MANILA — The Supreme Court has ruled that those who are unknown or unpopular should not be automatically declared as nuisance candidates.

"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 high court said in a press statement released Saturday.

"The matter of the candidate being known (or unknown) should not be taken against the candidate but is best left to the electorate," it added.

The Supreme Court issued the ruling as it "partly granted" the petition of animal rights advocate Norman Cordero Marquez, who was tagged by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) as a "nuisance candidate" in the 2022 national and local elections after he registered his candidacy for senator.

• Comelec-declared 'nuisance' Senate bet gets SC relief

Comelec's 'errors'

The Supreme Court, in a 20-page decision penned by Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, emphasized that a candidate is considered to have real intent to run when they can demonstrate seriousness in running for office.

The Comelec Law Department, in October 2021, filed a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate as he was "virtually unknown to the entire country" and lacked "the support of a political party."

The Comelec's first division then ruled against him and held that he had the burden to prove and failed to show that he is "known well enough nationwide."

But the Supreme Court said not being popular is not among the grounds for declaration of a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.

"Hence, the Comelec erred in using Marquez's status of being virtually unknown in the entire country to exclude him as candidate," it said.

"Neither the law nor the election rules impose membership in a political party as a requirement on persons intending to run for public office."

The high court also found that the Comelec was mistaken when it shifted the burden on Marquez to prove that he is not a nuisance candidate, "a burden supposed to be borne by the Comelec Law Department which made the allegation that Marquez did not possess bona fide intention to run for senator." It said that the Comelec Law Department failed to substantiate its claims.

Meanwhile, the court listed indicators of Marquez’s serious intent to run:

• His COC is a sworn document declaring his candidacy;
• This is not the first time he filed a COC;
• He has a Program of Governance in the event he wins;
• He exercised utmost vigilance in the protection of his candidacy;
• 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; and
• After his 2022 Elections COC was canceled again by the COMELEC, he raised the matter before this Court to protect his interest.

The Supreme Court said that "it is contrary to [the] 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." It reminded the Comelec that any measure meant to remove nuisance candidates should "not be arbitrary and oppressive."

This is not the first time Marquez challenged a Comelec order declaring him a nuisance candidate.

In 2019, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling stating that "Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Marquez a nuisance candidate on the ground of failure to prove financial capacity to sustain the financial rigors of waging a nationwide campaign."

While the court's decision, released after the elections, did nothing to allow Marquez to run for Senate then, it has become a guiding principle for the poll body in cautiously branding an aspirant a "nuisance."

• SC-backed 'nuisance' bet decries ballot exclusion; Comelec explains

—With a report from Jauhn Etienne Villaruel, ABS-CBN News

RELATED VIDEO

Watch more News on iWantTFC