Myla

Sara

Ruth

LLUZ v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 172840; June 7, 2007
FACTS:
Private respondent was a
candidate for the post of
punong barangay of
Barangay 2, Poblacion,
Catubig, Samar in the 15 July
2002 Synchronized Barangay
and Sangguniang Kabataan
Elections. In
his certificate of candidacy,
private respondent
misrepresented himself as a
certified public accountant
(CPA) as his profession or
occupation. Private
respondent won in the
elections.
Thus, he was charged for
an election offense before
the COMELEC. In his
Answer, private

N.

Myla
Sara

Ruth

respondent argued that he

could not be held liable
for an election offense
because his alleged
misrepresentation of
profession was not material to
his eligibility as a candidate.
ISSUE:
Is an alleged
misrepresentation of
profession or occupation on a
certificate of candidacy
punishable
as an election offense under
Section 262 in relation to
Section 74 of B.P. 881?
HELD:
No elective office, not even
the office of the President of
the Republic of the Philippines,
requires a
certain profession or
occupation as a qualification.

N.

Myla
Sara

Ruth

For local elective offices

including that of punong
barangay, Republic Act No.
7160 (R.A. 7160) or the Local
Government Code of 1991
prescribes only
qualifications pertaining to
citizenship, registration as a
voter, residence, and
language. Section 39 of
R.A. 7160 states: x x x
x Profession or occupation
not being a qualification
for elective office,
misrepresentation of such
does not constitute a material
misrepresentation. Certainly,
in a situation
where a candidate
misrepresents his or her
profession or occupation in the
certificate of candidacy,

N.

Myla
Sara

Ruth

the candidate may not be

disqualified from running for
office under Section 78 as his
or her certificate
of candidacy cannot be denied
due course or canceled on
such ground.
LLUZ v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 172840; June 7, 2007
FACTS:
Private respondent was a
candidate for the post of
punong barangay of
Barangay 2, Poblacion,
Catubig, Samar in the 15 July
2002 Synchronized Barangay
and Sangguniang Kabataan
Elections. In
his certificate of candidacy,
private respondent
misrepresented himself as a
certified public accountant

N.

Myla
Sara

Ruth

(CPA) as his profession or

occupation. Private
respondent won in the
elections.
Thus, he was charged for
an election offense before
the COMELEC. In his
Answer, private
respondent argued that he
could not be held liable
for an election offense
because his alleged
misrepresentation of
profession was not material to
his eligibility as a candidate.
ISSUE:
Is an alleged
misrepresentation of
profession or occupation on a
certificate of candidacy
punishable

N.

Myla
Sara

Ruth

as an election offense under

Section 262 in relation to
Section 74 of B.P. 881?
HELD:
No elective office, not even
the office of the President of
the Republic of the Philippines,
requires a
certain profession or
occupation as a qualification.
For local elective offices
including that of punong
barangay, Republic Act No.
7160 (R.A. 7160) or the Local
Government Code of 1991
prescribes only
qualifications pertaining to
citizenship, registration as a
voter, residence, and
language. Section 39 of
R.A. 7160 states: x x x
x Profession or occupation

N.

Myla
Sara

Ruth

not being a qualification

for elective office,
misrepresentation of such
does not constitute a material
misrepresentation. Certainly,
in a situation
where a candidate
misrepresents his or her
profession or occupation in the
certificate of candidacy,
the candidate may not be
disqualified from running for
office under Section 78 as his
or her certificate
of candidacy cannot be denied
due course or canceled on
such ground.
G.R. No. 150605

December 10, 2002

EUFROCINO M. CODILLA, SR. vs

HON. JOSE DE VENECIA, ROBERTO P. NAZARENO, in their official capacities as
Speaker
and Secretary-General of the House of Representatives, respectively,
and MA. VICTORIA L. LOCSIN
Facts:

Petitioner garnered the highest votes in the election for representative in the 4 th district of Leyte as
against respondent Locsin. Petitioner won while a disqualification suit was pending. Respondent moved
for the suspension of petitioners proclamation. By virtue of the Comelec ex parte order, petitioners

N.

Myla
Sara

Ruth

proclamation was suspended. Comelec later on resolved that petitioner was guilty of soliciting votes and
consequently disqualified him. Respondent Locsin was proclaimed winner. Upon motion by petitioner, the
resolution was however reversed and a new resolution declared respondents proclamation as null and
void. Respondent made his defiance and disobedience to subsequent resolution publicly known while
petitioner asserted his right to the office he won.

Issues:
1. Whether or not respondents proclamation was valid.
2. Whether or not the Comelec had jurisdiction in the instant case.
3. Whether or not proclamation of the winner is a ministerial duty.

HELD:
1. The respondents proclamation was premature given that the case against petitioner had not yet been
disposed of with finality. In fact, it was subsequently found that the disqualification of the petitioner
was null and void for being violative of due process and for want of substantial factual basis.
Furthermore, respondent, as second placer, could not take the seat in office since he did not represent
the electorates choice.
2.

Since the validity of respondents proclamation had been assailed by petitioner before the Comelec and
that the Comelec was yet to resolve it, it cannot be said that the order disqualifying petitioner had become
final. Thus Comelec continued to exercise jurisdiction over the case pending finality. The House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review resolutions or decisions of the
Comelec. A petition for quo warranto must also fail since respondents eligibility was not the issue.

3. The facts had been settled by the COMELEC

en banc, the constitutional body with jurisdiction on the matter, that

petitioner won. The rule of law demands that its (Comelecs) Decision be obeyed by all officials of the
land.

Such duty is ministerial. Petitioner had the right to the office which merits recognition regardless of

personal judgment or opinion.

N.