MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) En Banc has reversed the decision of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to cancel the Certificate of Candidacy (CoC) of senatorial aspirant Subair Guinthum Mustapha, ruling that low vote totals in a previous election or a perceived lack of popularity are unconstitutional grounds for disqualification. In a Decision promulgated on July 8, 2025, and penned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo, the Court emphatically reaffirmed that the right to candidacy is protected against limitations that amount to “shrouded property qualifications.” The ruling sets aside the COMELEC’s November 29, 2024 Resolution and permanently reinstated Mustapha as an official candidate for the 2025 National and Local Elections.
The controversy began after Mustapha, an official candidate of the Workers and Peasants Party (WPP), filed his CoC for senator. The COMELEC Law Department filed a motu proprio petition seeking to declare him a nuisance candidate, arguing he lacked the bona fide intent to run. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the cancellation, primarily citing circumstances that it believed showed a lack of seriousness, including Mustapha’s alleged failure to present a defined political agenda, his low turnout of votes in the 2022 NLE for a local position (Member, House of Representatives, in Lanao del Sur, where he gained only 2.01% of the total votes), and a general finding that he had no serious intention to mount a nationwide campaign and was merely seeking attention. Mustapha strongly refuted these claims, pointing to his law degree, specialization in Shari’ah Law, his recognized role as a Sultan in Marawi, his official nomination by the WPP, and his detailed platforms focused on labor rights and Mindanao peace and development.
The Supreme Court granted Mustapha’s petition, ruling that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion on both procedural and substantive grounds. On Substantive Grounds, the SC reiterated established jurisprudence that the core requirement for candidacy is the bona fide intent to seek and assume public office, not the probability of winning. The Court explicitly ruled that the circumstances relied upon by the COMELEC are immaterial and unconstitutional to prove a candidate is a nuisance. Specifically, the Court stated there is no logical connection between a candidate’s seriousness and their minimal votes in a previous election, stressing that allowing the COMELEC to disqualify based on anticipated low votes amounts to usurping the voters’ exclusive authority to decide a candidate’s fate on election day. Similarly, the Court warned against enforcing limitations that are “shrouded property qualifications,” noting that imposing criteria like a national campaign network or financial backing is constitutionally impermissible. Furthermore, the SC pointed out that under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, the submission of a program of government at the time of filing a CoC is discretionary, not mandatory, and thus cannot be a basis for disqualification.
On Procedural Due Process, the Court also criticized the COMELEC for issuing “cookie-cutter” motions and resolutions that were couched in sweeping, general statements. The decision highlighted that the COMELEC failed to specify the “exaggerated or frivolous promises” Mustapha supposedly made and did not adequately consider the evidence he submitted, particularly his affiliation with a recognized national party (WPP) and his active legal defense of his candidacy throughout the process.
The decision annuls the assailed COMELEC Resolutions solely regarding Mustapha and makes permanent the Temporary Restraining Order that had allowed his name to be included in the ballot. The Court underscored that while it supports the COMELEC’s zeal in eliminating true nuisance candidates—those who file merely to mock the process or confuse voters through similar names—the poll body must exercise its discretion with utmost scrutiny to avoid disqualifying otherwise legitimate candidates. The ruling serves as a strong reminder that the right to candidacy is a fundamental component of democracy, and that the electorate, not the poll body, holds the sole authority to determine a candidate’s winnability.
