Introduction
The “second placer rule” in Philippine election law refers to the doctrine that, when the winning candidate is disqualified or found ineligible, the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes may be proclaimed the winner. This doctrine has been the subject of significant debate and shifting jurisprudence. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have categorically abandoned the second placer rule, declaring it to have no legal basis under Philippine law.

Historical Context and the Second Placer Rule
Historically, the Supreme Court occasionally applied the second placer rule, particularly in cases where the winning candidate was disqualified after the elections. The rationale was that if the first-placer was not a valid candidate, the votes cast for them were considered stray, and the second placer, being the highest among the qualified candidates, should be proclaimed the winner. This was notably articulated in cases such as Jalosjos, Jr. v. COMELEC.

However, this approach was always controversial. Critics argued that it undermined the will of the electorate, as the second placer was not the true choice of the majority or plurality of voters. The Supreme Court itself recognized the doctrinal instability caused by see-sawing rulings on this issue, as noted in Miranda v. Abaya:

“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.”
— Miranda v. Abaya (1999)

Recent Jurisprudence: Mangudadatu v. COMELEC (2025)

The Supreme Court, in its landmark 2025 decision in Mangudadatu v. Commission on Elections, has definitively abandoned the second placer rule. The Court held that there is no statutory or constitutional basis for proclaiming the second placer as the winner in cases where the first-placer is disqualified or ineligible. Instead, the law on succession under the Local Government Code must be followed.

Key points from the decision:
No Legal Basis for the Second Placer Rule:
The Court categorically stated that the second placer rule “has no basis in law.” No statute authorizes the proclamation of the second placer in the event of the disqualification or ineligibility of the winning candidate.
Primacy of Succession Rules:
The Court emphasized that permanent vacancies due to disqualification or ineligibility must be filled by succession, not by the second placer. For local elective positions, this means the vice-governor or vice-mayor assumes the post.
Protection of the Electorate’s Will:
The decision underscores that imposing the second placer as the winner is “repugnant to the people’s constitutional right to suffrage,” as it disregards the actual choice of the electorate.

The Court explained:
“The second placer rule laid down in Jalosjos, Jr. has no legal basis. No law authorizes the proclamation of the second placer in the elections in case the candidate who received the most votes is disqualified or turned out to be ineligible. The second placer rule undermines the people’s choice in every election and is repugnant to the people’s constitutional right to suffrage. The Court cannot impose upon the electorate to accept as their representative, the candidate whom they did not choose in the elections.”
— Mangudadatu v. Commission on Elections (2025)

Further, the Court clarified:

“The present case is an opportune time for the Court to revisit the second placer rule, which, as correctly observed by Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, has no basis in law and is inconsistent with the very essence of republicanism.”
— Mangudadatu v. Commission on Elections (2025)

Practical Implications

Vacancy Filled by Succession:
When a winning candidate is disqualified or found ineligible, the vacancy is filled according to the rules of succession under the Local Government Code, not by proclaiming the second placer.
Votes for Disqualified Candidates:
If a candidate’s certificate of candidacy is void ab initio, all votes for that candidate are considered stray and are not counted for any other candidate.
Finality of the Doctrine:
The Supreme Court’s 2025 decision is clear and categorical, leaving no room for the application of the second placer rule in future cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s abandonment of the second placer rule in Mangudadatu v. COMELEC (2025) marks a significant development in Philippine election law. The decision affirms that the rule has no legal basis and that the will of the electorate, as expressed through the ballot, must be respected. Vacancies due to disqualification or ineligibility are to be filled by succession, not by elevating the second placer. This doctrine now stands as the prevailing rule, ensuring both legal certainty and fidelity to democratic principles.