Scribd
Upload
67 views1 page

Luz-Aldeoza V COMELEC

Private respondent was elected as Punong Barangay but was charged with violating election laws for misrepresenting his profession as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) on his certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC dismissed the complaint, finding that misrepresenting one's profession is not material to eligibility and does not constitute an election offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Section 262 limits election offenses to violations of the qualification requirements in Section 74, and profession is not a qualification for office. Construing the law to avoid unreasonable punishment, misrepresenting a non-material fact like profession does not violate Sections 262 and 74.

Uploaded by

Jonalyn Bazar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views1 page

Luz-Aldeoza V COMELEC

Private respondent was elected as Punong Barangay but was charged with violating election laws for misrepresenting his profession as a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) on his certificate of candidacy. The COMELEC dismissed the complaint, finding that misrepresenting one's profession is not material to eligibility and does not constitute an election offense. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Section 262 limits election offenses to violations of the qualification requirements in Section 74, and profession is not a qualification for office. Construing the law to avoid unreasonable punishment, misrepresenting a non-material fact like profession does not violate Sections 262 and 74.

Uploaded by

Jonalyn Bazar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Luz-Aldeo v COMELEC-Vicencio offense.

However upon review of its wordings xxx “Violation of the provisions


or pertinent portions of the following sections shall constitute election
FACTS: offense... xxx thus it possibly limits its coverage to only pertinent provisions
of Section 74, and there are some that “shall not constitute” as election
Private respondent was a candidate for Punong Barangay of Brgy 2 offense. Hence, since it is a well settled rule in statutory construction that
Poblacion Catubig Samar in the July 2002 Synchronized Elections who later whenever possible, a legal provision, phrase, or word must not be so
won the said post. However, petitioners charged him before the Law construed as to be meaningless and a useless surplusage in the sense of
Department of COMELEC with violation of Section 262 in relation to Section adding nothing to the law or having no effect on it the Court is then left to
74 of BP 881 on the ground that private respondent stated in his profession interpret if misrepresentation of disclosure of profession is among such
or occupation that he is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) but his name provisions punishable with election offense.
does not appear in the book of the Board of Accountancy as certified by the
Jose Ariola, Director II of the Regulations Office of the PRC. Applying the precedent case of Abella v Larrazabal and Salcedo, the court
then ruled that “Profession or occupation not being a qualification for
On 21 September 2004, the Law Department through its Director then elective office, misrepresentation of such does not constitute a material
issued a subpoena requiring the PRC of its records, wherein it was find out misrepresentation. Certainly, in a situation where a candidate misrepresents
that private respondent took the 3 October 1993 CPA Board Examinations his or her profession or occupation in the certificate of candidacy, the
and obtained a failing mark of 40.71. Private respondent in his defense candidate may not be disqualified from running for office under Section 78
argued that he could not be held liable for an election offense because his as his or her certificate of candidacy cannot be denied due course or
alleged misrepresentation of profession was not material to his eligibility as canceled on such ground.”
a candidate.
Further, if for misrepresentation of a non-material fact private respondent
The COMELEC then recommends for the dismissal of the petitioner`s could be prosecuted for an election offense and if found guilty could not only
complaint citing the rulings of Romualdez – Marcoz v COMELEC and be disqualified from holding public office and from voting but could also be
Salcedo II v COMELEC wherein misrepresentation in private respondent`s deprived of his liberty, in interpreting the law the Court must avoid an
candidacy was not material to his eligibility as a candidate and could not be unreasonable or unjust construction thus in this case, With the gravity of
ground for his prosecution. the punishment provided by B.P. 881 for violation of election offenses, we
glean the intention of the law to limit culpability under Section 262 for
Reconsideration was then made by the COMELEC but ruled that private violation of Section 74 only to a material misrepresentation. We thus adhere
respondent could not be prosecuted for an election offense but possible only to the more reasonable construction of the term "pertinent portions" found
for administrative offense. in Section 262, in particular reference to Section 74, to mean only those
portions of Section 74 which prescribe qualification requirements of a
ISSUE: candidate.

Is an alleged misrepresentation of profession on a Certificate of Candidacy


punishable as an election offense under Section 262 in relation to Section
74 of BP 881?

HELD:

No. A cursory reading of the Sections 262 and 74 of BP 881, it will be


immediately concluded that private respondent shall be liable for an election

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy