1) Understanding what an HOA “officer” is in Philippine practice

In Philippine residential communities, the term “HOA officers” is used in two overlapping ways:

The board (often called the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees) — the collective governing body elected by the membership; and
Corporate officers — typically the President/Chair, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and sometimes an Auditor/Compliance or similar roles, who implement board policies and handle administration.

In many HOAs, officers are chosen from among the elected board members, but an HOA’s bylaws may allow certain officer roles (e.g., Treasurer) to be filled by a qualified member who is not on the board, subject to safeguards.

Because “qualifications and disqualifications” are often stated in the bylaws for both board seats and officer roles, this article covers both.

2) The governing legal framework in the Philippines

2.1 Primary HOA law: Republic Act No. 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners’ Associations)

RA 9904 is the main statute that recognizes homeowners and HOAs, sets policy objectives, and provides baseline governance rules. Among other things, it:

Recognizes the HOA as a non-stock, non-profit community organization with governance responsibilities;
Requires registration and regulatory supervision;
Provides principles on membership rights and duties, elections, and dispute handling; and
Envisions accountability in the use of association funds and enforcement of community rules.

2.2 Regulation and oversight: DHSUD / HSAC (successors to HLURB functions)

Historically, HOAs were under the HLURB. After government reorganization, HOA regulatory and adjudicatory functions have been handled under the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) and the Human Settlements Adjudication Commission (HSAC) framework. Practically, this matters because:

Registration, compliance filings, and many administrative requirements are handled under the housing regulatory system; and
Disputes (including election controversies and governance conflicts) are often routed through the housing adjudication mechanism rather than ordinary courts—depending on the issue and applicable rules.

2.3 “Suppletory” corporate and civil-law principles

Even when a special HOA statute applies, Philippine legal practice often treats HOAs as corporate-like entities for governance concepts. As a result, general corporate governance principles (fiduciary duties, conflict-of-interest rules, authority of the board vs. members, minutes and records integrity) and civil-law obligations (contracts, agency, damages, unjust enrichment) frequently inform how officer eligibility and disqualification disputes are analyzed.

3) Where qualifications and disqualifications come from

Officer eligibility rules usually come from four layers, which should be read together:

Statute and regulations (RA 9904 and implementing/administrative rules);
HOA’s governing documents:
- Articles/Constitution (sometimes called Articles of Association/Constitution);
- Bylaws; and
- Duly adopted rules and regulations (house rules, election rules, ethics rules);
Valid acts of the membership and board (e.g., election committee rules, resolutions) that do not contradict the governing documents; and
Public policy and due process constraints (fairness, reasonableness, non-arbitrariness).

Key point: In most HOAs, the most detailed qualification/disqualification rules are in the bylaws and election code, but they must remain consistent with law, regulations, and basic due process.

4) Baseline eligibility: who is generally qualified to serve

While specific requirements vary by HOA, Philippine HOA governance commonly uses these baseline eligibility conditions:

4.1 Membership status

A candidate is typically required to be:

A member of the HOA with the right to vote; and
A member in good standing, usually meaning the member is not under suspension and is compliant with dues/assessments and community obligations as defined by the bylaws.

Owner vs. resident vs. lessee: Some HOAs recognize different classes (e.g., regular members as owners; associate members as tenants/occupants). Whether an occupant/lessee can run for office is primarily a bylaw question, but it must be clearly and consistently stated to avoid election disputes.

4.2 Voting eligibility as a gateway

Many HOAs treat “eligible to vote” as the minimum threshold to be eligible to be elected. If bylaws say delinquent members cannot vote, it often follows they cannot run.

4.3 Authority to represent a property (co-ownership and entities)

Eligibility questions frequently arise when:

Property is co-owned (spouses, heirs, siblings); or
Property is owned by a corporation/partnership.

Common governance solutions (which should be spelled out in bylaws/election rules):

Only one representative per property/lot/unit may vote and run, supported by written designation;
For conjugal or community property, either spouse may represent upon proof of authority; and
For estates, an administrator/heir-representative may act upon proper documentation.

