This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The phrase "results of the election" is not statutorily defined. However, it had been jurisprudentially explained in Lucero v. Commission on Elections[19] to mean:[T]he net result of the election in the rest of the precincts in a given constituency, such that if the margin of a leading candidate over that of his closest rival in the latter precincts is less than the total number of votes in the precinct where there was failure of election, then such failure would certainly affect "the result of the election."[20] | |||||
|
2004-09-15 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Had the COMELEC resolved to hold special elections in its Resolution dated 8 October 2003, it would not be as pressed for time as it is now. The operational, logistical and financial problems which COMELEC claims it will encounter with the holding of a second special election can be solved with proper planning, coordination and cooperation among its personnel and other deputized agencies of the government. A special election will require extraordinary efforts, but it is not impossible. In applying election laws, it would be better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms.[16] In any event, this Court had already held that special elections under Section 6 would entail minimal costs because it covers only the precincts in the affected barangays.[17] | |||||