The Supreme Court ruled that a candidate who receives the second-highest number of votes in an election cannot be proclaimed the winner if the candidate who won the election is later disqualified. The disqualification of the winning candidate creates a vacancy, which must be filled through a special election, allowing the electorate to choose a replacement, rather than installing someone whom the voters previously rejected. This ensures the representation reflects the current will of the people and upholds the integrity of the electoral process.

From Vote-Getter to Vacancy: Who Fills the Seat When a Winner Can’t Serve?

The case of Ocampo v. HRET arose after the 2001 congressional elections in Manila’s 6th District, where Mario “Mark” Jimenez Crespo was proclaimed the winner. Pablo V. Ocampo, who received the second-highest number of votes, filed an electoral protest questioning Crespo’s eligibility. Subsequently, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) declared Crespo ineligible due to a lack of residency. Ocampo then sought to be proclaimed the winner, arguing that Crespo’s votes should be considered stray under Republic Act No. 6646. The HRET denied Ocampo’s motion, leading to the Supreme Court review of whether a second-placer is entitled to the seat when the winner is disqualified post-election.

In examining the petitioner’s argument, the Supreme Court turned to established legal principles governing electoral disqualification and the filling of vacancies. Central to their analysis was Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, which dictates the treatment of votes cast for a disqualified candidate. The Court emphasized its prior ruling in Codilla, Sr. vs. De Venecia, which stipulates that for votes to be considered “stray,” a final judgment of disqualification must be in place *before* the election. Since Crespo’s disqualification occurred well after the May 14, 2001 elections, his votes could not be deemed stray. To rule otherwise would disenfranchise the voters who cast their ballots in good faith, believing Crespo to be a qualified candidate.

Building on this principle, the Court then addressed the question of succession: can the candidate with the second-highest vote total take the place of the disqualified winner? In a line of cases including Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC, Abella vs. COMELEC and Domino vs. COMELEC, the Supreme Court consistently affirmed that being a second-placer does not automatically qualify someone to assume the vacated office. The Court quoted Geronimo vs. Ramos to underscore that voters do not elect “substitute” officials in congressional elections. The voters’ intent is to elect a single representative and if that choice becomes unable to serve, a new election is required to accurately reflect the current will of the electorate.

The Supreme Court also acknowledged that failing to hold a special election could lead to a situation where a legislative district lacks representation in Congress. However, the Court noted that Article VI, Section 9 of the Constitution, along with Republic Act No. 6645, provides mechanisms for Congress to call a special election to fill such vacancies. These measures ensure that the people of the affected district retain their voice in the legislature.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a candidate who obtained the second-highest number of votes in a congressional election could be proclaimed the winner after the winning candidate was disqualified post-election.
What did the HRET decide?	The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) ruled that the second-placer could not be proclaimed the winner. The HRET reasoned that the second-placer did not receive the majority of votes and, therefore, could not be considered the choice of the electorate.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court upheld the HRET’s decision. The Court reasoned that the second-placer had not been elected by the voters and, therefore, could not be installed in office.
What is the effect of disqualifying a winning candidate after the election?	When a winning candidate is disqualified after the election, a vacancy is created. This vacancy is generally filled through a special election, allowing the voters to choose a new representative.
What does Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 say?	Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 addresses the effects of a disqualification case and states that a candidate disqualified by final judgment before an election cannot be voted for, and the votes cast for them are considered stray.
What is the significance of a “final judgment before the election”?	A final judgment of disqualification before the election is critical. It informs the electorate of the candidate’s ineligibility, making votes cast for them stray. Without this prior notice, votes are considered valid expressions of voter intent.
Why is a special election necessary?	A special election is needed to accurately reflect the current preferences of the electorate after the original winner is disqualified. This allows voters to choose a new representative rather than having one imposed on them.
What happens if no special election is held?	If no special election is held, the legislative district might lack representation in Congress until the next scheduled election. However, constitutional and legal provisions exist for Congress to call a special election.
Is there an instance when the vice-governor or vice-mayor, as the case may be, succeeds to the position in case of a winning candidate is subsequently disqualified?	Yes, such as is the case of local government elections, wherein the vice-governor or the vice-mayor, as the case may be, succeeds to the position by virtue of the Local Government Code, if the winning candidate for governor or mayor is subsequently disqualified

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to democratic principles and respecting the voters’ intent. The proper remedy when a winning candidate is disqualified post-election is a special election, ensuring that the district’s representation in Congress reflects the current will of the electorate.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Pablo V. Ocampo v. HRET and Mario B. Crespo, G.R. No. 158466, June 15, 2004