G.R. No. 158466 – 432 SCRA 144 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – The Legislative Department – Labo Doctrine; Second Placer Cannot Be Declared the Winner
Political Law – Constitutional Law – Election Law – Labo Doctrine; Second Placer Cannot Be Declared the Winner
In May 2001, Mario Crespo, also known as Mark Jimenez, was declared as the elected Congressman of the 6th District of Manila. Pablo Ocampo was the rival candidate who filed an electoral protest in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) alleging that Crespo’s win was due to election fraud and vote buying. In March 2003, Crespo was declared by the HRET as ineligible for office due to lack of residence in the said district of Manila. Due to such declaration, Ocampo then requested the HRET to declare him as the winner of the election done in 2001 pursuant to Republic Act No. 6646 which provides that “Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted”. Ocampo argued that the votes for Crespo should then be considered as stray votes. And that being the fact that Ocampo received the second highest number of votes (next to Crespo, with just a margin of 768 votes), he should be declared as the winner of the said election. The HRET denied Ocampo’s petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Ocampo should be declared as the winner.
HELD: No. Jurisprudence has long established the doctrine that a second placer cannot be proclaimed the first among the remaining qualified candidates in the event that the highest earner of votes is disqualified (Labo Doctrine). The fact that the candidate who obtained the highest number of votes is later declared to be disqualified or not eligible for the office to which he was elected does not necessarily give the candidate who obtained the second highest number of votes the right to be declared the winner of the elective office. Further, Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 and section 72 of the Omnibus Election Code require a final judgment before the election for the votes of a disqualified candidate to be considered “stray.” Hence, when a candidate has not yet been disqualified by final judgment during the Election Day and was voted for, the votes cast in his favor cannot be declared stray. To do so would amount to disenfranchising the electorate in whom sovereignty resides. The obvious rationale behind the foregoing ruling is that in voting for a candidate who has not been disqualified by final judgment during the election day, the people voted for him bona fide, without any intention to misapply their franchise, and in the honest belief that the candidate was then qualified to be the person to whom they would entrust the exercise of the powers of government.
