This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-01-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| However, in Lee v. Commission on Elections,[27] involving a petition of a candidate for mayor seeking the exclusion of an election return on the ground that the same bears no entries for the position of congressman, the Court explained that the aforestated restrictive doctrine on the examination of election returns presupposes that said returns appear to be authentic and duly accomplished on their face. But when there is a prima facie showing that the return is not genuine, as where several entries were omitted in the questioned election return, the doctrine does not apply. The COMELEC is thus not powerless to determine if there is basis for the exclusion of the controverted election return. | |||||
|
2007-05-09 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In Lee v. COMELEC[18] which similarly involves an election return with omitted entries, we held: Votes for an important position such as congressman do not simply vanish into thin air. Those who are mandated by law to account for such votes, if mistakenly omitted, are at least expected to give a fairly reasonable account of why and how then they have been omitted. Absent such explanation, doubt arises as to the authenticity of the returns and the manner of their preparation, specially in this case where a party watcher was allowed to take part in the preparation of the election return.[19] | |||||