Resolution No. 8743

The Supreme Court said:

"This does not mean that this Court is declaring national politics as the sole preserve of the so-called 'traditional politicians.' We commend petitioners interest in presenting an alternative to traditional politics. However, given the complexity of the present political exercise, which involves the election of government officials from the President down to city and municipal councilors, We recognize the need to keep the number of candidates down to a manageable level, and this means keeping those who are not serious in running for office out of the race.¹"

In connection with the May 10, 2010 elections, there were a total of two hundred seventy seven (277) candidates for the positions of President, Vice-President and Senator who filed their certificates of candidacy. The Commission thru its Law Department received and processed the certificates of candidacy and the results of evaluation thereof are embodied in Resolution No. 8713², the dispositive portion of which reads:

Premises considered, the Commission, after due deliberation, RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES, to approve the foregoing recommendation of the Law Department, as follows:

1) to give due course to the following Certificates of Candidacy for the positions of President, Vice-President, and Senators:

1-a. For President:

Name of Candidate	Party Affiliation / Nomination
1. AQUINO, BENIGNO SIMEON III C.	LIBERAL Party
2. DE LOS REYES, JOHN CARLOS G.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
3. EJERCITO ESTRADA, JOSEPH M.	PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO Party
4. GORDON, RICHARD J.	BAGUMBAYAN-VOLUNTEERS FOR A NEW PHILIPPINES Party
5. MADRIGAL, JAMBY AS.	Independent
6. TEODORO, GILBERTO JR. C.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD Coalition
7. VILLANUEVA, EDUARDO C.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party
8. VILLAR, MANUEL JR. B.	NACIONALISTA Party

1-b. For Vice-President:

Name of Candidate	Party Affiliation / Nomination
1. BINAY, JEJOMAR C.	PDP-LABAN Party
2. CHIPECO, DOMINADOR JR. F.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
3. FERNANDO, BAYANI F.	BAGUMBAYAN-VOLUNTEERS FOR A NEW PHILIPPINES Party
4. LEGARDA, LOREN B.	NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION Party
5. MANZANO, EDUARDO B.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD Coalition
6. ROXAS, MANUEL A.	LIBERAL Party
7. SONZA, JOSE Y.	KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN Party
8. YASAY, PERFECTO R.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party

1-c. For Senator:

	Name of Candidate	Party Affiliation / Nomination
1.	ACOSTA, JR. NEREUS O.	LIBERAL Party
2.	ALBANI, SHARIFF IBRAHIM H.	KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN Party
3.	ALONTO, ZAFRULLAH M.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party
4.	BARAQUEL, ANA THERESIA H.	LIBERAL Party
5.	BAUTISTA, J.V. LARION	PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO Party
6.	BAUTISTA, MARTIN D.	LIBERAL Party
7.	BELLO, SILVESTRE III H.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD
8.	BIAZON, ROZZANO RUFINO B.	LIBERAL Party
9.	BONG REVILLA, RAMON, JR. B.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD
10.	CAUNAN, HENRY B.	PDP-LABAN Party
11.	CAYETANO, PILAR JULIANA S.	NACIONALISTA Party
12.	DAVID, RIZALITO Y.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
13.	DE VENECIA, JOSE III P.	PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO Party
14.	DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, MIRIAM P.	PEOPLE'S REFORM Party
15.	DRILON, FRANKLIN M.	LIBERAL Party
16.	ENRILE, JUAN PONCE	PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO Party
17.	ESTRADA, JINGGOY E.	PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO Party
18.	GUICO, RAMON, JR. N.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD
19.	GUINGONA, TEOFISTO III D.	LIBERAL Party
20.	IMBONG, JO AUREA M.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
21.	INCENCIO, MA. KATHERINE LUNINGNING R.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party
22.	LACSON, ALEXANDER L.	LIBERAL Party
23.	LAMBINO, RAUL L.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD
24.	LANGIT, REY M.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD
25.	LAO, YASMIN B.	LIBERAL Party
26.	LAPID, MANUEL M.	LAKAS-KAMPI CMD
27.	LOOD, ALMA A.	KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN Party
28.	LOZADA, JOSE APOLINARIO JR. L.	PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO Party
29.	MAAMBONG, REGALADO E.	KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN Party
30.	MARCOS, FERDINAND JR. R.	NACIONALISTA Party
31.	MAZA, LIZA L.	Independent
32.	MILLORA, MA. JUDEA G.	KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN Party
33.	MITRA, RAMON B.	NACIONALISTA Party
34.	OCAMPO, RAMONCITO P.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party
35.	OCAMPO, SATURNINO C.	BAYAN MUNA Party
36.	OPLE, SUSAN V.	NACIONALISTA Party
37.	OSMEA, SERGIO III D.	Independent
38.	PALPARAN, JOVITO JR. S.	Independent
39.	PAPIN, IMELDA A.	KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN Party
40.	PAREDES, ZOSIMO JESUS II M.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
41.	PIMENTEL, GWENDOLYN D.	PDP-LABAN Party
42.	PLAZA, RODOLFO RODRIGO G.	NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION Party
43.	PRINCESA, REYNALDO R.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party
44.	QUERUBIN, ARIEL O.	NACIONALISTA Party
45.	RECTO, RALPH G.	LIBERAL Party
46.	REMULLA, GILBERT CESAR C.	NACIONALISTA Party
47.	RIOZA-PLAZO MARIA GRACIA DV.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
48.	ROCO, SONIA M.	LIBERAL Party
49.	SISON, ADRIAN O.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
50.	SOTTO, VICENTE III C.	NATIONALIST PEOPLE'S COALITION Party
51.	TAMANO, ADEL A.	NACIONALISTA Party
52.	TAMAYO, REGINALD B.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
53.	TARRAZONA, HECTOR M.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
54.	TATAD, FRANCISCO S.	GRAND ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY/GABAYBAYAN
55.	TINSAY, ALEXANDER B.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party
56.	VALDEHUESA, MANUEL JR. E.	ANG KAPATIRAN Party
57.	VILLANUEVA, HECTOR L.	KILUSANG BAGONG LIPUNAN Party
58.	VIRGINES, ISRAEL N.	BANGON PILIPINAS Party

2) to CANCEL/DENY DUE COURSE to the following Certificates of Candidacy for President, Vice-President, and Senator:

2-a. For President:

1.	ABITONA, ORLANDO C.
2.	ACOSTA, VETALLANO S.
3.	ADAM, BENJAMIN R.
4.	AGUIRRE, NOEL F.
5.	AGUSTIN, LEVI G.
6.	ALCAZAR, JESUS A.
7.	ALIMORONG, DAVID T.
8.	ALPUERTO, WALDO E.
9.	APURA, MARIA MAGDALENA L.
10.	ASUELO, RAMON F.
11.	ATIENZA, ARTURO A.
12.	BALING, FELIX JR. M.
13.	BALINGIT, JESUS JOSE PAULINO ALFONSO E.
14.	BALITE, ERNESTO D.
15.	BAAGA, MARIANO B.
16.	BAUZON, EDNA F.
17.	BESID, FLORO D.
18.	BOLOR, AGUSTIN M.
19.	CAALIM, BELTRAN S.
20.	CANTAL, FELIX C.
21.	CAPULAR, ELIZABETH S.
22.	CARO, RONALDO M.
23.	CARREON, CARMELO D.
24.	CASTILLA, QUITERIO M.
25.	CASTILLO, NOLI L.
26.	CATURAN, MIGUELINO L.
27.	CLARETE, RAFAEL B.
28.	CORPUS, PAULINO P.
29.	CRESPO, MARIO B.
30.	DULALIA, ELIAS B.
31.	ENRIQUEZ, EDNA T.
32.	ERVAS, JUAN E.
33.	ESPIRITU, OLYMPIO G.
34.	ESTACIO, FELIZA G.
35.	ESTRADA, MARY LOU B.
36.	FABELLA, VICENTE F.
37.	FACTOR, GENEROSO J.
38.	FERNANDEZ, EDUARDO P.
39.	FERNANDEZ, FERNAND A.
40.	GALLA, BARTOLOME L.
41.	GARCIA, GILBERT A.
42.	GILI, GUILLERMO JR. F.
43.	GUILLERGAN, GHERRY P.
44.	GUILLERMO, EDNA M.
45.	HARA, CALIOPE O.
46.	LAO, JOSE D.
47.	LAWAG, VICTOR S.
48.	LEUTERIO, JOSE ISABELO M.
49.	LOPE, WENDELL H.
50.	LOZANO, OLIVER O.
51.	MADERA, RIGOBERTO JR. J.
52.	MAGTIRA, DANIEL R.
53.	MALAPAD, MARISA L.
54.	MANAOIS, JOSE VOLTAIRE F.
55.	MASORONG, EDDIE A.
56.	MEGIO, NANCY E.
57.	MERCADO, NORBERTO L.
58.	MURILLO, EMELIANO P.
59.	MURILLO, JOSEFINA G.
60.	NABOR, SATURNINO V.
61.	NAVARRO, MARCELINO DONATO BHEN P.
62.	NOCON, VALERIANO III P.
63.	OCAMPO, JOSE S.
64.	PADERNOS, ERNESTO M.
65.	PAMATONG, ELLY V.
66.	PAZ, SIMEON JR. R.
67.	PELLE, EUGENE N.
68.	PEARANDA, LUZMINDA R.
69.	PERLAS, JESUS NICANOR P.
70.	PIDOY, RODELIO S.
71.	PIJAO, FERDINAND JOSE D.
72.	PELIGRINO, PETER B.
73.	PO, MANUEL A.
74.	PUSING, OSCAR R.
75.	QUIAPON, ABDEL NOEL M.
76.	RAMOS, ERNESTO DG.
77.	REGONIA, ARTURO M.
78.	RELOJ, VALERIANO D.
79.	REYES, JOSE RIZAL M.
80.	ROCA, CESAR C.
81.	RODRIGUEZ, ROMEO T.
82.	ROXAS, PATRICIO R.
83.	SADIOSA, ENRIQUE R.
84.	SAMIA, GREGORIO C.
85.	SANTOSIDAD, REBECCA C.
86.	SISIT, FELOMENA S.
87.	TAGLE, PEDRITO D.
88.	USMAN, IBRAHIM D.
89.	VELASQUEZ, VICENTE R.
90.	VILLAFLOR, SULTAN MIN BILAD A.
91.	VILLEGAS, MICHAEL JASON C.

2-b. For Vice-President:

1.	ALI, ALICMAN U.
2.	BERSALES, ALMIRANTE SR . G.
3.	CADION, LEO M.
4.	FALCONE, BALDOMERO C.
5.	DEL MUNDO, GERARDO A.
6.	GONZALES, ANDREW M.
7.	JAYCO, MAMERTO D.
8.	ORPILLA, EDUARDO F.
9.	PAGLICAWAN, TIRSO JR. N.
10.	PASAYLON, SEGUNDO C.
11.	PERANTE, ICASIANO R.
12.	POLICARPIO, CRISCELA D.

2-c. For Senator:

 

1.	ABARRONDO, EVELIA L.
2.	ABEJAR, JESUS M.
3.	ADOLFO, JOSEPH P.
4.	AFABLE, AGNES T.
5.	ANGELES, JOSEPH S.
6.	AYES, EXPEDITO A.
7.	BANIQUED, BERNARDO SR. G.
8.	BARICAUA, MACARIO C.
9.	BARBASA, RAUL J.
10.	BELLO, FRED N.
11.	BERNARDINO, AERIC P.
12.	BETIL, CESAR C.
13.	BORDALLO, ROMEO SR. I.
14.	BRAHIM, ABAS M.
15.	BRUCE, HERNANDO B.
16.	BUCLATIN, NORMA D.A.
17.	BUENDIA, ALFONSO ROMEO C.
18.	BULILAN, POL L.
19.	BUSAING, JULIO M.
20.	CABANTAC, RICARDO R.
21.	CABRERA, RODRIGO E.
22.	CADAG, VICTORIO ANGELO A.
23.	CALE, FRANKLIN M.
24.	CALDERON, AMADO M.
25.	CALVARA, NICOLAS R.
26.	CASANOVA, RODOLFO O.
27.	CASTELO, ANTHONY C.
28.	CAYABYAB, ELPIDIO D.
29.	CHAVEZ, MELCHOR G.
30.	CLAVO, ARTHUR C.
31.	COMBATE, AMADO C.
32.	CONTILLO, ALEJANDRO D.
33.	CORDERO, GEORGE C.
34.	CURRO, ERLINDA S.
35.	DACANAY, ROSALINDA V.
36.	DE GUZMAN, EMMANUEL O.
37.	DEL ROSARIO, OSCAR O.
38.	DELA CRUZ, JUAN C.
39.	DELA CRUZ, MARIO C.
40.	DIANALAN, NHAZRUDIN D.
41.	DIGADONG, INSAM J.
42.	DILANGALEN, MACALIMPONAC F.
43.	ENCISO, RUBEN C.
44.	ESPINOSA, NANETTE M.
45.	GACO, RODOLFO SR. N.
46.	GALDIANO, ZENAIDA V.
47.	GALICIA, REYNALDO D.M.
48.	GAMBOA, IGNACIO S.
49.	GONZALES, VICTORIA M.
50.	HERNANDEZ, THADDEUS LORENZO J.
51.	HOFF, GLENN S.
52.	INTE, VICTORIANO T.
53.	KIRAM, DATU MOHD KUDHAR S.
54.	KNECHT, RENE D.
55.	LA-LAWQUERO, MICOMI-I S.
56.	LIM, DANILO D.
57.	LIMBRE, RAYMUNDO C.
58.	LOPEZ, ANGELO JR. G.
59.	LORENTE, EXPEDITO G.
60.	LUNA, JUANITO B.
61.	MAGANTO, ROMEO B.
62.	MAGISTRADO, ANDREW A.
63.	MANAHAN, ARMAN L.
64.	MARTIR, HERMOGENES JR. P.
65.	MARTIZANO, EBENEZER A.
66.	NARITO, HOWELL M.
67.	NIKABULIN, ADZ G.
68.	OMPAD, CELEDONIO C.
69.	OROZCO, WILHELMINA S.
70.	OSMENA, EMILIO MARIO R.
71.	PASTORAL, LIWANAG ANGEL M.
72.	PATULOT, CESAR P.
73.	PIERA, RUMMEL M.
74.	POBLETE, ROGELIO P.
75.	POGOY, JOENEL S.
76.	POLIQUIT, JAIME V.
77.	POYATOS, ALEX A.
78.	RAMOS, LUIS D.G.
79.	RECTO, RICHARD G.
80.	RELUYA, IMELDA P.
81.	RENGEL, FELIX T.
82.	REMOTO, DANTON R.
83.	REYES, ROBERTO G.
84.	RIRAO, MARLON G.
85.	ROBLES, AMPARO D.
86.	RODRIGUEZ, OSCAR T.
87.	SALVE, EDWIN P.
88.	SECUYA, MARIA ROSALIE L.
89.	SHARIEF, ALI F.
90.	SIA, ROSALINDA S.
91.	SIBAL, ROLANDO C.
92.	SIN, NELSON A.
93.	SION, EDUARDO E.
94.	SUMALINOG, NESTOR I.
95.	SUVA, DANILO B.
96.	TAMONDONG, MA. ANNA GAY C.
97.	TUBAY, ROSA A.
98.	UMALI, ALBERT D.
99.	VARONA, NETZ P.
100.	VIRAY, FORTUNATO JR. F.L.

