Lack of funds doesn’t make one a nuisance candidate

It is now clear, explicit, and categorical. The Comelec cannot deprive any Filipino of his constitutional right to be voted upon and run for public office, merely based on the palpably discriminatory ground that he has no financial means to mount a national campaign.

In the case of Juan Olila Ollesca vs. Comelec, GR No 258449, promulgated on July 30, 2024, but published by the Supreme Court in the first week of January 2025, Senior Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen said: "Financial capacity to sustain the rigors of waging a nationwide membership in a political party being known nationwide and the probability of success do not by themselves determine the existence of a bona fide intention to run for public office".

The Supreme Court rebuffed the Comelec for considering lack of financial means as an indicator of being a nuisance candidate. Just because the family name of a candidate is not Marcos, Duterte, Villar, or Romualdez doesn’t make him a nuisance bet. To be considered a nuisance because an aspirant isn’t wealthy, powerful, or influential is discriminatory. What the Comelec did is a violation of the equal protection clause, a fundamental principle enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the highest law of the land.

On October 7, 2021, one Juan Olila Ollesca filed his certificate of candidacy for president of the Philippines, declaring that he is an entrepreneur. On October 21, 2021, the Comelec Law Department, in a most blatant act of arbitrary and discriminatory act, filed on its own a petition to disqualify Ollesca or to deny due course or cancel his certificate because he was supposedly unknown virtually nationwide.

That was equivalent to saying that if you aren’t a popular person, you have no business running for president. The Comelec 2nd Division granted the petition of its own Law Department on December 13, 2021. This commission is too quick in committing grave abuse of discretion and in looking down on poor, unpopular, and simple people. On January 3, 2022, the Comelec en banc peremptorily sustained its own 2nd Division in disallowing a poor person from running.

The Supreme Court rebuffed Comelec on such a grave abuse of discretion. Comelec's ruling didn’t comply with the requirements of law. The court reminds the commission that “a nuisance candidate is one whose candidacy was lodged merely to create a confusion or whose candidacy mocks or causes disrepute to the election process, hence, there is patently no intention to run for office.” Clearly, having no millions doesn’t make a candidate a nuisance bet. The High Court also admonished the Comelec to remember that it is illegal to impose a property requirement to one's candidacy.

It is well-settled in our jurisdiction, like in Manguerra vs. Borra, that a property qualification can’t be imposed on an electoral candidate. "Doing so goes against ‘social justice’ which presupposes equal opportunity for all, rich and poor alike, and that accordingly, no person shall, by reason of poverty, be denied the chance to be elected to public office." Comelec appears to be an elitist agency, giving due course immediately to the candidacies of such multi-millionaires as the Villars, Quiboloy, Chavit Singson, and many others with "royal" family names.

But more than 50 aspirants for senators were peremptorily disqualified while giving due course to the candidacies of Willy Revillame, Philip Salvador, and the Tulfos, This was bias in its most blatant form. The Supreme Court then nullified the Comelec's decision because it was a general and sweeping allegation of petitioner's financial incapability to mount a decent and viable campaign. It is a prohibited property requirement.

The Comelec failed to show that the poor man's candidacy would defeat the determination of the electorate's will. Comelec was guilty of grave abuse of discretion. Its decision to disqualify a poor candidate was unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.