Lack of campaign funds doesn’t make candidate a nuisance – SC

The Supreme Court building in Manila. INQUIRER PHOTO / NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
MANILA, Philippines – Lack of financial resources to mount a nationwide campaign does not make a candidate a nuisance, the Supreme Court said in a decision made public Monday.
“The Commission on Elections (Comelec) cannot conflate financial capacity requirement with the bona fide intention to run for public office,” the Supreme Court said in a ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.
The SC added that imposing having the financial capacity to hit the campaign trail “is a property qualification that is prohibited under the Constitution and is likewise not a valid ground to characterize a candidate as a nuisance candidate.”
The ruling stemmed from a petition filed by a certain Juan Juan Olila Ollesca, who was declared a nuisance candidate by the Comelec when he ran for president in the 2022 national and local elections.
READ: Comelec resolves all nuisance bets‘ cases, a ‘historic first’ – Garcia
Article continues after this advertisementThe SC said “in a democracy, every citizen has a right to run for public office.”
Article continues after this advertisementBut such right must be balanced with Comelec’s needs to regulate the number of candidates and manage the ballots while allowing everyone a fair chance to compete.
It added that other factors can be used in determining a candidate’s bona fide intention to run for public office such as political party nomination and public recognition.
However, the SC pointed out that a lack of political party nomination, limited public recognition, or campaign funds “cannot, on their own, serve as definitive proof of a lack of intent.”
In Ollesca’s case, the SC said Comelec merely relied on a sweeping allegation that the petitioner had no financial capacity to fund a decent and viable campaign.
A candidate is declared a nuisance if the individual decides to run for office only to confuse the public or mock the election process.