The Supreme Court (SC) has overturned a long-standing election doctrine and ruled that votes cast for “nuisance” candidates under the automated election system (AES) must be treated strictly as stray votes, and cannot be credited to any other candidate.

In a decision dated 3 December 2025 and penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court abandoned the previous rule that allowed votes for a disqualified nuisance candidate to be counted in favor of a legitimate candidate with a similar name—an interpretation rooted in jurisprudence during the era of manual elections.

The SC held that “there can be no crediting of votes cast for a nuisance candidate in favor of any other candidate,” emphasizing that the logic of older cases no longer applies in the AES era.

Under the ruling, votes clearly cast for the legitimate candidate will be counted in their favor, while votes cast for the nuisance candidate—whose certificate of candidacy (CoC) was cancelled or denied due course—shall be considered stray and not transferred to any other contender.

The Court noted that the previous doctrine had “no legal basis,” pointing to Sections 69 and 211 of the Omnibus Election Code, which treat a nuisance candidate as someone who is deemed never to have filed a CoC, rendering votes for them void.

The case stemmed from a petition filed by Marcos “Macoy” Cabrera Amutan, who was initially proclaimed the winner of a Board Member seat for Cavite’s fifth district in the 2022 elections. His victory was overturned after a rival, Alvic Madlangsakay Poblete, was declared a nuisance candidate.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) then applied the old rule, crediting Poblete’s votes to another candidate, Francisco Paolo Poblete Crisostomo—leading to the annulment of Amutan’s proclamation and Crisostomo’s declaration as winner.

The SC ruling reverses this outcome and invalidates the transfer of votes.

The Court explained that earlier jurisprudence, including Dela Cruz v. COMELEC, applied to handwritten ballots during manual elections, where ambiguous or incomplete names created interpretive challenges. Under the AES, however, voters simply shade ovals corresponding to full names or aliases, eliminating ambiguity and removing the need for judicial interpretation of voter intent.