G.R. No. 206698 February 2014 (Villafuerte v COMELEC and Villafuerte) Flashcards
Who is the petitioner of the case?
Luis R. Villafuerte
Who are the respondents of the case?
COMELEC and Miguel R. Villafuerte
Fill in the blanks: The petitioner and the respondent are both _______________.
candidates for the Gubernatorial position of the Province of Camarines Sur in the May 2013 local and national elections.
What case did the petitioner file to COMELEC?
He filed a case to cancel the certificate of candidacy of the respondent for intentionally and materially misrepresented a false and deceptive name/nickname that would mislead the voters.
What was the respondent’s name and stage name in the COC?
Name: VILLAFUERTE, L–RAY JR.
Nickname: MIGZ NP
Where did the nickname of the respondent came from?
L-RAY JR. is the nickname of respondent’s father, the incumbent Governor of Camarines Sur.
True or False: COMELEC’s First Division denied the claim for lack of merit and disposed no compelling reason due on the sole basis of an alleged irregularity in his name/nickname.
True. COMELEC’s First Division denied the claim of the petitioner.
Did the COMELEC en bank agree with the decision of the First Division?
Yes. The laws and jurisprudence on the matter are clear, that material misrepresentation in the COC pertains only to the qualifications of a candidate, such as citizenship, residency, registration as a voter, age, etc. Nothing has been mentioned about the name/nickname as a ground to deny COC.
What is the title of Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code?
Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy.
How was “false representation” defined in Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code?
It consists of a “deliberate attempt to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would otherwise render a candidate ineligible.”
What is the title of Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code?
Contents of certificate of candidacy.
What was the issue of this case?
Whether or not COMELEC seriously committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack and/or in excess jurisdiction when it whimsically and capriciously limited the grounds provided in Section 78 in relation to Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code.
What was the ruling of the Court?
The petition was denied. COMELEC En Banc decision was affirmed.
