Matula partymates seek SC help to reverse nuisance candidate ruling

The Supreme Court building in Manila. INQUIRER PHOTO / NIرO JESUS ORBETA

MANILA, Philippines —  Three of the senatorial aspirants and party mates of Sonny Matula who were declared as nuisance candidates filed a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday to challenge the Commission on Elections’ (Comelec) ruling.

Oscar Morado, senior vice president of the Workers Party of the Philippines (WPP) told INQUIRER.net that their lawyers filed a temporary restraining order, seeking the SC to prevent Comelec from excluding Subair Guintanum Mustapha, Sonny Miranda Pimentel, and Romeo Castro Macarrag from the list of senatorial candidates.

“We are hoping at least one or two of them will make it to the ballot,” Morado said over the phone.

Morado’s modest expectations are based on his observations that in previous elections, the list of senatorial candidates in the ballot did not exceed the 67 to 68 mark.

To date, only 66 out of 183 aspirants are included in the Comelec’s initial list of senatorial aspirants.

Article continues after this advertisement

Only Matula made it to the 66 aspirants included in the Comelec’s initial list of bets in the ballot for midterm polls.

Article continues after this advertisement

On the other hand, Mustapha, Pimentel and Macarrag are among the 21 senatorial aspirants who challenged the nuisance candidate declaration of poll body’s two divisions. All of their MRs were rejected by the Comelec en banc.

This is not the first time a nuisance candidate challenged Comelec’s designation before SC.

In 2021, Comelec had denied Norman Marquez’s senatorial bid for being “virtually unknown” and having no political party, but the SC, in its 20-page decision in June 2022, said any Filipino who runs for public office cannot be deemed a “nuisance” and disqualified for lack of fame, money, or party machinery.

READ: ‘Nuisance’? SC backs bet rejected by Comelec

Marquez’s matter was already moot back then, but the high court said it found it necessary to resolve the case because “the same situation may recur in future elections.”