Article by:
Benjamin Pulta
MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) en banc has ruled that using a nickname similar to another candidate’s in a previous election is not enough to declare a bet a nuisance or prove intent to confuse voters.
In a ruling made public Monday, the SC said the Commission on Elections (Comelec) abused its discretion in declaring Charles “DB” Savellano a nuisance candidate and canceling his certificate of candidacy.
Savellano, who ran for Ilocos Sur’s 1st District representative in last year’s elections, was challenged by rival Ronald Singson, who asked the Comelec to declare him a nuisance candidate, citing the similarity of his nickname to Singson’s previous opponent, Deogracias Victor "DV" Savellano.
Singson, in his petition filed before the poll body, said the similarities of the nicknames "DB" and "DV" would confuse voters.
The court, however, said that while "deliberately using a nickname to confuse voters… shows a lack of genuine intent to run for public office… having similar nicknames, by itself, is not enough to prove an intent to confuse voters."
The SC also ruled that merely alleging a candidate lacks genuine intent to run, such as not launching a campaign, is insufficient to declare them a nuisance without substantial evidence.
The court sided with Savellano, noting that he had neither launched a campaign nor engaged with voters, in compliance with Commission on Elections rules stating that the campaign period for the 2025 midterm elections begins only on March 28, 2025
The case against Savellano was filed in 2024. (PNA)
Log in with Google