SK Candidates and Political Dynasties: What the Calubag Ruling Means

The Supreme Court recently upheld the cancellation of a Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) chairperson's certificate of candidacy (COC) for falsely swearing that he was not related to an incumbent barangay official. The ruling in Calubag v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 279008, April 8, 2026) clarifies how the anti-dynasty rule applies to SK elections and reminds candidates that they are bound by the declarations they make under oath.

The Facts of the Case

Merson C. Calubag filed his COC for SK Chairperson of Barangay Magtangale, San Francisco, Surigao del Norte for the 2023 Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections. In Item No. 10 of his COC, he swore that he was not related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any incumbent elected official in the locality.

A rival candidate, Kimberly P. Joseph, filed a petition to cancel the COC, alleging that Calubag's mother, Marilyn C. Calubag, was an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Barangay of the same barangay. Evidence submitted included Marilyn's oath of office and barangay official information sheet listing Calubag as her son.

Calubag did not file an answer with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). In his motion for reconsideration, he claimed he never received the summons and argued that his mother had resigned from her post on August 25, 2023, before he filed his COC.

The COMELEC Second Division cancelled the COC, and the COMELEC En Banc affirmed. Calubag then went to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

The Issue Before the Court

Two issues were presented: whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in cancelling the COC despite alleged non-receipt of summons, and whether the cancellation was proper despite the mother's purported resignation.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the COMELEC's rulings.

On the procedural issue, the Court noted that COMELEC Resolution No. 10924, the rules for the 2023 BSKE, allows service of summons through the e-mail address a candidate provides in the COC. The records showed the COMELEC sent summons electronically to the e-mail address Calubag indicated. Under the rules, any notice sent to that address is considered received by the candidate, who bears responsibility for keeping the address accessible.

Calubag merely alleged non-receipt without proof. The Court held this was insufficient to establish grave abuse of discretion, which requires showing that the COMELEC acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or whimsically.

On the substantive issue, the Court applied Section 10 of Republic Act No. 10742, the law governing SK elections. This provision disqualifies a candidate who is related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to any incumbent elected national, regional, provincial, city, municipal, or barangay official in the locality where the candidate seeks election. Lawmakers referred to this as the "Anti-Dynasty clause."

The evidence contradicted Calubag's claim that his mother had resigned before he filed his COC. The barangay logbook showed Marilyn reported for duty on August 30, 2023, five days after her supposed resignation. The barangay secretary attested that Marilyn sought help drafting her resignation letter on September 1, 2023, and only handed it to the council on September 6, 2023.

Because Calubag misrepresented a material fact in his COC, the Court upheld its cancellation under Sections 74 and 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.

The Court's Broader Observations

The Court took the opportunity to discuss the constitutional policy against political dynasties. Article XI, Section 26 of the Constitution directs the State to guarantee equal access to public office and prohibit political dynasties. The Court noted that Republic Act No. 10742 is currently the only law providing a workable definition of a political dynasty, and it applies only to SK elections.

Citing investigative journalism reports, the Court observed that a large majority of legislative districts and cities are represented by individuals with relatives in public office. The Court described this concentration of political power as an affront to the Constitution, noting that dynasties tend to skew institutions toward elite interests, particularly in less developed localities.

Practical Takeaways

• SK candidates must carefully check the anti-dynasty rule. A candidate cannot run for SK office if related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to an incumbent elected official in the same locality. This includes parents, children, siblings, and grandparents.
• The COC declaration is a sworn statement. Misrepresenting a material fact in a COC can lead to its cancellation and denial of due course, and may also expose the candidate to election offense charges.
• Resignation must be proven, not just claimed. A candidate who relies on a relative's resignation must present credible evidence that the resignation was effective before the COC was filed. Documents showing continued reporting for duty can defeat such a claim.
• E-mail service of summons is valid. Candidates are responsible for monitoring the e-mail address they provide in their COC. Notices sent to that address are deemed received.
• The anti-dynasty rule currently applies only to SK elections. While the Constitution prohibits political dynasties, Republic Act No. 10742 is the only law that defines and enforces this prohibition, and it is limited to SK positions.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.