BY GEROME DALIPE IV
ILOILO City – The Commission on Elections (Comelec) has vowed to weed out nuisance candidates and persons posing as “placeholder” wannabes for the 2025 elections by the end of November.
Chairman George Erwin Garcia underscored that these nuisance candidates would typically file their Certificate of Candidacy (COC) to confuse voters due to similar names with another aspirant, or those hired to run in exchange for money, will be removed before the ballots are printed.
Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code defines a nuisance candidate as one who files a certificate of candidacy to put the election process in mockery or shame, or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names.
The Comelec may, motu proprio or upon a verified petition filed within five days from the last day for the filing of COC declare a candidate a nuisance.
But how can the Comelec determine whether or not certain candidates are deemed nuisance candidates after the filing of COCs but before the finalization of the official list of candidates for an election?
After candidates file their COCs for an election, the Comelec conducts a review to assess if any candidate may be considered a nuisance.
The Supreme Court has ruled that unpopularity and non-membership in a political party are not sufficient grounds to declare one a nuisance candidate.
In a 20-page decision dated Sept. 7, 2022, penned by Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the Supreme Court En Banc partly granted the petition for certiorari filed by certain Norman Cordero Marquez assailing the resolution of Comelec, which declared Marquez a nuisance candidate and canceled his COC as senator for the May 9, 2022, national and local elections.
Marquez sought for the inclusion of his name in the official ballots, however, was declared moot with the conclusion of the 2022 Elections and the proclamation of the senators-elect.
In 2021, Marquez, co-founder of animal advocacy group Baguio Animal Welfare, filed his COC as senator for the 2022 elections.
The Comelec Law Department later filed a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, finding him without bona fide intention to run for a national position because he was “virtually unknown to the entire country” and lacked “the support of a political party.”
Last Dec. 13, 2021, the Comelec’s First Division ruled against Marquez and declared him a nuisance candidate, holding that Marquez had the burden to prove and failed to show that he is “known well enough nationwide.”
The Comelec also held that Marquez cannot invoke the Supreme Court’s ruling in his previous case in 2019, Marquez vs Comelec, where the Court ruled in his favor.
In the 2019 Decision, the Court nullified the Comelec’s declaration of Marquez as a nuisance senatorial candidate in the 2019 national and local elections, holding that the Comelec cannot conflate the bona fide intention to run with a financial capacity requirement.
However, in the present case, the grounds for Marquez’s nuisance status are different; hence the 2019 ruling is not applicable, held by the Comelec.
This was affirmed by the Comelec En Banc on January 3, 2022, when it denied Marquez’s Motion for Reconsideration, prompting Marquez to raise the matter to the Supreme Court.
Marquez also asked the tribunal for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the Comelec which the High Tribunal granted on January 19, 2022, enjoining the Comelec from implementing its questioned resolutions.
However, the Comelec proceeded with the printing of official ballots where Marquez’s name was not included.
While Marquez’s case has been mooted by the conclusion of the 2022 Elections, the Supreme Court found it necessary to resolve the matter since the same situation may recur in future elections.
In resolving Marquez’s petition, the Supreme Court found that the Comelec committed several errors.
First, it shifted the burden on Marquez to prove that he is not a nuisance candidate, a burden supposed to be borne by the Comelec Law Department which made the allegation that Marquez did not possess bona fide intention to run for senator.
After his 2022 Elections COC was canceled again by the Comelec, and he raised the matter before this Court to protect his interest.
The Court also noted that it is contrary to human experience that a candidate would go through such a rigorous process, not once, but twice, if he or she has no intent to run.
The COMELEC likewise contradicted the Court’s 2019 ruling in Marquez vs Comelec.
By regarding Marquez’s lack of political affiliation as the inability to conduct an election campaign and equating this to a lack of bona fide intention to run, the Comelec effectively imposed property qualifications on aspirants, which the Court had proscribed in the precursor case.
The Court further stressed that a candidate is considered to have bona fide intent to run when he or she can demonstrate seriousness in running for office.
Neither the law nor the election rules impose membership in a political party as a requirement on persons intending to run for public office, held the Court. The same is true for unpopularity since it is not among the grounds for a declaration of a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.
Hence, the Comelec erred in using Marquez’s status of being virtually unknown in the entire country to exclude him as a candidate.
“Declaring one a nuisance candidate simply because he or she is not known to the entire country reduces the electoral process—a sacred instrument of democracy—to a mere popularity contest. The matter of the candidate being known (or unknown) should not be taken against the candidate but is best left to the electorate,” held the Court.
The Court added that “nuisance candidates, as an evil to be remedied, do not justify the adoption of measures which would consequently bar seemingly unpopular candidates from running for office.”
It also reminded the Comelec that any measure designed to weed out nuisance candidates should “not be arbitrary and oppressive and should not contravene the Republican system ordained in our Constitution.”/PN
