G.R. No. 243968 . March 22, 2022
ANGELO CASTRO DE ALBAN, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC), COMELEC LAW DEPARTMENT AND COMELEC EDUCATION AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Angelo Castro De Alban filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for senator in the May 13, 2019 elections as an independent candidate. The Comelec Law Department motu proprio filed a petition to declare him a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging he had no bona fide intent to run and his candidacy would prevent a faithful determination of the electorate’s will, citing his lack of financial capacity to sustain a nationwide campaign. De Alban countered that he had a bona fide intention, presenting government platforms and claiming financial capacity through a paid website, social media advertising, support statements, and his travels. The Comelec First Division declared him a nuisance candidate, finding he failed to establish the financial capacity for a nationwide campaign, a ruling affirmed by the Comelec En Banc. De Alban filed a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that Section 69 of the OEC does not apply to senators as the OEC predates the 1987 Constitution ’s Senate, that RA 6646 impliedly repealed Section 69’s motu proprio authority, that the “bona fide intention” phrase in Section 69 is unconstitutional for vagueness and violating due process, suffrage, and equal protection, and that the Comelec had no legal grounds to declare him a nuisance based solely on his CoC. He prayed for his name to be included in the senatorial list for the 2019 elections.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition is moot and academic due to the conclusion of the 2019 elections.
2. Whether Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, authorizing the Comelec to motu proprio refuse or cancel a CoC of a nuisance candidate, applies to elections for all public officers, including senators.
3. Whether Republic Act No. 6646 impliedly repealed Section 69 of the OEC regarding the Comelec’s motu proprio authority.
4. Whether the phrase “by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office” in Section 69 of the OEC is unconstitutional for vagueness and for violating due process, the right of suffrage, and equal protection.
5. Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring De Alban a nuisance candidate based on lack of financial capacity and political machinery.

RULING

1. On Mootness: The petition is moot as the 2019 elections have concluded and winning senators proclaimed, making De Alban’s prayer to include his name on the ballots incapable of enforcement. However, the Court exercised jurisdiction under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception, as the issue of nuisance candidates recurs regularly in elections.
2. On Applicability of Section 69, OEC: The authority of the Comelec under Section 69 of the OEC applies to elections of all public officers, including senators. The OEC remains operative as a general law governing elections, and its provisions are not incompatible with the 1987 Constitution ’s creation of the Senate. The Court rejected the argument that the OEC is inapplicable due to its enactment before the 1987 Constitution .
3. On Implied Repeal by RA 6646: RA 6646 did not impliedly repeal Section 69 of the OEC. The laws can be harmonized: RA 6646 provides an additional remedy for registered candidates affected by nuisance candidates, while Section 69 grants the Comelec broader authority to act motu proprio or upon a petition from any interested party to protect the integrity of the election process.
4. On Constitutionality of Section 69’s “Bona Fide Intention” Phrase: The phrase is not unconstitutional. It provides a comprehensible standard that refers to a genuine intention to run for office, as opposed to a candidacy meant to mock the process or cause confusion. The provision is a valid exercise of the state’s police power to ensure orderly elections and a faithful determination of the electorate’s will. It does not violate due process, suffrage, or equal protection, as the right to run for office is not absolute and is subject to limitations like nuisance candidacy laws.
5. On Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court upheld the Comelec’s finding that De Alban lacked the bona fide intention to run, based on his failure to demonstrate financial capacity and political machinery necessary to wage a realistic nationwide campaign for senator. The Comelec’s assessment was not limited to the face of the CoC but considered the overall circumstances, including the substantial expenses required for a senatorial campaign and De Alban’s lack of a strong political organization. The Court emphasized that the Comelec’s authority under Section 69 is discretionary and aimed at preventing the election process from being undermined by candidacies not seriously aimed at office.