By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Disqualified because of a missing comma
Is a missing comma in a candidate’s certificate of candidacy enough to disqualify him?
This was the unusual yet consequential question raised in Comafay, Jr. v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 279413, January 14, 2026). The controversy began when Errol B. Comafay, Jr., running for councilor of Tabuk City, wrote his residence in Item 5.4 of his COC as “TARAKI NATIONAL RD PUROK 5” without a comma. His opponent seized on this omission, presenting a barangay certification claiming that no “Taraki National Road” existed. COMELEC’s Second Division—and later the En Banc—agreed, ruling that Comafay committed material misrepresentation and ordering the cancellation of his COC.
The factual record, however, told a different story. Comafay had consistently used the same address for over a decade in his UMID, SALN, Personal Data Sheets, and even in his 2022 COC. More importantly, in Item 7 of the same 2025 COC, he wrote his full address with commas: “TARAKI, NATIONAL RD, PUROK 5, BRGY. BULANAO, TABUK CITY, KALINGA.” The supposed “false” address was therefore not a new claim but a formatting variation. Despite this, COMELEC gave greater weight to the barangay certification—whose conclusiveness the Court would later reject—over the candidate’s long-standing documentary trail.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in treating the missing comma as a false material representation under Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.
The Court held that it did. A material misrepresentation must relate to a qualification for office—residency, age, citizenship—and must be both false and intentionally deceptive. The Court found neither falsity nor intent. As the decision noted, the absence of a comma “was clearly exploited and manipulated to distort the truth,” especially since the correct, comma-separated address appeared elsewhere in the same COC.
The Court also ruled that COMELEC acted unreasonably in its appreciation of evidence. Barangay certifications, it emphasized, are not conclusive and must yield to positive, consistent documentary proof. Here, Comafay’s evidence overwhelmingly established his residence at Taraki, Purok 5, Bulanao. The Court likened COMELEC’s approach to an overly literal and narrow reading of the law—one that weaponized a punctuation mark rather than assessed the candidate’s actual qualifications.
Finally, the Court stressed that doubts in residency cases must be resolved in favor of the electorate’s will. In the May 12, 2025 elections, Comafay won decisively with 43,321 votes—58.09% of all votes cast. To nullify such a mandate over a missing comma, the Court warned, would undermine both democratic choice and the constitutional requirement that Section 78 petitions be strictly construed.
In reversing COMELEC, the Supreme Court restored both legal reason and electoral fairness. A comma, it held, cannot be the basis for disqualification. Substance must prevail over hypertechnicality, and the rule of law must guard against the manipulation of trivial errors to defeat the people’s choice.