|
|
|
|
t is a basic precept in statutory construction that a statute should be interpreted in harmony with the Constitution and that the spirit, rather than the letter of the law determines its construction; for that reason, a statute must be read according to its spirit and intent.4 [Paras v. COMELEC, 264 SCRA 49 (1996), citing PLDT v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674 (1952)] Thus, a too literal interpretation of the law that would lead to absurdity prompted this Court to – "…[a]dmonish
against a too–literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict
rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors.
That intention is usually found not in ‘the letter that killeth but in
the spirit that vivifieth’ xxx"5
[Paras v. COMELEC, supra, p. 55, citing People v.
Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)] 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. Pursuant to this intent, this Court has been
liberal in defining the parameters of the COMELEC’s powers in conducting
elections. As stated in the old but nevertheless still very much
applicable case of Sumulong v. COMELEC:6
[73 Phil. 288 (1941)] "Politics is a practical matter, and political questions must be dealt with realistically – not from the standpoint of pure theory. The Commission on Elections, because of its fact-finding facilities, its contacts with political strategists, and its knowledge derived from actual experience in dealing with political controversies, is in a peculiarly advantageous position to decide complex political questions xxx. There are no ready made formulas for solving public problems. Time and experience are necessary to evolve patterns that will serve the ends of good government. In the matter of the administration of laws relative to the conduct of election xxx we must not by any excessive zeal take away from the Commission on Elections that initiative which by constitutional and legal mandates properly belongs to it." More pointedly, this Court recently stated in Tupay
Loong v. COMELEC, et al.,7
[See note no. 1.] that "[O]ur elections are not
conducted under laboratory conditions. In running for public offices,
candidates do not follow the rules of Emily Post. Too often, COMELEC
has to make snap judgments to meet unforeseen circumstances that threaten
to subvert the will of our voters. In the process, the actions of COMELEC
may not be impeccable, indeed, may even be debatable. We cannot,
however, engage in a swivel chair criticism of these actions often taken
under very difficult circumstances."
The purpose of the governing statutes on the conduct of elections – ‘… [i]s to protect
the integrity of elections to suppress all evils that may violate its
purity and defeat the will of the voters. The purity of the elections is
one of the most fundamental requisites of popular government. The
Commission on Elections, by constitutional mandate, must do everything in
its power to secure a fair and honest canvass of the votes cast in the
elections. In the performance of its duties, the Commission must be
given a considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will
insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created
– to promote free, orderly, and honest elections. The choice
of means taken by the Commission on Elections, unless they are clearly
illegal or constitute grave abuse of discretion, should not be interfered
with."8
[Cauton v. COMELEC, 19 SCRA 911 (1967)] Guided by the above-quoted pronouncement, the legal compass from which the COMELEC should take its bearings in acting upon election controversies is the principle that "clean elections control the appropriateness of the remedy."9 [Pacis v. COMELEC, 25 SCRA 377 (1968)]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
