Comelec asked to reconsider DQ petition vs Makati congressional aspirant

MANILA, Philippine — A Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolution dismissing the petition to cancel the candidacy of a House of Representatives aspirant in Makati City was asked to be reversed.

Gaudencio Babasa filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) to reverse and set aside the January 27, 2025 decision of the Comelec’s First Division.

INQUIRER.net is withholding the name of the candidate until it gets a reply from the person concerned.

Babasa argued that the respondent committed material representation which can be a ground of cancellation of candidacy (COC) under the Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

The petitioner said that the respondent was found guilty of burglary and manufacturing and distributing controlled drug substances in New Jersey.

However, the Comelec First Division ruled that the sole evidence presented by the petitioner to prove the conviction of the respondent “lacks proper authentication” and that “[t]here was no material misrepresentation.”

“It must be emphasized that the denial of due course to, or the cancellation of, a COC must be anchored on a finding that the candidate made a material misrepresentation that was false.”

It explained that in election laws, material misrepresentation is done “with the intention to gain an advantage by deceitfully claiming possession of all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications when in fact the contrary is true.”

The decision added that “there is no proof that Respondent was indeed convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. As previously discussed, the evidence submitted were not properly authenticated.”

Meanwhile, the MR filed by the petitioner stated that “[t]he Honorable Commission, with all due respect, shrinks from its constitutional duty to weed out candidates who are unfit, unqualified, and ineligible to run for public office. It should have been the Honorable Commission’s duty to filter out unqualified and ineligible candidates.”

The MR also mentioned that the case notes from the New Jersey database are public documents, therefore, “pursuant to jurisprudence are self-authenticating.” It added that the petitioner presented “substantial evidence” to prove the conviction.

It also said that the respondent did not deny the petitioner’s allegation that he was convicted of the said crimes.

Lastly, the MR stated that “[t]he respondent has made material representation in his COC.”