This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2016-01-19 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court recognizes that the COMELEC is empowered by law to prescribe such rules so as to make efficacious and successful the conduct of elections.[27] However, it is a long standing principle in jurisprudence that rules and regulations for the conduct of elections are mandatory before the election, but when they are sought to be enforced after the election they are held to be directory only, if that is possible, especially where, if they are held to be mandatory, innocent voters will be deprived of their votes without any fault on their part.[28] Over time, we have qualified this doctrine to refer only to matters of form and cannot be applied to the substantial qualifications of candidates. This was discussed at length in Mitra v. Commission on Elections,[29] thus: We have applied in past cases the principle that the manifest will of the people as expressed through the ballot must be given fullest effect; in case of doubt, political laws must be interpreted to give life and spirit to the popular mandate. Thus, we have held that while provisions relating to certificates of candidacy are in mandatory terms, it is an established rule of interpretation as regards election laws, that mandatory provisions, requiring certain steps before elections, will be construed as directory after the elections, to give effect to the will of the people. | |||||