MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has reiterated that a candidate should not be automatically considered a nuisance simply for lacking sufficient funds to finance a nationwide campaign.
In a 16-page decision promulgated on July 30, 2024, the high court overturned the resolutions of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) canceling the Certificate of Candidacy of Juan Ollesca in the 2022 presidential elections.
“Accordingly, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The December 13, 2021 Resolution of the Commission on Elections Second Division and January 3, 2022 Order of the Commission on Elections En Banc in SPA No. 21-140 (DC)(MP) are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE,” the court’s decision read.
The case
On Oct. 7, 2021, Ollesca submitted his Certificate of Candidacy to the Comelec, seeking the presidency of the Philippines in the 2022 National and Local Elections.
In his filing, he declared his intention to run as an independent candidate and identified himself as an entrepreneur.
The Comelec Law Department then filed a petition to declare Ollesca a nuisance candidate and requested the cancellation or denial of due course to his Certificate of Candidacy.
The department argued that, as a presidential candidate, Ollesca should be widely recognized by voters. However, running as an independent, he is "virtually unknown," except perhaps in his local area.
The poll body also stated that he lacks the resources and capacity to mount a nationwide campaign, which is necessary to gain national recognition and secure significant voter support across the country.
In response, Ollesca argued that the claims against him were speculative and lacked factual evidence to prove an absence of genuine intent to run or any intent to mislead voters.
He asserted that the poll body's petition relied on his alleged lack of financial resources to conduct a nationwide campaign, effectively introducing a property qualification inconsistent with the Constitution and unsupported by law.
However, in its Dec. 13, 2021 Resolution, the Comelec Second Division upheld the petition to declare him a nuisance candidate. It concluded that Ollesca, an independent candidate without a political party, was largely unknown outside his community and failed to demonstrate the financial means to carry out a sustainable nationwide campaign.
The division further determined that Ollesca’s filing of his Certificate of Candidacy undermined the election process and indicated a lack of genuine intent to run for president.
This prompted Ollesca to assail the poll body’s resolution before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court ruling
Considering Ollesca's arguments, the court ruled that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion by canceling his Certificate of Candidacy, as the poll body unfairly shifted the burden of proof onto him, assuming that a lack of financial capacity and public recognition automatically disqualifies a candidate as a nuisance.
“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 Supeme Court’s ruling read.
The Supreme Court explained that a candidate is considered a nuisance if they lack a genuine intention to run for public office. It is the responsibility of the Comelec to present evidence of actions or circumstances that demonstrate this lack of genuine intent, in order to ensure that the true will of the voters is upheld.
“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,” the high tribunal's decision read.
“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 added.
While the poll body may consider various factors, such as a candidate's inability to organize a campaign or lack of support from a political party, organization, or similar group, the Supreme Court said that its decision must be based on solid evidence.
“Unfortunately, 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," the Supe Court said.
“It failed to discuss, much less adduce evidence, showing how the petitioner's inclusion in the ballots would prevent the faithful determination of the electorate's will,” it added.