This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-07-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Maruhom's insistence that only the MTC has jurisdiction to rule on her voter registration is specious. It must be underscored that in addition to the express jurisdiction of COMELEC over petitions for cancellation of COCs, on the ground of false material representations, under Section 78 of the OEC, the Constitution also extends to COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections.[29] The determination, therefore, made by the COMELEC that Maruhom's Marawi registration is valid, while her Marantao registration is void, is only in accord with its explicit jurisdiction, or at the very least, its residual powers. Furthermore, as aptly pointed out by Abinal and COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General,[30] the 8 May 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC First Division and the 21 August 2007 Resolution of the COMELEC en banc merely defeated Maruhom's intent to run for elective office, but it did not deprive her of her right to vote. Although Maruhom's registration in Marantao is void, her registration in Marawi still subsists. She may be barred from voting or running for mayor in the former, but she may still exercise her right to vote, or even run for an elective post, in the latter. | |||||
|
2006-07-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We shall first discuss the second issue. As a general rule, the proper remedy after the proclamation of the winning candidate for the position contested would be to file a regular election protest or a petition for quo warranto.[12] The filing of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto precludes the subsequent filing of a pre-proclamation controversy or amounts to the abandonment of one earlier filed, thus depriving the COMELEC of the authority to inquire into and pass upon the title of the protestee or the validity of his proclamation.[13] The reason is that once the competent tribunal has acquired jurisdiction of an election protest or a petition for quo warranto, all questions relative thereto will have to be decided in the case itself and not in another proceeding. This procedure will prevent confusion and conflict of authority.[14] | |||||
|
2000-12-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| This Court, in Alberto v. Comelec,[28] declared that "election cases involve public interest; thus, laws 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." Moreover, we reiterate what we said in Maruhom v. Comelec, et al,[29] to wit: At balance, the question really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of how to interpret and apply the laws relating to elections; literal or liberal; the letter or the spirit; the naked provision or the ultimate purpose; legal syllogism or substantial justice; in isolation or in context of social conditions; harshly against or gently in favor of the voter's obvious choice. In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms."[30] | |||||