Nuisance Candidate in Election Laws

A nuisance candidate is a person who simply files a certificate of candidacy

for election simply to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to
cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the
registered candidates or who by other acts or circumstances is clearly
demonstrated to have no bona fide intention to run for the office for which
the certificate of candidacy has been filed, thus preventing a faithful
determination of the true will of the electorate.1
In other words, nuisance candidates are those candidates that file their
certificate of candidacy even though they not really expect or intend to win.
They bring confusion among the voters and pester other candidates,
including the Commission on Elections.
In Pamatong vs. COMELEC2, the Supreme Court in explaining Section 69 of
Omnibus Election Code held as follows:
The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates
and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a
bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State
has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises
are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State
takes into account the practical considerations in conducting
elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the
greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention
the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for
the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never
exempt the State from the conduct of a mandate electoral
exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be available
to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and
proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a textbook
example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our
democratic institutions.

Given these considerations, the ignominious nature of a nuisance

candidacy becomes even more galling. The organization of an
election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough.
To add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or
capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the
1 Section 69, Omnibus Election Code
2 Elly Chavez Pamatong v. COMELEC. GR No. 161872 , April 13, 2004

electoral process. This is not to mention the candidacies which

are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The
poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every
step of the electoral process, most probably posed at the
instance of these nuisance candidates. It would be a senseless
sacrifice on the part of the State.
xxxxxx

xxx

There is a need to limit the number of candidates especially in

the case of candidates for national positions because the election
process becomes a mockery even if those who cannot clearly
wage a national campaign are allowed to run. Their names would
have to be printed in the Certified List of Candidates, Voters
Information Sheet and the Official Ballots. These would entail
additional to the government.
Further, the Supreme Court in clarifying Section 69 of Omnibus Election Code
in relation to the Constitutional provision on equal access to opportunities to
public office, held as follows:
As earlier noted, the privilege of equal access to opportunities to
public office may be subjected to limitations. Some valid
limitations specifically on the privilege to seek elective office are
found in the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code on
Nuisance Candidates and COMELEC Resolution No. 6452 dated
December 10, 2002 outlining the instances wherein the
COMELEC may motu proprio refuse to give due course to or
cancel a Certificate of Candidacy.

Section 3 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides that the

Commission on Elections shall promulgate its rules of procedure in order to
expedite the disposition of election cases, including pre-proclamation
controversies. Moreover, the Comelec has jurisdiction to determine initially
the qualifications of all candidates. Under Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the
Constitution, the Comelec has the power and function to [E]nforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election.
The initial determination of who are qualified to file certificates of
candidacies with the Comelec clearly falls within this all-encompassing
constitutional mandate of the Comelec.
The conduct of an election
necessarily includes the initial determination of who are qualified under
existing laws to run for public office in an election. Otherwise, the Comelecs
certified list of candidates will be cluttered with unqualified candidates
making the conduct of elections unmanageable.
For this reason, the

Comelec weeds out every presidential election dozens of candidates for

president who are deemed nuisance candidates by the Comelec. 3

3 Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 and Section 5 of Republic Act No.
6646. See Bautista v. Commission on Elections, 359 Phil. 1 (1998)