NUISANCE CANDIDATES AND CREDITING OF VOTES

By Atty. Erwin M. Enad

Perhaps, the “walang forever” hugot line applies even to the unscrupulous practices of political
operators to field nuisance candidate with the same surnames of leading legitimate candidates. This
scheme is intended to confuse a voter when he reads the ballot containing the similar names of the
nuisance candidate and the legitimate candidate. The voter may shade the oval of either legitimate or
nuisance candidate or he may shade both ovals to ensure that the legitimate candidate is voted for.

In Santos vs. Comelec, 2018, G.R. No. 235058, September 04, 2018, the Supreme Court
addressed these tactics or tricks of fielding nuisance candidates and issued new pronouncements to
protect the legitimate candidates and the will of the electorate, to wit:

1. Votes cast for a nuisance candidate are credited to the legitimate candidate, who have similar
names, regardless whether the decision or resolution of the COMELEC in the NUISANCE
CASE became final and executory BEFORE OR AFTER the elections. This rule applies to
single-slot office like the Office of the Mayor or Governor. In this way, the will of the electorate
is respected.

2. In scenario where the office is a multi-slot office such as membership in the local sanggunian
and the registered voter voted for the nuisance candidate, the vote cast for the nuisance
candidate is credited to the legitimate candidate.

3. In scenario where the office is a multi-slot office, such as membership in the local sanggunian
and the registered voter voted for the legitimate candidate and nuisance candidate, having
similar names, the vote cast for the nuisance candidate is no longer credited to the legitimate
candidate, otherwise, the latter receives two votes from one voter. Only one count of vote must
be added to the legitimate candidate.