This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-01-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The Court has upheld the COMELEC's determination of the sufficiency of allegations contained in election protests, conformably with its imperative duty to ascertain in an election protest, by all means within its command, who was the candidate elected by the electorate.[28] Indeed, in Panlilio v. Commission on Elections,[29] we brushed aside the contention that the election protest was insufficient in form and substance and was a sham for having allegations couched in general terms, stating: In Miguel v. COMELEC, the Court belittled the petitioner's argument that the protestant had no cause of action, as the allegations of fraud and irregularities, which were couched in general terms, were not sufficient to order the opening of ballot boxes and counting of ballots. The Court states the rules in election protests cognizable by the COMELEC and courts of general jurisdiction, as follows: | |||||
|
2009-07-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In O'hara v. Commission on Elections,[11] the Court reiterated the COMELEC's broad power, derived from our fundamental law, to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall; its power of supervision and control over boards of election inspectors and boards of canvassers; the concomitant need to do everything in its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the elections; the grant to it of broad and flexible powers to effectively perform its duties and to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections; and its role as the guardian of the people's sacred right of suffrage. Citing Benito v. Commission on Elections,[12] the Court held that: Election contests involve public interest, and technicalities and procedural barriers must yield if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials. The Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of the votes in an election but also the correct ascertainment of the results.[13] | |||||
|
2009-07-15 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In an election case, the election tribunal has an imperative duty to ascertain, by all means within its command, who is the real candidate elected by the electorate. Indeed, the Court frowns upon any interpretation of the law or the rules that would hinder in any way not only the free and intelligent casting of votes in an election, but also the correct ascertainment of the results.[16] | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, we revert back to the settled jurisprudence that the subsequent disqualification of a candidate who obtained the highest number of votes does not entitle the candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner.[12] This principle has been reiterated in a number our decisions, such as Labo, Jr. vs. COMELEC,[13] Abella vs. COMELEC,[14] Benito vs. COMELEC[15] and Domino vs. COMELEC.[16] As a matter of fact, even as early as 1912, it was held that the candidate who lost in an election cannot be proclaimed the winner in the event that the candidate who won is found to be ineligible for the office for which he was elected.[17] | |||||