Title
Amad vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 258448
Decision Date
Jul 5, 2022
Amad, declared a nuisance candidate by COMELEC, challenged the ruling. SC found COMELEC abused discretion, violated TRO, and held it in contempt, though the case became moot post-elections.
nuisance candidate
official ballots
election cases

Case Summary (G.R. No. 133895)

Factual Background

On October 7, 2021, Wilson Caritero Amad filed his Certificate of Candidacy for Vice President for the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. On October 11, 2021, the COMELEC filed a motu proprio petition to declare Amad a nuisance candidate, alleging lack of a bona fide intention to run, absence of a nationwide support network, limited notoriety outside his locality, and his status as an independent candidate without party support.

Ruling of the COMELEC First Division

On December 13, 2021, the COMELEC (First Division) granted the motu proprio petition and cancelled Amad’s Certificate of Candidacy, declaring him a nuisance candidate. The Division held that an aspirant for national office must have an organized nationwide support capable of making him known even in remote areas, and concluded that Amad’s support appeared limited to Northern Mindanao and that social media presence without an established nationwide network was insufficient to demonstrate a bona fide statewide campaign.

COMELEC En Banc Order and Reconsideration

Wilson Caritero Amad filed a motion for reconsideration via email on December 20, 2021, at 5:00 p.m., in accordance with COMELEC Resolution No. 10673. The Office of the Clerk acknowledged receipt and assessed filing fees, which Amad paid and for which he submitted official receipts. On January 3, 2022, the COMELEC En Banc issued two orders: one noting receipt of payment and referring the matter to the ponente, and another denying the motion for reconsideration as defective and filed out of time, citing that the motion was filed at 5:01 p.m., was unverified, and lacked proof of payment.

Petition for Certiorari and Issues Raised

On January 4, 2022, Amad filed a Petition for Certiorari with an extremely urgent application for a Temporary Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. He raised two principal issues: whether his motion for reconsideration was defective and filed out of time; and whether he is a nuisance candidate. He contended that the motion was timely filed and verified, that proof of payment was submitted and acknowledged, and that the COMELEC’s grounds for declaring him a nuisance candidate improperly relied on evidence not enumerated as disqualifying in the Constitution or the Omnibus Election Code.

Temporary Restraining Order and Subsequent Motions

The Supreme Court issued a TRO on January 20, 2022, enjoining the COMELEC from enforcing the December 13, 2021 Resolution and the January 3, 2022 Order. Amad thereafter moved the Court to direct the COMELEC to include his name in the final official list of vice presidential candidates and to show cause for contempt for violating the TRO, noting media reports and a ballot face that excluded his name.

COMELEC Comments and Pre-election Activities

In its comments, the COMELEC argued that certiorari was inappropriate because the petition raised mere errors of judgment and that Amad had failed to prove a bona fide intention to run. The COMELEC further informed the Court that it had commenced pre-election activities before the TRO: generation of final ballot templates began January 9, 2022; loading of finalized candidate lists and generation of serialized machine-readable ballots occurred January 15, 2022; configuration of secure digital cards began January 19, 2022; and printing of serialized ballots began January 23, 2022. The COMELEC therefore argued that Amad’s petition had become moot and academic.

Court’s Analysis on Mootness and Jurisdiction

The Court acknowledged the COMELEC’s mootness argument but followed the precedent in Marquez v. Commission on Elections, which permits adjudication of moot electoral controversies under the exception for matters capable of repetition yet evading review. The Court found that similar issues were likely to recur in future elections and that judicial resolution was warranted despite the conclusion of the May 2022 NLE.

Court’s Finding: Grave Abuse in Denying the Motion for Reconsideration

The Court determined that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that Amad’s motion for reconsideration was defective and filed out of time. Under COMELEC Resolution No. 10673, filings by e-mail are considered filed on the date of the e-mail; the schedule for e-mail filing runs Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and e-mails received beyond 5:00 p.m. are considered filed at 8:00 a.m. of the next working day. The record showed that Amad’s e-mail was time stamped at 5:00 p.m., was verified, and that proof of payment had been submitted and acknowledged by the Office of the Clerk; thus the En Banc’s finding of untimeliness and defect was unsupported.

Court’s Finding: Grave Abuse in Declaring Amad a Nuisance Candidate

The Court also found grave abuse in the COMELEC’s declaration that Amad was a nuisance candidate. The Court reviewed Sec. 69, Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, which limits the grounds for declaring a nuisance candidate to filing to put the election process in mockery or cause disrepute, filing to cause confusion among voters by similarity of names or other circumstances, or circumstances that clearly demonstrate no bona fide intention to run so as to prevent a faithful determination of the electorate’s true will. The Court concluded that the Division’s reliance on Amad’s limited regional notoriety, lack of an established nationwide network, and independent status did not amount to any of the statutory grounds and therefore did not support a finding of lack of bona fide intention to run.

Violation of the TRO and Indirect Contempt

The Court found that the COMELEC violated the TRO by proceeding with pre-election activities and commencing printing of serialized ballots without including Amad’s name after the TRO issued on January 20, 2022. The Court discussed its contempt powers and prior jurisprudence, particularly Philippine Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. v. Commission on Elections, which held COMELEC officials liable for indirect contempt for failing to comply with a Court order. The Court concluded that indirect contempt had occurred.

Penalty and Scope of Reprimand

Applying

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms