This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-07-21 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Such disbursement could not be deemed a giving of unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to a party since the benefit would actually redound to the electorate whose true will must be determined. Suffrage is a matter of public, not private, interest. The Court declared in Aruelo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[60] that "[o]ver and above the desire of the candidates to win, is the deep public interest to determine the true choice of the people."[61] Thus, in an election protest, any benefit to a party would simply be incidental. | |||||