4.4 Capacity and minimum competence for fiduciary roles

Even if not always stated explicitly, officers and board members are expected to have basic capacity to:

Attend meetings, deliberate, and vote;
Understand that HOA funds are trust-like in nature (held for community benefit);
Maintain confidentiality where appropriate; and
Avoid conflicts and self-dealing.

Many HOAs formalize this by requiring signing of an ethics/conflict disclosure and attendance at an orientation.

5) Common qualification requirements (and when they are legally safer)

Because RA 9904 is policy-driven and HOA-by-laws-driven, HOAs often add their own qualifications. The safest qualifications share three traits: clear, objective, and related to legitimate HOA interests.

Below are commonly used qualification rules, with notes on best practice.

5.1 “Member in good standing” (defined precisely)

Instead of vague phrases, good standing should be defined by objective criteria, such as:

No unpaid regular dues/assessments beyond a stated grace period;
No final and executory penalty of suspension under the HOA’s discipline process; and
Compliance with documentary requirements (e.g., updated ownership/occupancy record) without being used as a weapon to exclude candidates.

Best practice: Specify whether partial payments, disputed assessments, or payment plans affect eligibility.

5.2 Minimum tenure as a member (e.g., “must be a member for X months”)

HOAs sometimes require a minimum period of membership/residency to ensure familiarity with community issues.

Best practice: Keep it reasonable and uniform; avoid a tenure rule that effectively blocks challengers while favoring incumbents.

5.3 Attendance and participation thresholds

Some HOAs require prior attendance at general assemblies or town halls.

Best practice: Treat attendance as a capacity indicator, but avoid rigid thresholds that are easily abused.

5.4 Residency/occupancy requirements (controversial in some settings)

Some HOAs require officers to be residents. This can be legitimate for communities where day-to-day governance depends on on-site leadership.

Best practice: If you impose residency requirements, clarify:

Whether overseas owners are permanently excluded (often contentious);
Whether a designated resident representative may qualify; and
How residency is proven.

5.5 Basic integrity/fitness requirements

Many HOAs include integrity clauses such as:

No final conviction of crimes involving dishonesty;
No history of misappropriation of HOA funds; or
Not previously removed for cause.

Best practice: Tie the trigger to final conviction or final adjudication and provide a due process mechanism; avoid disqualifying based on mere allegations.

6) Disqualifications: the most important categories

Disqualifications work best when they are objective, documentable, and procedurally fair. The most common disqualifications fall into these groups:

6.1 Not a member / not eligible to vote

A non-member, or someone without voting rights under the bylaws (e.g., unrecognized occupant where only owners are regular members), is typically disqualified.

6.2 Delinquency in dues and assessments

Delinquency is the most frequent basis for disqualification. However, it is also the most litigated, because disputes arise over:

Incorrect billing;
Uncredited payments;
Special assessments validity; or
Whether dues are being imposed without proper authority.

Fairness safeguards that reduce disputes:

A published ledger/statement of account system;
Clear cut-off dates for eligibility;
A mechanism to dispute amounts before the cut-off; and
Treatment of payments made during the election period.

6.3 Suspension, expulsion, or loss of good standing — without due process

HOAs sometimes attempt to disqualify candidates using disciplinary actions taken right before elections.

Legally safer approach: A disqualification based on discipline should be anchored on a final, properly noticed, properly heard disciplinary resolution, with an internal appeal process if your bylaws provide one.

6.4 Conflicts of interest and self-dealing

Conflicts can arise when a candidate:

Is a paid employee of the HOA;
Is a contractor/supplier (or closely related to one) doing business with the HOA;
Has a direct financial interest in projects under HOA approval; or
Seeks office to influence collection, enforcement, or contracting.

Best practice: A conflict-of-interest rule can be either:

A full disqualification (for high-risk conflicts like being a current HOA contractor), or
A recusal/waiver and disclosure regime (for less direct conflicts), where the officer cannot vote on matters affecting the interest.

6.5 Prior misconduct involving HOA funds or records

If a member has been previously removed for cause or found liable (through a final internal process or adjudication) for:

Misappropriation,
Fraudulent disbursement,
Material falsification of minutes/records, it is common to impose ineligibility for a period.

Best practice: Use objective triggers (final findings) and define the lookback period.

