|
|
|
|
POSTPONEMENT, FAILURE AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS Fifth. Petitioner assails
the order issued by the COMELEC en banc. The consolidated cases37 [Election
Matter No. 98-051, SPA No. 98-348 and SPC No. 98-223.] were
originally heard by the COMELEC's First Division. Petitioner contends that
his right to due process was violated when the case was transferred to the
COMELEC en banc without notice to him. We note that it is petitioner himself who prayed that petition SPA 98-348 be heard by the Commission en banc.38 [Rollo, p. 41.] And rightly so. The law provides that petitions for a special election must be addressed to the COMELEC sitting en banc. Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code should be read in relation to Section 4 of R.A. No. 7166 which provides: Sec. 4. Postponement, Failure of Election and Special Elections - The postponement, declaration of failure of elections and the calling of special elections as provided in Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Omnibus Election Code shall be decided by the Commission en banc by a majority vote of its members. The causes for the declaration of a failure of election may occur before or after casting of votes or on the day of the election. The grounds for failure of election (force
majeure, terrorism, fraud or other analogous cases) involve questions
of fact which can only be determined by the COMELEC en banc after
due notice and hearing to the parties.39
[Tupay T. Loong v. Commission in Elections and Abdusakur Tan, G.R.
No. 133676, April 14, 1999.] The fact that petitioner was not given notice
specifically stating that the case was transferred to the en banc did
not affect the legality of the order. In administrative proceedings,
technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.
Administrative process cannot be fully equated with due process in the
strict judicial sense. Indeed, deprivation of due process cannot be
successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard.40 [Ferdinand Trinidad v. Commission on Elections and Manuel
Sunga, G.R. No. 135716, September 23, 1999.] En Banc, Ynares-Santiago, NASSER IMMAM, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and HADJI YUSOPH LIDASAN, respondents [G.R. No. 134167. January 20, 2000]
For any
inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
|
CCHOPE ELECTION
2001 
