Nuisance Candidates and Effects of Declaration of Nuisance Candidacy | Candidacy | ELECTION LAW

Nuisance Candidates and Effects of Declaration of Nuisance Candidacy

Under Philippine election laws, the concept of nuisance candidates is intended to ensure the integrity of the electoral process by preventing the proliferation of candidates whose purpose is not to genuinely run for office but to confuse voters, make a mockery of the elections, or cause disrepute to the candidacy of legitimate aspirants. The governing legal framework on nuisance candidates can be found in the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and relevant jurisprudence from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and the Supreme Court.

Definition of Nuisance Candidates

The Omnibus Election Code, specifically Section 69, provides the legal basis for declaring a candidate as a nuisance candidate. It defines a nuisance candidate as follows:

“When a candidate files his certificate of candidacy to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates, or by 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 prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate, the Commission may, motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy.”

Grounds for Declaring a Candidate as a Nuisance

From the definition in Section 69, three primary grounds may be identified:

1. Putting the election process in mockery or disrepute.

   • This ground refers to candidates who file their candidacies with no serious intent of actually running for office but simply to make a joke or mock the seriousness of the electoral process.

2. Causing confusion among voters due to similarity of names.

   • This often applies when a nuisance candidate has a name that is identical or nearly identical to a legitimate candidate's, which could mislead voters and dilute support for the legitimate candidate. This is frequently seen in local elections.

3. Lack of bona fide intention to run for office.

   • This refers to candidates whose acts or circumstances indicate that they are not genuinely interested in pursuing public office. Factors such as lack of a political platform, no visible campaign, or statements disavowing a serious candidacy may indicate a lack of good faith.

Procedure for Declaring a Nuisance Candidate

The COMELEC is vested with the authority to declare a candidate as a nuisance either on its own initiative (motu proprio) or upon the filing of a verified petition by an interested party, such as another candidate.

1. Filing of Petition:

   • Any interested party may file a verified petition before the COMELEC to declare a candidate as a nuisance. The petition must allege facts constituting the grounds for such declaration.

2. Preliminary Determination:

   • Upon the filing of the petition or motu proprio action, the COMELEC may conduct a summary proceeding to determine whether or not there is a prima facie case that the candidate is a nuisance. This is to prevent frivolous petitions from delaying or disrupting the candidacy process.

3. Hearing and Decision:

   • If a prima facie case exists, a hearing will be set, and both parties (the petitioner and the candidate in question) will be given the opportunity to present evidence. After evaluating the evidence, the COMELEC will render its decision whether to declare the candidate as a nuisance or not.

4. Appeal:

   • The decision of the COMELEC on whether a candidate is a nuisance may be appealed to the Supreme Court under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 7, Article IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. The COMELEC's ruling is generally accorded great respect unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Effects of Declaration of Nuisance Candidacy

Once a candidate is declared a nuisance, several effects arise under election laws:

1. Cancellation of Certificate of Candidacy (COC):

   • The immediate effect of a declaration of nuisance candidacy is the cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy (COC). This means the nuisance candidate is deemed to have never been a candidate for that election.

2. Ineligibility to be Voted Upon:

   • Upon cancellation of the COC, the nuisance candidate's name is removed from the official ballot. If the ballots have already been printed, votes cast in favor of the nuisance candidate are considered stray votes and will not be counted for any candidate.

3. No Substitution:

   • Unlike cases where a legitimate candidate withdraws, dies, or is disqualified, a nuisance candidate is not entitled to a substitute. The cancellation of a COC due to nuisance candidacy is not a ground for substitution under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code, which allows substitution only in cases of withdrawal, death, or disqualification by final judgment.

4. Stray Votes:

   • As noted, votes cast for a declared nuisance candidate are considered stray. This can have significant implications in close elections, as stray votes can influence the margin of victory or loss.

Jurisprudence on Nuisance Candidates

Over the years, several cases have shaped the interpretation of the law on nuisance candidacy. Some of the important rulings are:

• Pamatong v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004):

  • In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of the COC of Atty. Ely Pamatong, a candidate for President, ruling that his candidacy put the electoral process in mockery and disrepute. The Court found that Pamatong did not have a serious intention to run for office, citing his lack of a legitimate campaign and the frivolous nature of his platform.

• Marcos v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995):

  • This case involved a candidate with the same surname as Senator Ferdinand Marcos, a leading presidential candidate at the time. The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC's decision to declare the other Marcos a nuisance candidate, as the similarity in their names would likely confuse voters.

• Timbol v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 210088, January 13, 2015):

  • This case reaffirmed that the COMELEC has discretion to assess the bona fide intention of a candidate to run for office. If the evidence clearly shows a lack of serious intent to campaign, the COMELEC may cancel the COC on the ground of nuisance candidacy.

Key Considerations

• Speedy Resolution:

  • Given the time-sensitive nature of elections, cases of nuisance candidacy are required to be resolved expeditiously to prevent complications in the printing of ballots and the overall election process.

• Preventing Election Abuse:

  • The mechanism for declaring nuisance candidates serves as a safeguard against the use of candidacy as a tool for harassment or to undermine the electoral chances of legitimate contenders.

• Public Policy:

  • The law on nuisance candidacy is founded on the principle that only serious candidates should be allowed to run for office. This ensures that the electorate is given a genuine choice among legitimate aspirants and that the electoral process is not reduced to a farce.

Conclusion

The law on nuisance candidates plays a crucial role in protecting the integrity of elections in the Philippines by preventing candidates from making a mockery of the process or confusing voters. The COMELEC is empowered to weed out these candidates, and its decisions are generally respected unless there is evidence of grave abuse of discretion. The key effect of a declaration of nuisance candidacy is the cancellation of the COC, rendering the candidate ineligible to be voted upon, with votes cast for them treated as stray. Jurisprudence has consistently supported the strict application of these provisions to maintain the sanctity of the electoral process.