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