WHAT REALLY is the difference between a petition for cancellation of certificate of candidacy (COC) and a petition for disqualification? Insofar as it involves the election of local and regional officials, they refer to the same dog with different collars! Under the Omnibus Election Code, the
Commission on Elections can rule on their qualifications and cancel their COCs if found to contain any “misrepresentation” as to their qualifications.
Insofar as it involves the election of national officials, the Constitution exclusively reserves to: The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) the authority as the “sole judge” of the qualifications of the members of the House of Representatives; the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) on the qualifications of the members of the Senate; and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) on the qualifications of the president and the vice president.
Election law mavens have made it clear that as far as national officials are concerned, a petition for cancellation of their COC is within the Comelec’s jurisdiction to decide, while a petition for disqualification is the exclusive domain of the HRET, SET or PET, as the case may be.
In the Comelec cases against presidential candidate Grace Poe, the “disqualification” petition was treated as a “cancellation” petition to acquire jurisdiction. The mumbo-jumbo was baffling.
The Comelec reasoned out that what it ruled upon was merely the petition for the cancellation of her COC, and not for “disqualification” (which would be dismissible because jurisdiction lies with the PET)! Her COC was “canceled” because she “misrepresented” herself as a natural-born Filipino with at least 10-year residency in the country when in truth, according to the Comelec, she did not meet both requirements.
Natural-born citizenship and residency are the basic “qualifications” set by the Constitution for the presidency. Any crackpot lawyer would see that any ruling on the alleged “misrepresentation” on the part of Poe could not be resolved without first ruling on her qualifications. The Comelec should have taken her statements in the COC for president at face value which were all in accordance with law. If it entertained some doubts, it should have deferred to the constitutional mandate reposing competence to receive evidence on her lack of such qualifications in the PET (composed of all the 15 justices of the Supreme Court).
The really funny thing is, the Comelec saw no basis to cancel the COC of “presidential wannabe” Martin Diño despite his seeming “illiteracy”! Another basic qualification for president is the ability to read. Inquirer commentator Raul Palabrica wrote: “Anyone who has completed elementary, or at least primary, grades would know the difference between president of the Philippines and mayor of Pasay City” (“Value of COCs depreciated,” Opinion, 2/15/16). Diño’s COC showed prima facie that he could not read. The COC form he filed was clearly for “president,” but what he wrote as the office he was running for was “Mayor of Pasay City”! Go figure!
—GEORGE DEL MAR,gdmlaw111@gmail.com