This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In an election protest, the electoral tribunal has an imperative duty to promptly ascertain by all means within its command the candidates the electorate have chosen. It bears stressing that in the exercise of the plenitude of its powers to protect the integrity of the elections, the COMELEC should not and must not be straitjacketed by procedural rules in resolving election disputes.[44] Thus, the Division's adoption of measures that especially respond to or address unique situations, like these cases, was incidental to the COMELEC's general authority to adopt all the means to effect its powers and exercise its jurisdiction. Such adoption is even warranted under Section 4 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure: Section 4. Means to Effect Jurisdiction. - All auxiliary writs, processes and other means necessary to carry into effect its powers or jurisdiction may be employed by the Commission; and if the procedure to be followed in the exercise of such power or jurisdiction is not specifically provided for by law or these rules, any suitable process or proceeding may be adopted. | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, Pangandaman v. Commission on Elections[6] held: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." There can hardly be any doubt that the text and intent of this constitutional 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. | |||||
|
2001-01-19 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| There is failure of elections only when the will of the electorate has been muted and cannot be ascertained. If the will of the people is determinable, the same must as far as possible be respected. A final observation: petitioner should not ask us to declare a failure of elections in the questioned precincts simply because public respondent COMELEC declared a failure in other precincts in Lanao del Sur. In the recently decided case of Pangandaman v. Commission on Elections,[23] we unanimously[24] upheld the very same Omnibus Order[25] dated July 14, 1998 relied upon by petitioner, on these premises:Petitioner's argument that respondent COMELEC gravely abused its discretion by failing to declare a total failure of elections in the entire province of Lanao del Sur and to certify the same to the President and Congress so that the necessary legislation may be enacted for the holding of a special election, likewise fails to persuade. | |||||