Practice question
A wealthy aspirant arranges a sham candidacy expressly to confuse voters through a near-identical candidate name. After proper notice, a real hearing opportunity and consideration of disclosed evidence, the competent tribunal finds the statutory ground established by substantial evidence. The aspirant argues that financial capacity conclusively prevents a nuisance finding. Which answer is correct?
- Wealth does not defeat a properly established Section 69 ground; it is neither an automatic disqualification nor an immunity
- Every wealthy aspirant is exempt from Section 69
- Only poor persons may ever be nuisance candidates
- Due process becomes irrelevant if the aspirant is wealthy
- Funding a campaign automatically cures deliberately confusing conduct
Legal references
- Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, Omnibus Election Code, Section 69, nuisance candidates: https://lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1985/bp_881_1985.html
- Mustapha v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 277177, July 8, 2025, main decision, nuisance candidacy, substantial evidence and due process: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/jul2025/gr_277177_2025.html
- Marquez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 244274, September 3, 2019, main decision, financial capacity alone is not a nuisance ground: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/sep2019/gr_244274_2019.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.