ELECTION ISSUES

COERCION
FACTS: A has a pending election-related issue on COERCION: threats, intimidation
and terrorism from the 2013 Election filed in court. Subsequently, prior to final
judgment of the previous case, A once again wants to pursue a position in the 2016
National Election.
ISSUE:
WON A be disqualified for running in the coming 2016 Election due to acts
committed from the 2013 Election.

DISCUSSION:
Paragraph (e) Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 Article XXII on Election
offenses provides that:
(e) Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other
forms of coercion. - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens,
intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence, injury,
punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage upon any person or persons or
that of the immediate members of his family, his honor or property, or uses
any fraudulent device or scheme to compel or induce the registration or
refraining from registration of any voter, or the participation in a campaign or
refraining or desistance from any campaign, or the casting of any vote or
omission to vote, or any promise of such registration, campaign, vote, or
omission therefrom.
The case at bar is one of the Election Offenses enumerated under Article XXII of BP
88/Omnibus Election Code. Hence, a reasonable ground for Disqualification of any
perpetrators once proven. (rule 25 section 1, Comelec Rules of Procedure):
Section 1. Grounds for Disqualification. - Any candidate who does not possess
all the qualifications of a candidate as provided for by the Constitution or by
existing law or who commits any act declared by law to be grounds for
disqualification may be disqualified from continuing as a candidate.
The law therefore mandates disqualification of those candidates who commits any
act of disqualification as provided for by law. On the other hand, the case at bar is
not applicable to this provision. Hence the law expressly declares that if a candidate
runs for a position having a pending case in court from the previous election should
not be barred/disqualified from running due to pending election issues. This is a
mandatory provision of law. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, The Electoral

Reforms Law of 1987, states:

Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any reason a
candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be disqualified
and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such election, the
Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry,
or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate
whenever the evidence of his guilt is strong.
Section 6 of the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987 covers two situations.

The first is when the disqualification becomes final before the elections,
which is the situation covered in the first sentence of Section 6.
The second is when the disqualification becomes final after the elections,
which is the situation covered in the second sentence of Section 6.

The present case falls under the second situation. Thus, the only way to disqualify A
as a candidate takes place only upon final judgment of the court or commission.
Nevertheless, A should not be barred from running in the 2015 election.

CONCLUSION
Conclusively, A having a pending case in court shall be able to pursue his/her
candidacy in the 2016 election. If voted for and receives the winning number of
votes in such election, the trial and hearing continues. Thus, the opposing party
may move for suspension of the proclamation of A whenever the evidence of his
guilt is strong. Nevertheless, no disqualification offenses shall bar any candidates
from running without final judgment from the court or commission.