This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-03-19 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Petitioner argues that in election law, irrelevant expressions, impertinent figures, words or phrases, and unnecessary and identifying expressions nullify ballots. Petitioner cites Section 195 of the Omnibus Election Code which states that it shall be unlawful to apply "any distinguishing mark" or "make use of any other means to identify the vote of the voter."[36] Petitioner also cites Alfelor v. Fuentebella,[37] which states that it is illegitimate practice to include in the ballot unnecessary writings that detract from the solemnity of the exercise of suffrage. The 1935 case of Cecilio v. Tomacruz[38] and the 1958 case of Amurao v. Calangi[39] were also cited saying that ballots containing impertinent, irrelevant, unnecessary words or expressions are null ballots with these markings serving no other purpose than to identify the ballot. Finally, petitioner cites the 1962 case of Tajanlangit v. Cazenas[40] indicating that ballots containing the signature of voters shall be invalidated.[41] | |||||