This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A CoC, according to Sinaca v. Mula,[44] "is in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the candidate's political creed or lack of political creed. It is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes being as well stated." | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A CoC, according to Sinaca v. Mula,[44] "is in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the candidate's political creed or lack of political creed. It is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes being as well stated." | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The evident purposes of the requirement for the filing of CoCs and in fixing the time limit for filing them are, namely: (a) to enable the voters to know, at least 60 days prior to the regular election, the candidates from among whom they are to make the choice; and (b) to avoid confusion and inconvenience in the tabulation of the votes cast. If the law does not confine to the duly-registered candidates the choice by the voters, there may be as many persons voted for as there are voters, and votes may be cast even for unknown or fictitious persons as a mark to identify the votes in favor of a candidate for another office in the same election.[28] Moreover, according to Sinaca v. Mula,[29] the CoC is: x x x in the nature of a formal manifestation to the whole world of the candidate's political creed or lack of political creed. It is a statement of a person seeking to run for a public office certifying that he announces his candidacy for the office mentioned and that he is eligible for the office, the name of the political party to which he belongs, if he belongs to any, and his post-office address for all election purposes being as well stated. | |||||
|
2012-04-24 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In sum, we grant the Petition not only because petitioner sufficiently established his compliance with the one-year residency requirement for local elective officials under the law. We also recognize that "(a)bove and beyond all, the determination of the true will of the electorate should be paramount. It is their voice, not ours or of anyone else, that must prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy we continue to hold sacred."[99] | |||||
|
2009-12-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| We take this occasion to reiterate our ruling in Sinaca v. Mula,[46] to wit: [When] a candidate has received popular mandate, overwhelmingly and clearly expressed, all possible doubts should be resolved in favor of the candidate's eligibility for to rule otherwise is to defeat the will of the people. Above and beyond all, the determination of the true will of the electorate should be paramount. It is their voice, not ours or of anyone else, that must prevail. This, in essence, is the democracy we continue to hold sacred. | |||||
|
2008-02-15 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| As to the alleged irregularity in the filing of the certificate of candidacy, it is important to note that this Court has repeatedly held that provisions of the election law regarding certificates of candidacy, such as signing and swearing on the same, as well as the information required to be stated therein, are considered mandatory prior to the elections. Thereafter, they are regarded as merely directory to give effect to the will of the people.[16] In the instant case, Puno won by an overwhelming number of votes. Technicalities should not be permitted to defeat the intention of the voter, especially so if that intention is discoverable from the ballot itself, as in this case.[17] | |||||
|
2004-02-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| … that the respondent [COMELEC] has jurisdiction to hear and decide SP Case No. 85-021 [involving a petition to prohibit Eva Estrada Kalaw "from usurping or using the title or position of President of the Liberal Party"] in view of its powers under Article IX-C, Section 2, of the Constitution to, among others, enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of elections, decide all questions affecting elections, register and regulate political parties, and insure orderly elections. These powers include the determination of the conflicting claims made in SP Case No. 85-021, which are likely to cause confusion among the electorate if not resolved. Additionally, the COMELEC is mandated by the Election Code to inter alia require candidates to specify their political party affiliation in their certificates of candidacy, allow political parties to appoint watchers, limit the expenditures of each political party, determine whether or not a political party shall retain its registration on the basis of its showing in the preceding elections, etc. These matters include the ascertainment of the identity of the political party and its legitimate officers responsible for its acts and the resolution of such controversies as the one now before it where one party appears to be divided into two wings under separate leaders each claiming to be the president of the entire party…. [Emphasis supplied.] Likewise in Palmares v. Commission on Elections,[12] to which the assailed Resolution made reference and which involved the Nacionalista Party,[13] this Court ruled | |||||
|
2003-11-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The first state constitutions relied heavily on common law traditions and the experience of colonial government.[15] In each state, the Constitution provided for a Chief Executive, a legislature and a judiciary.[16] Almost all of the Constitutions provided for impeachment.[17] There were differences in the impeachment process in the various states.[18] Even the grounds for impeachment and their penalties were dissimilar. In most states, the lower house of the legislature was empowered to initiate the impeachment proceedings.[19] In some states, the trial of impeachment cases was given to the upper house of the legislature; in others, it was entrusted to a combination of these fora. [20] At the national level, the 1781 Articles of Confederation did not contain any provision on impeachment.[21] | |||||
|
2000-09-14 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its offices. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the question whether or not a branch of government or any of its officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters of this nature.[19] The facts established in this case, strengthened by the admission of the parties at the preliminary conference conducted by the HRET on 6 August 1998 and during the oral argument before the Court on 15 August 2000, lead us to no other conclusion than that the use by VILLAROSA of "JTV" as her nickname or stage name, as indicated in her Certificate of Candidacy, was a clever ruse or ploy to make a mockery of the election process. Therefore, the HRET did not commit any grave abuse of discretion in ruling that "JTV" votes should not be counted in favor of VILLAROSA. They are stray votes. Here are the facts: The husband of petitioner is Jose Tapales Villarosa. | |||||