MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a candidate’s poor performance in previous elections does not automatically make them a nuisance candidate in future polls.

In a decision penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the SC En Banc annulled the Commission on Elections’ (COMELEC) resolutions that cancelled the certificate of candidacy (COC) of Subair Guinthum Mustapha for senator in the 2025 elections.

Mustapha, who ran under the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP), was declared a nuisance candidate by the COMELEC Second Division, a ruling later affirmed by the COMELEC En Banc. The poll body’s Law Department cited his low vote count in the 2022 elections—where he garnered only 5,387 votes, or 2.01 percent of the total votes for the Lanao del Sur representative seat—as evidence that he had no genuine intent to run.

Mustapha contested the ruling, asserting that he was a serious candidate. He pointed to his academic background, leadership experience, labor advocacy, and commitment to governance reforms. He also cited his legal education, his nomination by WPP, and his role as a Sultan as proof of his sincerity to seek public office.

The SC issued a temporary restraining order during the case’s pendency, allowing Mustapha to participate in the May 2025 elections, though he did not win. Despite the elections being over, the Court still ruled on the matter, saying the issue was “capable of repetition yet evading review.”

In reversing the COMELEC, the SC said the poll body erred in linking a candidate’s seriousness to their vote count in previous elections.

“A candidate may be very serious in running for office and employs all possible legal means to obtain enough votes to win, but despite his or her seriousness and efforts, he or she may still lose. Conversely, a candidate may not have bona fide intent to run for public office but, because of sheer popularity, political machinery, or for a plethora of possible reasons, he or she manages to win an election,” the decision read.

The Court warned that if the COMELEC could disqualify candidates solely based on their chances of winning, it would be usurping the power of voters.

“In a democratic institution such as ours, it is the people who are vested with the sole authority to decide whether a candidate wins or not, and such decision is to be passed upon only during the day of election. The COMELEC, therefore, should not deprive the people of a legitimate choice by declaring candidates as nuisance candidates simply because it perceives that said candidates have low chances of winning as purportedly shown by their previous dismal votes,” the SC said.

The Court found that Mustapha’s 2022 loss did not prove a lack of seriousness in his 2025 senatorial bid. It noted that he submitted evidence showing his active membership in the WPP, a recognized political party with established platforms on labor and social justice, and that he presented a concrete program of government aimed at uplifting marginalized sectors and promoting peace in Mindanao.

While recognizing the COMELEC’s mandate to screen candidates, the SC cautioned the poll body against using invalid grounds, such as lack of funds or popularity, in determining nuisance candidates.

The Court further encouraged the COMELEC to adopt measures that would empower all candidates to participate meaningfully in elections, saying that “strengthening the right to candidacy will give all candidates real opportunity to prove their promise and provide voters with greater freedom and better information when choosing their representatives.”

In a concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stressed that the rule against nuisance candidates exists to protect voters’ will, reminding the COMELEC to avoid hastily disqualifying candidates without clear proof of insincerity.