G.R. No. 244274 - Marquez vs. Commission on Elections

Case Summary (G.R. No. 244274)

Marquez’s Demonstrated Intent and Claimed Resources

Marquez asserted bona fide intent to run, citing his leadership in the Baguio Animal Welfare group, membership in governmental advisory committees, national media appearances, advocacy travels, and receipt of donations from local and international supporters. He emphasized the cost‐efficiency of a social‐media‐driven campaign and the potential backing of animal‐welfare constituencies.

COMELEC First Division and En Banc Rulings

Relying on this Court’s dicta in Martinez III v. HRET and Section 13 of RA 7166, the First Division held that Marquez’s failure to show capacity to meet expense ceilings (P5–P10 per registered voter) and his independent status justified cancellation of his CoC. The En Banc denied reconsideration, prompting Marquez’s petition for certiorari.

Jurisdiction and Reviewability of COMELEC’s Determination

The Office of the Solicitor General contended that COMELEC’s factual determinations on nuisance candidacy are not subject to certiorari. Marquez maintained that the COMELEC’s reliance on financial capacity alone exceeded its authority and constituted grave abuse of discretion.

Mootness and Exception of Capable of Repetition Yet Evading Review

Although the May 2019 elections concluded before resolution of the petition, the Court invoked the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception, given the recurrent short election period and COMELEC’s consistent practice of disqualifying candidates on similar financial‐capacity grounds.

Constitutional and Statutory Limits on Nuisance Candidate Disqualification

Under the 1987 Constitution, no property or wealth qualification may bar candidacy. Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and Rule 24 of Resolution No. 9523 authorize COMELEC to cancel CoCs only when a candidate files to mock the electoral process, cause voter confusion (e.g., by name similarity), or lacks bona fide intention to run—not for inability to prove campaign funding.

Property Qualification Prohibition: Maquera v. Borra

In Maquera v. Borra, the Court struck down a surety‐bond requirement as a constitutionally impermissible property qualification. Conditioning the right to be voted for on financial capacity mirrors that proscribed requirement and violates equal protection and the guarantee of equal access to public service.

Distinction Between Financial Capacity and Bona Fide Intention

Jurisprudence (Bullock v. Carter; Lubin v. Panish) confirms that financial tests alone are arbitrary and fail to address the true criterion for seriousness of candidacy. A bona fide intention to run may correlate with minimal support (e.g., petition signatures) but does not equate to proof of wealth or expense limits.

Inapplicability of RA 7166 Expense Ceilings as Disqualifier

Section 13 of RA 7166 sets campaign‐expense ceilings, not minimum funding requirements for candidacy. COMELEC’s use of those figures to disqualify on funding grounds imposed arbi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 244274)

Facts of the Case

On October 15, 2018, Norman Cordero Marquez filed his Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) for senator in the May 13, 2019 elections.
Marquez is a resident of Mountain Province, a real estate broker, co-founder and administrator of Baguio Animal Welfare (BAW), and an independent candidate.
On October 22, 2018, the COMELEC Law Department motu proprio petitioned to declare him a nuisance candidate, alleging he was virtually unknown nationally and lacked proof of financial capacity for a nationwide campaign.
Marquez countered that he enjoyed social-media recognition, media interviews, membership in advisory committees, advocacy travels, and donor support, and intended an internet-powered campaign.

Procedural History

December 6, 2018: COMELEC First Division cancelled Marquez’s CoC, citing Martinez III v. HRET and lack of financial capacity under Section 13, RA 7166.
January 23, 2019: COMELEC En Banc denied Marquez’s motion for reconsideration.
February 14, 2019: Marquez filed a petition for certiorari and injunctive relief with the Supreme Court.
May 13, 2019 elections concluded during pendency of the petition.

Issue

Whether COMELEC may, by itself, use lack of proof of financial capacity to sustain nationwide campaign expenses as a ground to declare a senatorial aspirant a nuisance candidate.

Relevant Legal Provisions

BP 881, Sec. 69: grounds for motu proprio refusal or cancellation of CoC for nuisance candidates.
COMELEC Resolution No. 9523, Rule 24 Sec. 1: mirrors Sec. 69, OEC, listing “no bona fide intention” and confusion-causing acts.
RA 7166, Sec. 13: sets campaign expense ceilings per registered voter but does not impose proof-of-capacity requirement.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Has bona fide intention and demonstrable support via BAW, task forces, government consultations, media interviews, travel, and donations.
Social media and online campaigns can meet constituency mobilization at lower cost than traditional campaigns.
Expense ceilings in RA 7166 represent limits, not mandatory personal outlay