Protecting Voter Intent: Counting Votes for Bona Fide Candidates Over Nuisance Candidates

In the May 2010 automated elections, a nuisance candidate's name remained on the official ballot despite a final COMELEC ruling against him. When voters shaded the oval beside his name, those votes were initially declared stray — a decision that nearly cost the bona fide candidate the election. The Supreme Court stepped in to clarify a critical rule: votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose surname matches a legitimate candidate's should be counted for the bona fide candidate, not discarded.

The Facts of the Case

Casimira S. Dela Cruz ran for Vice-Mayor of Bugasong, Antique in the May 10, 2010 elections under the National People's Coalition. Aurelio N. Dela Cruz, who shared her surname, also filed a certificate of candidacy for the same position. Petitioner filed a petition to declare Aurelio a nuisance candidate, arguing that his candidacy was meant to cause confusion among voters due to the similarity of surnames.

On January 29, 2010, the COMELEC First Division declared Aurelio a nuisance candidate and cancelled his certificate of candidacy. However, his name was not removed from the official ballots. On May 1, 2010, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 8844, which ordered that votes for disqualified or nuisance candidates whose names remained on the ballots be considered stray.

The election results showed John Lloyd M. Pacete winning with 6,428 votes against petitioner's 6,389 votes — a margin of only 39 votes. Aurelio received 532 votes. Had these votes been counted for petitioner, she would have won with 6,921 votes.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether votes cast for a nuisance candidate whose certificate of candidacy had been cancelled should be considered stray or counted in favor of the bona fide candidate with a similar surname.

Private respondent argued that under Sections 72 and 211(24) of the Omnibus Election Code, votes for any candidate disqualified by final judgment must be considered stray. The COMELEC likewise maintained that the automated election system justified changing the previous rule.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring the assailed portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 null and void. The Court distinguished between two types of cases: a petition to disqualify a candidate under Section 68 of the OEC, and a petition to cancel or deny due course to a certificate of candidacy under Section 69 (nuisance candidates) or Section 78 (material misrepresentation).

A person whose certificate is cancelled under Section 69 or 78 is not treated as a candidate at all — as if they never filed a certificate. This is different from a candidate disqualified under Section 68, who remains a candidate until disqualified. The rules on stray votes under Sections 72 and 211(24) apply to disqualification cases, not to cancellation of certificates of candidacy.

The Court upheld COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, which provides that votes for a nuisance candidate declared as such by final judgment, particularly where the nuisance candidate has the same surname as the bona fide candidate, shall be counted and tallied for the bona fide candidate. This rule, the Court held, remains good law even under the automated election system.

Why the Ruling Matters

The Court emphasized that the primordial objective of election laws is to give effect to, rather than frustrate, the will of the voter. The presence of a nuisance candidate with a similar surname creates an uneven playing field where the bona fide candidate risks losing significant votes. Even under automation, voters who mistakenly shaded the oval beside the nuisance candidate's name could not ask for replacement ballots.

The Court also noted that COMELEC had sufficient time before the elections to delete Aurelio's name from the official ballots but failed to do so. The voters' constructive knowledge of the cancelled candidacy made their will more determinable — it was logical to conclude that votes for Aurelio were intended for the legitimate candidate, petitioner.

Practical Takeaways

• Nuisance candidates are different from disqualified candidates. A petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy under Section 69 (nuisance) or Section 78 (false material representation) is distinct from a disqualification case under Section 68. Different rules apply to each.

• Votes for nuisance candidates with similar surnames count for the bona fide candidate. Under COMELEC Resolution No. 4116, votes cast for a nuisance candidate declared as such by final judgment — particularly one sharing a surname with a legitimate candidate — must be counted for the bona fide candidate, not treated as stray.

• Automated elections did not change this rule. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the shift to automated voting justified discarding these votes. Voter intent remains paramount regardless of voting technology.

• COMELEC's failure to delete names has consequences. When the COMELEC fails to remove a nuisance candidate's name from official ballots in time, it cannot later penalize voters for the confusion it failed to prevent.

• Election laws are liberally construed. Courts interpret election rules to protect the will of the electorate, not to defeat it through technicalities.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.