Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

	GR NO. 170300 2007-02-09	BARTOLOME BALINGIT v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Balingit also appears to be in awe of the MCTC's disquisition on the invalidity of these ballots, quoting the MCTC's use of the term "autoptic proference" in maintaining that its rulings on the objections and claims of the parties is the valid ruling.[12] Autoptic proference, in legal parlance, simply means a tribunal's self-perception, or autopsy, of the thing itself.[13] The COMELEC may not have used such a high-sounding term, nevertheless, it does not follow that it did not examine the ballots or that its findings were flawed.