Practice question
Two bona fide candidates have similar surnames. The evidence establishes genuine efforts by each to run, and no deliberate confusion, mockery or other statutory nuisance circumstance is proved. A rival insists surname similarity automatically compels cancellation. Which answer is best?
- Every shared surname conclusively proves nuisance candidacy
- The candidate with less wealth must always be cancelled
- The asserted automatic rule is incorrect; the statutory ground and required evidence must be established
- The receiving clerk must choose the more famous candidate
- Both candidates automatically lose their citizenship
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.