Photo from Pexels | Jonathan Borba
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the case of Ollesca vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 258449, July 30, 2024, the Supreme Court reiterated that financial capacity to sustain the rigors of waging national campaign, membership in a political party, being known nationwide, and the probability of success do not by themselves determine the existence of a bona fide intention to run for public office under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, the lack of which may characterize an electoral candidate as a nuisance candidate.
In 2021, Ollesca filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) with the COMELEC for the position of president of the Philippines for the 2022 National and Local Elections. In his CoC, Ollesca stated that he is running as an independent candidate and indicated that he is an entrepreneur.
The COMELEC Law Department, filed a Petition to declare Ollesca as a nuisance candidate and asked the COMELEC to deny due course to or cancel Ollesca’s CoC. It asserted that considering that Ollesca filed his CoC to run for president, he should be publicly known by numerous voters. However, he is running as an independent candidate and is virtually unknown except possibly in the locality where he resides. As such, he has no capability to launch a nationwide campaign to enable him to be known nationally within the campaign period and to persuade a substantial number of voters from different parts of the country.
The COMELEC’s Second Division granted the petition and declared Ollesca a nuisance candidate. It found that Ollesca, who was an independent with no political party, was unknown outside of the community he belonged to and failed to show that he had the financial capacity to sustain a decent and viable nationwide campaign on his own.
The Supreme Court reversed the COMELEC’s ruling. The Supreme Court emphasized that in a democracy, every citizen has a right to run for public office. However, this right must be balanced with COMELEC’s practical challenges in ensuring free, fair, and peaceful elections.
Having too many candidates can make the ballot confusing and harder to manage, requiring more time and resources to prepare for the election. To improve the process, the COMELEC needs to regulate the number of candidates and manage the ballots while still allowing everyone a fair chance to compete.
To declare someone a nuisance candidate, the COMELEC must show evidence to prove that the person does not genuinely or seriously intend to run for public office. It can look at factors such as a candidate’s inability to organize a campaign due to not being nominated by a political party, or the lack of a past record of public service.
However, the ability to fund a nationwide campaign, being a political party member, having nationwide recognition, and the likelihood of success do not alone determine whether a candidate has a genuine intention to run for public office.
Requiring candidates to have the financial means to run a campaign would unfairly add a property requirement that the Constitution prohibits. The Supreme Court emphasized that regardless of wealth, everyone has the right to run for office. A candidate cannot be disqualified simply because they are poor.
In Ollesca’s case, the COMELEC declared him a nuisance candidate simply based on general claims that he could not afford a national campaign. The COMELEC unfairly shifted the burden to prove genuine intent to Ollesca, but the Supreme Court ruled that it was the COMELEC’s responsibility to prove its case, which it failed to do so.
RELATED ARTICLES:
- Qualifications and Disqualifications of Voters – ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
- WHAT IS THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES? – ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
