The Commission on Elections gravely abuses its discretion when it declares a candidate a nuisance based on grounds such as being "virtually unknown" or lacking political party affiliation, as these are effectively indirect means of imposing a property or financial capacity requirement, which is unconstitutional. The bona fide intention to run for office cannot be conflated with a candidate's financial capacity, popularity, or political connections, and the burden of proving that a candidate is a nuisance rests on the party alleging it, not on the candidate.

Norman Cordero Marquez filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the May 9, 2022 National and Local Elections. Subsequently, the COMELEC Law Department initiated a motu proprio petition to declare him a nuisance candidate, alleging he had no bona fide intention to run, was not publicly known, ran as an independent candidate without party support, and lacked the capability to mount a nationwide campaign. This was Marquez's second attempt to run for Senator, having been previously declared a nuisance candidate for the 2019 elections on grounds of financial incapacity, a declaration later overturned by the Supreme Court.

• On October 1, 2021, Norman Cordero Marquez filed a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator in the 2022 National and Local Elections.
• The COMELEC Law Department motu proprio filed a petition to declare Marquez a nuisance candidate, arguing he filed his COC to mock the election process, lacked bona fide intention to run, was not nationally known, ran as an independent candidate, and did not have a nationwide network or capability to persuade a substantial number of voters.
• Marquez, in his Answer, denied being a nuisance candidate, asserting his bona fide intention, his five years of active campaigning as an animal welfare advocate, his media features, and his ubiquitous online presence in animal welfare fora. He also stated that circumstances had changed favorably for his advocacy, with increased funding and volunteer support, negating the need for political party affiliation.
• On December 13, 2021, the COMELEC First Division declared Marquez a nuisance candidate and canceled his COC, finding he failed to prove he was well-known enough nationwide or could persuade a sufficient portion of the electorate. It distinguished this case from his previous G.R. No. 244274, stating the current ground was lack of bona fide intention and national recognition, not financial incapacity.
• The COMELEC En Banc denied Marquez's motion for reconsideration on January 3, 2022.
• Marquez filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC and sought a TRO.
• On January 19, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a TRO enjoining COMELEC from implementing its resolutions.
• Marquez informed the Court that COMELEC proceeded with printing ballots without his name, despite the TRO.
• COMELEC, through the Solicitor General, filed its comment, arguing Marquez raised mere errors of judgment, failed to establish bona fide intention, and that the State has a compelling interest to exclude nuisance candidates. It also sought the lifting of the TRO.
• COMELEC later filed another comment on May 6, 2022, maintaining it had no intent to obstruct justice by printing ballots, as pre-election activities were time-sensitive and crucial for orderly elections, and argued the controversy was moot as ballots were already deployed.
• The 2022 National and Local Elections concluded, and the top 12 senatorial candidates were proclaimed.

• The COMELEC unduly shifted the burden of proof to him to demonstrate his genuine intention to run, instead of the COMELEC Law Department proving otherwise.
• Proofs of his accomplishments and popularity are widely available online, through a simple Google search of his name, revealing his extensive work as an animal welfare advocate.
• The COMELEC erred in conflating bona fide intention to run with the degree or extent of support a candidate is expected to receive, similar to how it previously conflated it with financial capacity.
• The Supreme Court had already ruled in his favor in Marquez v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 244274) regarding the 2019 elections, establishing his bona fide intent, which is further evidenced by his re-filing of COC and formulation of a Program of Governance.
• The COMELEC acted in contempt of court by proceeding with election preparations, specifically printing ballots without his name, despite the Supreme Court's issuance of a TRO.

• Marquez failed to establish his bona fide intention to run for Senator and did not adduce sufficient evidence of his alleged popularity, social media presence, networks, or achievements.
• Marquez showed no proof that he could persuade a sufficient portion of the electorate to support his candidacy within the short campaign period.
• The State has a compelling interest in excluding nuisance candidates from the ballot to prevent logistical challenges in conducting elections.
• The TRO issued by the Court should be lifted as Marquez allegedly failed to show he would suffer grave and irreparable injury.
• The petition became moot due to the conclusion of the 2022 elections and the proclamation of winning senators, and also because ballots and election equipment were already deployed.
• COMELEC did not act contumaciously in proceeding with ballot printing despite the TRO, as it was necessary to ensure the timely conduct of the elections as mandated by the Constitution, and critical pre-election activities were dependent on it.

