G.R. No. 258435, June 28, 2022
NORMAN CORDERO MARQUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Norman Cordero Marquez filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. The COMELEC Law Department, acting motu proprio, filed a petition to declare him a nuisance candidate. The petition alleged that Marquez filed his COC to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, had no bona fide intention to run, and was not publicly known nationwide except possibly in his locality. It also noted he was running as an independent candidate without a political party’s support, which decreased his chances for a rigorous nationwide campaign. In his Answer, Marquez asserted his genuine intention to serve, denied being unknown nationally, and claimed active campaigning and nationwide recognition as an animal welfare advocate through his work with Baguio Animal Welfare and other groups, featuring in various media and online forums. He argued circumstances had changed in his favor with expanded advocacy machinery and funding. The COMELEC First Division, by Resolution dated December 13, 2021, declared him a nuisance candidate and canceled his COC, finding his claims of achievements and popularity unsubstantiated and that he failed to prove he was known well enough nationwide to persuade sufficient electorate support. The COMELEC En Banc denied his motion for reconsideration on January 3, 2022.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Norman Cordero Marquez a nuisance candidate and canceling his Certificate of Candidacy for Senator.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that the COMELEC’s conclusions—that Marquez had no bona fide intention to run and was not known nationwide—were not supported by substantial evidence but were based on mere speculation and presumptions. The COMELEC improperly shifted the burden of proof to Marquez to demonstrate his bona fide intention and nationwide familiarity, contrary to the principle that a COC is presumed valid and the burden lies with the party seeking its cancellation. Marquez’s detailed Answer, outlining his advocacy work, media features, and program of governance, constituted sufficient evidence of his genuine intention to run. The COMELEC’s disregard of this evidence and its failure to conduct a proper hearing or consider contrary facts constituted a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment. The Court emphasized that the nuisance candidate provision aims to prevent the mockery of the election process and ensure a faithful determination of the electorate’s will, but its application must be based on clear evidence of intent to discredit the process, not on a candidate’s perceived lack of resources or popularity. The COMELEC’s resolutions were annulled and set aside.