ATTY. JOSE SONNY G. MATULA, AS SENATORIAL ASPIRANT, AND THE WORKERS’ AND PEASANTS’ PARTY (WPP), PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) AND PASTOR APOLLO C. QUIBOLOY,…

Matula versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed by Atty. Jose Sonny G. Matula and the Workers' and Peasants' Party against the Commission on Elections and Pastor Apollo C. Quiboloy. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's refusal to deny due course to or cancel Quiboloy's certificate of candidacy for senator in the 2025 national elections, and its refusal to declare him a nuisance candidate. The case matters because it fixes the boundaries of the Commission's power over nuisance candidacies: the right to run is not absolute, but neither the Commission nor the Court may decide who among qualified aspirants deserves to run, for that choice belongs to the people.

Procedural History

Matula and the Workers' and Peasants' Party filed before the Commission on Elections a petition to deny due course to or cancel Quiboloy's certificate of candidacy, or in the alternative to declare him a nuisance candidate. The Commission's First Division dismissed the petition on four grounds: the petition combined grounds belonging to separate remedies in violation of its own rules; the petitioners failed to prove that Quiboloy is a nuisance candidate; the submission of an unauthorized certificate of nomination and acceptance is not a material misrepresentation; and no ground exists to disqualify him. The petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the Commission en banc denied, affirming the First Division. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the Commission.

Facts

Quiboloy, through his lawyer Atty. Mark Tolentino, filed a certificate of candidacy for senator in the 2025 national elections. Attached to it was a certificate of nomination and acceptance signed by Tolentino, stating that Quiboloy had been nominated by the Workers' and Peasants' Party.

Matula and the party denied that any such nomination took place. They alleged that Tolentino was neither an officer nor a member of the party, and that the unauthorized certificate of nomination and acceptance amounted to a material misrepresentation warranting cancellation. They further argued that Quiboloy should be declared a nuisance candidate, claiming that he filed his certificate only to deflect attention from the criminal cases for qualified human trafficking and sexual abuse of minors pending against him.

Tolentino insisted that he is an authorized signatory as party president, and Quiboloy answered that he believed in good faith in Tolentino's authority, that a petition to declare Tolentino and others legitimate officers of the party was pending, and that the pendency of criminal cases is not a ground for disqualification or for a nuisance declaration. He added that the issue of his relationship with the party had become moot because he would run as an independent candidate. The petitioners also pointed to the Commission's declaration of their other senatorial candidate, Mustapha, as a nuisance candidate, calling this a selective and discriminatory application of the rules.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in its application of procedural rules, including its prohibition against combining in one petition the grounds for a nuisance petition, a petition to deny due course or cancel a certificate of candidacy, and a petition for disqualification, and its supposed undue leniency toward the private respondent.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in refusing to declare the private respondent a nuisance candidate.

Applicable Provisions

Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, on disqualifications, provides:

SECTION 68. Disqualifications. – Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.

This provision supplies the exclusive grounds for disqualification, none of which covers the pendency of criminal cases or an unauthorized nomination.

Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, on nuisance candidates, provides:

SECTION 69. Nuisance candidates. – The Commission may, motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate.

This is the test the Court applies to the second issue: the pivotal criterion is the absence of a bona fide intention to run, shown by circumstances or acts.

Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, on the petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy, provides:

SECTION 78. Petition to deny due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy. – A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel a certificate of candidacy may be filed by the person exclusively on the ground that any material representation contained therein as required under Section 74 hereof is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than twenty-five days from the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than fifteen days before the election.

This provision shows that the remedy rests on a single ground, false material representation, distinct from the grounds of the other remedies.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Constitution empowers the Commission to promulgate rules of procedure to expedite the disposition of election cases, and the prohibition against combining grounds for separate remedies, though absent from the law, is a procedural matter within that power. The remedies rest on different grounds, require different evidence, and carry different consequences: a disqualified candidate may be substituted, while one whose certificate is denied due course or cancelled cannot be; votes for a nuisance candidate are credited to the legitimate candidate sought to be confused, while votes for a disqualified candidate are stray. The Court quoted its earlier observation:

As this Court has earlier observed in Fermin v. Commission on Elections, members of the bench and the bar have "indiscriminately interchanged" the remedies of a petition to deny due course or cancel certificate of candidacy and a petition for disqualification, thus "adding confusion to the already difficult state of our jurisprudence on election laws."

The Court added that the Commission did not dismiss on technical grounds alone, but ruled on the substantive merits as well; that allowing the belated verified answer served the interest of an informed decision; and that the burden of proof lay solely on the petitioners as complainants. On the second issue, the Court held that the Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion. The pendency of criminal cases and incarceration awaiting judgment are not grounds to declare one a nuisance candidate, and without further circumstances showing a lack of bona fide intent, the allegation of a strategic ploy remained unsubstantiated. The Court noted that the case had been rendered moot by the conclusion of the elections, but resolved it because election controversies are capable of repetition yet evading review.

Doctrine

The right to participate as a candidate in the electoral process is not absolute; the State may disqualify nuisance candidates, but it is not for the Commission or the Court to decide who among qualified aspirants deserves to run, for that choice is reserved to the people. A nuisance candidate is one shown, under Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, to have no bona fide intention to run, as demonstrated by circumstances or acts; the Commission may consider lack of nomination by an established party or lack of a past record of service, but the pendency of criminal cases and detention are not grounds. The remedies of disqualification under Section 68, declaration of nuisance under Section 69, and denial of due course or cancellation under Section 78 rest on different grounds, evidence, and consequences, so the Commission may prohibit their combination in one petition. The Commission's factual findings on election matters are upheld absent grave abuse of discretion, and it may construe, relax, or suspend its own rules in the interest of justice.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed; the Commission on Elections and Pastor Quiboloy prevailed, and the resolutions refusing to cancel Quiboloy's certificate of candidacy and to declare him a nuisance candidate stand.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the right to run is not absolute, but the choice of who deserves to run belongs to the people, not to the Commission or the Court. Examiners use this case on nuisance candidacies, the distinctions among the three election remedies, and the deference owed to the Commission's procedural rules.