Supreme Court: Low vote count not grounds to tag candidates as ‘nuisance’

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a candidate’s poor performance in previous elections is not a valid legal basis to declare them a nuisance candidate or remove their name from the ballot.

In a decision written by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo dated 8 July 2025, the SC annulled the Commission on Elections (Comelec) resolutions canceling the certificate of candidacy (COC) of senatorial aspirant Subair Guinthum Mustapha for the 2025 elections.

The Court emphasized that it is the voters, not election officials, who hold the authority to determine a candidate’s suitability for office on election day.

Mustapha, who filed his COC under the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP), was earlier declared a nuisance candidate by the Comelec Second Division. The poll body cited his 2022 loss in the Lanao del Sur congressional race, where he garnered only 5,387 votes, or 2.01 percent of total votes cast.

The ruling was affirmed by the Comelec en banc, which concluded that Mustapha lacked a “serious intention” to run a nationwide campaign.

Mustapha challenged the decision and presented evidence of his earnest intent, including his legal education, nomination by a recognized national political party, active involvement in labor advocacy, and a platform centered on national reforms.

The SC noted that while a temporary restraining order allowed Mustapha to run in the May 2025 elections, the case needed resolution due to its potential recurrence in future polls.

In reversing the Comelec ruling, the Court held there is no direct connection between a candidate’s seriousness to seek office and their previous vote count.

“A candidate may be very serious in running for office and employs all possible legal means to obtain enough votes to win, but despite his or her seriousness and efforts, he or she may still lose,” the Court said.

The SC warned that allowing the Comelec to disqualify candidates based on perceived chances of winning would constitute an overreach of authority at the expense of democratic choice.

It added that the poll body should not deprive the electorate of a legitimate option merely because it believes a candidate has slim chances of securing victory.

The Court also recognized Mustapha’s demonstrated sincerity through his party membership, his involvement in labor and social justice issues, and his platform focused on uplifting marginalized sectors and promoting peace in Mindanao.