TITLE: Marquez v.
Comelec
GR NO. 258435
DATE: June 28, 2022
SUBJECT MATTER: Nuisance Candidate
DOCTRINES: 1. Despite the mootness of a case, the Court may still render a
decision if it finds that: (a) there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; (2) the case involves a situation of exceptional
character and is of paramount public interest; (3) the issues
raised require the formulation of controlling principles to guide
the Bench, the Bar and the public; and (4) the case is capable
of repetition yet evading review.
2. In administrative cases, such as election cases, the burden of
proof falls on the complainant. When the complainant fails to
show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases
his claims, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his
exception or defense.
3. The matter of the candidate being known (or unknown) should
not be taken against that candidate but is best left to the
electorate. As it is, our democratic and republican state is
based on effective representation. Thus, the electorate's
choices must be protected and respected.
4. Contempt has been defined as "a willful disregard or
disobedience of a public authority." It comprehends a
despising of the authority, justice or dignity of a court. The
power to punish contempt is exercised on the preservative and
not on the vindictive principle. Only occasionally should a court
invoke its inherent power to punish contempt to retain that
respect without which the administration of justice may falter or
fail.
FACTS: This case involves Norman Cordero Marquez (petitioner) challenging
the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) decision to declare his a
nuisance candidate and cancel his Certificate of Candidacy for
Senator in the May 2022 National and Local Elections. Marquez filed
a Petition for Certiorari with the SC, arguing that COMELEC acted
with grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE/S: Is Marquez a nuisance candidate?
RULING: NO.
First off, the petition has become moot with the conclusion of the 2022
National and Local Elections and the proclamation as senators-elect
of the top 12 senatorial candidates receiving the highest number of
votes. "[A petition] ceases to present a justiciable controversy by
virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a
declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such
instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would
be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the
petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or
dismiss it on the ground of mootness. This is because the judgment
will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect
because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced."
First. While the COMELEC, in this instance, has cited an apparently
different ground to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, that is, he
is "virtually not known to the entire country" and has no political party
to make himself known, these circumstances are closely intertwined to
the ground previously used against him in Marquez v. COMELEC, i.e.,
that he had no financial capacity to wage a nationwide campaign. The
COMELEC is merely referring to it by another name.
In fine, the so-called nuisance status of Marquez, although apparently
grounded on his supposed absence of bona fide intent to run for
public office, actually hinged on his perceived lack of capacity to wage
a successful election campaign. In this regard, the Omnibus Election
Code provides that an "election campaign" refers to any act designed
to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate which shall
include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other
groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or
undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies,
parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting
votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against
a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding
interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed
to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or
against a candidate.[64]History would show that election campaigns
invariably entail the expenditure of funds regardless of the
methodology employed. A simple door-to-door campaign and the
airing of political advertisements on the radio and television, while
varied in scope, both require candidates to spend money. The
difference lies only in how much money a candidate is willing, able,
and allowed[66] to spend. Hence, for equating the perceived inability
of Marquez to mount an election campaign—with his supposed
absence of bona fide intention to run for office, the COMELEC
indirectly violated the proscription against conflating a candidate's
financial capacity with bona fide intention to run as Marquez v.
COMELEC had aptly decreed.
Verily, the grounds for the disqualification of Marquez in this case are
in truth shrouded property qualifications employed by the COMELEC
to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate. In other words, the
attempt of the COMELEC to pass off the inability of Marquez to wage
an election campaign as an indication of lack of bona fide intent to run
for office is unconstitutional and will not be allowed by the Court. For
what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly.
Another. The COMELEC unfairly shifted to Marquez the burden of
proving his genuine intention to run for office. As the COMELEC itself
held, "he who alleges must prove." Thus, it is the COMELEC Law
Department which should adduce evidence in support of its petition to
declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, not the other way around.
To repeat, the burden is upon the COMELEC to prove, by substantial
evidence, that the candidacy of Marquez falls within any of the three
(3) grounds provided in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.
As shown, the COMELEC relied on bare allegations by its Law
Department in concluding that Marquez is a nuisance candidate, thus:
(a) Marquez has no bona fide intention to run for Senator as he is
virtually unknown to the entire country; and (b) Marquez is running for
a national position as an independent candidate, which only "adds a
burden to the task of making himself known to the entire country within
the short span of time during the campaign period." To be sure,
allegation, without more, is not evidence.
To emphasize, bona fide intent is present when a candidate is able to
demonstrate that he or she is serious in running for office. Several
circumstances belie the COMELEC's conclusion that Marquez did not
have any bona fide intention to run for Senator. On the contrary,
Marquez has been consistently and vigorously asserting his right to be
voted for. Consider:
● His COC is a sworn document wherein he declared his
candidacy for the position of Senator;
● This is not the first time he filed a COC;
● Though he was initially declared a nuisance candidate in the
2019 Elections, he availed of judicial remedies to assert his
right and prevailed before this Court;
● Now that the COMELEC canceled his COC for the second
time, he once again sought redress before this Court to protect
his interest.
● He exercised utmost vigilance in the protection of his
candidacy. He wrote several letters, and filed various motions
informing the Court of the actions of the COMELEC excluding
his name from the official ballot as a candidate for Senator;
● He even crafted a Program of Governance in the event he
wins the election.
Indeed, the intent of Marquez to run for an elective post is indubitable.
For on two (2) separate occasions, he sought judicial remedy from this
Court to claim the privilege to run for public office. It is contrary to
human experience that a candidate would go through such a rigorous
process, not once but twice, if he or she has actually no intent to run.
Next. The COMELEC considered non-membership in a political party
as proof of Marquez's alleged lack of bona fide intent to run for the
position of Senator. Certainly, he should not be prejudiced by this fact
alone, for neither the law nor the rules impose such requirement on
persons intending to run for public office
Finally. The COMELEC insists that Marquez is not virtually known to
the entire country except possibly in the locality where he resides.
Assuming this to be true, it does not, standing alone, suffice to declare
one a nuisance candidate. In fact, it is not among the grounds for
declaration of a nuisance candidate enumerated in Section 69 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Thus, to avoid a recurrence of similar incidents in the future, the
COMELEC is strongly urged to adopt a practicable plan or timeline to
ensure that all cases which may result in the inclusion or exclusion of
a candidate from the ballot are resolved at the earliest possible time.
In formulating the same, the COMELEC should bear in mind that its
dispositions are subject to review by this Court and that the Court also
needs ample time to resolve such cases prior to election day. It should
further consider that the aggrieved party will likely seek injunctive relief
from the Court which might affect its timeline for necessary election
preparations.
