TABUK CITY, Kalinga – The Commission on Elections (Comelec) en banc outrightly denied the motion for reconsideration of lawyer Errol Bangloy Comafay, Jr., a candidate for councilor in the city, that sought to assail the earlier resolution of the Second Division that disqualified him as a candidate for the upcoming May 12, 2025 mid-term elections because of alleged misdeclaration of his address.
In a 4-page resolution promulgated on April 4, 2025 which was unanimously approved, the Commission, in denying Comafay’s motion for reconsideration, stated that it cannot countenance his willful and material misrepresentation of essential facts on his certificate of candidacy that sought to mislead and misinform both the poll body and the electorate of Tabuk.
The resolution pointed out that the Second Division correctly granted the petition for Comafay’s false material misrepresentation under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 74 as he was unable to overthrow the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the punong barangay when he filed to deny the issuance of the barangay certification presented by the petitioner or provide substantial evidence to refute the same.
It added that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is vital to the effective and unhampered administration of government functions, and Comafay’s failure to overthrow it was not merely an oversight but a willful act of deception that undermines the fundamental principles of transparency, accountability and ethical conduct in the electoral process.
“The Commission as the guardian of electoral integrity cannot countenance such action. The instant motion for reconsideration was unable to establish that the assailed order was based on insufficient evidence or that the same is contrary to law,” the resolution stressed.
The Commission also took note that the certificate of residence from the office of the punong barangay of Bulanao, Tabuk City that Comfay used for his motion for reconsideration was issued only on February 11, 2025 or a day before he filed his motion for reconsideration on February 12, 2025.
According to the resolution, notwithstanding the fact that Comfay’s failure to present a barangay certificate of residency was discussed by the Second Division in the assailed order, it bears stressing that such a barangay certificate of residency was readily available to him and that he could have presented the same with reasonable diligence at the time he filed his verified answer cum memorandum on November 29, 2024.
Moreover, the Commission explained that Comafay could have secured the issuance of a barangay certificate of residency within the 5-day period from the time summons was issued to him on November 26, 2024 considering that he was able to secure the issuance of the certificate of residency as early as February 11, 2025 despite only receiving a copy of the assailed decision at the end of barangay hall office hours on a Friday, or on February 7, 2025 at 4:44 pm with February 8 and 9 being a Saturday and Sunday, respectively, effectively giving him two days to secure the certificate of residency as stated in his motion for reconsideration.
The Commission underscored that the same failure of Comafay to timely present the notices of both the Supreme Court and the Solicitor-General that he attached to his motion for reconsideration at that time he filed his verified answer cum memorandum constrains the collegial body to not take the same into consideration when resolving his motion for reconsideration.
On February 6, 2025, the Second Division issued the assailed order which granted the petition and forwarded the records of the case to the Commission’s law department for the conduct of a preliminary investigation relative to the election offense aspect of the case.
On February 12, 2025, Comafay filed his motion for reconsideration praying that the en banc reconsider its resolution and that the petition be dismissed for lack of merit.
On October 6, 2024, Comafay filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of the member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Tabuk city for the upcoming mid-term election
On October 16, 2024, petitioner Paquito Sallaya filed a petition against Comafay pursuant to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code alleging that the latter’s certificate of candidacy contains material misrepresentation when he stated that his residence or mailing address is Taraki National Road, Purok 5, Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga when, in fact, no such road exists in the said barangay or anywhere in the city.
Petitioner attached a certification from the office of the punong barangay of Bulanao that certified that as per their record, there is no existing Taraki National Road within the barangay’s jurisdiction.
Comafay failed to secure a temporary restraining order from the Supreme Court within the 5-day reglementary period that makes the aforesaid decision final and executory.
Under existing rules and regulations, aggrieved parties of the decisions of the poll body are mandated to apply for the issuance of the temporary restraining order from the High Court or else the assailed ruling will become final and executory after the prescribed 5-day period.
In a related development, Provincial Election Supervisor lawyer Ricardo Lampac earlier said that since the decision of the poll body is final and executory, the votes that will be cast in favor of the disqualified candidate will be considered astray and will not be counted in his favor. By Dexter A. See
