The Supreme Court ruled that “unpopularity and non-membership” in a political party are not sufficient grounds to declare an elective candidate as a nuisance candidate.
The said ruling was declared in a petition filed by Norman Cordero Marquez, a co-founder of animal advocacy group Baguio Animal Welfare, assailing a Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolution which declared Marquez a nuisance candidate and canceled his certificate of candidacy (COC) for senator in the recent May 2022 polls.
Comelec filed a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate after finding him without a bona fide intention to run for a national position, stating that that he was “virtually unknown to the entire country” and lacked “the support of a political party.”
Despite being mooted by the conclusion of the May 2022 elections, the Supreme Court found it necessary to resolve the matter since the same situation may recur in future elections.
The Court declared that the Comelec committed an error when it shifted the burden on Marquez to prove that he is not a nuisance candidate. This burden is supposed to be with the Comelec Law Department, which alleged that Marquez did not have a bona fide intention to run.
Said Court also considered several indicators, including Marquez’s serious intent to run: a) His COC is a sworn document declaring his candidacy; b) this is not the first time he filed a COC; c) he has a Program of Governance in the event he wins; e) he exercised utmost vigilance in the protection of his candidacy; f) after he was declared a nuisance candidate in the 2019 Elections, he availed of judicial remedies to assert his right, and prevailed before the Court; g) and after his 2022 Elections COC was canceled again by the COMELEC, he raised the matter before this Court to protect his interest.
The Court then reiterated what is considered as “bona fide intent.”
“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 SC said.
According to SC, there is no law or election rule that imposes membership in a political party as a requirement for people intending to run for public office.
“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,” the SC ruling stressed.
