This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The purpose of a pre-proclamation controversy is to ascertain the winner or winners in the election on the basis of the election returns duly authenticated by the board of inspectors and admitted by the board of canvassers. It is a well-entrenched rule that the Board of Canvassers and the COMELEC are not to look beyond or behind electoral returns. A pre-proclamation controversy is summary in nature. It is the policy of the election law that pre-proclamation controversies be summarily decided, consistent with the law's desire that the canvass and proclamation be delayed as little as possible. There is no room for the presentation of evidence aliunde, the inspection of voluminous documents, and for meticulous technical examination. That is why such questions as those involving the appreciation of votes and the conduct of the campaign and balloting, which require more deliberate and necessarily longer consideration, are left for examination in the corresponding election protest.[26] | |||||
|
2007-06-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The issue in this case is novel, yet the facts and provisions of law now before us call to mind the cases of Abella v. Larrazabal[8] and Salcedo, perhaps the closest this case has to a relevant precedent. | |||||