Scribd
Upload
771 views1 page

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

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.

Uploaded by

Aiza Ordoño
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
771 views1 page

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

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.

Uploaded by

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