The election season is very much far away as the country just concluded one a few months ago. But judging from a ruling that the Supreme Court (SC) had released on Sept. 10, 2022, talk about the next election is in the air as a game-changing “definition” will be part of it, and probably the next election cycles after that.
That “definition” is what a nuisance candidate is. From what was gathered from the SC’s statement, it means that candidates who are unknown, or are unaffiliated, will not be considered as nuisance candidates. This will change the way the Commission on Elections (Comelec) evaluates future candidates who they may perceive are not household names or do not have the political machinery to run a national campaign.
In a 20-page decision penned by Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, the SC en banc partly granted the “Petition for Certiorari” filed by Norman Cordero Marquez assailing the Resolution of Comelec, which declared Marquez a nuisance candidate and canceled his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) as senator for the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. Marquez’s prayer for the inclusion of his name in the official ballots, however, was “declared moot with the conclusion of the 2022 Elections and the proclamation of the senators-elect.”
In a statement released by the SC, it said that “unpopularity and non-membership in a political party are not sufficient grounds to declare one a nuisance candidate.” “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’s statement further stressed that “nuisance candidates, as an evil to be remedied, do not justify the adoption of measures which would consequently bar seemingly unpopular candidates from running for office.” It also reminded the Comelec that any measure designed to weed out nuisance candidates should “not be arbitrary and oppressive, and should not contravene the Republican system ordained in our Constitution.”
The High Court added that a candidate is considered to have “bona fide intent to run when he or she can demonstrate seriousness in running for office. Neither the law nor the election rules impose membership in a political party as a requirement on persons intending to run for public office.”
We also agree with the SC in urging the Comelec to adopt a “practicable plan or timeline” to ensure that all cases, which may result in the inclusion or exclusion of a candidate, are “resolved at the earliest possible time.”
With this new definition that will change the landscape of upcoming elections, the Comelec should learn from the intricacies and implications of the Marquez case. This early, the poll body must already start setting the parameters on what truly defines a legitimate candidate. It should also consider the fact that the Constitution only provides a bare minimum of qualification so it has to tread carefully so as not to impede on the rights of Filipinos who may have the least in name recall, but have the most in fervor to serve the nation.