Marquez v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Norman Cordero Marquez filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for senator. The COMELEC Law Department, motu proprio, filed a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, arguing he was virtually unknown nationwide and lacked proof of financial capacity for a nationwide campaign. Procedural History: The COMELEC First Division cancelled Marquez' CoC, citing jurisprudence that nuisance candidates who obviously have no financial capacity or serious intention to mount a nationwide campaign can be eliminated. The COMELEC En Banc denied Marquez' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Marquez filed a petition for certiorari, arguing the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring him a nuisance candidate solely for failing to prove financial capacity. He contended that social media and other fundraising methods could sustain his campaign, and that Section 13 of RA 7166 sets expense ceilings, not personal resource requirements.
Issue(s)
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Marquez a nuisance candidate for his failure to prove financial capacity to mount a nationwide campaign; specifically, whether the COMELEC imposed an unconstitutional 'property qualification' and misapplied RA 7166. Whether the case is moot and academic given the conclusion of the May 13, 2019 elections, and if not, whether the Court should still rule on the issue of financial capacity as a ground for disqualification.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Resolution dated January 23, 2019 of the COMELEC En Banc is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Marquez a nuisance candidate on the ground of lack of proof of financial capacity.
Ratio Decidendi
On the COMELEC's grave abuse of discretion: The Court held that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion by imposing a 'property qualification' on candidates, which is constitutionally impermissible. Citing Maquera v. Borra, the Court reiterated that the right to be voted for cannot depend on a candidate's wealth. The COMELEC's action effectively imposed a financial capacity requirement that is not provided for in Section 69 of BP 881 (Omnibus Election Code) or Section 1 of Rule 24 of COMELEC Resolution No. 9523. The Court clarified that Section 13 of RA 7166 merely sets the allowable limits on campaign expenses for candidates and political parties and does not require proof of financial capacity. A candidate’s financial capacity does not necessarily equate to a lack of bona fide intention to run, and the COMELEC failed to show a reasonable correlation between proof of a bona fide intention and proof of financial capacity. The Court found it unnecessary to resolve the issues regarding social media, as the core issue of financial capacity as a ground for disqualification was already decided. On the issue of mootness: The Court ruled that while the elections have concluded, the case falls under the exception of being 'capable of repetition, yet evading review.' The COMELEC's practice of disqualifying candidates based on financial capacity, if not resolved, could affect future elections. The Court's power of judicial review is exercised to rule with finality on the issue.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) may not use lack of proof of financial capacity to sustain the financial rigors of waging a nationwide campaign, by itself, as a ground to declare an aspirant a nuisance candidate. Such a requirement imposes a constitutionally impermissible property qualification.