Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAMON D. DUREMDES v. COMELEC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 184586 2009-07-22	RAFAEL FLAUTA v. COMELEC YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Statement of Votes (SOV) is a tabulation per precinct of the votes garnered by the candidates as reflected in the election returns. It is a vital component of the electoral process; it supports the Certificate of Canvass and is the basis for proclamation. Its preparation is an administrative function of the Board of Canvassers, a purely mechanical act the performance of which the COMELEC has direct control and supervision.[20] In Milla v. Balmores-Laxa,[21] its significance was underscored, and the Court sustained the COMELEC's power to annul the proclamation of a winning candidate who had taken his oath and assumed office due to an alleged error in the tabulation of the SOV, viz: The Statement of Votes forms the basis of the Certificate of Canvass and of the proclamation. Any error in the statement ultimately affects the validity of the proclamation.
	GR NO. 169513 2007-02-26	ANWAR 'ANO' S. MARABUR v. COMELEC CARPIO, J.
To rule that the absence of respondent's written objections, despite the glaring irregularity of the election return from Precinct No. 108-A, is a ground to uphold petitioner's proclamation amounts to an absolute frustration of the electorate's will. Technicalities and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the electorate's true will in the choice of their elective officials.[26] Petitioner himself understands the purpose of the rules on canvassing. The "rules relative to canvassing have for their object the determination of the true results of the elections based on the official election returns. In order that the result of the canvass would reflect the true expression of the people's will in the choice of their elective officials, the canvass must be based on true, genuine, and authentic election returns."[27]
	GR NO. 164922 2005-10-11	RAYMOND P. ESPIDOL v. COMELEC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Pertinently, in Duremdes v. COMELEC,[46] cited by the COMELEC Second Division, the Court affirmed the COMELEC's nullification of the proclamation of a candidate for the Vice-Governor as there existed discrepancies between the number of votes appearing in the SOV and that in the election returns. According to the Court in the said case, "any error in the Statement of Votes would affect the proclamation made on the basis thereof. The true will of the electorate may thus be not fully and faithfully reflected by the proclamation"[47]
	GR NO. 164922 2005-10-11	RAYMOND P. ESPIDOL v. COMELEC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Pertinently, in Duremdes v. COMELEC,[46] cited by the COMELEC Second Division, the Court affirmed the COMELEC's nullification of the proclamation of a candidate for the Vice-Governor as there existed discrepancies between the number of votes appearing in the SOV and that in the election returns. According to the Court in the said case, "any error in the Statement of Votes would affect the proclamation made on the basis thereof. The true will of the electorate may thus be not fully and faithfully reflected by the proclamation"[47]
	GR No. 152080 2003-11-28	LORETTA P. DELA LLANA v. COMELEC SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It bears stressing that in an election case, it is the primary duty of the COMELEC and the courts to ascertain by all means the will of the electorate. Thus, when the COMELEC treated respondent's petition as one for correction of manifest errors, it was merely complying with its duty. Petitioner has put premium on technicalities over and above such noble duty. In Duremdes vs. COMELEC,[28] we held that the determination of the true will of the electorate should be paramount, thus:"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." (Underscoring supplied) Instead of dismissing the petition for purely technical reasons, the COMELEC correctly considered the merits thereof. In Tatlonghari vs. Commission on Elections, [29] where a similar petition was filed 97 days from the date of proclamation, we held: