Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSETTE YNIGUEZ LERIAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 211140 2016-01-12	LORD ALLAN JAY Q. VELASCO v. SPEAKER FELICIANO R. BELMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Finally, the NPBOC of the Province of Marinduque is likewise directed to furnish copy of the Certificate of Proclamation to the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the House of Representatives.[14]
	GR NO. 168253 2007-03-16	MAYOR NOEL E. ROSAL v. COMELEC CORONA, J.
The purpose of an election protest is to ascertain whether the candidate proclaimed elected by the board of canvassers is the true and lawful choice of the electorate.[20] Such a proceeding is usually instituted on the theory that the election returns, which are deemed prima facie to be true reports of how the electorate voted on election day[21] and which serve as the basis for proclaiming the winning candidate, do not accurately reflect the true will of the voters due to alleged irregularities that attended the counting of ballots. In a protest prosecuted on such a theory, the protestant ordinarily prays that the official count as reflected in the election returns be set aside in favor of a revision and recount of the ballots, the results of which should be made to prevail over those reflected in the returns pursuant to the doctrine that "in an election contest where what is involved is the number of votes of each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves."[22]
	GR NO. 173310 2007-03-07	ANUAR J. ABUBAKAR v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AZCUNA, J.
HRET correctly considered the examination of ballots as the best evidence. In this case, the ballots were available and their integrity was unquestioned. In an election contest where what is involved is the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate, the best and most conclusive evidence are the ballots themselves.[8] It is only when the ballots cannot be produced or are not available that recourse is made to the election returns as evidence.[9]
	P.E.T. CASE NO. 003 2005-03-31	LOREN B. LEGARDA v. NOLI L. DE CASTRO QUISUMBING, J.
We also note the apparent ambivalence of the protestee relative to the Tribunal's jurisdiction over re-canvass of the election returns. He claims the Tribunal's authority to re-canvass is "inexorably linked to [its] constitutional mandate as the sole judge of all contests relating to the presidential and the vice-presidential elections."[13] Contrarily, he states that the Tribunal cannot re-canvass and must resolve the protest through revision of ballots. If he contends that the Tribunal has the authority to re-canvass, there is no reason why it cannot perform this function now. We agree that the ballots are the best and most conclusive evidence in an election contest where the correctness of the number of votes of each candidate is involved.[14] However, we do not find any reason to resort to revision in the first part of the protest, considering that the protestant concedes the correctness of the ballot results, concerning the number of votes obtained by both protestant and protestee, and reflected in the election returns.[15] Protestant merely seeks the correction of manifest errors, that is, errors in the process of different levels of transposition and addition of votes. Revision of ballots in case of manifest errors, in these circumstances, might only cause unwarranted delay in the proceedings.