Article by: Angelica Garcia

In Subair Guinthum Mustapha vs. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 277177, July 8, 2025), the Supreme Court annulled the COMELEC’s resolutions cancelling the Certificate of Candidacy (COC) of Subair Guinthum Mustapha for the 2025 senatorial elections, ruling that a candidate’s low vote count in past elections does not automatically make them a nuisance candidate.

The Court clarified that a candidate may be very serious in running for office and employ all possible legal means to obtain enough votes to win, but despite their seriousness and efforts, they may still lose. Conversely, a candidate may not have bona fide intent to run for public office but, because of sheer popularity, political machinery, or other reasons, still manage to win an election. Therefore, low votes in previous elections cannot be used as a basis to conclude lack of sincere intent to run.

The ruling stressed that the COMELEC cannot equate a candidate’s previous electoral performance with their seriousness to seek public office. The people alone, through the ballot, have the authority to decide whether a candidate is deserving of office, and such judgment must be made only on Election Day. To hold otherwise would allow the COMELEC to pre-empt the electorate’s choice, contrary to democratic principles.

In this case, Mustapha presented evidence demonstrating his genuine intent to run for senator, including his nomination by the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP), his involvement in labor issues, his advocacy for social justice reforms, and his program of governance aimed at uplifting marginalized communities and promoting development in Mindanao. His low vote count in a previous local election was insufficient to justify cancelling his COC for a national position.

The Court concluded that while the COMELEC may prevent nuisance candidates from undermining the electoral process, it must do so with caution and strictly within the bounds of the law. The prohibition against nuisance candidates must not be used to deprive the electorate of legitimate choices, especially on grounds previously invalidated by the Court such as lack of financial capacity or perceived unpopularity.