G.R. No. 158466 ; June 15, 2004
PABLO V. OCAMPO, petitioner, vs. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND MARIO B. CRESPO a.k.a. MARK JIMENEZ, respondents.

FACTS

In the May 14, 2001 elections, Mario Crespo (Mark Jimenez) was proclaimed the duly elected Congressman for Manila’s 6th District, having received 32,097 votes against petitioner Pablo Ocampo’s 31,329 votes. Ocampo filed an electoral protest with the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), alleging various election irregularities. During the pendency of this protest, the HRET, in separate cases, declared Crespo ineligible for the office due to lack of residency and ordered him to vacate his seat.
Following Crespo’s disqualification, Ocampo filed a motion with the HRET to implement Section 6 of R.A. 6646, arguing that the votes cast for Crespo should not be counted. As the candidate with the next highest number of votes, Ocampo prayed to be proclaimed the winner. The HRET, while also finding Crespo guilty of vote-buying and disqualifying him, denied Ocampo’s motion. It held that a second-placer cannot be proclaimed the winner simply because the first-placer was disqualified.

ISSUE

Whether the HRET committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner Pablo Ocampo, as the second-placer, cannot be proclaimed the duly elected Representative following the disqualification of the winning candidate, Mario Crespo.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the HRET’s ruling. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental principle that a candidate who does not receive the plurality of votes cannot be declared the winner. The disqualification of the winner does not automatically transfer the electoral victory to the second-placer. The second-placer is just that—a repudiated loser who did not obtain the electorate’s mandate. To proclaim him would be to disregard the will of the voters, effectively disenfranchising those who voted for the disqualified candidate and those who voted for other losing candidates.
The Court distinguished congressional elections from local elections, where a vice-mayor or vice-governor succeeds by operation of law. In a legislative district, voters elect only one representative; there is no runner-up position. Consequently, when the elected representative is disqualified, a permanent vacancy is created. The proper recourse to ascertain the new choice of the electorate is to hold a new election, not to install the second-placer. The Court also noted the petition had become moot and academic as the term of the contested office had ended and a new representative had been elected in the subsequent polls.