The Supreme Court says the second-placer rule has no legal basis. It says the vice governor should become governor when the winning candidate is disqualified. I disagree.
The court made this ruling in the case of Datu Pax Ali Mangudadatu. His certificate of candidacy for governor of Sultan Kudarat was cancelled. The reason? He was not a resident of the province. He was still mayor of a town in Maguindanao.
The Commission on Elections agreed. So did the Supreme Court. They said he lied about his residency. They ruled he was never a valid candidate. They declared his votes “stray.”
Because of this, the second placer, Sharifa Akeel Mangudadatu, cannot take the post. Instead, the elected vice governor will become the new governor.
That’s where the problem lies.
Let’s use plain logic.
If Candidate A is disqualified before the election, that means they should never have run. If they didn’t run, the next best candidate should win. That is Candidate B — the second placer.
It’s not fair to say Candidate B didn’t win. He or she was the top qualified candidate. The people voted, thinking both A and B were valid choices. When A turns out to be unqualified, only B remains. That makes B the logical winner.
What about the vice governor? He ran for a different post. He was not chosen to be governor. He may have received fewer votes than Candidate B. So why should he suddenly become the governor?
This goes against common sense.
The Supreme Court says letting the second placer win “imposes” a choice on the people. But the people did choose the second placer. Not as their first pick, sure — but as their second. The first pick should not have been there in the first place.
Our election system is based on choice. And on fairness. This ruling weakens both.
The Local Government Code is clear on succession — but it assumes the elected governor was validly elected. In this case, there was no valid election for governor, because the supposed winner was not qualified.
So, who then has the next highest valid votes for governor? The second placer. That’s the person who should lead.
This ruling also opens a loophole. What if someone runs knowing they don’t qualify, just to block another candidate from winning? That’s not democracy. That’s manipulation.
The law should follow logic. It should protect the will of the people. In this case, the people’s will is clearer in the votes for the second placer, not in the succession of someone who never ran for the post.
The Supreme Court may have followed the letter of the law. But it missed its spirit.
And that’s not justice. That’s a technicality.