Nuisance candidate
{{Short description|Philippines election candidate not accepted for candidacy}}
{{use mdy|date=October 2021}}
In the Philippines, a nuisance candidate is an official term for an aspirant candidate for a public office whose certificate of candidacy was not accepted by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) either motu proprio by the election body itself or upon a verified petition of an interested party.
Legal definition
Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code states that a nuisance candidate is someone who has filed a certificate of candidacy with the intention of:{{cite web|title=Omnibus Election Code - Article IX - Eligibility of Candidates and Certificate of Candidacy|url=http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=References/RelatedLaws/OmnibusElectionCode/OECArt9#sec69|website=COMELEC|accessdate=14 October 2015}}
- putting the election process in mockery or disrepute
- causing confusion among voters by the similarity of their name to other registered candidates
- other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and is consequently preventing a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.
The Law Department of the COMELEC in Manila has the sole authority to declare someone a nuisance candidate. Regional and provincial COMELEC offices have no jurisdiction regarding the matter.{{cite news|title=Local COMELEC offices can't disqualify, declare nuisance candidates, official says|url=http://news.pia.gov.ph/article/view/1611444788712/local-comelec-offices-can-t-disqualify-declare-nuisance-candidates-official-says-#sthash.YRVGYILu.dpuf|accessdate=14 October 2015|work=Philippine Information Agency|date=14 October 2015}}
Managing candidacies
COMELEC also cannot prevent persons from filing certificates of candidacy even if they were declared a nuisance candidate in the past.{{cite news|last1=Esmaquel|first1=Paterno II|title=Why Comelec entertains 'habitual' nuisance bets|url=http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections-2013/13741-why-comelec-entertains-habitual-nuisance-bets|accessdate=14 October 2015|publisher=Rappler|date=10 July 2012}} The election body could also determine those who aspire to run as Independents as nuisance candidates if they could not prove their capacity to independently launch an election campaign.{{cite news |title=The anatomy of a nuisance candidate |url=http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/10/14/Nuisance-candidate-2016-elections-filing-of-COCs.html |accessdate=20 June 2018 |work=CNN Philippines |date=4 November 2018 |archive-date=June 20, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180620101342/http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2015/10/14/Nuisance-candidate-2016-elections-filing-of-COCs.html |url-status=dead }} The capability to launch a campaign is not necessarily equate to the financial resources of an aspirant. A candidate may have enough supporters to conduct a campaign.{{cite news |last1=Panti |first1=Llanesca |title=Comelec: Lack of money does not make a candidate nuisance |url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/670866/comelec-lack-of-money-does-not-make-a-candidate-nuisance/story/ |access-date=3 October 2021 |work=GMA News |date=11 October 2021 |language=en}} The Supreme Court ruled in Marquez vs. COMELEC that not being financially capable to mount a nationwide campaign is not a reason for the commission to declare someone as a nuisance candidate.{{Cite web|last=Jimenez|first=James|date=2020-07-30|title=Marquez v. Comelec {{!}} James Jimenez|url=https://businessmirror.com.ph/2020/07/30/marquez-v-comelec/|access-date=2021-10-11|website=BusinessMirror|language=en-US}}{{cite news |last1=Locus |first1=Sundy |title=Eleksyon 2025: No aspirant to be disqualified due to financial status —Comelec |url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/922362/no-aspirant-to-be-disqualified-due-to-financial-status-comelec/story/ |access-date=4 October 2024 |work=GMA News |date=2 October 2024 |language=en}}
During the 18th Congress, a bill has been proposed imposing a fine on aspirants who were deemed to be nuisance candidates.{{cite news |last1=Bajo |first1=Anna Felicia |title=House panel OKs bill imposing P100K fine on nuisance candidates |url=https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/779871/house-panel-oks-bill-imposing-p100k-fine-on-nuisance-candidates/story/ |access-date=3 October 2021 |work=GMA News |date=16 March 2021 |language=en}}{{cite news |last1=Cruz |first1=Maricel |last2=Ramos-Araneta |first2=Macon |title=Law urged on nuisance candidates |url=https://manilastandard.net/news/national/351480/law-urged-on-nuisance-candidates.html |access-date=3 October 2021 |work=Manila Standard |date=9 April 2021 |language=en}}
=''Marquez v. Comelec''=
In the case of Norman Marquez, a Baguio-based animal welfare advocate who was not allowed by the Commission on Elections to run for senator in
the 2019 and 2022 elections, he twice challenged the orders declaring him a nuisance candidate;{{cite news |url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/10/22/sc-unpopularity-not-basis-to-declare-candidate-nuisance |title=Unpopularity not basis to declare candidate nuisance, Supreme Court tells Comelec |work=ABS-CBN News |date=September 10, 2022 |access-date=September 12, 2022}} the Supreme Court also ruled in his favor.{{cite news |url=https://www.rappler.com/nation/supreme-court-decision-unpopularity-not-enough-declared-nuisance-candidate/ |title=SC: Being 'unpopular' not enough to be declared as nuisance candidate |work=Rappler |date=September 10, 2022 |access-date=September 12, 2022}}
The court first issued a landmark ruling at a time after the elections which nullified such declaration; stated that the Comelec "committed grave abuse of discretion" in such declaration and it cannot combine an individual's intention to run with a financial capacity requirement.
