Application of RULE ON SUCCESSION in DISQUALIFICATION CASE

TOPIC: A 2010 DISQUALIFICATION CASE decided by the Supreme Court (NOT a case for the CANCELLATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF CANDIDACY) -

In the 2010 decision of the Supreme Court en banc in the case of MOZART P. PANLAQUI VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND NARDO M. VELASCO, docketed as G. R. No. 188671, February 24, 2010 and written by Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, which involved a DISQUALIFICATION CASE against a mayoralty candidate, the Supreme Court APPLIED THE RULE ON SUCCESSION IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTED VICE MAYOR, considering that AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION there was NO FINAL JUDGMENT YET DISQUALIFYING the winning candidate for mayor, Velasco (WHO WAS EVENTUALLY DISQUALIFIED).

The Supreme Court DID NOT deem the SECOND-PLACER CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR, Panlaqui, who LOST the election, to be the duly elected mayor. The Court instead held that the ELECTED VICE MAYOR should SUCCEED the DISQUALIFIED WINNING CANDIDATE FOR MAYOR.

The Court ruled, thus:

"IN FINE, the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion when it denied Panlaqui’s motion for proclamation. Since Velasco’s DISQUALIFICATION AS A CANDIDATE HAD NOT BECOME FINAL BEFORE THE ELECTIONS, the COMELEC PROPERLY APPLIED THE RULE ON SUCCESSION.

x x x To simplistically assume that the SECOND PLACER would have received the other votes would be TO SUBSTITUTE OUR JUDGMENT for the mind of the voter. The second placer is just that, a second placer. He LOST the elections. He was REPUDIATED by either a majority or plurality of voters. He could not be considered the first among qualified candidates because in a field which excludes the disqualified candidate, the conditions would have substantially changed. We are NOT prepared TO EXTRAPOLATE the results under such circumstances.

To allow the DEFEATED AND REPUDIATED CANDIDATE to take over the mayoralty despite his REJECTION by the electorate is TO DISENFRANCHISE them through no fault on their part, and TO UNDERMINE the importance and the meaning of DEMOCRACY and the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ELECT OFFICIALS OF THEIR CHOICE.

Theoretically, the SECOND PLACER could receive just one vote. In such a case, it would be ABSURD TO PROCLAIM THE TOTALLY REPUDIATED CANDIDATE AS THE VOTERS’ CHOICE. x x x. "

Source:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_188671_2010.html#rnt5