SC: Unpopularity not basis to declare candidate a nuisance

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) lectured the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that the electoral process is not a popularity contest, as it took the side of a senatorial aspirant who was declared a nuisance candidate by the poll body for being unpopular in the May 2022 polls.

A 20-page decision promulgated on June 28 but published only on Thursday stated that the SC has granted the petition for certiorari filed by senatorial aspirant Norman Cordero Marquez against the Comelec, which declared him a nuisance bet for being unpopular and for lack of support of a political party. 
The SC said that Marquez’s request for the inclusion of his name in the official ballots in the May 2022 polls was declared moot, with the conclusion of the elections and the proclamation of the 12 winning senators.

“While Marquez’s case has been mooted by the conclusion of the 2022 elections, the Supreme Court found it necessary to resolve the matter since the same situation may recur in future elections,” the SC said in a statement.

The decision was penned by Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier.

For his part, Comelec Chairman George Garcia said that it is high time to revisit the law on nuisance candidacies and align it with existing jurisprudence.

“Yes, the SC said unpopularity is not nuisance per se, but absence of a genuine intention to aspire for public office is,” Garcia said in a Viber message when asked to comment on the SC’s decision on the petition for certiorari of Marquez.

Before this, Marquez, co-founder of the animal advocacy group Baguio Animal Welfare, filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for senator in the May 2022 elections.

He was declared a nuisance candidate after the Comelec asserted his alleged failure to show that he is “known well enough nationwide,” prompting him to file a petition for certiorari before the SC to seek legal remedies.

The Comelec’s decision stemmed from its Law Department’s petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, as he is “virtually unknown to the entire country” and lacked “the support of a political party,” which was adopted by its First Division.

The Comelec had also declared Marquez a nuisance candidate in the 2019 senatorial elections due to “financial capacity requirement,” which was overturned by the SC. 
In resolving the case, the SC said the Comelec had committed several errors, including the apparent shifting of the burden on Marquez to prove that he is not a nuisance candidate, which is supposed to be borne by the poll body that alleged that he is a nuisance bet.

The SC said it considered several indicators of Marquez’s serious intent to run, such as the filing of his COC; his second time to file his candidacy; his platform of governance; his vigilance in protecting his candidacy and his decision to avail of judicial remedies to assert his right after he was declared a nuisance bet in the 2019 polls.

Marquez’s decision to raise his concern before the SC, after he was declared a nuisance bet in the 2022 polls, was also a factor considered by the SC of his serious intent to run for an elective post.

“Indeed, the intent of Marquez to run for an elective post is indubitable. For on two separate occasions, he sought judicial remedy from this court to claim the privilege to run for public office. It is contrary to 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,” the SC said.

“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 added.

The SC denied Marquez’s petition to cite the Comelec for contempt, as it emphasized that the poll body “was not impelled by a desire to disrespect” the authority of the high tribunal when it proceeded with the election preparations despite a temporary order issued by the court.