This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2010-02-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We end with some observations. Had there been sufficient evidence of tampering in this case, it would still be highly improper for the COMELEC to outrightly exclude the subject election returns. In such a case, the COMELEC should proceed in accordance with Section 235[50] of the OEC which is similar to Section 236 in that the COMELEC is authorized to open the ballot box as a measure of last resort. This has been our consistent ruling as early as in the 1995 case of Patoray followed by Lee v. Commission on Elections,[51] Balindong v. Commission on Elections,[52] Dagloc v. Commission on Elections,[53] and Cambe v. Commission on Elections.[54] It is quite disquieting, therefore, that despite these repeated pronouncements, the COMELEC persists in summarily excluding the election returns without undertaking the requisite steps to determine the true will of the electorate as provided in the pertinent provisions of the OEC. The paramount consideration has always been to protect the sanctity of the ballot; not to haphazardly disenfranchise voters, especially where, as here, the election is closely contested. The COMELEC's constitutional duty is to give effect to the will of the electorate; not to becloud their choice by defying the methods in the OEC designed to ascertain as far as practicable the true will of the sovereign people. Verily, the strength and stability of our democracy depends to a large extent on the faith and confidence of our people in the integrity of the electoral process where they participate as a particle of democracy. That is the polestar that should have guided the COMELEC's actions in this case. | |||||