The Omnibus Election Code, in Section 69, gives the Commission on Election (Comelec) the power to, of its own initiative or upon petition, “refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed 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 by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.”
For the most part, these candidates—especially those espousing principles and solutions to the country’s ills that go beyond mere unorthodoxy and eccentricity—are easy to spot. Of late, however, with many of our countrymen being more politically activated and desirous of contributing to the political leadership of the nation, the Comelec has been increasingly confronted with the complicated question of where exactly to draw the line.
Because waging a campaign for public office—particularly for a national office—requires money to run; and because a candidate can reasonably be expected to give up their means of livelihood by which they provide daily support to themselves and their family—the Comelec has adopted the “financial capability” test. The candidate, according to this test, must show the financial capability to sustain the rigors of a national campaign. Failing to do so signals that the candidate simply filed his/her candidacy for reasons other than a bona fide intention to run for public office, clearly indicating that the candidate falls within the scope of Section 69.
Up to 2019 elections, this was the test used by the Comelec. A Supreme Court decision promulgated after the May elections, however, has changed that.
Challenged in the Supreme Court
ON October 15, 2018, petitioner Marquez, a real-estate broker intent on running as an independent, filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the position of senator in the May 13, 2019 National and Local elections. On a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, the Comelec eventually ruled that—without clear proof of financial capability—he would “not be able to sustain the financial rigors of a nationwide campaign.” Marquez took the Comelec to the Supreme Court and on September 3 of the same year—less than four months after the elections, in Marquez v. Comelec (GR 244274), Marquez won.
The question ultimately decided by the Court was whether the Comelec could rely solely on the lack of proof of financial capacity, as a ground to declare an aspirant for senator a nuisance candidate. The Court declared that the Comelec could not.
According to the Court, by declaring “Marquez a nuisance candidate on the ground of lack of proof of his financial capacity to wage a nationwide campaign,” the Comelec had effectively imposed unconstitutional “property qualifications.”
In pointing out the defects in the Comelec’s application of the financial capacity rule, the Court noted that the Comelec did not explicitly require all candidates to prove that they had financial capacity, nor did the Comelec explicitly declare any standard that would define what constituted “financial capacity to sustain the rigors of waging a nationwide campaign.” These defects, the Court held, made the application of the concept of financial capability, violative of the equal protection guarantee, and—without any declared standard for what constitutes adequate financial capability—arbitrary, making the action constitutionally infirm.
Bona fide intention
Parenthetically, while the Court acknowledged “the Comelec’s legitimate objective in weeding out candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office from the electoral process,” it also cautioned the Comelec not to conflate “the bona fide intention to run with a financial capacity requirement,” emphasizing that a bona fide intention to run for office can be shown by other means.
I would argue however that, on multiple occasions, the Comelec has in fact looked beyond financial means to determine whether or not the candidate showed a bona fide intention to run for office. Membership in a political party, for instance, has long been considered as a valid indicator; so too has a candidate’s track record for advocacy in the public sphere.
Moving forward
IN an article written for the Comelec’s newsletter, former Commissioner Luie Tito Guia counseled that the 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,” he wrote, while ensuring that “the constitutional requirements of not imposing property qualifications to candidacy and equal protection of laws are not violated.”
I could not agree more.
The decision in Marquez did not eliminate the need to weed out nuisance candidates, as some might be tempted to crow. The decision simply pointed out that failing to show financial capacity by itself cannot be used to disqualify a candidate; that in fact the very concept of financial capacity needs a great deal of standardization both in definition and application. And with more than a year to go before the next elections, the Comelec can certainly do that.