MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday has overturned the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruling that the inability to fund a nationwide campaign does not automatically classify a candidate as a nuisance.

In a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC En Banc set aside the resolutions of the Comelec that canceled businessman Juan Juan Olila Ollesca’s Certificate of Candidacy (COC). 

Ollesca was declared a nuisance candidate in the 2022 presidential elections, due to a lack of funds for a nationwide campaign.

Ollesca, who filed his COC as an independent candidate in October 2021, was initially targeted by the Comelec Law Department, which argued that his lack of national recognition and financial resources made him incapable of mounting a competitive campaign.

“The Comelec simply relied on a general and sweeping allegation of petitioner’s financial incapability to mount a decent and viable campaign, which is a prohibited property requirement,” the decision read.

The decision said that the Comelec did not explain or provide proof of how including the petitioner on the ballots would affect the accurate reflection of the voters’ choice.

“It failed to discuss, much less adduce evidence, showing how petitioner’s inclusion in the ballots would prevent the faithful determination of the electorate’s will,” it said.

Despite the Comelec’s Second Division granting the petition and declaring Ollesca a nuisance candidate, the SC ruled that every citizen has the constitutional right to run for public office, regardless of their financial status. 

The Court said that while Comelec faces practical challenges in managing elections—such as the potential confusion caused by a large number of candidates—it cannot disqualify someone solely on the grounds of their financial limitations.

The Court further said that a candidate’s ability to fund a nationwide campaign, their political party affiliation, or the likelihood of their success does not, by itself, constitute proof of a lack of genuine intent to run for office. 

In fact, the SC clarified that such criteria would unfairly impose a property requirement, which is prohibited by the Constitution. 

The right to run for office, the Court noted, must be available to all citizens, regardless of wealth.

To be considered a nuisance candidate, the SC ruled, Comelec must provide concrete evidence demonstrating that the individual does not seriously intend to run for office. 

This may include factors such as the lack of campaign organization or previous public service records, it said. 

However, Ollesca’s financial incapacity alone could not be used as grounds to declare him a nuisance candidate, according to the High Court.

In this case, the Comelec had shifted the burden of proof onto Ollesca, but the Court ruled that it was the Commission’s responsibility to present sufficient evidence of his lack of genuine intent to run.