THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that not having sufficient funds to run a nationwide campaign is not a ground to automatically classify a candidate as a nuisance bet.
The SC en banc made the statement as it made public a July 30, 2024 ruling which set aside the decision of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to cancel the certificate of candidacy (COC) of Juan Ollesca for president in the 2022 national elections.
The 16-page decision was penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
Records of the case showed that Ollesca, a business owner, filed his COC in October 2021 as an independent candidate for the position of president.
However, the Comelec law department questioned his candidacy, saying he should be considered as a nuisance candidate as he lacked the resources and machinery to mount a nationwide campaign.
The Comelec Second Division agreed with the law department and declared Ollesca as a nuisance bet, a ruling that was later affirmed by the Comelec en banc.
The en banc also denied Ollesca’s motion for reconsideration, which prompted the latter to elevate his complaint to the SC, which ruled in his favor.
The law defines nuisance candidates as those who file their COCs for any position but are not serious about running for office and only wants to confuse voters or mock the election process.
In its ruling, the SC said the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion when it declared Ollesca ineligible to run for president.
It held that to declare someone a nuisance candidate, the poll body must show evidence to prove that the person does not genuinely or seriously intend to run for public office.
It said the Comelec can look at factors such as a candidate’s inability to organize a campaign due to not being nominated by a political party, or the lack of a past record of public service in determining his eligibility to run.
It said that the ability to fund a nationwide campaign, being a political party member, having nationwide recognition, and the likelihood of success “do not alone determine whether a candidate has a genuine intention to run for public office.”
“A candidate without the machinery of a political party or the finances to mount a nationwide campaign cannot be lumped together with another candidate who was found to have mocked or caused disrepute to the election process,” it stressed.
“A nuisance candidate is one whose candidacy was lodged merely to create confusion or whose candidacy mocks or causes disrepute to the election process, hence, there is patently no intention to run for office,” it also pointed out.
The SC said that requiring candidates to have the financial means to run a nationwide campaign would unfairly add a property requirement that the Constitution prohibits, as it underscored that regardless of wealth or resources, everyone has the right to run for office.
“A candidate cannot be disqualified simply because they are poor. To be on the ballot, it is enough for a candidate to show they have significant support,” it said.
In Ollesca’s case, the High Court noted that the Comelec’s decision disqualifying him to run for president was based on the general claims that he could not afford a national campaign.
It added that the poll body unfairly shifted the burden to prove genuine intent to serve to Ollesca, when in fact, it is the Comelec’s responsibility to prove its case, which it failed to do.
“In the present case, the Comelec again repeated its general allegation of a candidate’s lack of financial capacity to wage a national campaign to shift the burden of proof upon the candidate. It pointed to the circumstances of Ollesca’s running as an independent candidate and his being an entrepreneur, arguing that Ollesca is virtually unknown and therefore has no capacity to persuade a substantial number of the electorate, thereby proving that he has no bona fide intention to run and puts the election process in mockery. From the foregoing, it appears that the Comelec has the propensity to employ a cookie-cutter motion that generally alleges a candidate’s lack of financial capacity to wage a national campaign in an attempt to shift the burden of proving bona fide intent to run for public office upon said candidate,’ the SC said.
“In this case, in declaring petitioner as a nuisance candidate, the Comelec simply relied on a general and sweeping allegation of petitioner’s financial incapability to mount a decent and viable campaign, which is a prohibited property requirement. It failed to discuss, much less adduce evidence, showing how petitioner’s inclusion in the ballots would prevent the faithful determination of the electorate’s will. We, therefore, hold that the Comelec acted with grave abuse of discretion in declaring petitioner as a nuisance candidate,“ the court ruled.
But because of the conclusion of the 2022 polls and the proclamation of the winning presidential bet, the SC said the case is rendered moot and academic.
“In other words, the complained actions by petitioner, even if wrong, will not undo the outcome of the elections,” it said.