This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While we are willing to overlook the procedural lapses committed by the petitioner his manifestation and subsequent Notice of Appeal do not serve to overturn the assailed Resolutions. We find that the MBOC did not err in proclaiming the private respondent, since the unsubstantiated issues raised by the petitioner were not proper for a pre-proclamation controversy. As we explained, claims that contested ERs are obviously manufactured or falsified must be evident from the face of the said documents themselves.[54] But counsel for petitioner herself admitted that "on their face", the ERs were "okey". Contrary to petitioner's passionate remonstrations, there is absolutely no indication that the contested ERs were falsified or tampered with. As such, there was no valid ground to delay the proclamation. | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| None of the aforementioned circumstances fall under the enumeration of issues that may be raised in a pre-proclamation controversy. Abayon acknowledges that SPC No. 07-037 does not involve the illegal composition of the board of canvassers.[28] Not any of these circumstances involves defects or irregularities apparent from the physical examination of the election returns. The alleged abduction of a voter, the killing of a political leader, the threats which prevented the holding of the campaign sorties, and the intimidation of voters, are acts of terrorism which are properly the subject of an election protest, but not of a pre-proclamation controversy. Precisely, in Dipatuan v. Commission on Elections,[29] the Court held that massive vote-buying, like the allegation of bribery evidenced by the suspicious presence of the wife of a Board of Election Inspectors (BEI) member, was a proper ground for an election protest, but not for a pre-proclamation controversy. | |||||