When a Disqualified Candidate Wins: Second-Placer Rule and Void Certificates of Candidacy

In the 2010 Barangay Elections in Lanao del Norte, a candidate who won the most votes was disqualified for being a fugitive from justice. The candidate who placed second believed she should take office. The Supreme Court's decision in Diambrang v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 201809, October 11, 2016) clarified a crucial point in election law: when a winning candidate's certificate of candidacy is void from the start, the second-placer may actually be the true winner.

The Facts of the Case

H. Sohria Pasagi Diambrang and H. Hamim Sarip Patad were candidates for Punong Barangay of Barangay Kaludan, Nunungan, Lanao del Norte in the October 25, 2010 Barangay Elections. Patad received 183 votes while Diambrang received only 78.

Despite losing the vote count, the Barangay Board of Canvassers proclaimed Diambrang as the winner. The board relied on a recommendation from the Provincial Election Supervisor that Patad was disqualified as a fugitive from justice. However, this recommendation was not yet final—the COMELEC had not yet ruled on the matter.

Patad filed a petition to annul Diambrang's proclamation. The COMELEC Second Division granted the petition, ruling that the board gravely abused its discretion. The COMELEC En Banc later affirmed the disqualification of Patad but ordered the first-ranked Barangay Kagawad to succeed as Punong Barangay under Section 44(b) of the Local Government Code, rather than proclaiming Diambrang.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether Diambrang, as the second-placer, could be proclaimed as the elected Punong Barangay after Patad's disqualification.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Court ultimately dismissed the petition as moot because a new Punong Barangay had been elected in the 2013 Barangay Elections. However, the Court took the opportunity to reiterate the prevailing rules on disqualification of candidates.

The Court explained that the old rule—that a second-placer cannot be proclaimed winner if the first-placer is disqualified—applies only in limited situations. Specifically, it applies when the first-placer's certificate of candidacy was valid at the time of filing but was later cancelled due to a violation of law or legal impediment that took effect after filing.

The Void Ab Initio Rule

The key distinction lies in whether the certificate of candidacy is void ab initio (void from the beginning). If so, the candidate was never a candidate at any time. All votes for that candidate are considered stray votes and should not be counted.

The Court cited its rulings in Jalosjos, Jr. v. Commission on Elections (696 Phil. 601 [2012]), Aratea v. Commission on Elections (696 Phil. 700 [2012]), and Maquiling v. Commission on Elections (709 Phil. 408 [2013]).

In Maquiling, the Court held that when a certificate of candidacy is void, the votes cast for the ineligible candidate are not considered in determining the winner. The second-placer in the vote count is actually the first-placer among the qualified candidates. The electorate's awareness of the candidate's disqualification is not a prerequisite—the existence of the disqualifying circumstance itself makes the candidate ineligible.

Application to the Case

Patad's disqualification arose from being a fugitive from justice, a ground that existed before he filed his certificate of candidacy. His certificate was therefore void ab initio. This meant Diambrang, as the first-placer among qualified candidates, should have been proclaimed as the duly elected Punong Barangay.

However, because the 2013 elections had already taken place and a new Punong Barangay had been elected, the case became moot. Diambrang could no longer hold office.

Practical Takeaways

• A void certificate of candidacy means the candidate was never a candidate. Votes for such a candidate are stray votes and do not count.
• The second-placer rule has limits. It applies only when the first-placer's disqualification arose after filing the certificate of candidacy, not when the certificate was void from the start.
• Voter awareness is irrelevant. A candidate is disqualified based on the existence of the disqualifying circumstance, not on whether voters knew about it.
• A disqualified candidate's proclamation is void. Even if the candidate has already assumed office, a subsequent disqualification based on a ground existing before filing voids both the certificate and the proclamation.
• Timing matters. The prevailing rule applies whether the certificate is cancelled before or after the elections.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.