This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-02-10 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Significantly, petitioners, in support of their position on the lack-of-legal-framework issue, invoke the opinion of Associate, later Chief, Justice Artemio Panganiban in Loong v. Comelec,[16] where he made the following observations: "Resort to manual appreciation of the ballots is precluded by the basic features of the automated election system,"[17] and "the rules laid down in the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) for the appreciation and counting of ballots cast in a manual election x x x are inappropriate, if not downright useless, to the proper appreciation and reading of the ballots used in the automated system."[18] Without delving on its wisdom and validity, the view of Justice Panganiban thus cited came by way of a dissenting opinion. As such, it is without binding effect, a dissenting opinion being a mere expression of the individual view of a member of the Court or other collegial adjudicating body, while disagreeing with the conclusion held by the majority.[19] | |||||
|
2009-12-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The above-quoted provision should be construed broadly to give effect to the COMELEC's constitutional mandate as enunciated in Loong v. Commission on Elections,[6] which held: xxx. Section 2(1) of Article IX(C) of the Constitution gives the COMELEC the broad power "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." Undoubtedly, the text and intent of this provision is to give COMELEC all the necessary and incidental powers for it to achieve the objective of holding free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections. Congruent to this intent, this Court has not been niggardly in defining the parameters of powers of COMELEC in the conduct of our elections. | |||||
|
2007-04-24 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| As the requirements of R.A. No. 8553 and Res. No. 6662 appear to have been complied with insofar as Agusan del Norte was concerned, the Comelec en banc was, under the premises, correct in having the 8th and 9th winning SP candidates for said province's Second District proclaimed. To be sure, there is no clear showing that the COMELEC's order to proclaim was made in grave abuse of discretion, a phrase which denotes a capricious, despotic or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[17] This is not to say, however, that the COMELEC was not remiss in publishing the notice of deferment of the implementation of its Res. No. 6662 for all the provinces mentioned therein. Ideally, COMELEC should have had excluded Agusan del Norte from the deferment advice after the latter had expressed its intention to accept and avail of the allocation of the two additional SP positions. But, as we stated in Tupay Loong v. COMELEC:[18] | |||||
|
2000-05-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| as unpersuasive. There is admittedly a lacuna leges in R.A. No. 8436 which prescribes the adoption of an automated election system. However, while conceding as much, this Court ruled in Tupay Loong v. COMELEC,[42] that the Commission is nevertheless not | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| If the special election and counting of ballots were to be held only for the position of mayor, then unfairness would result. In Tupay T. Loong v. Commission in Elections and Abdusakur Tan,[19] we held that a special election only for the position of Governor cannot be sanctioned since other officials already serving their terms were proclaimed on the basis of the same manually counted votes. Thus, to hold a special election only for one position would be discriminatory and violative of the private respondent's right to equal protection of the laws. Such is not the case here. | |||||