Failure to quality as a candidate

Part 3.

NOTHING SHOULD STOP THE COURT FROM ADJUDGING ANOTHER ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE WHO RECEIVED THE NEXT HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES AS THE WINNER -

In the case of CASAN MACODE MAQUILING VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET. AL., G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013, it was held that when the issue being decided upon by the Court was the ELIGIBILITY of the candidate receiving a PLURALITY OF THE LEGALLY CAST BALLOTS and his INELIGIBILITY was THEREAFTER ESTABLISHED, nothing should stop the Court from ADJUDGING ANOTHER ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE WHO RECEIVED THE NEXT HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES AS THE WINNER.

An INELIGIBLE CANDIDATE candidate who received the highest number of votes is a WRONGFUL WINNER. By express legal mandate, HE COULD NOT EVEN HAVE BEEN A CANDIDATE IN THE FIRST PLACE, but by virtue of the lack of material time or any other intervening circumstances, his ineligibility might NOT have been passed upon PRIOR TO ELECTION DATE. Consequently, he may have had the opportunity to hold himself out to the electorate as a legitimate and duly qualified candidate. However, notwithstanding the outcome of the elections, his INELIGIBILITY as a candidate REMAINS UNCHANGED. INELIGIBILITY does not only pertain to his QUALIFICATIONS as a candidate but necessarily affects his RIGHT TO HOLD PUBLIC OFFICE. The number of ballots cast in his favor CANNOT CURE THE DEFECT OF FAILURE TO QUALIFY with the substantive legal requirements of eligibility to run for public office.

Source:

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/apr2013/gr_195649_2013.html#rnt45