Bill on nuisance candidates a double-edged sword

The House of Representatives recently passed a bill aimed at curbing nuisance candidates by adding more grounds for declaring a candidate as such, with violators facing a ₱500,000 fine.

Once enacted, this is certain to ease the job of the Comelec in determining nuisance candidates in the wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

The measure, however, has ignited heated debates, with some hailing it as a crucial step to ensure the sanctity of elections, while others fear it could become a tool for silencing the marginalized, ultimately reducing the already limited political representation of the poor.

A closer look at the bill appears to show that it targets individuals whose candidacies are deemed to be disruptive to the electoral process—those who have no genuine intention of winning or those whose candidacies are intended to divide the vote. This measure intends to prevent the exploitation of the system by individuals or groups that use elections to make a mockery of democracy. This makes sense. Elections are a critical part of any democratic society, and the integrity of the process must be maintained. For years, we have witnessed scenarios where candidates, often without the resources or platforms, clutter the ballot, making it more challenging for voters to make informed choices. The new bill, proponents argue, offers a solution to this issue by giving election authorities more tools to filter out individuals who exploit the system.

But the bill’s implications extend far beyond its immediate intent. The most glaring issue is its potential to disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized sectors of society.

Many of those who run for office with little chance of success—often those who appear as “nuisance candidates”—are from the marginalized sectors. They may be underfunded or without access to the political machinery needed to mount a traditional campaign, but a significant number of these candidates run because they feel voiceless and lack political representation. But the ₱500,000 fine is an enormous deterrent for these individuals and this amount is a financial burden that could cripple their livelihoods.

In the Philippines where the poor and disenfranchised have limited access to formal political power, this bill could further narrow the already limited opportunities they have to participate in the political process.

The new provisions may also create a chilling effect, where potential candidates—especially those from underrepresented groups—are discouraged from running altogether. The criteria for “genuine” candidacies are subjective. The bill’s proponents argue that it will prevent abuse by unscrupulous individuals who are more interested in fame or personal gain rather than serving the public. But without a clear, equitable process for determining a nuisance candidacy, the new bill could end up curbing freedom of speech and political participation for those who need it most.

So, how can we protect the integrity of our elections without stifling the very essence of democracy? It is crucial to consider not only the harmful impact of nuisance candidates but also the broader consequences of restricting access to the political arena for those who need it most. The bill, while well-meaning, may exacerbate the gap between the political elite and ordinary Filipinos.

For democracy to truly thrive, it must be inclusive—not just of the powerful, but of the voices of the powerless, as well.