This resolution is without prejudice to the outcome of the disqualification cases pending before this Commission.

Pursuant to Sec. 5 (d) of Resolution 8696, those who are adversely affected by this resolution are hereby given a period of five (5) days from the date of publication hereof to file personally or through authorized representative a verified opposition in ten (10) legible copies with the Office of the Clerk of the Commission, this Commission, if they so desire.

The Clerk of the Commission shall assign a docket number which must be consecutive according to the order of receipt and must bear the year and prefixed as SPA (MP) and shall set the opposition for hearing within two (2) days from receipt thereof.

Let the Education and Information Department cause the immediate publication of this resolution in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. The Law Department is hereby directed to furnish the candidates herein a copy of this resolution with dispatch."

As an offshoot of the foregoing resolution, the following filed their respective oppositions/motions for reconsideration:

"AFFECTED PARTIES WHO HAVE FILED OPPOSITIONS/MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT TO COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 8713

 

SPA 2009 (MP)	TITLE OF THE CASE
09-001 (MP)	Opposition Atty. Oliver O. Lozano
09-002 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Atty. Valeriano D. Reloj
09-003 (MP)	In Re: Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on the Comelec's Resolution Disqualifying Rev. Atty. Elly Velez Pamatong as candidate for the presidency Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong
09-004 (MP)	Verified Opposition Alicman U. Ali
09-005 (MP)	Letter-Appeal for Reconsideration Noel F. Aguirre
09-006 (MP)	Opposition Eduardo F. Orpilla
09-007 (MP)	Opposition Danilo Delapuz Lim
09-008 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Benjamin R. Adam
09-009 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Anthony C. Castelo
09-010	Joint Opposition to Cancellation of or Refusal to Give Due Course to COC of Mary Lou B. Estrada for President for the Position of Senators namely, Roberto G. Reyes a.k.a. "Amay", Ricardo R. Cabantac a.k.a. "Rick", Ignacio S. Gamboa a.k.a. "Nash", Jaime V. Poliquit a.k.a. "Jimpol", Rosa A. Tubay a.k.a. "MOMMY GRETCHEN", Rodolfo O. Casanova a.k.a. "Rudy" and Reynaldo DM. Galicia
09-011 (MP)	Motion For A Vehement Opposition Quiterio M. Castilla
09-012 (MP)	Opposition Melchor G. Chavez
09-013 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Andrew M. Gonzalez
09-014 (MP)	Opposition Atty. Rolando Cruz Sibal
09-015 (MP)	Opposition Democratic Party of the Philippines (DPP), represented by Donato A. Fortaleza, Jr., Secretary-General, Ernesto G. Ramos, Baldomero C. Falcone, Rosalinda V. Dacanay, Ebenezer A. Martizano, Felix T. Rengel, Oscar T. Rodriguez, Rosalinda S. Sia and Fortunato F.L. Viray, Jr.
09-016 (MP)	Opposition Roberto G. Reyes
09-017 (MP)	Urgent Motion for Reconsideration General Romeo Maganto (Ret.)
09-018 (MP)	In the matter of the Disqualification of Waldo E. Alpuerto for Candidate as President of the Republic of the Philippines Motion for Reconsideration
09-019 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Ferdinand Jose D. Pijao Sr.
09-020 (MP)	Opposition to Comelec Resolution No. 8713 dated December 15, 2009 Denying to Give Due Course to Jesus Nicanor P. Perlas' Certificate of Candidacy Jesus Nicanor P. Perlas
09-021 (MP)	Verified Opposition In so far as the Official Candidates of Philippine Green Republican Party, namely: Felix C. Cantal, for President; Eduardo F. Orpilla, for Vice-President, and Jesus Abejar, Agnes T. Afable, Raul J. Barbasa, Fred N. Bello, Pol L. Bulilan, Elpidio D. Cayabyab, Melchor Chavez, Amado C. Combate, Victoria Gonzalez, Celedonio C. Ompad, Rogelio P. Poblete, for Senator
09-022 (MP)	Verified Opposition Norberto Lacierna Mercado
09-023 (MP)	In Re: Cancellation/Denial in Giving Due Course to the COC of Emilio Mario R. Osmea for Senator Emilio Mario R. Osmea
09-024 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Gonzales, Victoria M.
09-025 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Erlinda "Erly" Salac Curro
09-026 (MP)	Opposition Prof. Reynaldo Galicia, Ph. D.
09-027 (MP)	Verified Opposition on Constitutional Grounds Gerardo A. Del Mundo, as candidate for the Position of Vice-President of the Republic of the Philippines
09-028 (MP)	Opposition Richard Gonzalez Recto
09-029 (MP)	Joint Verified Opposition Jointly filed by Edwin P. Salve, Nicolas R. Calvara and Oscar O. Del Rosario as Candidates for the position of Senator
09-030 (MP)	In the matter of cancellation/denial of due course of certificates of candidacy of candidates for President, Vice-President and Senators of Alpha Omega 9K Party in connection with the May 2010 National and Local Elections Fernand A. M. Fernandez, et al.
09-031 (MP)	Joint Motion for Reconsideration Vetellano S. Acosta &Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL)
09-032 (MP)	Opposition/Motion for Reconsideration Adz G. Nikabulin
09-033 (MP)	Verified Opposition Mario Batacan Crespo
09-034 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration/Opposition Joenel S. Pogoy
09-035 (MP)	Opposition to Resolution No. 8713 Wilhelmina S. Orozco
09-036 (MP)	Manifestation / Petition for Reconsideration Amado M. Calderon
09-037 (MP)	Urgent Motion for Reconsideration Nanette M. Espinosa
09-038 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Nazruddin "Rudy" Dianalan
09-039 (MP)	Opposition Juanito B. Luna
09-040 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Jose Rizal M. Reyes
09-041 (MP)	Urgent Motion for Reconsideration Alex Mariano A. Poyatos
09-042 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Jesus A. Alcazar, Sr.
09-043 (MP)	Opposition/Motion for Reconsideration Jose Dayon Lao, Mamerto Docot Jayco, Cesar Pereja Patulot, Netz Pajarito Varona, Macalimponac Fernandez Dilangalen, Amparo Dia Robles and Expedito Gonzales Lorente
09-044 (MP)	Opposition/Motion for Reconsideration Victorio Angelo A. Cadag
09-045 (MP)	Opposition for Disqualification Pedrito Diaz Tagle
09-046 (MP)	Joint Opposition Vicente R. Velasquez and Tirso N. Paglicawan
09-047 (MP)	Letter of Opposition Rodelo S. Pidoy
09-048 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Elizabeth S. Capular
10-001 (MP)	Petition for Inclusion in the ballots in the forthcoming 2010 Elections for President Guillermo F. Gili, Jr.
10-003 (MP)	Motion for Reconsideration Gherry Guillergan a.k.a. "Nonoy@Scientist" and Levi Agustin a.k.a. "Nonoy"

