Short answer: Usually yes. Under Philippine election laws, a pending criminal, civil, or administrative case—including a harassment complaint—does not, by itself, bar a person from running for public office. Disqualification typically requires a final judgment (conviction or administrative penalty that expressly carries disqualification), or a statutory ground specified in the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, the Local Government Code, and related laws.

Below is a comprehensive guide, tailored to the Philippine context.

1) Core Legal Foundations

Constitutional qualifications (national posts)

President/Vice-President, Senator, Member of the House: The 1987 Constitution lists age, citizenship, residency, and voter registration. No rule disqualifies a person solely because of a pending case.

Omnibus Election Code (OEC)

Section 12 (Disqualifications): Disqualifies those sentenced by final judgment for:
- A crime with a penalty of more than 18 months; or
- A crime involving moral turpitude (e.g., serious sexual offenses) The disability is lifted five years after service of sentence, except where the law imposes perpetual disqualification.
Section 68 (Disqualifications for election offenses): Disqualifies for proven (adjudicated) election offenses (e.g., vote-buying, certain coercive acts), not for unproven allegations.
Section 69 (Nuisance candidates): Unrelated to pending harassment; addresses candidacies intended to make a mockery of the process, create confusion, etc.
Section 78 (Cancellation of COC): A certificate of candidacy can be cancelled for material misrepresentation of qualifications or eligibility—not for mere pendency of a case. If a form asks about pending cases and a candidate lies, that lie (not the pendency) can be the ground.

Local Government Code (LGC, R.A. 7160)

Section 39 (Qualifications) & Section 40 (Disqualifications) for local elective officials:
- Disqualifications include being sentenced by final judgment for an offense involving moral turpitude or with imprisonment of at least one (1) year, within two years after service of sentence; removed from office as a result of an administrative case; dual citizenship issues (subject to jurisprudential nuances); insanity/feeble-mindedness.
- Again, finality is key. Pending cases do not trigger Section 40.

Sangguniang Kabataan (R.A. 10742, SK Reform Act)

Mirrors the general rule: disqualifications usually require final judgment for offenses involving moral turpitude or specified crimes. Mere pendency is not a bar.

2) What Counts as “Harassment” in Law?

“Harassment” is an umbrella lay term. Legally, it could refer to:

Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (R.A. 7877): Workplace/educational authority-based sexual harassment (criminal and administrative).
Safe Spaces Act (R.A. 11313): Gender-based sexual harassment in public spaces, online, workplaces, and educational institutions (criminal and administrative liabilities; employer/学校 duties).
Other laws: Some acts may also be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code (e.g., acts of lasciviousness, unjust vexation as amended in practice), Anti-VAWC (R.A. 9262) if intimate partner violence is involved, or civil actions for damages.

Key point: Until there is a final conviction (criminal) or final administrative judgment that imposes disqualification (or removal from office with the penalty of disqualification), eligibility to run remains intact.

3) Criminal vs. Administrative vs. Civil: Why “Final Judgment” Matters

Criminal cases: Disqualification under OEC §12 attaches only after final conviction for qualifying crimes. Mere filing, investigation, or pending trial is not enough.
Administrative cases (in public service): If a person has been dismissed from service with finality and the penalty includes perpetual or temporary disqualification, that can bar candidacy (LGC §40; civil service rules). Pending administrative charges do not.
Civil cases: Purely civil suits (e.g., damages for harassment) do not disqualify, pending or otherwise.

4) Moral Turpitude & Sexual Offenses

Moral turpitude refers to acts contrary to justice, honesty, or good morals. Many sexual offenses have been treated as involving moral turpitude.
But: The label only matters at final conviction. A pending harassment case (even if the charge, if proven, would involve moral turpitude) does not yet disqualify a candidate.

5) Detention, Bail, and Campaigning

An accused person out on bail can run and campaign.
Even an accused in pre-trial detention may file a COC and be voted for; practical restrictions on movement are not legal disqualifications. (Court leave is needed to attend campaign activities or, if elected, to assume office; feasibility depends on the criminal court’s orders.)

6) Party/Coalition Screening vs. Legal Eligibility

Political parties may set stricter internal standards (e.g., “no pending case” rules) for endorsing candidates. Those are political/organizational decisions, not legal disqualifications. A person might still legally run independently or under another party.

7) Election Remedies & How “Pending Harassment” Might Still Surface

Opponents or citizens may use these processes (none of which hinge merely on “pending harassment,” but issues can arise indirectly):

Petition to Disqualify (Sec. 68, OEC)
- Requires a specific statutory ground (e.g., election offense). A pending harassment case is not one.
Petition to Deny Due Course or Cancel COC (Sec. 78, OEC)
- Targets false material representations in the COC (e.g., lying about age, citizenship, residency).
- If a COC or supplemental form asks about pending cases and the candidate lies, cancellation can follow based on the lie, not the pendency.
Nuisance Candidate (Sec. 69, OEC)
- Not about conduct like harassment; focuses on candidacies that mock the process or confuse voters.
Quo warranto (post-proclamation)
- Challenges a winner’s qualifications that actually existed on election day (e.g., citizenship, residency). Again, mere pendency of a harassment case does not negate qualifications.

8) Special Notes for Specific Offices

Local elective officials (governor down to barangay): Governed by LGC §§39–40 and OEC §12. The “final judgment” threshold applies.
SK officials: R.A. 10742 standards; again, final judgment is the pivot.
Appointive positions (not elective): Some civil service rules or agency charters require “no pending case” as a condition for appointment or promotion. That logic does not automatically carry over to elections, which follow the Constitution and election statutes.

9) Practical Compliance & Risk Management

If you (or your would-be candidate) have a pending harassment case:

You may file a COC if you otherwise meet constitutional/statutory qualifications.
Disclose truthfully any items a form or party screening requires (e.g., “Do you have any pending cases?”). The risk lies in misrepresentation, not in pendency.
Observe court orders (e.g., TPOs, BPOs, NPOs, bail conditions). Violations can spawn new criminal exposure that, if resulting in final conviction, might later affect eligibility.
Expect reputational scrutiny. While legally eligible, the court of public opinion may weigh allegations heavily. Prepare lawful messaging; avoid discussing the merits if it risks sub judice concerns.
Monitor your case status. If a final conviction or final administrative dismissal issues before election day (or even after, before assumption), reassess eligibility and possible remedies (appeal, motion for reconsideration, stay of execution).

10) Key Takeaways

Pendency ≠ Disqualification. Philippine election law generally requires final judgment before disqualifying on account of crimes or administrative offenses.
Harassment cases (criminal/administrative) only matter for eligibility once there is a final conviction or final penalty that carries disqualification.
Lies on the COC or forms can be fatal (Sec. 78 OEC), even if the underlying case is only pending.
Party rules may be stricter for endorsements; they don’t change the legal baseline for candidacy.
Court orders and detention can limit campaigning/assumption logistically, but do not themselves disqualify.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information based on established Philippine statutes and principles. It is not legal advice. For a specific situation (facts, timing, remedies), consult Philippine election counsel.