Comelec chair: SC guidance has the force of law

This was the response of Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman George Erwin Garcia when asked to comment on the recent decision of the Supreme Court pertaining to a nuisance bet complaint.

“A guidance from the SC on a provision of law will be treated by Comelec as law by itself,” Garcia said in a one-sentence reply to a query.

Garcia was referring to an 11 November 2025 ruling by the SC En Banc, which held that using a nickname similar to that of another candidate in a previous election is insufficient to establish an intent to confuse voters and is not a basis for declaring a candidate a nuisance.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., stated that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Charles “DB” Savellano a nuisance candidate in the 2025 elections for using a nickname similar to that of a previously registered candidate.

Court records show that Savellano ran as Ilocos Sur First District Representative in the 2025 elections. His opponent, Ronald V. Singson, asked the COMELEC to declare him a nuisance candidate due to the similarity of Savellano’s nickname to Singson’s rival in the previous elections, Deogracias Victor “DV” Savellano.

Singson alleged that the similarity of “DB” and “DV” would confuse the electorate and also claimed that Savellano lacked a genuine intention to run for public office because of his absence from campaign events and lack of media interviews.

Savellano was initially declared by the COMELEC a nuisance candidate, and his certificate of candidacy (COC) was canceled. However, the SC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the COMELEC from declaring Savellano a nuisance candidate while the case was pending.

Citing Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 or the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, the SC noted three grounds to declare a candidate a nuisance:

1. Filing a COC to mock the election process,

2. Confusing voters by using a similar name with a registered candidate, or

3. Other circumstances showing that the candidate has no genuine intention to run for office.

In this case, the COMELEC, aware that it could not invoke the second ground because the similarity of names was not between registered candidates, pointed to the confusion allegedly created by the use of “DB” and categorized it as a potential nuisance. This allowed Savellano to participate in the 2025 elections, although he was not elected.

The COMELEC held that Savellano chose this nickname even though he was not known as “DB” in the locality, and that in seeking to confuse voters, he lacked genuine intent to run for public office.

The SC disagreed. It reiterated that deliberately using a nickname to confuse voters, whether the similarity is between registered candidates or not, shows a lack of genuine intent to run for public office. The SC, however, clarified that having similar nicknames by itself is not enough to prove an intent to confuse voters.

Savellano indicated in his COC that his name on the ballot would appear as “Charles ‘DB’ Savellano”, which is different from the previous candidate’s name, “Deogracias Victor ‘DV’ Savellano.” The SC noted that this choice to include his complete name rather than emphasize the nickname runs counter to the intention to confuse voters.

The SC also held that simply alleging a candidate lacks real intent to run because they have not launched a campaign is insufficient to classify them as a nuisance, unless supported by substantial evidence. Savellano explained that the campaign period had not yet started, so he had not engaged with the public beyond filing his COC.

“To fault petitioner for not taking part in any campaign events or activities to boost his candidacy when the COMELEC itself has set the calendar for these activities would doubtless be unfair and run contrary to COMELEC’s own rules,” the SC said.

The SC ordered the reinstatement of Savellano’s COC, declaring him a candidate for the First District of Ilocos Sur in the 2025 elections, and made permanent the TRO issued against the COMELEC.