The Supreme Court (SC) has reiterated its abandonment of the “second placer rule” after ruling that a vice governor, not the candidate who finished second in the election, must fill a permanent vacancy created when the governor is later found ineligible to assume the post.
This as the high court, during its en banc session Wednesday, denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu when it affirmed its earlier ruling that cancelled his certificate of candidacy (COC) for governor of Sultan Kudarat.
The Court said the resulting vacancy must be filled through the rule of succession under the Local Government Code with the vice governor succeeding to the governorship for the remainder of the term.
The ruling reaffirmed the SC’s rejection of the “second placer rule,” which refers to the practice of declaring the candidate who received the second-highest number of votes as the winner after the top vote-getter is disqualified or found ineligible.
The Court stressed that no law authorizes the second placer rule.
It said the Constitution recognizes as elected only the candidate who received the highest number of votes.
If that candidate is later found ineligible to hold office, a permanent vacancy arises rather than an opportunity for the second placer to assume the post.
For local elective positions covered by the Local Government Code, the court said the vacancy must instead be filled according to the law on succession.
Thus, for a vacant governorship, the vice governor succeeds to the position for the remainder of the term.
The SC said the ruling is limited to local elective positions covered by the Local Government Code and does not resolve the application of the second placer rule or succession rules to national elective positions as these matters were not raised in the case.
The Court noted, however, that succession to national positions such as President and Vice-President is governed exclusively by Article VII, Sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution.
The SC also clarified that its ruling applies to pending cases, saying that second placers have no inherent right to be declared winners after the disqualification or ineligibility of the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes.
“The second placer lost in the elections. He or she was not the choice of the people,” the Court said.#