Scribd
Upload
70 views

LOONG vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Petitioner Loong filed for Vice-Governor in the 1990 election. After the election, respondent Ututalum filed a petition to disqualify Loong, claiming he made false statements about his age. Loong argued the petition was filed too late under the 25-day period in the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC denied Loong's motion to dismiss. The issue was whether the petition was timely. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not timely, as it was governed by the 25-day limit in the Omnibus Election Code rather than COMELEC's rules, which could not supersede a legislative enactment.

Uploaded by

xsar_x
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
70 views

LOONG vs. COMELEC Case Digest

Petitioner Loong filed for Vice-Governor in the 1990 election. After the election, respondent Ututalum filed a petition to disqualify Loong, claiming he made false statements about his age. Loong argued the petition was filed too late under the 25-day period in the Omnibus Election Code. The COMELEC denied Loong's motion to dismiss. The issue was whether the petition was timely. The Supreme Court held that the petition was not timely, as it was governed by the 25-day limit in the Omnibus Election Code rather than COMELEC's rules, which could not supersede a legislative enactment.

Uploaded by

xsar_x
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

LOONG vs.

COMELEC Case Digest


LOONG vs. COMELEC
216 SCRA 760, 1992

Facts: On 15 January 1990, petitioner filed with respondent Commission his certificate of candidacy
for the position of Vice-Governor of the Mindanao Autonomous Region in the election held on 17
February 1990. On 5 March 1990 (or 16 days after the election), respondent Ututalum filed before
the respondent Commission a petition seeking to disqualify petitioner for the office of Regional Vice-
Governor, on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate of candidacy as
to his age.

Petitioner Loong sought the dismissal of the petition on the ground that the respondent COMELEC
has no jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss was denied by the COMELEC in a resolution which is the
subject of this petition.

Petitioner Loong contends that SPA No. 90-006 (a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of
petitioner Loong) was filed out of time because it was filed beyond the 25-day period prescribed by
Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Issue: Whether or not SPA No. 90-006 was filed within the period prescribed by law.

Held: No. The petition filed by private respondent Ututalum with the respondent COMELEC to
disqualify petitioner Loong on the ground that the latter made a false representation in his certificate
of candidacy as to his age, clearly does not fall under the grounds of disqualification as provided for
in Rule 25 but is expressly covered by Rule 23 of the Comelec Rules of Procedure governing
petitions to cancel certificate of candidacy. Moreover, Section 3, Rule 25 which allows the filing of
the petition at any time after the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy but not later than
the date of proclamation, is merely a procedural rule issued by respondent Commission which,
although a constitutional body, has no legislative powers. Thus, it can not supersede Section 78 of
the Omnibus Election Code which is a legislative enactment.

You might also like