Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon that start of the aforesaid campaign period: Provided, finally, That any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the armed forces, and officers, and employees in government-owned or-controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso factor resigned from his/her office and must vacate the same at the start of the day of the filing of his/her certification of candidacy. (Sec 13, RA 9369, amending Sec 11 of RA 8436)
Cases:
Doctrines
PNOC Energy v. NLRC
G.R. No.
100947 May 31,
1993
“…..Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code applies to officers and employees in government-owned or controlled corporations, even those organized under the general laws on incorporation and therefore not having an original or legislative charter, and even if they do not fall under the Civil Service Law but under the Labor Code. In other words, Section 66 constitutes just cause for termination of employment in addition to those set forth in the Labor Code, as amended.”
Sec. 66, BP 881 applies even to employees of government-owned or controlled corporations without an original charter.
Quinto v.
COMELE C 613 SCRA
385
”Section 4(a) of COMELEC Resolution 8678 is a faithful reflection of the present state of the law and jurisprudence on the matter.
Incumbent Appointive Official. - Under Section 13 of RA 9369, which reiterates Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, any person holding a public appointive office or position, including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and officers and employees in government-owned or -controlled corporations, shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.”
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the aforementioned
provision.
Effect of filing two (2) certificate of candidacy (Sec 73, par. 3, BP 881)
No person shall be eligible for more than one office to be filled in the same election, and if he files his certificate of candidacy for more than one office, he shall not be eligible for any of them.
Case:
Doctrines
Catalina Loreto-Go v. COMELEC G.R. No. 147741
May 10, 2001
“We annul the COMELEC resolution declaring petitioner disqualified for both positions of governor of Leyte and mayor of the municipality of Baybay, Leyte. he filing of the affidavit of withdrawal with the election officer of Baybay, Leyte, was a substantial compliance with the requirement of the law. We hold that petitioner's withdrawal of her certificate of candidacy for mayor of Baybay, Leyte was effective for all legal purposes, and left in full force her certificate of candidacy for governor.”
When a person files two certificates of candidacy for different offices, he becomes ineligible for either position. He may withdraw one of his certificates by filing a sworn declaration with the COMELEC before the deadline for the filing of certificates of candidacy.
Death disqualification, withdrawal of a candidate (Sec 77, BP 881)
If after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified.
o The substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of the day of the election.
If the death, withdrawal or disqualification should occur between the day before the election and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be voted for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.
Administrative Law & Election Law (Atty Gallant
Cases:
Doctrines
Luna v. COMELEC G.R. No. 165983 April
24, 2007
“The Election Code allows a person who has filed a certificate of candidacy to withdraw the same prior to the election by submitting a written declaration under oath. There is no provision of law which prevents a candidate from withdrawing his certificate of candidacy before the election”
“Hans Roger already withdrew his certificate of candidacy before the COMELEC declared that he was not a valid candidate. Therefore, unless Hans Rogers certificate of candidacy was denied due course or cancelled in accordance with Section 78 of the Election Code, Hans Rogers certificate of candidacy was valid and he may be validly substituted by Luna.”
Monsale vs. Nico 83 Phil. 758
“……whereby he withdrew his withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy, can only be considered as a new certificate of candidacy which, having been filed only four days before the election, could not legally be accepted under the law, which expressly provides that such certificate should be filed at sixty days before the election.”
The withdrawal of the withdrawal, for purpose of reviving the certificate of candidacy, must be made within the period provided by law for filing of the certificate of candidacy.
Duty of the COMELEC
Ministerial duty of receiving and acknowledging receipt. - The Commission, provincial election supervisor, election registrar or officer designated by the Commission or the board of election inspectors under the succeeding section shall have the ministerial duty to receive and acknowledge receipt of the certificate of candidacy. (Sec 76, BP 881)
Cases:
Doctrines Abcede v. Imperial
103 Phil 136 “……foregoing provisions give the Commission no discretion to give or not to give due course to petitioner's certificate of candidacy. On the contrary, the Conunission has, admittedly, the "ministerial" duty to receive said certificate of candidacy. Of what use would
it be to receive it if the certificate were not to be given due course? We must not assume that Congress intended to require a useless act — that it would have imposed a mandatory duty to do something vain, futile and empty.”
Cipriano v.
COMELEC