CCHOPE ELECTION 2001

UPHOLDING POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

Upholding sovereignty of the people is what democracy is all about [Loong v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 133676, April 14, 1999]

XXX I believe that in every action involving the possibility of a reversal of the popular electoral choice, this Court must exert utmost effort to resolve the issues in a manner that would give effect to the will of the people, for it is but sound public policy to cause electoral offices to be filled by the choice of the electorate. We must liberally construe election laws and jurisprudence to give fullest effect to the manifest will of our people and to give life and meaning to their mandate. [See Mentang v. COMELEC, 229 SCRA 666, February 4, 1994; Pahilan v. Tabalba, 230 SCRA 205, February 21, 1994; Aruelo Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA 311, October 20, 1993; Tatlonghari v. COMELEC, 199 SCRA 849, July 31, 1991; Unda v. COMELEC, 190 SCRA 827, October 18, 1990.] In every election, the people's choice is the paramount consideration and their expressed will must, in every way possible, be given effect. [ Benito v. COMELEC, 235 SCRA 436, August 17, 1994]

In the recent case Loong v. COMELEC, [G.R. No. 133676, April 14, 1999, per Puno, J.] the Court strongly exhorted once more that the will of the people should not be kick[ed] away XXX by giving literal interpretation to [the law]. [Supra at p.32. While I agree with this doctrine, I believe that the Court misapplied it in Loong because, as I explained in my Dissenting Opinion therein, the election results of the manual count were not reflective of the automated count, which the law mandated] "When the sovereignty of the people is at stake, it is not enough for this court to make statement but is should do everything to have that sovereignty obeyed by all." [Supra at p. 36]

"To butress my dissent, I wish to quote our en banc Decision in Frivaldo v. COMELEC: [257 SCRA 727, June 28, 1996, per Panganiban, J.]

"At a balance, the question really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of how to interpret and apply laws relating to elections: literal or liberal, the letter or the spirit, the naked provision or its ultimate purpose, legal syllogism or substantial justice, in isolation or in the context of social conditions, harshly against or gently in favor of the voters' obvious choice. "In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms." 

+ + + + + ++ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  + + + ++ + + + + + + + +  + + ++ +  + + + +

XXX  It is a rule of long-standing that departure from formal requirements prescribed under election laws, when not XXX used as a means for fraudulent practice, will be considered a harmless irregularity. [Gardiner v. Romulo, 26 SCRA, December 24, 1968] This irregularity cannot invalidate the certificate or the election itself, for the fundamental reason that, after the people have expressed their sovereign choice, it being proven that petitioner Joel Miranda obtained the majority votes, the will of the people cannot be frustrated by a mere technicality. [ Alialy v. COMELEC, 2 SCRA 957, July 31, 1961] It is judicially accepted that election rules, while mandatory before election, are merely directory after such election and it is not just to nullify the will of the electorate by purely technical reasons. [Gundan v. CFI, 66 Phil. 125, August 29, 1938; Macasandig v. Macalangan, 13 SCRA 577, March 31 1965; Lambonao v. Tero, 15 SCRA 716, December 31, 1965; Juliano v. CA, 20 SCRA 808, July 28, 1967; Maliwanag v. Herrera, 25 SCRA 175, September 26, 1968.] In long line of cases, this Court ruled that laws governing election cases must be liberally construed, and that technical and procedural barriers should not be allowed to stand if they constitute an obstacle to the determination of the true will of the electorate in the choice of their elective officials.[ Ginete v. Arcangel 21 SCRA 1178, December 8, 1967; Vda. De Mesa v. Mencias, 18 SCRA 533, October 29, 1966; De Castro v. Ginete, 27 SCRA 623, March 28, 1969.]

Sources: 

Excerpts for the Dissent of Justice Ruth P. Romero and 
Chapter 13, Pages 250-259,  Leadership by Example, Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, November 1999

For any inquiries or comment, you may contact the WEBMASTER
Last Updated: Thursday, April 19, 2001 03:34:58 PM