Winning by Default? Why a Second Placer Doesn’t Automatically Become the Winner When the Top Candidate is Disqualified

TLDR: In Philippine elections, even if the winning candidate is later disqualified, the second-place candidate does not automatically take their place. This Supreme Court case clarifies that votes cast for a disqualified candidate are not considered invalid, and the will of the electorate in rejecting the second placer must be respected.

[ G.R. No. 130681, July 29, 1999 ]

INTRODUCTION

Imagine an election where the winner is disqualified after the votes are counted. Does the person who came in second automatically become the winner? This is a common question in election law, and the Philippine Supreme Court has consistently addressed this issue. The case of Loreto vs. Brion provides a clear answer: in the Philippines, the second-place candidate does not automatically ascend to the top spot when the winning candidate is disqualified. This principle ensures that the mandate of the voters is respected and avoids imposing someone on the electorate who was not their clear choice.

In this case, Jose V. Loreto III, who ran for President of the Pambayang Federasyon Ng Mga Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) of Baybay, Leyte, found himself in this exact situation. After losing to Paul Ian Veloso, who was later disqualified, Loreto sought to be proclaimed the winner. The Supreme Court, however, reaffirmed the established doctrine that a second placer is not entitled to the seat when the winner is disqualified.

LEGAL CONTEXT: The Doctrine of Majority Rule and Rejection of Second Placers

Philippine election law is rooted in the principle of majority rule and the electorate’s will. This means that elected officials should be those chosen by the majority or plurality of voters. However, what happens when the candidate who receives the most votes is later found to be ineligible? Does the second-highest vote getter then become the rightful winner?

Philippine jurisprudence, as established in a long line of Supreme Court decisions, answers this question with a firm ‘no’. This doctrine, first articulated in Geronimo vs. Ramos (1985), states that the disqualification of the winning candidate does not automatically elevate the second-placer. The votes cast for a disqualified candidate are not considered invalid or stray votes; they simply cannot be counted towards that disqualified candidate. However, they still represent the voters’ choice, and crucially, their rejection of the other candidates, including the second placer.

The Court in Geronimo vs. Ramos explicitly stated: “The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily entitle the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner of the elective office… if the votes were cast in the sincere belief that the candidate was alive, qualified, or eligible, they should not be treated as stray, void or meaningless.”

This principle was consistently upheld and reinforced in subsequent cases like Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC, Abella vs. COMELEC, Benito vs. COMELEC, Aquino vs. COMELEC, and Reyes vs. COMELEC. These cases collectively affirm that allowing a defeated candidate to assume office simply because the winner is disqualified would disenfranchise the electorate and undermine the essence of democratic elections.

CASE BREAKDOWN: Loreto vs. Brion – The SK Election Dispute

The Loreto vs. Brion case arose from the 1996 Sangguniang Kabataan (Youth Council) elections in Baybay, Leyte. Here’s a step-by-step breakdown of what happened:

1. Pre-election Protest: Before the election, a protest was filed against candidate Paul Ian Veloso, alleging campaign violations under DILG and COMELEC rules.
2. Election Day: Despite the protest, Veloso ran and won the election for SK President, garnering the highest number of votes. Jose Loreto III came in second.
3. Suspension of Proclamation: Due to the pending pre-election protest and strong evidence against Veloso, the Board of Election Supervisors (BES) suspended his proclamation.
4. Veloso’s Disqualification: The BES eventually disqualified Veloso. However, instead of proclaiming Loreto, they ruled that the elected Vice-President should assume the Presidency.
5. Loreto’s Mandamus Petition: Feeling entitled to the position, Loreto filed a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to compel the BES to proclaim him as the SK President.
6. RTC Dismissal: The RTC dismissed Loreto’s petition, citing the established doctrine that a second placer does not become the winner upon disqualification of the first-place candidate.
7. Supreme Court Petition: Loreto elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that under Republic Act No. 6646, votes for a disqualified candidate should be considered invalid, thus making him the winner among the qualified candidates.

The Supreme Court sided with the lower court and dismissed Loreto’s petition. Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, writing for the Court, emphasized the consistent jurisprudence on this matter. The Court reiterated that:

“The rule therefore, is: the ineligibility of a candidate receiving majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate receiving the highest number of votes to be declared elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the office.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court echoed the rationale behind this doctrine, as articulated in Benito vs. COMELEC:

“For to allow the defeated and repudiated candidate to take over the mayoralty despite his rejection by the electorate is to disenfranchise the electorate without any fault on their part and to undermine the importance and meaning of democracy and the people’s right to elect officials of their choice.”

The Court found no reason to deviate from this well-settled rule and affirmed that the votes cast for Veloso were not stray votes, but rather votes cast in the belief that he was qualified at the time of election. Disqualifying Veloso did not automatically transfer those votes to Loreto.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: What This Means for Elections

The Loreto vs. Brion case, and the jurisprudence it reinforces, has significant practical implications for Philippine elections at all levels, especially for SK elections where candidate eligibility issues can be common.

Firstly, it clarifies that candidates who lose an election cannot expect to be proclaimed winners simply because the top candidate is later disqualified. This discourages nuisance petitions aimed at disqualifying winners to pave the way for second placers.

Secondly, it underscores the importance of verifying candidate qualifications before Election Day. While pre-election protests are possible, this case highlights that even post-election disqualification does not automatically change the election outcome in favor of the runner-up. Voters should be diligent in choosing qualified candidates from the outset.

Thirdly, in situations where a winning candidate is disqualified, the vacancy is typically filled through a process of succession (if applicable, like the Vice-President assuming the post in Loreto’s case) or special elections, depending on the specific election laws and the office in question. It is not automatically given to the second-place candidate.

Key Lessons from Loreto vs. Brion:

• Second Place is Still Second Place: Disqualification of the winner does not make the runner-up the automatic winner.
• Voter Mandate Matters: The ruling respects the voters’ expressed choice and rejection of the second-place candidate.
• No Automatic Elevation: There is no legal basis to automatically proclaim the second-placer as the winner.
• Focus on Qualification: Candidates and voters should prioritize verifying eligibility before elections.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q: If the winning candidate is disqualified, does that mean the position remains vacant?

A: Not necessarily vacant. The position may be filled through succession, if there’s a designated successor (like a Vice-President), or through a special election or appointment process, depending on the specific rules governing the office.

Q: What happens to the votes cast for the disqualified candidate? Are they considered stray votes?

A: No, the votes are not considered stray. They are valid votes cast for a candidate who was believed to be qualified at the time of the election. They simply cannot be counted in favor of the disqualified candidate.

Q: Can a second placer file a case to be proclaimed winner if the first placer is disqualified?

A: Yes, a second placer can file a case, but as Loreto vs. Brion demonstrates, Philippine courts will consistently reject such petitions based on established jurisprudence.

Q: Does this rule apply to all types of elections in the Philippines?

A: Yes, this principle generally applies across different types of elections in the Philippines, from local to national positions.

Q: What should voters do if they suspect a candidate is not qualified?

A: Voters can file a petition for disqualification with the COMELEC before the election. It’s crucial to raise these issues before Election Day to avoid post-election complications.

ASG Law specializes in election law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.