This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-02-09 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot imagine how Balingit can argue as he did when the foregoing findings clearly show that all the 86 contested ballots were physically examined by the COMELEC, and the basis for upholding the validity of 80 of these ballots was sufficiently established. The Court also cannot find any salient distinction between the MCTC's and the COMELEC's treatment of these ballots such that the MCTC's findings should outweigh the COMELEC's. Both tribunals physically examined the contested ballots and made their respective findings thereon. The divergence lies in the physical and actual appreciation and interpretation of the perceived defects in the ballots, and it need not be stressed that given that the COMELEC is the specialized agency tasked with the supervision of elections all over the country,[14] which the framers of the Constitution intended to place on a level higher than statutory administrative organs, its factual finding is binding on the Court.[15] | |||||