NUISANCE CANDIDATE

During elections we are always faced with numerous candidates who vied for political change seriously or just fascinated to make a name in the history of our country. Through the years we are not spared from people running for public office who contribute confusion and pretend to be wannabes by making excuses to be accredited as candidates. These

persons are commonly dubbed as nuisance candidates creating a mockery out of the electoral process.

An example of this is the very famous Eddie Gil who run for presidential elections. Unlike the typical political nuisance, He has the

charisma and showmanship that captivated the nation. Though he never mounted a serious presidential campaign, his relentless mission of paying the country's national debt made his on- and off-screen controversies a daily funny side of primetime news.

Who is considered a nuisance candidate?

Under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code as amended by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6646 (The Electoral Reforms Law of 1987) defines a nuisance candidate as, a) one who files his candidacy to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, and b) one who causes confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates .

One may also be declared a nuisance candidate when there are acts or circumstances which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed, thus preventing the faithful determination of the true will of the electorate (COMELEC Resolution 8696, 11 November 2009).

Nuisance candidates confuse voters and harm bona fide candidates. Under the old manual system, a candidate who calls himself Nonoy Aquino would nullify votes intended for Noynoy Aquino; and Meny Villar for Manny Villar. While this kind of mayhem is minimized in automated elections because the names of the candidates are pre-printed and numbered, still the inclusion of publicity-seekers will unduly lengthen the already long ballot.1

Some political nuisance is part of the dirty tricks used by some major candidates to confuse the voters by having candidates with similar names of their political opponents to weaken their rivals chance of winning. The case of Joselito Pepito Cayetano is the political nuisance that haunted the senatorial aspiration of current Senator Alan Peter Cayetano.

In 2004 when Melchor Chavez and Francisco Chavez both ran for Senate, the former was disqualified as a nuisance candidate

Recently, in May 2010 Elections, Liberal Party standard bearer Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino III filed a petition before Comelec to declare Acosta a nuisance candidate, noting that Acostas intention is to "dislodge (Aquino) from his original position as first in the name order of candidates for President" to be printed on ballots in alphabetical order. Acostas disqualification has been timed after the ballots were printed. Because of this, the Comelec was also criticized for its delayed action. The Liberal Party believes the delayed decision was intentional in order to prevent the name of its standard bearer, Noynoy Aquino, from appearing first on the list of presidential candidates.

Philippine Daily Inquirer, By Artemio V. Panganiban, November 28,2009

Some who enjoy a certain level of social reputation can be asked by parties or fellow politicians to run in the elections in order to divide the votes of other candidates. These candidates, though legitimate in the eyes of the law, are no different from other nuisance candidates whose real intention is to collect money and not to win.

This is how political nuisance can disrupt the election process.

In elections for national positions such as President, Vice-President and Senator, the sheer logistical challenge posed by nuisance candidates gives compelling reason for the Commission to exercise its authority to eliminate nuisance candidates who obviously have no financial capacity or serious intention to mount a nationwide campaign. Celestino A. Martinez III vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal and Benhur L.

Salimbangon, G.R. No. 189034, January 11, 2010 .

In the case of Pamatong v. Comelec, the Supreme Court said the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not to mention increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. While nuisance candidates usually cite Section 26, Article II of the Constitutionwhich states that Filipinos are guaranteed equal access to opportunities for public serviceto defend their right to run for public of ce, the Court nonetheless ruled that Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right... the provision does not contain any judicially enforceable constitutional right but merely speci es a guideline for legislative or executive action. By saying that running for offce is only a privilege, not a right, limitations can be imposed through our laws, such as those found in the Omnibus Election Code and in COMELEC Resolutions that provide the bases

for declaring a candidate a nuisance candidate, such as a lack of bona fide intention to run, which can be demonstrated by a candidate who does not have a platform of government or is not capable of waging a nationwide campaign.

The prohibition against nuisance candidates is aimed precisely at preventing uncertainty and confusion in ascertaining the true will of the electorate.

In the case of Pamatong vs. COMELEC the Supreme Court said that the rationale behind the prohibition against nuisance candidates and the disqualific; ation of candidates who have not evinced a bona fide intention to run for office is easy to divine. The State has a compelling interest to ensure that its electoral exercises are rational, objective, and orderly. Towards this end, the state takes into account the practical considerations in conducting elections. Inevitably, the greater the number of candidates, the greater the opportunities for logistical confusion, not the mention the increased allocation of time and resources in preparation for the election. These practical difficulties should, of course, never exempt the State from the conduct of a mandated electoral exercise. At the same time, remedial actions should be available to alleviate these logistical hardships, whenever necessary and proper.

The Commission on Elections (Comelec), has all the authority to decide whether a candidate are fly-by-nights, would-be messiahs, and other such nuisance candidates. The commission have already became strict in removing nuisance candidates for the presidential elections but there are many of them running for lower positions. Further, with its authority to declare

a candidate a nuisance, it also has the power to declare that someone who is actually a nuisance is a serious candidate, by allowing that person to run.

Its about time for us to have the courage to vote for good people, even if traditionally we think they will not earn enough votes and therefore cannot win. If everybody thought like that, by default, the traditional politicians will always win. We must be vigilant. It is our countrys future that is at stake. Let us make a difference and vote for the right people.