April 22, 2025 | GAERLAN, J.
Case Digest by: Marielle Jasmine Monteros
FACTS OF THE CASE
Petitioner Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu (Pax Ali) filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Governor of Sultan Kudarat in the 2022 elections, claiming that he had been a resident of Lutayan, Sultan Kudarat for 1 year and 8 months. Private Respondents Sharifa Akeel Mangudadatu (rival gubernatorial candidate), Azel V. Mangudadatu, and Bai Ali A. Untong filed petitions for cancellation of his COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, alleging that he falsely represented his residency qualification because he was the incumbent Mayor of Datu Abdullah Sangki (DAS), Maguindanao.
The COMELEC First Division cancelled his COC, and the COMELEC En Banc affirmed. Despite the cancellation, Pax Ali obtained the highest number of votes in the gubernatorial election. Sharifa gained the second most votes.
ISSUE
Whether or not Sharifa, the candidate who obtained the second-highest number of votes, could be proclaimed Governor after the cancellation of Pax Ali’s COC.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the NEGATIVE. Under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code, a COC may be denied due course or cancelled when a person makes a false material representation concerning a qualification for elective office. The Court sustained the cancellation of Pax Ali’s COC after finding that he did not satisfy the statutory residency requirement for Governor of Sultan Kudarat. Thus, Pax Ali was not considered a valid candidate, and the votes cast in his favor were treated as stray votes. This principle was previously articulated in Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC, where the Court reasoned that if a COC is void ab initio, the person who filed it was never legally a candidate; hence, votes cast for that person cannot be treated as valid votes for purposes of determining the winner.
However, the Court in this case expressly abandoned the further conclusion in Jalosjos that the second placer should consequently be declared the winner. The Court found that no provision of law authorizes the proclamation of the second placer when the candidate receiving the highest number of votes is later declared ineligible. The Court therefore characterized the Second Placer Rule as having no legal basis.
The Court emphasized that the judiciary cannot substitute its own choice for that of the electorate. To proclaim the second placer as Governor would effectively impose upon the people a candidate whom they did not choose as their first choice. The Court therefore held that the Second Placer Rule undermines the people’s choice and is repugnant to the constitutional right of suffrage. Consequently, instead of proclaiming the second placer, the vacancy created by the cancellation of Pax Ali’s COC was to be resolved through the statutory rules of succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code. For the position of provincial Governor, this meant that the Vice-Governor succeeds to the office and serves the unexpired portion of the term.
“The second placer is just that, a second placer who lost the elections.” The second placer remains the second placer and was never elected by the people as their first choice.