Financial Capacity of Nuisance Candidates

by Luie Tito F. Guia Failure of an independent candidate for the Senate to prove that he or she has the financial capacity to wage and sustain a nationwide campaign cannot be used as a basis to consider him or her a nuisance candidate. The Supreme Court, in the case of Norman Cordero Marquez vs. Commission on Election[1] decided on September 3, 2019, ruled unanimously that the COMELEC abused its discretion gravely when it declared Marquez a nuisance candidate for said reason. Norman Cordero Marquez filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for the position of Senator in the 2019 National and Local Elections. He is a resident of Mountain Province, a real estate broker, and an independent candidate. The COMELEC Law Department filed a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, arguing that: 1) he was virtually unknown to the entire country, except in his locality; and 2) though a real estate broker, he will not be able to sustain the financial rigors of a nationwide campaign. Marquez counters that he is well known in social media and websites as a co-founder of the Baguio Animal Welfare (BAW), an animal advocacy group. He has also been interviewed in TV and radio shows, and that he has received donations and contributions from supporters. He argues that COMELEC should not discount the sector of animal lovers and existing local and foreign benefactors and donors who are willing to subsidize a campaign. The COMELEC First Division then cancelled Marquez’ CoC, ruling that the amounts set forth in Sec. 13 of RA 7166 would at least require a candidate to prove that he can mount a nationwide campaign, and that running as an independent decreases one’s chances with even more limited resources. Marquez move for a reconsideration, but this was denied by the COMELEC En Banc. He filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the COMELEC resolution arguing essentially that: 1) he has a bona fide intention to run for office and can sustain a nationwide campaign “given the campaign-enhanced support from existing and expanded donors base, and endorsement of pet organizations and animal-based livelihood groups all over the PH”; 2) Sec. 13 of RA 7166 represents expense ceilings but not necessarily the actual expenses that a candidate must spend out of his personal resources; and 3) given the advent of social media and new-generation-internet-based campaigns, he is capable of launching a revolutionary and unprecedented internet-powered online campaign, that will not require unwarranted exorbitant costs. The Supreme Court ruled that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Marquez a nuisance candidate on the ground of failure to prove financial capacity to sustain the rigors of waging a nationwide campaign. The right to vote and to be voted for should not be made to depend upon the wealth of a candidate. COMELEC cannot make a candidate’s financial capacity to wage a national campaign a condition to the exercise of privilege to be voted upon as senator and that financial capacity requirement is a property requirement that is constitutionally impermissible. It was further added that disqualifying a candidate on this ground would violate the equal protection clause because not of all candidates are required to prove their financial capacity. The COMELEC Law Department attempted to shift the burden of proof upon the candidate. The Supreme Court further emphasized that a candidate’s financial capacity to sustain the rigors of waging a nationwide campaign does not necessarily equate to a bona fide intention to run for public office. It was COMELEC’s burden to show a reasonable correlation between proof of a bona fide intention to run on one hand, and proof of financial capacity on the other. Justice Marvic V.F. Leonen wrote a separate concurring opinion. There is no question that there should be no property qualification on the right to vote and to be voted on in elections (the Supreme Court said that right to be voted on is a mere privilege). The 1965 case of Maquera vs. Borra[2] has already made this succinctly clear. This qualification is indeed discriminatory and inconsistent with basic democratic norms and principles. Since the time that COMELEC started allowing motu propio actions to disqualify nuisance candidates, particularly those for the Presidency and the Senate, the petitions prepared by the Law Department and the ensuing resolution issued by COMELEC have used standardized language. Most if not all of these petitions and resolutions employ “lack of capacity to wage a nationwide campaign” as basis to declare candidates nuisance, equating this with “lack of bona fide intention to run” for office, which is the language used in the law.[3] The reason for this is the limited time available for COMELEC to resolve more than a hundred petitions and the need to finalize the names that will be printed on the ballots. What should COMELEC be focused on is not really the qualification of the one filing the CoC. It should be whether a candidate has bona fide intention to run for the office he is seeking to be elected to. Bona fide intention to run is shown when the candidacy would not put elections in “mockery or disrepute”, or would not cause confusion by reason of similarity of names, or when the candidate of network of actual or possible supporters and resources would evince a certain level of seriousness showing a fair chance of success. Although, the Supreme Court categorically declared that lack of financial capacity alone should not equate to bona fide intention to run, this simply implies that the seriousness of the intention to run should not be seen solely on lack of “financial resources” His network of possible supporters as is usually shown by a candidate’s affiliation with a political party, as well a candidate’s track record in the public sphere should also be considered. Proof of a candidate’s preparation to withstand the rigors of a national campaign also manifests the seriousness of the candidate’s intention run for public office. The case of Pamatong vs. COMELEC[4]  has not been overturned and is still is a useful guide to determine whether a candidate is a nuisance or not. Nevertheless. with this Supreme Court decision, COMELEC must expect more candidates for the Presidency and the Senate in subsequent elections. It may be wise to revisit existing policies and procedures in anticipation of the situation. It must be emphasized that while COMELEC must respect the right of individuals to run for public office, the Supreme Court also recognized COMELEC’s obligation to ensure that elections are orderly. Voters should not be burdened with a kilometric list of candidates on the ballots, most of whom are either obvious crackpots or have no national prominences and have no chance of being elected. However, adjustment and reform that would be adopted should ensure that the constitutional requirements of not imposing property qualifications to candidacy and equal protection of laws are not violated.

---

[1] G.R. No. 244274, September 3, 2019. Available in http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/8153/ [2] G.R. No. L-24761, September 7, 1965 [3] See Section 69, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 (The Omnibus Election Code) [4] G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004. This article was originally published in the diario COMELEC