Supreme Court abandons ‘second placer rule’ on elections

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has discarded the long-standing "second placer rule," which previously allowed the candidate who ranked second in an election to assume office if the original winner was disqualified or removed.

In a 37-page decision dated April 22, the high court declared that the "second placer rule," established in the 2012 Jalosjos Jr. vs. Commission on Elections (Comelec) ruling, lacked legal basis as no law permitted the proclamation of the second-place candidate.

Instead, the court asserted that the rule on succession outlined in Republic Act 7160, or the Local Government Code, should be applied.

“In fine, the Court hereby abandons the second placer rule and declares that the rules on succession under the LGC shall apply in all cases where a permanent vacancy results from a local elective official’s disqualification from office, regardless of the proceedings involved,” the court said in the decision read. 

The case. The case stemmed from the petition for certiorari filed by Datu Pax Ali Mangudadatu before the Supreme Court against the COMELEC and Sharifa Akeel Mangudadatu, his opponent in the 2022 gubernatorial elections in Sultan Kudarat. 

During the 2022 gubernatorial race, Datu Pax Ali secured a total of 301,404 votes, winning the gubernatorial seat over Sharifa Akeel, who received 47,348 votes.

On Oct. 13, 2021, Sharifa Akel filed a petition to deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy of Datu Pax Ali, alleging that he could not comply with the residency requirements while simultaneously serving as Mayor of Datu Abdullah Sangki (DAS), Maguindanao. 

She argued that his continued performance of duties as mayor contradicted his declared residence in Sultan Kudarat, which she described as a blatant mockery of the election process and an attempt to mislead both the electorate and the Comelec.

In response, Datu Pax Ali said that he maintains an inherent intention to return to Sulta Kudarat, a requisite to fulfill the requirements of domicile, which he cited as one of the instances being his resignation as the Mayor of DAS on Nov. 15, 2021, as definitive proof of his complete abandonment of his Maguindanao residence and occupation.

Comelec ruled in favor of Sharifa Akeel and canceled Datu Pax Ali’s certificate of candidacy. This prompted Datu Pax Ali to elevate the case before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court ruling. The high court affirmed the resolutions of the Comelec to cancel Datu Pax Ali’s certificate of candidacy. 

According to the court, he committed material misrepresentation as he still continues his duty as the mayor of DAS, Maguindanao, as he filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of governor. 

“It is the height of absurdity to continue representing a locality/place as its local chief executive and at the same time declare under oath that you are a resident of another province, that is, that you are no longer a resident of the place where you are currently at the helm of the seat of power. A person cannot have two domiciles at the same time,” the court ruling read. 

Due to Datu Pax Ali’s disqualification, the vice governor of Sultan Kudarat shall fill up the vacancy. 

Second-placer rule. The high court said that the second-placer rule, which was in the ruling of Jalosjos vs. Comelec, has no legal basis as there is no law explicitly authorizing the proclamation of a second placer.

The Supreme Court explained that prior to the enactment of the Omnibus Election Code, it consistently held that a second placer in an election cannot be declared the winner if the candidate who received the majority of votes is later found ineligible or disqualified.

“The second placer rule laid down in Jalosjos, Jr. has no legal basis. No law authorizes the proclamation of the second placer in the elections in case the candidate who received the most votes is disqualified or turned out to be ineligible,” the high court’s ruling read. 

“The second placer rule undermines the people's choice in every election and is repugnant to the people's constitutional right to suffrage. The Court cannot impose upon the electorate to accept as their representative, the candidate whom they did not choose in the elections,” it added. 

Dissents. Some of the Supreme Court magistrates dissented from the en banc’s decision. 

The dissenters of the ruling are the following: Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, Associate Justices Ramon Paul Hernando, Amy Lazaro-Javier, Mario Lopez, Ricardo Rosario and Jhosep Lopez. 

In his dissenting opinion, Leonen concurred with the Supreme Court's finding that Datu Pax Ali failed to meet the residency requirement for his electoral bid. 

However, Leonen disagreed with the majority's application of the rule of succession, arguing that the "second placer rule" should still be implemented in such cases. 

For Leonen, candidates who were never qualified from the outset, even prior to filing their certificate of candidacy, should be distinguished from those who initially met qualifications but later became disqualified. 

“The qualified eligible candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is the true winner. This is why the position must necessarily go to the ‘second placer.’ Though they obtained the second highest number of votes in relation to the unqualified or disqualified candidate, the second placer is more accurately described as the first placer among the qualified candidates,” Leonen said.