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

The SC said “in a democracy, every citizen has a right to run for public office.”

But 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.