Declaring nuisance candidates discriminatory

No less than 117 candidates out of 187 senatorial bets had been denied their inherent right to be voted upon, simply because they are poor, and not as popular as Willy Revillame, Philip Salvador, Lito Lapid, and Bong Revilla. Many of these excluded candidates are more competent, honest, and worthy than some actors who don’t have fundamental knowledge in lawmaking.

The Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion when it unilaterally declared a number of senatorial aspirants as nuisance candidates upon the formal petition filed by the commission's own law department. This means that the Comelec was the petitioner and judge at the same time. At first blush, this is another high-handed abuse of authority, eliminating Filipinos who really want to serve the nation, just because they don’t have the money and popularity that some actors and celebrities possess.

Such an action can be considered elitist and a direct contradiction to the global trends toward inclusivity, diversity, and non-discrimination. This highly-arbitrary and subjective decision violates the equal protection clause in the first provision of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The mass disqualification unduly deprives Filipinos their fundamental right to be voted without due process of law. Such hasty decisions discriminate against the poor, simple, and powerless people but unduly favors moneyed candidates like Chavit Singson, Willy Revillame, and Camille Villar. There is no evidence that those declared "nuisances" are less competent than Robin Padilla, Lito Lapid, and Philip Salvador.

Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code defines a nuisance candidate as one who has filed a certificate of candidacy with the intention of putting the election process in mockery or disrepute, or causing confusion among voters by the similarity of their names to other registered candidates, or showing some circumstances demonstrating lack of a "bona fide" intention to run for the office aspired for. These three purported causes supposedly would lead to a situation that would prevent the faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.

This provision begs the question on the specific and concrete basis by which Comelec would anchor its audacious and highly-speculative conclusion that a certain aspirant would put the electoral process in mockery or disrepute. Comelec, with due respect, doesn’t have sufficient justification to draw a hasty conclusion that one's candidacy would cause confusion among the voters if the candidate has a similar name as another aspirant. By eliminating one and retaining the other, there is no substantive criterion to make one lesser than the other.

Under the Election Code, only the law department has the sole authority to declare someone a nuisance candidate and to ask Comelec's divisions to formally declare aspirants as nuisance candidates. The only recourse of the affected aspirants is to file a motion for reconsideration with the Comelec en banc. Most probably, the en banc would uphold the decision of the divisions. In that case, the disadvantaged aspirant should go to the Supreme Court and pray for a temporary restraining order or injunction. But if these candidates don’t have the money and connections, their names will be deleted from the ballot.

This action is a clear case of grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or when the power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, amounting to an evasion of duty or to a virtual refusal to perform duty. Grave abuse of discretion refers not merely to palpable errors of jurisdiction or to violations of the Constitution, law, and jurisprudence, it refers also to cases in which for various reasons, there had been a gross misapprehension of facts.

This kind of decision is indeed discriminatory, exclusionist, and elitist. It would appear that if you run for public office and you aren’t a billionaire like a Villar or not as popular as a Revillame or a Tulfo, you are a nuisance. This kind of reasoning is the complete opposite of a genuine democracy where inclusion of the people is the core philosophy, and not money, prestige or influence.

With all due respect, I cannot accept the Comelec judgment that those disqualified are nuisances and should be prevented from running, while characters like Lito Lapid, Bong Revilla, Willie Revillame, and Philip Salvador are qualified and should be voted. There is no acceptable criterion, which might be deemed germane to the purpose of the law. This is an arbitrary ruling that violates the equal protection clause.