This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-10-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Elucidating on what constitutes material misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, the Court, in Lluz v. Commission on Elections,[15] explained that: From these two cases several conclusions follow. First, a misrepresentation in a certificate of candidacy is material when it refers to a qualification for elective office and affects the candidate's eligibility. x x x Third, a misrepresentation of a non-material fact, or a non-material misrepresentation, is not a ground to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 78. In other words, for a candidate's certificate of candidacy to be denied due course or canceled by the COMELEC, the fact misrepresented must pertain to a qualification for the office sought by the candidate.[16] (Emphasis ours) | |||||
|
2013-10-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| The reliance of the ponencia on Lluz v. Commission on Elections[35] in relating the act of declaring an untruthful statement to the concept of material misrepresentation is not precise. The circumstances and provisions of law involved in Lluz do not square with the present case. In Lluz, this Court determined whether the respondent committed material misrepresentation when he declared his profession as "Certified Public Accountant" in his Certificate of Candidacy. As We said in that case, "Profession or occupation not being a qualification for elective office, misrepresentation of such does not constitute a material misrepresentation."[36] In the present case, what is at issue is the genuineness and existence of the party-list group. This includes the question as to whether they truly represent the sector. The claim of representation can be supported by proof of their activities in relation to their sector. As established above, this record of genuineness and existence is a continuing requirement of the law and goes into the qualifications of the party-list. | |||||