The Supreme Court (SC) reiterated that not having enough money to fund a nationwide campaign does not automatically mean a candidate should be considered a nuisance candidate.
The SC En Banc, in a Decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, set aside resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cancelling the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of Juan Juan Olila Ollesca (Ollesca) in the 2022 presidential elections.
In October 2021, Ollesca, a business owner, filed his COC for president as an independent candidate. However, the COMELEC Law Department filed a petition to declare Ollesca a nuisance candidate, claiming he was not well-known and lacked the resources for a nationwide campaign to gain national recognition.
The COMELEC’s Second Division granted the petition and declared Ollesca a nuisance candidate. The COMELEC En Banc denied Ollesca’s motion for reconsideration.
The SC reversed the COMELEC’s ruling. The SC emphasized that in a democracy, every citizen has a right to run for public office. However, this right must be balanced with COMELEC’s practical challenges in ensuring free, fair, and peaceful elections.
Having too many candidates can make the ballot confusing and harder to manage, requiring more time and resources to prepare for the election. To improve the process, the COMELEC needs to regulate the number of candidates and manage the ballots while still allowing everyone a fair chance to compete.
The law prohibits nuisance candidates – those who are not serious about running for office and only seek to confuse voters or mock the election process. These candidates interfere with the true will of the voters.
To declare someone a nuisance candidate, the COMELEC must show evidence to prove that the person does not genuinely or seriously intend to run for public office. It 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.
However, 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.
Requiring candidates to have the financial means to run a campaign would unfairly add a property requirement that the Constitution prohibits. The SC emphasized that regardless of wealth, 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.
In Ollesca’s case, the COMELEC declared him a nuisance candidate simply based on general claims that he could not afford a national campaign. The COMELEC unfairly shifted the burden to prove genuine intent to Ollesca, but the SC ruled that it was the COMELEC’s responsibility to prove its case, which it failed to do. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