6.6 “Moral character” clauses (high risk if vague)

Clauses like “must be of good moral character” are easy to weaponize. They can create arbitrariness unless tied to objective triggers (e.g., final conviction of specific crimes).

Best practice: Replace vague moral language with specific standards (final conviction, final adjudication, proven fraud).

6.7 Holding multiple incompatible positions

HOAs often prohibit a person from simultaneously being:

Treasurer and Auditor; or
President and Election Committee Chair; or
Any office that creates weak internal controls.

This is a governance best practice to prevent concentration of power and to strengthen checks and balances.

6.8 Developer-control transition conflicts

During early phases of a subdivision/condominium project, a developer may have significant influence. Transition arrangements can create eligibility issues:

Developer-appointed caretakers or administrators;
Mixed boards;
Turnover requirements and timelines.

Practical note: Eligibility rules must address whether developer representatives may hold office and under what conditions, especially post-turnover, to avoid long-term control disputes.

6.9 Government positions and public-officer ethics conflicts (context-driven)

There is no universal rule that barangay officials or government employees cannot serve in an HOA. However, risks arise when:

The HOA transacts with the barangay/city; or
The officer’s public position affects enforcement, permits, or local projects.

In such cases, conflict-of-interest, disclosure, and recusal policies are essential, and public officers must separately comply with ethical standards applicable to them.

7) Screening candidates: what a lawful and defensible process looks like

Because elections are flashpoints for disputes, HOAs should have election rules that specify:

7.1 Who screens eligibility

Usually an Election Committee (created by bylaws or a resolution) screens candidates. To reduce bias, the committee should be independent from incumbents as much as practicable.

7.2 Documentary checklist (objective and consistent)

Examples:

Proof of membership/authority to represent the unit/lot;
Statement of account (with cut-off date);
Signed conflict-of-interest disclosure; and
Acceptance/consent to run.

7.3 Notice and cure period

If a candidate is flagged for delinquency or documentary deficiency, a fair system provides:

Written notice of the ground;
A short “cure” window for correctable issues (e.g., missing authorization letter);
A dispute mechanism for contested account balances.

7.4 Due process before disqualification

At minimum:

Written notice;
Opportunity to respond (writing or hearing); and
Written decision stating the grounds and basis in bylaws/rules.

This is especially important when disqualification relies on non-mechanical grounds (e.g., conflict of interest, misconduct history).

8) Challenging disqualifications and election outcomes

Disputes often involve:

Candidate disqualification;
Voter eligibility and proxy disputes;
Quorum controversies;
Counting and canvassing irregularities; or
Validity of the election meeting itself.

The typical escalation ladder (subject to your bylaws and applicable housing adjudication rules) is:

Internal remedies (protest to Election Committee; appeal to the board or general membership if rules provide); then
Housing adjudication / regulatory route (where the forum has jurisdiction over HOA governance and disputes); and/or
Courts for issues beyond administrative jurisdiction or where judicial relief is appropriate.

Important practical principle: Many disputes succeed or fail based on paper: notices, minutes, attendance sheets, proxies, proof of cut-off dates, and the written basis for eligibility decisions.

9) Removal from office vs. disqualification from running

These are different tools and should be treated separately:

9.1 Disqualification from running

Pre-election determination that a candidate cannot be voted into office due to ineligibility.

9.2 Removal (recall) of an elected officer/director

Post-election remedy for cause, such as:

Serious misconduct;
Breach of fiduciary duty;
Gross negligence;
Loss of qualification (e.g., becoming delinquent);
Conflict-of-interest violation; or
Fraud in the conduct of office.

Removal should follow bylaw procedures and due process. If bylaws are silent, a prudent HOA adopts a written process by resolution consistent with fairness and corporate governance norms.

10) Fiduciary duties and why they matter to eligibility rules

Eligibility requirements are not just gatekeeping—they are risk controls. HOA officers handle:

Collection and spending of community funds;
Enforcement decisions that affect property rights and community peace;
Contracts (security, garbage, repairs); and
Records, minutes, and official communications.

Accordingly, qualifications and disqualifications should be aligned with these fiduciary expectations:

Duty of care: informed decisions, reasonable diligence;
Duty of loyalty: avoid self-interest; disclose conflicts;
Duty of obedience: follow laws, bylaws, and valid rules;
Duty of transparency and accountability: accurate records, proper reporting; and
Duty to act for the common benefit: HOA resources should serve community purposes.