All were set for hearing on December 28, 2009 and were considered submitted for resolution except the Motions for Reconsideration of Ms. Elizabeth S. Capular which was filed on December 23, 2009. Guillermo F. Gili, Jr. filed on January 8, 2010 and Gherry Guillergan with Levi Agustin filed on January 12, 2010, which were filed beyond the period provided for in Resolution No. 8713. The scheduled hearing was published in two (2) newspaper of general circulation namely, Manila Bulletin and Philippine Daily Inquirer on 24 December 2009.

The 1987 Constitution has granted the Commission broad and expanded powers. It implicitly grants the Commission the power to promulgate rules and regulations to enforce law relative to election. In the discharge of its duties, the Commission has the considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great object for which it was created, that is, to promote free, orderly and honest elections. It is in a better position than any other organ of government to assure purity of suffrage. Hence, the choice of means taken by the Commission, unless they are clearly illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered with by the Supreme Court. ³

In this wise, the Commission will not be an instrument of any form to mock our democratic processes by serving the caprices of the few who in the guise of serving the government file certificates of candidacy notwithstanding lack of capabilities to wage nationwide campaigns, and absent campaign plan or political machinery or bona fide intention to run for an office, thereby sow confusion among the electorate.

The power of the Commission to disqualify a candidate is mandated under the following provisions of the Omnibus Code:

"Sec. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty or, or found by the Commission of having (a) given money or other material consideration to influence, induce or corrupt the voters or public officials performing electoral functions; (b) committed acts of terrorism to enhance his candidacy; (c) spent in his election campaign an amount in excess of that allowed by this Code; (d) solicited, received or made any contribution prohibited under Sections 89, 95, 96, 97 and 104; or (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, sub-paragraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws. (Sec. 25, 1971 EC)

Sec. 69. Nuisance Candidates. - The Commission may, motu propio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy if it is shown that said certificate has been filed to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate that the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed and thus prevent a faithful determination of the true will of the electorate. (Sec. 26, 1978 EC)"

Clearly, Sec. 69 emphasizes that aside from complying with the constitutional and legal requirements for filing a certificate of candidacy, a candidate must demonstrate that he or she does not fall under the category of a nuisance candidate.

Significantly, the Supreme Court expressly stated:

"The preparation of ballots is but one aspect that would be affected by allowance of 'nuisance candidates' to run in the elections. Our election laws provide various entitlements for candidates for public office, such as watchers in every polling place, watchers in the board of canvassers, or even the receipt of electoral contributions. Moreover, there are rules and regulations the formulation of which are dependent on the number of candidates in a given election.

Given these considerations, the ignominious nature of a nuisance candidacy becomes even more galling. The organization of an election with bona fide candidates standing is onerous enough. To add into the mix candidates with no serious intentions or capabilities to run a viable campaign would actually impair the electoral process. This is not to mention the candidacies which are palpably ridiculous so as to constitute a one-note joke. The poll body would be bogged by irrelevant minutiae covering every step of the electoral process, most probably posed at the instance of these nuisance candidates. It would be a senseless sacrifice on the part of the State.

Owing to the superior interest in ensuring a credible and orderly election, the State could exclude nuisance candidates and need not indulge in, as the song goes, 'their trips to the moon on gossamer wings. ⁴"

In the course of our review of these oppositions/motions for reconsideration, we find a need to discuss thoroughly the arguments of oppositors Philippine Green Republican Party docketed as SPA No. 09-021 (MP) espousing the following:

1. The resolution tantamount to the deletion of PGRP from the list of registered political parties.
2. The Law Department's reasons transgressed a number of constitutional provisions.
3. Ironically, the Law Department admitted that the candidates fielded by the Philippine Green Republican Party are all qualified and that they possess none of the grounds for disqualifications.
4. The candidates fielded by the Philippine Green Republican Party are not nuisance candidates.
5. No evidence that Oppositors herein will put the election process in mockery or disrepute.
6. Oppositors herein are not likely to cause election in mockery or disrepute.
7. Oppositors herein will not cause confusion by similarity of names.
8. No evidence that Oppositors herein have no bona fide intention to run for President, Vice President, and Senators respectively.

The aforementioned arguments set forth by oppositors could be summed up in two issues: Whether or not the deletion of the candidates of Philippine Green Republican Party (PGRP) is tantamount to the deletion of PGRP from the list of registered political parties; and, Whether or not the foregoing petitioners are nuisance candidates.

