In case there is material misrepresentation
in the certificate of candidacy of an aspirant for an elective
position, the Comelec is authorized to deny due course or to cancel
such certificate upon the filing of a petition by any person
pursuant to the provision of Section 78 in relation to Section 74 of
the Omnibus Election Code. In this case of Marina, the court
explains the meaning of "material representation".
Marina was one of the two candidates for
the mayor of a municipality in the Visayas. The other was Benedicto.
Since 1986, after marrying Norberto Santos a popular three term
mayor of the same town with whom she has been living, Marina started
using the surname Santos in her rice and corn milling business and
in the income tax returns filed by herself and Norberto Santos. And
when she filed her certificate of candidacy in the 1998 elections,
she stated in the certificate that her surname was
"Santos".
Twenty days before the election, Benedicto
filed with the Comelec a petition seeking cancellation of Marina's
Certificate of candidacy on the ground that she made a false
representation therein by stating that her surname was Santos in
order to improve her chances of winning by riding on the popularity
of Norberto. Apparently Benedicto had made a research on the
background of Marina and Norberto. It appeared that when Marina
married Norberto in 1986, Norberto was still married to another
woman with whom he contracted marriage way back in 1968 but who
since 1972 had not been heard from. What was worse per Benedicto's
findings was that two days after contracting marriage with Norberto,
Marina contracted another marriage with a certain Jaime Cruz as
shown by another marriage certificate filed with the Office of the
Civil Registrar. Benedicto, thus, contended that Marina had no right
to use said surname since she was not legally married to Norberto.
In her answer, Marina claimed that she
didn't know that Norberto was already married when she married him
and that upon learning of such existing marriage, she encourage
Norberto to take steps to annul said marriage. In fact, according to
Marina, the court had already declared the presumptive death of
Norberto's first wife. She further declared that Norberto Santos and
Jaime Cruz are one and the same person; and that since 1986 she has
been using the surname Santos in all the personal, commercial and
public transactions. So Marina contended that the use of such
surname does not constitute a material representation under Section
78 of the Omnibus Election Code so as to justify the cancellation of
her certificate of candidacy. Was Marina correct?
Yes. The main issue in this case is not
whether or not Marina is entitled to use a specific surname in her
certificate of candidacy but whether the use of such surname
constitute a material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code. And Marina's use of such surname does not
constitute misrepresentation. The material misrepresentation
contemplated by Section 78 of the Code refers to qualifications for
elective office. Considering that the grave consequences imposed
upon a candidate guilty of having a false misrepresentation in his
certificate of candidacy which prevent him from running or, if
elected, from serving, or to prosecute him for violation of election
laws; it could not have been the intention of the law to deprive a
person of such a basic and substantive political right to be voted
for a public office upon just any innocuous mistake.
Marina had not made any misrepresentation
as to the requisite, residency, age, citizenship or any other legal
qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as
provided for in the Local Government Code.
Furthermore, aside from the requirement of
materiality, a false representation made under Section 78 must
consist of a "deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide
a fact" which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible. In
other words it must be made with an intention to deceive the
electorate as to one's qualification for public office. The use of a
surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to
one's identity is not within the scope of the provision.
The electorate knew who Marina was not only
by name but also by face and may have even be personally acquainted
with her because she has been residing in the town since at least
1986 as she has been living with Norberto and the latter had held
her out to the public as his wife. And she had been using the
surname Santos in all personal, commercial and public transactions.
This belies Benedicto's contention that Marina merely adopted the
surname "Santos" to improve her chances of winning.
Thus, Marina did not commit any material
misrepresentation by the use of the surname "Santos" in
her certificate of candidacy (Salcedo II vs. Comelec et. al. G.R.
No. 135886 Aug. 16, 1999).
*
* *
Atty. Sison's e-mail address is: sison@ipaglabanmo.org
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
