The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that lack of financial resources for a nationwide campaign does not automatically render a candidate a nuisance, even if running for the presidency.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the SC en banc overturned resolutions of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that canceled the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of Juan Juan Olila Ollesca, an independent candidate in the 2022 presidential elections.

Ollesca, a business owner, filed his COC in October 2021. However, the COMELEC Law Department sought to declare him a nuisance candidate, arguing that he lacked nationwide recognition and resources to sustain a campaign.

The poll body’s Second Division granted the petition. The Comelec en banc later upheld the decision by denying Ollesca’s motion for reconsideration.

In reversing the Comelec rulings, the HIgh Court emphasized that the right to run for public office is fundamental in a democracy.

This right, however, must be balanced with the practical needs of COMELEC to ensure orderly elections. While too many candidates can complicate ballots and strain resources, the regulation of candidates must remain fair and just.

Nuisance candidates, as defined by law, are those who lack serious intent to run and merely aim to confuse voters or disrupt the electoral process, said the Court.

To disqualify someone as a nuisance candidate, the COMELEC must provide evidence showing the individual does not genuinely intend to seek office. Factors such as the absence of political party endorsement or public service experience may be considered, but the inability to finance a campaign or lack of nationwide popularity cannot be the sole basis for disqualification.

The SC stressed that imposing a financial requirement for candidacy would violate constitutional principles, as it would introduce a property-based qualification that discriminates against less affluent individuals.

The right to run for office is guaranteed regardless of wealth or status, and candidates should not be disqualified solely for financial reasons.

In Ollesca’s case, the SC found that the COMELEC relied on broad claims about his financial incapacity without substantiating them. The burden of proof rests on COMELEC, not the candidate, to demonstrate a lack of genuine intent. As the COMELEC failed to meet this standard, the SC ruled in Ollesca’s favor, reaffirming his right to run for office