Pangasinan Candidate Files Disbarment Against Comelec Officials

A defeated mayoral candidate in Pangasinan has escalated his electoral dispute to the Supreme Court, filing disbarment complaints against officials of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in a move that deepens the post-election turmoil following the 2025 midterm polls. The case comes as the Comelec en banc ordered the suspension of proclamations for 19 winning candidates nationwide, citing unresolved disqualification cases.

The twin developments — administrative complaints against election officials and the withholding of proclamations — have placed local governments from Luzon to the National Capital Region in a state of uncertainty months after ballots were cast.

Disbarment Case Targets Comelec Officials

The Pangasinan candidate, who lost his mayoral bid in the 2025 elections, filed complaints before the Supreme Court seeking the disbarment of unnamed Comelec lawyer-officials. The complaints allege professional misconduct in the handling of disqualification (DQ) proceedings.

Disbarment cases fall under the Supreme Court’s authority to discipline members of the bar. While the full text of the complaint has not been released publicly, the filing signals a sharp escalation from election protest to professional sanction, shifting the battlefield from poll tribunals to the country’s highest court.

The action follows ongoing legal disputes over candidate qualifications, where residency, alleged material misrepresentation and prior criminal convictions have emerged as central issues.

Nineteen Proclamations Suspended Nationwide

On February 24, 2026, the Comelec en banc ordered the suspension of proclamations of 19 candidates who were declared winners in the 2025 midterm elections but whom the poll body said were facing unresolved DQ cases.

Comelec Chair George Garcia told reporters that the commission would continue to pursue pending cases regardless of the election outcome.

He said “the poll body would pursue the cases against the candidates, whether they lost the elections or not,” adding that it was “possible that the orders of suspension directed against certain individuals or candidates may increase as we move on with the day. Because that was just what the Commission acted upon earlier.”

The pronouncement underscored the commission’s position that electoral victory does not extinguish disqualification proceedings. A proclamation, in this context, becomes not a finish line but a checkpoint — one that can be held back if legal questions remain unresolved.

Residency, Moral Turpitude, and Online Claims

The suspended cases span several regions and legal grounds:

• Residency issues: In one case, the Comelec First Division in December cancelled the certificate of candidacy (COC) of a congressional candidate, Teodoro, over two residency-based disqualification petitions. A consolidated motion for reconsideration remains pending before the en banc.
• Material misrepresentation: On March 21, 2025, the Comelec Second Division ruled that Darwin Sia, a councilor candidate in Manila’s 2nd District, committed material misrepresentation by failing to disclose a prior conviction for electricity pilferage — an offense classified as a crime involving moral turpitude under the Omnibus Election Code. On May 5, 2025, the en banc affirmed the ruling and halted his proclamation.
• Election system criticisms: In Reina Mercedes, Isabela, vice mayoral candidate Jeryll Harold Respicio faced disqualification proceedings following online statements claiming that automated counting machines could be hacked. The case was initiated by Comelec’s Task Force Katotohanan, Katapatan, at Katarungan sa Halalan.

Under the Omnibus Election Code, individuals convicted with finality of crimes involving moral turpitude are barred from holding public office. The Comelec also exercises constitutional authority to cancel COCs and suspend proclamations while DQ cases are pending.

The Pangasinan Ripple Effect

In Pangasinan, the disbarment filing has intensified local political tensions. While the losing candidate challenges Comelec’s conduct, the broader consequence is a leadership vacuum that affects everyday governance.

When proclamations stall, so do decisions: approval of barangay permits, oversight of health center operations, and administration of public market regulations. Municipal halls unsure of who will formally assume office often take a cautious approach, delaying expenditures and appointments.

In rural towns, uncertainty can also slow funding releases for infrastructure such as farm-to-market roads, with ripple effects on transport costs and the prices of rice and vegetables. For ordinary residents, a suspended proclamation may feel like a technicality; in practice, it can disrupt public safety coordination and routine government services.

Election Integrity vs. Electoral Mandate

The unfolding disputes highlight a recurring tension in Philippine elections: the balance between safeguarding legal qualifications and respecting the will of voters.

For the Comelec, suspending proclamations is a procedural safeguard. For affected candidates and their supporters, it can appear as a barrier erected after voters have spoken. That divide has now widened into a professional accountability battle before the Supreme Court.

Chair Garcia indicated that the list of suspended proclamations may grow as more cases reach the en banc. That possibility extends the period of uncertainty for several local government units across the country.

Supreme Court’s Role Ahead

The disbarment complaints now rest with the Supreme Court, which has authority over disciplinary actions against members of the bar, including government lawyers. Any finding of misconduct could carry professional sanctions independent of the electoral cases themselves.

Meanwhile, Comelec continues to deliberate on the 19 pending cases. Until resolutions are issued and proclamations either cleared or cancelled, affected towns and cities remain in administrative limbo — their leadership hanging in suspension as legal processes grind forward.

The outcome of both tracks — the DQ proceedings and the disbarment case — will shape not only individual political careers but also public confidence in the system meant to arbitrate the nation’s most fundamental civic exercise: the vote.