1
May there be substitution of a nuisance candidate?
The Philippines is a democratic country where citizens have the
right to vote in political elections. Eligible voters register, and
politicians or would-be politicians file their Certificate of Candidacy
(COC) and begin campaigning. However, there has always been a
certain amount of drama in how things go with substitution and
nuisance candidates.
Substitution is the procedure by which one party in an action is
replaced by another.1 Is this allowed in the Philippine electoral
system? Verily, it is. Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code provides:
Sec. 77. Candidates in case of death, disqualification or
withdrawal of another. - If after the last day for the filing of
certificates of candidacy, an official candidate of a registered or
accredited political party dies, withdraws or is disqualified for
any cause, only a person belonging to, and certified by, the same
political party may file a certificate of candidacy to replace the
candidate who died, withdrew or was disqualified. The
substitute candidate nominated by the political party concerned
may file his certificate of candidacy for the office affected in
accordance with the preceding sections not later than mid-day of
the day of the election. If the death, withdrawal or
disqualification should occur between the day before the election
and mid-day of election day, said certificate may be filed with
any board of election inspectors in the political subdivision
where he is a candidate, or, in the case of candidates to be voted
for by the entire electorate of the country, with the Commission.2
On the other hand, a nuisance candidate is one who puts the
election process in mockery, cause confusion among the voters and
clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to
run for public office. Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code defines
a nuisance candidate as one who files a certificate of candidacy:
1. to put the election process in mockery or disrepute; or
2. to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the
names; or
3. in other circumstances which clearly demonstrate that the
candidate has NO bona fide intention to run for the office and to
prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.3
2
The Comelec may, motu propio or upon a verified petition,
declare a candidate a nuisance. A verified petition shall be filed
personally or through a duly authorized representative with the
COMELEC by any registered candidate for the same office within 5
days from the last day for the filing of certificate of candidacy. The
petition should be decided expeditiously such that it is covered by
summary proceedings. The decision of the COMELEC shall become
final and executory after 5 days from receipt of a copy thereof by
parties unless stayed by Supreme Court.4
Section 1, Rule 24 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, similarly
provides:
Rules of Procedure - Part V - Rule 24
Section 1. Grounds. - Any candidate for any elective office who
filed his certificate of candidacy 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 who
by other acts or circumstances is clearly demonstrated to have no
bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate
of candidacy has been filed, thus preventing a faithful
determination of the true will of the electorate, may be declared
a nuisance candidate and his certificate of candidacy may be
denied due course or may be cancelled.
Sec. 2. Who May File Petition to Declare a Candidate as Nuisance
Candidate. - Any registered candidate for the same elective
office may file with the Law Department of the Commission a
petition to declare a candidate as a nuisance candidate. The
Commission may, at any time before the election, motu proprio
refuse to give due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy
of any candidate on any of the grounds enumerated under
Section 1 of this Rule or when the substitute Certificate of
Candidacy is not a proper case of substitution under Section 77
of the Omnibus Election Code.
Sec. 3. Period to File the Petition. - The petition shall be filed
personally or through an authorized representative, within five
(5) days from the last day for the filing of certificates of
candidacy.
3
Sec. 4. Summary Proceeding. - The petition shall be heard
summarily after due notice.
Sec. 5. Delegation of Reception of Evidence. - The hearing and
reception of evidence may be delegated in like manner as
provided in Sec. 4 of the preceding Rule.5
The rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates
and the disqualification of candidates who have not evinced a bona
fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a
compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational,
objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the State takes into account
the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the
greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for
logistical confusion, not to mention the increased allocation of time
and resources in preparation for the election. These practical
difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the conduct
of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions
should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever
necessary and proper. Ultimately, a disorderly election is not merely a
textbook example of inefficiency, but a rot that erodes faith in our
democratic institutions.6
In light of the foregoing, is the cancellation of nuisance
candidate’s COC a valid ground for him/her to be substituted?
Election lawyer Romulo Macalintal7 explained:
“Any person who files COC only for the purpose of reserving
the position for another person or to withdraw his COC in favor
of a substitute, should be declared a nuisance candidate and his
COC will be canceled and denied due course. His COC is null
and void and therefore cannot be substituted. He is just making
a mockery of our election process.