Breach of these duties can expose officers to personal liability in appropriate cases.

11) Personal liability, penalties, and “real world” legal exposure

Even if an HOA is a separate juridical entity, officers may face personal exposure when misconduct is personal, willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent. Risk areas include:

Misappropriation/estafa-type conduct: unauthorized use of association funds;
Falsification: fabricated minutes, altered attendance/proxy lists;
Civil damages: unlawful collections, harassment, discriminatory enforcement, or bad-faith denial of rights;
Check offenses (BP 22): if HOA checks bounce under an officer’s control;
Regulatory sanctions: failure to comply with registration/reportorial requirements; and
Injunction-type disputes: contested elections or enforcement actions that require immediate relief.

For this reason alone, a strong disqualification framework for conflicts of interest and financial integrity is a practical necessity.

12) Drafting guide: a robust “Qualifications and Disqualifications” bylaw section (model concepts)

Below is a structure commonly used in Philippine HOAs. The exact language must match your HOA’s documents and rules hierarchy:

12.1 Qualifications (typical)

A candidate for Director/Trustee or Officer must:

Be a member with voting rights (as defined);
Be in good standing as of a defined cut-off date;
Have written authority if representing a co-owned, corporate-owned, or estate-owned property;
Have no unresolved final disciplinary sanction involving dishonesty or serious misconduct;
Sign a conflict-of-interest disclosure; and
Consent in writing to the nomination.

12.2 Disqualifications (typical)

A person is disqualified if:

Not a voting member / lacking authority to represent the unit/lot;
Delinquent beyond the defined grace period as of cut-off date (subject to dispute resolution mechanism);
Under final suspension or expulsion;
A current HOA contractor/supplier or employee (or otherwise has a direct financial interest that creates unacceptable risk), unless the bylaws allow it with defined safeguards;
Previously removed for cause within a defined period;
Holding incompatible positions that impair controls (e.g., Treasurer and Auditor); or
Disqualified by a final and executory decision of the competent forum for election-related fraud or fund misuse.

12.3 Procedure clause (often neglected, highly important)

Who decides (Election Committee);
Notice, response period, hearing (optional but recommended for non-mechanical grounds);
Written decision;
Internal appeal route;
Publication of final candidate list; and
Recordkeeping requirements.

13) Frequently encountered Philippine HOA scenarios (and how eligibility rules usually resolve them)

Scenario A: Candidate pays arrears on election day

Resolution depends on bylaws: some use a strict cut-off date, others allow cure up to close of nominations. A cut-off date is cleaner administratively, but it must be announced and consistently applied.

Scenario B: Candidate disputes the amount billed and refuses to pay

Best practice is to allow a limited dispute process before cut-off. If unresolved, rules should state whether:

Paying “under protest” preserves eligibility; or
The disputed amount still counts as delinquency until resolved.

Scenario C: Tenant wants to run for office

Allowed only if governing documents recognize tenants/occupants as eligible members with political rights. Otherwise, the tenant may participate only to the extent allowed (some HOAs allow associate membership without eligibility to be elected).

Scenario D: Unit is in the name of a deceased owner

Require proof of authority (estate administrator, special power of attorney, or recognized heir-representative per HOA rules).

Scenario E: Candidate is the spouse of a contractor

A bylaw may treat this as a disqualifying conflict or require disclosure and recusal. The stricter the HOA’s procurement needs, the stronger the conflict rule should be.

14) Bottom line

In the Philippines, HOA officer qualifications and disqualifications are primarily bylaw-driven, guided by RA 9904, the housing regulatory framework, and fundamental due process and public policy constraints. The most defensible eligibility rules are those that are:

Clear and objective (especially on dues and membership status),
Consistently applied (no selective enforcement),
Procedurally fair (notice, opportunity to respond, written decisions), and
Focused on legitimate governance risks (fund integrity, conflicts of interest, accountability, capacity to serve).

A well-designed eligibility and disqualification regime is less about politics and more about protecting the HOA’s fiduciary core: money, contracts, enforcement power, and community trust.