The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that low vote counts in past polls, lack of campaign resources, or limited popularity are not valid grounds to tag candidates as “nuisance,” ruling that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) must show solid proof and observe due process in disqualifying aspirants.

In a decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, the SC  has overturned the COMELEC’s decision declaring labor advocate Subair Guinthum Mustapha a nuisance candidate in the 2025 national elections, saying the poll body committed grave abuse of discretion and violated his right to due process.

The Court held that COMELEC “failed to substantiate its findings and merely adopted unproven allegations from its own law department,” stressing that the constitutional right to candidacy “must be protected from arbitrary restrictions that effectively bar qualified citizens from running for office.”

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from a motu proprio petition filed by the COMELEC Law Department in October 2024 seeking to declare Mustapha a nuisance candidate after he filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) for senator under the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP).

The poll body alleged that Mustapha’s candidacy was a “farce” that put the election process “in mockery or disrepute,” citing his supposed lack of public engagement, advocacy record, and the small number of votes he obtained in a previous congressional bid.

Mustapha denied the allegations, asserting his credentials as a lawyer, labor advocate, and Sultan of Marawi, as well as his active membership in the WPP since 1963, arguing that neither financial capacity nor popularity are valid grounds for disqualification.

The WPP also filed a motion to intervene, defending its candidates’ legitimacy and pointing out that online presence is not a requirement for candidacy.

Despite these, the COMELEC Second Division on November 14, 2024, declared Mustapha and two others as nuisance candidates, a ruling later affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc. 

Mustapha then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion and violation of due process.

The central issue before the Court was whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Mustapha a nuisance candidate and canceling his CoC.

RULING

The SC granted Mustapha’s petition, ruling that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in declaring him a nuisance candidate without substantial evidence, as its resolutions were “sweeping and general” and lacked specific findings to justify his disqualification.

The Court said the poll body violated the standards of administrative due process by failing to consider Mustapha’s evidence and by relying solely on its law department’s unproven allegations. It noted that Mustapha presented his legal background, civic involvement, and platforms of governance — which the COMELEC ignored.

The Court further reiterated that lack of funds, popularity, or political machinery does not equate to a lack of bona fide intent to run for office, warning that such criteria amount to an unconstitutional property qualification.

“The COMELEC’s decision is void insofar as Mustapha is concerned because it was issued in violation of the due process requirements in quasi-judicial proceedings and is contrary to existing jurisprudence,” the ruling read.

The tribunal emphasized that candidacy is a right, not a privilege, and that any restriction must be “reasonable, non-discriminatory, and conscientiously applied,” reminding the COMELEC to base future rulings on substantial evidence rather than “cookie-cutter” findings.

While noting that the case had become moot with the conclusion of the 2025 elections, the Court resolved the petition under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception, recognizing the recurring nature of nuisance-candidate cases.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.