By James Jimenez
Right about now, more than a hundred Senatorial hopefuls – and an untold number of other aspirants wanting to run for local office – are waiting for their opportunity to defend themselves against a Commission on Elections decision declaring them as nuisance candidates. Many of these people will be making the single biggest mistake they can make: hitting pause on their campaigns until they are able to win their right to be on the official list of candidates by arguing before the COMELEC.
Without a doubt, if a candidate waits to present their case before the COMELEC – perhaps hoping for some dramatic courtroom moment where, by the strength of their argumentation, they are able to force the COMELEC to admit error – then they have already lost.
In order to beat the nuisance rap, candidates have to do the following:
Prove Serious Intent
One of the most important aspects of defending against a petition to be declared a nuisance (nuisance petition) is proving that you have a serious and genuine intention to run for public office. Remember that the Supreme Court has already told the COMELEC in no uncertain terms: a candidate cannot be declared a nuisance because he lacks money to “wage a national campaign.” Nor can a candidate, the Court has declared, be called a nuisance simply because he is not affiliated with a political party or is a relative unknown.
Apart from the more ‘technical reasons’ – filing a candidacy to make a mockery of the elections or to cause confusion among voters arising from a similarity in names – the only avenue left open to the COMELEC is to prove that a candidate has no bona fide intention to run for office – and there lots of ways to shut that argument down.
For instance, a candidate can establish bona fide intent by presenting a concrete political platform or manifesto to prove that you are campaigning based on clear objectives; clear and realistic strategies; with reasonable expectations of success. The key, however, is not to wait to present this to the COMELEC but to make the case directly to the public.
The candidate under fire should always address the electorate, not the COMELEC. If the candidate can win over the public, the powers that be will be forced to abandon their preconceived notions of the candidate’s legitimacy.
The candidate, therefore, should act as though there were no pending controversy before the election management body. Keep in mind that even a motu proprio petition to declare a candidate a nuisance does not come with an injunction against acting like a legitimate candidate – so why should the candidate under fire indulge the COMELEC’s framing of the issue? Why cower in fear like a bogus candidate when you can be as bold and as audacious as the most established of politicians?
And what does a legit politician do?
First, a legit politician wastes no time in letting the public know that their candidacy is active. They do this by threading the early campaigning loophole strategically – holding public gatherings, staging events, and generally mobilizing whatever resources are available and leveraging the power of social media to increase both reach and impact. In today’s social media powered world, a single viral moment can be worth more than a hundred appearances on traditional talkshows.
Second, a legit politician will take the pains to flesh out their campaign promises. Over the days and weeks following the filing of COCs but before the actual start of the campaign period, legit politicians will give the public sneak peeks into their mindset – giving ever more detail to previously generic political promises. Aspirants accused by COMELEC of being nuisances cannot afford not to do the same.
Rather than fulminating about how excellent their motivations are, and harping on their academic achievements and whatnot, these other aspirants would be well advised instead to demonstrate that they do have a working knowledge of how government works, and that their plans aren’t mere wild swings at the moon. So, instead of just saying, for example that you want everyone to receive a universal basic income because every Filipino deserves a share of the country’s wealth and so on, maybe identify how government will be able to afford your promised universal basic income. Instead of promising that your plan will “benefit all,” be realistic and identify exactly who the beneficiaries are likely to be – something like “all adults making zero to less than minimum wage monthly.” Saying it that way, instead of waxing lyrical about how your plan is going to bootstrap a struggling nation, will make people think twice about dismissing you.
And finally, the candidate fighting for his political survival must not meekly accept that the burden of proof is on them to prove their legitimacy. It is a cherished principle of our democratic system that he who alleges a thing bears the burden of proving that allegation. To put it more bluntly, if the COMELEC calls you a nuisance, COMELEC must prove that you are a nuisance.
I have witnessed countless hearings where the candidate under fire made the fatal mistake of being so worked up and overwrought that they rant and rave about their constitutional rights and all that. A better approach would be to demand from the COMELEC proof that everything you’ve done as a candidate falls short of proving your bona fide intent. Nine times out of ten, a savvy candidate can easily prove that the petitioner’s case is based on speculative or insubstantial claims – like the whole “you need to campaign to win; you have no income to sustain a campaign; ergo you cannot possibly have truly intended to win” fallacy.
