This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This suggestion is legally flawed considering that the HRET is without authority to review, modify, more so annul, the illegal acts of PBOC. On the contrary, this authority is lodged with the COMELEC and is incidental to its power of "direct control and supervision over the Board of Canvassers."[49] Therefore, the COMELEC is the proper entity that can legally and validly nullify the acts of the PBOC. As held by this Court held in Mastura v. COMELEC;[50] | |||||
|
2013-06-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| All in all, considering that the petition for denial and cancellation of the COC is summary in nature, the COMELEC is given much discretion in the evaluation and admission of evidence pursuant to its principal objective of determining of whether or not the COC should be cancelled. We held in Mastura v. COMELEC:[38] | |||||
|
2010-03-05 |
|||||
| Consequently, petitioner filed, on March 2, 2009, the instant petition for certiorari under Rules 64 and 65 of the Rules of Court to annul the aforesaid resolutions of the COMELEC. Apprehensive that the resolutions would be implemented, petitioner prayed for the issuance of an injunctive relief.[13] | |||||