Photo from Pexels | Tara Winstead
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
A candidate’s low vote count in past elections does not automatically make them a nuisance candidate in future elections.
The Supreme Court in Marquez v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 258435, June, 28, 2022, through Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, emphatically articulated on why a candidate’s popularity or lack thereof cannot be a criterion in determining his or her bona fide intent to run for public office in this wise:
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 that candidate but is best left to the electorate.
In Subair Guinthum Mustapha v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 277177, July 8, 2025), the Supreme Court held that there is not always a direct relation between one’s seriousness to run for office and the votes that a candidate will eventually obtain in the position aspired for.
A candidate may be very serious in running for office and employs all possible legal means to obtain enough votes to win, but despite his or her seriousness and efforts, he or she may still lose. Conversely, a candidate may not have bona fide intent to run for public office but because of sheer popularity, political machinery, or for a plethora of possible reasons, he or she manages to win an election.
The Supreme Court held that if the COMELEC is allowed to declare one as a nuisance candidate simply because he or she obtained minimal votes in previous elections, and/or simply because such candidate could not possibly obtain sufficient number of votes during the present election, then the COMELEC will be virtually exercising that which is exclusively reserved to the voters on election day. In a democratic institution such as ours, it is the people who are vested with the sole authority to decide whether a candidate wins or not, and such decision is to be passed upon only during the day of election. The COMELEC, therefore, should not deprive the people of a legitimate choice by declaring candidates as nuisance candidates simply because it perceives that said candidates have low chances of winning as purportedly shown by their previous dismal votes.
Related Articles:
- Are votes for nuisance candidates considered as stray votes?
- Lack of Campaign Funds Does Not Make One a Nuisance Candidate
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.