification of the offender, which may even include disqualification from holding a future public office.
The two aspects account for the variance of the rules on disposition and resolution of disqualification cases filed before or after an election. When the disqualification case is filed before the elections, the question of disqualification is raised before the voting public. If the candidate is disqualified after the election, those who voted for him assume the risk that their votes may be declared stray or invalid. There is no such risk if the petition is filed after the elections. The COMELEC En Banc erred when it ignored the electoral aspect of the disqualification case by setting aside the COMELEC First Division’s resolution and referring the entire case to the COMELEC Law Department for the criminal aspect.”
Where and When to File the Petition for Disqualification
The Petition for Disqualification of a Candidate for the commission of election offenses is filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) division before the proclamation of the concerned candidate.
This is how to file a file a Petition for Disqualification of a Candidate based on the commission of election offenses.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
If you need assistance on Philippine election law matters, we can help you. Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at info@ndvlaw.com. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
