“Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code identifies a nuisance candidate as someone who files a Certificate of Candidacy with the intent of making a mockery of the election system.
The Supreme Court has spoken: Anyone can run for public office. Even if you have no money, no political party, and machinery, no voter recall as you are unknown, except to your immediate families, relatives, and neighbors.
In so doing, the High Tribunal has rebuked the Commission on Elections for being overly strict in implementing the law.
Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code identifies a nuisance candidate as someone who files a Certificate of Candidacy with the intent of making a mockery of the election system; causing confusion among voters through similarity of names between candidates; or those who, as demonstrated by acts and circumstances, have no bona fide intent in running for office.
No, the justices said, you cannot prevent ordinary citizens from aspiring for public office.
What the Comelec apparently does after the deadline for the filing of CoCs for national, local, barangay, and Sangguniang Kabataan elections is to examine each CoC with a fine-tooth comb.
Comelec officials would then declare, after finding that a candidate is a nobody, is not known outside of his barangay, and cannot possibly mount a decent campaign for the position he/she is aspiring for due to lack of resources (money), is quite possibly, wittingly or unwittingly, clearly making a mockery of our electoral process.
What the Comelec is doing is wrong, according to the Supreme Court.
But how did this decision come about?
The SC recently granted the petition of Norman Marquez, an animal welfare advocate, who had been declared a nuisance candidate by the poll body when he ran for a Senate seat in the 2022 polls.
Marquez, a Quezon City resident and a real estate broker by profession, is the founder of the League of Animal Welfare Organizations of the Philippines.
Since 2015, he has pursued his advocacy of protecting animal welfare by helping rescue animals and taking legal action against animal abusers.
In its June 28 en banc decision, the High Tribunal said the grounds used by the Comelec to justify the nuisance label on the petitioner—because he is not well-known, not affiliated with influential groups nor supported by any political machinery—reduced the election, 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,” the Supreme Court said in its decision concurred in by 12 of the 14 other magistrates, including Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo.
In granting part of Marquez’s petition, the court voided the Comelec resolution that declared him ineligible to run for the Senate in this year’s elections.
While the issue is now moot and academic because the elections are over, the Supreme Court said it found it necessary to resolve the case because “the same situation may recur in future elections.”
The court, however, denied the petitioner’s appeal to have the Comelec cited in contempt of court and penalized for excluding Marquez from the official roster of senatorial candidates in May.
The SC recognized Marquez’s “serious intent to run,” since he even had a “program of governance” if he won, and that he “exercised utmost vigilance in the protection of his candidacy.”
In 2019, in his initial attempt to gain a seat in the Upper Chamber, Marquez had already been called a nuisance by the Comelec when it denied his bid for having no “clear proof of financial capability” to mount a national campaign and being “virtually unknown to the entire country except maybe in the locality where he resides.”
The tribunal also said “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 actually no intent to run.”
In its decision, the Supreme Court said Marquez’s “palpable intent cannot be negated by unsubstantiated claims that he is an unknown, or that he lacks the capacity to mount a nationwide campaign.”
“Neither is his non-membership in a political party sufficient to declare him a nuisance candidate,” it added.
But in refusing to punish the Comelec, the high court said the poll body cannot be faulted for “zealously scrutinizing” candidates’ qualifications, although it should be reminded to be “more circumspect” in the task.
Does the Supreme Court decision open the floodgates for every Juan, Pedro, and Jose, or for that matter, every Maria, Anna, and Yolanda to run in our elections even if they do not have the basic qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency, among others?
Not at all.
What the High Tribunal is saying is that ultimately it is the voters who should decide who to install in public office and to lead them based on their informed judgment.
That, after all, is the essence of free choice.
(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
