SC: Lack of funds doesn't justify nuisance candidate status

The Supreme Court (SC) ruled on Monday that a lack of campaign funds does not justify branding a political hopeful as a nuisance candidate, emphasizing it undermines the constitutional right to equal access to opportunities for public service.

In its ruling, the SC overturned Comelec's resolution disqualifying an independent candidate in the 2022 presidential race who was declared a nuisance candidate due to lack of resources to sustain a nationwide campaign.

The court emphasized that factors such as financial capacity do not alone determine whether a candidate is mocking the election process or merely lacks resources to mount a campaign, and stressed that Comelec must present evidence demonstrating an individual's lack of genuine intent to seek public office.

Comelec chairperson George Garcia stated that among the 177 declared nuisance candidates in the 2025 polls, none were due to lack of funds and agreed with SC’s decision that poverty should not disqualify someone from running for office.

The ruling clarified that financial capacity cannot be conflated with a candidate's bona fide intention to run for public office, and may consider factors such as political party nomination and public recognition but these alone do not serve as definitive proof of lack of intent.