By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado

ON NUISANCE CANDIDATES

Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy if it is shown that the said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. 

In this upcoming 2025 National and Local Elections, the above-cited provision will be implemented through Resolution No. 11046 dated 28 August 2024 (RULES OF PROCEDURE ON THE FILING OF: (1) PETITION TO DENY DUE COURSE TO OR CANCEL CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY; (2) PETITION TO DECLARE A NUISACE CANDIDATE; AND (3) PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE 2025 NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS INCLUDING THE BANGSAMORO AUTONOMUS REGION FOR MUSLIM MINDANAO PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS). The deadline set by the COMELEC is five (5) days from the last day of the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy. 

With respect to crediting of votes of a candidate declared as nuisance candidate, the Supreme Court held in a line of cases that it should not be declared as stray votes and should be credited to the legitimate candidate. In the case of Pryde Henry Teves vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 262622 (February 14, 2023), which case involves the 2022 Gubernatorial Elections in Negros Oriental, the Court credited the votes for Ruel Degamo, a nuisance candidate, in favor of the legitimate candidate Roel Degamo and held that even in the conduct of automated elections, it should not be treated as an automatic safeguard against the confusion brought by nuisance candidates. The Court held: “Even the conduct of automated elections should not be treated as an automatic safeguard against the confusion brought by nuisance candidates. The complexity of the human mind cannot be easily comprehended. In an election by which different ballots are encountered every three years, it cannot be said that the human eye would be trained enough to immediately spot the difference between two candidates bearing similarities in names. This is especially true where the ballot has to be a one page document and has to be adjusted to accommodate all possible candidates, which makes it more challenging to read and for which the dominant part of the name used in the ballot gets immediate attention. Moreover, during the campaign period, it is the name of candidates and the way by which they introduced themselves that causes a lasting memory recall among the voters. When the people who knows Roel Degamo is suddenly confronted with a name Ruel Degamo, which was used only in the 2022 National and Local Elections, the same would easily cause confusion as early as the campaign period until the shading of oval in the ballot in an automated election.”

In the said case, the Court held that the circumstances surrounding the case shows that Grego Gaudia Degamo purposely used the nickname “Rule” to cause confusion to the electorate. As observed by the COMELEC, it was only for the 2022 Elections that he used “Ruel Degamo”. He was known as Grego and merely used the nickname “Ruel” recently. He used the surname of those who has taken custody of him even though he was not legally adopted by them. Clearly, from this case, the sudden or recent use of nickname by a person sought to be declared as nuisance candidate may be used against him to assert that he did the same to cause confusion among the voters and to make mockery out of the election process.