It does not matter if such person is rich or nominated by a
political party, as long as it could be proven that he has no bona
fide or genuine intention to run for such office or to merely
reserve the position for another one, he can be declared as a
nuisance bet. If a petition to declare the filer a nuisance candidate
is then filed, the candidate should not be allowed to withdraw,
and likewise, cannot be substituted during the pendency of the
petition.
4
In a word, the COC should not be filed for reservation purposes
only but the one filing has the bona fide or genuine intention to
run for such office. It is time that the provision of the law on
substitution of candidates be properly applied and not be abused
which can cause confusion among the voters or make a mockery
of our electoral process.”8
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. While the law enumerated the
occasions where a candidate may be validly substituted, there is no
mention of the case where a candidate is excluded not only by
disqualification but also by denial and cancellation of his certificate of
candidacy. A nuisance candidate whose certificate of candidacy is
denied due course and/or cancelled may not be substituted. If the
intent of the lawmakers were, otherwise, they could have so easily and
conveniently included those persons whose certificates of candidacy
have been denied due course and/or cancelled under the provisions
of Section 78 of the Code which states that:
SECTION 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate
of candidacy. – A verified petition seeking to deny due course or
to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person
exclusively on the ground that any material representation
contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false.
The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five
days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and
shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than
fifteen days before the election.9
More importantly, under the express provisions of Section 77 of
the Code, not just any person, but only "an official candidate of a
registered or accredited political party" may be substituted.
In Bautista vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998) it
has been explicitly ruled that "a cancelled certificate does not give rise
to a valid candidacy".10
A person without a valid certificate of candidacy cannot be
considered a candidate in much the same way as any person who has
not filed any certificate of candidacy at all cannot, by any stretch of the
imagination, be a candidate at all.
5
The law clearly provides:
Sec. 73. Certificate of candidacy — No person shall be eligible for
any elective public office unless he files a sworn certificate of
candidacy within the period fixed herein.11
Now, how about those who never had the intention to run to
begin with, but filed their COC as a placeholder for a substitute who
has yet to make up their mind? There being no bona fide intention to
join the elections, a person who shows indications of being a
placeholder can be declared a nuisance candidate. Once the nuisance’s
COC is cancelled, it is deemed as if no COC was filed and, hence, no
substitution will be allowed.12
To conclude, a nuisance candidate’s COC is null and void thus
cannot in any way be substituted.
REFERENCES:
Legal Definition of Substitution
https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-substitution
1
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, s. 1985, Art. IX, Sec. 77
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1985/12/03/batas-pambansablg-881-s-1985/#:~:text=25%2C%201978%20EC)-,SECTION%2077,.%20Candidates%20in%20case
2
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, s. 1985, Art. IX, Sec. 69
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1985/12/03/batas-pambansablg-881-s-1985/#:~:text=25%2C%201971%20EC)-,SECTION%2069,.%20Nuisance%20candidates.%20%E2%80%93%20The
3
Who is a Nuisance Candidate?
https://ndvlaw.com/who-is-a-nuisance-candidate/
4
Proceedings Against Nuisance Candidates
https://comelec.gov.ph/index.html?r=References/RelatedLaws/Rul
esOfProcedures/RulesGoverningPleadings/ROPPart5/ROPPart5Rul
e24
5
6
Pamatong vs. Comelec G.R. No. 161872, 13 April 2004
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/apr2004/gr_161872_2004.htm
l
6
Atty. Romulo Macalintal
http://pupalumnews.weebly.com/home/atty-romulo-macalintal
7
Macalintal wants candidates withdrawing to favor substitutes
disqualified
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1497359/coc-filers-in-favor-of-asubstitute-should-be-declared-a-nuisance-candidate-election-lawyer
8
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, s. 1985, Art. IX, Sec. 78
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/1985/12/03/batas-pambansablg-881-s-1985/#:~:text=28%2C%201978%20EC)-,SECTION%2078,.%20Petition%20to%20deny
9
Bautista v COMELEC, G.R. No. 133840, November 13, 1998
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/nov1998/gr_133840_1998.htm
l
10
Miranda v Abaya and the COMELEC, G.R. No. 136351, July 28,
1999
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/jul1999/gr_136351_1999.html
11
Should the Comelec prohibit the substitution of candidates?
https://www.rappler.com/voices/thought-leaders/explainershould-comelec-prohibit-candidate-substitution
12