The Supreme Court (SC) denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu, affirming its earlier ruling that upheld the cancellation of his certificate of candidacy for governor of Sultan Kudarat and abandoned the “second placer rule.”

This came as the high court, sitting En Banc, during its session on Aug. 26, 2026, acted on G.R. Nos. 260219 and 260231, Datu Pax Ali S. Mangudadatu v. The Commission on Elections, Sharifa Akeel Mangudadatu, Azel V. Mangudadatu, and Bai Ali A. Untong.

The SC held that the resulting vacancy should be filled by the vice governor.

The “second placer rule” refers to the practice of declaring the candidate who received the second-highest number of votes as the winner after the candidate who received the highest number of votes is later found disqualified or ineligible.

The SC reiterated that no law authorizes the second placer rule. It emphasized that the Constitution recognizes as elected only the candidate who received the highest number of votes.

The SC explained that when the winning candidate is later found ineligible to hold office, a permanent vacancy arises.

For local elective positions covered by the Local Government Code (LGC), that vacancy is filled through the rules on succession, not by proclaiming the second placer as the winner.

Accordingly, the vice governor succeeds to the position of governor for the remainder of the term.

The SC clarified that its ruling is limited to local elective positions covered by the LGC.

The case did not address the application or non-application of the second placer rule or succession rules for national elective positions, as these issues were not raised before the Court.

However, the SC stressed that succession for national elective positions such as the president and vice president is governed exclusively by Article VII, Sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution, which prescribe the order of succession when the president or vice president fails to qualify for office.

The SC also clarified that its ruling applies to pending cases, emphasizing that second placers have no inherent right or entitlement to be declared the winner.

As the Court stated, “the second placer lost in the elections. He or she was not the choice of the people.”