This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-10-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| In Mendoza v. Commission on Elections,[38] the Court elaborated on the due process standards that apply to the COMELEC's proceedings: The appropriate due process standards that apply to the COMELEC, as an administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal, are those outlined in the seminal case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, quoted below: | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The phrase "election, returns, and qualifications" should be interpreted in its totality as referring to all matters affecting the validity of the contestee's title. But if it is necessary to specify, we can say that "election" referred to the conduct of the polls, including the listing of voters, the holding of the electoral campaign, and the casting and counting of votes; "returns" to the canvass of the returns and the proclamation of the winners, including questions concerning the composition of the board of canvassers and the authenticity of the election returns; and "qualifications" to matters that could be raised in a quo warranto proceeding against the proclaimed winner, such as his disloyalty or ineligibility or the inadequacy of his certificate of candidacy.[12] (Emphasis supplied). | |||||
|
2006-10-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court sees it fit to reiterate the well-settled rule, that "unless the COMELEC is shown to have committed grave abuse of discretion, its decision will not be interfered with by this Court."[3] Thus, for certiorari to prosper, it must be shown that there was a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power committed by public respondent.[4] | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Although the Lucero case involves a failure of election, the definition of "results of election" applies to the disposition of contested election returns under Section 20(i) of R.A. No. 7166. In both situations, the law endeavors to determine the will of the people in an expeditious manner in that if the total number of votes in the precinct where there is a failure of election or in case of the contested ERs, is less than the lead of a candidate over his closest rival, the results of the election would not be adversely affected. Hence, a proclamation may be made because the winning candidate can be ascertained. Otherwise, a special election must be held or an authorization of the COMELEC is necessary after ruling on the objections brought to it on appeal by the losing party in order to determine the will of the electorate. Proclamation made in violation of the rules is void ab initio as it would be based on an incomplete canvass of votes. It is well settled that an incomplete canvass of votes is illegal and cannot be the basis of a subsequent proclamation. A canvass is not reflective of the true vote of the electorate unless the board of canvassers considers all returns and omits none.[21] | |||||