Case Summary (G.R. No. 243968)
Petitioner
Angelo Castro De Alban, independent senatorial aspirant.
Respondents
Commission on Elections (Comelec), Comelec Law Department, and Comelec Education and Information Department.
Key Dates
• October 22, 2018 – Comelec Law Department filed motu proprio petition.
• December 6, 2018 – Comelec First Division declared De Alban a nuisance candidate.
• January 28, 2019 – Comelec En Banc denied reconsideration.
• March 22, 2022 – Supreme Court issued decision on certiorari.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article IX-C, Sec. 2[7]).
• Omnibus Election Code (BP Blg. 881), Section 69 on nuisance candidates.
• Republic Act No. 6646 (Electoral Reform Law of 1987).
• Republic Act No. 7166 (1991 amendments).
Constitutional Issue
Whether Comelec has authority under Section 69, OEC, to motu proprio refuse due course to or cancel a CoC of a nuisance candidate—particularly concerning the “bona fide intention” requirement and alleged absence of financial capacity.
Factual Background
De Alban declared his profession as lawyer and teacher but did not specify campaign funds. Comelec alleged lack of bona fide intention and financial capacity to mount a nationwide campaign, which purportedly would frustrate the electorate’s true will.
Comelec First Division and En Banc Rulings
The First Division cited the high cost of national campaigns and found De Alban unfit to sustain expenses. The En Banc affirmed, emphasizing Comelec’s burden to ensure bona fide intent and substantial resources, while noting the absence of a consolidated political machinery.
Petitioner’s Contentions
- Section 69 OEC predates the 1987 Constitution’s Senate and thus does not apply to senatorial CoCs.
- RA 6646 impliedly repealed Section 69’s motu proprio power, limiting petitions to rival registered candidates.
- The phrase “other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate…” is vague and violates due process, equal protection, and suffrage rights.
- Comelec erred by focusing on financial capacity not required in the CoC form.
Office of the Solicitor General’s Position
The OEC governs all elections and coexists with RA 6646. Section 69 is constitutional: the right to run is a privilege subject to nuisance candidate limitations. Comelec acted reasonably based on De Alban’s lack of financial and organizational support.
Justiciability and Exception
Although the 2019 election outcome rendered the petition moot, the issue falls under the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception given recurring nuisance candidate disputes.
Applicability of OEC and Section 69
Section 2, OEC, extends its governance to all public-office elections. Amendments in RA 6646, RA 7166, and subsequent laws preserved the OEC’s fundamental status, including Section 69’s motu proprio power.
Reconciliation with RA 6646
No irreconcilable conflict exists. Section 5 of RA 6646 merely prescribes procedure for petitions by interested parties; it does not negate OEC’s motu proprio authority. Legislative history confirms that Section 69 was retained in full.
Legislative History and Interpretation
Debates in the Batasan Pambansa and 1986 Constitutional Commission demonstrate that the “acts or circumstances” clause was intended to cover bad-faith candidacies that mock or confuse the electoral process. The insertion of “clearly” confines Comelec’s discretion to evident abuses.
Due Process and Vagueness
Section 69’s criteria are sufficiently definite and salvaged by judicial construction. It provides fair notice of forbidden conduct and avoids unbridled enforcement discretion, negating vagueness challenges.
Equal Protection and Suffrage
Legitimate classification distinguishes bona fide from nuisance candidates, promoting orderly elections. The right to run is a privilege, not a fundamental right, and may bear objective, reasonable restrictions without unreasonably curtailing suffrage.
Comelec’s Quasi-Judicial Duty
While Comelec must ministerially receive all CoCs, cancellation invokes its quasi-judicial function
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 243968)
Antecedents
- Angelo Castro De Alban filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for senator in the May 13, 2019 elections as an independent candidate, declaring his profession as “lawyer and teacher.”
- On October 22, 2018, the Comelec Law Department motu proprio filed a petition to declare De Alban a nuisance candidate, alleging no bona fide intention to run and inability to sustain nationwide campaign expenses without proof of financial capacity.
- De Alban countered with evidence of his bona fide intention: a platform covering education, agriculture, health, and housing; a paid campaign website; social media advertisements on Facebook; support statements from various groups; and his frequent domestic and international travels as proof of financial capacity.
- On December 6, 2018, the Comelec First Division declared De Alban a nuisance candidate for failing to establish financial capacity to wage a nationwide campaign, citing the expense limits under RA 7166.
- De Alban moved for reconsideration, arguing that financial capacity is not a qualification to run and that the law imposes only a ceiling, not a floor, on campaign expenditures.
- On January 28, 2019, the Comelec En Banc denied reconsideration, emphasizing Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) and placing on De Alban the burden to prove his bona fide intention and sufficient resources.
Comelec Decisions and Rationale
- The First Division relied on authorized expense limits for senatorial candidates and concluded De Alban lacked a strong, consolidated political machinery to cover nationwide campaign costs.
- The En Banc held that while no minimum expenditure is required by law, a national campaign entails huge expenses beyond those of “ordinary men,” and De Alban failed to prove adequate resources despite his travels indicating some financial capacity.
- The En Banc asserted its motu proprio power under Section 69 and noted it was not duty-bound to produce evidence for De Alban, placing on him the onus to submit proof of financial capability.
Petition for Certiorari and Parties’ Contentions
- De Alban filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the Comelec in declaring him a nuisance candidate.
- He argued:
• Section 69 OEC does not apply to senatorial candidates as it predates the 1987 Senate under the 1987 Constitution.
• RA 6646 impliedly repealed the OEC’s motu proprio provision, restricting Section 69 actions to petitions by interested parties.
• The phrase “by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention…” is unconstitutionally vague, violates due process, suffrage rights, and equal protection.
• The Comelec had no legal or factual basis to cancel his CoC solely for lack of financial capacity. - The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) maintained:
• The OEC governs all elections of public officers and coexists with RA 6646.
• Section 69 is constitutional as a permissible limitation on the privilege to run.
• The Comelec acted within its authority given De Alban’s alleged lack of financial capacity and political machinery.
Justiciability: Mootness and the “Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review” Exception
- The 2019 election’s conclusion rendered the petition moot and academic, since relief