GR 244274; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 244274, September 3, 2019
NORMAN CORDERO MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
On October 15, 2018, petitioner Norman Cordero Marquez filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Senator in the May 13, 2019 elections. He is a real estate broker and an independent candidate from Mountain Province. On October 22, 2018, the COMELEC Law Department, motu proprio, filed a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, arguing he was virtually unknown nationally and lacked proof of financial capacity to sustain a nationwide campaign. Marquez countered that he was known through his animal welfare advocacy work, social media presence, media interviews, and had support from donors. The COMELEC First Division cancelled his CoC on December 6, 2018, citing Martinez III v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, which stated the COMELEC has authority to eliminate nuisance candidates who obviously have no financial capacity for a nationwide campaign. The COMELEC En Banc denied his motion for reconsideration on January 23, 2019. Marquez filed this petition, arguing he could wage a cost-effective, social media-based nationwide campaign.
ISSUE
Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Marquez a nuisance candidate solely for his failure to prove financial capability to mount a nationwide campaign.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. It held that the COMELEC may NOT use lack of proof of financial capacity, by itself, as a ground to declare an aspirant for senator a nuisance candidate. While the case was moot due to the conclusion of the May 2019 elections, the Court applied the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception. The Court clarified that the controlling doctrine for declaring a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code is the absence of a bona fide intention to run for office. Financial capacity is merely a relevant factor in determining that intent, not an independent ground. The Court distinguished the case from Martinez III, which involved a local election where a nuisance candidate with a similar surname aimed to cause confusion. For national positions, the logistical challenge and financial rigor of a campaign are considerations, but the paramount test remains the candidate’s bona fide intent. The COMELEC’s sole reliance on perceived lack of financial capacity, without a clear finding on the lack of bona fide intent, constituted grave abuse of discretion.