THE Supreme Court (SC) has found Francis Leo Marcos guilty of indirect contempt for abusing judicial processes when he withdrew his senatorial candidacy in the 2025 elections, days after the high court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) he sought to block the Commission on Elections (Comelec) from declaring him a nuisance candidate. In a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Supreme Court En Banc cited Marcos for indirect contempt and imposed a fine of P30,000. Marcos had filed his candidacy for senator in the 2025 midterm polls. The Comelec, however, declared him a nuisance candidate, citing his lack of political affiliation and platform, as well as the potential confusion his surname — Marcos — might cause with fellow candidate, Sen. Imee Marcos. Marcos challenged the Comelec ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that his right to due process and equal protection was violated because he was not allowed to defend himself. He also requested a TRO to prevent the Comelec from removing his name from the official ballots while the case was pending. The Supreme Court granted the TRO, temporarily halting Comelec’s implementation of its decision. However, two days later, Marcos withdrew his candidacy. Comelec then removed his name from the candidates’ database and proceeded with printing the ballots, rendering his petition moot. The Supreme Court subsequently ordered Marcos to explain why he should not be held in contempt for actions that disrespected its processes. Marcos apologized, claiming that he withdrew to avoid delaying ballot printing and incurring additional government costs. The high court rejected his explanation, saying he should have considered the consequences of both filing a petition and obtaining a TRO before withdrawing his candidacy. Citing Rule 71, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court emphasized that any act undermining judicial authority threatens the integrity of the legal system. “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,” the Supreme Court said. “If the people lose confidence in the Court, 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 warned that individuals cannot manipulate the legal system for personal gain, calling Marcos’ actions a misuse of the court’s processes that wasted its time, eroded public confidence in the electoral system, and diminished respect for judicial authority. Aside from the P30,000 fine, the Supreme Court dismissed Marcos’ petition challenging Comelec’s nuisance candidate ruling as moot and lifted the TRO previously issued against the poll body.