The Supreme Court has reiterated that not having enough money to fund a nationwide campaign does not automatically mean a candidate should be considered a nuisance candidate.

The Court emphasized that in a democracy, every citizen has the right to run for public office. However, this right must be balanced with the practical constraints faced by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) with respect to ensuring free, fair, and peaceful elections.

The Court also stressed that the pivotal criterion that characterizes a nuisance candidate lies in the absence of a genuine intent to run for public office. 

To declare someone a nuisance candidate, the COMELEC must show evidence to prove that the person does not genuinely or seriously intend to run for public office. It can look at factors such as a candidate’s inability to organize a campaign due to not being nominated by a political party, or the lack of a past record of public service.

However, the ability to fund a nationwide campaign, being a political party member, having nationwide recognition, and the likelihood of success do not alone determine whether a candidate has a genuine intention to run for public office.

Read the full text of the press release atRead the full text of the Decision at#SupremeCourtPH

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: