MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has found former senatorial candidate Francis Leo Marcos guilty of indirect contempt for “abusing court processes” after he withdrew his candidacy in the 2025 elections just days after securing a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). 

The Court imposed a fine of P30,000, stressing that his actions amounted to a mockery of judicial authority.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh and released on January 19, 2026, the SC En Banc ruled that Marcos misused judicial remedies when he sought relief from the Court to block his disqualification as a nuisance candidate, only to abandon his senatorial bid shortly thereafter. 

“His conduct not only erodes public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process, but also diminishes the dignity and respect owed to judicial authority, effectively making a mockery of both institutions,” the ruling stated.

Marcos had filed his certificate of candidacy for senator in the May 2025 elections. The COMELEC declared him a nuisance candidate, citing his lack of political affiliation, absence of a clear platform, and the similarity of his surname to Senator Imee Marcos, which the poll body said could confuse voters. 

Marcos challenged the ruling before the Supreme Court, which granted him a TRO against the COMELEC decision. However, only two days later, he withdrew his candidacy, prompting the Court to cite him for contempt.

The SC emphasized that individuals cannot simply bend the legal system to suit personal whims. “The Court will not tolerate such conduct,” the decision added. By withdrawing after obtaining judicial relief, Marcos was found to have abused the processes of the Court, undermining both the electoral system and the judiciary’s credibility.

Legal analysts noted that the ruling sends a strong message against candidates who attempt to exploit legal remedies for political maneuvering. The fine, while modest, underscores the Court’s stance that judicial authority must be respected and not used for personal convenience.

The case highlights broader concerns about nuisance candidates in Philippine elections, where individuals with little political backing or unclear platforms sometimes file candidacies that can cause confusion among voters. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to reinforce stricter enforcement of rules against such practices.