Anent the first issue, the oppositor opine that most aspiring public servants whose certificates of candidacy were cancelled or denied are those of candidates who do not belong to a registered political party. This is on a presumption that absent an accredited political organization, the candidates would not benefit from a seemingly impracticable nationwide campaign. The oppositors aver that the Commission sweepingly cancelled/denied due course the candidacy of PGRP members fielded on all national positions, blatantly ignoring the guaranteed political rights of its candidates solely because of personal doubts on the strength and will of the party to which they are affiliated to. In effect, by rejecting to field candidates of the said political party, the Commission is said to have deleted the list of recognized political parties.

The observation of the oppositor is erroneous. A close perusal of Resolution No. 8713 yields that the political party Philippine Green Republican Party is recognized as such. The aspirants for the presidency, vice-presidency and senators fielded by the said political party were under the group "aspirants nominated by registered political parties." Political parties not recognized by the Commission were indicated as such and their candidates were tagged as independent candidates.

The grounds upon which the candidates were disqualified do not reflect the disqualification of the political party they are affiliated to. The cancellation of their certificates of candidacy is not tantamount to the deletion of PGRP from the list of registered parties.

Sec. 60. Political Party. - "Political party" or "party", when used in the is Act, means an organized group of persons pursuing the same ideology, or political ideas or platforms of government and includes its branches and divisions. To acquire juridical personality, quality it for subsequent accreditation, and to entitle it to the rights and privileges herein granted to political parties, a political party shall first be duly registered with the Commission. Any registered political party that, singly or in coalition with others, falls to obtain at least ten percent of the votes cast in the constituency in which it nominated and supported a candidate or candidates in the election next following its registration shall, after notice and hearing be deemed to have forfeited such status as a registered political party in such constituency.

A political party could not be motu proprio deleted from the list of registered political parties without the requisite notice and hearing so as not to deprive the political party its right to due process.

On the second issue, the Commission cancelled the certificates of candidacy of the subject oppositors on the following grounds:

Records show that many of the person who filed their certificates of candidacy as independent candidates for the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections had previously field their certificates of candidacy for the position of either the president, vice president or senator during the past elections, but were DENIED DUE COURSE and/or CANCELLED by the Commission. Even those persons who were allowed to run for elections garnered votes which are too few and meager to consider their candidacy as serious. Most are considered habitual filers as evidence by the filing of their certificates of candidacy in almost every national election despite the denial thereof, time and time again, to wit: xxx

PHILIPPINE GREEN REPUBLICAN PARTY, although allowed to participate in the May 14, 2007 National and Local Elections, fielded only one candidate, Felix C. Cantal, who lost his bid for the position of senator. Accordingly, several members of its senatorial slate are considered by the Commission as perennial applicants whose certificates of candidacy were denied due course: Amado C. Combate and Melchor G. Chavez. Moreover, Philippine Green Republican Party has yet to establish its political track record, capacity and capability to launch a campaign on the national level.

The validity of such a ruling could not be contravened. The rationale behind the case of Pamatong v. COMELEC earlier quoted, outlined the need of a practicable solution and regulation to the fielding of candidates to various national elective posts.

Despite the additional proofs submitted by the oppositors, the Commission is not convinced of the capacity of these oppositors to launch a nationwide campaign. Although the party has experienced the nuance of a national campaign by then fielding now presidential aspirant Felix Cantal as senator during the 2007 elections, the proof of the failure of such a nationwide campaign rests upon the fact that he lone senatorial bet's chance to lodge a slot is very dismal. For the past months prior to the 2010 election, the greater majority of the Filipinos has only heard of the party when its candidates filed their COCs. Aside from the filing of the COC, one could not surmise the bona fide intention of the party members to run as such. Due to the saturation of nuisance candidates filing for national seats, even the act of filing the COC could not be a definite outward manifestation of an intent to run. Needless to say, some members of the party running for senator are perennial COC filers as correctly observed by the Law Department.

The Commission takes exception to the misplaced statement of the oppositors that the Commission has equated wealth as a de facto qualification for anybody who wishes to run for any public office. Such a statement not only demeans the Commission but also demeans the process the oppositors are willing to undergo.

Also, along with our review we find that the facts and circumstances obtaining in Rev. Atty. Elly Velez Pamatong's candidacy for the May 10, 2010 elections are definitely similar to those attending his candidacy in the 2004 elections. The credentials presented in support of his candidacy in the May 10, 2010 elections were the same as those recited to defend his candidacy in the May 2004 elections. He claims now, as he had claimed then, that he is the most qualified candidate, that he has the financial capacity to wage a nationwide campaign, that he has the financial commitment of supporters once his certificate of candidacy is approved by the Comelec, that he has the political machineries consisting of a nationwide paramilitary organization which has been accredited by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, that he is the Chief Minister of various religious ministries, and that he is the only Presidential candidate with platforms consisting of three books. Even the evidence he adduced to challenge the Comelec resolution declaring him a nuisance candidate in the 2004 elections were the same documents he presented to question the repudiation of his certificate of candidacy now. Hence, the findings that the said credentials and documents were insufficient to show capability to pursue a presidential aspiration stand.

We finally resolve Atty. Pamatong's plea, by following the teaching of the Supreme Court that "the question of whether a candidate is a nuisance candidate or not is both legal and factual;" and that "the legal determination of bona fide candidates is based on statutes." Indeed, Atty. Pamatong possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for a presidential candidate. It is however in the assessment of the factual premises on which his candidacy is based where we find his candidacy wanting.

First, he is an independent candidate who pursues a national post. He has no political machinery on which he could depend for human and financial resources.

Second, he has no proven track record of having successfully waged a campaign of national magnitude.

Third, the personal achievements he had presented are indeed impressive, but there is no showing that these are of popular knowledge or that they are sufficient to evoke strong name recall.

All told Atty. Pamatong failed to dispute the Commission's finding in Resolution No. 8713 that he is a nuisance candidate as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Similarly, as explained by established jurisprudence, Atty. Oliver O. Lozano's argument that Resolution No. 8713 limits his qualifications, and is void ab initio cannot be lent credence by this Commission.

Lozano avers that the cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy is against Section 5(a) of RA 6646, as cancellation may only be done "by petition after notice and hearing," after a final decision is issued on the matter. Lozano, likewise, says that cancellation of the petition has prescribed, since until now, there has been no petition filed to cancel his Certificate of Candidacy.

All of these assertions proceed from Lozano's confused and erroneous belief that Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, which gives this Commission the power motu proprio or upon a verified petition of an interested party, to refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that the person who filed such certificate is a nuisance candidate, has been superseded by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6646 ("RA 6646"). Said Section 5 of RA 6646 merely states:

"Section 5. Procedure in Cases of Nuisance Candidates. -

(a) A Verified petition to declare a duly registered candidate as a nuisance candidate under Section 69 of Batas Pambansa Blg, 881 shall be filed personally or through duly authorized representative with the Commission by any registered candidate for the same office within five (5) days from the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy. Filing by mail is not allowed.

(b) Within three (3) days from the filing of the petition, the Commission shall issue summons to the respondent candidate together with a copy of the petition and its enclosures, if any.

(c) The respondent shall be given three (3) days from receipt of the summons within which to file his verified answer (not a motion to dismiss) to the petition, serving copy thereof upon the petitioner. Grounds for a motion to dismiss may be raised as affirmative defenses.

(d) The Commission may designate any of its officials who are lawyers to hear the case and receive evidence. The proceeding shall be summary in nature. In lieu of oral testimonies, the parties may be required to submit position papers together with affidavits or counter-affidavits and other documentary evidence. The hearing officer shall immediately submit to the Commission his findings, reports, and recommendations within five (5) days from the completion of such submission of evidence. The Commission shall render its decision within five (5) days from receipt thereof.

(e) The decision, order, or ruling of the Commission shall, after five (5) days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, be final and executory unless stayed by the Supreme Court.

(f) The Commission shall within twenty-four hours, through the fastest available means, disseminate its decision or the decision of the Supreme Court to the city or municipal election registrars, boards of election inspectors and the general public in the political subdivision concerned. "

Even a cursory reading of the provision easily shows that it has not repealed Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, much less does it take away this Commission's power to motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that the person who filed such certificate is a nuisance candidate. If at all, Section 5 of RA 6646 served merely to clarify and outline the procedure where a petition to cancel a certificate of candidacy on the ground that the person who filed the same is a nuisance candidate is lodged before this Commission pursuant to Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code, which remains in full force and effect. Having said so, Lozano's arguments fall flat.

As regards Lozano's argument that this Commission has no authority to cancel his Certificate of Candidacy, since under Section 2, Rule 24 in relation to Section 1, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, the exclusive ground is false material representation, the same must be struck down as inconsequential if not outright comical. Suffice it to state, Section 1, Rule 23 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure pertains to petitions to deny due course to or cancel certificates of candidacy, whereas Rule 24 specifically refers to proceeding against nuisance candidates, where in its Section 2, again, the power of this Commission to motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy is stated, viz:

"Rule 24 - Proceedings Against Nuisance Candidates

Section 1. Grounds. - Any candidate for any elective office who filed his certificate of candidacy to put the election process in mockery or disrepute or to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of the names of the registered candidates or who by other acts or circumstances is clearly demonstrated to have no bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy has been filed.

Sec. 2. Who May File Petition to Declare a Candidate as Nuisance Candidate. - Any registered candidate for the same elective office may file with the Law Department of the Commission a petition to declare a candidate as a nuisance candidate.

The Commission may, at any time before the election, motu proprio refuse to give due course to or cancel a Certificate of Candidacy of any candidate on any of the grounds enumerated under Section 1 of this Rule or when the substitute Certificate of Candidacy is not a proper case of substitution under Section 77 of the Omnibus Election Code."

Lozano finally argues that no evidence was offered to prove that he is a nuisance candidate. He should be minded that the cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy was done motu proprio by this Commission, and its is certainly not for Us to present evidence, quite the contrary, Lozano had the burden of proving that he is not a nuisance candidate. To be sure, this opportunity had been given him as part of this Commission's observance of due process. This Commission scheduled a hearing for this very purpose on 28 December 2009, at which hearing Lozano manifested that he was adopting, without filing additional pleadings, this Opposition.

In his Opposition, Lozano attempted to establish before this Commission that he is not a nuisance candidate by arguing that he had the capacity to campaign, principally claiming that he had been regularly interviewed by the media, that he has caused the printing of Ten (10) Million campaign materials, that he is prepared to use electronic campaigning, and that he has captive votes because he is the lawyer of the "multi-million strong Friends of Marcos and the Guardian Forces Brotherhood International."

Lozano's claim as well as his intended proof contained in the annexes of the Opposition are inconclusive and fail to convince this Commission. He has not satisfactorily shown that he has a bona fide intention to run for the office for which the certificate of candidacy had been filed. He also has not shown, among others, that he is capable of waging a nationwide campaign, that he belongs to or has been nominated by any registered political party of national constituency, or that he has a running mate for vice-president, or a senatorial line-up. In Cipriano "Efren" Bautista v. The Commission on Elections, et al., the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of this Commission that a certain person was a nuisance candidate where: (1) he had no financial means to support his campaign; (2) he failed to submit he names of individuals who paid for his campaign materials as well as the printing press he dealt with; (3) he did not have a political line-up and had no funds to support his campaign expenses; and (4) he merely depended on friends whose names he did not submit to this Commission.

In the same vein, Mario B. Crespo object to the deletion of his name from the list of candidates for the 2010 Presidential Elections on the ground that he is bona fide candidate for the presidency and that in denying due course to his certificate of candidacy, the Commission violated Article IX-C, paragraph 10 of the 1987 Constitution.

Crespo posits that the disqualification en masse and motu proprio effectively places the burden on the citizen to prove his bona fide status.

The Commission may on its own cancel the certificate of candidacy of any aspirant when it finds that he is a nuisance candidate. Due process inscribed in the twin requirement of notice and hearing is not violated since the Commission gives to the candidate the opportunity to object and/or boost his candidacy by filing an opposition thereto.

Crespo attaches to his opposition numerous newspaper clippings attesting to his financial capacity in waging a nationwide campaign. Attached also is a 2006 Pulse Asia Rating showing his Awareness and Trust Ratings to be 93%.

These fail to impress. To seriously mount a presidential campaign throughout the nation, it is not for one to be merely financially independent. What campaigning requires is a definite political strategy and platform as to ensure nationwide name retention. It would be an exercise in futility if the oppositor who is willing and able to spend millions for his presidency do so without reaching the desired goal. Surely, a political party, although not a requirement for his candidacy would come to fore. At least when a candidate tests the waters of national elections, he is assisted by a much credible, much experienced party showing him the do's and don'ts not inscribed in conventional electoral books and pamphlets.

Indeed, the Commission finds no cogent reason to reverse the findings of the Law Department embodied in Resolution No. 8713 except on the following candidates whose oppositions/motions for reconsideration merits consideration.

These candidates are:

1. Vetallano S. Acosta

Records show that KBL, a political party with nationwide constituency, nominated Mr. Acosta as its official candidate for president. If the certificates of candidacy of KBL's nominees for vice-president and senators were given due course, there is no reason why this Commission should deny due course to Mr. Acosta's certificate of candidacy.

KBL is a political party duly registered with Comelec. Oppositor alleged that KBL is ready and will wage and sustain a campaign using its nationwide organization and network of the Party and its officer and campaign workers. In fact, Atty. Vicente D. Millora, the KBL Chairman/President appeared during the hearing in support of candidate Acosta.

