Practice question
The law requires one year of residence in the locality by election day. In a timely Section 78 case, the evidence establishes that the candidate knowingly claimed two years in the COC although the candidate's legally determined domicile remains elsewhere throughout the relevant period. The false claim was deliberately made to conceal failure of that qualification. Which analysis is sound?
- No residence statement can ever support cancellation.
- The oath itself makes the false claim true.
- The stipulated facts establish materiality, falsity and intent to deceive concerning a legal qualification.
- Only punctuation errors may be examined under Section 78.
- A deliberate lie is irrelevant if the candidate buys campaign materials locally.
Legal references
- Comafay v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 279413, January 14, 2026, main decision, materiality, falsity and deceit: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70290
- BP 881, Sections 74 and 78: https://lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1985/bp_881_1985.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.