Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LORETTA P. DELA LLANA v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 194139 2012-01-24	DOUGLAS R. CAGAS v. COMELEC BERSAMIN, J.
However, the Kho v. Commission on Elections exception has no application herein, because the COMELEC First Division had the competence to determine the lack of detailed specifications of the acts or omissions complained of as required by Rule 6, Section 7 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, and whether such lack called for the outright dismissal of the protest. For sure, the 1987 Constitution vested in the COMELEC broad powers involving not only the enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections but also the resolution and determination of election controversies.[27] The breadth of such powers encompasses the authority to determine the sufficiency of allegations contained in every election protest and to decide based on such allegations whether to admit the protest and proceed with the hearing or to outrightly dismiss the protest in accordance with Section 9, Rule 6 of COMELEC Resolution No. 8804.
	GR No. 184801 2009-07-30	JONAS TAGUIAM v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Certainly, such rule of suspension is in accordance with the spirit of Section 6, Article IX-A of the Constitution which bestows upon the COMELEC the power to "promulgate its own rules concerning pleadings and practice before it or before any of its offices" to attain justice and the noble purpose of determining the true will of the electorate.[12]
	GR NO. 166105 2007-03-22	ATTY. GABRIEL B. OCTAVA v. COMELEC QUISUMBING, J.
The COMELEC has the primary duty to ascertain by all feasible means the will of the electorate in an election case.[21] Towards that end, we have consistently employed liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.[22]
	GR NO. 167101 2006-01-31	MANUEL A. ALEJANDRO v. COMELEC CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a catena of cases, we have held that one cannot put premium on technicalities over and above the noble and paramount duty of determining the will of the electorate. In Dela Llana v. COMELEC, [16] it was ruled that: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. (Italics supplied)