All members of the Commission unanimously voted to qualify Vetallano S. Acosta for President.

2. Jesus Nicanor P. Perlas

The filing of a certificate of candidacy of a person with a distinguished track record in public service and has received numerous recognition for his work both here and abroad cannot be said to have put the election process in mockery. Also the manner by which oppositor presented his detailed platform of government and his active participation in several fora supports his bona fide intention to run for president.

Whether oppositor has the capacity to launch a nationwide campaign, he was able to convince this Commission. Oppositor claims that being a credible presidential candidate, free access to national media is sustainable. As a matter of fact, he has been covered by major television networks and broadsheets. Oppositors will also utilize the power of the internet. From the research made by oppositor internet users in the country amount to almost 24 million and his strong, credible presence could be felt in the internet through his numerous websites. And all of these are supplemented by the invitations extended to oppositor to participate in various presidential fora organized by national organizations and associations. More importantly, he has an existing organized group of persons throughout the country who volunteered to support his bid for candidacy.

Five (5) members of the Commission voted to qualify Jesus Nicanor P. Perlas. Chairman Jose A.R. Melo and Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer voted to disqualify him.

1. Danila D. Lim

SPA No. 09-007 (MP) - candidate Danilo Lim presented the following information and documents, thus constraining the Commission to revisit the disposition declaring him a nuisance candidate.

1. A GMA News item entitled 'DETAINED BRIG. GEN DANNY LIM JOINS THE LP SENATORIAL SLATE' posted on 20 November 2009.


2. A Resolution entitled, Resolution of the National Directorate of the Liberal Party Approving the NECO Resolution Nominating the Liberal Party Candidates for Senator, Guest Coalitions for the Purpose of the Forthcoming National Elections on May 10, 2010, with provisions which nominates Danny D. Lim as one of the senatorial candidates of the Liberal Party.


3. Certificate of Nomination, and Acceptance issued by the Liberal Party on 25 November 2009, nominating DANILO D. LIM as one of the party's official candidate for senator in the May 10, 2010 elections.


4. A letter addressed to HON. JOSE A.R. MELO from the Director-General of the Liberal Party, Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon, dated 16 December 2009, stressing that DANILO LIM is part of the completer senatorial slate of the Liberal Party, hence, it was a great surprise to the Liberal Party that he was disqualified on the ground of lack of capacity and resources to launch a national campaign.


5. Copy of Senatorial preference result of the November 04-08, 2009 National survey by the Social Weather Stations.

This Commission finds the documents presented to be worthy of being considered in determining whether Lim was correctly declared a nuisance candidate. These documents show that even before the filing of the certificate of candidacy, Lim has already publicly declared his intent to be a candidate for senator. The survey results, for all their worth, indicated that his name has always been included in testing public perception and approval of the prospective candidates for the Senate. The organizations in which he professed memberships were active organizations with national constituencies.

However, it was the Certificate of Nomination issued by the Liberal Party, dated 25 November 2009, naming DANILO D. LIM as one of the senatorial candidates to be actively supported by the Liberal Party that weighed most heavily. Indeed, it did not alter Lim's status as an independent candidate as the same was not filed within the reglementary period for filing the Certificate of Candidacy, but said nomination definitely bolsters his candidacy. The adoption of Lim as an official candidate of the Liberal Party carried with it unequivocal commitment of machinery and logistics, rendering him capable, despite his incarceration, of waging a campaign sizeable enough to give him not only the possibility, but also the probability of winning a senatorial seat.

The facts now before us strongly show that DANILO DELAPUZ LIM not only has the bona fide intention to run for the office of senator but also has the support of a party machinery, which would enable him to wage a viable nationwide campaign. He is therefore, not a nuisance candidate as contemplated in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code.

Six (6) members of the Commission voted to qualify Danilo D. Lim. Chairman Jose A.R. Melo voted to disqualify him.

2. Emilio Mario R. Osmea

SPA No. 09-023 (MP) - Emilio Mario R. Osmea protested the cancellation/denial of due course to his COC under Resolution No. 8713 on the ground that the Commission failed to consider that he has the backing of a duly registered political party, the Abag Promdi, which has preciously mounted national campaigns and managed to have respectable and credible results. Oppositors alleged that he himself ran for president in 1998 and Vice president in 1992 and came up ahead of such notable political personalities as Alfredo Lim, Renato De Villa, Miriam Defensor-Santiago and Juan Ponce Enrile. He is also a former governor of the province of Cebu. Thus, he maintained that he is not political neophyte and has vast experience in mounting and conducting national campaigns with credible results. Finally, he claimed that the filing of his COC is not meant to cause confusion among the voters by the similarity of his surname with that of another candidate in the person of Sergio D. Osmea, III. He pointed out that the similarities ends with the surname as they have different names and nicknames.

The opposition has merit. Osmea has shown that he and his party have proven track records in running for a national position and conducting a credible and more than decent national campaign. In addition, he has also proven that he is known not only locally but also nationally and that he can gain sufficient votes nationwide. Furthermore, he was able to show that similarity of his surname with that of another candidate is not an indication that he intends to show confusion among the voters. Osmea has amply demonstrated that he is a candidate with a known national following, a candidate in his won right.

All members of the Commission unanimously voted to qualify Emilio Mario R. Osmea.

3. Nanette M. Espinosa

SPA No. 09-037 (MP) - Nanette M. Espinosa, who filed her COC as a candidate for Senator, moved for the reconsideration of Resolution No. 8715 arguing that she was actually nominated by the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) as a senatorial candidate but that she was not able to attach the nomination to her COC when she filed the same. As proof thereof, she submitted a copy of the nomination, duly signed by the party president, Vicente Millora. The Espinosa family is a known political clan in Masbate, who is always known to members of KBL. She alleged that her father, Emilio Espinosa, Jr. has served the government for 63 years as a governor, congressman, assemblyman and Secretary of Labor She has been involved in her father's electoral campaigns, including his unsuccessful attempt to land a senate seat in 1967. Thus, she gained valuable insight and experience on how to urn a nationwide campaign and is prepared to face the perils of political life. She likewise alleged that she and her family have saved enough to make her financially capable of waging a nationwide campaign.

The opposition is meritorious. Oppositor has adequately shown she possesses all the qualifications to run as a candidate for national position; that she has the backing of a political party; that she has the political pedigree, background and experience; and that she has the financial resources to wage a national campaign.

Six (6) members of the Commission voted to qualify Nanette M. Espinosa. Chairman voted to disqualify her.

