NATIONAL
Advocates Philippines
SC Fines Francis Leo Marcos For Contempt Over Withdrawn Senate Bid
Photo credit: Supreme Court of the Philippines
The Supreme Court (SC) has found businessman Francis Leo Marcos guilty of indirect contempt, ruling that he abused court processes during his brief run in the 2025 senatorial elections.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court ordered Marcos to pay a ₱30,000 fine, saying his actions showed disrespect for the judiciary and undermined public trust in the legal system.
Marcos filed his certificate of candidacy for senator in 2025, but the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) later declared him a nuisance candidate. The poll body cited his lack of political affiliation and platform, as well as the similarity of his surname to that of Senator Imee Marcos, which it said could confuse voters.
Challenging the ruling, Marcos went to the Supreme Court, claiming that the COMELEC violated his rights to due process and equal protection. He also asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop his name from being removed from the official ballots while the case was pending.
The SC granted the TRO, temporarily blocking the COMELEC from enforcing its decision.
However, just two days later, the situation took a turn. The COMELEC informed the Court that Marcos had already withdrawn his candidacy, making his petition effectively pointless. His name was removed from the candidates’ database, and ballot printing proceeded.
Because of this, the Supreme Court ordered Marcos to explain why he should not be cited for contempt, saying his actions appeared to show disregard for the Court’s processes.
In his response, Marcos apologized and said he withdrew from the race after learning that ballot printing had already begun. He argued that keeping his name on the ballots would have caused delays and added costs to the government.
The Court was not convinced.
The justices ruled that Marcos should have carefully considered the consequences of filing a petition—or withdrawing his candidacy—especially after already securing a TRO from the Court.
Citing Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the SC stressed that acts showing disrespect toward the judiciary cannot be taken lightly, explaining:
“Any act of disrespect towards the Judiciary strikes at the heart of its authority and undermines the very foundation of trust upon which our legal system stands…If the people lose confidence in the Court, the last bastion to which they turn for justice and the protection of their rights, they may believe that justice is no longer attainable through lawful means. Such a loss of faith does not merely weaken institutions; it invites disorder and fuels lawlessness.”
The Court added that individuals cannot manipulate legal processes to fit personal interests, warning that doing so would undermine the rule of law and create a “dangerous precedent of chaos over order.”
Ultimately, the SC ruled that Marcos’ actions amounted to indirect contempt, saying he misused judicial processes, wasted the Court’s time, weakened public confidence in elections, and diminished respect for both the COMELEC and the judiciary.
Aside from imposing the fine, the Supreme Court dismissed Marcos’ petition as moot and lifted the TRO it had earlier issued against the COMELEC.
(Courtesy of the Supreme Court Office of the Spokesperson)
In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the Court ordered Marcos to pay a ₱30,000 fine, saying his actions showed disrespect for the judiciary and undermined public trust in the legal system.
Marcos filed his certificate of candidacy for senator in 2025, but the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) later declared him a nuisance candidate. The poll body cited his lack of political affiliation and platform, as well as the similarity of his surname to that of Senator Imee Marcos, which it said could confuse voters.
Challenging the ruling, Marcos went to the Supreme Court, claiming that the COMELEC violated his rights to due process and equal protection. He also asked the Court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop his name from being removed from the official ballots while the case was pending.
The SC granted the TRO, temporarily blocking the COMELEC from enforcing its decision.
However, just two days later, the situation took a turn. The COMELEC informed the Court that Marcos had already withdrawn his candidacy, making his petition effectively pointless. His name was removed from the candidates’ database, and ballot printing proceeded.
Because of this, the Supreme Court ordered Marcos to explain why he should not be cited for contempt, saying his actions appeared to show disregard for the Court’s processes.
In his response, Marcos apologized and said he withdrew from the race after learning that ballot printing had already begun. He argued that keeping his name on the ballots would have caused delays and added costs to the government.
The Court was not convinced.
The justices ruled that Marcos should have carefully considered the consequences of filing a petition—or withdrawing his candidacy—especially after already securing a TRO from the Court.
Citing Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the SC stressed that acts showing disrespect toward the judiciary cannot be taken lightly, explaining:
“Any act of disrespect towards the Judiciary strikes at the heart of its authority and undermines the very foundation of trust upon which our legal system stands…If the people lose confidence in the Court, the last bastion to which they turn for justice and the protection of their rights, they may believe that justice is no longer attainable through lawful means. Such a loss of faith does not merely weaken institutions; it invites disorder and fuels lawlessness.”
The Court added that individuals cannot manipulate legal processes to fit personal interests, warning that doing so would undermine the rule of law and create a “dangerous precedent of chaos over order.”
Ultimately, the SC ruled that Marcos’ actions amounted to indirect contempt, saying he misused judicial processes, wasted the Court’s time, weakened public confidence in elections, and diminished respect for both the COMELEC and the judiciary.
Aside from imposing the fine, the Supreme Court dismissed Marcos’ petition as moot and lifted the TRO it had earlier issued against the COMELEC.
(Courtesy of the Supreme Court Office of the Spokesperson)
New Paragraph
Jan 19, 2026
We are dedicated storytellers with a passion for bringing your brand to life. Our services range from news and media features to brand promotion and collaborations.
Interested? Visit our
Contact Us page for more information. To learn more about what we offer, check out our latest article on services and opportunities.