In 2022, Marquez raised to the court the same declaration anew by the Comelec which cited grounds, this time for being unknown to the entire country and having no support from any political party. On September 10, the court publicized its ruling (dated June 28) partly granting Marquez's petition. The court stated that unpopularity and not being a member of a political party are insufficient grounds to such declaration in the country's elections, which "reduces the electoral process [...] to a mere popularity contest." It also stated that the matter "should not be taken against the candidate but is best left to the electorate."
=''Ollesca v. Comelec''=
In the moot case of Juan Juan Olila Ollesca, a businessperson was not allowed by the Commission on Elections to run for President as an independent aspirant in the 2022 Philippine presidential election for lack of financial capacity. He challenged the order declaring him a nuisance candidate and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.
The court, in rendering a landmark judgment at a time after 2022 Philippine general election which nullified such declaration, ruled that the Comelec "committed grave abuse of discretion". Citing its 1965 Per curiam decision in the "social justice case of Maquera v. Borra, the High Tribunal noted that property qualifications cannot be imposed on electoral candidates.{{cite news |last1= Baroña|first1= Franco Jose |title=Supreme Court: Candidates should not be disqualified for lack of money|url=https://www.manilatimes.net/2025/01/13/news/supreme-court-candidates-should-not-be-disqualified-for-lack-of-money/2037424 |accessdate=January 13, 2025 |work= |date=January 13, 2025}}
Notable nuisance candidates
{{Expand list|date=October 2015}}
The following people who filed certificates of candidacy for a public office at the national level (Senator, Vice President, President) were officially declared as nuisance candidates by COMELEC:
Key
{{Color box|lightsteelblue|border=darkgray}} Put the election process in mockery or disrepute.
{{Color box|lightsalmon|border=darkgray}} Caused confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates.
{{Color box|palegreen|border=darkgray}} Other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevents a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate
{{Color box|#eeeee|border=darkgray}} No Information
=For President=
| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-right: 0;" |
| Status
!width=10%|Name !Year of !Description !Petitioner !width=3%|Ref. |
|---|
| style="background: lightsteelblue" align=center|Mockery
|{{sortname|Allan|Carreon|nolink=1}} |2016 |Among other nuisance candidates, Allan Carreon received media attention for his claim of being able to talk with extraterrestrial life. | |{{Cite news|url=http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/731508/now-come-heneral-luna-nazi-fan-and-space-invader|title=Now come Heneral Luna, Nazi fan and space invader|last=Santos|first=Jerome Aning, Tina G.|access-date=2018-06-20|language=en}}{{better source needed|date=June 2018}} |
| style="background: palegreen" align=center|Other
|{{sortname|Rizalito|David}} |2016 |Rizalito David planned to run as president under the Kapatiran Party. However COMELEC ruled him as a nuisance candidate after Kapatiran informed the election body that it is not fielding any candidates for the 2016 national elections. COMELEC also did not find sufficient proof that he is able to finance a national campaign since he listed his occupation as a broadcaster. | |
| style="background: palegreen" align=center|Other
|{{sortname|Eddie|Gil}} |2004 |Eddie Gil is an aspirant president running under his own party Isang Bansa, Isang Diwa for the 2004 elections was declared a nuisance candidate after the COMELEC ruled that he has no intention to run. He promised to make all Filipinos, millionaires and to pay the national debt using his own personal wealth. Comelec cited his non-payment of hotel, transport and food bills during the first week of his campaign, issuance of bouncing cheques and conviction for falsifying public documents. The election body noted the withdrawal of his Senatorial candidates–Rodrigo Brillante, Jose Flores, Crisologo Eddie Ilarde, Pilar Pilapil and Ramon Montaño from his slate and stated that he has shown no proof that he can finance a national campaign on his own. Eddie Villanueva, petitioner and presidential aspirant suspected the camp of then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for convincing Gil to run to confuse the public to derail Villanueva's campaign but Arroyo's spokesperson Michael Defensor cited Gil's disqualification to disprove Villanueva's claim. |{{sortname|Eddie|Villanueva}} |{{cite news|last1=Marfil|first1=Martin|title=Gill a nuisance candidate–Comelec|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=b1c1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=iSUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1885%2C14179477|accessdate=14 October 2015|publisher=Philippine Daily Inquirer|date=17 March 2004}}{{cite news|last1=Marfil|first1=Martin|title=Gill declared a nuisance candidate by COMELEC|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=b1c1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=iSUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1895%2C14355402|accessdate=14 October 2015|publisher=Philippine Daily Inquirer|date=17 March 2004}} |
| style="background: palegreen" align=center|Other
|rowspan=2|{{sortname|Elly|Pamatong}} |2016 |Pamatong said that he was disqualified through the invoking of a repealed provision of the SOCE (statement of contributions and expenses) law. | |
| style="background: palegreen" align=center|Other
|2004 |Was disqualified with 35 others for being deemed incapable of mounting a national campaign. Pamatong disputed this conclusion. | |
| style="background: palegreen" align=center|Other
|1986 |Disqualified after running in every presidential election since 1935 | |
=For Senator=
=Successfully challenged petitions=
See also
References
{{reflist}}
External links
- [https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/258449.pdf 122 Phil. 412 (1965) Maquera v. Borra Per Curiam, En Banc]
{{Philippine elections}}
Category:Elections in the Philippines