KEMBAR78
Salcedo vs. Comelec | PDF | Misrepresentation | Constitutional Law
Scribd
Upload
918 views2 pages

Salcedo vs. Comelec

1) Victorino Salcedo II filed a petition to cancel Ermelita Cacao Salcedo's certificate of candidacy for mayor, alleging she misrepresented her surname as she was not legally married to Neptali Salcedo. 2) The Commission on Elections ruled that a misrepresentation must be material to a candidate's qualifications like residency or age to justify cancelling a certificate of candidacy. 3) There was no evidence that Ermelita Cacao Salcedo's use of the surname Salcedo was intended to deliberately mislead voters about her eligibility for public office.

Uploaded by

Reyrey Dalisay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
918 views2 pages

Salcedo vs. Comelec

1) Victorino Salcedo II filed a petition to cancel Ermelita Cacao Salcedo's certificate of candidacy for mayor, alleging she misrepresented her surname as she was not legally married to Neptali Salcedo. 2) The Commission on Elections ruled that a misrepresentation must be material to a candidate's qualifications like residency or age to justify cancelling a certificate of candidacy. 3) There was no evidence that Ermelita Cacao Salcedo's use of the surname Salcedo was intended to deliberately mislead voters about her eligibility for public office.

Uploaded by

Reyrey Dalisay
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

[G.R. No. 135886.

August 16, 1999]

VICTORINO SALCEDO II, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON


ELECTIONS and ERMELITA CACAO SALCEDO, respondents.

FACTS:
OnFebruary18,1968,NeptaliSalcedoismarriedtoAgnezCeliz.Withouthisfirst
marriagebeingdissolved,NeptalimarriedErmelitaCacaoinacivilceremonyin1986.
Twodayslater,ErmelitaCacaocontractedanothermarriagewithacertainJesusAguirre.

DuringtheMay11,1998Elections,petitionerVictorinoSalcedoIIandprivate
respondentErmelitaCacaoSalcedobothranforthepositionofmayorinSara,Iloilo.
PetitionerthenfiledwiththeCOMELECapetitionforthecancellationofrespondents
certificateofcandidacyonthegroundthatshemadeafalserepresentationintheuseof
hersurnameSalcedo.Heallegesthatshehadnorighttousesaidsurnamebecauseshe
wasnotlegallymarriedtoNeptaliSalcedo.

PrivateRespondentEmelitaSalcedo

ISSUE:
Whetherornotmisrepresentationintheuseofsurnamemayserveasagroundforthe
cancellationofhercertificateofcandidacy.

RULING:
No.
In case there is a material misrepresentation in the certificate of candidacy, the
Comelecisauthorizedtodenyduecoursetoorcancelsuchcertificateuponthefilingofa
petitionbyanypersonpursuanttosection78oftheCodewhichstatesthat

Averifiedpetitionseekingtodenyduecourseortocancelacertificateofcandidacy
maybefiledbyanypersonexclusivelyonthegroundthatanymaterial
misrepresentationcontainedthereinasrequiredunderSection74hereofisfalse.The
petitionmaybefiledatanytimenotlaterthantwentyfivedaysfromthetimeofthe
filingofthecertificateofcandidacyandshallbedecided,afterduenoticeand
hearing,notlaterthanfifteendaysbeforetheelection.

Asstatedinthelaw,inordertojustifythecancellationofthecertificateofcandidacy
undersection78,itisessentialthatthefalserepresentationmentionedthereinpertaintoa
materialmatterforthesanctionimposedbythisprovisionwouldaffectthesubstantive
[G.R. No. 135886. August 16, 1999]

VICTORINO SALCEDO II, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON


ELECTIONS and ERMELITA CACAO SALCEDO, respondents.

rights of a candidate the right to run for the elective post for which he filed the
certificateofcandidacy.
Petitionerhasmadenoallegationsconcerningprivaterespondentsqualificationsto
runfortheofficeofmayor.Asidefromhiscontentionthatshemadeamisrepresentation
intheuseofthesurnameSalcedo,petitionerdoesnotclaimthatprivaterespondentlacks
therequisiteresidency,age,citizenshiporanyotherlegalqualificationnecessarytorun
for a local elective office as provided for in the Local Government Code.[24]Thus,
petitioner has failed to discharge the burden of proving that the misrepresentation
allegedlymadebyprivaterespondentinhercertificateofcandidacypertainstoamaterial
matter.
Asidefromtherequirementofmateriality,afalserepresentationundersection78
mustconsistofadeliberateattempttomislead,misinform,orhideafactwhichwould
otherwise render a candidate ineligible.[25]In other words, it must be made with an
intentiontodeceivetheelectorateastoonesqualificationsforpublicoffice.Theuseofa
surname,whennotintendedtomisleadordeceivethepublicastoonesidentity,isnot
withinthescopeoftheprovision.
ThereisabsolutelynoshowingthattheinhabitantsofSara,Iloiloweredeceivedby
theuseofsuchsurnamebyprivaterespondent.

You might also like