• Whether the petition has become moot and academic due to the conclusion of the 2022 National and Local Elections and the proclamation of the winning senatorial candidates.
• If moot, whether the case falls under the recognized exceptions to the rule on mootness, specifically if it is capable of repetition yet evading review.
• Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in declaring petitioner Norman Cordero Marquez a nuisance candidate and canceling his Certificate of Candidacy.
• Whether the COMELEC should be held in contempt of Court for proceeding with election preparations, including the printing of ballots, despite the TRO issued by the Supreme Court.

• The petition was declared partly granted. The COMELEC Resolutions dated December 13, 2021, and January 3, 2022, were nullified.
• The Court acknowledged that the petition became moot with the conclusion of the 2022 elections and proclamation of senators, making Marquez's inclusion in the list of candidates of no practical effect.
• However, the Court found that the case falls under the exception to the mootness rule as it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," similar to Marquez's prior case, allowing the Court to rule on the merits to prevent future erroneous exclusions.
• The Court ruled that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion. The grounds used by COMELEC (being "virtually unknown" and having no political party) were deemed closely intertwined with financial capacity to wage a campaign, a ground previously proscribed by the Court in Marquez v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 244274). The COMELEC cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
• The COMELEC unfairly shifted the burden of proof to Marquez to prove his genuine intention; the burden should be on the COMELEC Law Department to prove he is a nuisance candidate. Allegation alone is not evidence.
• Marquez demonstrated bona fide intent through consistent actions: filing a COC (twice), seeking judicial remedies when declared a nuisance (twice and prevailing once), exercising vigilance over his candidacy, and crafting a program of governance.
• Non-membership in a political party is not a valid ground to declare a candidate a nuisance, as neither law nor rules impose such a requirement.
• Declaring a candidate a nuisance merely for being "not known to the entire country" is not among the grounds in Section 69 of the Omnibus Election Code and reduces the electoral process to a mere popularity contest, undermining democratic representation.
• The prayer to hold COMELEC in contempt was denied. The Court found that COMELEC sufficiently demonstrated its actions were impelled by the need to ensure the timely conduct of the 2022 elections as constitutionally mandated, given the tight schedule for pre-election preparations which were already underway when the TRO was issued.
• The Court strongly urged COMELEC to adopt a practicable plan or timeline to ensure that cases potentially excluding candidates from ballots are resolved at the earliest possible time to prevent recurrence of such mootness and allow for meaningful judicial review.

• Moot and Academic Principle — A case is moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Applied here as the 2022 elections had concluded and senators were proclaimed, rendering Marquez's prayer for inclusion in the ballot without practical effect.
• Exception to Mootness: Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review — An exception allowing courts to decide an otherwise moot case if the issue is likely to recur and, due to its time-sensitive nature, would typically become moot before judicial review can be completed. Applied here because COMELEC could potentially use the same grounds to disqualify Marquez or other candidates in future elections, and the issue would likely evade review again.
• Nuisance Candidate (Section 69, Omnibus Election Code) — A candidate may be declared a nuisance if they file a COC to put the election process in mockery or disrepute, or to cause confusion among voters by similarity of names, or by other circumstances or acts which clearly demonstrate the candidate has no bona fide intention to run for office. The Court found COMELEC's application of this provision to Marquez was erroneous as its grounds were not aligned with the spirit of the law and were tantamount to imposing unconstitutional requirements.
• Bona Fide Intention to Run for Office — A genuine, sincere, and serious intent to seek public office, demonstrated by the candidate's actions and circumstances. The Court found Marquez possessed this, evidenced by his consistent efforts to run and protect his candidacy, contrary to COMELEC's findings.
• Prohibition Against Conflating Bona Fide Intention with Financial Capacity — A candidate's genuine intention to run cannot be equated with their financial ability to mount a large-scale campaign or their level of wealth. The Court reiterated this, finding COMELEC's grounds (being unknown, no party affiliation) were indirect ways of assessing campaign capacity, akin to a financial requirement.
• Burden of Proof in Administrative Cases (including Election Cases) — The complainant (in this case, the COMELEC Law Department initiating the motu proprio petition) bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence. The Court ruled COMELEC improperly shifted this burden to Marquez.
• Contempt of Court — A willful disregard or disobedience of a public authority, or a despising of the authority, justice, or dignity of a court, punishable to preserve respect for the administration of justice. The Court found COMELEC's actions in proceeding with election preparations despite the TRO were not contemptuous as they were driven by the constitutional mandate for timely elections and practical necessities.
• COMELEC's Constitutional Mandate and Expertise — The COMELEC is the constitutional body charged with enforcing and administering all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election and possesses expertise in this field. While deferring to COMELEC's judgment on the technicalities of election preparation, the Court intervened due to grave abuse of discretion on the substantive issue of nuisance candidacy.

