This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-01-24 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The petitioner insisted that COMELEC Resolution No. 8804 had introduced the requirement for the "detailed specification" to prevent "shotgun fishing expeditions by losing candidates;"[15] that such requirement contrasted with Rule 6, Section 1 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure,[16] under which the protest needed only to contain a "concise statement of the ultimate facts" constituting the cause or causes of action; that Bautista's protest did not meet the new requirement under COMELEC Resolution No. 8804; and that in Peña v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal,[17] the Court upheld the dismissal of a protest by the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) for not specifically alleging the electoral anomalies and irregularities in the May 8, 1995 elections. | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the matter of sufficiency of the protest, protestee failed to adduce new substantial arguments to reverse our ruling. We hold that while Peña v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal[16] on requisites of sufficiency of election protest is still good law, it is inapplicable in this case. We dismissed the petition in Peña because it failed to specify the contested precincts. In the instant protest, protestant enumerated all the provinces, municipalities and cities where she questions all the results in all the precincts therein. The protest here is sufficient in form and substantively, serious enough on its face to pose a challenge to protestee's title to his office. In our view, the instant protest consists of alleged ultimate facts, not mere conclusions of law, that need to be proven in due time. | |||||