By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Election with no choice: When names on the ballot
cause confusion and controversy
The Philippine Supreme Court in Zapanta v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 233016 (2019) tackled a tricky situation that many voters might find all too familiar: what happens when two candidates with almost identical names run for the same position?
This case involved Reynaldo Zapanta, who was declared a nuisance candidate because his name closely resembled that of the incumbent city councilor, Alfred Zapanta. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) canceled Reynaldo’s certificate of candidacy, but the question remained—how should the votes be counted when confusion is inevitable?
The heart of the matter lies in the voters’ right to a clear choice. Imagine walking into a polling place and seeing two candidates named “Alfred Zapanta” on the ballot. For many, especially those who may not be deeply familiar with the candidates, this similarity can cause genuine confusion. The Court recognized this problem and ruled that votes cast for the nuisance candidate should only be credited to the legitimate candidate if the ballot shows a vote for the nuisance candidate alone. If a voter marks both names, only one vote counts for the legitimate candidate. This nuanced approach aims to respect the voters’ intent while preventing unfair advantages.
What makes this case particularly interesting is the balance the Court tried to strike between preventing “nuisance” candidacies and protecting voters’ rights. Nuisance candidates are those who file to run without a serious intention to win, often to confuse voters or disrupt the election. The Court emphasized that such tactics undermine the democratic process and the faithful determination of the electorate’s true will. Yet, the Court also acknowledged that simply having a similar name does not automatically make someone a nuisance candidate; bona fide intention and genuine campaign efforts matter.
The case also highlighted the challenges of automated elections. Some might think that technology would eliminate confusion, but the Court pointed out that even with automated voting, voters can still mistakenly select the wrong candidate if names are too similar. Unlike manual voting, where a voter might ask for a replacement ballot, automated systems do not allow corrections once a vote is cast. This reality makes the careful handling of nuisance candidacies even more crucial.
For voters, this case serves as a reminder to be vigilant and informed. It’s important to know not just the names on the ballot but also the candidates’ backgrounds and platforms. For election officials, the ruling underscores the need for clear rules and procedures to handle cases of name confusion fairly and transparently. The goal is to ensure that every vote counts as intended and that the democratic process remains strong.
Ultimately, the Zapanta case sheds light on a less obvious but significant issue in Philippine elections: the right to a meaningful choice. When names on the ballot cause confusion, the very essence of democracy is at stake. The Court’s decision strives to protect voters from being disenfranchised by confusion while discouraging manipulative tactics that exploit name similarities. It’s a delicate balance, but one that is essential for the integrity of elections and the trust of the Filipino people.
(Note: This article is not intended to be legal advice. Always consult a lawyer if you have actual cases.)