This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-03-05 |
|||||
| We find that the COMELEC, in ordering the correction of manifest errors in the SOVP and COC, merely exercised its bounden duty to ascertain the true will of the electorate of the province. Proven during the proceedings before it were errors or discrepancies in the recording or transferring of votes from the SOVP of Labo to the COC, such that the votes in the latter document did not reflect the true and correct votes received by the candidates. SOVPs are the basis of COCs;[27] the two must jibe with each other. Certainly, an error in transposing the contents of one to the other only calls for a clerical act of reflecting in the said election documents the true and correct votes received by the candidates.[28] This does not involve the opening of the ballot boxes, examination and appreciation of ballots and/or election returns. All that is required is to reconvene the board of canvassers for it to rectify the error it committed in order that the true will of the voters will be given effect.[29] The previous proclamation of petitioner will not be a hindrance to the said correction. The proclamation and assumption of office of petitioner based on a faulty tabulation is flawed right from the very beginning, and may, therefore, be annulled.[30] | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| For acting pursuant to its Constitutional mandate of determining the true will of the electorate with substantiated evidence, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of COMELEC in annulling the proclamation of petitioner. Said proclamation is flawed from the beginning because it did not reflect the true and legitimate will of the electorate. Having been based on a faulty tabulation, there can be no valid proclamation to speak of.[19] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| While this Court does not contest the rulings cited by petitioner in Tatlonghari v. COMELEC,[25] Bince, Jr. v. COMELEC,[26] and Ramirez v. COMELEC[27] that a petition for correction of manifest errors may be filed even beyond the reglementary period of five (5) days following the date of proclamation pursuant to Section 5(b), Rule 27 of the 1993 COMELEC Rules of Procedure, and that the COMELEC has the power to annul the proclamation made on the basis of an erroneous tabulation of votes in the election returns or in the statement of votes, we agree with the COMELEC First Division and En Banc that the case of petitioner does not fall within the scope of the above-mentioned rulings. Indeed, even if the truly manifest errors were corrected using the data presented by petitioner herself, the proclamation of private respondent as the winning Vice-Mayoral candidate of Taytay, Rizal will still stand. | |||||
|
2006-03-23 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Court made a similar pronouncement in Tatlonghari v. Commission on Elections,[24] to wit:The argument is devoid of merit. For one thing, records indicate that respondent's assumption of office was effected by a clerical error or simple mathematical mistake in the addition of votes and not through the legitimate will of the electorate. Thus, respondent's proclamation was flawed right from the very beginning. Having been based on a faulty tabulation, there can be no valid proclamation to speak of insofar as respondent Castillo is concerned. As this Court once said: | |||||
|
2003-11-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| "Election contests involve public interest. Technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials... Laws (and rules) governing election contests must be liberally construed to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officials may not be defeated by mere technical objections. In an election case, the court has an imperative duty to ascertain by all means within its command who is the real candidate elected by the electorate." (Underscoring supplied) Instead of dismissing the petition for purely technical reasons, the COMELEC correctly considered the merits thereof. In Tatlonghari vs. Commission on Elections, [29] where a similar petition was filed 97 days from the date of proclamation, we held:"The argument is devoid of merit. For one thing, records indicate that respondent's assumption of office was effected by a clerical error or simple mathematical mistake in the addition of votes and not through the legitimate will of the electorate. Thus, respondent's proclamation was flawed right from the very beginning. Having been based on a faulty tabulation, there can be no valid proclamation to speak of insofar as respondent Castillo is concerned. As this Court once said: | |||||