MANILA — Losing candidates cannot inherit local elective posts simply because the winning candidate is later disqualified, the Supreme Court has ruled, affirming that vacancies must instead be filled through the succession mechanism under the Local Government Code.
In an en banc ruling promulgated on Aug. 26, the high court denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Datu Pax Ali Mangudadatu, effectively sustaining its earlier rejection of the so-called “second placer” doctrine in local elections.
The ruling establishes that a candidate who received the second-highest number of votes has no automatic right to assume the position vacated by a disqualified winner.
Instead, the resulting vacancy must be filled according to the succession provisions of the Local Government Code.
In the case of a vacant governorship covered by the law, the vice governor is entitled to assume the governor’s post and serve the remainder of the term rather than the candidate who finished second in the election.
The Supreme Court said there is no statutory basis for allowing a losing candidate to take over merely because the candidate who obtained the most votes was subsequently declared ineligible.
“The second placer lost in the elections. He or she was not the choice of the people,” the court said.
The justices stressed that the subsequent disqualification of an election winner does not transform the runner-up into the electorate’s chosen candidate or confer upon the losing candidate a right to the contested office.
The ruling stemmed from Mangudadatu’s disqualification and the question of who should occupy the resulting vacancy.
By denying Mangudadatu’s motion for reconsideration with finality, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that statutory succession — rather than the election’s second-place finisher — governs vacancies arising from the disqualification of winning candidates in local elective positions.
The high court, however, clarified that its ruling applies only to local elective posts governed by the Local Government Code.
It did not decide whether the same principle would apply under similar circumstances involving national elective positions because that question was not raised in the case.
The constitutional provisions specifically governing succession to the presidency and vice presidency also remain unaffected by the decision.
The Supreme Court said the ruling will apply to pending cases as well, reinforcing the principle that a second placer acquires no vested right to an elective office won by another candidate who is subsequently disqualified./PN