4. Adz G. Nikabulin

SPA No. 09-032 (MP) - Adz G. Nikabulin contended that he is not a nuisance candidate. He argued that he is adopted as a guest candidate of the Bangon Pilipinas Party. As a proof thereof, he attached to his opposition the Certificates of Adoption as Guest Candidate of Bangon Pilipinas Party signed by Atty. Lindon P. Cana, the National Campaign manager and noted by Bro. Eddie C. Villanueva, Party President. In addition, he submitted the Sworn Statement of Lyndon P. Cana attesting to the fact of adoption as guest candidate by the party of Adz Ganih Nikabulin. He likewise submitted proofs that he is involved in the effort to attain development, progress and lasting peace in Mindanao. All these, Nikabulin alleged, show that he is capable of waging a nationwide campaign along with the Bangon Pilipinas Party and that he has a firm and noble purpose in aspiring to be a senator of the Republic.

The opposition is meritorious. With the adoption by the Bangon Pilipinas Party of Nikabulin and proofs presented of his involvement with the different civic organizations working for peace and development of Mindanao and the country, there is no more reason to consider him as a nuisance candidate. Nikabulin has amply demonstrated the capacity to wage a campaign under the aegis of a registered national political party.

Six (6) members of the Commission voted to qualify Adz G. Nikabulin. Chairman Jose A.R. Melo voted to disqualify him.

WHEREFORE, the Commission RESOLVED, as it hereby RESOLVES as follows:

1. to DENY the oppositions/motions for reconsideration and to AFFIRM Comelec Resolution No. 8713 denying due course to the Certificates of Candidacy of the following candidates for President, Vice-President and Senator:

1. Atty. Oliver O. Lozano
2. Atty. Valeriano D. Reloj
3. Rev. Atty. Elly Velez Pamatong
4. Alicman U. Ali
5. Noel F. Aguirre
6. Eduardo F. Orpilla
7. Benjamin R. Adam
8. Anthony C. Castelo
9. Mary Lou B. Estrada
10. Roberto G. Reyes a.k.a. "Amay"
11. Ricardo R. Cabantac a.k.a. "Rick"
12. Ignacio S. Gamboa a.k.a. "Nash"
13. Jaime V. Poliquit a.k.a. "Jimpol"
14. Rosa A. Tubay a.k.a. "Mommy Gretchen"
15. Rodolfo O. Casanova a.k.a. "Rudy"
16. Reynaldo DM. Galicia
17. Quiterio M. Castilla
18. Melchor G. Chavez
19. Andrew M. Gonzalez
20. Atty. Rolando Cruz Sibal
21. Donato A. Fortaleza, Jr.
22. Ernesto G. Ramos
23. Baldomero C. Falcone
24. Rosalinda V. Dacanay
25. Ebenezer A. Martizano
26. Felix T. Rengel
27. Oscar T. Rodriguez
28. Rosalinda S. Sia
29. Fortunato F.L. Viray, Jr.
30. Roberto G. Reyes
31. General Romeo Maganto (Ret.)
32. Waldo E. Alpuerto
33. Ferdinand Jose D. Pijao, Sr.
34. Felix C. Cantal
35. Jesus Abejar
36. Agnes T. Afable
37. Raul J. Barbasa
38. Fred N. Bello
39. Pol L. Bulilan
40. Elpidio D. Cayabyab
41. Amado C. Combate
42. Victoria Gonzalez
43. Celedonio C. Ompad
44. Rogelio P. Poblete
45. Norberto Lacierna Mercado
46. Erlinda "Erly" Salac Curro
47. Gerardo A. Del Mundo
48. Richard Gonzalez Recto
49. Edwin P. Salve
50. Nicolas R. Calvara
51. Oscar O. Del Rosario
52. Fernand A.M. Fernandez
53. Leo M. Cadion
54. Rodolfo N. Gaco, Sr.
55. Abas M. Brahim
56. Ma. Rosalie L. Secuya
57. Ali Fatima Sharief
58. Albert D. Umali
59. Glenn S. Hoff
60. Joseph S. Angeles
61. Bernardo G. Baniqued, Sr.
62. Macario C. Baricaua
63. Hernando B. Bruce
64. Evelia L. Abarrondo
65. Mario Batacan Crespo
66. Joenel S. Pogoy
67. Wilhelmina S. Orozco
68. Amado M. Calderon
69. Nazruddin "Rudy" Dianalan
70. Juanito B. Luna
71. Jose Rizal M. Reyes
72. Alex Mariano A. Poyatos
73. Jesus A. Alcazar, Sr.
74. Jose Dayon Lao
75. Mamerto Docot Jayco
76. Cesar Pereja Patulot
77. Netz Pajarito Varona
78. Macalimponac Fernandez Dilangalen
79. Amparo Dia Robles
80. Expedito Gonzales Lorente
81. Victorio Angelo A. Cadag
82. Pedrito Diaz Tagle
83. Vicente R. Velasquez
84. Tirso N. Paglicawan
85. Rodelo S. Pidoy
86. Elizabeth S. Capular
87. Guillermo F. Gili, Jr.
88. Gherry Guillergan a.k.a. "Nonoy@Scientist"
89. Levi Agustin a.k.a. "Nonoy"

2. to GRANT the Oppositions/Motions for Reconsideration of the following candidates and to give due course to their certificates of candidacy:

For President:

1. Vetallano S. Acosta
2. Jesus Nicanor P. Perlas

For Senator:

1. Danilo D. Lim
2. Emilio Mario R. Osmea
3. Nanette M. Espinosa
4. Adz G. Nikabulin

The Law Department is hereby directed to prepare with dispatch the Certified List of Candidates for President, Vice-President and Senator.

SO ORDERED.

(Sgd.) JOSE A.R. MELO Chairman
(Sgd.) RENE V. SARMIENTO Commissioner	(Sgd.) NICODEMO T. FERRER Commissioner
(Sgd.) LUCENITO N. TAGLE Commissioner	(Sgd.) ARMANDO C. VELASCO Commissioner
(Sgd.) ELIAS R. YUSOPH Commissioner	(Sgd.) GREGORIO Y. LARRAZABAL Commissioner

1 G.R. No. 104443 (Francis "Frank M. Tajanan and Leopoldo "Pol" B. Quesada vs. Commission on Elections), April 13, 1992, Resolution En Banc.
2 Resolution No. 8713, IN THE MATTER OF THE MEMORANDUM OF THE LAW DEPARTMENT RELATIVE TO THE CERTIFICATES OF CANDIDACY FOR THE POSITIONS OF PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SENATOR IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 10, 2010 AUTOMATED NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS, promulgated December 15, 2009.
3 Cauton vs. Comelec, 198 SCRA 911 (1987), cited in Agpalo Comments on the Omnlbus Election Code.
4 G.R. No. 161872, "Rev. Elly Velez Pamatong, Esquire, Petitioner, versus, Commission on Elections, Respondent.", Resolution.