This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-09-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| [32] Pangkat Laguna v. Commission on Elections, 426 Phil. 480, 486 (2002). | |||||
|
2006-01-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The above factual findings of the COMELEC supported by evidence, are accorded, not only respect, but finality.[13] This is so because "the conduct of plebiscite and determination of its result have always been the business of the COMELEC and not the regular courts. Such a case involves the appreciation of ballots which is best left to the COMELEC. As an independent constitutional body exclusively charged with the power of enforcement and administration of all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall, the COMELEC has the indisputable expertise in the field of election and related laws."[14] Its acts, therefore, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.[15] | |||||
|
2002-07-09 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Congress effective measures to minimize election spending."[38] The Comelec's acts enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.[39] These acts cannot constitute proof, as claimed by petitioners, that there "exists a connivance and conspiracy (among) respondents in contravention of the present law." As the Court held in Pangkat Laguna v. Comelec,[40] the "Comelec, as the government agency tasked with the enforcement and administration of elections laws, is entitled to the presumption of regularity of official acts with respect to the elections." The 1987 Constitution imposes upon the Comelec the duty of enforcing and administering all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of elections. Petitioners failed to prove that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in recommending to Congress the | |||||