FINDING ANSWERS
Former Senator
Atty. Joey Lina
A Supreme Court decision which ruled that not being famous and not belonging to a political party are not sufficient grounds to be declared a nuisance candidate could be a gamechanger.
The SC ruling released last Saturday could pave the way to a significant shift in Philippine elections whereby popularity and the continuing stranglehold of political dynasties often determine who should run for public office.
“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.
“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 pointed out in its 20-page decision penned by Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier which partly granted the Certiorari Petition filed by animal welfare advocate Norman Cordero Marquez who was barred by the Comelec from running for senator in the recent elections.
When Marquez filed his certificate of candidacy, the Comelec Law Department petitioned to declare him a nuisance candidate without bona fide intention to run for a national position “because he was ‘virtually unknown to the entire country’ and lacked ‘the support of a political party.’” The Comelec First Division approved the petition against Marquez, saying he “had the burden to prove and failed to show that he is known well enough nationwide.”
“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 pointed out in a statement.
In ruling against the Comelec, the SC said the poll body’s law department failed to substantiate its claims, and it erred when “it shifted the burden on Marquez to prove that he is not a nuisance candidate, a burden supposed to be borne by Comelec Law Department which made the allegation that Marquez did not possess bona fide intention to run for senator.”
The SC said that Marquez’s serious intent to run had several indicators: He has a program of governance in the event he wins; he exercised utmost vigilance in the protection of his candidacy; among many others.
The SC ruling is vital as it gives a fighting chance to deserving candidates who are not famous and are not affiliated with a political party.
The perception has become all too real that not only have more political families become more brazen in pushing for their interests, especially in the local scene, but that their candidates have a genuine chance of winning based on sheer popularity and the massive resources that well-entrenched political dynasties have.
Indeed, the classic description of our political system as “anarchy of families” still holds true almost three decades after the phrase was coined by US professor Alfred McCoy who had written about, and testified in the US Congress, about Philippine political history.
With no coherent political party system in place and no clear party platform of governance, many voters find difficulty in making their choices.
Thus, a candidate’s program of governance is crucial for voters to make the right choice. Still, differentiating candidates based on their pronouncements can be difficult when it becomes obvious that they blurt out their messages simply to suit their audience.
After all, talk is cheap and candidates cannot be prevented from saying what people want to hear. Besides, there is yet no practical way to hold candidates accountable for campaign promises they don’t intend to fulfill. They just cannot be sued for “breach of promise.”
The challenge, therefore, is for voters to discern the real worth of pronouncements made by candidates based on character and track record. For candidates without sufficient track record that can be assessed, the next best thing would be to rely on the perceived ability of these candidates to really walk the talk. But past positions either in the private or public sector do not necessarily translate to competence. Positive accomplishments in office are a better yardstick.
Ideally, scrutiny of candidates on character and platform of governance should find answers to questions like: Are they suited for public office? Do they have a clear grasp of the workings of government? Do they fit the job description of the position they aspire for? Do their proposals match the elective post in the legislative or executive branch of government?
Will they use public funds with utmost integrity and efficiency? Will they get things done to achieve what matters most especially to the poor: inclusive growth, more jobs and livelihood opportunities, housing for the homeless, quality education, quality healthcare, and many more?
Answers to such questions can greatly help in finding the “gems in a pile of dirt” amid a political landscape containing a mix of all kinds of candidates – from the efficient, compassionate, and sincere, to the grossly incompetent who are popular, yet are clueless on what it takes to be an effective public servant.
Email: [email protected]