|
|
|
|
IRREGULAR NOTICE Notice Was Irregular Finally and very significantly, the
electorate was not given ample notice of the exact schedule and venue of
the election. The election officer herself relates:19
[Narrative Report, supra.] "When the tension was slightly alleviated, I directed the military personnel to pull-out of the Municipio and withdrew to a nearby Barangay (for safety) where some of the militaries (sic) were deployed. After planning and coordinating with the Batallion (sic) Commander, we waited for the additional troups (sic) that arrived at around 8:30 in the evening. At the stroke of 9:00 o'clock, we started for Maidan via the national Highway thru the Municipality of Balindong and others thru a short-cut way (sic) eastward of Tugaya. Utilizing the election paraphernalia earlier shipped by the Commission as I have requested (sic) and a ballot box from the PES, we went on with the election (after announcing it over the mosque) peacefully and orderly despite the tiredness (sic) and exhaustion felt by the people the whole day waiting/expecting for the election as I have assured them earlier (sic). x x x" As can be gleaned easily from the above report, the electorate of Barangay Maidan was not given due notice that the election would push through after 9:00 p.m. that same day. Apparently, the election officer's decision to hold the election on the night of August 30, 1997 was precipitate. Only after additional military troops had arrived at their site in a nearby barangay about 8:30 p.m. did the election officers proceed to Barangay Maidan. Arriving at Maidan, they allegedly proceeded to conduct the election "after announcing it over the mosque." Such abbreviated announcement "over the
mosque" at such late hour did NOT constitute sufficient notice
to the electorate. Consequently, not the entire electorate or even a
respectable number could have known of the activity and actually
participated therein or voluntarily and discerningly chosen not to have
done so. Slx Indeed, the Court in Hassan v. Comelec20
[264 SCRA 125, November 13, 1996, per Kapunan, J.]
held that the notice given on the afternoon of the election day resetting
the election to the following day and transferring its venue was "too
short." We said that "[t]o require the voters to come to the
polls on such short notice was highly impracticable. x x x It is essential
to the validity of the election that the voters have notice in some form,
either actual or constructive, of the time, place and purpose thereof.21
[Citing Furste v. Gray, 240 Ky 604, 42 SW 2d 889; and State
ex rel Stipp v. Colliver, (MO) 243 SW 2d 344.]
The time for holding it must be authoritatively designated in
advance."22
[Hassan, supra, p. 134.] In the case at bar, the announcement was made only minutes before the supposed voting. If one-day notice was held to be insufficient in Hassan, the much shorter notice in the present case should all the more be declared wanting. It should in fact be equated with "no notice." In sum, the "election" supposedly held
for officials of Barangay Maidan cannot be clothed with any form of
validity. It was clearly unauthorized and invalid. It had no legal leg to
stand on. Not only did the suspension/postponement not comply with the
procedure laid down by law and the Comelec Rules, neither was there
sufficient notice of the time and date when and the place where it would
actually be conducted. It was thus as if no election was held at all.
Hence, its results could not determine the winning punong barangay.
En Banc, Justice Panganiban, HADJI RASUL BATADOR BASHER, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ABULKAIR AMPATUA, respondents. [G.R. No. 139028. April 12, 2000]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR THE VALIDITY OF ELECTION "It is essential to the validity of the election that the voters have notice in some form, either actual or constructive, of the time, place and purpose thereof. The time for holding it must be authoritatively designated in advance. The requirement of notice even becomes stricter in cases of special elections where it was called by some authority after the happening of a condition precedent, or at least there must be a substantial compliance therewith so it may fairly and reasonably be said that the purpose of the statute has been carried out. The sufficiency of notice is determined on whether the voters generally have knowledge of the time, place and purpose of the elections so as to give them full opportunity to attend the polls and express their will or on other hand, whether the omission resulted in depriving a sufficient number of the qualified electors of the opportunity of exercising their franchise so as to change the result of the election." + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
