The Supreme Court (SC) has established a new rule for automated elections, declaring that votes cast for nuisance candidates whose certificates of candidacy (COCs) have been cancelled or not given due course must be treated as stray votes and cannot be credited to any other candidate.

In a decision promulgated on December 3, 2025, the Court clarified that under the automated election system (AES), any ballot shaded for a nuisance candidate is invalid for tallying purposes and cannot be transferred to a legitimate candidate.

The Court abandoned long-standing doctrines developed during manual elections, where votes written for a nuisance candidate were sometimes credited to the legitimate contender due to uncertainty of voter intent.

This ruling arose from the case handled by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which initially declared a candidate a nuisance and transferred his votes to another contender.

New rule under AES

The Court laid out two definitive effects when a nuisance candidate is declared as such:

  • Votes clearly cast for the legitimate candidate are counted in that candidate’s favor; and
  • Votes clearly cast for the nuisance candidate, whose COC is cancelled or not given due course, are considered stray and shall not be counted in favor of any other candidate.

The Court anchored this rule on Sections 69 and 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, emphasizing that a nuisance candidate is legally regarded as someone who “never filed a certificate of candidacy,” making any votes cast for them stray by operation of law.

Rationale and Background

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, reasoned that automated elections eliminate the ambiguity that previously justified crediting votes for nuisance candidates to legitimate ones. 

It explained earlier rulings (Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, Santos v. COMELEC, and Zapanta v. COMELEC) which were premised on handwritten ballots during manual elections where misspellings, incomplete names, and similar surnames resulted in ‘vague votes.’

Under AES, the Court said, this situation no longer applies. 

“There will no longer be “vague votes” because the voting machines will base their count on the full names with aliases of each candidate, as shaded in the ballots,” it said, noting that printed names and machine reading remove any doubt as to voter intent.

The Court further warned: “A rule that is without unequivocal basis in law and supplants people’s choices on the basis of perceived errors in the way they had cast their vote usurps the very sovereign will that the rule intends to protect.”

The ruling stemmed from the petition of Marcos “Macoy” Cabrera Amutan, who ran for the Cavite fifth district provincial board in 2022 and was initially proclaimed a winner.

The COMELEC later declared another candidate, Alvic Madlangsakay Poblete, a nuisance candidate and credited votes cast for him to Francisco Paolo Poblete Crisostomo.

Subsequently, the COMELEC annulled Amutan’s proclamation and recognized Crisostomo as among the winning candidates, leading Amutan to seek relief from the Court.

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