The Supreme Court has ruled that having a nickname similar to other candidates in past elections is not sufficient grounds to declare an individual a nuisance candidate.
In an 11-page en banc decision, the Court granted the petition of Ilocos Sur First District candidate Charles “DB” Savellano, annulling the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruling that had cancelled his certificate of candidacy (COC).
“The Court agrees with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) that the deliberate use of a nickname to confuse the electorate—whether the similarity is with registered candidates or past candidates—is indicative of a lack of bona fide intention to run for public office. However, similarity of nicknames alone is not sufficient evidence of such intent,” the ruling stated.
The Court noted that Savellano himself indicated in his COC that his name should appear on the ballot as “Charles DB Savellano,” which is distinct from former candidate Deogracias Victor “DV” Savellano.
“If the true intent were to confuse voters regarding the petitioner’s identity, then including his full name rather than emphasizing the nickname contradicts that intention, which undermines COMELEC’s legal conclusion,” the decision added.
The case stemmed from the 2025 elections, when rival Ronald Singson asked the COMELEC to declare Savellano a nuisance candidate, citing the similarity of his nickname to that of Singson’s past opponent.
The SC, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., ruled that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring Savellano a nuisance candidate without substantial evidence.
The ruling was promulgated in November 2025 and made public in February 2026.