Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 696 views

    Facts:: Lluz V. Comelec G.R. No. 172840 June 7, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Aiza Ordoño
    Private respondent was a candidate for punong barangay who misrepresented himself as a certified public accountant (CPA) on his certificate of candidacy. He was charged with an election offense. The Supreme Court ruled that misrepresentation of profession or occupation does not constitute a material misrepresentation and is not a ground for disqualification, as no elective office requires a specific profession or occupation under the law. Profession or occupation is not a qualification for local elective offices like punong barangay according to the Local Government Code. Therefore, misrepresenting one's profession alone does not qualify as an election offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Facts:: Lluz V. Comelec G.R. No. 172840 June 7, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Aiza Ordoño
    696 views1 page
    Private respondent was a candidate for punong barangay who misrepresented himself as a certified public accountant (CPA) on his certificate of candidacy. He was charged with an election offense. The Supreme Court ruled that misrepresentation of profession or occupation does not constitute a material misrepresentation and is not a ground for disqualification, as no elective office requires a specific profession or occupation under the law. Profession or occupation is not a qualification for local elective offices like punong barangay according to the Local Government Code. Therefore, misrepresenting one's profession alone does not qualify as an election offense.

    Original Description:

    Election law case digest

    Original Title

    Lluz v. Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Private respondent was a candidate for punong barangay who misrepresented himself as a certified public accountant (CPA) on his certificate of candidacy. He was charged with an election offense. The Supreme Court ruled that misrepresentation of profession or occupation does not constitute a material misrepresentation and is not a ground for disqualification, as no elective office requires a specific profession or occupation under the law. Profession or occupation is not a qualification for local elective offices like punong barangay according to the Local Government Code. Therefore, misrepresenting one's profession alone does not qualify as an election offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    696 views1 page

    Facts:: Lluz V. Comelec G.R. No. 172840 June 7, 2007

    Uploaded by

    Aiza Ordoño
    Private respondent was a candidate for punong barangay who misrepresented himself as a certified public accountant (CPA) on his certificate of candidacy. He was charged with an election offense. The Supreme Court ruled that misrepresentation of profession or occupation does not constitute a material misrepresentation and is not a ground for disqualification, as no elective office requires a specific profession or occupation under the law. Profession or occupation is not a qualification for local elective offices like punong barangay according to the Local Government Code. Therefore, misrepresenting one's profession alone does not qualify as an election offense.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LLUZ v. COMELEC G.R. No.

    172840; June 7, 2007

    FACTS: Private respondent was a candidate for the post of punong barangay of Barangay 2, Poblacion, Catubig, Samar in the 15 July 2002 Synchronized Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. In his certificate of candidacy, private respondent misrepresented himself as a certified public accountant (CPA) as his profession or occupation. Private respondent won in the elections. Thus, he was charged for an election offense before the COMELEC. In his Answer, private respondent argued that he could not be held liable for an election offense because his alleged misrepresentation of profession was not material to his eligibility as a candidate.

    ISSUE: Is an alleged misrepresentation of profession or occupation on a certificate of candidacy punishable as an election offense under Section 262 in relation to Section 74 of B.P. 881?

    HELD: No elective office, not even the office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines, requires a certain profession or occupation as a qualification. For local elective offices including that of punong barangay, Republic Act No. 7160 (R.A. 7160) or the Local Government Code of 1991 prescribes only qualifications pertaining to citizenship, registration as a voter, residence, and language. Section 39 of R.A. 7160 states: x x x x Profession or occupation not being a qualification for elective office, misrepresentation of such does not constitute a material misrepresentation. Certainly, in a situation where a candidate misrepresents his or her profession or occupation in the certificate of candidacy, the candidate may not be disqualified from running for office under Section 78 as his or her certificate of candidacy cannot be denied due course or canceled on such ground.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy