Supreme Court overturns Comafay disqualification, calls Comelec ruling ‘Overly literal and Narrow’

Tabuk City, Kalinga – Anti-corruption advocate and Tabuk City Councilor No. 1, Atty. Errol Comafay Jr., is set to assume his seat at the Tabuk City Council after the Supreme Court reversed the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) decision to disqualify his Certificate of Candidacy (COC).

Comafay, who garnered 43,321 votes—more than 6,000 votes ahead of his closest rival in the May 2025 Midterm Elections—was not proclaimed by the Comelec Tabuk City due to a resolution by the Comelec En Banc disqualifying his COC over alleged material misrepresentation.

In defense of the trust and confidence bestowed on him by the majority of voters, Comafay elevated the case to the Supreme Court and consistently filed pleadings before the country’s highest tribunal.

On January 14, the Supreme Court En Banc ruled against the Comelec’s resolution, reversing the cancellation of Comafay’s COC during its first regular session at the Ayuntamiento de Manila in Intramuros, Manila.

The High Court noted that the Comelec resorted to an “overly literal and narrow interpretation” of what constitutes material misrepresentation.

Missing comma did not affect Comafay’s qualifications

The case stemmed from a petition filed by Paquinto Sallaya before the Comelec, alleging that Comafay committed material misrepresentation by stating “Taraki National Rd, Purok 5” in his COC, claiming that no such place exists in Barangay Bulanao or in Tabuk City.

The Comelec Second Division ruled in favor of Sallaya, holding that the absence of a comma in Comafay’s address amounted to material misrepresentation and that the lawyer “deliberately misled” the Comelec and the voters by providing a “false address.” This ruling was later affirmed by the Comelec En Banc.

However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. In a press briefer released on January 16, the High Court held that the omission of a comma in Comafay’s address did not constitute material misrepresentation and did not affect his qualifications.

“In this case, the SC held that the missing comma did not affect Comafay’s qualifications. The omission was harmless because it did not change the meaning of the address or relate to his qualifications. The SC also found no bad faith on the part of Comafay, who stated his address with the comma elsewhere in the same document,” the Court stated.

The Supreme Court further noted that Comafay has consistently used “Taraki, National Rd., Brgy. Bulanao, Tabuk City” as his address in his transactions, legal documents, and identification cards.