• "Verily, the grounds for the disqualification of Marquez in this case are in truth shrouded property qualifications employed by the COMELEC to disqualify an otherwise qualified candidate. In other words, the attempt of the COMELEC to pass off the inability of Marquez to wage an election campaign as an indication of lack of bona fide intent to run for office is unconstitutional and will not be allowed by the Court. For what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly."
• "To emphasize, bona fide intent is present when a candidate is able to demonstrate that he or she is serious in running for office."
• "Further, declaring one a nuisance candidate simply because he or she is not known to the entire country reduces the electoral process—a sacred instrument of democracy—to a mere popularity contest."
• "All told, there was no cogent reason for the COMELEC to deny Marquez the opportunity to run for Senator. He has exhibited his steadfast desire and bona fide intent to run as Senator since 2019, when he first fought for his candidacy before this Court. His palpable intent cannot be negated by unsubstantiated claims that he is an unknown, or that he lacks the capacity to mount a nationwide campaign. Neither is his non-membership in a political party sufficient to declare him a nuisance candidate."

• Marquez v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 244274 — Referenced as the precursor case where Marquez was declared a nuisance candidate for the 2019 elections due to alleged lack of financial capacity. The Supreme Court in that case nullified the COMELEC's decision, holding that financial capacity cannot be conflated with bona fide intention. This present case followed that precedent, emphasizing that the COMELEC's current grounds were similarly flawed.
• Pamatong v. COMELEC — Cited by the COMELEC Law Department to argue that adding candidates with no capabilities to run a viable campaign would impair the electoral process. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, implicitly distinguished or found COMELEC's application of Pamatong's principles to Marquez's situation incorrect given the specific facts and established bona fide intent.
• Maquera v. Borra — Cited in the first Marquez v. COMELEC case and relevant here, as it proscribed property qualifications for candidates as inconsistent with the Republican system and social justice principles. The current ruling found COMELEC's actions to be an indirect imposition of such qualifications.
• Cayetano v. COMELEC — Cited to affirm COMELEC's indubitable expertise in the field of elections and its role as the constitutional body charged with election administration. This was acknowledged by the Court even as it found grave abuse of discretion in the specific substantive ruling.

• Omnibus Election Code, Section 69 (Nuisance candidates) — This section defines nuisance candidates and provides grounds for their declaration. The Court found that COMELEC misapplied this section, as being "unknown" or lacking party affiliation are not, by themselves, grounds enumerated or sufficient to prove lack of bona fide intention under this section.
• Omnibus Election Code, Article X, Section 79(b) (Definition of "Election Campaign") — Defines an election campaign as any act designed to promote the election or defeat of a candidate. The Court noted that all campaign activities invariably entail expenditure, linking campaign capacity to financial aspects, which COMELEC was proscribed from using as a primary basis for disqualification.
• 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 8 — This provision mandates the holding of regular elections for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives on the second Monday of May. COMELEC cited this constitutional mandate to justify proceeding with election preparations despite the TRO to ensure timely elections.
• Rule 65, Rules of Court (Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus) — The procedural basis for Marquez's petition to the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC.