Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Are the votes cast in favor of a nuisance candidate considered stray votes?
In the manual elections, it is not so much of a concern if a candidate is declared as a nuisance after the printing of the ballots. This is because the ballots for the manual elections simply contain blank spaces for each position and the voter is required to write the name of the candidate he chooses from the list of official candidates which excludes the name of the nuisance candidate.
The automated elections, however, present a different problem in the canvassing of votes. In the case of Casimira S. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 192221, November 13, 2012, Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. has summarized this problem in this wise: “With the adoption of automated election system in our country, one of the emerging concerns is the application of the law on nuisance candidates under a new voting system wherein voters indicate their choice of candidates by shading the oval corresponding to the name of their chosen candidate printed on the ballots, instead of writing the candidate’s name on the appropriate space provided in the ballots as in previous manual elections. If the name of a nuisance candidate whose certificate of candidacy had been cancelled by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) was still included or printed in the official ballots on election day, should the votes cast for such nuisance candidate be considered stray or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate?”
Casimira S. dela Cruz ran for and was elected member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bugasong, Antique in the 2001, 2004 and 2007 elections. On November 28, 2009, she filed her Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for Vice-Mayor of the same municipality. Subsequently, Aurelio dela Cruz filed a CoC for the same position. On December 6, 2009, Casimira filed a petition to declare Aurelio a nuisance candidate on the ground that he filed his certificate of candidacy for the vice-mayoralty position to put the election process in mockery and to cause confusion among voters due to the similarity of his surname with her surname. Casimira emphasized that she is considered a very strong candidate for the said position having been elected as member of the SB for three consecutive terms under the ticket of the NPC and obtained the fifth (2001), fourth (2004) and third (2007) highest number of votes. In contrast, Aurelio is an unknown in the political scene with no prior political experience as an elective official and no political party membership. Being a retiree and having no known business, Aurelio has no sufficient source of income but since the 2007 elections Casimira’s opponents have been prodding him to run for the same position as Casimira in order to sow confusion and thwart the will of the voters of Bugasong.
On January 29, 2010, the COMELEC First Division declared Aurelio as a nuisance candidate but his name was not deleted in the official ballot used during the May, 2010 elections. After the automated counting, the candidates garnered the following votes:
DELA CRUZ, AURELIO N. 532 votes (3rd)
DELA CRUZ, CASIMIRA S. 6389 votes (2nd)
PACETE, JOHN LLORD M. 6428 votes (1st)
John Lloyd M. Pacete was proclaimed Mayor of Bugasong by the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Casimira filed an election protest praying for (1) the tallying in her favor of the 532 votes cast for Aurelio; (2) the annulment of respondent Pacete’s proclamation as Vice-Mayor of Bugasong; and (3) her proclamation as winning candidate for the position of Vice-Mayor of Bugasong.
The Supreme Court granted Casimira’s petition and ruled that the votes cast in favor of Aurelio should be counted in her favor. Consequently, the high court declared Casimira as the elected Mayor of Bugasong, Antique.
The court rejected the contention of the proclaimed candidate (John Lloyd) that since the voters were properly informed of the cancellation of COC of Aurelio because COMELEC published the same before election day, the votes cast for Aurelio must be considered as stray votes. The court said that the voters’ constructive knowledge of such cancelled candidacy made their will more determinable, as it is then more logical to conclude that the votes cast for Aurelio could have been intended only for the legitimate candidate, Casimira. The possibility of confusion in names of candidates if the names of nuisance candidates remained on the ballots on election day, cannot be discounted or eliminated, even under the automated voting system especially considering that voters who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the name of the nuisance candidate instead of the bona fide candidate they intended to vote for could no longer ask for replacement ballots to correct the same.
The rule well-ensconced in our jurisprudence that laws and statutes governing election contests especially appreciation of ballots must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the electorate in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by technical infirmities. Indeed, as our electoral experience had demonstrated, such infirmities and delays in the delisting of nuisance candidates from both the Certified List of Candidates and Official Ballots only made possible the very evil sought to be prevented by the exclusion of nuisance candidates during elections.